Russ Baker Family Of Secrets The CIA HW Bush And The Kennedy

[seemslikeadream]

Russ Baker - Family Of Secrets - The CIA, HW Bush And The Kennedy Assassination

Russ was on Thom Hartmann yesterday and the interview was great, here he is with AJ, forget it's Alex and listen

[Montag]

One of my all time favorite books.

[RocketMan]

I thought it was a decent book... But Jim DiEugenio's borderline scathing assessment of it has made me think about it twice:

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/family_secrets.html

[Montag]

I'm not very far into it (the DiEugenio review), but the Bushes knew Vietnam was a mistake not worth fighting over? That's laughable... They were wealthy elitists, that kind of service is beneath them. I've never heard that the Bushes supposedly knew what Vietnam would be going into it... I stand corrected if that's the case. But the idea that W. would have fought a significant war (according to his family), is just hard to believe.

[Montag]

Haha... That's was funny when that new agey music came on in part I. Baker looked startled and then Jones told him to keep going.

[Luther Blissett]

I'm not very far into it (the DiEugenio review), but the Bushes knew Vietnam was a mistake not worth fighting over? That's laughable... They were wealthy elitists, that kind of service is beneath them. I've never heard that the Bushes supposedly knew what Vietnam would be going into it... I stand corrected if that's the case. But the idea that W. would have fought a significant war (according to his family), is just hard to believe.

I would have to believe they knew exactly what was going to happen. Pretty sure a case could be made that Vietnam benefited the Bush dynasty greatly.

[Montag]

I would have to believe they knew exactly what was going to happen. Pretty sure a case could be made that Vietnam benefited the Bush dynasty greatly.

Well if you could post a source on that please do, haha. Maybe I'm just falling into believing the mainstream narrative. I don't think Robert McNamara knew what Vietnam would be before he got into it. Anyway, I think DiEugenio is off base there, that supposedly in a "just" or "winnable" war W. would have fought. Of course, it's something that is totally hypothetical, that could be debated endlessly and that we'll never know. But, my reaction to it is that it's absurd to think that W. would have fought in any conflict.

I simply commented on this, b/c it starts off a lengthy piece (that looks like it makes a lot of valid points) in an awkward way IMO.

p.s. Of course, Poppy Bush and JFK fought in WWII, it seems that elite sorts did in those days... I'm aware there was much more enthusiasm for the "greatest generation" to "serve their country" than the baby boomers. I don't know why they (the elites) completely stopped, I'm wondering if had something to do with it becoming more acceptable for a president to have never been in the military. But I don't know how the Bush family would have known that at the time... That it would become acceptable for a president to have not been in the military. I think Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter, Reagan (though in Hollywood working with the film corps) and Poppy Bush all served in the military.

In case what I'm saying is at all controversial. Look how Kerry tried to use his military service (of course that was ruined by the Swiftboaters). But in the future probably neither candidate will have served, and we won't see any of that kind of thing at all. For the most part -- in my estimation -- the sort of people that be will running for president, are not the kind of people that serve in the military. Although it's possible the military men and women that do exist in the Congress and politics will still rise to the top in militarist Amerika, but I'll believe it when it happens.

[Montag]

I thought it was a decent book... But Jim DiEugenio's borderline scathing assessment of it has made me think about it twice:

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/family_secrets.html

I'm about halfway through it now. Thanks for sending the link Rocketman... Lot of good stuff there. I'm not ready to say Family of Secrets isn't a good book, but DiEugenio is certainly impressive in his knowledge of this stuff.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Hartmann giving Baker air time reinforces that they are both spooks.

Two disinformationists infiltrating the Left using credibility props:
> Thom CIA Hartmann, purveyor of several disinfo books on inside job murders of JFK, MLK, and RFK. "The mob dunnit."
He's been outed repeatedly as a psyoperator.
> Russ CIA Baker, attempting a slicker entry into the game by taking a different approach with JFK/CIA so he can do damage later, probably on 9/11 which, so far, he won't touch. His false claims of "bringing totally new information" and hyping his importance to Bonnie Faulkner at Pacifica Radio's 'Guns and Butter' show...were unctiously transparent.

Baker peddles old old info and also distorts it intoi gate-keeping distractions using personification.
Watch him gain internet traction just to deflect from the other electric fence topics.

Jane CIA Mayer is another infiltrator putting out cred props as decoys.
Didja know that the Koch steel family built the Twin Towers and Richard Gage quotes one of them as wondering
'where the 6000 floor panels disappeared to?'

Trojan horses all over the place.

[Montag]

I still haven't finished DiEugenio's critique, but I didn't get that he thinks Baker is CIA at all. What it looks more like to me is a neophyte jumping into deep politics. He thinks with his journalistic bona fides he'll take the conspiro-world by storm. Being one of the few mainstream journalists that will actually follow a trail leading outside of his bubble -- he's pretty sure of himself. DiEugenio shows that there's no getting around years of investigation and study...

Even if I agree with DiEugenio's critique, I think Baker's book is a probably still a good book for someone walking with blinders on to get started.

[Simulist]

Hartmann giving Baker air time reinforces that they are both spooks.

Even if you're right, I've learned a lot from probable spooks, both in the media and on the internet.

But you have to be discerning — which is prudent advice, no matter who it is you're listening to or conversing with.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Agreed, I've learned lots from spooks by watching what they omit and how they cover for this with misdirection.

Gatekeeping is an evolving strategy that has to set the bar a little higher to adapt to the better and better informed info-elites, such as folks on this discussion board and the internet newbies to covert crimes.
The CIA-media planners have been trying to get a piece of the internet's investigative journalism to co-opt the know-somethings.

I think Hartmann's lies on JFK were too obvious so the 'Baker approach' is in place using Bush-bashing as his cred prop.
This serves as a lure to his website to eat up your bandwith in a safe way and gets him invited to media watchdog panels.
And even MSNBC-
http://russbaker.com/2010/11/09/russ-ba ... n-ratigan/

Think he's really subversive to power? On MSNBC?
Baker is being used as the 'un-Webster Tarpley' and the 'un-Peter Dale Scott,' 'un-David Ray Griffin,' etc.

Here's his news site-
http://whowhatwhy.com/

There are some cred-prop names involved but you won't read anything truly subversive about military social control in the USA.

[seemslikeadream]

Here's his news site-
http://whowhatwhy.com/

There are some cred-prop names involved but you won't read anything truly subversive about military social control in the USA.

It's called whowhatwhy not ALLCONSPIRACIESAREUS

[barracuda]

I don't know, it's hard to read an article like this and consider the author as a CIA stooge:

What Obama Is Up Against
Monday 02 November 2009

by: Russ Baker, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

The first anniversary of Barack Obama's historic election finds many of his supporters already grousing. Fair enough: Obama has been more vigorous in some areas than others. But one essential question goes unasked: How much can any president accomplish against the wishes of recalcitrant power centers within his own government?

We Americans harbor a quaint belief that a new president takes charge of a government that eagerly awaits his next command. Like an orchestra conductor or perhaps a football coach, he can inspire or bludgeon and get what he wants. But that's not how things work at the top, especially where "national security" is concerned. The Pentagon and CIA are powerful and independent fiefdoms characterized by entrenched agendas and constant intrigue. They are full of lifers, who see an elected president largely as an annoyance, and have ways of dealing with those who won't come to heel.

Compound that with the Bush-Cheney administration's aggressive seeding of its staunch loyalists throughout the bureaucracy, and you have a pretty tough situation. Obama, then, has to contend not only with the big donors and corporate lobbies. His biggest problem resides right inside his "team."

***

The internal battles between American presidents and their national security establishments are not much reported. But if it is an invisible game; it is also a devious and even deadly one. Our civilian leaders end up mirroring the chronically nervous chiefs of state of the fragile democracies to our south.

Those who do not kowtow to the spies and generals have had a bumpy ride. FDR and Truman both faced insubordination. Dwight Eisenhower, who had served as chief of staff of the US Army, left the White House warning darkly about the "military industrial complex." (He of all presidents had reasons to know.) John Kennedy was repeatedly countermanded and double-crossed by his own supposed subordinates. The Joint Chiefs baited him; Allen Dulles despised him (more so after JFK fired him over the Bay of Pigs fiasco), and Henry Cabot Lodge, his ambassador to South Vietnam, deliberately undermined Kennedy's agenda. Kennedy called the trigger-happy generals "mad" and spoke angrily to aides of "scattering the CIA to the wind." The evidence is growing that he suffered the consequences.

In the 1950s, the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, a high-ranking Pentagon official, was assigned by CIA Director Allen Dulles to help place Dulles's officers under military cover throughout the federal government. As a result, Dulles not only knew what was happening before the president did, but had essentially infiltrated every corner of the president's domain. One Nixon-era Republican Party official told me that in the early 1970s, there were intelligence officers everywhere, including the White House. Nixon was unaware of the true background of many of his trusted aides, particularly those who helped drive him from office. Remember Alexander Butterfield, the so-called "military liaison," who told Congress about the White House taping system? Years later, Butterfield admitted to CIA connections.

In December 1971, Nixon learned of a military spy ring, the so-called Moorer-Radford operation, that was piping White House documents back to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Chiefs were wary of secret negotiations the president and Henry Kissinger were conducting with America's enemies, including North Vietnam, China and the USSR, and decided to keep tabs on this intrusion upon their domain. Jimmy Carter came into office as revelations of CIA abuses made headlines. He tried to dismantle the agency's dirty tricks office, but wound up instead a victim of it - and a one-term president.

Those who avoided problems - Johnson, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Jr. - were chief executives that made no problems for the Pentagon and intelligence chiefs. All embraced military and covert operations, expanded wars or launched their own. The agile Bill Clinton was a special case - no babe in the woods, he focused on domestic gains and pretty much steered clear of the hornets' nest.

As for the Bushes, their ascension represented a seizure of power by the national security state itself. Their family had profited from arms manufacturing for decades. The patriarch, Prescott Bush, monitored US assassination plots against foreign leaders as a senator; and records indicate that the elder George Bush had been a secret agency operative for decades before he became CIA director - and then, 12 years later, president.

Obama seems to understand his narrow range of movement, and to be carefully picking his fights. He retained many of Bush's top military brass, and even Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who himself had served as a CIA director for Bush's father. He has trod very carefully with the spy agency, and has declined to aggressively investigate Bush administration wrongdoing on torture and wiretapping. Obama's campaign rhetoric about disengaging from Iraq seems a long time ago, and the war in Afghanistan is taking on the hues of permanency.

But who knows? Could be the old switcheroo, I guess.

[Montag]

Dylan Ratigan is hardly MSNBC as such, read his proposals to fix Amerika: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-rat ... 33052.html

They are hardly the usual MSNBC blather. I'm not sure how he got on television at all, but he's certainly on at 4pm (when I doubt many are watching him) for a reason.