Madsen on "Whispering Campaign" to suppress the truth

[jamboi]

Madsen just wrote. It looks like he's calmed down and writes with more cogency and ran it through the spell checker this time. :-)

Madsen writes:
Subject: Dunne etc.

"You may assure the DUers that it was my post last night. That guy's web site and posting was brought to my attention after 1) I received a call from a reporter with a major national magazine who was hostile and I realized that the intention of the interview was an impending hatchet job 2) there is a "whispering campaign" being conducted in DC (even reaching into the National Press Club and other places I hang my hat) -- the theme of that campaign is how someone who claims to be a journalist can constantly publish articles that are so hurtful to the President and his family and 3) news that David Corn of The Nation is conducting a similar smear campaign against Greg Palast .

And then this guy Dunne's post appears complete with an unflattering screen shot from a German TV interview -- it was obvious that he was continuing the campaign that began earlier in the day. My way to deal with these kinds of attacks is to respond to buckshot with Howitzer rounds.

If Dunne would have "dunne" his homework, he would have discovered that I have been writing about the Bushs' dirty money sources since before and right after Dubya came into office:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml
http://www3.sympatico.ca/danielmetro/inthesetimes.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2576
http://www.progressive.org/wm0900.htm
http://weholdthesetruths.org/conspiracy/Articles/bush-funding-minions.htm
http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=1382&blz=1
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen0722.html

and that my investigation of where the money came from to rig the election is a continuation of past investigations and leads.

It's not the rght we have to be concerned about. We know them and their tactics and stances. However, it is attacks from the left that are the most damaging. Just look at the so-called neo-cons and neo neo-cons: many come from Trostskyite /"Leftie" backgrounds: Chris Hitchens, the father-son teams of Irving & William Kristol and Norman and John Podhoretz. Trotsky himself was on his way to DC from Mexico to meet with J Edgar Hoover and the HUAC. These types of leftists/liberals are nothing more than "Fifth Columnists" and they have the subconscious goal of sowing dissension among progressive ranks. They did that in the Spanish Civil War, the 1968 Paris uprising, and continue their agenda as this country slips into fascism.

Every once in a while I run into Dan Schorr here in DC. He was viciously savaged by the Nixon administration in a "whispering campaign." But Schorr was actually done in by the so-called "liberals" at CBS News and not by Nixon's henchmen. He could have very well been Cronkite's successor but was eventually relegated to National Public Radio. And that is why I will fire broadsides against these attacks from so-called liberal/leftist quarters. "

[jamboi]

1. kick

[jamboi]

5. .

[jamboi]

6. .

[rockedthevoteinMA]

2. he had a post last night ?

Thanks for the update jamboi! :hi:

[jamboi]

3. He had an extremely controversial post that Vote4Kerry posted last night

not his best moment. He was pissed. This one is much more coherent, believe me.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

4. thanks - I would be too, after that article from Break for News. n/t

[genieroze]

65. got a link? eom

[kk897]

7. KICK!

By the way, did ya'll see in breaking news that there was a van crash in which a bunch of NASA employees were killed?

Hope it's just coincidence. :tinfoilhat:

[Monkie]

8. NSA/NSC spy blames "leftie" neo-cons and foreigners for fascism in usa?

lol

i have pretty much stayed out of the madsen discussions and attacks,my reasons are, they dont focus on the real issue (votefraud), the discussions have been rabid enough without my contributions, and most importantly..
everyone seems to be debunking him for all the wrong reasons.
all anyone says is that he is a cook that doesnt know what hes talking about and writes incoherent unsubstantiated stories.

if anything madsen IS a person who is qualified to investigate this.
my question is why does he investigate and to what end?
but then he puts this foreign/leftist even trostkyite spin on the neo-cons/votefraud/fascism issue and a little "red" flag got raised in my mind and i had to comment.

from madsen's online bio's

he was member of the NSC under Reagan, was an intelligence analyst for the NSA, he was a naval officer, he a member of the NSC(NSA) under Reagan, he worked at the state department , the RCA Corporation

his bio qualifies him, but it also proves he is "The Man" as you would say it, in deep deep with people that you and i would consider the very enemies of democracy, the last person who one would expect to be investigating serious issues concerning democracy in a accurate way.

I'm extremely worried by the way he seems to taint or put improbable spin on what are often real issues with real evidence, that then gets snowed under by the rest of his rant and dismissed in whole by the debunkers/MSM

reminds me of WWF tag-team wrestling
you can discover profound truths by watching but you need to keep your wits about you to not get sucked in by the smoke and mirrors :D

[Razorback_Democrat]

11. Neocons were generally "Scoop Jackson Democrats"

who switched parties during the Reagan years and have mostly liberal social leanings, and very hawkish right wing security leanings.

So, in a way he's correct, although his ramblings in the e-mail make him sound a little out there.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

35. LOL

Which of the current policies of the neo-con in the sitting administration would you describe as liberal?

What policies emerging from the various neo-con think tanks would you describe as liberal?

These are truly outlandish claims made by ultra far right groups dissatisfied with conservative/republican big government.


Madsen spends the last 5 years apparently exposing Bushco. And All of a sudden its the Lefties that are the dangerous ones ?

The lefty critics are the most damaging because ?!?!?!?

Hanity, Limbagh, Savage, Novak, and Coulter are fine because we expect them to attack?

So Ambassador Wilson should have been worrying about the Left because everyone expected the right to out his wife.
(Do I need to list the fallout of that expected attack?..lets just say lives were lost)

All I can say is DAMN. The Left is a mighty, mighty, threat if EVERYONE needs to worry about it.

[AntiFascist]

56. Jamboi's post is important because....

it describes how the neocon influence in the Democratic party is potentially dangerous to anti-neocon progress. Centrists in the Democratic party want us to shift more toward Republican ideals, particularly with respect to foreign policy. On the other hand, there are far right Republicans who have in fact been highly critical of neocon foreign policy. Whatever else you may think of these far right vs. liberal folks, being a hawk vs. dove really cuts across the whole left/right political spectrum. People are complicated and we should analyze their arguments thoroughly before we attack them based on their personalities or general political convictions.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

59. Jamboi's post was an email from Madsen......

This is what Madsen, someone I worry might be a disruptor, said when answering an author's criticism of his piece.

"It's not the rght we have to be concerned about. We know them and their tactics and stances. However, it is attacks from the left that are the most damaging. Just look at the so-called neo-cons and neo neo-cons: many come from Trostskyite /"Leftie" backgrounds"

I thought he might be a disruptor before I saw that.

Now perhaps it's a case of seeing what I want to but I worry.


Notice Madsen never says Democrats he say lefties.

I'm also intrested in the discription of Hitchens as a lefty.

[jamboi]

60. I talk about "righties" and "lefties". I'm an "ambi" myself. So? n/t

[jamboi]

61. Now maybe its time to ask who are you and where are you coming from?

You've asked me a ton of questions in public and in private and I've been very generous in answering them the best I can. Would you do the same for the rest of us. As I said in my private e-mail to you, its easy to ask questions, cast doubt and play Monday morning quarterback, but what's hard is to answer questions and to be a practical activist. I'd like it if you'd share about yourself and what you like to do to contribute to progress. That'd be cool.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

62. well here you go I'll just post my PM to you answering the same question.

I see your patience is running thin so I'll make this brief.

It's easy to ask question you're right but it is easier to just believe.

Neither has do do with my activism.

You never answered my question.....

Do you think there is already enough evidence in the public
record to prove that the election was Unfair, Fraudulent,
Dishonest?


I DO.

And I think all these conspiracy theories are a major distraction designed to give repuks a reason to think it's all bogus.

I don't deny that Bushco is capable of all this and more. But I don't think we will ever see any justice for their crimes while they are in power.

We MIGHT once removed.

If all of our efforts are spread thin chasing a million tangent mystery threads our strength is severely diluted.

I think that is the plan.

I'm not saying you are in on the plan, but what I am trying to say in a logical reasoned way, without getting personal or accusingly, is that you are playing a role in helping dilute the effort fighting the provable fraud.

[jamboi]

64. As I've posted here in this very thread, yes I do believe there's more tha

n enough evidence before you even look at the deep research that Palast, Madsen and others are working on that there was widespread fraud, enough to at least tip OH to Bush. And as I've said as a whole movement, when we're dealing with the average Joe I think we should keep the conspiracy theories to ourselves until we can decide if they can hold water and we can explain them cogently. We agree on that point.

Nevertheless each of us has their own role to play SomthingsGotaGive, and I have chosen to focus on examining, researching and vetting Madsen's narrative. I never said that anyone else on the planet had to join me in that persuit. That is what I'm going to do because that's where I feel I can make the most difference. I trust myself that I'm not a tool for Bushco and I've checked out Madsen and Curtis and think their narratives are worth spending time on. Whether you believe me, Madsen or Curtis is of no account to me and I have no requirement to persuade you that I'm right. For you, as I said before you should pick whatever turns your wheels and dive in. Agreed? Excellent.

You've asked me a ton of questions and I think I've discharged whatever duty I had to answer them. I've even answered the same questions more than once. So please just accept these are my opinions and feel free to take what you like and leave the rest. Welcome to DU and I hope we'll be able to be effective in fighting for progressive values together.

And by the way, I was sincere in asking you to tell about yourself and think that would be appropriate after all the questions you've asked me.

JamBoi

[SomthingsGotaGive]

67. Welcome to DU ?!?!?!?!

You've been here 2 weeks and I have 300+ post!!!
Don't be condescending.

You have evaded every single one of my questions.

You haven't told me anything about yourself at all.

you say you are..

"researching and vetting Madsen's narrative"

How are you vetting it when you breathlessly say " In real investigative journalist circles he is well respected"

Demand proof of the Dead dog would be vetting this.

Bradblog says there is a police report but I have to go look it up myself.

How can any sane person with sincere motive propagate such a story without having proof so as to not insult the intelligence of the reader.

CAN YOU BELIEVE I'M ASKING YOU TO PROVE THAT A DOG WAS REALLY SHOT ?!!?!

thats how bad this story stinks. I ask question so others can decide if you or this story is believable by the answers that are given.


I do Not come here and say..

this story is crap....trust me.

[jamboi]

68. In no way did I mean to be condescending to you and I apologize if it

came across that way. I should have checked your profile before I wrote that -- since you had only 300 posts I thought you'd just come on, but I see you registered here a month before I registered. My apologies.

As to the fact that Curtis' dog was shot we've been over that numerous times. Yes, I believe Curtis' that his dog was shot and no I don't feel the slightest need to prove to you that its true. That is not a part of his affadavit and is peripheral to his story. I'm sure we'll learn more details when Curtis is no longer needing to literally dodge bullets, but for now I don't deem that particularly important. I guess we just see that differently.

Obviously we have some differences in how we evaluate these things and we may or may not be able to come to common ground, but basically I think we are both free to be active in our own way to support progress and what I'm doing is to examine, research and vet Madsen's narrative. What you do is up to you.

I think I've revealed tremdous amounts of how I think and what I believe and I'd be happy to hear more about you. That was intended completely sincerely.

Peace,

JamBoi

[jamboi]

70. Since Curtis' dog question came up I asked Madsen and his reply was

Madsen wrote:
"I only know that from what Brad Blog said -- he may be right on that one -- but the other stuff he's been saying is not in the ballpark"

I wrote to ask him about the curious thing about other stuff not being in the ballpark, and I'll probably have to wait till tommorrow for a reply on that.

To me personally, I don't think the dog thing is important since its not even in the affadavit. Seems irrelevant to me, and is more about Freidman's reporting than about Curtis' story. I've never had direct contact w/ Curtis to hear his story directly re: his dog being killed, so I make no claims on that. Hopefully that puts the dead dog to rest. Sad story. :-(

This page has a bunch of links including to his interviews. I encourage people to listen to him directly and make up their own minds about it. (I don't thing he mentions his dog in any of them.)
http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/

[AntiFascist]

63. Have you ever heard the term "radical right?"....

In the traditional political spectrum, the far far right is called "reactionary" meaning that they would "radically" roll back liberal progress. Neocons are something different, they would radically transform the world for the ultimate benefit of global, inhumane corporate interests. Everyone who is concerned about the future of the world should be concerned about emerging fascism, left, right and center. We have discussed this in depth at DU, but very few in the outside world even have a clue.

The marriage of neocons with the true reactionaries who want to reverse the progress made in abortion and gay rights is something like a match made in hell. We tend to hate everyone on the right, even if they may be opposed to neocons, just because of their political bias.

Instead of thinking of the political spectrum as a line that goes from left to right, think of it as a circle where members of the left and members of the right are meeting in the back alley, trying to decide what should become of the Bush camp and the long-term prospect of its policies.

[jamboi]

66. Interesting post. Did you see that web site that has a new schema of

political analysis with two axes, one left to right and the other libertarian to totalitarian? I thought that was very interesting. I'm still mulling over that one and am not quite ready to commit to it yet. Very interesting...

[AntiFascist]

71. That is interesting.....

I suppose there are several political classifications that don't necessarilly fall within the traditional left to right dimension. Libertarians sometimes accuse liberals of being "totalitarian" about certain issues, for example: smoking in public places.

[jamboi]

72. I found a link that goes into it the Plot Your Political Postion program

Here's the story behind Plot Your Political Position which uses the two axis concept of political culture (Left-Right, Authorianism-Libertarianism) I described above.
http://www.theadvocates.org/library/hope-for-homeless.html

[SomthingsGotaGive]

33. Great post !!!

Has Madsen EVER written an article that actually broke a story?
Has ANYONE ever been charged, ANY policy changed, or a SINGLE official resigned because of any article Madsen has done?


More Alex Jones fear mongering if you ask me.

These guys try and make there stories sound so big and the conspiracy so vast that the average person will feel overwhelmed and sink into an apathetic depression.

Someone like Palast OTOH write stories that make the perpetrators seem like common criminals that deserve our scorn and demand our action to bring justice to the victimized.

Any time I see stories like Madsen's I assume the worst.

BTW I asked BradBlog last night if he had seem a copy of the police report Curtis must have filed after finding his dog shot dead.

I got no reply.

Either he did ask and see the police report and decided not to post it.

Or he never asked to see it and believed Curtis.

Either way it is totally irresponsible to included such an outlandish plot twist without expecting people to be skeptical.

If he didn't think we would be skeptical then I am skeptical of his ability to know the truth when he hears it.

If he did think we would be skeptical and still posted without proof then that brings up another set of serious questions.

[jamboi]

38. Whoa there. Madsen has a long history doing deep investigative work.

Palast and Madsen have worked together in the past and they are quite similar in the stories they break.

It would be nuts for Curtis to make up a story about his dog being shot. That will be easily verifiable. Just because you haven't heard back from Freidman yet doesn't mean a thing.

Two interviews w/ Curtis and at least two or three with Madsen are available on the web now, so I recommend everyone go listen for themselves. They are both very credible.

[ClintCooper2003]

9. Very convincing I would say.

What the hell is up with David Corn? He wrote a book (that I bought) called "The Lies of George W. Bush."

[Qutzupalotl]

34. I have heard that about Corn

from Madsen's colleague (I think), Michael Ruppert of fromthewilderness.com. Ruppert calls Corn a "stealth liberal"--PC on many issues, but puts a curious spin on the big picture items, such as Ruppert's hypothesis that Bush knew about 9-11. Specifically, Corn tried to debunk the documents in the Vreeland case by pointing out that they were stamped October 2001, after 9-11. Ruppert says that's the date they were entered into evidence in court, but they had been sealed since August.

[Carni]

51. JMO but David Corn bitches about anything even slightly "tin foil"

Before the 911 commission was begrudgingly slapped together (not that it did any good IMO) Corn was writing about conspiracy nuts etc that should shut up about 911 and move on. He lost it with me on that front...as far as I am concerned you would have to be a moron to think 911 was a complete surprise to the Bush admin.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Has this clown explained what happened with Iran?

Until he does, he doesn't have that much credibility.

[Razorback_Democrat]

12. Well we didn't attack Iran

so I guess he was wrong on that

Maybe that was a Rove plant to take him off of any trails by discrediting him.

Rove I doubt likes Madsen since Madsen has written unflattering things about Rove

On the other hand, Madsen seems to have such an eclectic theory that weaves so many factors together that he sounds out there.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. So this new story could certainly be a "Rove plant" as well?

He cites "White House sources." If this person is lying, why doesn't expose them?

[jamboi]

22. Not! Enough already with the "Madsen is a plant" junk. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. I don't think that he is a plant

I think that he may be a shoddy journalist who makes up things.

[IAMREALITY]

27. We Have To Remember

The Iran story was investigating an outcome pending, while this investigation is doing so with an outcome that is certain.

There could've been every factual reason in the world to show the Iran Plan was real, but because it had not yet been executed its path had the potential to be altered.

This investigation, however, is dealing with an event that has actually occurred. An event that cannot have its outcome changed, as it has already taken place. That is a huge difference in the comparison of the two stories.

If you accuse me of plotting to rob a bank tomorrow and notify the Police publicly, I very well may choose to abandon the plot and stay home instead. But if I robbed the store yesterday, and told a few people I trust about it, but one of them tells you, and you THEN go to the Police to report the robbery, well let's just say you'd have a lot better shot of being proven right.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

37. Some very good points.

This one in particular.


"There could've been every factual reason in the world to show the Iran Plan was real, but because it had not yet been executed its path had the potential to be altered.

This investigation, however, is dealing with an event that has actually occurred. An event that cannot have its outcome changed, as it has already taken place. That is a huge difference in the comparison of the two stories."

Could you take a crack at my comments above?

I DO want to believe. I respect your opinion and haven't seen you ask posters to 'just believe'.

[IAMREALITY]

39. Unfortunately,

I can't really argue with your posts above. You have every reason to believe that, and I am not near expert enough of Madsen to reply from a "Reality" point of view (which, as can be seen from my handle, unless it passes that test I don't post it).

Though I can't argue with you, I can disagree, well, at least to a point. Though certain aspects of the story still leave an unsettling feeling of non-confidence in my stomach, there is too much other stuff that I just cannot dismiss, and therefore will continue to regard with cautious optimism. I do have faith in Madsen, but as you said, it is based on faith, not hard facts, so on that point I cannot tell you to believe as I do, because to each their own opinion on how they interpret details at hand that are the catalysts to opinion forming.

I do in the end hope more hard evidence comes from this. For now I will choose as said above, to anxiously await new developments and view them with cautious optimism.

As a final note, one thing I want everyone to remember is that no matter how absurd some of these theories or investigations sound sometimes, in order for fraud and deception to have occurred to the levels we are all convinced it has there would by nature HAVE to be a plot full of drama and surreal details. So in the end one of these way too strange to believe stories will Have to be proven to be the case, though it can be a too strange to believe story that has not yet surfaced. We shall see.

[stirringstill]

28. For what its worth

I know this will not settle the issue but I recall on Kos or it could have been here at DU on following the appearance of his first article that someone did a nice examination of the IRAN story showing that several others, not just Madsen, wrote very similar stories. There were rumors flying around some intel circles and even in the MSM and indeed some service men told their families they were shipping off for IRAN--whatever that means.

[Woo]

13. touche n/t

[lizzieforkerry]

16. They were planning on going into Iran and Rove stopped them

saying "No new war in '04". Rove told them they had to wait until after the election and then they could attack whomever they want.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Do you have a source for that?

:shrug:

[lizzieforkerry]

19. My friend talked to Gen Franks

and he told him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. LOL

[jamboi]

24. Actually as crazy as it sounds, that's the rumor that's going around DC.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

40. Actually it doesn't sound crazy to anybody that's been paying...

paying attention for the past two years.

Madsen was not THE source of the Iran attacks theory.

Sites like www.informationclearinghouse.info have had a "IS IRAN NEXT" story pinned to the top of the page since 2003. often updated with authors from around the world. Madsen's article was one of many.

His article has a detail of the machinations inside the admin. The only reason it seems he was the key player is because people from all walks have been using it to discredit this vote fraud piece.

IAMREALITY make an excellent point regarding that above.

We all have valid questions regarding the strength of this story, but "Iran story" comparisons are irrelevant and distracting.

[merh]

18. Have you ever watched any of those movies that deal with

time travel? You know, somebody goes back in time, stops someone from getting run over, then history is rewritten and the future is changed?

Well, if I recall, once Masden started reporting about the weed's plans to invade Iran, the Iranian's starting a media blitz of their own, refuting any Al Qeada connections, denying possession of nuclear weapons and negotiating with other nations regarding the development of same.

Also, internal polls showed the idiot's controllers that another war would be fatal. His approval ratings were sinking fast and his war in Iraq was not a very strong point for him.

Maybe once the report was posted, it altered the future. Doesn't mean it wasn't their plan and to continue to slam Masden for reporting that it was their plan is stupid. Get hung up on something else, that is a waste of energy.

[papau]

23. He says you can verify his report with the men if the SS JFK.

The fact that it did not happen may related to the (poosible Langley Studio) profession video tape of Bin Laden that aired the last week -

and to confirmation of non-certified election programs in place in the required areas.

[Carolab]

14. Thanks Jamboi

that helps.

[jamboi]

29. Glad it helps, and you're welcome Carolab. Thanks to all your contribution

s too!

[Cocoa]

21. Madsen's garbage discredits itself

no whispering campaign needed, anyone in the reality-based community will see right through it.

[jamboi]

25. His fear/anger in this life-threatening situation HAS caused him to react

in ways that hurt his credibility, but come on, if I were being targeted in a life-threatening way I'd probably react poorly too.

[Cocoa]

30. obviously I don't believe that Madsen is sincere

from my posts, I think it's clear that I think Madsen is spreading something he knows isn't true, for whatever reason.

And further, I think it's clear that I think that many of the people spreading his stuff around are similarly disingenuous.

[jamboi]

31. If you had the level of contact I've had with him you would never say

he's insincere or disingenously spreading lies. He's just an extremely passionate and sincere kind of guy. Ask others who've been reading him for years. Write him yourself.

[Cocoa]

32. I'm aware that you vouch for Madsen's sincerity

I hope you won't be offended to hear that that doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

And to the other anonymous Madsen supporters reading, don't bother to vouch for jamboi's sincerity, we'll just go in circles.

[jamboi]

36. With more contact I'm confident you'll realize he's full-on sincere. n/t

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alizaryn]

41. That's the point..his credibility.! Why would he put it on the line?

What possible gain would there be for him? He has put his reputation on the line.
You may suspect him of being wrong in some of his claims but to say he is deliberately writing untruths is not only misleading it is naive.

[jamboi]

42. Not just his credibility, but his very life. n/t

[SomthingsGotaGive]

43. question

Before the release of this series of articles what was Madsen's "reputation" among MSM or the general public?

How is it misleading to conclude someone with his background and contacts Might be spreading dis-information?

How is it naive?


And MOST importantly how does Vetting a story and it's author on DU in any way hinder the advancement of his investigation or our cause?

[Alizaryn]

46. In no way do I have a problem with "vetting" a story.

Trust me, I have great respect for skepticism and often find myself explaining to "the world" that its really just realism.

I have followed Mr Madsen through the various on-line journals for awhile now. He brings interesting facts and theories to the table, that I enjoy reading and contemplating. I don't imagine he has any difficulty getting his articles accepted in any of these journals and they are usually given a visible spot from my observations. I would think that his reputation provides him with coverage.

Do I buy into ALL of his theories? No. Like i said, I need to prove things to myself before accepting them as a reality, its just how I am.

My question to you, and it is not a rhetorical question is: What purpose could he have to deliberately lie? Thats where I find problems in what you are saying, not in your opinion of his accuracy or even value.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

49. OK

But you didn't answer all of mine.

I purposely asked for his reputation in the MSM and general public.

I don't think anybody that post frequently here can be described as having average knowledge about politics and election coverage so his reputation in a niche activist group isn't important when considering motives.

Less than 0.0001% percent of the US population has ever heard of Madsen so he really has no reputation to loose other than within his own niche and professional circles.

Now considering his contacts and background, the content of his work must have ostracized him from "official" channels or contacts, leaving him only personal contacts that he says continue to feed him information.

So there again I don't think he really has much to lose.

The only real credibility he has is with conspiracy buffs that enjoy the chase.

Your direct question regarding deliberately lying is rather easy if you except his background as legit.

We have witnessed first hand dis-info campaigns that even discredited Dan Rather.

So to suggest that the government doesn't have an interest in spreading falsehoods, or have the budget to execute those interest is itself naive.

I'm not saying Madsen is Bogus. You are saying he Can't be.

He most definitely could be. Thats the point. I hope he is not but he could be.

Finally while I was typing the word budget above I thought about looking into how Madsen earns a living. That is usually where we find motive so I'm off to look.

[jamboi]

69. .

[jamboi]

48. I'm fine w/ vetting the story and if you've been following my involvement

you'd know that I've advocated for that continuously. But real vetting is different from things like Dunne's article. I'd welcome research that showed parts of the story were false, but I haven't seen that yet.

Standing from a distance I could agree that it would be possible that Madsen could be a disinfo artist, however if one actually studies his stuff and has contact with him and realizes that he is putting his very life on the line (not to mention his whole career), then I can't give this argument any weight.

[rinsd]

45. What reputation?

The brightest his star got was when he predicted the invasion of Iran as the October Surprise....and that didn't work out too well.

He may indeed be spreading disinfo and it is hardly naive to suspect such. This isn't a case where DUer's are suddenyl accepting the government line. It's a matter of DUers liking the truth not just hearing what we want to hear.

Maybe the proof remains to be seen but that's what he needs right now ...real proof because his cred is in the shitter.

[jamboi]

50. Madsen's brightest star may have been preventing the Iran bombing, but

he was only one of many that reported on that impending debacle, including MSM, so we can't give him the full credit for that. Up till now probably his most well known reporting coup is actually Echelon. People who follow real investigative journalism generaly hold Madsen in high esteem. I had not been an aficianado of investigative journalism, so I was not familiar with Madsen when I first heard about him here. I put in the research and found his creds are excellent. When I realized he was putting his life as well as his life's work on the line for this story, I decided it was worth giving him a listen even if it sounded far out. That's what I say: give him a good listen. Read his prior work as well as listening to his interviews. He comes across as very credible in his interviews, if passionate and broadly sweeping at times. It won't hurt to listen to his narrative and give it a thorough evaluation.

[Alizaryn]

54. Actually, I think we are all on the same page. I may have over

reacted a bit to the "spreading something he knows isn't true" part of the statement.
We need to investigate and Jamboi I know you for one try to confirm facts before standing behind something as I do. We really do not have an argument, we're after the same thing, truth.

[Vote4Kerry]

26. Madsen not the only one to report US plans of invasion of Iran

Check out this link:

http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/invadeiran.htm

[BreakForNews]

44. BreakForNews Statement

Ok. I've read the threads. Including the flame. No problem.

Threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x127080
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=126229#
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x123770
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x126275

Wayne Madsen refers to an "unflattering" photo of him in our
recent article on "FeeneyGate". Well, just enter "Wayne Madsen"
into Google Images and see which image comes up first. That's what
we did. So no disrespect intended. We have now replaced the photo
with another, and will use a pic supplied by Madsen if provided.

The text of our article remains unaltered.

There have been many interpretations put on my critical article
regarding the Madsen and the Yang/Feeney/Lemme/Five*/Curtis story.

Wayne Madsen's Vote Fraud Tale Spin
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/MadsenVoteFraudTaleSpin.htm

Let me make this clear. I have not stated, nor do I now state that
Wayne Madsen is dishonest, or culpably malicious in his writing.

I have no evidence to support such a claim.

However I do believe that his October 22nd 2004 article forecasting an
imminent "October surprise" attack on Iran was part of a misdirection
ploy designed to lull the opposition to the Bush reelection campaign
into a belief that Osama, or Iran or a terror attack were going to save GW's skin.

A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp

Whereas, if there had been no talk of an "October Surprise" we
ourselves would have been wondering exactly how Bush/Rove/et al.
were going to deflect the grassroots pro-Kerry surge.

And we would have concluded that they were going to steal the vote.

So the "October Surprise" PsyOp worked very well did it not?

And it had a surface appeal to our emotions did it not?

"Yeah, Bush is gonna fake an Al-Queda attack."
"Yeah, he's gonna attack Iran"

What else would you expect from the Bush War Criminal mob, eh?

So it worked very well. It had excellent surface appeal.
As must all such counter-intelligence constructions.

In the same way the personality/profile and circumstance of
Feeney/Yang/etc. and of Clint Curtis has similar surface appeal.

That's why a hard-hitting article --like a rigorous cross-examination
by a legal counsel-- was needed. One which would spot the defect(s)
in Madsen's and BradBlog/RawStory's presentation of the facts.

Such as:

"We only have Curtis' word that his claims of a vote stealing scheme
were being factored into Lemme's investigation" and "Curtis' program
is a mere skeletal outline...It was written by Curtis, and has been
promoted by Curtis. We have only his word that the malicious intent
was Feeney's."

An article which would inevitably have to address the fact that Madsen
--wittingly or not-- had stoked the fires of an "October Surprise" ploy.

So I wrote the article.
That's the kind of writing I do. Check my other work.

http://www.BreakForNews.com

But, I clearly pointed towards his sources -not to Masden himself.

"Madsen, who now says the check was just a follow-the-money pointer
from his mysterious tipsters."

"Madsen's publicity-shy informants had assured him that George Bush
was ready to launch a strike against Iran"

Gossip and conjecture about Madsen is not journalism about Madsen.
I have simply questioned if his sources were misdirecting him
and us in October --and are still now.

I gave credit where credit was due:

" He zeros in on the unfortunate fate of a Florida DOT corruption
investigator.....Had Madsen focused solely on this aspect, his
article would have been a well-aimed expose. "

by the way, just because i am critical of Masden does NOT mean
I think that VoteFraud is a conspiracy theory.
As our Votefraud page since Nov 3rd shows:

http://www.breakfornews.com/Copulation-Control-2004.htm

Since I wrote the article, there are some aspects of Madsen's on-air
presentation of the Clinton Curtis claims which I must address in a
later post.

I believe he gave listeners the impression that Curtis actually wrote
functioning vote-stealing software, which could have been passed on to
others by Feeney -and used to steal the election. He did not. He wrote
only demonstration software. More later.

Anyway, there you go. Nothing personal, and no offense taken by me.

Just due dilligence, in historic these times.

I am thrilled how we are still hanging in there and managing to wag
the media and establishment. We are not going away.

Let's do it.
Carefully.
We got burned with 'October Surprise.'
We got burned on Nov. 2.
They were wake-up calls.
These people are clever.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

53. Nice job

I liked how the people accusing you of writing a hit piece didn't mind calling you an ugly right wing neo con liberal.

[jamboi]

55. Will you reply to my e-mail apology, challenge of your article & request

that you respond to Madsen directly as he tried to contact you? I think it was an unfortunate choice for you to write such a critical piece without contacting Madsen and checking it out with him first. Nevertheless I hope that we can all find a way to fight the common enemy and not each other. Thanks

JamBoi

[Duncan]

57. Palast is Credible, Madsen? I don't think so...

I was floored that Corn wrote that illinformed/uninformed bit about Palast. That is bizzare. But I am not the least bit surprised when someone questions Madsen's credibility. Everything I've read of his seems earnest perhaps but not credible, not verifiable, and even incoherent. I think at best Madsen is uncovering some important stuff but in a scattered way that is not helpful unless tied together by someone else, at worst, Madsen is deliberatly wasting our time and effort, and diverting attention from the concrete aspects of the vote fraud issue. I have only read Madsen's stuff since Nov 2, and based on that, in my opinion he is wack. Maybe its all just over my head though.

[jamboi]

58. Madsen's writing is sometimes kinda scattered, but people that follow

investigative journalism put a lot of credibility in him. He may have his foibles, but I don't think he is wack.