Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


James DiEugenio
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Who was their customer then Jeff? What would factually establish anyone as the group who funded the effort? Just curious... You may also want to know that clients NEVER do ad buys. The agency ALWAYS does ad buys because that's how they make money. Your argument is essentially the same as saying "Marboro isn't responsible for those TV spots! Ogilvy is! Blame them for cancer!"

Who is the beneficiary of the ad buy?

 

Bob - you don't need to go into all of the details. I have the Symantec analysis which covers all of this territory.

The IRA's program can be described as "insignificant" not due to the numbers attached to its specific activity, but reviewing those numbers against all similar activity on the platforms. The numbers may seem large until they are considered against much much larger numbers. Drops in ocean. Tree/forest. That Congressional figures and reporters have so overstated the statistics in concert with frankly crazy rhetoric about "vast attacks" and "democracy imperilled" triggers the skepticism meter as well.

Further, the IRA's program, i.e. the content of its materials, makes no sense as something specifically designed to put Trump in WH. That's why it had to be described as an attempt to "sow division" in the population.

The IRA is a commercial marketing firm. Marketing/clickbait schemes very similar in content to that run by the IRA have been acknowledged and discussed (i.e. the Macedonian teenagers) and understood as an odd but viable way to make a buck.  Claims the Russian government hired the IRA to run a GRU program to sow division, or whatever, are to this date unproven assertions and allegations. They are not "fact", despite constant iteration that it is so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Realize who your advocates are, and get behind them!

Ok. Yours appear to be the DNC, the Clintons, the New York Times/WAPO, Obama/Biden, and the MSM.

 

Hillary's flatulence regarding Russian "asset" Gabbard should have been a wake up call to some of you people. It should have made you realize you now faced a political crossroads. Either Hillary is honest and trying to safeguard the country against further Russian interference, or she is a completely vindictive and hopeless shill for the corporate wing of the Democratic party and a figurehead of the "deep state". Considering she brags about getting instructions from the CFR, id say its the latter.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-brags-about-getting-her-marching-orders-from-the-council-on-foreign-relations-cfr/5504999

 

In case you don't manage to read it, here is a direct quote from your "advocate".

I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department.

We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.[5]

 

But Russia must have made her say that...

And Russia must have made her pay Fusion to concoct a story. If she was a New Frontier or New Deal democrat, she would've never needed any of this crap.

Again, you Clinton people are reduced to basically saying "Trump is an animal and is unfit for the office". Clear that away and deal with the reality here. You can't just soak up the propaganda that you agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 BN Although you may think Trump is being picked on by a cabal of neo-liberal thugs that are staging a "coup" the fact is he's reaping the fruits of what his own behavior has sown.

WN:  David Korn at Mother Jones published the only 2016 pre-election story in the entire U.S. media about the Steele Dossier, on October 31st.  

Can you guys be serious about the above?  As they say, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  But you cannot create your own facts in order to do so.

Do tell?

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The accusations of Trump being a stooge of the Russians precede October 31st by a period of months. HIllary Clinton began it during the debates. And  the whole Guccifer thing began in July of 2016

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-suspects-russia-hacked-dnc-us-officials-say-it-was-to-elect-donald-trump

The Russia-hacked-the-DNC story occupied a grand total of two 24-hour cable news cycles during the 2016 campaign: June 14/15 and July 24/25.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=russia+hack+dnc+msnbc+2016

The Daily Beast article linked above was from July 25.

What was the impact of those two news cycles?

image.png.2a8d8ac38aa32b4e81ffb549d2625af6.png
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Is it only a coincidence that the sting on George P began around that time also?

No one knew about George P.  What everyone was hearing over and over was Hillary E-Mails.

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As a person who studies history, i try to look for origins and patterns.  What is important to recall about those two events is this: the Steele Dossier was in the making at the time, but in the background. In other words, it was a triple header to push the Russia angle in the summer of 2016.

But there was no push. 2 news cycles over the last 5 months don't make a push.

Why is Jim DiEugenio trying to make up facts?

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you want to ignore this, then fine, that is your choice.  But in my opinion, it gravely weakens your argument that somehow Trump brought this on himself. Six months before he took office? 😲

The rigorous avoidance of these facts, and the obeisance to the MSM spin agains recalls what the MSM did on Watergate.  How can it not? 

Because during Watergate the Washington Post and the New York Times drove the news day.  There wasn't a 24 hour cable news cycle or internet social media.   Two news cycles over the last 5 months of the 2016 campaign doesn't compare to the 12 hour news cycles of the early 70's when newspapers ruled the coverage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob - you don't need to go into all of the details. I have the Symantec analysis which covers all of this territory.

Jeff - you apparently refused to go into the details because it doesn't fit the theme of what you're trying to claim. I asked you days ago whether you had any idea of the effect of the "organic campaign" and you didn't answer. I do need to go into details because you're not supporting what you say. Lo and behold your 30k ad buy claim which pinned my BS meter to the right was exactly that.

11 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The IRA's program can be described as "insignificant" not due to the numbers attached to its specific activity, but reviewing those numbers against all similar activity on the platforms. The numbers may seem large until they are considered against much much larger numbers. Drops in ocean. Tree/forest. That Congressional figures and reporters have so overstated the statistics in concert with frankly crazy rhetoric about "vast attacks" and "democracy imperilled" triggers the skepticism meter as well.

What similar activity are you referring to? I wasn't comparing anything only stating the objective facts regarding the organic campaign and it's influence. Your suggestion that tens (hundreds?) of millions of impressions, interactions and engagements is inconsequential speaks more to your bias than anyone else's. That's including reporters and law enforcement and intelligence agencies, who are after all the people who are making the claim. I doubt most members of congress can turn a computer on without assistance.

24 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Further, the IRA's program, i.e. the content of its materials, makes no sense as something specifically designed to put Trump in WH. That's why it had to be described as an attempt to "sow division" in the population.

This (not you personally) is wrong. Competing versions of the same story aren't used to sow divisions as such they're used to "segment the market" and refine messages. For instance, if I publish and track reaction to a story explaining how "Hillary is up to her knickers in Uranium One" I can tell your political leaning by your engagement with that story and segment your user name, FB profile, IP address, Google Map location (don't laugh I've done it), Twitter account, Youtube Channel and everything else that is referred to accounts I have control of or get notified of because of the engagement (Jeff shared your post! Yay!). That data can be used for the purpose of refining the message, place a call to action, identify demographic groups and any number of other purposes. The experts who comb this data can put it to this test: Who benefits from this?

I know for a fact the various intelligence agencies looking into these things have far more capabilities than anyone else to identify traffic and analyze the data and can come up with conclusions with very high confidence. It's probably very simple for them due to the fact a huge percentage of the infrastructure resides in the US and whatever doesn't has most likely been compromised at least to some extent. That's why Russia is unplugging from the net no doubt.

So... who was the beneficiary of the ad buy/organic search program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Robert Wheeler said: 

"If I understand what you are saying, the Blue Blooded Bush's considered the Kennedys "vulgar" because they were new money, and recent immigrants, and Catholic.

The Blue Blooded Bush's are now horrified by the exponentially outrageous vulgarity of the Trump family because their money is also new, they are also recent immigrants (none of Trumps grandparents were born in the USA), and at a total disregard for proper "breeding", even allow family members to marry Jews and Slavs. "

Exactly, Robert. 

 

This Bush/Trump/JFK  reminded me of the Envelope incident at last years GHW Bush funeral.

Once again, if you mostly get your news from the MSM, you probably never saw it. It was certainly the talk of of the conspiracy realm for about two solid weeks last year.

The version at the link has some commentary. If you have never seen it, watch it with the volume off the first time so as to not bias your idea of what was going on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one topic post :Hillary, of course . Dennis get over your Hillary obsession.  I mentioned her in  connection about Jim Jordan and Jim Di's obsession with mentioning her, along with "Steele Dossier" and "Deep State'..That was my precise point, and you fell right into it. You've revealed nothing new here to me . About Hillary and Gabbard, (yawn) I've already said that HC shouldn't have said that  and I wish "the Clinton's would go away for a long while." Isn't one thread on that enough?

You guys seem to know so little about how your government works and I'm telling you guys precisely how you're going to win. Do you want to advance your cause or just continue with whiny posts on an online forum? That's what I''ve concluded about Jim. He's never interested in winning. That would upset his whole dynamic.

This is your shot. As I wrote and why it is in my last post1)Your players are William Barr,Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz and Lindsey Graham.  FACT!     There might be 1 or 2 others.

2) You're hope of a major reveal about the "Deep State" is a fool's game, some improprieties may be revealed, but in the public's mind, it will be short lived. You're best hope is to muddy the waters enough so the average Joe throws up his hands and says," I can't figure this out" and the the attempt fizzles. Unless the equation changes, with Republicans controlling the Senate that's likely to happen. The worst possible thing for the country (which no seems to care about) is if the  public comes out of the trial 60% believing that the Trump should be removed from office and the Repubs hold their ranks. If that were to happen, ultimately that will work against the Repubs for the election of 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

This Bush/Trump/JFK  reminded me of the Envelope incident at last years GHW Bush funeral.

Once again, if you mostly get your news from the MSM, you probably never saw it. It was certainly the talk of of the conspiracy realm for about two solid weeks last year.

The version at the link has some commentary. If you have never seen it, watch it with the volume off the first time so as to not bias your idea of what was going on.

 

Haha the note probably says something like "I think Jeb sat on a chocolate eclaire."

Interesting though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Jeff - you apparently refused to go into the details because it doesn't fit the theme of what you're trying to claim. I asked you days ago whether you had any idea of the effect of the "organic campaign" and you didn't answer. I do need to go into details because you're not supporting what you say. Lo and behold your 30k ad buy claim which pinned my BS meter to the right was exactly that.

What similar activity are you referring to? I wasn't comparing anything only stating the objective facts regarding the organic campaign and it's influence. Your suggestion that tens (hundreds?) of millions of impressions, interactions and engagements is inconsequential speaks more to your bias than anyone else's. That's including reporters and law enforcement and intelligence agencies, who are after all the people who are making the claim. I doubt most members of congress can turn a computer on without assistance.

This (not you personally) is wrong. Competing versions of the same story aren't used to sow divisions as such they're used to "segment the market" and refine messages. For instance, if I publish and track reaction to a story explaining how "Hillary is up to her knickers in Uranium One" I can tell your political leaning by your engagement with that story and segment your user name, FB profile, IP address, Google Map location (don't laugh I've done it), Twitter account, Youtube Channel and everything else that is referred to accounts I have control of or get notified of because of the engagement (Jeff shared your post! Yay!). That data can be used for the purpose of refining the message, place a call to action, identify demographic groups and any number of other purposes. The experts who comb this data can put it to this test: Who benefits from this?

I know for a fact the various intelligence agencies looking into these things have far more capabilities than anyone else to identify traffic and analyze the data and can come up with conclusions with very high confidence. It's probably very simple for them due to the fact a huge percentage of the infrastructure resides in the US and whatever doesn't has most likely been compromised at least to some extent. That's why Russia is unplugging from the net no doubt.

So... who was the beneficiary of the ad buy/organic search program?

That's ridiculous. Have you actually looked at the ads/graphics in question? You're welcome to imagine some super-secret intelligence agents used puppy photos to swing the vote in Wisconsin, but there is no evidence such motivated the IRA campaign or that said campaign was a project of Russian intelligence agents. Gareth Porter and others have convincingly skewered the idea that any of this stuff had the effect of "tens (hundreds?)" of millions of views, organic campaigns or not. As you state, such "organic" campaigns are a standard feature of marketing/advertising - so how does your logic work? Should "organic campaigns" be automatically assumed as in fact brainwashing intelligence projects? The vast majority of the posts in question had nothing to do with either Clinton or Trump,  so how can you determine that any of this had any effect whatsoever beyond reinforcing already set attitudes about BLM or the NRA?  Where are the linkages which establish this campaign worked a sophisticated multi-platform multiplying effort, refining messages and placing calls to action, that was effective in any conceivable way? It's known, for example, several rallies were half-heartedly organized which attracted, like, eight people.  Why do you accept the say-so of congressional figures and the MSM when hyperbole, statistics bending and emotive appeals are so obviously being employed? In 2016, Trump's election was entirely conceivable based on already existing trends  that were generally observable across the western democracies.Clinton was a terrible candidate with high negatives. You don't need some hare-brained conspiracy theory featuring super-secret scary Russian manipulators to explain what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is not going to age well for Mr. Zaid. 

WTH? Whistleblower’s Attorney Brags About Getting Security Clearances For “Guys Who Had Child Porn Issues”

Re: Zaid's "liking" of Disney Teen Actress Youtube videos.

  • Not weird - Letting your pre-teen daughter watch Disney themed You-Tube videos on your lap-top, tablet, phone, etc.
  • Weird - Not having a daughter.

It is confirmed Zaid is in the latter category.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Yes it is difficult, especially when one belongs to an archaic organization of white russians that have an eternal hatred for everything russian after the revolution. I imagine that makes it very difficult to be objective in a subject that involves Russia and Putin.

Berube-- This truly idiotic comment about the Stalinist desecration of traditional Russian society and culture is so bizarre that I scarcely know where to begin in responding to it.  You, obviously, know nothing about Russian history during the past tumultuous century. Try studying the works of Bulgakov, Solzhenitsyn and I.M. Andreyevsky, for starters.  I have known Soviet emigres who have been truly shocked to discover their own lost Russian Orthodox cultural heritage-- for the first time-- in the 20th century ROCOR parishes of the United States.

WN, your citations are almost always specious. The CJR piece was literally written with David Mayer de Rothschild. To put it mildly, this is not a good source for information regarding the "deep state".

Specious, Berube? The Columbia School of Journalism is the pre-eminent journalism program in the United States.  Additionally, study the references I posted about the Harvard University (Berkman) media analyses documenting the sabotage of Hillary Clinton's candidacy by the mainstream U.S. media in 2016.

Yes. A republican president being manipulated by the CIA (deep state if you will) is directly relevant and Jim Hougan did a fantastic job with it. Like WN, your analysis largely stems from animosity towards the personality of Trump, which I think all of us share, and MSM propaganda. Why hasn't the MSM done a thorough vetting of the Clinton/Wasserman scandal and attempted to destroy their careers? Instead, Scultz is now in Congress somehow.

Manipulated by the CIA?   Bunk.  Trump has been deeply involved, financially, with the Russian mafia since the 1980s, and with Putin's oligarchs in recent years.  No one else would lend him any money!  Paul Manafort, Trump's 2016 Campaign Manager, worked for the Kremlin for years-- and was paid big bucks for his political work for Yanukovych.  

Why did Trump lie, repeatedly, about his 2016 Moscow Trump Tower negotiations and plans?  Why did Trump's close business associate, Felix Sater, boast in 2015 that Putin was going to put Trump in the White House?  And why did Trump fire James Comey, then declare, "I'm F*CKED!" when he found out that Rod Rosenstein had appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate Russia's hacking of the 2016 election?

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so William and Bob admit they have never read Secret Agenda. 

Let me explain the paradigm.

I took a back seat to no one in my antipathy for Nixon. And I still do. I thought he was one of the worst choices for president ever.  His economic policies were a disaster.  His foreign policy was despicable.  I had nothing but disdain for his Southern Strategy, the appeal to racist undertones to turn the south from a Democratic stronghold into a GOP bastion. He also had a prime role in covering up the Mylai Massacre, and the persecution of Daniel Ellsberg.

We now know, that even though he understood the Vietnam War was lost, he continued it for four years to try and get a Korea style settlement. He then invaded Cambodia and Laos.  The former move started the fall of Cambodia , which began the rise of Pol Pot and led to the death of about 1-2 million people.  He and Kissinger masterminded the fall of Allende in Chile which led that country into  military dictatorship and decades of brutality and murder.  No president was ever more overrated as a foreign policy maven than Nixon was.  And Kissinger was just as bad.

Any person would say that, in objective terms,  Richard Nixon was worse than Trump. And that is why I could not stand the guy and cheered on when the was going to be impeached but resigned instead. I thought that Bradlee, Kate Graham, Woodward and Bernstein and Sam Ervin and John Dean were heroes. Nixon had gotten what was coming to him.  There was justice in the world after all.

In other words, I felt like William N and Bob N feel about what is happening to Trump.

Many, many years later, in the nineties, when I was editing Probe Magazine, I picked up Jim Hougan's book Secret Agenda. The first chapter is entitled "Of Hunt and McCord."  As I read it, my eyebrows began to arch.  As I continued, they arched up higher. I then began to squint.  By the time I was done and had read about Woodward's deal with the CIA (from their own documents), by that time I was grinding my teeth.  Like almost everyone else--except maybe Fletcher Prouty--I realized I had been duped.  Played for a sucker by a very clever plot that the MSM had concealed from view. The CIA had infiltrated Nixon's White House and brought him down from the inside. McCord was not what he appeared to be: a Bible thumping technician. He was a deep cover operator inside CREEP. who owed his  allegiance to Helms and the CIA. The real winner in all this was Dick Helms.  And in a roundabout way, I had cheered him on.

None of this made Nixon any more appealing.  To this day I cannot stand the guy.  But if people like us, who oppose the Shadow Government in the Kennedy case, pick and choose the victims we favor, then how does that help in the long run?  What have we  done to make things better in a real and lasting way?  The forces we oppose will still be there, and still be doing the evil things they have since 1963.

Back then, when i wrote about this for Probe, when Stone's Nixon came out, I said that, if we have to ally ourselves with someone as despicable as  Richard Nixon in order to take a stand against a corrupted system, so be it.  That is the price one has to pay for the greater good. So I held my nose in that number and registered my protest.  That issue got a remarkable reaction, since so few people knew the real story behind Watergate. To this day, I think that was the best issue we ever published.

I don't like Trump.  I never have liked Trump. I did not vote for him and I would never vote for him, even if he was the only guy running. But I will be damed if I will let my partisan biases make me a stooge twice.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2019 at 8:14 PM, Joe Bauer said:

In just the last few weeks Trump has created 4 majorly humiliating leadership gaffes that are worse than embarrassing, and that in total should be receiving much more media coverage as a reflection of his never ending presidential office incompetence.

The parents of the young British man killed by an American diplomat's wife driving on the wrong side of the road in England were furious at Trump's shameless attempt to have them meet their son's killer without prior notice when they were brought into the White House. They felt they were being used in a self-promoting photo-op ploy by Trump.

They went back to England feeling more depressed and angry over this than before they made the initial trip to the U.S.!  How embarrassing. How stupid.

The brazenly self-promoted Trump Mar-A-Lago scheme blew up as it should have and was headlined in the national media until it was quickly withdrawn. Another humiliating and embarrassing Trump gaffe.

The spontaneous withdrawal from Syria announcement by Trump was met with such outrage even by our own military that he and his team had to immediately create and initiate a damage control campaign that was just frantic. What a diplomatic disaster and mess that situation still is.

When Trump finally went to and presented himself in person at a large audience venue of non-screened citizens, he was greeted by the loudest booing and jeering response any President has ever received at such a major event like the World Series. Thousands even shouted "LOCK HIM UP!" to add to his humiliation.

He earned that negative response.

This "lock him up" chant was a reference to Trump's own "lock her up" sound bite (referring to Hillary Clinton ) and that he created and constantly encouraged his angry rally crowds to yell and repeat over and over for years by not ever telling them to stop.

All this craziness in just one month!?

Trump's presidency has been one after another of these humiliating and embarrassing leadership failures ... for years. Hundreds of them!

Obama never had "one" of these embarrassing incidents ... in 8 years!

However, Trump is still loved by his base, regardless of his constant incompetent leadership failures.

We are in a precarious state with half our country pretending nothing's wrong with this high anxiety causing President.

Kenneth Drew: Joe, you do know that those parents actually requested a meeting with that woman, and  when Trump actually arranged one for them they were so shocked they didn't know what to say.

Kenneth, this particular incompetent Trump blunder gets even worse:

 

 

 

5dc633781f00005000dedd7c.jpeg?cache=nK8z

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ok, so William and Bob admit they have never read Secret Agenda. 

Let me explain the paradigm.

I took a back seat to no one in my antipathy for Nixon. And I still do. I thought he was one of the worst choices for president ever.  His economic policies were a disaster.  His foreign policy was despicable.  I had nothing but disdain for his Southern Strategy, the appeal to racist undertones to turn the south from a Democratic stronghold into a GOP bastion. He also had a prime role in covering up the Mylai Massacre, and the persecution of Daniel Ellsberg.

We now know, that even though he understood the Vietnam War was lost, he continued it for four years to try and get a Korea style settlement. He then invaded Cambodia and Laos.  The former move started the fall of Cambodia , which began the rise of Pol Pot and led to the death of about 1-2 million people.  He and Kissinger masterminded the fall of Allende in Chile which led that country into  military dictatorship and decades of brutality and murder.  No president was ever more overrated as a foreign policy maven than Nixon was.  And Kissinger was just as bad.

Any person would say that, in objective terms,  Richard Nixon was worse than Trump. And that is why I could not stand the guy and cheered on when the was going to be impeached but resigned instead. I thought that Bradlee, Kate Graham, Woodward and Bernstein and Sam Ervin and John Dean were heroes. Nixon had gotten what was coming to him.  There was justice in the world after all.

In other words, I felt like William N and Bob N feel about what is happening to Trump.

Many, many years later, in the nineties, when I was editing Probe Magazine, I picked up Jim Hougan's book Secret Agenda. The first chapter is entitled "Of Hunt and McCord."  As I read it, my eyebrows began to arch.  As I continued, they arched up higher. I then began to squint.  By the time I was done and had read about Woodward's deal with the CIA (from their own documents), by that time I was grinding my teeth.  Like almost everyone else--except maybe Fletcher Prouty--I realized I had been duped.  Played for a sucker by a very clever plot that the MSM had concealed from view. The CIA had infiltrated Nixon's White House and brought him down from the inside. McCord was not what he appeared to be: a Bible thumping technician. He was a deep cover operator inside CREEP. who owed his  allegiance to Helms and the CIA. The real winner in all this was Dick Helms.  And in a roundabout way, I had cheered him on.

One would have come to the same conclusion reading Oglesby's The Yankee and the Cowboy War, or Haldeman's The Ends of Power.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

None of this made Nixon any more appealing.  To this day I cannot stand the guy.  But if people like us, who oppose the Shadow Government in the Kennedy case, pick and choose the victims we favor, then how does that help in the long run?

What Mr. DiEugenio refuses to acknowledge is the fact that the Trump-Russian-collusion story was suppressed by the FBI/MSM during the '16 campaign, while the Hillary E-Mail non-scandal was blown up beyond reason.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

  What have we  done to make things better in a real and lasting way?  The forces we oppose will still be there, and still be doing the evil things they have since 1963.

Installing Trump in the White House is one of those "evil things."

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Back then, when i wrote about this for Probe, when Stone's Nixon came out, I said that, if we have to ally ourselves with someone as despicable as  Richard Nixon in order to take a stand against a corrupted system, so be it. 

So now DiEugenio is an ally of Trump.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

That is the price one has to pay for the greater good. So I held my nose in that number and registered my protest.  That issue got a remarkable reaction, since so few people knew the real story behind Watergate. To this day, I think that was the best issue we ever published.

I don't like Trump.  I never have liked Trump. I did not vote for him and I would never vote for him, even if he was the only guy running. But I will be damed if I will let my partisan biases make me a stooge twice.

 

DiEugenio's partisan biases against Hillary and Bill Clinton have turned him into a Trumpenlinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ok, so William and Bob admit they have never read Secret Agenda. 

Let me explain the paradigm.

I took a back seat to no one in my antipathy for Nixon. And I still do. I thought he was one of the worst choices for president ever.  His economic policies were a disaster.  His foreign policy was despicable.  I had nothing but disdain for his Southern Strategy, the appeal to racist undertones to turn the south from a Democratic stronghold into a GOP bastion. He also had a prime role in covering up the Mylai Massacre, and the persecution of Daniel Ellsberg.

We now know, that even though he understood the Vietnam War was lost, he continued it for four years to try and get a Korea style settlement. He then invaded Cambodia and Laos.  The former move started the fall of Cambodia , which began the rise of Pol Pot and led to the death of about 1-2 million people.  He and Kissinger masterminded the fall of Allende in Chile which led that country into  military dictatorship and decades of brutality and murder.  No president was ever more overrated as a foreign policy maven than Nixon was.  And Kissinger was just as bad.

Any person would say that, in objective terms,  Richard Nixon was worse than Trump. And that is why I could not stand the guy and cheered on when the was going to be impeached but resigned instead. I thought that Bradlee, Kate Graham, Woodward and Bernstein and Sam Ervin and John Dean were heroes. Nixon had gotten what was coming to him.  There was justice in the world after all.

In other words, I felt like William N and Bob N feel about what is happening to Trump.

Many, many years later, in the nineties, when I was editing Probe Magazine, I picked up Jim Hougan's book Secret Agenda. The first chapter is entitled "Of Hunt and McCord."  As I read it, my eyebrows began to arch.  As I continued, they arched up higher. I then began to squint.  By the time I was done and had read about Woodward's deal with the CIA (from their own documents), by that time I was grinding my teeth.  Like almost everyone else--except maybe Fletcher Prouty--I realized I had been duped.  Played for a sucker by a very clever plot that the MSM had concealed from view. The CIA had infiltrated Nixon's White House and brought him down from the inside. McCord was not what he appeared to be: a Bible thumping technician. He was a deep cover operator inside CREEP. who owed his  allegiance to Helms and the CIA. The real winner in all this was Dick Helms.  And in a roundabout way, I had cheered him on.

None of this made Nixon any more appealing.  To this day I cannot stand the guy.  But if people like us, who oppose the Shadow Government in the Kennedy case, pick and choose the victims we favor, then how does that help in the long run?  What have we  done to make things better in a real and lasting way?  The forces we oppose will still be there, and still be doing the evil things they have since 1963.

Back then, when i wrote about this for Probe, when Stone's Nixon came out, I said that, if we have to ally ourselves with someone as despicable as  Richard Nixon in order to take a stand against a corrupted system, so be it.  That is the price one has to pay for the greater good. So I held my nose in that number and registered my protest.  That issue got a remarkable reaction, since so few people knew the real story behind Watergate. To this day, I think that was the best issue we ever published.

I don't like Trump.  I never have liked Trump. I did not vote for him and I would never vote for him, even if he was the only guy running. But I will be damed if I will let my partisan biases make me a stooge twice.

 

Jim,

       I understand your point about the CIA's role in sabotaging Nixon, but I don't see the parallels with Trump and his Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate scandals.

      My belief is that Trump has long been ensnared by Putin and his oligarchs, through a skillful combination of old-fashioned KGB-style blackmail/kompromat and lucrative Russian business deals.  The evidence is overwhelming, despite Trump's aggressive obstruction of Russia-gate investigations and his massive disinformation campaigns (aided and abetted by the GOP and the right wing corporate media.)

    Also, the data (from Harvard and Columbia) is clear regarding the FBI and corporate mainstream U.S. media sabotage of Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Clinton was, obviously, sabotaged in 2016 by Putin and the Russian military (GRU) and she was also sabotaged by the FBI and the Robber Baron mass media.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't like Trump.  I never have liked Trump. I did not vote for him and I would never vote for him, even if he was the only guy running. But I will be damed if I will let my partisan biases make me a stooge twice.

On this forum in particular, you don't even have to consider current events and Trump in the context of taking an objective look at Nixon. On the other hand, in order to advance a greater understanding of the JFK Assassination (the reason this forum exists) an objective examination of Nixon's career is critical. 

We all agree that the "Official" explanation of the JFK Assassination is not the real story. Our understanding of the JFK Assassination is viewed from an enhanced perspective, with later revelations the "Official" explanations related to Watergate and Nixon, are also not the real story.

Two coups in ten years, one violent and one silent, raises a lot of questions, and to the detriment of the coup plotters (individuals and institutions), answers a lot of questions. 

The detriment to the coup plotters (Deep State, Power Elite, etc.) arises in any number of forms, but at the highest level, blurs the distinctions and disagreements between "R"s and "D"s, which would then initiate a more critical look at the Deep State. In other words, as long as partisan and MSM enabled disagreements distract both "R"s and "D"s (liberal & conservative; left & right) few are actually looking for the real criminals.

Edited by Robert Wheeler
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...