What's the point ?

[François Carlier]

To Hagerman, yes, you can smile, since in fact, it is not that I know as much as you, but a lot more than you.

As to your question, it seems you don't understand so I'll explain for you.

I have researched the Kennedy assassination thoroughly for twenty years and have compiled an extensive library, among other things, so I know as much about the case as any other member in this forum.

But I do not claim to have better knowledge of the events than the people who actually lived them.

And I do not pretend to be more intelligent than the Dallas police or the FBI members who reached the conclusion that Oswald was guilty.

Only conspiracy theorists, by essence, pretend to be better, to know better. What braggarts !

But, to make myself very clear : I have the utmost respect for the Dallas police or the Warren commission members or Gerald Posner, all defenders of the truth, but none whatsoever for conspiracy-minded people who can do nothing but spread lies.

And to Lee Farley, I am not surprised at all at your giving in. You don't even have the honesty or the courage to acknowledge the truth. You belong to the Fetzer-DiEugenio-White group of people who live in a dream world.

In 1963 Lee Oswald killed the President of the United States, and that's a fact, but almost 50 years later you are still unable to understand.

My God ... poor men !

/François Carlier/

[François Carlier]

As I said .... what's the point ?

[Dean Hagerman]

To Hagerman, yes, you can smile, since in fact, it is not that I know as much as you, but a lot more than you.

I have researched the Kennedy assassination thoroughly for twenty years and have compiled an extensive library

Well guess what Frank, according to the points you are trying to make im positive you do not know "a lot" more about the assassination then I do

See I have researched the assassination thoroughly for 22 years and im positive my massive assassination library puts your small bookshelf to shame

But since you have no idea who I am I can forgive you for thinking the way that you do

You would curl up on the ground and weep like a 2 year old if you saw what books I own

I have so many rare and exspensive books on the assassination that I myself shake my head in amazement when I look over and see all my babies lined up perfectly, row after row

It brings a tear to the eye

[William Kelly]

Typical reply from James DiEugenio. The kind I would expect.

See your list : can't you see the difference between a FACT and a QUESTION ?

8 out of your 10 items are just questions, that means, things you don't know the answer for, and not hard facts that would prove your point.

But as all conspiracy theorists, you deal in questions, not answers.

The rest of your post is a rehash of old statements that I though nobody would dare continue to claim.

And no, CE399 was not planted. Only in your dreams !

Your post is a very good example of the point I was trying to make. The problem does not lie with the evidence, but with the attitude of "researchers".

Your attitude is : "I do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I don't care if the evidence points to him. I want to create another reality of my own. I think I am more intelligent than the others. I believe that I know better than those who were there and say that Oswald did it. I make up theories by refusing to face the facts. And the ultimate irony is that I call "facts" my delusions, in the hope that it will make it difficult for defenders of the truth to debate me".

By refusing the evidence and creating a false "new reality", you just confuse the issue. That's all.

The same applies to Bill Kelly.

Mister Kelly, your post would be funny if it was not a sad proof that you too make up your own world. The assassination happened only one way. Things are pretty simple. But conspiracy theorists like to pick witness statements out of thousands of them that appear to show a difference when you purposely leave out the witness testimony that strongly points to Oswald being where the WC said he was..

An honest researcher has to look at the overall picture, but conspiracy theorists just seem to only be able to nitpick, because it suits them.

The truth is that Oswald WAS NOT "in the first floor lunchroom at 12:15 pm", as you claim. That has been shown and proven dozens of times. But you still want to believe it ? Fine by me. Keep dreaming !

Your post is just full of sarcasm. And most of all it is false. You wrote : "I am willing to be convinced that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper". Oh no, absolutely not. You are not willing at all. On the contrary, you spend your time claiming you don't believe it, when all the evidence points to him being there. Because all the evidence pointing to Oswald being on the sixth floor is well known. Everything points to him being there, and NOTHING can lead to believe he was not.

Unless, of course, you don't want to accept the facts. Which is exactly what you have been doing for years.

So there is nothing I could say, because it has already been said elsewhere but you did not want to listen.

[Well, if you can read French, then buy my book, and you will find all the answers to your questions, and more]

/François Carlier/

Hello Francois,

I'm glad someone has figured it all out.

And if you could tell me, I would appreciate it, was Oswald the no good, wife beating loser who couldn't hold a job, or was he the slick, well planned out, detail oriented and successfull assassin and covert operator like the Jackel?

And if he did plan the assassination in advance, when did he decide to do it.

Although you are French and not American, you should be able to understand that the answers to these two questions are not just of historical signifiance, but must be answered for reasons of national security and to prevent such assassins for doing it again.

Thanks for your time and interest in this,

Bill Kelly, living in his own sad world.

Francois, Aren't you going to answer my two questions? Was Oswald a jerk or a jackel, and when did he decide to kill JFK?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Edited July 20, 2010 by William Kelly

[Dean Hagerman]

I must say, that even with this being considered you come across as being incredibly arrogant

Any arrogance I have ever shown on any forum is put to shame by this guys amazing arrogance

No matter how much I know about the assassination this forum alone is filled with researchers who know much much more then I do

[Chris Davidson]

My thoughts regarding Mexico City ?

Contrary to conspiracy theorists I have NOTHING NEW to offer. I certainly never claimed to be better at weighing evidence than the Dallas police or FBI agents or Warren Commission members. They dealt with facts. They reached a sane conclusion. I stand by them.

/François Carlier/

Hi Francois,

If you agree with the facts determined by those in charge, can you please tell us (location wise) where this is?

When I approached Bugliosi with the same document, at one of his lectures, he didn't have the faintest idea of what this pertained to.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449a.htm

chris

[Dean Hagerman]

This guy is out of control

He just sent me 9 emails telling me how he is done with me!

No joke, 9 of the same emails!

Stop sending me emails right now

[Dean Hagerman]

The way the evidence proved the guilt of Sacco & Vanzetti. The way the evidence proved the guilt of 'The Guildford Four.' The way the evidence proved the guilt of 'The Birmingham Six.' The way the evidence proved the guilt of Abraham Bolden. The way the evidence proved the guilt of Elmer Pratt.

The way the evidence proved the guilt of Joan of Arc?

Hey Lee have you ever looked into "The West Memphis 3"?

If you have not then please do, if you think Sacco and Vanzetti and the rest of the people you posted about got railroaded just wait until you read about the WM3 (unless you already know about them)

I've never looked into them Dean although I have heard about them. I'll have a little gander online and see what's available...

Thanks - Hope you're well

Im good Lee, I hope you are doing good as well

Im sure you will find the WM3 case very interesting

[William Kelly]

Typical reply from James DiEugenio. The kind I would expect.

See your list : can't you see the difference between a FACT and a QUESTION ?

8 out of your 10 items are just questions, that means, things you don't know the answer for, and not hard facts that would prove your point.

But as all conspiracy theorists, you deal in questions, not answers.

The rest of your post is a rehash of old statements that I though nobody would dare continue to claim.

And no, CE399 was not planted. Only in your dreams !

Your post is a very good example of the point I was trying to make. The problem does not lie with the evidence, but with the attitude of "researchers".

Your attitude is : "I do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I don't care if the evidence points to him. I want to create another reality of my own. I think I am more intelligent than the others. I believe that I know better than those who were there and say that Oswald did it. I make up theories by refusing to face the facts. And the ultimate irony is that I call "facts" my delusions, in the hope that it will make it difficult for defenders of the truth to debate me".

By refusing the evidence and creating a false "new reality", you just confuse the issue. That's all.

The same applies to Bill Kelly.

Mister Kelly, your post would be funny if it was not a sad proof that you too make up your own world. The assassination happened only one way. Things are pretty simple. But conspiracy theorists like to pick witness statements out of thousands of them that appear to show a difference when you purposely leave out the witness testimony that strongly points to Oswald being where the WC said he was..

An honest researcher has to look at the overall picture, but conspiracy theorists just seem to only be able to nitpick, because it suits them.

The truth is that Oswald WAS NOT "in the first floor lunchroom at 12:15 pm", as you claim. That has been shown and proven dozens of times. But you still want to believe it ? Fine by me. Keep dreaming !

Your post is just full of sarcasm. And most of all it is false. You wrote : "I am willing to be convinced that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper". Oh no, absolutely not. You are not willing at all. On the contrary, you spend your time claiming you don't believe it, when all the evidence points to him being there. Because all the evidence pointing to Oswald being on the sixth floor is well known. Everything points to him being there, and NOTHING can lead to believe he was not.

Unless, of course, you don't want to accept the facts. Which is exactly what you have been doing for years.

So there is nothing I could say, because it has already been said elsewhere but you did not want to listen.

[Well, if you can read French, then buy my book, and you will find all the answers to your questions, and more]

/François Carlier/

Hello Francois,

I'm glad someone has figured it all out.

And if you could tell me, I would appreciate it, was Oswald the no good, wife beating loser who couldn't hold a job, or was he the slick, well planned out, detail oriented and successfull assassin and covert operator like the Jackel?

And if he did plan the assassination in advance, when did he decide to do it.

Although you are French and not American, you should be able to understand that the answers to these two questions are not just of historical signifiance, but must be answered for reasons of national security and to prevent such assassins for doing it again.

Thanks for your time and interest in this,

Bill Kelly, living in his own sad world.

Francois, Aren't you going to answer my simple two questions? Was Oswald a jerk or a jackel, and when did he decide to kill JFK?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

BUMP - Yo! Francois, you got it all figured out, you gonna tell me, or what?

BK

[William Kelly]

Typical reply from James DiEugenio. The kind I would expect.

See your list : can't you see the difference between a FACT and a QUESTION ?

8 out of your 10 items are just questions, that means, things you don't know the answer for, and not hard facts that would prove your point.

But as all conspiracy theorists, you deal in questions, not answers.

The rest of your post is a rehash of old statements that I though nobody would dare continue to claim.

And no, CE399 was not planted. Only in your dreams !

Your post is a very good example of the point I was trying to make. The problem does not lie with the evidence, but with the attitude of "researchers".

Your attitude is : "I do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I don't care if the evidence points to him. I want to create another reality of my own. I think I am more intelligent than the others. I believe that I know better than those who were there and say that Oswald did it. I make up theories by refusing to face the facts. And the ultimate irony is that I call "facts" my delusions, in the hope that it will make it difficult for defenders of the truth to debate me".

By refusing the evidence and creating a false "new reality", you just confuse the issue. That's all.

The same applies to Bill Kelly.

Mister Kelly, your post would be funny if it was not a sad proof that you too make up your own world. The assassination happened only one way. Things are pretty simple. But conspiracy theorists like to pick witness statements out of thousands of them that appear to show a difference when you purposely leave out the witness testimony that strongly points to Oswald being where the WC said he was..

An honest researcher has to look at the overall picture, but conspiracy theorists just seem to only be able to nitpick, because it suits them.

The truth is that Oswald WAS NOT "in the first floor lunchroom at 12:15 pm", as you claim. That has been shown and proven dozens of times. But you still want to believe it ? Fine by me. Keep dreaming !

Your post is just full of sarcasm. And most of all it is false. You wrote : "I am willing to be convinced that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper". Oh no, absolutely not. You are not willing at all. On the contrary, you spend your time claiming you don't believe it, when all the evidence points to him being there. Because all the evidence pointing to Oswald being on the sixth floor is well known. Everything points to him being there, and NOTHING can lead to believe he was not.

Unless, of course, you don't want to accept the facts. Which is exactly what you have been doing for years.

So there is nothing I could say, because it has already been said elsewhere but you did not want to listen.

[Well, if you can read French, then buy my book, and you will find all the answers to your questions, and more]

/François Carlier/

Hello Francois,

I'm glad someone has figured it all out.

And if you could tell me, I would appreciate it, was Oswald the no good, wife beating loser who couldn't hold a job, or was he the slick, well planned out, detail oriented and successfull assassin and covert operator like the Jackel?

And if he did plan the assassination in advance, when did he decide to do it.

Although you are French and not American, you should be able to understand that the answers to these two questions are not just of historical signifiance, but must be answered for reasons of national security and to prevent such assassins for doing it again.

Thanks for your time and interest in this,

Bill Kelly, living in his own sad world.

Francois, Aren't you going to answer my two questions? Was Oswald a jerk or a jackel, and when did he decide to kill JFK?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

[Pat Speer]

Typical reply from James DiEugenio. The kind I would expect.

See your list : can't you see the difference between a FACT and a QUESTION ?

8 out of your 10 items are just questions, that means, things you don't know the answer for, and not hard facts that would prove your point.

But as all conspiracy theorists, you deal in questions, not answers.

The rest of your post is a rehash of old statements that I though nobody would dare continue to claim.

And no, CE399 was not planted. Only in your dreams !

Your post is a very good example of the point I was trying to make. The problem does not lie with the evidence, but with the attitude of "researchers".

Your attitude is : "I do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I don't care if the evidence points to him. I want to create another reality of my own. I think I am more intelligent than the others. I believe that I know better than those who were there and say that Oswald did it. I make up theories by refusing to face the facts. And the ultimate irony is that I call "facts" my delusions, in the hope that it will make it difficult for defenders of the truth to debate me".

By refusing the evidence and creating a false "new reality", you just confuse the issue. That's all.

The same applies to Bill Kelly.

Mister Kelly, your post would be funny if it was not a sad proof that you too make up your own world. The assassination happened only one way. Things are pretty simple. But conspiracy theorists like to pick witness statements out of thousands of them that appear to show a difference when you purposely leave out the witness testimony that strongly points to Oswald being where the WC said he was..

An honest researcher has to look at the overall picture, but conspiracy theorists just seem to only be able to nitpick, because it suits them.

The truth is that Oswald WAS NOT "in the first floor lunchroom at 12:15 pm", as you claim. That has been shown and proven dozens of times. But you still want to believe it ? Fine by me. Keep dreaming !

Your post is just full of sarcasm. And most of all it is false. You wrote : "I am willing to be convinced that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper". Oh no, absolutely not. You are not willing at all. On the contrary, you spend your time claiming you don't believe it, when all the evidence points to him being there. Because all the evidence pointing to Oswald being on the sixth floor is well known. Everything points to him being there, and NOTHING can lead to believe he was not.

Unless, of course, you don't want to accept the facts. Which is exactly what you have been doing for years.

So there is nothing I could say, because it has already been said elsewhere but you did not want to listen.

[Well, if you can read French, then buy my book, and you will find all the answers to your questions, and more]

/François Carlier/

Hello Francois,

I'm glad someone has figured it all out.

And if you could tell me, I would appreciate it, was Oswald the no good, wife beating loser who couldn't hold a job, or was he the slick, well planned out, detail oriented and successfull assassin and covert operator like the Jackel?

And if he did plan the assassination in advance, when did he decide to do it.

Although you are French and not American, you should be able to understand that the answers to these two questions are not just of historical signifiance, but must be answered for reasons of national security and to prevent such assassins for doing it again.

Thanks for your time and interest in this,

Bill Kelly, living in his own sad world.

Francois, Aren't you going to answer my two questions? Was Oswald a jerk or a jackel, and when did he decide to kill JFK?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

In case you guys didn't know, Francois is a regular over on the McAdams newsgroup, and is used to seeing a receptive audience whenever someone moans on about how CTs are all cognitively impaired, etc. Recently, in a thread discussing why CTs refuse to look at the "whole" of the evidence, I pointed out to them that the opposite is true--that it is the LNs who refuse to look at the "whole" of the evidence, and only focus on the evidence of Oswald's guilt. This led to some heated discussion, during the course of which I got at least one of the mainstays to admit he hated CTs because they were "know-it-alls" but that he refused to read anything written by a CT because he already "knew" (without even reading) that anything written by a CT would be a waste of his time.

If it had been a public debate, or a televised interview, that would have been a "slam dunk" moment akin to Nixon's admitting to Frost that he believed the president was above the law.

In any event, I suspect Francois' coming over here and insulting everyone is some form of payback.

[Greg Burnham]

You're preaching to the choir here, Jim! Note that I placed "conspiracy theorists" and "theorists" in quotation marks. Those aren't MY terms--they're the terms of those who tow the party line, maintain the status quo, refuse to rock a ship (even if it's sailing off course), and otherwise mislead the uninformed.

Greg:

Its not conspiracy theory if you can prove it. Its conspiracy fact.

To go through all the facts that we have proved in our cause would take about a page and a half.

Let us just use a few:

1. CE 399 was not fired at the car. It was planted after the fact.

2. CE 543 was not ejected that day.

3. What happened to the trail of fragments from the lower skull to high in the skull described by Humes in his autopsy report?

4. Where were the boxes of MC ammunition that Oswald bought?

5. Where is the copper on the Tague strike?

6. Why did so many people see a brain unlike the one Ida Dox drew and why did Stringer not recognize the film used in the photos if he took them?

7. Why does Stringer recall the brain being sectioned and Humes and Boswell do not?

8. Why did the Paines cooperate in the lie that Oswald did not have a Minox camera?

9. Why did the CIA tape sent to Dallas that night by Anne Goodpasture not match Oswald's voice?

10. Why did the CIA lie about the Man in Mexico photo being Oswald, when they not only knew it was not him but knew who the guy actually was?

These are all documented and provable to a courtroom standard. This is why almost every lawyer since the WC who has studied this case in any official capacity strongly criticizes the travesty of the commission. If you want to hear the Commission urinated on, take a listen to the likes of Richard Schweiker, Gary Cornwell, or Jeremy Gunn. Again, these are facts, not theories.

What is a theory, actually a fantasy, is the whole single bullet delusion. With a bullet that was not even the one found at Parkland. And it was found on the wrong stretcher. And Frazier got it at FBI HQ, before the guy who gave it to him, Elmer Todd, was in receipt for it at the White House. And even though Hoover says Todd's initials are on the bullet they are not.

So don't call us theorists. Because if we are, you are delusionists.

[Greg Burnham]

Greg:

I missed the quotation marks.

But it was really aimed at Francois, who made all those cheap and ill founded remarks and smears.

Whew! Had me worried there for a minute, Jim. I've never been confused with one of them before--not EVER.

[William Kelly]

Typical reply from James DiEugenio. The kind I would expect.

See your list : can't you see the difference between a FACT and a QUESTION ?

8 out of your 10 items are just questions, that means, things you don't know the answer for, and not hard facts that would prove your point.

But as all conspiracy theorists, you deal in questions, not answers.

The rest of your post is a rehash of old statements that I though nobody would dare continue to claim.

And no, CE399 was not planted. Only in your dreams !

Your post is a very good example of the point I was trying to make. The problem does not lie with the evidence, but with the attitude of "researchers".

Your attitude is : "I do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I don't care if the evidence points to him. I want to create another reality of my own. I think I am more intelligent than the others. I believe that I know better than those who were there and say that Oswald did it. I make up theories by refusing to face the facts. And the ultimate irony is that I call "facts" my delusions, in the hope that it will make it difficult for defenders of the truth to debate me".

By refusing the evidence and creating a false "new reality", you just confuse the issue. That's all.

The same applies to Bill Kelly.

Mister Kelly, your post would be funny if it was not a sad proof that you too make up your own world. The assassination happened only one way. Things are pretty simple. But conspiracy theorists like to pick witness statements out of thousands of them that appear to show a difference when you purposely leave out the witness testimony that strongly points to Oswald being where the WC said he was..

An honest researcher has to look at the overall picture, but conspiracy theorists just seem to only be able to nitpick, because it suits them.

The truth is that Oswald WAS NOT "in the first floor lunchroom at 12:15 pm", as you claim. That has been shown and proven dozens of times. But you still want to believe it ? Fine by me. Keep dreaming !

Your post is just full of sarcasm. And most of all it is false. You wrote : "I am willing to be convinced that Oswald was the Sixth Floor Sniper". Oh no, absolutely not. You are not willing at all. On the contrary, you spend your time claiming you don't believe it, when all the evidence points to him being there. Because all the evidence pointing to Oswald being on the sixth floor is well known. Everything points to him being there, and NOTHING can lead to believe he was not.

Unless, of course, you don't want to accept the facts. Which is exactly what you have been doing for years.

So there is nothing I could say, because it has already been said elsewhere but you did not want to listen.

[Well, if you can read French, then buy my book, and you will find all the answers to your questions, and more]

/François Carlier/

Hello Francois,

I'm glad someone has figured it all out.

And if you could tell me, I would appreciate it, was Oswald the no good, wife beating loser who couldn't hold a job, or was he the slick, well planned out, detail oriented and successfull assassin and covert operator like the Jackel?

And if he did plan the assassination in advance, when did he decide to do it.

Although you are French and not American, you should be able to understand that the answers to these two questions are not just of historical signifiance, but must be answered for reasons of national security and to prevent such assassins for doing it again.

Thanks for your time and interest in this,

Bill Kelly, living in his own sad world.

Francois, Aren't you going to answer my two questions? Was Oswald a jerk or a jackel, and when did he decide to kill JFK?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

In case you guys didn't know, Francois is a regular over on the McAdams newsgroup, and is used to seeing a receptive audience whenever someone moans on about how CTs are all cognitively impaired, etc. Recently, in a thread discussing why CTs refuse to look at the "whole" of the evidence, I pointed out to them that the opposite is true--that it is the LNs who refuse to look at the "whole" of the evidence, and only focus on the evidence of Oswald's guilt. This led to some heated discussion, during the course of which I got at least one of the mainstays to admit he hated CTs because they were "know-it-alls" but that he refused to read anything written by a CT because he already "knew" (without even reading) that anything written by a CT would be a waste of his time.

If it had been a public debate, or a televised interview, that would have been a "slam dunk" moment akin to Nixon's admitting to Frost that he believed the president was above the law.

In any event, I suspect Francois' coming over here and insulting everyone is some form of payback.

Is that true Francois?

You just came over here to take a piss and a dump?

You mean you know all the answers but you won't answer my two simple questions?

I thought Frenchmen were gentlemen?

Bill Kelly

[Peter McGuire]

Mark Lane's counterpoint would be "its round," of course meaning that no further discussion is needed for most people in the matter of the conspiracy involving the assassination of John Kennedy. Of course there was a conspiracy, and I can see why some may feel the matter does not merit any further debate.

That might be why Mr. Lane chooses not to discuss the matter here, although I still hope he does.

But since I do not have any high-profile clients to fly out west to see, I am stuck here on the internet in the Midwest just trying to make it through my boring days.

Still discussing whether or not the earth is flat-sort of.

Of course it is not flat and of course Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy.

Gerald Posner, Miami Beach author and admitted plagiarist, announced today that he's hired a lawyer to defend him against Miami New Times' stories about his literary thefts.

​His choice of attorney is turning some heads in New York: Mark Lane is famous for authoring -- almost a half century ago -- Rush to Judgment, the book that popularized the "grassy knoll" theory absolving Lee Harvey Oswald of guilt in the JFK assassination.

Posner's own best-seller and Pulitzer finalist, Case Closed, sought to refute the theories at the heart of Lane's book.

"Although I'm convinced Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy, I've always believed that had Mark Lane represented Oswald, he would have won an acquittal," Posner says in a press release. "That's why Mark Lane was the obvious choice as my own attorney."

Lane, in a letter, charges New Times with "vulgar and threatening attacks" and says that Posner is "prepared to file a complaint."

However no lawsuit has been filed. Here's editor Chuck Strouse's comments on the situation:

"We're delighted to have Mr. Lane, an 83-year-old Jonestown survivor, involved. We clearly have nothing against Mr. Posner, though we despise his admitted serial plagiarism. New details on this egregious literary theft -- which is crystal clear -- will be published soon."

As for those new details -- they're coming. Stay tuned!

In addition to scolding New Times for reporting on Posner's habit of lifting text from other authors, Lane ends his press release today with an intriguing aside.

New Times should be focusing its energies on the CIA's attempts to infiltrate newsrooms around the country, Lane says. Really. Here's the excerpt:

"I do have one further suggestion. Since the issue of the search for the truth may be of interest to you and since, as you must know, a committee of the United States Senate years ago and then again more recently, concluded that the CIA, the FBI and other intelligence agencies have assets pretending to be journalists embedded in the major news media, that might be a subject that could attract your attention. Unlike the Posner affair in which no one was harmed, it is that use of the media and the publishing houses that is a threat to our democracy and impedes our right to a free press pursuant to the unambiguous mandate of the First Amendment. That is a campaign that many of us could support, endorse and relish. Our country needs muckraking journalists who can recognize muck worth raking when they see it."

Edited July 20, 2010 by Peter McGuire