""Watergate-level event" is about to occur in

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Brewster Jennings

Postby chiggerbit » Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:04 pm

I would hope that Fitz will keep in mind that he won't be just talking to a jury of twelve, but to the jury of the citizens of the entire country. When it comes to trial time, Fitz must prove that not only were crimes committed but also that there was serious damage done, in my opinion. Not necessarily for statutory reasons, but because the jury pool will likely be tainted by the administration's spin, and it must be countered. If even half of what Madsen says is true, then I would say that Fitz won't have a hard time proving the point. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

"If even half of what Madsen says is true"

Postby hmm » Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:16 pm

that pretty much sums up my feelings about the man.<br>the fact that he was a reagan era NSA employee is the first clue that anything he says needs to be carefully parsed. <p></p><i></i>
hmm
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brewster Jennings

Postby AnnaLivia » Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:39 pm

"the jury of the citizens of the entire country."<br><br>bingo, chig.<br><br>what are we in this country, now? are we 400 million yet? <br>that's alotta judges. and more and more of those judges are less and less inclined to give these corporate fuedalist lackeys the benefit of the doubt. it's more important to convict these criminals in the court called the minds of the citizens, and then the essential thing is for all who know to help others see... firmly and clearly the connect of the bad men to their true ideology and policy <br><br>so people won't buy it again from someone else. <br><br>these powergame idiots are stupid enough to throw away something as precious and beautiful as a lifetime to chase the insanity of stratospheric wealth and power, but they're smart enough to know how ...how'd that go? ...the leaves all turn together because the roots are connected?<br><br>the good peoples of this world must come to realize that we have the source of power we need, for the taking.<br><br>united is the word, on common ground against the real enemy, and by gawd i do think george w bush is going to unite this country yet.<br><br>GO PADDY <p></p><i></i>
AnnaLivia
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Brewster Jennings

Postby chiggerbit » Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:07 pm

Here's something interesting:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.sw-asia.com/People/Judith_Miller_Naor_Gilon_Franklin_AIPAC.htm">www.sw-asia.com/People/Ju..._AIPAC.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>More Notes by Barry O'Connell<br>Judith Miller is Unnamed Woman in AIPAC Spy Ring Indictment<br> <br><br>Page 24 Paragraph numbered 7of the AIPAC Spy Ring Indictment (see below)<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/dod/usfrnklin80205ind.pdf">news.findlaw.com/nytimes/...205ind.pdf</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br>This is in reference to a meeting between FRANKLIN (Larry Franklin) and FO-3 (Naor Gilon) at the Pentagon Officers Athletic Club. The woman referenced is Judith Miller. Miller is a reporter for the New York Times who is as I write held in a Federal Facility in contempt of court. She wrote many now discredited stories on WMDs for the Times. The Charitable work was The Iraqi Jewish Archive which Judith Miller and Harold Rhode cooperated on with Ahmad Chalabi. <br><br>I have reason to believe that the conversation between Larry Franklin and Naor Gilon about Judith Miller included a reference to Valerie Plame. This case becomes a time bomb if it is revealed that Mossad had a part in the outing of CIA agent Plame.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Judith Miller

Postby antiaristo » Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:37 pm

chig,<br>Here is a little tid-bit.<br>Apparently the Hebrew symbol that corresponds to the Roman "P" also corresponds to the Roman "F".<br>You see what this means. If her name was in a document in Hebrew, when translated into English that name might come out as "Valerie Plame" OR as "Valerie Flame".<br><br>And we know that in Miller's notebook the name was "Valerie Flame".<br>It's the sort of small detail that gives perps away. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Bob Parry on Fizgerald and Libby

Postby robertdreed » Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:58 pm

Bob Parry of <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://consortiumnews.com/">consortiumnews.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> has a decidely more dour and world-weary take on where Fitzgerald's investigations are and aren't likely to lead. Parry's concerend about what he views as the high probability of limited hangout and whitewash, as the ultimate result. <br><br>I feel the same way...neither of us wish that, but after a lot of time spent studying these matters, you begin to notice patterns. I hope that we're wrong on that. I haven't spoken to Bob in waay too long, incidentally. I should give him a call some time soon.<br><br>The article-<br><br>Letting the White House Walk?<br>By Robert Parry<br>October 30, 2005<br> <br><br>As an outsider to Washington, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to have misunderstood the finer points of how national security classifications work when a secret is as discrete – and sensitive – as the identity of an undercover CIA officer.<br><br>In his five-count indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis Libby, prosecutor Fitzgerald leaves the false impression that it was all right for White House officials with security clearances to be discussing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, a counter-proliferation official under deep cover.<br><br>Under the rules of classification, however, to see such secrets an official must not only have a top-secret clearance but also special code-word clearance that grants access to a specific compartment governed by strict need-to-know requirements.<br><br>In both the Libby indictment and a hour-long press conference on Oct. 28, Fitzgerald showed no indication he understood how extraordinary it was for White House officials to be bandying about the name of a covert CIA officer based on the flimsy rationale that she was married to an ex-diplomat who had been sent on a fact-finding trip to Niger.<br><br>Fitzgerald, who is the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, appears to have bought into the notion that government officials had a right to discuss Plame’s covert status among themselves as long as they didn’t pass the secret on to journalists. Then Fitzgerald didn’t even seek punishment for that, limiting his criminal case to Libby’s lying about how and when he learned of Plame’s identity.<br><br>But to veterans of U.S. intelligence, one of the ugliest parts of Plame’s outing was the cavalier manner in which White House officials tossed around references to her CIA job to undercut her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing George W. Bush’s case for war with Iraq.<br><br>Sensitive Secrets<br><br>Within the U.S. government, few secrets are more sensitive than the identity of a CIA officer under “non-official cover,” or NOC, meaning the agent operates outside government protection, such as posing as a business executive as Plame did. Lacking diplomatic cover, a NOC faces a far greater chance of execution if caught spying.<br><br>“The CIA is obsessive about protecting its NOCs,” one angry former senior U.S. official told me after Libby was charged only with perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice. “There’s almost nothing they care about more.”<br><br>Fitzgerald did leave open the possibility there might be more charges against other officials but said he had completed the “substantial bulk” of his investigation. He also discouraged speculation that major new revelations were ahead and even skirted questions about whether an underlying crime had occurred in leaking Plame’s identity.<br><br>Some Americans, especially Iraq War critics, were deflated by Fitzgerald’s insistence that he would prosecute only clearly defined crimes stemming from the Plame case, not venture into a fuller narrative about the Bush administration’s justifications for war.<br><br>Administration officials are not entirely out of hot water, however, because new disclosures could emerge from Libby’s trial or from additional indictments that Fitzgerald might seek before he wraps up his investigation. According to press accounts, Bush’s top political adviser Karl Rove remains under investigation for his role in leaking Plame’s identity to journalists.<br><br>In one of the most mysterious revelations about Fitzgerald’s hectic activities on Oct. 28, the day of the Libby indictment, was the New York Times report that the special prosecutor made an unexplained visit to the office of James Sharp, President Bush’s personal lawyer. [NYT, Oct. 29, 2005]<br><br>Niger’s Uranium<br><br>The Wilson-Plame case goes back to 2002 when Vice President Cheney expressed interest in a dubious report about Iraq seeking processed uranium from Africa. In response, CIA officials who worked with Plame decided to send Wilson to Niger to check out the reports.<br><br>Wilson, who had served as a diplomat in both Iraq and Africa, returned with the conclusion that the reports were most likely untrue. (The Niger allegations were later debunked by U.N. investigators.)<br><br>However, in the State of Union address in January 2003, Bush cited the Niger allegations as part of his rationale for war with Iraq. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq two months later, but U.S. forces failed to discover any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction or evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear program.<br><br>By spring 2003, Wilson began talking privately to journalists about his Niger findings and criticizing the administration for hyping the WMD intelligence. Behind the scenes, the White House began to hit back, collecting information about Wilson and his trip.<br><br>Vice President Cheney and other White House officials soon learned that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA on counter-proliferation issues and had a minor hand in arranging Wilson’s trip to Africa.<br><br>White House officials then began what appears to have been an organized campaign to leak the identity of Wilson’s wife, presumably to suggest that nepotism was involved in the Niger trip or to cast doubt on Wilson’s manliness.<br><br>The anti-Wilson campaign gained momentum after he penned an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, accusing the administration of having “twisted” the WMD intelligence, including the Niger allegations, to justify war with Iraq.<br><br>Eight days later, on July 14, 2003, right-wing pundit Robert Novak outed Plame in a column that cited two administration sources describing Plame as a “CIA operative.”<br><br>Privately, some administration officials acknowledged that the Plame disclosure was an act of retaliation against Wilson for being one of the first mainstream public figures to challenge Bush on the WMD intelligence.<br><br>In September 2003, a White House official told the Washington Post that at least six reporters had been informed about Plame before Novak’s column. The official said the disclosure was “purely and simply out of revenge.”<br><br>Damaging Exposure<br><br>In indicting Libby on five counts of making false statements, perjury and obstructing justice, Fitzgerald added a few new details to the overall story and confirmed some facts that had appeared in press accounts.<br><br>The indictment alleged that Libby – who also served as a national security aide to President Bush – learned of Plame’s identity from a CIA official and from Vice President Cheney, before passing the information to at least two journalists, New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time correspondent Matthew Cooper.<br><br>When the leak investigation began, Libby concocted a false tale, claiming that he had first learned of Plame’s identity from NBC’s Washington bureau chief Tim Russert and had simply recycled the rumor to reporters, the indictment said. In reality, the indictment said, Plame never came up in the Russert-Libby conversation. <br><br>While denouncing Libby’s alleged deceptions as a serious crime, Fitzgerald splashed cold water on the notion that his investigation might unravel a larger government conspiracy into how not only Plame was exposed but also the company that provided her cover and possibly other agents who assisted her in tracking down sources of WMD.<br><br>The limited scope of the Libby indictment buoyed some conservatives, including former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova, who pounced on its narrow construction as a sign of White House vindication.<br><br>Meanwhile, other Republicans made clear that while they would spare Fitzgerald from a public-relations counter-offensive, they would continue their long-running campaign to disparage Wilson.<br><br>Because of his criticism of Bush’s use of WMD intelligence, Wilson – who is now just a private citizen – has become a bete noire for Republicans, on par with their hatred for the French, the United Nations or filmmaker Michael Moore.<br><br>Three months ago, the Republican National Committee even posted an article entitled “Joe Wilson’s Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies and Misstatements,” which itself used glaring inaccuracies and misstatements to discredit Wilson. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Novak Recycles Gannon on ‘Plame-gate.’”]<br><br>However, what upsets some Americans most about Fitzgerald’s narrow indictment of Libby is that it seems to have let other participants in the Plame leak off the hook.<br><br>The larger conspiracy – to punish an Iraq War critic for telling the truth about false intelligence used to take the United States to war – will go unpunished and unexplained, at least for now.<br><br>In street terms, it looks a lot like the White House got a walk.<br><br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' <br><br>Back to Home Page<br> <br> <br> <br>Consortiumnews.com is a product of The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc., a non-profit organization that relies on donations from its readers to produce these stories and keep alive this Web publication. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bob Parry on Fizgerald and Libby

Postby chiggerbit » Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:14 pm

I have great respect for Parry's take on these things. His most important is that all power boils down to the power of the media, and there will be no hope of this country becoming a two party system again until Dems recognize that fact and start the long haul to gaining back an equal stand with media outlets. The Republicans recognized the media's power after Watergate, and it took years for them to quietly seize control, but look what it got them.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/062005.html">www.consortiumnews.com/2005/062005.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>snip<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>...Conservatives have followed this formula for the past three decades, though often their content is more propaganda than information. Nevertheless, this combination of content and outlets has enabled them to reach the public with their message and put enormous pressure on the mainstream media.<br><br>Back in the 1970s, the situation was quite different. Then, the Left had a clear advantage in media, especially from the so-called “underground press” of the Vietnam War-era. These newspapers and magazines were read by legions of young people.<br><br>Many Americans got news, too, from independent investigative sources, such as Seymour Hersh’s Dispatch News which broke the My Lai massacre story. Progressives also produced video documentaries and presented anti-war news on rock music radio stations.<br><br>To avoid losing credibility with these young audiences, the mainstream press felt compelled toward more skeptical journalism. That dynamic created openings for major newspapers to challenge serious government wrongdoing, as in the Watergate scandal, or to disclose government lies, as in the Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War.<br><br>But Left funders made a number of fateful decisions at this turning point, essentially forsaking the national media advantage for a strategy of “grassroots organizing” or direct action, such as buying up endangered wetlands or feeding the hungry.<br><br>Simultaneously, the Right’s funders began investing heavily in media, launching what conservatives called the “war of ideas,” which was actually a struggle to control the flow of information to the American people.<br><br>The Vietnam-era dynamic was reversed. Progressive media shriveled into near irrelevance, while the conservative media expanded rapidly, with well-financed outlets in magazines, newspapers, radio, books, television and eventually the Internet. [For details on this process, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]<br><br>The Right’s growing ability to get its message to Americans where they work, commute and live allowed conservatives to broaden their political base even among Americans who were harmed financially by the Right’s policies. Ironically, media proved very valuable in advancing the Right’s “grassroots organizing” especially in areas that lacked much media diversity, i.e. the Red States.<br><br>Despite this evidence of a link between media and organizing, the Left’s funders refused to shift priorities. As if following a dogma that didn’t change regardless of the circumstances, many progressive leaders kept calling for more “grassroots organizing,” even in the face of political debacles in the 1980s and 1990s, through the disastrous elections of 2002 and 2004....<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 10/30/05 3:22 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

WMR

Postby dbeach » Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:02 pm

rover spinin for the sinin<br><br>happy helloween to all arch villains<br>and Merry Fitzmas to Truth seekers..<br><br>"October 30, 2005 -- The Washington Punditocracy is Wrong As Usual. This morning, many pundits are spinning for the White House that Karl Rove, "Official A," in the indictment of Lewis Libby, is off the hook. Au contraire. One must look back at another Fitzgerald indictment and an "Individual A." In April 2003, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted two aides to Illinois Governor George Ryan for corruption. During his press conference announcing the indictments of the two corrupt aides, Fitzgerald would not comment on "Individual A" because he was not charged in the indictment. Fitzgerald said the same thing when asked about "Official A" in the Libby indictment. On December 17, 2003, former Governor Ryan was indicted by a grand jury in Chicago. It turned out that Ryan was "Individual A" cited in Fitzgerald's earlier indictment of the two Ryan aides. Fitzgerald started out his criminal investigation of corruption in the Ryan administration by one indictment. Ryan was Fitzgerald's 66th indictment in his criminal probe. No, Karl, you're not quite off the hook yet."<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/">www.waynemadsenreport.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: WMR

Postby dbeach » Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:28 pm

Large grains of garlic salt:<br><br>10/29 radio show cloak and dagger<br><br>Tom Hennigan says: <br>22 sealed indictments for National security ..including Wolfowitz and Perle<br><br><br>More serious indictments will be slower to get out:<br><br>bribery,espionage ,treason..<br><br><br>Ongoing investigation by Fitzgerald.<br>wolfie/perle had rice order the forged yellow docus<br>so as to speed up war machine...<br><br>Mark Rich bribed clintons via scootie libby<br>and some guy named Leo Wanta got used in the shuffle..<br><br>these guys broke the story of bush/cheny indicted on 8/2/05<br><br><br>Hard to keep up ,listen and type <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Lost History lesson

Postby robertdreed » Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:05 pm

A seldom-noted historical fact: most "progressive rock" FM music radio stations used to have their DJs double as news announcers. some even had reporters and news staffs. The music broke for 15-30 minutes of news in the morning, and 15-30 minutes of news in the evening. For that matter, public affairs broadcasting was considered an integal duty of almost all radio outlets, in the 1960s. <br><br>And the free-form progressive stations often provided their own perspective on news events of the day- typically not so much grimly ideologically biased as bitingly irreverent, along the lines of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Not the place to rely on for in-depth reporting, but as a stance, it was ironic, skeptical, and satirical. <br><br>And just like nowadays, satire and skepticism counted for a lot. Those independently produced counterculture radio news shows were in no way to be confused with the usual run of moronic morning DJ clowns that supplanted them, growing to be popular in the 1980s...the general run of that genre is the white Baby Boomer 9-to-5er equivalent of Stepin Fetchit cooning. I've gotten the occasional laugh from some of those shows, but I find the usual run of those "radio personalities" loathsome, and can't imagine where they get their audiences. Although I think The Daily Show has inspired some of those shows to improve, and target more of their joke agendas at people in political power rather than, say, the homeless, or some stereotype of crack whores, or whatever. But those shows have a lot to make up for, for instance giving Republican politicians a free ride- if not outright reverence- for around 20 years or so. <br><br>I think Don Imus is sort of an exception, because at least he's always gone after people in authority, like pompous politicans. Sometimes I can't stand him- he's at his worst when mocking fat people and denigrating Arabs- but other times he hits it. Imus was funnier before he was elevated to Mount Olympus, rubbing shoulders and who knows what else with people like Mort Zuckerman and Jack Welch. Worse than cocaine, I-man. Whatever happened to values?<br><br>Oh yeah, back to that...<br><br> Around 1974 the changeover began toward radio consultants, the AOR format, and playlists dictated by management. And one of the casualties of the "innovation" was setting aside of time for news broadcasts. Another casualty was independently owned stations. <br><br>Somehow, it turned into a ratings war, and I've never quite understood why. WHFS-FM in the Washington DC area was one of the last commercial stations with a free-form broadcast format that mixed rock, blues, jazz, atmospheric "new age", and what would today be called the "Americana" genre of music, up until the early 1980s. They held a solid 1% niche of the market. When the owners were asked about their limited audience, they responded that "the advertisers are happy with it, and so are we." Their advertisers were mostly local sponsors. I never heard a car commercial or a soft drink ad on there, for instance. And the ads were mostly announced by the same DJs who played the music. But at some point it became much more expensive to hold a broadcast license, run a radio station, and make a profit. So eventually WHFS capitulated to the utilitarianism mandated by the market demands of the "new era", and it became just another formatted FM rock station. <br><br>Branford and Ellis Marsalis commented in the change toward obsession with top ratings and having the largest audience possible in an interview not too long ago:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Branford Marsalis: ...[ the music companies ] really don't have time or inclination to be concerned with some off the road, off the beaten path music--on any level, not just in jazz. In popular music as well. You don't see these really cool, hip groups. I mean somebody like Bjork, for instance. You're not going to see people like Bjork on a major label. You know, it's fringe music. It's vanity music in a way. Mariah Carey just got dumped for some two million records. I mean, I can't believe we live in a time when 2 million records is a flop. <br><br>Ellis Marsalis: They started that with TV years ago. Because Steve Allen had a real hip TV show. But see, he only had ten million viewers and the opposition had twenty. <br><br>Branford Marsalis: So that's that...</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br> <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/bmarsalis2002.htm">www.allaboutjazz.com/ivie...is2002.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/30/05 6:32 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

the crux of the biscuit

Postby robertdreed » Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:59 pm

"these guys broke the story of bush/cheny indicted on 8/2/05"<br><br>Cloak&Dagger will get a Journalistic "scoop", if that happens.<br><br>Otherwise, they're bucking for one of those Canadian Husky "scoops." <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

The media became a high tech Stability Operation in the 70s.

Postby Watchful Citizen » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:07 am

And really took off in the 80s under the new US Government format of all militarism all of the time to get the sound of CrosbyStillsNashandYoung and Martin Luther King out of our ears.<br><br>I collect propaganda artifacts and I just found a 1989 VHS tape of Ronald Reagan: The Official White House Authorized Video.<br><br>In just 90 minutes of mind-bending big speeches, quips, and news clips you can watch the sweat-scented humanism of the 1960s being dispersed by waving old WWII movie scripts at the microphone to re-whip up the myth of an actual government at the helm instead of a gang of thugs and old Nazis. Now the History Channel does this service to our kids.<br><br>Watching Reagan play his role as Loveable Grandpa Kickass, I imagine his every speech meaning:<br><br>"America, enjoy your freeedom to watch our made in America psy-ops programming to satisfy Pentagon and CIA domestic control norms as outlined in Army Field Manual FM30-31B for Stability Operations. Thank you."<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040401143858/www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-19.40/toc.htm">web.archive.org/web/20040...40/toc.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>*Now with 50 percent less chlormaphephrin so you don't have to.* <p></p><i></i>
Watchful Citizen
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:52 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The media became a high tech Stability Operation in the

Postby anotherdrew » Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:24 am

Along these lines a rant I just possed on another undergound democratic site...<br><br>I'm glad to see the history lesson on the changes in FM radio format. Would love to see a book length treatment. Basicly radio was simply bought out. I suspect a lot of newspapers went down starting about the same time. Another area that changed is harder to describe... I'd say by '78-79 all the TV shows and movies, something deep inside and fundemental in their plots changed. The nature of the stories changed. Briefly it was like Hope was drained out and replaced with: "do whatever it takes to win." Then came ronald rey-gun, 1980, and it's been all down hill since...<br><br>====<br>(warning, this rant uses the futile form of the word "we" way too much)<br><br>The way things seem to be today, in 2008 only the richest most powerful democrat in the country could possibly be elected president. Oh wait... there aren't any such people! Folks better hope we sweep up house and senate seats state and federal or some rethug in 2008 will surely come along saying he'll fix dubya's mistakes. And the sheeple will go for it, just like always and vote fraud will be enough to make sure. Sorry, but I'm feeling very pessimistic lately.<br><br>We're going to need all branches of government if we expect to reform things in time. It can't go like Clinton's first two years next time. The Fairness Doctrine needs to go back in place. Partisan spin networks like fox and clear-chanel are going to HAVE to be dealt with. It's not democracy if only one group can get it's message out to the mass population. And it's not so simple as just 'a message'. For decades they've been pushing a terrible psychological warfare operation from all angles. It comes at people from so many different angles, if a person isn't watching out for it... doesn't fight it by seeking out another way in old books and such... it becomes the very colors with which they paint their view of the world, it seeps in from childhood, we've got almost two (short) generations of kids who have never seen a country run by "liberals" with adequate governmental revenue, a nation where logic has a place at the table of government. All they've heard all their lives is rethug spin. A few escape it, but not enough.<br><br>It's going to take years to recover, if it can even be done. The US may be irredeemably broken already. The worst people have almost all the money, power and media. There's a lot of the population that directly lives from rethug money too, they spend billions of dollars to make sure that they have millions of people who KNOW that their career/livelihood depends on rethugs maintaining power. They know, help and protect their own, in business and elsewhere.<br><br>In the end, we must not simply vote these people out of public office, we must run them out of business, ruin them; let these criminals who have nearly destroyed this country pay the price for such actions or for such negligent ignorance, if that is their defence. We were not meant to live in a nation ruled by blind corporations, mad preachers, high grand-liers and all their quivering servants. <p></p><i></i>
anotherdrew
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 6:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Back on track

Postby Peachtree Pam » Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:12 am

CS's latest, reminding us of the real players in this game and Fitz's careful use of words:<br><br>TREASONGATE: Is David Corn Feeling Fitzgerald's Heat? <br>Did David Corn publish intentionally misleading quotations from Fitzgerald's press conference?<br><br>BACKGROUND<br><br>My report of August 19, 2005, "TREASONGATE: IN CAHOOTS -- How The White House, Wilson, Novak, Corn and Plame Conspired for Treason" accuses DC and JW of being part of a broad double agent conspiracy to out Plame and Brewster Jennings.<br><br>One of the most interesting aspects of that report concerns the fact that it was David Corn who was the first person in the media to out Plame's "covert" status as a CIA officer. Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 but it wasn't until two days later, July 16, 2003, that DC was the first person to publish that she was an undercover CIA agent working on WMD. His source may have been JW.<br><br>It was Clifford May at The National Review who first brought this to our attention in a July 2005 column. [Readers -- I am no fan of The National Review and their war propaganda, but a fact is a fact. May raised very legitimate questions which must be answered.]<br><br>From my report:<br><br>Clifford May's article, Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?published in National Review online, July 15th 2005, makes a strong case that, while Novak was the first person to expose "Wilson's wife", Corn is actually the journalist responsible for first publishing Plame's undercover/covert status: <br><br><br>"This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA.<br>Read— or reread — his column from July 14, 2003. All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is 'an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction'...<br><br>So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.<br>The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by DC published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: 'Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?'<br>On what basis could Corn 'assume' that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a 'top-secret' operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been 'outed' in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column...<br><br>The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson — to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.<br><br>Corn’s article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame’s undercover work, her 'dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material.' But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?"<br><br>Since Novak did not report that Plame was 'working covertly' how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing? Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, 'I will not answer questions about my wife.' Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn’s questions about his wife — after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background?<br><br>Read the rest of Corn’s piece and it’s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides — and he provides much more information than Novak revealed... <br><br><br>May's report comes out on July 15, 2005. Citizenspook published our accusations on August 19, 2005. Buzz started to spread throughout the blogosphere about this theory.<br><br>Cut to Fitzgerald's press conference and the aftermath. <br><br>On the evening of October 28, 2005, DC published a review of Fitzgerald's press conference for The Nation which was also published at Yahoo news. Pay close attention to the following passage:<br><br><br>Fitzgerald...did declare that "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified...but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community" and that "her cover was blown" by the Novak column. (So much for the goofy right-wing conspiracy theory that I colluded with Joseph Wilson after the Novak column to out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA operative. If you don't know about that, don't ask.)<br><br>This is a blockbuster screwup by David Corn.<br><br><br>" 'her cover was blown' by the Novak column."<br><br>Fitz did not say that.<br><br>DC has twisted what Fitz said and that quote is false. Fitz never said "her cover was blown by the Novak column" which is what DC implies by his "selective" quotation marks.<br><br>If Fitz did say that, DC would appear to be off the hook, but Fitz said something much different than what DC has mislead his readers to believe. And this does not take a rocket scientist to understand.<br><br>Here's what Fitz said:<br><br><br>"Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."<br><br><br>Recall that Novak and DC both published in July 2003. Novak outed her identity as a CIA officer on July 14, but DC published that she was an undercover spy on July 16th. Had Fitz said that Valerie Plame/Wilson's cover was blown by the Novak column, DC would appear to be vindicated. But Fitzgerald chose his words very carefully:<br><br>"The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."<br><br>That's much different than what DC wrote in his column. Fitz was careful NOT to say that her cover was blown by Novak's article. The "first sign" of it being blown was Novak's article, but the second sign was DC's article two days later.<br><br>And Fitz clarifies things further a bit later when he states:<br><br><br><br>"That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began."<br><br>According to that statement by Fitz, it was not "clear" that her cover was blown until Fall 2003.<br><br>Is David Corn feeling the heat?:<br><br><br>"So much for the goofy right-wing conspiracy theory that I colluded with Joseph Wilson after the Novak column to out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA operative. If you don't know about that, don't ask."<br><br>What's goofy is the bumbling manner upon which David Corn attempts to sway public opinion while leaving himself wide open for charges of willful misquotation.<br><br>It's not a right wing conspiracy, David. Citizenspook is not a right wing blog, nor is it a left wing blog. It's an independent analysis of Treasongate. The National Review is certainly a right wing propaganda rag but that doesn't color the facts. It's a fact that Corn's column was the first to publish that Plame/Wilson was an undercover spy.<br><br>It's also a fact that his October 28, 2005, report of Fitzgerald's press conference terribly misquotes him in a manner which is intended to divert attention from those questioning Corn and Wilson's roles in this conspiracy.<br><br>Fitzgerald never said -- "her cover was blown by the Novak column". He said the Novak column was the "first sign" of her cover being blown. Nothing in that statement contradicts allegations that you outed her status as a NOC. On the contrary, Fitzgerald's statment clearly indicates that things are not as cut and dried as David Corbnn would like people to believe.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.citizenspook.blogspot.com/">www.citizenspook.blogspot.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
Peachtree Pam
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:46 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The media became a high tech Stability Operation

Postby robertdreed » Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:21 am

drew, at least one person has written a book about the loss of free-form FM radio and its replacement by dumbed-down format radio- Jim Ladd, a former free-form progressive FM DJ. Ladd wrote the book <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Radio Waves</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> in1991. Ladd also worked with Roger Waters of Pink Floyd on Waters' record <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Radio KAOS</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. <br><br>Here's a review of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Radio Waves</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, included as part of an interview with Ladd: <br><br>"Radio Waves is a shocking, uproarious, and ultimately sad look at and entertainment medium that once had a vision of a better world. It is a book that a generation of Americans who grew up on FM radio has long been waiting forÑ a startling, remarkable story of the birth, blazing success, and tragic demise of FM free-form radio through the eyes of legendary Los Angeles DJ Jim Ladd. <br>Beginning in the mid-1960s with the revolutionary uprisings in Haight-Ashbury, Radio Waves follows, saga-like, the outrageous trials and tribulations of radio station KAOS, a station that for over a decade waged a guerrilla war against the "format-driven" entertainment medium of conventional radio. Eschewing playlists and programming consultants, the bizarrely funny yet defiantly committed radio jocks at KAOS beat the odds and rose to number one, despite bitter feuds with conservative station managers. Teeming with controversy, filled with never-told-before stories about performers and producers of the '60s and '70s music world, and awash with the familiar song lyrics of a generation, Radio Waves is also the story of an idealistic man who put his soul on the line in pursuit of an elusive dream. Ladd's narrative is so revelatory that many of the true-life characters appear in roman-ˆ-clef form, and the book ranges the political and social battlefield from marijuana and the White House to the raunchy sexual exploits of the All-Girl Harmonica Band. Ultimately, the brilliant and idealistic visions for FM radio were killed off by the corporate "format" machine of the 1980'. Although the KAOS DJs refused to surrender their ideals for ratings, the visions of a generation were finally squelched, censored, and destroyed when the station came under the not-so-benign tutelage of corporate America. <br><br>Jim Ladd's Radio Waves vividly recreates the unforgettable era of American counterculture, allowing you to feel, through radio's rich language- the sweet twang, the late -night call-ins, the ever-so-glib absurdities- as if you're listening to the radio once again. Jim Ladd, also known as "The Lonesome L.A. Cowboy," has been a DJ since 1967 and has recently reemerged as a major player on the California radio scene." <br><br>"Jim's book Radio Waves: Life and Revolution on the FM Dial is truly a good book. It chronicles much of the history of the rise and fall of free form FM radio and also contains interviews by John Lennon, and Roger Waters, as well as an introduction by Don Henley, and reviews by Henley, Ray Manzarek, Bill Graham, Danny Sugerman, and Danny Goldberg."<br><br>Radio Waves: Life and Revolution on the F M Dial, by Jim Ladd (ISBN 0-312-05952-3) was published in 1991 by St. Martins Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY. It is currently still in print and can be ordered at most fine book stores. <br><br>The Ladd interview is pretty brief, but I thought one of the comments was particularly worth noting:<br><br>"Michael: <br><br>...In Radio Waves you write about the commercialization of FM Radio in the late '70s and early '80s, and how FM lost it's underground movement. Do you see a change in the industry, a turning back or more commercialization?<br><br>Jim: <br><br>Well, um, it's hard to tell, ah, first off, it was commercialization then, I mean it was always, you know, except for those people who worked in public radio, KMET was a commercial radio station... for profit station. The thing was, we were able to make them huge profits while doing exactly what we wanted, that was the trick. Um, and now a days, that's...that's been lost, they don't seem to know how to... or trust people enough to know how to do that anymore. We made them more... or that station made more money and higher ratings than anyone that's come along since, yet it's hard for these people to see how that was done, you know, because they are hiring people that weren't there...." <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.rogerwaters.org/laddint.html">www.rogerwaters.org/laddint.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 11/2/05 12:56 am<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Plame Investigation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest