Len Colby Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Hardball began in 1994 Factually incorrect. "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted on CNBC in 1997. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414740/ TV Age and Share TV give the premier date as “July 04, 1994” http://www.tvrage.com/shows/id-12067 http://sharetv.org/shows/hardball_with_chris_matthews Popisms gives the same year http://www.popisms.com/TelevisionSeries/9981/Hardball-with-Chris-Matthews-1994.aspx Joe Scarborough said to Matthews on air “You have known me since 1994. I went on HARDBALL all the time in ‘95, ‘96, ‘97” to which he replied “Yes” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41624014/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/ According to Wikipedia (no source cite) “It originally aired on now-defunct America's Talking (as Politics with Chris Matthews)…” in 1994 before moving to CNBC and changing its name in 1997 (which explains the IMdB entry). That’s almost right. John Carmody The TV Column, Washington Post May 18, 1994 “Chris Matthews and Terry Anzur will host a five night a week two hour interactive news program A-T in Depth on NBC's upcoming cable network America's Talking” James Endrst “AND NOW, INTERACTIVE TV FOR A NATION OF YAKKERS”, Hartford Courant Jul 4, 1994 Page B.1 733 words "I think anytime you introduce a new service it takes a little while for people to find it," says [Roger Ailes], president and chief executive officer of CNBC and America's Talking, speaking the other day from his Fort Lee, N.J., headquarters. "But I am very optimistic that creating a national conversation at this time in America's history will catch on quickly." Kicking off each broadcast day at 7 a.m. is, appropriately enough, a show called "America's Talking" with Steve Doocy and Kai Kim (a former WTNH-TV anchor), where a mix of humorous and serious topics relevant to the day will be discussed. (The title of the show changes with the date, from "America's Talking: July 4" to "America's Talking: July 5," for instance.) The two-hour block will also feature a remote satellite truck that will seek out new locales, ideas and opinions. "These are not your standard talk shows," says Ailes, without too much fear of being contradicted. (Ailes will also have his own show, though he says of the 15 hosts on the network "I'm the only loser in the bunch.") […] "AT In Depth" (6 to 8 pm): A nightly news show where discussion not reportage is the focus. Political pundit Chris Matthews and newswoman Terry Anzur co-host. ... “CHATTER CHANNELS ARE TALK OF TV”, Charlotte Observer - July 16, 1994 - 8C LIVING Yak: In mid-June, former Miss America Phyllis George gets her own talk show on The Nashville Network. Yak yak: On the Fourth of July, NBC launches America's Talking, a cable channel devoted entirely to talk shows. Yak yak yak: CNN announces that Aug. 22 will be the start-up date for a ``town meeting'' show called ``TalkBack Live.'' Not a month seems to go by without some new TV talk show - or talk channel … At America's Talking, where the lineup includes shows such as ``AT in Depth,'' ` `What's New?'' and ``Am I Nuts?'' programming chief Elizabeth Tilson said the channel wants to satisfy ``an appetite out there for intelligent talk that's interesting and insightful … “America's Talking gab grabbing cable viewers”, USA Today, July 6, 1995 “…And America's Talking has proven itself a viable addition to the crowded world of cable. ... a news analysis hosted by Chris Matthews and Terry Anzur…” Peter Johnson, Matt Roush and Alan Bash "NBC's Ohlmeyer defends adult sitcoms at 8 p.m". USA TODAY, Jul 19, 1995 [FINAL Edition] page 3.D 85 words "Television's obligation is not (to be) the nation's baby sitter," says NBC West Coast president Don Ohlmeyer. This in response to objections that NBC's strategy of moving grown-up and sometimes suggestive sitcoms such as Mad About You and Friends into the 8 p.m. ET/PT time period next season. Ohlmeyer, talking to TV writers in Pasadena, Calif., says 5- to 7-year-olds wouldn't be interested in watching these shows anyway, and he doesn't consider their innuendos to be all that coarse... [...] The network hasn't yet named his replacement on AT in Depth, ... But Politics With Chris Matthews will replace a planned nightly journalists roundtable, ... “`Talking' host to gain show on politics”, Washington Times August 24, 1995 129 words Syndicated columnist Chris Matthews, host of CNBC's "America's Talking in Depth," is getting a new show. "Politics With Chris Matthews," an hour long show, is slated to premier Sept. 6. It's expected to give viewers "an insider's look at the world of politics" and put the national agenda into perspective. The program will rely heavily on interactivity… http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB0F175F2A1585E&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM So the Matthews’ first program (of which he was a co-host) was announced on (or before) May 17 or 18 1994 and premiered July 4th that year then on (or before) July 18-9, 1995 it was announced he’d get his own show which premiered Sept. 8 that year. All of this was we’ll before his column about the Halderman quote. Aguilar’s research does not prove Matthews was untruthful. Four men are involved in the story and one of them lied but there’s no way to tell which one it was. And Jim’s theory is silly, in 1995 the Internet was in its infancy and not that many people probably read Matthews’ columns and only a small percentage of them would have known about the obscure quote and only a fraction of them would have changed their minds because of it. Obviously you were trying to prove me wrong and buttress Jim’s silly ‘theory’ but you ended up doing just the opposite because I didn’t know the date of Mathews’ column and now it is clear the sequence is the opposite of the one Jim claimed. For that I award you the Andres Escobar Memorial Own Goal Award, hopefully you won’t met the same fate as the namesake. Ironically he died just a day before the premier of Matthews’ show. Edited March 3, 2011 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) My comments appear in in this lovely burgundy. Hardball began in 1994 Factually incorrect. "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted on CNBC in 1997. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414740/ TV Age and Share TV give the premier date as “July 04, 1994” http://www.tvrage.com/shows/id-12067 http://sharetv.org/shows/hardball_with_chris_matthews Popisms gives the same year http://www.popisms.com/TelevisionSeries/9981/Hardball-with-Chris-Matthews-1994.aspx Joe Scarborough said to Matthews on air “You have known me since 1994. I went on HARDBALL all the time in ‘95, ‘96, ‘97” to which he replied “Yes” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41624014/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/ There was no program called "Hardball with Chris Matthews" in 1994. Matthews appeared on a news channel called "America's Talking" that year, but it was not "Hardball with Chris Matthews." According to Wikipedia (no source cite) “It originally aired on now-defunct America's Talking (as Politics with Chris Matthews)…” in 1994 before moving to CNBC and changing its name in 1997 (which explains the IMdB entry). That’s almost right. What part of the above don't you grasp, Colby? Yes, Matthews appeared on TV in 1994, but the program was not called "Hardball with Chris Matthews," contrary to your repeated claims. John Carmody The TV Column, Washington Post May 18, 1994 “Chris Matthews and Terry Anzur will host a five night a week two hour interactive news program A-T in Depth on NBC's upcoming cable network America's Talking” James Endrst “AND NOW, INTERACTIVE TV FOR A NATION OF YAKKERS”, Hartford Courant Jul 4, 1994 Page B.1 733 words "I think anytime you introduce a new service it takes a little while for people to find it," says [Roger Ailes], president and chief executive officer of CNBC and America's Talking, speaking the other day from his Fort Lee, N.J., headquarters. "But I am very optimistic that creating a national conversation at this time in America's history will catch on quickly." Kicking off each broadcast day at 7 a.m. is, appropriately enough, a show called "America's Talking" with Steve Doocy and Kai Kim (a former WTNH-TV anchor), where a mix of humorous and serious topics relevant to the day will be discussed. (The title of the show changes with the date, from "America's Talking: July 4" to "America's Talking: July 5," for instance.) The two-hour block will also feature a remote satellite truck that will seek out new locales, ideas and opinions. Thank you for contradicting your own claim that "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1994. "These are not your standard talk shows," says Ailes, without too much fear of being contradicted. (Ailes will also have his own show, though he says of the 15 hosts on the network "I'm the only loser in the bunch.") […] "AT In Depth" (6 to 8 pm): A nightly news show where discussion not reportage is the focus. Political pundit Chris Matthews and newswoman Terry Anzur co-host. ... “CHATTER CHANNELS ARE TALK OF TV”, Charlotte Observer - July 16, 1994 - 8C LIVING Yak: In mid-June, former Miss America Phyllis George gets her own talk show on The Nashville Network. Yak yak: On the Fourth of July, NBC launches America's Talking, a cable channel devoted entirely to talk shows. Yak yak yak: CNN announces that Aug. 22 will be the start-up date for a ``town meeting'' show called ``TalkBack Live.'' Not a month seems to go by without some new TV talk show - or talk channel … At America's Talking, where the lineup includes shows such as ``AT in Depth,'' ` `What's New?'' and ``Am I Nuts?'' programming chief Elizabeth Tilson said the channel wants to satisfy ``an appetite out there for intelligent talk that's interesting and insightful … “America's Talking gab grabbing cable viewers”, USA Today, July 6, 1995 “…And America's Talking has proven itself a viable addition to the crowded world of cable. ... a news analysis hosted by Chris Matthews and Terry Anzur…” Peter Johnson, Matt Roush and Alan Bash "NBC's Ohlmeyer defends adult sitcoms at 8 p.m". USA TODAY, Jul 19, 1995 [FINAL Edition] page 3.D 85 words "Television's obligation is not (to be) the nation's baby sitter," says NBC West Coast president Don Ohlmeyer. This in response to objections that NBC's strategy of moving grown-up and sometimes suggestive sitcoms such as Mad About You and Friends into the 8 p.m. ET/PT time period next season. Ohlmeyer, talking to TV writers in Pasadena, Calif., says 5- to 7-year-olds wouldn't be interested in watching these shows anyway, and he doesn't consider their innuendos to be all that coarse... [...] The network hasn't yet named his replacement on AT in Depth, ... But Politics With Chris Matthews will replace a planned nightly journalists roundtable, ... “`Talking' host to gain show on politics”, Washington Times August 24, 1995 129 words Syndicated columnist Chris Matthews, host of CNBC's "America's Talking in Depth," is getting a new show. "Politics With Chris Matthews," an hour long show, is slated to premier Sept. 6. It's expected to give viewers "an insider's look at the world of politics" and put the national agenda into perspective. The program will rely heavily on interactivity… http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB0F175F2A1585E&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM So the Matthews’ first program (of which he was a co-host) was announced on (or before) May 17 or 18 1994 and premiered July 4th that year then on (or before) July 18-9, 1995 it was announced he’d get his own show which premiered Sept. 8 that year. [/i] "Hardball with Chris Matthews" is a much higher profile gig than was "Politics with Chris Matthews". It's perfectly reasonable to speculate that Matthews didn't challenge Haldeman's patently absurd claims because he didn't want to jeopardize his TV career. All of this was we’ll before his column about the Halderman quote. Yes, Matthews appeared on TV prior to his 12/7/95 steno rubber-stamp of Haldeman's absurd denial. I never claimed otherwise. I simply pointed out the fact that the higher-profile "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1997, contrary to your claims. Why didn't Matthews call DiMona and get his side of the story before publishing Haldeman's version as a settled fact? Because he didn't want an act of actual journalism to interfere with his new career as a talking head, perhaps. Aguilar’s research does not prove Matthews was untruthful. I'll let Jim speak for himself, but I'm not accusing Matthews of being "untruthful." I'm accusing him of being a terrible journalist with his nose up Bob Haldeman's ass. Matthews swallowed Haldeman's denial whole without checking with Joseph DiMona. It was Haldeman who was being "untruthful," and Matthews didn't challenge him, the act of a stenographer, not a journalist. Four men are involved in the story and one of them lied but there’s no way to tell which one it was. And Jim’s theory is silly, "Silly?" Looks like you have a bad case of Von Peinitis, Colby. What's truly absurd is the contention that DiMona made up all the parts in THE ENDS OF POWER related to the Kennedy assassination, an important thread throughout the book beginning with Haldeman's suggestion to Nixon in 1969 that they should look into JFK's death. If you actually read the book you would know that there is too much material relating to the Kennedy assassination for it to have originated with Haldeman's co-writer. You have read the book, right Colby? in 1995 the Internet was in its infancy and not that many people probably read Matthews’ columns and only a small percentage of them would have known about the obscure quote and only a fraction of them would have changed their minds because of it. Back in 1995 there were these things called "newspapers," and in these "newspapers" there were articles written by folks called "syndicated columnists" that appeared in many "newspapers" across the country. Matthews was one of these "syndicated columnists." You have no idea how many people read Matthews 12/7/95 column, or what impact it had. The fact is that Matthews abandoned his responsibilities as a journalist when he acted as a stenographer for Haldeman. Obviously you were trying to prove me wrong and buttress Jim’s silly ‘theory’ but you ended up doing just the opposite because I didn’t know the date of Mathews’ column and now it is clear the sequence is the opposite of the one Jim claimed. Obviously you can't process the information you've cited. You claimed that "Hardball" debuted in 1994 -- clearly a mis-statement of fact according to your own cites! You asked for the column and I supplied it. You claimed that "Hardball" debuted in 1994, which is clearly wrong. The fact is that the high-profile CNBC "Hardball" and higher-profile MSNBC "Hardball" were broadcast after Matthews played steno for Haldeman. For that I award you the Andres Escobar Memorial Own Goal Award, hopefully you won’t met the same fate as the namesake. Ironically he died just a day before the premier of Matthews’ show. This is rich. You claim that "Harball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1994, then you cite quotations which prove there was no such program with that name in 1994. Typical slimey rhetoric from a master of the craft. Go read THE ENDS OF POWER, then come back and take up Haldeman's claim that his co-writer made up significant portions of the book. Edited March 3, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 My latest replies in this tone, Len My comments appear in in this lovely burgundy. Hardball began in 1994 Factually incorrect. "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted on CNBC in 1997. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414740/ TV Age and Share TV give the premier date as “July 04, 1994” http://www.tvrage.com/shows/id-12067 http://sharetv.org/shows/hardball_with_chris_matthews Popisms gives the same year http://www.popisms.com/TelevisionSeries/9981/Hardball-with-Chris-Matthews-1994.aspx Joe Scarborough said to Matthews on air “You have known me since 1994. I went on HARDBALL all the time in ‘95, ‘96, ‘97” to which he replied “Yes” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41624014/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/ There was no program called "Hardball with Chris Matthews" in 1994. Matthews appeared on a news channel called "America's Talking" that year, but it was not "Hardball with Chris Matthews." My, my Clifford you do get desperate when shown to be wrong. Jim wrote, “Or what about Mathews getting the MSNBC gig after he tries to discredit the Bay of Pigs code name in Haldeman's book? And he tries to blame it on the co author DI Mona”. But he got the gig in May 1994 (if you count his original show with Azur) or July 1995 if you only want to focus on his solo “gig”. Joe Scarborough and others (TV Age, Popisms) it seems consider ‘Hardball’ to have been a continuation of ‘Politics’ and ‘A-T In Depth’. Matthews was obviously considered the top dog of the latter because he always got top billing. The description of ‘Politics’ in the Washington Times differs little from the current program: "Politics With Chris Matthews," an hour long show, is…expected to give viewers "an insider's look at the world of politics" and put the national agenda into perspective. The program will rely heavily on interactivity telephone facsimile and Microsoft Network email and allow viewers to question directly the newsmakers and… Note that it already benefited from the CNBC – Microsoft partnership. America’s Talking and MS-NBC are the same network it changed its name when Microsoft bought into it (see below) CNBC is/was a the mother network. “Microsoft had only to invest $220 million to buy a half-interest in NBC's America's Talking channel, which is being shut down and replaced by MSNBC… By taking over the America's Talking slot on cable systems, MSNBC will debut in 22 million homes…” http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1996/b3484008.arc.htm According to Wikipedia (no source cite) “It originally aired on now-defunct America's Talking (as Politics with Chris Matthews)…” in 1994 before moving to CNBC and changing its name in 1997 (which explains the IMdB entry). That’s almost right. What part of the above don't you grasp, Colby? Yes, Matthews appeared on TV in 1994, but the program was not called "Hardball with Chris Matthews," contrary to your repeated claims. “What part of the above don't you grasp, Colby? Yes, Matthews appeared on TV in 1994, but the program was not called "Hardball with Chris Matthews," contrary to your repeated claims” “Repeated claims”, you obviously have problems counting, are you really a dealer? I made the claim ONCE John Carmody The TV Column, Washington Post May 18, 1994 “Chris Matthews and Terry Anzur will host a five night a week two hour interactive news program A-T in Depth on NBC's upcoming cable network America's Talking” James Endrst “AND NOW, INTERACTIVE TV FOR A NATION OF YAKKERS”, Hartford Courant Jul 4, 1994 Page B.1 733 words "I think anytime you introduce a new service it takes a little while for people to find it," says [Roger Ailes], president and chief executive officer of CNBC and America's Talking, speaking the other day from his Fort Lee, N.J., headquarters. "But I am very optimistic that creating a national conversation at this time in America's history will catch on quickly." Kicking off each broadcast day at 7 a.m. is, appropriately enough, a show called "America's Talking" with Steve Doocy and Kai Kim (a former WTNH-TV anchor), where a mix of humorous and serious topics relevant to the day will be discussed. (The title of the show changes with the date, from "America's Talking: July 4" to "America's Talking: July 5," for instance.) The two-hour block will also feature a remote satellite truck that will seek out new locales, ideas and opinions. Thank you for contradicting your own claim that "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1994. I amended my claim, Matthews’ career as a political commentator on an NBC cable station began in 1994, the precursor to Hardball was announced in July began in Sept. 1995 (well before the Dec 1995 column) there is nothing to suggest the name change and transfer to CNbC then MS-NBC (as did much of the extinct America’s Talking channel) was a promotion or in any way related to the Halderman piece. "These are not your standard talk shows," says Ailes, without too much fear of being contradicted. (Ailes will also have his own show, though he says of the 15 hosts on the network "I'm the only loser in the bunch.") […] "AT In Depth" (6 to 8 pm): A nightly news show where discussion not reportage is the focus. Political pundit Chris Matthews and newswoman Terry Anzur co-host. ... “CHATTER CHANNELS ARE TALK OF TV”, Charlotte Observer - July 16, 1994 - 8C LIVING Yak: In mid-June, former Miss America Phyllis George gets her own talk show on The Nashville Network. Yak yak: On the Fourth of July, NBC launches America's Talking, a cable channel devoted entirely to talk shows. Yak yak yak: CNN announces that Aug. 22 will be the start-up date for a ``town meeting'' show called ``TalkBack Live.'' Not a month seems to go by without some new TV talk show - or talk channel … At America's Talking, where the lineup includes shows such as ``AT in Depth,'' ` `What's New?'' and ``Am I Nuts?'' programming chief Elizabeth Tilson said the channel wants to satisfy ``an appetite out there for intelligent talk that's interesting and insightful … “America's Talking gab grabbing cable viewers”, USA Today, July 6, 1995 “…And America's Talking has proven itself a viable addition to the crowded world of cable. ... a news analysis hosted by Chris Matthews and Terry Anzur…” Peter Johnson, Matt Roush and Alan Bash "NBC's Ohlmeyer defends adult sitcoms at 8 p.m". USA TODAY, Jul 19, 1995 [FINAL Edition] page 3.D 85 words "Television's obligation is not (to be) the nation's baby sitter," says NBC West Coast president Don Ohlmeyer. This in response to objections that NBC's strategy of moving grown-up and sometimes suggestive sitcoms such as Mad About You and Friends into the 8 p.m. ET/PT time period next season. Ohlmeyer, talking to TV writers in Pasadena, Calif., says 5- to 7-year-olds wouldn't be interested in watching these shows anyway, and he doesn't consider their innuendos to be all that coarse... [...] The network hasn't yet named his replacement on AT in Depth, ... But Politics With Chris Matthews will replace a planned nightly journalists roundtable, ... “`Talking' host to gain show on politics”, Washington Times August 24, 1995 129 words Syndicated columnist Chris Matthews, host of CNBC's "America's Talking in Depth," is getting a new show. "Politics With Chris Matthews," an hour long show, is slated to premier Sept. 6. It's expected to give viewers "an insider's look at the world of politics" and put the national agenda into perspective. The program will rely heavily on interactivity… http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB0F175F2A1585E&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM So the Matthews’ first program (of which he was a co-host) was announced on (or before) May 17 or 18 1994 and premiered July 4th that year then on (or before) July 18-9, 1995 it was announced he’d get his own show which premiered Sept. 8 that year. [/i] "Hardball with Chris Matthews" is a much higher profile gig than was "Politics with Chris Matthews". Does any beef go with that shake? "Politics with Chris Matthews" got 37 Google News hits in 1996. "Hardball with Chris Matthews" got 14 in 1997 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22politics+with+chris+matthews%22&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#q=%22politics+with+chris+matthews%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D5JvTfWIKcGblgfzlLU8&ved=0CBAQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=nws:1%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1996%2Ccd_max%3A1996&tbm=&bav=on.2,or.&fp=ed4fe3760d6c831f It's perfectly reasonable to speculate that Matthews didn't challenge Haldeman's patently absurd claims because he didn't want to jeopardize his TV career. Glad that you admit you’ve got nothing more than speculation and it would only be ‘reasonable’ if you could show Matthews got a promotion as a result (which he didn’t) or that Halderman’s claims were “patently absurd” (which you failed to do as well. In any case your “speculation” is not the same as Jim’s claim that Matthews’ “TV career” was a reward for the column. The existence of a quid pro quo was implicit in Jim’s claim. All of this was we’ll before his column about the Halderman quote. Yes, Matthews appeared on TV prior to his 12/7/95 steno rubber-stamp of Haldeman's absurd denial. I never claimed otherwise. I simply pointed out the fact that the higher-profile "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1997, contrary to your claims. Why didn't Matthews call DiMona and get his side of the story before publishing Haldeman's version as a settled fact? Because he didn't want an act of actual journalism to interfere with his new career as a talking head, perhaps. What you said is irrelevant Jim “claimed otherwise”, that is what I was disputing. Get back to us when you can show that ‘Hardball’ was higher profile than ‘Politics’ Aguilar’s research does not prove Matthews was untruthful. I'll let Jim speak for himself, but I'm not accusing Matthews of being "untruthful." I'm accusing him of being a terrible journalist with his nose up Bob Haldeman's ass. Matthews swallowed Haldeman's denial whole without checking with Joseph DiMona. It was Haldeman who was being "untruthful," and Matthews didn't challenge him, the act of a stenographer, not a journalist. Perhaps you're right about that but if Matthews was sloppy rather than dishonest there is no basis for Jim’s fantasy that the column was part of a post-JFK CIA plot to put conspiracy theories in a bad light. Funny you don’t seem to think Halderman was very reliable, if he wasn’t then there is even less reason to take his claim (if he actually made it) seriously. Four men are involved in the story and one of them lied but there’s no way to tell which one it was. And Jim’s theory is silly, "Silly?" Looks like you have a bad case of Von Peinitis, Colby. What's truly absurd is the contention that DiMona made up all the parts in THE ENDS OF POWER related to the Kennedy assassination, an important thread throughout the book beginning with Haldeman's suggestion to Nixon in 1969 that they should look into JFK's death. If you actually read the book you would know that there is too much material relating to the Kennedy assassination for it to have originated with Haldeman's co-writer. You have read the book, right Colby? Use of strawmen is a sign of desperation of someone losing an argument neither Halderman nor Matthews nor I said “that DiMona made up all the parts in THE ENDS OF POWER related to the Kennedy assassination” Matthews only repeated Halderman’s claim that DiMona made up the part about “Bay of Pigs thing” meaning the assassination. And no, I haven’t read the book nor do I pretend to. in 1995 the Internet was in its infancy and not that many people probably read Matthews’ columns and only a small percentage of them would have known about the obscure quote and only a fraction of them would have changed their minds because of it. Back in 1995 there were these things called "newspapers," and in these "newspapers" there were articles written by folks called "syndicated columnists" that appeared in many "newspapers" across the country. Matthews was one of these "syndicated columnists." You have no idea how many people read Matthews 12/7/95 column, or what impact it had. The fact is that Matthews abandoned his responsibilities as a journalist when he acted as a stenographer for Haldeman. “You have no idea how many people read Matthews 12/7/95 column, or what impact it had.” Nor do you. Unless it had major impact there is no basis for Jim’s theory which you have adopted. Why would the PTB give him a career boost in exchange for a column that changed very few minds? Obviously you were trying to prove me wrong and buttress Jim’s silly ‘theory’ but you ended up doing just the opposite because I didn’t know the date of Mathews’ column and now it is clear the sequence is the opposite of the one Jim claimed. Obviously you can't process the information you've cited. You claimed that "Hardball" debuted in 1994 -- clearly a mis-statement of fact according to your own cites! You asked for the column and I supplied it. You claimed that "Hardball" debuted in 1994, which is clearly wrong. The fact is that the high-profile CNBC "Hardball" and higher-profile MSNBC "Hardball" were broadcast after Matthews played steno for Haldeman. Yes I made a small error but I was closer to the truth than Jim. Matthews’ “CNBC gig” began in 1994 (America’s Talking was part of CNBC) and he got his own show with the company well before the column. And obviously you rather than I ‘can't process the information” in my previous post, I said the Wikipedia version was “almost right” and then spelled out the actual scenario. For that I award you the Andres Escobar Memorial Own Goal Award, hopefully you won’t met the same fate as the namesake. Ironically he died just a day before the premier of Matthews’ show. This is rich. You claim that "Harball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1994, then you cite quotations which prove there was no such program with that name in 1994. Typical slimey rhetoric from a master of the craft. I’ll leave the name calling and insults to you Cliff, I don’t want to stoop to that. I made a claim that was partially incorrect, after doing more careful research I presented the fact in greater detail. Jim Claimed “Matthews’ MS-NBC gig” began after the column, that was only true in the must the most hair splitting literal sense, MS-NBC did not exist when he published the column his gig on another CNBC channel began well before the column. Either Jim was ignorant of the facts or he was being misleading, I think the former more likely. Go read THE ENDS OF POWER, then come back and take up Haldeman's claim that his co-writer made up significant portions of the book. Strawman, see above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) My latest replies in this tone, Len My, my Clifford you do get desperate when shown to be wrong. You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything. I cited the Matthews article, and I made a statement of fact: "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1997 on CNBC. My take differs somewhat from Jim D's, but I think we both agree that Matthews was motivated by careerism when he wrote the article on Haldeman. You don't begin to rebut my argument there, either. Jim wrote, “Or what about Mathews getting the MSNBC gig after he tries to discredit the Bay of Pigs code name in Haldeman's book? And he tries to blame it on the co author DI Mona”. So what? It was Haldeman who tried to discredit "the Bay of Pigs code name" and blame it on his co-author DiMona, and Matthews committed journalistic malpractice by not speaking with DiMona. It is perfectly reasonable to speculate that the reason Matthews acted like a stenographer instead of a journalist was because he didn't want to put his TV career in jeopardy by bucking the Establishment Line on the Kennedy assassination. That's my take on the matter. But he got the gig in May 1994 (if you count his original show with Azur) or July 1995 if you only want to focus on his solo “gig”. No, we don't count his original show with Azur nor his first solo show because they were not called "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Hell, MSNBC didn't go on air until 1996! You claimed that Hardball debuted in 1994. I corrected your mis-statement of fact. But you have a hard time coming right out and admitting a mistake, evidently. Joe Scarborough and others (TV Age, Popisms) it seems consider ‘Hardball’ to have been a continuation of ‘Politics’ and ‘A-T In Depth’. That's not how you originally put it. You doubled down on HARDBALL beginning in 1994, then proceeded to cite evidence the show was not HARDBALL. Don't blame me when you shoot yourself in the foot while it's still in your mouth. Matthews was obviously considered the top dog of the latter because he always got top billing. The description of ‘Politics’ in the Washington Times differs little from the current program: So what? The original program wasn't called "Hardball with Chris Matthews." TWICE you claimed it was. <snip irrelevant smoke> “Repeated claims”, you obviously have problems counting, are you really a dealer? I made the claim ONCE What's the matter Colby, you can't count to two? Or three? Or four? Len Colby, on 27 February 2011 - 01:59 PM, said: Hardball began in 1994 Then you doubled down on this assertion: Len Colby, on 02 March 2011 - 03:58 PM, said: TV Age and Share TV give the premier date as “July 04, 1994” http://www.tvrage.com/shows/id-12067 http://sharetv.org/s..._chris_matthews Popisms gives the same year http://www.popisms.c...thews-1994.aspx Joe Scarborough said to Matthews on air “You have known me since 1994. I went on HARDBALL all the time in ‘95, ‘96, ‘97” to which he replied “Yes” http://www.msnbc.msn...chris_matthews/ You were obviously trying to defend your original mis-statement of fact. <snip redundancies> Thank you for contradicting your own claim that "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1994. I amended my claim, No you didn't. You repeated the claim that Hardball debuted in 1994 and offered links to back up this mis-information. Then you shot yourself in the foot by posting cites that prove that no such program -- "Hardball with Chris Matthews" -- existed before 1997. Talk about scoring on your own goal! Matthews’ career as a political commentator on an NBC cable station began in 1994, the precursor to Hardball was announced in July began in Sept. 1995 (well before the Dec 1995 column) there is nothing to suggest the name change and transfer to CNbC then MS-NBC (as did much of the extinct America’s Talking channel) was a promotion or in any way related to the Halderman piece. My take is that Matthews committed journalistic malfeasance in his 12/7/95 SF Examiner article -- which I read at the time, SF being my hometown -- and I support the conjecture that this malfeasance was due to his ambition to have a higher-profile TV gig, which he eventually secured. You can't touch anything I've argued or cited here. <snip redundancies> So the Matthews’ first program (of which he was a co-host) was announced on (or before) May 17 or 18 1994 and premiered July 4th that year then on (or before) July 18-9, 1995 it was announced he’d get his own show which premiered Sept. 8 that year. The show wasn't called "Hardball with Chris Matthews," your repeated claims to the contrary. "Hardball with Chris Matthews" is a much higher profile gig than was "Politics with Chris Matthews". Does any beef go with that shake? "Politics with Chris Matthews" got 37 Google News hits in 1996. "Hardball with Chris Matthews" got 14 in 1997 How is that a measure of anything? The internet was in its infancy. According to Wiki: "While America's Talking had something of a cult following, it was not successful in the ratings." "Politics with Chris Matthews" appeared on a failed channel, while CNBC and especially MSNBC were far more successful. It's perfectly reasonable to speculate that Matthews didn't challenge Haldeman's patently absurd claims because he didn't want to jeopardize his TV career. Glad that you admit you’ve got nothing more than speculation and it would only be ‘reasonable’ if you could show Matthews got a promotion as a result (which he didn’t) I didn't claim that he got his promotion due to the Haldeman article. I'm merely pointing out that it is reasonable to speculate that the reason Matthews didn't perform basic journalistic follow-through and get DiMona's side of the story was because he didn't want to rock the boat. He didn't play "Hardball" with Haldeman, he swallowed Haldeman's absurd contention hook, line and sinker. or that Halderman’s claims were “patently absurd” (which you failed to do as well. Joseph DiMona and Gary Aguilar pointed out that Haldeman's claims were absurd, a fact you could grasp if you actually read THE ENDS OF POWER. In any case your “speculation” is not the same as Jim’s claim that Matthews’ “TV career” was a reward for the column. The existence of a quid pro quo was implicit in Jim’s claim. Take it up with Jim. You asked for the Haldeman article, I supplied the article. You repeatedly asserted that Hardball debuted in 1994, and I corrected your mis-statements of fact. I presented my take on the matter, but you insist on conflating my take with Jim's. When it comes to blowing smoke while back-pedaling, you're in a class by yourself, Colby. Yes, Matthews appeared on TV prior to his 12/7/95 steno rubber-stamp of Haldeman's absurd denial. I never claimed otherwise. I simply pointed out the fact that the higher-profile "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1997, contrary to your claims. Why didn't Matthews call DiMona and get his side of the story before publishing Haldeman's version as a settled fact? Because he didn't want an act of actual journalism to interfere with his new career as a talking head, perhaps. What you said is irrelevant Jim “claimed otherwise”, that is what I was disputing. Get back to us when you can show that ‘Hardball’ was higher profile than ‘Politics’ The viewership of CNBC and MSNBC were much higher than America's Talking. MSNBC is considered a "major" cable news channel. Aguilar’s research does not prove Matthews was untruthful. I'll let Jim speak for himself, but I'm not accusing Matthews of being "untruthful." I'm accusing him of being a terrible journalist with his nose up Bob Haldeman's ass. Matthews swallowed Haldeman's denial whole without checking with Joseph DiMona. It was Haldeman who was being "untruthful," and Matthews didn't challenge him, the act of a stenographer, not a journalist. Perhaps you're right about that but if Matthews was sloppy rather than dishonest there is no basis for Jim’s fantasy that the column was part of a post-JFK CIA plot to put conspiracy theories in a bad light. Funny you don’t seem to think Halderman was very reliable, if he wasn’t then there is even less reason to take his claim (if he actually made it) seriously. "If he actually made it"? Why don't you read the book, Colby? It would help if you knew what was under discussion. But then, you couldn't blow so much smoke if you were actually informed as to the topic, could you? THE ENDS OF POWER was published in 1978. Haldeman didn't dispute any of its contents until the end of 1995. Anyone with sufficient intellectual curiosity can read the book for themselves and gain an appreciation for how large the JFK assassination looms in that book, and how large a part the "Bay of Pigs code" plays in the narrative. Four men are involved in the story and one of them lied but there’s no way to tell which one it was. And Jim’s theory is silly, "Silly?" Looks like you have a bad case of Von Peinitis, Colby. What's truly absurd is the contention that DiMona made up all the parts in THE ENDS OF POWER related to the Kennedy assassination, an important thread throughout the book beginning with Haldeman's suggestion to Nixon in 1969 that they should look into JFK's death. If you actually read the book you would know that there is too much material relating to the Kennedy assassination for it to have originated with Haldeman's co-writer. You have read the book, right Colby? Use of strawmen is a sign of desperation of someone losing an argument neither Halderman nor Matthews nor I said “that DiMona made up all the parts in THE ENDS OF POWER related to the Kennedy assassination” Matthews only repeated Halderman’s claim that DiMona made up the part about “Bay of Pigs thing” meaning the assassination. You don't have a clue as to the context of the "Bay of Pigs code" in THE ENDS OF POWER. It's absolutely crucial to "all the parts in THE ENDS OF POWER related to the Kennedy assassination." It's an integral part of the book's JFK-assassination/Watergate subtext. It's significance looms over the entire account. Here's an excerpt from THE ENDS OF POWER (pgs 25-26) concerning the Cuban burglars at Watergate: I was puzzled when [Nixon] told me, "Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans is tied to the Bay of Pigs." After a pause I said, "The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with this?" But Nixon merely said, "Ehrlichman will know what I mean," and dropped the subject. After our staff meeting the next morning I accompanied Ehrlichman to his office and gave him the President's message. Ehrlichman's eyebrows arched, and he smiled. "Our brothers from Langley? He's suggesting I twist or break a few arms?" "I don't know. All he told me was 'Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans is tied to the Bay of Pigs.'" Ehrlichman leaned back in his chair, tapping a pencil on the edge of his desk. "All right," he said, "message accepted." "What are you going to do about it?" "Zero," said Ehrlichman. "I want to stay out of this one." He was referring to an unspoken feud between C.I.A. Director Richard Helms and Nixon. The two were polar opposites in background: Helms, the aloof, aristocratic, Eastern elitist; Nixon the poor boy (he never let you forget it) from a small California town. Ehrlichman had found, himself in the middle of this feud as far back as 1969, immediately after Nixon assumed office. Nixon had called Ehrlichman into his office and said he wanted all the facts and documents the CIA had on the Bay of Pigs, a complete report on the whole project. About six months after that 1969 conversation, Ehrlichman had stopped in my office. 'Those bastards in Langley are holding back something. They just dig in their heels and say the President can't have it. Period. Imagine that! The Commander-in-Chief wants to see a document relating to a military operation, and the spooks say he can't have it.' "What is it?" "I don't know, but from the way they're protecting it, it must be pure dynamite." I was angry at the idea that Helms would tell the President he couldn't see something. I said, "Well, you remind Helms who's President. He's not. In fact, Helms can damn well find himself out of a job in a hurry." That's what I thought! Helms was never fired, at least for four years. But then Ehrlichman had said, "Rest assured. The point will be made. In fact, Helms is on his way over here right now. The President is going to give him a direct order to turn over that document to me." Helms did show up that afternoon and saw the President for a long secret conversation. When Helms left, Ehrlichman returned to the Oval Office. The next thing I knew Ehrlichman appeared in my office, dropped into a chair, and just stared at me. He was more furious than I had ever seen him; absolutely speechless, a rare phenomenon for our White House phrase-makers. I said, "What happened?" "This is what happened," Ehrlichman said. "The Mad Monk (Nixon) has just told me I am now to forget all about that CIA document. In fact, I am to cease and desist from trying to obtain it." When Senator Howard Baker of the Ervin Committee later looked into the Nixon-Helms relationship, he summed it up. "Nixon and Helms have so much on each other, neither of them can breathe." Apparently Nixon knew more about the genesis of the Cuban invasion that led to the Bay of Pigs than almost anyone. Recently, the man who was President of Costa Rica at the time - dealing with Nixon while the invasion was being prepared - stated that Nixon was the man who originated the Cuban invasion. If this was true, Nixon never told it to me. In 1972 I did know that Nixon disliked the CIA Allen Dulles, the CIA Director in 1960, had briefed Jack Kennedy about the forthcoming Cuban invasion before a Kennedy-Nixon debate. Kennedy used this top secret information in the debate, thereby placing Nixon on the spot. Nixon felt he had to lie and even deny such an invasion was in the works to protect the men who were training in secret. Dulles later denied briefing Kennedy. This betrayal, added to Nixon's long-held feeling that the agency was not adequately competent, led to his distrust and dislike. And now that antipathy was to emerge again on June 23, 1972, when Nixon would once again confront and pressure the CIA This time the CIA was ready. In fact, it was more than ready. It was ahead of the game by months. Nixon would walk into what I now believe was a trap. Did DiMona make up the part about the BOP files being "pure dynamite"? Here's an excerpt from the "smoking gun" White House tape of 6/23/72, Nixon speaking to Haldeman: [Watergate burglary accomplice E. Howard] Hunt...will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things...tell them we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves... When you get the CIA people in say, “Look, the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again.” So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country don’t go any further into this case. Period...Tell them that if it gets out, it’s going to make the CIA look bad, it’s going to make Hunt look bad, and it’s likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA. Obviously DiMona didn't make any of that up, either. Here's another excerpt from THE ENDS OF POWER (pgs 37-38), where Haldeman meets with CIA Director Richard Helms in Ehrlichman's office (emphasis in the original): ...I played Nixon's trump card. "The President asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs may be blown..." Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning forward and shouting, "The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs." Silence. I just sat there. I was absolutely shocked by Helms violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story? Did DiMona make all of this up, Colby? Or the following? THE ENDS OF POWER, pgs 38-40: Years later, former CBS correspondent Dan Schorr called me. He was seeking information concerning the FBI investigation Nixon had mounted against him in August, 1971. Schorr later sent me his fascinating book CLEARING THE AIR. In it I was interested to find that evidence he had gleaned while investigating the CIA finally cleared up for me the mystery of the Bay of Pigs connection in those dealing between Nixon and Helms. It's intriguing when I put Schorr's facts together with mine. It seems that in all those Nixon reference to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination. (Interestingly, an investigation of the Kennedy assassination was a project I suggested when I first entered the White House. I had always been intrigued with the conflicting theories of the assassination. Now I felt we would be in a position to get all the facts. But Nixon turned me down.) According to Schorr, as an outgrowth of the Bay of Pigs, the CIA made several attempts on Fidel Castro's life. The Deputy Director of the CIA at the time was a an named Richard Helms. Unfortunately, Castro knew of the assassination attempts all the time. On September 7, 1963, a few months before John Kennedy was assassinated, Castro made a speech in which he was quoted, "Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they, too, can be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death." After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. Many of the facts about Oswald unavoidably pointed to a Cuban connection. 1. Oswald had been arrested in New Orleans in August, 1963, while distributing pro-Castro pamphlets. 2. On a New Orleans radio program he extolled Cuba and defended Castro. 3. Less than two months before the assassination Oswald visited the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and tried to obtain a visa. In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA. No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives. In fact, Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators, such as these samples: Q. Was Oswald an agent of the CIA? A. No. Q. Does the CIA have any evidence showing that a conspiracy existed to assassinate Kenndy? A. No. And here's what I find most interesting: Bill Sullivan, the FBI man that the CIA called at the time, was Nixon's highest-ranking loyal friend at the FBI...It is possible that Nixon learned from Sullivan something about the earlier CIA cover-up by Helms. And when Nixon said, "It's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs" he might have been reminding Helms, not so gently, of the cover-up of the CIA assassination attempts on the hero of the Bay of Pigs, Fidel Castro -- a CIA operation that may have triggered the Kennedy tragedy and which Helms desperately wanted to hide. So if DiMona made up the "Bay of Pigs code" he had to have made up this crucial early section of THE ENDS OF POWER and the entire context within which the Watergate burglary cover-up occurred! Not bloody likely. And no, I haven’t read the book nor do I pretend to. Give it a read and get back to us. In the meantime, I find this bit most amusing: I’ll leave the name calling and insults to you Cliff, I don’t want to stoop to that. Oh really? What do you call this? "I award you the Andres Escobar Memorial Own Goal Award" Or this? "you obviously have problems counting, are you really a dealer?" One of the hallmarks of slimey rhetoric is bald-faced hypocrisy. Edited March 4, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 yawn Facts make you "yawn," eh? Well then perhaps you should go back to "Goldilocks and the 3 Bears," because that's about as accurate as "Oswald and the 3 shots." DSL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 4, 2011 Author Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) Facts make you "yawn," eh? The above quote about "facts" comes from a man who believes in probably THE weirdest, strangest, and most ridiculous theory of them all (and not the silly "Body Alteration" theory, which is a fairy tale that even takes a back seat to this one) -- his belief that ALL OF THE GUNSHOTS CAME FROM THE FRONT in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. Tell us how you managed to wiggle your way out of the various things that prove for all time that shots came from the 6th-floor Sniper's Nest, David? Things like this: 1.) Harold Norman, situated on the fifth floor of the Book Depository, hears gunshots coming from directly above him and also hears shells falling to the floor DURING THE SHOOTING itself. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 2.) JFK and John Connally, the only people wounded in the President's limousine, were both shot IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BACKS (AFTER the car had turned onto Elm Street, and not before the car had passed the TSBD). And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 3.) Robert Jackson saw a rifle protruding from the sixth floor of the Book Depository during the time when gunshots were being fired at President Kennedy's car. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 4.) Howard Brennan saw a man firing a rifle from the sixth floor of the Book Depository. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 5.) Amos Euins saw a "pipe" sticking out of a window in the TSBD. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 6.) Mal Couch of WFAA-TV saw a rifle in a sixth-floor window of the Depository. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 7.) James Worrell looked straight up from his position at the entrance of the TSBD Building and saw a rifle sticking out of an upper-story window of the Depository. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 8.) Three spent bullet shells were found underneath the EXACT SAME WINDOW in the Book Depository that was referred to by various witnesses (Jackson, Brennan, Couch, Euins). And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 9.) Lee Oswald's very own rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD just 52 minutes after the assassination. And that exact rifle (Mannlicher-Carcano #C2766) was positively linked to the two bullet fragments found INSIDE THE PRESIDENT'S CAR. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 10.) Residue of lead was found to have adhered to the INSIDE of the windshield of the limousine. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 11.) More than half of the Dealey Plaza earwitnesses thought that ALL of the shots (not just SOME of them) came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. Pie Chart Source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm Now, tell us again, Mr. Lifton, about your amazing "No Shots Came From The Rear" theory. Edited March 4, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 4, 2011 Author Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) The incredible thing about Von Pein's arrogance in this regard, that is flacking for a book that was years away from being published, was this: He was warned in advance that VB would have to operate from the same database that other WC defenders had. So how could he melt the ground underneath with it, when no one else had done it previous. "After reading what may be [Vincent] Bugliosi's crowning work...one thinks: At last, someone has done it, put all the pieces together. "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" is important not just because it's correct, though it is. It's significant not just because it is comprehensive -- surely, no one will deny that. It is essential, first and foremost, because it is conclusive. From this point forward, no reasonable person can argue that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent; no sane person can take seriously assertions that Kennedy was killed by the CIA, Fidel Castro, the Mob, the Soviets, the Vietnamese, Texas oilmen or his vice president, Lyndon B. Johnson -- all of whom exist as suspects in the vacuous world of conspiracy theorists. Each may be guilty of crimes, but none had anything to do with Kennedy's assassination. "Reclaiming History" may finally move those accusations beyond civilized debate." -- Jim Newton of The Los Angeles Times; May 13, 2007 Complete Review: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/13/books/bk-newton13 Other Reviews: New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/books/14jfk.html?_r=2&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402693.html Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/05/28/the_jfk_files/ Edited March 4, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) Facts make you "yawn," eh? The above quote about "facts" comes from a man who believes in probably THE weirdest, strangest, and most ridiculous theory of them all (and not the silly "Body Alteration" theory, which is a fairy tale that even takes a back seat to this one) -- his belief that ALL OF THE GUNSHOTS CAME FROM THE FRONT in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. Tell us how you managed to wiggle your way out of the various things that prove for all time that shots came from the 6th-floor Sniper's Nest, David? Things like this: 1.) Harold Norman, situated on the fifth floor of the Book Depository, hears gunshots coming from directly above him and also hears shells falling to the floor DURING THE SHOOTING itself. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 2.) JFK and John Connally, the only people wounded in the President's limousine, were both shot IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BACKS (AFTER the car had turned onto Elm Street, and not before the car had passed the TSBD). And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 3.) Robert Jackson saw a rifle protruding from the sixth floor of the Book Depository during the time when gunshots were being fired at President Kennedy's car. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 4.) Howard Brennan saw a man firing a rifle from the sixth floor of the Book Depository. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 5.) Amos Euins saw a "pipe" sticking out of a window in the TSBD. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 6.) Mal Couch of WFAA-TV saw a rifle in a sixth-floor window of the Depository. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 7.) James Worrell looked straight up from his position at the entrance of the TSBD Building and saw a rifle sticking out of an upper-story window of the Depository. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 8.) Three spent bullet shells were found underneath the EXACT SAME WINDOW in the Book Depository that was referred to by various witnesses (Jackson, Brennan, Couch, Euins). And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 9.) Lee Oswald's very own rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD just 52 minutes after the assassination. And that exact rifle (Mannlicher-Carcano #C2766) was positively linked to the two bullet fragments found INSIDE THE PRESIDENT'S CAR. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 10.) Residue of lead was found to have adhered to the INSIDE of the windshield of the limousine. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. 11.) More than half of the Dealey Plaza earwitnesses thought that ALL of the shots (not just SOME of them) came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building. And yet David Lifton thinks no shots came from the rear. Pie Chart Source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm Now, tell us again, Mr. Lifton, about your amazing "No Shots Came From The Rear" theory. You surprise me, DVP. Somewhere on this forum, you have actually asked an interesting quesiton: "Gee" (you seemed to have wondered). . . "How can these conspiracy theorists believe that it was planned in advance to set up Oswald, as the fall guy, and yet ALSO believe JFK was shot from the front?" Of course, the answer is to be found in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981: Specifically, it was planned, in advance, and as part of the crime, to falsify the autopsy findings. You also might wish to reference Chapter 14, of Best Evidence, which you said you read when you were in your early 20s, and which you said got you interested in this case. How nice. But perhaps have forgotten by now. Anyway, that's what "trajectory reversal" is/was all about. The ability to shoot the President from one direction, but create the false appearance that the shots came from another. Also, if you read my book--and specifically that same chapter 14--you will find that I certainly do not deny that the very effective appearance was created, on Dealey Plaza that day, that shots (if not "all the shots") were fired from the TSBD. Again, that's an appearance, and I never denied that. Its all spelled out, chapter and verse, in my book, right there in chapter 14. As I make very clear--this false appearance (centered on the so-called "sniper's nest" found at the sixth floor of the TSBD) --was part of a strategic deception, employed in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy. The purpose of the strategic deception was to make it appear, both in real time, and in the evidence, that JFK's assassination was a quirk of fate, a historical accident, by attributing sole guilt to Lee Oswald, the pro-Castro Marxist who had once lived in Russia for over 2-1/2 years. Why don't you go and read some books about strategic deception--and how such plans are often used, in war, as an integral part of any military operation. (Or do you think soldiers always march forward, in full battle dress, and then stand up and yell, before firing at the target, "You hoooo! Hey you! Look at me! I'm over here!" And then: "Bang. . you're dead!") Tell me, Mr. DVP, is that your version of Dealey Plaza? Is that the way you think reality works? Apparently, you're so pre-occupied with hero-worhsipping your pal, Mr. Bugliosi, that you can't see beyond the end of your nose when it comes to distinguishing the false from the real; the phony sniper's nest at the TSBD, from the reality of what happened in Dealey Plaza. (Do you also accept $3 bills, made on a Xerox machine, as change, in your business operations)? Unfortunately, Best Evidence is written for a sophisticated reader. Apparently, what you need is a mental step ladder, one with perhaps just a few rungs, to get you above ground level--something with a title like "Conspiracy for Dummies." Maybe then you'll finally get around to understanding that not all the evidence, in this case, should be taken at face value. And when you finally achieve that level of wisdom, perhaps you should go back and re-read my book, because the most important evidence in this case, the "best evidence" if you will, was the body of President Kennedy, the man you say you admire so much, but whose murder apparently doesn't concern you all that much, when it comes to finding the truth about the crime. DSL 3/4/11 Los Angeles, Ca Edited March 4, 2011 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) My guess would be that the stuff about Bugliosi getting a "$1-million advance" (as some CTers have suggested) is blown up way out of proportion. And given Lifton's totally-shot-to-hell credibility regarding this "Reclaiming History" matter, why on Earth would anyone believe anything he says about it? I suppose Rosemary Newton, Bugliosi's secretary, is a rotten xxxx and cover-up artist too, eh, when she said this in 2007?: "In response to David Lifton's outrageous, malicious and contemptible lie regarding Vincent Bugliosi's book...where he claims ghost writers wrote this great book (which will be read by generations to come, long after Mr. Lifton and the rest of us are gone, including all the die-hard conspiracy theorists)...I say, unequivocally, that NO section of Mr. Bugliosi's book was ghostwritten." -- Rosemary Newton; July 2007 This is hilarious, and not in the comedic sense. But here we have the secretary to this man denying facts that are evident in the form of legal contracts. I have no idea what information Bugliosi has shared with with his long time secretary. But I do know about the contracts. In connection with this project, there exist at least two contracts for writing-research assistance with each of two authors--so that makes four contracts in all. First, with Fred Haines--who labored for years on the book, when it was called FINAL VERDICT. He wrote the 260 page biography of Oswald. That's the culmination of work he was paid over $50k/year to research and write. His name does NOT appear as an author in the final product; ergo, he is--by definition--a ghostwriter. In addition, there is the matter of Dale Myers. In that case, there are at least TWO contracts covering the involvement of Dale Myers--the first, when he came on board, and the second, when he and Bugliosi had certain differences and they had to arrange a "literary divorce." In the earlier Myers contract, the authorial credit for Bugliosi's book (which was subsequently published as "Reclaiming History") explicitly acknowledged Dale Myers as a co-author. The title page was to read "by Vincent Bugliosi" and "with" Dale Myers. Had the book been published in that format, then Dale Myers would be an acknowledged author (i.e., a co-author). But once the Myers/Bugliosi relationship dissolved, and the "literary divorce" was arranged (as a result of which Myers' would no longer share authorial credit), then, by definition, his contribution--assuming any of what he wrote was published--would be as a ghostwriter. Again: that's the definition of ghostwriter. In making these statements, I have never denied that Bugliosi worked very hard on this book. But so did others. And they were paid for their contribution. And since, by contract, their names do not appear on the title page, then--if they exist (and they certainly do)--they would properly be described as ghostwriters. That's what ghosting is all about--and there's nothing dishonorable about it. Someday, perhaps, the actual contracts between Fred Haines and Norton and the contracts between Myers and Norton/Bugliosi, will be published, and the full extent of any paid writing arrangements will be available for all to see. Frankly, I think full disclosure is called for so it will be a matter of public record just who wrote what in this book. Because I'm aware of the major involvement of both these individuals, I have often thought of Reclaiming History as an anthology of sorts. When I've perused different sections, I've often said to myself: "Oh, this part was written by Haines," or "This was written by Myers." Of course, its easy to know when you're reading genuine 100% Bugliosi sections, because they're often filled with insults and vitriol. That's too bad. If he had controlled his temper, he could have written a book with a more collegial tone. But as written, one never knows (when reading one section or another), whether one is going to encounter some interesting piece of information, or duck to avoid a mudball, because the author suddenly adopts the style of an adolescent in a fraternity food fight. The only other thing I have to say about his book is that, for all his analytic ability, and all the passion he brings to the subject, he seems to confuse Lee Oswald with Charles Manson. The Charles Mansion of Dealey Plaza. And it warps his whole view of the Kennedy assassination, about which he professes to know so much. DSL DSL Edited March 4, 2011 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 4, 2011 Author Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) It was planned, in advance, and as part of the crime, to falsify the autopsy findings. Oh, my poor, poor weak bladder! So, David, the mentally retarded conspirators who planned President Kennedy's assassination well in advance knew from the GET-GO that they were going to have to fake all kinds of evidence (including the alteration of the "best evidence" in the case--JFK's very own body). Correct? So, instead of merely firing the shots FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE "PATSY" WAS LOCATED, the goofball assassins of JFK decided it would be much, much better to try and frame Oswald by shooting ONLY from the Grassy Knoll (or various other FRONTAL-ONLY locations). Is that correct, DSL? You're hilarious, David (in the comedic way). But why do things the simple way (i.e., shoot Kennedy from the "patsy's" window and using the patsy's gun), when you could do it via an impossible-to-pull-off and ultra-complicated (not to mention, NEEDLESS and totally RECKLESS) "trajectory reversal" way by shooting the President from the exact OPPOSITE direction from where your fall guy is situated. Right, David? And, just think, this is the kind of topsy-turvy, backward, illogical thinking we are treated to--year after year--by the JFK conspiracy theorists. IOW--in a CTer's world, the following rule is king: Since ALL of the evidence positively indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the deaths of BOTH John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, it really means that THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE, and Oswald was completely innocent of BOTH murders. Try and get a jury to accept the above philosophy (which is the EXACT philosophy that a lot of online conspiracy theorists are currently clinging to). Here's a simple (and logical) question for David S. Lifton: Why not just shoot Kennedy from the TSBD and forget about all the cloak-&-dagger junk of altering the President's body...AND altering all of the photos and films and X-rays, etc.? Were the plotters TRYING to concoct the most senseless and ridiculous and complicated assassination scenario ever devised by man? Just asking. And, btw, is there even ONE other conspiracy believer on this Education Forum website who believes in David Lifton's "No Shots Came From The Rear" scenario? (If even ONE other CTer answers "Yes" to my last question, my bladder will burst wide open.) Edited March 4, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 4, 2011 Author Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) Oh, go back to bed, DiEugenio. It's too early for you to be haunting this place. "Reclaiming History" is the most accurate book ever written about JFK's murder, and always will be. To believe it is not is to side with the imaginative rantings and ravings of people like Jim DiEugenio, David Lifton, and Jim Garrison. And how likely is it that that trio's theories are correct? Answer--Zero per cent. Edited March 4, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) Oh, go back to bed, DiEugenio. It's too early for you to be haunting this place. "Reclaiming History" is the most accurate book ever written about JFK's murder, and always will be. To believe it is not is to side with the imaginative rantings and ravings of people like Jim DiEugenio, David Lifton, and Jim Garrison. And how likely is it that that trio's theories are correct? Answer--Zero per cent. Yep. David Von Pein lives in a world were political parties, governmental organisations, intelligence institutions, central banks, and the power elite actually work for, and in, the best interests of their citizens. Only in "imaginative rantings and ravings" of weirdo and unreasonable conspiracy theorists do the structures listed above not give a flying rat's backside about anything or anyone other than themselves. Evil conspirators don't exist in power structures do they, Dave? Individual self interests of a small minority of people don't ride rough-shod across the backs of the rest of us do they, Dave? The U.S. people will make sure they collect in every last cent of those trillions of dollars of central bank borrowed TARP fund and fiscal stimulus money won't they, Dave? The people of the United States and the rest of the world need only read the Warren Commission to find out what really happened on 11/22/63, don't they Dave? The same as if they want to find out EXACTLY what happened on 9/11 they simply go to the 9/11 Report - give or take the answers to about 200 key questions? The same as if we in this country want to know what happened on 7/7 we just wait for the outcome of the 7/7 Public Inquiry that hasn't taken place in public - give or take the answers to about 200 key questions? And if we want to find out what happened in the death of Dr. David Kelly we just wait 70 years for the records to be made public after being sealed? Attitudes like yours, where everything you are told you believe like a nodding chimpanzee, is what makes people in power able to shaft us over and over and over again and have the likes of you thank them for it once they're done. my old pal Davey Von Pein lives in Bugli-usion times, he actually believes when Colonel Sanders died and went to heaven he took a portable 5 gallon deep fat chicken fryer with him.... <sigh> guy will believe anything.... Edited March 4, 2011 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 My latest replies in this color My latest replies in this tone, Len My, my Clifford you do get desperate when shown to be wrong. You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything. = “It's just a flesh wound.” I cited the Matthews article, and I made a statement of fact: "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1997 on CNBC. = It was essentially the same program that began on a sister network 1995. Did you not know that Matthews already had his own program very similar to Hardball on a CNBC station before the column or did you know it and omit this info from your post? My take differs somewhat from Jim D's, but I think we both agree that Matthews was motivated by careerism when he wrote the article on Haldeman. You don't begin to rebut my argument there, either. Jim wrote, “Or what about Mathews getting the MSNBC gig after he tries to discredit the Bay of Pigs code name in Haldeman's book? And he tries to blame it on the co author DI Mona”. So what? It was Haldeman who tried to discredit "the Bay of Pigs code name" and blame it on his co-author DiMona, and Matthews committed journalistic malpractice by not speaking with DiMona. It is perfectly reasonable to speculate that the reason Matthews acted like a stenographer instead of a journalist was because he didn't want to put his TV career in jeopardy by bucking the Establishment Line on the Kennedy assassination. That's my take on the matter. = Your “take” at first sounds more reasonable till one realizes he could have simply avoided the issue all together, he spoke to Halderman years before he wrote the column. So IF intentionally avoided asking DiMona it was an act of commission not simply one of omission. Funny that if “the Establishment” was so intent on suppressing “the whole Bay of Pigs thing” that Stone’s JFK was financed and distributed by Warner Brothers and Nixon was co-produced and distributed by Disney and was disputed in a court case by Hollywood’s “the film industry's leading independent production and distribution company” which was tied to Warner or that neither Stone nor any of the A-list stars saw their careers suffer as a result of their participation. Why then would Matthews feel that asking Dimona about the “BoP thing” would threaten his career especially since the CIA/PTB/MIBH would no reason to object to it. Presumably the co-author would have denied it what difference would a sentence or two have made? Did he have reason to suspect this would lead the same MSM that banked JFK to tank his career? Let’s not forget that decades Jesse Ventura go a show on TruTV (part of Time Warner) and Lou Dobbs continued as a host on CNN and Judge Napolitano continues as commentator on Fox after they spouted bizarre conspiracy theories and appeared on Alex Jones. But he got the gig in May 1994 (if you count his original show with Azur) or July 1995 if you only want to focus on his solo “gig”. No, we don't count his original show with Azur nor his first solo show because they were not called "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Hell, MSNBC didn't go on air until 1996! = You fixate on the name because that’s all you got. Numerous bands changed their names, are we to say they weren’t really the same groups? You claimed that Hardball debuted in 1994. I corrected your mis-statement of fact. But you have a hard time coming right out and admitting a mistake, evidently. = Yes I was wrong about the year Hardball began but that was a minor discrepancy, an earlier version of the show began well before the column. Joe Scarborough and others (TV Age, Popisms) it seems consider ‘Hardball’ to have been a continuation of ‘Politics’ and ‘A-T In Depth’. That's not how you originally put it. = If you were referring to my previous post I thought it was implicit. You doubled down on HARDBALL beginning in 1994, then proceeded to cite evidence the show was not HARDBALL. Don't blame me when you shoot yourself in the foot while it's still in your mouth. = You mistake a person saying “X said Y” with the person saying Y. I didn’t ‘double down’ I pointed out that Wikipedia gave a version close to mine which I described as “almost right” and then spelled out the actual scenario in my citations and conclusion. It’s not my fault if you misread that. Matthews was obviously considered the top dog of the latter because he always got top billing. The description of ‘Politics’ in the Washington Times differs little from the current program: So what? The original program wasn't called "Hardball with Chris Matthews." TWICE you claimed it was. = As I said above “You fixate on the name because that’s all you got”. According to AllMusicGuide the singer Jayne County has been “active” since the 1970’s. You should write them to change that because up till 1980 she was a he who used the stage name Wayne County. I claimed ONCE that Hardball began in 1994. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/jayne-county-p66886 <snip irrelevant smoke> “Repeated claims”, you obviously have problems counting, are you really a dealer? I made the claim ONCE What's the matter Colby, you can't count to two? Or three? Or four? Len Colby, on 27 February 2011 - 01:59 PM, said:Hardball began in 1994 = Yes, that was the one and only time. Then you doubled down on this assertion: Len Colby, on 02 March 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:TV Age and Share TV give the premier date as “July 04, 1994” http://www.tvrage.com/shows/id-12067 http://sharetv.org/s..._chris_matthews Popisms gives the same year http://www.popisms.c...thews-1994.aspx Joe Scarborough said to Matthews on air “You have known me since 1994. I went on HARDBALL all the time in ‘95, ‘96, ‘97” to which he replied “Yes” http://www.msnbc.msn...chris_matthews/ = I said Scarborough and various websites said the program began 1994/5, I didn’t say that was the case. You were obviously trying to defend your original mis-statement of fact. = I was explaining that it wasn’t far from the truth. <snip redundancies> Thank you for contradicting your own claim that "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1994. I amended my claim, No you didn't. You repeated the claim that Hardball debuted in 1994 and offered links to back up this mis-information. Then you shot yourself in the foot by posting cites that prove that no such program -- "Hardball with Chris Matthews" -- existed before 1997. Talk about scoring on your own goal! = See above Matthews’ career as a political commentator on an NBC cable station began in 1994, the precursor to Hardball was announced in July began in Sept. 1995 (well before the Dec 1995 column) there is nothing to suggest the name change and transfer to CNbC then MS-NBC (as did much of the extinct America’s Talking channel) was a promotion or in any way related to the Halderman piece. My take is that Matthews committed journalistic malfeasance in his 12/7/95 SF Examiner article -- which I read at the time, SF being my hometown -- and I support the conjecture that this malfeasance was due to his ambition to have a higher-profile TV gig, which he eventually secured. You can't touch anything I've argued or cited here. = See above, Black Knight <snip redundancies> So the Matthews’ first program (of which he was a co-host) was announced on (or before) May 17 or 18 1994 and premiered July 4th that year then on (or before) July 18-9, 1995 it was announced he’d get his own show which premiered Sept. 8 that year. The show wasn't called "Hardball with Chris Matthews," your repeated claims to the contrary. = See above "Hardball with Chris Matthews" is a much higher profile gig than was "Politics with Chris Matthews". Does any beef go with that shake? "Politics with Chris Matthews" got 37 Google News hits in 1996. "Hardball with Chris Matthews" got 14 in 1997 How is that a measure of anything? The internet was in its infancy. = Exactly it “was in its infancy” and growing quickly and many media outlets drop content after a while to free up space and bandwidth while others retroactively posted stuff online, normally working backwards chronologically. Thus if one thing got an equal number of mentions in 1996 as another in 1997 we would expect to find more hits today for the more recent one, but we see exactly the opposite 2.6X less hits for the more recent supposedly higher profile program. According to Wiki: "While America's Talking had something of a cult following, it was not successful in the ratings." = LOL according to the exact same page “Politics with Chris Matthews - This show is the only show from America's Talking still on the air (as of 2010). After moving over to CNBC during the rampdown of America's Talking, the show was renamed Hardball with Chris Matthews and eventually moved to MSNBC, where it still airs nightly at 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.” But even if the channel as a whole didn’t get good ratings does mean that none of its shows got good ratings nor that a program from it would necessarily get better ones when it moved to a sister network. Based on the number of Google News hits that was not the case. For Jim’s theory to hold we would have to assume NBC made an important decision to please the CIA rather than to maximize profits. "Politics with Chris Matthews" appeared on a failed channel, while CNBC and especially MSNBC were far more successful. = America’s Talking didn’t exactly fail so much as it was renamed after a giant bought a 50% stake in it. If it was such a failure why did Microsoft spend $220 million plus $ 70 million/years for half the channel? It's perfectly reasonable to speculate that Matthews didn't challenge Haldeman's patently absurd claims because he didn't want to jeopardize his TV career. Glad that you admit you’ve got nothing more than speculation and it would only be ‘reasonable’ if you could show Matthews got a promotion as a result (which he didn’t) I didn't claim that he got his promotion due to the Haldeman article. I'm merely pointing out that it is reasonable to speculate that the reason Matthews didn't perform basic journalistic follow-through and get DiMona's side of the story was because he didn't want to rock the boat. He didn't play "Hardball" with Haldeman, he swallowed Haldeman's absurd contention hook, line and sinker. …or that Halderman’s claims were “patently absurd” (which you failed to do as well. Joseph DiMona and Gary Aguilar pointed out that Haldeman's claims were absurd, a fact you could grasp if you actually read THE ENDS OF POWER. = I disagree with their analysis. In any case your “speculation” is not the same as Jim’s claim that Matthews’ “TV career” was a reward for the column. The existence of a quid pro quo was implicit in Jim’s claim. Take it up with Jim. You asked for the Haldeman article, I supplied the article. You repeatedly asserted that Hardball debuted in 1994, and I corrected your mis-statements of fact. I presented my take on the matter, but you insist on conflating my take with Jim's. When it comes to blowing smoke while back-pedaling, you're in a class by yourself, Colby. Yes, Matthews appeared on TV prior to his 12/7/95 steno rubber-stamp of Haldeman's absurd denial. I never claimed otherwise. I simply pointed out the fact that the higher-profile "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted in 1997, contrary to your claims. Why didn't Matthews call DiMona and get his side of the story before publishing Haldeman's version as a settled fact? Because he didn't want an act of actual journalism to interfere with his new career as a talking head, perhaps. What you said is irrelevant Jim “claimed otherwise”, that is what I was disputing. Get back to us when you can show that ‘Hardball’ was higher profile than ‘Politics’ The viewership of CNBC and MSNBC were much higher than America's Talking. MSNBC is considered a "major" cable news channel. = Still waiting for any evidence other than your say so which indicates Politics’ profile was significantly increased by moving it from America’s Talking to CNBC Aguilar’s research does not prove Matthews was untruthful. I'll let Jim speak for himself, but I'm not accusing Matthews of being "untruthful." I'm accusing him of being a terrible journalist with his nose up Bob Haldeman's ass. Matthews swallowed Haldeman's denial whole without checking with Joseph DiMona. It was Haldeman who was being "untruthful," and Matthews didn't challenge him, the act of a stenographer, not a journalist. Perhaps you're right about that but if Matthews was sloppy rather than dishonest there is no basis for Jim’s fantasy that the column was part of a post-JFK CIA plot to put conspiracy theories in a bad light. Funny you don’t seem to think Halderman was very reliable, if he wasn’t then there is even less reason to take his claim (if he actually made it) seriously. "If he actually made it"? Why don't you read the book, Colby? It would help if you knew what was under discussion. But then, you couldn't blow so much smoke if you were actually informed as to the topic, could you? THE ENDS OF POWER was published in 1978. Haldeman didn't dispute any of its contents until the end of 1995. Anyone with sufficient intellectual curiosity can read the book for themselves and gain an appreciation for how large the JFK assassination looms in that book, and how large a part the "Bay of Pigs code" plays in the narrative. = Actually he disputed it in 1993, and according to your own sources he previously disputed other parts of the book. From Aguilar’s post DiMona offered a commonsense explanation for Haldeman's backing away from this part of the book. It seems that backing away from embarrassing parts of the book was Haldeman's common practice, DiMona told me. Haldeman, it turns out, was shunned by Nixonites after his book was published. In order to ingratiate himself with Nixonites furious with him at what he'd written, Haldeman had a bad habit of passing off anything offensive onto DiMona Did you actually read what Aguilar wrote before you posted it here? Do you have any evidence he read the final manuscript or was asked about the “BoP thing” before then? Funny that you and Aguilar think Halderman was a xxxx but don’t seem to have considered the possibility that IF he said BoPT = 11/22/63 that he was lying at the time? Four men are involved in the story and one of them lied but there’s no way to tell which one it was. And Jim’s theory is silly, "Silly?" Looks like you have a bad case of Von Peinitis, Colby. What's truly absurd is the contention that DiMona made up all the parts in THE ENDS OF POWER related to the Kennedy assassination, an important thread throughout the book beginning with Haldeman's suggestion to Nixon in 1969 that they should look into JFK's death. If you actually read the book you would know that there is too much material relating to the Kennedy assassination for it to have originated with Haldeman's co-writer. You have read the book, right Colby? Use of strawmen is a sign of desperation of someone losing an argument neither Halderman nor Matthews nor I said “that DiMona made up all the parts in THE ENDS OF POWER related to the Kennedy assassination” Matthews only repeated Halderman’s claim that DiMona made up the part about “Bay of Pigs thing” meaning the assassination. You don't have a clue as to the context of the "Bay of Pigs code" in THE ENDS OF POWER. It's absolutely crucial to "all the parts in THE ENDS OF POWER related to the Kennedy assassination." It's an integral part of the book's JFK-assassination/Watergate subtext. It's significance looms over the entire account. Here's an except from THE ENDS OF POWER (pgs 25-26) concerning the Cuban burglars at Watergate: I was puzzled when [Nixon] told me, "Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans is tied to the Bay of Pigs." After a pause I said, "The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with this?" But Nixon merely said, "Ehrlichman will know what I mean," and dropped the subject. After our staff meeting the next morning I accompanied Ehrlichman to his office and gave him the President's message. Ehrlichman's eyebrows arched, and he smiled. "Our brothers from Langley? He's suggesting I twist or break a few arms?" "I don't know. All he told me was 'Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans is tied to the Bay of Pigs.'" Ehrlichman leaned back in his chair, tapping a pencil on the edge of his desk. "All right," he said, "message accepted." "What are you going to do about it?" "Zero," said Ehrlichman. "I want to stay out of this one." He was referring to an unspoken feud between C.I.A. Director Richard Helms and Nixon. The two were polar opposites in background: Helms, the aloof, aristocratic, Eastern elitist; Nixon the poor boy (he never let you forget it) from a small California town. Ehrlichman had found, himself in the middle of this feud as far back as 1969, immediately after Nixon assumed office. Nixon had called Ehrlichman into his office and said he wanted all the facts and documents the CIA had on the Bay of Pigs, a complete report on the whole project. About six months after that 1969 conversation, Ehrlichman had stopped in my office. 'Those bastards in Langley are holding back something. They just dig in their heels and say the President can't have it. Period. Imagine that! The Commander-in-Chief wants to see a document relating to a military operation, and the spooks say he can't have it.' "What is it?" "I don't know, but from the way they're protecting it, it must be pure dynamite." I was angry at the idea that Helms would tell the President he couldn't see something. I said, "Well, you remind Helms who's President. He's not. In fact, Helms can damn well find himself out of a job in a hurry." That's what I thought! Helms was never fired, at least for four years. But then Ehrlichman had said, "Rest assured. The point will be made. In fact, Helms is on his way over here right now. The President is going to give him a direct order to turn over that document to me." Helms did show up that afternoon and saw the President for a long secret conversation. When Helms left, Ehrlichman returned to the Oval Office. The next thing I knew Ehrlichman appeared in my office, dropped into a chair, and just stared at me. He was more furious than I had ever seen him; absolutely speechless, a rare phenomenon for our White House phrase-makers. I said, "What happened?" "This is what happened," Ehrlichman said. "The Mad Monk (Nixon) has just told me I am now to forget all about that CIA document. In fact, I am to cease and desist from trying to obtain it." When Senator Howard Baker of the Ervin Committee later looked into the Nixon-Helms relationship, he summed it up. "Nixon and Helms have so much on each other, neither of them can breathe." Apparently Nixon knew more about the genesis of the Cuban invasion that led to the Bay of Pigs than almost anyone. Recently, the man who was President of Costa Rica at the time - dealing with Nixon while the invasion was being prepared - stated that Nixon was the man who originated the Cuban invasion. If this was true, Nixon never told it to me. In 1972 I did know that Nixon disliked the CIA Allen Dulles, the CIA Director in 1960, had briefed Jack Kennedy about the forthcoming Cuban invasion before a Kennedy-Nixon debate. Kennedy used this top secret information in the debate, thereby placing Nixon on the spot. Nixon felt he had to lie and even deny such an invasion was in the works to protect the men who were training in secret. Dulles later denied briefing Kennedy. This betrayal, added to Nixon's long-held feeling that the agency was not adequately competent, led to his distrust and dislike. And now that antipathy was to emerge again on June 23, 1972, when Nixon would once again confront and pressure the CIA This time the CIA was ready. In fact, it was more than ready. It was ahead of the game by months. Nixon would walk into what I now believe was a trap. Did DiMona make up the part about the BOP files being "pure dynamite"? = Nothing in the above excerpt indicates BoP was code for the assassination, there was an obvious tie-in between the break in and the BoP which was tied to the assassination (of Castro) which was tied to various other CIA black ops. The investigation of Watergate did indeed lead to these things being discovered via the Family Jewels, Pike, Rockefeller, Church etc reports Here's an excerpt from the "smoking gun" White House tape of 6/23/72, Nixon speaking to Haldeman: [Watergate burglary accomplice E. Howard] Hunt...will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things...tell them we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves... When you get the CIA people in say, “Look, the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again.” So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country don’t go any further into this case. Period...Tell them that if it gets out, it’s going to make the CIA look bad, it’s going to make Hunt look bad, and it’s likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA. Obviously DiMona didn't make any of that up, either. Here's another excerpt from THE ENDS OF POWER (pgs 37-38), where Haldeman meets with CIA Director Richard Helms in Ehrlichman's office (emphasis in the original): ...I played Nixon's trump card. "The President asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs may be blown..."Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning forward and shouting, "The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs." Silence. I just sat there. I was absolutely shocked by Helms violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story? Did DiMona make all of this up, Colby? = I don’t know he could have made it up or sexed it up. He was listed as the co-author but the book was almost entirely in 1st person, thus it is reasonable to assume he wrote or altered some 1st person passages. In any case there is no indication the assassination was being discussed, see above. Or the following? THE ENDS OF POWER, pgs 38-40: Years later, former CBS correspondent Dan Schorr called me. He was seeking information concerning the FBI investigation Nixon had mounted against him in August, 1971. Schorr later sent me his fascinating book CLEARING THE AIR. In it I was interested to find that evidence he had gleaned while investigating the CIA finally cleared up for me the mystery of the Bay of Pigs connection in those dealing between Nixon and Helms. It's intriguing when I put Schorr's facts together with mine. It seems that in all those Nixon reference to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination. (Interestingly, an investigation of the Kennedy assassination was a project I suggested when I first entered the White House. I had always been intrigued with the conflicting theories of the assassination. Now I felt we would be in a position to get all the facts. But Nixon turned me down.) According to Schorr, as an outgrowth of the Bay of Pigs, the CIA made several attempts on Fidel Castro's life. The Deputy Director of the CIA at the time was named Richard Helms. Unfortunately, Castro knew of the assassination attempts all the time. On September 7, 1963, a few months before John Kennedy was assassinated, Castro made a speech in which he was quoted, "Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they, too, can be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death." After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. Many of the facts about Oswald unavoidably pointed to a Cuban connection. 1. Oswald had been arrested in New Orleans in August, 1963, while distributing pro-Castro pamphlets. 2. On a New Orleans radio program he extolled Cuba and defended Castro. 3. Less than two months before the assassination Oswald visited the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and tried to obtain a visa. In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA. No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives. In fact, Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators, such as these samples: Q. Was Oswald an agent of the CIA? A. No. Q. Does the CIA have any evidence showing that a conspiracy existed to assassinate Kenndy? A. No. And here's what I find most interesting: Bill Sullivan, the FBI man that the CIA called at the time, was Nixon's highest-ranking loyal friend at the FBI...It is possible that Nixon learned from Sullivan something about the earlier CIA cover-up by Helms. And when Nixon said, "It's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs" he might have been reminding Helms, not so gently, of the cover-up of the CIA assassination attempts on the hero of the Bay of Pigs, Fidel Castro -- a CIA operation that may have triggered the Kennedy tragedy and which Helms desperately wanted to hide. So if DiMona made up the "Bay of Pigs code" he had to have made up this crucial early section of THE ENDS OF POWER and the entire context within which the Watergate burglary cover-up occurred! = The bit above up to the word ‘and’ makes sense the rest does not, the “Watergate burglary cover-up” could have “occurred” in other ‘contexts’. There is no reason to reject the notion DiMona wrote or sexed up that part of the book. So Halderman and/or DiMona fully accepted that LHO was the lone gunman and were pushing the Tim Gratz/Gus Russo theory that Castro did it in revenge for the CIA’s attempts on his life, why on earth would the CIA/PTB/MIBH want to suppress that? Especially after JFK which increased attention on the CIA did it theory. Oh, I get it, you don’t think he was honest and want to pick and choose which parts of Halderman’s supposed theory to accept, BoPT = JFK assassination yes but not his (supposed) rationale for reaching that conclusion! If you could contortion your body like that you’d be a star attraction at the circus! Not bloody likely. = Translation, ‘I have no evidence that was not the case’ And no, I haven’t read the book nor do I pretend to. Give it a read and get back to us. In the meantime, I find this bit most amusing: I’ll leave the name calling and insults to you Cliff, I don’t want to stoop to that. Oh really? What do you call this? "I award you the Andres Escobar Memorial Own Goal Award" Or this? "you obviously have problems counting, are you really a dealer?" = I call my remarks ironic quips the 1st wasn’t even insulting the 2nd only mildly so and not anywhere nearly offensive as saying some uses “slimey rhetoric” (or engages in “bald-faced hypocrisy”. But now that we are on the subject of your profession, were’s the link to your bio? One of the hallmarks of slimey rhetoric is bald-faced hypocrisy. = Like Ronnie would say, “there you go again” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) “It's just a flesh wound.” Blowing plumes of smoke is not the same as wielding a sword, Colby. That's all you're doing here, blowing smoke. = It was essentially the same program that began on a sister network 1995. Did you not know that Matthews already had his own program very similar to Hardball on a CNBC station before the column or did you know it and omit this info from your post? I know that "Hardball with Chris Matthews" debuted on CNBC in 1997, a fact you seem very reluctant to openly acknowledge. Why is it you are so incapable of admitting any kind of error, Colby? In December of 1995 America's Talking was a failing enterprise that was weeks away from having the plug pulled on it (according to Wiki). That was a much different set of circumstances for Matthews than he faced in 1997 with his CNBC show. = Your “take” at first sounds more reasonable till one realizes he could have simply avoided the issue all together, he spoke to Halderman years before he wrote the column. So IF intentionally avoided asking DiMona it was an act of commission not simply one of omission. Matthews was on a sinking ship (America's Talking) and may very well have felt the need to curry favor within the established news media, which almost always supports the Lone Nut position. Funny that if “the Establishment” was so intent on suppressing “the whole Bay of Pigs thing” that Stone’s JFK was financed and distributed by Warner Brothers and Nixon was co-produced and distributed by Disney and was disputed in a court case by Hollywood’s “the film industry's leading independent production and distribution company” which was tied to Warner or that neither Stone nor any of the A-list stars saw their careers suffer as a result of their participation. The movie industry and the mainstream news industry are completely different animals. It's not unusual to hear a reference to "the Kennedy conspiracy" in Hollywood films, but highly unusual to see such a reference in a mainstream news outlet. Why then would Matthews feel that asking Dimona about the “BoP thing” would threaten his career especially since the CIA/PTB/MIBH would no reason to object to it. You insist on conflating my take with Jim D's. I said nothing about Matthews and the CIA. For the American Mainstream Media it is an article of faith that Oswald acted alone. Given the fact that Matthews in December of 1995 had a show on a failing network, it may very well have motivated him to hew to the company line on what had been a very hot topic earlier in the decade. Presumably the co-author would have denied it what difference would a sentence or two have made? You seem determined to remain ignorant of the JFK-assassination/Watergate subtext in THE ENDS OF POWER. Why do you pontificate on subjects you know little about? Did he have reason to suspect this would lead the same MSM that banked JFK to tank his career? See above. Hollywood and the news industry are not the same thing. Matthews had more than two years to check out DiMona's version of "the Bay of Pigs thing," and he never bothered. Let’s not forget that decades Jesse Ventura go a show on TruTV (part of Time Warner) and Lou Dobbs continued as a host on CNN and Judge Napolitano continues as commentator on Fox after they spouted bizarre conspiracy theories and appeared on Alex Jones. Some people have more courage than Chris Matthews. Ventura's show is not considered part of the Mainstream News Media. Given the current anti-government slant of Fox News it isn't surprising that they tolerate a stray reference to the Kennedy conspiracy. When did Lou Dobbs ever chime in about the Kennedy conspiracy? But he got the gig in May 1994 (if you count his original show with Azur) or July 1995 if you only want to focus on his solo “gig”. No, we don't count his original show with Azur nor his first solo show because they were not called "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Hell, MSNBC didn't go on air until 1996! = You fixate on the name because that’s all you got. You don't like it when your mis-information is corrected, do you, Colby? Why is it such a big deal? And yes, there is a difference between having a show on a failing network and having a show on a successful network. Numerous bands changed their names, are we to say they weren’t really the same groups? Yes, because they usually change their sound when they change personnel. The Jefferson Airplane was not the same band as the Jefferson Starship. I find it amusing that you fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting error. You claimed that Hardball debuted in 1994. I corrected your mis-statement of fact. But you have a hard time coming right out and admitting a mistake, evidently. = Yes I was wrong about the year Hardball began but that was a minor discrepancy, an earlier version of the show began well before the column. Finally! Thank you for admitting you were wrong, Colby! I'm so proud of you! Joe Scarborough and others (TV Age, Popisms) it seems consider ‘Hardball’ to have been a continuation of ‘Politics’ and ‘A-T In Depth’. That's not how you originally put it. = If you were referring to my previous post I thought it was implicit. Myself, whenever someone shows me that I'm wrong about something, I come right out and say, "I stand corrected." There is no need to "imply" anything. Just be straight-forward from now on, you'll be better off for it. <snip redundancies> "Hardball with Chris Matthews" is a much higher profile gig than was "Politics with Chris Matthews". Does any beef go with that shake? "Politics with Chris Matthews" got 37 Google News hits in 1996. "Hardball with Chris Matthews" got 14 in 1997 How is that a measure of anything? The internet was in its infancy. = Exactly it “was in its infancy” and growing quickly and many media outlets drop content after a while to free up space and bandwidth while others retroactively posted stuff online, normally working backwards chronologically. Thus if one thing got an equal number of mentions in 1996 as another in 1997 we would expect to find more hits today for the more recent one, but we see exactly the opposite 2.6X less hits for the more recent supposedly higher profile program. Supposedly? America's Talking was a failing network on the verge of extinction when Matthews wrote his 12/7/95 column. If you are claiming that America's Talking had ratings equal to CNBC or later MSNBC -- produce the evidence. It's ratings that matter in television, not Google hits. According to Wiki: "While America's Talking had something of a cult following, it was not successful in the ratings." = LOL according to the exact same page “Politics with Chris Matthews - This show is the only show from America's Talking still on the air (as of 2010). After moving over to CNBC during the rampdown of America's Talking, the show was renamed Hardball with Chris Matthews and eventually moved to MSNBC, where it still airs nightly at 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.” LOL -- CNBC and MSNBC are successful enterprises, America's Talking was not. Matthews had plenty of motivation to suck up to the company line on the JFK assassination given the shaky condition of his employer at the end of 1995. But even if the channel as a whole didn’t get good ratings does mean that none of its shows got good ratings nor that a program from it would necessarily get better ones when it moved to a sister network. Based on the number of Google News hits that was not the case. How do double digit google hits trump television ratings? Are you claiming that television executives were actively concerned about google hits in the mid-90's? What's your proof that "Politics with Chris Matthews" had substantially better ratings than the other fare on America's Talking? For Jim’s theory to hold we would have to assume NBC made an important decision to please the CIA rather than to maximize profits. You fixate on Jim D's take because that's all you've got. But at least you grudgingly admit you were wrong about the debut of "Hardball with Chris Matthews," so I think we've made progress here. "Politics with Chris Matthews" appeared on a failed channel, while CNBC and especially MSNBC were far more successful. = America’s Talking didn’t exactly fail so much as it was renamed after a giant bought a 50% stake in it. If it was such a failure why did Microsoft spend $220 million plus $ 70 million/years for half the channel? Failing enterprises are frequently bought out. It's a typical business practice. When a station doesn't have good ratings it's regarded as a failure. America's Talking didn't have good ratings. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to get your head around? <snip> Joseph DiMona and Gary Aguilar pointed out that Haldeman's claims were absurd, a fact you could grasp if you actually read THE ENDS OF POWER. = I disagree with their analysis. How can you disagree with their analysis when you haven't even read the book? <snip> The viewership of CNBC and MSNBC were much higher than America's Talking. MSNBC is considered a "major" cable news channel. = Still waiting for any evidence other than your say so which indicates Politics’ profile was significantly increased by moving it from America’s Talking to CNBC You quoted the Wiki article which described America's Talking as having low ratings. Low rating equals low profile -- or can't you get your head around that concept, either? If you are claiming that "Politics" on America's Talking had ratings as good as "Hardball" on CNBC -- produce the proof. THE ENDS OF POWER was published in 1978. Haldeman didn't dispute any of its contents until the end of 1995. Anyone with sufficient intellectual curiosity can read the book for themselves and gain an appreciation for how large the JFK assassination looms in that book, and how large a part the "Bay of Pigs code" plays in the narrative. = Actually he disputed it in 1993, and according to your own sources he previously disputed other parts of the book. From Aguilar’s post DiMona offered a commonsense explanation for Haldeman's backing away from this part of the book. It seems that backing away from embarrassing parts of the book was Haldeman's common practice, DiMona told me. Haldeman, it turns out, was shunned by Nixonites after his book was published. In order to ingratiate himself with Nixonites furious with him at what he'd written, Haldeman had a bad habit of passing off anything offensive onto DiMona I stand corrected. See, very easy. Did you actually read what Aguilar wrote before you posted it here? Did you actually read the quotations from the book I posted here? Do you have any evidence he read the final manuscript or was asked about the “BoP thing” before then? Are you suggesting that Bob Haldeman didn't read the the final manuscript to THE ENDS OF POWER? Or was it DiMona who didn't read the final manuscript? Why should we think either was the case? Funny that you and Aguilar think Halderman was a xxxx but don’t seem to have considered the possibility that IF he said BoPT = 11/22/63 that he was lying at the time? Funny that you can't grasp the context under which the observation was made. All you have to do is read the relevant passages I quoted and you can see that it wasn't merely a statement that BOP = 11/22/63, but a complete argument for that point of view. THE ENDS OF POWER establishes the context for this argument, a crucial early portion of the book. It wasn't an isolated observation. <snip well-worn ground> (THE ENDS OF POWER PGS 25-26, quote on) I was puzzled when [Nixon] told me, "Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans is tied to the Bay of Pigs." After a pause I said, "The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with this?" But Nixon merely said, "Ehrlichman will know what I mean," and dropped the subject. After our staff meeting the next morning I accompanied Ehrlichman to his office and gave him the President's message. Ehrlichman's eyebrows arched, and he smiled. "Our brothers from Langley? He's suggesting I twist or break a few arms?" "I don't know. All he told me was 'Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans is tied to the Bay of Pigs.'" Ehrlichman leaned back in his chair, tapping a pencil on the edge of his desk. "All right," he said, "message accepted." "What are you going to do about it?" "Zero," said Ehrlichman. "I want to stay out of this one." He was referring to an unspoken feud between C.I.A. Director Richard Helms and Nixon. The two were polar opposites in background: Helms, the aloof, aristocratic, Eastern elitist; Nixon the poor boy (he never let you forget it) from a small California town. Ehrlichman had found, himself in the middle of this feud as far back as 1969, immediately after Nixon assumed office. Nixon had called Ehrlichman into his office and said he wanted all the facts and documents the CIA had on the Bay of Pigs, a complete report on the whole project. About six months after that 1969 conversation, Ehrlichman had stopped in my office. 'Those bastards in Langley are holding back something. They just dig in their heels and say the President can't have it. Period. Imagine that! The Commander-in-Chief wants to see a document relating to a military operation, and the spooks say he can't have it.' "What is it?" "I don't know, but from the way they're protecting it, it must be pure dynamite." I was angry at the idea that Helms would tell the President he couldn't see something. I said, "Well, you remind Helms who's President. He's not. In fact, Helms can damn well find himself out of a job in a hurry." That's what I thought! Helms was never fired, at least for four years. But then Ehrlichman had said, "Rest assured. The point will be made. In fact, Helms is on his way over here right now. The President is going to give him a direct order to turn over that document to me." Helms did show up that afternoon and saw the President for a long secret conversation. When Helms left, Ehrlichman returned to the Oval Office. The next thing I knew Ehrlichman appeared in my office, dropped into a chair, and just stared at me. He was more furious than I had ever seen him; absolutely speechless, a rare phenomenon for our White House phrase-makers. I said, "What happened?" "This is what happened," Ehrlichman said. "The Mad Monk (Nixon) has just told me I am now to forget all about that CIA document. In fact, I am to cease and desist from trying to obtain it." When Senator Howard Baker of the Ervin Committee later looked into the Nixon-Helms relationship, he summed it up. "Nixon and Helms have so much on each other, neither of them can breathe." Apparently Nixon knew more about the genesis of the Cuban invasion that led to the Bay of Pigs than almost anyone. Recently, the man who was President of Costa Rica at the time - dealing with Nixon while the invasion was being prepared - stated that Nixon was the man who originated the Cuban invasion. If this was true, Nixon never told it to me. In 1972 I did know that Nixon disliked the CIA Allen Dulles, the CIA Director in 1960, had briefed Jack Kennedy about the forthcoming Cuban invasion before a Kennedy-Nixon debate. Kennedy used this top secret information in the debate, thereby placing Nixon on the spot. Nixon felt he had to lie and even deny such an invasion was in the works to protect the men who were training in secret. Dulles later denied briefing Kennedy. This betrayal, added to Nixon's long-held feeling that the agency was not adequately competent, led to his distrust and dislike. And now that antipathy was to emerge again on June 23, 1972, when Nixon would once again confront and pressure the CIA This time the CIA was ready. In fact, it was more than ready. It was ahead of the game by months. Nixon would walk into what I now believe was a trap. (quote off) Did DiMona make up the part about the BOP files being "pure dynamite"? = Nothing in the above excerpt indicates BoP was code for the assassination, there was an obvious tie-in between the break in and the BoP which was tied to the assassination (of Castro) which was tied to various other CIA black ops. The investigation of Watergate did indeed lead to these things being discovered via the Family Jewels, Pike, Rockefeller, Church etc reports You obviously didn't bother to read all the passages I quoted before you wrote the above. The importance of the BOP files was a major part of the context for Haldeman's BOP = 11/22/63 conclusion. I cited the above passage and the two that follow to establish that context... Here's an excerpt from the "smoking gun" White House tape of 6/23/72, Nixon speaking to Haldeman: (quote on) [Watergate burglary accomplice E. Howard] Hunt...will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things...tell them we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves... When you get the CIA people in say, “Look, the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again.” So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country don’t go any further into this case. Period...Tell them that if it gets out, it’s going to make the CIA look bad, it’s going to make Hunt look bad, and it’s likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA. (quote off) Obviously DiMona didn't make any of that up, either. Here's another excerpt from THE ENDS OF POWER (pgs 37-38), where Haldeman meets with CIA Director Richard Helms in Ehrlichman's office (emphasis in the original): (quote on) ...I played Nixon's trump card. "The President asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs may be blown..." Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning forward and shouting, "The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs." Silence. I just sat there. I was absolutely shocked by Helms violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story? (quote off) Did DiMona make all of this up, Colby? = I don’t know he could have made it up or sexed it up. So DiMona made up or sexed up a conversation between Helms and Haldeman, and an entire argument for why BOP = 11/22/63? And Haldeman didn't have a problem with this, an invented conversation with Richard Helms, who was still alive at the time? That is your claim here? Did DiMona also fabricate the Watergate tape where Nixon said: (quote on) When you get the CIA people in say, “Look, the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again.” So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country don’t go any further into this case. Period. (quote off) It's obvious your ideology doesn't allow you to process information that doesn't conform to your world view. He was listed as the co-author but the book was almost entirely in 1st person, thus it is reasonable to assume he wrote or altered some 1st person passages. In any case there is no indication the assassination was being discussed, see above. "No indication" other than Haldeman making a a detailed, well-reasoned argument that 11/22/63 was under discussion, as follows... THE ENDS OF POWER, pgs 38-40: (quote on) Years later, former CBS correspondent Dan Schorr called me. He was seeking information concerning the FBI investigation Nixon had mounted against him in August, 1971. Schorr later sent me his fascinating book CLEARING THE AIR. In it I was interested to find that evidence he had gleaned while investigating the CIA finally cleared up for me the mystery of the Bay of Pigs connection in those dealing between Nixon and Helms. It's intriguing when I put Schorr's facts together with mine. It seems that in all those Nixon reference to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination. (Interestingly, an investigation of the Kennedy assassination was a project I suggested when I first entered the White House. I had always been intrigued with the conflicting theories of the assassination. Now I felt we would be in a position to get all the facts. But Nixon turned me down.) According to Schorr, as an outgrowth of the Bay of Pigs, the CIA made several attempts on Fidel Castro's life. The Deputy Director of the CIA at the time was named Richard Helms. Unfortunately, Castro knew of the assassination attempts all the time. On September 7, 1963, a few months before John Kennedy was assassinated, Castro made a speech in which he was quoted, "Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they, too, can be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death." After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. Many of the facts about Oswald unavoidably pointed to a Cuban connection. 1. Oswald had been arrested in New Orleans in August, 1963, while distributing pro-Castro pamphlets. 2. On a New Orleans radio program he extolled Cuba and defended Castro. 3. Less than two months before the assassination Oswald visited the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and tried to obtain a visa. In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA. No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives. In fact, Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators, such as these samples: Q. Was Oswald an agent of the CIA? A. No. Q. Does the CIA have any evidence showing that a conspiracy existed to assassinate Kenndy? A. No. And here's what I find most interesting: Bill Sullivan, the FBI man that the CIA called at the time, was Nixon's highest-ranking loyal friend at the FBI...It is possible that Nixon learned from Sullivan something about the earlier CIA cover-up by Helms. And when Nixon said, "It's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs" he might have been reminding Helms, not so gently, of the cover-up of the CIA assassination attempts on the hero of the Bay of Pigs, Fidel Castro -- a CIA operation that may have triggered the Kennedy tragedy and which Helms desperately wanted to hide. {quote off) So if DiMona made up the "Bay of Pigs code" he had to have made up this crucial early section of THE ENDS OF POWER and the entire context within which the Watergate burglary cover-up occurred! = The bit above up to the word ‘and’ makes sense the rest does not, the “Watergate burglary cover-up” could have “occurred” in other ‘contexts’. I love watching you collapse into incoherence, Colby. You really stuck your foot in your mouth when you said there was "no indication" that the Kennedy assassination was under discussion even though Haldeman made a complete argument for this conclusion. I know you're bending over backwards to come up with something, but your comment makes no sense. Richard Nixon tried to leverage the "Bay of Pigs" reference to recruit the CIA to get the FBI to back off their investigation. That is what actually happened. It's right there in the Watergate tapes. It's an established historical fact. What "could" have happened has no relevance. There is no reason to reject the notion DiMona wrote or sexed up that part of the book. You've gone from claiming that DiMona made up "a sentence or two" to claiming that he made/sexed-up a significant early part of the book. Nice dance you've got going here, Colby. DiMona made up whole conversations between Haldeman and Helms, as well as a detailed argument for BOP = 11/22/63, and yet Haldeman let all this fiction get published under his name? And DiMona made up the part about Haldeman wanting to get to the bottom of the JFK assassination in 1969? And DiMona made up the part about Haldeman using Daniel Schorr's book to connect the dots on the BOP? Only an ideologue would cling to such a scenario. So Halderman and/or DiMona fully accepted that LHO was the lone gunman and were pushing the Tim Gratz/Gus Russo theory that Castro did it in revenge for the CIA’s attempts on his life, why on earth would the CIA/PTB/MIBH want to suppress that? Where does it say that Oswald was a lone gunman? Where does he finger Castro for the hit? What part of the following don't you grasp? (quote on) In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA. No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives. In fact, Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators, such as these samples: Q. Was Oswald an agent of the CIA? A. No. Q. Does the CIA have any evidence showing that a conspiracy existed to assassinate Kenndy? A. No. (quote off) These "rehearsed questions and answers" are far more suggestive of a CIA conspiracy to kill Kennedy than a Castro job. Especially after JFK which increased attention on the CIA did it theory. Oh, I get it, you don’t think he was honest and want to pick and choose which parts of Halderman’s supposed theory to accept, BoPT = JFK assassination yes but not his (supposed) rationale for reaching that conclusion! What blithering nonsense is this? You're mis-representing what Haldeman argued. He said nothing about Oswald acting alone, and he called out CIA CI chief Angleton for rehearsing a denial that Oswald was a CIA agent. Again, you can't seem to grasp Nixon's taped statement about the Watergate Cubans leading back to the Bay of Pigs, and you cling to the patently idiotic notion that DiMona made up Haldeman's conversations with Helms. If you could contortion your body like that you’d be a star attraction at the circus! Too bad you're incapable of processing information that doesn't fit your world view. Edited March 5, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Sorry Len, Cliff just did to you what my 1975 Golden State Warriors did to the Washington Bullets SWEEP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now