Oliver Stone agrees: The Maidan Square riots were just another CIA coup.

[another_liberal]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NH Ethylene (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Some of us have been suggesting all along that the violent riots in Kiev which led to President Yanokovich being forced from office were stage-managed by our country's intelligence agencies. Now noted film maker, Oliver Stone, has reached the same conclusion. Perhaps when the documentary he's currently working on is released a few more will begin to see how they have been fooled by our own government's lies and propaganda?

Protesters build a barricade on February 21, 2014 at the Independence Square in Kiev (AFP)


'CIA fingerprints’ all over Kiev massacre – Oliver Stone


The armed coup in Kiev is painfully similar to CIA operations to oust unwanted foreign leaders in Iran, Chile and Venezuela, said US filmmaker Oliver Stone after interviewing Ukraine’s ousted president for a documentary. Stone spent four hours in Moscow talking to Viktor Yanukovich, who was deposed from power during the February 2014 coup, the filmmaker wrote on his Facebook page.

“Details to follow in the documentary, but it seems clear that the so-called ‘shooters’ who killed 14 police men, wounded some 85, and killed 45 protesting civilians, were outside third party agitators,” he said. “Many witnesses, including Yanukovych and police officials, believe these foreign elements were introduced by pro-Western factions – with CIA fingerprints on it.” The filmmaker added that the events in Kiev, which led to collapse of the Ukrainian government and imposition of a new one hostile towards Russia, were similar to those in other countries, which he called “America’s soft power technique called ‘Regime Change 101’.”

Historically those were CIA-perpetrated coups against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973 – both leaders with policies undesired by Washington or its allies. More recently there was the 2002 coup in Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez was briefly deposed “after pro and anti-Chavez demonstrators were fired upon by mysterious shooters in office buildings” and the anti-government protests against Chavez’s successor Nicolas Maduro, which “was almost toppled by violence aimed at anti-Maduro protestors,” as Stone put it.

“A dirty story through and through, but in the tragic aftermath of this coup, the West has maintained the dominant narrative of ‘Russia in Crimea’ whereas the true narrative is ‘USA in Ukraine.’ The truth is not being aired in the West,” Stone wrote. “It’s a surreal perversion of history that’s going on once again, as in Bush pre-Iraq ‘WMD’ campaign. But I believe the truth will finally come out in the West, I hope, in time to stop further insanity.”


(snip)

Read more, and view videos of Maidan riots, at: http://rt.com/news/218899-stone-kiev-massacre-cia/

[hack89]

1. RT and Oliver Stone - a match made in heaven. Nt

[MattSh]

65. Maybe you'd like to suggest something else? n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. If you can't believe everything to come out of Hollywood, what can you believe?

[Scootaloo]

4. Well, it's not as if there's well-documented precedent or anything...

Let's be honest. Anyone who isn't suspicious of the CIA just isn't paying any fucking attention. Or is so lost in the Jingoistic Dittoverse that they might as well be regarded as furniture. Tacky furniture.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. And Oliver Stone has almost as long a history of being a tool.

And Putin has a history of manipulating nations against the will of their people, even violently so.

These facts are just as plausible and more in evidence.

And the CIA is accused of things that haven't done just as often as they have been accused of things they have done. They're an easy foil for "why things didn't got the way I hoped."

Blaming someone for something they didn't do leaves the real perpetrator to go free. Moreover, if the person being accused is guilty of other misdeeds than the continuous stream of false accusations allows them to discredit their accusers as cranks. Let's not give the CIA an easy out.

[Scootaloo]

17. If "being a tool" is grounds for dismissal, we ought to just roll up DU and go home

Oh no, the CIA couldn't be behind the overthrow of a democracy in Iran.
Oh no, the CIA couldn't be behind the training of torture regimes around the world.
No, of course the CIA wasn't involved in Indonesia
Or Pakistan
or Iraq
or Chile
Or Cuba
Or Brazil
Or Argentina

...Shall I go on?

I really see no reason to give the CIA the benefit of any doubt.

This does not let Russia's intelligencia off the hook in the least, unlike in your fairytale jingoistic bullshit land where one must always be right all the time and the other always wrong all the time. It's as if you aren't able to conceive of two powerful nations both jerking around a lesser in order to squeeze advantage over the other.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. I nowhere implied the CIA had nothing to be held to account for.

However, the KGB also has a long history of destabilizing and overthrowing nations, torturing dissidents, assassinations, training terrorists organizations, etc. The KGB is not a force for good or even a neutral counterweight to the CIA. It is as much a part of the Russian MIC as the CIA is for the US. It is just as self-interested and many times more ruthless.

The KGB is just as likely, if not more so, to be agitating events in Ukraine but it's odd they are either ignored or excused.

[Scootaloo]

69. You kinda did, actually...

And the CIA is accused of things that haven't done just as often as they have been accused of things they have done. They're an easy foil for "why things didn't got the way I hoped."

Blaming someone for something they didn't do leaves the real perpetrator to go free

Interestingly no one suggested the KGB is a "force for good" or a "neutral balance to the CIA."

All that was said was that the CIA may have been involved in Maidan.

[MattSh]

66. And Putin has a history of manipulating nations against the will of their people, even violently so?

Oh do tell oh wise one...

[hobbit709]

3. you just won't quit, will you?

[another_liberal]

5. If what I'm posting bothers you and perhaps even makes you think . . .

My goal is being achieved.

[hobbit709]

7. My goal has been achieved too.

[another_liberal]

12. Good for you . . .

Isn't it wonderful to realize success?


BTW: Have a great New Year!

[brooklynite]

6. If someone ran an anti-Obama story from FR, they'd likely get tombstoned...

...but apparently RT is okay.

[another_liberal]

11. Are President Obama and the CIA one and the same now?

I had not heard that yet. How fascinating.


(yes, sarcasm)

[brooklynite]

16. Last time I checked, the CIA was an Executive Branch agency...

...and President Obama appointed the CIA Head.

So, either President Obama is an idiot who can't see what the CIA is doing

Or, President Obama is too chicken to taken on "rogue elements" in the CIA who don't follow Administration policy

Or, President Obama knows exactly what they're doing and supports them.

Which one is it?

[Scootaloo]

18. Last I checked, the CIA was piping food up prisoner's asses and getting called "patriots" for it

What do you make of that?

[brooklynite]

23. Last time I checked, those actions occurred during the Bush Administration...

But we're talking about an action alleged to have happened during the Obama Administration. So, I repeat my question: Is the President a dupe, a wimp, or a collaborator?

[grasswire]

56. excellent question nt

[Scootaloo]

70. And the crime goes unpunished, even commended, by President obama

And if you think his ban on "some" methods of torture slows down the pace of the CIA's use of it, you're a fool.

He could be all three. There's a few other options out there as well, I'm sure. I don't know which, or what combination. But the CIA tortures people and President Obama gives it a pat on the ass and calls 'em "patriots" for doing it.

Not all of us make an exception for torture because the victims are Muslims, Brooklynite.

[MattSh]

67. Well, it's better than most USA media...

That's got to count for something...

[pampango]

9. People protesting the reversal of a major foreign/economic policy. That must be a CIA plot.

Yanukovych had campaigned for president in 2010 on a platform of integration with Europe. Throughout 2013 his government steps to achieve that goal by November 29 when the Association Agreement with the EU was to be signed at a conference in Lithuania. As the date approached Yanukovych started to back pedal (although he also issued statements of a continued commitment to integration with Europe) under pressure from Russia.

To coordinate preparation of Ukraine for European integration, the Government of Ukraine adopted a Plan on Priority Measures for European Integration of Ukraine for 2013. Successful implementation of the plan was assumed to be one of the conditions necessary for signing of the Association Agreement, planned for 29 November 2013 during the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius.

In March 2013, Stefan Fuele, the EU's Commissioner for Enlargement, informed the European Parliament that while Ukrainian authorities had given their "unequivocal commitment" to address the issues raised by the EU, several "disturbing" recent incidents, including the annulment of Tymoshenko's lawyer Serhiy Vlasenko's mandate in the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's parliament), could delay the signing of the agreements. However, the next day the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its optimism that they would still be signed in November.

On 7 April 2013 a decree by President Yanukovych freed Lutsenko from prison and exempted him, and his fellow Minister in the second Tymoshenko Government Heorhiy Filipchuk, from further punishment.

On 3 September 2013, at the opening session of the Verkhovna Rada after the summer recess, President Yanukovych urged his parliament to adopt laws so that Ukraine would meet the EU criteria and be able to sign the Association Agreement in November 2013.

On 18 September the Ukrainian cabinet unanimously approved the draft association agreement.

On 25 September 2013 Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Volodymyr Rybak stated that he was sure that his parliament would pass all the laws needed to fit the EU criteria for the Association Agreement since, except for the Communist Party of Ukraine, "the Verkhovna Rada has united around these bills". ... the EU's Commissioner for Enlargement, Stefan Fuele, stated he expected that the Verkhovna Rada would the next day consider and adopt the remaining bills necessary for the signing of the association agreement, planned for 29 November 2013.

The European Parliament's monitoring mission in Ukraine stated (also on 21 November 2013) that there was still a possibility to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. The same day Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych stated "an alternative for reforms in Ukraine and an alternative for European integration do not exist...We are walking along this path and are not changing direction".

In the following days, Euromaidan, the biggest protests since the Orange Revolution, were being held in Kiev by opposition parties. On 26 November 2013 the Ukrainian Government admitted that Russia had asked it to delay signing the EU association agreement and that it "wanted better terms for the EU deal". "As soon as we reach a level that is comfortable for us, when it meets our interests, when we agree on normal terms, then we will be talking about signing," President Yanukovych stated in a televised interview. The same day Russian President Vladimir Putin called for an end to the criticism of the Ukrainian decision to delay the association agreement, and that the EU deal was bad for Russia's security interests. Putin was responding to statements by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, that had stated they "strongly disapproved" of Russia's actions. On 26 November 2013 Prime Minister Azarov stated during a government meeting "I affirm with full authority that the negotiating process over the Association Agreement is continuing, and the work on moving our country closer to European standards is not stopping for a single day". President Yanukovych still attended the 28–29 November EU summit in Vilnius but the Association Agreement was not signed. During this summit the European Union and Ukraine initialed an Air Services Agreement. Also during the summit, President Yanukovych stated that Ukraine still wanted to sign the Association Agreement but that it needed substantial financial aid to compensate it for the threatened response from Russia, and he proposed starting three-way talks between Russia, Ukraine, and the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_Association_Agreement

People caring about a reversal of a major policy the government itself had spend months and years pursuing, is not evidence that the resulting protests must be the work of "outside agitators". (That's the term used against civil rights protesters in the US back in the day.)

[another_liberal]

10. It was what it was . . .

No matter how much some of us may wish to believe otherwise.

History, I am quite certain, will not be kind to us regarding our guilt for this underhanded intervention in the internal affairs of another sovereign country.

[pampango]

14. "... this underhanded intervention in the internal affairs of another sovereign country."

History, I am quite certain, will not be kind to us regarding our guilt for this underhanded intervention in the internal affairs of another sovereign country.

Who is "us" and "our"?

Given how events unfolded it would be hard to argue that Russia did not and is not intervening in the "internal affairs of another sovereign country".

The EU was certainly negotiating an Association Agreement with Yanukovych for years and throughout most of 2013. (I would not call that intervening since governments negotiate interntiaonal agreements all the time.) Yanukovych professed to be ready for the agreement then reversed himself (while still professing pro-European integration sentiments) after getting pressure from Russia. ("Putin said ... the EU deal was bad for Russia's security interests.&quot

The resulting demonstrations, culminating in Yanukovych's decision to leave even though he still controlled the military and security forces, were as understandable a reaction to that policy reversal as were our OWS or civil rights protests (also blamed on "foreign agents" by the powers-that-be) as a reaction to bad government policies. Any Western support for protests pales in comparison to telling a sovereign government not to sign an international agreement (because it is bad for another country) or annexing part of a sovereign country.

[Duckhunter935]

27. Thank you

Facts do matter.

[another_liberal]

61. You clearly buy into that scenario . . .

There are, of course, other scenarios which are both less complicated and more plausible, but to each his own they say.


Have a great New Year!

[nationalize the fed]

13. The CIA would never do such a thing!

Oliver Stone cites 3 examples. Here is a more complete list. Yet Putin and Russia are "expansionist" LOL

The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change&quot without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coups d'état, and other activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. These actions were sometimes accompanied by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003

1 Prior to Cold War
1.1 Russia

2 During the Cold War

2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Iraq 1960–63
2.9 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–89
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras

3 Since the end of the Cold War
3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Venezuela 2002
3.3 Iraq 2002–03
3.4 Iran 2005–present
3.5 Somalia 2006–07
3.6 Syria 2012–present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

Condolizza Rice shares Cookie Recipes with Victoria Nuland, Wife of PNAC co founder Robert Kagan

The Central Intelligence Agency overthrows governments, and the National Security Agency records everything. Both routinely lie to Congress. Wouldn't Thomas Jefferson be proud.

[newfie11]

15. Imagine a world without the CIA

Think of all the innocent people killed, tortured, homeless, as a result of the out of control CIA.
That's only the ones we know about, God knows what else they've done or plan to do.

[Initech]

64. We'd probably have world peace if the CIA and the Pentagon didn't exist.

At the very least the Twin Towers would still be standing.

[newfie11]

68. Yep

That's exactly my thought.

[Archae]

19. Oliver Stone? Who are you kidding?

The guy who totally screwed up a movie about the JFK assassination, and blames "The Jews" for his revisionist history series being called bullshit?

[Major Nikon]

26. He says Hitler and Stalin are just misunderstood and the Jews are preventing an "honest discussion"

...about the Holocaust.

[Octafish]

29. Got a link for that?

It'd be good to know.

[NuclearDem]

32. ...

http://www.jpost.com/Arts-and-Culture/Entertainment/Israel-slams-Oliver-Stones-interview

In the interview, Stone said America’s focus on the Holocaust was a product of the “Jewish domination of the media.” He said his upcoming Showtime documentary series Secret History of America would put Hitler and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “in context.” “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed],” Stone said.

When asked by the interviewer why so much of an emphasis had been placed on the Holocaust, Stone responded, “The Jewish domination of the media. There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years.”

...

“Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it’s been used cheaply,” he said at the time. “He’s the product of a series of actions. It’s cause and effect.”

[Octafish]

35. It doesn't really say what Major Nikon said, though, does it?

Thanks for the link to the article. The anti-Stone rhetoric is understandable, seeing how the Jerusalem Post was Richard "PNAC" Perle's paper.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_N._Perle

[NuclearDem]

37. Yes it does, and you know it.

[Octafish]

40. No. I heard Oliver Stone address these questions in person.

Do you think he's an anti-Semite? Do you think he's a Hitler apologist?

[Posteritatis]

44. When someone starts ranting about "Jewish domination of the media?" Sure. (nt)

[Octafish]

46. Like Chomsky?

http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-chomsky-what-american-media-wont-tell-you-about-israel

[NuclearDem]

47. No, I don't. To his credit, he apologized for those remarks, very sincerely.

There are plenty of reasons the media is biased against Palestinians and Iran, none of them being "the Jews control the media."

[Major Nikon]

33. Here's one of many

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/movies/27arts-OLIVERSTONEC_BRF.html

[Octafish]

34. Where does it say what you wrote?

Oliver Stone Controversy

By BROOKS BARNES; Compiled by DAVE ITZKOFF
Published: July 26, 2010

Oliver Stone found himself the catalyst of an online brush fire on Monday after he made comments published in The Sunday Times of London that were interpreted as anti-Semitic. In an interview with The Times to promote his documentary “South of the Border,” which is about South American politics, Mr. Stone defended Hitler. “Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein,” he said. “German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support. Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people.” Mr. Stone then proceeded to discuss what he called “the Jewish domination of the media,” adding with an expletive that Israel had messed up “United States foreign policy for years.” Bloggers quickly picked up on the comments, and the American Jewish Committee issued a news release condemning him. “By invoking this grotesque, toxic stereotype, Oliver Stone has outed himself as an anti-Semite,” the committee’s executive director, David Harris, said in the release. Mr. Stone, whose next Hollywood movie, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” will be released by 20th Century Fox on Sept. 24, has stirred controversy with his comments in this arena before. In January the director told a gathering of television critics that “Hitler is an easy scapegoat” while discussing his Showtime nonfiction mini-series, “Secret History of America.” At that time the Simon Wiesenthal Center harshly rebuked him for the remarks. A spokesman for Mr. Stone was not immediately available to comment.

[Major Nikon]

36. ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=oliver+stone+"honest+discussion"

[Octafish]

41. It reminds me of the uproar over Hannah Arendt's observation about Hitler's henchmen.

"The banality of evil."

http://www.openculture.com/2013/01/hannah_arendts_original_articles_on_the_banality_of_evil_in_the_inew_yorkeri_archive.html

Made all sorts of people call her all sorts of names.

[Posteritatis]

45. But it's okay this time because it fits a pre-selected narrative, you see. (nt)

[SidDithers]

20. ...

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. +1

[edhopper]

21. Let me answer in emoticons

[edhopper]

22. And yet a_l

you are silent about this?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/30/pba-president-no-resolve-after-meeting-between-mayor-nypd-union-leaders/

[another_liberal]

58. How much do you imagine I'm getting paid to post here?

Let me clue you in: I get nothing.

When I start getting a salary I might start taking orders. Until then, it's not likely at all I will.

[edhopper]

59. Good answer

you should only get your News about Putin and Russia from one very biased news source.

Best ignore the rest.

Hail great leader.

[another_liberal]

60. Who said I ignore anyone . . .

You assume you know a great deal more about me than you really do.

Have a great New Year.

[malaise]

24. I was not fooled

Rec

[another_liberal]

62. No, you never were . . .

I noticed that early on.


Have a truly great New Year!

[nichomachus]

28. CIA -- Overthrowing democratically elected governments since 1947

It's what they do best.

[Octafish]

30. But it's not what Truman wanted.

This got published in the Washington Post and, evidently, few other newspapers at the time:

Limit CIA Role To Intelligence

By Harry S Truman
The Washington Post, December 22, 1963 - page A11

INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.

I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.

Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.

But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.

Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations.

I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.

Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."

For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.

With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.

I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.

But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

SOURCE: http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html

So. One month after the assassination, President Truman expressed public concern CIA had strayed off the reservation from intelligence gathering of foreign news sources to cloak-and-dagger operations. Time -- and the Church Committee -- has since shown CIA operated, illegally, domestically.

Allen Dulles, on behalf of CIA, even asked Truman to retract it. From Ray McGovern...

Fox Guarding Hen House

The well-connected Dulles got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFK’s assassination.

Documents in the Truman Library show that he then mounted a small domestic covert action of his own to neutralize any future airing of Truman’s and Souers’s warnings about covert action.

So important was this to Dulles that he invented a pretext to get himself invited to visit Truman in Independence, Missouri. On the afternoon of April 17, 1964, Dulles spent a half-hour trying to get the former President to retract what he had said in his op-ed. No dice, said Truman.

No problem, thought Dulles. Four days later, in a formal memo for his old buddy Lawrence Houston, CIA General Counsel from 1947 to 1973, Dulles fabricated a private retraction, claiming that Truman told him the Washington Post article was “all wrong,” and that Truman “seemed quite astounded at it.”

No doubt Dulles thought it might be handy to have such a memo in CIA files, just in case.

A fabricated retraction? It certainly seems so, because Truman did not change his tune. Far from it.

In a June 10, 1964, letter to the managing editor of Look magazine, for example, Truman restated his critique of covert action, emphasizing that he never intended the CIA to get involved in “strange activities.”

CONTINUED...

SOURCE: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/122909b.html

It's not democracy they're protecting, Capital's Invisible Army works for Wall Street.

[nichomachus]

31. Oh Yeah. The Dulles Brothers flim-flammed Harry.

They were two crazy, murderous motherfuckers. They make Osama bin Laden look like a pussycat.

[Octafish]

38. Stephen Kinzer has written a boffo bio on the brothers Dulles.

Kirkus Reviews via Amazon:

A joint biography of John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, who led the United States into an unseen war that decisively shaped today’s world

During the 1950s, when the Cold War was at its peak, two immensely powerful brothers led the United States into a series of foreign adventures whose effects are still shaking the world.

John Foster Dulles was secretary of state while his brother, Allen Dulles, was director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In this book, Stephen Kinzer places their extraordinary lives against the background of American culture and history. He uses the framework of biography to ask: Why does the United States behave as it does in the world?

The Brothers explores hidden forces that shape the national psyche, from religious piety to Western movies—many of which are about a noble gunman who cleans up a lawless town by killing bad guys. This is how the Dulles brothers saw themselves, and how many Americans still see their country’s role in the world.

Propelled by a quintessentially American set of fears and delusions, the Dulles brothers launched violent campaigns against foreign leaders they saw as threats to the United States. These campaigns helped push countries from Guatemala to the Congo into long spirals of violence, led the United States into the Vietnam War, and laid the foundation for decades of hostility between the United States and countries from Cuba to Iran.

The story of the Dulles brothers is the story of America. It illuminates and helps explain the modern history of the United States and the world.

A Kirkus Reviews Best Nonfiction Book of 2013

The Dulles Brothers played a major role in getting us into Vietnam and bringing the BFEE to power for much of the 20th and 21st century. Terry Gross interviews Kinzer on the book:

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/16/234752747/meet-the-brothers-who-shaped-u-s-policy-inside-and-out

[nichomachus]

49. Read it. It was like reading Russ Bakers book on the Bushes

"Family of Secrets." in both books, after every chapter, you want to take a shower.

[Octafish]

55. That is the exact feeling.

I've read Baker's. In the process with Kinzer.

BTW: Met Baker at the JFK Duquesne conference last year. Guy is tops, in every way.

[NuclearDem]

39. I love Stone's work as a filmmaker...

but frankly the man could burn his toast and blame the CIA for it.

[Odin2005]

42. Conspiracy nuts love Putin? I'm SHOCKED!!!

[Posteritatis]

43. Mere foreigners can never have any agency of their own. It's all the US. Oy. (nt)

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. And I'll bet these guys agree with Oliver Stone. You know..."birds of a feather" & all.....

[zappaman]

52. Is that Steven Segal with Putin?

Dude has put on weight!

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. It is indeed. He really hearts Putin, and I'm learning that Stone likes him a lot too.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. Oliver Stone: "Obama, a wolf in sheep's clothing".

"Oliver Stone eyes Putin documentary to show ‘a different point of view’ to Americans"

http://rt.com/news/203327-oliver-stone-putin-movie/

[Purveyor]

57. kick. Thanks for posting. +1 eom

[tammywammy]

63. Well, Oliver Stone, then that settles that.

[Chemisse]

71. Locking - please post in Creative Speculation

Against GD's SOP. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002

Statement of Purpose
Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden.