US rape in Iraq = lynching negroes on Yahoo

[NewKid]

And this on ol' Ward:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/churchill_belle_11_24_93_01.jpg" target="top">www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/churchill_belle_11_24_93_01.jpg</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>first two full paragraphs<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/churchill_belle_11_24_93_02.jpg" target="top">www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/churchill_belle_11_24_93_02.jpg</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Your paydirt doesn't quite pay off, Hugh. The Johnson Group produces the White House Christmas Pageant -- so what? They've also done programs on AIDS, domestic violence, the NBA, the American Indian Museum, and anxiety disorders. <br><br>Their angle seems to be solidly middle-of-the road, with a bias to the right (pro-military and anti-environmentalist/pro-business). There are plenty of production companies that skew right, particularly in the D.C. metro area. In your mind, that is proof of CIA manipulation/sponsorship. It might be, or it might not. A serious researcher would dig more deeply before crying "CIA! Mockingbird!"<br><br>Let's say, for argument's sake, that the Johnson Group is indeed connected to, or a tool of, the CIA. That does not in any way support your thesis that Paper Clips, the film, is a PSYOP to obscure Project Paperclip. <br><br>It's just another example of your confirmation bias -- you find elements you can string together (paperclip together?) to support your ideas, without seeking the weak points or logical flaws. And you make broad assertions (Paper Clips = Project Paperclip, Johnson Group produces White House Christmas Pageant = CIA control of Johnson Group; therefore Paper Clips is a CIA Project).<br><br>Sorry, but your paydirt is only dirt. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Another of your pet hijackings you cling to like a drowning man grasping a twig. <br><br>Let's pretend your theory is correct. What if the Churchill story had not "hijacked" the story about the CIA? What has happened since more documentation has emerged about CIA complicity in harboring/aiding Nazis -- in particular, Eichmann? In June, tens of thousands of pages of documents have been released, including documentation about the CIA failing to pursue Eichmann, even when they knew where he was hiding.<br><br>What happened? Nothing much. <br><br>The story has been covered in many major news outlets since the release of declassified documents to the National Archives.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/world/americas/07nazi.html?ex=1307332800&en=a02750d1b542785e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">www.nytimes.com/2006/06/0...yt&emc=rss</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5458425">www.npr.org/templates/sto...Id=5458425</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/nazi.crimes/index.html">www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06...index.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,1792065,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/second...65,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>And so forth. A little searching will show you how widely reported this story was. <br><br>So where was the hijacking to obscure and coverup these damning revelations? Why didn't the PSYOPS guys trot out something to cover up this story -- which is much more damning than the previous material?<br><br>If, indeed, the manipulation of the media is as micromanaged as you continue to argue, the MOCKINGBIRD puppetmasters should surely have had a keyword hijacking plan to knock this story out of the mediasphere -- right? Why don't they? Surely, if they can manipulate the Yahoo! news page, create Nacho Libre to obfuscate Mexican campesino uprisings, and put dog movies and Paper Clip on the eye-level shelf space at your neighborhood Blockbuster, they can engineer a hijacking of Eichmann to coverup this damaging exposé?<br><br>Also, your theory assumes that the release of this type of information is so worrisome to the CIA that they will go to incredible lengths to hijack words like "Eichmann" for fear of... what? What do they fear, Hugh? Renewed interest in the political shenanigans of the Cold War era? Demands for Congressional investigations? <br><br>Information about CIA complicity with Nazis has been available for decades. I haven't seen much concern about it. I haven't seen the slightest inkling of public concern about the subject. <br><br>You'd say that's because people who get interested get diverted when search engines lead them astray, all engineered by savvy puppetmasters behind the scenes. I say it's because most people just don't care.<br><br>And, once again, you have failed to provide even an iota of evidence that actually puts your theories to the test. Go ahead and google Eichmann and select the "news" tab (or use any other search engine that searches news stories). You'll see that the Eichmann CIA story is repeated in the top 10 hits. <br><br>Whoever's running the keyword hijacking department should be fired.<br><br>Next time you feel like pushing a keyword hijacking, put your fingers where your mouth is and show us some data. Otherwise, this is really getting tiresome. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>