You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #66: NY Times v JFK On the 93rd Anniversary of JFK's Birth [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
66. NY Times v JFK On the 93rd Anniversary of JFK's Birth
This story is about a month old Daily Paper, but it is cromulent ;-) to this thread, and important anniversary.

Why the New York Times Deserves to Die
Jerry Policoff wrote his first essay critiquing the NY Times on the JFK case back in 1971. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 379) At the time, it had no effect. And in the following nearly four decades, the increasing barrage of criticism also went unheeded. And the worst aspect of this controversy is this: Those organizations do not seem to understand how their obstinacy led to 1.) The increasing public cynicism about both politics and the media, and 2.) The rise of alternative forms of media, especially on the Internet. That's arrogance for you.

The Times' latest outburst of arrogance forms the basis for this column. On April 14th, the New York Times published an essay, properly labeled an opinion piece, co-authored by Mark Medish and Joel McLeary. The title of the essay was Assassination Season is Open. The authors begin the piece by saying that "state-sponsored assassinations are back in season". They then marked this trend by referring to "targeted snuff jobs" from "Dubai to Dagestan, from Yemen to Wazirstan". As if somehow this had been dominating the news and American consciousness lately. Well no one has approached me lately and said, "Jim, what did you think about that political hit in Dagestan last month?" If they did, my reply would have been, "Where is Dagestan?"...

As I wrote in Part 8 of my review of Reclaiming History, the concept of "regime change" and the consequent murders that accompany it originated with the changes brought to the CIA by Allen Dulles. Which was seven years before John Kennedy even ran for president. But since the MSM had always been close with the CIA, and since Allen Dulles had actually started Operation Mockingbird-the attempt by the CIA to control the media-they were not going to readily admit this. Even if it was true. So during the 1974-75 investigations by the Church and Pike committees when the crimes of the CIA and FBI were first given heavy exposure these CIA murder plots were heavily publicized. And the CIA took a public flogging over it. Especially since, in their own Inspector General report, they admitted that they had no presidential approval for the plots to kill Fidel Castro, and that they deliberately kept them from the Kennedys. (The Assassinations, pgs 327-28) So when the NY Times says that Kennedy's 'executive action" policy targeted Fidel Castro in Cuba, this is ass backwards. And the CIA admitted it in their own report. And it is a primary document in this discussion. A primary document, which somehow, these two reporters failed to consult.

In fact, the Church Committee clearly demarcated the beginnings of these assassination plots against foreign leaders as beginning with Allen Dulles and President Eisenhower. And they blamed the eventual plot that took the life of Patrice Lumumba as being OK'd for Dulles by Eisenhower. (ibid, p. 326) Which again shows how stupid the Times is. Because, incredibly, the Times article also blames the murder of Lumumba on the Kennedys! This is so wrong as to be Orwellian. (Or, even worse, Chomskyian, since Noam Chomsky blames this one on Kennedy also.) The truth is the opposite. As more than one author has insinuated, Allen Dulles speeded up the plot against Lumumba in the interim between Eisenhower's departure and Kennedy's inauguration because he knew that Kennedy would never approve it. (John M. Blum, Years of Discord, p. 23; Jonathan Kwitny, Endless Enemies, p. 69) Therefore, Lumumba died on January 17, 1961, three days before Kennedy took office. Dulles turned out to be right. Because right after entering office, but before learning of Lumumba's death, Kennedy formulated a new policy for Lumumba's Congo. One that pretty much was a reversal of Eisenhower's. A part of this new policy was to free all political prisoners-including Lumumba. Lumumba was being held by an enemy tribe at the behest of the former mother country Belgium, which was in league with the CIA. If he had been freed, he would not have been killed. Dulles obviously knew Kennedy better than the New York Times does. Which, by the way, was opposed to Kennedy's Congo policy at the time. For another part of his plan was to oppose the breaking away of the mineral rich Katanga province from Congo. The Times supported that breakaway. Which would have helped Belgium and American investors but hurt the Congo. (Kwitny, p. 55)...

Read more: http://www.ctka.net/2010/nyt.html

Show #471
Original airdate: April 22, 2010
Guest: Jim Marrs / Jim DiEugenio
Topic: JFK Assassination Research

Play Part Two Interview - Jim DiEugenio


# How the newspapers have been misleading the public and why they're failing
# CIA foreign leadership assassination plots and how the news tries to pin the history on JFK
# Jim cites the assassinations of the Diem brothers, Rafael Trujillo and Patrice Lumumba
# In fact, the Kennedys had no idea until they found out about the assassinations by accident
# The New York Times has held to the "Kennedys did it" beyond the evidence
# As Jim shows, The Kennedys had no idea the CIA was plotting these murders

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black471b.mp3

http://www.blackopradio.com/black471b.ram
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC