09-01-2011, 04:29 AM
[quote=James H. Fetzer]David,
I could not believe the ferocity of the reception to Phillip Nelson for having published
a book! I found it to be well-research, beautifully written, and ultimately convincing.
Fetzer cannot believe that others could disagree with him and even explain why.
He was the most fascinating individual ever astride the American political stage for
the reason that he had so many powerful tendencies, both for good and for evil. I
have explained all of this before and find it astonishing that anyone, at this stage of
debate, would still fail to appreciate his extraordinary capacity to manipulate events.
Show me one time when LBJ was ever in charge of something as superhumanly complex and multilayered as the murder of President Kennedy. A plot we are still figuring out 47 years later.
Those who have disappointed me the most, no doubt, are Charles and DiEugenio. If
he had only read the book, Charles would have made more rational and less strident
attacks,
What is your evidence for saying CD is a liar? He says he did read the book.
DiEugenio has displayed his penchant for the straw man, the ad hominem, and the
selective use of evidence. His attacks upon Hersh as a "CIA slut" are disgusting in
relation to the man who broke the My Lai massacre, the Phoenix program, and later
Dick Cheney's executive assassination ring. He deserves praise, not condemnation.
One of the truly misleading statements about a CIA asset I have ever seen. Hersh never uncovered Phoenix. He covered it up for three years. It was Calley's lawyers who began to surface Phoenix, undeniably tipped off by Calley who was in danger of a long prison term. Show me the evidence for the Cheney assassination ring. More of Hersh's CIA sources?
DiEugenio likes to find something--it could be anything--that he can convert into a
tool of attack. His latest intellectual atrocity is to alleged that Phil is "a liar" when
he asserts something he obviously believes to be true, again displaying a stunning
incapacity to separate saying something that might be false from real acts of lying.
Talk about sitting with your back to the mirror. Does Fetzer even realize that he is saying anymore? He just accused CD of being a liar with no evidence.
When I accused Nelson of prevarication, it was because he had said the following: "Jim, he may have cited the reference to the news item in his book, but the actual news article which he wrote that it referred to was dated August 25, 1970. Hersh wrote it, look it up. He "owned" that story throughout that period."
Does Fetzer understand English? Nelson is saying Hersh wrote the NY Times article Valentine references in his book. He then writes that this is a fait accompli, and challenges me to look it up. The clear implication being that he KNOWS Hersh wrote it, since he already saw it.
This was a bluff as I later exposed since I did look up the article which does not have Hersh's name on it but is a UPI release. How else does one interpret this if not a deception? .
I don't think he has bothered to read my posts or his would not still be so highly
repetitive and non-responsive. I doubt that Phil is mistaken in his claims, but even
if he were, unless he was making an assertion he knows to be false with the intent
of misleading his audience, he cannot be lying. DiEugenio is conceptually confused.
No I am not. I did the homework since I knew CIA asset Hersh would never uncover Phoenix on his own. You are indulging in CYA for both yourself and Nelson. Why you never looked up that article yourself should be puzzling to everyone.
I could not believe the ferocity of the reception to Phillip Nelson for having published
a book! I found it to be well-research, beautifully written, and ultimately convincing.
Fetzer cannot believe that others could disagree with him and even explain why.
He was the most fascinating individual ever astride the American political stage for
the reason that he had so many powerful tendencies, both for good and for evil. I
have explained all of this before and find it astonishing that anyone, at this stage of
debate, would still fail to appreciate his extraordinary capacity to manipulate events.
Show me one time when LBJ was ever in charge of something as superhumanly complex and multilayered as the murder of President Kennedy. A plot we are still figuring out 47 years later.
Those who have disappointed me the most, no doubt, are Charles and DiEugenio. If
he had only read the book, Charles would have made more rational and less strident
attacks,
What is your evidence for saying CD is a liar? He says he did read the book.
DiEugenio has displayed his penchant for the straw man, the ad hominem, and the
selective use of evidence. His attacks upon Hersh as a "CIA slut" are disgusting in
relation to the man who broke the My Lai massacre, the Phoenix program, and later
Dick Cheney's executive assassination ring. He deserves praise, not condemnation.
One of the truly misleading statements about a CIA asset I have ever seen. Hersh never uncovered Phoenix. He covered it up for three years. It was Calley's lawyers who began to surface Phoenix, undeniably tipped off by Calley who was in danger of a long prison term. Show me the evidence for the Cheney assassination ring. More of Hersh's CIA sources?
DiEugenio likes to find something--it could be anything--that he can convert into a
tool of attack. His latest intellectual atrocity is to alleged that Phil is "a liar" when
he asserts something he obviously believes to be true, again displaying a stunning
incapacity to separate saying something that might be false from real acts of lying.
Talk about sitting with your back to the mirror. Does Fetzer even realize that he is saying anymore? He just accused CD of being a liar with no evidence.
When I accused Nelson of prevarication, it was because he had said the following: "Jim, he may have cited the reference to the news item in his book, but the actual news article which he wrote that it referred to was dated August 25, 1970. Hersh wrote it, look it up. He "owned" that story throughout that period."
Does Fetzer understand English? Nelson is saying Hersh wrote the NY Times article Valentine references in his book. He then writes that this is a fait accompli, and challenges me to look it up. The clear implication being that he KNOWS Hersh wrote it, since he already saw it.
This was a bluff as I later exposed since I did look up the article which does not have Hersh's name on it but is a UPI release. How else does one interpret this if not a deception? .
I don't think he has bothered to read my posts or his would not still be so highly
repetitive and non-responsive. I doubt that Phil is mistaken in his claims, but even
if he were, unless he was making an assertion he knows to be false with the intent
of misleading his audience, he cannot be lying. DiEugenio is conceptually confused.
No I am not. I did the homework since I knew CIA asset Hersh would never uncover Phoenix on his own. You are indulging in CYA for both yourself and Nelson. Why you never looked up that article yourself should be puzzling to everyone.