Edscan has a big and rather interesting conspiracy theory is on the rec list write now. He relates a meeting he had about 30 years ago where, by chance and mistaken identity, the head of a large private organization disclosed a lot of dark future Buscho plans for America.
I'm not doubting the meeting occurred. It's most of Edscan's speculations of the 30 years between then and now which I disagree with. Which is the larger point I'd like to make: we must look at theories with Occam's Razor. No matter who is presenting it, and whether or not we find the theory fascinating.
For me to consider a conspiracy theory with any seriousness, it has to do the following things:
-> offer a simpler explanation than the accepted theory (Occam's Razor)
-> explain things which the accepted theory does not
Here's why I think Edscan's theories, while fascinating, do not fully make the cut:
Edscan is speculating that, as the person told him in their accidental conversation, that Bushco et al have deeply penetrated conservatives from Nixon's admin into the CIA, and that since then they have been doing awful politically-motivated things such as orchestrating murders of key political figures and making them look like accidents.
While anything is technically possible, I think Edscan is mistaken by looking at a lot of these awful events coming from planning, rather than Buscho et al taking spontaneous, uncoordinated advantage of structural results of the system.
In other words, the vampires don't have to all plan together to go out at night and suck our blood - they like to do it, so as soon as the sun sets they will. And not everyone who dies at dusk is killed by a vampire - sometimes people just get in car accidents because they didn't have their lights on.
So, going through to the points Edscan raised in particular:
They had a plan to destroy a governmant "Union".
- Conservatives hate unions. Doesn't need a conspiracy - this is an innate tendency that comes straight from their ideology.
So, Reagan wouldn't need a plan to infiltrate the Air Traffic Controllers union - he'd just need to hate unions (which he did - he was a rat against the Screen Actors Guild back in McCarthy times), and then he'd just need to ignore intolerable conditions until they were forced to strike.
Now, it is historical fact that the Fed has in the past infiltrated all kinds of groups - see Cointelpro and Project Mockingbird. But they also wouldn't need to infiltrate a gov't union to make them strike in an illegal fashion - if the job is considered a vital service, like ATC is, it's already illegal to strike.
Nixon gave [GWHB] the task of hiding almost one hundred Nixon political operatives that were being pursued by Watergate investigators...
They were paid by the Whitehouse or the RNC, but the money was being "watched"...[GWH] Bush, in a Texas type move, went "all in".
He placed these political operatives in the most covert section
of the CIA.
- GHWB hiding pay for Nixon's dirty operatives within the CIA's budget - this I can see. If presented with that choice, it would be harder to explain why he would not.
But just because their pay was hidden in the CIA's budget, doesn't mean the operatives joined the CIA and stayed. I'm skeptical because you can hide money in a budget, once - but you can't hide the logistics and change in infrastructure and training it takes to assimilate a new bunch of employees. And the resulting gossip within the CIA that would have produced. Someone would have bitched about it, just because they'd have to deal with the new mess - just like the CIA did bitch, publicly and anonymously, about the "Halloween massacre" when Carter fired many of the CIA.
He went on to say political assassinations were going to be "different".
Targets would be removed by way of airplane or airline accidents,
or other disasters. They were.
- Maybe. But I'd have to go case-by-case here. Foreigners? Or Senator Wellstone?
They could "fix" all elections. They did.
- Not really, or Jimmy Carter would never have gotten in. And the Democrats would have lost the Senate and Congress while Reagan was in power.
To cheat on the level this guy was discussing, for ONLY one party across all of the US - isn't logistically possible. Not even now with Diebold - or we'd be looking at President McCain.
They were going to stop Jimmy Carter with one act in the Middle East.
- I can see this one - hard to argue with the effective reality of the October Surprise.
Then Bush was made the Vice Presidential candidate.
But Reagan was the victim later.
- But why would GWHB have Ronnie killed? GHWB was already running things. From a great position - in the Cheney position, with Ronnie as the figurehead and fall guy. And in fact, Ronnie did take the brunt of the blame for Iran/Contra.
John F. Kennedy JR.
- JFK Jr.? I really don't see it. I'm sure he was a great guy, but there isn't anything he did or was about to do, that made him more dangerous to the powerful than plenty of other people who are still alive.
Howard Dean and Jon Stewart were and are much more dangerous. Seriously.
Three Democratic Senators received Anthrax laced letters
through the mail.
- But that's not secret - AND it's not effective. Whoever sent those letters definitely had an ideological agenda. But if someone wanted them whacked, they would've been whacked.
That was much more about scaring the hell out of people. Still could be a conspiracy, but one with a larger and more short-term intent: freaking people out so they'll do what you want.
Which explain why it was also sent to Tom Brokaw.
Embassy contingency plans of action under certain circumstance.
These plans incited the students to riot and sieze the Embassy.
That operative, his wife and another and his wife "escaped" from
the Teheran Embassy the day it was siezed.
All four had been "mind control experts" and "remote viewers" for the CIA.
Two men and their wives were "coincidently" inside the Canadian Embassy when the
takeover occurred. All four of them----amazing coincidence.
- That info re: the Canadian embassy being overrun is very interesting, and fits ok with what we do know of "October Surprise". But again:
a) what about them was that dangerous, than many others who were not put in life threatening situations?
b) if someone did think they were so dangerous that they needed to be taken out - why would they do it in such a half-hazard, random fashion?
How many ex-CIA operatives are made Ambassadors?
- Well, there are foreign agents in every US embassy, and almost certainly every nations' embassy. So, if they're still active CIA (or NSA, or other), how would we even know?
This is just "openers". The rest will come out in the trials.
I hope so. I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff we don't know about, that would curl our hair. But we've got to look at things critically, because otherwise we'll waste our energy and spoil the joy in our lives, by looking for things that aren't really there.
And you can't do anything about a conspiracy until you unmask the perpetrators - and maybe not even then. But a structure is something you actually can change - and one day, for example, have an African-American president.