• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bill Christison - gone in for CT

jon

Muse
J
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
897
Just been e-mailed re. this article - http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm Apparently Bill Christison has come out as part of the '9/11 truth movement'. He just rehashes the standard claims (though he writes more clearly than most). Any thoughts about why he would have suddenly bought into this...?

Thanks,

Jon
 
jon said:
Just been e-mailed re. this article - http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm Apparently Bill Christison has come out as part of the '9/11 truth movement'. He just rehashes the standard claims (though he writes more clearly than most). Any thoughts about why he would have suddenly bought into this...?

Thanks,

Jon
Click to expand...

It's a pity, since he's written some good stuff on US foreign policy.

Saw this rant of his last night, and I am appalled at how he's been duped.

He oughta know better.

DR
 
Yeah, looks like he's a bright guy who's just rehashing the same old, silly, falsified theories. You do wonder why. His e-mail is on the article - I'd presume he's already had a few e-mails querying what he's doing, though....
 
My first guess (after checking out the site) is Bush Derangement Syndrome. I think a lot of people, despite normal skepticism of the claims, are hopping on board the bandwagon in the hopes that this will be the way they get rid of Bush prior to January 2009. How deluded does one have to be to offer three cheers for Webster Tarpley, the longtime spokesman for the LaRouchies?
 
If he really was a former upper echelon CIA official and he's spouting this bilge, then I guess we now know exactly who was responsible for the intelligence failures that let Al-Queada slip through.
 
I sent him a long email with lots of resources, and offered to go over each of the claims in detail.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
If he really was a former upper echelon CIA official and he's spouting this bilge, then I guess we now know exactly who was responsible for the intelligence failures that let Al-Queada slip through.
Click to expand...
Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. Since then he has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies. He can be reached at: kathy.bill@christison-santafe.com.

Not even a nice try, Sword, you know "exactly" squat.

Bill C. retired in 1979. Al Q didn't get off the ground until after the mujahadeen wrapped up their fun and games in Afghanistan. That's in the 80's.

Osama got tossed out of Saudi, exiled to Sudan about '93.

Bill C is not the only spook who resigned, fought within the Beltway, spoke to reporters in "deep cover" or wrote a book in the last 5 years over the bitter disputes between Langley and elsewhere in DC.

DR
 
I will concede that I didn't read his bio.

But if he's so incompetent that he can't fact check a mindless piece of swill like loose change, then one can assume his employment in the field of "intelligence" was nothing less than a national disaster.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I will concede that I didn't read his bio.

But if he's so incompetent that he can't fact check a mindless piece of swill like loose change, then one can assume his employment in the field of "intelligence" was nothing less than a national disaster.
Click to expand...
I suggest you're engaging in an ad homenim attack on a man whose work you have not read. Like a lot of old farts, including the retired generals vs RUmsfeld recently, he has his axe to grind, and his view of how the world "should be" but he's had some experience to back it up.

Sorry to be so curt to you. I intend to email him and ask him to pull his endorsement for Loose Change. It hurts his credibility.

He is of a similar mind with Mearsheimer and Walt that undue influence of AIPAC specifically, and "the Israeli Lobby" in Washington has induced some bad policy making for a few decades.

He and his wife have written some good pieces about Far Eastern Affairs that are well worth your time to read.

DR
 
I trust any replies received will be posted or at least summarized here? :o
 
It's not an ad hominem if the man simply refuses to do his job. Fact checking is the basis of his professional carreer, yet he endorses "loose change" without so much as a word on the volumes of information debunking it that can be found on the net?

There are certain occupations who by the knowledge they must posses simply know that these nonsensical theories are wrong right off the bat. This is why to this day no structural engineers have signed on with the truthers. Mr Christison, being a former high ranking CIA officer, would know more than anyone the sheer size that an operation to fake 9-11 would have to be and the fact that it would be virtually unconcealable if not impossible to execute.

That this didn't occur to him before he put his name behind LC reflects very poorly on his competence in his field of expertise.

Even the best of us make mistakes, however. And if Mr. Christison is as good as you say, then I look forward to reading his retraction and apology.
 
I like the comment "so-called conspiracy theories". They are theories about a conspiracy, how can anyone deny they are conspiracy theories? Whether they're right or not is a different matter, but that doesn't change what they are.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
That this didn't occur to him before he put his name behind LC reflects very poorly on his competence in his field of expertise.

Even the best of us make mistakes, however. And if Mr. Christison is as good as you say, then I look forward to reading his retraction and apology.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. His field of expertise was intelligence work. His current position, whcih when you figure he retired over 25 years ago, is as writer, commentator, and at this point, political activist of a sort. He's been at that for 20 years now.

So, his motivations, based on his experiences, are not "intelligence" oriented, but policy oriented, and thus politically oriented.

The problem with the experiences he had "in the saddle" is that over time, some of it is perishable as world events, leaders, and personalities change. The decision to induce change in the Mid East at the point of a bayonet was met with a lot of internal opposition. Colin Powell lost three, IIRC, senior leaders in the State Department over it, as an example. A lot of the internal "this is a bad idea" was undertaken discretely. What we saw in the media, regarding the disaffection some military, state, and intelligence opposition to a poor strategy was, I pomise you, the tip of the iceberg.

I was on active duty at the time, and I saw an immense risk, strategically, in the Persian Gulf of weakening Iraq, since it would embolden Iran, who has been our real enemy in the Gulf, at the nation state level, since 1979. I wasn't the only guy who saw that.

I was also one of those guys who heard President Bush's comments on "Axis of Evil" with Iran, Iraq and North Korea and wondered "who the hell is writing this crap for him?"

I was one of the guys, among many, who heard his deliberate use of the word "Crusade" in his comments in re the Mid East, and wondered: who is writing this crap?

So, while BC is of a different generation in service to US foreign policy than I am, I have a strong sense of where he is coming from.

Plenty of decisions in Washington seem counter intuitive. When Clinton chose to bomb Serbia, I was one of many who asked "who the hell (I am sure it was some Air Force sorts) convinced him that this is going to work in the long term?"

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom