Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
R.I.P. Gary Webb -- Unembedded Reporter

By badtux in Media
Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 07:21:35 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

The finest journalist ever to get fired for telling the truth is dead at age 49. The official cause of death on the death certificate will be suicide. But, as we shall see, he had much help getting to that point. The story of the life and death of Gary Webb says much about the state of American politics and what passes as "journalism" in today's America.


Gary Webb's claim to fame was a series called Dark Alliance, which documented connections between the CIA, Contras, and the beginnings of the crack epidemic in Los Angeles. Not a single fact in Gary's expose' of CIA knowledge of Contra drug peddling in the early days of the the crack cocaine epidemic in L.A. was ever refuted by the CIA or anybody else. Indeed, the CIA eventually even confirmed some of the more important facts. Yet because Gary was not one of the "cool kids" working at one of the "newspapers of record", Gary was piled on by every major newspaper, who collectively laughed at him as a conspiracy theorist or worse -- despite every single fact in his newspaper series being backed up by court records, FOIA documents, and eyewitness testimony. Leading the charge was (ex?) CIA agent Walter Pincus of the Washington Post(1), who broadly pooh-poohed the notion that the CIA had knowledge of contra drug dealing -- despite the fact that one of his very own articles says the CIA at the very least turned its head when the subject of drugs came up. Indeed, the CIA's very own classified report verifies that the CIA was aware of drug allegations revolving around the Contras, and ignored them, indeed, working out an agreement with the Department of Justice regarding those drug allegations where the DoJ agreed to look the other way (though the declassified version of the report whitewashed that conclusion quite a bit). In addition, a FBI report later admits that the Contras ran *SEVERAL* drug rings, not just the one that Webb documented. Once those revelations came out, no major newspaper ever picked up that story or apologized to Webb for trashing his career. Webb was "damaged goods", whose articles had been "discredited", and no newspaper was willing to state otherwise despite the new evidence that vindicated Webb.

Before those reports by the FBI and CIA provided verification of Contra drug rings operating in America, the editor of the San Jose Mercury-Press caved. When given the choice of believing the "newspapers of record" or believing what his own eyes were seeing looking at Gary's evidence, he chose to disbelieve his own eyes -- he demoted Gary Webb, and eventually fired him. From there Webb moved on to the California Assembly, where he worked as an investigator for the Speaker of the House, doing good work such as exposing Governor Gray Davis's corrupt deal with Oracle until said Speaker (Herb Wesson) was term-limited out of office.

From there he moved to a small weekly "alternative" newspaper as a part-time stringer, and was embroilled in a messy divorce.

It is likely that Gary Webb committed suicide. According to a journalist who called the coroner's office, the cause of death was most likely a shotgun. According to neighbors, he had been depressed over the divorce and the loss of his home, as well as his inability to get a job at a major newspaper. For telling the truth, he had lost his career, his livelihood, his wife and kids, and his home. Stories about red light cameras did not pay the bills, and were so trivial and unimportant in any event. His body was apparently discovered by the movers who had come to remove his goods from the house. The suicide note, according to press reports, is being kept private.

And so it goes, here in the United States of Delusion, where every day we labor under the illusion that we want the truth -- when, in fact, we punish anybody who dares tell it to us.

Note: The official whitewash by the presstitutes who destroyed Gary Webb has begun. The AP now claims that not only was Dark Alliance "discredited" (how, when there are now literally a half-dozen public reports by even the CIA's own inspector general supporting the facts therein?), but also claims that Webb was fired from his job with the California Assembly for failing to show up for work. He was actually fired with the rest of the former Speaker's staff as part of a house-cleaning when a new House speaker, Fabian Nunez, took over.

- Badtux the Truth-seeking Penguin

References:

  1. Walter Pincus, "How I Traveled Abroad On CIA Subsidy," San Jose Mercury, 18 February 1967, p. 14, where Pincus describes how he served as a CIA asset in the National Student Association.
Misc. Links:
  1. A dKos journal on Gary
  2. Another dKos journal on Gary
  3. dKosPedia entry on Gary Webb
Footnotes:
  1. I have no evidence as to whether Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus is or is not still a CIA asset, just that he was one in the past. Whichever is the case, he clearly has a conflict of interest in anything dealing with the CIA, and it is interesting that he led the charge against Webb.
  2. Regarding "presstitutes": I have had dealings with a number of American "journalists" over the years. In that time, I have met only a small handful who viewed their job as finding out what the truth was. The vast majority viewed their job as getting quotes from party A on one side of an issue, getting quotes from party B on the other side of an issue, and transcribing these quotes into the newspaper, with no effort to detirmine who was telling the truth.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Do we have a free press in America?
o Of course we do! 10%
o Not really 76%
o Other 12%

Votes: 64
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o finest journalist ever to get fired for telling the truth
o dead at age 49
o Dark Alliance
o CIA knowledge of Contra drug peddling in the early days of the the crack cocaine epidemic in L.A
o confirmed some of the more important facts
o piled on by every major newspaper
o laughed at him as a conspiracy theorist
o CIA agent Walter Pincus of the Washington Post(1)
o the CIA at the very least turned its head when the subject of drugs came up.
o verifies that the CIA was aware of drug allegations revolving around the Contras, and ignored them
o the Contras ran *SEVERAL* drug rings, not just the one that Webb documented
o corrupt deal with Oracle
o weekly "alternative" newspaper
o embroilled in a messy divorce
o a shotgun
o red light cameras
o there are now literally a half-dozen public reports by even the CIA's own inspector general supporting the facts therein?
o failing to show up for work
o a new House speaker, Fabian Nunez, took over
o A dKos journal on Gary
o Another dKos journal on Gary
o dKosPedia entry on Gary Webb
o Also by badtux


Display: Sort:
R.I.P. Gary Webb -- Unembedded Reporter | 146 comments (111 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden)
Just heard the news (2.50 / 8) (#1)
by Sarojin on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 04:41:17 AM EST

I just heard sad news on talk radio - journalist Gary Webb has shot himself in his home this evening. I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you didn't follow his career you've probably been enraged by one of his stories Truly an American icon.

cia and drugs (none / 0) (#86)
by peter318200 on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 04:34:30 AM EST

for those leary(sorry)about believing the cia has been invoved with(is)dealing drugs i recomend" The politics of heroin" by an ausse journo called McCoy a 600 od pager beautfully written and researched with a content that would break your heart. No funding from congress for illegal projects no worries i know how we can raise the dollars and thin out the getto rats anon spook 1960. heroin cocaine iran arms deals how are we ever going to take the world back from them? hunter s thompson was right a generation of swine

[ Parent ]
Excellent job (2.00 / 2) (#3)
by nebbish on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 05:36:24 AM EST


---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

From the Media Critic (1.57 / 7) (#6)
by wiredog on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 09:37:49 AM EST

at The Post
Webb reported that two supporters of the Nicaraguan contras were convicted of selling drugs in L.A., one of them saying it was on "orders . . . from other people."

Webb acknowledged to me that he had no proof the CIA knew about this and that others were going beyond what he had written...

The lesson, which has been proven many times since then, is that just because a news outlet makes sensational charges doesn't make them true, and just because the rest of the media challenge the charges doesn't make them part of some cover-up.



Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

But the CIA's own report admits they were true (3.00 / 8) (#14)
by badtux on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 11:52:36 AM EST

The lesson is that just because the Washington Post says that the charges of CIA knowledge of drug smuggling on the part of the Contras aren't true, doesn't mean that the charges aren't true.

The CIA was, indeed, aware of drug smuggling on the part of the Contras, it turns out according to their own inspector general's report (read the meat, not the self-serving summary that is all that most people read, it has people, places, etc. where the CIA deliberately turned its head as to what was coming in on those planes that were leaving filled with guns) -- indeed, had a memo of understanding with Edwin Meese's Justice Department to not prosecute the Contras for any such drug smuggling, and one of George H.W. Bush's last tasks as President was to pardon the Contras who were involved in the drug smuggling. The rationale was that national security required getting rid of the Sandinistas, and the fact that some of the Contras also smuggled drugs... well (shrug) we didn't always have the choice of dealing with upright law-abiding folks in pursuit of that goal.

- Badtux the "What free media?" Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

divorce (2.76 / 17) (#11)
by zenofchai on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 11:05:30 AM EST

It's a sad thing that a bad choice in your spouse can be so ruinous. Any system where a vindictive spouse can ruin your life with the backing of the legal system seems to be fairly mussed up. I'm all for the fair division of jointly held property as that is fair and proper as any business dissolution, but at most a year of alimony capped by the necessary cost of living or ability to pay (whichever is smaller), not the idiotic "standard of living", or that nonsense, and definitely not for years and years.

Child custody and child support payments are the real mess. I don't understand seeking custody without a plan to provide for the children long-term, so again I would cap the term of compulsory child support at a year, and the amount would be similarly capped based on the lesser of the cost of living and ability to pay. Anyway custody is so incredibly biased in favor of the mother it's hard to really have a discussion about it, and in the end these marriages have so many problems and issues that the children end up as financial and emotional pawns anyway.

Anyway the issues are large and screwy enough that yes, I can certainly see how even adults can contemplate suicide. Often leading to divorce the marriage is a minefield of hate and emotional abuse, with one party holding a lot of financial/sexual/emotional power over the other and using it to make them as miserable as possible. Since this person doing the abusing is generally someone you at least loved once, damn that can be hurtful.

Excuse me while I go cry myself into a nice morning nap now.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph

expanding (3.00 / 3) (#22)
by zenofchai on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 02:41:54 PM EST

on child custody questions. how about letting a spouse argue for custody on the basis of having the courts compel the other spouse to pay them for the first year, but after that if that "other spouse" wants a hearing to determine custody it is granted, and the custodial spouse can no longer use this compulsory payment as basis for income in the proceedings. or something like that. almost anything would be more fair than our current "wife takes all" custody situation.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]
child support mess (3.00 / 3) (#87)
by phrits on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 09:09:12 AM EST

Child custody and child support payments are the real mess.

We're wandering off topic here, but what the hell.

Ob: IANAL. My contributions to the discussion should under no circumstances be used as a substitute for competent legal advice.

Ob: USian focus. Your kilometreage may vary.

Child support payments are a mess--enforcement is very much a non-trivial problem--but not the way you imply. At least in NC, there is a schedule of what it costs to support a kid or kids, based on the combined income of both parents. The obligation for each party is proportional to the combined income, and there are adjustments for medical insurance, daycare costs, "extraordinary expenses", and responsibility for other children.

For example, if I make 3 times what my ex-wife does, I'm responsible for 75% of their upkeep and well-being, the cost of that upkeep having been pulled from a schedule similar to the tax tables. If I pay daycare costs and carry them on my health insurance, the associated costs with that decrease the amount I have to pay. If she made 3 times what I did, the starting point before adjustments would switch to her being responsible for 75%. Check out the child support calculators at Rosen Law and you'll see that it's pretty fair.

Yeah, you can work without benefit of that statute--drawing up your own agreement, for example--but if things get contentious, the kids are taken care of, and the law kicks in to determine just who has to pay how much.

My understanding also, is that although it's enforced at the state level, the system has been largely (completely?) nationalized, so that what the numbers come out to in, say, Michigan, should be the same as what I have here in NC.

so again I would cap the term of compulsory child support at a year

And you would be a piss-poor parent for doing so. I don't care how much of a bitch/bastard your lying, cheating, money-grubbing ex is or was, you still have a profound obligation to your children, and money is only the smallest part of that.



[ Parent ]
(n/t) Oops. Reply should've gone to parent. (none / 0) (#89)
by phrits on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 10:01:35 AM EST



[ Parent ]
(n/t) Ignore previous (n/t). Noob. /sigh (none / 0) (#90)
by phrits on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 10:03:55 AM EST



[ Parent ]
wow (2.66 / 3) (#91)
by zenofchai on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 10:17:11 AM EST

And you would be a piss-poor parent for doing so. I don't care how much of a bitch/bastard your lying, cheating, money-grubbing ex is or was, you still have a profound obligation to your children, and money is only the smallest part of that.

I said compulsory. Personally I would certainly ensure that my children were taken care of, but as there is no guarantee that "child support payments" are actually used for that purpose, a year is more than ample to determine a better arragement.

There's no real law against being a piss-poor parent (only an abusive or neglectful one) and so if we want to start legislating against piss-poor parents, we have a whole boatload of people to prosecute.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

But what about the children? (3.00 / 3) (#92)
by phrits on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 01:01:39 PM EST

As hackneyed as that question is these days, it applies here. I agree we can't do much about piss-poor parenting, but it is precisely the compulsory aspect of support payements that--in theory at least--makes sure that kids are taken care of.

Again, IANAL, but the purpose of those laws is to make sure kids receive the support they need. If a woman (or man, for that matter) has finally managed to get out of a ten-year marriage where her "only" job was keeping house for an abusive guy and their 3 offspring, someone has to support those kids. Child support laws--sometimes enforced through wage garnishment--are supposed to make sure that happens. And in that all too common scenario, a year is hardly sufficient for, say, an uneducated, long-unemployed woman to move from homemaker to a decent living wage.

Sure, she may have made some bad choices, should have gotten out sooner, shouldn't have gotten pregnant, should have finished her education, whatever: We can place as much blame as we want on any of the adults involved, but the kids still need--and I would say that as innocent victims they deserve--at least a decent quality of life, if not actually the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed.

The "piss-poor" comment was not intended as a personal attack--and I do apologize if it was received as such--rather a red flag saying "hey, waitaminnit, you're missing the important part of the problem." The law can only address that smallest part of the profound parental obligation, hopefully mitigating long-term neglect. A good parent will not only continue to provide his or her share of financial support but will also continue to be as involved with the kids' lives as possible. Even a bad parent, though, is required to hold up his end of the financial obligation.

That said, I completely agree that there's room for improvement in accountability on the receiving parent's side. The burdens of accounting and enforcement aside, though, it's a complex problem. Is a single mother of four misusing support funds to buy herself a mink stole? Of course. Milk and eggs to feed the kids? Of course not. A four-bedroom house rather than cramming three girls and a boy into a three-bedroom apartment? That one's very, very gray.



[ Parent ]
room for improvement (3.00 / 2) (#93)
by zenofchai on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 01:54:36 PM EST

very reasonable discussion and assertions. if the one-year limit is considered too stern, then a two-year limit may be fine. we must strive to have a better moral argument, though, than "because if you don't pay up we'll put you in jail or garnish your wages".

one of the reasons divorces are so bitter and messy is that there is a significant amount of money and legal power involved. lessen the significance of these and perhaps a divorce can be a less bitter and messy endeavor, with less stress and suffering for both the divorcees and any children involved, with less waste of money into fighting divorce proceedings and more into actually moving forward in a positive fashion. that is one of the reasons I think that a change could be very positive -- given a year (or two) to "cool off" one hopes that a non-compelled arrangement can be entered into, and without the use of force or threats of the same, some actual consideration could be made for the welfare of the children, not the "victory" of one of the bickering and bitter parents.

but... the principal points of my semi-pointless earlier ramblings were: 1. divorce can certainly cause someone to contemplate suicide and 2. there must be ways of providing some remedy for this. whether the (likely poorly-thought) suggestions which followed would actually do this without creating greater harm... well I don't know about that, but there are some incredibly conditions with divorce at the moment.

you bring up the "homemaker" argument, a very good one. but what of the "provider" in this situation, who now has to find a way to not only continue their career but now cook and clean and manage their own household, while also dealing with the very inefficient nature of providing for two separate households? meanwhile their children have been taken from them as well, so they have additional added expenses for visitation and so on.

if the state chooses to take a person's children away against his/her will, that person does indeed retain moral parental obligations for those children. however, the very nature of the fact that the children have been removed makes these obligations very difficult to fulfil.

Additionally, I question the asserted fact that parents should have a legal obligation to care for their children. They would be ogres and ogresses to not do so, but for the state to use force to compel "good parenting" is fairly ludicrous. At best the state can compel particular actions but it cannot change the nature of a "bad" parent to be that of a "good" one.

but back to the "alimony" issue also. in my opinion, for a marriage without a prenuptual agreement there is no real basis for alimony (ignoring the fact that state law seems to have created this basis on its own).
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

same boat, different experiences (2.50 / 2) (#94)
by phrits on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 02:52:51 PM EST

We've gone way afield from the original topic, of course, but I suspect you and I could swap some pretty ugly stories, and believe me when I tell you that relatively short-term use of modern anti-depressants can go a long way toward mitigating suicidal thoughts during the adjustment period. In my own case, my lying, cheating, money-grubbing bitch of an ex-wife and I were nonetheless somehow able to come to some pretty friendly support and custody terms for the sake of the kids when we split. We aren't--and likely never will be--friends, but we behave in front of our children, and consider them first when we're forced to interact with each other.

I recognize that it's often ugly, but sometimes it's not. I also tend to believe that when it does go bad, the husband/father is considerably more likely to come away considerably more damaged, but without research, I wouldn't put it forward as much more than anecdotally supported.

Things in my own life are about to get a lot more complicated and contentious. The details aren't really germane here, but I can see that any hard time limit is fraught with risk for the children's well-being. Divorce sucks ass--and the "hypothetical" provider does get pretty well screwed--but it is seldom (if ever, really) the kids' fault. The provider consciously--if implicitly--accepted the risk of having his life ruined, but the kids had no such choice. I'd argue that requiring support until their adulthood at least minimizes the casualty count from the fallout.

If you're willing to grant that the kids' well-being is generally in society's best interest, then we're back to having to have someone support them. If the parents don't retain that legal responsibility, then it falls to society, which makes your question fairly heretical around here. <wink> (Heh. If you're not willing to grant that premise, we may have to turn to Johnathan Swift for suggestions as to what to do with them.)

Alimony--or "spousal support" as it's called in NC--is generally stupid. If I were writing the laws, I'd probably allow short term alimony (maybe a year or two) for dependent spouses (barring marital misconduct on their part) or forever (or the dependent spouse's remarriage) in the case of marital misconduct on the part of the provider. I'm not sure what constitutes "marital misconduct" in this context, but my point is that alimony should certainly never be permanent and mandatory in a "no fault" divorce.

That said, when it comes from alimony, I'm no longer speaking from any sort of actual experience. Infidelity obviates spousal support in North Carolina. Heh. Some cuckolds have even made some money because we still have the "alienation of affection" laws on the books here.



[ Parent ]
also in NC (none / 0) (#95)
by zenofchai on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 03:31:21 PM EST

what are the "alienation of affection" laws?

but towards the Jonathan Swift comment -- having the responsibility fall to society does not imply either taxation or eating them. churches, orphanages, charities, and volunteer organisations exist (I should know, I volunteer for a couple) to help people. those who want to help people can help people, and the assholes who don't want to do not have to help people.

we probably couldn't swap ugly stories, the stories I know are of family members and friends and are not mine to share in detail, but here are a smattering: in one marriage, a spouse joined a cult abroad, leaving nice debt for the remaining spouse; in another, one spouse jumped off a bridge to her death after divorce, after years of poisoning her children a'la Munchausen's Syndrome; some marriages have seperated and reconciled; etc.

for now I remain happily married, but "The Universe" forbid (a nod to a bizarre K5 story from a month or two ago...) something should disrupt that...

but all that said, I think it is obvious that you and I seem to be at least marginally reasonable people, and there are vast numbers of vindictive idiots who do not settle their quarrels well.

also, the laws of NC don't help many of our neighbors and you do well to point out the horror of the "no fault" divorce. however your comment about "permanent" alimony for at-fault divorces of the "provider" are frightening, albeit understandable given your situation. for example, there would be nothing stopping someone's spouse from vindictively punishing them for a decade for a moment of infidelity, all the while living with and shacking up with someone else (just not married). additionally, with the existent costs and social malaise associated with divorce, the "provider" could be being severely emotionally abused by their spouse, but they cannot afford to divorce them unless their spouse commits adultery or some such.

emotional abuse is a very misunderstood problem with the "modern American marriage". suicide, depression, murder, all these things can result. there doesn't have to be punching or adultery involved for the marriage to be abusive. a spouse could be punitively spending (or withholding) money, going out with a dozen other people, having phone sex, etc, etc.

some marriages just turn out to be very, very suck-ass bad. sometimes it is someone's "fault", less often provably so. your divorce actually seems to be a fairly "good" one despite the emotional harm done to you and your children by your ex-wife. neither of you has poisoned the kids, joined a cult, or taken to cutting yourself (as far as I can tell). obviously those are extreme circumstances, but much of the damage could be avoided by reducing the amount of ammunition. people in abusive marriages could get out sooner before things came to that. but current law seems to dictate that you stick through abuse and bad marriages because if you attempt to initiate divorce proceedings, the other spouse can really fsck you over big time.

I understand the plight of the "homemaker" spouse, be it house-wife or house-husband, I really do. For them to leave the marriage, they leave behind their source of food and housing. Some basic safety nets should be there, like I said perhaps some minimal level of alimony settlement for a short term, but ain't nobody entitled to a free ride in this life. To put it incredibly arrogantly, "If you ain't keeping my house why should I have to pay you?"

Volunteer organisations exist quite widespread to help (women in particular) move on with their lives. (My wife and I donate time and money to some of these.) There really should be no reason to stick around in an abusive relationship. An abusive relationship will cause harm to "the children!" as well, don't forget.

If your spouse was lying to you, perhaps you could have properly ended the marriage before having to endure the pain of her adultery, and before having to have to some day explain to your children how mommy was screwing around and that's why you and mommy don't get along so much anymore -- however likely there was very significant legal and financial pressure for you to endure the lying, only to get to the fun part.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

MAXINE WATERS? (1.00 / 11) (#16)
by jubal3 on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 12:03:52 PM EST

You actually have the nerve to use her and DailyKOS as REFERENCES?

Maxine Waters is a race-baiting wacko leftist. She's only lying when her lips are moving.

Trying to pass of your fringe-leftist views as news doesn't get it.
Try this as an op-ed, Iwon't vote itd own. But no way am I going for this as currently sectioned.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***

You are a fucking idiot.[n/t] (1.10 / 10) (#19)
by kcidx on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 12:57:25 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Is that the best you can do? (1.33 / 3) (#21)
by jubal3 on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 02:33:16 PM EST

Typical


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]
Read (3.00 / 4) (#24)
by badtux on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 04:18:20 PM EST

I am not using her as a reference. I am linking to a CIA-DoJ letter that she read into the Congressional record, where the DoJ agrees they will not prosecute CIA assets who are involved in drug running.

The dKos journals are valuable primarily as a source of links to other sources, and I have moved them out of the "references" section.

- Badtux the Libertarian Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

That was never the story (none / 0) (#109)
by jubal3 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 03:09:33 PM EST

Waters and Webb didn't just say the CIA called in some favors for their buddies.
(Pretty common shit in the intel business. you aren't usually dealing with nice people, and keeping your tools out of jail helps with the plan, which was destroying the popular government of Nicaragua).

You better do some research on Waters in particular.

Waters alleged (as did Webb) that the CIA *SET UP*
drug dealers and actively imported drugs to dump on the streets of South Central Los Angeles to finance the contra war.

THAT's the shit that got Webb fired.

Waters has been claiming ever since Webb broke the "story," that the whole thing was a plot by THE MAN to destroy black people.

It's the kind of insane tin-foil hat wearing nonsense that would get any reporter fired, and if Waters was in ANY district except Watts, she would have been laughed off the balot next election.

For those who wonder why I'm so disgusted with this thing, it's because Waters is a black version of David Duke. As for Webb, he clearly lost his journalist's skepticism somewhere along the line.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]

You are a very angry person (none / 0) (#56)
by Dr Gonzo on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 01:40:48 PM EST

Have you considered therapy as an option?

"I felt the warmth spread across my lap as her bladder let loose." - MichaelCrawford
[ Parent ]

-1, Meme Propagation (1.00 / 13) (#25)
by thelizman on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 05:36:35 PM EST

This amounts to a circle jerk of left-wing wackos foisting convoluted conspiracy theories supported by the most tenuous vapor of fact at best. Stick to what is a matter of record, and never...never...reference Daily KOS if you expect to be taken seriously.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
ror (3.00 / 4) (#28)
by Dr Gonzo on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 07:34:15 PM EST

Maybe you two lunatics could battle it out in a cage match or something.

"I felt the warmth spread across my lap as her bladder let loose." - MichaelCrawford
[ Parent ]

Then they can make up with hot loving sex. (1.50 / 2) (#103)
by noogie on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:59:39 AM EST




*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
[ Parent ]
CIA and FBI are left-wing wackos?! (2.66 / 9) (#29)
by badtux on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 08:39:27 PM EST

The CIA and FBI are left-wing wackos foisting convulated conspiracy theories? Both the CIA and FBI's own inspector general reports state that the CIA knew the Contras were smuggling drugs to the United States, and ignored it!

I don't get it. What is it about "CIA and FBI inspector generals eventually reported that Gary Webb was right" do you not understand?

As for Gary Webb himself, he never stated that the *CIA* was dealing drugs. Never. Never ever. Nobody with any kind of credibility has *EVER* stated that the CIA itself was dealing drugs. Just that the CIA turned its head while the Contras (and the Afghan mujahdeen, for that matter) smuggled drugs. And, BTW, the memorandum of understanding between the DoJ and the CIA where the DoJ agreed to ignore drug charges against CIA assets is a matter of public record, and you can look it up in the congressional record yourself.

But what the hey, snorting "Conspiracy theory!" is easier than actually LOOKING IT UP YOURSELF. Don't believe me. Don't believe *ANYBODY*. Go look it up yourself. I might be lying. Anybody might be lying. But simply stating "hah! That can't be true, that's just a conspiracy theory!" that is just pure INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS, the work of a freaking *MORON*. Idiot.

-- Badtux the Flaming Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

Another one of Lenin's Useful Idiots (none / 0) (#121)
by thelizman on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 08:42:59 PM EST

I don't get it. What is it about "CIA and FBI inspector generals eventually reported that Gary Webb was right" do you not understand?
The part about it ever actually having happenned. It didn't. Read the reports yourself, don't swallow the media load.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Loser (1.40 / 10) (#26)
by n8f8 on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 05:45:36 PM EST

He gave up on life..a quitter. Cared more about himself than the feelings of his children.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
Actually, suicide takes a lot of guts. (3.00 / 2) (#105)
by frijolito on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 09:27:24 AM EST

Anyone who's ever been (seriously) suicidal knows that.

Like Camus put it: "There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide."

[ Parent ]

So does smashing your leg on purpose with a hammer (none / 0) (#112)
by An onymous Coward on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:12:20 PM EST

So go ahead and do that. I'll cheer and praise you for having guts wait. maybe i'll just laugh my ass off for a while

"Your voice is irrelevant. Stop embarrassing yourself. Please." -stuaart
[ Parent ]
Was that a bad seppuku joke? (nt) (none / 1) (#144)
by ethereal on Thu Dec 30, 2004 at 04:53:52 PM EST


--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
[ Parent ]

preposterous! (1.05 / 17) (#27)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 07:31:39 PM EST

the cia didn't spread crack in LA to kill blacks

the cia invented AIDS to kill blacks!

geez, get it right

and besides, the cia didn't kill gary webb, the illuminati did!

duh!

if you don't understand things this obvious in the world, you'll never understand how the world really works

idiots


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Yawn. CIA and FBI are conspiracy theorists?! (3.00 / 3) (#30)
by badtux on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 08:42:51 PM EST

The CIA and FBI both issued reports from their respective inspector generals stating that the CIA knew about contra drug smuggling, and ignored it due to "geopolitical concerns" (i.e., they were more concerned about commies than about drugs).

Gary Webb was right. We know that now, thanks to the congressional investigations that Webb's series spawned. But that did not prevent his jealous comrades in the "journalism" business from destroying his credibility and his career. And it *IS* interesting that the man who started the ball rolling, Walter Pincus, is an ex-CIA asset.

- Badtux the non-conspiracy-theorist Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

dude (1.66 / 6) (#36)
by circletimessquare on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 11:26:39 PM EST

are you responding to my joke about conspiracy theories by taking me seriously?

rofl


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Aside from the fact... (2.58 / 12) (#38)
by jd on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 12:07:31 AM EST

...that a shotgun is awfully long and unwieldy making it neither the easiest nor the most common way of killing oneself, the article seems clear and straightforward to me.

Although he probably killed himself, these are troubled times, and the people he upset are the ones who seem to have a lot of dirt around, waiting to be dug up. Like I said, I believe he killed himself, I accept that, I'm not claiming conspiracy, but I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out otherwise.

The important thing to me is that the guy was an investagative journalist, not some stuffed dummy with a tape recording from the corporate sponsors or FCC stuffed up his backside. There are far, far too few journalists out there who are willing to chase a story, to dig deep where reality lies buried under pretense and after-the-fact rationalization.

The BBC has undercover reporters who have infiltrated the British police, organized gangs, gun runners, etc. That kind of operation has high risks and often low return. I don't think anyone, though, has dared cross swords with MI5 or MI6 - which is essentially what this guy did, when he took on the CIA.

As far as I know, there is simply nobody rich enough, powerful enough AND clean enough to provide such journalists a safe haven, or even provide them with a steady paycheck. There are no Citizen Kanes out there, who are willing to provide a media service supporting the truth over and above the interests of those funding it.

It takes someone who is brave, scrupulous, naive and a little suicidal to confront the giants out there with little more than toothpicks. But, let's face it, the world IS better off with such people around, and IS harmed when there's nobody like that around.

The ONLY reason abuses in Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan, by American soldiers and intelligence officers are known about at all is that somebody, somewhere, took a horrible chance and passed the information on, in every case. No reporter had the guts to infiltrate the various bases and find out. The only reason the press covered any of it at all is that it's been plastered over the Internet and it was too hard to NOT cover any longer.

We were lucky. This time. How many times have we been unlucky? Why do we need to be lucky, to know the reality of what's going on? Why can't journalists be given the legal and financial security required to do their jobs to the very best of their ability? Why are we all so scared of knowing what others are doing in our name, with our money, supposedly for our own good? Is that good for anybody, the guilty included?

It's about firepower. (3.00 / 2) (#40)
by mcc on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 03:32:24 AM EST

that a shotgun is awfully long and unwieldy making it neither the easiest nor the most common way of killing oneself

A job worth doing is worth doing right. Who needs some dinky little handgun just blowing a hole in some inessential lobe and leaving you braindamaged and bleeding to death?

[ Parent ]

Maybe, maybe not. (none / 1) (#79)
by jd on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 09:44:48 PM EST

DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!

This information is purely for informational purposes.

Hollow-tipped and soft-tipped rounds flatten on impact. A variant of this technique was used in World War II, in the form of "hammerhead" tank rounds. Those would probably do a little more than cause a little minor brain-damage.

One of the other posters mentioned wanting to irritate investigators. For this, you don't want to muck about with playthings. You want something impossibly obscure and horribly messy. That way, you get to drive everyone up the wall for ages, until they figure it out (or give up).

Most people who end up killing themselves barely get a single line in the obituary column. There's no style there. No flare. All the hastle, all the stress, and you don't even get a footnote.

If you are thinking of killing yourself, there are probably good reasons to (or you wouldn't be thinking about it). There are also probably good reasons not to, if you chose to think about it. If it means that much to you that you would go ahead, though, it should mean enough for you not to be boring about it.

[ Parent ]

I agree with mcc for once (3.00 / 2) (#44)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 07:47:38 AM EST

I read your comment and was about to hit "reply to this" when I decided to read mcc's comment. I hate to just say the same thing as he said, but he's right. I've contemplated suicide for a while now, and I've decided that what I'm looking for in a method of self-annihilation is quickness, painlessness, and a big mess for the authorities to clean up. Jumping from a building or bridge brings with it the possibility that I would be crippled or brain damaged, but alive, which, to me, is a less attractive option than a continued existance with a functional brain. I don't want the lethal damage to be to my torso since I don't want to have any time to regret what I had done. I want it to be quick and painless, and I want to to happen with a very small amount of time between the point of no return and the point of my expiration. A pistol in the mouth is the most obvious choice since it would be easy to operate and since the kick wouldn't make it miss, but there is still the small chance that you will be left a vegetable, with your family paying $10k/month medical bills. A scattergun would do the job without the possibility of survival if you hit a not-so-vital area. Here's the key:

Use your toe!

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

The answer: more hardware (3.00 / 2) (#48)
by cburke on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 11:01:35 AM EST

Hold it in your shakey hands and use your toe on the trigger?  Bah!  Mount the shotgun on a steel frame (make sure the base is nice a wide!), and use a cable and pulley system to pull the trigger.  The best part is, you can duplicate this and have multiple guns fired with a single motion.  If one shotgun to the dome is quick and messy, twelve is even better!  Arrange them in a circle pointing in, mostly at head level but also torso and stomach just for effect.  Attach the cables for each one to a foot pedal, stand in the center, and stomp your way to a quick, sure, and very very messy end.  It may sound like a lot of effort, but if there's anything worth ridiculously over-engineering it's your own death.

Actually, in the version I usually think about, there's a large smiley and "have a nice day" painted on the wall behind me and the guns are in front.

[ Parent ]

Does not seem wise. (none / 1) (#49)
by mcc on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 11:32:35 AM EST

The more moving parts that are involved the more opportunities there are for something to go wrong. This is bad. Since the entire purpose here is to leave oneself incapacitated there will likely not be opportunities to correct mistakes.

This said, for fairness, I should note that among the couple of points of historical significance of the town where I currently live is that one of the historical preservation buildings happens to be the site where the inventor of the self-operated guillotine invented, patented and then first successfully tested his invention.

[ Parent ]

True, but it has redundancy (none / 0) (#61)
by cburke on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 05:25:39 PM EST

Imagine your shotgun misfires, and instead of taking off your head you only take off your foot.  You'd feel pretty silly in the emergency room (or lying around hoping to die of blood loss/gangrene).  With a dozen guns even if several misfire or otherwise fail you're still left with several loads of buckshot to the head.  The biggest problem I see is with the cabling, making sure theres little enough stretch so the guns go off at the same time.

Getting a patent on a suicide device that one intends to use is pretty rich, though.

[ Parent ]

taai (1.10 / 10) (#42)
by noogie on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 05:01:28 AM EST




*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
Using documents to hide the jump. (1.00 / 12) (#43)
by Gerhard on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 07:00:58 AM EST

The truth:
Contra/CIA drug thing. It has lots of solid documentary evidence and seems to be thoroughly investigated. Gary Webb crossed the CIA and is dead.
The conspiracy theory:
Gary Webb was bumped of by the CIA.

By mixing these two components you hide the jump from truth to fiction. There is no evidence that Gary Webb was murdered nor is there any evidence that he was worthwhile reporter. He dished up speculative stories before he had all the facts in place. He got lucky on that story that other evidence later surfaced that confirmed the story. If he had the true story with evidence it would have be indesputable.
He speculated just like You. His story got voted down just as this story will get voted down.

Did you even read the freakin' thing? (3.00 / 3) (#51)
by badtux on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 12:39:26 PM EST

Nowhere -- NOWHERE -- do I say that the CIA killed Gary Webb! The man had lost his job, his home, his family... he was completely and utterly discredited, destroyed. Even in the smirking obituaries published about him by the people who DID destroy him, his fellow "journalists", he was always "discredited Gary Webb". The CIA didn't *HAVE* to kill him. Gary was nothing, nobody, no threat to anybody.

Furthermore, Gary Webb over the course of his career, before he was destroyed, won over 20 journalism awards, including a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on corruption on the rebuilding contracts after the Loma Prieta earthquake. You don't win so many awards if you're a third-rate hack.

Finally, Gary *DID* have the evidence. Put it on the SJ Mercury Press web site, even, complete with wiretap transcripts, brief sound clips from those wiretaps, etc., as well as the Kerry Commission documents regarding the CIA connections of some of those involved.

Gary did make some major mistakes, though:

  1. The tone of his story. It was one of outrage -- outrage that the CIA could turn their head for *years* while their private Contra army smuggled drugs to America and the crack epidemic was sweeping the nation. The Big Newspapers could not abide it. It violated their most fundamental principle: that if you cover something like, say, a government official accepting bribes, you cover it the same way as you cover, say, a PTA meeting where a decision is made to serve cookies rather than cupcakes the next day.
  2. Shitty editing. Frankly, the editor of the SJ Mercury Press did a shitty job of editing. He should have cut out that outraged tone. He should have not put headlines on Gary's story that promised more than the story delivered (the reporter does not decide the headlines, my friends). But given the crappy editing job that the SJ Mercury Press was doing, Gary shouldn't have been so sanguine that his 20 journalism awards and Pulitzer Prize were adequate proof that he was doing a good job as a reporter
  3. Allowing the editor to force him to cut much of the meat out of his series. The story was "incomplete" because the editor of the Mercury Press made him cut over 10,000 words out of the story so that it could fit into a 3-part serial. Gary should not have been so eager to get the story into print that he would allow it to be eviscerated. The full story did not have the flaws of incompleteness that plagued the final story.
  4. He didn't think about people like you, who won't believe anything bad about the government no matter how much evidence there is that the government is doing something bad until the government tells you it's true, and even then you have a bit of doubt, and he didn't put enough weasel words into his story so that he could easily back out if the heat got bad.
  5. HE REFUSED TO ACT LIKE HE'D BEEN SMACKED DOWN and insisted that his evidence was evidence, and that it wasn't necessary for government officials to admit wrongdoing before reporting on their wrongdoing if you had evidence. Arrogance of this sort -- that evidence means you're right -- was unacceptable to his "journalistic" colleagues in the Washington press, who were close personal friends with self-same government officials. If Gary had apologized and backed off, they would have given him fifty whacks but they wouldn't have destroyed him. Gary refused to apologize for attacking their close personal friends in the CIA -- no matter how much they whacked him -- and they destroyed him.
The problem was not Gary Webb. You don't win 20 awards and a Pulitzer for being a talentless hack. The problem was that his journalistic compatriots then piled on to make sure that Gary was utterly discredited. The fact that the CIA-connected Washington Post was the first to pile on is suspicious, but the LA Times would have piled on anyhow, because they didn't want Gary winning another Pulitzer over a story that *they* should have written. This had nothing to do with a CIA plot, and everything to do with the schoolyard bully and his cronies piling onto some uppity upstart who thinks they know better than the bully. If you have ever -- *EVER* -- met any of these sneering, condenscending Washington reporters, you'll know what I'm talking about. They're worthless, for the most part, viewing their job as being chummy with government officials rather than as looking for truth.

- Badtux the un-embedded Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

I don't usually give zeroes (1.50 / 2) (#58)
by nutate on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 02:42:43 PM EST

But I was trying to let you maintain your dignity by hiding the fact that you subconciously thought that the CIA murdered a reporter from reading an article that says "It is likely that Gary Webb committed suicide." What part of your brain came up with the CIA link?

[ Parent ]
"Using documents to hide the jump" (none / 0) (#108)
by ksandstr on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 01:49:51 PM EST

That has got to be the most hilarious "but he's just a conspiracy kook, in't he" line I've ever heard.

Yeah, sure, it's a conspiracy theory! He's just hiding behind substantiated and verified evidence! And this is not just a right-wing name calling reaction! I promise!

Fin.
[ Parent ]

Piling on even after death (2.83 / 12) (#53)
by badtux on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 01:14:45 PM EST

Expanding on some things:

I think it's sick that even after his death, everybody is still trying to trash Gary Webb. Ronald Reagan's White House was the most corrupt in modern history, with more Reagan Administration officials indicted and jailed than in any other administration in the post-WWII era, yet when Reagan died those who did not like Reagan didn't bring up the fact that he either was incompetent or corrupt. They said nice things. But then, some people have class.

I find it particularly amusing that the same technique used to destroy Gary Webb's credibility -- putting a CIA conspiracy into my mouth -- is now being used to destroy the credibility of this post. For the record, nowhere -- NOWHERE -- do I say that the CIA killed Gary Webb! The man had lost his job, his home, his family... he was completely and utterly discredited, destroyed. Even in the smirking obituaries published about him by the people who DID destroy him, his fellow "journalists", he was always "discredited Gary Webb". The CIA didn't *HAVE* to kill him. Gary was nothing, nobody, no threat to anybody.

Furthermore, for the nut cases saying Gary was a third-rate hack: Gary Webb over the course of his career, before he was destroyed, won over 20 journalism awards, including a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on corruption on the rebuilding contracts after the Loma Prieta earthquake. You don't win so many awards if you're a third-rate hack.

Finally, Gary *DID* have the evidence. Put it on the SJ Mercury Press web site, even, complete with wiretap transcripts, brief sound clips from those wiretaps, etc., as well as the Kerry Commission documents regarding the CIA connections of some of those involved.

Gary did make some major mistakes, though:

  1. The tone of his story. It was one of outrage -- outrage that the CIA could turn their head for *years* while their private Contra army smuggled drugs to America and the crack epidemic was sweeping the nation. The Big Newspapers could not abide it. It violated their most fundamental principle: that if you cover something like, say, a government official accepting bribes, you cover it the same way as you cover, say, a PTA meeting where a decision is made to serve cookies rather than cupcakes the next day.
  2. Shitty editing. Frankly, the editor of the SJ Mercury Press did a shitty job of editing. He should have cut out that outraged tone. He should have not put headlines on Gary's story that promised more than the story delivered (the reporter does not decide the headlines, my friends). But given the crappy editing job that the SJ Mercury Press was doing, Gary shouldn't have been so sanguine that his 20 journalism awards and Pulitzer Prize were adequate proof that he was doing a good job as a reporter
  3. Allowing the editor to force him to cut much of the meat out of his series. The story was "incomplete" because the editor of the Mercury Press made him cut over 10,000 words out of the story so that it could fit into a 3-part serial. Gary should not have been so eager to get the story into print that he would allow it to be eviscerated. The full story did not have the flaws of incompleteness that plagued the final story.
  4. He didn't think about people like some of the posters here, who won't believe anything bad about the government no matter how much evidence there is that the government is doing something bad until the government says it's true, and even then they have a bit of doubt, and he didn't put enough weasel words into his story so that he could easily back out if the heat got bad.
  5. HE REFUSED TO ACT LIKE HE'D BEEN SMACKED DOWN and insisted that his evidence was evidence, and that it wasn't necessary for government officials to admit wrongdoing before reporting on their wrongdoing if you had evidence. Arrogance of this sort -- that evidence means you're right -- was unacceptable to his "journalistic" colleagues in the Washington press, who were close personal friends with self-same government officials and preferred to believe their friends' off-the-record denials rather than evidence (probably why the attack started in the Washington Post, written by ex-CIA-agent Walter Pincus who still had many personal friends in the CIA). If Gary had apologized and backed off, they would have given him fifty whacks but they wouldn't have destroyed him. Gary refused to apologize for scooping the major dailies -- no matter how much they whacked him -- and they destroyed him.

The problem was not Gary Webb. You don't win 20 awards and a Pulitzer for being a talentless hack. The problem was that his journalistic compatriots then piled on to make sure that Gary was utterly discredited. The fact that the CIA-connected Washington Post was the first to pile on is suspicious, but the LA Times would have piled on anyhow, because they didn't want Gary winning another Pulitzer over a story that *they* should have written. This had nothing to do with a CIA plot, and everything to do with the schoolyard bully and his cronies piling onto some uppity upstart who thinks they know better than the bully. If you have ever -- *EVER* -- met any of these sneering, condenscending Washington reporters, you'll know what I'm talking about. They're worthless, for the most part, viewing their job as being chummy with government officials rather than as looking for truth.

- Badtux the un-embedded Penguin

Some random links:

  1. Kerry Commission report on Contra-drug smuggling connections (published in 1989 -- *SIX YEARS* before Webb's reporting).
  2. heavily-whitewashed CIA report (heavily censored for public release -- it lost half its length between internal replease and public release -- but still some damning evidence in there, such as the CIA intervening to retrieve some of their Contra money from prosecutors in a drug case)
  3. Part II of that CIA report, where they admit that they turned their head because they had "no legal obligation" to investigate reports that their assets in the Contra army were smuggling drugs.
  4. FBI contra-crack report (go to 1997).

In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
Ehh. (3.00 / 3) (#59)
by Torka on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 03:38:12 PM EST

Nice comment, but as far as "destroying the credibility of this post" goes - relax. Your story's doing well and is almost certainly going to get posted, probably to the front page. The accounts voting this down are either the usual suspects who vote almost everything down regardless of merit or people who have a political axe to grind against it.

Note also that the ones who attempted to challenge statements you made about matters of public record without even bothering to follow your footnotes haven't replied to you since you embarassed them. Rest assured this is because they are cowards, not because they haven't seen your replies; their sudden silence tells you all you need to know about them.

[ Parent ]

You win 20 pulizter prizes for being the patsy (1.14 / 7) (#76)
by sellison on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 09:32:12 PM EST

of the homosexual/socialist media elite, of course.

But then when Webb started getting really crazy with his CIA stories, the media jumped all over him as they are wont to do when any one of their trained mouthpieces starts to show what a nutjob he really is.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

My Thoughts (none / 0) (#141)
by axiom on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 11:38:26 PM EST

I don't like to thrash dead people either. Then again I prefer not to trash people when they are alive either. If at least, Gary Webb lived. This is more than can be said for many people in the world. In particular the 100 million babies aborted for vanity. But I digress. What I find interesting in your comments is that other reporters, those you label "presstitutes", are the ones that are out to get Webb. Even after his passing, the reporters are still trying to get him. Why is Webb's reporting given higher light than non-Webb reporting? You obviously display an impartiality towards Webb's view rather than that of his critical colleagues. I admit that I was interested in Webb's story via his book "Dark Alliance". However, my interest was only as unique as olive oil is to cooking.

[ Parent ]
My Thoughts (none / 0) (#142)
by axiom on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 11:38:48 PM EST

I don't like to thrash dead people either.  Then again I prefer not to trash people when they are alive either.  If at least, Gary Webb lived.  This is more than can be said for many people in the world.  In particular the 100 million babies aborted for vanity.  But I digress.

What I find interesting in your comments is that other reporters, those you label "presstitutes", are the ones that are out to get Webb.  Even after his passing, the reporters are still trying to get him.  Why is Webb's reporting given higher light than non-Webb reporting?  You obviously display an impartiality towards Webb's view rather than that of his critical colleagues.

I admit that I was interested in Webb's story via his book "Dark Alliance".  However, my interest was only as unique as olive oil is to cooking.

[ Parent ]

-1 (1.00 / 15) (#60)
by Your Moms Cock on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 04:53:19 PM EST

author is clearly a linux zealot. in fact, making reference to a tuxedo is cool only perhaps if youre talking about canadian tuxedos aka jeans and jean jacket


--
Mountain Dew cans. Cat hair. Comic book posters. Living with the folks. Are these our future leaders, our intellectual supermen?

Linux sucks (1.66 / 3) (#71)
by badtux on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 07:53:16 PM EST

But you already knew that. Linux is not an operating system. Linux is put together by slinging random software of unknown provinance and random vintage like jelly at the wall, and then after some time to see whether the glop slides off the wall, scraping the dried and smeared mess off, pounding it into a box marked "Operating System" via a big-aXX hammer, and shipping the resulting glop to actual users, who hold their nose and bear it.

The only saving grace for Linux is that it sucks less than the competition. But "Linux: It sucks less!" isn't exactly a stirring endorsement. It just confirms that the current state of the software industry is pitiful.

But we are WAAAY off-topic :-).

- Badtux the Geeky Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

what the fuck? (none / 0) (#107)
by flaw on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 10:46:54 AM EST

"big axe hammer?" fucking make sense faggot!

--
ピニス, ピニス, everyone loves ピニス!
[ Parent ]
Axe Hammers (none / 0) (#120)
by Gruntathon on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 06:23:35 AM EST

are used for chopping wood, then pounding it to soften it up for the fire.

not used very often these days, so that probably why you never heard of them....
__________
If they hadn't been such quality beasts (despite being so young) it would have been a nightmare - good self-starting, capable hands are your finest friend. -- Anonymous CEO
[ Parent ]
also i'm not some poor agrarian fuck [n/t] (none / 0) (#122)
by flaw on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 01:12:12 AM EST



--
ピニス, ピニス, everyone loves ピニス!
[ Parent ]
Dont piss off powerful people. (1.50 / 4) (#63)
by Wulfius on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 05:45:18 PM EST

There is a lesson there for us all.

Powerful people have a threshold, if you step on their toes enough, you will commit suecide, have a tragic accident or die of unknown causes (*cough*arafat*cough*).

Coincidentaly, I am waiting for the first FOXNEWS 'journalist' to commit suecide. Albeit for different reasons, like developing a concience... or a brain... :)

---
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!

Arafat corollary (none / 1) (#82)
by cburke on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 11:43:36 PM EST

If you're going to piss off powerfull people, surround yourself with a large organization with both military and public relations branches.  All things considered, Arafat lived quite a long life for being in the crosshairs for most of it.

If Gary Webb had a Liberation Army of Competent Journalists to back him up, he might still be alive and sticking it to The Man.  Though in his case, unlike with pissed Palestinians, he probably wouldn't have been able to find enough recruits for the LACJ.

[ Parent ]

not really the same (none / 0) (#135)
by cronian on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 10:43:53 AM EST

Araft had powerful allies.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
lol (1.00 / 24) (#66)
by Your Moms Cock on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 07:03:55 PM EST

you people just voted up an article by a dude that calls himself badtux the truth-seeking penguin. fags


--
Mountain Dew cans. Cat hair. Comic book posters. Living with the folks. Are these our future leaders, our intellectual supermen?

It gets worse than that (1.40 / 5) (#70)
by MrHanky on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 07:50:28 PM EST

I just gave you a zero for being such a cock-gobbeling cock-goblin.


"This was great, because it was a bunch of mature players who were able to express themselves and talk politics." Lettuce B-Free, on being a total fucking moron for Ron Paul.
[ Parent ]
lol ur irony meter is severely damaged faggit (1.15 / 13) (#72)
by Your Moms Cock on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 08:01:53 PM EST




--
Mountain Dew cans. Cat hair. Comic book posters. Living with the folks. Are these our future leaders, our intellectual supermen?

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the following: (2.57 / 7) (#67)
by sudog on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 07:04:24 PM EST

. Not putting "suicide" in quotes in the intro.
. Not trying to draw unfounded conclusions about the reasons for Webb's suicide.
. Trying only to resurrect some simple dignity for a dead man who probably deserved more recognition than he got.
. Lobbying for positive votes in the comments and following up on detractors with cogent and mostly non-inflammatory responses to criticisms.

Hope this thing makes it to front page. Looking good so far.


+1FP references dkos /nt (1.00 / 3) (#68)
by RandomLiegh on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 07:28:17 PM EST



---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
+1FP rescinded: article posted b4 I voted (none / 0) (#69)
by RandomLiegh on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 07:29:57 PM EST

BOY is my face RED. o_O

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]
More details now available (3.00 / 2) (#73)
by badtux on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 09:06:46 PM EST

Because of all the conspiracy theorists noting that he shot himself multiple times, the Kings County coroner has released more details. The gun was a .38 caliber revolver (pistol) which he apparently used to shoot himself twice in the head. The Sacramento Bee reports that he had apparently spent a lot of time and effort preparing for his suicide. But then, those who knew him (as vs. presstitutes out to libel him) said he had always been meticulous about the details.

His old friend Al Giordano has some remarks on the real cause of death, as do some other of Gary's fellow real (as vs. presstitute) journalists.

- Badtux the saddened Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin

Two shots (none / 1) (#81)
by theElectron on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 11:16:19 PM EST

He had apparently laid out his driver's license before taking his father's .38-caliber pistol, which he kept in his nightstand, to shoot himself.

Coroner Robert Lyons said his office had been swamped with calls. "It's unusual in a suicide case to have two shots," he said, "but it has been done in the past, and it is in fact a distinct possibility."

Two shots, man. That is gruesome. I think suicide is a terrible thing and would strongly advise against it under all circumstances -- but if you just HAVE to do it, do it right. Don't be one of these poor SOBs who botches the job with a .22 LR, .25 ACP, .32 ACP, .38 Special, birdshot, etc. Think .357 magnum, .44 magnum, .45 ACP, 10mm Auto, 12 gauge slug gun, .30+ centerfire rifle, etc. Or better yet-- just don't kill yourself!

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]

Better way to do it? (none / 1) (#96)
by Anonymous Hiro on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 03:46:16 PM EST

Dig a big hole. Get explosives, get in hole, lie down (that way you don't have to dig such a big hole). Surround your head with explosives. Detonate them.

Should be physically painless - since your brain shouldn't be around by the time the signals travel down the rapidly vanishing nerves...

The advantage of the hole is so you don't damage other stuff.

Plus they could always fill in the hole after you're done.

But like you said. Don't kill yourself. There are plenty of things to live for and there are plenty of things worth dying for (e.g. someone else kills you because of them).
 

[ Parent ]

newsflash the CIA hasn't refuted that the world (1.60 / 5) (#74)
by sellison on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 09:25:22 PM EST

is flat, either!

Not a single fact in Gary's expose' of  CIA knowledge of Contra drug peddling in the early days of the the crack cocaine epidemic in L.A. was ever refuted by the CIA or anybody else.

So the CIA's job is to 'refute' every crackpot claim  made against it? Heck there are a bunch of smelly guys living in the street who say the CIA is after them.

Must be true, I never heard the CIA claim otherwise...

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

Gary Webb named names (2.25 / 4) (#75)
by badtux on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 09:31:00 PM EST

The same names that the CIA later named in its own internal report, the link to which I gave you further down on this page.

It's sad that you want to slander a good man by telling lies about him, but not surprising. After all, that's what passes as "journalism" today. You're just copying the pros.

LA Weekly obit for Gary...


In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

Ooo Gary knew some names of some CIA janitors (1.62 / 8) (#78)
by sellison on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 09:39:24 PM EST

and secretaries, must be a conspiracy....

Come on, Webb was just a wacko who finally got too wierd for his wierd masters and got put out to pasture.

Its this sort of insane behavior of the Godless that made America turn to an honest and faithful man, George W. Bush, in our time of moral need.

And thank the Lord for that. We see over and over that 'rebels' are just nut jobs, now more and more of the youth are seeing the fall of their 'rebel heroes' from their seat of honor, and seeing they were just nutjobs and drug addicts all along. This will be good, though sad for Webb, his end is a lesson for Good Americans to stay on the Right side of things, and not make up nutty stories about good, honest men like Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

Hopefully Michael Moore will see the error of his ways before it is too late for him, and he finds himself homeless, drunk, and alone.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Intellectual laziness (2.62 / 8) (#80)
by badtux on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 10:00:29 PM EST

What the matter, you're too intellectually lazy to go read the CIA reports yourself and see whether they match Webb's reporting? Your prick rises in salute at the thought of trashing a dead man's reputation? You are truly a sick fuck, you know that?

Frankly, even if Gary Webb had been the nuttiest fruitcake on this planet, I'd still be saying nice things about him, or at least keeping my mouth shut the way I did when Ronald Reagan died (count the felony convictions of Reagan Administration officials during Prestine Ronnie's term of office -- the most corruption of any administration since that of U.S. Grant -- but did you see me do a K5 article trashing the corrupt-or-incompetent man when he died? HELL NO!). Spitting on a dead man's grave is not being "funny". Trolling on a dead man's body is just plain SICK, you disgusting bastard.

- Badtux the Trolled Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

And Hendriz was a drunken idiot (1.50 / 2) (#84)
by sellison on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 01:36:02 AM EST

the world would have been much better off, and seen fewer young people sink into the lost world of drugs and stupid behavior, if the liberal media had just copped to it.

Instead they lionized him after he died, as if his electronic noises were some sort of genius, and thousands of impressionable young people fell into the same, stupid trap of dissolution.

The best way we can honor a person who made a mess of their life, is to point out clearly and loudly how wrong they were, so that other impressionable people don't drink the koolaid and try to climb on the comet.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

I'm glad you feel so morally superior (none / 0) (#110)
by An onymous Coward on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:44:37 PM EST

you pretentious fuck. At least you admit that you're biased because he died though

"Your voice is irrelevant. Stop embarrassing yourself. Please." -stuaart
[ Parent ]
CIA report verified Webb's facts (2.25 / 4) (#77)
by badtux on Wed Dec 15, 2004 at 09:36:35 PM EST

Another editorial on the CIA un-coverup of Webb's reporting: Gary Webb and the art of the CIA cover-up. Where he gives paragraph numbers in the CIA reports, in case you're not interested in reading hundreds of pages yourself.

Of course, it was still true before the CIA admitted it was true, but that doesn't matter. In what passes for "journalism" today, if the government denies that it's true, it's not true.

- Badtux the Truth-seeking Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

Um... (1.60 / 5) (#83)
by trhurler on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 01:32:08 AM EST

Assets are not agents in spookspeak. Your attempt to pretend you know what you're talking about has failed.

Also, plenty of this guy's facts were refuted. Plenty of them were true too. Problem is, you insist on believing what you believe, truth be damned. You say you want the truth and that others punish people for telling it, but rather than punish anyone, you simply ignore any fact that doesn't go your way. You say that a classified report says something, but that the declassified version waters it down - did you read the original, or are you making shit up because it suits your beliefs? Seriously. The suicide note was kept private, and you don't know the details of decades of the man's life, but you assume he got divorced because of a job loss ages ago and the consequences thereof, and you assume it as though there could be no other cause. It just goes on and on. Where you don't have facts, you make shit up, where you do have facts, you stretch them beyond credibility, and where you're on solid ground, there's not much interesting anyway.

What's really amusing is that you dodge the real reason the guy got into trouble. It wasn't whether his facts were right or wrong, or whether people conspired against him. The reason he got into trouble over his story was that his facts supported the claim that the CIA helped the Contras avoid prosecution for drug dealing, but he claimed the CIA was importing the drugs and selling them themselves. That's an entirely different sort of claim, and it simply wasn't true. People didn't believe it was true. His own editor knew it wasn't true. You can't do that and get away with it. It just doesn't work.

The guy WAS a conspiracy theorist, and he WAS a bad journalist, and if he ate a shotgun because the world wouldn't let him pretend otherwise, that's his choice.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Wow! (3.00 / 7) (#88)
by Harvey Anderson on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 09:20:15 AM EST

Is there anything you don't know?

(starry eyed wonder)

[ Parent ]

You have found me out. (none / 0) (#100)
by trhurler on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 01:22:54 AM EST

I am actually omniscient. It is my great shame in life.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
RIP, trhurler (none / 0) (#97)
by ubu on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 04:37:27 PM EST

It's sad, watching your soul die. I wish you wouldn't post the details here.


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
Er... (none / 0) (#101)
by trhurler on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 01:29:09 AM EST

Soul? Let me tell you something: when I realized at the ripe old age of 21(long before there was a k5 to post on, so long before you knew me,) that there was absolutely no hope of me ever living a life that was even remotely in line with my own beliefs - that others would, for my entire life, dictate terms to me which are utterly without justification and would do so in the name of justice, and that there is absolutely NOTHING I can do about it except submit or suffer even more, whatever soul I had was gone.

I still believe what I always have, but if you think it means anything in the face of the civilization that surrounds you, you're not "alive," but rather merely stupid. That'd be the real tragedy.

I'm sure you wonder what the point is - why I argue with people, why I bother with anything(for instance, I'm firmly convinced that even though I can do great things in the software industry, it doesn't matter as much as how much they'll pay me for it, because the world being what it is, being great is merely a way of making sure others will take even more from you than they already do,) and so on. The answer is simple: cheap thrills may not be what you really want, but they're better than the only available alternative.

It has been said by many morons that billions of people can't be wrong. It isn't true. What is true is that it doesn't matter if they're wrong. They're still going to get their way, and you won't.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
omg yfi so bad (none / 0) (#104)
by noogie on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:00:47 AM EST




*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
[ Parent ]
Explain yourself. (none / 0) (#118)
by trhurler on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 01:42:32 AM EST

I have never failed anything important of which I'm aware without making a conscious choice to do so, so I'm genuinely curious.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
That's not it (none / 1) (#106)
by ubu on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 10:20:02 AM EST

Anyone with a sensitive conscience comes to a similar fork in the road eventually. Some surrender, some vow at the very least to "do no harm", and still others decide it's worth a life of frustration to change the world in accordance with their heartfelt beliefs.

Gary Webb was one of the latter. The row such people hoe is hard, lonely, and thankless. Nevertheless they're responsible for some of the most important comforts you enjoy.

Life as a "truth-teller" is difficult, sure, but is it better to give up and take what you can, perpetuating the selfish cycle that forced you to make such a difficult decision in the first place? I don't think so. That's why I made my comment in the first place; I think it's pathetic, in a certain sense, to throw away so much just so you can be comfortable.

But you're right; it's your life. Sorry about your soul.


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
You keep talking about a soul (none / 0) (#119)
by trhurler on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 02:09:19 AM EST

Anyone with a sensitive conscience comes to a similar fork in the road eventually. Some surrender, some vow at the very least to "do no harm", and still others decide it's worth a life of frustration to change the world in accordance with their heartfelt beliefs.
The world cannot be changed in any meaningful way without fundamentally changing human beings. Unless and until you understand that, you and I are not going to see eye to eye. People who live lives of frustration trying to change the world are wasting their time on a false premise that the world can be made a better place. It isn't the world that is the problem - it is the people in it, and they're not the way they are by accident.

As for doing no harm, given that these people are the entire problem, why would I spare them?
Gary Webb was one of the latter. The row such people hoe is hard, lonely, and thankless. Nevertheless they're responsible for some of the most important comforts you enjoy.
Claiming the CIA was selling drugs when that wasn't what his evidence said was not going to fix anything. Seriously.
Life as a "truth-teller" is difficult,
Too difficult for Gary, apparently.
sure, but is it better to give up and take what you can, perpetuating the selfish cycle that forced you to make such a difficult decision in the first place?
It perpetuates itself. You don't get to choose in that matter. The only choice you have is, are you going to enjoy life, or are you going to suffer?
I don't think so. That's why I made my comment in the first place; I think it's pathetic, in a certain sense, to throw away so much just so you can be comfortable.
I'm not just comfortable. I enjoy life most of the time. Do you know anyone else who does, other than that terminally stupid bitch at the office who giggles at everything anybody says because she doesn't understand it but knows that most people just want to get in her pants anyway? 99% of humanity has nothing from me but my contempt and disgust. They are the reason I'm in this position. But, rather than dwell on it, I give them exactly what they ask for. I can play the game they've created and which they now call "life" better than they can, I do it every day, and as a result, even if "winning" means little in the special olympics, I still get to eat the winners' food, bang the winners' trophy wives, sleep in the winners' mansions, and so on. As pointless existences go, it ain't bad.

This idea of noble suffering for a cause may be emotionally appealing in some sense, but the lives of those engaged in it invariably look more like Don Quixote than Sir Lancelot. Why? Because the world doesn't need saving. This IS human potential. You're looking at it. Followers so stupid you motivate them by making sure they know your name so they can vote for you, and leaders so stupid they need career professionals to do their jobs for them behind the scenes. "Businessmen" who spend millions of dollars chasing the next big thing that never seems to materialize, and employees who are just dumb enough never to grow jaded, or to use "jaded" as an affectation - a personality mask. A population 90% of whom believes in a ghost that created everything and will make you suffer eternally for not agreeing with them about this creation story of theirs. A world of McDonalds bread and NFL circuses, in which the controversy of the year is over a wardrobe failure or the celebrity trial of a man with the face of a cartoon. A world in which all the idealists in the most powerful, affluent, and therefore most idealistic nation on earth couldn't manage to unseat one of the most controversial, politically infeasible presidents we've ever had. People are mean, dishonest, ignorant, incompetent, and absolutely convinced that none of this is true. And that's the better ones, mostly.

And you want to preach idealism? Hee...

I have a few friends. They're good people. Genuinely good people. I hang out with a lot of people, most of whom call me their friends. They're chumps who amuse me. But really, given that the vast majority of humanity IS the problem, why on earth would I worry about THEM?

Lots of people brag about being misanthropists. They're entertaining, even to the people they claim to hate. I certainly have entertained some people with my stories of hatred also. However, people would not be entertained if they knew how serious I really am. The very best thing that could happen to humanity is that a carefully chosen five and a half billion or so could be summarily executed for the well being of the rest. Sadly, there's no way to choose them, so we just have to hope that the unforeseen will make things better at some point. It certainly won't happen because someone fails to honestly depict the situation when trying to expose corruption people already basically know about anyway in a government institution that nobody has any faith in anyway.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Hm (none / 0) (#131)
by ubu on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 04:37:56 PM EST

Humanity isn't really the problem, it's just the nascent solution, untapped and undeveloped in most regards. My optimism comes from the belief that humans really can fix their sorry state of affairs. My pessimism comes from the belief that it will take everyone's cooperation to do it.

Knowing that we have the ability — however distant and unfulfilled — to effect the solution to our degradation gives me a moral imperative to do what I can to be part of the solution. How can you glower in contempt at most of humanity and then live by the same credo that they do, to whatever effect? The results boil down to the same thing: you gratify yourself, which is meaningless to the rest of the world.

In my opinion your "contempt" and "disgust" for humanity — not entirely unjustified — are nevertheless providing cover for your indecision. You ponder and argue endlessly, waiting for someone to persuasively demonstrate that your hard-edged, soulless response to a broken world can really be challenged. I think you're hoping it can. Deep down I hoped for it, and I eventually found the challenge that proved my views embarrassingly inadequate.

I hope you do, too. It has to be different for each of us.


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
What a piece of work is man (none / 0) (#134)
by trhurler on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 09:15:50 PM EST

My optimism comes from the belief that humans really can fix their sorry state of affairs.
I don't believe that. The problems humanity faces are too directly attributable to inborn qualities of the human species.
Knowing that we have the ability -- however distant and unfulfilled -- to effect the solution to our degradation gives me a moral imperative to do what I can to be part of the solution.
And if I believed in that ability, I'd agree with you.
How can you glower in contempt at most of humanity and then live by the same credo that they do, to whatever effect? The results boil down to the same thing: you gratify yourself, which is meaningless to the rest of the world.
I don't pretend that my life is meaningful to the rest of the world. The rest of the world generally doesn't pretend so either. I am not my brother's keeper, and I'm ok with that.
In my opinion your "contempt" and "disgust" for humanity -- not entirely unjustified -- are nevertheless providing cover for your indecision.
I don't see myself as indecisive.
You ponder and argue endlessly, waiting for someone to persuasively demonstrate that your hard-edged, soulless response to a broken world can really be challenged. I think you're hoping it can. Deep down I hoped for it, and I eventually found the challenge that proved my views embarrassingly inadequate.
Unless someone not only attempts, but succeeds in convincing me that something better IS possible, not just in some hypothetical world, but for real, nothing they say could ever change anything.

The fundamental problem is that people who want to save the world are themselves driven by some of humanity's baser motives. Power, fame, and wealth can all be great things, but people who chase them generally are not themselves great. There are a million prescriptions for fixing humanity, and every single one of them is either impossible or counterproductive. The former can be said of such people as libertarians(myself included,) whose beliefs would be fantastic if only people WEREN'T greedy, shortsighted, stupid, ignorant fuckheads who regard critical thinking as a disease. The latter is true of everything described as the political left or the political right, along with your unabashedly, nakedly authoritarian types who just think that if everyone would do what they want, everything would be great.

Everyone is willing to spend the other guy's money, the other guy's life, the other guy's goodwill, and so on. Everyone is willing to give up for others liberties he'd keep for himself(Diane Feinstein, anyone? But she's just one example, and the problem is endemic to humanity.) Everyone, in short, is a human being, and being human is not such a great thing as humans generally believe.

The classical liberals and the modern libertarians are right - if you believe in the perfectibility of man. I no longer do. It's that simple.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
I know this is old; I just happened to come across (none / 0) (#146)
by Harvey Anderson on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:44:51 AM EST

it now..

So many words you need to say something so simple.  Here's what it boils down to:

* You are a complete bitter dork.

You're pissed off that this is so, that you have been denied the normal human pleasures of community and social relaxation and instead of pursuing the obvious solution of "Stop Being a Dork", you, like the fat girl who hates it, just present a variation of "It's everyone else's problem".

Totally gay.

Your cynicism is completely without foundation.  Pout pout, somone kicked trhurler's ass in high school and stole his girlfriend, boo-hoo the human condition is fucked and 5.5B of people should just be wasted.  As if people just like to keep their fellow man in the shitter to feel some sense of superiority.

Look, it's like this: When kids are impulsive and stupid growing up, they smack you around not just because you are there but because you are annoying (even if it's just because you don't engage them in any conversation or whatever).  When they grow up, they just ignore you, because you are still annoying.

The answer is clear: Stop being annoying and become much happier.

[ Parent ]

Jesus is the answer you have been seeking (none / 1) (#114)
by sellison on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 09:14:42 PM EST

you poor sad soul.

You can't get what you dream of in this world, because it is a fallen world, fallen since the original sin.

But thanks to the love of Jesus Christ, you can get everything you want in the next world, all you have to do is accept His love.

It's really the easiest thing in the world, which is probably why people who feel they were 'born to fight' have such a hard time accepting His Love.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Sure (none / 0) (#117)
by trhurler on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 01:41:21 AM EST

Religion is tribalism. It is just another way of trying to better yourself by being part of a group rather than by actually doing something worthwhile. Tribalism is the ultimate root of everything that is WRONG in this world.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
The difference with Christ is (none / 0) (#123)
by sellison on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 03:59:36 AM EST

anyone can be in His tribe, all you have to do is love Him, without condition, and you become of the tribe of the forever living, the saved.

You are in your own tribe, a sad little one who's membership is defined by rejecting belief. But that will get you nowhere in the end.

Literally.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0) (#124)
by trhurler on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 04:48:37 AM EST

Christianity is not one tribe. It is many warring tribes, as it must be, given human nature.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
We are passed all that (none / 0) (#125)
by sellison on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 12:58:14 PM EST

there hasn't been a war between two sects of Christianity in centuries.

We are becoming ever more one people, with one faith, with one purpose: to bring the Light of the True God to the rest of the world.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

I see (none / 0) (#130)
by trhurler on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 04:11:33 PM EST

So you didn't read that part of the Bible where it says that when almost all the believers unite, it'll be under the banner of the antichrist, I take it... hehe.

Anyway, as long as nuns in the Balkans help soldiers set other soldiers on fire based on tribal differences, African religious leaders(Christians - I know nothing of their other faiths,) openly promote genocide, and so on, I simply do not accept your statement that because most Western Christians aren't out personally butchering anyone, Christianity is not a religion of conflict. Even in the West, we have Christian Identity and other groups you'd rather not talk about. As a unifying force for peace and goodwill in the world, Christianity fails it.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Sad agreement (none / 1) (#132)
by ubu on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 04:45:41 PM EST

The most damning proof against Christianity is its Church, in all its various forms. While brainwashed, I defended the Church because it was my duty. Ironically, this was what ended my brainwashing. I searched my whole life for a real Christian, and never found one.

Christ's words are often inspiring and wonderful. So what? What good is a prophet with no followers? Christianity, in any pure sense, was dead on arrival. Sadly, it was instantly resurrected into a hundred horrible credos bent on manipulation and suffering, in most cases.

Some Christians have done wonderful things in Christ's name. Of this there can be no doubt. But even this is sad, that they did those things not in the name of goodness and humanity, but in the name of a false and failed God.


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
Nietzsche said it better (1.50 / 4) (#145)
by Aurochs on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:12:28 PM EST

"The last Christian died on the Cross."

I think that was in The Will to Power.
--
--
The coming reality of change [...] is that a lot of what we now call schizo is NORMAL -- i.e. within the set of variances that produces a functional Human being.
-Peahippo
[ Parent ]
He did NOT claim the CIA imported drugs (none / 1) (#115)
by badtux on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 10:27:13 PM EST

Sheesh. He never -- *EVER* -- claimed that the CIA imported drugs themselves. He explicitly and repeatedly said exactly the opposite -- that it was the Contras, not the CIA, that was importing the drugs. This was not controversial. The Iran-Contra Commission report in 1989 had disclosed this already. His contribution to the story was that he discovered a couple of the middlemen that the Contras had sold the drugs to, and where these middlemen sold their drugs: Los Angeles, crack central. His most controversial assertion was that the Contras could not have done this without the knowledge or at least willful turning of the head by the CIA -- a fact that was quietly admitted by the CIA in 1998, when the second part of the CIA inspector general's report uncovered many memos where CIA agents on the ground discussed the possibility that their assets were smuggling drugs, and were told that there was an agreement between the CIA and DEA to not even think about that possibility. But he never -- *EVER* -- asserted that the CIA themselves were running the drugs.

Please, quit hyperventilating and putting words in people's mouths. Lying about a dead man just makes you look like like one of the people in my .signature.

- Badtux the not-in-that-50% Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
[ Parent ]

The real problem is dildos (none / 0) (#133)
by GooseKirk on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 09:12:41 PM EST

"That's an entirely different sort of claim, and it simply wasn't true." No, what isn't true is what you say. The guy never made that claim. This was one of the techniques used to discredit him and his story, but if you weren't such a dildo and actually bothered to read something about this story, you might know that.

[ Parent ]
Thanks (1.83 / 6) (#98)
by tweetsygalore on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 08:02:33 PM EST


I appreciate you putting together
this piece.

Take care
C

After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan

Re (2.66 / 3) (#99)
by tweetsygalore on Thu Dec 16, 2004 at 10:20:33 PM EST


      Webb knew what he was up against.  He said
      of the CIA, "Richard, these are the worst
      people on earth that you're dealing with -
      they lie, plant stories, discredit and
      worse for a living and have the resources
      and the experience

from http://counterpunch.org/thieme12142004.html .

There are some honourable and real-life Jack Ryans in the CIA, as very few
and far between they may be.  And Gary Webb probably realises that now,
now that he can see everything.

Godspeed, Gary
C

After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan

Hmm (none / 0) (#111)
by An onymous Coward on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:55:04 PM EST

badtux said here that he won't say anything bad about dead people (except Ronald Reagan), and that anyone that disagrees with him is a horrible monster for saying anything bad about a dead guy, and deserves his righteous indignation. In other words, this is as biased as you can get, so please be a good sheep and just agree with him. kthx bye

"Your voice is irrelevant. Stop embarrassing yourself. Please." -stuaart
I don't mean to alarm anybody (none / 0) (#113)
by Lode Runner on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 08:40:35 PM EST

but I believe there's possibly a serial killer at work here. When we compare Gary Webb's case to that of Vince Foster, a very pronounced modus operandi emerges. This person may have also murdered Curt Cobain.

With admirers like Al Sharpton, Webb didn't need any active conspiracies against him in order to become marginalized.

Finally, a question: isn't Webb's theory a major premise of the GTA: San Andreas?

Don't forget Dan Casolaro (none / 0) (#140)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 03:22:58 PM EST

Danny Casolaro died under strange circimstances remarkably similar to Gary Webb. Other conspiracy theorirsts like Jim Keith also died strangely. Maybe it is all just a coindidence.

[ Parent ]
Curt Cobain? (none / 0) (#143)
by Nosf3ratu on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 09:59:45 AM EST

What the fuck does Curt Cobain have to do with Vince Foster and Gary Webb? Differences: Webb and Foster: had priveleged information that was potentially harmful to public officials. Cobain: Heroin addict who took punk rock and made it self-loathing and radio-friendly.


Woo!
[ Parent ]
Memorial services are tomorrow (none / 0) (#116)
by badtux on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 10:46:15 PM EST

Saturday, December 18, at 2pm in Sacramento, CA.

I do not plan to be there. I did not know Gary, and it would be an imposition. If you did know Gary, one of the links in my article (the link to his last employer) has the details.

As for my motive in writing this piece: If it were not for the sneering, condescending hit piece posing as an "obituary" that was written by the LA Times and placed on the AP wire, I wouldn't have. The man is dead. None of our talking about it is going to change that. But when presstitutes pull disgusting crap like that, it just plain ticks me off.

-- Badtux the Ticked-off Penguin
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin

VETERAN DRUG AGENTS BACKED WEBB STORY (1.12 / 8) (#126)
by captainmaynard on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 02:54:16 PM EST

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/041217_mfe_webb_1.html December 17. 2004 Investigative journalist Gary Webb was a friend of ours. And he was a damn fine reporter and writer. Gary was all you could ask for in a journalist: tough, unafraid, and honest as the day is long. He lived his life to be a check on the powerful, like any good investigative journalist worth his salt. Well, in 1996 he wrote a series of articles for the San Jose Mercury-News on the CIA and that agency's complicity in the cocaine trade in southern California in the 1980s. It wasn't flawless journalism, but it told a very important story, and in fact it prompted an investigation by the CIA's inspector general which subsequently confirmed the pillars of Webb's findings. But the funny thing is that Webb was driven from journalism because of that series. Rather than extending Webb's story by doing their own reporting, major newspapers instead turned on him and were more determined, it seemed, to attempt to undermine and discredit Webb's reporting. Indeed, the ombudsman for The Washington Post at the time, Geneva Overholser, wrote that her own paper and other major media had "shown more passion for sniffing out the flaws in the Mercury News's answer than for sniffing out a better answer themselves." In so doing, these newspapers relied on many official sources, which is odd considering the subject of Webb's stories. One can only guess as to their motivations. In any event, Webb was abandoned by his own paper and could not find work in journalism after that. In September 1998, this magazine published the story of what happened to Gary Webb. Written by Charles Bowden and entitled "The Pariah," it is posted below. Esquire is also very proud to have published Webb's return to investigative journalism, a definitive and exclusive piece on a DEA-run program called "Operation Pipeline" which was a program of official racial profiling, and which involved law enforcement all over the country. Webb's piece, entitled "Driving While Black," was followed a year later by a New York Times story on Operation Pipeline in which the Times took credit for the scoop and did not mention that it was Gary Webb who had first broken the story. Last week, Gary Webb took his own life. Words cannot express our sympathy to his family and to everyone who loved him. And words cannot express our sadness at the terrible loss, to journalism and to the world. Contributor's profile: Two weeks after Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance" series appeared in the San Jose Mercury News in August 1996, contributing editor Charles Bowden found himself in a bar, having a few drinks with some narcs (his idea of a good night). "For some reason, Webb's piece came up, and I asked the guys, 'So, what do you think? Is what Webb wrote about the CIA true?'" recalls Bowden, the author of fifteen books, including Blood Orchid and Juarez: The Laboratory of Our Future. "And they all turned to me and said, "Of course it is.' That's when I knew that somebody would have to do this story, and I figured it might as well be me." "The Pariah," Bowden's story on Webb -- a man he describes as "real smart, real straight, lives on a cul-de-sac, family man, all that crap" -- begins on page 150. Editor's letter [excerpt]: ....The world Charles Bowden leads us into in his story, "The Pariah" (page 150), is, on the other hand, a place few would willingly visit. Reporter Gary Webb chose to enter the alternate universe where the CIA sponsors armies and sometimes finds itself allied with drug dealers who sell their wares in the United States. Webb wrote a newspaper series that documented how the Nicaraguan contras of the 1980s were in part financed by just such an arrangement -- and he was then professionally destroyed for it. Bowden, in the course of reporting this story over the last six months, found considerable evidence that parallels and supports Webb's articles -- including revelations from one of the DEA's most decorated agents, who speaks for the first time about the CIA's complicity in the drug trade. It was not, however, the agency's ties to drug traffickers that Bowden found most disturbing. It was that a man can lose his livelihood, his calling, his reputation, for telling the truth.... --David Granger Editor, Esquire Magazine The Pariah Two years ago, Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that said some bad things about the CIA. The CIA denied the charges, and every major paper in the country took the agency's word for it. Gary was ruined. Which is a shame, because he was right. By Charles Bowden HE TELLS ME I'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT WHEN THE BIG DOG GETS OFF THE PORCH, and I'm getting confused here. He is talking to me from a fishing camp up near the Canadian border, and as he tries to talk me about the Big Dog, I can only imagine a wall of green and deep blue lakes with northern pike. But he is very patient with me. Mike Holm did his hard stints in the Middle East, the Miami station, and Los Angeles, all for the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, and he is determined that I face the reality he knows. So he starts again. He repeats, "When the Big Dog gets off the porch, watch out." And by the Big Dog, he means the full might of the United States government. At that moment, he continues, you play by Big Boy rules, and that means, he explains, that there are no rules but to complete the mission. We've gotten, into all this schooling because I asked him about reports that he received when he was stationed in Miami that Southern Air Transport, a CIA-contracted airline, was landing planeloads of cocaine at Homestead Air Force Base nearby. Back in the eighties, Holm's informants kept telling him about these flights, and then he was told by his superiors to "stand down because of national security." And so he did. He is an honorable man who believes in his government, and he didn't ask why the flights were taking place; he simply obeyed. Because he has seen the Big Dog get off the porch, and he has tasted Big Boy rules. Besides, he tells me, these things are done right, and if you look into the matter, you'll find contract employees or guys associated with the CIA, but you won't find a CIA case officer on a loading dock tossing kilos of coke around. Any more than Mike Holm ever saw a plane loaded top to bottom with kilos of coke. He didn't have to. He believed his informants'. And he believed in the skill and power of the CIA. And he believed in the sheer might and will of the Big Dog when he finally decides to get off the porch. ...... (click link for the full article)

CIA DRUG DOCUMENTATION (COMPREHENSIVE) (1.09 / 11) (#127)
by captainmaynard on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 03:04:04 PM EST

EDUCATE YOURSELF: A BACKGROUND ON THE CIA-DRUG CONTROVERSY. Veteran Drug Agents Back Webb Story http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/041217_mfe_webb_1.html The National Security Archives: (Awesome site!) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm Ollie North's diary entries, memos, email (2/26/04) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/index.htm Congressional Testimony of Celerino Castillo: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/hall/contra1.html Photographs and additional notes from Castillo's career: http://www.drugwar.com/castillo.shtm http://mediafilter.org/MFF/DEA.35.html U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters' website: http://www.house.gov/waters/ (see press releases 1996-2000) http://www.house.gov/waters/ciareportwww.htm and http://www.house.gov/waters/volii.press1198.htm A Chronology From Mother Jones Magazine: http://www.motherjones.com/total_coverage/coke.html http://www.motherjones.com/sideshow/cia.html Actual copy of the CIA agreement allowing drugs: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/cocaine/13.gif and http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/cocaine/14.gif and http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/cocaine/ex1.html FAIR covers media cover-up http://www.fair.org/issues-news/contra-crack.html California State University Northridge (CSUN) Professor of Communications Ben Attias' Cocaine Import Agency website: http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/ Retired Federal Agent Michael Levine: http://www.expertwitnessradio.org/essays/ Former Associated Press & Newsweek writer Bob Parry: http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/crack.html Knight and Bernstein CIA-drug allegations 1987-1997 http://www.flashpoints.net/ArticleArchiveIndex.html Interview with Professor Alfred McCoy: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/mccoy1.htm Former law enforcement agents comment on drug war: http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/ Website of Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley and the author of Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies and the CIA in Central America. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/index.html The Media Cover-Up: (excellent article) http://www.copi.com/articles/darker.html The Kerry Commission's report online: http://www.thememoryhole.com/kerry/ PBS special on CIA-DRUGS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/archive/gunsdrugscia.html Retired U.S. Customs Agent John Carman http://www.customscorruption.com/drug_war.htm Testimony of Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/gritz.html and http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/gritz/index.htm and http://www.serendipity.li/cia/gritz1.htm

CIA DRUG DOCUMENTATION (COMPREHENSIVE) (1.00 / 6) (#128)
by captainmaynard on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 03:04:43 PM EST

EDUCATE YOURSELF: A BACKGROUND ON THE CIA-DRUG CONTROVERSY.
Veteran Drug Agents Back Webb Story      http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/041217_mfe_webb_1.html

The National Security Archives: (Awesome site!)              http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

Ollie North's diary entries, memos, email   (2/26/04)         http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/index.htm

Congressional Testimony of Celerino Castillo:                  http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/hall/contra1.html

Photographs and additional notes from Castillo's career:  http://www.drugwar.com/castillo.shtm
                                                                                             http://mediafilter.org/MFF/DEA.35.html

U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters' website:                 http://www.house.gov/waters/ (see press releases 1996-2000)
http://www.house.gov/waters/ciareportwww.htm and        http://www.house.gov/waters/volii.press1198.htm

A Chronology From Mother Jones Magazine:                   http://www.motherjones.com/total_coverage/coke.html
  http://www.motherjones.com/sideshow/cia.html

Actual copy of the CIA agreement allowing drugs:           http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/cocaine/13.gif  and http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/cocaine/14.gif            and  http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/cocaine/ex1.html

FAIR covers media cover-up                                              http://www.fair.org/issues-news/contra-crack.html

California State University Northridge (CSUN) Professor of Communications Ben Attias'
Cocaine Import Agency website:                                        http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/

Retired Federal Agent Michael Levine:                              http://www.expertwitnessradio.org/essays/

Former Associated Press & Newsweek writer Bob Parry: http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/crack.html

Knight and Bernstein  CIA-drug allegations 1987-1997    http://www.flashpoints.net/ArticleArchiveIndex.html

Interview with Professor Alfred McCoy:                            http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/mccoy1.htm

Former law enforcement agents comment on drug war:     http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/

Website of Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley and the author of Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies and the CIA in Central America.                                                                             http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/index.html

The Media Cover-Up:    (excellent article)                          http://www.copi.com/articles/darker.html

The Kerry Commission's report online:                               http://www.thememoryhole.com/kerry/

PBS special on CIA-DRUGS                              http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/archive/gunsdrugscia.h tml

Retired U.S. Customs Agent John Carman                             http://www.customscorruption.com/drug_war.htm

Testimony of Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz                               http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/gritz.html and              http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/gritz/index.htm and   http://www.serendipity.li/cia/gritz1.htm


VETERAN DRUG AGENTS BACKED WEBB STORY (1.00 / 6) (#129)
by captainmaynard on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 03:05:50 PM EST

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/041217_mfe_webb_1.html

December 17. 2004
Investigative journalist Gary Webb was a friend of ours. And he was a damn fine reporter and writer. Gary was all you could ask for in a journalist: tough, unafraid, and honest as the day is long. He lived his life to be a check on the powerful, like any good investigative journalist worth his salt. Well, in 1996 he wrote a series of articles for the San Jose Mercury-News on the CIA and that agency's complicity in the cocaine trade in southern California in the 1980s. It wasn't flawless journalism, but it told a very important story, and in fact it prompted an investigation by the CIA's inspector general which subsequently confirmed the pillars of Webb's findings. But the funny thing is that Webb was driven from journalism because of that series. Rather than extending Webb's story by doing their own reporting, major newspapers instead turned on him and were more determined, it seemed, to attempt to undermine and discredit Webb's reporting. Indeed, the ombudsman for The Washington Post at the time, Geneva Overholser, wrote that her own paper and other major media had "shown more passion for sniffing out the flaws in the Mercury News's answer than for sniffing out a better answer themselves." In so doing, these newspapers relied on many official sources, which is odd considering the subject of Webb's stories. One can only guess as to their motivations.
In any event, Webb was abandoned by his own paper and could not find work in journalism after that. In September 1998, this magazine published the story of what happened to Gary Webb. Written by Charles Bowden and entitled "The Pariah," it is posted below. Esquire is also very proud to have published Webb's return to investigative journalism, a definitive and exclusive piece on a DEA-run program called "Operation Pipeline" which was a program of official racial profiling, and which involved law enforcement all over the country. Webb's piece, entitled "Driving While Black," was followed a year later by a New York Times story on Operation Pipeline in which the Times took credit for the scoop and did not mention that it was Gary Webb who had first broken the story.
Last week, Gary Webb took his own life. Words cannot express our sympathy to his family and to everyone who loved him. And words cannot express our sadness at the terrible loss, to journalism and to the world.

Contributor's profile:

Two weeks after Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance" series appeared in the San Jose Mercury News in August 1996, contributing editor Charles Bowden found himself in a bar, having a few drinks with some narcs (his idea of a good night). "For some reason, Webb's piece came up, and I asked the guys, 'So, what do you think? Is what Webb wrote about the CIA true?'" recalls Bowden, the author of fifteen books, including Blood Orchid and Juarez: The Laboratory of Our Future. "And they all turned to me and said, "Of course it is.' That's when I knew that somebody
would have to do this story, and I figured it might as well be me." "The Pariah," Bowden's story on Webb -- a man he describes as "real smart, real straight, lives on a cul-de-sac, family man, all that crap" -- begins on page 150.

Editor's letter [excerpt]:

....The world Charles Bowden leads us into in his story, "The Pariah" (page 150), is, on the other hand, a place few would willingly visit. Reporter Gary Webb chose to enter the alternate universe where the CIA sponsors armies and sometimes finds itself allied with drug dealers who sell their wares in the United States. Webb wrote a newspaper series that documented how the Nicaraguan contras of the 1980s were in part financed by just such an arrangement -- and he was then professionally destroyed for it. Bowden, in the course of reporting this story over the last six months, found considerable evidence that parallels and supports Webb's articles -- including revelations from one of the DEA's most decorated agents, who speaks for the first time about the CIA's complicity in the drug trade. It was not, however, the agency's ties to drug traffickers that Bowden found most disturbing. It was that a man can lose his livelihood, his calling, his reputation, for telling the truth....

--David Granger
Editor, Esquire Magazine

The Pariah
Two years ago, Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that said some bad things about the CIA. The CIA denied the charges, and every major paper in the country took the agency's word for it. Gary was ruined. Which is a shame, because he was right.
By Charles Bowden
HE TELLS ME I'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT WHEN THE BIG DOG GETS OFF THE PORCH, and I'm getting confused here. He is talking to me from a fishing camp up near the Canadian border, and as he tries to talk me about the Big Dog, I can only imagine a wall of green and deep blue lakes with northern pike. But he is very patient with me. Mike Holm did his hard stints in the Middle East, the Miami station, and Los Angeles, all for the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, and he is determined that I face the reality he knows. So he starts again. He repeats, "When the Big Dog gets off the porch, watch out." And by the Big Dog, he means the full might of the United States government. At that moment, he continues, you play by Big Boy rules, and that means, he explains, that there are no rules but to complete the mission. We've gotten, into all this schooling because I asked him about reports that he received when he was stationed in Miami that Southern Air Transport, a CIA-contracted airline, was landing planeloads of cocaine at Homestead Air Force Base nearby. Back in the eighties, Holm's informants kept telling him about these flights, and then he was told by his superiors to "stand down because of national security." And so he did. He is an honorable man who believes in his government, and he didn't ask why the flights were taking place; he simply obeyed. Because he has seen the Big Dog get off the porch, and he has tasted Big Boy rules. Besides, he tells me, these things are done right, and if you look into the matter, you'll find contract employees or guys associated with the CIA, but you won't find a CIA case officer on a loading dock tossing kilos of coke around. Any more than Mike Holm ever saw a plane loaded top to bottom with kilos of coke. He didn't have to. He believed his informants'. And he believed in the skill and power of the CIA. And he believed in the sheer might and will of the Big Dog when he finally decides to get off the porch. ......

(click link for the full article)

The life, work and suicide of Gary Webb (none / 1) (#136)
by vinsci on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 07:53:18 PM EST

Two interesting articles on the life, work and suicide of Gary Webb by Michael C. Ruppert (From the Wilderness):
Gary Webb - Pulitzer Prize Winner, Author of Dark Alliance Cia-Drug Series Dead of Reported Suicide "Press Accounts Fail to Mention His Vindication by CIA Inspector General Reports and Congressional Investigations"

and his report, with several interesting observations, from the standing room only memorial (where FBI Agent Lok Lau [...] quipped "The truth will not set you free. It will get you fired"):
Saying Goodbye to a Giant

More declassified documents related to all these (3.00 / 2) (#137)
by tweetsygalore on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 10:33:32 PM EST


http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm
After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan
VETERAN DRUG AGENTS BACKED WEBB STORY (1.50 / 2) (#138)
by captainmaynard on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 12:18:29 AM EST

CHECK THIS.....

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/041217_mfe_webb_1.html

December 17. 2004
Investigative journalist Gary Webb was a friend of ours. And he was a damn fine reporter and writer. Gary was all you could ask for in a journalist: tough, unafraid, and honest as the day is long. He lived his life to be a check on the powerful, like any good investigative journalist worth his salt. Well, in 1996 he wrote a series of articles for the San Jose Mercury-News on the CIA and that agency's complicity in the cocaine trade in southern California in the 1980s. It wasn't flawless journalism, but it told a very important story, and in fact it prompted an investigation by the CIA's inspector general which subsequently confirmed the pillars of Webb's findings. But the funny thing is that Webb was driven from journalism because of that series. Rather than extending Webb's story by doing their own reporting, major newspapers instead turned on him and were more determined, it seemed, to attempt to undermine and discredit Webb's reporting. Indeed, the ombudsman for The Washington Post at the time, Geneva Overholser, wrote that her own paper and other major media had "shown more passion for sniffing out the flaws in the Mercury News's answer than for sniffing out a better answer themselves." In so doing, these newspapers relied on many official sources, which is odd considering the subject of Webb's stories. One can only guess as to their motivations.
In any event, Webb was abandoned by his own paper and could not find work in journalism after that. In September 1998, this magazine published the story of what happened to Gary Webb. Written by Charles Bowden and entitled "The Pariah," it is posted below. Esquire is also very proud to have published Webb's return to investigative journalism, a definitive and exclusive piece on a DEA-run program called "Operation Pipeline" which was a program of official racial profiling, and which involved law enforcement all over the country. Webb's piece, entitled "Driving While Black," was followed a year later by a New York Times story on Operation Pipeline in which the Times took credit for the scoop and did not mention that it was Gary Webb who had first broken the story.
Last week, Gary Webb took his own life. Words cannot express our sympathy to his family and to everyone who loved him. And words cannot express our sadness at the terrible loss, to journalism and to the world.

Contributor's profile:

Two weeks after Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance" series appeared in the San Jose Mercury News in August 1996, contributing editor Charles Bowden found himself in a bar, having a few drinks with some narcs (his idea of a good night). "For some reason, Webb's piece came up, and I asked the guys, 'So, what do you think? Is what Webb wrote about the CIA true?'" recalls Bowden, the author of fifteen books, including Blood Orchid and Juarez: The Laboratory of Our Future. "And they all turned to me and said, "Of course it is.' That's when I knew that somebody
would have to do this story, and I figured it might as well be me." "The Pariah," Bowden's story on Webb -- a man he describes as "real smart, real straight, lives on a cul-de-sac, family man, all that crap" -- begins on page 150.

Editor's letter [excerpt]:

....The world Charles Bowden leads us into in his story, "The Pariah" (page 150), is, on the other hand, a place few would willingly visit. Reporter Gary Webb chose to enter the alternate universe where the CIA sponsors armies and sometimes finds itself allied with drug dealers who sell their wares in the United States. Webb wrote a newspaper series that documented how the Nicaraguan contras of the 1980s were in part financed by just such an arrangement -- and he was then professionally destroyed for it. Bowden, in the course of reporting this story over the last six months, found considerable evidence that parallels and supports Webb's articles -- including revelations from one of the DEA's most decorated agents, who speaks for the first time about the CIA's complicity in the drug trade. It was not, however, the agency's ties to drug traffickers that Bowden found most disturbing. It was that a man can lose his livelihood, his calling, his reputation, for telling the truth....

--David Granger
Editor, Esquire Magazine

The Pariah

Two years ago, Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that said some bad things about the CIA. The CIA denied the charges, and every major paper in the country took the agency's word for it. Gary was ruined. Which is a shame, because he was right.
By Charles Bowden
HE TELLS ME I'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT WHEN THE BIG DOG GETS OFF THE PORCH, and I'm getting confused here. He is talking to me from a fishing camp up near the Canadian border, and as he tries to talk me about the Big Dog, I can only imagine a wall of green and deep blue lakes with northern pike. But he is very patient with me. Mike Holm did his hard stints in the Middle East, the Miami station, and Los Angeles, all for the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, and he is determined that I face the reality he knows. So he starts again. He repeats, "When the Big Dog gets off the porch, watch out." And by the Big Dog, he means the full might of the United States government. At that moment, he continues, you play by Big Boy rules, and that means, he explains, that there are no rules but to complete the mission. We've gotten, into all this schooling because I asked him about reports that he received when he was stationed in Miami that Southern Air Transport, a CIA-contracted airline, was landing planeloads of cocaine at Homestead Air Force Base nearby. Back in the eighties, Holm's informants kept telling him about these flights, and then he was told by his superiors to "stand down because of national security." And so he did. He is an honorable man who believes in his government, and he didn't ask why the flights were taking place; he simply obeyed. Because he has seen the Big Dog get off the porch, and he has tasted Big Boy rules. Besides, he tells me, these things are done right, and if you look into the matter, you'll find contract employees or guys associated with the CIA, but you won't find a CIA case officer on a loading dock tossing kilos of coke around. Any more than Mike Holm ever saw a plane loaded top to bottom with kilos of coke. He didn't have to. He believed his informants'. And he believed in the skill and power of the CIA. And he believed in the sheer might and will of the Big Dog when he finally decides to get off the porch.

(CLICK LINK FOR FULL ARTICLE)


BACKGROUND ON THE CIA-DRUG CONNECTION (2.25 / 4) (#139)
by captainmaynard on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 12:36:56 AM EST

PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH EVERYONE WHO WILL LISTEN.....

EDUCATE YOURSELF: A BACKGROUND ON THE CIA-DRUG CONTROVERSY.

Veteran Drug Agents Back Webb Story      http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/041217_mfe_webb_1.html

The National Security Archives: (Awesome site!)              http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

Ollie North's diary entries, memos, email   (2/26/04)         http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/index.htm

Congressional Testimony of Celerino Castillo:                  http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/hall/contra1.html
Photographs and additional notes from Castillo's career:  http://www.drugwar.com/castillo.shtm
                                                                                             http://mediafilter.org/MFF/DEA.35.html

U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters' website:                 http://www.house.gov/waters/ (see press releases 1996-2000)
http://www.house.gov/waters/ciareportwww.htm
       http://www.house.gov/waters/volii.press1198.htm  

A Chronology From Mother Jones Magazine:                   http://www.motherjones.com/total_coverage/coke.html
  http://www.motherjones.com/sideshow/cia.html

Actual copy of the CIA agreement allowing drugs:           http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/cocaine/13.gif   http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/cocaine/14.gif            http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/cocaine/ex1.html

FAIR covers media cover-up                                              http://www.fair.org/issues-news/contra-crack.html

California State University Northridge (CSUN) Professor of Communications Ben Attias'
Cocaine Import Agency website:                                        http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/

Retired Federal Agent Michael Levine:                              http://www.expertwitnessradio.org/essays/

Former Associated Press & Newsweek writer Bob Parry: http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/crack.html

Knight and Bernstein  CIA-drug allegations 1987-1997    http://www.flashpoints.net/ArticleArchiveIndex.html

Interview with Professor Alfred McCoy:                            http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/mccoy1.htm

Former law enforcement agents comment on drug war:     http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/

Website of Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley and the author of Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies and the CIA in Central America.                                                                                      http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/index.html

The Media Cover-Up:    (excellent article)                          http://www.copi.com/articles/darker.html

The Kerry Commission's report online:                               http://www.thememoryhole.com/kerry/

PBS special on CIA-DRUGS                              http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/archive/gunsdrugscia.h tml
     http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/

Retired U.S. Customs Agent John Carman                             http://www.customscorruption.com/drug_war.htm

Testimony of Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz                               http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/gritz.html  
        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/gritz/index.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/gritz1.htm


R.I.P. Gary Webb -- Unembedded Reporter | 146 comments (111 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!