Jump to content
The Education Forum

Goodman Censors 70's Intel Committees.


Recommended Posts

Here is a very very rare article about the only time in US history that there was some legilative oversite over the CIA. Yet notice how the number 1 explicit subject of these investigations-- the JFK assassination-- is left out, even though it was so connected to all the other revelations of the Rockefeller, Church and Pike Commissions.

How typical of the foundation funded fake-left. The thing that 300 million people in the country have some basic knowledge about is left out. Only the more esoteric stuff that a tiny fraction of middle class organisms will follow is there. That is precisely why it is not dangerous and is safe for "the alternative media" that is really the prophylactic of the Corporate Media.

-----------------------------------------------

Disclosure of ‘Secrets’ in the '70s Didn’t Destroy the Nation

by Amy Goodman

President Barack Obama promised "more transparent ... more creative" government. His release of the torture memos, and the Pentagon's expected release of more photos of detainee abuse, is a step in the right direction. Yet he assured the CIA that he will not prosecute those who followed the instructions to torture from the Bush administration. Congress might not agree with this leniency, with prominent senators calling for investigations.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, just released a 262-page report titled "Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody." Levin said the report "represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse ... to low-ranking soldiers. Claims ... that detainee abuses could be chalked up to the unauthorized acts of a ‘few bad apples' were simply false." Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also are proposing investigations.

The Senate interest in investigation has backers in the U.S. House, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, D-Mich., who told The Huffington Post recently, "We're coming after these guys."

Amrit Singh, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Pentagon's photos "provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib. Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse." The ACLU also won a ruling to obtain documents relating to the CIA's destruction of 92 videotapes of harsh interrogations. The tapes are gone, supposedly, but notes about the content of the tapes remain, and a federal judge has ordered their release.

In December 2002, when the Bush torture program was well under way, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signed off on a series of harsh interrogation techniques described in a memo written by William Hayes II (one of the "Bush Six" being investigated by Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon). At the bottom of the memo, under his signature, Rumsfeld scrawled: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" Rumsfeld zealously classified information in his years in government.

A similar crisis confronted the U.S. public in the mid-1970s. While the Watergate scandal was unfolding, widespread evidence was mounting of illegal government activity, including domestic spying and the infiltration and disruption of legal political groups, mostly anti-war groups, in a broad-based, secret government crackdown on dissent. In response, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities was formed. It came to be known as the Church Committee, named after its chairman, Idaho Democratic Sen. Frank Church. The Church Committee documented and exposed extraordinary activities on the CIA and FBI, such as CIA efforts to assassinate foreign leaders, and the FBI's COINTELPRO (counterintelligence) program, which extensively spied on prominent leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

It is not only the practices that are similar, but the people. Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr., general counsel to the Church Committee, noted two people who were active in the Ford White House and attempted to block the committee's work: "Rumsfeld and then [Dick] Cheney were people who felt that nothing should be known about these secret operations, and there should be as much disruption as possible."

Church's widow, Bethine Church, now 86, continues to be very politically active in Idaho. She was so active in Washington in the 1970s that she was known as "Idaho's third senator." She said there needs to be a similar investigation today: "When you think of all the things that the Church Committee tried to straighten out and when you think of the terrific secrecy that Cheney and all of these people dealt with, they were always secretive about everything, and they didn't want anything known. I think people have to know what went on. And that's why I think an independent committee [is needed], outside of the Congress, that just looked at the whole problem and everything that happened."

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a very very rare article about the only time in US history that there was some legilative oversite over the CIA. Yet notice how the number 1 explicit subject of these investigations-- the JFK assassination-- is left out, even though it was so connected to all the other revelations of the Rockefeller, Church and Pike Commissions.

How typical of the foundation funded fake-left. The thing that 300 million people in the country have some basic knowledge about is left out. Only the more esoteric stuff that a tiny fraction of middle class organisms will follow is there. That is precisely why it is not dangerous and is safe for "the alternative media" that is really the prophylactic of the Corporate Media.

-----------------------------------------------

Disclosure of ‘Secrets’ in the '70s Didn’t Destroy the Nation

by Amy Goodman

President Barack Obama promised "more transparent ... more creative" government. His release of the torture memos, and the Pentagon's expected release of more photos of detainee abuse, is a step in the right direction. Yet he assured the CIA that he will not prosecute those who followed the instructions to torture from the Bush administration. Congress might not agree with this leniency, with prominent senators calling for investigations.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, just released a 262-page report titled "Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody." Levin said the report "represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse ... to low-ranking soldiers. Claims ... that detainee abuses could be chalked up to the unauthorized acts of a ‘few bad apples' were simply false." Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also are proposing investigations.

The Senate interest in investigation has backers in the U.S. House, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, D-Mich., who told The Huffington Post recently, "We're coming after these guys."

Amrit Singh, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Pentagon's photos "provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib. Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse." The ACLU also won a ruling to obtain documents relating to the CIA's destruction of 92 videotapes of harsh interrogations. The tapes are gone, supposedly, but notes about the content of the tapes remain, and a federal judge has ordered their release.

In December 2002, when the Bush torture program was well under way, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signed off on a series of harsh interrogation techniques described in a memo written by William Hayes II (one of the "Bush Six" being investigated by Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon). At the bottom of the memo, under his signature, Rumsfeld scrawled: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" Rumsfeld zealously classified information in his years in government.

A similar crisis confronted the U.S. public in the mid-1970s. While the Watergate scandal was unfolding, widespread evidence was mounting of illegal government activity, including domestic spying and the infiltration and disruption of legal political groups, mostly anti-war groups, in a broad-based, secret government crackdown on dissent. In response, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities was formed. It came to be known as the Church Committee, named after its chairman, Idaho Democratic Sen. Frank Church. The Church Committee documented and exposed extraordinary activities on the CIA and FBI, such as CIA efforts to assassinate foreign leaders, and the FBI's COINTELPRO (counterintelligence) program, which extensively spied on prominent leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

It is not only the practices that are similar, but the people. Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr., general counsel to the Church Committee, noted two people who were active in the Ford White House and attempted to block the committee's work: "Rumsfeld and then [Dick] Cheney were people who felt that nothing should be known about these secret operations, and there should be as much disruption as possible."

Church's widow, Bethine Church, now 86, continues to be very politically active in Idaho. She was so active in Washington in the 1970s that she was known as "Idaho's third senator." She said there needs to be a similar investigation today: "When you think of all the things that the Church Committee tried to straighten out and when you think of the terrific secrecy that Cheney and all of these people dealt with, they were always secretive about everything, and they didn't want anything known. I think people have to know what went on. And that's why I think an independent committee [is needed], outside of the Congress, that just looked at the whole problem and everything that happened."

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Now in command of both the Executive and Legislative branches, the Democratically controlled Congress said it wants to hold "Church Committee" style hearings on the Hill, but that was before they took over the White House.

Now some don't want to rock the boat, though others think such hearings would be a nail in the Republican coffin that has no chance of revival if Obama's policies succeed, or even if only his economic policies succeed.

It all comes down to what issues are to be addressed at such hearings, if it will be limited to the renditions, interrogations and torture, or if the interrogations/torture issues should be addressed by a 9/11 style Warren type commission. Obama has said he already rejects that, as there would be, in the end, only a report issued and no indictments.

There is already the world court indictments in Spain that are already in process on the interrogation/torture crimes, and there could be both Congressional hearings and a special prosecutor with a grand jury at his disposal, as we have seen in the past.

Of course, we have been trying to get mandated oversight hearings of the JFK Act for years now, with no luck, even though there are sympathetic people in position now. I think Pelosi and Biden and some others in positions of influence are holding things up.

Hearings on secrecy in government with a focus on the JFK Act would work, but right now all they want to talk about is torture, the flu and the economy.

Obama's 120 day report on secrecy in government is coming up, and maybe that will be an opportunity for people to ask for hearings on the JFK Act and other secrecy issues.

It would be nice if there were Church or Watergate type hearings, with people on the hot seat and whistleblowers giving live testimony over C-span every day all summer, but I don't think it will happen.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a very very rare article about the only time in US history that there was some legilative oversite over the CIA. Yet notice how the number 1 explicit subject of these investigations-- the JFK assassination-- is left out, even though it was so connected to all the other revelations of the Rockefeller, Church and Pike Commissions.

How typical of the foundation funded fake-left. The thing that 300 million people in the country have some basic knowledge about is left out. Only the more esoteric stuff that a tiny fraction of middle class organisms will follow is there. That is precisely why it is not dangerous and is safe for "the alternative media" that is really the prophylactic of the Corporate Media.

-----------------------------------------------

Disclosure of ‘Secrets’ in the '70s Didn’t Destroy the Nation

by Amy Goodman

President Barack Obama promised "more transparent ... more creative" government. His release of the torture memos, and the Pentagon's expected release of more photos of detainee abuse, is a step in the right direction. Yet he assured the CIA that he will not prosecute those who followed the instructions to torture from the Bush administration. Congress might not agree with this leniency, with prominent senators calling for investigations.

[...]

I'm not sure what your objection is, can you write a paragraph or two of what you think Goodman should have written?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"notice how the number 1 explicit subject of these investigations-- the JFK assassination-- is left out"

The assassination was not the priciple subject of the Church commission nor the others you named.IIRC it was marginal or small part of them. The Rockerfeller commission specificlly rejected allegations of CIA involvement. So let's try again, can you write a paragragh of what you think she should have written?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Nate can't you even work out a sentence or two of what you think Goodman should have included in her essay? The fact is the JFK assassination was only a minor preoccupation of the reports you cited. Only about 1% of the Church Committee report was about it. Although they (like the Rockefeller Commission and I assume the Pike Committee) concluded the WC investigation was deficient they said they found no evidence of a conspiracy. One of the deficiencies they pointed to was that the WC didn't look at the 'Castro did it' angle, something I assume you reject. So what should she have said about the assassination? How would it have been relevant to her point that contrary to claims that a similar investigation now would have devastating consequences this didn't happen after the 1970's investigation(s)?

What is your justification for classifying the assassination as "the number 1 explicit subject of these investigations" doesn't the fact that it is the most well know aspect of what the committees investigated indicate it needed the least publicity?

Is it that hard for you to admit you started this thread on a false premise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len, I will respond to your comments no later than 5-19-09 around 9pm Eastern Time. Right now I am trying to finish three very large papers. Until then please meditate on this. Why have we seen almost no references to the BCCI and ENRON scandals in the media even though these were two of the biggest financial scandals in US history at the time they occured and also directly related to intelligece scandals and financial scandals that have occured since then?

I am sure you will see absolutely no relevence to my point about the Goodman article, but there is one and it related to what issues and occurances will are likely to be mentioned as background in stories and which are not likely to be mentioned as background. This in turn has a lot to do with whether these events will be a) widely known by a larger group of people than those who read about the story at the time. B) legitimated by the media as a subject worthy of research that is also related to the focus of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile over at "The Wacky Questioning Skills That Made Arlen, Spector Senator For Life." thread:

NATE:

I have not read the WC am walking around with that intention. Are there other questions asked by Spector similar to this one? If so could you post them, I would like to show them to the citizenry.

THE WACKY WARREN COMMISSION QUESTIONING SKILLS THAT MADE ARLEN SPECTOR SENATOR FOR LIFE

Share

Today at 11:55pm | Edit Note | Delete

Here is a good example of Arlen Specter's "questioning skills" during his interview of the Parkland doctors. It is about as gracefull as a Hummer turning a corner during the second Clinton Administration, and is taken from James W. Dougless' incredible book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It matters:

[...]

In school we were taught that "to assume makes an *** out of u and me"

Apparently it made Arlen Specter Senator For Life.

LEN:

Funny I though that you were "too busy" till May 19 to justify your absurd accusation against Amy Goodman.

NATE:

And how would you know the amount of time I will spend on the above vs the other one. THis is the second completely substaneless post you have made to me with the sole attention of annoying me. Why are you wasting this resource. What are you accomplishing besides chasing people away from this forum?

Nate,all I asked you to do was write a single sentence, in response to that you wrote a few telling me you were too busy, then strangely you found the time to start the other thread and write several sentences in the process, then when I pointed out the contradiction you wrote a couple more sentences claiming that starting that thread was less time consuming that writing that single sentence.

Here's the rub, if you are finding that writing the requested sentence so difficult doing so is moot because it contradicts you claim Goodman omitted something obvious. I expect her time is rather short as well an she can't spend hours agonising over mentioning something irrelevant to her point.

Truth be told Goodman has done more to make a greater public aware of the sins and foibles of the powerful than all those fume on about 'left gatekeepers' put together. Your charges against her are reminiscent of those levelled against her by Kevin Barrett.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len first I dont know who Kevin Barrett is but suspect this is another attempt of yours to poison the well, by linking a genreral critique of someone to one of many many others who has also made that connection,then digging up some alledged nazi past and hence throwing out the whole critique bathwater with baby of YOUR selection not mine ad. infin.

Len, we have seen Karl Rove's techniques. They are not going to work so well here. You need to mix in a curve with those grapefruits fastballs now and then!

Secondly I do not ever intend on completeing your assignment.

I intend on answering your criticism in the manner I chose. That involves a considerable amount of research on my part, much more than other posts of mine have on this site lately. My crticism (you call it an "attack" on Amy Goodman) is not based on that article alone, but on an overall pattern of her ridiculously one sided and propagandistic coverage of the JFK.

It is very much related to the points I have made about Encounter Magazine, and the history of Left gatekeeping. Do you deny that CIA has a track-record of propaganda aimed specifically at """"""""""""""the left""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""?

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and furthermoil...

let it here be admitted that Amy Goodman does GREAT WORK and I for one try to catch her show whenever possible. That is the point. If she did not do great work and have tremendous credibility WITH A CERTAIN TARGETTED DEMOGRAPHIC then the value of her program, IF I AM CORRECT IN MY HYPOTHESIS, would be nil for many of her foundation patrons.... and THEIR patrons!!

Do I have concrete proof of my hypothesis that Amy Goodman is a "left gatekeeper" To quote another forum member, 'YES A SIGNED CONFESSION"!

I Do not live in a society where CIA funding of so called left media would ever be researched or proven to a critical mass of citizens. I live in a society entirely without limits on centralized power. I will voice my criticims of journalists based on many years of listening and reading their work. If this seems a rash J'accuse to you so be it. Your criticisms weigh very little with me as you find so little time to criticize the most powerfull government in world history nor its completely unrivaled propaganda operations, which even as I type is employing people on government payroles with huge stock portfolios in weapons companies used in the "War on Terror" as experts on war, who are brodcast to tens of millions of people every hour.

Criticims from such as you is the Great Salt Lake. This does not logically mean that all of your comments are false, and I will try to distill the drop of truth included in your initial, extremelly murky saline solution.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len: found this while researching one of my three long papers, in order to get background on an article by Mad Max Holland on "the origins" of the Keating Missile disclosure. In my initial post I forgot to mention the House Select Committee. I was typing fast. I post about 50 posts per day on various forums. Sorry my geopolitical bad. Now do you YOU think that the House Select Committee has anything to do with the other two that Amy mentions, other than nominally? DId the House Select Committee involve investigating the CIA at all? (well for a while anyway) Was there any CIA testimoiny involved before the legislators, was there anything that might be called "legislative oversight of the CIA"? Why did Amy Goodman forget to mention this one? Her article was about legislative oversite of the CIA. Does that have to be in the title of the name of the committee to count as such? What if there were revelations about the CIA in the House Select Committee that were just as important or more important in terms of the history of the CIA than the Rockefeller Committee. Whould they not count because the CIA was not in the title of the House Select Committee's designation?

Was it pure chance that Amy Goodman left out the House Select Committee or does it fit a broader pattern? The latter requires deeper investigation.

Meanwhile heres this about the Church Committee: I found it before I even began my research into this topic.

It was really very very strenuous "research" Len I went to a Spartacus site and clicked and pasted. Now please feel free to question the reliability of

Lisa Peases account,you might well have valid points to make. I had previously read a much longer account of this in Gaeton Fonzis book. I intend to return to this and other sources asap.

(3) Lisa Pease, Probe Magazine (March-April, 1996)

During the Church committee hearings, Senator Richard Schweiker's independent investigator Gaeton Fonzi stumbled onto a vital lead in the Kennedy assassination. An anti-Castro Cuban exile leader named Antonio Veciana was bitter about what he felt had been a government setup leading to his recent imprisonment, and he wanted to talk. Fonzi asked him about his activities, and without any prompting from Fonzi, Veciana volunteered the fact that his CIA handler, known to him only as "Maurice Bishop," had been with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas not long before the assassination of Kennedy. Veciana gave a description of Bishop to a police artist, who drew a sketch. One notable characteristic Veciana mentioned were the dark patches on the skin under the eyes. When Senator Schweiker first saw the picture, he thought it strongly resembled the CIA's former Chief of the Western Hemisphere Division-one of the highest positions in the Agency - and the head of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO): David Atlee Phillips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len first I dont know who Kevin Barrett is but suspect this is another attempt of yours to poison the well, by linking a genreral critique of someone to one of many many others who has also made that connection,then digging up some alledged nazi past and hence throwing out the whole critique bathwater with baby of YOUR selection not mine ad. infin.

Kevin Barrett is the former professor from UW who raised controversy by teaching his 9/11 theories to his Islamic mythology students he now co-hosts a radio show with Fetzer. He called for Goodman and all other professional MSM journalists to be executed for their roles in the 9/11 'cover up'. I did not mean to suggest you advocated punishing Goodman but your "logic" 'she didn't say what I think she should have therefore she is CIA' is the same as he employed and the same as employed by Sid Walker.

Secondly I do not ever intend on completeing your assignment.

What reason could you have for failing to do so if you had a reasonable response? How many sentences will you write to avoid writing the one you attacked Goodman for not writing? Dozens it seems

I intend on answering your criticism in the manner I chose. That involves a considerable amount of research on my part, much more than other posts of mine have on this site lately.

You should have done the research before attacking Goodman for not discussing your apparent misunderstanding of what the 70's commissions said about the assassination.

My crticism (you call it an "attack" on Amy Goodman) is not based on that article alone, but on an overall pattern of her ridiculously one sided and propagandistic coverage of the JFK.

Look at you OP again you referred to her as "the foundation funded fake-left" and said her essay is "not dangerous and is safe for "the alternative media" that is really the prophylactic of the Corporate Media.", and now you call her JFK coverage "propagandistic" in your other post you called her a "left gatekeeper" and accused her of being a CIA asset whose "GREAT WORK" is a ruse to give her "tremendous credibility WITH A CERTAIN TARGETTED DEMOGRAPHIC" sure sounds like an attack to me!

You now say your attack was based on her track record concerning the assassination but that was the 1st time you mentioned it on this thread. Can you elaborate? You do realize her program is overwhelmingly about current/recent events?

http://www.democracynow.org/shows/recent

It is very much related to the points I have made about Encounter Magazine, and the history of Left gatekeeping. Do you deny that CIA has a track-record of propaganda aimed specifically at """"""""""""""the left""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""?

No, but you haven't produced any evidence that Goodman's program is part of such an effort. What's the most recent documented case you can point to? You do realize that a reasonable person would interpret accusing her of being a CIA asset as an attack not a critique? Hopefully your reply WON'T entail a tedious semantic battle.

Criticims from such as you is the Great Salt Lake. This does not logically mean that all of your comments are false, and I will try to distill the drop of truth included in your initial, extremelly murky saline solution.

If and when you find any factual errors or misrepresentations of fact on this thread or elsewhere on this forum feel free to point them out but I imagine that as with your charges against Goodman you won't back up your insinuation I have been less than truthful with evidence.

As for the finer points of the Church Committe do you really believe that she is intamitlly aware of every last detail of the transcripts? The reports themselves total thousands of pages but AFAIK they didn't mention the testimoney you cited. Even it was it was not relevant to her point nor was the HSCA. In any case she only mentioned one congressional committe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure know why you break down blocks of type into lines every time Len. Destroying context is your strong point.

Lenspeak-- "a tedious semantic battle." -- this means when Len-- having translated what you wrote into his own deliberate misinterpretation protests

your right to interpret your own words.

More on this monotonous crap later on, hope everyone can hold their breath!!

Please find it where I called Amy Goodman a "CIA asset"

Or is that another example of your putting words in peoples mouths?

Wow, I have just been compared to someone who Len says said the some journalists should be executed!!!

THANK YOU LEN!!!!!!! Is it Thanksgiving in Brazil yet? Thanks Len thats a keeper!!!! THOSE VITAMINS FOR MORAL CHARACTER ARE WORKING.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure know why you break down blocks of type into lines every time Len. Destroying context is your strong point.

1)

Rules of the JFK Forum

(viii) Members should use the quote function of the forum when replying to people’s posts. To do this click the REPLY button. Pressing this button will allow you to reply to a topic, and have the text from a particular reply quoted in your own reply. This can be edited so that only the relevant passage is included. If you want to reply to several postings, copy and paste the relevant comments into your own answer. To make this clear use the colour options to highlight what someone else is saying. Type in the name of the person after the quotation.

John Simkin, Nov 15 2004

2) I break text down to make it clear what exactly I'm refering it simpler and clearer that way. The only disadvantage is that it makes it harder to avoid the other person's points, I could just as legimately say you don't adopt a similar style so you can do exactly that.

3) You must really underestimate the intellectual abilities of the average reader of this forum. The full context was only a few posts up on the same page.

4) Care to cite any examples of what you speak? I mean examples of how my breaking down your original comments "destroyed context"? Or will this be yet another example of you throwing out an accusation that you refuse to back up?

Lenspeak-- "a tedious semantic battle." -- this means when Len-- having translated what you wrote into his own deliberate misinterpretation protests your right to interpret your own words.

More on this monotonous crap later on, hope everyone can hold their breath!!

Please find it where I called Amy Goodman a "CIA asset"

Or is that another example of your putting words in peoples mouths?

As I expected it came to something like this. I don't know if there is a name for it but insinuating something then claiming someone "put words in my mouth" when they call you on it is a common sematic trick frequently employed by truthers. An extreme example is when on another forum Fetzer told me, "...you are a dishonest and insincere propagator of falsehood. [name 'redacted'-Len] is a man of great integrity, which cannot be said of you." but denied calling me a xxxx (though he later admitted he had).

Below are examples of what you asked me to "find" for you:

It is very much related to the points I have made about Encounter Magazine, and the history of Left gatekeeping. Do you deny that CIA has a track-record of propaganda aimed specifically at "the left""

"Do I have concrete proof of my hypothesis that Amy Goodman is a "left gatekeeper" To quote another forum member, 'YES A SIGNED CONFESSION"!

I Do not live in a society where CIA funding of so called left media would ever be researched or proven to a critical mass of citizens.

DId the House Select Committee involve investigating the CIA at all? (well for a while anyway) Was there any CIA testimoiny involved before the legislators, was there anything that might be called "legislative oversight of the CIA"? Why did Amy Goodman forget to mention this one? Her article was about legislative oversite of the CIA. Does that have to be in the title of the name of the committee to count as such? What if there were revelations about the CIA in the House Select Committee that were just as important or more important in terms of the history of the CIA than the Rockefeller Committee. Whould they not count because the CIA was not in the title of the House Select Committee's designation?

Was it pure chance that Amy Goodman left out the House Select Committee or does it fit a broader pattern? The latter requires deeper investigation.

Let see you brought up "CIA funding of so called left media" and "Left gatekeeping" and their "track-record of propaganda aimed specifically at "the left"", called her a "left gatekeeper" and representative of "the foundation funded fake-left" etc, etc and accused her of avoiding topics embarasing to the CIA. Do you really fail to realize the import of yourown words or are you being disingenuous? To make it even simpler so you can understand yourself "so called left media"/"left gatekeeping" = CIA funded, Goodman = "foundation funded fake-left"/"left gatekeeper". If A = 1 + 2 and A = B, then B = 3. If I somehow misundertood what you were trying to say explain what exactly to we driving at. While you're at it you can explain how 1 + 2 ≠ 3 but I predict another dodge coming.

I found this chart on the Net its creator has published a paper in "the Journal of 9/11 Studies" [edited by Jones and Ryan]

left_gatekeepers.gif

Wow, I have just been compared to someone who Len says said the some journalists should be executed!!!

Not "some journalists" all of'em, "I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity" he also seemed to advocate stringing up McCain for having written the into to the Popular Mechanics 9/11 book*. His son and now ex-wife say Barrett beat the boy he says they're lying previously his spokesman said it was pulicity stunt by his wife to help win him votes (he was running for Congress), I could go on. But like I said "I did not mean to suggest you advocated punishing Goodman" and was merely compared your "logic" to his, like him you even used the term J'accuse" against her. Barrett is obviously crazy, I don't think you are but your thought processes were uncanily similar concerning Goodman. He also co-hosts a radio show with Fetzer who seemed to aprove taking over TV stations by force and said he hoped for a military coup to depose Bush birds of a feather you know, and they both were once considered leaders of the "truth" movement... but I digrees

http://mp3.wtprn.com/Barrett07.html

THANK YOU LEN!!!!!!! Is it Thanksgiving in Brazil yet? Thanks Len thats a keeper!!!! THOSE VITAMINS FOR MORAL CHARACTER ARE WORKING.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee, thanks!!! But blatant flattery and apple polishing like will get you nowhere with me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...