So much effort has gone into the spy narrative from so many angles. To a large degree it is an effective means of hiding a more genuine and pressing enemy, the opportunists who lurk amongst government agencies with ties to all-to-willing connections ready to funnel money out of the public sector and into the private. The spy narrative also makes for good escapism–as in escape with the cash unnoticed.
Bush 41 was to Ronald Reagan as Dick Cheney was to Bush 43. Could Mike Pence be Pwesident Twump’s brain? The office of VP has lately become much more valuable than the proverbial bucket of warm piss.
Can’t address all of this attack on Seymour Hersh – but in regard to the FAKERY
of our Missile defense systems, I can add this …
Just last week, C-span’s book Festival included a book by a woman who was the daughter
of an employee who worked on missiles – and constrained at the time by restrictions on his
ability to whistleblow – he was unable to speak out to tell the public of his concerns about
deception in the program – that the missiles were in fact not performing as they should have
been or as claimed. In fact, in some cases he feared that the missiles would hit unintended targets.
I took it to mean, other nations than the one intended.
The daughter has written a book on this subject – and the information her father passed on to her.
As to Star Wars, over $200 billion has been spent since Reagan initiated the program, and it continues today under a different name. It was, according to Hersh, intended as a ruse to tempt the Soviet sleeper agents to expose themselves in efforts to find out technical details about the program. But if SDI were merely a false flag, why was it not terminated upon the collapse of the Soviet Union? He may be right, but as the eminent science writer Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Independently confirmable evidence is as yet nowhere in sight.
… sez Mike Lofgren, who served in corrupt RepubliCon administrations, yeah, I’ll believe this ratfcker, uh huh./s
So it sounds like you are saying that Sy Hersch has become a purveyor of “fake news” in the name of continuing to stay alive. Too bad!
I have climbed around inside the shot down C-123. It’s in a park by a river just outside Managua (Tipitapa). It’s pretty beat up and they keep one security guard around so no one destroys it. That was 2012.
Since the Cold War started, and other declared and undeclared " ops " have been initiated, one thing is surely true: the DoD and The Alphabets budgets are as phony as a $3 dollar bill. And, we know Congressionally mandated audits, aren’t worth the paper they’re annually printed on. R U feeling the smoke in your drawers yet, wait…
When 30-35 million Americans are without Medical-Care 101, when millions are homeless or food insecure, when schools and infrastructure fail 50% of the population, etc., etc., etc…we all know the laundry list, too. There’s something severely " whack " about The Big Picture, here.
The only real investigation of the gov’ts palace intrigues we should be concerned about as citizens is, in the words of Dan Hicks, " where’s the money? " Followed by, of course, " follow the money " and " show me the damn money ". Knowing this will answer most of the ???s about the last 70 years, Seymour Hersch or whatever.
“But if SDI were merely a false flag, why was it not terminated upon the collapse of the Soviet Union?”
Not sure about the other questions raised in the article but this is a no-brainer. Never heard of the gravy train called the Military-Industrial complex?
Lofgren is certainly correct that standards of truth should be applied to the work of good reporters as well as bad–most everyone claims to be a “truth-teller,” but if I may set this unworkable distinction aside, I take him to mean people who set aside the markedly false standard narratives.
The implication seems to be that we spare Hersch or Fisk or Robert Parry part of some harsh examination to which we subject government and corporate-authorized sources like WaPo and the NYT, who now have extensively documented histories of passing forward corporate and government versions of events with no attempts at criticism or perspective. For some few of us, there is some truth to this.
Across the society, of course, the reverse is true. Schools and universities coast to coast still train students to use “good sources.” Those so-called good sources are so because they are outwardly identifiable by virtue of having an address and a governmental or corporate presence.
In the particular cases that Lofgren addresses, on the other hand, Hershis here given credit as though his work stood alone; in practice, what we are talking about here involved considerable corresponding information from various journalists, often against the editorial preferences of their editors.
The theory has been that this gives them a vested interest in the integrity of their statements. There has been some truth to that; it functioned, in a kinda-sorta way, while news papers and programs were adequately supported by advertising money, and while advertisers did not mostly have very distinct political axes that were worth large sums of money to them.
With the increased centralization of wealth, parent companies more and more often have an interest in duping the public about more than the particular brand of soap or underwear. At the same time, the relative loss of revenue that has come with the rise of superior passage of information online has driven these companies to depend on performers to deliver “news” and on entities with a vested interest in public opinion for the provision of content. So in 2015 and 2016, when CNN and Reuters and others published Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s copy with respect to the Democratic nomination process verbatim, this was not a particularly unique moment, nor a particularly unique relationship between the news and the Democratic rather than the Republican Party per se.
But Lofgren is correct. None of this particularly means that we need believe everything Hersh has to say, still less that we should do so automatically. The people who are doing reporting and doing so in a very difficult environment in which a tremendous amount of disinformation is released and absorbed and repeated by a tremendous number of people.
But this also means that we should not be unusually or uniquely skeptical about what are called “conspiracy theories.” Of course many will not be correct. But in a system run at its core as conspiracy, non-conspiracies will always be in some part incorrect.
We are thereby left with one most feasible family of options: these involve critical evaluation of all sources and particular suspicion of those that have proven themselves to be institutionally drawn to fraud.
To be as clear as possible, this last is not “bloggers,” whose work varies greatly, nor Wikipedia, nor certainly anything so unworkably vague as “Internet sources,” but the long supposed papers and organs of record–the NYT, WaPo, embedded journalists from CNN on, MSNBC, and certainly the likes of Fox. The difference here, since there is one, is not that the works of good journalists should not be subjected to scrutiny, but that the works of failed sources should be require quite distinct and palpable burden of proof.
Hi Bardamu, I was reading today on a site called ACT UP. The guest and Eleanor Goldberg discussed a new entity called," News Guard," which is composed of many prior higher ups in various parts of government. This groups is supposedly trying to act as censors of a lot of different media, and using red codes for what THEY see as the"bad people," ( like , Wikileaks, ) and Green goes for places like FOX, where green is the trust or GO to new place. It sounds as if by simple color coding they are trying to get alternative media to be shut down, and are said have talked to the EU about this too. I would rather FOX was disappeared ; ) Oh and supposedly they are trying to influence place like libraries too to use THEIR concept of," real news. "
So News Guard… anyone else hear about this as this sounds like another creepy and controlling group to me.
Note to self ( stardustIBID) look upthe information first to make sure you have it right , and I didn’t. Sorry. I was reading Occupay.com and the post is called ACT OUT.
Then you heard wrong – and I’ll try to add to my message to make sure that no
one else misunderstands it …
WHAT I said was intended to make clear that that Sy Hersch was very likely relaying
the truth of the dishonesty of our missile system/program. And that there is a recent
book written by the daughter of someone who worked on the missile program who
wanted very much to alert the public to the fact that the missiles were NOT doing what
they were said to be able to do. Worse yet, they were a danger because they could
not reliably hit the intended target – and endangered other nations.
Please re-read my comments.
LET me make clear that this post supports Seymour Hersh and the likelihood
that there was deception in the missile program – very dangerous deception.
Thank you, Beija –
I was struggling to recall his (Lofgren’s) political connects –
Why is CD even running this attack on Sy Hersh?
The nation-state needs for us to need “sources” to know what we already know.
I don’t know anything specific about “News Guard.” But with seventeen “intelligence” agencies and all the various campaign managers and spin agencies and so forth, it is not surprising to hear that there might be one or several relatively central groups trying to sort of herd everyone.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich stated that the program did not work. Test firings had homing beacons on the target and still did not work. As to why it was not terminated…way too many special interests are involved in any military project of this size. (How many jobs connected to how many congressional districts? …for one example.)
If there’s any journalist alive that has earned our trust, it’s Sy Hersh.
Thank you for the clarification.