Clinton's Oxford roommate
John Q. Public
I'm looking for information on Bill Clinton's
roommates while he attended Oxford.
All assistance will be appreciated.
Larry-Jennie
On top of the list is Strobe Talbott, a Soviet specialist who went
from TIME Magazine to Asst. Sec. of State.
Not a bad resume' for another spook recruited as a Rhodes Scholar.
Larry
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The CIA cocaine smuggling on behalf of the Contras
through Mena, Arkansas corrupted the Presidencies
of Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
For details, see:
ftp://pencil.cs.missouri.edu/pub/mena/
http://www.mixi.net/~feustel/
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Rosalee Thompson
>In article <31BCCC...@globaldialog.com> "John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> writes:
>>I'm looking for information on Bill Clinton's
>>roommates while he attended Oxford.
>>All assistance will be appreciated.
>On top of the list is Strobe Talbott, a Soviet specialist who went
>from TIME Magazine to Asst. Sec. of State.
>Not a bad resume' for another spook recruited as a Rhodes Scholar.
>Larry
But, unlike Clinton, Talbott earned a degree, about the only thing good to be
said.
jmcclain
"John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>I'm looking for information on Bill Clinton's
>roommates while he attended Oxford.
>All assistance will be appreciated.
A good source is David Maraniss' biography of Clinton, _First_In_
_His_Class_. He appears to me to be a defender of Clinton, and an
even stronger one of Hillary; thus, I find his interpretations
somewhat biased, but the facts he presents are quite detailed and seem
well researched. Pages 122 through 225 (of the paperback) cover the
Oxford years, including his "Grand Tour" of Europe and the whole draft
issue. Here's a summary:
1. Fall 1968 - Spring 1969; University College.
Had a room to himself. His neighbor across the hall:
a. Doug Eakeley. Yale Univ. Received Oxford degree in 2 years.
Later attended Yale Law School, where he was roommates with Clinton.
"A Skull and Bones man from his days as a Yale undergrad..."
Other students at University College (in different buildings):
b. Robert Reich. Dartmouth. Later attended Yale Law School with
Clinton. Received Oxford degree in 2 years.
c. John Isaacson. Dartmouth. College friend of Reich. Debater w/
political aspirations. Later attended Harvard Law School. His college
debate partner, Donald Pogue, became a roommate of Clinton's at Yale
Law School. No info on him after Harvard Law School.
2. October - November 1969. Holywell Manor.
Clinton stayed at the apartment of Rick Stearns. Stearns left
Oxford in November to work on the McGovern Commission and to pursue a
former classmate of Clinton's; she worked on Senator Thomas Dodd's
(Dem-CT) staff. During the spring of 1970, Stearns and Clinton
traveled in Spain. Worked for McGovern's presidential campaign after
leaving Oxford.
3. November 1969 - Spring 1970. Leckford Road.
Clinton took a flat in a house rented by:
a. Strobe Talbott. Yale Univ. Russia scholar. Later returned for a
third year at Oxford. _Time_ magazine, etc.
b. Frank Aller. Washington State Univ. China scholar. After
finishing the second year at Oxford, he traveled to Spain to write
about a draft resister; returned in the fall for a third year at
Oxford. Over Christmas break returned to the US - having missed his
induction day - where he was arrested at the airport. Indictment for
draft evasion was dropped when he received a 1-Y deferment. He
committed suicide in September 1971.
c. Brooke Shearer. Sophomore at Stanford and Talbott's girlfriend.
She stayed at the house on visits. Her father, Lloyd Shearer, worked
at the _Los_Angeles_Times_ (foreign desk chief?). Her brother, Derek,
was Talbott's best friend at Dartmouth. She and Talbott eventually
married.
As I said, this is just a summary. It's apparent from the book that
many of the friends who most influenced him at Oxford weren't his
roommates and so don't appear here. However, I hopes this helps.
--
jmcclain
jmcc...@atl.mindspring.com
James R. Norman
In <31BCCC...@globaldialog.com> "John Q. Public"
<j...@globaldialog.com> writes:
>
>I'm looking for information on Bill Clinton's
>roommates while he attended Oxford.
>
>All assistance will be appreciated.
Check out a guy named Bill Hensley. Good luck finding him. He's
another ex-spook. Washington lawyer. Gone underground after death
threats to his family. Worked for a while with the lobbying arm of the
Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn, District 1 in early 90s. Roomed with
WJC or was close buddy in England. Helped WJC on some foreign policy
evaluations during the election/transition phase. JN
Daniel L. Brandt
John Q. Public (j...@globaldialog.com) wrote:
: I'm looking for information on Bill Clinton's
: roommates while he attended Oxford.
: All assistance will be appreciated.
I don't know about whether he was an actual "roommate," but
Robert Earl has been identified as a colleague of Clinton's
at Oxford -- meaning that Earl attended Oxford at the same
time as Clinton. Earl was later an assistant to Oliver North
at the National Security Council.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Information Research, Inc., PO Box 680635, San Antonio TX 78268
Tel:210-509-3160 Fax:210-509-3161 Nonprofit publisher of NameBase
in...@pir.org www.pir.org telnet pir.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Mann
"John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>I'm looking for information on Bill Clinton's
>roommates while he attended Oxford.
>All assistance will be appreciated.
How about Marannis' book?
\\/ayne //\ann
The man for whom the Cleveland Indians are named
Louis Sockalexis, the first Native American to play
major league baseball, played for Cleveland in 1897-99.
When he died in 1913, the team was re-named the
Indians, in Tribute to Louis Sockalexis.
Wayne Mann
lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>In article <31BCCC...@globaldialog.com> "John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> writes:
>>I'm looking for information on Bill Clinton's
>>roommates while he attended Oxford.
>>All assistance will be appreciated.
>On top of the list is Strobe Talbott, a Soviet specialist who went
>from TIME Magazine to Asst. Sec. of State.
>Not a bad resume' for another spook recruited as a Rhodes Scholar.
I just new you could do it Larry, You got the CIA in there
again, you don't miss a single thread do you. Hey Hanson is
calling you.
Larry-Jennie
>lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>>In article <31BCCC...@globaldialog.com> "John Q. Public"
><j...@globaldialog.com> writes:
>>>I'm looking for information on Bill Clinton's
>>>roommates while he attended Oxford.
>>>All assistance will be appreciated.
Larry-Jennie wrote:
>>On top of the list is Strobe Talbott, a Soviet specialist who went
>>from TIME Magazine to Asst. Sec. of State.
>>Not a bad resume' for another spook recruited as a Rhodes Scholar.
\\/ayne //\ann wrote:
> I just new you could do it Larry, You got the CIA in there
>again, you don't miss a single thread do you. Hey Hanson is
>calling you.
When it comes to Bill Clinton and Whitewater, it is EASY to find
CIA people.
Strobe was just one more tidbit in the puzzle.
I think my scenario fits the evidence. Too bad if you don't like it.
Wayne, you never debate the evidence, resorting to calling me a liar.
To others more open minded, please consider that Bill Clinton's CIA
career has EVERYTHING to do with why he enjoys more teflon than even
Ronald Reagan.
Larry
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The CIA cocaine smuggling on behalf of the Contras
through Mena, Arkansas corrupted the Presidencies
of Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
For details, see:
ftp://pencil.cs.missouri.edu/pub/mena/
http://www.mixi.net/~feustel/
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>The man for whom the Cleveland Indians are named
Charles Held
In article <4pklp5$28...@mule2.mindspring.com>,
jmcc...@atl.mindspring.com (jmcclain) wrote:
--> c. Brooke Shearer. Sophomore at Stanford and Talbott's girlfriend.
->She stayed at the house on visits. Her father, Lloyd Shearer, worked
->at the _Los_Angeles_Times_ (foreign desk chief?). Her brother, Derek,
->was Talbott's best friend at Dartmouth. She and Talbott eventually
->married.
Derek Shearer is the socialist who is trying to sell socialism under the term
"Economic Democracy". Shearer's stunningly bad book of that name (funded by
the Ford Foundation) praises a certain "anticorporate, pro-ERA populist"
named Bill Clinton.
Wayne Mann
lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>>lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>Larry
Larry just because you say something does NOT make it true.
The FACT is that I discuss and post many posts about White
Water and particularly on Foster's death. You have NEVER
posted a single post that added anything to this group about
Whitewater, or Foster or actully anything NEW about Mena.
SO don't be saying things that are NOT true. I through
messing with you Larry, you are just here the same as Hanso
and Lindsey just to tie everyone up and keep them away from
Whitewater and Fosters death. SO this is the last you are
going to hear from me, you just made my kill file again
Larry Good-bye.
\\/ayne //\ann
Wayne McGuire
lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>To others more open minded, please consider that Bill Clinton's CIA
>career has EVERYTHING to do with why he enjoys more teflon than even
>Ronald Reagan.
Your theory doesn't appear to fit the facts. George Bush was a much
more powerful figure in the CIA than Bill Clinton, and yet the big
media attacked Bush viciously and drove him from office. Bush's
problems began when he and James Baker opposed granting a $10 billion
loan guarantee to Israel unless it stopped building new settlements in
the occupied territories. After Operation Desert Storm, Bush's
approval ratings were stellar. In the months preceding the election,
the big media subjected Bush to a barrage of negative articles that
drove down his ratings and handed the election to Clinton. Two major
Republicans in the big media establishment, William Safire and Henry
Kissinger, led the way in turning the screws on Bush and Baker for
their "disloyalty" to Israel.
How does your CIA theory explain the big media's hatred of George Bush
or its attacks on the CIA during the Church hearings or after the
revelations about Aldrich Ames?
Israel seems to be a bigger factor in the agenda of the big media than
the CIA or liberalism, which also accounts for why they treated Ronald
Reagan more gently than they treated Jimmy Carter.
--
Wayne McGuire
wmcg...@cybercom.net
http://www.cybercom.net/~wmcguire/
RDElephant
lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>To others more open minded, please consider that Bill Clinton's CIA
>career has EVERYTHING to do with why he enjoys more teflon than even
>Ronald Reagan.
Wayne McGuire wrote:
>>Your theory doesn't appear to fit the facts. George Bush was a much
>>more powerful figure in the CIA than Bill Clinton, and yet the big
>>media attacked Bush viciously and drove him from office. Bush's
>>problems began when he and James Baker opposed granting a $10 billion
>>loan guarantee to Israel unless it stopped building new settlements in
>>the occupied territories. After Operation Desert Storm, Bush's
>>approval ratings were stellar. In the months preceding the election,
>>the big media subjected Bush to a barrage of negative articles that
>>drove down his ratings and handed the election to Clinton. Two major
>>Republicans in the big media establishment, William Safire and Henry
>>Kissinger, led the way in turning the screws on Bush and Baker for
>>their "disloyalty" to Israel.
If Mena is true, then Bush clearly enjoyed teflon to the exact same extent
as Clinton...at least on that issue...as well as on the October
Surprise...as well as on his facile protestations to have been "out of the
loop" on even the publicly acknowledged parts of Iran/Contra...not
coincidentally all issues upon which the CIA would have been muddied.
Once Clinton's nomination was secured, I think the CIA was probably
pulling for his defeat of Bush, notwithstanding Bush's prior role as DCI.
As a Democrat, Clinton is a more valuable tool for the CIA to own,
precisely because Democrats are SUPPOSED to be the party of the little
guy...whereas the CIA is the institution most committed to elite
interests. Thus, in the vein of "only Nixon could go to China", Clinton
could breeze through things that Bush would have found tough-sledding and
succeeded where Bush would have failed (NAFTA and GATT come immediately to
mind, not to mention the continued pacification of the press on precisely
issues like Mena). At worst, the CIA was indifferent to the Bush/ Clinton
race as they owned both candidates (so long as Perot didn't succeed...now
if you want to talk about the press savaging somebody, thats the case to
discuss, along with Buchanan in this cycle, precisely because the CIA
didn't own either and both were taking aim at the elite interests which
the CIA protects as their reason d'etre. By comparison this Israel
nonsense was nothing. Bush didn't lose because he voted against Israel, he
lost because the economy turned South and he didn't seem to care and
because he was an inarticulate, preppy dweeb (in contrast to the
articulate,blowdried, hillbilly dweeb whom he faced off against). Bush's
stratospheric numbers were bound to come down once the Gulf War fever
subsided anyway...nobody is that good, especially the Bushman and his
boy-wonder V.P.
>How does your CIA theory explain the big media's hatred of George Bush
>or its attacks on the CIA during the Church hearings or after the
>revelations about Aldrich Ames?
I think that the press corps has fundamentally changed since the mid-1970
Church hearings. There were CIA apologists in the press even then, but the
press was still fundamentally the "outsider" Watergate press. Since then
the press has become far more concentrated in ownership under the control
of ever more elite interests...network news for example is now all under
ownership by multibillion dollar transnational corporate interests.
Additionally, the White House, beginning with the Reagan years began to
understand and utilize its ability to terrorize reporters who stepped to
close to the really sensitive stuff by freezing out there access and
complaining to their bosses. The latter shouldn't matter in a truly free
press but, and this is the final factor, the press has become an inside
institution. The concept of the press as the Fourth branch of government
has been turned on its head. That notion was initially premised on the
press acting as an adverarial watchdog, but has now turned into a contrary
hubris among the press that they have a right and a duty to judge what
information is in the nation's best interest to hear...thus placing them
in bed with the very folks they are supposed to watch and providing a
handy rationalization anytime a publisher or editor decides to cave to
pressure not to cover a story.While the CIA's paid disinformers on press
payrools is a factor in there power over the media, so is the power of the
elites they brepresent and, most important, the power of the White House
which they must, at all costs now, control in one way or another.
As for Aldrich Ames, I suspect that there is more to this story than we
know (i.e. still only a limited hangout) or perhaps is the exception that
proves the rule...or perhaps a case where the CIA powers that be were so
disgusted with what happened and the costs of defense so high that it was
worth letting this one go...after all it was only institutional negligence
at stake, not drug-smuggling.
>>Israel seems to be a bigger factor in the agenda of the big media than
>>the CIA or liberalism, which also accounts for why they treated Ronald
>>Reagan more gently than they treated Jimmy Carter.
>>--
>>Wayne McGuire
>>wmcg...@cybercom.net
>>http://www.cybercom.net/~wmcguire/
Israel is the CIA's most important bedpartner. Trying to seperate their
interests is vitually impossible. I agree that Liberal/Conservative
ideology plays only a minor role at the margins in the limited space where
reporter whim/discretion is allowed to operate and then usually in favor
of the liberal viewpoint or candidate. But on the big stuff the larger
institutional factors come into play and sweep the entire debate (or
non-debate) into the playing area chosen by the elite interests, through
their CIA and White House proxies. Everything else is "outside the
mainstream" and to be ignored.
Randy D. Ellison
Charles Held
In article <31c0360...@news.cybercom.net>,
wmcg...@cybercom.net (Wayne McGuire) wrote:
->Two major
->Republicans in the big media establishment, William Safire and Henry
->Kissinger, led the way in turning the screws on Bush and Baker for
->their "disloyalty" to Israel.
Which columnist was it that resurrected the "F*ck the jews they never vote
for us anyway" comment that allegedly came from Baker?
Keith Preston
In article <31BCCC...@globaldialog.com>, "John Q. Public"
<j...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
> I'm looking for information on Bill Clinton's
> roommates while he attended Oxford.
>
> All assistance will be appreciated.
Check Roger Morris' book....chock full of them.
K
Wayne McGuire
rdele...@aol.com (RDElephant) wrote:
>If Mena is true, then Bush clearly enjoyed teflon to the exact same extent
>as Clinton...
But the fact remains that overall the big media drove Bush from
office. Some content analysis studies have revealed that the big media
in the months before the election were publishing/broadcasting anti
vs. pro Bush stories at a ratio of six to one.
The big media made both Jimmy Carter and George Bush one-term
presidents. Carter was a Democrat and Bush was a Republican. Bush was
as highly placed in the CIA as one can get.
William Safire is generally recognized as the most powerful journalist
in the big media, and someone who reveals big media thinking at the
highest levels. Safire was exceptionally angry at both Carter and Bush
because of their policies towards Israel.
>Once Clinton's nomination was secured, I think the CIA was probably
>pulling for his defeat of Bush, notwithstanding Bush's prior role as DCI.
>As a Democrat, Clinton is a more valuable tool for the CIA to own,
>precisely because Democrats are SUPPOSED to be the party of the little
>guy...whereas the CIA is the institution most committed to elite
>interests. Thus, in the vein of "only Nixon could go to China", Clinton
>could breeze through things that Bush would have found tough-sledding and
>succeeded where Bush would have failed (NAFTA and GATT come immediately to
>mind, not to mention the continued pacification of the press on precisely
>issues like Mena).
Now, that's an interesting theory/speculation. There could be
something to it.
(Do you find it fascinating that there has still been no response from
Democrats and liberals about the revelations that Clinton was probably
spying on the anti-war movement and helping supply the Contras for the
CIA? Apparently they find this notion to be a bit confusing.)
> The concept of the press as the Fourth branch of government
>has been turned on its head. That notion was initially premised on the
>press acting as an adverarial watchdog, but has now turned into a contrary
>hubris among the press that they have a right and a duty to judge what
>information is in the nation's best interest to hear...thus placing them
>in bed with the very folks they are supposed to watch and providing a
>handy rationalization anytime a publisher or editor decides to cave to
>pressure not to cover a story.
True. The over-centralized big media have become an instrument of
obfuscation and tyranny. They serve the interests of their billionaire
owners, period.
>Israel is the CIA's most important bedpartner. Trying to seperate their
>interests is vitually impossible.
Which side was the chief instigator in the October Surprise and
Iran-Contra? Most American accounts of these incidents seem to suggest
that Israel was in the driver's seat. Does Israel now have the power
to blackmail many leading American politicians and government
officials because of dirty operations they have jointly engaged in?
Where do real American interests lie in this morass?
Anyone who attempts to look into these issues will be immediately
smeared as an anti-Semite by the powerful Israeli lobby and its
friends. Many of the most powerful figures in the big media are
closely associated with that lobby.
Larry-Jennie
>lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>>To others more open minded, please consider that Bill Clinton's CIA
>>career has EVERYTHING to do with why he enjoys more teflon than even
>>Ronald Reagan.
>Your theory doesn't appear to fit the facts. George Bush was a much
>more powerful figure in the CIA than Bill Clinton, and yet the big
>media attacked Bush viciously and drove him from office. Bush's
>problems began when he and James Baker opposed granting a $10 billion
>loan guarantee to Israel unless it stopped building new settlements in
>the occupied territories. After Operation Desert Storm, Bush's
>approval ratings were stellar. In the months preceding the election,
>the big media subjected Bush to a barrage of negative articles that
>drove down his ratings and handed the election to Clinton. Two major
>Republicans in the big media establishment, William Safire and Henry
>Kissinger, led the way in turning the screws on Bush and Baker for
>their "disloyalty" to Israel.
How did the big media drive Bush from office? Examples please. I don't
see it that way.
Safire wrote incisive columns about Iraqgate -- how the Bush administration
helped Iraq build weapons of mass destruction. Outside of Safire, that
story was non-existent in the media. The USA paid for and supplied
Saddam with the means to build chemical, biological, nuclear, cluster
bomb and ballistic missile weapons. The CIA was the conduit for the
American military technologies to Iraq. To me, this is a big story.
Why did big media ignore Iraqgate if they wanted to drive Bush from
office?
Nobody in the media had the guts to nail down Bush as to why he denied
being "in the loop" on Iran-contra when there were memos and testimony
that proved Bush was in the loop. Was big media trying to clarify the
truth on that issue? I don't think so.
Pete Brewton of the HOUSTON POST wrote a series of articles connecting
associates of George Bush to the collapse of 25 Texas S&Ls that also
had connections to the Mafia and CIA. Did you read about this in the
NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, NEWSWEEK or TIME? Of course not.
And in Panama, why did big media ignore the installation of Noriega's
replacements with Pananmanian bankers involved with money laundering?
>How does your CIA theory explain the big media's hatred of George Bush
>or its attacks on the CIA during the Church hearings or after the
>revelations about Aldrich Ames?
I want examples of the big media's hatred of George Bush. I can
rattle off all these "National Security" scandals connected to Bush
that big media ignored (just like Clinton's Whitewater scandals).
So please be specific as to what you consider media's hatred for Bush.
As for the Church Hearings into the CIA, that was 20 years ago. Ancient
history. Since then investigative journalism has practically died.
As for Aldrich Ames, there may be aspects about him not made public.
We don't know. Of the books written about Ames, not one mentions a
CIA protected shipment of 1.5 tons of cocaine from Venezuela into
the USA that occurred while Ames was stationed there. TIME, NEWSWEEK,
US NEWS, 60 MINUTES, NY POST all reported on the CIA shipment of the coke.
Curiously, there has been ZERO follow up in the media or Congress
into identifying and punishing those in the CIA who allowed the
cocaine to enter the United States unimpeded by any law enforcement.
Funny how the CIA gets away with that.
>Israel seems to be a bigger factor in the agenda of the big media than
>the CIA or liberalism, which also accounts for why they treated Ronald
>Reagan more gently than they treated Jimmy Carter.
Israel, the CIA, George Bush and Bill Clinton go together very tightly
in a web of intrigues involving narcotics smuggling, bank fraud
and arms trafficking. It is difficult to separate responsibility of one
from another.
No matter what. When it comes to the crimes committed by US and Israeli
intelligence services, the US media is criminally silent.
Larry-Jennie
In article <31c2fcfa...@news.cybercom.net> wmcg...@cybercom.net (Wayne McGuire) writes:
>rdele...@aol.com (RDElephant) wrote:
>>If Mena is true, then Bush clearly enjoyed teflon to the exact same extent
>>as Clinton...
Wayne NcGuire wrote:
>But the fact remains that overall the big media drove Bush from
>office. Some content analysis studies have revealed that the big media
>in the months before the election were publishing/broadcasting anti
>vs. pro Bush stories at a ratio of six to one.
I'm curious as to the source of that. Also what the study considered
to be an anti-Bush story
>Which side was the chief instigator in the October Surprise and
>Iran-Contra? Most American accounts of these incidents seem to suggest
>that Israel was in the driver's seat. Does Israel now have the power
>to blackmail many leading American politicians and government
>officials because of dirty operations they have jointly engaged in?
>Where do real American interests lie in this morass?
Can Israel blackmail US politicians involved in October Surprise
of Iran-contra? Clearly, yes. Israel knows exactly what happened
in both scandals. The Mossad likely has pictures and tapes of the
guilty. They can and will use the evidence for their own ends.
In 1991 ABC's NIGHTLINE received audio tapes of meetings between
Oliver North and Mossad's Amiram Nir that were apparently recorded
by the Israelis. These tapes showed more evidence that Bush was
"in the loop" on Iran-contra.
But the story never went beyond NIGHTLINE.
Much of what Safire wrote about Iraqgate, US military aid to Iraq,
could have come from Israeli intelligence, though the articles seem
to come rpimarily from House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzalez's office.
Again the story had little legs outside of Safire's column.
It's as if the evidence was made public to leading American opinion-makers
who bother to watch NIGHTLINE or read Safire, but the stories were never
pushed by the mass media to inform the general populace in a way that
would affect the general election.
Wayne McGuire
ch...@clt.mindspring.com (Charles Held) wrote:
I believe it was former New York mayor Ed Koch who made the
unsubstantiated and undocumented charge about James Baker. Of course,
Koch is a reliable and unbiased source: he once said that Jimmy Carter
should burn in hell because he disagreed with Carter's policies on the
Mideast and Israel. If you review Koch's remarks about Israel during
the seventies and eighties, you will realize that he was an unpleasant
fanatic on the subject. (In recent years, he has moderated his views.)
The big media picked up and amplified Koch's attack on Baker, which
reveals the big media agenda. The big media hated Carter, Bush and
Baker because they weren't sufficiently subservient to Israel.
Do you realize that the big media have spilled many more words about
Baker's alleged remark and Jesse Jackson's private comment about
"Hymietown" than they have in reporting and analyzing the mountain of
evidence indicating that Vince Foster was murdered? Amazing, huh?
Wayne McGuire
lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>In article <31c0360...@news.cybercom.net> wmcg...@cybercom.net (Wayne McGuire) writes:
>
>>Your theory doesn't appear to fit the facts. George Bush was a much
>>more powerful figure in the CIA than Bill Clinton, and yet the big
>>media attacked Bush viciously and drove him from office. Bush's
>>problems began when he and James Baker opposed granting a $10 billion
>>loan guarantee to Israel unless it stopped building new settlements in
>>the occupied territories. After Operation Desert Storm, Bush's
>>approval ratings were stellar. In the months preceding the election,
>>the big media subjected Bush to a barrage of negative articles that
>>drove down his ratings and handed the election to Clinton. Two major
>>Republicans in the big media establishment, William Safire and Henry
>>Kissinger, led the way in turning the screws on Bush and Baker for
>>their "disloyalty" to Israel.
>
>
>How did the big media drive Bush from office? Examples please. I don't
>see it that way.
Hi (Is your first name Larry and your last name Jennie?)
I don't have the documentation at hand, but I was following the media
closely at the time. Bush's popularity was quite high during the first
three years of his term and soared to 80% or thereabouts after Desert
Storm. Then the dispute with Israel erupted over the $10 billion loan
guarantee. Yitzhak Shamir accused Bush and Baker of seeking to create
a new Holocaust if Israel didn't get its billions of dollars for
building new settlements. Bush, in an unusual act of courage for an
American president, criticized the Israeli lobby in a public
statement.
From that moment on, the press coverage of Bush in general was
extraordinary: it went completely, overwhelmingly negative. One formal
study found that negative vs. pro stories in the media were in the
range of 6 to 1 in the months preceding the election. At the same
time, the media refused to look deeply into any of the negative
stories about Clinton.
If the CIA were really controlling the media, do you think they would
have subjected a recent DCI to a mortal pounding and driven him from
office? No--the big media were pissed off about something else, and
the timing of their assault points to the Israeli factor as a key
motivating issue--not to mention explicit statements coming from
William Safire, Henry Kissinger and the neoconservative camp.
The media did a similar number on Jimmy Carter during the last months
before the election that brought Reagan to power: they focused on the
Iranian hostage situation as a means to portray Carter as weak and
ineffectual. Many big media people at the time were also angry at
Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski for urging the Begin government to
enter a peace agreement with Egypt. They hoped that Reagan would be
more tolerant of Israeli extremism and aggression--and he was.
Alexander Haig was one of their key people in the Reagan White House,
and the genius who gave Israel the green light for its disastrous
invasion of Lebanon.
(Regarding the Iranian hostage situation: the big media and Israeli
shills like Ted Koppel never pointed out that it was the activities of
the Mossad in Iran that largely radicalized that nation and turned it
against the Western world. The historical background was never
provided for the Iranian problem. Iran now hates Israel in part
because the Mossad helped train the Shah's army of torturers.)
>Safire wrote incisive columns about Iraqgate -- how the Bush administration
>helped Iraq build weapons of mass destruction. Outside of Safire, that
>story was non-existent in the media. The USA paid for and supplied
>Saddam with the means to build chemical, biological, nuclear, cluster
>bomb and ballistic missile weapons. The CIA was the conduit for the
>American military technologies to Iraq. To me, this is a big story.
>Why did big media ignore Iraqgate if they wanted to drive Bush from
>office?
I agree it is a big story. I don't know why the media didn't focus on
that story. Perhaps they thought it wouldn't have as much resonance
with the American people in destroying Bush as some other issues.
Perhaps they didn't want to ruin the celebration the followed the
smashing of Iraq. That's the propaganda angle they watned to play up
at the time.
>Nobody in the media had the guts to nail down Bush as to why he denied
>being "in the loop" on Iran-contra when there were memos and testimony
>that proved Bush was in the loop. Was big media trying to clarify the
>truth on that issue? I don't think so.
No, they weren't. But they couldn't open it up without also getting
Israel in very deep trouble.
>As for the Church Hearings into the CIA, that was 20 years ago. Ancient
>history. Since then investigative journalism has practically died.
So the CIA wasn't controlling the media then, but it is now?
>As for Aldrich Ames, there may be aspects about him not made public.
Yes, but the bottom line is that I was seeing articles in the major
media after Ames' exposure calling for the wholesale dismantling of
the CIA. I doubt that the CIA was behind those stories.
>Israel, the CIA, George Bush and Bill Clinton go together very tightly
>in a web of intrigues involving narcotics smuggling, bank fraud
>and arms trafficking. It is difficult to separate responsibility of one
>from another.
I agree. There is a huge mess here that needs to be untangled and
fixed.
>No matter what. When it comes to the crimes committed by US and Israeli
>intelligence services, the US media is criminally silent.
This is often the case.
I don't disagree with you that the CIA exerts great influence on the
media; nor do you probably disagree with me that Israeli interests
also exert great influence on the media. Find the point where the two
parties intersect, and you will be at the heart of a serious problem
in American political life.
I doubt that the two parties in this marriage very much love one
another any more, by the way, if they ever did, which isn't likely.
The relationship comes closer to one of mutual blackmail. My best
guess is that at some point the American side will say fuck it, tell
the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. They've got much
less to lose than Israel in this neurotic and mutually destructive
relationship.
America needs to get back in touch with its basic democratic and
constitutional values, or we are going to seriously blow it.
Wayne McGuire
lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>Can Israel blackmail US politicians involved in October Surprise
>of Iran-contra? Clearly, yes. Israel knows exactly what happened
>in both scandals. The Mossad likely has pictures and tapes of the
>guilty. They can and will use the evidence for their own ends.
Ah, but here's the big question (and keep in mind that Whitewater
seems to be deeply entwined with the October Surprise and
Iran-Contra): do they have the power to blackmail American politicians
involved in Whitewater? I suspect they do.
One keeps wondering how the Vince Foster/NSA/Mossad stories might fit
into all this.
>In 1991 ABC's NIGHTLINE received audio tapes of meetings between
>Oliver North and Mossad's Amiram Nir that were apparently recorded
>by the Israelis. These tapes showed more evidence that Bush was
>"in the loop" on Iran-contra.
>
>But the story never went beyond NIGHTLINE.
You are correct.
Larry-Jennie
>lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>>In article <31c0360...@news.cybercom.net> wmcg...@cybercom.net (Wayne
>McGuire) writes:
>>
>>>Your theory doesn't appear to fit the facts. George Bush was a much
>>>more powerful figure in the CIA than Bill Clinton, and yet the big
>>>media attacked Bush viciously and drove him from office. Bush's
>>>problems began when he and James Baker opposed granting a $10 billion
>>>loan guarantee to Israel unless it stopped building new settlements in
>>>the occupied territories. After Operation Desert Storm, Bush's
>>>approval ratings were stellar. In the months preceding the election,
>>>the big media subjected Bush to a barrage of negative articles that
>>>drove down his ratings and handed the election to Clinton. Two major
>>>Republicans in the big media establishment, William Safire and Henry
>>>Kissinger, led the way in turning the screws on Bush and Baker for
>>>their "disloyalty" to Israel.
>>
>>
>>How did the big media drive Bush from office? Examples please. I don't
>>see it that way.
>Hi (Is your first name Larry and your last name Jennie?)
No, there is a Jennie, but this time I won't ask her to say "Hi!"
>I don't have the documentation at hand, but I was following the media
>closely at the time. Bush's popularity was quite high during the first
>three years of his term and soared to 80% or thereabouts after Desert
>Storm. Then the dispute with Israel erupted over the $10 billion loan
>guarantee. Yitzhak Shamir accused Bush and Baker of seeking to create
>a new Holocaust if Israel didn't get its billions of dollars for
>building new settlements. Bush, in an unusual act of courage for an
>American president, criticized the Israeli lobby in a public
>statement.
IMHO, Bush lost his popularity when the economy went in the tank,
then he claimed there was no recession. Americans vote their pocket
books.
>From that moment on, the press coverage of Bush in general was
>extraordinary: it went completely, overwhelmingly negative. One formal
>study found that negative vs. pro stories in the media were in the
>range of 6 to 1 in the months preceding the election. At the same
>time, the media refused to look deeply into any of the negative
>stories about Clinton.
I would like some idea who did this "formal study."
BTW, by February, 1992, it was public knowledge that Clinton was
involved in Mena, as was Bush. The press refused to look deeply
into any CIA Contra cocaine evidence and witnesses.
>If the CIA were really controlling the media, do you think they would
>have subjected a recent DCI to a mortal pounding and driven him from
>office? No--the big media were pissed off about something else, and
>the timing of their assault points to the Israeli factor as a key
>motivating issue--not to mention explicit statements coming from
>William Safire, Henry Kissinger and the neoconservative camp.
What did Kissinger do to hurt Bush? Kissinger made out like a bandit
during the Bush administration consulting for foreign countries on
how to do business with the USA.
You have a point. If the CIA controlled the media, then why
did they subject a former DCI to the negative press?
I dispute the press was as negative as you make it out. And I
reemphasize how the most damning scandals of the Bush administration --
CIA cocaine,Inslaw, Iraqgate and CIA/Mafia ties to S&L looting -- never
were featured stories in the press as their significance warranted.
>>Safire wrote incisive columns about Iraqgate -- how the Bush administration
>>helped Iraq build weapons of mass destruction. Outside of Safire, that
>>story was non-existent in the media. The USA paid for and supplied
>>Saddam with the means to build chemical, biological, nuclear, cluster
>>bomb and ballistic missile weapons. The CIA was the conduit for the
>>American military technologies to Iraq. To me, this is a big story.
>>Why did big media ignore Iraqgate if they wanted to drive Bush from
>>office?
>I agree it is a big story. I don't know why the media didn't focus on
>that story. Perhaps they thought it wouldn't have as much resonance
>with the American people in destroying Bush as some other issues.
>Perhaps they didn't want to ruin the celebration the followed the
>smashing of Iraq. That's the propaganda angle they watned to play up
>at the time.
Can you cite what negative issues the media used to destroy Bush?
>>As for the Church Hearings into the CIA, that was 20 years ago. Ancient
>>history. Since then investigative journalism has practically died.
>So the CIA wasn't controlling the media then, but it is now?
It turns out no investigative journalist (neither did Congress or any
court) ever told us who ordered the CIA operatives to burglarize the
Watergate. At the time Kennedy "conspiracy theorists" who alleged
the CIA assassinated the President immediately recognized the spook
black baggers. The media never mentioned that.
Investigative journalism back then may have hidden as much of the truth
as it told.
>>Israel, the CIA, George Bush and Bill Clinton go together very tightly
>>in a web of intrigues involving narcotics smuggling, bank fraud
>>and arms trafficking. It is difficult to separate responsibility of one
>>from another.
>I agree. There is a huge mess here that needs to be untangled and
>fixed.
>>No matter what. When it comes to the crimes committed by US and Israeli
>>intelligence services, the US media is criminally silent.
>This is often the case.
>I don't disagree with you that the CIA exerts great influence on the
>media; nor do you probably disagree with me that Israeli interests
>also exert great influence on the media. Find the point where the two
>parties intersect, and you will be at the heart of a serious problem
>in American political life.
Since we work with only fragments of the picture, it is sometimes hard
to determine truth.
It is fair to say that American and Israeli intelligence commit crimes
together, make billions in untaxed funds, cover-up the crimes, and
were involved in the CIA Central American cocaine operations. Which
brings us to Bill Clinton.
Democracies that tolerate such behavior by government officials are
no longer "nations of laws."
Harry Langford
Larry-Jennie (lar...@interaccess.com) wrote:
:
: BTW, by February, 1992, it was public knowledge that Clinton was
: into any CIA Contra cocaine evidence and witnesses.
From a really wild book that my wife bought in '92
_Matrix III_ by Valdamar Valerian
It's the weird, unbelievable hodge-podge of aliens,
CIA mind-manipulation, Evil government stuff. I thought
it was a laugh at the time she bought it -
It has a press article on page 631A5
_Clinton Caught In Bigger Drug Scandal_
by Kathleen Klenetsky
"March 30 (EIRNS) Democratic front runner Bill Clinton
has been caught in yet another explosive scandal, this
one involving his link to a network of cocaine distributers
in his home state of Arkansas.
<bunch of Lasater stuff, etc>
That's not the end of the story of Bill Clinton and
drugs. This past January, another wealthy Clinton
supporter was found dead of a cocaine overdose in a
New York hotel."
And to think. I *laughed* at this in '92.
: Democracies that tolerate such behavior by government officials are
: no longer "nations of laws."
Obvious to me now.
Wayne Mann
lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>>lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
The economy did't go into the tank, Clinton just lied about
it and the media carried it as if it was true. The economy
is worse now than it was then.
\\/ayne //\ann
"Just the mere _appearance_ of inpropriety demands
that we investigate."
-- Rep. Tom Foley (D-WA), justifying hearings
into October Surprise.
Larry-Jennie
>lar...@interaccess.com (Larry-Jennie) wrote:
>>IMHO, Bush lost his popularity when the economy went in the tank,
>>then he claimed there was no recession. Americans vote their pocket
>>books.
Wayne Mann wrote:
> The economy did't go into the tank, Clinton just lied about
>it and the media carried it as if it was true. The economy
>is worse now than it was then.
Since the economy affects everyone, I believe the opinions of those
besides you and I carry more weight. So anyone want to chime in?
How was business from the end of the Gulf War until the '92 election?
I remember an INDUSTRY WEEK article that showed the contradictions
between the growing GDP, as reported by the Bush administration,
versus IW's purchasing manager's surveys. The purchasing managers
said the USA was in a recession.
