Dilemma for Spooks
Jim Hargrove
When John F. Kennedy was president, 75% of the American public said
they trusted their government to do the right thing most or all of the
time; today that figure is about 25%.
With so many people having decided that all politicians are either
dishonest or incompetent--or both--it's no surprise that they have also
decided it's a waste of time to vote. Voter turnout nationally declined
steadily from a high of 63.1% in 1960 to 50.2% in 1988 (although it did
increase to 55.1% in 1992, seemingly because of voter fears about
the economy).
When the public views its leaders--and the very process of
governing--with suspicion and mistrust, the social contract breaks
down. A pervasive climate of cynicism leads to a sense that a whole
range of problems are beyond the control of mere politicians, beyond
solution altogether; this breeds frustration, hopelessness and a lack
of faith in nongovernmental institutions, and in each other, as well.
DAVID SHAW, COLUMN ONE;
"A Negative Spin on the News;"
Los Angeles Times,
04-17-1996, pp A-1
The spooks, online disinfo artists and CIA media "assets" who drone on and
on that the Warren Commission basically got it right (even though it is now
clear that the WC was assembled merely to rubber stamp J. Edgar Hoover's
position) are contributing to this dangerous lack of faith Americans have in
their government--and news institutions as well.
As they continue to support the unsupportable, I wonder if any of them care
about the damage they are doing to this nation?
--Jim Hargrove
The letters "KILLSPAM" were added to my address as an anti-spam measure.
If you wish to send me email, remove "KILLSPAM" from my address before sending.
Michael Beck
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:31:32 GMT, ji...@KILLSPAMwwa.com (Jim Hargrove)
wrote:
>snip
>
>The spooks, online disinfo artists and CIA media "assets" who drone on and
>on that the Warren Commission basically got it right (even though it is now
>clear that the WC was assembled merely to rubber stamp J. Edgar Hoover's
>position) are contributing to this dangerous lack of faith Americans have in
>their government--and news institutions as well.
>
>As they continue to support the unsupportable, I wonder if any of them care
>about the damage they are doing to this nation?
>
>--Jim Hargrove
>The letters "KILLSPAM" were added to my address as an anti-spam measure.
>If you wish to send me email, remove "KILLSPAM" from my address before sending.
Jim,
You are 180 degrees "out of phase" in my opinion.
I belief that the flood of pro-conspiracy buff books, movies, and TV
shows have contributed to this cynicism.
The WC conclusions (that Oswald did it) *are* supportable by *all* of
the physical evidence. Frankly, your position is analogous to the OJ
supporters who still support *their man* independent of the physical
evidence. In their minds, the "cops" were crooked and therefore at
fault. Their cynical attitude wasn't shaped by the trial, but by
prior events.
Furthermore, the assassinated president did much to contribute to this
cynicism when his true private life was revealed. The effect has been
similar to a child's discovery that his parents "aren't always
correct". That initial shock usually results in the typical
rebellious teenager who "knows everything" and "whose parents know
nothing". I would say our country is in it's "adolescent" period.
In my opinion, the apathy in the US is due to a "mind numb"
electorate; who can't get their butts up to learn anything beyond the
fiction they are shown on their TV screens. TV *is* the opiate of the
masses. With 80+ hours of this drug consumed on a weekly basis (by
average Americans), how can you be surprised that they don't find time
to vote.
Steve Bochan
Michael Beck wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:31:32 GMT, ji...@KILLSPAMwwa.com (Jim Hargrove)
> wrote:
>
<snip>
> In my opinion, the apathy in the US is due to a "mind numb"
> electorate; who can't get their butts up to learn anything beyond the
> fiction they are shown on their TV screens. TV *is* the opiate of the
> masses. With 80+ hours of this drug consumed on a weekly basis (by
> average Americans), how can you be surprised that they don't find time
> to vote.
Mike,
I concur with your observations. Interestingly, an editorial in today's
Washington Post discussed a study done recently, sponsored by the ARRP,
that discussed the cynicism among Americans toward their government.
(While it is popular for some of the kooks to call people spooks for no
other reason than their belief that LHO shot JFK, this recent attempt to
blame the 'minority' for the cynicism of the 'majority' astounds me.)
At any rate, I thought you might enjoy excerpts from David Broder's
article called, "Bowling Alone -- Are we really a nation of 'civic
slugs'?"
He writes of a survey on his desk "from the American Association of
Retired Persons (AARP), and that will be made public within a few days,"
that is "subtle, sophisticated and significant piece of social research,
done by Thomas M. Guterbock and John C. Fries of the Center for Survey
Research of the University of Virginia, under the direction of AARP's
director of research, Constance Swank."
In Broder's opinion:
[QUOTE]
It is a major contribution to understanding a set of questions
increasingly at the center of public policy debate -- the issues of
social trust, civic engagement and cynicism about government.
The decline in voter turnouts and in confidence in major institutions,
the growing distrust of politicians and public officials, have been the
subject of worried commentary for years. The debate on causes and
consequences of this "malaise" took an important turn in 1995, when
Robert D. Putnam of Harvard published an influential essay called
"Bowling Alone," in which he argued that Americans were becoming
increasingly disconnected from their communities and from each other,
thus depleting the supply of "social capital" on which democratic
government depends.
In Putnam's view, lower memberships in bowling leagues -- even while
more and more people tried individually for strikes and spares — was a
metaphor for a society that was increasingly atomized and lacking in
community spirit.
Other scholars quickly challenged Putnam's data and interpretations. But
the AARP survey advances the understanding of the state of our civic
life more than any other single study I have read. It will, I believe,
become a major resource both for scholars and the many activists who are
struggling to overcome what they fear is the growing cynicism of too
many of our fellow citizens.
[END QUOTE]
Broder writes that the "AARP wanted the data because, as the largest
organization of senior citizens, it has a huge stake in understanding
the attitudes of today's elderly and of the generations behind them."
Continuing:
[QUOTE]
There is both good news and bad news in the findings, which are far too
rich to be summarized in a column like this. On the upbeat side, America
turns out to be more of a society of "joiners" than Putnam and many
other earlier scholars had calculated. By changing the interview
question for the 1,500 people in the survey -- asking for specific
organizations rather than broad categories of groups in which they hold
memberships -- the AARP study found that the average American adult has
four affiliations. Only one in seven has no formal links outside of
family or work.
Volunteering numbers are also high, and so is the sense of community.
Almost half the adults reported that they had volunteered during the
past year and many of them contributed substantial time.
Political activity is low, but that is not an indicator of apathy. When
people were asked about their level of interest in and sense of ability
to influence policy -- especially at the local level -- the "civic
engagement" scores were quite high.
But that does not mean that trust in other people -- or in government --
is correspondingly healthy. A survey question found as many people
saying "you can't be too careful" in dealing with others as said "most
people can be trusted." That was better than The Washington Post found
on an identical survey question late in 1995, but still nothing to cheer
about.
AARP found that only 28 percent believe the national government can be
trusted to do what is right most or all of the time -- statistically
identical to the Post's result — and confidence in the prospects for the
next generation was similarly and appallingly low in both surveys.
This suggests a refinement of Putnam's theory -- one that recognizes the
"trust" element of "social capital" is much weaker than the "civic
engagement" index.
Older Americans, regular newspaper readers and especially those with
active religious affiliations and practices are more civic-minded than
the 18-to-25-year-olds, the TV-dependent and the unchurched.
[END QUOTE]
It would appear that Broder also concurs with your observation on
TV-dependent Americans, then.
On a more positive note, he concludes by writing:
[QUOTE]
But overall, the study shows "we're not a nation of civic slugs," as
Constance Swank told me. "Despite their lack of trust in government,
most Americans have not lost their sense of what they can do
individually or collectively in their communities."
In a sobering national picture, that is something on which leaders at
all levels may be able to build.
[END QUOTE]
So there you have it.
Maybe some of the kooks will point out that Broder is a spook now, or
that The Washington Post is spook-controlled, blah, blah, blah ...
But then again, maybe common sense will prevail. Let's hope so.
STEVE
Steve Bochan
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote on Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:38:13 -0500:
>
> >So there you have it.
> >
> >Maybe some of the kooks will point out that Broder is a spook now, or
> >that The Washington Post is spook-controlled, blah, blah, blah ...
> >
>
> This letter was widely circulated on the Washington Post's chat boards at
> the time the Post was protecting the CIA from Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance"
> report and at the time the Post was hiding and misrepresenting--for the
> second time in a decade--the findings of Senator Kerry's subcommittee
> looking into CIA-assisted Contra narcotics operations.
<Julian C. Holmes' lengthy letter snipped>
As I said .... I hope common sense prevails. The circus surrounding
Gary Webb has been reported on by The Post.
It is laughable that The Post has protected the CIA. There have been a
number of editorials that show the paper taking the agency to task for
various shenanigans, bungling and worse.
The Washington Post pursued the Watergate story. Watergate was a
conspiracy. Remember?
STEVE
Jim Hargrove
Steve Bochan wrote on Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:38:13 -0500:
>So there you have it.
>
>Maybe some of the kooks will point out that Broder is a spook now, or
>that The Washington Post is spook-controlled, blah, blah, blah ...
>
>But then again, maybe common sense will prevail. Let's hope so. =
This letter was widely circulated on the Washington Post's chat boards at
the time the Post was protecting the CIA from Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance"
report and at the time the Post was hiding and misrepresenting--for the
second time in a decade--the findings of Senator Kerry's subcommittee
looking into CIA-assisted Contra narcotics operations.
<QUOTE ON>
How the Washington Post Censors the News
A Letter to the Washington Post
by Julian C. Holmes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 25, 1992
Richard Harwood, Ombudsman
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Mr. Harwood,
Though the Washington Post does not over-extend itself in the pursuit of
hard news, just let drop the faintest rumor of a government "conspiracy",
and a klaxon horn goes off in the news room. Aroused from apathy in the
daily routine of reporting assignations and various other political and
social sports events, editors and reporters scramble to the phones. The
klaxon screams its warning: the greatest single threat to herd-journalism,
corporate profits, and government stability -- the dreaded "CONSPIRACY
THEORY"!!
It is not known whether anyone has actually been hassled or accosted by any
of these frightful spectres, but their presence is announced to Post readers
with a salvo of warnings to avoid the tricky, sticky webs spun by the wacko
"CONSPIRACY THEORISTS".
Recall how the Post saved us from the truth about Iran-Contra.
Professional conspiracy exorcist Mark Hosenball was hired to ridicule the
idea that Oliver North and his CIA-associated gangsters had conspired to do
wrong (*1). And when, in their syndicated column, Jack Anderson and Dale Van
Atta discussed some of the conspirators, the Post sprang to protect its
readers, and the conspirators, by censoring the Anderson column before
printing it (*2).
But for some time the lid had been coming off the Iran-Contra conspiracy. In
1986, the Christic Institute, an interfaith center for law and public
policy, had filed a lawsuit alleging a U.S. arms-for-drugs trade that helped
keep weapons flowing to the CIA-Contra army in Nicaragua, and cocaine
flowing to U.S. markets (*3). In 1988 Leslie Cockburn published Out of
Control, a seminal work on our bizarre, illegal war against Nicaragua (*4).
The Post contributed to this discovery process by disparaging the charges of
conspiracy and by publishing false information about the drug-smuggling
evidence presented to the House Subcommittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control.
When accused by Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY). of misleading
reporting, the Post printed only a partial correction and declined to print
a letter of complaint from Rangel (*5).
Sworn testimony before Senator John Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Narcotics, and International Operations confirmed U.S. Government complicity
in the drug trade (*6). With its coverup of the arms/drug conspiracy
evaporating, the ever-accommodating Post shifted gears and retained
Hosenball to exorcise from our minds a newly emerging threat to domestic
tranquility, the "October Surprise" conspiracy (*7). But close on the heels
of Hosenball and the Post came Barbara Honegger and then Gary Sick who
authored independently, two years apart, books with the same title, "October
Surprise" (*8). Honegger was a member of the Reagan/Bush campaign and
transition teams in 1980. Gary Sick, professor of Middle East Politics at
Columbia University, was on the staff of the National Security Council under
Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. In 1989 and 1991 respectively, Honegger
and Sick published their evidence of how the Republicans made a deal to
supply arms to Iran if Iran would delay release of the 52 United States
hostages until after the November 1980 election. The purpose of this deal
was to quash the possibility of a pre-election release(an October surprise).
which would have bolstered the reelection prospects for President Carter.
Others published details of this alleged Reagan-Bush conspiracy. In October
1988, Playboy Magazine ran an expose "An Election Held Hostage"; FRONTLINE
did another in April 1991 (*9). In June, 1991 a conference of distinguished
journalists, joined by 8 of the former hostages, challenged the Congress to
"make a full, impartial investigation" of the election/hostage allegations.
The Post reported the statement of the hostages, but not a word of the
conference itself which was held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building
Auditorium (*10). On February 5, 1992 a gun-shy, uninspired House of
Representatives begrudgingly authorized an "October Surprise" investigation
by a task force of 13 congressmen headed by Lee Hamilton (D-IN). who had
chaired the House of Representatives Iran-Contra Committee. Hamilton has
named as chief team counsel Larry Barcella, a lawyer who represented BCCI
when the Bank was indicted in 1988 (*11).
Like the Washington Post, Hamilton had not shown interest in pursuing the
U.S. arms-for-drugs operation (*12). He had accepted Oliver North's lies,and
as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he derailed House Resolution
485 which had asked President Reagan to answer questions about Contra
support activities of government officials and others (*13). After CIA
operative John
Hull (from Hamilton's home state). was charged in Costa Rica with
"international drug trafficking and hostile acts against the nation's
security", Hamilton and 18 fellow members of Congress tried to intimidate
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez into handling Hull's case "in a
manner that will not complicate U.S.-Costa Rican relations" (*14). The Post
did not report the Hamilton letter or the Costa Rican response that declared
Hull's case to be "in as good hands as our 100 year old uninterrupted
democracy can provide to all citizens" (*15).
Though the Post does its best to guide our thinking away from conspiracy
theories, it is difficult to avoid the fact that so much wrongdoing involves
government or corporate conspiracies:
In its COINTELPRO operation, the FBI used disinformation, forgery,
surveillance, false arrests, and violence to illegally harass U.S.citizens
in the 60's (*16).
The CIA's Operation MONGOOSE illegally sabotaged Cuba by "destroying crops,
brutalizing citizens, destabilizing the society, and conspiring with the
Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro and other leaders" (*17).
"Standard Oil of New Jersey was found by the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice to be conspiring with I.G.Farben...of Germany. ...By
its cartel agreements with Standard Oil, the United States was effectively
prevented from developing or producing [fo rWorld War-II] any substantial
amount of synthetic rubber," said Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin
(*18).
U.S. Government agencies knowingly withheld information about dosages of
radiation "almost certain to produce thyroid abnormalities or cancer" that
contaminated people residing near the nuclear weapons factory at Hanford,
Washington (*19).
Various branches of Government deliberately drag their feet in getting
around to cleaning up the Nation's dangerous nuclear weapons sites (*20).
State and local governments back the nuclear industry's secret public
relations strategy (*21).
"The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and some twenty
comprehensive cancer centers, have misled and confused the public and
Congress by repeated claims that we are winning the war against cancer. In
fact, the cancer establishment has continually minimized the evidence for
increasing cancer rates which it has largely attributed to smoking and
dietary fat, while discounting or ignoring the causal role of avoidable
eposures to industrial carcinogens in the air, food, water, and the
workplace." (*22).
The Bush Administration coverup of its pre-Gulf-War support of Iraq "is yet
another example of the President's people conspiring to keep both Congress
and the American people in the dark" (*23).
If you think about it, conspiracy is a fundamental aspect of doing business
in this country.
Take the systematic and cooperative censorship of the Persian Gulf War by
the Pentagon and much of the news media (*24).
Or the widespread plans of business and government groups to spend $100
million in taxes to promote a distorted and truncated history of Columbus in
America (*25). along the lines of the Smithsonian Institution's "fusion of
the two worlds", (*26). rather than examining more realistic aspects of the
Spanish invasion, like "anger, cruelty, gold, terror, and death" (*27).
Or circumstances surrounding the U.S. Justice Department theft from the
INSLAW company of sophisticated, law-enforcement computer software which
"now point to a widespread conspiracy implicating lesser Government
officials in the theft of INSLAW's technology", says former U.S. Attorney
General Elliot Richardson (*28).
Or Watergate.
Or the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" (*29), where the
White House knew of the criminal activities at "the Bank of Crooks and
Criminals International" (BCCI) (*30), where U.S. intelligence agencies did
their secret banking (*31), and where bribery of prominent American public
officials "was a way of doing business" (*32).
Or the 1949 conviction of "GM [General Motors], Standard Oil of California,
Firestone, and E. Roy Fitzgerald, among others, for criminally conspiring to
replace electric transportation with gas- and diesel-powered buses and to
monopolize the sale of buses and related products to transportation
companies throughout the country" [in, among others, the cities of New York,
Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los
Angeles] (*33).
Or the collusion in 1973 between Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT). and the
U.S. Department of Transportation to overlook safety defects in the 1.2
million Corvair automobiles manufactured by General Motors in the early 60's
(*34).
Or the A. H. Robins Company, which manufactured the Dalkon Shield
intrauterine contraceptive, and which ignored repeated warnings of the
Shield's hazards and which "stonewalled, deceived, covered up, and
covered up the coverups...[thus inflicting] on women a worldwide epidemic of
pelvic infections." (*35).
Or that cooperation between McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company and the FAA
resulted in failure to enforce regulations regarding the unsafe DC-10 cargo
door which failed in flight killing all 364 passengers on Turkish Airlines
Flight 981 on March 3, 1974 (*36).
Or the now-banned, cancer-producing pregnancy drug Diethylstilbestrol (DES).
that was sold by manufacturers who ignored tests which showed DES to be
carcinogenic; and who acted "in concert with each other in the testing and
marketing of DES for miscarriage purposes" (*37).
Or the conspiracies among bankers and speculators, with the cooperation of a
corrupted Congress, to relieve depositors of their savings. This "arrogant
disregard from the White House, Congress and corporate world for the
interests and rights of the American people" will cost U.S. tapayers many
hundreds of billions of dollars (*38).
Or the Westinghouse, Allis Chalmers,Federal Pacific, and General Electric
executives who met surreptitiously in hotel rooms to fix prices and
eliminate competition on heavy industrial equipment (*39).
Or the convictions of Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT). officers for
fabricating safety tests on prescription drugs (*40).
Or the conspiracy by the asbestos industry to suppress knowledge of medical
problemsrelating to asbestos (*41).
Or the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement through which oil companies "agreed not to
engage in any effective price competition" (*42).
Or the conspiracy among U.S. Government agencies and the Congress to cover
up the nature of our decades-old war against the people of Nicaragua
a covert war that continues in 1992 with the U.S. Government applying
pressure for the Nicaraguan police to reorganize into a more repressive
force (*43).
Or the conspiracy by the CIA and the U.S. Government to interfere in the
Chilean election process with military aid, covert actions, and an economic
boycott which culminated in the overthrow of the legitimately elected
government and the assassination of President Salvador Allende in 1973
(*44).
Or the conspiracy among U.S. officials including Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger and CIA Director William Colby to finance terrorism in Angola for
the purpose of disrupting Angola's plans for peaceful elections in October
1975, and to lie about these actions to the Congress and the news media
(*45). And CIA Director George Bush's subsequent cover up of this
U.S.-sponsored terrorism (*46).
Or President George Bush's consorting with the Pentagon to invade Panama in
1989 and thereby violate the Constitution of the United States, the U.N.
Charter, the O.A.S. Charter, and the Panama Canal Treaties (*47).
Or the "gross antitrust violations" (*48) and the conspiracy of American oil
companies and the British and U.S. governments to strangle Iran economically
after Iran nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951.
And the subsequent overthrow by the CIA in 1953 of Iranian Prime Minister
Muhammed Mossadegh (*49).
Or the CIA-planned assassination of Congo head-of-state Patrice Lumumba
(*50).
Or the deliberate and wilful efforts of President George Bush, Senator
Robert Dole, Senator George Mitchell, various U.S. Government agencies, and
members of both Houses of the Congress to buy the 1990 Nicaraguan national
elections for the presidential candidate supported by President Bush (*51).
Or the collective approval by 64 U.S. Senators of Robert Gates to head the
CIA, in the face of "unmistakable evidence that Gates lied about his role in
the Iran-Contra scandal" (*52).
Or "How Reagan and the Pope Conspired to Assist Poland's Solidarity Movement
and Hasten the Demise of Communism" (*53).
Or how the Reagan Administration connived with the Vatican to ban the use of
USAID funds by any country "for the promotion of birth control or abortion"
(*54).
Or "the way the Vatican and Washington colluded to achieve common purpose in
Central America" (*55).
Or the collaboration of Guatemalan strong-man and mass murderer Hector
Gramajo with the U.S. Army to design "programs to build civilian-military
cooperation" at the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning,
Georgia; five of the nine soldiers accused in the 1989 Jesuit massacre in El
Salvador are graduates of SOA which trains Latin/American military personnel
(*56).
Or the conspiracy of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant administration to
harass and cause bodily harm to whistleblower Linda Porter who uncovered
dangerous working conditions at the facility (*57).
Or the conspiracy of President Richard Nxion and the Government of South
Vietnam to delay the Paris Peace Talks until after the 1968 U.S.
presidential election (*58).
Or the pandemic coverups of police violence (*59).
Or the always safe-to-cite worldwide communist conspiracy (*60).
Or maybe the socially responsible, secret consortium to publish The Satanic
Verses in paperback (*61).
Conspiracies are obviously a way to get things done, and the Washington Post
offers little comment unless conspiracy theorizing threatens to expose a
really important conspiracy that, let's say, benefits big business or big
government.
Such a conspiracy would be like our benevolent CIA's 1953 overthrow of the
Iranian government to help out U.S. oil companies; or like our illegal war
against Panama to tighten U.S. control over Panama and the Canal; or like
monopoly control of broadcasting that facilitates corporate censorship on
issues of public importance (*62). When the camouflage of such conspiracies
is stripped away, public confidence in the conspiring officials can erode --
depending on how seriously the citizenry perceives the conspiracy to have
violated the public trust. Erosion of public trust in the status quo is what
the Post seems to see as a real threat to its corporate security.
Currently, the Post has mounted vituperative, frenzied attacks on Oliver
Stone's movie "JFK", which reexamines the U.S. Government's official (Warren
Commission. finding that a single gunman, acting alone, killed President
John F. Kennedy. The movie also is the story of New Orleans District
Attorney Jim Garrison's unsuccessful prosecution of Clay Shaw, the only
person ever tried in connection with the assassination. And the movie
proposes that the Kennedy assassination was the work of conspirators whose
interests would not be served by a president who, had he lived, might have
disengaged us from our war against Vietnam.
The Post ridicules a reexamination of the Kennedy assassination along lines
suggested by "JFK". Senior Post journalists like Charles Krauthammer, Ken
Ringle, George Will, Phil McCombs, and Michael Isikoff, have been called up
to man the bulwarks against public sentiment which has never supported the
government's non-conspiratorial assassination thesis. In spite of the facts
that the Senate Intelligence Committee of 1975 and 1976 found that "both the
FBI and CIA had repeatedly lied to the Warren Commission" (*63) and that the
1979 Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations found that
President Kennedy was probably killed "as a result of a conspiracy" (*64), a
truly astounding number of Post stories have been used as vehicles to
discredit "JFK" as just another conspiracy (*65).
Some of the more vicious attacks on the movie are by editor Stephen
Rosenfeld, and journalists Richard Cohen, George Will, and George Lardner Jr
(*66). They ridicule the idea that Kennedy could have had second thoughts
about escalating the Vietnam War and declaim that there is no historical
justification for this idea. Seasoned journalist Peter Dale Scott, former
Pentagon/CIA liaison chief L. Fletcher Prouty, and investigators David
Scheim and John Newman have each authored defense of the "JFK" thesis that
Kennedy was not enthusiastic about staying in Vietnam (*67). But the Post
team just continues ranting against the possibility of a high-level
assassination conspiracy while offering little justification for its
arguments.
An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable behavior is
George Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign against the movie.
Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie was completed, and the
third upon its release. In May, six months before the movie came out,
Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft of the script and, contrary to
accepted standards, revealed in the Post the contents of this copyrighted
movie (*68). Also in this article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison
with hostile statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais.
Lardner does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in
a U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government
witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted under
oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television reporter,
he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's case against Garrison was a
fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of the Garrison acquittal mentions this
controversy, but when I recently asked Lardner about this, he was not clear
as to whether he remembered it (*71).
Two weeks after his first "JFK" article, Lardner blustered his way through a
justification for his unauthorized possession of the early draft ofthe movie
(*72). He also defended his reference to Pershing Gervais by lashing out at
Garrison as a writer "of gothic fiction".
When the movie was released in December, Lardner "reviewed" it (*73). He
again ridiculed the film's thesis that following the Kennedy assassination,
President Johnson reversed Kennedy's plans to de-escalate the Vietnam War.
Lardner cited a memorandum issued by Johnson four days after Kennedy died.
Lardner says this memorandum was written before the assassination, and that
it "was a continuation of Kennedy's policy". In fact, the memorandum was
drafted the day before the assassination by McGeorge Bundy (Kennedy's
Assistant for National Security Affairs) Kennedy was in Texas, and may never
have seen it. Following the assassination, it was rewritten; and the final
version provided for escalating the war against Vietnam (*74) -- facts that
Lardner avoided.
The Post's crusade against exposing conspiracies is blatantly dishonest:
The Warren Commission inquiry into the Kennedy Assassination was for the
most part conducted in secret. This fact is buried in the Post (*75). Nor do
current readers of this newspaper find meaningful discussion of the Warren
Commission's secret doubts about both the FBI and the CIA (*76). Or of a
dispatch from CIA headquarters instructing co-conspirators at field stations
to counteract the "new wave of books and articles criticizing the [Warren]
Commission's findings...[and] conspiracy theories ...[that] have frequently
thrown suspicion on our organization" and to "discuss the publicity problem
with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors
"and to "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the
critics. ...Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate
for this purpose. ...The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for
countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists..."
(*77).
In 1979, Washington journalist Deborah Davis published Katharine The Great,
the story of Post publisher Katharine Graham and her newspaper's close ties
with Washington's powerful elite, a number of whom were with the CIA.
Particularly irksome to Post editor Benjamin Bradlee was a Davis claim that
Bradlee had "produced CIA material" (*78). Understandably sensitive about
this kind of publicity, Bradlee told Davis' publisher Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich ,"Miss Davis is lying ...I never produced CIA material ...what I
can do is to brand Miss Davis as a fool and to put your company in that
special little group of publishers who don't give a shit for the truth". The
Post bullied HBJ into recalling the book; HBJ shredded 20,000 copies; Davis
sued HBJ for breach of contract and damage to reputation; HBJ settled out of
court; and Davis published her book elsewhere with an appendix that
demonstrated Bradlee to have been deeply involved with producing
cold-war/CIA propaganda (*79). Bradlee still says the allegations about his
association with people in the CIA are false, but he has apparently taken no
action to contest the xetensive documentation presented by Deborah Davis in
the second and third editions of her book (*80).
And it's not as if the Post were new to conspiracy work.
Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the function
of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of
the government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread
practice:the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA" (*81). This
scandal was known by its code name Operation MOCKINGBIRD. Former Washington
Post reporter Carl Bernstein cites a former CIA deputy director as saying,
"It was widely known that Phil Graham was someone you could get help from"
(*82). More recently the Post provided cover for CIA personality Joseph
Fernandez by "refusing to print his name for over a year up until the day
his indictmen twas announced ...for crimes committed in his official
capacity as CIA station chief in Costa Rica" (*83).
Of the meetings between Graham and his CIA acquaintances at which the
availability and prices of journalists were discussed, a former CIA man
recalls, "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a
couple hundred dollars a month" (*84). One may wish to consider Philip
Graham's philosophy along with a more recent statement from his wife
Katharine Graham, current Chairman of the Board of the Washington Post. In a
lecture on terrorism and the news media, Mrs. Graham said: "A second
challenge facing the media is how to prevent terrorists from using the media
as a platform fortheir views. ... The point is that we generally know when
we are being manipulated, and we've learned better how and where to draw the
line, though the decisions are often difficult" (*85).
Today, the Post and its world of big business are apparently terrified that
our elite and our high-level public officials may be exposed as conspirators
behind Contra drug-smuggling, October Surprise, or the assassination of
President Kennedy. This fear is truly remarkable in that, like most of us
and like most institutions, the Post runs its business as a conspiracy of
like-minded entrepreneurs -- a conspiracy "to act or work together toward
the same result or goal" (*86). But where the Post really parts company from
just plain people is when it pretends that conspiracies associated with big
business or government are "coincidence". Post reporter Lardner vents the
frustration inherent in having to maintain this dichotomy. He lashes out at
Oliver Stone and suggests that Stone may actually believe that the Post's
opposition to Stone's movie is a "conspiracy". Lardner assures us that
Stone's complaints are "groundless and paranoid and smack of McCarthyism"
(*87).
So how does the Post justify devoting so much energy to ridiculing those who
investigate conspiracies?
The Post has answers: people revert to conspiracy theories because they need
something "neat and tidy" (*88) that "plugs a gap no other generally
accepted theory fills', (*89. and "coincidence ...is always the safest and
most likely explanation for any conjunction of curious circumstances ..."
(*90).
And what does this response mean? It means that "coincidence theory" is what
the Post espouses when it would prefer not to admit to a conspiracy. In
other words, some things just "happen". And, besides, conspiracy to do
certain things would be a crime; "coincidence" is a safer bet.
Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, who, it is rumored, serves as Executive
Director of the Benevolent Protective Order of Coincidence Theorists, (*91)
recently issued a warning about presidential candidates "who have begun to
mutter about a press conspiracy". Ordinarily, Harwood would simply dismiss
these charges as "symptoms of the media paranoia that quadrennially engulfs
members of the American political class" (*92). But a fatal mistake was made
by the mutterers; they used the "C" word against the PRESS! And Harwood
exploded his off-the-cuff comment into an entire column -- ending it
with:"We are the new journalists, immersed too long, perhaps, in the
cleansing waters of political conformity. But conspirators we ain't".
Distinguished investigative journalist Morton Mintz, a 29-year veteran of
the Washington Post, now chairs the Fund for Investigative Journalism. In
the December issue of The Progressive, Mintz wrote "A Reporter Looks Back in
Anger -- Why the Media Cover Up Corporate Crime". Therein he discussed the
difficulties in convincing editors to accept important news stories. He
illustrated the article with his own experiences at the Post, where he says
he was known as "the biggest pain in the ass in the office" (*93).
Would Harwood argue that grief endured by journalists at the hands of
editors is a matter of random coincidence?
And that such policy as Mintz described is made independently by editors
without influence from fellow editors or from management? Would Harwood have
us believe that at the countless office "meetings" in which news people are
ever in attendance, there is no discussion of which stories will run and
which ones will find inadequate space? That there is no advanced planning
for stories or that there are no cooperative efforts among the staff? Or
that in the face of our news-media "grayout" of presidential candidate Larry
Agran, (*94) a Post journalist would be free to give news space to candidate
Agran equal to that the Post lavishes on candidate Clinton? Let's face it:
these possibilities are about as likely as Barbara Bush entertaining guests
at a soup kitchen.
Would Harwood have us believe that media critic and former Post Ombudsman
Ben Bagdikian is telling less than the truth in his account of wire-service
control over news: "The largely anonymous men who control the syndicate and
wire service copy desks and the central wire photo machines determine at a
single decision what millions will see and hear. ...there seems to be little
doubt that these gatekeepers preside over an operation in which an appalling
amount of press agentry sneaks in the back door of American journalism and
marches untouched out the front door as 'news'" (*95).
When he sat on the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, Judge
Clarence Thomas violated U.S. law when he failed to remove himself from a
case in which he then proceeded to reverse a $10 million judgment against
the Ralston Purina Company (*96). Ralston Purina, the animal feed empire, is
the family fortune of Thomas' mentor, Senator John Danforth. The Post
limited its coverage of the Thomas malfeasance to 56 words buried in the
middle of a 1200-word article (*97). Would Harwood have us believe that the
almost complete blackout on this matter by the major news media and the U.S.
Senate was a matter of coincidence? Could a Post reporter have written a
story about Ralston Purina if she had wanted to? Can a brick swim?
Or take the fine report produced last September by Ralph Nader's Public
Citizen. Titled All the Vice President's Men, it documents "How the Quayle
Council on Competitiveness Secretly Undermines Health, Safety, and
Environmental Programs". Three months later, Post journalists David Broder
and Bob Woodward published "The President's Understudy", a seven-part series
on Vice President Quayle. Although this series does address Quayle's role
with the Competitiveness Council, its handling of the Council's disastrous
impact on America is inadequate. It is 40,000 words of mostly aimless
chatter about Quayle memorabilia: youth, family, college record,
Christianity, political aspirations, intellectual aspirations, wealthy
friends, government associates, golf, travels, wife Marilyn, and net worth
-- revealing little about Quayle's abilities, his understanding of society's
problems, or his thoughts about justice and freedom, and never mentioning
the comprehensive Nader study of Quayle's record in the Bush Administration
(*98).
Now, did Broder or did Woodward forget about the Nader study? Or did both of
them forget? Or did one, or the other, or both decide not to mention it? Did
these two celebrated, seasoned Post reporters ever discuss together their
jointly authored stories? Did they decide to publish such a barren set of
articles because it would enhance their reputations? How did management feel
about the use of precious news space for such frivolity? Is it possible that
so many pages were dedicated to this twaddle without people "acting or
working together toward the same result or goal"? (*99) Do crocodiles fly?
On March 20, front-page headlines in the Wall Street Journal, the New York
Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post read respectively:
TSONGAS DROPPED OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE CLEARING CLINTON'S PATH
TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN LEAVING CLINTON CLEAR PATH TOWARD SHOWDOWN WITH
BUSH
TSONGAS CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON
TSONGAS EXIT CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON
This display of editorial independence should at least raise questions of
whether the news media collective mindset is really different from that of
any other cartel -- like oil, diamond, energy, (*100) or manufacturing
cartels, a cartel being "a combination of independent commercial enterprises
designed to limit competition" (*101).
The Washington Post editorial page carries the heading:
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Is it? Of course not. There probably is no such thing. Does the Post
"conspire" to keep its staff and its newspaper from wandering too far from
the safety of mediocrity? The Post would respond that the question is
absurd. In that I am not privy to the Post's telephone conversations, I can
only speculate on how closely the media elite must monitor the staff. But we
all know how few micro-seconds it takes a new reporter to learn what
subjects are taboo and what are "safe", and that experienced reporters don't
have to ask.
What is more important, however, than speculating about how the Post
communicates within its own corporate structure and with other members of
the cartel, is to document and publicize what the Post does in public,
namely, how it shapes and censors the news.
Sincerely,
Julian C. Holmes
Copies to: Public-spirited citizens, both inside and outside the news media,
And - maybe a few others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes to Letter of April 25, 1992:
1. Mark Hosenball, "The Ultimate Conspiracy", Washington Post, September 11,
1988, p.C1
2a. Julian Holmes, Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, June
4,1991. Notes that the Post censored, from the Anderson/Van Atta column,
references to the Christic Institute and to Robert Gates.
2b. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "Iran-Contra Figure Dodges
Extradition", Washington Merry-Go-Round, United Feature Syndicate, May 26,
1991. This is the column submitted to the Post (see note 2a)..
2c. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "The Man Washington Doesn't Want to
Extradite", Washington Post, May 26, 1991. The column (see note 2b). as it
appeared in the Post (see note 2a)..
3a. Case No. 86-1146-CIV-KING, Amended Complaint for RICO Conspiracy, etc.,
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Tony Avirgan and
Martha Honey v. John Hull et al., October 3, 1986.
3b. Vince Bielski and Dennis Bernstein, "Reports: Contras Send Drugs to
U.S.", Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 16, 1986.
3c. Neal Matthews, "I Ran Drugs for Uncle Sam" (based on interviews with
Robert Plumlee, contra resupply pilot)., San Diego Reader, April 5, 1990.
4. Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987.
5a. Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics, University
ofCalifornia Press, 1991, p.179-181.
5b. David S. Hilzenrath, "Hill Panel Finds No Evidence Linking Contras to
Drug Smuggling", Washington Post, July 22, 1987, p.A07.
5c. Partial correction to the Washington Post of July 22, Washington Post,
July 24,1987, p.A3.
5d. The Washington Post declined to publish SubCommittee Chairman Rangel's
Letter- to-the-Editor of July 22, 1987. It was printed in the Congressional
Record on August 6, 1987, p.E3296-7.
6a. Michael Kranish, "Kerry Says US Turned Blind Eye to Contra-Drug Trail",
Boston Globe, April 10, 1988.
6b. Mary McGrory, "The Contra-Drug Stink", Washington Post, April 10, 1988,
p.B1. 6c. Robert Parry with Rod Nordland, "Guns for Drugs? Senate Probers
Trace an Old Contra Connection to George Bush's Office", Newsweek, May 23,
1988, p.22.
6d. Dennis Bernstein, "Iran-Contra -- The Coverup Continues", The
Progressive, November 1988, p.24.
6e. "Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy", A Report Prepared by the
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, December 1988.
7a. Mark Hosenball, "If It's October ... Then It's Time for an Iranian
Conspiracy Theory", Washington Post, October 9, 1988, p.D1.
7b. Mark Hosenball, "October Surprise! Redux! The Latest Version of the 1980
'Hostage- Deal' Story Is Still Full of Holes", Washington Post, April 21,
1991,p.B2.
8a. Barbara Honegger, October Surprise, New York: Tudor, 1989.
8b. Gary Sick, October Surprise, New York: Times Books, Random House, 1991.
9a. Abbie Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers, "An Election Held Hostage", Playboy,
October 1988, p.73.
9b. Robert Parry and Robert Ross, "The Election Held Hostage", FRONTLINE,
WGBH-TV,April 16, 1991.
10a. Reuter, "Ex-Hostages Seek Probe By Congress", Washington Post, June
14,1991,p.A4.
10b. "An Election Held Hostage?", Conference, Dirksen Senate Office Building
Auditorium, Washington DC, June 13, 1991; Sponsored by The Fund For New
Priorities in America, 171 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016.
11a. David Brown and Guy Gugliotta, "House Approves Inquiry Into
'OctoberSurprise'", Washington Post, February 6, 1992, p.A11.
11b. Jack Colhoun, "Lawmakers Lose Nerve on October Surprise", The Guardian,
December 11, 1991, p.7.
11c. Jack Colhoun, "October Surprise Probe Taps BCCI Lawyer", The Guardian,
February 26, 1992, p.3.
12. See note 5a, p.180-1.
13a. See note 4, p.229, 240-1.
13b. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra
Affair, Senate Report No. 100-216, House Report No. 100-433, November 1987,
p.139-141.
14a. Letter to His Excellency Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of the Republic
of Costa Rica; from Members of the U.S. Congress David Dreier, Lee Hamilton,
Dave McCurdy, Dan Burton, Mary Rose Oakar, Jim Bunning, Frank McCloskey,
Cass Ballenger, Peter Kostmayer, Jim Bates, Douglas Bosco, James Inhofe,
Thomas Foglietta, Rod Chandler, Ike Skelton, Howard Wolpe, Gary Ackerman,
Robert Lagomarsino, and Bob McEwen; January 26, 1989.
14b. Peter Brennan, "Costa Rica Considers Seeking Contra Backer in U.S. --
Indiana Native Wanted on Murder Charge in 1984 Bomb Attack in Nicaragua",
WashingtonPost, February 1, 1990.
14c. "Costa Rica Seeks Extradition of Indiana Farmer", Scripps-Howard News
Service,April 25, 1991.
15. Press Release from the Costa Rican Embassy, Washington DC, On the Case
of the Imprisonment of Costa Rican Citizen John Hull", February 6, 1989.
16. Brian Glick, War at Home, Boston: South End Press, 1989.
17. John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard-- The U.S. Role in the New World
Order, Boston: South End Press, 1991, p.121.
18. Hearings Before the Committee on Patents, United States Senate, 77th
Cong., 2nd Session (1942)., part I, as cited in Joseph Borkin, The Crime and
Punishment of I.G. Farben, New York: The Free Press, Macmillan, 1978, p.93.
19. R. Jeffrey Smith, "Study of A-Plant Neighbors' Health Urged", Washington
Post, July 13, 1990, p.A6.
20. Tom Horton, "A Cost Higher Than the Peace Dividend -- Price Tag Mounts
to Clean Up Nuclear Weapons Sites", Baltimore Sun, February 23, 1992, p.1K.
21. "The Nuclear Industry's Secret PR Strategy", EXTRA!, March 1992, p.15.
22a. Samuel S. Epstein, MD et al, Losing the War Against Cancer: Need for
PublicPolicy Reform", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.E947-9.
22b. Samuel S. Epstein, "The Cancer Establishment", Washington Post, March
10, 1992.
23a. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez, "Efforts to Thwart Investigation of the BNL
Scandal", Congressional Record, March 30, 1992, p.H2005-2014.
23b. Hon. David E. Skaggs (CO)., White House Spin Control on Pre-War Iraq
Policy", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.H2285.
23c. Nicholas Rostow, Special Assistant to the President and Legal Adviser,
Memorandum to Jeanne S. Archibald et al, "Meeting on congressional requests
for information and documents", April 8, 1991; Congressional Record, April
2, 1992,p.H2285.
24a. Michio Kaku, "Operation Desert Lie: Pentagon Confesses", The
Guardian, March11, 1992, p.4.
24b. J. Max Robins, "NBC's Unaired Iraq Tapes Not a Black and White Case",
Variety Magazine, March 4, 1991, p.25.
25. Emory R. Searcy Jr., Clergy and Laity Concerned, Spring 1991 Letter
to"Friends", p.1.
26. Jean Dimeo, "Selling Hispanics on Columbus -- Luis Vasquez-Ajmac Is
Hired to Promote Smithsonian Project", Washington Post, November 18, 1991,
p.Bus.8.
27. Hans Koning, "Teach the Truth About Columbus", Washington Post,
September 3,1991, p.A19.
28a. James Kilpatrick, "Software-Piracy Case Emitting Big Stench", St. Louis
Post/Dispatch, March 18, 1991, p.3B. Elliot L. Richardson, "A High-Tech
Watergate", New York Times, October 21,1991.
29. "BCCI -- NBC Sunday Today", February 23, 1992, p.12; transcript prepared
by Burrelle's Information Services. The quote is from New York District
Attorney Robert Morgenthau who is running his own independent investigation
of BCCI.
30. Norman Bailey, former Reagan White House intelligence analyst; from an
interview with Mark Rosenthal of NBC News. See note 29, p.5.
31. Jack Colhoun, "BCCI Skeletons Haunting Bush's Closet", The Guardian,
September 18, 1991, p.9.
32. Robert Morgenthau. See note 29, p.10.
33. Russell Mokhiber, Corporate Crime and Violence, San Francisco: Sierra
ClubBooks, 1989 paperback edition, p.227.
34. See note 33, p.136-7.
35. Morton Mintz, At Any Cost: Corporate Greed, Women, and the Dalkon
Shield, NewYork: Pantheon, 1985. As cited in Mokhiber, see note 33, p.157.
36. See note 33, p.164-171.
37. See note 33, p.172-180.
38. Michael Waldman, Who Robbed America?, New York: Random House, 1990. The
quote is from Ralph Nader's Introduction, p.iii.
39. See note 33, p.217.
40. See note 33, p.235.
41. See note 33, p.277-288.
42. See note 33, p.323.
43. Katherine Hoyt Gonzalez, Nicaragua Network Education Fund Newsletter,
March1992, p.1.
44. William Blum, The CIA -- A Forgotten History, London: Zed Books Ltd.,
1986,p.232-243.
45a. John Stockwell, In Search of Enemies, New York: Norton, 1978.
45b. See note 44, p.284-291.
46. See note 17, p.18.
47a. Letter to President George Bush from The Ad Hoc Committee for Panama
(James Abourezk et al)., January 10, 1990; published in The Nation, February
5, 1990, p.163.
47b. Philip E. Wheaton, Panama, Trenton NJ: Red Sea Press, 1992, p.145-7.
48a. Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, Power, Inc., New York: Bantam Books,
1977,p.521.
48b. "The International Oil Cartel", Federal Trade Commission, December 2,
1949. Cited in 48a, p.521.
49a. See note 44, p.67-76.
49b. See note 48a, p.530-1.
50. Ralph W. McGehee, Deadly Deceits, New York: Sheridan Square
Publications, 1983,p.60.
51. HR-3385, "An Act to Provide Assistance for Free and Fair Elections in
Nicaragua". Passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 4, 1989 by
avote of 263 to 136, and the Senate on October 17 by a vote of 64 to 35.
52. Jack Colhoun, "Gates Oozing Trail of Lies, Gets Top CIA Post", The
Guardian,November 20, 1991, p.6.
53. Carl Bernstein, Time, February 24, 1992, Cover Story p.28-35.
54. "The U.S. and the Vatican on Birth Control", Time, February 24, 1992,
p.35.
55. "Time's Missing Link: Poland to Latin America", National Catholic
Reporter,February 28, 1992, p.24.
56a. Jim Lynn, "School of Americas Commander Hopes to Expand Mission",
Benning Patriot, February 21, 1992, p.12.
56b. Vicky Imerman, "U.S. Army School of the Americas Plans Expansion", News
Release from S.O.A. Watch, P.O. Bo 3330, Columbus, Georgia 31903.
57. 60 MINUTES, CBS, March 8, 1992.
58. Jack Colhoun, "Tricky Dick's Quick Election Fix", The Guardian, January
29,1992, p.18.
59a. Sean P. Murphy, "Several Probes May Have Ignored Evidence Against
Police", Boston Globe, July 28, 1991, p.1.
59b. Christopher B. Daly, "Pattern of Police Abuses Reported in Boston
Case", Washington Post, July 12, 1991, p.A3.
59c. Associated Press, "Dayton Police Probing Erasure of Arrest Video",
WashingtonPost, May 26, 1991, p.A20.
59d. Gabriel Escobar, "Deaf Man's Death In Police Scuffle Called Homicide",
Washington Post, May 18, 1991, p.B1.
59e. Jay Mathews, "L.A. Police Laughed at Beating", Washington Post, March
19, 1991, p.A1.
59f. David Maraniss, "One Cop's View of Police Violence", Washington Post,
April 12,1991, p.A1.
59g. From News Services, "Police Abuse Detailed", Washington Post, February
8, 1992,p.A8.
60. Michael Dobbs, "Panhandling the Kremlin: How Gus Hall Got Millions",
Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.A1.
61. David Streitfeld, "Secret Consortium To Publish Rushdie In Paperback",
Washington Post, March 14, 1992, p.D1.
62a. See notes 48 and 49.
62b. See note 47b, p.63-76.
62c. "Fairness In Broadcasting Act of 1987", U.S. Senate Bill S742.
62d. "Now Let That 'Fairness' Bill Die", Editorial, Washington Post,
June 24, 1987. The Post opposed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act.
63. David E. Scheim, Contract on America -- The Mafia Murder of President
John F.Kennedy, New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1988, p.viii.
64. See note 63, p.28.
65a. Chuck Conconi, "Out and About", Washington Post, February 26, 1991,
p.B3.
65b. George Lardner Jr., "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland", Washington
Post, May19, 1991, p.D1.
65c. George Lardner, "...Or Just a Sloppy Mess", Washington Post, June 2,
1991,p.D3.
65d. Charles Krauthammer, "A Rash of Conspiracy Theories -- When Do We Dig
Up BillCasey?", Washington Post, July 5, 1991, p.A19.
65e. Eric Brace, "Personalities", Washington Post, October 31, 1991, p.C3.
65f. Associated Press, "'JFK' Director Condemned -- Warren Commission
Attorney Calls Stone Film 'A Big Lie'", Washington Post, December 16, 1991,
p.D14.
65g. Gerald R. Ford and David W. Belin, "Kennedy Assassination: How About
the Truth?", Washington Post, December 17, 1991, p.A21.
65h. Rita Kemply, "'JFK': History Through A Prism", Washington Post,
December 20,1991, p.D1.
65i. George Lardner Jr., "The Way it Wasn't -- In 'JFK', Stone Assassinates
the Truth", Washington Post, December 20, 1991, p.D2.
65j. Desson Howe, "Dallas Mystery: Who Shot JFK?", Washington Post, December
20,1991, p.55.
65k. Phil McCombs, "Oliver Stone, Returning the Fire -- In Defending His
'JFK' Conspiracy Film, the Director Reveals His Rage and Reasoning",
Washington Post, December 21, 1991, p.F1.
65l. George F. Will, "'JFK': Paranoid History", Washington Post, December
26, 1991,p.A23.
65m. "On Screen", 'JFK' movie review, Washington Post, Weekend, December 27,
1991.
65n. Stephen S. Rosenfeld, "Shadow Play", Washington Post, December 27,
1991, p.A21.
65o. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "The Paranoid Style", Washington Post,
December 29,1991, p.C7.
65p. Michael Isikoff, "H-e-e-e-e-r-e's Conspiracy! -- Why Did Oliver Stone
Omit (Or Suppress!). the Role of Johnny Carson?", Washington Post, December
29, 1991,p.C2.
65q. Robert O'Harrow Jr., "Conspiracy Theory Wins Converts -- Moviegoers Say
'JFK' Nourishes Doubts That Oswald Acted Alone", Washington Post, January 2,
1992, p.B1.
65r. Michael R. Beschloss, "Assassination and Obsession", Washington Post,
January 5, 1992, p.C1.
65s. Charles Krauthammer, "'JFK': A Lie, But Harmless", Washington Post,
January 10,1992, p.A19.
65t. Art Buchwald, "Bugged: The Flu Conspiracy", Washington Post, January
14, 1992,p.E1.
65u. Ken Ringle, "The Fallacy of Conspiracy Theories -- Good on Film, But
the Motivation Is All Wrong", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.G1.
65v. Charles Paul Freund, "If History Is a Lie -- America's Resort to
Conspiracy Thinking", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.C1.
65w. Richard Cohen, "Oliver's Twist", Washington Post Magazine, January 19,
1992, p.5.
65. Michael Isikoff, "Seeking JFK's Missing Brain", Washington Post, January
21,1992, p.A17.
65y. Don Oldenburg, "The Plots Thicken -- Conspiracy Theorists Are
Everywhere", Washington Post, January 28, 1992, p.E5.
65z. Joel Achenbach, "JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. the Facts", Washington Post,
February 28, 1992, p.C5.
65A. List of books on the best-seller list: On the Trail of the Assassins is
characterized as "conspiracy plot theories", Washington Post, March 8,
1992,Bookworld, p.12
66. See notes 65n, 65w, 65l, 65b, 65c, and 65i.
67a. Peter Dale Scott, "Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon
Papers". Published in The Senator Gravel Edition of The Pentagon Papers,
Volume V,p.211-247.
67b. Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy -- The Secret Road to the Second
Indochina War, Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972, p. 215-224.
67c. L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team, Copyright 1973. New printing,
Costa Mesa CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1990, p.402-416.
67d. See note 63, p.58, 183, 187, 194, 273-4.
67e. John M. Newman, JFK and Vietnam, New York: Warner Books, 1992.
67f. Peter Dale Scott, Letter to the Editor, The Nation, March 9, 1992,
p.290.
68a. See note 65b.
68b. Oliver Stone, "The Post, George Lardner, and My Version of the JFK
Assassination", Washington Post, June 2, 1991, p.D3.
69. See note 65b.
70. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of The Assassins, New York: Warner Books,
1988, 315/318.
71. Associated Press, "Garrison, 2 Others, Found Not Guilty Of Bribery
Charge", Washington Post, September 28, 1973, p.A3.
72. See note 65c.
73. See note 65i.
74. See note 67e, p.438-450.
75. John G. Leyden, "Historians, Buffs, and Crackpots", Washington Post,
Bookworld, January 26, 1992, p.8.
76a. Tad Szulc, "New Doubts, Fears in JFK Assassination Probe", Washington
Star,September 19, 1975, p.A1.
76b. Tad Szulc, "Warren Commission's Self-Doubts Grew Day by Day -- 'This
Bullet Business Leaves Me Confused'", Washington Star, September
20, 1975, p.A1.
76c. Tad Szulc, "Urgent and Secret Meeting of the Warren Commission --
Dulles Proposed that the Minutes be Destroyed", Washington Star, September
21, 1975,p.A1.
77. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report", New York Times,
December 26, 1977, p.A37.
78. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1979,p.141-2.
79a. Eve Pell, "Private Censorship -- Killing 'Katharine The Great'", The
Nation, November 12, 1983.
79b. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, Bethesda MD: National Press, 1987.
Davis says, "...corporate documents that became available during my
subsequent lawsuit against him [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich chairman, William
Jovanovich] showed that 20,000 copies [of Katharine the Great] had been
"processed and converted into waste paper"".
79c. Daniel Brandt, "All the Publisher's Men -- A Suppressed Book About
Washington Post Publisher Katharine Graham Is On Sale Again" National
Reporter, Fall 1987, p.60.
79d. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Sheridan Square Press,
1991. "...publishers who don't give a shit", p.iv-v; bullying HBJ into
recalling the book, p.iv-vi; lawsuit and settlement, p..
80. Benjamin C. Bradlee, Letter to Deborah Davis, April 1, 1987. See note
79d, p.304.
81. See note 79d, p.119-132.
82. Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media -- How America's Most Powerful
News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why
the Church Committee Covered It Up", Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977, p.63.
83a. Daniel Brandt, Letter to Richard L. Harwood of The Washington Post,
September 15, 1988. The letter asks for the Post's rationale for its policy
of protecting government covert actions, and whether this policy is still in
effect.
83b. Daniel Brandt, "Little Magazines May Come and Go", The National
Reporter, Fall 1988, p.4. Notes the Post's protection of the identity of CIA
agent Joseph F.Fernandez. Brandt says, "America needs to confront its own
recent history as well as protect the interests of its citizens, and both
can be accomplished by outlawing peacetime covert activity. This would
contribute more to thesecurity of Americans than all the counterterrorist
proposals and elite strike forces that ever found their way onto Pentagon
wish-lists."
83c. Richard L. Harwood, Letter to Daniel Brandt, September 28, 1988.
Harwood's two- sentence letter reads, "We have a long-standing policy of not
naming covert agents of the C.I.A., except in unusual circumstances. We
applied that policy to Fernandez."
84. See note 79d, p.131.
85. Katharine Graham, "Safeguarding Our Freedoms As We Cover Terrorist
Acts", Washington Post, April 20, 1986, p.C1.
86. "conspire", ß4ßRandom House Dictionary of the English Language, Second
Edition Unabridged, 1987.
87. Howard Kurtz, "Media Notes", Washington Post, June 18, 1991, p.D1.
88. See note 65y.
89. See note 65n.
90. See note 65d.
91. William Casey, Private Communications with JCH, March 1992.
Richard Harwood, "What Conspiracy?", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.C6.
93. p. 29-32.
94a. Washington Post Electronic Data Base, Dialog Information Services Inc.,
April 25, 1992. In 1991 and 1992, the name Bill Clinton appeared in 878
Washington Post stories, columns, letters, or editorials; "Jerry" Brown in
485, Pat Buchanan in 303, and Larry Agran in 28. In those 28, Agran's name
appeared 76 times, Clinton's 151, and Brown 105. In only 1 of those 28 did
Agran's name appear in a headline.
94b. Colman McCarthy, "What's 'Minor' About This Candidate?", Washington
Post, February 1, 1992. Washington Post columnist McCarthy tells how
television and party officials have kept presidential candidate Larry Agran
out of sight. The Post's own daily news-blackout of Agran is not discussed.
94c. Scot Lehigh, "Larry Agran: 'Winner' in Debate With Little Chance For
the Big Prize", Boston Globe, February 25, 1992.
94d. Joshua Meyrowitz, "The Press Rejects a Candidate", Columbia Journalism
Review,March/April, 1992.
95. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Effete Conspiracy And Other Crimes By The Press,
NewYork: Harper and Row, 1972, p.36-7.
96a. 28 USC Section 455. "Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United
States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned." [emphasis added]
96b. Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F2d 958 (CA DC 1990)..
96c. Monroe Freedman, "Thomas' Ethics and the Court -- Nominee 'Unfit to
Sit' For Failing to Recuse In Ralston Purina Case", Legal Times, August 26,
1991.
96d. Paul D. Wilcher, "Opposition to the Confirmation of Judge Clarence
Thomas to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds of his
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT", Letter to U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, October 15,
1991.
97. Al Kamen and Michael Isikoff, "'A Distressing Turn', Activists
Decry What Process Has Become", Washington Post, October 12, 1991, p.A1.
98. January 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 1992, p.A1 each day.
99. See note 86.
100. Thomas W. Lippman, "Energy Lobby Fights Unseen 'Killers'", Washington
Post,April 1, 1992, p.A21. This article explains that "representatives of
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and
the coal, oil, natural gas, offshore drilling and nuclear power industries,
whose interests often conflict, pledged to work together to oppose
amendments limiting offshore oil drilling, nuclear power and carbon dioxide
emissions soon to be offered by key House members".
101. "cartel", Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977.
<QUOTE OFF>
Jim Hargrove
Steve Bochan wrote on Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:31:24 -0500:
>The Washington Post pursued the Watergate story. Watergate was a
>conspiracy. Remember?
Ah, but Watergate was presented as a Presidential conspiracy, Tricky Dick
and his bad boys, remember?
Presidents come and go, the product of the "mind numb" American electorate
that you and Mr. Beck seem to despise so much. But our National Security
apparatus seems to be here to stay, and it was that sprawling bureaucracy
that the Washington Post had little to say about in its "courageous"
Watergate reporting.
The real story of Watergate is told by journalists Len Colodny and Robert
Gettlin in _Silent Coup: The Removal of a President_. I'm reading it now.
The introduction is by infamous Republican/Democratic presidential kingmaker
and noted whoremonger Roger Morris, who writes:
There was an indispensable common ground on which the players met,
hunters and prey alike. Each was still in the grip of the great
national security myth of postwar America, the whole elaborate
construct of power and patriotism, fear and ignorance, that has so
manacled governance--until, in end-of-the-century America, a sentient
public scarcely exists. _Silent Coup_ lists no "military party" of
plotting colonels and generals, at least in the crude caricatures in
which we usually prefer to view them. But it does reveal a formidable
NATIONAL SECURITY PARTY, civilian and uniformed, Republican and
Democrat, that governs when it chooses, whenever it believes it
must....
Hiding history was the common scourge of the Cold War, plaguing winners
no less than losers. And from the cost of such national distortion in
hypocrisy and political, moral decay, there has been no real escape on
either side. The reclaiming of America's democracy, like the birth of
other's, begins with telling the truth.
You and Mike are always lecturing us about being more patriotic and speaking
better of America, but you seem to think that the American people are fools,
incapable of seeing beyond the mistakes or misrepresentations of a handful
of conspiracy authors few have ever read; or that they have been ruined by
watching too much television following a 50-hour workweek and a 10-hour/week
commute.
But these Americans that you despise are America. If you despise them, and
if you agree with Mike Beck that they are "mind numb" and encapable of
making informed choices, than you are neither a democrat nor a believer in
America.
I am far more optimistic than you are. Once the truth about our
out-of-control National Security netherworld is brought out of the shadows
and into the light of day, I believe Americans will make excellent choices,
and we can all get on with our lives. Look how Americans hunger for
knowledge such as Gary Webb delivered--and look how hard apologists such as
the Washington Post had to work to hide it all under the rug once again. Do
you know what the number one plank on the recent "Million Woman March" was?
ZRRIFLE
> The spooks, online disinfo artists and CIA media "assets" who drone on and
> on that the Warren Commission basically got it right (even though it is now
> clear that the WC was assembled merely to rubber stamp J. Edgar Hoover's
> position) are contributing to this dangerous lack of faith Americans have in
> their government--and news institutions as well.
>
> As they continue to support the unsupportable, I wonder if any of them care
> about the damage they are doing to this nation?
>
> --Jim Hargrove
I believe the damage is intentional. That our most cherished
institutions - those institutions which are supposed to be answerable to
the people at large - are being systematically weakened, there can be no
doubt. Do the front-line operatives realize the damage they are doing?
Perhaps so, but if they do, I'm sure that they are led to believe it is
in their own best interests to follow thier orders (fat benefits if they
go along, severe consequences if they do not). Some might be
participating in this weakening of the democratic processes for
idealistic reasons, i.e. they are led to believe they are paving the way
for the New World Order/One World Governement to take over and bring
peace and prosperity where the corrupt and ineffecient local governments
have failed (much as Earl Warren was led to believe that covering up a
(nonexistent) communist assassination conspiracy was necessary to
prevent a global thermonuclear war).
No one can ever have enough power to satisfy their appetites, and those
at the very top, whoever they may be, most likely see American Democracy
as an irritating little obstacle to their attaining even greater power.
But there are ways to ensure that those who are in office play according
to the rules of the elite, or conversely, that those who don't play
according to their rules don't remain in office (bullet in the head
usually does the trick).
As long as Americans keep the capital flowing, the elite will be happy,
regardless of crumbling democracy. The fact that most of us are in debt
will keep us all working. Combine that with the social conditioning of
TV via both the programming and the ads to keep us always having to buy
the newer, better clothes/car/computer/stereo/junk food etc., while we
are already in debt, and capital will continue to defy gravity and flow
directly up into the hands of the super-elite. Why should they care if
democracy is destroyed in the process?
I'm sure Neal Bush was deeply grieved by the nation's loss of faith in
its savings and loan institutions, as he and his cronies slithered off
with millions without so much as having to pay a court fine.
These people don't give a good flying f__k what they are doing to this
county.
Steve Bochan
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote on Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:31:24 -0500:
>
<snippage>
I've removed your misguided and insulting accusations, and I'll tell you
right now Jim, I am very disappointed in the tone of some of your recent
posts. I seem to recall that you were known as one of the more
reasonable and rational posters in the good old days at CIS. When did
you get so paranoid and disdainful of other viewpoints?
Maybe there was someone else, another Jim -- and why not: we're being
inundated with news of another Oswald alive and well, so why not another
Jim Hargrove? :-)
As far as national security goes, and the notion in general, you may (or
may not) be interested in what Ben Bradlee has to say on that subject:
[QUOTE]
[T]he claim that publication would threaten national security is an
insidious one. The public feels entitled to believe that a president,
or a CIA director, or a four-star general knows more about national
security than a two-stripe editor. It is a formidable task to convince
the public that patriotism is not exclusively the province of
administration officials. It is a formidable task to convince the
public that officials often — more often than not, in my experience —
use the claim of national security as a smoke screen to cover up their
own embarrassment. Those of us who heard Richard Nixon claim he could
not explain Watergate because matters of national security were involved
will never automatically accept claims of national security. Those of
us who were taken all the way to the Supreme Court for violating
national security laws by publishing the Pentagon Papers got more out of
that experience than an acquittal. We remember the Solicitor General of
the United States eighteen years later writing that the national
security was never threatened.
In my time as editor, I have kept many stories out of the paper because
I felt — without any government pressure — that the national security
would be harmed by their publication.
[END QUOTE]
— Ben Bradlee, former executive editor, Washington Post, _A GOOD LIFE_,
pp. 474
If you have the book, you may want to check out the entire chapter he
writes on national security. Bradlee goes into some detail about the
relationships with various agencies including the CIA, and how he and
his editors needed to be on alert for any manipulation.
> >The Washington Post pursued the Watergate story. Watergate was a
> >conspiracy. Remember?
>
> Ah, but Watergate was presented as a Presidential conspiracy, Tricky Dick
> and his bad boys, remember?
>
> Presidents come and go, the product of the "mind numb" American electorate
> that you and Mr. Beck seem to despise so much. But our National Security
> apparatus seems to be here to stay, and it was that sprawling bureaucracy
> that the Washington Post had little to say about in its "courageous"
> Watergate reporting.
See above and quityerbitchin'. And what about the Pentagon Papers, Jim?
The Washington Post went all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for
the right to publish those.
<snippage>
> I am far more optimistic than you are.
I doubt it.
<more snippage>
> Do you know what the number one plank on the recent "Million Woman March" was?
No -- do tell.
STEVE
Jim Hargrove
Steve Bochan wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 1997 06:27:31 -0500:
>I've removed your misguided and insulting accusations, and I'll tell you
>right now Jim, I am very disappointed in the tone of some of your recent
>posts. I seem to recall that you were known as one of the more
>reasonable and rational posters in the good old days at CIS. When did
>you get so paranoid and disdainful of other viewpoints?
Of course, you're angry because you were caught in the inconsistencies of
your own contorted logic. Furious with people who criticize America's
national security apparatus, you then join Michael Beck in criticizing the
"mind-numb" American electorate. Here is the exact byplay from a few posts
back.
<QUOTE ON>
[Mike Beck wrote:]
> In my opinion, the apathy in the US is due to a "mind numb"
> electorate; who can't get their butts up to learn anything beyond the
> fiction they are shown on their TV screens. TV *is* the opiate of the
> masses. With 80+ hours of this drug consumed on a weekly basis (by
> average Americans), how can you be surprised that they don't find time
> to vote.
[And you responded:]
Mike,
I concur with your observations. Interestingly, an editorial in today's
Washington Post discussed a study done recently, sponsored by the ARRP,
that discussed the cynicism among Americans toward their government. =
<QUOTE OFF>
I responded that I had a higher opinion of the American electorate, and
suddenly you paint me as my own evil twin, or whatever your theory is.
Pretty silly.
[The remainder of your post, including Ben Bradlee's self-serving remarks
about his heroic struggle against national security suppression have been
deleted.]
ZRRIFLE
Steve Bochan wrote:
snip
>
> > >The Washington Post pursued the Watergate story. Watergate was a
> > >conspiracy. Remember?
> >
snip
>
> See above and quityerbitchin'. And what about the Pentagon Papers, Jim?
> The Washington Post went all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for
> the right to publish those.
>
> > Do you know what the number one plank on the recent "Million Woman March" was?
>
> No -- do tell.
>
> STEVE
I am curious what the #1 plank was myself.
Re: watergate & pentagon papers and the Washing Post, it seems to me as
if folks on both sides of this issue see everything in terms of black &
white, truth or lies, right or wrong. Parts of the truth can be used
for the wrong reasons, and even lies can be used for altruistic
reasons. As sensational and groundbreaking as watergate and pentagon
papers were, both were used by people on the inside to accomplish their
own hidden agendas. Watergate removed a president, and the real issues
of watergate were, well, watered-down. Most foks I talk to about
watergate haven't the foggiest notion how the break-in was even
connected to Nixon. And regarding Pent. Papers, Col. Prouty (Oliver
Stone's man X) points out in his book "JFK" that the Pentagon Papers
totally bypass the issue of Kennedy's assassination. Both of these big
issues that the Washing Post carried for us were equivalent to "limited
hang-outs" - titillating bits of the truth, but just not all that useful
in fathoming out the grand scheme of things.
Hell if the Washing Post (+ NY Times, etc.) NEVER gave us any of the
truth about our gov't's misdeeds, then they'd be no more believable than
the old soviet news agency.
Michael Beck
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 20:37:48 GMT, ji...@KILLSPAMwwa.com (Jim Hargrove)
wrote:
>Steve Bochan wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 1997 06:27:31 -0500:
>
>>I've removed your misguided and insulting accusations, and I'll tell you
>>right now Jim, I am very disappointed in the tone of some of your recent
>>posts. I seem to recall that you were known as one of the more
>>reasonable and rational posters in the good old days at CIS. When did
>>you get so paranoid and disdainful of other viewpoints?
>
>Of course, you're angry because you were caught in the inconsistencies of
>your own contorted logic. Furious with people who criticize America's
>national security apparatus, you then join Michael Beck in criticizing the
>"mind-numb" American electorate. Here is the exact byplay from a few posts
>back.
>
><QUOTE ON>
>
> [Mike Beck wrote:]
>
> > In my opinion, the apathy in the US is due to a "mind numb"
> > electorate; who can't get their butts up to learn anything beyond the
> > fiction they are shown on their TV screens. TV *is* the opiate of the
> > masses. With 80+ hours of this drug consumed on a weekly basis (by
> > average Americans), how can you be surprised that they don't find time
> > to vote.
>
> [And you responded:]
>
> Mike,
>
> I concur with your observations. Interestingly, an editorial in today's
> Washington Post discussed a study done recently, sponsored by the ARRP,
> that discussed the cynicism among Americans toward their government. =
>
><QUOTE OFF>
>
>I responded that I had a higher opinion of the American electorate, and
>suddenly you paint me as my own evil twin, or whatever your theory is.
>Pretty silly.
>
>[The remainder of your post, including Ben Bradlee's self-serving remarks
>about his heroic struggle against national security suppression have been
>deleted.]
>
>
>--Jim Hargrove
>The letters "KILLSPAM" were added to my address as an anti-spam measure.
>If you wish to send me email, remove "KILLSPAM" from my address before sending.
That's funny Jim. When Reagan and Bush were elected for 12 straight
years, the liberals used to gripe about how "dumb" the people were for
doing that.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and since a majority believes
the conspiracy "myth", then you "have a higher opinion" of the
electorate. Get real. When is the last time you visited a store,
tried to get someone to help you on the phone, or depended on someone
in the "service" sector for a hired task? The median IQ in America is
room temperature Jim. The fact that most citizens sit in front of a
non-interactive CRT for 80+ hours per week and absorb an endless
stream of propaganda is only one reason. Take a look around you.
What do you see???
Jim Hargrove
ZRRIFLE wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:12:38 +0000:
>I am curious what the #1 plank was myself.
Taken from the Million Woman March Web page
(http://members.aol.com/lilbitz/platform.htm)
on Oct 24, 1997
<QUOTE ON>
MILLION WOMAN MARCH PLATFORM ISSUES
1. National support for Congresswoman Maxine Waters, in the
efforts to effectively bring about a probe into the CIA's
participation and its relationship to the influx of drugs
into the African American community
2. The development and completion of Black independent schools
with a 21st. century focus from pre-k through 12th grade.
3. The formation of progressive mechanisms that will
qualitatively address the development and advancement of
Black women upon leaving the penal system.
4. The development of health facilities that can offer
preventive and therapeutic treatment, and a major emphasis
on alternative and traditional medicines.
5. The formation of Rites of Passage centers/academics which
provide continual programming in addition to assigned enrollment
periods.
6. The further development of Black women, who are or who
wish to become professionals, entrepreneurs and/or politicians.
7. The further development of mechanisms that will assist
Black women who are in transitional experiences which
will facilitate them more effectively and progressively.
8. The examination of Human Rights violations of Africans in
the Americas and their effects.
9. The development of programming that will bring about a
sincere and respectful environment that will foster the
necessary interaction with our youth.
10 The formulation of progressive mechanisms to combat
homelessness and the numerous circumstances that
attribute to the plight of sisters / brothers who are without shelter.
11. The development of mechanisms to ensure that the
gentrification of our neighborhoods as it relates to
public and private housing ceases.
12. The reclaiming of our elder's rights, who are entitled
to the development of appropriate programs and support
systems that will insure that their quality of life is
maintained. enhanced and preserved.
The solutions must come from us (Women of African Descent) and
the manifestation, is our responsibility. There is plenty of
work to do, prior to October 25th., and beyond.
NOW IS THE TIME, THE TIME IS NOW
<QUOTE OFF>
Considering the amount of interest in this large demonstration, did the
Washington Post discuss the platform, specifically plank #1?
--Jim Hargrove
Steve Bochan
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 1997 06:27:31 -0500:
>
> >I've removed your misguided and insulting accusations, and I'll tell you
> >right now Jim, I am very disappointed in the tone of some of your recent
> >posts. I seem to recall that you were known as one of the more
> >reasonable and rational posters in the good old days at CIS. When did
> >you get so paranoid and disdainful of other viewpoints?
>
> Of course, you're angry because you were caught in the inconsistencies of
> your own contorted logic. Furious with people who criticize America's
> national security apparatus, you then join Michael Beck in criticizing the
> "mind-numb" American electorate.
<snip>
Furious? I said I was disappointed in your tone, and in your mind that
means I am "furious"? Please. What is it with you loud liberals, that
you get insulting and abusive with others who don't share your fears and
opinions?
Jim, I don't know what's buggin' you (oops, no pun intended - ha!) but
your whining and complaining over the past few weeks hasn't been very
effective, i.e., first about Murdoch and now about The Washington Post.
Lemme know if you ever want to discuss JFK. All this commentary about
spooks by kooks, peppered with bitter 'haves vs. have-nots' type
resentment, is nothing more than sour grapes by the far left. The far
left that got left *out* of mainstream politics.
Maxine Waters, indeed. I should've known.
STEVE
Jim Hargrove
Steve Bochan wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:20:33 -0500:
>Maxine Waters, indeed. I should've known.
Yes, you should have known the issues that brought so many American women
together to protest. But you didn't, because the Washington Post--and so
many other mainstream news packagers--failed to tell you. Why would the
Post fail to tell the readers hitched to it the PURPOSE of the event??
Interesting that you would equate criticism of U.S. government complicity in
the domestic narcotics trade with "bitter 'haves vs. have-nots' type
resentment." There was a time when this type of activity would have ruffled
some feathers in Washington.
Steve Bochan
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:20:33 -0500:
>
> >Maxine Waters, indeed. I should've known.
>
> Yes, you should have known the issues that brought so many American women
> together to protest. But you didn't, because the Washington Post--and so
> many other mainstream news packagers--failed to tell you. Why would the
> Post fail to tell the readers hitched to it the PURPOSE of the event??
Why not ask them? I saw the march on the news and dismissed same as a
copycat stunt imitation of Farrakahn's Million Man March. Do you accept
him as worthy of support too, Jim?
Here's an article that appeared in today's Post - the newspaper that
never prints anything about Gary Webb or Maxine Waters:
[QUOTE]
"Inspectors General Find No Ties Between CIA, L.A. Drug Dealers
Allegations Also Involved Support for Nicaraguan Contras"
Year-long investigations by the CIA and the Justice Department have
found no evidence linking the intelligence agency "directly or
indirectly" to Nicaraguan or U.S. drug dealers in California who sold
crack cocaine, according to a senior government official.
The two investigations were originally triggered by a series of
articles published in the San Jose Mercury News in August 1996
suggesting that there was a connection between the dealers who
introduced crack cocaine in the 1980s in South Central Los Angeles and
payments by those dealers to support Nicaraguan rebels organized by the
CIA.
Although the CIA immediately denied the charge and the newspaper
subsequently acknowledged that the series oversimplified the alleged
link between CIA and drug trafficking in California, concerns of African
Americans in Los Angeles and elsewhere led CIA Inspector General
Frederick R. Hitz and Justice Department Inspector General Michael R.
Bromwich to undertake far-ranging inquiries into the matter.
Although there are some differences between the two reports, "they are
in agreement on all the major points," according to another official who
has read both documents.
"Nothing was found to indicate that CIA people or people working for the
CIA or on CIA's behalf had any dealings directly or indirectly with the
California drug dealers," a senior official said yesterday, repeating a
finding reported Thursday in the San Jose Mercury News and the Los
Angeles Times.
Classified versions of the CIA and Justice reports on the newspaper's
allegations were delivered to congressional oversight committees
Wednesday and unclassified versions were scheduled to be released
publicly yesterday. However, Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
delayed the release of the reports out of concern that material in them
could damage undercover operations.
"There are ongoing law enforcement concerns that we have with regard to
the release," Holder said. He added that those concerns "are not related
to the underlying allegation," but rather to "things that we do not want
to have compromised."
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), a leading critic of the CIA's alleged
relation with drug traffickers, said in a statement yesterday that she
was "deeply concerned" about the delay.
"The Justice Department, in my estimation, has never had any credibility
in the investigation of drug trafficking by the CIA or any other
intelligence agency," she said.
The focus of the newspaper's allegations and the two government
inquiries was a convicted Los Angeles crack dealer, Ricky Donnell Ross,
and two Nicaraguan drug wholesalers, Danilo Blandon and Norwin Meneses,
both of whom at times served as informants for the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
Blandon, who avoided a long prison sentence after his arrest by becoming
a DEA informant and turning in Ross, as recently as last year was still
assisting the U.S. government, according to sources.
Meneses, who fled the United States in the early 1980s, had provided the
DEA with information in Central America and as of last year was in
prison in Nicaragua for drug dealing.
Intelligence officials said yesterday that declassified versions of
the 400-page Justice Department and 168-page CIA reports would be ready
for release by mid-January.
In addition, a longer and more controversial CIA draft report is
being completed. It deals with additional allegations from the
1980s of agency employees and agents having connections with drug
dealers during CIA support of the Nicaraguan contra rebels. That report
is not expected to be concluded before mid-January, according to
intelligence sources.
The second inquiry is based in part on a review of two congressional
investigations that found allegations of CIA association with drug
smugglers in Central America during the 1980s. In addition, CIA
investigators went through the agency's files and reporting cables to
track down any references to possible drug connections, according to
sources.
Based on that material, current and former CIA employees were
interviewed or sent questionnaires. Lacking subpoena power, the
investigators were limited to those ex-employees who would participate
voluntarily.
"Although there were a handful who were bitter at the inquiry and would
not cooperate, there were a great many more who talked to us," one
official familiar with the process said yesterday.
Gary Webb, the San Jose Mercury News reporter who researched and wrote
the series, resigned from the newspaper last week. He had earlier been
transferred from the paper's Sacramento bureau to a smaller office in
Cupertino, Calif.
[END QUOTE]
STEVE
"I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I do,
I do believe in spooks." -- The Cowardly Lion.
Pearl Gladstone
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> When John F. Kennedy was president, 75% of the American public said
> they trusted their government to do the right thing most or all of the
> time; today that figure is about 25%.
>
> With so many people having decided that all politicians are either
> dishonest or incompetent--or both--it's no surprise that they have also
> decided it's a waste of time to vote. Voter turnout nationally declined
> steadily from a high of 63.1% in 1960 to 50.2% in 1988 (although it did
> increase to 55.1% in 1992, seemingly because of voter fears about
> the economy).
>
> When the public views its leaders--and the very process of
> governing--with suspicion and mistrust, the social contract breaks
> down. A pervasive climate of cynicism leads to a sense that a whole
> range of problems are beyond the control of mere politicians, beyond
> solution altogether; this breeds frustration, hopelessness and a lack
> of faith in nongovernmental institutions, and in each other, as well.
>
> DAVID SHAW, COLUMN ONE;
> "A Negative Spin on the News;"
> Los Angeles Times,
> 04-17-1996, pp A-1
>
> on that the Warren Commission basically got it right (even though it is now
> clear that the WC was assembled merely to rubber stamp J. Edgar Hoover's
> position) are contributing to this dangerous lack of faith Americans have in
> their government--and news institutions as well.
>
> As they continue to support the unsupportable, I wonder if any of them care
> about the damage they are doing to this nation?
>
> The letters "KILLSPAM" were added to my address as an anti-spam measure.
> If you wish to send me email, remove "KILLSPAM" from my address before sending.
This has become the major dilemma of our times, and I agree with all
that you have said.
The basic falsity of the warren report, and the subsequent
assassinations, and the rule of the lie have become The number one
problem.
The whole apparatus of secret power has been mobilized to "control" and
suppress...so our banks went down and we, the taxpayers, bore the burden
without ever knowing why....
Our health care apparatus has been pre-empted by corporate decision
makers, and we , the public, are left with a system in shambles without
really understanding why....
Understanding is basic to trust. This is the dilemma for the citizens of
this country. You cannot fix anything inless you have the book of
instructions, the how-to manual....
Fake autopsies, fake trials, denied trials as in the case of James
Earl Ray, sealed and destroyed evidence tend to give the message that
we, the public, are not deserving of the how-to manual that is essential
for dealing with the realities of democratic life.
This is not the dilemma of spooks. It is the dilemma they have caused.
They have been night-dwelling vampires, sucking the facts of history
into some vacuum.
This becomes a dilemma for an entire nation deprived of essential
knowledge.
Jim Hargrove
Steve Bochan wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 1997 20:42:53 -0500:
>Here's an article that appeared in today's Post - the newspaper that
>never prints anything about Gary Webb or Maxine Waters:
No one ever said the Post "never prints anything about Gary Webb or Maxine
Waters." It prints anything it can find that discredits the truth of their
charges.
And on a more personal note, how ironic it is that someone who once saw
through the WCR now embraces the patently obvious whitewash of the CIA and
DOJ investigating themselves. And how predictable for the Washington Post
to so uncritically accept this Orwellian nonsense. And what does this have
to do with the Wash Post not telling its readers the REASON for the Million
Woman March?
More than a year ago, NBC news, that hotbed of conspiracy lunacy, admitted
the truth of Webb's allegations. Here is an excerpt from an MSNBC News
report from way back on Sept. 27, 1996:
<QUOTE ON>
ANDREA MITCHELL: What is the reality? An NBC News investigation reveals that
the CIA did not specifically target America's cities by running a drug
pipeline. But newly uncovered documents show that money from drugs sold in
the inner cities did help finance the war in Nicaragua. Top US officials
knew it at the time, and did nothing to stop it.
Senator John Kerry investigated the connection between drug money and the
CIA's Contra army nine years ago.
Senator JOHN KERRY (Democrat, Massachusetts): So we had direct evidence of
somewhere between $10 million and $15 million, and I'm quite confident that
that was the, sort of, tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
MITCHELL: Ten million to $15 million of drug money going to the Contras?
Sen. KERRY: They were desperate for money. So, in a sense, they took a
bridge loan from anybody available; and the drug lords of the time were
available.
MITCHELL: At the time, most people focused on the illegal Contra war, not
the cocaine connection. One who did, historian Peter Kornbluh.
Mr. PETER KORNBLUH (Senior Analyst, National Security Archives): Pilots that
were being paid by the CIA and other agencies of the US government to ferry
arms and materiel to the Contras, who were turning around and filling their
planes with drugs and flying back to the United States.
MITCHELL: How does he know? The trail leads to Oliver North, who ran the
Contra war out of the White House; his own diaries, memos, electronic mail.
July 12th, 1985: North's handwritten notes about an armed supermarket say,
`$14 million to finance came from drugs'; August 9th, 1985: Again North's
diary: `Honduran DC-6 is probably being used for drug runs into the US';
1986, one year later, this White House e-mail from North seeking, `pardon,
clemency, deportation, reduced sentence,' for an Honduran general convicted
of trying to smuggle 3/4ths of a ton of cocaine into the US. North said he
wanted special treatment for him to stop him from, quote, "spilling the
beans about the CIA's war."
Sen. KERRY: Same pilots, same airstrips, same airplanes carrying guns and
drugs at the same time, and people knew it.
MITCHELL: Did the State Department look the other way?
Sen. KERRY: Yes.
MITCHELL: Did the DEA?
Sen. KERRY: The Justice Department clearly knew about it because we
delivered this information to them and asked them to investigate.
MITCHELL: Oliver North, now a talk radio host, refused requests from NBC
News to discuss any of this. CIA Director John Deutch, responding to the
anger in black communities, promises to hold his agency accountable.
<QUTOE OFF>
Of course, Deutch quit before he was compelled break that promise.
>"I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I do,
>I do believe in spooks." -- The Cowardly Lion.
"See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." -- The Three Stooges
Steve Bochan
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 1997 20:42:53 -0500:
>
> >never prints anything about Gary Webb or Maxine Waters:
>
> Waters." It prints anything it can find that discredits the truth of their
> charges.
Anything?
You mean "anything" like Justice Department investigations that found
Webb's charges unsupportable?
You mean "anything" like The San Jose Mercury News *itself* repudiating
Webb's charges?
You mean "anything" like The Los Angeles Times also repudiating Webb's
charges?
Seems their charges have been discredited by more that one newspaper,
Jim.
> And on a more personal note, how ironic it is that someone who once saw
> through the WCR now embraces the patently obvious whitewash of the CIA and
> DOJ investigating themselves.
You got me here. What are you talking about?
> And how predictable for the Washington Post to so uncritically accept > this Orwellian nonsense.
And how predictable that like your heroine Maxine Waters, you reject the
Department of Justice's findings. Does this mean you also reject their
findings that the Independent Counsel statute was not triggered by
Clinton & Gore's shenanigans? Say yes and at least be consistent in
your mistrust of the DOJ.
> And what does this have to do with the Wash Post not telling its
readers the REASON for the Million Woman March?
And what does this have to do with whether or not you also support Louis
Farrakahn, the creator of the Million Man March? Do you?
>
> More than a year ago, NBC news, that hotbed of conspiracy lunacy, admitted
> the truth of Webb's allegations.
Excuse me Jim. What did NBC News - a year ago - know, that the DOJ,
CIA, LA Times, San Jose Mercury News and Washington Post do not "know" a
year later, subsequent to investigating the charges Webb made? Isn't
this like saying that Kallstrom, from the FBI, admitted the truth of TWA
Flight 800, by saying it was definitely a bomb that brought the plane
down (shortly after the event), *before* the year long investigation
even took place?
Think he felt good about *not* finding evidence of a bomb after making
such an emotional announcement without proof?
Webb made some charges that did not stand up to scrutiny. This happens
all the time. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that?
But since you now seem to support the "truth" of NBC News, I take it
then that you also will support the "truth" in their report on the
Garrison Investigation run years ago?
Ahh, don't worry, you don't have to answer that one if you don't want
to. :-)
John Ritchson
Michael Beck wrote:
> In my opinion, the apathy in the US is due to a "mind numb"
> electorate; who can't get their butts up to learn anything beyond the
> fiction they are shown on their TV screens. TV *is* the opiate of the
> masses. With 80+ hours of this drug consumed on a weekly basis (by
> average Americans), how can you be surprised that they don't find time
> to vote.
Greetings,
This is about the only statement I have ever seen you make that
appears to actually result from first hand experience.
Regards,
John Ritchson(SSGT.499th TC USATC HG US Army,Class of 69)
(Master-Machinest,Gun-Smith,Ballistician, )
(and Survivor of the US Foreign-Policy )
(Experiment in SE Asia.[11bravo7,RVN 70-71])
***********************************************************
Not even the strength of mighty armys can match the power
of a single Idea who's time has come.(Victor Hugo)
***********************************************************
ji...@wwa.com
Sorry if this is a duplicate post. My ISP's news server was acting
pretty dead, so this one is via DejaNews.
Steve Bochan wrote on Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:54:37 -0500:
>Anything?
>
>You mean "anything" like Justice Department investigations that found
>Webb's charges unsupportable?
No, I mean the Justice Department investigating itself and finding itself
unable to recall how it ignored the documents Senator John Kerry gave it
a decade ago.
>You mean "anything" like The San Jose Mercury News *itself* repudiating
>Webb's charges?
No, I mean the public gun that was put to Merc managing editor Jerry
Ceppos' head.
>You mean "anything" like The Los Angeles Times also repudiating Webb's
>charges?
The LA Times became the joke of Los Angeles when it was discovered that
the paper was repudiating its own reporting when it tried to repudiate
Webb. As you may or may not know, an LA South-Central crack dealer named
"Freeway Rick" Ross was the centerpiece of Webb's series.
Here's how the Oct 20, 1996 edition of the Los Angeles Times described
the activities of "Freeway Rick" Ross when the Times' editors were
apparently intent on discrediting Webb's "Dark Alliance" reports:
"How the crack epidemic reached that extreme, on some level, had
nothing to do with Ross. Before, during and after his reign, a
bewildering roster of other dealers and suppliers helped fuel the
crisis. They were all responding to market forces that many experts
believe would have created the problem whether any one individual sold
crack or not."
But, oh, what a difference a mere 22 months can make. Here's how the very
same newspaper, the very same reporter, described "Freeway Rick" on Dec.
20, 1994, before there were obvious motives to twist the truth:
"If there was an eye to the storm, if there was a criminal mastermind
behind crack's decade long reign, if there was one outlaw capitalist
most responsible for flooding Los Angeles' streets with mass-marketed
cocaine, his name was Freeway Rick. He didn't make the drug and he
didn't smuggle it across the border, but Ricky Donnell Ross did more
than anyone else to democratize it, boosting volume, slashing prices,
and spreading disease on a scale never before conceived. He was...South
Central's first millionaire crack lord."
Some knowledgeable readers of the Washington Post felt the same
queasiness as their Los Angeles Times counterparts when they read reports
by Roberto Suro and Walter Pincus.
>Seems their charges have been discredited by more that one newspaper,
>Jim.
And you'll note what an Orwellian fix-it job it was. Say, have the
Washington Post and NY Times EVER repudiated those CIA "non-disclosure"
agreements criticized so strongly by the staid Columbia Journalism Review
- the accepted peer-review publication for professional journalists?
>> And on a more personal note, how ironic it is that someone who once saw
>> through the WCR now embraces the patently obvious whitewash of the CIA and
>> DOJ investigating themselves.
>
>
>You got me here. What are you talking about?
Weren't you once a WC critic?
>> And how predictable for the Washington Post to so uncritically accept > this
Orwellian nonsense.
>
>
>And how predictable that like your heroine Maxine Waters, you reject the
>Department of Justice's findings. Does this mean you also reject their
>findings that the Independent Counsel statute was not triggered by
>Clinton & Gore's shenanigans? Say yes and at least be consistent in
>your mistrust of the DOJ.
I think the sleaze factor in the Clinton Administration is enormous. I
think there are major Constitutional problems with the whole Independent
Counsel concept, but if we are going to continue to have them, I think an
Independent Counsel should investigate Clinton fund-raising AND
Republican fund-raising as well.
>> And what does this have to do with the Wash Post not telling its
>readers the REASON for the Million Woman March?
>
>
>And what does this have to do with whether or not you also support Louis
>Farrakahn, the creator of the Million Man March? Do you?
Nice dodge. Whether MWM organizers were right or wrong concerning their
platform, don't you think Wash Post readers should be permitted to learn
why the march was held? Why won't you answer this question?
As to Farrakahn, I think he is an interesting speaker, but I certainly
don't support everything he says. Why should I?
>> More than a year ago, NBC news, that hotbed of conspiracy lunacy, admitted
>> the truth of Webb's allegations.
>
>
>Excuse me Jim. What did NBC News - a year ago - know, that the DOJ,
>CIA, LA Times, San Jose Mercury News and Washington Post do not "know" a
>year later, subsequent to investigating the charges Webb made? Isn't
NBC News knew the truth, which the others organizations you cite have now
suppressed. NBC News *was* investigating the charges Webb made.
You're not familiar with the Kerry Report, are you? The Washington Post
buried coverage of it, of course. Here is a brief sample from his Senate
Committee report, issued, if I recall, in 1987:
<QUOTE ON>
Selections from the Senate Committee Report on Drugs, Law Enforcement and
Foreign Policy chaired by Senator John F. Kerry
I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH RESPONSE TO CONTRA/DRUG CHARGES
III. THE GUNS AND DRUG SMUGGLING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPS
IV. DRUG TRAFFICKING AND THE COVERT WAR
V. THE PILOTS
VI. U.S. GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND COMPANIES WITH DRUG CONNECTIONS
A. SETCO/HONDU CARIB
B. FRIGORIFICOS DE PUNTARENAS
C. DIACSA
D. VORTEX
VII. THE CASE OF GEORGE MORALES AND FRS/ARDE
VIII. JOHN HULL
IX. THE SAN FRANCISCO FROGMAN CASE, UND-FARN AND PCNE
X. THE CUBAN-AMERICAN CONNECTION
XI. RAMON MILIAN RODRIGUEZ AND FELIX RODRIGUEZ
FOOTNOTES
NARCOTICS TRAFFICKERS AND THE CONTRAS
I. INTRODUCTION
The initial Committee investigation into the international drug trade,
which began in April, 1986, focused on allegations that Senator John F.
Kerry had received of illegal gun-running and narcotics trafficking
associated with the Contra war against Nicaragua.
As the Committee proceeded with its investigation, significant
information began surfacing concerning the operations of international
narcotics traffickers, particularly relating to the Colombian-based
cocaine cartels. As a result, the decision was made to incorporate the
Contra-related allegations into a broader investigation concerning the
relationship between foreign policy, narcotics trafficking and law
enforcement.
While the contra/drug question was not the primary focus of the
investigation, the Subcommittee uncovered considerable evidence relating
to the Contra network which substantiated many of the initial allegations
laid out before the Committee in the Spring of 1986. On the basis of this
evidence, it is clear that individuals who provided support for the
Contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the
Contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the
Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance
from drug traffickers. In each case, one or another agency of the U.S.
government had information regarding the involvement either while it was
occurring, or immediately thereafter.
The Subcommittee found that the Contra drug links included:
--Involvement in narcotics trafficking by individuals associated with the
Contra movement.
--Participation of narcotics traffickers in Contra supply operations
through business relationships with Contra organizations.
--Provision of assistance to the Contras by narcotics traffickers,
including cash, weapons, planes, pilots, air supply services and other
materials, on a voluntary basis by the traffickers.
--Payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds
authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in
some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law
enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were
under active investigation by these same agencies.
These activities were carried out in connection with Contra activities in
both Costa Rica and Honduras.
The Subcommittee found that the links that were forged between the
Contras and the drug traffickers were primarily pragmatic, rather than
ideological. The drug traffickers, who had significant financial and
material resources, needed the cover of legitimate activity for their
criminal enterprises. A trafficker like George Morales hoped to have his
drug indictment dropped in return for his financial and material support
of the Contras. Others, in the words of Marcos Aguado, Eden Pastora's air
force chief:
.... took advantage of the anti-communist sentiment which existed in
Central America ... and they undoubtedly used it for drug trafficking.[1]
While for some Contras, it was a matter of survival, for the traffickers
it was just another business deal to promote and protect their own
operations.
<QUOTE OFF>
The Senate Committee Report on Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy
continued with detailed information on the Contra-CIA drug running
programs from Central America to the United States, including names,
dates, locations, etc. Would you like to see some more details?
(Warning: You won't find them in the Washington Post, but you *can* find
them online at any Federal Depository Library gateway.)
You seem to be under the misimpression that Contra-cocaine allegations
are as free of U.S. government documentation as Kennedy conspiracy
theories. You are profoundly mistaken about that. The evidence on the
public record is enormous. I have just scratched the surface here.
>this like saying that Kallstrom, from the FBI, admitted the truth of TWA
>Flight 800, by saying it was definitely a bomb that brought the plane
>down (shortly after the event), *before* the year long investigation
>even took place?
>Think he felt good about *not* finding evidence of a bomb after making
>such an emotional announcement without proof?
>
>Webb made some charges that did not stand up to scrutiny. This happens
>all the time. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that?
Webb merely *popularized* charges that had been proven a decade earlier,
at least on a national level. This is an old story, suppressed by the
Washington Post and LA/NY Times, that provoked a firestorm of historical
revisionism because the Internet gave "Dark Alliance" unprecedented
exposure, and made people angry.
>But since you now seem to support the "truth" of NBC News, I take it
>then that you also will support the "truth" in their report on the
>Garrison Investigation run years ago?
Why? The NBC News Contra cocaine reports (there are several others) are
built upon solid evidence. I've only begun to supply information to you.
There is a great deal more I have from U.S. Federal Court transcripts,
other U.S. and Costa Rican legislative assemblies, other U.S. serials, as
well as statements by members of the CIA, DEA, and State Department--not
to mention Oliver North's diaries. Pick one of these sources at random,
and I'll post the, uh, straight dope.
As to the Walter Sheridan-produced NBC "White Paper," obviously NBC was
used, knowingly or unknowingly, by a sophisticated intelligence disinfo
operation. The FCC seemed to agree that it was unfair. Sometimes you get
the story, sometimes you get the shaft. Every journalism student knows
that, and so should you.
>Ahh, don't worry, you don't have to answer that one if you don't want
>to. :-)
BTW, the Discovery Channel recently aired a number of times a three-part
series about the CIA (and VERY RELUCTANTLY approved by the CIA) called
"America's Secret Warriors" in which FILM (or maybe videotape) of drugs
being pushed out of CIA planes during the drugs-for-guns Contra
operations was shown.
There is also very credible evidence from mainstream news sources
(including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times--but not the
Washington Post) that the CIA continued to import massive quantities of
cocaine into the U.S. long after the Nicaraguan Contra war was over. The
CIA had excuses, of course, but they were flat-out rejected by the head
of the DEA. Would you like to see some of that evidence?
--Jim Hargrove
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jim Hargrove
<QUOTE ON>
I. INTRODUCTION
<QUOTE OFF>
--Jim Hargrove
Jim Hargrove
John Ritchson wrote on Sat, 20 Dec 1997 21:16:21 -0700:
>Michael Beck wrote:
>> In my opinion, the apathy in the US is due to a "mind numb"
>> electorate; who can't get their butts up to learn anything beyond the
>> fiction they are shown on their TV screens. TV *is* the opiate of the
>> masses. With 80+ hours of this drug consumed on a weekly basis (by
>> average Americans), how can you be surprised that they don't find time
>> to vote.
>
> Greetings,
> This is about the only statement I have ever seen you make that
>appears to actually result from first hand experience.
<A hearty LAUGH!>
Fathom
> You mean "anything" like The San Jose Mercury News *itself* repudiating
> Webb's charges?
The Merc did *not* repudiate the eseence of Webb's charges. See the
articles posted on their web site (I posted the address a day or so ago).
--
To reply by e-mail, please address to fat...@sonic.net
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
These opinions are not my own--I am channeling them from the Higher Realms.
Disagree at your peril.
Fathom
> Michael Beck wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, the apathy in the US is due to a "mind numb"
> > electorate; who can't get their butts up to learn anything beyond the
> > fiction they are shown on their TV screens. TV *is* the opiate of the
> > masses. With 80+ hours of this drug consumed on a weekly basis (by
> > average Americans), how can you be surprised that they don't find time
> > to vote.
>
> Greetings,
> This is about the only statement I have ever seen you make that
> appears to actually result from first hand experience.
ROTFLMAO! Good shot, Sergeant! :-)
I always appreciate your posts.
Steve Bochan
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote on Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:54:37 -0500:
>
> >Anything?
> >
> >You mean "anything" like Justice Department investigations that found
> >Webb's charges unsupportable?
>
> No, I mean the Justice Department investigating itself and finding itself
> unable to recall how it ignored the documents Senator John Kerry gave it a
> decade ago.
Documents do not equal PROOF as you should know, and as any of us who
spend any time going over documents at the National Archives, knows.
>
> >You mean "anything" like The San Jose Mercury News *itself* repudiating
> >Webb's charges?
>
> No, I mean the public gun that was put to Merc managing editor Jerry Ceppos'
> head.
Please elaborate. Or is this another charge without proof?
>
> >You mean "anything" like The Los Angeles Times also repudiating Webb's
> >charges?
>
> The LA Times became the joke of Los Angeles when it was discovered that the
> paper was repudiating its own reporting when it tried to repudiate Webb. As
> you may or may not know, an LA South-Central crack dealer named "Freeway
> Rick" Ross was the centerpiece of Webb's series.
Hold it.
Jim, when a newspaper changes, clarifies or corrects earlier and
erroneous reporting it becomes a "joke"? Are you serious?
<snippage>
> >You got me here. What are you talking about?
>
> Weren't you once a WC critic?
Still am. The WC, FBI and CIA (and others) covered up a lot and common
sense should tell people that they wouldn't have done so unless there
was something TO coverup.
But does that mean I must then join ALL anti-government fads, and
campaign energetically AGAINST the best government in the world, despite
its flaws?
>
> >> And how predictable for the Washington Post to so uncritically accept > this Orwellian nonsense.
> >
> >
> >And how predictable that like your heroine Maxine Waters, you reject the
> >Department of Justice's findings. Does this mean you also reject their
> >findings that the Independent Counsel statute was not triggered by
> >Clinton & Gore's shenanigans? Say yes and at least be consistent in
> >your mistrust of the DOJ.
>
> I think the sleaze factor in the Clinton Administration is enormous.
Thank you. I appreciate your candor.
I
> think there are major Constitutional problems with the whole Independent
> Counsel concept, but if we are going to continue to have them, I think an
> Independent Counsel should investigate Clinton fund-raising AND Republican
> fund-raising as well.
Agreed.
>
> >> And what does this have to do with the Wash Post not telling its
> >readers the REASON for the Million Woman March?
> >
> >
> >And what does this have to do with whether or not you also support Louis
> >Farrakahn, the creator of the Million Man March? Do you?
>
> Nice dodge. Whether MWM organizers were right or wrong concerning their
> platform, don't you think Wash Post readers should be permitted to learn why
> the march was held? Why won't you answer this question?
>From my reading of the planks you posted the other day, starting with
the number one, "National support for Congresswoman Maxine Waters" is
reason enough for *NOT* taking this any more seriously than any other
politician trying to promote their own careers.
> As to Farrakahn, I think he is an interesting speaker, but I certainly don't
> support everything he says. Why should I?
Glad to hear that. But I am certain there are others who hate the USA
who love the idea that Farrakahn gives aid and comfort to our sworn
enemies.
>
> >> More than a year ago, NBC news, that hotbed of conspiracy lunacy, admitted
> >> the truth of Webb's allegations.
> >
> >
> >Excuse me Jim. What did NBC News - a year ago - know, that the DOJ,
> >CIA, LA Times, San Jose Mercury News and Washington Post do not "know" a
> >year later, subsequent to investigating the charges Webb made? Isn't
>
> NBC News knew the truth, which the others organizations you cite have now
> suppressed. NBC News *was* investigating the charges Webb made.
Did you know the president of NBC News is an OJ supporter? :-)
You don't think OJ was innocent, do you?
But ok, that's off-topic. But it can be fun to make "connections" can't
it?
>
> You're not familiar with the Kerry Report, are you? The Washington Post
> buried coverage of it, of course. Here is a brief sample from his Senate
> Committee report, issued, if I recall, in 1987:
>
> <QUOTE ON>
>
> Selections from the Senate Committee Report on Drugs, Law Enforcement and
> Foreign Policy chaired by Senator John F. Kerry
>
> I. INTRODUCTION
> II. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH RESPONSE TO CONTRA/DRUG CHARGES
> III. THE GUNS AND DRUG SMUGGLING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPS
> IV. DRUG TRAFFICKING AND THE COVERT WAR
> V. THE PILOTS
> VI. U.S. GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND COMPANIES WITH DRUG CONNECTIONS
> A. SETCO/HONDU CARIB
> B. FRIGORIFICOS DE PUNTARENAS
> C. DIACSA
> D. VORTEX
> VII. THE CASE OF GEORGE MORALES AND FRS/ARDE
> VIII. JOHN HULL
> IX. THE SAN FRANCISCO FROGMAN CASE, UND-FARN AND PCNE
> X. THE CUBAN-AMERICAN CONNECTION
> XI. RAMON MILIAN RODRIGUEZ AND FELIX RODRIGUEZ
> FOOTNOTES
>
<snipped for space>
Jim, this is all very interesting reading, but what does it mean?
Kerry should have the power and influence to blow this whole thing wide
open and hold public hearings, shouldn't he? Or is the CIA controlling
his actions too?
<snip>
> The Senate Committee Report on Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy
> continued with detailed information on the Contra-CIA drug running programs
> from Central America to the United States, including names, dates,
> locations, etc. Would you like to see some more details? (Warning: You
> won't find them in the Washington Post, but you *can* find them online at
> any Federal Depository Library gateway.)
Sure, why not? Have at it.
But I'd still like to know how this proves Webb charges, and most
importantly, why hasn't Kerry demanded public hearings on this if the
report is PROOF?
>
> You seem to be under the misimpression that Contra-cocaine allegations are
> as free of U.S. government documentation as Kennedy conspiracy theories.
No, I am very familiar with the existence of puh-lenty of ALLEGATIONS
against our government. I am also familiar with the paucity of hard,
legal evidence that will stand up to scrutiny in a court of law that
will support all the ALLEGATIONS that agenda-driven people hurl.
> You are profoundly mistaken about that. The evidence on the public record
> is enormous. I have just scratched the surface here.
Then prove your case! Take your evidence to court! Better yet, send a
letter to Kerry and volunteer to start a grass roots effort to pursuade
him to hold public hearings on this.
>
> >this like saying that Kallstrom, from the FBI, admitted the truth of TWA
> >Flight 800, by saying it was definitely a bomb that brought the plane
> >down (shortly after the event), *before* the year long investigation
> >even took place?
>
> >Think he felt good about *not* finding evidence of a bomb after making
> >such an emotional announcement without proof?
> >
> >Webb made some charges that did not stand up to scrutiny. This happens
> >all the time. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that?
>
> Webb merely *popularized* charges that had been proven a decade earlier, at
EXACTLY!!! And who did he POPULARIZE these charges with?? The
mainstream ... middle America? Nope.
Those already out of the mainstream looking for someone to blame for
their plight in life, and politicians like Waters who gladly use that to
their advantage. She wants national support. For her.
> least on a national level. This is an old story, suppressed by the
> Washington Post and LA/NY Times, that provoked a firestorm of historical
> revisionism because the Internet gave "Dark Alliance" unprecedented
> exposure, and made people angry.
>
> >But since you now seem to support the "truth" of NBC News, I take it
> >then that you also will support the "truth" in their report on the
> >Garrison Investigation run years ago?
>
> Why? The NBC News Contra cocaine reports (there are several others) are
> built upon solid evidence. I've only begun to supply information to you.
> There is a great deal more I have from U.S. Federal Court transcripts, other
> U.S. and Costa Rican legislative assemblies, other U.S. serials, as well as
> statements by members of the CIA, DEA, and State Department--not to mention
> Oliver North's diaries. Pick one of these sources at random, and I'll post
> the, uh, straight dope.
Like I said, all very interesting reading but in the final analysis,
what does it mean to the mainstream? What does it mean to Joe Middle
America?
>
> As to the Walter Sheridan-produced NBC "White Paper," obviously NBC was
> used, knowingly or unknowingly, by a sophisticated intelligence disinfo
> operation.
Oh Jim, there you go again ... blaming spooks.
The FCC seemed to agree that it was unfair. Sometimes you get
> the story, sometimes you get the shaft. Every journalism student knows
> that, and so should you.
Indeed I do. And the public got the shaft when Garrison was proclaiming
to the media that he had solved the case.
>
> >Ahh, don't worry, you don't have to answer that one if you don't want
> >to. :-)
>
> BTW, the Discovery Channel recently aired a number of times a three-part
> series about the CIA (and VERY RELUCTANTLY approved by the CIA) called
> "America's Secret Warriors" in which FILM (or maybe videotape) of drugs
> being pushed out of CIA planes during the drugs-for-guns Contra operations
> was shown.
>
> There is also very credible evidence from mainstream news sources (including
> the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times--but not the Washington Post)
> that the CIA continued to import massive quantities of cocaine into the U.S.
> long after the Nicaraguan Contra war was over. The CIA had excuses, of
> course, but they were flat-out rejected by the head of the DEA. Would you
> like to see some of that evidence?
Absolutely. Evidence. Not rhetoric, not nonsense, not opinion, not
spin. Evidence is appreciated by any researcher interested in the
truth.
STEVE
Fathom
In article <34a2cc52...@snews.zippo.com>,
Michae...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck) wrote:
> Ha ha. Unfortunately (for Ritchson's theory), I watch less than 5
> hours of TV per week.
Some people can manage to get the same effect on a smaller dose. Lucky you.
Michael Beck
On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 10:28:01 GMT, ji...@KILLSPAMwwa.com (Jim Hargrove)
wrote:
>John Ritchson wrote on Sat, 20 Dec 1997 21:16:21 -0700:
>>Michael Beck wrote:
>
>>> In my opinion, the apathy in the US is due to a "mind numb"
>>> electorate; who can't get their butts up to learn anything beyond the
>>> fiction they are shown on their TV screens. TV *is* the opiate of the
>>> masses. With 80+ hours of this drug consumed on a weekly basis (by
>>> average Americans), how can you be surprised that they don't find time
>>> to vote.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> This is about the only statement I have ever seen you make that
>>appears to actually result from first hand experience.
>
><A hearty LAUGH!>
>
>
>--Jim Hargrove
>The letters "KILLSPAM" were added to my address as an anti-spam measure.
>If you wish to send me email, remove "KILLSPAM" from my address before sending.
Ha ha. Unfortunately (for Ritchson's theory), I watch less than 5
Martin Shackelford
Steve:
Kerry already HELD public hearings on this issue, and published a
report which is in the public record--it's just that the story was
buried by the media, and when Webb's series was published, the media
pretended the information uncovered by Kerry didn't exist.
Martin
Steve Bochan
Martin,
I have written to Senator Kerry about this and will share his response
with the newsgroup. If he tells me, without qualification, as has been
alleged here and by Webb, that the CIA is responsible for distributing
crack cocaine to the streets of LA and elsewhere, that the DOJ ignored
his documentation in 1987, etc., then I'll concede the debate.
I will also do some checking on just how "buried" his report was in The
Washigton Post and get back to you guys and that as well.
As you know, sitting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gives him
enormous influencial power (not to mention influence on powers of the
purse) over the State Dept. and other agencies and it boggles my mind
that he would do NOTHING to try and stop (or withhold) the funding of
*any* agency he felt was responsible for drug pushing, at least until
the matter was cleared up satisfactorily in his mind.
It will also be interesting to see if he shares the contempt some here
have of "spooks" and of our intelligence community in general, and if he
also believes that The Washington Post either protects or is controlled
by the CIA.
There are 3 days until Christmas and I have got to get movin' on doing
some serious last minute shopping. Hope you and Jim and everyone else
have a wonderful Christmas and Happy New Year.
See ya'll soon!
STEVE
Jim Hargrove
Steve Bochan wrote on Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:01:29 -0500:
>I have written to Senator Kerry about this and will share his response
>with the newsgroup. If he tells me, without qualification, as has been
>alleged here and by Webb, that the CIA is responsible for distributing
>crack cocaine to the streets of LA and elsewhere, that the DOJ ignored
>his documentation in 1987, etc., then I'll concede the debate.
You are asking the wrong question. Neither Webb nor anyone else has said
the CIA distributed crack cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles.
What has been shown time and time again (except to Washington Post readers)
is that the CIA (and other U.S. government employees) materially aided and
protected drug runners bringing millions of dollars of cocaine into the
United States in exchange for Contra weapons. Even that is stronger than
the charge Webb made, but it is the truth. The drugs were flown into the US
aboard CIA airplanes manned by CIA pilots.
George Lamm, Jr.
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote on Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:01:29 -0500:
>
> >I have written to Senator Kerry about this and will share his response
> >with the newsgroup. If he tells me, without qualification, as has been
> >alleged here and by Webb, that the CIA is responsible for distributing
> >crack cocaine to the streets of LA and elsewhere, that the DOJ ignored
> >his documentation in 1987, etc., then I'll concede the debate.
>
> You are asking the wrong question. Neither Webb nor anyone else has said
> the CIA distributed crack cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles.
>
> What has been shown time and time again (except to Washington Post readers)
> is that the CIA (and other U.S. government employees) materially aided and
> protected drug runners bringing millions of dollars of cocaine into the
> United States in exchange for Contra weapons. Even that is stronger than
> the charge Webb made, but it is the truth. The drugs were flown into the US
> aboard CIA airplanes manned by CIA pilots.
>
> The letters "KILLSPAM" were added to my address as an anti-spam measure.
> If you wish to send me email, remove "KILLSPAM" from my address before sending.
Jim...
I believe that the airplanes in question were rented or subcontracted
by the CIA and the pilots were also subcontractors... later... george
Steve Bochan
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote on Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:01:29 -0500:
>
> >I have written to Senator Kerry about this and will share his response
> >with the newsgroup. If he tells me, without qualification, as has been
> >alleged here and by Webb, that the CIA is responsible for distributing
> >crack cocaine to the streets of LA and elsewhere, that the DOJ ignored
> >his documentation in 1987, etc., then I'll concede the debate.
>
> You are asking the wrong question. Neither Webb nor anyone else has said
> the CIA distributed crack cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles.
I'm sorry, I can't let this pass.
No, I am not asking the wrong question (what question - have you seen my
letter to Kerry?). Go back and re-read Waters' #1 plank that you
introduced into this discussion yourself.
Also FWIW, in doing a quick ProQuest search at my local library this
evening, I found dozens of anti-CIA articles printed in The Washington
Post, most either on the front page, or in the "A" section (first
section) of the newspaper, using the keywords "KERRY" and "CIA." This
would seem to contradict the FALSE claim that The Washington Post either
protects or is controlled by the CIA.
You might want to re-think your notion that Kerry's positions on the CIA
have been "buried" at The Washington Post. They haven't, and after the
Holiday is over, I will prove that to you.
> What has been shown time and time again (except to Washington Post readers)
> is that the CIA (and other U.S. government employees) materially aided and
> protected drug runners bringing millions of dollars of cocaine into the
> United States in exchange for Contra weapons.
Another false charge against The Washington Post. Why do you do this,
Jim? Did you think I wouldn't check out these accusations? Didn't you
start this thread complaining of 'disinformation'? Shouldn't you be
interested in the truth about what The Washington Post *does* report to
its readers before making allegations on the record that are untrue?
STEVE
"There is no question in my mind that people affiliated with, on the
payroll of and carrying the credentials of the CIA were involved in
drug trafficking while involved in support of the contras, but it is
also important to note that we never found any evidence to suggest
that these traffickers ever targeted any one geographic area or
population group."
— Senator John F. Kerry, (D-Mass), The Washington Post, 10/4/96, Page 1
article titled, "THE CIA AND CRACK: EVIDENCE IS LACKING OF ALLEGED
PLOT; NICARAGUANS HAD LIMITED ROLE IN BRINGING DRUG TO U.S. CITIES"
Jim Hargrove
Steve Bochan wrote on Mon, 22 Dec 1997 22:31:08 -0500:
>Jim Hargrove wrote:
>> You are asking the wrong question. Neither Webb nor anyone else has sa=
>id
>> the CIA distributed crack cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles.
>
>
>I'm sorry, I can't let this pass.
>
>No, I am not asking the wrong question (what question - have you seen my
>letter to Kerry?). Go back and re-read Waters' #1 plank that you
>introduced into this discussion yourself.
Since you expected to have Senator Kerry agree or not agree with the
strawman statement "that the CIA is responsible for distributing crack
cocaine to the streets of LA and elsewhere," I assumed a strawman question.
Reports by Gary Webb, NBC News, the Kerry Committee, The Wall Street
Journal, and others clearly do not say CIA personnel distributed crack
cocaine on LA (or any other American city) streets. What they do say is
that CIA personnel (and other USG employees) knowingly aided and protected
big-time cocaine smugglers and local distributors who did.
>Also FWIW, in doing a quick ProQuest search at my local library this
>evening, I found dozens of anti-CIA articles printed in The Washington
>Post, most either on the front page, or in the "A" section (first
>section) of the newspaper, using the keywords "KERRY" and "CIA." This
>would seem to contradict the FALSE claim that The Washington Post either
>protects or is controlled by the CIA. =
EXCELLENT! I'll be looking forward to hearing about these. Be sure to
include the parts where the editors and writers of the Washington Post
express some slight alarm (or even some modest concern)--rather than make
excuses for--this government-assisted drugging of American citizens.
(But a word to the wise: Be careful in your use of direct quotes. President
Clinton signed into law last week legislation making it for the first time
expressly illegal to repost copyrighted material on the Internet, even when
no charge is made for the information. From Slate online mag:
USAT reports that yesterday, President Clinton signed the first law
directly cracking down on unauthorized distribution in cyberspace of
copyrighted material even if there is no profit sought.
I assume this means that the usual "Fair Use" laws MAY be more strictly
enforced. We're both going to have to do some paraphrasing if this debate
continues--unless you have a better idea.)
>You might want to re-think your notion that Kerry's positions on the CIA
>have been "buried" at The Washington Post. They haven't, and after the
>Holiday is over, I will prove that to you.
I'm looking forward to this.
>> What has been shown time and time again (except to Washington Post read=
>ers)
>> is that the CIA (and other U.S. government employees) materially aided =
>and
>> protected drug runners bringing millions of dollars of cocaine into the=
>
>> United States in exchange for Contra weapons. =
>Another false charge against The Washington Post. Why do you do this,
>Jim? Did you think I wouldn't check out these accusations? Didn't you
>start this thread complaining of 'disinformation'? Shouldn't you be
>interested in the truth about what The Washington Post *does* report to
>its readers before making allegations on the record that are untrue?
Excellent again! After implying that you were unaware that Senator Kerry
had even conducted public hearings (you must be a Post reader!) you now
triumphantly find a Kerry quote buried in the 28th paragraph of a story
headlined "The CIA and Crack: Evidence Is Lacking of Alleged Plot."
>"There is no question in my mind that people affiliated with, on the =
>
>payroll of and carrying the credentials of the CIA were involved in =
>
>drug trafficking while involved in support of the contras, but it is =
>
>also important to note that we never found any evidence to suggest =
>
>that these traffickers ever targeted any one geographic area or =
>
>population group."
>
>=97 Senator John F. Kerry, (D-Mass), The Washington Post, 10/4/96, Page 1=
>
>article titled, "THE CIA AND CRACK: EVIDENCE IS LACKING OF ALLEGED
>PLOT; NICARAGUANS HAD LIMITED ROLE IN BRINGING DRUG TO U.S. CITIES"
Following this bow to reality, let's take a look at some of the other CIA
excuses offered up in the Post's Suro-Pincus whitewash of 10/4/96.
In paragraphs 26 and 27 under the headline "The CIA and Crack: Evidence Is
Lacking of Alleged Plot," Team Suro-Pincus grossly mischaracterizes the
conclusions of the Kerry Committee. Compare their bland statements with the
actual wording of the Report I provided earlier in this thread, or, better
yet, get online, get yourself a copy of the Kerry Report, and judge for
yourself whether your boys were giving Sen. Kerry's report a fair shake.
Let's look at this paragraph from Team Suro-Pincus's 1996 CIA defense:
The Mercury News characterized Blandon as "the Johnny Appleseed of crack
in California" and suggested that the drug later spread throughout the
country as a result of his efforts. But Blandon's own accounts and law
enforcement estimates say Blandon handled a total of only about five tons
of cocaine during a decade-long career. That is enough to have damaged
many lives, but it is a fraction of the nationwide cocaine trade during
the 1980s, when more than 250 tons of the drug were distributed every
year, according to official and academic estimates.
"Only five tons!?" Why, Blandon should get a medal for his restraint! It's
too late here to look for the exact formula, but five tons of powder cocaine
cooks up into millions and millions of doses of crack cocaine--perhaps
hundreds of millions--the math on powder vs. crack cocaine is amazing. I
have a DEA formula somewhere if you're interested. But the greatest help
Suro and Pincus afforded the CIA was in their "confusion" of CIA-USG
contributions to local LA cocaine figures vs. our dreadful national totals.
"Cocaine Politics" coauthor Peter Dale Scott dissected that confusion in his
letter to the Post from October 1996. Since the Post chose not to print it,
I assume it is fair game to repost it here. (No doubt you despise Dr. Scott
as another whining negativist, but please at least take the time to read his
letter.)
<QUOTE ON>
Editor, Washington Post
The October 4 article by Robert Suro and Walter Pincus on Contra-related
drug trafficking concedes that "the CIA knew about some of these activities
and did little or nothing to stop them." It nevertheless discounts the
importance of recent revelations on this subject, by implying that the
amount of cocaine involved, "about five tons," was only a fraction of the
nationwide cocaine trade in the 1980s ("more than 250 tons").
This argument is highly misleading. To understand it in context, we should
recall that five years ago another apologist for the CIA, Michael Massing,
made almost the same case, but about a different Contra drug connection. In
an article in The Nation, Massing focused on cocaine moved by Contra support
aircraft in Costa Rica, and objected that this, too, was only an
"insignificant" part of the overall hemispheric trade. He concluded that it
was thus "absurd" to blame the CIA for our national cocaine epidemic at that
time.
If we begin to list all of the different drug traffickers who in the
mid-1980s enjoyed immunity from prosecution during their support for the
Contras, we see that the real absurdity is to reduce this problem to small
aircraft in Costa Rica, or two Nicaraguans in California. In this era the
big traffickers who traded their Contra support into temporary immunity
included, among others, the top brass in the Honduran Army, the Guadalajara
Cartel in Mexico, their ally Juan Matta Ballesteros in Honduras, Noriega in
Panama, and possibly Barry Seal and "The Company" in the United States.
At this time DEA Agents attributed from one fifth to one half of our cocaine
importants to the Honduran Army alone (two of whose shipments, when finally
seized, totalled 6.7 tons). Newsweek quoted U.S. drug agents as claiming
that Matta's Mexican organization supplied "perhaps one third of all the
cocaine consumed in the United States." Noriega, Seal, and "The Company"
were similarly described as major traffickers.
All estimates of market share are suspect, and subject to overlap. There is
however no doubt that the relation between the U.S. government and Contra
supporters profoundly aggravated our cocaine problems, in ways that continue
to the present day. The problem was not that the CIA "did nothing to stop"
these activities. The problem was that the U.S. Government, recurringly,
intervened in drug cases to prevent major traffickers, like the Contra
supporter Norwin Meneses, from prosecution.
By printing the Suro-Pincus article, you have rendered a major service to
the CIA. And, I would add, a profound disservice to your readers and the
American people.
Yours,
.DS L Peter Dale Scott
Co-Author, Cocaine Politics
<QUOTE OFF>
This debate is fairly off-topic for this newsgroup, but it's an important
one and I hope we can both continue it. Christmas (and my wife) are
descending on my computer time like a winter storm, but I'll find the time
to reply to your next response ASAP.
Steve Bochan
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote on Mon, 22 Dec 1997 22:31:08 -0500:
> >Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> >> You are asking the wrong question. Neither Webb nor anyone else has sa=
> >id
> >> the CIA distributed crack cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles.
> >
> >
> >I'm sorry, I can't let this pass.
> >
> >No, I am not asking the wrong question (what question - have you seen my
> >letter to Kerry?). Go back and re-read Waters' #1 plank that you
> >introduced into this discussion yourself.
>
> Since you expected to have Senator Kerry agree or not agree with the
> strawman statement "that the CIA is responsible for distributing crack
> cocaine to the streets of LA and elsewhere," I assumed a strawman question.
> Reports by Gary Webb, NBC News, the Kerry Committee, The Wall Street
> Journal, and others clearly do not say CIA personnel distributed crack
> cocaine on LA (or any other American city) streets. What they do say is
> that CIA personnel (and other USG employees) knowingly aided and protected
> big-time cocaine smugglers and local distributors who did.
>
IOW, those publications *DID* in fact report the news, didn't they?
They weren't afraid to publish stories that made the CIA look bad, did
they?
> >Also FWIW, in doing a quick ProQuest search at my local library this
> >evening, I found dozens of anti-CIA articles printed in The Washington
> >Post, most either on the front page, or in the "A" section (first
> >section) of the newspaper, using the keywords "KERRY" and "CIA." This
> >would seem to contradict the FALSE claim that The Washington Post either
> >protects or is controlled by the CIA. =
>
> EXCELLENT! I'll be looking forward to hearing about these. Be sure to
> include the parts where the editors and writers of the Washington Post
> express some slight alarm (or even some modest concern)--rather than make
> excuses for--this government-assisted drugging of American citizens.
But Jim, now you're moving the goal posts in the middle of the game.
First, you implied that The Washington Post does not inform its readers
of the news, espcially if it involves anything that could be construed
as anti-CIA. You even suggested that The Post protects the CIA.
Now that I've 'scratched the surface' and told you that I've come across
a number of articles that The Post did in fact run on CIA shenanigans,
mismanagement and more, you want some example of editorial outrage.
IOW, you want *someone* to get as worked up about this as you are!
Isn't that different than the way you began? Or is this a way liberals
like to "convince" and shame people that they have the ONLY moral high
ground, and that their own point of view is the ONLY point of view that
matters?
>
> (But a word to the wise: Be careful in your use of direct quotes. President
> Clinton signed into law last week legislation making it for the first time
> expressly illegal to repost copyrighted material on the Internet, even when
> no charge is made for the information. From Slate online mag:
>
> USAT reports that yesterday, President Clinton signed the first law
> directly cracking down on unauthorized distribution in cyberspace of
> copyrighted material even if there is no profit sought.
>
> I assume this means that the usual "Fair Use" laws MAY be more strictly
> enforced. We're both going to have to do some paraphrasing if this debate
> continues--unless you have a better idea.)
I am glad you brought this up. You are correct, we'll have to be
careful.
However, with your permission, I'd like to be able to e-mail you the
entire articles I bring up for discussion (unless you already have them)
so that you and I will be reading off of the same sheet of music, so to
speak. I doubt that e-mailing copyrighted material for private is
against the law, but who knows anymore?
> >You might want to re-think your notion that Kerry's positions on the CIA
> >have been "buried" at The Washington Post. They haven't, and after the
> >Holiday is over, I will prove that to you.
>
> I'm looking forward to this.
Me too.
>
> >> What has been shown time and time again (except to Washington Post read=
> >ers)
> >> is that the CIA (and other U.S. government employees) materially aided =
> >and
> >> protected drug runners bringing millions of dollars of cocaine into the=
> >
> >> United States in exchange for Contra weapons. =
>
> >Another false charge against The Washington Post. Why do you do this,
> >Jim? Did you think I wouldn't check out these accusations? Didn't you
> >start this thread complaining of 'disinformation'? Shouldn't you be
> >interested in the truth about what The Washington Post *does* report to
> >its readers before making allegations on the record that are untrue?
>
> Excellent again! After implying that you were unaware that Senator Kerry
> had even conducted public hearings (you must be a Post reader!) you now
> triumphantly find a Kerry quote buried in the 28th paragraph of a story
> headlined "The CIA and Crack: Evidence Is Lacking of Alleged Plot."
>
Jim, I read three papers a day and cannot be expected to have memorized
every article, every hearing, every scandal that comes up in this town.
I mean, this *is* Washington after all, and there are two or three new
scandals brewing here everyday.
It's obvious that the Kerry and Waters things are personally important
issues for you, but does that mean they *must* be for me too?
<snip>
>
> This debate is fairly off-topic for this newsgroup, but it's an important
> one and I hope we can both continue it. Christmas (and my wife) are
> descending on my computer time like a winter storm, but I'll find the time
> to reply to your next response ASAP.
>
GOOD! So let's enjoy the Christmas Holiday and get back into it
afterwards. I have an idea that may work that won't be violating the
new copyright laws you mention above.
STEVE