Hysterical Attack on JFK in New York TImes

[J. Raymond Carroll]

JFK said that "America will never be the first to start a war"

but JFK was not long in his grave

when LBJ persuaded Congress, with the FRAUDULENT Tonkin Gulf resolution

to send 50,000 American young men, and millions of Vietnamese,

including God alone knows how many women & children

to a violent death.

The theory of cognitive dissonance would predict

that Johnson's great crimes need to be rationalized in some way,

and of course they have been,

by blaming JFK.

The New York Times took the lead when they published The Pentagon Papers,

fraudulently claiming that the papers prove that JFK bequeathed Johnson

"a broad commitment to war".

The Times is still at it

in near-hysterical fashion,

in today's edition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/opinion/sunday/Douthat-The-Enduring-Cult-of-Kennedy.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=kennedy%20cult&st=cse

[Douglas Caddy]

Ross Douthat is a regular op-ed columnist for the Times. He is employed by the newspaper to give the right-wing, Republican perspective, just as Times' columnist Paul Krugman does in his regular advocating of liberal positions. Douthat does not speak for the Times itself; his columns, which invariably are biased towards the right-wing, reflect his personal political views. Here is his biography as provided by the Times:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/rossdouthat/index.html?inline=nyt-per

I don't think anyone should get too upset with Douthat's claim that there is a Kennedy Cult because such a cult does exist and justifiably so. The problem faced by Douthat and his fellow Republicans is that they have no President who has captured the enduring love and imagination of the American people as has John F. Kennedy. The closest they have is Ronald Reagan and the Tea Party people and GOP rank-and-file pretty much ignore him as does the general public. Most commentators trace our nation's current desperate financial difficulties back to Reagan who took his budget director, David Stockman, to the woodshed for Stockman's public criticism of Reagan starting the country down the road to the multi-trillion dollar deficit that exists today which threatens the world with The Greatest Depression in its history.

JFK was assassinated because he was on the verge of implementing a number of fundamental reforms in our governmental system, reforms that were desperately needed to secure a bright future for our country. Had he lived the U.S. and the world would be vastly different in profoundly good ways. The American public senses this and is the reason why a Kennedy cult exists.

[Kathleen Collins]

Incredible.

The NY Times does not realize why its business is falling apart. Its stuff like this that has driven millions of people to the alternative press.

"Ineffective in domestic policy, evasive on civil rights, and a serial blunderer in foreign policy."

Oh really?

Just read Bernstein's fine book Promises Kept. You will see an excellent overview of Kennedy's domestic agenda and how he very carefully planned for its success.

This whole civil rights issue is so badly mangled by Kennedy's enemies that its almost ahisitorical. No president before JFK ever took on this issue. Not Roosevelt, not Truman, not Ike. Why? Because each one knew that any civil rights program would come afoul of two things: 1.) J. Edgar Hoover and 2.) Congress.

Therefore, Kennedy developed an alternative strategy. Through is brother he would use US Marshalls instead of the FBI to protect people like the Freedom Riders, and this would slowly show up the FBI.

Second, knowing that Congress would never pass civil rights legislation unless they had to, he did what he could through executive orders in 1961 and 1962.

Ross, did you forget about James Meredith, and how Kennedy sent in US troops to quell a riot stoked by Edwin Walker. And how Kennedy was so determined that Meredith be allowed to go to class unharassed that he had two marshalls escorting him every day for about a year?

Kennedy understood that slowly but surely things like this would turn public opinion around and shame Congress into acting. He was right. Bull Connor at Birmingham finally tipped the scales for him. Realizing that display of ferocity would be enough, he then went full force to submit his ciivl rights bill through congress. He then made his powerful public address on the issue, something no other president thad ever done. He then did something that no other white politician in Washington would do: he backed King's March on Washington and had his brother help organize it to get tens of thousands of whites there so it would not look on TV as if was a mostly black movement.

This was enough to get some Republicans on board like Dirksen and Kuchel. He then said during a press conference that he expected his program to be passed by the end of the year. It did get out of Committee in November. But he obviously was not planning on getting assassinated.

Bernstein's book was written back in 1991. Along with Gibson's Battling Wall Street, and Mahoney's JFK: Ordeal in Africa, these for me are the three core books in understanding Kennedy's presidency. Without them you are lost.

This is the one thing that bothers me about Gore Vidal. He always says the worst President we've ever had was Kennedy because he brought us closer to nuclear annihilation than any other President. First of all, it was Kennedy's Joint Chiefs of Staff that brought us closest to nuclear war. Kennedy was truly afraid they were going to bomb Cuba with a nuclear missile without his permission. They were so rabid -- Lemnitzer and LeMay, etc. He and Bobby were pretty isolated from the rest of his administration. This comes from the book "Brothers" by David Talbot.

Also, Kennedy had us using silver instead of gold, from which we'd have to borrow and owe the Federal Reserve. Kennedy's method would close all the banks and make us a country without debt.

Amazing.

Kathy C

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Douthat does not speak for the Times itself;

Greetings Douglas:

I think much of your post is spot-on, but I disagree about the above.

JFK has a few fans at the New York Times

and doubtless Paul Krugman is one of the few,

But The Times as an institution is out to get JFK,

and they have proven it over and over.

The main reason is that they have supported the murderers of JFK

From DAY ONE.

even though they were too dumb to realize it.

Today the Times is simply scrambling to cover its ass,

now that a great deal more evidence has come to light.

As the ancient Roman said:

IT IS THE NATURE OF MAN TO HATE THOSE HE HAS INJURED.

(in modern times we call it the (proven) theory of Cognitive Dissonance).

Edited November 28, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Joseph Backes]

Incredible.

The NY Times does not realize why its business is falling apart. Its stuff like this that has driven millions of people to the alternative press.

"Ineffective in domestic policy, evasive on civil rights, and a serial blunderer in foreign policy."

Oh really?

Just read Bernstein's fine book Promises Kept. You will see an excellent overview of Kennedy's domestic agenda and how he very carefully planned for its success.

This whole civil rights issue is so badly mangled by Kennedy's enemies that its almost ahisitorical. No president before JFK ever took on this issue. Not Roosevelt, not Truman, not Ike. Why? Because each one knew that any civil rights program would come afoul of two things: 1.) J. Edgar Hoover and 2.) Congress.

Therefore, Kennedy developed an alternative strategy. Through is brother he would use US Marshalls instead of the FBI to protect people like the Freedom Riders, and this would slowly show up the FBI.

Second, knowing that Congress would never pass civil rights legislation unless they had to, he did what he could through executive orders in 1961 and 1962.

Ross, did you forget about James Meredith, and how Kennedy sent in US troops to quell a riot stoked by Edwin Walker. And how Kennedy was so determined that Meredith be allowed to go to class unharassed that he had two marshalls escorting him every day for about a year?

Kennedy understood that slowly but surely things like this would turn public opinion around and shame Congress into acting. He was right. Bull Connor at Birmingham finally tipped the scales for him. Realizing that display of ferocity would be enough, he then went full force to submit his ciivl rights bill through congress. He then made his powerful public address on the issue, something no other president thad ever done. He then did something that no other white politician in Washington would do: he backed King's March on Washington and had his brother help organize it to get tens of thousands of whites there so it would not look on TV as if was a mostly black movement.

This was enough to get some Republicans on board like Dirksen and Kuchel. He then said during a press conference that he expected his program to be passed by the end of the year. It did get out of Committee in November. But he obviously was not planning on getting assassinated.

Bernstein's book was written back in 1991. Along with Gibson's Battling Wall Street, and Mahoney's JFK: Ordeal in Africa, these for me are the three core books in understanding Kennedy's presidency. Without them you are lost.

Folks,

Go find Real Time with Bill Maher, June 17, 2011. Ross Douthat was on the panel representing the Right, along with Gretchen Hamel. Hamel in trying to defend and support Mitt Romney's idea to privatize FEMA she thought she could get away with saying that FEMA didn't work too well with hurricane Katrina. This is a classic Right-wing tactic, the lie by omission. How she could smile and omit Bush's total incompetence, all that "New Orleans Dodged a Bullet," newspaper headline many Bushies claimed to have read that did not exist, and "Heck of a job," Brownie. Bill jumped right on it saying that's because Republicans were running it! She actually scoffed at Bill's criticism!! Douthat came to her defense trying to say that when FEMA worked well under Democratic presidents the credit should really go to the Republican governors. Maher was having none of it. Competence beats cronyism every time.

Also on the panel was Chris Matthews who made mincemeat of both Hamel and Douthat. Then again, Matthews thinks Bachmann will win. And insists on telling every one the "correct," way to pronounce Cheney.

In a segment on Rep. Anthony Weiner's resignation and wondering why he had another press conference Douthat commented that Democrats didn't really want to rally around Weiner because he was always on TV and not involved in the actual business of legislation. "He [Weiner] was on the last time I was. So, I'm not really in a position to-

And the brilliant Kevin Nealon quiped "That's where I know you from. Okay. It was killing me. I kept thinking, who is this guy?"

You can hear this as a podcast here - http://castroller.com/Podcasts/RealTimeWith/2384589. HBO is a little protective of the video. You may be able to find the video somewhere.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Joseph Backes

[Don Jeffries]

This is hardly a surprise. The Times, like all organs of the mainstream media, has been steadily chipping away at JFK's legacy since at least the mid-1970s. Again like all the msm, they have consistently distorted the truth about the assassination, and propped up the indefensible lone assassin nonsense.

The JFK assassination is one of those truly significant issues whereby all establishment forces-whether we label them "left" or "right"-have to always toe the lone nutter line. Virtually anyone with a voice in America today publicly proclaims that Oswald acted alone. Bill Maher believes Oswald did it. Favored "progressives" like Alexander Cockburn and Chomsky swallow the Warren Report. So do Douglas Brinkley and every other highly visible mainstream historian. So do Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. So do "shock jocks" like Howard Stern. Stephen King bases his new novel on the lone nutter fairy tale. They are all part of the phony "left" that in reality supports our corrupt ruling order on all truly important issues.

I am not part of any Kennedy cult, but I recognize that he (and his brother Robert) were different, and that they were truly trying to do good things. There has been a clear agenda within the msm for decades now to diminish the significance of JFK's death, by mindlessly accepting the ridiculous tales of Judith Campbell Exner, and thereby portraying JFK as a reckless, uncaring serial adulterer who deserved what he got. They ignore nsm memos and piles of anecdotal testimony to the effect that JFK was in the midst of starting a withdrawal of all troops from Viet Nam at the time of his death. Like the court historians who wind up writing the history that Napoleon defined as "a fable agreed upon," they have little affinity for real data.

The Times and the rest of the establishment press represent their corrupt masters who misrule us all. They are their voices, and thus will never tell the truth about crucial issues like the JFK assassination. Fortunately, alternative sources in the media are popping up everywhere, and are providing more and more people with reporting that isn't tinged by connections to global corporate and banking interests. They are our greatest hope.

[John Simkin]

Incredible.

The NY Times does not realize why its business is falling apart. Its stuff like this that has driven millions of people to the alternative press.

"Ineffective in domestic policy, evasive on civil rights, and a serial blunderer in foreign policy."

Oh really?

Just read Bernstein's fine book Promises Kept. You will see an excellent overview of Kennedy's domestic agenda and how he very carefully planned for its success.

This whole civil rights issue is so badly mangled by Kennedy's enemies that its almost ahisitorical. No president before JFK ever took on this issue. Not Roosevelt, not Truman, not Ike. Why? Because each one knew that any civil rights program would come afoul of two things: 1.) J. Edgar Hoover and 2.) Congress.

Therefore, Kennedy developed an alternative strategy. Through is brother he would use US Marshalls instead of the FBI to protect people like the Freedom Riders, and this would slowly show up the FBI.

Second, knowing that Congress would never pass civil rights legislation unless they had to, he did what he could through executive orders in 1961 and 1962.

This right-wing columnists like Ross Douthat, forget how the far-right attacked JFK’s civil rights policies during his time in office.

For example, Westbrook Pegler, who had praised lynching in the 1930s, blamed JFK for the Freedom Riders in 1961. He was so totally opposed to the civil rights movement and argued against the “pernicious heresy against the ancient privilege of human beings to hate.” He also argued in favour of "the praiseworthy pastime of batting the brains out of pickets” during trade union disputes.

Pegler led the attack on Martin Luther King Jr. and after he delivered his famous I Have a Dream Speech, he wrote in a column, “It is clearly the bounden duty of all intelligent Americans to proclaim and practice bigotry.”

In 1965 he warned that Robert F. Kennedy would be come a victim of "some white patriot of the Southern tier" who "will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies."

As Alex Constantine wrote on 16th September, 2008:

In her convention speech a fortnight ago, Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin quoted an unidentified “writer” who extolled the virtues of small-town America: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.” (9/3/08) The unidentified writer was Westbrook Pegler (1894-1969), the ultraconservative newspaper columnist whose widely syndicated columns (at its peak, 200 newspapers and 12 million readers) targeted the New Deal establishment, labor leaders, intellectuals, homosexuals, Jews, and poets.

Palin certainly didn't write her speech, and even her distinctly dismal assembly of words in her ABC interview with Charles Gibson were probably not hers. Apropos the wisdom about small towns, her staff also did not trust themselves to do a sentence approximating the thought. So they went to... well, not a treasury of great quotations. It is, after all, a rather banal thought, banally expressed. They went to Westbrook Pegler.

You have to be pretty old to know that Pegler would be a treasure house of right-wing populist jargon. The fact is - and I've been checking this all day - no one under 65 with whom I spoke had the slightest idea who he was. So who, then, would know to breeze through the writing of Westbrook Pegler, of all people, in search of what is, after all, just a cliche? Surely only someone knowledgeable (and sympathetic to?) native American fascism.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USApeglerW.htm

[Steve Cearfoss]

Don Jeffries said: "Virtually anyone with a voice in America today publicly proclaims that Oswald acted alone. Bill Maher believes Oswald did it. Favored "progressives" like Alexander Cockburn and Chomsky swallow the Warren Report. So do Douglas Brinkley and every other highly visible mainstream historian. So do Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. So do "shock jocks" like Howard Stern. Stephen King bases his new novel on the lone nutter fairy tale. They are all part of the phony "left" that in reality supports our corrupt ruling order on all truly important issues."

I agree that the "phony left" does indeed support the ruling order in this case, if only by avoiding the issue. But what is one to do with the rest of their often sympathetic and cogent observations that fall into the democratic left's basket? For instance, Noam Chomsky, who, in my opinion, is usually right on the money with his anti-imperialist, pro-democracy assessments will not stray near the topic of the JFK assassination. And the same can be said for many others—Howard Zinn, Michael Moore—who by and large espouse the progressive response. It seems clear to me that the reason many of the Warren Commission apologists on the left steer clear of the assassinations is because they realize that they would be marginalized and excoriated by the msm as "conspiracy theorists" and thus rendered feckless and incompetent. Indeed, the msm has been remarkably effective in spotlighting the inane conspiracy theories out there. By deluging the ignorant majority with irrelevant fantasies—the Princess Diana conspiracy travesty comes to mind—the truly suspicious historical events warranting closer examination are put in the same bed as the silly, totally meaningless conjectures clogging the internet and our minds. One conspiracy theory, however, is true beyond any doubt: by repeating the expression "conspiracy theory" over and over, and then bringing up some nonsensical, immaterial speculation the "coincidence theorists" have succeeded in cheapening the legitimate conspiracy theories (I HATE that term) that need to be addressed. By now, we surely realize that no evil for selfish ends is unthinkable for certain governments.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Steve Cearfoss

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I am getting really sick of this kind of ignorance being machine gunned sprayed all over the NY Times. It has only been going on for 48 years now. I suggest giving a few educational phone calls to Ross Douthat (I think it is pronounced Dow-cett). His phone number is 202-862-0382. He is located in Washington, DC.

His email contact is https://myaccount.nytimes.com/membercenter/emailus.html

Be polite, but I suggest there is a laundry list of things about his column that need to be corrected or that he needs to be educated on.

Google my essay "LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK."

Ross Douthat needs to read the following. Arthur Krock in 1963 was the dean of NY Times columnists and very close friends with JFK. I am 95% sure, maybe 99% sure that the source for Krock's blockbuster column on 10/3/63 was John Kennedy himself - he was in fear of a coup by the CIA and knew he could not control it.

Check out the amazing Arthur Krock column in NYT on 10/03/63! The CIA and JFK were at WAR with each other! JFK knew he did not have control of the CIA. http://www.jfklancer.com/Krock.html An stunning column which even includes public speculation in an elite newspaper (back then) about the possibility of the CIA engineering a coup d’etat! The bottom line is that John Kennedy did NOT have control of the CIA and his WAR with them was even spilling into print into the public elite media.

John Kennedy was close friends with Arthur Krock, the dean of political columnists at that time and it is highly likely that John Kennedy himself was the source for this column speculating on a CIA coup in the United States.

The New York Times

October 3, 1963 p. 34

The Intra-Administration

War in Vietnam

By Arthur Krock

... One reporter in this category is Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard newspapers. Today, under a Saigon dateline, he related that, "according to a high United States source here, twice the C.I.A. flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge . . . [and] in one instance frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought from Washington because the agency disagreed with it." Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a "very high American official . . . who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy . . . are the following:

The C.I.A.'s growth was "likened to a malignancy" which the "very high official was not sure even the White House could control . . . any longer." "If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon." The agency "represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone."

... The C.I.A. may be guilty as charged. Since it cannot, or at any rate will not, openly defend its record in Vietnam, or defend it by the same confidential press "briefings" employed by its critics, the public is not in a position to judge. Nor is this department, which sought and failed to get even the outlines of the agency's case in rebuttal. But Mr. Kennedy will have to make a judgment if the spectacle of war within the Executive branch is to be ended and the effective functioning of the C.I.A. preserved. And when he makes this judgment, hopefully he also will make it public, as well as the appraisal of fault on which it is based.

“Spooks” make life miserable for Ambassador Lodge

By Richard T. Starnes, The Washington Daily News

October 2, 1963, p.3

The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3

'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam

By Richard T. Starnes

SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power.

Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here.

In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.

This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement by President Kennedy.

It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy.

Others Critical, Too

Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA.

"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically.

("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.)

CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis.

An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.

Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't."

Few Know CIA Strength

Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known only to a few of their fellow spooks.

Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon. He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the CIA in the Philippines.

A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly trade and some make no secret of it.

"There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S. Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here, " one official - presumably a non-spook - said.

"They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added.

Coupled with the ubiquitous secret police of Ngo Dinh Nhu, a surfeit of spooks has given Saigon an oppressive police state atmosphere.

The Nhu-Richardson relationship is a subject of lively speculation. The CIA continues to pay the special forces which conducted brutal raids on Buddhist temples last Aug. 21, altho in fairness it should be pointed out that the CIA is paying these goons for the war against communist guerillas, not Buddhist bonzes (priests).

Hand Over Millions

Nevertheless, on the first of every month, the CIA dutifully hands over a quarter million American dollars to pay these special forces.

Whatever else it buys, it doesn't buy any solid information on what the special forces are up to. The Aug. 21 raids caught top U.S. officials here and in Washington flat-footed.

Nhu ordered the special forces to crush the Buddhist priests, but the CIA wasn't let in on the secret. (Some CIA button men now say they warned their superiors what was coming up, but in any event the warning of harsh repression was never passed to top officials here or in Washington.)

Consequently, Washington reacted unsurely to the crisis. Top officials here and at home were outraged at the news the CIA was paying the temple raiders, but the CIA continued the payments.

It may not be a direct subsidy for a religious war against the country's Buddhist majority, but it comes close to that.

And for every State Department aide here who will tell you, "Dammit, the CIA is supposed to gather information, not make policy, but policy-making is what they're doing here," there are military officers who scream over the way the spooks dabble in military operations.

A Typical Example

For example, highly trained trail watchers are an important part of the effort to end Viet Cong infiltration from across the Laos and Cambodia borders. But if the trailer watchers spot incoming Viet Congs, they report it to the CIA in Saigon, and in the fullness of time, the spooks may tell the military.

One very high American official here, a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it any longer.

Unquestionably Mr. McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor both got an earful from people who are beginning to fear the CIA is becoming a Third Force co-equal with President Diem's regime and the U.S. Government - and answerable to neither.

There is naturally the highest interest here as to whether Mr. McNamara will persuade Mr. Kennedy something ought to be done about it.

More here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?show topic=7534

Edited November 29, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[Douglas Caddy]

The Times publishes letters-to-the-editor from readers who explain why the JFK legacy/cult justifably endures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/opinion/why-john-f-kennedys-legacy-endures.html?ref=opinion

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/ross-douthat-jfk_b_1117677.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#undefined

[Christopher Hall]

Since we are talking about the accuracy of news sources, I can add that I do not regard HuffPo as a reliable source for news.

Its opinion contributors (e.g. Alec Baldwin, Jamie Lee Curtiss, et al) are frequently comical, but the problem I have with it is that it posts opinion and political hit pieces which it masquerades as news stories.

It, no doubt, reports a fair amount of accurate news, but its articles are so tendentious and politically slanted that I invariably feel like I am not getting the full picture.

And what it declines to report on or adequately cover (e.g. the shameful ATF/FBI/DOJ Fast and Furious gun-running operation to Mexico) is even more glaring.

It will have numberous articles and headlines about a foolish comment made by a GOP candidate (you pick the candidate and comment), while virtually ignoring a full-blown Democratice scandal.

I try to read articles and opinions from news aggregators and other news sites from all perspectives (not just liberal or far right drivel) so I can ascertain the truth.

When I understand what actually happened in a given matter, I can forumlate my own opinion (sometimes with the help of reading opinion pieces on both sides of the issue).

I previously read HuffPo regularly and posted on it (politely, I might add, sometimes agreeing with an article and sometimes disagreeing with the author), but the Mods would frequently not post many of my comments which didn't fit into its echo-chamber culture.

I don't post vitriol on the Internet and I decline to be baited into contests (you know the type) with people who do; and I also don't revel in political gossip and dirt, so I probably don't fit it at HuffPo.

I regard HuffPo's refusal to post my dissenting, but polite, comments as an indication that I need to drop it as a source of news and opinion.

At least the Mods thought I didn't fit into its insular culture on multiple occasions, so I deleted it from my "Favorites" section and seldom read its articles.

One of the aspects of this forum that I enjoy the most is that dissent is not a crime.

I don't always agree with the tenor of many comments and their authors, but anyone can post (even LNers).

As a result, I have learned at least as much about the JFK assassination and the political climate which prevailed at the time from this forum as I have learned in the 25 - 30 books I have read about the JFK assassination.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

The Huffington Post as recently as last year was engaging in some mega-censorship on any comment advocating a conspiracy in the JFK assassination or in any other non-government approved conspiracy.

Then we hit them with a bunch of emails from JFK researchers and the public and they backed off a bit.

[Don Jeffries]

Steve,

I think the whole "left" and "right" designations represent a phony paradigm. The "left" has always been able to ignore scandals and corruption when they are connected to Bill Clinton, Al Gore or other Democratic party favorites. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are two of the foremost examples of this kind of narrow thinking; they can expose the flaws of Bush and other Republicans with great zeal, but they simply ignore the same kind of stuff when the offending person is a member of "their" party.

I understand that Chomsky, in particular, is wonderful on most subjects, but his failure to deal reasonably with the JFK assassination is something I can't get past. Michael Moore has produced some great work, but I think he represents what many of us would call a "phony alternative" to the established order. His 911 documentary didn't really question the official story, and when he appeared on Bill Maher's notoriously mistitled old t.v. show Politically Incorrect, he agreed with fellow guest Gerald Posner that Oswald acted alone.

Both of our "competing" political parties have agreed to adopt a bipartisan foreign policy. Think about that; they are telling you, from the outset, that there will be no debate about our disastrous global misadventures. Why anyone is shocked that Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama would launch more military strikes and occupations than Bush did is beyond me. JFK is the only true anti-war President this country has ever had. A truly "oppositional" political party would target the horrific and unconstitutional nature of our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. We can't even get a viable Third Party in this country, let alone a truly diverse national debate about substantive issues.

The "left" in this country exists now primarily to argue for more governmenal interference in the marketplace, which is of coure a winning argument only because the mega corporations that control the marketplace are utterly corrupt. We are ruled in reality by Republicrats, none of whom will acknowledge the existence of any conspiracies.

[John Dolva]

Steva and Don. This brings to mind the comment by Malcolm X 'the chickens have come home to roost' (afa I can remember). Basically this is the nature of Capitalism. This is how it expresses itself. In essence the issue is not the form of the conspiracy but rather the solutiion to the systemic. This fluidity tends to be in the far left and to my experience within the ranks of those who understand Trotsky. Those who did were primarily the SWP and the CPUSA, precisely : those represented in the BY photos.