> The author would make a great ghost writer for John La Carre 
> or Robert Ludlum; however, his argument rests on so many 
> assertions which aren't even substantiated in the most 
> important cases with footnotes. The article is written with 
> impressive creative license and an aim apparently toward 
> sounding believable to the already converted believer in the 
> gospel of the omnipotent neocon cabal (even claims they call 
> themselves cabalists! That's hillarious!).
> 
> In a nutshell: Great espionage fiction (kudos to the writer 
> for that!) but if it were so easily proven and so obviously 
> so, well, let's just say it wouldn't be such a juicy scoop 
> for Rolling Stone, and might have a bit more meat to it of 
> the kind that actually persuades skeptics and does not merely 
> play to the paranoia and predispositions of its intended audience.


He sounds completely believable to me. Actually, he's not saying
anything new, just about everything he says in this paper has been
reported elsewhere, it's just that the story never got any legs - a
remarkable tribute to our "news" system, which could get into this
story, but obviously decided instead to keep the hugely more important
Mel Gibson saga in the headlines for a week.

It seems the only way we'll ever really know for sure is when the
gang/cabal is brought to trial and all the facts are gathered and
examined. He doesn't say this, but it would be the logical progression
of a case like this. Of course, that is unless we attack Iran first, in
which case that will grab all the headlines and folks like him will be
blackened as enemies of the state.



Bill

 
> - Bob



_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to