Is Tom Flocco a Flake-O?

Note, March, 2007:

This piece by Carl Worden was written sometime in 2005. I agree with him. I also find it very disturbing that people who claim to be "journalists" are promoting stories, based not on hard facts, but on dubious "anonymous" sources. In my book, anyone using "anonymous" has no credibility whatsoever. Same goes for those using pseudonyms, claiming to be "insider sources", intelligence agents, etc. etc.

In the case of Tom Flocco, I did try to warn him that he was being fed false information by at least two sources, Stew Webb and Tom Heneghan. Another investigator and writer, Karl Schwarz, gave Flocco the same warnings.

Rather than face the truth when he heard it, Tom Flocco chose to ignore the warnings --and the writing on the wall. To this day, these stories continue to be promoted on Flocco's website, and on others, such as Cloak and Dagger.

I think many people buy into these stories simply because they feel despairing over the crime and corruption in government, and because they "want to believe." Who in their right mind wouldn't WANT Bush and Cheney indicted? But wishing doesn't make it so. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.....

As for those spreading disinformation (and that is precisely what it is) there is simply NO EXCUSE.

I thank Carl Worden for standing for the Truth.

Is Tom Flocco a Flake-O?

By Carl F. Worden

Folks, stop and think, will you please?

Look, the Internet is being deluged with Flocco and now Szymanski and Sorcha Faal stories that all seem to be linked to one theme; indictments have been brought by a federal grand jury against most of the Administration, including the president, for treason.

That got legs, then we have Sorcha Faal, a Russian disinfo artist second to none, who claims Bush is running away to Saudi Arabia and people are trying to arrest him.

And on and on and on.

People, there is no evidence to back-up these allegations. The original Flocco and Szymanski stories cite an unnamed source close to the investigation and the Grand Jury proceedings. An unnamed source? An anonymous source? And you forwarded that?

Look, every time we've investigated a story that used an unnamed source whose identity must be kept secret (for whatever the reason), the story turned out totally false. From secret prison camp construction to so-called "Chemtrail" stories, none of them panned out.

The tricky part here is that the Grand Jury in Chicago might very well return indictments against Bush & Company, so writing the story ahead of time can be a good bet. But if you do write it and it turns out false, nobody is ever going to believe you again. It is one thing to forward BS in error -- I know I've done it several times -- but it is quite another to sit your butt down and write a story as fact when you only THINK it might come true, and that is what it appears Flocco the Flake-o has done.

Flocco has since fielded the lame excuse that some new webmaster he brought on board "accidentally" put a rough draft story together and published it in error. The problem with that excuse is the Flocco admission that a phony story was even being worked on that COULD be accidentally published. I don't sit down and write fabricated, speculative drivel! I write what I've verified and what I know, so what kind of totally lame excuse is that?

So at this time, and unless proven otherwise, allow me to identify 3 highly suspicious sources of Internet news. They are:

Sorcha Faal, a Russian disinformation artist second to none.

Tom Flocco, for just being creative and irresponsible.

Szymanski, for carrying the Flocco story as if it were fact.

I hope Bush & Company do get nailed, but I hoped for that in vain where Clinton was concerned too. It is one thing to be able to independently verify a story like the Chicago Indictment tale, but when the story hinges on an unnamed source close to the Grand Jury investigation, look out!

And that's all I have to write today.