Douglas Caddy Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Donald Jeffries is interviewed on Inforwars Nightly News
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 The part of the interview that's most telling IMO is the discussion of how the MSM works with the string pullers and the corrupt politicians ("corrupt" is redundant, I know) to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Disclosure: I loathe most journalists. In my experience, they get the facts wrong lots of times; write or say ignorant things about the law; harbor biases that make them less than honest reporters; conduct interviews and misrepresent what the person interviewed said; are in bed figuratively with government officials; and are all too willing to hew to the party line.
Thomas Graves Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) The part of the interview that's most telling IMO is the discussion of how the MSM works with the string pullers and the corrupt politicians ("corrupt" is redundant, I know) to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Disclosure: I loathe most journalists. In my experience, they get the facts wrong lots of times; write or say ignorant things about the law; harbor biases that make them less than honest reporters; conduct interviews and misrepresent what the person interviewed said; are in bed figuratively with government officials; and are all too willing to hew to the party line. But thank god we have journalists, right? Like Woodward and Bernstein back in the day (for example), or were they working for the bad guys, too? Edited February 27, 2015 by Thomas Graves
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Thomas Graves, IMO, Woodward and Bernstein (Woodward mainly) were part of an effort to "assassinate politically" Richard Nixon. Nixon produces a knee-jerk reaction: he was corrupt, evil. etc. But listen to the Don Jeffries interview. Nixon isn't mentioned, I believe. The Bushes are discussed. Bill and Hillary are discussed. Reagan, Ford, and LBJ are discussed. There's a reason Nixon isn't mentioned in the interview. It's not that Nixon was Prince Charming. It's that Nixon went off the reservation on the JFK assassination and became an outcast, a pariah. Not just for the Left. But for the Right. And for the Libertarians who don't know where Nixon fits in the cast of characters. He doesn't fit. He was the Republican counterpart to JFK. Neither he nor JFK fit within the limits set by the Establishment. Woodward and Bernstein played the central role in taking down Nixon. An effort ostensibly rooted in Mark Felt's whispers to Woodward. I don't need Woodward to tell me someone is worse than he is or better than I think she is.
Thomas Graves Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Thomas Graves, IMO, Woodward and Bernstein (Woodward mainly) were part of an effort to "assassinate politically" Richard Nixon. Nixon produces a knee-jerk reaction: he was corrupt, evil. etc. But listen to the Don Jeffries interview. Nixon isn't mentioned, I believe. The Bushes are discussed. Bill and Hillary are discussed. Reagan, Ford, and LBJ are discussed. There's a reason Nixon isn't mentioned in the interview. It's not that Nixon was Prince Charming. It's that Nixon went off the reservation on the JFK assassination and became an outcast, a pariah. Not just for the Left. But for the Right. And for the Libertarians who don't know where Nixon fits in the cast of characters. He doesn't fit. He was the Republican counterpart to JFK. Neither he nor JFK fit within the limits set by the Establishment. Woodward and Bernstein played the central role in taking down Nixon. An effort ostensibly rooted in Mark Felt's whispers to Woodward. I don't need Woodward to tell me someone is worse than he is or better than I think she is. Sounds like you were / are a very politically-aware dude, Mr. Tidd. Kudos to you for that. Unfortunately, many Americans were not as astute as you were, so Woodward and Bernstein kinda educated them about how "good" or "bad" Nixon was, didn't they. You know, kinda "opened dem people's eyes." I mean, those who were willing to "see?" --Tommy Edited February 27, 2015 by Thomas Graves
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 No, Tommy. I'm not particularly astute, in terms of ability. There are and have been plenty of astute persons in the U.S. I think at times of my math, physics, electrical engineering, and law professors. They were capable of knowing the deal. But chose not to know the deal. It's all about perception and willingness to express one's thoughts. IMO.
Thomas Graves Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) No, Tommy. I'm not particularly astute, in terms of ability. There are and have been plenty of astute persons in the U.S. I think at times of my math, physics, electrical engineering, and law professors. They were capable of knowing the deal. But chose not to know the deal. It's all about perception and willingness to express one's thoughts. IMO. OK, Jon. Instead of "politically astute back in the day," then how about "politically aware?" PS All you gotta say is, "Thank you." LOL --Tommy Edited February 28, 2015 by Thomas Graves
Paul Brancato Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I wouldnt lump Bernstein and Woodward together like that. Bernstein is a real journalist, Woodward a CIA asset. Simplistic I know, but what I generally believe about the two. I'm not disputing their cumulative effect in bringing down the renegade Nixon, just suggesting one of them may have been working for the national security state while the other thought he was just trying to bring down a corrupt president.
David Andrews Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) And for the Libertarians who don't know where Nixon fits in the cast of characters. He doesn't fit. He was the Republican counterpart to JFK. Neither he nor JFK fit within the limits set by the Establishment. Could you enlarge on this? Outside of the China detente, Nixon seems to have kept the Vietnam moneymaker going as was desired from above. What were the unpardonable sins that cancelled his second term as soon as it had begun? Was the expansion of war into Cambodia and Laos among them? Edited March 2, 2015 by David Andrews
Paul Brancato Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 David - I think Nixon may have tread on thin ice when he started prying deeper into the JFK assassination.
David Andrews Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 You mean Nixon threatening Helms with fodder for the press or Congress to open a future investigation? Watergate was already unstoppable at that time. I'm not aware of Nixon ordering any serious JFK investigation.
Paul Brancato Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 No he didn't, but I think he was nosing around and trying to use what he knew to control the CIA.
Thomas Graves Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) No he didn't, but I think he was nosing around and trying to use what he knew to control the CIA. Paul, I agree. He was a great "politician" and a great manipulator. --Tommy Edited March 5, 2015 by Thomas Graves
Cliff Varnell Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 You mean Nixon threatening Helms with fodder for the press or Congress to open a future investigation? Watergate was already unstoppable at that time. I'm not aware of Nixon ordering any serious JFK investigation. Nixon tried to get the CIA files on the Bay of Pigs, the overthrow of Diem in So Viet Nam, and the assassination of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Rep. Some might consider that a "serious investigation" into JFK's murder. CIA head Richard Helms refused to give the chief executive sensitive government files, oh my...
David Andrews Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Do we have dates for this information gathering on Nixon's part? Who in the administration was assigned to this?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now