Jump to content
The Education Forum

Thomas Graves

Two Posts Per day
  • Posts

    8,224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Thomas Graves

  1. 5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

    Bagely was likely a sadistic, myopic torturer. His later claims about Nosenko are very likely clouded by that part of human nature which demands that we justify what we have done in order to absolve ourselves of guilt. He was also likely incompetent and dangerously-so.

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf

    Italics are mine...

     

    TOP SECRET

    13 October 1970

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

    Subject: BAGELY, Tennant, Harrington

    #386 38

    1) On Wednesday, 7 October 1970 I briefed Colonel L. K. White, Executive  Director-Controller on certain reservations I have concerning the proposed promotion of subject to a supergrade position.

     2)  I was very careful to explain to Colonel White at the outset that my reservations had nothing whatsoever to do with Bagely's security status. I explained that it was my conviction that Bagely was almost exclusively responsible for the manner in which the Nosenko case had been handled by our SR division. I said I considered that Bagely lacked objectivity and that he had displayed extremely poor judgment over a two year period in the handling of this case. Specifically as one example of Bagely's extreme prejudice I pointed out that the SR division had neglected to follow up several leads provided by Nosenko which subsequently had been followed up by this office (Bruce Solie) and that this lead us to individuals who have confessed their recruitment and use by the Soviets over an extensive period of time.

    3)  I explained further that Bagely displayed extremely poor judgment in the actions he took during that time that  Nosenko was incarcerated at ISOLATION. On many occasions, as the individual responsible for Nosenko's care, I refuse to condone Bagely's  instructions to my people who are guarding him. In one instance Bagely insisted that  Nosenko's food ration be reduced to black bread and water three times daily. After I had briefed Colonel White, he indicated that he would refresh the Director's memory on Bagely's role in the Nosenko case at the time he reviews supergrade promotions. 

     

    Howard J. Osborn

    Director of Security

     

     

    Question for moderators:  Is the near-simultaneous posting, by one member (in this case Michael Clark), of the same document on three different threads within the rules of the Forum?

    Question for Michael:  Will you now "cover" my legitimate question with your same "torture" document post, above, but of course with the notation "I should have mentioned that this document is part of the recent release," as you so covered my rebuttal to you on another Angleton-Nosenko type thread?

     

    --  T.G.

     

    Shall we have an oh-so-clever "bumping war"?

    Bump's in your court.

     

     

     

     

  2. On 3/24/2018 at 7:10 AM, Thomas Graves said:

    It would have to follow then that Leonard McCoy was also KGB as it was he who reopened the conclusions about Nosenko and convinced CIA He was for real....   Without McCoy's paper none of this happens and we go on believing Golitsyn.

    His analysis and summary of his work are in the recent release...

    I just find it hard to talk Nosenko and not include McCoy....  

     

    David,

    Excellent point. 5/13/18 EDIT ALERT:  But I prefer to give McCoy the benefit of the doubt on that.  After all, he might have been just a gullible numb skull, totally inexperienced with Soviet counterintelligence, who was fed up with the paralysis that was starting to come over "Operations" in the Soviet Russia Division, which paralysis was due to ... gasp ... Angleton's "Search for Popov's Mole", etc., made necessary ... gasp ... by said division's probably having been penetrated, as Golitsyn so correctly intimated, and Nosenko so over-the-top denied.

     

    Scroll down to some of what Bagley had to say about Leonard McCoy in his PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars, a 2014 follow-up to his excellent 2007 book Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games :

     

    The history of Cold War espionage—KGB vs. CIA—remains incomplete, full of inaccuracies, and cries out for correction. It received a big infusion after 1991 by the opening of some files from both East and West, but that left the more biting questions unanswered—like those pertaining to still-unknown moles inside Western governments and intelligence services. Those undiscovered traitors still hover like ghosts over that history. I saw and had a share in some doings of the first half of the Cold War. The facts and events of which I write here are all part of the public record and have been officially cleared for publication, like my own books Spy Wars and Spymaster. 1 Tennent H. Bagley , Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007) and Spymaster: Startling Cold War Revelations of a Soviet KGB Chief(New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2013). [Google Scholar]   But details are easily forgotten, so pulling some out from their present context and getting a glimpse of the ghosts lurking behind them may be useful. In the future an alert journalist or historian, inspired by some new revelation, may remember one or another of these old ghosts and dig deeper to lay them to rest. Most of the ghosts I stir up here still hover undetected because back in the second half of the 1960s the CIA changed its mind and decided that the deeply-suspected KGB defector Yuri Nosenko had, after all, genuinely defected and had been telling CIA the truth. 2Throughout this article I treat Yuri Nosenko as a sent KGB plant, deceiving the Americans. The CIA's official position since 1968 has been the opposite. For some insight into the debate, see the Appendix. [Google Scholar]  That change of mind began in 1967, five years after Nosenko first appeared to the CIA. By then the CIA's Soviet Bloc (SB) Division had concluded, on the basis of years of debriefing, interrogation, investigation, observation, and analysis, that the KGB's Second Chief Directorate (internal counterintelligence) sent Nosenko to CIA with the aim (among others) of diverting leads to its spies in the West that CIA had been given a few months earlier by the genuine KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn. The SB Division summarized its reasons in a 439-page report, one copy of which they apparently mounted in a “notebook.” But then the tide shifted. A reports-and-requirements (R&R) officer of the Division, alerted to the notebook's existence by a colleague, 3 The colleague was Richard Kovich, who though not involved in the (closely-held) handling of Nosenko, had been subtly seeking for a year or more to learn—and had evidently found out—the dire assessment of Nosenko's bona fides and his situation. [Google Scholar]  got hold of it and, without checking with his Division superiors, drafted a forty-page paper and three memoranda for higher Agency supervisors, pleading that his Division's position on Nosenko as set out in the notebook was wrong, mindless, and indefensible. He urged that it be reconsidered “by a new team of CIA officers.” This evidently launched the Agency's re-review of the case, with new interviews of Nosenko by others, culminating in a 1968 report by security officer Bruce Solie that exonerated Nosenko and led to his acceptance as an advisor to the Agency's anti-Soviet operations. 4Tennent H. Bagley, Spy Wars, pp. 197–220. [Google Scholar]

     

    THE MCCOY INTERVENTION

     

    The SB/R&R (Soviet Bloc Reports-and-Requirements) officer who started the process, Leonard McCoy, was later made deputy chief of CIA's Counterintelligence Staff (under a new CI Staff chief, previously unconnected with anti-Soviet operations, who had replaced James Angleton). There, he continued fiercely to defend Nosenko's bona fides 5 See, for example, Spy Wars pp. 218–219 and its Appendix A with its endnote 3. Also, Leonard McCoy, “Yuri Nosenko, CIA,” CIRA Newletter, Vol. XII, No. 3, Fall 1983. [Google Scholar]   and, in the guise of cleansing unnecessary old files, destroyed all the CI Staff's existing file material that (independent of SB Division's own findings) cast doubt on Nosenko's good faith. 6As testified by CI Staff operations chief Newton S. (“Scotty”) Miler in a handwritten memorandum which is in the files of T. H. Bagley. [Google Scholar]

    Not until forty-five years later was McCoy's appeal declassified and released by the National Archives (NARA) on 12 March 2012 under the JFK Act “with no objection from CIA.”

    McCoy opened, as we can now see, with his own finding and with a plea: “After examining the evidence of Nosenko's bona fides in the notebook,” he wrote, “I am convinced that Nosenko is a bona fide defector. I believe that the case against him has arisen and persisted because the facts have been misconstrued, ignored, or interpreted without sufficient consideration of his psychological failings.” The evidence, he said, is that Nosenko is “not a plant and not fabricating anything at all, except what is required by his disturbed personality.” He recommended “that we appoint a new judge and jury for the Nosenko case consisting of persons not involved in the case so far” and proposed six candidates.

    According to McCoy, it was not only Nosenko's psychology that should determine his bona fides, but also his reporting. “The ultimate conclusions must be based on his production,” McCoy asserted, specifically claiming to be the only person qualified to evaluate that production. Certain of Nosenko's reports were important and fresh, he stated, and could not be considered KGB “throwaway” or deception, as the notebook described them.

    In reality, however, the value of Nosenko's intelligence reports had not been a major factor in the Division's finding. It had judged him a KGB plant on the basis of the circumstances of the case (of the sort listed in the “40 Questions” of the Appendix). McCoy did not explain—or even mention—a single one of these circumstances in his paper, so his arguments were irrelevant to the matter he pretended to deal with.

    His was not a professional assessment of a complex counterintelligence situation but, instead, an emotional plea. He referred with scorn to his superiors' “insidious conclusions” and “genuine paranoia” and called their analysis “very strange, to say the least.” The case against Nosenko, he wrote, was based on (unnamed) “assumptions, subjective observations, unsupported suspicions, innuendo, insinuations [… and] relatively trivial contradictions in his reporting.”

    Nosenko's failure to pass the lie detector test, McCoy asserted, “rules out Nosenko immediately” as a plant—because the KGB would have trained him to beat it. He dismissed (unspecified) findings as “trivial, antique, or repetitive” and cited one which “borders on fantasy. … In fact, it is fantastic!” (sic—with exclamation point). “I cannot find a shred of solid evidence against Nosenko,” he wrote, “The case would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence.” Closing his paper he asked, “What kind of proof do we need of his innocence, when we call him guilty with none?”

    McCoy used as argument his speculation about what the KGB would or would not do. His paper was studded with untruths, distortions, and unsupported assertions like those cited above—all designed to discredit any doubts or doubters of Nosenko's bona fides. For instance, he judged the defector Pyotr Deryabin, a former KGB Major of more than ten years' experience, to be “not experienced.” When Deryabin decided that Nosenko was a KGB plant, wrote McCoy, he was making a “snap judgment … after having been briefed on the mere facts of the case.” In reality, Deryabin had spent years reviewing and commenting upon the full record of this and related cases, listening to tapes (and correcting the transcripts) of every meeting with and debriefing of Nosenko—and had then personally questioned Nosenko in twelve long sessions.

    McCoy told the demonstrable untruth that Nosenko “damaged the Soviet intelligence effort more than all the other KGB defectors combined” and that “no Soviet defector has identified as many Soviet agents.” Had Nosenko not uncovered William Vassall as a spy, McCoy wrote, certain secret British documents (shown by Golitsyn to be in KGB hands) “could have been assumed to come from the Lonsdale-Cohen-Houghton net”—though they could not conceivably have been. He said that Sgt. Robert Lee Johnson “would still be operating against us” had Nosenko not uncovered him—though by then, in fact, Johnson had already lost his post and his wife was publicly denouncing him as a Soviet spy. McCoy asserted that it was Nosenko who identified Kovshuk's photo whereas Golitsyn had made the identification. He confused two separate KGB American recruits, following Nosenko's line and successfully hiding the active, valid one. And he made uncounted other equally unfounded assertions.

    But by then the Nosenko case—the CIA's holding of a suspected KGB plant—had become a thorn in the side of the Agency leadership, an “incubus” and “bone in the throat,” as Director Richard Helms put it. So the CIA happily accepted McCoy's authority and as a result many KGB moles were never identified.

    Let's have a look at some of these ghosts.

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

     

    --  T.G.

     

     

    expanded with duly noted edit

  3. 11 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

    Noted and reported...

     

    Good on you, Michael!

     

    By the way, are you still counting the number of my edits?

    (Talk about a full-time job!)

    I feel badly about "baiting" you unto doing that, but hey, that's what The Agency told me to do ...

     

    --  T.G.

     

  4. 44 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

    TOP SECRET

    13 October 1970

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

    Subject: BAGELY, Tennant, Harrington

    #386 38

    1) On Wednesday, 7 October 1970 I briefed Colonel L. K. White, Executive  Director-Controller on certain reservations I have concerning the proposed promotion of subject to a supergrade position.

    2)  I was very careful to explain to Colonel White at the outset that my reservations had nothing whatsoever to do with Bagely's security status. I explained that it was my conviction that Bagely was almost exclusively responsible for the manner in which the Nosenko case had been handled by our SR division. I said I considered that Bagely lacked objectivity and that he had displayed extremely poor judgment over a two year period in the handling of this case. Specifically as one example of Bagely's extreme prejudice I pointed out that the SR division had neglected to follow up several leads provided by Nosenko which subsequently had been followed up by this office (Bruce Solie) and that this lead us to individuals who have confess their recruitment and use by the Soviets over an extensive period of time.

    3)  I explained further that Bagely displayed extremely poor judgment in the actions he took during that time that the Nosenko was incarcerated at ISOLATION. On many occasions, as the individual responsible for Nosenko's care, I refuse to condone subjects instructions to my people who are guarding him. In one instance Bagely insisted that and Nosenko's food ration be reduced to black bread and water three times daily. After I had briefed Colonel White, he indicated that he would refresh the Director's memory on Bagely's role in the Nosenko case at the time he reviews supergrade promotions. 

     

    Howard J. Osborn

    Director of Security

     

    Yeah, Michael, I got that. 

    Written in 1970, three years after (possible mole?) Richard Kovich and the Leonard McCoy - John Hart clutch had deviously subverted and controverted the true and accurate work and conclusions of Bagley, Scotty Miler, JJA, et al., regarding false defector Yuri Nosenko.

    BFD  (Bunk Finely Disseminated)

    You are aware, aren't you, that former Army Intelligence analyst John Newman, author of Oswald and the CIA, has read Bagley's works and is sufficiently impressed by them to have given some presentations based on Spy Wars and Spymaster (the latter co-written with former KGB general, Sergei Kondrashev), and has even been able to convince the Venerable Bede, himself -- Peter Dale Scott -- that Nosenko was a false defector?

     

    In retrospect, then, given the situation that Bagley, Miler, and JJA, et al., were in vis-a-vis a possibly "programmed" Nosenko (who almost "broke" once btw), one could reasonably and humanely say that their subjecting him to a rather austere living environment, and ... gasp ... questioning him over and over again on certain points, and maybe even ... gasp ... doing so at all hours of the night and day, ... was justified, yes?

     

    I'll try to find and post here Bagley's detailed refutation of the "torture" claims, so in the meantime, why don't you just take an extra dose of that Gas-Ex , Michael?

    Because in my humble opinion, you're really starting to stink the place up.

     

    --  T.G.

     

     

     

  5. 18 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

     

    Tommy,

    Bagely was likely a sadistic, myopic torturer. His later claims about Nosenko are very likely clouded by that part of human nature that demands that we justify what we have done in order to absolve ourselves of guilt. He was likely incompetent and dangerously-so.

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf

     

    Michael,

     

    It's likely that you, sir, are full of beans.

     

    Warning: almost a sentence fragment coming up: 

    As are (or were, if deceased) Harrington, Leonard McCoy, John Hart, Bruce Solie, and Cleveland Cram, et al.

     

    Why don't you take some Gas-Ex and then read Bagley's Spy Wars, or at least his 35-page PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars.

    Paul Brancato finally read the latter, and almost kinda thanked me for having suggested it to him, iirc.

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

     

    Totally blew me away.

     

    --  T.G.

  6. 2 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

    Tommy - that’s a perfect example of baiting. “Your buddy Stalin”. That’s really out of bounds. 

     

    Yes, Paul, you're right.

    It was probably just an overreaction to James' insinuating that I'm a fascist and that I support genocide.

    Shall I delete it?

     

    Regardless, do you have anything of substance to say about my post?

     

    --  T.G.

     

  7. 8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

    TG, let me make myself clear; as I thought I did above when I said I would have taken Allende, who was a democratically elected  communist, over Pinochet who was a CIA installed Fascist who then disappeared tens of thousands of people.

    I do not like the uses of covert action into other countries to upset their own processes.

    To give another example, I did not like the fact that the CIA sent five assassins into Congo to murder Lumumba before JFK took office.  Lumumba was a democratically elected premier, and was part of a constitutional government. Dulles and Eisenhower were going to turn over that process, and the Belgians were all too eager to be the recipient of that aid.  Because now the great wealth of the Congo would go to them  and their stand in Mobutu and not to the Congolese as Lumumba, Hammarskjold, and JFK wanted. I suppose the fact that all three of these men were murdered and that LBJ overturned Kennedy's policies there was just a coincidence.

    I could cite several other examples e.g. Arbenz.  In all of these cases, and more, what people like Kissinger and Dulles did ended up killing democracy, and rewarding the wealthy and foreign imperial interests, many of them American.  And such was the  case with Russia. I am against American interventionism in those cases.

    What I would like to see is what RFK wanted and what he told to Pete Hammill as he was running in 1968.  Once elected he was going to eliminate the covert action arm of the CIA.

    Now, if you are for fascism, if you are for genocide, and you are at heart a Neocon who believes only what the National Review or what the Weekly Standard prints, then why don't you say that? Don't have the gonads?  The Cold War died in 1985 when Gorbachev rose to power.  Only in the mind of a triple distilled Cold Warrior like Bagley did it still exist in the New Millennium.  And if your foreign policy views are that dated and that easily formed by a guy who never got over losing the Nosenko battle, then wow, how can you ever understand the JFK case?

    If you were a pushover for Bagley, I would hate to have seen you after lunch with Angleton. You probably would have started writing poetry and then offered to help Epstein on his next book.

     

    James,

     

    What does any of this have to do with (admittedly corrupt, but hey what do you expect after 70 years of institutionalized cronyism?) Yeltsin's retaining a couple of American political advisers in 1996 to help to help him spiff up his image and improve the palatability of his message in an election campaign?

     

    As regards what I read, I try to limit myself to those news sources which have, regardless of their left-or right bias, "High" factual reporting according to mediabiasfactcheck. com.  Needless to say your beloved Global Research based "Information Clearing House" isn't one of them because GR itself is categorized as being "Conspiracy and Pseudoscience" and as having only "Mixed" factual reporting.

     

    Finally, regarding that evil, evil Tennent H. Bagley, if he were alive he'd probably say to you, "If it's true as you say, James, that 'the Cold War died in 1985,' why then did the Soviets/Russians continue to wage so many "active measures" and "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations against us and our allies?"

     

    --  T.G.

     

    PS   Genocide? You wanna talk genocide?

    Okay then, how about what  EDIT ALERT: your buddy Stalin did to the Ukrainians in the 1930s, James?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

     

    (To give just one example.)

     

     

  8. 18 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

    I learned a long time ago that it's best "not to confuse James [DiEugenio] with the facts," because all you do is expend a lot of energy proving or disproving something to him (which he rarely if ever acknowledges, btw), and then he disappears for awhile, be it a month, a year, or five years, only to come back to the Forum eventually and reassert the same wrong "fact," all over again. --  T.G.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

    Jim would say, however, that I am the one who does that very thing you mentioned. (I would disagree, of course.) :)

     

     

     

    Yes,

    He's pretty good at "turning the tables" like that, too, when he gets in a tight spot.

    --  T.G.

     

  9. 7 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

    You can win all the debates you want, or lose them. Is that what we are doing here? Not me. As far as baiting me, digging up an old thread and misquoting me is an example. So I either ignore you or I spend 20 minutes trying to find the non existent quote. Try starting fresh and not carrying grudges. You may not be the only one that does this, but in my view each of us is responsible for letting go of past grievances. Try it.

     

    Paul,

    Please freshen my memory.  Which one was that?

    Something to do with evil, evil, evil de Vosjoli and that evil, evil, evil "Brandy"?

     

    Which past grievances on this forum should I forget about, and in regards to whom?

     

    --  T.G.

     

    You mean you don't come to the world famous JFK Assassination Debate Forum to debate, but to learn, Paul?

    Fantastic!

    Have any idea how much teaching, aka debating, showing, linking, baiting, cajoling, and outright arguing with you and others I had to do to get you to read "Ghosts Wars," Paul?

    (I'm proud of you, by the way, and I truly mean that; I didn't think you would ever read it.)

     

     

     

     

  10. 1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

    Here's a replay of part of a discussion from August 2010 concerning the topic of J.D. Tippit's wallet:

    DVP SAID:

    Jim [DiEugenio], in what document can I find the info about Tippit's wallet being taken off of his corpse at Methodist Hospital?

    [Later....]

    Never mind, Jim. I found it myself, via the files of the Dallas Municipal Archives (Box 9; Folder 2; Item 3), linked HERE.

    And (just as I suspected) the document showing Tippit's personal property most definitely does NOT prove that Tippit's wallet was taken off of his body at Methodist Hospital (or at Parkland, where he was taken for his autopsy).

    How can I know?

    Because Tippit's service revolver is ALSO listed on this inventory of Tippit's personal property ("1 SW Rev Ser # 138278"). And we know that Tippit's revolver was LEFT AT THE MURDER SCENE after Tippit was shot, being picked up by witness Ted Callaway.

    Therefore, the "Black Billfold" listed in that document didn't necessarily have to be taken off of Tippit's body at Methodist or Parkland.

    JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

    Please show me the testimony, evidence or affidavit about the name plate, pens etc being stripped off Tippit at the scene. Yeah sure. Happens all the time, right?

    DVP SAID:

    When did I ever suggest such a foolish and stupid thing, Jim?

    Answer: Never.

    But you have no proof that a DPD officer didn't take Tippit's wallet from 10th Street to either Methodist or Parkland between the time Tippit was shot and the time Captain Doughty signed-off on the document which catalogues all of Tippit's personal belongings at 3:25 PM.

    Allow me to quote Jim DiEugenio's favorite author of all-time, Vincent T. Bugliosi:

    "But whose wallet was it? Dallas WFAA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland, narrating the silent footage for his viewers, said it was Tippit’s wallet. Apart from [Dale] Myers saying that Reiland’s reportage over the assassination weekend contained numerous factual errors, the main reason why Myers rejects the possibility that the wallet was Tippit’s is that “1 Black Billfold” was listed among Tippit’s personal effects, and Myers says, “The only item known to have been brought to the hospital [Methodist, and later Parkland] and added to Tippit’s personal effects was Tippit’s revolver, which by all accounts was left behind at the murder scene” (Myers, 'With Malice', pp.299–300).

    But we know that several officers went to Methodist Hospital, where Tippit’s body was brought into the emergency ward, and they could have brought Tippit’s wallet from the murder scene to either there or Parkland. There certainly was plenty of time to do so before Tippit’s personal property was inventoried, at 3:25 p.m. (Document titled “Identification Bureau Crime Scene Search Section, Police Department, Dallas, Texas,” box 9, folder 2, item 3, DMA; Myers, 'With Malice', p.301).

    Certainly, the mere absence of any statement or documentary evidence that an item of personal property (the wallet) was added to Tippit’s personal effects would not be strong evidence that such an event never took place.

    But if, indeed, it was Tippit’s wallet, why didn’t civilian witnesses like Jack Tatum, Ted Callaway, and the two ambulance attendants, Eddie Kinsley and J. C. Butler, see the wallet lying next to Tippit’s body? Nor did Joe Poe and Leonard Jez, two of the first officers to arrive at the scene. (Myers, 'With Malice', p.300)

    One thing we can be reasonably certain about: the wallet was not Oswald’s."
    -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 454 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

    [More HERE.]

    [End 2010 Quotes.]

    So, Jim, the idea that the wallet seen in the WFAA-TV footage was J.D. Tippit's wallet is still in the mix.

     

    Good work, "Davy."

     

    I learned a long time ago that it's best "not to confuse James with the facts," because all you do is expend a lot of energy proving or disproving something to him (which he rarely if ever acknowledges, btw), and then he disappears for awhile, be it a month, a year, or five years, only to come back to the Forum eventually and reassert the same wrong "fact," all over again.

     

    I mean, I mean, I mean, to my way of thinking, it's almost as though Vladimir Putin trained him to do that!

     

    --  T.G.

     

  11. 39 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

    Tommy - you seem to relish baiting people. You do it to me too. 

     

    How have I "baited" James on this thread, Paul?

     

    I mean, maybe I have, I don't know. 

    Is that a bad thing to do?

    If so, does he ever do that sort of thing?

     

    What's the official definition of "to bait," in the context of an Internet forum on a controversial subject, anyway?

    To trap somebody through rhetoric and logic into a position which they are unable or unwilling to try to defend?

     

    Don't they teach that in high school debating classes?

     

    --  T.G.

     

    PS  How about James' insisting on another thread a few months ago that Rudolf Hess was not a spy for the Soviets, and telling me quite rudely, "You don't know enough about the Hess spy case to be able to debate it intelligently with me, so I'm going to leave now," or words to that effect? 

    Given that little pleasantry by James, what do you think about his subsequent disappearing and refusing to reply to me when I posted a few days later that I'd done some research and found out that many historians, including our very own John Simpkin, now believe that Hess was a long-term spy?

    Which James is yet to respond to.

    You tell me, Paul, was that "baiting"on James' part, or did I end up winning that little debate?

     

     

     

  12. 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

     

    And then you ask me if I wanted to see the adversary to Yeltsin win the election. See TG its that kind of either/or Allen Dulles style rhetoric that results in horrible epic tragedies like Indonesia in 1965 and Chile in 1973.

     

     

    James,

     

    In case you haven't noticed, life is chock-a-block full of "either/or" choices.

     

    "Would you like another serving of apple pie a-la mode, or another half-gallon of chocolate pudding, Jimmy?  I'm sorry, sweetie, but you can't have both this time.  Aww, don't cry, honey.  Doctors orders, not mine."

    Bummer, huh?

     

    So, I ask you once again, James:  Would you have preferred to see the Communist Party's candidate, Gennady Zyuganov, win the 1996 Russian presidential election?  Yes, or No, James?

     

    Da?  Really??

     

    "Zyuganov enthusiastically supported the (2014) annexation of Crimea by Russia as well as the (2014) pro-Russian insurgency (in eastern Ukraine)."  --  Wikipedia



    Also, James, did Boris Yeltsin hire those evil, evil American advisers, or did your favorite bugbear, the The Deep State / National Security State/ Military Industrial Intelligence Cabal, force them upon him?

     

    (Don't run away and hide, now, like you do all too often.)

     

    --  T.G.

     

     

  13. 7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

    :please

     

    I wish they had a Yawn icon.


    Cute avoidance reaction, James.  Unbearable stress always make you yawn?

     

    Regardless, guess what??? 

     

    I just now skimmed those two precious articles I promised you I would read!

     

    So, lemme ask you a question:  Would you have preferred that the Communist had won that Russian election, James?

     

     

    Why?

     

    --  T.G.

     

  14. 31 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

    BTW, the 4th post above, shows us all just how underhanded and untrustworthy TG really is.  

    If you link to the Eleanor Randolph story at Info clearing house you will see that they got it from the LA Times. That site is a collection site.  It presents stories from all over.

    Here is the direct link to the  story, and where it came from, the LA Times:  http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-09/news/mn-22423_1_boris-yeltsin

    As you can see its the same.  And I said in a post above that the stories came through the NY Times and LA Times. I made a big deal of this.  All TG had to do was read the link inside and do what I just did.  He did not do that. That is the kind of researcher this guy is. 

    He does not want to deal with facts that show how ignorant he is about contemporary history, or how that info shows what hypocritical values he maintains.  So he ignores them as if they do not exist.   And then tries to smear the messenger because he does not like being showed up.

    And he does this to the point that he does not even know when he shoots himself in the foot.  He does that so often soon he will not have any toes left.  Should we take up a collection?

     

    James,

     

    I know you aren't paranoid or anything, but have you considered the possibility that, as regards your precious newspaper articles, that I am neither "underhanded" (isn't that a synonym for "dishonest," James?) nor "untrustworthy" (isn't that another synonym for "dishonest," James?), but that I am just pain too lazy and/or bogged down with other things to have read them, yet?  Or is that a too mundane, and therefore implausible, explanation for you?

     

    I promise that I will, though, James, but probably not the article you posted from the "Global Research" affiliate or subsidiary or whatever it is.  See my earlier post as to why that is the case.

     

    In the meantime, please don't flatter yourself by fantasizing that my life resolves around that highly gaseous planet, "Jumbo-Duh." 

     

    Somewhere, way WAY WAY out there in the outer solar system.

     

    --  T.G.

     

  15. 47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

    TG, look you might think the Russians killed Kennedy.

    Virtually everyone else here thinks that is so fruity as to be ludicrous. It is simply a time-waster and a diversion.  

    And that is what you are saying.  Like Trejo, you think Phillips and Angleton and Dulles were fine people and great Americans.  I don't. So I am not going to fall for their line on the JFK case.  

    Got that.  Its not a matter of "gonads",   its a matter of brains.

    You feel fine with it.  OK, people can draw judgments from those choices.

     

    James,

     

    Maybe you've even worse than Morley, come to think of it.  I mean, if that's even possible.

     

    Where in the hell have I ever even suggested that Phillips and Dulles were "fine people"?

     

    As regards the "evil things" they undoubtedly did in their jobs, do you think they were up against Boy Scouts or The Little Sisters Of The Poor in trying to fend off and/or subvert the KGB and the GRU?


    I gotta ask you James, does Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you spread the garbage you do for free?

     

    --  T.G.

     

    PS  It's interesting that, in the Part 2 video that I watched, you couldn't even bring yourself to clap for John Newman at the end of his recent "Spy Wars" presentation in San Francisco.

    Was it because he'd convinced Peter Dale Scott that Yuri Nosenko was a false defector, after all?


     

  16. DiEugenio posted:

     

    Then, (after supporting Boris Yeltsin during the 1993 crisis in the Kremlin --  T.G.) Bill Clinton went even further with directly intervening in the 1996 election with advisors and tons of money.  I guess Bagley does not mention this so you do not know about it.

    How about this then: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46233.htm

     

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    James,

     

    You gotta be kidding me.

     

    INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE? 

     

    I mean, I mean, I mean .... isn't that put out by ... gasp ... GLOBAL RESEARCH?

     

    Oh My God, I think I'm gonna die this time.  Somebody bring me an oxygen tank, quick!

     

     

     

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/

     

     

     

    --  T.G.

     

     

  17. 39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

    You know Tom, your cheap smears of everyone's info while you trust a CIA guy is a little bit off-putting. :please

    Also off-putting is your apparent sight problem.  I listed these sources above and as you can see when you click through they are from the LA Times and NY Times.    Is that not MSM enough  for you? Who do you ask for then Chris Matthews?  How about Hannity?

    Yeltsin bombed the Russian parliament in 1993 when they were about to impeach him.  Killed anywhere from 200 to 500 people.  Clinton supported him.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/30/world/clinton-repeats-support-for-yeltsin.html

     

     Then, Clinton went even further with directly intervening in the 1996 election with advisors and tons of money.  I guess Bagley does not mention this so you do not know about it.

    How about this then: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46233.htm

     

    James,

     

    You haven't read that "CIA guy's" book yet, have you?  And you never will, will you?

    Undersized gonads, James, or "don't need to"?

     

    Already got the straight skinny from the likes of RT and Oliver Stone?

     

    --  T.G.

     

  18. 17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

    :offtopic

     

    Again, TG is trying to derail this thread because I just showed him up on the Trump thread.

     

    James,

     

    Sorry, ... uhh ... you showed me what

    Up?

     

    Hysterical Laughing Out Loud!

    OMG, Gimme a minute to catch my breath! ........

     

     

     

    Okay,

    .... whew!

    Dang, I almost passed out from lack oxygen there for a minute.....

     

     

     

    .......  Regardless, (gasp, ... gasp ...) care to return to that thread in which we were talking about Rudolf Hess?

     

    How about Nosenko, then?  Wanna "debate" some more on Nosenko, James?

     

    Fedora?

     

    Okay, then, how about how the KGB uncovered Popov?

     

    Penkovsky?

     

    Aww, come on, James.  I promise not to work you over too bad....

     

    I mean, you do have medical insurance, don't you?

     

     

  19. 16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

     ...

    And I bet that even after this you will eave up those link to your web site .

     

    Huh?

     

    Regardless, the part I deleted was a very interesting, indeed, accusation coming from James "Full Disclosure" DiEugenio.

     

    (sarcasm)

     

    --  T.G.


    Post Script:   James is nearly always almost as bad in that regard as is his (in my humble opinion) intellectually dishonest "bud," Jefferson Morley, is in his abomination "The Ghost".

    Seen my one-star review of it on Amazon, yet?

     

     

  20. 5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

    Graves' and Varnell's view of history is so incredibly lopsided and agenda driven its almost funny.

    The US intervention is Russia after Gorbachev is documented in places like the LA Times and Time Magazine.  It was massive.  Done in support of that fascist Yeltsin and done mostly by Bill Clinton, after Yeltsin had requested Freidnmanesque shock therapy for the Russian economy.

    The shock therapy drove Russia into an economic crisis worse than the Great Depression.  The Russian people were about to get rid of Yeltsin.  Suddenly a team of political advisors arrives to aid him, including Dick Morris.  They had hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend to revive his candidacy. And then the IMF, at Clinton's urging, gave him a grant of millions.  To stave off impeachment, Clinton's buddy Yeltsin bombed the Kremlin killing scores of innocent   bystanders.  

    ‘The largest giveaway of a nation’s wealth in history….’

    -Mortimer Zuckerman, member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), owner of US News & World Report, relating what took place in the looting of Russia under Boris Yeltsin.

     

    Geez Tommy, would these qualify as Bagley's "active measures".

    As per Varnell, the CIA redid the plan at JFK's request in mid March.  He thought it looked too much like a World War II operation.  This information is contained in the declassified Kirkpatrick Report. Which is still the best compendium of information on the Bay of Pigs that I know of. (See Peter Kornbluh, Bay of Pigs Declassified, pp 125-27)

     

     

    James,

     

    Where do you get your "info"?

     

    ZeroHedge?

     

    Or is it too far to the Right for you?

     

    --  T.G.

     

  21. 3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

    Broke down and spent five bucks on the National Enquirer today, since the front page story was "There Were 3 JFK Shooters!"

    News producer Mytchell Mora (he's worked for both FoxNews and CNN, so he's at least non-partisan) has "re-enhanced" the Z film, and found that the first shot (not caught on film) came from the TSBD, the second shot came from the Grassy Knoll (and he can see the windshield shatter with a spray of glass particles), and the fatal head shot was actually two shots from the same vicinity.

    Here's what really jumped off the page: "If you listen closely to the audio on the Zapruder film you can hear four shots. The third shot is actually a double!"

    Next time you're listening to the Z film, check it out!

     

    Wow,

     

    I didn't realize that Castro's hit men and/or the Ruskies "triangulated" like that.

     

    --  T.G.

     

  22. 41 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

    I thought we were talking about the ways countries screw with each other.

    (My bad.  The mis-understanding is mine.)

    For instance, W. Averell Harriman in the 20's and 30's helped resuscitate the Soviet Union's manganese and oil industries.

    During that time Harriman's banking interests financed the Nazi War Machine.

    Soviet manganese was shipped to Germany to make the steel Hitler wanted use to take over the Soviet oil fields.

    How many Soviets died to prevent that?

     

    Cliff,

     

    Funny,  I thought we were talking about someone whose name is mentioned in the title of this thread, and whether or not the cumulative, synergistic effects of 90-years of Ruski "active measures" counterintelligence operations, interwoven with 58 years of highly successful "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations (both types waged against the U.S. and, uhh ....THE WEST in general), could have, you know,  kinda "paved the way," "plowed the field," "sown the seeds", however you want to put it, and enabled a bigger impact on the way our 2016 Presidential Election turned out than some of the most recent "active measures" active measures waged against us (e.g. the actions of Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear, Guccifer 2.0, Julian Assange, Putin's legions of professional Sanint Petersburg-based trolls, et al.,) ... would have had, otherwise, i.e., without the said "plowing of the fields"?

     

    But somewhere along the way, our widdle "debate's" God-given internal dialectics turned it into something more "whataboutism"- like in nature.

    "But, but, Tommy, our homegrown and evil, evil,evil Deep State has been screwing the Ruskies for eons!"

     

    Imagine that.

     

    --  T.G.

     

     

  23. 8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

    Graves' and Varnell's view of history is so incredibly lopsided and agenda driven its almost funny.

    The US intervention is Russia after Gorbachev is documented in places like the LA Times and Time Magazine.  It was massive.  Done is support of that fascist Yeltsin and done mostly by Bill Clinton, after Yeltsin had requested Freidnmanesque shock therapy for the Russian economy.

    The shock therapy drove Russia into an economic crisis worse than the Great Depression.  The Russian people were about to get rid of Yeltsin.  Suddenly a team of political advisors arrives to aid him, including Dick Morris.  They had hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend to revive his candidacy. And then the IMF, at Clinton's urging, gave him a grant of millions.  To stave off impeachment, Clinton's buddy Yeltsin bombed the Kremlin killing scores of innocent   bystanders.

    Geez Tommy, would these qualify as Bagley's "active measures".

    As per Varnell, the CIA redid the plan at JFK's request in mid March.  He thought it looked too much like a World War II operation.  This information is contained in the declassified Kirkpatrick Report. Which is still the best compendium of information on the Bay of Pigs that I know of. (See Peter Kornbluh, Bay of Pigs Declassified, pp 125-27)

     

     

    James,

     

    OMG.  I mean, I mean.

     

    When you say "bombed the Kremlin," are you referring to the 1999 "Russian Apartment Bombings" (which bombings, none of them within Moscow's city limits and therefore nowhere near "The Kremlin," by the way, which killed 300 Russian citizens and led to the imposition of martial law, the assumption of the presidency by Putin, etc, etc, and which bombing were traced to Putin's favorite charity organization, the FSB (you know, the successor, along with the SVR, to the KGB, the NKVD, the MGB, the ...) ?

    Is that what you're referring to?

     

    --  T.G.

  24. 24 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

    The Reds were financed by Morgan/Harriman money long before they took power.

    My point is American interests have screwed with the Russkies for more than a century.

     

     

    Bummer, dude.

     

    And evil, evil, evil America was the only country whose "businessmen" screwed with them?

     

    Nothing to say in response to my highly informative post, Cliff?

     

    I thought we were talking about the efficacy of Russia's and the U.S.'s counterintelligence ops against each other.

     

    The biggest success for the former, imho, went down on 11/08/2016 in the latter country.

     

    --  T.G.

     

     

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...