Salon.com: “Every president has been manipulated national security officials”

[swoods_blue]

A Salon.com journalist interviews the site's founder, David Talbot, about Talbot's new book called "The Devil's Chessboard".

What's intersting to me isn't so much the sordid details contained in the interview (and the book looks dynamite, too), but the serious treatment of issues like MK Ultra, the Dulles brothers' affinity for former Nazis, Robert Kennedy's search for the real story behind JFK's murder, etc. Not only are the issues given serious weight, but they're discussed in conjunction with one another.

A snippet from the interview:

That was the beginning of what many scholars now call the deep state. [The deep state] is essentially an alternative network of power that runs the country no matter who is in the White House. I think the book is in some ways a narrative that brings that idea to life. It wasn’t just Kennedy; As I said, it was starting with Roosevelt, then Truman, then Eisenhower — theses presidents that Dulles and the people around Dulles were serving, they were also subverting.

I'd love to hear Talbot interviewed by Peter Levenda and Bill Ryan.

Here's the link:
“Every president has been manipulated national security officials”: David Talbot exposes America’s “deep state”

[TargeT]

Salon.com ... just that name alone carries bad connotations in my mind. some of the articles I've read from there have been complete crap bordering on lies at times; and now they release something like this?

I guess it's just loose editorial management at that place, I hope the messenger can be over looked for the message ( but we know that's rarely the case with the general population).

I'd almost wonder if using this venue was done purposely, but I don't think so.


Interesting article, I'll have to read that book.

[swoods_blue]

Well, Salon has many writers...

The subject of the interview, Talbot, is the founder and former CEO of the site/company. He's now writing books, and this one takes a decidedly non-mainstream view of postwar history. At least, it's a long way from the standard, general-consumption version given in high schools and colleges. But beyond that, it's venturing into irreverently conspiratorial territory. I don't think you'll hear Talbot talking about Blue Avians or reptilians, but he's certainly saying that the "deep state" is a very real thing. These are notions you wouldn't hear discussed at the Washington Post or on CNN, at least not as such.

[jake gittes]

AGree w/ TargeT. I am skeptical about anything associated with salon.con and "huffPo" -- two of the leaders on the commie side of the NWO agenda-pushers.

[awakeningmom]

I hate Salon.com. Especially anything written by Alex Seitz-Wald -- the guy who loves to debunk "conspiracy theories." Anything from 9-11 and the Boston Bombing to fluoridation and other health conspiracies, Alex is there to assure his brainwashed audience that it's nothing to take seriously -- just a bunch of crazies spouting these crazy things. Just move along now, folks.

Such total obvious crap. But the sad part is, most of my friends still love Salon and Huffington. They think they are the place to go for "liberal" or "progressive" thought. Like NPR...

Please.

Miles W. Mathis has had a lot of scathing things to say about Salon.

[swoods_blue]

I think focusing on Salon.com is tangential at best... The importance here is the kind of material being covered in a serious way in a semi-mainstream outlet.

I'm not endorsing Salon by sharing this; I also think that we can evaluate writers and articles individually. So if you have a criticism of Salon, and think that's relevant to this particular topic, I'd love to hear you draw the connections and state the implications you see.

The book is real. The author, Talbot, really did map out a lot of the history and connections. The inteview is real. And it basically places a vast, detailed conspiracy theory into plain sight of the mainstream. So it was a bit of a surprise for me to see this.

Simply trashing Salon without relating that to the content of the topic is unhelpful, IMHO.