::: I am hypothesizing, not accusing. So what? Your hypoththesis is an insult to good people who know
something of honor - which you don't.
::: You mean like the attention that should be given to the cover-up of news about how many Iraqis were actually killed during the Gulf War? How about the integrity of CIA agents who consistently falsified estimates of "enemy strength" during the period 1965-1968 to make the intelligence community higher-ups feel they could present a case to the Pentagon that "we were winning the war"? Journalistic integrity has been a slave to the media and political hierarchies since time immemorial.
I'll critisize corruption wherever it may occur. But I'll let
someone other than Peter Arnet inform me of the facts of any
particular case. Maybe you recall the famous "We had to destroy the
village to save it" quoted that he claims to have come from an officer.
That comment did more to fuel the anti-war movement than any other one
thing during the Vietnam era. No officer near that village ever
admitted to saying it. Could be someone said it and wouldn't admit it.
Could be that Peter Arnet made it up. The latest CNN debacle shows
Arnet and his editors (if not the whole network) to be the
anti-military acitvists that they are.
::: I'm just guessing based on the data I have, just like everyone else.
Well you don't have the data anymore because CNN retracted the
story. Are you sticking to your hypothesis?
::: And you're a fundie, Stu, whose "nature" is to avoid conflicts about REAL INFORMATION in order to create bickering and personality quarrels, because you're AFRAID that if we get into an argument about FACTS, you'll LOSE EVERY TIME.
Sam, I don't know how much less factual you can be with this one and
you still declare victory. Have a nice victory party - assuming, of
course, that anyone shows up other than your buddy Bidstrup. This
wasn't a personality quarrel Sam. It was me calling you on a classic
leftist knee-jerk that was based on lies. You bought it hook, line, and
sinker and ran off with it. Let your future assertions, accusations or
hypothesis' be evaluated more carefully - that is if you care to
appear objective.
::: Read Douglas Valentine's THE PHOENIX PROGRAM. Valentine corroborates from numerous sources that the CIA used to take "deserters" and other renegades in Vietnam, and blackmail them into performing tough intelligence collecting missions, and then when the missions were over, the "deserters" would be snuffed out by the CIA. Thus the CNN report looks like nothing unusual within the context Valentine's informants describe.
So the CNN report could still be true because it sounds similar to
Valentine's discovery of a CIA conspiracy? Then we have a 50 - 50
chance of Valentine's story being a hoax too because CNN lied. Same
logic. The Valentine book looks like nothing unusual within the context
of CNN's fabrication. Check you sources carefully Sam.
Stuart Gort
