17-05-2012, 04:31 PM
Albert Doyle Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:The fools who are so ignorant of deep political theory and practice that they continue to cite "the CIA" as a Sponsor of the JFK murder -- or any other true deep political act. As if a bureaucratic body of the complexity of "the CIA" does ANYTHING as a single, willful entity.
Maybe not sponsor, but main participant. The way to look at this is can you really say CIA wasn't a primary participant in the assassination? I'm not challenging what you wrote at all because the conspiracy was so broad that it forces the Evica model from a true analysis of its components, however the way I look at it is the true Sponsors were the "software" and the CIA was a main part of the "hardware". The conspiracy had to surface somewhere in the form of mechanical parts.
Allow me to take a crack at it. Plausible deniability is one of the central tenets of the CIA: a founding core. When that is the case, it will always be problematic to say "the CIA." How to say this reality with language. It is a struggle. Does one say, There are multiple CIAs? Elements of the CIA?
It gets vague, and I don't like vagueness. I want there to be a single, evil mastermind who manages all the house of mirrors. Prouty talks about a "secret team." Was there ever "a" CIA whithin "the" CIA? Or was it then appears to be now: plausible deniability chaos? Is there a better term?
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl