The Kennedys and Civil Rights: How the MSM Continues to Distort History

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/14/2018 at 4:58 PM, W. Niederhut said:

why LBJ went to such great lengths to pass the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and the Voting Rights Act in 1965, after his lengthy career as a Dixiecrat civil rights saboteur in Congress? 

Because he anticipated drafting large numbers of black males to fight a land war in Asia, and he wanted to mitigate African-American hostility toward his government.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[W. Niederhut]

Kirk Galloway wrote:  "While there's no shortage here of love for JFK or an ideal of where his potential might have lead. I've characterized Jim's adulation of JFK as adolescent hero worship. He's continually harped on this naive historical thread that the whole world would be completely transformed now if not for the JFKA, and it's MSM coverup has been passed on with a series of batons over 55 years by now, to  a cabal of sinister  modern news people... "

 

Kirk,

     This is erroneous blather.

     The accurate telling of the "untold history" of the past century is the very OPPOSITE of what you are calling "naive" history here.

      On the contrary, "naivete" is something that applies more precisely to those who have accepted the mythical "history" handed down to us in our post-WWII mass media by the likes of Henry Luce, C.D. Jackson, William S. Paley, Phillip & Katherine Graham, the Sulzbergers, David Halberstam, et.al.

      Whatever happened to our historical consciousness of Operation Mockingbird and the Church Committee findings about the pervasive involvement of the CIA in our U.S. mainstream media, book publishers, and universities?  Of the meticulously documented fictional narrative of the Warren Commission Report-- which, incredibly, is still being regularly championed by our mainstream media?

       When I read your comments, and those of Mr. Payette, I get the impression that you are completely unaware of these well-documented historical phenomena-- the "psy ops" and propaganda machinery of the modern U.S.A., and its relationship to the O.S.S. and derivative CIA.

      Didn't William Colby distinctly tell the Church Committee that the CIA "owned" our prominent journalists?

      As for the sequelae of JFK's assassination...

      It took LBJ, Nixon, and the U.S. TEN years of mass genocide to realize that JFK and Galbraith were correct about Vietnam back in October of 1963, when JFK signed NSAM 263.

      What about the estimated one million Indonesian students, lawyers, and "liberals" who were murdered by Suharto and his CIA pals after 1963?

      JFK had planned to visit Sukarno in 1964, if I'm not mistaken.

       It isn't "naive" to bring this "untold" history to light.  It's accurate historiography.

    

Edited November 18, 2018 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

JFK had planned on visiting Sukarno in 1964 and there  is strong evidence that what he wanted to do was to defuse that whole Malaysian Konfrontasi that was looming and would be part of the reason for the masterful coup against Sukarno in 1965.

In a kind of Pacifica, Democracy Now  leftist twist,  Kirk always tries to lower the debate into a kind of mudslinging contest on this issue.

I said two things: first, there is a definite attempt to smear the Kennedys and JFK's presidency in the MSM.  I stand by that.  And if you want to ignore the connections I drew in the essay that is fine.  But they are there, e.g. Loomis and Hersh.  And just look at Thomas Reeves' membership in this group:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Badger_Institute

Kirk tries to confuse the issue by saying that there is money involved.  Well duh!  Everyone knows that Hersh got in the high six figures, maybe a million for his hatchet job--but to me that just shows the two are intertwined. Thomas Reeves got another book contract for another right wing mission after the Kennedy book. The right is very much better organized for these kinds of endeavors.

To show another example, Discovery Channel sponsored the excruciatingly bad specials that the late Gary Mack hosted on the JFK murder.  Five years later, on the 50th of RFK and 55th of JFK, here they come on the careers and lives of JFK and RFK, another very bad one.

https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/cnn-disservices-history-american-dynasties-the-kennedys

The second thing I said in that essay was that this kind of double barreled attack is so omnipresent that its effective.  Its brought down the percentage of the public that thinks the Warren Commission is wrong by about 20 percent since its high point in the mid nineties.  It has not quite done the same with the public and JFK's presidency, but there is a miasma now.  It goes like this: he might have been a good president, but geez he was also taking LSD trips with Mary Meyer etc.  Its baloney but its there and so you have to clear it away to get to the point.

I agree on the larger issue with WN.  The bigger picture is to control the range or spectrum of debate.  And I have to admit, its been pretty successful.  When you get presidents like Clinton and Obama, and HRC as a candidate, its not very inspiring.  Hopefully  Ocasio Cortez, Pressley and the sisters club in the House will do something to break the mold.  At least she's trying: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-primary-house-democrats_us_5bf0e5f6e4b07573881f184a

 

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Kirk Galloway wrote:  "While there's no shortage here of love for JFK or an ideal of where his potential might have lead. I've characterized Jim's adulation of JFK as adolescent hero worship. He's continually harped on this naive historical thread that the whole world would be completely transformed now if not for the JFKA, and it's MSM coverup has been passed on with a series of batons over 55 years by now, to  a cabal of sinister  modern news people... "

 

Kirk,

     This is erroneous blather.

     The accurate telling of the "untold history" of the past century is the very OPPOSITE of what you are calling "naive" history here.

      On the contrary, "naivete" is something that applies more precisely to those who have accepted the mythical "history" handed down to us in our post-WWII mass media by the likes of Henry Luce, C.D. Jackson, William S. Paley, Phillip & Katherine Graham, the Sulzbergers, David Halberstam, et.al.

      Whatever happened to our historical consciousness of Operation Mockingbird and the Church Committee findings about the pervasive involvement of the CIA in our U.S. mainstream media, book publishers, and universities?  Of the meticulously documented fictional narrative of the Warren Commission Report-- which, incredibly, is still being regularly championed by our mainstream media?

       When I read your comments, and those of Mr. Payette, I get the impression that you are completely unaware of these well-documented historical phenomena-- the "psy ops" and propaganda machinery of the modern U.S.A., and its relationship to the O.S.S. and derivative CIA.

      Didn't William Colby distinctly tell the Church Committee that the CIA "owned" our prominent journalists?

      As for the sequelae of JFK's assassination...

      It took LBJ, Nixon, and the U.S. TEN years of mass genocide to realize that JFK and Galbraith were correct about Vietnam back in October of 1963, when JFK signed NSAM 263.

      What about the estimated one million Indonesian students, lawyers, and "liberals" who were murdered by Suharto and his CIA pals after 1963?

      JFK had planned to visit Sukarno in 1964, if I'm not mistaken.

       It isn't "naive" to bring this "untold" history to light.  It's accurate historiography.

    

Hmmmm      Well W.  To blather further, You might be surprised to know that nothing you've just listed I'm not aware of, or at least haven't read. Just as I was aware of the supposed picture of George Bush 41 in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 that prompted you to start a thread asking  if his 17 year old son George was also there as part of a dreaded father- son duo wrecking crew coordinating the hit on JFK that fateful day. I felt by using some E.C.U's (extreme close ups) of the alleged Dealey Plaza photo of George Bush 41 alongside an actual photo of Bush 41 around 1960, we could lay that conspiracy notion to rest. Kind of "2 birds with one stone" kind of thing.  Because if we can establish that George Bush Sr. wasn't there, maybe you'd believe that 18 year old George Bush Jr. wasn't there either.

P.S.I'm not sure why you chose that paragraph of mine to refute , because  you neither supported that the  world would have been completely transformed now if not for the JFKA, nor did you support Jim's 55 year old ongoing MSM coverup citing only incidents that happened within 15 years of the assassination. I agree with you, there's been nothing since.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Kirk Gallaway

[James DiEugenio]

WN brought up the Indonesia matter.  And JFK's proposed visit there in 1964.

And he is correct about that.  (Greg Poulgrain, The Incubus of Intervention, p. 11)

In that same book about Indonesia, the reader can see that, according to Hammarskjold's assistant George Ivan Smith, the UN chief was having off the record discussions with Kennedy about the idea of preventing both Indonesia and Congo from falling back under the influence of imperial powers. (pp. 77-78)

Congo is what we know Hammarskjold was explicitly working on at the time of his murder. Susan Williams, in her book Who Killed Hammarskjold? strongly suggests that Allen Dulles was involved in the plot to sabotage his plane.  This suspicion is  due to certain papers she terms the "Celestine Plot", in which Dulles is specifically mentioned wanting to get rid of Hammarskjold. (ibid, pp. 74-75, Williams, p. 35)

It is based upon this information, that Poulgrain believes that Truman made his famous quote  in the NY Times after Hammarskjold was killed: "Dag Hammarskjold was on the point of getting something done when they killed him. Notice that I said 'when they killed him' '" (NY Times, 9/20/61)  Smith told Greg that JFK told the former president about this secret alliance.(Poulgrain, p. 77)

Kennedy had switched policy in both areas, Indonesia and Congo, from what Allen Dulles and Eisenhower were doing.  In Congo, as John Newman and Michael LeFlem have shown, those two men had marked Lumumba for assassination, and as we all know, the Dulles brothers had sponsored a coup attempt on Sukarno in 1958.  After Kennedy was killed, in both places, the CIA and Johnson switched policy back to what it was under Ike and Dulles.  We know what happened in Indonesia.  In Congo, the last of Lumumba's followers were eliminated by the CIA and Mobutu became the strong man who was a front for British and Belgian foreign interests. Needless to say this had a deleterious impact on the citizenry of both nations. Poulgrain's argument is that the murders of Hammarksjold and Kennedy made this impact possible. (pp. 79-83)

I am familiar with this info since I have a long article coming out on Congo in the upcoming national print magazine Deep Truth Journal.  In fact its the cover story. I am also working on the American edition of Poulgrain's book.

[Ron Bulman]

Kirk, since we're off topic from civil rights...  You want a example of recent mass media suppression of any Kennedy influence?  Yes they are still popular pop culture news but some subjects are still taboo.  Take RFK Jr's book American Values as one.  The New York Times and Washington Post as well as other influential sources did not bother to review it.  They ignored it or maybe even wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.  Why?  He dared mention the CIA as suspect in it in relation to his Father, Uncle and Martin Luther Kings deaths.  In my suspicious mind I think if he would have stuck to salamanders and JFK's funeral they would have reviewed and praised it as insightful to history.  But then he went and mentioned Jim, Lisa Pease, David Talbot, and John Newman.  That sank the ship for the msm for sure right there.  A Badge of Honor for these authors.

Even if you don't read it just buy it for the pictures, they're well worth it.  Maybe someday when your bored you'll read it.  The small number of reviews are all but a couple 5 star, glowing but not very deep (mine included), filtered?

https://www.amazon.com/American-Values-Lessons-Learned-Family/dp/0060848340/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542679737&sr=1-1&keywords=american+values

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=lisa+pease+rfk&sprefix=lisa+pease%2Cstripbooks%2C323&crid=1IFBGV6QLGXJB&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Alisa+pease+rfk

 https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=john+newman+jfk

https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276174/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542680515&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=david+talbot+devil's+chess+board

https://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Hidden-History-Kennedy-Years/dp/0743269195/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542680629&sr=1-1&keywords=david+talbot+brothers

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-James-DiEugenio-ebook/dp/B07B1LVJPK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542680764&sr=1-1&keywords=jim+dieugenio

https://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Betrayed-Cuba-Garrison-Case-ebook/dp/B00AB1NLEU/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542680878&sr=1-5&keywords=jim+dieugenio

[W. Niederhut]

19 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Hmmmm      Well W.  To blather further, You might be surprised to know that nothing you've just listed I'm not aware of, or at least haven't read. Just as I was aware of the supposed picture of George Bush 41 in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 that prompted you to start a thread asking  if his 17 year old son George was also there as part of a dreaded father- son duo wrecking crew coordinating the hit on JFK that fateful day. I felt by using some E.C.U's (extreme close ups) of the alleged Dealey Plaza photo of George Bush 41 alongside an actual photo of Bush 41 around 1960, we could lay that conspiracy notion to rest. Kind of "2 birds with one stone" kind of thing.  Because if we can establish that George Bush Sr. wasn't there, maybe you'd believe that 18 year old George Bush Jr. wasn't there either.

P.S.I'm not sure why you chose that paragraph of mine to refute , because  you neither supported that the  world would have been completely transformed now if not for the JFKA, nor did you support Jim's 55 year old ongoing MSM coverup citing only incidents that happened within 15 years of the assassination. I agree with you, there's been nothing since.

Kirk,

    Was GHWB in Dallas on 11/22/63?  Yes.  Was Dubya there, or at Andover?  Who knows?  Where was he?  Any confirmed history from Andover?

   Also, there are two different photos from Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 that appear to show GHWB.

   As for policy issues before and after JFK's murder, and the falsified popular histories of those issues, there is excellent emerging documentation about, 1) Vietnam policy, 2) Indonesia, 3) Cuban relations, and 4) Civil Rights.  And, yes, the falsified histories of JFK's presidency and murder are still being cranked out in the mainstream media.  That is, precisely, what Mr. DiEugenio's latest work reveals, in great detail.

   BTW, I have seen a de-classified CIA document from 1964 in which all agency personnel were ordered to do whatever was necessary to promote popular acceptance of the Warren Commission Report.  Are you familiar with that document?

   What do you make of that strange mandate?

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by W. Niederhut

[Guest]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 11:16 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

But they are your quotes Jim. Let's talk about them.

Jim said:

This essay is part of the phenomenon  I call the Posthumous Assassination of JFK.  I have been working on this for a long time, going back to the nineties.

Thanks, Kirk.  Only in Jim World can someone quote Jim's own words introducing his latest essay and then be accused of "conflating two essays of mine."  I'm heartened that even within the conspiracy community at least some people can see the obsessional hero worship that underlies Jim's perspective on the assassination.  And yet sycophants come out of the woodwork to assure me that Jim is correct and decades of polls of Presidential historians are "deeply flawed."  Even Jim insists the reason that JFK doesn't rank higher is that he "was only in office for something less than three years."  Well, yes, a President's place in history is evaluated by historians on the basis of what he did, not on the basis of what he might have done if he had been in office longer.  This statement of Jim's underscores the very point I am making.  The mindset that "JFK would have been the greatest of Presidents if he had lived and the America of today would be a far better place" feeds right into the mindset that "Deep Dark Forces prevented this greatness from flowering and are still at work today."

I don't care if someone wants to worship JFK and then respond with obvious nonsense like "What Payette is doing is conflating two essays of mine" when someone else points this out.  What does strike me is (1) the extent to which this unacknowledged worship influences thinking about the assassination, and (2) the unwillingness of the conspiracy community, or at least the Church of Conspiracy Thinking that sites like this represent, to recognize and call out this sort of thing.

"Who is responsible for the assassination of JFK?" should be a strictly historical, evidence-driven question, but it clearly isn't.  This is one of the most glaring flaws that I see with much thinking about the assassination.  I may even believe that JFK would have been among our greatest Presidents if he had lived and that America and the world would be a better place today, but this has no direct relevance to the historical question.  In fact, I need to be very careful not to let this attitude skew my analysis of the historical question.  No historian operates in a vacuum or completely free of personal agendas, but it seems to me that with much conspiracy thinking (and, indeed, some Lone Nut thinking) the inquiry is absolutely driven by the sort of thinking that Jim exemplifies.  In all my areas of belief (which include some distinctly non-mainstream beliefs) I at least try to constantly challenge myself as to whether I'm really thinking rationally and critically and basing my views on the best evidence or have gone over the edge into some sort of religious or quasi-religious zealotry.

I've also been heartened to see that the recognition of the "JFK worship" mindset within the conspiracy community is hardly original to me.  Essays have been written about this for years.  I was first struck, as I've previously mentioned, when I spent more than a year reading Walt Brown's massive JFK chronology on my Kindle.  I was struck again and again by how his near-worship of JFK seemed to influence his perspective.  When I came to his description of his reaction to the assassination at the time it occurred, when he was approximately the same age as I was (young teenager), I was positively agog.  What was for me (and my apolitical parents) just a big news story was for Walt Brown a truly cataclysmic personal catastrophe.  There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but I do think that one has to be careful not to let it skew one's thinking on the historical question.

[James DiEugenio]

The chart below is simply an adducement of facts drawn from the reading of 45 books, two interviews and one doctoral dissertation on the subject.  I would like to know how many books Lance read on the subject?

Four Presidents: A Comparison of Civil Rights Actions and Achievements

	FDR (13 years in office)	TRUMAN (7 years in office)	EISENHOWER (8 years in office)	KENNEDY (3 years in office)
1	Fair Employment Practices in Defense Plants (FEPC)	Integrated the Military	Sent troops to Little Rock in 1957	Orally committed to backing the Brown decision
2	Appointed African Americans as policy advisors	Tried to pass a civil rights bill	Established Civil Rights Commission	Indicted school officials who defied court orders on Brown
3		Made speeches on civil rights in 1952		Created a Free Schools district when Virginia decided to drop public education
4				First administration to join civil rights cases as a plaintiff, not a friend of the court
5				Petitioned the ICC to integrate interstate busing and terminals
6				Systematically began to file cases to break down denial of voting rights in the South
7				Financed voter registration drives in the South
8				Began the drive to ban poll taxes with the 24thamendment
9				Started a massive and rigorous affirmative action program in all branches of federal government
10				Announced that no member of his administration would join a segregated establishment or speak at a segregated event
11				Revived FDR’s FEPC with the CEEO
12				Established rigorous contract and grant requirements to integrate private colleges in the South
13				Established a program to make federal contractors follow non-discriminatory hiring practices
14				Carried out court orders to integrate the last public universities in the South
15				Exploiting an exception to the law, sent in federal marshals and troops to Oxford, Mississippi and to Alabama during the Freedom Rides
16				Signed the Housing Act of 1962
17				Negotiated a settlement to the Birmingham demonstration in 1963
18				Endorsed the March on Washington in 1963
19				In a nationally televised address of 6/11/63, made the most forceful presidential address on civil rights since Lincoln
20				Established the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in 1963 to represent victims of civil rights abuses in the South
21				Submitted the epochal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and began a massive lobbying program to pass it

 

So much for the received wisdom that the Kennedy administration “moved cautiously on civil rights” until they were pushed into it.

[James DiEugenio]

As per the other points of the Arizona lawyer:

Today, there are about seven books on the shelves conceding JFK's intent to withdraw from Vietnam.  I have read almost all of them e.g. David Kaiser's book American Tragedy, James Blight's book Virtual JFK, Gordon Goldstein's book Lessons in Disaster are just three. 

How many has the Arizona lawyer read?  Because these books go beyond the evidence in Newman's book which was published in 1992.  This is because the ARRB declassified several tapes and transcripts on this very issue. Has the Arizona lawyer read any of them?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)

So here is my question: if you don't know any of this stuff, why come here and pontificate as if you do? What is the point?  Is it to show that, Warren Commission style, ignorance is better than knowledge? Or is it to play cheerleader for someone like Kirk who has about a wide a knowledge base on this as you do?  

To me this is about as useful and scholarly as the stuff Tommy Graves used to pull here.

The whole point is that prior to 1992, there were no books on the issue.  Now are you going to tell us that for 30 years not one single scholar knew anything about this?  No one knew about the fall debate in 1961 in the Oval Office, where Bobby Kennedy and JFK stood up and repeatedly said, "There will be no combat troops in South Vietnam!"  There were about 11 people there.  No one recalled that meeting or debate that went on for two weeks?

No one recalled JFK telling Galbraith he wanted a report from him out of Saigon, and when he got back to DC, he wanted him to hand that report to McNamara and tell him that it was from the POTUS? 

No one recalled McNamara then doing a 180 degree turn on the issue after this and then requesting that the divisions heads and JCS begin to put together withdrawal schedules.  Which were then submitted at the May 1963 Sec/Def meeting in Hawaii?  And recall McNamara's reaction to this?  These schedules are too slow. I mean there were only about thirty people there for that one.

Or maybe you recall the meeting between JFK, McNamara, and Bundy in which McNamara literally says, "We need a way to get out of Vietnam.  This is a way of doing it." (Oct. 2, 1963) I mean you are aware of that discussion about Kennedy's withdrawal plan right Lance?  

Now as far as JFK and Vietnam goes, we do not just have what he did in office from 1961-63.  We have a record that goes as far back as 1951.  That was his meeting with Edmund Gullion in Saigon, where Gullion told him the French will never win this war.  And as RFK said, that meeting had a deep impact on JFK's thinking, which we know from the many speeches he gave on the subject from 1951-57, culminating in his great Algeria speech.

What historians do is try and detect origins and then consistent patterns. This usually indicates characteristics of a president.

(BTW, when I say about the wrong browser, that means that I have the Arizona Lawyer on ignore, but if you come in on your other browser that is not tied into this site, you see these ignored comments.)

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

First off, Happy #93, Bobby! 11/20/25!

W. Neiderhut-, I'm familiar with the one alleged picture of George Bush at Dealey Plaza talking with other men that I showed to you.. Can you please show me this second picture?

Maybe you should take a deep breathe and read what I first wrote again. You equate me with Ln'er Lance because you probably get upset and don't carefully read. I actually like a lot  of Jim's  coverage of the government and media coverup from the period of the assassination to the late 70's. I think after that general period his accusations become very hazy, contrived and non specific and he stabs in the dark, making accusations about a media conspiracy passed down through succeeding generations without  providing any real evidence. Whereas if you earnestly read what I said, you'd see I have another explanation as to why the MSM  has been hesitant the last 30 years to be involved in the JFKA.

Ron, You appear to be getting testy and  commencing to hurl insults. Why you don't you also take a deep breathe. I think there are a lot of authors that wonder why they aren't being reviewed in the N.Y. Times. And honestly I've wondered why some good books that aren't as controversial haven't been reviewed as well.No  I haven't read the Kennedy book and I assume you haven't either and I don't knee jerk assume it's not reviewed because of some media conspiracy. I'll give you my thoughts maybe  why, for whatever it's worth.

Unfortunately I think because the Kennedy family has been publicly sitting on the fence for 50 years about this, Although their outing is a shot in the arm to the JFKAC community, it's  really not that hot a story to the public at large, as unbelievable as you may find that, though it could be more if he were to run for President. Also now there's  a backlash against conspiracy theories among the intelligensia because of some Trump conspiracy crazies, like "Q Anon","Government deep state" and others. It was better when there were fewer theories. That's my non conspiracy attempt to explain it to you. It doesn't put you or the CT community at the center of the universe, but of course, they're/you're  not.

But I think that's a better question for a MSM conspiracy person to ask than the allegation you made in your thread entitled "The Coverup Continues" where you spoke of a news article and said:  I think this illustrates the continued  coverup of information important to the people of the United States by the MSM since the JFK Assassination.  Important to someone obviously or it wouldn't have been published at all but quickly squelched by owners."  And then said later:  "I think the 1% owners of the MSM tell their corporate heads who tell the editors, producers, directors and writers what is news and what is not."

  And what was the article about that was squelched?, That 2400 Law Professors signed a petition saying that Brett Kavanaugh shouldn't be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court!. This was picked up by all the major news sources, not just the NY Times, who incidentally had already editorially come out against the Kavanaugh nomination as well. The cat was out of the bag! There was no conflict at the New York Times about the article! It wasn't squelched! You actually thought there was a news blackout about it until Steve T. told you about a daily  update. You asserted the major  networks wouldn't touch it and you were wrong there as well. Just completely wrong  on all counts. I tried to gently bring this to your attention and it was like talking to Trump.

It showed me you know little about modern news or news gathering.  i think your choice of title and your choice of a news story only discredited your long term thesis. And I think if Jim Di was honest with you, he'd tell you the same. But still I  gave you credit for bringing up the issue of what determines if a story "has legs", and I cited an article the same day of what I thought was a much better possible example, which I'm sure you wouldn't remember.

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

Ron, I know you're not that receptive to me now, but I thought you might like this interview with Nancy MacLean talking about the power of the Koch family on Bill Maher. She's a very cool lady.

https://youtu.be/rMHPH96Z3ic

 

And then part of her stump lecture circuit.

 

https://youtu.be/P7vbFa1AOfY

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by Kirk Gallaway

[Guest]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

(BTW, when I say about the wrong browser, that means that I have the Arizona Lawyer on ignore, but if you come in on your other browser that is not tied into this site, you see these ignored comments.)

Ah, that explains it.  So when you come in on your other browser, you believe that you are legally obligated to read an ignored member's posts?  I have researched this issue in depth and can assure you that there is no such legal obligation.  There is no tort of "negligent wrong-browsering."  Or perhaps this is just a moral obligation that you feel:  "I have foolishly come in on the wrong browser, but I will now man up and suffer the consequences by forcing myself to read the ignored member's unworthy posts and respond to them with 7,000 words of foaming-at-the-mouth rebuttal."  As a Christian, I hereby release you and your heirs and assigns from any such moral obligation insofar as my own posts are concerned.  Do not punish yourself further on my account, my good man.  If your wrong-browsering causes you to encounter one of my posts, quickly close your eyes and move on as though you had never wrong-browsered.

Honest to God, only someone so consumed with his own self-importance could be so unwittingly comical.

Careful there, Kirk.  The proper terminology isn't "Lone Nutter Lance."  It's "provisional Lone Nutter Lance."  A subtle but critical difference that distinguishes the True Believer from the garden-variety slug who merely believes that common sense, logic, the best evidence and the most reasonable inferences point toward the Lone Nut explanation but who steadfastly reserves the right to change his mind if new and better evidence comes to light.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Guest

[Cliff Varnell]

24 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Careful there, Kirk.  The proper terminology isn't "Lone Nutter Lance."  It's "provisional Lone Nutter Lance."  A subtle but critical difference that distinguishes the True Believer from the garden-variety slug who merely believes that common sense, logic, the best evidence and the most reasonable inferences point toward the Lone Nut explanation but who steadfastly reserves the right to change his mind if new and better evidence comes to light.

Wrong.  You made up a story about how your clothing moves that's pure fiction.

Lance the True Believer posing as "objective analyst" -- the routine is beyond tired.

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

First off, Happy #93, Bobby! 11/20/25!

W. Neiderhut-, I'm familiar with the one alleged picture of George Bush at Dealey Plaza talking with other men that I showed to you.. Can you please show me this second picture?

Maybe you should take a deep breathe and read what I first wrote again. You equate me with Ln'er Lance because you probably get upset and don't carefully read.

 

 

Kirk,

     You referred to our discussion here about the falsified history of JFK as "naive."  I simply pointed out that it is the very opposite of "naive" -- it is an historically accurate critique of the naive, falsified mainstream media narratives about JFK's policies (e.g., regarding Vietnam, Indonesia, and in the Civil Rights movement.)

     Here's a link to the other alleged photo of GHWB (with Ed Lansdale) in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.  I first saw this while studying  the writings of Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (after I learned that the character, "Mr. X," in Oliver Stone's film, JFK, was based mainly on Prouty.)

https://riversong.wordpress.com/l-fletcher-proutys-letter-to-jim-garrison/

* 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

Obfuscation is the collateral damage of good research.

When top notch researchers are wrong on a subject the effect is to muddy the waters.

James DiEugenio has done excellent work on JFK's foreign policies but in at least 3 areas he's dead wrong.

DiEugenio claims Kennedy was under tremendous pressure to intervene militarily during the Bay of Pigs operation -- the fact is JFK was under the sole guidance of his dad, Joe Sr., with whom he spoke hourly during the Bay of Pigs crisis.

Long a critic of Allen Dulles, Joseph Kennedy said of Dulles and the CIA after the fiasco -- "Lucky thing they were found out early."

On the subject of the overthrow of Diem, DiEugenio broadcasts sheer ignorance regarding CIA operations in the Buddhist pagodas leading to the demise of the Ngo Bros.  The Buddhist-Catholic conflict was wholly stage managed by the CIA, and Kennedy let Averell Harriman bum rush his policy towards the government of So. Vietnam. 

According to Marine Corps/Navy intel man Col.William Corson it was Harriman who pushed the button on Diem and Nhu.

Thirdly, Laos was not "neutralized" -- it was partitioned east/west.

The Reds got the Ho Chi Minh Trail in the east.

Elements of CIA and State Department got the 30,000 man Hmong army to enforce the partition and produce opium, and propped up the exiled Nationalist Chinese army the Kuomintang, who also ran opium.

I also strongly disagree with DiEugenio reagarding the root facts of JFK's T3 back wound and throat entrance wound -- facts Jim treats like mere theories, thus muddying the waters, alas...

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Cliff Varnell