Gerald Posner, of Case Closed infamy, is now the chief investigative correspondent for the Daily Beast. He has just been caught plagiarizing from a Miami Herald story:

He said he had no memory of having seen the Herald story, describing himself as "absolutely sure" he did not see it before sending his own story to Beast editors. But that memory must be wrong, he said, because the similarities between the two pieces are too great, and the Herald's story was posted before he e-mailed his to his editors at 2:03 a.m. on Feb. 2.

I'm not sure how one can lose memory of an act of plagiarism committed so recently. But what should we have expected? Gerry is also the fellow who falsely "gave the impression" that he had interviewed James Tague, Carlos Bringuier and JFK pathologist J. Thornton Boswell. In fact, he seems to have lied about Boswell to Congress:

On November 17, 1993 before the House Committee on Government Operations, Posner reported that he had interviewed two of Kennedy’s pathologists, James Humes, M.D. and J. Thornton Boswell, M.D. Posner testified that they confirmed to him that they had changed their minds about the original location they had given for Kennedy’s skull wound....Posner informed the U.S. Congress that the pathologists told him that they had erred [in their original autopsy report]—the [head]wound was 10 centimeters higher, at the top rear of the skull. On March 30, 1994, I called both Drs. Humes and Boswell. Both physicians told me that they had not changed their minds about Kennedy’s wounds at all. They stood by their statements...which contradicted Posner. Startlingly, Dr. Boswell told me that he has never spoken with Posner.

Actually, I think Posner may not be lying in the present instance. It is possible that he does not have any recollection of plagiarizing the Miami Herald story because he may not, in fact, have done the actual copying.

Does he actually write about his own stuff, or does he merely sign his name to it? Some people have wondered about that for years. Suspicions were aroused, in part, by the odd lack of an authorial voice -- by his plywood-flat, "manufactured by committee" writing style. (If you ran his books through one of those programs designed to identify an author by style, what would you get?) During the CC brouhaha, he was a strangely ubiquitous media presence, and in some of his interviews he said things (about Jack Ruby, for example) that indicated an unfamiliarity with his own book.

(I would never be so churlish as to suggest that the same unknown party wrote both the Miami Herald story and the Posner piece. Both concerned the murder of the heir to the Fontainebleau Hotel fortune. An interesting topic.)

On a more substantive level: Before Case Closed, he wrote a work on Josef Mengele. A surprisingly short time before that book appeared, he gave testimony before Congress giving -- in detail -- a completely different (and much more persuasive) story about Mengele's post-war career. Given the long lead times for publication and the amount of time it takes to write any substantive book, this striking about-face was astounding.

The explanation? You may want to look here.

Posner has always denied being a "spooked up" journalist. It's just a coincidence that he managed to secure an interview with defector Yuri Nosenko even though the CIA always kept everyone else away from him. And then there's Why America Slept, which is filled with behind-the-scenes CIA and FBI material. Time claimed it to be an "indictment" of the agencies, but it clearly was part of a faction fight within the intelligence community:

The stuff that is going to spark hot debate is Chapter 19, an account—based on Zubaydah's claims as told to Posner by "two government sources" who are unnamed but "in a position to know"...

Posner elaborates in startling detail how U.S. interrogators used drugs—an unnamed "quick-on, quick-off" painkiller and Sodium Pentothal, the old movie truth serum—in a chemical version of reward and punishment to make Zubaydah talk. When questioning stalled, according to Posner, cia men flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex fitted out as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces," pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, used drugs and threats to scare him into more confessions.

This was published in the summer of 2003. Think about it: At that moment, Gerry Posner was getting "methods and operations" stuff from the CIA that no-one else could ever hope to get -- inside info about the interrogations of Al Qaeda suspects, the touchiest of touchy subjects. Do you need any further evidence to understand what Case Closed was all about?

On the lighter side, I direct your attention to the photo of Posner published above. Note the hair color. Keep in mind that the Mr. Honesty was born in 1954 -- in other words, he's older than I am, yet there's not a touch of gray -- and his hair used to be brushy. If you type "Gerald Posner" into Google, one of the more prominent auto-completions includes the words "plastic surgery."

This may explain Posner's attraction to the Michael Jackson story. Last July, he wrote about Jackson killing himself accidentally. Well, accidents happen. Even plagiarism, we're told, happens by accident. (He also says that scientist Mary Sherman was killed in an "accidental fire" despite the multiple stab wounds.) I must confess that, previously, I never gave Jackson's death too much thought -- but now that I find that Gerry has interjected himself into the story, I'll have to take a look at it. His byline sets off my spook alarm.

(Maybe Gerry had accidental plastic surgery...?)

Plagiarism and giving false testimony to Congress would normally destroy the reputation of a journalist. For Posner, these things always seem to be mere bumps in the road. That fact alone tells you that the fix is in. Permalink

There's no way to rationalize this delusional, progandistic, batshit nutzoid crap:

The organizer of the Tea Party Convention says he agrees with Tom Tancredo's description of President Obama as a socialist.

The former congressman from Colorado and 2008 Republican presidential candidate blasted Obama, saying "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

Judson Phillips, a Tennessee lawyer who formed Tea Party Nation and who organized what's being billed as the first national Tea Party Convention, told reporters Friday that "Tom Tancredo gave a fantastic speech last night. I think he is an amazing politician."

Asked if he agrees with Tancredo's description of Obama, Phillips said, "The word 'socialist' is a word you don't want to be labeled with in the American political system. It's got a lot of negative connotations, but it also has a very specific political meaning. It refers to a specific political ideology. I think it is very clear that that is the political ideology of Barack Obama."

Phillips added that he thinks "Tancredo doesn't feel like a lot of people who supported Barack Obama understand the basics of this country."

This movement really has nothing to do with Obama, since you know that these guys would say the same thing about any Democratic president.

I cannot believe that "socialism" is a political flashpoint in this day and age. What has this country come to?

Time to say it: All -- all all all ALL ALL ALL -- teabaggers are reactionary neanderthal assholes, the worst of the worst. This fascistic neo-Birchite hate movement encapsulates everything that is wrong with this country. Anyone who tries to sell you on the lie that there is diversity within that movement, or that some elements are liberal-friendly, is simply a bought-and-paid-for infiltrator trying to sell you cyanide relabeled as soda pop.

And I'll call 'em teabaggers if I damn well want to. I'll call 'em much worse before this is done. Permalink

The video below offers an important insight into the ongoing mystery of flight 253, the so-called Christmas bomber or "crotch bomber."

The video is some years old -- I'm not sure how old. It concerns 9/11, always a touchy subject in these here parts. The introductory comments are from John Judge, who came under sharp attack from the CD nuts because he didn't go along with their bombs-in-the-buildings crap. I'm not sure that I agree with what Judge has to say here about the Pentagon strike.

But 9/11 is not -- repeat: NOT -- the topic I want to address right now. And if you insist on jumping onto that topic anyways, stand warned: I am in a mood to moderate comments ruthlessly.

Right now, our topic is the more recent Christmas terror attempt -- the so-called "crotch-bomber case. If you watch this video all the way through, you will see the relevance:



Basically, the bulk of this presentation comes from a stewardess who often worked on that flight, and who lost a friend when the jet crashed into the Pentagon.

I'll transcribe the part which is germane to our present discussion:

On August 25 [2001] -- I'm constantly working this route, seven times a month -- I had one of the alleged hijackers on my plane, that flew the second trade tower plane, into the second trade tower. The one that kind of sliced it through. Flight 173 United Airlines. His name is Al-Shehhi. If you ever see a picture of all the hijackers, he's the one with the little round glasses.

I had him on my flight on August 25. He videotaped us almost the entire time. Which wasn't unusual, back then. And he asked us to go to the cockpit three times. And he told us he was a pilot for Saudi Arabian airlines. He was a nice, friendly guy. I wasn't suspicious of anything. Normal behavior back then.

The connection to the more recent incident should be obvious. As I wrote:

A mystery man kept his camera going throughout the entire flight, as though expecting an incident to occur. We have at least two perfectly congruent and credible eyewitness descriptions of this "mystery movie-maker," who has made no attempt to capitalize on his remarkable footage.

There may be an innocent explanation for that. But right now, the situation seems more than a little suspicious. A mystery videographer who films the whole flight suggests advanced knowledge of a "terror" scheme which was intended to fail.

The Al-Shehhi videography exercise, conducted a couple of weeks before 9/11, makes perfect sense: Hijackers would want to know in advance just what to expect during the flight. They were, in essence, casing the joint.

It therefore seems logical to presume that the guy videotaping on Christmas was similarly "casing the joint."

Okay. So why was there a fire in Farouk's crotch? Why that flight, as opposed to a later flight? It doesn't make sense for a jihadi to try to pull off an act of terror on the same flight that carries a compatriot who is doing surveillance for some future act of terror.

Now let's check in with Kurt Haskell, one of the witnesses who saw Farouk (the abortive bomber) meet with a "well-dressed man" in the Schipol airport. He has written a long piece from which I draw the following excerptions, relevant to the above:

The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?

The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:

1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).

The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:

1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.

The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:

1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.

The rest of Haskell's long piece is of great interest, but I don't have the time to talk about all of it. I would, however, like to draw your attention to this excellent piece from January 22 by our old friend AntiFascist. He develops an idea that few others have discussed:

CongressDaily reported on January 22 that intelligence officials "have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities."

Leiter told the Committee: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."

CongressDaily reporter Chris Strohm, citing an unnamed "intelligence official" confirmed that Leiter's statement reflected government policy and told the publication, "in certain situations it's to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts."

And then there's this, which confirms the idea:

Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida threats against the United States.

"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort."

So. Can we put all of this together into a single, reasonably persuasive "Theory of Farouk"?

Not yet. But I feel that we are close to that point.

If the videographer was a terrorist "casing" the flight, why didn't the government interview him or even talk about him?

Since it makes sense that a terrorist would videotape a flight before the actual attack, why didn't the "mystery videographer" of Christmas set off all sorts of alarms? Why was he allowed to tape? The stewardess in the video indicates that such taping, once common, is now no longer allowed -- or at least, it raises suspicions.

(If you're a CD crank, and if you are just dying right now for the chance to give me the familiar "Cannon doesn't understand the laws of physics" rap, head on over to Rigorous Intuition. Have yourself a ball.) Permalink

Here's my response to this and to this:

There was a time when Richard Nixon said "We're all Keynesians now." Krugman outlines this in his book The Conscience of a Liberal: On economic issues, the bipartisan consensus used to be well to the left of where the Democratic party is today. How did it change?

Not by going the third party route.

The right wing nutsos -- the Friedmanites, the libertarians -- did not say: "We're not getting what we want from the Republicans, so let's form a new party."

Actually, I tell a lie. Before the great takeover occurred, and during the days of Nixon, some right-wing ultras did go down the third party route. A Libertarian party was formed, and the American Independent Party did well in the '68 and '72 elections, under George Wallace and John Schmitz.

George is the one who made that remark about there not being a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. John is the one who said "If you're out of Schmitz, you're out of gear. And if someone doesn't get that kid get to shut up, I'll do it myself."

Apologies for that digression. (If you weren't alive at that time, you may be confused by the references.)

The reactionary element within this country achieved much greater success when it decided to take over the Republican party. They have now commandeered it to such a degree that John Schmitz' son Joseph has a comfy place in it. (Joseph used to help run Blackwater and he was the DOD IG under W.) The fanatics not only took over the party, they also commandeered the national debate. They set the limits of permissible thought.

The Libertarian party and the American Independent party are still around. I suspect that they have stayed alive due to monies from the Democratic ratfucking fund.

The bottom line is this: Everything that people are now recommending has been tried before. There is nothing new under the sun. It therefore behooves us to look at history.

The "third party" trick was tried and it failed. Unless you call this a success. You want to end up like that? Will that make you happy?

The "take over the old party" trick proved a spectacular success.

Those who are now counsel you to do the exact opposite of what history teaches may have an agenda. The Republicans have an even larger ratfucking fund, you know.

Update: I'm putting a stop to all comments. Permalink

The previous post quotes Roger Ebert. When I visited the site, I took special note of this passage from his review of Open Range:

One of the many ways in which the Western has become old-fashioned is that the characters have values, and act on them. Modern action movies have replaced values with team loyalty; the characters do what they do because they want to win and they want the other side to lose. The underlying text of most classic Westerns is from the Bible: "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?" The underlying text of most modern action movies is from Vince Lombardi: "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing."

These words don't hold true for all westerns or all action films, but the principle seems sound.

It occurs to me -- after reading some of the comments evinced by the previous posts, after reading the comments on other web sites, and after reviewing the traumas we've experienced over the past few years -- that this culture made a huge mistake when it switched from westerns to action movies. In modern politics, as Bob Somerby notes, it's always shirts versus skins.

I don't speak purely in terms of D-versus-R. In the primaries, for the first time, we saw the "action movie" mentality applied to a primary. And we can slice the cheese even thinner: I well recall that when I wrote exposes of the "certificate of birth" nonsense, the woman who helps to run No Quarter wrote to me and told me to lay off. In essence, her message came down to this: Obama was Enemy #1 and any weapon against Enemy #1 was justified.

Shirts versus skins. And never mind the truth.

Today, Karl Rove wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal whose message is summed up in the head and subhead:

The President's GOP Outreach Comes Too Late
A photo-op is not the same as compromising on policy.

Unreal! Of course, this president has done nothing but compromise with the Republicans. He has, in many ways, been a Republican president. Rove knows that, and a lot of other people know it, but they'll never admit it, because doing so wouldn't fit the shirts/skins narrative.

The bloody battle between Obama and the GOP is really a battle between a moderate Republican somewhat to the right of Eisenhower and the ultra-right kooky radical rightists whose ideological forebears used to call Ike a commie. And yet the battle is no less bloody. Henry Kissinger once said: "Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Today, one could say that Washington politics are so vicious precisely because the differences are so small.

Here's a question for readers. If I were to point out something worthwhile being done by the Obama administration, how many of you would conclude that I've softened? If I were to point out a worthwhile plank in the tea party platform, how may would conclude that I've softened? If I were to quote a good line from Karl Marx, how many would conclude that I must be a commie? If I were to quote a good line form Adam Smith, how many would conclude that I've turned libertarian?

Values -- or shirts-versus-skins?

Fear the kids growing up on Michael Bay. They need some John Ford.

(By the way, Open Range should be watched twice: Once, because it's a good movie. And a second time, just to study Robert Duvall's performance. That guy could sell a line even if the words were chosen by a computerized randomizer. And no jibes about Costner: His work here is terrific.) Permalink

In a review of the new Mel Gibson film Edge of Darkness, Roger Ebert makes an interesting observation:

Because much of the movie is a cranked-up thriller with chases, fights, conspiracies and all that stuff, permit me a digression on secretive, shadowy corporations. What kinds of headquarters buildings do they inhabit? I Googled. Blackwater, which supplies our mercenaries in Iraq, has a drab two-story building outside Cleveland, with eight cars parked in front. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old company, recently moved from Houston to an anonymous skyscraper in -- Dubai, closer to its place of business.

I mention this because Northmoor -- which you will not be surprised to learn traffics in illegal, traitorous and dangerous activities -- occupies a spectacular structure atop a tall riverside hill, visible from miles around: Its tower, its modernistic design, its curious enormous gleaming globe, suggesting a planetarium. It is a building worthy of magazine covers, not least Architectural Digest.

Well, it's obvious why Evil Co. always looks more spectacular in movies than in real life: Directors like to keep things visually interesting. That's why courthouses and libraries in films are usually old and amber-lit and architecturally detailed, with lots of wood and banker's lamps and statuary and what-not, even though libraries and courtrooms rarely look that way in reality.

So here's Goldmann Sachs, 32 Old Slip, Manhattan:


Nah. Just doesn't say "evil." Paint it black.

But wait -- Goldman also has the Goldman Sachs Tower in New Jersey, 30 Hudson:


Yeah! Definitely getting there. It needs something, though. I'm thinking giant, sparking Tesla coils on top of the roof, emitting clouds of sulphur...

Here's AIG:


That's the American International Building at 70 Pine Street; the other side faces Wall Street. To me, it isn't evil. The observation deck used to be open to the public, but when AIG bought the place they made it private. Now only AIG execs can enter that deck.

This building is the tallest in the financial district. The Twin Towers used to be taller, of course. Those AIG execs on the observation deck must have had an excellent view of you-know-what, unless and until they were forced to evacuate.

What I'm looking for is an Evil Corporation housed in a building that just screams" "I'm evil! EEEEEEeeeeee-Villllllllllll.....!" Any suggestions?

(Yes, Roberta? Ah. St. Peter's. Very funny. Now go to the back of the class and ask the saints to forgive you for dissing Bramante, Bernini and Michelangelo.) Permalink

You know, the time may be coming for a readership upheaval. I've had a few. Once again, my heart isn't in my writing, and a large part of that has to do with the fact that I don't like the people I'm talking to.

Third party? No way.

GOP talking points? Not buying.

Tea partiers? All that tea seems to have stained their shirts brown.

Applauding GOP electoral successes? In the immortal words of Dana Carvey as Bush the elder: Na ga daw.

Should I retreat to the lazy man's mantra: "Both parties are the same"? No. Both parties are way too similar, that I'll grant. The bad party is bold and the not-quite-as-awful party is timid: I'll grant that too. But it remains the case that there are some Democrats (perhaps many Democrats) and no Republicans whose values reflect mine.

The GOP has its act together. No denying it. It's an act that I've opposed all my life.

I can't break bread with the delusional rabid dogs who think that Obama is a socialist. Any movement that fronts Andy Breitbart and his spooky little pals can count me as lifelong enemy.

A large part of me is so sick -- and so fearful -- about the resurgent Republican party, a party that is now proudly more fascist and more gonzo than ever before -- that I can't help but veer towards the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" POV.

On the other hand, there ain't no way I'm cozying up to the Obot creeps who sent me death threats throughout 2008. Forgiving that shit would be masochistic, and a masochist I ain't.

That said, I'm starting to get the feeling that what's coming after Obama will be so bad, so thunderously destructive to all political decency, that the day may come when even the folks over at the Confluence would be willing to sacrifice their first-born offspring to Bael in order to relive the halcyon (in retrospect) days of 2009.

I mean, for chrissakes, did you ever think that "socialism" would be a political issue in this day and age?

Sorry, folks, but there are times when you really must choose the lesser of two evils. If Hitler invades Russia then we must support Stalin, despite the fact that Stalin is a detestable murderous psychotic jerk.

Did I or did I not call the shot in December of 2008?

I maintain that the day will come, and will come soon, when Democrats will regret dissing the Clinton wing of the party. I predict that Barack Obama will one day be seen as the worst thing ever to happen to the Democratic party.

Permalink

At least, that's how the latest polls are looking. I don't see any way to turn this around, frankly.

Update: It's all so bloody predictable. After (or just before) the GOP achieves a majority, it'll be scandal time for the Obama administration.

What will the scandal be? Doesn't matter. You know how the Republicans are: In a world filled with real problems and real covert actions and real horrors, the right-wingers always fixate on something inane. Whitewater. Vince Foster. The Birth Certificate. You know the drill.

So the right is going to gin up some bullshit pseudoscandal that'll have just enough reality behind it to keep people intrigued. The WP and the NYT will take it seriously. The WSJ will go crazy. Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity and O'Reilly will scream about Bullshitgate 24/7.

And then will come the hearings. The GOP will be in control, so you know there will be hearings, and fishing expeditions disguised as depositions. We'll have a lot of Bullshitgate tributaries, and somewhere down one of those tributaries, someone will find something relatively minor but triable.

Bullshitgate will have strange -- yet strangely predictable -- effects on the PUMA folk. There will be a lot of people righteously pissed off by the horrors of 2008 who will cheer on the brave GOPers as they investigate every nook and cranny of Bullshitgate. And at some point, guys like me will come forward and say: "Look, I don't like Obama, but this Bullshitgate thing is, well, bullshit."

A-HA! people will say. We knew you were working for Obama all along...!

And there I'll be, defending a President I don't like against the nonsense being peddled by a bunch of other people I don't like.

Our political life has turned into Groundhog Day.

By the way: Andy Brietbart -- boy, I'm really starting to loathe this guy -- is trying to peddle some malarky about a Justice Department conspiracy against O'Keefe and his spooky pals. That's what the right-wing ratfuckers always do -- find some way to turn it around. (That's also what the Obot ratfuckers did on NAFTA.) It'll be easier for them to do this kind of thing when they have a majority again.


Permalink

I want to include a certain quote in a non-bloggy thing that I'm scribbling. The quote is this:

"Of all my fictional creations, Richard Nixon is the most nearly autonomous." -- Gore Vidal.

The trouble is, I'm not sure that those are the exact words. I can't recall where Vidal said it -- I think it was in a Nation essay published in the late 1980s. Maybe Esquire. The internet contains no trace of this quote, and I can't find it in the Vidal books on my shelves.

Did Vidal actually say those words, or has memory played one of its pranks? Does anyone else recall this quote?
Permalink