After Iran-Contra and the Bay of Pigs why was this considered an outlandish conspiracy theory?

This whole incident is a damning illustration how our media casts
the small businessman as a villain and ignores the role of
entrepreneurial activities in revitalizing America's cities.

Holy crap.

Iran and Turkey are shelling northern Iraq.

Kevin:

"theorish"

You rock, baby :)

Bob

We all know how quickly the main stream media gets on the ball when it comes to the myriad of UN scandals.

If it's CIA-contra-cocaine conspiracies you're looking for, check out,

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

and search for 'Brent Wilkes' and 'Dusty Foggo'.

"All three major U.S. dailies, The Times included, debunked a claim that Webb actually never made — that the CIA deliberately unleashed the crack epidemic on black America."

Why would America's first black president order the CIA to unleash a crack epidemic on black America?

This is pretty much what happened with CBS/Rather on aWol's being AWOL. Once a trivial problem was uncovered the media moved on, ignoring the fact that portions of his military obligation were blown off.

Speaking of moving on, last night CNN was all over the bogus story of the guy who claims to have snuffed the little girl. Did they cover anything else at all between 8 and 11?

Freedom Fighter:

You obviously can't read. I hear Hooked on Phonics is helpful.

Diputo:

Yet another argument for moving the bulk of our forces currently in Iraq into Kurdistan, something I've been arguing should be the Democrats' stated position for weeks.

I'm totally with Holbrooke and Galbraith on that.

Bob

Dems can never beat Voter Vault and, if necessitated by unforeseen factors, Diebold.

We are all screwed.

Hedley:

That's exactly the pattern, yes. Sunff an important story that's true in its overall point by wailing on a few peripheral details.

Notice that they're not doing that very thing too aggressively on Nancy Grace with this new wannabe celebrity murderer, though ...

Gee ... I wonder why?

Bob

But for some reason this was too conspiracy theorish for the American press.

No, it was too good of journalism for the rest of the American press, so they invented a strawman conspiracy theory to shoot down to discredit it, lest it raise the bar.

People always forget that Kerry conducted a Senate investigation that uncovered the same CIA involvement in drug trafficking that Webb found 10 YEARS BEFORE THE SACRAMENTO BEE PUBLISHED HIS STORY. He was a fresh junior Senator at the time, and was mocked by pols and the press for looking into something that was regarded as absurdly preposterous. As soon as he uncovered legit information that supported the idea our government was involved in drug trafficking, he was whisked off the investigation by more tenured colleagues, and the predictable white-wash followed. Here is Salon's recounting of the investigation:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/25/contra/index.html

I find it frustrating and depressing that Webb was so quickly dismissed in 1996, when information about what he found was already in the public record from *10*!!! years previous. If that happened today, I would like to think that the lefty or whole blogosphere would run a campaign on ombudsman/women similar to the one where Deborah Howell was flayed for stating that Abramoff's clients gave as much to Democrats as Republicans. All you have to do is scratch the surface of the CIA/Drug cartel story to see that the press's dismissal of the story was wholly unmerited.

cmdicely:

A quibbling point, but I would have written "it was journalism too good" instead of "too good of journalism."

Bob

Yet another argument for moving the bulk of our forces currently in Iraq into Kurdistan, something I've been arguing should be the Democrats' stated position for weeks.

I thought the whole point of moving US troops to N. Iraq was because of the supposed calm there.

I'm not interested in moving US troops out of the frying pan of Baghdad into the fire of Kurdistan.

It was all for the greater good, you see.

Yes, drug-dealing, goose-stepping Contras were very much gooder than those awful, lefty-pinkish Sandinistas.

Chavez you are next!

mhr:

Being in bed with drug traffickers is not tantamount to "deliberately unleashing the crack epidemic."

Besides which, crack itself has nothing to do with the coke dealing regimes in Central America. Crack's just a cocaine delivery system -- a way to freebase with baking soda that anybody could have come up with -- and doubtless many did simultaneously.

Sure as hell a lot safer than using ether a la Richard Pryor ...

Bob

See... this is how my boy got his cocaine... see?
It wasn't illegal at all see.

Disputo:

Kurdistan is one of the most pro-US regions in the world, let alone the Middle East. That's absolutely a big reason for that suggestion, yes. We'd relieve the pressure on force protection to a huge degree.

And the Kurds would also tolerate us reining in their extremist groups (the PKK are unreconstructed Commies and so not Islamic), and Turkey -- our staunch ally -- would certainly appreciate it.

Getting in between those brother Kurds over a border dispute would be like umpiring Little League compared to being in the thick of it between Sunnis and Shia.

Bob

rmck1:

A quibbling point, but I would have written "Fake Al" so as not to include such identifying, telltale, dead-giveaway, peculiar formatting.

It would be nice to see Webb's reputation rehabilitated. It would be even nicer if he was still alive to see it happen. At the end, he was such an outcast as a journalist that he could barely make a living.

I thought the whole point of moving US troops to N. Iraq was because of the supposed calm there.

Well, its calm in that Iraqis aren't killing eachother as much.

Getting in between those brother Kurds over a border dispute

The border dispute isn't between "brother Kurds".

cmdicely:

Good point -- shit, what a brainfart. It's between the Kurds of the border region and the Turkish (and Iranian) government(s) ...

Okay, more intractible than ref-ing a Little League game.

But still probably more availing of a solution than what's going on currently between the Sunnis and Shia in Baghdad.

Bob

Kurdistan is one of the most pro-US regions in the world

Getting in between those brother Kurds over a border dispute would be like umpiring Little League compared to being in the thick of it between Sunnis and Shia.

Yeah, they'll probably "welcome us with open arms and greet us with flowers."

Everyone is pro-US until we send in the troops.

Look, I also thought this was an idea worth considering -- until I heard that Turkey and *Iran* are attacking Kurdistan. Now it is sounding more like another no-win situation for us. Do we really want to go running about the mts looking for PKK? And if not, will Turkey lay off the attacks? Will Iran? And won't our presense there just stimulate the PKK in its recruitment and give them another target? And then of course there are all the human rights abuses the majority Kurds are perpetrating against the minority Turkmen and Arabs. Will we just sit by and watch, or get involved? Or perhaps we will just garrison ourselves, like we already have done in Iraq?

No. This has "bad idea" written all over it.

I'm sure Kevin just forgot to mention that Webb is no longer with us.

Remember back a few years ago when Robert Scheer wrote a column in the LA Times that basically relayed reports from the BBC that the US had fabricated a whole action-adventure story around the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch? Victoria Clarke (the beloved Tori of memory) labeled Scheer's column a "tirade," and in a letter to The Times wrote that "Scheer's claims are outrageous, patently false and unsupported by the facts."

Too bad it all turned out to be true. Still by that time, Scheer had been relegated to the "shrill" file by many who damn well should've known better. We've all got to get over our instinctive reactions to the unthinkable, that "they couldn't be that bad."

Disputo:

I don't know; I'm not convinced.

What I *do* know is that we need to get out of Anbar, and we need to get out of Baghdad.

And we also need to keep an eye on any power vaccuum that might allow a base to train global jihadis to spring up a la Afghanistan.

I'm not saying moving to Kurdistan is some kind of miracle solution. No doubt it has all the drawbacks you mention -- including a potential confrontation with Iran.

But I do think at this moment it would be a better idea than the status quo.

Bob

Kevin Drum: Sometimes, you see, even the most outlandish conspiracy theories turn out to be true.

Yeah, that's the scary thing about them. "Conspiracy theory" is sometimes just a label to justify putting it in the circular file without real investigation. Remember when the press actually competed to break stories?

Ohio, anyone?

Look, I also thought this was an idea worth considering -- until I heard that Turkey and *Iran* are attacking Kurdistan.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. For years Iran, Syria, and Turkey have been discussing the problems they have with Kurds, and looking for joint solutions, especially to their common problem of Kurdish opponents of each regime seeking safe haven in Iraqi Kurdistan.

I said:

Look, I also thought this was an idea worth considering -- until I heard that Turkey and *Iran* are attacking Kurdistan.

cmdicely responded:

This shouldn't surprise anyone. For years Iran, Syria, and Turkey have been discussing the problems they have with Kurds, and looking for joint solutions, especially to their common problem of Kurdish opponents of each regime seeking safe haven in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Agreed. I should have been more specific in noting that Iran and Turkey are attacking Northern Iraq.

I am not surprised that US ally Turkey is persuing Kurds into N Iraq; I am, however, surprised that they are shelling N. Iraq and displacing the local population -- ie, destablizing their ally's experiment in democracy building (perhaps they were hoping that with the chaos in the rest of Iraq, no one would notice).

I am also surprised that US enemy Iran is giving the US a pretex to attack them (not that the US needs one).

Too bad there wasn't an Arkansas land deal involved somehow.

Thanks for this post, Kevin. In spite of what your trolls want to believe, Republicans have been engaged in a low-level war against the poor, working and middle classes ever since, well, approximately 1865.

"All three major U.S. dailies, The Times included, debunked a claim that Webb actually never made — that the CIA deliberately unleashed the crack epidemic on black America."

Why would America's first black president order the CIA to unleash a crack epidemic on black America?"

WTF? Are you truly this stupid? The crack epidemic was during the '80's, when your Saint Ronnie was president and selling missiles to the new Hitler. Clinton didn't become President until 1992. You might remember that, because right around that time, crime levels started to drop.

Yeah, people went to jail for this shit and we're still arguing about it. If Mr. Smith went to Washington today, he'd have to carry an Uzi.

Congrats, Kevin, it's good to see you acknowledging the reality of "conspiracy theories". There is hope for you. CIA involvement in the drug trade, however, did not begin with the Contras. It goes back to WW2. Probably the best overall history of the thing is

The Politics of Heroin by Alfred McCoy

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1556524838/sr=8-1/qid=1155929974/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2622487-2890344?ie=UTF8

Specifically, on CIA involvement with LSD, perhaps the most colorful part of this epic, is

Acid Dreams, by Lee and Shalin

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802130623/qid=1155930107/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-2622487-2890344?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Let us keep in mind that while the Webb story was running, the most popular TV show in America was the X-files, a show that deliberately conflated reasonable and unreasonable ideas to create a complex fabric, the point of which was to enjoy it as an aesthetic object while uttering rejecting all the ideas it treated. The 90's was the time of the pop culture rejection of "conspiracy theory" that is crippling dissent to this day.

Some of the links in the Umansky article are out of date. The current location of the Contra portion of the Kerry Committee report is at http://www.pinknoiz.com/covert/contracoke.html. A scan of North's notebook with the reference to the DC-6 they knew was being used for drug runs is at http://www.pinknoiz.com/covert/dc6notes.html.

I am not surprised that US ally Turkey is persuing Kurds into N Iraq; I am, however, surprised that they are shelling N. Iraq and displacing the local population

Since early on in the occupation there were big todos over other Turkish military incursions in Northern Iraq -- and Turkish hit squads sent into Iraq to kill people they thought were linked to the PKK, including some, IIRC, that were also working with the US -- this still shouldn't be a surprised. Turkey has been fighting a war with the PKK for a lot longer than the US has been fighting with al-Qaeda, and their going to be dealing with the situation in the region long after the US gets tired of bleeding in Iraq. Our transitory policy interests aren't going to constrain their action much unless they directly inhibit their capacity.

Many of the same considerations, with details and parties changed, apply to Iran; and its not like there is much of a credible marginal threat there.

It would be nice to see Webb's reputation rehabilitated. It would be even nicer if he was still alive to see it happen. At the end, he was such an outcast as a journalist that he could barely make a living.
Posted by: rporter

That is the true crime here, perhaps even above and beyond the pathetic infighting amongst the press.

Well, the American editor knows his first duty- to make the readers feel good about themselves. Neither of the Seattle dailies are carrying any stories about how the latest terror threat is deflating quicker than a carnival balloon, nor are they reporting that the English Deputy PM called Bush 'crap'.

The CIA connection is interesting because they helped set up the Turkey-Marseilles-US ("French Connection") smuggling, the Golden Triangle smuggling, the Central American and Colombian cocaine trades, and the new opium Muslim trade route that runs from Afghanistan through Kosovo into Europe.

Smugglers, naturally, are usually not too choosy about what they smuggle, and my guess is that if something really bad is ever smuggled in, it will probably come on one of the drug-smuggling highways of crime. Seems pretty inevitable to me if Americans continue to live in a dreamworld and ignore what we do to the other people in the real world.

Americans voted for Republicans and terrorists killed Americans.

During 2000-2001, it was President George W. Bush's "most solemn duty" to protect the USA from enemy attack.

As the three thousand murders and the billions of dollars in damage incurred show, President George W. Bush FUCT up.

Then, in direct response the that failure to do that "most solemn duty", President George W. Bush INADVERTENTLY fathered a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic in Iraq which has extremely close and long standing ties to Iran which President George W. Bush deemed an `axis of evil', a country whose leader has denied the systemic liquidation of 6 million Jews and has vowed to `wipe Israel off the map'.

Vote for GOP = Vote for Extremist Mullahs of Tehran

Keywords: President George W. Bush; Iran; Islamic fundamentalism; Islamic fascism; 9/11; Iraq; democracy in the middle east; Al Dawa; Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq; stay the course; Vice President Cheney; GOP leaders; Republicans; Donald Rumsfeld; al-Qaeda; Bush Doctrine

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's fundamentalist Islamic Republic

WTF?

Keywords: President George W. Bush; Iran; Islamic fundamentalism; Islamic fascism; 9/11; Iraq; democracy in the middle east; Al Dawa; Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq; stay the course; Vice President Cheney; GOP leaders; Republicans; Donald Rumsfeld; al-Qaeda; Bush Doctrine

Too little tooo for the ASSHOLES at the LATimes

quoting:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/120905.html

Webb then shot himself in the head, though the first shot was not lethal, so he fired once more. His body was found the next day after movers arrived and followed the instructions from the note on the door.

Webb’s suicide offered the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times one more opportunity to set matters right, to revisit the CIA’s admissions in 1998 and to exact some accountability on the Reagan-Bush officials implicated in protecting the contra crimes.

But all that followed Gary Webb’s death was more trashing of Gary Webb. The Los Angeles Times ran a graceless obituary that treated Webb like a low-life criminal, rather than a journalist who took on a tough story and paid a high price. The Times obituary was republished in other newspapers, including the Washington Post.

Later, on March 16, 2005, Los Angeles Times writer Tina Daunt produced a lengthy feature piece about Webb’s death, covering three pages. But again the tone was derisive of Webb personally and dismissive of his work.

While going into detail about Webb’s suicide and into criticism of Webb’s career, the article showed no indication that Daunt had read either the CIA’s two-volume report or another report by the Justice Department’s inspector general. Both reports took swings at Webb, but contained stunning disclosures about both the government’s knowledge of contra-cocaine trafficking and obstructions of drug investigations.

No evaluation of Webb’s work could be complete – or fair – without explaining the CIA’s findings.

For instance, if Daunt had cited the CIA’s conclusion that scores of contra operatives and drug lords had exploited their cozy relationship with the Reagan-Bush administration to smuggle cocaine into the United States, then carping about details of Webb’s original series would seem absurd and even offensive.

Or, if Daunt wanted to mount a serious critique of Webb’s work, she still would have needed to evaluate what was in the government reports, particularly the most exhaustive part known as Volume II of the CIA’s contra-cocaine investigation.

Instead, Daunt devoted just one paragraph to the CIA report and then misrepresented the findings. She wrote: “Almost as a postscript, the CIA concluded a 17-month investigation in 1998, stating that it found no evidence that the U.S.-supported Nicaraguan rebels of the 1980s received significant financial support from drug traffickers.”

So, with that inaccurate description of the CIA’s own admissions, the Los Angeles Times pulled a final curtain around Gary Webb’s work and life. But the curtain was just as much a way to conceal an ugly chapter of modern American history and of the Big Three’s failure to fulfill their duty to the public.....

Though Hitz’s report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers.

Two days after Hitz’s report was posted at the CIA’s Internet site, the New York Times did a brief article that continued to deride Webb’s work, while acknowledging that the contra-drug problem may indeed have been worse than earlier understood. Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA’s Volume Two.

here's a 1998 interview with Parry and Webb

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0343224

Jim Strain: US had fabricated a whole action-adventure story around the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch?

None of their anti-American PSYOP imagery has withstood even the slightest amount of scrutiny.

Remember PSYOP's stenographer Fred Kaplan?

Toppled National styles of pulling down statues.
Fred Kaplan
As I write this, 100 or so Iraqis are gathered in Baghdad's Firdos Square, trying to tear down an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein .... A couple of American Abrams tanks are loitering about; they could topple the thing in a minute, but they seem disinclined, for the moment—leaving the task, as they should, to the Iraqis.

U.S. military, not Iraqis, behind toppling of statue
By David Zucchino
Los Angeles Times

[snip]
As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, U.S. Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein.

It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said.

And it was a quick-thinking Army PSYOP team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.

Ultimately, a Marine recovery vehicle toppled the statue with a chain, but the effort appeared to be Iraqi-inspired because the PSYOP team had managed to pack the vehicle with cheering Iraqi children.

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argument when the subject turned t