BFP Roundtable Video- Exposed: The Timing & Orchestration of Seymour Hersh’s “Bin Laden Kill”

Sibel Edmonds & Pearse Redmond on Hersh’s Bin Laden Kill Exposé, FBI’s Bin Laden Tapes & Much More!

In this BFP Roundtable episode Sibel Edmonds and Pearse Redmond discuss the recent "bombshell" article by Seymour Hersh regarding the so-called Bin laden Raid, offer their analysis of the article itself, and explain why this is yet another attempt to obscure the elephant in the room. The discussion includes two never-before-released revelations regarding the Hersh story and the FBI's Bin Laden tapes: Extrapolating from her sources, Sibel explains why Hersh wrote this article, the timing of it, and the players and agenda behind it. Later she delivers another bombshell that deals with the FBI's infamous Bin Laden tapes: From her time as an FBI translator Sibel was privy to some very interesting information regarding these tapes, how they were used by the Deep State, and how this relates back to the Hersh article.

Watch Preview Here:

Watch Full Video (Members Only) Here:

Listen to the full Audio (Members Only) Here:

SUBSCRIBE

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. Sibel and Pearse, I will definitely listen to your analysis. However, based on everything I have read on this subject I am highly dubious of Hersh’s information. It appears that Hersh is being fed another tale, albeit with manufactured sources and scenarios as the “story” continues to unravel. However, the whole Bin Laden raid timing is suspect in the extreme. Yes, cui bono? Keep in mind that just prior to the raid we were coming up on the anniversary of 9/11 with OBL yet having been captured or reported dead. Two, Obama’s approval ratings were at an all time low just prior to his second term; It appears Obama needed an “October Surprise” coup. And three, how could the U.S. justify a draw down in U.S. troops not having tied up the Bin Laden loose end? Was it not U.S. policy to be in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden to begin with? Furthermore, I think Obama more than likely was fed that OBL was in for the taking. And, if things went south with the story of the raid, which it did, Obama and his administration would be left holding the bag. No, this is by no means a defense for Obama. It is only they took the bait hook line and sinker.

    • Pick,

      You see this is why I just cringe when people make comments, bother writing and going on record, without listening, knowing what the info is about. You wasted 100+ words.

      • Good morning, Sibel. So, I “wasted 100+ words.” Really? Keep in mind that I offered at the beginning of my post that “I would definitely listen to your analysis.” Would you have said I wasted my words not knowing this? Forgive me for my transparency. However, my post was meant to offer general reasons for the many “official narratives” being touted since 9/11 and Hersh coming out with his take. Instead of critiquing your interview, your present narrative, did my narrative on the whole make sense, generally speaking? Did you address the basic underlying supposition of why we were in Afghanistan and why this “loose end” had to be put to bed? With that being said, I listened as promised to your podcast with Pearse and came away with you NOT understanding that POLICY no matter what party holds office dictates agendas. To think Obama and Hillary are the “managers” of the OBL disclosure[s], in whatever capacity, when it comes to the “official narrative” is missing the barn by a mile. Yes, they are managed just as Bush was managed. Again, I offered three distinct reasons why ANY administration whether that be Republican or Democrat will try to close out this magilla. Furthermore, finally some professor namely Michael S. Glennon out of Tufts University has got it through his cabeza that the National Security State dictates how administrations are run and your vote doesn’t count. Now are you sure you did not take the bait hook line and sinker with your “source?” Are you an unwitting victim to a limited hangout through your source? Are you caught up in the lower sociological mind field of party partisan divide and rule agendas that continues to obfuscate where the real power lies? Now the real question is who is driving Hersh? At the end of the day when the smoke clears we will more than likely find out that ole Seymore Hersh was nothing but a psychological stop gap between “conspiracy theorists” and the pundits of the major media. Now as my NYPD detective friends would say – “Where’s the body?” Well, you know my answer. You will find OBL’s body under policy. I hope I did not waste my words or your time, Sibel?

  2. colinjames says:

    Ha! Excellent. I gotta say I was considering unsubbing til recent additions and recent push for more content. Glad I stayed. Love Pearse. Was suspicious of Hersh piece, just ten mins into interview but wondering what really went down in Abbotobad? There was a raid afterall. Like PCR said, they woulda captured OBL and had their own Mission Accomplished moment, way more propaganda value in that. Sucks cuz Hersh has done good work, The Redierction eg

    • I have been thinking about this raid a lot lately and have come to the same conclusion: What did really go down in Abbotobad? As you said, there was an actual raid, so what the hell was it for. For the next BFP Roundtable we are going to try and parse through that very idea. Perhaps it was to kill some other high value target, Bin Laden lookalike…

      I am pretty sure that it wasn’t just a psy-op to make it look like we killed a man who was already dead. If the CIA wanted us to think that they had killed him then they could have just blown up a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan and said that they got Osama. It wasn’t as if they provided a hell of a lot of eveidence that they killed Al-Awlaki.

      Figuring out who was actually in that compound is something very important to understanding the Deep-State and what is going on with the War on Terror.

  3. Pearse, Sibel:
    As soon as the Hersh thing came out 3 words drifted in my head: ” more bull sh*t” For me, it meant almost nothing. In fact, I was irritated in the same old way–create another shiny object and let’s all obsess and gaze at it while the world burns and black swans of massive importance are luking. I almost want to put the Hersh thing in the same category as Michaels Jackson’s facelifts or some airhead’s divorce in Hollywood. It simply is not worth my time; but you 2 as journalists have to articulate facts which are real, simply to uphold a now diminishing journalistic tradition.
    This guy new some stuff and the video is already 4 years old. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQk9HnL2e64

  4. samadams73 says:

    Regarding the “story”, I don’t see anyone trusting Navy seals to promulgate lies…so, my suspicion is that a Bin Ladin ‘double’ was housed up in Abbottabad…and your points regarding him not being taken alive are so valid, but most so as no actor could have spoken as a real Bin Ladin…. Agent of the CIA

    Btw, congrats on the most recent Tom Secker piece…excellent and enlightening!!!

  5. kariflack says:

    wow great, thanks. i thought i was losing my mind reading so many left defenses. you both really expanded on everything i suspected, so it’s nice to hear some sanity.

  6. Jon Gold says:

    Sibel, can you give us the names of tapes or documents from the FBI concerning your case and concerning Gladio B so we can try to FOIA for them please? Thank you.

    • Jon,

      Those have been FOIA’d by at least a dozen of entities, including the ACLU, my attorneys, several journalists, 2 organizations, and activists. Since they are all under ‘State Secrets Privilege’ all you get is ‘blacked out’ documents or ‘no documents’ with ‘classification’ citation. Have you checked my FOIA lawsuit that went on for 4.5 years? The judge said: ‘Considering National Security reasons cited by the gov, I have to side with no release decision.’

  7. Pearse & Sibel, very enjoyable and well done analysis.
    While watching this show an analogy popped into my head concerning the media and how these bits of theater over time become fairly easy to spot and calculate. As example, Sibel, imagine that a tiger (media) has taken up residence outside your home. In the morning you find you must remind your daughter “Use the back door this morning, dear, you know the tiger feeds out front yard in the mornings,” etc.. Who would put up with this situation? Nobody. A plan would form and the tiger would either be killed, caged or domesticated (trained). Why would real power allow such a danger (real journalism) to lurk? They wouldn’t and they don’t, in the same way that none of us would tolerate a tiger feeding in the yard near our children. It’s easy to see, but not until one drops their illusions. I think we can confidently put Hersh into the “domesticated” tiger category. I’ll add that an important part of the process of losing one’s illusions is to deconstruct some specific, well documented examples as you’ve done here by revealing the patterns.

    • Peter M,

      “It’s easy to see, but not until one drops their illusions. I think we can confidently put Hersh into the “domesticated” tiger category …”- nice analogy. Agreed.

      • 344thBrother says:

        Peter M.
        ““domesticated” tiger ”

        Very good! Looks big and mean, roars occasionally at nothing in particular but will let the masters pet his belly and will do tricks in a circus.

        p
        d

  8. Sibel,
    This fills in the missing link of why this happened now and to whom we can give credit. The Republicans seem to continually fail to land blows during this administration no matter what goods they have. Clinton Inc. is certainly good at PR… the best. They must be getting advice from within the agency or deep state as you call it, to be able to manage these crisis so efficiently. Given that’s the case I wonder if its now safe to put the house on HC to win in 2016 as she does seem to be the chosen one already or is this more to protect the government while its in office?

    One thing you didn’t mention was this seems to be the same pattern employed to manage Benghazi-gate and how the Democrat favouring media made it all about email-gate… like who cares???
    To borrow a well used phrase from another podcast it’s another example of “Don’t look over here, look over there”. Another theme is that practically every big news story is somehow linked to the 2016 US presidential election in some manner no matter how obscure (even though it may not be apparent to the layperson). If you put everything in that context you can deconstruct and reverse engineer back to some truth of what’s really going on.
    Back on Sy Hersh and knowing he’s basically shilling for the Dems, I wonder if we could re-appraise his article about the red-line day anniversary chemical attacks in Syria. Maybe that piece had a deliberate weak link in it that allowed it to be discredited (as it was effectively done by the MSM). Maybe it was so different to the reality that, well maybe it didn’t even happen at all?
    Anyway, I hope you get this video out there in the wild ASAP or write a blog piece about this soon for the benefit of the masses, however I understand your frustration that in reality 99% wont be able to understand it enough to put in proper context and there appears to be a futility in trying to explain to people.
    However for the rest of us there certainly is a positive mental health aspect of not having to suffer effects of cognitive dissonance that go with the confusion of these events.
    When you were joking about the Bin Laden books and using it as a method of rounding people up and putting into camps, I had a worrying thought that reminded me of stories about Germany in the early 30’s… stand up comics and entertainers used to joke about where the government was headed publicly, not really believing in their own minds that it would become what it did. I hope this isn’t a cycle and the US isn’t at about 1932 in that cycle right now.
    Oh, one other thing; where was SITE in all of this? They are supposed to be the ones with all the al qaeda exclusives. Yeah I know, it’s rhetorical, as if we need any more evidence its all BS.
    Stay Strong.

    • Mike 33,

      I’m reading this on the way to the airport (first of four airports we’ll be passing through!). Thank G.. we have this home of irate minority with the very few people who get it- go deep when it comes to understanding.

      “Clinton Inc. is certainly good at PR.”- So true. The other day I was reading some comments under a post related to this topic, and someone wrote: “The woman could be skinning and eating kittens on live TV, and her PR and US media will run through captions/voice saying how she is the most avid advocate for animal rights …’ or something like that:-)

      “One thing you didn’t mention was this seems to be the same pattern employed to manage Benghazi-gate and how the Democrat favouring media made it all about email-gate… like who cares???…”- another good point. I have to admit: I gave not been paying close attention to Libya-Benghazi-Clinton scandal (very limited info on that). But you are right I see hundreds (maybe 1000s) blog who are pouring over those ‘gov-released e-mails via FOIA) as if they are hunting for some incredible treasure. What an ignorant bunch!

      Again, awake, articulate, observant activist members like you with truly functioning critical-thinking ability make it all this worthwhile. me I’ll be checking back soon.

      • Actually I think I mixed different times with the email-gate thing.
        I recall now it was actually the Clinton Foundation revelations (payments to various foreign governments) that were submerged from the headlines that same week when email-gate happened. Regardless, the pattern of distraction is repeated over and over.

  9. Sibel and Mike33- Yes, can we please talk about SITE ? They anymore are the only source for all things ISIS, after having had the exclusive on bin Laden tapes for years. And no one around me questions it. Just gets reported as ISIS released a video,ISIS said, etc. One would think that if someone found something like that surfing the web that the first thing you would do is alert the FBI/CIA it gets released like SITE is their PR firm. And the feds have no problem with it? Sadly, it works.

    Sibel- Have a great time in your travels this summer. I can’t wait for the next Lone Gladio book. Hopefully it will be the first of many 🙂 You have a great cast to fill in while you are away. I was pretty sad in your last podcast to here you would be gone but as soon as you mentioned Pearce and Tom continuing the Round Tables all was well again.

    • SITE is some sort of CIA unit. You are so right about their behavior as a PR agency for ISIS. The mere fact that SITE is the only “outlet” that manages to get these ISIS videos is extremely suspect. They always mention in their press releases that they found this on a jihadi website, yet never mention what website it is, where they found it, etc… Rita Katz (executive director SITE) worked for the government for years prior to 9/11. At some point they must have asked her to go and create this intelligence group and pretend to be a private organization. Obviously she is getting these ISIS tapes directly from the CIA production team.

  10. Torturing the goat hahaha..I bet CTC would have SWAGGARD get as much out of my pet goat as he did anyone else and how would anyone know they hadn’t? Stand-up comedy . Dynamite. What history! Thank you .these real nuggets help immensely argue the elephant the room was DEAD by 02.and BEYOND stinky by 011 which is why the assembled photographed conspirators looked so ill.
    I thought lack of morality and sunlight made ’em look that way.
    ‘Probability into certainty.’ Just as ‘AlQaeda’ hadn’t been heard of in the translation dept until after 911 deception, so too, the circa 1997 tapes of BL were recycled into public domain afterwards. with ‘new’ translations of course. and who better to tell us so ! The republican DS knows this as well as the democratDS because DeepState is one and the same and they get to play us around between this and the 28 pages and whatever other farce in the cookery. The bone is the WhiteHouse and the loser has 911 inside job served up next to the imaginary head of asset OSAMA in the scullery. Any republican revelation not directly addressing BinLaden as long dead is a continuance of the fk-us Roveian game theory being run thru ‘new reality’ authorship labs. I think that is made clear.
    And speaking of game theory I see John NASH is dead.
    Long live John NASH.

  11. Arnar Steinsson says:

    Thanks Sibel and Pearse for a very informative discussion on Hersh´s source claims.
    I read his story when it came out and started wondering how someone would buy into it if they believed the official narrative of OBL story in the first place or at least parts of it. Then an element of the ISI along with individuals from SA would be complicit in Al Qaeda terrorist activities for a four year period. They would have to assume that Al Qaeda would not notice that OBL had been captured for that period or were willing to compromise their entire organization for the safety of their leader.
    That some Saudi individuals and elements of the ISI were able to conceal the information that they had captured and were holding captive the most wanted man on the planet for a four year period from every foreign intelligence agency that keeps them under surveilence. And then without any implications after a walk in they are allowed to dictate how he would be handed over to the U.S.

    The stench of bullshit is strong here and I´m not going to go on 🙂
    Counterpunch did re publish an interesting article I had never read before because of the Hersh´s one. It was about Laili Helms, married to Richard Helms nephew and former lobbyist for the Taliban. Does anyone know more about this woman apart from what was published in that article and what´s listed on wikipedia?

  12. Great one, thanks to both of you. I’m wondering what the Washington Times/Republicans have that has prompted this “preemptive strike” countermeasure via Seymour Hersh. I guess if you knew what their “nuggets” were you’d have let us know, I guess we’ll have to wait. But as you said at the end, Sibel, it seems unlikely that it will turn out to be anything like “Bin Laden died 15 years ago and all those tapes since then were fake.” Maybe they would say he died at the exact moment when Bush left office through an act of the Republican Christian God. I wonder if partisan infighting ever gets intense enough for somebody making a mistake, saying more than they ought to say. When everyone is covered in slime, it must be tricky to blackmail or expose anybody.

    Also curious about the alterations on the old bin Laden tapes. Any more details on how they were altered? How was the content changed? Digital changes to the audio and his lips? Any point in hoping that alterations might be proven by careful analysis of the tapes?

    • Olivier says:

      Here’s what the Reps have:
      OBL is still alive! Those stupid Democrat Seals missed, he ran away, and he’s planning his revenge as we speak!

      • kariflack says:

        haha seriously i could see them trying to resurrect him in the media, i mean what outrageous lies won’t they try. this has all built since the release of the “torture report”, then we had “Bin Laden’s bookshelf” that is meant to be mind warping (and also to associate those who read similar books with terrorism, i really think that is one aspect of the release of this propaganda). it doesn’t matter what one feels about Orwell but perhaps they are working toward a two minutes hate with Bin Laden as the avatar for all “terrorist” resistance. i saw someone else mention a double/stand in could be procured..that move definitely has its precedents!

    • I am wondering if the bombshells that the GOP has have to do with the fact that Bin Laden was already dead. Aside form that I am not sure what else they could have their hands on. Anything else would just be more of the same lies that are being circulated through out the MSM. Perhaps they will reveal that the US knew Bin Laden was in Pakistan for a longer period of time then they have been reporting.

      We are planning to discuss this and who was actually in that compound for the next BFP Roundtable.

      • I thought the Bin Laden myth and motivation for its release at this time and in this fashion was fleshed out pretty clearly. Why do I feel like you guys are picking at the bones of chicken with no meat on it? Did I forget/miss something already? And Bin Laden himself? That’s a boneless chicken…

  13. Maybe their next move on Clinton was the FIFA corruption scandal and trying to get Blatter ousted. Because Americans dont care about soccer, it had to be for political gain.
    They did that daily beast article that outlined Clinton Foundation’s conflicts of interest and payments from Qatar that ran into millions – then McCain called for FIFA president Blatter’s head (because getting another guy in they might audit FIFA and that might expose more about the Foundation)
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/27/corrupt-fifa-has-clinton-foundation-ties-world-cup-host-qatar-gave-millions.html

    Low and behold, the next day the ace card is played and Hastert is outed to deflect back onto the republican party.

    Now Sibel is on a plane to god knows where – is life imitating art of The Lone Gladio?

  14. As sickening as “official narrative” revision is I can’t help getting a kick out of some of add-on plot devices…
    Osama Bin Laden, hiding in his underground cave complex, sitting on his throne, stroking his beard, examining his personal library, contemplating the next selection for the “Bin Laden Recommends” book series.

    Good call with the “he was a follower of Anwar Al-Awlaki” line too…
    “yes, he was obsessed with Al-Awlaki. He had all the albums; tapes, CDs, t-shirts, posters, the whole 9 yards. Hard to blame him. Al-Awlaki was such a captivating performer. I heard him once at the Pentagon. Everybody there was truly mesmerized. Too bad we had to let him go.”

    Great analysis on the Seymour plot devices story timing. Best, most comprehensive I’ve heard yet. Hersh is capable of doing decent work, but he loves to go into hibernation as soon as the political winds blow to the left. Looks like they had to coax him out of his hiding place with a little bit of honey so Hilary Inc doesn’t end up getting stung by too many bees once the Republicans start poking around the nest come election time 😉

  15. Ms. Edmonds,
    Speaking of the elephant in the room, is the hush-money Dennis Hastert is accused of by the FBI of paying to cover up “prior misconduct” have anything to do with his involvement with the Turkish political organizations that you outlined in your book and in subsequent BFP commentaries? Roomers abound about possible sex-scandals and other red herrings among the MSM. At least some outlets are connecting the dots, however broadly:
    http://massispost.com/2015/05/former-house-speaker-and-turkish-lobbyist-dennis-hastert-indicted-on-federal-charges/

  16. Olivier says:

    Super interesting!
    Inconvenient also: We now these three publications by Hersh in the LRB:

    2013-12-19 Whose sarin?
    2014-04-17 The Red Line and the Rat Line
    2015-05-21 The Killing of Osama bin Laden

    I must admit I did use the “Whose sarin” reference to argue that the sarin event was a setup. Yet another authoritative source dismissed, sigh (Sigh Hersh).

    The Rat Line article is useful in arguing the covert arming of what has become ISIS, along the lines of http://scgnews.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis . If you combine those sources with the recent Ahmed Nafeez analysis of the Judicial Watch DIA documents, I find it quite compelling to argue that the overarching project was not to topple Assad, but to create a new Sunni state as a wedge between Syria and Iran, and that terrorism and all that was taken for granted.

    I’m not particularly successful at arguing my case however.. Here’ some reactions I got:
    =============================
    1. (My aunt, living in the US):
    Olivier,

    Thanks for all the news. I am not as much of a fan about politics as your are. Sorry. I believe you anyway. Love.

    [This is after she had just stated that she found it hard to believe]
    =======================
    2. A friend:

    for me, there is no reason to continue the discussion at that point; because it’s like arguing about religious dogma (i.e. where evidence is not relevant) and such arguments never get anywhere besides irritating and frustrating everyone involved.
    ========================

    Every next target audience puts up their own hurdles. Some that are potentially willing to reason / to discuss seem to come up with requirements on evidence that are impossible for an individual to satisfy. Like having Hillary in tears on TV telling us that her generals wanted a new Sunni state and that she saw no other way out than to go along or something. On the other hand it is of course reasonable for people to filter their incoming information on available evidence.

    Since no certainty can be provided, I tend to formulate things in terms of bets. “If I were forced to bet, I’d bet this or that was a setup”. Still it hasn’t gotten me very far. The largest amount of people I convinced to grow some suspicion about the The Big Event was I think in 2007 when most were not inoculated yet. Although my mailings may have touched a few people that didn’t actually react.

    Has anybody worked out a ‘method’ they consider worth sharing for preaching outside of the choir? This site is an example, but I mean with people that you know?

    • As far as I can tell, the overarching project was to prevent Iran from piping its gas through Iraq and Syria up to Europe. That’s when they turned on Assad, when he made those deals to construct the Friendship Pipeline.

      There’s probably a secondary project to create as much rubble as possible as its a profitable industry for some. Kimberly Kagan, a member of the prominent Kagan-Nuland clan outlined the strategy to divide Iraq into 3 states over a year ago, and her husband is the architect of it.

      ISIS to me appears to be the Iraqi army in ninja costumes – who have been successfully used in having Iraq attack Syria.

      Ultimately of course this is all about energy and who gets to profit from it, who gets to distribute it and who gets to sell it to the big markets like Europe and China. A lot of noise and secondary agendas happening in parallel. I remember reading Redline or Ratline a while ago and many took that as the credible article that debunked Assad’s chem attacks – many more discredited it and Sy. Since this latest podcast however, I’m beginning to wonder if the piece was more about crisis management for the Democrats than a genuine objective article. It didnt really go hard against the US administration, but deflected attention toward the Turks (who may well have been involved or not, I dont know… but not directing the show).

      M

      • Olivier says:

        Yes agreed, I mean the project as seen by the military forces: The DNI document states that Assad will stay in place, and that what the supporting powers want is a new Sunni state. By the way the partition of Iraq seems to be identified as an exploitable weakness in the Oded Yinon plan, sections 6 and 9: http://www.scribd.com/doc/155650153/A-Strategy-for-Israel-in-the-Nineteen-Eighties-Oded-Yinon .

      • Olivier says:

        P.S. Do you have a reference for the Kagan-Nuland project?

        • well there’s no Kagan-Nuland project per se. Nuland is running the show with Ukraine which is also about energy distribution disruption – she may have a personal vendetta there too because she has Ukraine/jewish heritage and probably hates Russians because of what the Soviets did.

          Nuland is married to Robert Kagan, brother of Fred Kagan who pushed Iraq WMDs in 2003. Fred’s wife is Kimberly.

          I think this is the link to Kimberly Kagan outlining of strategy here…
          (remember to read between the lines)
          http://www.c-span.org/video/?319974-5/washington-journal-escalating-violence-iraq

          (she sounds like a bit of a nutcase by the way)

          • about 28 minutes in she starts talking about the dividing up of the country. however the whole Q&A is interesting.

          • Olivier says:

            Watching that interview, I’m impressed by her live ability to dodge questions.. :
            Q: [Man calling about Iraq & Libya]: Why couldn’t you just stay out?
            A: I er think that your question is: Why is it impossible to leave strongmen?

            I guess that’s what Yale is all about..

  17. CuChulainn says:

    CIAymour Hersh’s 2007 artcle on Syria has been the source of record for e.g. Tony Cartalucci on Syria. how reliable is it? since Bush was in the White House when it came out, can we assume 80%? it would be great to have more dissection of sources w. help of a journalist who really knows what’s going on in Syria
    https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/im-getting-quite-embarassed-by-how-often-i-have-to-cite-cartalucci/

  18. @Olivier yeah, she even says at one point “thats not the question we should be asking” 🙂
    politicians etc do this all the time

  19. CuChulainn says:

    an immense thank you to Sibel for sharing this with us, it would be great if some of these Arabic translators might come forward. that we are dependent on Sibel for this is another indication of her immense courage, at least by contrast with average denizens of the land and the home of the brave, “nos jours frileux et atones.” http://rebellion.hautetfort.com/archive/2015/05/27/hommage-des-cercles-rebellion-a-la-commune-de-paris-devant-l-5629236.html

  20. Ronald Orovitz says:

    Talking about “sources”… Well, I have a source. OK, she’s several times removed, but it comes from somebody who’s a friend of a relative of… as she put it: ‘he’s in Congress, I forget his name, but it sounds like the male erection?… like, OMG, he says bin Laden’s already dead, but they’re not telling anyone because they need him to keep the war going’… paraphrasing there, but you get the idea. This was making the rounds of my social milieu back when GWB was still in office and the “boner” in question was not yet Speaker of the House.

    All things considered, I’d have to say my hippie-chick source is more reliable than whatever Hersh’s sources are.

  21. and speaking of ‘being toyed with ‘[….the ‘asset Ob…sorry..OSAMA !]
    …oddities thrown into the mix etc……Here’s another. Journalist Omar Quraishi of Pakistan’s Express Tribune saw the cat walk twice, in Pakistan;
    **************Mystery: Sandy Hook Victim Dies (again) in Pakistan*****************
    Photo of child killed at Sandy Hook shows up at Pakistani school shooting
    https://twitter.com/omar_quraishi/status/545190229418573826
    http://www.infowars.com/mystery-sandy-hook-victim-dies-again-in-pakistan/

  22. Well I Am really getting nervous Now…
    I Knew It…Goats Are Evil…
    Feasibility Study from A worried Giraffe.
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tP1LL-WSnAw/UcyfucYlttI/AAAAAAAAFzo/CiH2gtKrNNY/s1600/grappige-hd-achtergrond-met-giraffe-in-een-boom.jpg
    I am locking My door…
    Kind Regard
    Jens…

  23. 344thBrother says:

    I find the endless name changing amusing, but sad. Now that Bin Laden is finally dead *cough* AlQuaeda becomes IS ISIL ISIS and people seem to think that we’re talking about a different group of scary warriors. The failures of the past become the fake victories of the present and the same bunch of mercenaries becomes a whole different problem. It works well for programs as well. I’m waiting for the New American Freedom Act to replace the “Patriot” ACT if it dies on the vine. Same crap. Different day.
    Peace and Sibel, happy trails to you.
    d

  24. John Swenson says:

    How interesting that Dennis Hastert/Donald Keller has been indicted as result of paying blackmail for sex episode while he was high school teacher. He will have no money left to keep silent his escapade in that hotel room in front of the CIA cameras. Would Sibel like to shed some light on our distinguished former Whip as client of the late Maurice? My guess is that Denny will plead guilty to this indictment and the US Deep State will send the Maurice evidence into oblivion. Sibel, you are a blessing for the truth seekers of this beleaguered planet.

    • Sort of adds something to the title of “former Whip” doesn’t it?

      I can’t think of a time where I’ve had greater anticipation for the next installment of whatever Sibel has up her sleeve since I’ve been a BFP member. Something tells me she will manage to add yet another dimension to the “former Whip” designation. I’ll do my best to wait patiently front row ringside for now 😀

      • Benny,

        I wrote a book about it: The Lone Gladio;-) Maybe it is time for people to start reading that and other stuff I wrote years ago. I went on record with this a decade ago.

        • CuChulainn says:

          books, we don’t do books! nobody reads books in the society of the spectacle.
          but the lasting history of our time will be written in books, not on the internet.

        • No doubt I’m familiar 😉 Still, perhaps I’ve over estimated your readiness to take the gloves off? (even after considerable literary and verbal ass ‘Whip’ings in various arenas)

  25. CuChulainn says:

    let’s see, Sibel has spelled it all out for us in a book, she has taken considerable personal risk to tell the truth, she has made personalized podcasts for our $50 annual fee, but that’s not enough for us. the spectator always wants more, another one, and another one… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-08BCVIJfc

    • What I said was intended to be a complement to Sibel’s unrelenting, no holds barred, critical analysis. Particularly in the case of figures like Hastert, who deserve the verbal ass whippings Sibel; for those who’ve been here for a while, is known for and loved.

      @Sibel: I’m sorry if you felt that I was somehow demanding something more. I took the ” 😉 ” in your response as an indication that you got this, but I wasn’t entirely sure, so I threw you “a lob” as a gesture to clarify my intention, which you could take a whack at comedically if you felt inclined. (I don’t know what’s up with the sports metaphors, but anyway… 😉

      @ChChulainn: As indicated above, I feel I covered the bases (oye…) in my follow up comment, so I don’t particularly appreciate being taken a piss out of as being underappreciative or demanding. I like you though, so I’ll take it as an opportunity to make my point abundantly, but hopefully not redundantly clear here, when perhaps it wasn’t so much the case before. 🙂
      … If it happens again though you’re in big trouble 😉

      PS – @Sibel: I hope you are doing well and enjoying your much deserved vacation =]
      ~B

  26. I’ve never believed the man to be alive past 2001. Even if he was a billionaire, he was pushed out of Saudi Arabia (if that is true), he really was in Afghanistan if we have to believe the Taliban when they were negotiating giving him to the US if they had proof….It’s hard to say I believed it. I think they just came up with this in 2011 because 2011 was such a horrible year. The Japanese nuclear disaster and the poisoning of the Pacific ocean…soon I’ll stop eating delicious British Columbia salmon, and its a bad thing since it’s the best fish in the world to me and many others. Around 2017, I think that if the Japanese haven’t done what I think is obvious they should do. Flood the Fukushima complex with concrete, build a huge concrete block over the destroyed reactor rooms (and the basically destroyed from the face of the earth reactor 4…if that’s the one i’m thinking of….the who that did like Cernobyl (another false flag) where the reactor exploded and ceased to be.

    Things that are impossible physically by the way (a nuclear reactor cannot explode, it will meltdown, but not explode unless explosives are placed near it….but I won’t go into what I know is true here because I’ll be told “ok, let go of Usrael a bit there, you seem obsessed with them and contribute to “New Antisemitism” being on Wikipedia…it basically translates into criicizing the state of israel. I don’t know what they will do if the Likudniks ever get thrown out by a more sensible Israeli party, although I hear leftist parties like the one Simon Peres (who admitted to their nuke stockpile in 2003) was the head of, Labour Party I think? I wonder if another party comes into power who’s less to the extreme right of nuts’n yahoo, the New Antisemitism thing will stick, because I don’t think so, it’s Likud Party (and the extreme extreme right parties) policies we criticize because they’re the ones who happen to be in power since the mid 90’s non-stop! James Corbett doesn’t believe what many think happened for real at Fukushima which is, well sad, he gets it totally regarding 911 and many other topics. At one point saying mini nukes in the basements and thermate in the parts that exploded in the form of a plane was craziness, now we’re gaining ground, like what Snowden revealed to the Joe Blows what I knew since I removed the NSAKEY.DLL (LOL, so obvious) I deleted from my win98 and win2k installs back then, when I was 15 to 18 ! (in the late 90’s). Oh well, it’s like Sibel, she knows unbelievable things for a lot of people, but they happen to be real, in a more obscure field/area of the world (Turkey and Turkic people…well the white Israelis, ashkenazis are a Turkic people from the Khazaar empire and when their empire was destroyed by the Mongols they moved west into russia and then into the rest of europe and lost their Turkic tan for the most part. They have no rights to that land, the Sephardic do, but they are only 20% of the jews in Usrael, and Peres is one of them, who was head of the Labour Party back when it was in power in what seems forever ago now. Sephardim who lived in the Ottoman Empire and Northern Africa are the real biblical descendents, not the ashkenazis. I found Russian songs as old as the 12th century about the Khazaars invading their land and not mixing with them and planning bad things. I mean, for centuries a people was treated harshly, I get it, but it’s because of their GENERAL nature that this happened, although xenophobia is strong everywhere…

    I said I wouldn’t go where I wanted to go regarding the Japanese nuclear incident. But to me 2011 is the end of the world, now we’re all on life supply since the Japs do not seem that interested in fixing something easily fixed, like how Ukraine took money from the whole Earth to build a huge dome over the Cernobyl facilities AND NEVER DID. So to me it is on purpose that the eugenicists are throwing cancer everywhere in the air, soil and water, while I’m sure their 20 years in advance military tech cures cancer in a nanosecond. See what I did there? Nano…?

  27. One thing that irks me about all this is where does ‘the goverment’ get the authority to flat out LIE to the public about any of this?! I could maybe understand just keeping mum on some secrets but to go out and forge videos and stories to try to sell some alternate reality? I feel we truly ARE living in an Orwell novel and a Ministry of Truth is tacitly allowed to exist.
    One point that i also think doesnt get enough play is one that Russ Tice has almost blatantly been screeming from the rooftops: that all of government is being BLACKMAILED. plain and simple. We dont have a representative government because only cotrolled sociopaths or intelligence connected assests are now ‘elected’. A Zero Hedge article recently talked about a hack showing how George Soros is directly fometing the events in Ukraine. All of this theater in government keeps our eyes off the real players behind the curtain. What will it take to round up he handful of these Players and put an end to this?

    • Resource is authority. If they have the resources to do it, they have the authority to do it. The legal world is not the real world. The legal world is merely a control panel through which those who have an interest attempt to control the real world. The legal world, just as any similar world, including notably the academic, is subjugated to the real world. And in the real world there has been developed many means to control the other worlds as they hold power over those stupid enough or weak enough to have to live in these other non real worlds, as to lose control of such chattel would mean the loss of control over the real world.

  28. Dont know how much is true but Aaron Russo’s Freedom to Fascism certainly is appearing to be coming to fruition

  29. Katie Stewart says:

    Just a couple of questions I have for the BFP community. First, where are the Al Qaeda “whistleblowers” if you will? If (and certainly it seems most likely) Bin Laden has been dead since long before Abbottabad, why is there not more hints of this coming out? It seems like some disgruntled “Al Qaeda” member would have spilled the beans somewhere. Or ISIS for that matter. Of course, I live in sheltered little Oregon, are there more rumors and hints (or factual accounts?) of OBL being long dead in other countries? It seems like an easy thing to cover up here in America, where most only pay attention to and believe the mainstream media. But what about in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc? Also, I remember an old BFP interview with Paul Thompson where Thompson makes some comment about how even the wives were saying OBL was killed in Abbottabad. Where did he get that info/idea?
    Second, what of the reporting Maher Osseiran did on the “fat Bin Laden” video, the “confession” video? Corbett did an interview with him that I found very interesting. Was that video recognized as recycled footage?
    Anyway, just a couple thoughts I had after listening to this podcast, which was a fascinating listen. I appreciate any thoughts…

    • Katie,

      My take on Al Qaeda is that, at this point, the mystery meat has been rebranded with the ISIS packaging. Someone at the State Department decided Al Qaeda was losing its appeal and street cred, so they needed to revitalize the brand with something more sexy. Put the “extreme” back into extremism and target the youth with an exciting social media campaign and a “sophisticated” outreach and recruiting program.

      Groups like Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, and ISIS are probably at a base/meta level just the insiders at the top: the CIA/Mossad/ISI etc, who handle the training, hand out the weapons, and so on. Those who do the fighting have their own scores to settle, like the former Iraqi military and the Sunnis who got shafted, repressed, and murdered after the shifting of power post invasion for example. The same I would gather is more or less true wherever these Al Dente, Chicken ISIS Kebab, Con Queso groups pop up. Legitimate grievances, the result of nefarious imperialist meddling, being responded to by illegitimate policies, practices, and militarism, on behalf of imperialist meddling over and over again.

      Also, to copy and paste what I wrote elsewhere:
      “my sense is that you don’t get that high up the ladder to the point where you know enough to become a liability unless you’ve sold your soul a long time ago. Beyond that, Sibel illustrated quite clearly the type of sick ducks you’re going to have coming in contact with the soiled linen and what happens if there’s the slightest chance that you may become any sort of liability whatsoever in The Lone Gladio.”

      I know this doesn’t address all of your questions, but that’s my two cents for what it’s worth =]

  30. Ulf Johansson says:

    in a interview with Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan a long time ago before she was murdered she said that Osama Bin Laden is dead and that is not what the interview was about she just mentioned that Bin laden was dead.
    I guess Tim Osman has always been working for CIA until he died early 2000.

  31. CuChulainn says:

    surprising to see Nafeez peddling Sy Hersh’s version
    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-bin-laden-death-mythology-9a3776a6e3c3
    can’t someone buy him a BFP subscription?

  32. Nafeez was sacked by the Guardian a few months back and started up his own shop, which I do subscribe to, and some of his stuff since then has been excellent, but this latest one is pretty thin in my opinion. I am not quite sure what to make of it.

    • Tom,

      Nafeez is intelligent, well-read and informed. He has done (in the past) some excellent work, and I like him as a person (always have).

      First I was surprised by Guardian (controlled opposition) marriage. Next, I was baffled by the his switch: going from ‘our’ areas (geopolitics/9/11) to Global Warming & environmentalism (and so suddenly).

      Now, this.

      Raises questions. I don’t have answers either.

      • Indeed, he’s a very likeable guy and his early work on terrorism was very influential on my own understanding. I used a lot of his stuff for my first documentary, though that’s five years ago now.

        I guess he’s trying to walk a very narrow tightrope and has made certain decisions along the way that neither you nor I nor most of the people here would have made.

      • Although the environment angle seems like an odd direction, from a brief look at some of the articles he posted while he was at the Guardian, it would seem that he was making good use of the medium to highlight the role of natural resources (oil, gas, etc) in the context of geopolitics. I guess it was going okay until he did a story about the link between Israel’s most recent assault on Gaza (“protective edge”), and untapped oil reserves off the coast of (theoretically) Hamas controlled territory. Would you believe that would actually cost him his job? I’m stunned 😉

        As far as the Hersh story, maybe I’m just too jaded at this point to make an objective call on the plausibility factor, but each iteration of the Triple X, “Just For Men” Bin Laden chronicles has just seemed too silly to take seriously.

        Maybe CuChulainn was right, Sibel. You could consider offering a special rehabilitation oriented discounted BFP membership package for former Guardian employees 😉

        • Indeed, even though the Gaza story was one of the most popular on the Guardian’s site, they sacked him for it. As much as I’m critical of the alt media, at least it is possible (if somewhat uncommon) to do good work here. I’ve had another unpleasant and annoying experience with a mainstream journalist in the last couple of weeks that echoed every previous interaction I’ve had with these people.

    • I was surprised by it as well. He’s not really “peddling Sy Hersh’s version” (as CuChulain put it), it’s more like he’s adding yet another spin that still accepts the basics (i.e., that the raid happened and that it killed Bin Laden). It puts more pressure on “US allies” (not the US itself) as actively protecting Bin Laden, and even at one point uncritically seems to support the “blowback” theory of 9/11.

      In short, more “blame the Saudis” (and Pakistan) diversion?

      I was a monthly contributor to his Insurge thing until I read this. Immediately upon finishing the article, I sighed, wrote to him with my questions, and cancelled my recurring payment. He hasn’t responded.

  33. CuChulainn says:

    Engelhardt 2007 wonders why no one pays attention to Sy: “Hersh, the man who first broke the My Lai story in the Vietnam era, has never been off his game since.”
    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174764/
    it the latest LRB story is fiction, how much of the earlier stuff can we believe?

    • Hadn’t thought of that CuChu, it’s a good question. If we were to perform some sort of retroactive hypothesis of Hersh’s coverage of My Lai, taking into account the fallacies of the Bin Laden story, we could still most likely come to the same conclusions that the massacre took place, but that the specifics, possibly including a more broadly damning set of charges around the incident or others has been omitted from the story.

      My knowledge of the timeline of the Vietnam war, or on specific aspects, such as “Operation Phoenix”, is quite limited, but my recollection, based in part from a couple interviews I’ve heard Douglas Valentine do on the subject, would lead me to believe that an incident like the My Lai massacre was mainly unique on account of its scope; the number of dead and relative level of barbarism. If we were to consider what kind of role Hersh might have played in putting some sort of political ‘spin’ on the story, we could speculate that the extent that this was covered as a sort of ‘one-off’ incident may very well have been emphasized to obfuscate evidence suggesting that what took place was only a particularly egregious application of official policy at the time.

      If I were to speculate further applying the same logic, I imagine the timing of Hersh’s story may very well have coincided with a desire on the parts of those responsible for the United States’ strategic policy in Vietnam at the time to shift tactics in some shape or form. Again, I’m not familiar enough with the timeline or the specifics of the war to suggest what those shifts in tactics might have been or what the desired psychological response such a disclosure would’ve been intent on eliciting, but I would imagine that the underlying logic that dictates the nature of what stories are ‘allowed’ to break and how much of what that story contains is ‘the truth’, the partial truth, or nothing resembling the truth wouldn’t have been radically different from the policies which exist today.

  34. CuChulainn says:

    thanks Benny
    My Lai, like Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers, seem to be textbook examples of limited hangouts, very successful at taking attention away from CIA and Phoenix
    but what about the Syria story Hersh broke in 2007? it appears that his motive was partisan, as Sibel argues, yet it got almost no mainstream attention, as Engelhardt notes. subsequent events seem to have confirmed most of what Hersh wrote about that, but now that we know him as a partisan novellist, it would be interesting to look back at his record, “never off his game” as Engelhardt says, to see, at different periods and for different motives, how much of what he told was true, and how much of the truth he told
    it would be great to hear Doug Valentine talk about this, as he has done on Jeremy Scahill. Woodward (& Bernstein), Morley Safer, and other CIA journalists also interesting in this regard.
    there is another category of journalists, not so obviously corrupt, who seem to play within the limits of the system–Matt Taibbi and the Exiled crowd, for example (Yasha, Mark Ames). to what extent are they for real, to what extent are they Greenwald?
    Peter Lance came on the scene when journalism still pretended to be investigative, maybe for generational reasons he seems to have quite sincerely tested the limits, and then pulled back.
    at the end of the day we are left with a short list of people we can trust; in my case that includes Sibel, Pierre Péan, Doug Valentine, Russ Baker, Corbett, Nafeez (at least until recently), how many others can you name?
    incidentally, Xymphora today links to a story about Bernie Sanders private life as the “tip of the iceberg”

    • CuChulainn says:

      please forgive/ignore my bout of naiveté re. the _Exiled_ & co, the following article gives a sense of what they are about these days– http://exiledonline.com/donetsk-paper-fascists-protest-track-suits-in-yanukovychs-hometown/
      of incidental interest, Sinaloan drug lord has escaped from a maximum security Mexican prison–he calls Chicago home: http://time.com/9963/el-chapo-joaquin-guzman-sinaloa-cartel-chicago/

    • You’re right CuChu, the shortlist of people who we could consider trustworthy is short indeed. I wouldn’t necessarily scratch Nafeez off the list, but the Hersh reference for the story you pointed out was a bit disconcerting. Despite the fact that Hersh does occasionally do work which challenges some official narratives and does something to legitimately expose information which is generally being kept secret, as you mentioned, the political backdrop which has driven the context, details, and timing of his stories, in my opinion negates whatever positive journalistic contribution the pieces are ‘theoretically’ intended to serve. Whether or not they are harmfully misleading isn’t a straightforward question in my mind, but at the minimum it speaks to lack of journalistic integrity. Would we be better off without a story like that of the My Lai massacre? If the Hersh scenario is the only one we could imagine this is a difficult question to answer, but Hersh has set the bar pretty low by subscribing to the method of limited hangout journalism which relies on “unnamed officials” to verify misconduct.

      As to whether someone like Matt Taibbi, who’s playing within the boundaries of the system in highly questionable territory is serving the greater good is far less clear than is the case with someone like Hersh. I’m not under the impression that Taibbi for example is intentionally obfuscating a larger body of criminal financial activity in an attempt to expose a smaller truth. If he’s in some way playing a nefarious role, I’d be tempted to lean in the direction that he’s not conscientious of what that is. That’s just my sense at this point though. I could obviously be missing something.

      With another example you mentioned, Yasha Levine, I like the work that he’s doing and see it as valuable and I think some of the attacks on him personally speak to the fact that he is challenging some of the figures and groups he’s working to report on. Similarly, with Nafeez, it seems to me that during his time at The Guardian he was trying to use his position to push socially relevant news as it relates to geopolitical energy considerations. In some ways this seemed like a potentially clever strategy to present legitimate issues to a larger audience without the sort of politicized, well orchestrated fanfare we’d expect with something like a piece by Hersh, Greenwald, or Scahill. It’s sort of ironic that Nafeez’s Bin Laden story came after he’d already gone the independent route. If anything, on these grounds, I’m at least inclined to look at this as a misstep, opposed to an step intended to mislead.

      It’s very difficult to draw the line. It’s nice to have a shortlist, such as what you mentioned previously with someone like Sibel for example, who has demonstrated time and time again that what she covers and how she covers it is coming from a place of unwavering integrity and commitment to telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, absent of any political, financial/career, or ego driven motivations. This is valuable and rare.

      • CuChulainn says:

        well, key is that Sibel does not work as a journalist, ditto for Doug Valentine. i guess Russ Baker ended his journalist career when he got a conscience. as Alain Soral likes to say, a journalist is either a whore or unemployed. even some of Pierre Péan’s brave work can be understood as expressing the voice of disgruntled French intelligence/military who have watched French foreign policy taken over by the “Anglo-saxons.” Roland Dumas speaks for the same people, as did Raymond Barre & even Mitterand at the end of their lives. the scapegoating of France for US-backed atrocities in Rwanda/Congo still irks many French officers & the French media is now entirely “atlanticist.”
        how far can one trust sites like Exiled that have their own sources of funding–probably only very selectively. how transparent is the funding for Nafeez’s new venture, i wonder. as PBS/CPB & Amy Goodman etc. show, public solicitation of funds is a good way to win credibilty, not necessarily deserved.
        apologies for double posting below.

        • Ronald Orovitz says:

          Well, when we needed real reporting the most, Russ Baker was a mixed bag….

          http://www.russbaker.com/archives/LA%20Times%20-%20Sept%2012%20-%20America%20Attacked.htm

          On the one hand, there’s this…

          There were reports of an explosion right before the tower fell, then a strange sucking sound, and finally the sound of floors collapsing. Then came a huge surge of air, followed by a vast cloud of dirt, smoke, dust, paper and debris. Windows shattered. People screamed and dived for cover.

          And then there’s this…

          Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the construction manager for the World Trade Center, said that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the towers’ steel supports.

          “This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it,” he said. “But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire.”

          Granted, the story was by-lined L.A.Times Team with Baker being the man on the ground in NYC, so the latter words were perhaps not Baker’s. This one, however, on the ’93 WTC bombing, is all his…

          http://www.russbaker.com/archives/Salon%20-%20The%20Past%20As%20Prologue.htm

          Note the short shrift given to the subject of the FBI informant Emad Salem, whose recordings of meetings with his handlers implicated the FBI in the bombing… Many links assembled here: http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2010/11/did-fbi-bomb-world-trade-center-in-1993.html

          Not a peep from Baker about any of that.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            [I have a comment pending (it has multiple links), so this comment won’t make sense right away]

            I stand corrected – http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/04/11/just-asking-media-outfoxed-on-spate-of-bizarre-shootings/

            Here’s FBI informant Emad Salem, speaking to his FBI handler:

            [W]e was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case!

            It was a little late in coming though.

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      CuChulain: “…how many others can you name?” – Don’t forget Wayne Madsen… He’s been on a roll of late, including revealing some of the contents of those 28 pages.

      • I don’t know about Wayne Madsen in general, but the idea of putting him on a ‘short list’ next to the likes of Sibel and James Corbett is an affront to my sensibilities. That’s just me though…

        • Ronald Orovitz says:

          “I don’t know about Wayne Madsen in general…”

          Then you should reserve your judgement on things you don’t know about.

          • I was attempting to be generous…

            I think Wayne Madsen’s a tool. I left it open ended incase someone else here felt inclined to vouch for him. My only exposure to him has been via comments/redirects to articles of his by you and I’m less than impressed. I’m not passing judgement on you, personally, Ronald, I’m just stating the grounds for my rejection of putting him in the same league as people like Sibel and James Corbett, this time more explicitly since you’ve pressed me on it.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            There’s nothing explicit in your knee-jerk reaction here. Explicit would be, for example, my reasons posted above for having reservations about Russ Baker (which I spent the good part of an afternoon researching to back up). Perhaps, in Baker’s defense, it can be said that he has since seen the light. Madsen however saw the light long before, which has something to do with why he went from being a mainstream pundit (particularly on matters of privacy) to verboten in D.C., not just among most of his mainstream colleagues, but also with such “alt-media” people like Tom Hartmann – now there’s a tool.

            I have to say, as a subscriber to WMR, his knowledge of matters relating to intelligence and geopolitics is encyclopedic. I often avail myself of the WMR search function as I would an encyclopedia. It far outstrips wikipedia in those areas. Which is quite extraordinary for what is basically a one man operation. He does have a few helpers, (including Andrew Kreig who occasionally contributes here at BFP), but the vast majority of WMR articles have his by-line.

          • Ronald,
            Thanks for your take on Wayne Madsen. I appreciate your taking the time to articulate what it is about his work you find compelling. I also agree that your explanation for what your reservations have been with respects to Russ Baker are certainly a more respectable form of critique than my sniping at Madsen. My impression of him is that some of his theories or assertions sound quite dubious and would be unlikely to hold up under scrutiny. I have no reason to doubt your take that he’s broadly knowledgeable about the general subject matter he deals with, I just have a hard time taking seriously someone who’s peddling info such as what you commented on elsewhere about him claiming Obama’s has a reputation for receiving oral sex from old white guys from time to time. Even if this were true, unless Madsen was pressing the case for example that this was being used to blackmail Obama or that some Senator was blowing him to get Federal funding for some sort of pet project, this just falls under the supermarket checkout tabloid variety of conspiracy theory in my opinion. I think I also recall seeing something on Madsen’s website along the lines of “birther” type assertions with respect to Obama. While I don’t care for the president, I think efforts to “expose” him as having concealed an identity which would’ve prevented him from becoming president have been racially driven, slanderous, and petty. Very Fox News/Donald Trump in my opinion.

            At any rate, I’m not interested in convincing you one way or the other about Wayne Madsen, but I feel you’re on fair grounds to take issue with my failure to be specific about what I dislike and I’m not under the impression that you’re pressing the issue just for the sake of arguing. I might disagree with you on a number of things discussed here, but I appreciate and respect the civility in which you argue your points of view.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Birther? Not in the Jerome Corsi/ Sheriff Arpaio sense, but Madsen did travel to Indonesia and found grounds for questioning whether Obama became and Indonesian citizen and then studied in the US as a foreign student, which would disqualify him for the office he now holds, under the U.S. Constitution. The records that would resolve these issues are under lock and key. Although, there is evidence to suggest (as Madsen has also covered) that John Brennan may very well be holding these records over Obama’s head for blackmail purposes – it was Brennan’s Analysis corporation that compromised Obama’s State dept. passport records early on in the 2008 campaign.

          • CuChulainn says:

            Wayne Madsen is the only subscription site i look at daily, besides this one. his sex reporting does not seem scurrilous to me, Benny, because he relates it to the game of blackmail and coercion. he does sometimes seems wild but who knows, truth is stranger than fiction.
            thanks for the info on Russ Baker, Ronald O.; here again one wonders to what extent he is still playing the game–his Saudi reporting on 9/11, for example, seems to fit in with the current rap on Saudi. one wants to presume good faith.
            should have mentioned Daniel Hopsicker; no chinks in his armor that i can see
            Julien Teil investigates the NGO world,_Le Livre noir des ONG__
            also Ola Tunander, P.D. Scott of course, but like Tarpley he seems reticent to look at what Joachim Martillo calls Judonia. Madsen is not afraid of that.

            as Debord says, in the society of the integrated spectacle “it is no longer possible
            to believe anything about anyone that you have not learned for yourself;” for me probably only Sibel and Doug Valentine have reached the threshold of a personal degree of trust

          • Thanks for your feedback, CuChu, I respect your opinion and I appreciate what Ronald had to say as well. I guess I’ll keep a more open mind about Maden and see where that goes.

            It’s nice to have people who you can feel a certain amount of trust for, but it’s probably best to always retain a certain amount of skepticism, even if that’s hard with people you trust the most. I’ve been disappointed enough times by people who have earned my trust and respect to recognize that this is just the way it goes and it’s best to keep an open mind and keep on my toes to the extent it’s possible. I recognize that there are bits and pieces that I’m going to get from one person that I’m not necessarily going to get from someone else I generally trust more. Maybe Madsen would be that type of person and I was just put off, who knows.

            Who What Why and Russ Baker have done the best job covering the Boston Marathon case in my opinion. He might have been wrong about some things in the past or still is on certain issues, but as long as that’s not colouring his coverage in a way which is disingenuous or misleading I can live with that. There are times where I disagree with Peter B Collins too, such as Snowden or “blowback”, but I value his take on things and, probably most importantly, whatever his biases may be, he comes by them honestly and remains objective and always professional. I’ve bumped heads with Tom on some issues as well, but certainly not the extent where I feel that outweighs the value of what he contributes which is unique.

            Anyway… I know I’m not telling you or anybody else here anything they don’t know, but that’s my two cents on the matter.

  35. CuChulainn says:

    please forgive/ignore my bout of naiveté re. the _Exiled_ & co, the following article gives a sense of what they are about these days– http://exiledonline.com/donetsk-paper-fascists-protest-track-suits-in-yanukovychs-hometown/
    incidentally, Max Keiser reports a Sinaloan drug lord has escaped from a maximum security Mexican prison–he calls Chicago his “home port”

  36. CuChulainn says:

    as Debord observes, the precarity of media professionals ensures servility to the spectacle; it goes with the territory
    https://libcom.org/files/Comments%20on%20the%20Society%20of%20the%20Spectacle.pdf
    With the destruction of history, contemporary events themselves retreat into a remote and fabulous realm of unverifiable stories, uncheckable statistics, unlikely explanations and untenable reasoning. For every imbecility presented by the spectacle, there are only the media’s professionals to give an answer, with a few respectful rectifications or remonstrations. And they are hardly extravagant, even with these, for besides their extreme ignorance, their personal and professional solidarity with the spectacle’s overall authority and the society it expresses makes it their duty, and their pleasure, never to diverge from that authority whose majesty must not be threatened. It must not be forgotten that every media professional is bound by wages and other rewards and recompenses to a master, and sometimes to several; and that every one of them knows he is dispensable.

    • CuChulainn said:
      With the destruction of history, contemporary events themselves retreat into a remote and fabulous realm of unverifiable stories, uncheckable statistics, unlikely explanations and untenable reasoning. For every imbecility presented by the spectacle, there are only the media’s professionals to give an answer, with a few respectful rectifications or remonstrations. And they are hardly extravagant, even with these, for besides their extreme ignorance, their personal and professional solidarity with the spectacle’s overall authority and the society it expresses makes it their duty, and their pleasure, never to diverge from that authority whose majesty must not be threatened. It must not be forgotten that every media professional is bound by wages and other rewards and recompenses to a master, and sometimes to several; and that every one of them knows he is dispensable.

      Is this taken from the PDF, or is it your own take on the matter?

  37. Okay, was the Syrian chemical attack something assad actually did or was it a frame up by the west?

    I have always heard the frame up story was true.

  38. thymesup says:

    Today at 12:14 PM re seymour hersh, ‘likely mossad propagandist,’ written by doug valentine 2001.:
    from ‘last page’ /’will we never learn?’:
    of http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HomelandInsecurity.html

    ‘Here at home, through the Office of Homeland Security, we will endure more political and psychological warfare, more black and gray propaganda, and more deceit and disinformation than any society on earth before. We’re told we must become new people in a brave new world, where indefinite detention, torture and summary execution of our suspected enemies will make us free.
    Award winning reporter and likely Mossad propagandist Seymour Hersh tells us that we must resort to the tactics the Jordanian security service used to catch the notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. “The Jordanians did not move directly against suspected Abu Nidal followers but seized close family members instead, mothers and brothers,” Hersh notes. Then he quotes an anonymous CIA officer as saying, “Jordan is the one nation that totally succeeded in penetrating a group,” because it was able “to get their families under control.”
    So much for family values.’

    lynn bradbury/thymesup

  39. In case anyone missed it, Nafeez Ahmed a few days ago publicly dissed James Corbett in his follow-up article on Bin Laden. I made a reply — very polite, very measured, noting evidence that Ahmed did not deal with, pointing out how he had inaccurately and unfairly portrayed James’ piece — but responses are moderated there and he seems to have stopped approving anything. I’m sure he caught flak and probably most of it nasty, so in a way I don’t blame him for shutting down comments. But…shutting down debate? He’s gone down a few pegs for me.

    • What a douche bag. It seems like he’s trying to cover his ass for catching flack over relying on similar logic to Hersh on the Bin Laden raid by picking at something James said, as if James was implying that an “informed consensus” means that Nafeez’s account falls outside of that ‘consensus’, but James said this way before Nafeez posted his article. Nafeez’s article is well cited and thorough, but only in a way which is marginally better than Hersh’s story. It’s as if he’s saying that, because he has more accounts documenting alleged deaths and/or accounts stating that Bin Laden was actually still was alive that this means that it’s more probable that Bin Laden was still alive when the raid happened. I don’t think think any of the accounts are of much value, but if Nafeez wants props for doing the legwork chasing after bullshit leads, by all means, give him a round of applause and an ‘A’ for effort. James cites less sources in the article Nafeez was criticizing, but he focuses mainly on Bin Laden’s declining health and puts that in the context of the videos that document this followed by subsequent videos where Bin Laden appears to look younger and healthier (it must’ve been the “Just For Men”). James doesn’t try to state when Bin Laden actually died, just that it seems more than likely that, at the bare minimum, the idea that he was still alive by the time the raid happened seems pretty far fetched.

      I particularly appreciate the fact that James avoids getting into petty squabbles with other figures in the alt-media. Perhaps he’s commented on Nafeez’s work at some point, but I highly doubt it. What a coward… His Bin Laden story stunk, but instead of making a cautious effort to clear the air, he just walked out of the bathroom with toilet paper stuck to his shoe.

      • I just realized that the last paragraph isn’t particularly clear. I’m referring to Nafeez as being a coward etc, not James. Beyond that, sorry if this original comment was unnecessarily harsh (particularly the language), I just felt Nafeez was taking a cheap shot in his article and it pissed me off…

  40. CuChulainn says:

    Nafeez hedges carefully
    http://www.nafeezahmed.com/2015/07/but-but-bin-laden-died-in-2001-didnt-he.html
    Whether bin Laden was indeed killed in Abbottobad or not, is impossible to prove one way or another. Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. In my INSURGEintelligence report, “The bin Laden death mythology”, I’ve inferred that he was for the sake of argument, given all the evidence available including credible third party sources showed that bin Laden was active and sighted in Pakistan before May 2011 – but have made clear that the true story is being suppressed for reasons unknown, and currently unknowable.

  41. Challenges everything I thought I knew about Osama BL.
    Its reasoned. sourced. needs be weighted. Everything does.
    Thats a good thing. He’s right to point it out.

  42. I agree that Nafeez’s piece is well reasoned as far as it goes, and I said so in my reply to him. I think it’s a very reasonable argument to make, that the story about his death in 2001 that came out of the Pakistani press, for example, was a cover story that protects the ISI for hiding him. Sure…why not. And the fact that there are a few different variations on the cause and manner of his death does have the effect of reducing our faith in any of them. These are good points to make and Nafeez makes them well.

    But: what it doesn’t account for, as James Corbett’s piece does, is the lack of positive evidence for his continued existence after December 2001. Total cut-off of CIA communications intercepts. The beginning of the Obviously Fake Videos. Nafeez doesn’t deal with these things; doesn’t provide a reason we should consider him still alive after that date; doesn’t question enough the ridiculous lack of body after his supposed assassination. These are important weaknesses, regardless of any bet-hedging he also does. Any account of the raid needs to take serious account of these factors, in my opinion, if we are to take it seriously.

    And my problem with his treatment of James Corbett is that he totally mischaracterizes James’ article, which after all is centrally focused on the “9 deaths” of Osama bin Laden and shows the same skepticism that Nafeez shows about that. In particular, James clearly uses “informed consensus” to refer to the death by kidney failure, NOT, as Nafeez implies, in any attempt to group the various contradictory claims together and call them a consensus. That, to me, is a very serious journalistic failing on Nafeez’s part that he ought to be above, as a generally thoughtful person with good critical thinking skills. It’s sloppy, and it’s petty, and as far as I’m concerned it’s unforgivable. Unless of course he apologizes for it, soon and convincingly.

    • Thanks for this account, John. It’s far more level headed and also more comprehensive as far as providing additional information about why Nafeez’s citation of James’ article felt petty and slanderous. For the record, just to be thorough across the board(s), here is an additional exchange I had with another member at James’ site which I’ll simply copy and paste in hopes that it will add something to the conversation.

      =================================
      Author: Chatte Noire
      Comment:
      Actually I think Nafeez was “replying” to our post on OffGuardian – “How Many Times can One Man Die?”, since he linked to it and used our image.

      http://off-guardian.org/2015/05/15/how-many-times-can-one-man-die-the-disputed-killing-of-osama-bin-laden/

      I don’t really think he deserves to be called a douchebag. True, he was pretty highhanded and dismissive about the various stories of OBL’s early death, and his article is rather rambling and obscure, but he may be making a couple of valid points,

      No need to get tribalistic and internecine.
      =================================
      Author: BennyB
      Comment:
      @Chatte, thanks for the info. I guess my response was unnecessarily harsh. I didn’t realize that Nafeez was “responding” to your post (which is well presented by the way =), so it just seemed like he was citing James’ work, as if it was emblematic of what’s wrong with other accounts which are critical of his story, even though James never came out to challenge Nafeez’s story himself (at least not to my knowledge). It just seemed like a cheap shot and beyond that, as I indicated in my comment, I think he’s trying to prop up his account using the same sort of faulty logic that he’s criticizing James for. Essentially stating that, because there are so many different contradictory accounts, it’s not reasonable to say that one can make a claim conclusively, yet he’s saying that because he thinks he’s done “the most comprehensive, careful and properly documented account to date”, he’s in a position where he can put down other accounts such as James’ for not being as professional.

      In all fairness though, it appears Nafeez felt that he needed to defend his position, so I guess I can understand why he might have come off the way he did. Regardless, it seems like I overreacted in a way which was unnecessarily “tribalistic”, to use your phrasing, so I appreciate your feedback.

  43. CuChulainn says:

    in neither the original story re. Hersh’s account nor in his follow up does Nafeez mention the Figaro report (nor does he mention the March 2000 AsiaWeek story) from which James does not link directly in his May 2011 article but via the Grauniad (i did not find a Grauniad link to the Figaro story); the Grauniad, an ostensibly independent newpaper, is “worried” about lack of intelligence coordination: “Whether the allegations about the Dubai meeting are confirmed or not, the wider leaks from the French secret service throw a worrying light on the rivalries and lack of coordination between intelligence agencies, both within the US and between western allies.”

    Chussodovsky gives a translation of the original story: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

    the site 911myths cannot find any better argument against this report than to generally criticize French intelligence; the Guardian itself observes that French intelligence “is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.” Note that Richard Labevière was cashiered under Sarkozy, when the US fully took over France.

  44. CuChulainn says:

    James makes something out of OBL’s deteriorating condition in these videos, which evidently were recorded ca. 1997; bottom line question is: can anyone supply positive evidence that OBL was alive after early 2000, when FBI apparently got its last videos of him?
    https://www.corbettreport.com/osama-bin-laden-pronounced-dead-for-the-ninth-time/
    In October 2001, Bin Laden appeared in a videotape wearing army fatigues and Islamic headdress, looking visibly pale and gaunt. In December of 2001, another videotape was released, this time showing a seriously ill Bin Laden who was seemingly unable to move his left arm.

  45. CuChulainn says:

    so your interlocutor is “chatte noire,” Benny? think she might be a troll? ask her about the recent attack at Chatte à nougat… gentlemen prefer blondes

    although James does not link to it, he does mention this report which Nafeez omits: “Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts on September 10, 2001 were confirmed by a CBS News Report. Osama had been hospitalized one day before the 9/11 attacks. How on earth could he have coordinated the attacks from his hospital bed in a heavily guarded Pakistani military hospital located in Rawalpindi. Bear in mind that the Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi (under the adminstration of the Pakistani military) exclusively “provides specialised treatment to Army personel and their immediate family”. Osama bin Laden must have had some connections in the Pakistani military or intelligence to be admitted to the hospital. He was, according to Dan Rather’s CBS report, provided with “treatment for a very special person”.”
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-analysis-where-was-osama-bin-laden-on-september-11-2001/20986

    one more point on the Nafeez article– “The ill-informed have jumped to rather silly conclusions based on these multiple death reports. James Corbett, for instance, who produces video reports for Sibel Edmonds’ Boiling Frogs Post..”
    john pointed out the ad hominem here; this, together with closing comments, is a surprising show of weakness.
    niqnaq: “ad hominem is the normal form of modern propaganda. It certainly works, and again, the women’s movement is responsible for the change in Western cultural sensibility that makes post-modern ad hominem attacks possible… previous mores would have dismissed them with contempt;” Trotskyites and Israel apologists can also be recognized by resort to ad hominem; that Nafeez now does so looks like a red flag to me.

    • To be extra super duper clear, I am not accusing Nafeez of an ad hominem attack. I am accusing him of journalistic sloppiness. He mischaracterizes James’ argument. James agrees with him about the absurdity of all the death reports; his use of “informed consensus” specifically referred to the kidney disease and was not an attempt to make numerous contradictory reports sound like a coherent consensus. These points are obvious and clear and there is no excuse for Nafeez to have implied otherwise. This is not ad hominem; it’s fact-twisting, and in journalism, it’s a crime.

    • so your interlocutor is “chatte noire,” Benny? think she might be a troll? ask her about the recent attack at Chatte à nougat… gentlemen prefer blondes

      I’m not familiar with chatte noire outside of this interaction. The article they linked to which apparently Nafeez was responding to seemed like a legitimate compilation of sources, including reference to James’, which were pointing at the absurdity of the Bin Laden story. I’m not sure whether there’s something in that piece specifically which was ‘off’ that you’re saying I missed, or just that an awareness of past conduct on their part might have keyed me into the fact that the counter argument on Nafeez’s behalf wasn’t exactly ‘unbiased’.

      I felt the critique on my tone wasn’t unreasonable. I believe I stated somewhere that I wasn’t interested in contributing to a situation which devolved into petty attacks pitting one ‘camp’ against another. I appreciate the civility that generally exists here as well as at James’ site and I try to be mindful of that, at least with the language. Still, the way Nafeez tried to play the situation was totally out of line and slanderous in my opinion and, although I probably could’ve said it better, I’m at least glad that some other people have confirmed that my response wasn’t just a knee jerk reaction in defense of James, or as you mention, CuChu, BFP for that matter.

      Nafeez could’ve potentially redeemed himself from the Bin Laden article by taking one on the chin and tightening up his game. Instead he chose to throw a wild cheap shot and, at least in my mind, he’s disqualified himself from the right to be taken seriously on these matters.

  46. CuChulainn says:

    you said Nafeez “publicly dissed” James; calling him ill-informed without evidence and accusing him of jumping to silly conclusions sounds ad hominem to me.

    • I think my first message omitted the details so I don’t blame you for drawing the wrong conclusion. As I subsequently elaborated, the diss was not based on name-calling or character assassination, but on a misrepresentation of James’ argument.

      Ahmed wrote: “Corbett’s supposed ‘informed consensus’ basically is that bin Laden experienced multiple deaths, from 2001 onwards, every few years or so, of lung complications, typhoid fever, kidney failure, general ill-health, and murder.”

      Whereas James wrote: “But given that an informed consensus has formed around the opinion that Bin Laden died long ago due to kidney failure, will the people of America hold their President to the highest standard in presenting evidence that the person killed was actually Osama Bin Laden, and that he actually died in the way described, or will this pronouncement go unquestioned like so many other deaths in the never ending war of terror?”

      So when Ahmed calls James ill-informed and his conclusions “silly”, he does so because of a misreading or willful misrepresentation of what James actually argued. I don’t mean to be pedantic or argue semantics, but I do want to be clear because I think, for a journalist, what Ahmed did is actually worse than making an ad hominem attack, because it falsely purports to be something better.

  47. “This ability to commit the most horrific acts of terror, and successfully blame them on its enemies through black propaganda, is what makes the CIA [’s inclusion in the OHS] so dangerous.” Valentine.
    Very confusing.
    I agree the attack on James C is a marker. It reads ‘outside’ of the piece.
    ‘Proof of life’ quotes a ‘late arriving document containing sensitive interviews and materials obtained by the Commission, not published, and remaining classified. “Leaks about the content of this classified addendum to the 9/11 Commission Report showed that it had concluded that senior ISI officers had known in advance about the 9/11 attacks, that Osama bin Laden was being protected by Pakistani military intelligence officials, and that President Pervez Musharraf himself had approved for the terror chief to be treated for renal problems repeatedly at a military hospital near Peshawar.”
    So, the single critical question of OBL’s health – his likely death by renal failure post 911, is answered in one sentence quoting ‘Commission report’ links to classified and still protected documents.
    “As precise evidence of Pakistan’s harboring Osama bin Laden streamed into the US intelligence community from 2004 onwards, the US response was not to take measures to pressure Pakistan on turning bin Laden over, but instead, as of around 2005, to accelerate Saudi support for bin Laden’s global terror network in a bid to isolate Iran and Syria. When by 2008, the US intelligence community received specific intelligence indicating bin Laden’s presence at the Abbottabad compound, the CIA still failed to act” : “By August 2010, when a former ISI officer decided to walk into the US embassy and come clean to US officials who had no idea about bin Laden’s concealment, what was once a highly compartmentalized secret became known to the wider US intelligence community.’
    Should ‘evidence streaming into the US intelligence community from 2004 onwards’ and ‘highly compartmentalized secret kept from the wider US intelligence community until 2010’ be in the same sentence?

    I do not know what is more disturbing. CIA knowingly supporting OBL for a decade after 911. then killing him.
    or OBL being dead for 11 years . and then CIA pretending to.

    Ultimately, remembering ROVE’s ‘creating new realities,’ the idea of being played is hard to avoid.

  48. “UK magazine Ceasefire publishes never- before-disclosed insights into how the Sunday Times investigative series was spiked under the direct pressure of interest groups tied to the US government. The groundbreaking and revelatory exposé is investigated and reported by bestselling author and analyst Dr. Nafeez Ahmed.”
    May 17th. 2013 boilingfrogspost.
    https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/whistleblower-al-qaeda-chief-u-s-asset/
    I don’t get it ?
    In 2013 Nafeez Ahmed reported and corroborated the depth of Sibel’s knowledge of al-Zawahiri/OBL/GLADIOb/alQaeda. Stating “In interviews with this author in early March, Edmonds claimed that Ayman al-Zawahiri, current head of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s deputy at the time, had innumerable, regular meetings at the U.S. embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, with U.S. military and intelligence officials between 1997 and 2001, as part of an operation known as ‘Gladio B’.
    “According to two Sunday Times journalists speaking on condition of anonymity, this and related revelations had been confirmed by senior Pentagon and MI6 officials as part of a four-part investigative series that were supposed to run in 2008. The Sunday Times journalists described how the story was inexplicably dropped under the pressure of undisclosed “interest groups”, which, they suggest, were associated with the U.S. State Department.”
    Knowing these important facts, the same author, now, claims OBL was actually Alive at the time, and pretty much ‘in plain sight’ driving around Pakistan – a fact reportedly ‘understood by a US Intelligence community receiving precise evidence of Pakistan’s harbouring Osama bin Laden streamed into the US intelligence community from 2004 onwards” ?

    In this latest piece, the author does not discuss or acknowledge in any way al-Zawahiri in terms of Sibel’s corroborated revelations . Nor of GLADIOb in the OBL narrative.
    Instead he writes entirely in, or toward, the OCT dynamic.
    It is only fair and reasonable to wonder, that in 2013 when the author learned the ‘secret’ of alQaeda #2 al-Zawahiri was an asset of deepstate; he DIDN’T hear any chatter regarding ‘precise evidence streaming into US intelligence’ from 2004 onwards, that OSAMA was actually alive and driving around Pakistan?
    Or is this the gag 😉

  49. CuChulainn says:

    now i am wondering about Nafeez’s new project, Insurge Intelligence, “people-powered watchdog journalism for the global commons.” The Insurge page identifies it as “A Medium Corporation;” Medium in turn seems to be owned by Obvious Corporation–a key player in the online spectacle
    http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/twitter-founders-look-reboot-digital-publishing-142751
    “Anytime Biz Stone and Evan Williams have any sort of announcement, the tech world listens. Late Tuesday, via a blog post, Williams, one of Twitter’s co-founders, introduced the world to Medium, a new platform for online publishing.
    “Medium is the brainchild of The Obvious Corporation, a parent company founded by Stone, Williams and Jason Goldman. You may not have heard of Obvious, but chances are you’ve heard of one of its successful side projects—a little company called Twitter. After Twitter’s success, Obvious fell by the wayside but was rebooted in June 2011 under a veil of secrecy by the founders.”

    • No surprise there 😉 ‘people-powered’ (with a little help from some friends). For god’s sake it has the word “corporation” in the title. Some astroturf “grassroots” journalism business. Way to fight the power Nafeez! =p

  50. CuChulainn says:

    The American journalist Seymour M. Hersh, wrote in the New Yorker, that even some people in the CIA and government assumed, that certain leads had been laid in order to confuse the investigators. Who, Herr von Buelow, would have done this?
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html

Speak Your Mind