Hi TH.
Thanks for the discussion. Hope Russ doesn't mind the dialogue on his board.
(()My point with Bush is that I just don't think he could pull it off in public. And if he could, well he is the greatest actor the world has ever seen.))
Well, I think you hit the nail right on the head. That's one of Bush's primary roles - to act the part. To play his role in the Political Theatre of the Absurd.
((Regarding reporters and "truth", why is Ruppert still alive?))
That is a very good question. Personally, I think the answer to that has a lot to do with the power of the Internet. It really is getting harder and harder to suppress truth. The Internet is truly an extraordinary weapon in the conduct of grass-roots guerrilla warfare. I think the way the elites have primarily dealt with people such as Ruppert in the past is to discredit them, to ridicule them, to call them "crazy" and "conspiracy theorists", elements of the "political fringe".
In fact, here's a situation that sort of threw me when I read Ruppert's book. I remember one day reading an article in one of Canada's mainstream newspapers after Ruppert had recently given a talk at the University of Calgary. It was an extraordinary piece of disinformation. I won't quote the whole article, but here is an excerpt:
Ruppert was dismissed from the LAPD with a psychological discharge. For years he has been peddling conspiracy theories about CIA in South L.A., Jeb and George W. Bush, and the drug trade, and now apparently, the CIA's involvement in the World Trade Center attacks. Ruppert has been repudiated by everyone but the naive, the unwitting, the psychotic, and those willing to exploit him ...
This was certainly not the person whose integrity and sharp analytical abilities I had come to admire. And nothing in the article in anyway addressed any substantive aspects of his arguments. I recognized classic signs of a disinformation piece, I had no idea where the story originally came from. Well, go figure, but Ruppert reproduces it (or parts of it actually) on p. 300 of his book.
And where do you think a story like this might have first appeared? The New Republic? Fox News Network? Maybe Charles Krauthammer? Nope, that bastion of liberalism "The Nation" magazine. Ruppert comments in his book:
The signatories attached the first of what was to be many spiteful and inaccurate articles by Nation Editor and FOX News commentator David Corn that labeled me as unstable, mercenary, conspiracy theorist.
This mon ami is the standard modus operandi for discrediting anyone who questions the deepest secrets of the U.S. power elites. This same manner of "ambush journalism" is encountered time and time again in "Into the Buzzsaw", and the case of Gary Webb in the early 1990's was truly amazing in the wrath and invective he received from the mainstream media to discredit him as a journalist.
((Some Woodward or Bernstein would roll the dice for a place in journalism history. I can't think of a bigger story.))
Watergate came out because someone very high up wanted it brought out. I know the "All the President's Men" version plays well and all, but that again is largely to my mind political theatre.
((If there is any truth to this, then it will be from a small group on the fringe of our government assisting Bin Laden and "killing with anothers hand".))
Perhaps. But that is not Ruppert's contention. Nor is it my belief. I believe it was official U.S. policy (though deeply covert in its execution), that it was a bi-partisan affair, and that it was a calculated geopolitical event (much like the sinking of the Lusitania or the bombing of Pearl Harbor) to create the political will in America to put ground troops to secure oil in Central Asia and the Middle East. As a criminal case, this requires motive, means and opportunity, and evidence. This is precisely the case that Ruppert makes in his book.
I hope I don't come across as disrespectful of your opinions or concerns. I just want to be clear on where I might differ, just so we both know precisely from where each other are coming from.
If you do read Ruppert's book, I think you will find it very stimulating. Of course, you are certainly not obligated to agree with any of his conclusions. But if you approach it with an open mind, I think you'll come aware rewarded for the experience.
Regards,
Glenn |
