No way. Maddow's on-air politics tell you she knows the truth on JFK. To say otherwise is to suggest she can't pick-up 'JFK And The Unspeakable' and read it.
Like many other powerful Americans she's come to a conscious decision whether Jack's head is worth trading for the political agenda she pushes on MSNBC. And she might not want to end up like Olbermann who perhaps was drifting too far away from lip service towards real.
Albert, I think its a mistake to think that because someone is a good liberal they automatically doubt the lone nut political assassination fantasies. I'm positing that she wouldn't even think of reading JFK and the Unspeakable. I'm sure she's read some Chomsky, definitely Zinn's A People's History and is a big fan of The Nation. Sure she may have seen the Stone movie and probably lumps it somewhere on her truth meter with A Parallax View. Look, I don't know Maddow personally, I could be wrong, but I'm not speaking totally out of ignorance when it comes to media people's private attitudes on CT matters, alas.
Jim, I think one has to take media people on a case by case basis. Frank Rich, for example, has played lip service to the Warren Consensus via William Manchester in a column but I'd bet my hat he knows (or suspects) that there is another layer to it all. I personally know Warren defenders in the media, liberal ones, who are completely convinced that Oswald "acted alone." The ones that don't cover this stuff don't think about it that much I suspect. Also: Let me take this opportunity to tell you how much I respect your work.
Having just reviewed the 2:45 youtube wherein Maddow is a serial shiller for the Big Lie it is clear the propagandist is terminally marginalized.
There can be no bigger lie for the Twentieth Century than that by Maddow at 1:33 that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy with the weapon he bought legally from a coupon in the NRA publication American Rifleman.
There can be not the slightest possibility that anything this propagandist will utter will not be suspect of the taint of the heavy hand of the cabal.
It isn't even the step by step factual misrepresentation, for no sensient being with an intelligence quotient above a stick of celery who is not complicit can utter the nonsense coming from this propagandist.
The patsy was an intelligence operative acting at various times for Office of Naval Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
He was an operative under the control of CIA Western Hemisphere chief David Atlee Phillips, and the fascist liaison between CIA and OAS Clay Shaw, the intelligence illegal Guy Banister, smearing the FPCC in a McCord (CIA) and Joannides (CIA) operation.
His file was manipulated by Angleton the legendary CIA Rasputin, and his person was shuffled by DeMohrenschildt (CIA asset) and the Paines (aka Mickey and Minnie the Dopes) with a little help from the odoriferous Robert and Marina.
Mr. Oswald did not order, purchase, receive, practice with, pose with, store, transport, use, conceal the alleged weapon. We know this from the work of Evica and Jesus. And others. Look it up--it's what JOURNALISTS DO.
The photo used as "proof"--tell us again about that chin, the watermark, and how the moon is made of green cheese.
The president was not shot in the front from behind, but rather from in front, which Mr. Oswald was not.
The president sought peace and was murdered on behalf of war, not by Mr. Oswald but by unseen sponsors who have brushed the "journalist" in the hall and left their slimy chill.
How do you redeem yourself for covering for the incineration of a subcontinent by the beasts still in power.
Not by issuing some call to give up your weapons and stand under the drone for its facial recognition software to query the NSA's current kill list.
I posit the justice demanded here will never come from "journalism."
O'Brien at the Ministry of Truth will not concede nor recant.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:You would be surprised at how much these people actually do know.
See, this subject is so huge and insinuating that anyone in the news business comes up against it sooner or later. Or anyone interested in politics and current events finds it.
I would be really surprised if she knows nothing about it..
I mean she had to see Stone's movie.
I disagree Jim. Ordinary folks know but the more educated the less they know BY CHOICE. I know becasue I have been an atty. 28 years and have talked with others. Endlessly,
lawyers, DA's, judges, etc. They DO NOT want to know.
I have always found this most curious that my joe six pack clients KNOW the truth but not my so-called peers.
Some actually consider me nutty due to my CT views.
Ignorance knows no bounds.
And she is pretty young. JFK came out Jan 20, 1991.
So she could have easily missed it and continues to by choice.
I have had THAT conversation so many times- not seeing JFK- it makes me sick.
Albert Doyle Wrote:No way. Maddow's on-air politics tell you she knows the truth on JFK. To say otherwise is to suggest she can't pick-up 'JFK And The Unspeakable' and read it.
Like many other powerful Americans she's come to a conscious decision whether Jack's head is worth trading for the political agenda she pushes on MSNBC. And she might not want to end up like Olbermann who perhaps was drifting too far away from lip service towards real.
On now you're privvy to what Rachel knows? Hmmmm...interesting.
Her on air politics are liberal. NOt CT. YOU must have her confused with someone
who does know truth.
I should add that I think letters like the one Jim DiEugenio emailed Maddow are worth sending because its a proactive approach and it certainly can't hurt--it at least registers disatisfaction. And watching this propoganda come out of otherwise sane sounding people's mouth can make one feel a little crazy.
What about O'Reilly? Not that he's at all politically redeemable but has he recieved any emails to the tune that we know he's a cynical shill whose shelved whatever he possessed of journalistic instincts for a fat(ter) paycheck?
I think you need to go back and see what Maddow was saying about Bush at the time. She is not uninformed and was on the beam with Bush's offenses to the tune of voicing the greater influences that controlled him. You cannot tell me she has never heard of the exact same type of offenses in the Kennedy case. We're post NDAA. She's obeying orders.
Your two-minute forty-five-second gun control essay on March 13 this year while intended to prevent further massacres unfortunately covers up the true nature of the murder of President Kennedy and subsequent decade of genocide in Southeast Asia.
You will benefit from the masterwork of scholarly peace activist James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. Oswald did not kill the president; he merely served the sponsors as a piñata to distract the citizens of America and the world from a sudden descent into mass murder and continental exploitation.
The irony is that you are a crusading journalist using conscience and morality rather than slavish obedience to the masters of the status quo who continue to trade in arms and drugs.
In the case of accusing a man who was framed with such forgeries as the "Backyard Photo" you display, and never fired the alleged murder weapon you cite, you serve those who continually arm proxy armies worldwide to prepare the economic battlefield for the colonial exploitation John F. Kennedy sought to end.
Please return to the search for truth and justice, and leave the caricature of the rabid dogmatist to O'Reilly and Matthews.
Magda Hassan Wrote:Beautifully said Phil. I hope she gets the chance to actually read it. And then read Douglass.
Thanks Phil.. I doubt she reads her email, or her inboxes on facebook where I contacted her a number of times on this case.
I will send her an email as well.
Maybe if a lot of people do she will.....decide to get a clue.
But we will not know as She is not gonna lose her job for the sake of jornalistic integrity
Dawn
