In a report on a recent release of decades old documents detailing CIA operations in the 1960's and 70's, Reuters seems to find it necessary to interject "criticism" of president Bush "being too secretive now" even though not one part of the story has anything to do with president Bush or any modern CIA operations. It would be like talking about the Civil War and interjecting a Bush comment, or talking of Roman times and suddenly sticking in a "US imperialism" comment into the mix where it doesn't legitimately belong.
The MSM's Bush Derangement Syndrome is so pervasive that they cannot even discuss historical information without trying to embarrass or attack this president in the midst of it all.
At issue is the CIA's recent release of decades old clandestine operations documents.
The CIA hauled the skeletons out of its closet by declassifying hundreds of pages of long-secret records that detail some of the agency's worst illegal abuses during about 25 years of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying and kidnapping.
Ancient history, you might imagine, right? These are actions taken in the 1960's and 1970's that are long dead for implications to current security and long since gone from the control or direction of any president since before 1980. Yet, even as these documents are nothing but relics at this point, Reuters still had to use the occasion to slam president Bush for his supposed "secrecy."
CIA Director Michael Hayden released the documents to lift the veil of secrecy on the agency's past, even as the Bush administration faces criticism of being too secretive now.
What Bush has to do with stuff that happened when he was a teenager is anyone's guess. But here we have Reuters reminding us once again that THEY feel that Bush is too secretive.
Most of the stuff the rest of the report talks about makes for little else but interesting watercooler discussion, but one thing is amusing for its absence. That one thing is a name. That name is John F. Kennedy.
Reuters was pleased as punch to use the occasion of this story to throw out a dig at George W. Bush, but not one time did Reuters mention that the era that some of these CIA "dirty tricks" were played in was during the reign of John F. Kennedy. Nor do they go on to mention that many happened during Kennedy's VP turned accidental president, Lyndon Baines Johnson's terms in office.
So, if Reuters is so interested in pinning these eeeeevil actions to a deserving president, why forget to mention their faux Camelot hero, Saint JFK, and their "Great Society" charlatan, LBJ?
Should we guess that it is because Bush has an "R" in front of his name and JFK and LBJ have that teflon "D"?
What else could it be? After all Bush had nothing to do with the era in question, yet the two most prominent presidents that did remain unmentioned by the Reuters report.
Imagine that!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I was wondering if they'd finally admit the Contra-cocaine stuff
June 29, 2007 - 03:31 ET by sarcasmoI was wondering if they'd finally admit the Contra-cocaine stuff, but apparently that's too recent and therefore still-secret even though everyone knows... When you run an airport into which you're smuggling things that go "BANG," it's hard to be very credible when you try to claim you're somehow both "an intelligence agency" and at the same time also "unaware of return cargos consisting of cocaine." Saying this, back in the '80s, used to REALLY upset conservative types, but slowly they're coming around to the idea that even though I'm (as usual...) making fun of the tax and spend drugwar's hypocrite-factor, I also happen to be (as usual...) historically absolutely RIGHT. Hell, I saw it firsthand in Miami, before the CIA moved their little scam to Mena from Miami after being busted by the Miami New Times. Later, the story was fully exposed by strange media bedfellows High Times Magazine and The Wall Street Journal, but because of the intelligence sensitivity this bipartisan scandal was never prosecuted, and everyone considered it "over" once Barry Seal was killed. Prediction: Something similar's happening in Afghanistan right now, only the drug is heroin/opium. Anyone there now -- especially anyone with usable air assets in that country -- is facing enormous financial temptation to smuggle heroin, and history says someone will give in to those temptations every time.
JMR
Using the logic of the MSM's
June 29, 2007 - 10:09 ET by drillanwrUsing the logic of the MSM's handling of the CIA story in making a connection to GWBush:
sarc brings up: was wondering if they'd finally admit the Contra-cocaine stuff, but apparently that's too recent and therefore still-secret even though everyone knows... When you run an airport into which you're smuggling things that go "BANG," it's hard to be very credible when you try to claim you're somehow both "an intelligence agency" and at the same time also "unaware of return cargos consisting of cocaine." Saying this, back in the '80s, used to REALLY upset conservative types, but slowly they're coming around to the idea that even though I'm (as usual...) making fun of the tax and spend drugwar's hypocrite-factor, I also happen to be (as usual...) historically absolutely RIGHT.
Now, I recall controversial connections to then Gov. Bill Clinton and a drug smuggling ring that used Arkansas airports. In looking for a link to this I came across this (just a sampling): http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/26news.html and this http://www.serendipity.li/cda/mena-tg2.html
"No credible evidence, however, has ever come to light to substantiate the charges."
Yeah, gotta hand it to the Clintons ... They're very good at burying credible evidence.
Why the CIA documents regarding the drug trafficing sarc is eagerly awaiting weren't included?
Just one of my thunks here but, another Clinton is seeking the White House, while the other one is making big bucks giving speeches.
BTW, least we forget, GWBush's BIGGEST mistake (and he should answer as such when stupidly asked `What mistakes have you made...') was NOT completely cleaning house when he took office ... Most especially the CIA, and possibly the FBI, which has come back to bite him in the rear (See: botched intel regarding Iraq, and Plame/Wilson).
My point was, the CIA's den
June 29, 2007 - 10:20 ET by sarcasmoMy point was, the CIA's denials of knowing the smuggling was happening in the same planes that brought stuff that goes "BANG" in on their return trips weren't believable then, and aren't believable now. Such rogue operations allow unregulated drug-money to enter the political system in a bipartisan but corrupt way, and as a partisan Libertarian who makes fun of the tax and spend drugwar, this one qualifies for the same kind of merciless ridicule Paul Wolfowitz fans have only begun to see because both the media and the court system entirely-failed. I've been makin' fun of this one since the mid-'80s. It's not gonna end until they admit the truth, even if the truth happens to make heros of both "major" parties look either incompetent or crooked. That's politics. Want less ridicule? Cease the bipartisan criminality! :)
JMR
P.S.Look for the name Clinton
June 29, 2007 - 10:20 ET by drillanwrP.S.
Look for the name Clinton here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/witness_list.html
I clicked your link, but as
June 30, 2007 - 05:10 ET by sarcasmoI clicked your link, but as with the Micah Morrison articles I linked above, I didn't just see the name Clinton. I instead saw, as I said above, bipartisan criminality which confirms why I've been making fun of this particular scandal for the past couple of decades...Doesn't look like I'll be letting-up anytime soon, either, because I was right all-along about this one, and the government & media have yet to come close to admitting that fact.
JMR
"It would be like talkin
June 29, 2007 - 03:46 ET by tracheostomy"It would be like talking about the Civil War and interjecting a Bush comment,"
Seen it. . .
"or talking of Roman times and suddenly sticking in a "US imperialism" comment into the mix where it doesn't legitimately belong."
Seen that too.
Seriously, check your archives, someone may have blogged it. But I swear both those hypotheticals sound awfully familiar.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
In reviews of 300, comparing
June 29, 2007 - 09:33 ET by nnptcgradIn reviews of 300, comparing US imperialism with either the Persians or the Spartans, at first they couldn't make up their mind.
Mother nature is a bitch - Ninth Corollary of Murphy's Law
President Bush's effectivenes
June 29, 2007 - 07:16 ET by rimskyPresident Bush's effectiveness as a leader has been sabotaged by the MSM. This is an excellent example of their tactics. Bush's administration has not been without some major mistakes and bad decisions, the latest of which would be support of the dead-again immigration bill. But IMO, NOTHING he has done warrants the blantant hatred and shameful disrespect for the Man, let alone the office OR our Country!
In my circle of co-workers, acquaintences, immediate family, I too often see total ignorance of what is happening here. I'm thankful for the remnant of level headed lovers of freedom that is found here every day.
I have recently determined
June 29, 2007 - 08:42 ET by BeowulfI have recently determined that the hatred and undermining of the administration that is so prevalent began in 2000 and is DIRECTLY attributable to none other than Al Gore. I read an article on Bush's real reasons for going to war (link below), and it also clearly shows when the Bush-bashing party began and how it has blossomed into the proud liberal mantra in constant use today. "Bush stole the election" was the initial rallying cry for the hate the Dems have for Bush, and which has abcessed into the anti-war/anti-American movement as well as the "culture of corruption" party line we hear so often.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28944
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Warner - same for the AP - no Kennedy mention.
June 29, 2007 - 13:39 ET by Gary HallWarner - same for the Associated Press - no Kennedy mention, in many of the stories (were picked up by national newspapers, as well).
Here are two that ran initially:
CIA Plot to Kill Castro Detailed - plenty of the details in the Kennedy efforts to assassinate Castro, but no mention of JFK or Bobby Kennedy. But of course, this is offered up:
Magical, is it not.
And here:
CIA Details Spy Scandal in Old Documents - we are exposed to so much more of the "family jewels." In addition to the Castro assassination attempts in the 60's, we are reminded of the "Bay of Pigs," and once again - the Kenndy's were not a part of the accessible vocabulary.
More magic, indeed.