Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Mark Lane, JFK assassination expert, has died. [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)39. Links go to the document.
You're right, though, it doesn't say ''demonize.''
b. To employ propaganda assets to (negate) and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
What do you think about the CIA admitting to controlling assets in the news media? Isn't that against the law?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
115 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Take a close look at his role in Jonestown. Pure batshit crazy to put it mildly.
hack89
May 2016
#47
How about the establishment documents of the CIA. It expressly prohibits operations inside the US.
Zen Democrat
May 2016
#51
George H.W. Bush should be considered a suspect, based on what he told the FBI.
Octafish
May 2016
#6
You are the most clueless CS poster on this board. Almost a parody of CS everywhere. nt
Logical
May 2016
#99
Truman criticized CIA after the assassination of JFK. Fired CIA boss Dulles demanded retraction.
Octafish
May 2016
#45
that's right-- thanks for the reminder. I heard him interviewed a few years back
Fast Walker 52
May 2016
#65
There is NO credible evidence that Oswald shot at JFK, much less killed him.
Zen Democrat
May 2016
#53
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a realist and a student of history and our times.
Zen Democrat
May 2016
#89
You compared discussing the assassination of President Kennedy to beating a dead horse.
Octafish
May 2016
#71
It's telling that the members of the Warren Commission are silent about his passing.
Kaleva
May 2016
#75
You are most welcome, JonLeibowitz! I very much appreciate that you understand and care.
Octafish
May 2016
#113
My condolences. I know from your posts, he was an important figure in your life.
MerryBlooms
May 2016
#77
I don't know. Do know the guy who did is dead by gunshot under suspicious circumstances.
Octafish
May 2016
#93
It's truly sad to see someone who dedicated his life to crackpot "theories" pass away
YoungDemCA
May 2016
#97