Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Would covert operatives whose work involves subverting democratic governments abroad—including violent coups such as the one that brought down Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973—hesitate when ordered to participate in comparable activities at home?

We’re constantly told that no such thing could happen in the good ole USA (certainly not in the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK, for example), if for no other reason than that it is impossible to keep such plots secret.

Or, in the common parlance: “Someone would have talked.”

The logic goes: since no one has come forward to describe their role in such plots, therefore no plot has existed.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. People are coming forward all the time to provide, if not the whole story, crucial bits and pieces that together would lead us to awareness of a variety of covert doings, some clearly nefarious. For example, scores, perhaps hundreds of credible eyewitnesses have cast doubt on the official “lone kook” scenario that is a staple of every domestic assassination.

But these whistleblowers are quickly discredited, suppressed, or worse. From time to time people even come out of the national security establishment to testify to such wrongdoing, but they almost always pay a heavy price –which of course discourages others from bearing witness.

How many remember the story of Philip Agee? Phil was a loyal American who served in the Central Intelligence Agency abroad. Eventually, he could no longer stomach the ugly work he and colleagues were doing to subvert the affairs of other countries, and he became a critic and a fugitive. You can read about his hair-raising adventures as the might of the US government came down upon him wherever he went, in his book On the Run

The Waterboard Whisperer

In the years since, there have been numerous other examples of “someone” who did talk, only to suffer a variety of unpleasant circumstances. The most recent case is that of former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who faces up to 45 years in prison for statements he has made.

Kiriakou first attracted the Agency’s ire when, in 2007, the ex-agent told ABC News that while he believed that waterboarding could be effective, it was morally the wrong thing to do. He was quickly ousted from his job as a security risk analyst for the accounting firm Deloitte.

He later, the government charges, spoke to journalists who were seeking confirmation of the identity of agency personnel involved with the controversial interrogation program that used methods tantamount to torture. Kiriakou faces four counts related to leaking classified information, each carrying a penalty of ten years imprisonment.

He is also accused of having told the CIA that material in a book he was writing  would “fictionalize” a high-tech CIA scanning device known as a “magic box” while in fact he went ahead to describe it accurately. The charge of making false statements could earn him an additional five years imprisonment.

The bottom line here is that public servants can go to jail for trying to inform the public about the truth of what their government does—and, bizarrely, for lying to the government by falsely promising to lie about government secrets while actually telling the truth about what they had seen from the inside.

As for “someone would have talked”……baloney. Almost nobody talks. And for good reason. Just ask John Kiriakou.

GRAPHIC: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NZS29lqfL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

73 responses to “Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy”

  1. BFIT108 says:

    website

    ​[…] website […]

  2. Josh Stern says:

    Phil Agee’s video interviews on YouTube (e.g. “I was hunted by Jackals”) are very engaging. John Stockwell also has a set of lecture videos on YouTube that focus on criticism of the CIA. Antono Veciana’s Interview on YouTube sheds a lot of light on the JFK assassination. E Howard Hunt was close to death when he recorded his interview, also available on YouTube – so it’s not too sparkly. But what he says about JFK is consistent is broadly consistent with Marita Lorenz account of his involvement, so it does not discount his book.

  3. BrianApocalypse says:

     What a strange and confused bit of writing this is.

    First of all it states that nobody would talk because of the consequences. Then it goes on to say that actually, many insiders DO talk, and some of them even write books about it…. and then finishes by saying almost nobody talks!

    Uhh… What?!?

    • Russ Baker says:

      Everyone else seems to be able to follow this, but let me help you out. The phrase “someone would have talked” is meaningless because, (a) very few insiders DO talk, and (b) those who do are attacked or marginalized, creating a situation where even more people play it safe by staying in category (a).

    • BrianApocalypse says:

       I have no problem understanding your premise, but your own article seems to contradict it.

      “People are coming forward all the time to provide, if not the whole
      story, crucial bits and pieces that together would lead us to awareness
      of a variety of covert doings, some clearly nefarious.”

    • russbaker says:

      OK, once more: real insiders who directly participated in highly controversial operations tend to keep their mouths shut. However, those who have knowledge, perhaps secondary, of bits and pieces, do sometimes come forward, and are usually ignored. So, the insiders do not talk, and the others who do are ignored. Hence, as far as the mainstream media’s audience goes, it rarely hears any revelations on these topics.

    • Guest says:

      “Those that know don’t talk — and those that talk don’t know…”

    • Josh Stern says:

      Another issue is that mainstream media are often unwilling to publish material the CIA doesn’t want published, so someone who is willing to talk, and trying to talk, may still have trouble reaching the public ear. YouTube, the Internet, and Amazon are helping out a lot with that in one sense. But in another sense, “not recognized by the mainstream media” is still a hallmark feature of a “conspiracy theory”. A large portion of “conspiracy theory” is “acts for which there seems to be mountains of evidence in alternative news formats, about plots often having to do with the CIA or its close allies (e.g. the FBI), which are not endorsed as true by CIA-linked media corporations and entities dependent on CIA-linked govts. for funding.” So one must go elsewhere to watch an interview with William Pepper talking about how the FBI killed MLK, but the actual fact that he won a civil trial with a jury saying that it was probable that the US govt. was involved in MLK’s murder is stll absent from almost all mainstream media discussion.

  4.  https://www.facebook.com/notes/antonio-lucca/rfk-killed-after-jfk-why-/10150552915502212

  5. Artuvwar says:

    would “fictionalize” a high-tech CIA scanning device known as a “magic box” while in fact he went ahead to describe it accurately. 
    **the link has been waterboarded**

    • Reezy says:

       Damn, i wanted to check it out

    • raoulleraoulle says:

      I did check it out.
      it’s there in googles cache… 

      paste
      ex-cia-official-indicted-leaking-secrets
      into google and look at the cached pgs, first 2 are from yahoo and available.

  6. Terry Hansen says:

    The real problem is that when someone talks, the major media will ask the government for confirmation. Once government officials deny the leaks, the story almost always dies. Most of the media are in bed with the U.S. intelligence community. Study the history of wartime propaganda and you will be forced to this conclusion. And the U.S. is now permanently at war, so the propaganda never ends.

    Ever see the movie, ‘Three Days of the Condor?’ At the end, Robert Redford’s character tells the CIA officer that he has just given his story to ‘The New York Times.’ Cliff Robertson’s character replies, “How do you know they’ll print it?”

    Very perceptive.

  7. Anonymous says:

    another good example is “confessions of an economic hit-man” describes how people are contracted to go in to other countries and either corrupt the people in power to the advantage of the US government or destabilise the country.

  8. Ivan_K says:

    Russ Baker wrote  “Would covert operatives whose work involves subverting democratic governments abroad—including violent coups such as the one that brought down Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973—hesitate when ordered to participate in comparable activities at home?”

    Were foreign covert operatives involved in the Chile coup in 1973 ?

    Apart from the argument that consists in reviewing US-led regime changes in other Latin American countries, and concluding that such an intervention must have happened in Chile too – there is scant evidence for a CIA involvement in the Chilean dramatic events. 

    One of the strongest critics of the US foreign policy is Paul Craig Roberts. Here is what he says about the Chile coup:

    “The left needs to make up its mind.  Did the CIA and or Kissinger overthrow Allende or did Pinochet do it? My colleague and I studied it for years and talked to everyone involved. The book by my colleague and myself was favorably reviewed by the progressive establishment in Chile after Pinochet was out of power. My colleague spent two years in Chile researching the book, researching newspaper files, interviewing the generals, Pinochet, housewives, businessmen, members of the successor government, civilian members of the Pinochet government, surviving terrorists.  I myself interviewed Pinochet, and a former “most wanted” terrorist who
    ended up president of the Spanish-owned telephone company and a number of others who experienced the era.”
    ” I am sure that Pinochet refused to act until he had reassuring word of the US position on Allende, but Pinochet was pushed into action by the Chilean people and Chilean Congress, not by the CIA.  The Chilean Congress passed
    a resolution denouncing Allende for destroying the Constitution and for allowing armed para-military units to terrorize the people and called on the military to oust Allende. ”
     
    Paul Crag Roberts’ article on the topic:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts189.html

    Review of the said book:
    http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html

    The above quotes are from
    http://www.opednews.com/a/135325?show=votes#allcomments

    Thankyou.

    • werdy says:

       Yeah, the CIA isn’t involved in South America. Nor Chile. That’s why they have bases down there (in Chile). How’s life in the dream world, che? Meet anyone from the “Libyan” “National Transition Council” there?

    • Ivan_K says:

      You created a straw man.  I didn’t deny CIA’s involvement in S. America. What you said is worthless, as an argument.

    • Just the Facts Man says:

      Okay, but can you really blame werdy for thinking that, considering the fact that you wrote, “[T]here is scant evidence for a CIA involvement in the Chilean dramatic events.”  This is just patently wrong, as can be discovered by Googling Pinochet and CIA and consulting reputable sources such as this: 

      http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/index.html

      Why don’t you take you’re intellectual curiosity and start doing some actual factual research before you start going around talking about “interesting provocative” facts.  

    • Ivan_K says:

      My second reply to werdy: Are we coming from the same basic position in regard to the global mafia?  My basic influence is the Enlightenment. I feel I have a basic obligation to fairness and truthfulness. It may be said that through fairness to truth, I seek social fairness. That’s enough for me, I don’t need to be impressed on daily basis with ‘epochal’ insinuations. 

      For all I know, CIA may have been involved in the overthrow of Allende. I do know that in human affairs there are virtually always exceptions. If I say, these twenty ‘regime changes’ are bad so it must be the twenty-first, I might have gotten it wrong, and in consequence  some people may be unjustly convicted, and virtually crucified, in advance of a fair trial… All of that because of my and others’ intellectual laziness!

      So, in my view intellectual curiosity and justice are intimately linked.

      I’ve given you some new, interesting, provocative facts. How come you seem completely disinterested in  them? You don’t know me. So why do you stigmatise me?
      What’s behind this impatience? What principles do *you* stand for?

      If I said, this person has written a book detailing how CIA overthrew Allende, I’d have probably been “liked.” If so, it’s about prejudice. The former Questioners have become Believers. The Truth has changed, but people’s attitudes may have remained the same.

    • robobbob says:

      Why even use Chile as an example? maybe, could have. why use an inconclusive example? Is he trying to weaken his own credibility?Ex operatives have openly claimed credit for places like Guatemala. The failed Cuban operation is in the history books. When questionable events with security implications occur, the default position should be, just how involved are we, not if we’re involved?

  9. Dusty says:

    Remember Andrew Breitbart! Never forget!!!

  10. Jimbo Limbo says:

    People tend to drop dead in unison, via heart ailments, when secrets leave the nest.

  11. CecilMills says:

    Reading the comments here it would appear that Mr. Baker has assembled quite the knowledgeable commentariat, a veritable Mr.X’s of Sisyphusian boulder pushers.

    Good luck. 

  12. Johannan Baptiste says:

    I CAN keep a secret. It’s the people I tell that can’t keep them.

  13. poppyw says:

    An honest, ethical government would welcome whistleblowers, indeed would reward them.  A gangster government shrouded in secret, will persecute whistleblowers.  What’s sickening is a Congress, supposedly elected by the people, they don’t aid the whistleblower.  They take their cue from the govt.  Secrecy covers many sins.  If this was an honest constitutional govt, an honest congress, there would be no need for secrecy.  The CIA is the enforcement branch of the gangsters.  JFK was going to tear the CIA apart, they showed him who is the boss.  Then, they bumped off his brother a short time later.  Incredibly, the American people didn’t do a damn thing about this outrage.  The gangsters in govt exist because they have figured us out, we’re too cowardly to challenge them.

  14. KPat says:

    I am suprised no one added ex FBI Director Ted Gunderson to the list. Famous for exposing child sex slave/pediphile ring using military personel, planes and bases. And later life…Chemtrails

    And….Capt America….absolutely great comment…worthy of repost…

    “Someone would have talked”: On Believers and Questioners

    Person #1: [States a plausible theory concerning how the government may have conducted a nefarious operation and then lied to the public about it.] Person #2: That’s impossible. There would have to have been so many people involved. Someone would have talked.

    Who is right: Person #1 or Person #2?

    No matter how much research Person #1 does, he can never attain absolute certainty about his theory. Absolute certainty about empirical matters is impossible. See Rene Descartes, Meditations I. However, the difference between Person #1 and Person #2 is not in the truth-value of their respective beliefs, but rather their orientation towards truth itself.

    Person #2 is a Believer whereas Person #1 is a Questioner. Most Questioners used to be Believers; it is rare to find a Believer who used to be a Questioner.

    Questioners are a tortured lot. On one hand, they are constantly attempting to save Believers from their certainty in the “consensus opinion.”

    are constantly attempting to test those few beliefs that they have attained, which they acknowledge to have been imperfectly established. This is a never-ending task and the Questioners are never satisfied.

    Believers, by contrast, spend most of their time in blissful ignorance. They see the world as “given” and spend their time worrying about things like sports, interpersonal relationships or career advancement. While some Believers get their worldview from watching or reading the News, most get it by osmosis, by referring to what “most people think” as a guide.

    Believers and Questioners are fundamentally at odds. Questioners either view Believers as simpletons or (as stated above) as naive souls to be saved. While many Questioners find Believers boring or pathetic, Questioners do not usually hate Believers. However, Believers invariably detest Questioners. See Plato, The Trial of Socrates.

    The reason for Believer’s hate of the Questioner is based on the fact that the Questioner, simply by posing the question, succeeds in momentarily jolting the Believer out of his blissful ignorance. This momentary jolt is painful, of course, which causes the Believer to recoil at whatever idea the Questioner had momentarily created in his mind.

    Believer’s salve is to reject that idea outright as preposterous. He will rely on any handy method to do so.

    The “someone would have talked” argument is a handy method that Believers use to get rid of an uncomfortable idea. If the “someone would have talked” phenomenon is as true as the law of gravity, then why, the Questioner asks, does the government go to the pains of conducting background checks? Why did no one talk about Operation Northwoods before it became declassified? Why does barely anyone talk about it now?

    The Questioner is relentless. If he goes to too far, though, the Believer is going to have to rely on other means to get back to the blissful state to which he has become attached. When he fails to refute the Believer on his own, he will resort to others. He will turn to other Believers and say “Look at this guy! How crazy is he!?” The other Believers will be quick to rally around the irked Believer-cum-leader. Before you know it, the Questioner has become an outcast. Or worse.

    When the Believers are done with him, the Questioner will eventually become “no one.”

    This is the reason why the “someone would have talked” argument fails: because whoever talks is no longer someone worth being listed to, at least as far as the Believer is concerned.

    But I wouldn’t try to explain this to a Believer, if I were you.

    • Optigon says:

       What a fantastic post KPat! It would be great if you were to publish this piece somewhere so that I (and others) could link to it. Outstanding assessment, my friend.

    • Optigon says:

       Oops. I see you were reposting a comment by Capt America. Well thanks for reposting because I would have missed it otherwise. You’re still outstanding ;)

  15. John J. Loftus says:

    I am a whistle blower. I won Mike Wallace an Emmy, testified before congress and paid a sharp price, but in all my time in the classified files I never saw anything to contravene the “lone nut” killers of RFK and JFK.  However, I believe the murder of MLK is still unsolved.  Ru7ss does great work.  I do not always agree, but always admire his courage,

    • George says:

      Congressman Stokes from Ohio whom I met said that there definitely was a conspiracy to murder all three but they just couldn’t figure out who to pin it on.

    • Banks2020 says:

      WOW REALLY? You never saw ANYTHING that would make you question the lone gunman theory about JKF? Either you are ignorant and dont need to be speaking publicly on the matter or you are dumb as a rock and no one should be listening to you

    • Guest says:

      I think he meant, in the classified files. The readily available evidence is pretty obvious, starting with the unwillingness of the “lone nut” to shoot Kennedy between the eyes as he came down Houston St. (credit Jim Fetzer). This, however, is not surprising. No one in their right mind is going to leave a paper trail regarding the murder of the president. Why this would surprise the “whistle blower” is beyond me.

  16. Montana Mule Gal says:

    I have a friend, in her late 80s, who lived in DC during the late ’50s thru the mid ’70s, and she knew Martha Mitchell on a social basis. She saw Martha at a function a couple of weeks before Martha was “committed” by a White House psychiatrist, and says that “there was nothing wrong with Martha. She talked; they didn’t like it and they found a way to permanently shut her up.”

    • Dinophile says:

      Yes, that is lousy what they did to Martha.  They also ridiculed her endlessly on “Laugh-In” for the phone calls she made to the press talking about the illegal activities of the Committee to Re-Elect the President.  Those phone calls were dead on.  Martha’s only fault was that she was in love with a crook.

    • Flowers says:

      Gawd that is sad.

  17. Fbecke says:

    Also, the plight of Abraham Bolden. He reported negligence and was prosecuted!

  18. eddieleaks says:

    Barry Jennings, a key 9/11 eyewitness who was an emergency
    coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, passed away last August
    2008 at age 53 from undisclosed circumstances. Mr. Jennings was an
    eyewitness to the devastation of the World Trade center towers on
    September 11th 2001.

    On the morning of 911 Barry Jennings with Michael Hess, (one of Rudy
    Giuliani’s highest ranking appointed officials, New York city’s
    corporation counsel), entered the famed Building 7.http://eddieleaks.org/2009/04/17/new-information-on-the-death-of-911-eyewitness-barry-jennings/
     

  19. Pensivesteve says:

    So, there is really no need to investigate ANY criminal conspiracy, is there? All we need to do is wait long enough, and eventually someone will talk. 

    Let’s take a hands off approach to crime, and simply wait for the consciences of those involved to drive them to come clean.

    The naivete of this argument is astounding.

  20. Drbrea says:

    Add Gary Webb to the list of those that talked.   After describing CIA involvement in drug-trafficing, he lost his job and ultimately his life,  in what was labeled a suicide.

    • NewWorldDISorder says:

      Love Gary Webb but I’d like to add:

      Danny Casolaro
      Reps Larry McDonald and Sonny Bono
      US special forces colonels Rowe, Baker, Cutolo
      ex-FBI Darlene Novingers father and husband
      USMC colonel Sabow
      the two kids murdered on the railroad track near Mena, Arkansas
      Barry Seal (even though he was in on it)
      ex-CIA Dois Gene “Chip” Tatum

      I’m sure there are many more unknown.

  21. Someone did talk, and it was Sam “Moony” Giancana and he said it was a joint effort by the mob and the CIA to take out JFK & RFK.  Payback for Papa Kennedy not keeping his sons in line when the hit on Papa K was called off. 

  22. WarDepartment says:

    “Someone would have talked” has been the nonsensical mantra of former Warren Commission attorney Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter, who now teaches at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and continues to defend the 1964 coverup he helped engineer.

    What a genius. What a steel-trap mind. I guess this is what passes for legal brilliance in Ivy League schools nowadays.

    Aside from the fact that people have, in fact, talked, this argument doesn’t stand up to Logic 101 testing.  The “no conspiracy” conclusion rests on two faulty premises: 1)  some conspirators would necessarily talk, and 2) nobody with any credibility (as defined by the national-security state and its propagandists for the “lone nut” theory)  has  talked.

    The first assertion  is an unproven generalization, an opinion, and not an established fact of human behavior.  The second premise also cannot be accepted at face value.  We don’t know who might have talked. There could  have been death-bed confessions and other revelations that were suppressed by those who heard them, out of fear for their personal safety and the safety and reputations of their families. 

    For a reminder of what happened to people who knew too much about the JFK assassination, search online for the 1984 article “Disappearing Witnesses” by Penn Jones, Jr., from a magazine called The Rebel.  The story of Lee Bowers, the railroad tower worker who observed suspicious activity behind the picket fence along the motorcade route, is just one  chilling example of  what was (and perhaps still is) a ruthless terror campaign of witness intimidation and elimination.

    • Realist says:

      Don’t forget the heroic Dallas PD det. Roger Craig. Not only did he talk but he kept talking (as many mysterious accudents befell him) until he was found with a rifle bullet in his chest. Ruled a suicide of course.

  23. Mark Gobell says:

    David Shayler and Annie Machon, ex MI5 whistleblowers.

    Peter Wright ex MI5 – Spycatcher – Thatcher banned the book.

  24. Capt. America says:

    “Someone would have talked”: On Believers and Questioners

    Person #1: [States a plausible theory concerning how the government may have conducted a nefarious operation and then lied to the public about it.]
    Person #2: That’s impossible.  There would have to have been so many people involved.  Someone would have talked.    

    Who is right: Person #1 or Person #2? 

    No matter how much research Person #1 does, he can never attain absolute certainty about his theory.  Absolute certainty about empirical matters is impossible.  See Rene Descartes, Meditations I.  However, the difference between Person #1 and Person #2 is not in the truth-value of their respective beliefs, but rather their orientation towards truth itself.  

    Person #2 is a Believer whereas Person #1 is a Questioner.  Most Questioners used to be Believers;  it is rare to find a Believer who used to be a Questioner.  

    Questioners are a tortured lot.  On one hand, they are constantly attempting to save Believers from their certainty in the “consensus opinion.”   On the other hand, Questioners are constantly attempting to test those few beliefs that they have attained, which they acknowledge to have been imperfectly established.  This is a never-ending task and the Questioners are never satisfied.  

    Believers, by contrast, spend most of their time in blissful ignorance.  They see the world as “given” and spend their time worrying about things like sports, interpersonal relationships or career advancement.  While some Believers get their worldview from watching or reading the News, most get it by osmosis, by referring to what “most people think” as a guide.   

    Believers and Questioners are fundamentally at odds.  Questioners either view Believers as simpletons or (as stated above) as naive souls to be saved. While many Questioners find Believers boring or pathetic, Questioners do not usually hate Believers.  However, Believers invariably detest Questioners.  See Plato, The Trial of Socrates.  

    The reason for Believer’s hate of the Questioner is based on the fact that the Questioner, simply by posing the question, succeeds in momentarily jolting the Believer out of his blissful ignorance.  This momentary jolt is painful, of course, which causes the Believer to recoil at whatever idea the Questioner had momentarily created in his mind.   The Believer’s salve is to reject that idea outright as preposterous.  He will rely on any handy method to do so.  

    The “someone would have talked” argument is a handy method that Believers use to get rid of an uncomfortable idea.  If the “someone would have talked” phenomenon is as true as the law of gravity, then why, the Questioner asks,  does the government go to the pains of conducting background checks?  Why did no one talk about Operation Northwoods before it became declassified?  Why does barely anyone talk about it now?  

    The Questioner is relentless.  If he goes to too far, though, the Believer is going to have to rely on other means to get back to the blissful state to which he has become attached.  When he fails to refute the Believer on his own, he will resort to others.  He will turn to other Believers and say “Look at this guy! How crazy is he!?”  The other Believers will be quick to rally around the irked Believer-cum-leader.  Before you know it, the Questioner has become an outcast. Or worse.   

    When the Believers are done with him, the Questioner will eventually become “no one.”

    This is the reason why the “someone would have talked” argument fails: because whoever talks is no longer someone worth being listed to, at least as far as the Believer is concerned.  

    But I wouldn’t try to explain this to a Believer, if I were you. 

  25. Russ Baker says:

    Here’s another person they went after: ex NSA guy Thomas Drake :

    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/26/part_2_former_nsa_employee_thomas

    • Lhodges75 says:

      Drake is impossible to locate – so is James Bamford – I tried to contact both – the problem is the lack of organization among NSA dissenters – I never worked there, I don’t have a clearance, they don’t dictate my life – but I’m still a threat because my ex husband is one of their cronies – and I know a lot about him and his friends – and they did not want me talking or showing up in DC –  If Bamford wasn’t such a woos, we might get somewhere – as long as everybody is scared – this is going nowhere – I’m not intimidated by the NSA or anybody who works there – I was going to show up in their lobby – but my ex put a stop to that –

  26. Lhodges75 says:

    They do talk – family members, friends, insiders, coworkers – try talking and see what happens – I was married to a senior brass at the NSA who totally lied and faked his polygraph – and I talked – and I got targeted by these cronies – NSA is nothing but a bunch of phony translators with fake clearances –

  27. Benfrank99 says:

    The Catholic Church as a matter of policy, would use the whole “surely, someone would have talked” thing to dismiss out of hand allegations that abuse was being covered up.  And a huge price was paid by those brave enough to speak up anyway – they were branded kooks and pretty much shunned.  Same here.

  28. locutionwizard says:

    bradley manning anyone?

  29. Anonymous Coward says:

    When I hear:
    “Someone would have talked by now”
    “Nobody can keep a secret that long”

    I respond:
    “Ok…so what happened to Jimmy Hoffa then?”

    Somebody would have divulged that by now right?

    • A. Benway says:

      I’m dumb about this, but I have the idea that Hoffa started talking about the Kennedy hit. Can anybody comment on that idea, please?

    • Guest says:

      Why would he do that? He was one of Bobby’s main targets. At the very least, he would have kept his mouth shut like LBJ.

    • A. Benway says:

      RFK was gone by then, long gone. People blab for internal and sometimes obscure reasons. I’m not saying that Hoffa talked, I’m simply curious –  did he? Dead people don’t talk.

    • Guest says:

      I don’t know where you even get this from. What’s the connection? Hoffa consorted with gansters, therefore he knew the particular gangsters who were involved on a secondary level with the murder of JFK?

    • Cbrown says:

      A lot of people had reasons to kill Hoffa. It could have very well been a single acquaintance who is probably still alive and who would be charged with murder if that person divulged details. Most people see that the magnitude of a 9/11 conspiracy makes it an impossibility. The number of people who would be involved defies any logic to begin with. The eyewitness accounts of passengers on the Pennsylvania jet, the claims of success by Bin Laden and AlQaeda, the videos of the jets hitting the Twin Towers are obvious. Contrary to an above comment it is human nature to talk and very hard for most people to keep a secret; think of all the jailhouse confessions to fellow inmates which are used to convict someone. There have been no substantiated, credible smoking gun confessions regarding any of the popular “conspiracies.” A small segment of the population are “believers” in the strictest sense and a good portion of these people seem to believe all the conspiracy theories. The claim that people don’t talk is just a rationalization for “believers” to keep their delusions alive.

    • Guest says:

      1) Webster Tarpley destroys your argument fairly concisely by pointing out that there were multiple exercises taking place on 9/11, each one of which mimicked some aspect of the “attack.” Hence, most of the planning was done under cover of planning for these exercises.

      2) The “eyewitness accounts” in Pennsylvania, via cell phones that couldn’t possibly operate at those altitudes and speeds? Sorry, wrong again.

      3) Bin Laden specifically denied responsibility for the attacks. The video in which he supposedly takes credit features a gentleman who doesn’t even resemble Bin Laden beyond a long beard and a turban.

      4) Confessions? How about E Howard Hunt confessing to his son that he was involved in the Kennedy assassination? You’re batting zero today.

      5) A “small segment of the population,” generally hovering around 80%? You just can’t win for losing, can you?

      Here’s a hint. Do a little reading about the subject before you embarrass yourself even more.

    • Cbrown says:

      Webster Tarpley never met a situation that wasn’t
      a conspiracy . He is a big bag of wind and a typical gadfly who has made a lot of money and fed his enormous ego by selling his contrived fiction. His association with Lyndon LaRouche says a lot. David Aaronovich takes twisted sociopaths like Tarpley to task in “Voodoo Histories.” Cell phones work fine on jets; the phone conversations are documented and verified by the family members who answered them. Oh, I forgot, those folks are in on the fix. There is more than ample evidence that Al-Qaeda operatives planned, carried and took credit for the 911 plot. The purported motives for a 9/11 conspiracy are as many as you can imagine which makes none of them very credible. The US government was guilty of negligence in allowing the hijackers the opportunity to carry out their plot. Hunt has no more credibility than the 1000-2000 or so authors of Kennedy assassination theory books( many with different theories). Hunt had zero integrity and would say anything. A large percentage of 9/11 believers also harbored anger at the government and less educated people were also more likely to believe in a government role. Funny about 35% believe in 9/11 silliness which is the same as Kennedy conspiracy  and UFO believers. The paranoid caveman survival  gene is definitely alive and well. Take your Haldol before you embarrass yourself next time.

    • Guest says:

      Thanks for the straw men. I can use them in my tomato patch to keep the crows away.

    • ND52', Oklahoma City says:

      Weak.