Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tucker Carlson about the JFKA


Karl Kinaski

Recommended Posts

It was obviously disconcerting when we see neocons Bill Krystol, Max Boot and Steve Schmidt appearing regularly on msnbc. But that's not the really the deep state wriggling into broadcast  news. The election of Trump changed the equation in cable news. It was all a marketing decision and both cnn and msnbc decided  being  anti Trump channels would increase their ratings. And they decided  they'd also  go for the never Trump Republicans and broaden their base.
 
It's that simple. It's about money. It was a marketing decision. Of course that doesn't make it more palatable.
 
I copped this from Cliff on another thread. Tucker with Gerald Posner
 
A year ago Tucker said Case Closed was a great book and that the "JFKA journalists could do a better job!"
An opportunist with no real core. IMO
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 269
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Any votes for Mike Pompeo being Tucker Carlson's inside source about the CIA documents?

Pompeo was, obviously, in the loop, as CIA Director, when Trump "got rolled by the Deep State" in October of 2017.

As for Tucker Carlson, I salute him for his outstanding take down of the CIA last night.

I have always despised the guy, but I truly respect him today for finally telling the American public the truth about the CIA's role in JFK's assassination.

It's bound to embarrass Joe Biden, and it should.

I'm deeply disappointed with Biden for copping out on releasing the documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I hate it when anyone quotes an "undisclosed source" as being really important and we're left only to determine the credibility of the source by the credibility of the one who releases the information. Particularly in this case.

I don't think it's Pompeo because Tucker wouldn't use him as a source and then bash him for refusing to come on the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Honestly I hate it when anyone quotes an "undisclosed source" as being really important and we're left only to determine the credibility of the source by the credibility of the one who releases the information. Particularly in this case.

I don't think it's Pompeo because Tucker wouldn't use him as a source and then bash him for refusing to come on the show.

Unless Pompeo was Tucker's source and he wanted the public to hear it from the horse's mouth.

The last thing Tucker said was that he hoped Pompeo would reconsider his refusal to be interviewed on the subject.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Unless Pompeo was Tucker's source and he wanted the public to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Hmmm, whose the horse's mouth? Tucker?

As long as the source is undisclosed, we have no "horse's mouth". Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where you've got to dig deeper. This source hedges, he says "I believe they were involved " ( presumably in the murder of JFK.) Tucker then goes on to claim that every head of the CIA , (particularly John Brennan) knows this to be the case, but what is the case?  That  the CIA covered up their previous knowledge of Oswald as Posner told him. Or that the CIA was involved in the murder of JFK and every succeeding CIA chief knows that?!

Now that's going to be pretty hard to prove, maybe even successive CIA chiefs could sue him. I don't know.

And it rests solely an undisclosed source saying, "I believe they were involved???!"

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

As for Tucker Carlson, I salute him for his outstanding take down of the CIA last night.

Come on W. It's a con game. The IC was on to his buddy and this fits into the narrative they've been selling. Even if he's being authentic I wouldn't give him too much credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

This is where you've got to dig deeper. This source hedges, he says "I believe they were involved " ( presumably in the murder of JFK.) Tucker then goes on to claim that every head of the CIA , (particularly John Brennan) knows this to be the case, but what is the case?  That  the CIA covered up their previous knowledge of Oswald as Posner told him. Or that the CIA was involved in the murder of JFK and every succeeding CIA chief knows that?!

Now that's going to be pretty hard to prove, maybe even successive CIA chiefs could sue him. I don't know.

And it rests solely an undisclosed source saying, "I believe they were involved???!"

Good points. That is the question, and it appears that our Intelligence agencies are willing to take responsibility for their negligence but not for any complicity. They screwed up, and as a result Oswald killed JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Hmmm, whose the horse's mouth? Tucker?

As long as the source is undisclosed, we have no "horse's mouth". Right?

Speaking of horses' mouths, Kirk, never look a gift horse in the mouth.

Tucker Carlson's take down of the CIA last night was a historic gift to JFKA Truthers.

I hope he doesn't end up walking it back, or "committing suicide" with a shotgun, like George De Mohrenschildt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Honestly I hate it when anyone quotes an "undisclosed source" as being really important and we're left only to determine the credibility of the source by the credibility of the one who releases the information. Particularly in this case.

I don't think it's Pompeo because Tucker wouldn't use him as a source and then bash him for refusing to come on the show.

It's exactly what I'd do if I wanted to protect a source. "Look, Mike, people might think I got it from you, so I'll take a few swipes at you on camera. That's OK, right?"

Pompeo has had worse. A LOT worse. And if he knows it's not real he isn't going to care one iota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Partisan politics. Jeez. There is no justification for the silence of the ‘left’, no matter what Tucker Carlson’s motives are. And that silence goes back decades. If our liberal press had done their job we wouldn’t be in this mess. I don’t see any problem appreciating a Republican when they tell the truth, or calling out a Democrat when they lie. I don’t watch news, don’t have cable TV. I got so sick of watching MSNBC, and never watched FOX. So why bother? When Matt chooses to link Carlson to the Kremlin he so perfectly illustrates the point that loyal Democrats have swallowed the partisan Koolaid. Are we, the US, a force for good in the world? Are we better than the Russians and the Chinese? No one questions this paradigm of US Empire, and the domestic voices raised against our Empire are silenced or marginalized. Oh I do wish it had been Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes or Lawrence O’Donnell who had spoken out. Would have been so much easier that way. But their far better stance on domestic politics cannot make up for their silence on War, which is a racket, or on our lying national security establishment. I’m forced on a daily basis to remember the role that the NYT played in our egregious Iraq invasion, and on their refusal to review The Devil’s Chessboard, which really rankled David Talbot, a truly great journalist. CNN and NBC are no better than FOX. They are two sides of the same coin, designed to divide us.

Well said, Paul.  The despicable silence, in some cases worse, the dismissal of WR dissent, of major figures about the JFK on the Left goes back decades to the event itself.  I'm talking about  Chomsky, Zinn, IF Stone.  The JFKA was the first blow in the destruction of that Left, while they refused to get involved or dismissed its importance using some fake Marxist rhetoric to show nothing was changed.  The falsity of that is now obvious.

I couldn't care less about speculation of Carlson's "true" motives.  What he said reached many millions who now can better think for themselves about what really happened.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who worked in MSM for 20-plus years (albeit in Canada, where entrenched political polarization arrived five years later than in the U.S., as with most things exported from the U.S.), I will suggest it was less about political pressure and more about not wanting to give credence to conspiracy researchers, lest the editors and publishers topple off of their journalistic ivory towers.

Any suggestion that the government's official line on the JFKA was off would imply endorsement of conspiracy, and most publishers I knew would rather stop drinking than put that in ink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Well said, Paul.  The despicable silence, in some cases worse, the dismissal of WR dissent, of major figures about the JFK on the Left goes back decades to the event itself.  I'm talking about  Chomsky, Zinn, IF Stone.  The JFKA was the first blow in the destruction of that Left, while they refused to get involved or dismissed its importance using some fake Marxist rhetoric to show nothing was changed.  The falsity of that is now obvious.

I couldn't care less about speculation of Carlson's "true" motives.  What he said reached many millions who now can better think for themselves about what really happened.

  

Let us not forget Bob Buzzanco.  Oliver was overjoyed when he heard this.

 

https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-34-jfk-64644037

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Deep State concept is a very potent media tool. Fox is about making money first, and Tucker has played the ultimate Deep State card. It's the ultimate card because there is no doubt the 'Deep State' is playing the elected representatives on the JFKA. The narrative will be that we need De- Santis to fight this and Fox to report on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let us not forget Bob Buzzanco.  Oliver was overjoyed when he heard this.

 

https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-34-jfk-64644037

 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let us not forget Bob Buzzanco.  Oliver was overjoyed when he heard this.

 

https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-34-jfk-64644037

Buzzanco is a schmuck.  I want to concentrate on the major lefties of the 60s who actively discouraged investigation of the Warren Rep using, as I said, pseudo marxian arguments that the changing politicians at the top doesn't matter.  The story is now well known of Ray Marcus getting a meeting with Chomsky in about 1968, laying out all he knew about the JFKA, Chomsky saying he would think it over, and later walking away, saying something about if these guys were powerful enough to kill JFK....  Imagine if these respected leaders had led the charge to find out what happened.  

After hearing Buzzanco claim JFK was not getting out of Vietnam, etc., I emailed him suggesting he debate Jamie Galbraith, who is at a Texas school near him.  Didn't get a response .

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

×
×
  • Create New...