• 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.

"Cheney's Assassination Ring"

gdnp said:
The lack of oversight certainly raises the probability of abuse
Click to expand...

Presuming that there is a complete lack of oversight, of course. I am skeptical for a couple of reasons:
- As I mentioned earlier, JSOC has been around for nearly three decades, and its existence and even general org. structure is well known. If none of the Congressional committees (Intelligence, Armed Forces, etc.) have inquired about it in all that time, I'd be shocked. If the JSOC does report directly to the President and no one else, Congress is well aware of it.
- JSOC is actually subordinate to the larger USSOCOM in the organizational structure.
- This quote makes no sense:
It‘s a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody except in the Clinton, I mean, in the Bush/Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office.
Click to expand...

Uh.. they reported to nobody until the Bush administration? For 20+ years they were just a unit hanging out there, doing what they felt like?
 
Oliver said:
I have no opinion regarding the allegations yet, but since we will probably hear a lot more about it ...

Mr. Seymour Hersh claimed that the "Joint Special Operations Command" is/was secretly conducting assassinations around the world:



Olbermann reporting about the issue:

Click to expand...


When Hersch wrote "The Dark Side of Camelot" the libs reflexively condemned his well annotated account of JFK's disastrous 1000 day administration. If Hersch has the facts to back up his allegations about Cheney it is unlikely to result in any actions being taken against the guy. But how can Hersch possibly top the perfidy committed by the 35th President?

KO as the front man for Hersch's story has got to be the kiss of death for credibility. It would be like Gen. Edwin Walker hawking the "Myth Of Camelot."
 
leftysergent,

My main objection is to the fact that the unit was only answerable to a sociopath, and not monitored by any agency which might have to deal with the results of an operation gone sour.
Click to expand...

That is a very good point. The fact that Congress doesn't have oversight is also a serious problem


gdnp,

The lack of oversight certainly raises the probability of abuse
Click to expand...

Exactly


INRM
 
leftysergeant said:
My main objection is to the fact that the unit was only answerable to a sociopath, and not monitored by any agency which might have to deal with the results of an operation gone sour.
Click to expand...

INRM said:
That is a very good point. The fact that Congress doesn't have oversight is also a serious problem
Click to expand...

Fact? These aren't facts. These are allegations. Made by a reporter with a track record of major mistakes who admits that he tells lies when giving talks.
 
I can't believe someone still takes Hersh seriously. He broke some very important stories in the 1960s and 70s, but since then he had been taken for a ride by scam artists in just about every "shocking discovery" he claimed (e.g., the Kennedy files).
 
Skeptic said:
I can't believe someone still takes Hersh seriously. He broke some very important stories in the 1960s and 70s, but since then he had been taken for a ride by scam artists in just about every "shocking discovery" he claimed (e.g., the Kennedy files).
Click to expand...

Well, Hersh's 1997 "Dark Side Of Camelot," which had nothing to do about JFK's assassination, is well-documented. In order for a story abut "Cheney's Assassination Ring" to be legitimate, he had better be able to back up his accusations with facts as he did in his book on JFK.
 
Ziggurat said:
Are you sure we're talking about the same book?
Click to expand...

Epstein has a problem with Hersch because his material is not original, not because it is in error.


"For example, six of the eight major "secrets" Hersh cites in his opening chapter--Kennedy's undisclosed health problems, the secret negotiations during the Cuban missile crisis, the administration's plots to remove Fidel Castro, h! is extramarital affairs, campaign finance diversions and the taping system in the White House--can all be found, often in greater detail, clarity and perspective, in Richard Reeves' 1993 biography, "President Kennedy: Profile of Power."

And then he applauds Hersch for using discretion in his source material.

"To his credit, Hersh excluded that fraudulent documentation from his book."

So what did Hersch get wrong about the now well-known truths about Camelot and how JFK and zero intention of getting out of Southeast Asia?
 
Cicero said:
Epstein has a problem with Hersch because his material is not original, not because it is in error.
Click to expand...

Some of it most definitely was in error. Hersh had the good sense to pull the forgeries from his book just before publication, but not the good sense to spot them as such before writing it. But the objection to what remains is far more than it not being original, because in fact some of it was original. The fundamental problem is that what was original was not in the least bit reliable. That, ultimately, is the heart of Epstein's criticism, and it's hard to see how you missed that.

"To his credit, Hersh excluded that fraudulent documentation from his book."
Click to expand...

That's called a back-handed compliment, aka "damning with faint praise".
 
Ziggurat said:
Some of it most definitely was in error. Hersh had the good sense to pull the forgeries from his book just before publication, but not the good sense to spot them as such before writing it. But the objection to what remains is far more than it not being original, because in fact some of it was original. The fundamental problem is that what was original was not in the least bit reliable. That, ultimately, is the heart of Epstein's criticism, and it's hard to see how you missed that.



That's called a back-handed compliment, aka "damning with faint praise".
Click to expand...

Exactly what did Hersch get wrong about JFK? Sally Bedell Smith's 2004 "Grace & Power" even expands on the the Camelot myths that Hersch/Reeves merely scratched at the surface. Not reliable? Do you think the Arthur Schlessinger and Ted Sorenson account of JFK's life and presidency are reliable? Please.

Is your beef with Hersch because as an investigative journalist, he couldn't resist some sensationalism, or because he took on the JFK myth?

There isn't a biographer, historian, or investigative journalist whose books couldn't be subjected to the same criticisms that Epstein applies to "Darkside Of Camelot," including Epstein's own 1966 "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth."
 
Cicero said:
Is your beef with Hersch because as an investigative journalist, he couldn't resist some sensationalism, or because he took on the JFK myth?
Click to expand...

If you think I'm trying to stick up for JFK, you're barking up the wrong tree. I could give a damn about the JFK myth. It's not only Hersh's sensationalism that should give one pause, but the combination of his gullibility (he wasn't the one who figured out those JFK papers were forgeries), his use of anonymous and unreliable sources, and his penchant for implying far more than his evidence actually indicates. He is simply not reliable. And the JFK incident isn't the only one to indicate this.
 
People... don't believe nonsense.

The JSOC's primary task is:

to study special operations requirements and techniques to ensure interoperability and equipment standardization, plan and conduct special operations exercises and training, and develop Joint Special Operations Tactics.
Click to expand...

It's a friggen training unit. And it reports to the Secretary of Defense, not the VP.

They have normal command over three special units, however they have no covert operational authority, and when those units are deployed they're assigned to a task force under a Major Command.

If there's any special unit doing this sort of thing it would be the CIA's Special Activities Division, and they have some of the most stringent oversight of any government department. Their activities are overseen by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
 
Ziggurat said:
If you think I'm trying to stick up for JFK, you're barking up the wrong tree. I could give a damn about the JFK myth. It's not only Hersh's sensationalism that should give one pause, but the combination of his gullibility (he wasn't the one who figured out those JFK papers were forgeries), his use of anonymous and unreliable sources, and his penchant for implying far more than his evidence actually indicates. He is simply not reliable. And the JFK incident isn't the only one to indicate this.
Click to expand...

But unlike Dan Rather, who relied on obvious forgeries for his entire Bush 43 National Guard story, Hersch did not use the Lawrence Cusack Kennedy papers in "Darkside," and his mention of the Monroe connection to JFK is minimal.

Hersch is a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist and author when he takes on the My Lai Massacre, Abu Ghraib prison, and a Cheney/Rumsfeld conspiracy about Iraq, but when he goes after JFK it is just a hiccup in his credibility?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom