[PEN-L:6849] Re: CIA/crack/contra conspiracy/connection covered

[pcomm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (R. Anders Schneiderman)]

Jim wrote:

>I haven't read the whole series (last week's series on the
>biology of the brain was more interesting), but I'd say that it
>can be summarized as minimizing the role of the CIA & the contras
>in the crack epidemic. The contras were involved, but it wasn't
>very profitable for them. There were lots of other suppliers. The
>LAT reports CIA denials of involvement. They are skeptical about
>a lot of the details the San Jose Mercury series and even more
>skeptical about conspiracy theories.
>
>Even without the conspiracy, the fact that CIA is and has been
>involved with gangsters and the drug trades (not to mention
>fascists and torturers) is sufficient cause to abolish the damn

The LAT's coverage is the same we're going to get from most of the
mainstream media:  focusing on the conspiracy theory, which obviously isn't
true, to bury the real story about the CIA tolerating/encouraging drug
trafficking in the inner city.  Luckily, with Maxine Waters and many other
folks coming at them, I don't think they'll be able to pull it off.

Incidentally, I love the fact that the LAT reports that the CIA denies any
involvement.  Since when has the CIA ever admitted involvement in anything
until they've been caught red-handed?

Anders Schneiderman
Progressive Communications