Journalists and the Assassination of JFK

[Sid Walker]

I agree that it doesnt make sense to view Chomsky as a closet zionist. If he is, its the deepest closet

since Plato's. I think Chomsky is just a structuralist who, in this particular case, has made a mistake in deemphasizing the degree of difference that a specific individual in a particular context could make.

I was myself caught up in this falacy for a long time. I think it came from periodicals of the left, like The Nation, etc.

The logic went something like this:

1. Vietnam, the 80s and 90s have shown that there is no real fundemental differences between the dems

and repubs anyway...therefore Kennedy Assassination people are being naive about Kennedy

representing a thread to the Military Industrial Complex (as it was known in those dark ages)

2. Kennedy had basically ran his 1960 campaign with a fake missile gap "I am more of a Cold Warrier

than thou" message, so what makes anyone think he would have been more inclined toward detente?

3. There are no shortage of Kennedy statements that--taken out of context with his ongoing struggle with

the JCS -- can be read as encouraging a continued US presence in Vietnam. Cockburn quoted these

without thinking about the years historically, or frankly doing his homework and reading seerious

critiques of the WC. (If Chomsky and Cockburn have read these critiques, they certainly give no sign

of it, never directly addressing any of the points made therein.)

"WITHOUT THINKING OF THE YEARS HISTORICALLY"... BY THIS I MEAN....

1. Not realizing that 1960 was not 1990. The CIA was only thirteen years old. Precosious yes, but might

Cockburn and other syndicated leftists (you can count them on one hand) have meen imposting their

sense of an ossified National Security State Establishment on an earlier time when it was a) not yet as ossified as it would later become or perhaps as ossified but this state was not yet realized by all players (not just JFK but Ike too.)

2. The degree to which the Cold War media climate virtually necessitated that a president mouth hard

right anti-soviet rhetoric to get elected. This would suggest the possibility of a president being more

open-minded than his public pronouncemnts might suggest.

3. Kennedy's repeated clashes with the JCS and CIA over Laos and Cuba. This culminated with the Cuban

Missile Crisis. I don't think Cockburn or Chomsky have given any thought whatsoever to how the most

perilous two weeks in world history might produce cracks in the National Security State, in the

structural (i.e institutional and not individual) way that they view it. We on this forum know that there

were very serious divisions 1962. But I think these left appologists for the WC have almost entirely

ignored hugely important signs of disagreement between JFK and the CIA-JCS, when they fail to

closely examine the combined impact of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

4. The need to placate the JCS, the CIA and other intelligence outlets with important media ties, helps

us read Kennedy's public pronouncements on Vietnam and Cuba at a deeper level. Chomsky and

Cockburn have not made the time for this.

In many ways I am a "strucutralist" myself. I believe, for example that media policy and media coverage

of foreign policy have a far greater impact than anything a politician like Hilary Rhodam Bush might do. But

in the case of Chomsky and Cockburn on JFK I think "structuralism" has become an excuse for laziness and "talking out their arsseses"

I might know. At one point I was convinced by their arguments.

As for Sid's point about "left gatekeeping", the book The CIA and Culture by Francis Saunders shows that this CIA use of left media to push the public as a whole further right is not mere conjecture, but is in fact part of our history.

Interesting comments Nathaniel

A general, rather obvious remark about the structuralism v ‘conspiratorialism’.

They need not - and should not - be considered as mutually exclusive alternatives. Both approaches are needed to understand history. Structural factors influence how behaviour - but groups and individuals are also able to sieze intiiatives - to make history (even though it may not be quite as they please).

It’s like the difference between the operation of competing firms within a given market sector in economic theory – and what actually happens in the ‘real world’ of business.

I can't be so generous in my interpretation of Chomsky’s behaviour over the years.

Serious anomalies have been picked up by a growing number of critics in two main areas.

The first of these is Chomsky’s ‘blind spot’ on topics such as the JFK assassination and 9-11.

By extension, he’s also served as a gatekeeper on a range of other cases where there’s at least a prima facie case for a conspiracy and bogus ‘official story’. These events have been going on throughout the entire period of Chomsky’s infuence on the left – for over four decades. Examples include the assassinations of RFK, MLK and JFK junior, the first WTC attack; the OKC bombing; various suspicious deaths of prominent people in aircraft – such as Wellstone, Ron Brown and Hale Boggs.

By keeping his fans fixated on getting the structural analysis right while routinely dismissing ‘conspiracy theories’, he’s discouraged many, many people within the left-leaning intelligensia from looking seriously a string of crimes that have taken place in front of their noses.

Chomsky has been influential within the left as a whole – but I think his role is particularly important for the non-Marxist left. That’s where one might expect ‘conspiratorialist’ analysis to be stronger. In general, Marxists lean more naturally to structural analysis - and did so long before the ‘anarchist’ from MIT hit the scene.

On the odd occasions he’s been cornered about why he believes the official versions of the JFK assassination and 9-11, he seems (to me) to dissemble, waffle and evade.

He has, however, made influential contributions to public debate about the real significance of the JFK Administration - tending to denigrate JFK and downplay his radicalism, especially re: foreign policy.

Regarding 9-11, he backs up the offical legend and skips over all evidence that the ‘Arab hijackers’ were merely patsies in a flase flag operation – while providing an ‘explanation’ that has appeal to the left (although it’s considered risque outside the left). It’s an ‘expalanation’ along the lines of: “they hate us because they have good reason to hate us!”

So yes, if Chomsky has been an ‘asset’ for dark forces – and I do believe that’s the case - he’s been a very effective asset for a very long time.

The second topic on which a number of left-wing critics have noticed anomalies in Chomsky’s behaviour concersn the US – Israel relationship.

Chomsky essentially argues that Israel is a quasi-colony of the USA and that the pro-Israeli bias in US foreign policy is borne of US and Smerican corporate self-interest.

Over the years, a growing number of thoughtful observers of affairs in Washington have come to believe that’s plain nonsense. One could much more plausibly make the reverse argument.

I don’t want to clog up this thread with excessive detail that’s peripheral to the main argument, but on request can post Chomsky’s recent appraisal of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper – and rebuttals from various other authors. I find the rebuttals devastating.

To his credit, Chomsky has consistently and (as far as I know) without exception argued in support of free speech. I acknowledge that and respect it. Chomsky has been prolific. Much of his contribution to public discourse has, I have no doubt, been quite positive and has helped to expose the wrongdoings of the US Government and corporate capitalism..

But none of that, for me, outweighs the negative contribution he has made to public debate on the key issues of conspiracies and Israel – through what appears to be deliberate promulgation of faulty analysis and conclusions..

Edited April 22, 2006 by Sid Walker

[James Richards]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned in this thread yet, but I.F. Stone wrote a very interesting book titled, 'The Haunted Fifties'.

Some of the subjects covered include foreign policy according to Dulles, the death of Stalin, the downfall of McCarthy, the riots at Little Rock and Communism in Cuba.

FWIW.

Stone below.

James

[Dawn Meredith]

I don't subscribe to this view at all. I am convinced that, in time, professional historians, political scientists, and others with a serious interest in the history of this poor perishing republic will be forced one day to come to terms with Dallas. This is, to my mind, the beginning of America's slipping into the Dark Ages and if we want to make some sense about what brought about this decline and fall we will have to face up to the forces and motives responsible for the murder of JFK.

In TIME??? It is now 43 years since the assassination. I wish Gerald were correct. However with all the massive disinofrmation out there, first in CIA-backed books and now all over the web (McAdams etc) how on earth would a good historian discern the truth, IF such a personal were so motivated? Easier to just reproduce the Dallek (and company) view that it was LHO and move on. When a book comes out that is honest and critical of the Warren Commission it is not given any serious coverage in any press and is never prominently displayed at a bookstore.

In fact when Barr McClellan's book was released in 2003 I spent a day calling bookstores all over to ascertain how many books each store actaully had. The number was never above 3 or 4. Inquiries about the store stocking more books were met with "Give me your name and address and I shall order them for you."

I believe there needs to be massive coverage, in what ever media willing to report the truth about this lack of historical reporting. In the alternative: honest history books need to be written by people who have already studied this case.

Dawn

Edited April 23, 2006 by Dawn Meredith

[Len Colby]

I agree that it doesnt make sense to view Chomsky as a closet zionist. If he is, its the deepest closet

since Plato's. I think Chomsky is just a structuralist who, in this particular case, has made a mistake in deemphasizing the degree of difference that a specific individual in a particular context could make.

I was myself caught up in this falacy for a long time. I think it came from periodicals of the left, like The Nation, etc.

The logic went something like this:

1. Vietnam, the 80s and 90s have shown that there is no real fundemental differences between the dems

and repubs anyway...therefore Kennedy Assassination people are being naive about Kennedy

representing a thread to the Military Industrial Complex (as it was known in those dark ages)

2. Kennedy had basically ran his 1960 campaign with a fake missile gap "I am more of a Cold Warrier

than thou" message, so what makes anyone think he would have been more inclined toward detente?

3. There are no shortage of Kennedy statements that--taken out of context with his ongoing struggle with

the JCS -- can be read as encouraging a continued US presence in Vietnam. Cockburn quoted these

without thinking about the years historically, or frankly doing his homework and reading seerious

critiques of the WC. (If Chomsky and Cockburn have read these critiques, they certainly give no sign

of it, never directly addressing any of the points made therein.)

"WITHOUT THINKING OF THE YEARS HISTORICALLY"... BY THIS I MEAN....

1. Not realizing that 1960 was not 1990. The CIA was only thirteen years old. Precosious yes, but might

Cockburn and other syndicated leftists (you can count them on one hand) have meen imposting their

sense of an ossified National Security State Establishment on an earlier time when it was a) not yet as ossified as it would later become or perhaps as ossified but this state was not yet realized by all players (not just JFK but Ike too.)

2. The degree to which the Cold War media climate virtually necessitated that a president mouth hard

right anti-soviet rhetoric to get elected. This would suggest the possibility of a president being more

open-minded than his public pronouncemnts might suggest.

3. Kennedy's repeated clashes with the JCS and CIA over Laos and Cuba. This culminated with the Cuban

Missile Crisis. I don't think Cockburn or Chomsky have given any thought whatsoever to how the most

perilous two weeks in world history might produce cracks in the National Security State, in the

structural (i.e institutional and not individual) way that they view it. We on this forum know that there

were very serious divisions 1962. But I think these left appologists for the WC have almost entirely

ignored hugely important signs of disagreement between JFK and the CIA-JCS, when they fail to

closely examine the combined impact of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

4. The need to placate the JCS, the CIA and other intelligence outlets with important media ties, helps

us read Kennedy's public pronouncements on Vietnam and Cuba at a deeper level. Chomsky and

Cockburn have not made the time for this.

In many ways I am a "strucutralist" myself. I believe, for example that media policy and media coverage

of foreign policy have a far greater impact than anything a politician like Hilary Rhodam Bush might do. But

in the case of Chomsky and Cockburn on JFK I think "structuralism" has become an excuse for laziness and "talking out their arsseses"

I might know. At one point I was convinced by their arguments.

As for Sid's point about "left gatekeeping", the book The CIA and Culture by Francis Saunders shows that this CIA use of left media to push the public as a whole further right is not mere conjecture, but is in fact part of our history.

Interesting comments Nathaniel

A general, rather obvious remark about the structuralism v 'conspiratorialism'.

They need not - and should not - be considered as mutually exclusive alternatives. Both approaches are needed to understand history. Structural factors influence how behaviour - but groups and individuals are also able to sieze intiiatives - to make history (even though it may not be quite as they please).

It's like the difference between the operation of competing firms within a given market sector in economic theory – and what actually happens in the 'real world' of business.

I can't be so generous in my interpretation of Chomsky's behaviour over the years.

Serious anomalies have been picked up by a growing number of critics in two main areas.

The first of these is Chomsky's 'blind spot' on topics such as the JFK assassination and 9-11.

By extension, he's also served as a gatekeeper on a range of other cases where there's at least a prima facie case for a conspiracy and bogus 'official story'. These events have been going on throughout the entire period of Chomsky's infuence on the left – for over four decades. Examples include the assassinations of RFK, MLK and JFK junior, the first WTC attack; the OKC bombing; various suspicious deaths of prominent people in aircraft – such as Wellstone, Ron Brown and Hale Boggs.

By keeping his fans fixated on getting the structural analysis right while routinely dismissing 'conspiracy theories', he's discouraged many, many people within the left-leaning intelligensia from looking seriously a string of crimes that have taken place in front of their noses.

Chomsky has been influential within the left as a whole – but I think his role is particularly important for the non-Marxist left. That's where one might expect 'conspiratorialist' analysis to be stronger. In general, Marxists lean more naturally to structural analysis - and did so long before the 'anarchist' from MIT hit the scene.

On the odd occasions he's been cornered about why he believes the official versions of the JFK assassination and 9-11, he seems (to me) to dissemble, waffle and evade.

He has, however, made influential contributions to public debate about the real significance of the JFK Administration - tending to denigrate JFK and downplay his radicalism, especially re: foreign policy.

Regarding 9-11, he backs up the offical legend and skips over all evidence that the 'Arab hijackers' were hit's considered risque outside the left). It's an 'expalanation' along the lines of: "they hate us because they have good reason to hate us!"

So yes, if Chomsky has been an 'asset' for dark forces – and I do believe that's the case - he's been a very effective asset for a very long time.

The second topic on which a number of left-wing critics have noticed anomalies in Chomsky's behaviour concersn the US – Israel relationship.

Chomsky essentially argues that Israel is a quasi-colony of the USA and that the pro-Israeli bias in US foreign policy is borne of US and Smerican corporate self-interest.

Over the years, a growing number of thoughtful observers of affairs in Washington have come to believe that's plain nonsense. One could much more plausibly make the reverse argument.

I don't want to clog up this thread with excessive detail that's peripheral to the main argument, but on request can post Chomsky's recent appraisal of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper – and rebuttals from various other authors. I find the rebuttals devastating.

To his credit, Chomsky has consistently and (as far as I know) without exception argued in support of free speech. I acknowledge that and respect it. Chomsky has been prolific. Much of his contribution to public discourse has, I have no doubt, been quite positive and has helped to expose the wrongdoings of the US Government and corporate capitalism..

But none of that, for me, outweighs the negative contribution he has made to public debate on the key issues of conspiracies and Israel – through what appears to be deliberate promulgation of faulty analysis and conclusions..

Sid,

Provide if you can evidence if you can of Chomsky's "gatekeeper" role in the various conspiracies theories. In most cases 9/11, the first WTC attack; the OKC bombing; various suspicious deaths of prominent people in aircraft – such as Wellstone, Ron Brown JFK junior and Hale Boggs the evidence in support of conspiray theories in theses cases is extemly weak.

Funny that you cited Edward Said in another thread he collaboirated with Chomsy for many years and reached the same conclusion about 9/11 and he regularly wrote for Cockburn whose position re: JFK and 9/11 was the same as Chomsky's you think maybe both of them (Said and Cockburn) were deep cover Mossad assets too!

Edited April 23, 2006 by Len Colby

[Owen Parsons]

Israel Shamir, whom you so dislike, explicitly seeks to create bridges between anti-Zionists of different complexions and backgrounds. I think it's a worthy project – and necessary, in the circumstances.

I like the work of Israel Shamir and said so. You apparently do not, and argue that my appreciation of his work makes my claim not be 'anti-Jewish' "suspect". You apparently feel you have the right to pick the Jews I should like and the Jews I should not like. If I don't like the same ones you like, I'm anti-Jewish. Interesting argument.

I think it is very possible that Mr. Walker does not know who Israel Shamir really is and what he is all about. Here is an earlier post of mine about Shamir:

I do not think you are anti-Semitic at all, though I disagree with your views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, I take issue with one of your "Jewish" heroes. On Israel Shamir; I find it doubtful that he is even Jewish (Israel Shamir isn't even his actual name). He actually believes that Jews ritually murder Christian children and he has been somewhat supportive of holocaust deniers. He has since been disowned by many pro-Palestinian activists, including Nigel Parry, who runs the electronic intifada site. See his page on Shamir here. Also see this wikipedia page on him. You might want to consider dropping him from your pantheon. Not exactly a character witness to anti-Semitism (which, I emphasize again, I do not accuse you of).

If, after reading this material, Mr. Walker still wishes to have Shamir as one of his heroes, I will have to withdraw my earlier judgment that he is not anti-Semitic.

Sid,

Provide if you can evidence if you can of Chomsky's "gatekeeper" role in the various conspiracies theories. In most cases 9/11, the first WTC attack; the OKC bombing; various suspicious deaths of prominent people in aircraft – such as Wellstone, Ron Brown JFK junior and Hale Boggs the evidence in support of conspiray theories in theses cases is extemly weak.

These are strange charges, as I'm pretty sure Chomsky hasn't even bothered to address most of these alleged conspiracies in the first place.

Edited April 23, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[John Simkin]

Why professional historians avoid the JFK case like the vampire avoids holy water. I am sure there are a congeries of reasons for this neglect. My own experience tells me that young members of the professoriate-those who are just starting out and are focused on tenure-do not want to get into this subject because they fear being labelled as "not serious," "conspiratorialists, etc.by senior professionals. I think there has been a cloud over this subject in academia largely because the "Who Killed JFK" seems to attract all kinds of people who think that history is all conspiracy.

I don't subscribe to this view at all. I am convinced that, in time, professional historians, political scientists, and others with a serious interest in the history of this poor perishing republic will be forced one day to come to terms with Dallas. This is, to my mind, the beginning of America's slipping into the Dark Ages and if we want to make some sense about what brought about this decline and fall we will have to face up to the forces and motives responsible for the murder of JFK.

Another factor that must be given weight is the sheer volume of the documentation. The NARA in College Park holds 4 to 5 million pages of documents. Not all are directly relevant, of course, but still this is a daunting challenge for any single researcher. Then there is the stuff that has never been turned over and has either been commited to the "memory hole" or is hidden away in "not to be filed files."

I just reviewed a MS by Michael Kurtz that will be coming out this year under the University of Kansas Press label. His Introduction speaks to your question better than I have above and I recommend you keep your eye peeled for it.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Gerald D. McKnight for his great book, Breach of Trust. I am fully aware that it takes a historian a lot of courage to write about the Kennedy assassination. It is true that historians are very concerned about being called “conspiratorialists”. Yet, anyone who knows anything about history at all, will be aware that the past is full of examples of how those in power use whatever means they have to keep their secrets from the public. The longest running conspiracy concerns the way democracy has been undermined over the last 300 years. There is no doubt that historians and journalists have let us down in this struggle for the truth.

By the way, I assume that this is the same Michael Kurtz who wrote "The Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian's Perspective"? If so, does he still think it is possible that the Soviets were involved in the assassination?

[Bruce Cormier]

Although the historians' plight is understandable, there is no forgiving the journalistic community's complete abdication of responsibility on THE greatest story of what has been dubbed the American Century. The media's failure was decidedly NOT their inability to break the case -- the Watergate experience here is the exception not the norm, and were it not for the fortitude of Judge Sirica and Mark Felt, Watergate too would be similarly shrouded in mystery. It was, instead, a complete lack of curiosity and follow through on an official account of the murder that flunked the simple test of common sense. Instead of pressing questions and demanding answers, the so-called mainstream media ignored the white elephant in the parlor -- and worse, from Cronkite in the 1960s through Jennings s few years ago, urged the American public to ignore it too.

Why? I'm not entirely sure. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's because gray eminences in Washington counseled, "Don't go there. The truth is too ugly and the consequences of disclosure are potentially cataclysmic." To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth, and the american people certainly cannot handle it." What people may forget 43 years later is that this mission could be accomplished over a few lunches and with a few phone calls given the concentration of media power in 1963 -- 3 networks, a few news weeklies, and a handful of important newspapers.

But even if you endorse this most forgiving explanation -- e.g., if you accept "Ultimate Sacrifice's" thesis that the people who mattered were worried about blowing up the world if "the truth" emerged -- that justification had disappeared a little more than a decade later when the Government, spurred by CIA abuses, revisted the issue. Again, the media were lapdogs.

Perhaps this time it was professional pride: "We don't make mistakes ... We could never have whiffed on THE story of the century ..." But whatever the cause of the media's abysmal failure, it cannot be justified.

[John Simkin]

Although the historians' plight is understandable, there is no forgiving the journalistic community's complete abdication of responsibility on THE greatest story of what has been dubbed the American Century. The media's failure was decidedly NOT their inability to break the case -- the Watergate experience here is the exception not the norm, and were it not for the fortitude of Judge Sirica and Mark Felt, Watergate too would be similarly shrouded in mystery.

I am not convinced that American journalists did fully expose the Watergate Scandal. The real story has never been told. Felt was not Deep Throat (although he did supply some information). Sirica also played his role in directing attention away from Operation Sandwedge (Operation Gemstone was not really the big story). It was the CIA that got rid of Nixon. He could not fight back because the CIA knew about his really serious crimes.

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Apr 26 2006, 06:35 PM' post='61003']

I am not convinced that American journalists did fully expose the Watergate Scandal. The real story has never been told. Felt was not Deep Throat (although he did supply some information). Sirica also played his role in directing attention away from Operation Sandwedge (Operation Gemstone was not really the big story). It was the CIA that got rid of Nixon. He could not fight back because the CIA knew about his really serious crimes.

So so true. I caught a little bit of Larry King last night. He had Mark Felt on and it was really sad. This poor old guy will just say what he's been told. Which is really very little, but the Washington Post boys were also on: Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee all in agreement that Felt was DT. Given that we've now been told this I doubt we will ever know the real DT's id.

Does anyone have any remote idea were to find Hunt? Perhaps before he leaves this world he'd bare his soul a bit... just a thought.

Dawn

[Jim Hackett II]

Just yesterday I was told "they" identified deep throat - again.

The life of a legend and another limited hang out doesn't surprize me. What does amaze me is how few people bother to do their own thinking.

So they exposed deep throat?

But did they?

No clearly not.

The legend of Woodstein is exactly that. A created legend and limited hang from the hand of a known ONI asset, (Bob Woodward). How better to CYA than to promote the legend of a functional "free" press a la Ed R. Morrow? I doubt Carl Bernstein knew of Woodward's past back in 1973. FWIW

I agree with Ms. Meredith and Mr. Simkins that the real tale of watergate has never been told or taught in post high school education nor high school education.

The "free" press did not save the Republic in the Watergate abdication of Dick Nixon any more than the NY Times and CBS ever EVER reported the realities of the fallacy of the Warren Commission and its bullcr*p report.

Neither did the abdication of Nixon stop the SE Asian covert war and the attending issues of empire.

I am seeking a good book on the real issues attending Watergate titled Nightmare by a Mr. Lucas.

Another good source I loaned that never remembered where its way home, yet.

Jim

[Michael Hogan]

Jim,

You can find a copy here for a mere buck or two plus shipping.

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/Search...=nightmare&x=41

J. Anthony Lukas was a brilliant writer who hung himself in his New York apartment in 1997.

His mother had committed suicide years earlier. Lukas had been diagnosed with depression.

Mike Hogan

[Sid Walker]

Just yesterday I was told "they" identified deep throat - again.

The life of a legend and another limited hang out doesn't surprize me. What does amaze me is how few people bother to do their own thinking.

So they exposed deep throat?

But did they?

No clearly not.

The legend of Woodstein is exactly that. A created legend and limited hang from the hand of a known ONI asset, (Bob Woodward). How better to CYA than to promote the legend of a functional "free" press a la Ed R. Morrow? I doubt Carl Bernstein knew of Woodward's past back in 1973. FWIW

I agree with Ms. Meredith and Mr. Simkins that the real tale of watergate has never been told or taught in post high school education nor high school education.

The "free" press did not save the Republic in the Watergate abdication of Dick Nixon any more than the NY Times and CBS ever EVER reported the realities of the fallacy of the Warren Commission and its bullcr*p report.

Neither did the abdication of Nixon stop the SE Asian covert war and the attending issues of empire.

I am seeking a good book on the real issues attending Watergate titled Nightmare by a Mr. Lucas.

Another good source I loaned that never remembered where its way home, yet.

Jim

Great post Jim

The 'expose' of Watergate was extremely partial. One of it's subliminal messages - to Americans and to the world - was that the 'fearless US media' would get at the truth, even if it involved taking on the office of the Presidency itself. That gave the media lots of credibility. It helped it build up a 'credibility account' that may by now been fully expended, but lasted for a few decades.

Perhaps the latest 'expose' about the identity of 'Deep Throat' is intended to shore up the official Watergate / fearless media fable in the public mind?

I'd add that. in my opinion, it wasn't only elements of the US 'intelligence services' who were out to get Nixon. Key, opinion-leading elements of the US mass media went after him him also. The media helped destroy Carter's Presidency as well - although in that case, there was no scandal, just ridicule and the repeated suggestion he was out of his depth. By contrast, the mass media has bent over backwards to defend crooked and incompetent Presidencies in cases where their preferred agenda was advanced. Its kid gloves treatment of Bush II is the epitomy of this astonishing double standard.

Final Judgment, discussed elsewhere in the Forum, has a take on the JFK-Watergate connection.

The connection between the Kennedy assassination and the Watergate affair that toppled Richard Nixon has been the basis for an incredible amount of misinformation and disinformation since the fall of President Nixon in 1974.

There is indeed a Watergate Connection to the JFK assassination but it’s one that even the most intrepid JFK assassination researchers have somehow seemed to miss.

The true Dallas-Watergate Connection is the long-hidden role of Israel’s CIA man, James Jesus Angleton—the prime CIA mover not only behind the JFK assassination but also the forced resignation of Richard M. Nixon. This is also explored in Final Judgment.

The source of that quote is a document recently attached to one of my posts on this thread.

[John Simkin]

You can find a copy here for a mere buck or two plus shipping.

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/Search...=nightmare&x=41

J. Anthony Lukas was a brilliant writer who hung himself in his New York apartment in 1997.

His mother had committed suicide years earlier. Lukas had been diagnosed with depression.

Thanks for the tip. I have just purchased a copy.

Why do so many investigative journalists kill themselves?

[Dawn Meredith]

You can find a copy here for a mere buck or two plus shipping.

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/Search...=nightmare&x=41

J. Anthony Lukas was a brilliant writer who hung himself in his New York apartment in 1997.

His mother had committed suicide years earlier. Lukas had been diagnosed with depression.

Thanks for the tip. I have just purchased a copy.

Why do so many investigative journalists kill themselves?

Perhaps this deserves its own thread, with as many names as possible and we can all do some digging to try to see if we believe the "official" report of suicide. The odds do seem against such a thing.

Now I do believe that Gary Webb did commit suicide as I have read about the letters he left to his former wife and children. But what about that invesitgative journalist who was found at RIchard M. Scaife's office? (the name escapes me at the moment)- but that one sounded more like "suicidED".

Dawn

[Antti Hynonen]

Dawn Meredith Posted Today, 12:02 PM

QUOTE(John Simkin @ Apr 27 2006, 12:54 PM)

QUOTE(Michael Hogan @ Apr 27 2006, 03:30 AM)

You can find a copy here for a mere buck or two plus shipping.

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/Search...=nightmare&x=41

J. Anthony Lukas was a brilliant writer who hung himself in his New York apartment in 1997.

His mother had committed suicide years earlier. Lukas had been diagnosed with depression.

Thanks for the tip. I have just purchased a copy.

Why do so many investigative journalists kill themselves?

Perhaps this deserves its own thread, with as many names as possible and we can all do some

digging to try to see if we believe the "official" report of suicide. The odds do seem against such a thing.

Now I do believe that Gary Webb did commit suicide as I have read about the letters he left to his former wife and children. But what about that invesitgative journalist who was found at RIchard M. Scaife's office?

(the name escapes me at the moment)- but that one sounded more like "suicidED".

Dawn

His name was Steve Kangas. His "suicide" seemed quite odd. Found lying down on the restroom floor of the bldg. at 11 p.m. by a security guard, counscious not shot. Guard goes to get help and soon finds Steve sitting up, on the toilet, with a gun shot wound to his head.

No one seems to know why he was in Pittsburg, on the other side of the USA (he was living in Las Vegas), nor what he was doing in this office building at such a late hour. Sadly his roommate had sold his computer, and the new owner cleared Steve's hard drive with possible clues.

Edited April 27, 2006 by Antti Hynonen