Jeff Carter

What was distinctive re: Durham was they have all been jury trials, rather than the coercive plea bargains utilized by Mueller.

Russiagaters: but if for every error and every act of incompetence one can substitute an act of treason, many points of fascinating interpretation are open to the paranoid imagination. In the end, the real mystery, for one who reads the primary works of paranoid scholarship, is not how the United States has been brought to its present dangerous position but how it has managed to survive at all. source of quote is deeply ironic in context of “last 50 years”.

Both Duncan Campbell and David Corn were, charitably, unwitting dupes in the Russiagate saga. They are now in the revision of the revisions phase of the Denial. It is not unlike the WMD fiasco, whereby persons continued to insist Iraqi weapons of mass destruction WERE found, and peddled that for years until everyone else moved on.

The content of the February 2008 Burns memo strongly refutes the “Neo-imperialist” concept.

Obviously a nuanced informed dialogue is not to be countenanced here on this Forum, at least on certain topics. Important contextual information derived from primary documentation is rather dismissed in favour of a “madman dictator” theory which is itself a signature Neoconservative concept.

A good friend of my father is a Ukrainian emigre, but most definitely does not endorse the nationalist version of its history. In 2014 he stated it was utmost folly to fan the flames of division - which is unquestionably what the coup government did - as it would actualize longstanding and deep-seated hatreds and grievances, damage Ukraine’s plurality, and eventually lead to open conflict. In this, his views coincided with those of the “Realist” school of U.S./western foreign policy wonks. The childish insults and lazy conclusions littering this thread are ultimately a repudiation of the Realist position. In terms of intellectual breadth and real-world experience - let’s call it “wisdom” - I’ll take the Realists. In 2008, then U.S. Ambassador to Russia (and now Chief of CIA) William Burns specifically and accurately predicted exactly what would result from NATO expansion or skullduggery directed to Ukraine: “In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” The memo was addressed to the upper level of the national security leadership, and was followed within a month or two by the Bush Jr administration’s announcement that the U.S. would go ahead with this regardless. It is a grade A primary document: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html The Realist position is based on factual analysis and has been predictively correct. In contradiction, NATO expansion into the region has, from the Bush admin announcement in 2008 to the present, been a Neoconservative project - from Cheney through Nuland through Blinken-Sullivan. The Neoconservative record has been marked by bad faith, poor analysis, and a terrible predictive scoresheet. Further, Neoconservative projects always end in disaster. If someone could review the Burns memo and find fault then perhaps that would be more constructive than the rote dismissals.

So does this controversy then simply hinge on a semantic interpretation of “disengage”?

What is most interesting about the “definitive” Senate Subcommittee on Intelligence Report and the just released academic study is that they are both working from the exact same data set to arrive at completely different conclusions. The SSI’s assertion that an extensive disinformation program “sowed chaos” across the American social fabric is completely contradicted by the statistical academic review which found that the program was “concentrated” to a very small subset of the population and revealed “no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure” and chaotic behaviour. What is the difference then? Researchers have noted since 2017, when first detailed reports of the IRA meme campaign were published (i.e. Symantec), that the numbers seemed to reflect that there was no there there. However the weighty reports such as SSI were written much as the Warren Report - heavy on assertion - but representing essentially political documents which set out a preferred narrative regardless of the details. The SSI Report followed conclusions raised by the now infamous Intelligence Community Assessment released in January 2017 - which started the public’s engagement with “Russia-gate”. The ICA was sold as a broadly supported determination, but was eventually acknowledged as the product of a small few highly partisan operatives. While WN’s review of Trump’s policy missteps and egregious character is largely uncontroversial, his parroting of official narratives makes factual assertions which are not supported by the facts. He is simultaneously correct and incorrect, and in the gap between lies the awful mistake made by Democrat partisans to propagate a false narrative (extensive Russian interference) instead of dealing with Mr Trump through the application of traditional politics. This has seriously divided your country while promoting zero-sum strategies rather than the compromises by which democracy works.

Hot off the presses from the reality-based community - Three professors from New York University plus three from Europe have combined to produce this detailed statistical study: Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior from the Abstract: “Using longitudinal survey data from US respondents linked to their Twitter feeds, we quantify the relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and attitudes and voting behavior in the 2016 US election. We demonstrate, first, that exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.” https://archive.is/F12dh

Jeff Morley interviewed for Counterpunch on his new Watergate related book, plus some JFK content. Interesting observation: " I am struck by how many hard-right conservatives subscribe to JFK Facts, which is just a reflection of a large phenomenon that many have noted. Skepticism of the CIA and FBI, once a mainstay of the liberal left, has become a strain of hard-right conservativism, while the Democrats have become more sympathetic to the FBI and CIA, perceiving them as institutional enemies of Trump’s authoritarianism." https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/01/10/an-interview-with-jefferson-morley-on-the-cia-nixon-and-the-assassination-of-jfk/

Here is a link to “Face The Nation” October 27, 2013 , with Phil Shenon and a segment with Peggy Noonan and Bob Woodward which uses term “deep state” for the first time that I know of in mainstream media (without disdain). The Woodward/Noonan segment is interesting as it articulates what may yet be the ultimate fallback for the establishment: yes the WC was a coverup, but it was done in name of patriotism. https://archive.org/details/KPIX_20131028_000000_Face_the_Nation

Some thoughts after watching the film: Like it or not, the Paines are and will continue to be controversial figures in the assassination story. This is the subject of the film - a controversial historic figure - and the filmmaker does a very good job of balancing the opposing viewpoints of suspicion and alibi. The controversy will never be resolved, and so the viewer is left in the slightly uncomfortable space between Salandria’s position (“impossible for them not to have been involved”) and Ruth Paine’s (“it was entirely coincidental”). That’s tricky territory for a filmmaker because some form of resolution is expected from most narratives. The Paine partisans, it seems to me, regarding this film, continue to “protest too much”. also: 1) the “we know who’s responsible” phone call: did Oswald’s name come up during this call? It does appear in the official summary. Ruth Paine infers the call was only about the local radical right, and states she never considered LO until discovery of the empty blanket after the police contingent arrived. This point too seems contradicted by official police report which has her greeting the officers with “we were expecting you”. 2) Paine says met deMohrenschildts only once (Magnolia party). but she and Michael had dinner with them in 1967, shortly after the return from Haiti and following the discovery of the “deMohrenschildt BYP” in their stored possessions. Was it not the Paines who controlled that locker after Glover scooted away? 3) it’s difficult to understand where the “little guy who wanted to be a big guy” analysis comes from, and so quickly as this was being expressed by the Paines on Nov 25. 4) why would Oswald furtively type up the embassy letter, then leave it in the typewriter and not try to retrieve it before heading back to work? 5) If the blanket allegedly holding the rifle could limply flop over the arm of the police officer, how could it hold the alleged “form” of the rifle when discovered (as stated in police reports). Why did Ruth never notice that “form” before? Who loaded it into her vehicle in New Orleans? Michael Paine’s bizarre insistence that he thought it was camping equipment when handling it remains a question too.

The “homophobia” concept traces directly back to the well-funded public relations apparatus working with the Clay Shaw defence team. It was my impression that this angle was regurgitated by Long as part of a less well-funded public relations apparatus anticipating the Oliver Stone documentary, working from the assumption that the film would focus on Garrison due to the “Destiny Betrayed” working title.

I said Ruth Paine sought to “separate” the couple, similar to an effort orchestrated by the deMohrenschildt’s the previous autumn. I did not extend that thought to include an intention to “break up Lee’s and Marina’s marriage.” Re: the “Magnolia Oil party” - the Oswald invitation was generated via the connection with deMohrenschildt, at the initiative, apparently, of Volkmar Schmidt. The name of Schmidt’s roommate and co-host Everett Glover appeared in Lee Oswald’s address book described as “Georges friend”. It may be a coincidence that Glover thought to invite his Russian speaking friend (Ruth Paine) to the party as well, but there are a lot of coincidences in play with the Paines and that is why the application of deductive reasoning to consider this information is warranted.

The disagreement is over Ruth Paine’s motivation to befriend Marina Oswald. While there is nothing concrete to disavow Paine’s stated intention, or take her activity at less than face value, it remains striking that she arrived in the Oswald’s lives just as the deMohrenschillds were exiting, and immediately took up efforts to separate the couple, which is exactly what the deMohrenscvhildts were also engaged in. (Ruth Paine offered Marina a room in her home shortly after first being introduced.) That’s a pattern. It might be a coincidence, but as such it fits atop a further coincidence that a deMohrenschildt social event set up the introduction in the first place.

Shenon writes - “Those documents suggested the CIA’s Mexico station bungled evidence …” The term “those documents” refers to the previous releases, not the upcoming batch. Obviously, the JFK Records Act continues to be flouted, and it will require continuing legal and public relations efforts to shake this material free. Soothing words assuring the public that nothing seriously compromising will appear in the still-withhold files strongly suggests, by other precedents, that something seriously compromising is in fact being hidden. As an example, political and intelligence officials from Australia and Great Britain strenuously denied any subterfuge in the dismissal of the Whitlam government in the mid 1970s, and did so for decades. It was only in the last year, and only after many years of determined efforts by interested citizens, that all the information was released and showed that indeed the rot went right to the top (the Queen), that the people had been flat-out lied to over five decades, and that the darkest and most outrageous scenario was pretty much exactly what occurred.

The general rule with analog photography is that resolution increases according to the size of the positive or negative surface on which the image is exposed. The 8mm diameter of the Zapruder frames is on the low side of resolution and is unlikely to reveal any more information than already seen. That said, the presumed original film was scanned in 1997 at very high digital resolution, and so a high-end digital reproduction of each frame does exist (but the reproductions cannot add resolution). This process is detailed in the MPI DVD “Image of an Assassination” which is still offered for sale, or might be found in local library systems. The 3-D modelling holds more promise, probably, but these efforts will always be stymied to some degree by the unfortunate fact that the wounds on the President were never accurately recorded.

Much of the information lazily referred as “Putin talking points” has long been part of the documentary record, and can be found for example in a 65 year old CIA document titled “Resistance Factors and Special Forces Areas Ukraine”. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81-01043R002300220007-1.pdf Part I, section 3 features descriptions of “resistance groups”, which includes the Organization of Ukraine Nationalists (OUN), which not only carried over across the decades but was influential in the Maidan/coup events of 2013-14, and acknowledged as such in the infamous intercepted Nuland phone call : “(OUN) has adopted an extreme nationalist position, glorifying the nation as an independent entity in terms reminiscent of German National Socialism.” (P19) Part III, section 3 examines “Regional Variations in Population Attitudes”, and identifies exactly the civil divide which has been critical to the events since 2014: “In two areas of the Ukraine the local populations apparently hold few grievances against the regime and probably would not assist Special Forces. The first is the Crimean peninsula which has historically been a part of Russia…The second area with a population strongly loyal to the regime is the Donbass.” (P 99-100) Further, the main mouthpiece of the Realist faction of U.S. foreign policy wonks published an article in past days which offers, with extensive citation, the political history of the Crimea region since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 - a history which largely conforms to a “pro-Putin” analysis routinely dismissed by persons largely unfamiliar with the complexities of the region: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/25/the-tragedy-of-crimea/ In that piece, Ukraine’s first president after USSR is quoted reflecting on the civil divisions after 2014 as fed by years of “very aggressive attacks of one region [Galicia in Western Ukraine – NP], which often believes that its ideology is the most correct, the most essential for the Ukrainian people; [and it] encounters the opposition of all regions of Ukraine that have a different ideology, or maybe different views, to be more precise, on the situation in Ukraine.” The Galicia region is where the nationalist elements described in 1957 by the CIA are from.

Sunday November 10 was also the day that Oswald, according to Ruth Paine's timeline, "spent the entire day...watching television." Michael Paine also complained to the Warren Commission: “ I think that weekend I remember stepping over him as he sat in front of the TV..." (WCH II, p. 412) The Dallas Cowboys played in San Francisco that afternoon, in one of the better remembered games of the early years of the franchise. With the west coast starting time, the game continued into the very late afternoon in Texas, which may have influenced the Paines' annoyance. That behaviour needs to be factored into a consideration of this letter - presumably left out all day. Also that it was Oswald in front of the television - not the letter - which is the focus of attention at the time.

It’s the influence of analytics / statistics over “feel”. The Phillies pulled Wheeler too early last night as well. For that matter, Roberts of the Dodgers contributed to some recent World Series melt-downs by committing to an inflexible reliever strategy. On the other hand, the Mets got sentimental a few years ago and left their man in too long and lost to a Royals comeback. Second guessing is part of the game - happy to see Baker finally overcome 2002. Singer/songwriter Dan Bern has written a large number of perceptive baseball songs over the years, including one all about the agony of watching that Game Six.

The problem with the “Putin is a psychopathic imperialist” meme is that he’s been in power over twenty years now and his recreation of the Soviet Union has consisted of: a) a brief incursion and skirmish with Georgian troops after the latter attacked Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia (2008). b) the annexation of Crimea - which had been predicted by NATO analysts in 2004 if western meddling threatened the naval bases (2014) c) Special Military Operation in Eastern Ukraine - predicted by Ambassador Burns in 2008 if efforts were made to incorporate Ukraine into NATO (2022) That’’s thin gruel for a psychopath, and such analysis is only widely held amongst the NATO countries. The Realist perspective, on the other hand, has a long track record of incisive analysis and correct prediction based on facts, not armchair psychological projection. Ambassador Burns’ 2008 memo completely eviscerates the neoconservative position. As per “volitional war”: Iraq’s 1991 invasion of Kuwait appears as a classic example, as it was motivated by essentially petty slant drilling. The situation in Ukraine is far more complex - and, again, Ambassador Burns’ memorandum in 2008 clearly describes the stakes. The entire top level of the US system was explicitly warned not to move NATO into Ukraine and yet within a few months it was publicly announced that such would happen. This is a large measure of why the rest of the world is rather lukewarm in supporting NATO at this juncture.

The National Security Archive has published a document collection in recognition of the sixtieth anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/cuba-cuban-missile-crisis/2022-10-17/cuban-missile-crisis-60-how-john-f-kennedy

Here are links to some information re; Korean War: Mass executions in summer of 1950: https://www.fosters.com/story/news/2008/05/19/ap-impact-thousands-killed-by/52408147007/ Review of academic coverage from History Dept University of Chicago: https://alethonews.com/2011/03/17/the-korean-war-the-unknown-war/ A My Lai like incident in July 1950: https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/no-gun-ri-massacre/ An academic named Jeffrey Kaye has been working with declassified documents which establish that the U.S. military was indeed using biological weapons in Korea. Kaye’s work is extensive and detailed: https://jeff-kaye.medium.com/a-concealed-war-crime-u-s-anthrax-bombings-of-china-during-the-korean-war-14782ceb40a9

I saw Hearts And Minds in the late ‘80s on a double bill with Emile DeAntonio’s In The Year of the Pig (1968). I thought, in comparison, the latter was more incisive and pointed. It was, to use a loose analogy, Ramparts while Hearts And Minds was The Nation. Though I would not downplay the obvious strengths of the Davis/Schneider film, I found some portions needlessly manipulative - such as the staged sequence of American GI’s trawling for local prostitutes. This thread, in general, is quite revealing of the extent of right-wing revisionism on the war - which is largely, fortunately, just an academic exercise, and appears motivated by a lingering anti-communism. In context of the gnashing of teeth over communist atrocities, the widespread carnage spreading out through the region generated by U.S. policy should be remembered, as should the massive repressive political violence conducted in Indonesia. Also, the beginning of the Korean conflict in the 1950s was sparked by large-scale massacres of left-leaning South Koreans by the SK dictatorship facilitated by the Americans, a fact which had not really been generally known until the last 20 years or so.

Joe - you were responding to the words of Chris Hedges, which John generously shared. Hedges has written numerous books, and his articles are published regularly by Consortium News. He used to host a terrific interview program, which unfortunately was "cancelled" this past spring by the mavens of our diminishing liberal-democracy, and all past episodes deleted from YouTube. Hedges, like Consortium News' founder Robert Parry, once had a Pulitzer Prize winning career within the journalist establishment (NY Times in his case), but displayed too much integrity to remain. https://consortiumnews.com/tag/chris-hedges/