Editor of Major German Newspaper Says He Planted Stories for the CIA

[tupac chopra]

Editor of Major German Newspaper Says He Planted Stories for the CIA

Saying he believes a medical condition gives him only a few years to live, and that he is filled with remorse, Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s largest newspapers, said in an interview that he accepted news stories written and given to him by the CIA and published them under his own name. Ulfkotte said the aim of much of the deception was to drive nations toward war.

Ulfkotte says:

“No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about [my] book. Otherwise he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller now that no German journalist is allowed to write or talk about.”

 

[Jayjay]

Seems like yet another conspiracy theorist that gets overblown in "alternative" media and Russian propaganda. His other claims include islamist jihad striking Europe with E.Coli in 2011 by shitting on strawberries.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seems like yet another conspiracy theorist that gets overblown in "alternative" media and Russian propaganda. His other claims include islamist jihad striking Europe with E.Coli in 2011 by shitting on strawberries.

Yeah. Germany has a free press.

 

[Nexus]

Seems like yet another conspiracy theorist that gets overblown in "alternative" media and Russian propaganda.

Do you have any evidence to counter his claim or are you simply crying conspiracy theorist as an ad hom against him?

 

[arkirk]

Seems like yet another conspiracy theorist that gets overblown in "alternative" media and Russian propaganda.

Do you have any evidence to counter his claim or are you simply crying conspiracy theorist as an ad hom against him?

Something I have noticed in this forum. Information that comes from older experienced people (like the editor mentioned in this article} that opposes the commonly accepted thinking always has ad hominem opposition here from about a half dozen posters. It is a regular and continuing thing here. One many of the issues we cover here, there are profit issues at stake for powerful interests and when they cannot adequately quell the inquiry with facts and data (other than contrived opinion polls), they resort to ad hom. There is no real way to filter it all out and virtually all political forums have a certain amount of it. It was good of you to ask about it anyway.

 

[Jayjay]

Seems like yet another conspiracy theorist that gets overblown in "alternative" media and Russian propaganda.

Do you have any evidence to counter his claim or are you simply crying conspiracy theorist as an ad hom against him?

The former. Quick googling would show that there seems to be practically no serious media outlets reporting anything about him, so I had to check German sites that shows that he was not "the" editor of Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung, but a political editor. Also, the claim made in the global research article that his book is not allowed to be discussed in German media is false, it was easy to find plenty of reviews in German... my own German is not good enough to quote specifics, but the general gist seems to be that nothing he wrote is really revealing anything that wasn't already widely reported in media, and it's based on shoddy research and exaggeration.

Knowing from experience when a certain source is likely to be full of shit, might be an ad hominem, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's healthy source criticism. When someone posts an article to the Onion, we don't have to debate whether it's satire or not, becuase it probably is. Likewise when someone posts and article on Global Research or any of the other well-known conspiracy theorist sites, it should be the default position to assume that it's probably bullshit.

 

[Nexus]

You aren't countering the fact that he said he allowed CIA articles to be published in his name. Whether he was a political editor and not the main editor of Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung is an insignificant distinction. And it said no mainstream journalists cover him. If your German isn't that good how do you know the reviewers were mainstream? Even if that aspect wasn't correct it doesn't have bearing on whether or not the CIA submitted his articles and he is now confessing to it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you have any evidence to counter his claim or are you simply crying conspiracy theorist as an ad hom against him?

Something I have noticed in this forum. Information that comes from older experienced people (like the editor mentioned in this article} that opposes the commonly accepted thinking always has ad hominem opposition here from about a half dozen posters. It is a regular and continuing thing here. One many of the issues we cover here, there are profit issues at stake for powerful interests and when they cannot adequately quell the inquiry with facts and data (other than contrived opinion polls), they resort to ad hom. There is no real way to filter it all out and virtually all political forums have a certain amount of it. It was good of you to ask about it anyway.

No. We are rejecting his story because it smells like conspiracy theory shit. Germany has a free press, there would be papers that would publish it. An assertion that no paper would doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Jayjay]

You aren't countering the fact that he said he allowed CIA articles to be published in his name. Whether he was a political editor and not the main editor of Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung is an insignificant distinction. And it said no mainstream journalists cover him. If your German isn't that good how do you know the reviewers were mainstream? Even if that aspect wasn't correct it doesn't have bearing on whether or not the CIA submitted his articles and he is now confessing to it.

The obvious mistakes in the article show that there is practically no fact checking performed. So basically, the report is just whatever this guy said on Russian media, and he seems to have a reputation as a wacky conspiracy theorist. Just because some guy somewhere says something, doesn't make it true. The burden of proof is on him to provide which articles exactly did CIA write and apparently he does not provide this information even in his book.

The reviews I saw were from Die Welt and German edition of Huffington Post. Seems mainstream enough.

 

[barbos]

Just because someone is a conspiracy theorist does not mean there is no conspiracy.
The guy is not an ordinary schmo from the street and maybe there is a reason behind him becoming a conspiracy theorist, like CIA actually doing stuff he describes?

 

[Jayjay]

Just because someone is a conspiracy theorist does not mean there is no conspiracy.
The guy is not an ordinary schmo from the street and maybe there is a reason behind him becoming a conspiracy theorist, like CIA actually doing stuff he describes?

Does he name names? Point to specific articles that CIA allegedly wrote for him? Seems that he's figured out that right now it's cool to be a whistleblower, so to sell his books and raise his profile he's decided to pretend to be one. That certainly guarantees him a spot as expert opinionator on RT Deutchland.

 

[barbos]

Just because someone is a conspiracy theorist does not mean there is no conspiracy.
The guy is not an ordinary schmo from the street and maybe there is a reason behind him becoming a conspiracy theorist, like CIA actually doing stuff he describes?

Does he name names? Point to specific articles that CIA allegedly wrote for him? Seems that he's figured out that right now it's cool to be a whistleblower, so to sell his books and raise his profile he's decided to pretend to be one. That certainly guarantees him a spot as expert opinionator on RT Deutchland.

Don't know, I have not read his book.
What does that have to do with RT?
You have to admit that CIA has reputation consistent with such conspiracy theories.

 

[arkirk]

Something I have noticed in this forum. Information that comes from older experienced people (like the editor mentioned in this article} that opposes the commonly accepted thinking always has ad hominem opposition here from about a half dozen posters. It is a regular and continuing thing here. One many of the issues we cover here, there are profit issues at stake for powerful interests and when they cannot adequately quell the inquiry with facts and data (other than contrived opinion polls), they resort to ad hom. There is no real way to filter it all out and virtually all political forums have a certain amount of it. It was good of you to ask about it anyway.

No. We are rejecting his story because it smells like conspiracy theory shit. Germany has a free press, there would be papers that would publish it. An assertion that no paper would doesn't pass the smell test.

"It smells like conspiracy shit" Loren, you are so angry at things that conflict with your tinfoil ideas you can't see straight. Okay, let's forget this guy for a second and look at Iraq. Was WMD just a "mistake" or was it a hard sell and an outright lie and conspiracy involving high level U.S. politicians, journalists, and military leaders? Tune in your rabbit ears on that and admit...there have been a lot of conspiracies in the U.S. government and our press has played right along with many of them. There really is nothing amazing or unusual in this editors' story...just that many will not admit to their part in things they cover up. Conspiracy...not "conspiracy shit." Why do you find it so important that we trust the untrustworthy? That is what your arguments pretty much seem to demand of us and when we respond in a manner that questions your omniscient finding...it is always the others and not you wearing the tinfoil hat?

 

[Jayjay]

Does he name names? Point to specific articles that CIA allegedly wrote for him? Seems that he's figured out that right now it's cool to be a whistleblower, so to sell his books and raise his profile he's decided to pretend to be one. That certainly guarantees him a spot as expert opinionator on RT Deutchland.

Don't know, I have not read his book.
What does that have to do with RT?

RT recently started it's own channel in Germany. Guys like Udo Ulfkotte are regular guests among the talking heads, so it's hardly a risky move to spin a few tall tales and pretend to be a "whistleblower".

You have to admit that CIA has reputation consistent with such conspiracy theories.

Even if true, it would be much more interesting to hear the details of how CIA operates, who are the operatives, and what they did exactly. Just some guy saying on TV that he published articles for CIA does not reveal anything worthwhile.

 

[tupac chopra]

Even if true, it would be much more interesting to hear the details of how CIA operates, who are the operatives, and what they did exactly. Just some guy saying on TV that he published articles for CIA does not reveal anything worthwhile.

He wrote an entire book.

 

[barbos]

Don't know, I have not read his book.
What does that have to do with RT?

RT recently started it's own channel in Germany. Guys like Udo Ulfkotte are regular guests among the talking heads, so it's hardly a risky move to spin a few tall tales and pretend to be a "whistleblower".

So you are saying that journalists can be scam, OK. But you need to realize that by being a scam he proves the point he is trying to make

You have to admit that CIA has reputation consistent with such conspiracy theories.

Even if true, it would be much more interesting to hear the details of how CIA operates, who are the operatives, and what they did exactly. Just some guy saying on TV that he published articles for CIA does not reveal anything worthwhile.

Buy a book

 

[Jayjay]

Even if true, it would be much more interesting to hear the details of how CIA operates, who are the operatives, and what they did exactly. Just some guy saying on TV that he published articles for CIA does not reveal anything worthwhile.

He wrote an entire book.

His book is apparently not reveal anything specific either, based on the reviews I've read.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Even if true, it would be much more interesting to hear the details of how CIA operates, who are the operatives, and what they did exactly. Just some guy saying on TV that he published articles for CIA does not reveal anything worthwhile.

He wrote an entire book.

I'm immediately skeptical as his supporters on this forum are all Putin apologists. Sounds like some kind of agenda to me.

 

[untermensche]

I'm immediately skeptical as his supporters on this forum are all Putin apologists. Sounds like some kind of agenda to me.

I'm skeptical of US apologists.

Their agenda is to support a bunch of psychotic apes, wearing ties, that are rapidly making the planet less and less habitable.

For their moment in the sun they are willing to destroy anything.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm immediately skeptical as his supporters on this forum are all Putin apologists. Sounds like some kind of agenda to me.

I'm skeptical of US apologists.

Their agenda is to support a bunch of psychotic apes, wearing ties, that are rapidly making the planet less and less habitable.

For their moment in the sun they are willing to destroy anything.

Good Heavens! Do you meant that all these years that I've been debating you that you've been secretly skeptical of the US and it's actions??!!!