The Political Views of Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Some people, myself included, see George Bush and his Neo Cons as the new fascists. They definitely pose a serious threat to world peace. Like the Nazis, the New Cons are backed by those corporations keen to make war profits (see the outrageous contract that Bush has given Halliburton). As you appear to be a supporter of the Neo Cons, maybe you can answer the following questions.

(1) Did you approve of the CIA plot to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954.

(2) Did you support the creation of a blacklist in the 1950s that stopped people with left-wing opinions from working in the media?

(3) Did you approve of the American invasion of Vietnam?

(4) Did you approve of the CIA plot to overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile in 1973?

(5) Did you support Reagan’s decision to fund the Contras in Nicaragua by illegal arms sales to Iran?

(6) Did you support Reagan’s funding of death squads in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s?

(7) Did you support the illegal invasion of Iraq?

(8) Do you support the illegal occupation of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba?

(9) Do you agree with holding people in prison without without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits? Do you agree with them being tortured?

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

[Tim Gratz]

Well let us start off with #1.

If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate?

I would say no.

Does it make any difference in your analysis of the CIA actions in Guatemala whether in fact Arbenz came to power legitimately? Would you agree that the CIA's overthrowing a "legitimate" government has different implications than its actions in changing a government that had seized control through illegal means, i.e. an assassination?

WHY BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE?

[Tim Gratz]

I would also add that the West was engaged in a "fight-to-the-finish" with Communism (khruschev famously pledging to "bury" us). The west won the Cold War.

I suspect one could find at least several examples of OSS or SOE excesses in WWII but what is important in the long-run is that the forces of good prevailed. What a different world it would have been if Hitler would have triumphed, or Communism.

The US had every right to assume that Arbenz had achieved control of Guatamela through the murder of a man whose interests would have been friendly to the US and would likely have defeated Arbenz in the election. The US had reason to believe Arbenz was going to allow his country to become a Communist "beach-head" in Central America. Under those circumstances, I certainly think a case can be made for the US decision to intervene in Guatemala.

When one is faaced with an enemy vowing your destruction, which has demonstrated it will stop at nothing to achieve its goals (including a political assassination in Guatemala, the application of the rules of Queensbury may be suicidal.

Moreover, what does it accomplish to debate the wisdom of a decision made in the height of a war fifty years ago?

[Thomas Graves]

What a different world it would have been if Hitler would have triumphed [...]

_____________________________________________

And you're a journalist? Shame on you.

What a different world it would have been if Hitler had triumphed [...]

Or,

What a different world it would be if Hitler had triumphed [...]

_____________________________________________

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Well let us start off with #1.

If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate?

Tim, evidence to support the above claim please.

As I know you are aware Pinochet DID commit multiple murders in seizing power in Chile, yet I remember no one on the right at the time calling for his removal, and, indeed, precious few calling for him to stand trial for his crimes against humanity today.

BTW, as I am sure you know, khruschev's boast of burying the west, meant in industrial out put, not in nuking western countries.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Stephen Turner

[Tim Gratz]

Excellent points, Thomas.

Roblem is I always thought English syntax was when Parliament imposed a tax on cigarettes and booze.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Well let us start off with #1.

If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate?

I would say no.

You keep making this same point, without even mentioning the name of the murdered "main opponent," suggesting that you know little about this matter. His name was Francisco Javier Arana. He and Arbenz had been among those who toppled the previous dictator to bring about the first democratic elections in Guatemala, won by their candidate Dr. Juan José Arévalo, a philosophy professor who had lived in exile in Argentina.

When Arevalo's government stalled, both Arana and Arbenz emerged as candidates for the Presidency, the former representing the extreme right, the latter the more extreme left. Based on past track record, Arana had little chance of winning the election, a fact that made Arana's demise virtually irrelevant to Arbenz's ascension to the Presidency.

While it is true that Arana was murdered, you've yet to offer a single source or citation claiming that Arbenz was responsible for his demise. Moreover, you've also failed thus far to suggest how it was that the putative murderer Arbenz could have won the election if he was a suspect in Arana's demise. Are you suggesting that you know something about this matter today that the populace of Guatemala didn't know in 1950? That seems laughably unlikely.

The single largest employer in Guatemala was also the single largest landowner, the United Fruit Company. You might benefit from reading a bit about the role played by Tommy Corcoran, Edward Cabot Lodge and the father of modern public relations, Edward Bernays, in the overthrow of the Arbenz government, and how US public opinion was massaged to foster the impression that United Fruit was suffering unfair financial losses at the hands of the "Communist" Arbenz. Was he, in fact, a Communist? Well, no, but that didn't deter United Fruit or the United States. Ambassador John Peurifoy (who could not speak Spanish and knew nothing about Guatemala before he arrived) once said if Arbenz "is not a Communist, he will certainly do until one comes along."

I am certain that your genteel concerns about how Arbenz rose to power mirror those of the Dulles brothers, whose Sullivan & Cromwell law firm represented United Fruit and who were themselves among the company's largest shareholders. I am sure that CIA's subsequent decision to murder political opponents in Guatemala, and to overthrow its democratically elected government, was not based on any financial losses the company - and the Dulles brothers - might incur as a result of Arbenz's reforms, but because they too decided Arbenz had "stolen" the election.

Here's a recollection from a man named Thomas McCann, who worked for United Fruit for 20 years:

"Guatemala was chosen as the site for the Company's earliest development activities at the turn of the century because a good portion of the country contained prime banana land and because at the time we entered Central America, Guatemala's government was the region's weakest, most corrupt and most pliable. In short, the country offered an 'ideal investment climate,' and United Fruit's profits flourished there for fifty years. The something went wrong: a man named Jacobo Arbenz became President."

According to McCann, United Fruit's interest in Guatemala - and by extention, the US interest in the country - was based on the government being Central America's "weakest, most corrupt, and most pliable." Apparently, neither the US nor United Fruit much cared for the man who, once democratically elected, decided the government should be strong in protecting its own citizens from foreign corporate exploitation, hard on those corrupt political and bureaucratic officials who had allowed that exploitation in the past, and should militate for the citizenry, and no longer be "pliable" to US interests. What made him a saint in Guatemala made Arbenz a pariah in Washington.

You really ought to read CIA's own revolting documents regarding this sad episode in western history. You can do so at CIA's own website. Clearly, it doesn't even begin to tell the whole story, but even what is revealed there will be enough to trigger the gag reflex of anyone considering themselves a fan of democracy. Funnily enough, you can read hundreds of such pages and never once encounter the suggestion you peddle here repeatedly, Tim; that Arbenz killed Arana. I will try to append hereto a few such pages of CIA analysis from 1953, global limit restrictions permitting.

Does it make any difference in your analysis of the CIA actions in Guatemala whether in fact Arbenz came to power legitimately? Would you agree that the CIA's overthrowing a "legitimate" government has different implications than its actions in changing a government that had seized control through illegal means, i.e. an assassination?

Argues facts not in evidence. Ex-counsellor, here's the way it works. When you make the assertion, you offer the proof. You don't get to simply pretend that the case has already been made, and then extrapolate from there. I have given you the name of the "main opponent" you claim was murdered by Arbenz. Perhaps from that first clue, you could actually Google up a prima facie case. Unless and until you can do so, please cease and desist from this hair-splitting bullxxxx about what constitutes a "legitimate" government. I mean, for God's sake, by your rule of thumb, Richard Nixon's election wasn't legitimate because somebody killed his "main opponent" Bobby Kennedy.

WHY BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE?

You may recall that I stated my reservations about getting into Forum members' own political beliefs. When I did so, I had you and your views in mind. For stating those reservations, I was chided by other members here who felt that your views have blinded you to certain facts, and that we should all bear your political beliefs in mind. While I may or may not condone or endorse what people believe in their private lives, I fail to see the relevance of those beliefs to what they post here. If Tim Gratz posts something true or false, the veracity of the post doesn't change based on whether or not he is an Uber-Republican. Let's stick to the message kids, and not get too sidetracked by the messenger's politics. That road leads to McCarthyism and Salem Witch Trials.

[George Bollschweiler]

Some people, myself included, see George Bush and his Neo Cons as the new fascists. They definitely pose a serious threat to world peace. Like the Nazis, the New Cons are backed by those corporations keen to make war profits (see the outrageous contract that Bush has given Halliburton). As you appear to be a supporter of the Neo Cons, maybe you can answer the following questions.

I’d just like to point out, that many of the so called Neocons today, had democratic or socialist roots once! It seems to me that many Americans would like the Democrats to be a bit more conservative and the Republicans to be a bit more liberal but such a profile would not survive an election because the campaign only offers black or white.

George

[Ron Ecker]

khruschev's boast of burying the west, meant in industrial out put, not in nuking western countries.

Yes, but the last straw was when Khruschev took his shoe off at the UN and pounded his desk with it. From then on, it was a "fight to the finish."

The fact is, the military industrial congressional intelligence complex wanted an enemy like the Soviet Union after WWII, just like it wanted an enemy like Al Qaeda after the end of the Cold War. Wars and rumors of wars bring in the money.

And the good thing about an enemy like Al Qaeda is that by its stateless, hit-and-run nature it should last as an enemy even longer than the Soviet Union did. There is no end in sight for the complex's looting of the U.S. treasury.

Yet a lot of Americans still wonder and complain about why Osama Bin Laden hasn't been captured yet. These people are in need of a wakeup call.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

All power elites need an external enemy, whether its eurasia, ociana or Iran, matters not one jot. These strawmen serve to terrify the populace into unquestioning obediance to the whims of the P/E group. This trick is as old as the hills, but as the saying goes, "If it aint bust, dont fix it".

[John Simkin]

If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate?

I would say no.

Does it make any difference in your analysis of the CIA actions in Guatemala whether in fact Arbenz came to power legitimately? Would you agree that the CIA's overthrowing a "legitimate" government has different implications than its actions in changing a government that had seized control through illegal means, i.e. an assassination?

As I pointed out on the Guatemala Coup thread, there is no evidence that Jacobo Arbenz Guzman had anything to do with the murder of Francisco Javier Arana. However, it is true that he was very unpopular with the people of Guatemala when it was discovered that Arana tried to arrange a CIA backed coup (public opinion polls showed that he was unable to win in a democratically held election).

This is what Tommy Corcoran told Thomas C. Mann, the director of the State Department’s Office of Inter-American Affairs in the spring of 1950. Public opinion polls showed overwhelming support for Arbenz. You have to understand that Arbenz was a national hero in Guatemala because of the role he played in removing the American-backed military dictatorship. Corcoran asked Mann if he had any plans to prevent Arbenz from being elected. Mann rightly replied: “That is for the people of that country to decide.”

Unhappy with this reply, Corcoran paid a call on the Allen Dulles, the deputy director of the CIA. Dulles, who represented United Fruit in the 1930s, was far more interested in Corcoran’s ideas. “During their meeting Dulles explained to Corcoran that while the CIA was sympathetic to United Fruit, he could not authorize any assistance without the support of the State Department. Dulles assured Corcoran, however, that whoever was elected as the next president of Guatemala would not be allowed to nationalize the operations of United Fruit.”

In November, 1950, Arbenz received more than 60 per cent of the popular vote. Samuel Zemurray, United Fruit Company's largest shareholder, ordered Corcoran to organize an anti-Arbenz campaign in the American media. This included the claim that Guatemala was the beginning of "Soviet expansion in the Americas". This included the story that Arbenz had murdered Arana.

Dulles, Zemurray, and Corcoran tried to persuade Harry Truman to order the overthrow of Arbenz. Truman refused and that is why the CIA had to wait until Dwight Eisenhower was elected to power. Like other Republican presidents since 1954, Eisenhower had no scruples about overthrowing a democratically elected government.

Even if the evidence suggested that Arbenz had murdered Arana, I would still be against the overthrow of his government by the CIA. Let us look at the logic of your position. The leaders of the Soviet Union suspected that right-wing forces murdered John F. Kennedy. Did that give the KGB the right to plot the overthrow of Lyndon Johnson? Why should the United States be the only country in the world that has the right to overthrow governments it does not like?

[Frank Agbat]

Some people, myself included, see George Bush and his Neo Cons as the new fascists. They definitely pose a serious threat to world peace. Like the Nazis, the New Cons are backed by those corporations keen to make war profits (see the outrageous contract that Bush has given Halliburton). As you appear to be a supporter of the Neo Cons, maybe you can answer the following questions.

I’d just like to point out, that many of the so called Neocons today, had democratic or socialist roots once! It seems to me that many Americans would like the Democrats to be a bit more conservative and the Republicans to be a bit more liberal but such a profile would not survive an election because the campaign only offers black or white.

George

George,

A very astute observation about the current campaigns offering only black or white, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree.

If one references the graph from your "Political Quiz" thread, American politics is distinctly narrow and relatively centrist compared with the overall range of the chart. Scores in the "3" range (in any direction) would be considered rather extreme from an American political perspective. Compared, however, to the overall scope of the graph, these scores are hardly extreme. Nevertheless, to someone scoring -10, +3 is going to appear extreme...

Robert,

I most decidedly agree with your last paragraph. The political bickering that takes place on this forum is, to a point, interesting and thought provoking. However, I feel that it frequently degrades to the point of being counter-productive to the overall goal. A thread on a JFK-research site dedicated to the political views of *one* member falls decidedly in this category.

When Tim G. presents information, it should not be summarily dismissed merely because his political views are different than the majority of this forum. Likewise, opines from the "lower left" political quadrant should not be tacitly accepted merely because of shared views. In all cases, proper scrutiny should be applied and veracity checked.

In spite of the blinders frequently worn on the subject of politics, no one political philosophy holds a monopoly on common sense, morality, or enlightenment.

[Terry Mauro]

What a different world it would have been if Hitler would have triumphed [...]

_____________________________________________

And you're a journalist? Shame on you.

What a different world it would have been if Hitler had triumphed

Or,

What a different world it would be if Hitler had triumphed [...]

***********************************************************************

"What a different world it would have been if Hitler had triumphed...

Or,

What a different world it would be if Hitler had triumphed..."

Or, how about: What a different world it would have been, had Hitler triumphed.

Then again, the only way I was able to understand English grammar was by taking Latin I & II, and Spanish I & II. How was anyone able to understand those English dumb-assed "stick" diagrams? I never understood what a pronoun, let alone an adjective was until I took Spanish! Thank God for the conjegation of verbs. The only way I was able to make it through English was by ear, along with my composition and punctuation skills. Otherwise, fuggetaboudit.

_____________________________________________

[John Simkin]

WHY BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE?

You have constantly accused members of being anti-American or communist sympathizers when they have posted comments on the JFK assassination that you don’t like. You seem especially upset when people suggest that the CIA or someone in the Republican Party might have been responsible for the assassination. Recently you have attacked Michael Collins Piper’s theories on the assassination because you claim he is a neo-Nazi. You also posted questions demanding to know what his views were on the Second World War. I was returning the tactic by posting questions about your political philosophy.

In fact, I think you are right. I believe our political philosophy does influence the way we see the JFK assassination. That is why you find it impossible to believe that the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence Complex killed JFK.

[Len Colby]

Well let us start off with #1.

If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate?

I would say no.

You keep making this same point, without even mentioning the name of the murdered "main opponent," suggesting that you know little about this matter. His name was Francisco Javier Arana. He and Arbenz had been among those who toppled the previous dictator to bring about the first democratic elections in Guatemala, won by their candidate Dr. Juan José Arévalo, a philosophy professor who had lived in exile in Argentina.

When Arevalo's government stalled, both Arana and Arbenz emerged as candidates for the Presidency, the former representing the extreme right, the latter the more extreme left. Based on past track record, Arana had little chance of winning the election, a fact that made Arana's demise virtually irrelevant to Arbenz's ascension to the Presidency.

While it is true that Arana was murdered, you've yet to offer a single source or citation claiming that Arbenz was responsible for his demise.

I don't know if it's true but I found this in Wikipedia

Arana tried to prematurely hasten the process of Arévalo's descent in a failed coup which brought about Arana's death in a controversial arrest-gone-wrong.

If this is true and if Arbenz was involved in Arana's death then it would be hard to argue this deligimitized his victory. If Arana led a coup attempt he brought about his own death.

Tim you repeatedly complain that people through around accusations of various peoples involvement in the JFK without citing any evidence. Aren't you guilty of that in your accusation against Arbenz?

You could try to argure that eliminating a political rival was an obvious motive but you have stated repeatedly that MM & O are no sufficiet to make an accusation.

If you have any evidence of Arbenz's involvement in Arana's death let hear it.

Len