Talk:October surprise conspiracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Shows bias

This portion of the article shows bias and needs revision: "The Rathergate scandal is widely believed to have been orchestrated by Republican party agents — the false information was fed by a Republican agent who later appeared on a chat forum, claiming to be a independent individual, and pointing toward flaws in the typography of the document" It cannot be said that the above is Italic textwidelyItalic text believed. It is a theory that has been advanced mostly by Italic textDemocraticItalic text agents (Terry McAuliffe, for example), and to state categorically that the information Italic textwas fed by a Republican agentItalic text when no hard information to support that idea has surfaced is not appropriate (especially when most of the evidence relating the story to any political party points at Democrats). In any case, a Wikipedia article on politics intended to be neutral should not state as solid fact the self-serving accusations of either party.

Agree. There is no basis for "widely beleived". I take my political news intervenously and frankly, that's the first I ever heard it. Needs to be removed. Nobs01 03:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who has the power to edit the intro paragraphs? To their credit they do not say "disproved" but only "insufficient" evidence, but a mention needs to be put that a full trial with jury not only formally found Brennekey innocent of purjury, but ended up touching upon the issue of whether a secret meeting as Brenneke describes took place, and the jury believed, based on the evidence, that the meeting did in fact take place. This needs to be put into the intro paragraph, even if briefly, to balance the official investigations by congress and other insitutions which have a don't-rock-the-boat bias or minimally, leaning.

[edit] Rathergate still bad

The 'Rathergate' paragraph is still weak--the segment didn't run on '60 Minutes,' for one, and the claim that the story ended up hurting Kerry is transparently POV. I will try and clean this up somewhat tomorrow.

(Don't forget to sign edits to Talk pages.) I took a shot at this clean-up; what do you think? I wrote new text for a couple of points. --Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Precisions, anybody?

Concerning the Village Voice investigations: Frank Snepp concluded "that almost every single statement Sick made, and all the witnesses he had used turned out to be false or lying". Could the witnesses in question be named?

"Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material."

Could some quotes from the article be given? I'm ready to take into account media sources, not just Wikipedians interpretations of them...

"After going through presented by Richard Brenneke Snepp discovered that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be staying at a motel in Seattle, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting." There's missing a word here... going through bank accounts? quotes, please!

"Specifically, Newsweek... was able to account for George Bush’s whereabouts when he was allegedly at the Paris meeting" : where was he? can the Newsweek article be quoted?

"and found little corroboration when Sick’s witness were interviewed separately" What is that supposed to mean?

The New Republic (at least there's some quotes here...) However: "They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or were under investigation buy the Department of Justice." Names, again?

Thanks... I like the introduction, so general... Some precisions are welcome: the House & the Senate debunked the claims, Newsweek, New Republic & Village Voice also. That's better, no? It is quite funny having an entry so affirmative in denying this so-called conspiracy theory, while the hostages were released after Reagan's election. Weren't they? Tazmaniacs

You apparently misunderstand Wikipedia guielines, which rely on reputable published sources, not Lyndon LaRouche and conspiracy theorists. I cut most of what you added, because it was unsubstantiated material. --Cberlet 14:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, you apparently misunderstood the use of quoting. I'm interested both in knowing where the allegation comes from (Newsweek is not the same as the Lyndon La Rouche movement) and also what it precisely said. Writing: "Newsweek said it was a lie" is not precisely helpful. I'm sure you are wise enough to put your trust wherever you want to put it, and if something seems outlandish to you, I'm sure you are able to ignore it as long as it is some whacco who wrote it. Again, if you believe only the US State Dept, surely you could explain us why weapons of mass destruction still haven't been found in Iraq? Tazmaniacs 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we stick to the page issue here? It is appropriate to summarize information from published sources. These need not include quotes. If you suspect a text has been misrepresented, feel free to go read it yourself and then bring your criticisms here. Do some homework before demanding quotes.--Cberlet 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained deletion

I reversed the deletion of the following passages :

"Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche continue to claim that the October Surprise conspiracy actually happened. Swedish prime minister Olof Palme's 1986 murder has been attributed by LaRouche and former CIA agent Richard Brenneke to the P2 Masonic Lodge, which was involved, along with Gladio, in Italy's strategy of tension. Olof Palme would have been murdered because he was against the deal between Iran and the Contras [1] [2]. [3]. According to an interview of former CIA agent Gene "Chip" Tatum by the conservative magazine Free Republic, Olof Palme was assassinated because he refused an arms-trade [4]. The arms trade would have been part of the agreement reached during the October Surprise. Former CIA agent Ibrahim Razin also told that DINA agent Michael Townley, who has been convicted for Chilean former minister Orlando Letelier's 1976 assassination in Washington D.C., was in Stockholm a week before Olof Palme's murder.

Reporter Danny Casolaro claimed that the Inslaw affair was somehow connected to the October Surprise (he died in 1991).

Banker Ernest Backes from Clearstream (Luxembourg) claimed he was in charge of the transfer of 7 million $ from Chase Manhattan Bank and Citibank, January 16, 1980, to pay for the liberation of the hostages. He gave copies of the files to the National French Assembly [5]."

As you may read, this is not limited to La Rouche. Danny Casoralo, Ernest Backes, Gene "Chip" Tatum are not Lyndon La Rouche. Concerning Richard Brenneke, there is a news reference about his being acquitted of all charges. Furthermore, whatever your POV on La Rouche (he really seems to be a crackpot or a danger seeing the reactions he provoque over there; personnaly, I don't care much about him, but what about he may say - even if it's a lie), the fact that he said certain stuff about this should be stated. It is a historical fact. It is quite funny seeing that all "conspiracy" aspects of this issue have first been excluded from the Iran-hostage page in order to be treated here in the "October surprise conspiracy", where they are once again excluded in a "continuing allegations" subsection, and even here, one user keeps on insisting on deleting it? Why do you care? What's up man? Tazmaniacs 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly am a critic of LaRouche, but the detailed information being deleted by TDC provides useful details directly related to the topic of this entry. Please discuss. Please stop unexplained deletions. --Cberlet 15:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
How much space, exactly, should these crackpot theories get in the article? This is a gross over emphasis of idiotry. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The entry is titled "October surprise conspiracy" and the sentences refer to published material. It is POV to simply delete the material. I agree it is idiocy. I disagree with censorship based on POV.--Cberlet 15:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Section

Although some still argue its merits to this day, the charge has been widely discredited as baseless by a wide variety of sources.

Who? What sources? Attribute this view, otherwise it's just weasely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.34.19.181 (talk • contribs).

Intros are somewhat excepted from the weasel words rule, because they're supposedly summarizing the article. What they say should be backed up within the article, certainly, and if the wording sounds weaselly it's a problem regardless. My main problem with the wording is that "widely discredited as baseless" is a much too pat characterization of a variety of conclusions, few of which were really stating it thus. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've revised the lead a bit, moving the "discredited" stuff to the third paragraph. However, I do think it's appropriate to refer to it as "discredited" based on the reliability of the sources and their investigations. Simishag 05:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement is correct, but vague generality makes it POV. "Wide variety of sources" must be specified, and it is not a problem to do so: parliamentary investigations, named news-report..., this would make it NPOV. "Wide variety of sources" just means "everybody knows that it's a crackpot theory". Yes, of course, but everybody do knows that because everybody rightly trust our deputies, our government, and our main newspapers. In other words, anonymous user is totally correct, I tried to brought this point a few months ago but some here are keen on just pointing out that only crazy people who don't trust their government believe in such conspiracy theories. Anyone reasonable however would know that since it's a crackpot theory, there is no need to be afraid of marginal disbelievers, and that precise statements will not hurt the truth but only enforces it. Please WP:Be bold. Tazmaniacs 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A precedent to the October Surprise

See Presidential Elections in 1968, Nixon against Johnson, see the context of negociations talks about peace in Vietnam (1968) And open your mind... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.119.10.224 (talk • contribs) .

See our article October surprise. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes sorry, i just have finished to read the article ;)

But it is poor. And you quote Robert Parry in Further Reference pardon me but its bullshit, the author had not read Robert Parry because this reporter destroy all the facts, one after one... No reference to Hashemi Brothers (Iran), Ben Menashe (Israël), the explosive Soviet Report, on poor proof about Casey and Bush in House Task Force October Surprise. DeMarenches, head of french secrect services, acknowledge have organized a meeting in Paris for Republican in October 1980.

Who talks in first in public about an October Suprise ? Future VP Bush ! The article of Newsweek and New Republic is bullshit...


You quote that too http://www.sonic.net/~kerry/bohemian/casey.html

But the article reflect anything of this, its not neutral, its not fair. When u quote a source, u need to use it, it's not for the show...

Robert Parry never mention Larouche :) but he talks about files wich are in the Capitole, a true material, not bullshit.

[edit] Need Change

I'am the same person ;)

After 12 years of news reports looking into the alleged conspiracy, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries into the issue, and journalists from sources such as Newsweek and The New Republic looked into the charges. Both Congressional inquires, as well as the majority of investigative reports, found the evidence to be insufficient. Nevertheless, several fringe individuals, most notably Lyndon LaRouche continue to claim otherwise.

This part for example is so funny, who wrote that ? Who cares about LaRouche ? Where is the profil of the investigators of the October Surprise Task Force and their true argument ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.119.17.15 (talk • contribs) .

You are right, that part is funy because LaRouche and everone sucked into it are so God damn stupid. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this article need Update so much...

No ?

An another thing wich are so funny, its people who trust in George H.W. Bush, Reagan, Casey, Gates, Don Gregg, an other important player in this affair. Nobody here (i talk about the authors of this article) verify the allegations and the alibis, they jugded before investigate !

Its pure fantaisy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.119.17.15 (talk • contribs) .

Hello, 80.119.17.15. Please sign your posts on talk pages. If you are to make additions to the article, please cite sources that are reliable, and maintain neutral point of view no matter what you think of one side or the other. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just here to say that this article is bullshit and when u quote an author u need to use it LIKE ROBERT PARRY. Because u quote many links and authors in this article but u have not read their WORK ! u have no respect.

.The Same men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.119.4.68 (talk • contribs) .

Please remain civil and assume that other editors are acting in good faith. You should also realize that this article has been written by over 100 editors over the course of several years and most of them will never see your words. I myself have only worked on a small portion of this article. We are always interested in improving our articles, and it would be more helpful if you could point to specific errors in citation, if you know the works in question. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok Peace. :)

I have not the time but everybody can checked updated files on consortium news without read robert parry books, here it is a joke (sorry) .TSM.

[edit] Incomplete: Jury's Findings at Brenneke's Trial

This is confusing. The article does not tell what Brennecke was accused; instead, it reads: On September 23, 1988, Brenneke, a Portland, Oregon, property manager and arms dealer, voluntarily testified at the sentencing hearing of his "close friend," Heinrich Rupp. So it was Rupp's trial? At the end, it reads: the jury found Brenneke "not guilty" on all five counts. So Rupp was on trial, but Brenneke was aquitted. It doesn't make sense. --Tilman 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added an "incomplete" tag. I've looked at one source [1] and it seems that what the wikipedia segment doesn't mention, is that Brennecke was indicted because of his testimony at Rupp's trial: Eight months after his sworn statement in Denver, the US Justice Department charged Brenneke with five counts of making "false declarations" to a federal judge. The indictment alleged that Brenneke had knowingly lied when he said that both he and Rupp had worked for the CIA. The government also charged that Brenneke had concocted the entire story about Bush, Casey, Gregg and the "October Surprise" deal. Someone else (with better grasp of the english language than me) should add it, and without copy & pasting from that source. The current version reeks of being a copyright violation. --Tilman 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian surprise

This document -- a "confidential" cable from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow -- is a translation of a report sent on Jan. 11, 1993, from the national security committee of the Russian legislature to a U.S. House task force that was then investigating the so-called "October Surprise" controversy.

The House task force chairman, Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind requested the information on Oct. 21, 1992. The Russian report asserted that the allegations of secret Republican negotiations with Iran were true. But the Russian report was never released by the task force, whose public findings reached the opposite conclusion.

Reporter Robert Parry found the Russian report among files belonging to the House task force in December 1994 and made these copies on a copier in a Capitol Hill storage room.

Signed: Travb (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just the usual Ari Ben-Menashe stuff. --Tilman 10:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you want to debate with people who answer that : That's just the usual Ari Ben-Menashe stuff., it's really funny too like this article.
So George H.W. Bush stuff is better (ahahahahahahah) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.170.33.72 (talk • contribs) .
Ari Ben-Menashe is a classic example of a dubious source. I noticed this long before I read the Wikipedia definition about him (which confirms that he's dubious). --Tilman 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It would, of course, be a classic ratfuck to leak (launder) information you want discredited via Ben-Menashe. The anon can console himself with this. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pipes Criticism Removed

I removed the criticism Pipe made from the Gary Sick section. The subsequent sections contain more concrete criticisms. Pipes is neither a primary researcher of "October Surprise" nor of the Gary Sick allegations, so his criticims do not merit inclusion in the body of the article. However, the reference to the Pipes article [2] remains. In that reference Pipes gives a good summary (albeit with his usual bias) of the current state of the "October Surprise" Theory.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shannon r white (talk • contribs).

Did Pipes not write 'Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From'? Intangible 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/c/t/Talk%7EOctober_surprise_conspiracy_327e.html"