Firing Line: William F Buckley Jr. vs Mark Lane 1966 - Video

[Guest]

What a sharp man Mark Lane was. It's interesting to watch the obfuscation and deflection tactics of 1966. Potentially ex-CIA Buckley is eloquent as ever but, he struggles with lane as an adversary. 

[Benjamin Cole]

On 3/5/2021 at 11:55 PM, Chris Barnard said:

What a sharp man Mark Lane was. It's interesting to watch the obfuscation and deflection tactics of 1966. Potentially ex-CIA Buckley is eloquent as ever but, he struggles with lane as an adversary. 

This is a wonderful display by an ex-CIA man, as Buckley tries to define Mark Lane as someone who wants to make money, and to get Oswald off the hook as a fellow leftie-commie. The words "conspiracy theory" come alive. 

It turns out Buckley took his cues from the CIA playbook, which had recommended all these tactics in dealing with the JFKA. But Buckley was a smart guy himself, whatever his politics and biases.  

Mark Lane mostly held his own, which is saying something, as he was in Buckley's wheelhouse, so to speak.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This is a wonderful display by an ex-CIA man, as Buckley tries to define Mark Lane as someone who wants to make money, and to get Oswald off the hook as a fellow leftie-commie. The words "conspiracy theory" come alive. 

It turns out Buckley took his cues from the CIA playbook, which had recommended all these tactics in dealing with the JFKA. But Buckley was a smart guy himself, whatever his politics and biases.  

Mark Lane mostly held his own, which is saying something, as he was in Buckley's wheelhouse, so to speak.  

I ended up watching the G. Gordon Liddy one also with Buckley. Very slick operators indeed. It must be some education you get at Yale, Buckley was another Skull & Bones. 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I ended up watching the G. Gordon Liddy one also with Buckley. Very slick operators indeed. It must be some education you get at Yale, Buckley was another Skull & Bones. 

There is yet another great one--- 

 

Yes! Buckley and E. Howard Hunt!

Hunt admits on national TV that there were plans drawn up to murder columnist Jack Anderson and that he would have completed the mission if the order had come down from the White House. This is a horrible laugher---and chilling too. 

If a guy will baldly state on national TV that he would have murdered a columnist---a newspaper ink-stained wretch, not even accused of being a spy, etc.---then what else would he participate in? 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There is yet another great one--- 

 

Yes! Buckley and E. Howard Hunt!

Hunt admits on national TV that there were plans drawn up to murder columnist Jack Anderson and that he would have completed the mission if the order had come down from the White House. This is a horrible laugher---and chilling too. 

If a guy will baldly state on national TV that he would have murdered a columnist---a newspaper ink-stained wretch, not even accused of being a spy, etc.---then what else would he participate in? 

 

Did you see his relationship to Buckley that was disclosed at the start as if it was irrelevant? Another very smart, tricky character. Have a watch of the G.Gordon Liddy one also, he seems much more pathological. Much of the focus is around his disdain for informants. 

[Joe Bauer]

I thought Mark Lane kicked Buckley's articulation arrogant and pretentious butt in that interview/debate.

Lane showed his Buckley matching intellectual chops without the head back, raised eyebrow, looking down the nose, snidely toned manner WFB was known for.

The more Lane deflected Buckley's weakness searching intellectual fencing thrusts with deft parrying and countered with his own two touches to Buckley's one ( the Dreyfus affair for example) the more Lane won over that debate judging audience imo.

In the end, even Buckley made some "touche" concession remark regards Lane's performance...stating "something like " he wouldn't be poorly served having Mark Lane represent him legally?

Edited March 7, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Those were the days when someone like Lane could get on a big program.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Those were the days when someone like Lane could get on a big program.

I was just thinking that too, no matter how academic you are in 2021, you are just excluded from public discourse if your opinion questions the established narrative. The other thing I noted was how civil the two of them were in discussion. Imagine either of the having to deal with today's news networks in an interview. Buckley much more devious when he interviewed Robert Vaughan on Vietnam in a similar setup. 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Those were the days when someone like Lane could get on a big program.

Not only---as you have so competently pointed out, the mainstream media savaged Jim Garrison in every way possible.

Yet Garrison won the right to a 30-minute rebuttal on NBC on July 15 1967, after NBC had smeared him. And this was when the networks were huge and important, and dominated broadcast news. 

Can anyone imagine today any figure like James Garrison getting 30-minutes free and clear on national TV to defend himself? You think CNN or Fox would ever do that? 

Today, even fringe groups (that I usually disagree with) are knocked down from lesser Internet platforms. 

Well, at least for now, we have Kennedys and King, or the Education Forum. One might wonder for how long. It has become acceptable to torpedo anyone off the web.

If Kennedys and King or the Education Forum are booted, who will note or care?