Sunday, August 24, 2014
Subversives in BBC?
BBC is running a long and mostly accurate feature on the Tonkin Gulf lie. The announcer (who admits that he's too young to remember the events) implies that Tonkin Gulf was only recently recognized as a lie**. Flat wrong. It was recognized immediately. He also says that LBJ's White House Tapes were only recently known. Again flat wrong. The only legitimate historian, Paul Johnson, wrote about those tapes 20 years ago.
The standard satanic line is to quietly ignore LBJ's part in Vietnam and load all the blame on Nixon. Most people now "know", and often state openly, that Nixon got us into Vietnam. [Just for clarity: The FACT is that LBJ took us in and Nixon pulled us out. Nixon botched the pullout and made some unnecessary and damaging sidetrips into Cambodia and Laos along the way; but nevertheless he did take us out of Vietnam.]
I suppose I should be glad that BBC is daring to criticize a Noble And Saintly Party Member. But why bother to speak truth 50 years later, after your lie has been so perfectly established? And why exactly now, in the middle of a new set of warmongering lies about ISIS and Ukraine? BBC is enthusiastically spreading these new lies and silencing dissent.
It's a puzzle. Are there subversive elements in BBC?
**Oops. Toward the end of the hour, the documentary fully covers the immediate exposure of the lie by Wayne Morse and others. Maybe the intro was written by someone else who didn't realize what the actual program said.
¶ 2:26 AM 
