Robert Dallek Camouflages JFK, Twice

[Richard Coleman]

GWB had many visits from a male prostitute. How do we know? WH visitor logs, that's how.

GWB or GHWB? You have sources on this?

Lauren, he was being sarcastic and trying to compare the accusations against JFK to these sarcastic fantasies about Bush. You know, by hinting there was equal evidence for both.

Nope, no sarcasm at all.

"Democratic Representatives John Conyers of Michigan and Louise Slaughter of New York had submitted similar requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), on February 15, 2005. The Department of Homeland Security answered Slaughter's request with Secret Service records of Gannon's check in and out times at the White House.[SUP][30][/SUP] The Secret Service Records appear to show that he checked in, but never checked out on many occasions, and visited the White House on several days during which no press conference or other press events were held.[SUP][31][/SUP] In a 2007 interview, he stated that he has never spent the night at the White House.[SUP][10][/SUP]"

"According to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post:

"Jeff Gannon, ... whose naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites, says that he has 'regrets' about his past but that White House officials knew nothing about his salacious activities."*

*Kurtz, Howard (February 19, 2005). "Jeff Gannon Admits Past 'Mistakes,' Berates Critics". Washington Post. pp. C01. Retrieved 2007-05-12.

Above taken from Wikipedia (I know, I know!) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

Also check out http://www.salon.com/2005/02/15/guckert/
and http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/sec...on_424.htm This one has all the entries of Guckert/Gannon's comings and goings at the WH.

And then there's this:

at http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2012/03/...abuse.html

[Magda Hassan]

Some here on it:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...ution-ring

[Albert Doyle]

Nope, no sarcasm at all.

I thought you were joking.


Not to defend Bush, but that smells like a set-up of the type done by an agency that tries to compromise all those in power. Though it does make sense to me that Bush's international sadistic behavior might draw the deviant interest of fringe personalities.

[Richard Coleman]

Nope, no sarcasm at all.

I thought you were joking.


Not to defend Bush, but that smells like a set-up of the type done by an agency that tries to compromise all those in power. Though it does make sense to me that Bush's international sadistic behavior might draw the deviant interest of fringe personalities.

I don't follow your logic at all. What "agency that tries to compromise all those in power"? Isn't there anybody "it" likes? (Does that include the Koch brothers, J. Dimon, etc.? They seem to be doing all right.) CIA? NSA? FBI? DIA? SS? Some combination of these? What purpose would it serve except to destabilize the government, the state? Socialists and left-wing radicals might be delighted to do this but what "agency" would? Or are you implying a left-wing, er, Communist plot? (If so, where do I join? )

As for Bush, what evidence is there that any of these groups didn't like him? Cheney went after the analysts at CIA because they weren't justifying his drive for war in Iraq, but the Bushies got along fine with the covert operations side.

As for the Guckert/Gannon business, I believe Bush goes both ways. In fact probably prefers boys. Which wouldn't matter a damn except that he supported and identified with the "family values" homophobic christians. As do all conservatives caught in homosexual situations.

"Bush's international sadistic behavior might draw the deviant interest of fringe personalities"

What does that mean? The point isn't Guckert/Gannon's sexuality, it's Bush's. By fringe personalities, do you mean gays? That gays are attracted by "International sadistic behavior"?

Barney Frank wasn't.

[Lauren Johnson]

Nope, no sarcasm at all.

I thought you were joking.

Not to defend Bush, but that smells like a set-up of the type done by an agency that tries to compromise all those in power. Though it does make sense to me that Bush's international sadistic behavior might draw the deviant interest of fringe personalities.

Hi Albert. Sure it could have been a setup in theory, but from my POV, there was nothing to indicate that Bush suffered from this itty bitty scandal. It just went away. Another explanation is that this guy gets in the WH as a warning "we can get to you. Watch it."

OTOH, looking at Richard's position, we don't KNOW that Gannon got in for sexual purposes. However, that he was given special treatment to get into the WH is suspicious. I just don't see much positive evidence that Bush is a rump ranger, other than the whole thing is really smelly.
:

[Albert Doyle]

Hi Albert. Sure it could have been a setup in theory, but from my POV, there was nothing to indicate that Bush suffered from this itty bitty scandal. It just went away. Another explanation is that this guy gets in the WH as a warning "we can get to you. Watch it."

Sort of like keeping a leash on Clinton with Monica Lewinsky. Reagan was compromised more forcefully. Even LBJ showed signs of not being totally in the loop.

[Lauren Johnson]

Hi Albert. Sure it could have been a setup in theory, but from my POV, there was nothing to indicate that Bush suffered from this itty bitty scandal. It just went away. Another explanation is that this guy gets in the WH as a warning "we can get to you. Watch it."

Sort of like keeping a leash on Clinton with Monica Lewinsky. Reagan was compromised more forcefully. Even LBJ showed signs of not being totally in the loop.

Albert, If you read Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the CIA by Terry Reed, they had a lot more on him than Lewinsky. If Reed is telling the truth, and the book seems to be consistent with other information, he was in on the CIA financial corruption with their state bond issuing fund, illegal gun manufacturing and gun running, and the drug running into Mena, AR. Drugs, weapons, and financial money laundering -- the modern triangle trade. Clinton was in it with the CIA up to his eyeballs. So much for being progressive Democrat.

See Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA

[Magda Hassan]

But Hilary said it was all just a right wing plot? ::laughingdog::

[Lauren Johnson]

But Hilary said it was all just a right wing plot? ::laughingdog::

He smart. He was a Rhodes Scholar -- yah, that Rhodes. He knew the game plan. And he jumped in with both feet. Thinking of him in moral or psychological terms (corrupt politician, or sociopath, etc.) does not at all accurately describe him. He has a roll to play and he is carrying it out. So will Hillary.

"The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."
-- Quote from Caroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20

[Albert Doyle]

Norwood is dishonest. In his Veteran's Today article complaining about censorship and persecution on the Deep Politics Forum he never mentioned DiEugenio's post showing what was wrong with Dallek. Norwood presented himself as the victim of crude and primitively biased posters who disallowed him his intellectual treatise on Dallek when the real context was his attempt to work his way in with a superficial formal peer review academic approach, in order to unload Dallek filler, wasn't working. It was more than clear that the trouble was Deep Politics doesn't want to waste time with Kennedy authors who back the Lone Nut position no matter how much other Kennedy information their works contain. It wasn't the DPF members who didn't get it and Norwood's dishonest depiction of what the problem was wasn't honest or accurate to the real situation.

Norwood repeated the same dishonesty when he accused me of boorishly dismissing his references to the Zapruder Film alteration. He quoted me on Veteran's Today as crudely blowing off his reference with the quote "What are you trying to do, instruct me?" That's not honest because that wasn't at all the context. I'm quite familiar with the material Norwood was condescendingly offering. Part of the problem with Norwood was his attitude of superior instruction to the uneducated. That was ignorance in itself since most of the people on Deep Politics are already read on the subject and have already seen the video Norwood was referencing. This shows what kind of character Norwood is. While portraying us as an unintelligent mob crudely denying him his attempt to educate us it wasn't us who was refusing the lesson.

Norwood and Fetzer have two major problems their dishonestly spun version of events won't counter. Dallek was chosen to be on the disinformation programming on the 50th because he serves the Lone Nutters. No matter how much arguing you do Dallek will never survive that. There's a pretty accurate rule of thumb that credible JFK authors like DiEugenio are deep-sixed and Lone Nut shills like Dallek and Caro are given conspicuous screen time. While I agree Dallek, and maybe even Nelson, discuss material that is worth knowing on its own it is hard to ignore the fact they both misled on a Deep Political basis and therefore damaged the cause. That's the problem here that Norwood, while crying victimization, never quite got around to acknowledging in his dishonestly-rendered complaint. The second problem is Ralph Cinque who is obviously one of the most embarrassing buffoons to ever enter JFK Assassination visibility. Endorsement of Cinque is grounds for dismissal from credibility alone and needs no further explanation. Norwood endorses Cinque while pretending to have a sophisticated approach and equally sophisticated issues with the Deep Politics Forum. May I suggest that is like trying to lawyer a court case in a clown's costume. The problem with Fetzer is he now prefers wind over method and sensation over caution. He self-references himself as the more credible source but I don't think he's proven that in practice. Norwood isn't honest and his self-serving version of events over there on Veteran's Today isn't close to what actually happened. Too bad Phil isn't still here because he could do a cartoon of Norwood gobbling from the dubious protection of Fetzer's turkey nest.


.