Tucker Carlson about the JFKA

[Matt Allison]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Maybe Carlson just wants to make Biden look weak and craven

Or maybe Carlson is still mad the CIA turned him down for employment.

Tucker Carlson was never a believer in JFK's policies.

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK conspiracy is a foundational belief in QAnon.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/qanon-donald-trump-jfk_n_61e5e64be4b05645a6eb0912

[Cliff Varnell]

I do not have a problem with Tucker Carlson pandering to the far-right Q-MAGA crowd by accusing the CIA of a hand in the murder of JFK.  That’s a foundational understanding in QAnon.

At the autopsy the doctors indicated that possibility themselves with speculation JFK’s soft tissue wounds were CIA-level high-tech.

I can golf-clap Tucker while clearly seeing the underlying fascist agenda at play.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Or maybe Carlson is still mad the CIA turned him down for employment.

Tucker Carlson was never a believer in JFK's policies.

Hmm.  I never knew Tucker applied to the CIA, and was turned down.  Interesting.  That puts him in a deeper perspective given his current status.  I've never watched him for more than a few minutes, rarely.  A, why waste my time . . .

 Turned down but recruited as a mockingbird? 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Wait if you do not watch Fox, as you said you do not earlier, how do you know that lying is “commonplace” for Fox?   You have no basis.   Unless you are only repeating what someone else told you.   This destroys any credibility on the issue.  

 

I watched both Fox and MSNBC till I was about 50. I could see from nearly the beginning that Fox spun their reporting significantly more so than MSNBC did. It got worse as time went by and eventually I quit  watching Fox completely.

Except that I continued to tune into Fox occasionally out of curiosity to see how they were covering Obama and Trump.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Does it a ultimately matter to you if there is a source? Will you 1) be disappointed if there is no followup and you never hear from Tucker again about these files? or 2) will you love him all the more  because he's venting things you've always wanted to hear?

W. I'm aware of your political leanings, and as you should know, I largely share them. But you only half answered my question. You believe there is a source, and you're very pleased that he's vented things you've always wanted to hear on TV.

I ask you and everyone else.

 

Does it a ultimately matter to you if there is a source? Will you 1) be disappointed if there is no followup and you never hear from Tucker any more about these files? or say, nothing more from the source? or 2) will you love him all the more  because he's vented things you've always wanted to hear?

 

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Kirk,

    I'm a progressive Democrat who has always despised Tucker Carlson and Fox News, but I do believe that he has a legitimate CIA source, as he claims, and I also believe that his recent commentary about the CIA and the JFK assassination is historic, and valuable.  No M$M talking head in history has been willing to say on national television what Carlson just said.

   (Dan Rather must be sh*tting in his shorts-- after spending his career at CBS deliberately repeating lies about what happened in Dealey Plaza.)

     Do you think Carlson is lying about his alleged CIA source?

    I don't know what Tucker Carlson's motives are for this rather shocking outburst of M$M honesty about the CIA's involvement in murdering JFK and covering up the evidence for 59 years, but I'm grateful for it.

   There's too much all-or-nothing thinking around here--i.e., a notion that everything Tucker Carlson says is either horse manure or gospel.

    

The paragraph I cited is the point of Carlson's commentary on what has become the virulent influence of the CIA.  Let me bring it up again. "Within our government are forces wholly beyond democratic control.  They are more powerful than the elected officials who supposedly oversee them.  They can affect elections and murder Presidents.  In short they can do anything they want.  They mock democracy by their very existence."

I agree with every word of it and could add lots more.  Particularly the last sentence summing up:  The very existence of *this* CIA (so different than Truman's vision when he created the agency) mocks any pretense of democracy as a core value.

I don't have a source at the CIA pointing me in this direction.  Watching the last 59 years, that judgement has become obvious to me.  

I don't know how Carlson reached his conclusion, tho I'm sure he has taken a different path than me.  He's been around Washington a long time.  I'm pretty sure what he said about the CIA was based on more than the opinion of one source.  But I don't care how he arrived at it.  This isn't about Carlson; it's about what he said.

I am just astonished and grateful that such a view (my view!) made it past the media gatekeepers.  And reached a substantial audience.  It's time to follow it up in every way imaginable.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

23 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

“They can affect elections”

When did the CIA affect an American election?

1960 maybe.  Nixon suspected Dulles briefed Kennedy on anti-Cuban efforts, allowing him to run to the right on the issue.

Any other examples?

Or is this just Carlson taking a cheap shot at the 2020 election?

Edited December 18, 2022 by Cliff Varnell

[Roger Odisio]

28 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

W. I'm aware of your political leanings, and as you should know, I largely share them. But you only half answered my question. You believe there is a source, and you're very pleased that he's vented things you've always wanted to hear on TV.

I ask you and everyone else.

 

Does it a ultimately matter to you if there is a source? Will you 1) be disappointed if there is no followup and you never hear from Tucker any more about these files? or say, nothing more from the source? or 2) will you love him all the more  because he's vented things you've always wanted to hear?

 

Since you've been persistent and patient let me answer each question.

Does it a ultimately matter to you if there is a source?

RO:  No.  I think he probably has all kinds of sources.  He even considers Mike Pompeo a friend.  He's been around Washington a long time.  His statement about the CIA is pretty comprehensive and was surely based on more than the opinion of one person.

Will you 1) be disappointed if there is no followup and you never hear from Tucker any more about these files?

RO: Yes, of course. It's what he said that matters and the statement cries out for followup by him and everyone else.

or say, nothing more from the source?

RO: The source doesn't matter except as part of a gotcha game so popular in Washington

or 2) will you love him all the more  because he's vented things you've always wanted to hear?

RO:  I don't love him, but he deserves credit for getting this past the gatekeepers and on the air.

[Roger Odisio]

8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

When did the CIA affect an American election?

1960 maybe.  Nixon suspected Dulles briefed Kennedy on anti-Cuban efforts, allowing him to run to the right on the issue.

Any other examples?

Or is this just Carlson taking a cheap shot at the 2020 election?

C'mon, Cliff.  The 1960 election for sure.  We voted for Kennedy and ended up with Johnson.  Or 1968 when Bobby never made it to the starting blocks.  

But the more thorough answer is that the CIA/war machine and their media allies have created the boundaries of what an acceptable candidate is.  Borne out by the fact that no President has come close to challenging them since Kennedy was murdered. 

I'm not getting involved in the Carlson motives diversion.

[Cliff Varnell]

39 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

C'mon, Cliff.  The 1960 election for sure.  We voted for Kennedy and ended up with Johnson. 

Assassination is a different form of regime change than affecting elections.

39 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Or 1968 when Bobby never made it to the starting blocks.  

Fair enough.  1968 the CIA whacked Bobby. In ‘72 they set Nixon up in Watergate but he won in a landslide anyway.  In ‘80 CIA-man George Bush convinced the Ayatollah to hold on to the Embassy hostages until the day Reagan was inaugurated.  Ronnie probably would have won anyway given the stagnant economy.

39 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

But the more thorough answer is that the CIA/war machine and their media allies have created the boundaries of what an acceptable candidate is. 

Do you think a candidate who was recorded bragging about grabbing female genitalia could win a Presidential election prior to 2016?  The CIA was armed with the Steele Dossier but didn’t put it on TV until Jan ‘2017.  Cable news the last 11 days of the 2016 election was 24 hours a day Hillary bashing thanks to Comey’s FBI.

Looks like the Deep State wanted Trump.

As far as diversions go, I regard the entire subject of documents a diversion.  JFK’s soft tissue wounds were consistent with weapon technology developed for the CIA.

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Burrows]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

When did the CIA affect an American election?

1960 maybe.  Nixon suspected Dulles briefed Kennedy on anti-Cuban efforts, allowing him to run to the right on the issue.

Any other examples?

Or is this just Carlson taking a cheap shot at the 2020 election?

I've always believed that the attempted hostage rescue in Iran on 4/24/80 was deliberately botched in order to damage Carter's chances in the 1980 election. 

[Joe Bauer]

12 hours ago, John Cotter said:

I understand it to mean that Tucker Carlson's alleged sins and character flaws are irrelevant to the validity or otherwise of what he says.

IMO the damage and harm Tucker Carlson has done to our society with his years of inflaming and dividing and twisting the truth propaganda makes him worse than simply non-credible.

To me he is a journalistic ethics violating jackal. 

This odd JFK/CIA claim he has made is giving him false and way over-the-top redeeming praise. 

And I don't understand how so many here are falling into this "Tucker Carlson instant hero" cheer leading crowd shout/wave.

I will never trust this guy. I also believe he is a mockingbird plant.

This story will fade away soon enough imo. But Carlson has picked up a mountain of past indiscretion redeeming points from it and he is smiling all the way to the false reality revived integrity bank with them.

E. Howard Hunt already claimed CIA involvement with Cord Meyer and he ( Hunt ) being a "bench warmer" to a larger more actively involved team of CIA connected characters, ie Sturgis, Morales, etc.

Yet, Hunt's "Big Event" story was so ignored by the MSM and JFK research academics ( contrary to Carlson's praised claim ) it was incongruously suspicious. Or tellingly so?

America's most famous and self-promoting political dirty deed trickster Roger Stone also made a huge chunk of change putting out his own JFK conspiracy book that simply echoed E. Howard Hunt's story. 

Didn't LBJ long time mistress Madeleine Brown ( and mother to LBJ's love child Steven  ) tell us this same story in her recounting of LBJ screaming at her "it was big oil... and those damn renegade intelligence bastards" who took out JFK?

Yet her story (which echos Carlson's one ) was dismissed as simply the rantings of a vengeful, defunded and even loony LBJ ex-girlfriend trying to make some quick bucks and get back at LBJ and his family for cruelly and coldly disclaiming her son from his rightful LBJ fathered birth rights?

A retired Army Special Forces colonel ( Dan Marvin ) also said our own people carried out the JFK hit per his interview in the documentary film series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."

98% of Americans won't give this Carlson JFK assassination claim a second or even first thought.

They are too busy with 100 daily life needs and duties and other practical matters to give a hoot.

So, where does Tucker Carlson go with this story now?

Will he be called out by some highest level historical truth seeking MSM consortium to tell us more for the sake of reclaiming our constitutional government foundation, democratically elected government, supposedly lost to this evil, non-elected higher power entity takeover since 11,22,1963?

What would Rush Limbaugh have said about this Tucker Carlson revelation proclamation?

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Joe Bauer said:

IMO the damage and harm Tucker Carlson has done to our society with his years of inflaming and dividing and twisting the truth propaganda makes him worse than simply non-credible.

I don’t particularly like his manner or demeanour at times, he can be quite mean. But, I have shared some of his segments that caught my eye or if I have thought something important is being said. I think there is a lot said that I have seen that is grounded in rationality.

Here is something to ponder; It’s a mirror image on the other side concerning some of the darling newscasters supposedly positioned on the ideological left. They too think certain characters are destroying the very fabric of the USA with pro globalist, pro-technocratic ideals. They too seek to divide of ostracise anybody who doesn’t share their views. People on the other side feel just like you. 
 

I’ll say this again, it matters not who is saying the thing. It just matters only whether the thing being said has validity or not. We are all against hate but, if we hate our ideological enemies, what have we become? 

[Denny Zartman]

All excellent points, @Joe Bauer