A Simple Question

[Jan Klimkowski]

"Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved ... "

Ed, et al,

First, Ed, thanks for your participation in the Deep Politics Forum.

In re the above quote: The memo amounts to a very subtle, very clever act of misdirection insofar as it has been concocted as an innocent explanation for the motivation behind this document in particular and significant aspects of the larger cover-up in general.

Implied: The "conspiracists" are liars and/or dupes, but they'r hurting our beloved Homeland, they are our enemies, and our sacred duty is to destroy them.

I'm not a JFK scholar, and bow to the accumulated decades of meticulous research of many here.

However, I have spent over 20 years of my own dealing with and investigating PR machines.

My interpretation of the document, which I've read many times over the years, is that it reads as a high level, insider, media strategy document.

With many supposed insider documents (Torbitt being an example), there are little glitches which make one pause for thought as to the authenticity of the whole. This document is entirely coherent and, on a textual basis, appears genuine.

Back in the days when media outlets were few, the spooks realized their job was not to influence the masses, but to influence a few strategically-placed "opinion formers". The superficially rational, reasonable, gambits which the document suggests that the hired hands are to employ to persuade or convince the opinion formers ring entirely true.

Of course, if things became too hot, or an opinion former became dangerously independent, there were always nastier means (violence against family, blackmail, murder of key witness) that could be employed to control the story...

[Charles Drago]

No conflict in our interpretations, Jan.

I don't know if I've ever mentioned this, but one of the great, early lessons I learned about the secret world was taught by the late Bud Fensterwald.

Every intel op worth the name has at least two objectives.

[Jan Klimkowski]

No conflict in our interpretations, Jan.

Absolutely none intended. I agree that they're complementary.

I don't know if I've ever mentioned this, but one of the great, early lessons I learned about the secret world was taught by the late Bud Fensterwald.

Every intel op worth the name has at least two objectives.

A thought-provoking observation.

[Charles Drago]

It is, isn't it?

You might enjoy going through the exercise that I've undertaken regularly since that bit of wisdom was imparted.

Whenever an intel op appears on your intellectual radar screen, try to determine if Fensterwald's First Law applies.

You'll be ... entertained.