William F. Buckley and the Assassination of JFK

John Geraghty · April 19, 2006

I'm not sure whether this ground has been covered but, I came accross a small bit of information while looking at Ron Pataky's profile on Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3N6S...1157309-1677722

In it he describes one of his books "HELP! I'M BEING HELD A PRISONER IN A RANSOM NOTE FACTORY!" as having received a great review from William F Buckley junior. Is it possible that Pataky was friendly with Buckley, who trained with the CIA in 1951 and was sent to mexico city under howard hunt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.

An interesting if somewhat tenuous link here.

There are some interesting quotes from Buckley on the wikipedia page, which include a debate with gore Vidal

"At one point Vidal called Buckley a “crypto-Nazi”, to which Buckley replied, “Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in your goddamn face, and you'll stay plastered.”

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

John

John Simkin · July 11, 2006

Tad Szulc, Compulsive Spy: The Strange Career of E. Howard Hunt (1974)

For nineteen months in 1951 and 1952, Hunt had under his orders William F. Buckley, Jr., who later became the well-known syndicated conservative columnist. Buckley was in Mexico for the CIA on what he recently described as a "tangential special project." They quickly befriended each other, and Buckley is the godfather of three Hunt children. He remains to this day Hunt's best friend and was named the executor of Dorothy Hunt's estate after she was killed in a plane crash in 1972....

Actually, the Mullen company was an interesting place for a man like Hunt to be in Washington in 1970. Robert Mullen, a veteran newspaper man, had served as director of public information for the Economic Corporation Administration between 1946 and 1948 (the latter being the year when Howard Hunt used the ECA as his CIA cover in the Paris station). It is unclear whether Mullen and Hunt met in those days, although it is possible that Mullen had some contacts with the Agency. In any event, the two references Hunt gave when he applied for the job with the Mullen company were Richard Helms and William F. Buckley. Helms was then still Director of the CIA and Buckley, an old CIA friend, was now a famous commentator. Many people around Washington believe that there is indeed such a thing as a CIA "old-boy network."

John Simkin · September 18, 2006

In yesterday’s Sunday Times, Andrew Sullivan described William F. Buckley as the “undisputed titan of American conservatism” and was “instrumental in Ronald Reagan’s long, steady intellectual march to power”.

Buckley has recently decided that George W. Bush is not really a conservative. “Bush… ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress. And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge.”

Sullivan, also a conservative, adds: “His legacy… includes two bungled wars, a doubling of the national debt, a ruination of America’s moral high ground in the war against Islamic terror, the worst US intelligence fiasco since the Bay of Pigs, and the emergence of Iran as a regional and potentially nuclear power with control of the West’s energy supplies.”

Sullivan explains that “American conservatism has gone from being a political philosophy rooted in skepticism of power, empirical judgment and limited government into an ideology based in born-again religious faith, immune to empirical reality and dedicated to the relentless expansion of presidential clout. It sanctions wiretapping without court warrants, indefinite detention without trial and the use of torture.”

I agree with what Buckley and Sullivan say about Bush. However, I believe they are being disingenuous. All conservative presidents have not delivered a cut in government spending. They all increase defence spending so that they can pay-back their corporate backers. Look at the budget deficit left by Ronald Reagan. Presidents such as Nixon, Reagan and Bush senior, were willing to let the CIA organize assassinations and acts of terrorism against left of centre governments in the third world. Nor were they too concerned about the way the CIA and their allies such as DINA used torture against their enemies.

The only reason that conservatives like Buckley are attacking Bush is that he is more incompetent than his predecessors. In reality, it has nothing to do with ideology.

Robert Howard · December 10, 2006

In yesterday’s Sunday Times, Andrew Sullivan described William F. Buckley as the “undisputed titan of American conservatism” and was “instrumental in Ronald Reagan’s long, steady intellectual march to power”.
Buckley has recently decided that George W. Bush is not really a conservative. “Bush… ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress. And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge.”

Sullivan, also a conservative, adds: “His legacy… includes two bungled wars, a doubling of the national debt, a ruination of America’s moral high ground in the war against Islamic terror, the worst US intelligence fiasco since the Bay of Pigs, and the emergence of Iran as a regional and potentially nuclear power with control of the West’s energy supplies.”

Sullivan explains that “American conservatism has gone from being a political philosophy rooted in skepticism of power, empirical judgment and limited government into an ideology based in born-again religious faith, immune to empirical reality and dedicated to the relentless expansion of presidential clout. It sanctions wiretapping without court warrants, indefinite detention without trial and the use of torture.”

I agree with what Buckley and Sullivan say about Bush. However, I believe they are being disingenuous. All conservative presidents have not delivered a cut in government spending. They all increase defence spending so that they can pay-back their corporate backers. Look at the budget deficit left by Ronald Reagan. Presidents such as Nixon, Reagan and Bush senior, were willing to let the CIA organize assassinations and acts of terrorism against left of centre governments in the third world. Nor were they too concerned about the way the CIA and their allies such as DINA used torture against their enemies.

The only reason that conservatives like Buckley are attacking Bush is that he is more incompetent than his predecessors. In reality, it has nothing to do with ideology.

It is a sad but true fact of life that the knowledge needed of history to see events in their proper context is a weak link with regards to the JFK Assassination, consequently, the YAF and William F Buckley, Jr. as an ostensible subplot to the former can offer a similar predicament.

How many members of the Forum are familiar with the [then] famous [intellectual?] war of words between Gore Vidal and William F Buckley during the 1968 Democratic Comvention. Vidal would later write of Buckley "He is forever the little boy trying to impress Daddy by hating what Daddy hates."

Pontificating further Vidal went on to mention:

During Buckley's campaign for Mayor of New York, the New York Times tooki exception to his "slurs on Negroes" and accused him of pandering to 'brutish instincts.' Buckley wanted to know what brutish instincts he was appealing and the Times made answer, "Those instincts are fear, ignorance, racial superiority, racial antagonism contempt for the weak and afflicted and hatred for those different from oneself."

Sour Grapes my boy...[the now firmly entrenched in American academia] Buckley might say.....but the reality is that if in 1962 Gore Vidal had never mentioned the name William F Nuckley, Jr on the Jack Paar Show forerunner to the iconic Tonight Show w/ Johnny Carson] it is a very real possibility Robin Williams would have had one less satirical impersonation in his repotoire.....that fueled his rise to the top of the heap.

Someone will undoubtedly think after reading this.....what is it about this information that is even worth mentionng, [talk about minutiea]....the answer is....the totally unresolved area of the JFK Assassination lies in Dallas and in a larger context Texas....Buckley was a scab on the [what was then considered] ugly right wing extreme [that has not only survived but thrived] since November 22....Then it was a small group ostensibly titled the Cowboy Establishment as one very cerebral researcher has called it, now it has become firmly entrenched as an integral structure of American government.....The idea that the JFK Assassination can never be solved is as much of a myth as the hundred's of myth's his assassination has spawned, the salient point is, history is indeed written by the winners, as cornball and "conspiracy theory" as it sounds....the big picture of solving the assassination lies in the details of the Dallas aspect of the assassination...Final Thought...Chicago....foiled, Maimi,,,,,foiled....Dallas..........he will not leave alive, there was a reason why it happened in Dallas but it is all buried in the myth. When the myth is as close as your own television set, you get an idea of what you are up against......if you are as they say 'dedicated to reality' in putting the final pieces together.....

Sources - Smiling Through the Apocalypse Esquire's History of the 60's - By the Editors of Esquire pages 545, 588.

Edited December 10, 2006 by Robert Howard

John Bevilaqua · October 28, 2007

My distinct impression is that if Richard Condon in The Manchurian Candidate saw fit to

include Bill Buckley, Jr. in that novel as "...that fascinating young man who wrote about

man and God at Yale." there was a reason for it. And if Richard Giesbrecht saw fit to

disclose discussions about "...closing down (The American) Mercury" just before or

after a meeting scheduled in Wichita, KS where The American Mercury was once owned

and published by "The Jayhawk Nazi" the Reverend Gerald B. Winrod there is something

there to be investigated. The Mercury was in fact closed down in 1964 temporarily

while it changed hands and it did not publish for several issues after the JFK Assassination

for obvious reasons. It was one of the most virulently anti JFK rags in existence then.

The Giesbrecht Incident occurred on or about Feb 13, 1964 and involved discussions

overheard about the pending payoffs for the JFK Assassination.

What did Condon know about the other YAFers mentioned in the Manchurian Candidate?

Senator Strom Thurmond, Charles Willoughby via Douglas MacArthur references, etc.

Apparently quite a bit. My feeling is that Thurmond was one of the major JFK detractors

who cleared the way in the Senate using McCarthy style tactics for his swift removal and

to block any opposition or protests to the contrary either before or after the fact.

Willoughby's activities surrounding the JFK hit have only recently come to light in a

1983 article by Bill Turner and Mae Brussell and in a 1992 book by Dick Russell TMWKTM.

What did Buckley know about his neighbor in Connecticut, Anastase Vonsiatsky and

Wickliffe Draper who lived just across the Massachusetts border? We may never know.

John Bevilaqua · October 28, 2007

Hi all
Here are a couple of more recent photographs of William F. Buckley Jr.--

Buckley is characterized the following way on the NNBD site, which gives a good rundown on Buckley's career and views.

"William F. Buckley Jr. is a fading but still prominent right-wing American political commentator." He remains an eccentric and outspoken spokesman for the American right.

I would also think it is very unlikely that Buckley had a hand in the Kennedy assassination, despite his detestation of the Kennedys.

Best regards

Chris George

One small footnote on the Buckley bio site is the following...

Sister: Maureen Buckley O'Reilly (b. 1933, d. 1964, married Gerald A. O'Reilly, CEO of Richardson Vicks)

So his brother in law was CEO of the company founded by H. Smith Richardson... makers of Vapo Rub

and funders of MK/ULTRA and other nefarious covert operations via the H. Smith Richardson Foundation.

Dirty bastidges all.

David McLean · October 28, 2007

More tidbits re the Buckley family:

Buckley senior was declared persona non grata in Mexico c.1910-20 for activities in support of US mining and ranching interests (source NYT index);

His children were home-schooled in a virulent form of politicised Catholicism with Franco a particular favourite;

Sister priscilla was in the CIA through the 1950s, a brother in law headed Magellan Australia, in partnership withoil interests of ultra-right Queensland premier Joh Bjelke Petersen, instrumental in the overthrow of Whitlam, another brother lived in Spain.

Underlying the verbiage and agitprop of National Reiview is I suggest an alliance of interest with the Oil Majors, particularly Standard Oil NJ, Socony-Mobil backed by advertising in National Reiview. Family wealth I believe came from sale of Venezuelan Oil properties to SONJ.

I suggest research might reveal links between "liberal" Rockefeller interests and cryptos of the Buckley, Hunt and Hunt variety than surface appearances indicate. IBEC, Deltec, King Ranch, Humble Oil, Pepsi-FritoLay for starters. Hats off to Donald Freed for his chilling Death in Washington.

James Richards · October 28, 2007

Buckley on himself.

FWIW.

James

John Bevilaqua · October 28, 2007

Buckley on himself.
FWIW.

James

That line about Dr. Revilo Oliver stating that JFKs funeral had been

rehearsed before JFK even died is quite revealing. I had forgotten about

that line but will always recall Oliver's rants in Marxmanship in Dallas.

Condon even wrote a rebuttal to all the right wing rhetoric following

the JFK hit, in what became Victor Navasky's (sp?) left wing newspaper,

The Nation. Wish I had not filed everthing into boxes and folders. It

was a really great article and might have been around Christmas of 1963

as I vaguely recall. So that also places a historical timeframe around

the intensity and the immediacy of these scapegoating tactics from

the right. Within 30 days the scapegoating was so well planned and

so well rehearsed and so intense that Condon was inspired to write

an article and have it appear in the perhaps the 4th weekly issue of

The Nation following JFKs death. Why didn't Prouty say something

like: "The right wing extremists like GLK Smith, Revilo Oliver, Billy

James Hargis, Clare Booth Luce not only knew a lot about Oswald

and Ruby immediately after the assassination but they must have

had major portions of the research on Oswald completed even before

the assassination occurred to be able to produce so many articles

about Oswald and some by Ruby in such short order with such great

detail. If they had to wait until the assassination to begin this

research there is no way possible that the volume could have reached

such a level. The content could never have been presented in such

meticulously refined and in depth detail unless they had advanced

knowledge that Oswald and later Ruby would be chosen as scapegoats

or patsies."

Edited October 28, 2007 by John Bevilaqua

John Bevilaqua · October 28, 2007

Buckley on himself.
FWIW.

James

Thanks, James, for this great submission. Very revealing. I would agree that the tagline

"...who was a member of YAF and very active there." or "...who had been a constant

companion of public figures well known to be influential in Right Wing activities and publications."

should in fact be part of a discussion and articles about persons who qualify for this

distinction. But does that mean we are editorializing about their motivations? And is

that part of the verboten list of rules on this Forum? I would think that accusing someone

of making libelous or slanderous statements should also be forbidden when the level

of legal knowledge on this forum is patently weak. The concept that saying someone

is supporting or promulgating a right wing position or coming "from the Right" is a

libelous/slanderous statement in and of itself is on its face preposterous. And someone

who calls themselves a lawyer actually made that statement. Take that back and

apologize, she said. Chatty Kathy is not from the Right. Well in fact if Chatty Kathy

is promulgating Right Wing writers or repeating Right Wing themes, and she is,

relative to my position, to the Right of Center, then she is coming from the Right.

She may not even know that she is parroting Right Wing themes or supporting Right

Wingers who were dedicated and vitriolic McCarthyites like Otepka for instance but

after performing a public service and fixing the record on Otepka one would expect

thanks for pointing out the obvious. I also think that to quote or to be associated with

writers or speakers who use coded Right Wing phraseology which is anti-Semitic,

racist or otherwise subrosa and discriminatory is patently ridiculous. And yes it COULD

be that it is naivete, raw ignorance or just plain enthusiasm to find someone who agrees

with you on anything and can advance YOUR thesis, even though their thesis originates

from the Right and dovetails with yours. It could also be a case of being a celebrity

groupie because it makes you feel better to get an audience with someone who is

a Full Professor and a real author regardless of his usage of coded anti-Semitic words

his history as a dedicated right winger. Is it possible to have their "celebrity status"

rub off on you and your theories? I have seen many attempts of this type over the

years. And what is the difference between "celebrity statics" and "celebrity status"

anyway, can someone explain? Maybe "celebrity statics" is only obtained by close

contact or close proximity to someone with "celebrity status"? I can't say for sure.

And does removal of some "celebrity statics" from one person necessarily diminish

the amout of "celebrity status" remaining with that person? Can it all be rubbed off

and can it be replenished? Or can it be reduced to nothing? Or is it like the number

of "eggs in the ovum"? That's it all gone, your account is depleted. Just wondering.

Just because you believe that, let's say, the Star Bellied Sneeches did in JFK and so

does a McCarthyite, should you ignore the fact that this person was and still is a

McCarthyite and should you put on Rose colored glasses and ignore or minimize

their minor political transgressions and history just to be able to cite them and puff

up your thesis about the Star Bellied Sneeches? That is hypocrisy beyond the pale.

And just because you find nothing but phrases like this in the dominant historical

record, should you believe them and accept them on face value? That is exactly

how Hiss was framed and exactly how Otepka was "exonerated" but only by

the Right. It is sort of Orwellian TruthSpeak at its worst. If this type of garbage

is written often enough, and you read it often enough, a tear will come to your

eye and you will jump to his defense...

"Otepka is an American Patriot and an American hero."

"Otepka was finally exonerated and given a position of higher status after JFK was dead."

"Otepka was not a McCarthyite, he just provided lists to McCarthy for consideration and

he complained vigorously that McCarthy was overdoing it in some cases."

"Otepka's first line of defenders included Robert J. Morris, his lawyer, Senator Strom

Thurmond from SC, Rep James B. Utt, head of the California right wing contingent of

the John Birch Society. And that is a short list of Patriotic God-fearing family men."

"Richard Gill from The American Security Council wrote an entire book which was made

into a not ready for prime time film starring the trio above and it was called The Ordeal

of Otto Otepka. (sniff, sniff) Does THAT bring a tear to your eye.?"

So you see whether the drumbeat of propaganda is directed towards framing Alger

Hiss, or exonerating Otto Otepka or scapegoating JFK's killers, the result is the same.

It gets into the historical record, it drowns out most info which is contrary to the truth

or obfuscates it beyond the pale, and voila, Revisionist History has been accomplished.

And your mind has been washed of the Truth and replaced with their version of Facts.

Because short term memory is the first to be wiped out, before it is written to brain disk.

And after a while... the world will come to believe that Hiss was guilty, that Otepka

was innocent and that Right Wing Extremists had NOTHING to do with the JFK hit.

OK, next Century, let's start all over again.

And then Chatty Kathy will be left mumbling to herself... Well, I thought I was a

left winger. I didn't even know how bad Otto Otepka was with McCarthyism. It

NEVER occurred to me that Otepka and Frances Knight were a tag team and

served as Oswald's Travel Agents. Wow, how did you figure that out? Can I

get some "celebrity statics" from hanging with you, dude? You mean to say

they somehow brainwashed me into writing a puff piece and defending that

S.O.B. Otepka. But Prouty said he was OK. And Gibson said he was a

great American Hero. And Otepka stood up for Willis Carto, another great

American Patriot... Huh, he wasn't either? Oh God what a fool I was.

But how can they brainwash me? I am too smart for that... Guess not.

See: Right Woos Left by Chip Berlet in your internet browser today about

The Liberty Lobby and the Institute for Historical or Hysterical Revisionism

which is sometimes known as the Institute for Historical Review. IHR owned

by that great American Patriot Willis Carto... Oh never mind.

Can anyone find a copy of the Condon article from The Nation around 12/63 near

the end of the month? Thanks.

Edited October 29, 2007 by John Bevilaqua

Terry Mauro · October 29, 2007

Buckley on himself.
FWIW.

James

That line about Dr. Revilo Oliver stating that JFKs funeral had been

rehearsed before JFK even died is quite revealing. I had forgotten about

that line but will always recall Oliver's rants in Marxmanship in Dallas.

Condon even wrote a rebuttal to all the right wing rhetoric following

the JFK hit, in what became Victor Navasky's (sp?) left wing newspaper,

The Nation. Wish I had not filed everthing into boxes and folders. It

was a really great article and might have been around Christmas of 1963

as I vaguely recall. So that also places a historical timeframe around

the intensity and the immediacy of these scapegoating tactics from

the right. Within 30 days the scapegoating was so well planned and

so well rehearsed and so intense that Condon was inspired to write

an article and have it appear in the perhaps the 4th weekly issue of

The Nation following JFKs death. Why didn't Prouty say something

like: "The right wing extremists like GLK Smith, Revilo Oliver, Billy

James Hargis, Clare Booth Luce not only knew a lot about Oswald

and Ruby immediately after the assassination but they must have

had major portions of the research on Oswald completed even before

the assassination occurred to be able to produce so many articles

about Oswald and some by Ruby in such short order with such great

detail. If they had to wait until the assassination to begin this

research there is no way possible that the volume could have reached

such a level. The content could never have been presented in such

meticulously refined and in depth detail unless they had advanced

knowledge that Oswald and later Ruby would be chosen as scapegoats

or patsies."

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

"Why didn't Prouty say something like: "The right wing extremists like GLK Smith, Revilo Oliver, Billy James Hargis, Clare Booth Luce not only knew a lot about Oswald and Ruby immediately after the assassination but they must have had major portions of the research on Oswald completed even before the assassination occurred to be able to produce so many articles about Oswald and some by Ruby in such short order with such great detail."

Why didn't you bother to track him down and ask him yourself? You had close to 40 years to do so before he passed away.

And, even if you didn't agree with what he was writing back in the 70's and 80's, you still had a good 20 years with which to have confronted him.

Lord knows he was one of the most accessible people to reach. You could have contacted Len Osanic, who surely would have put him in touch with you.

Did you even bother to try?

Edited October 29, 2007 by Terry Mauro

Kathleen Collins · October 29, 2007

Buckley has something else in common with David Phillips and E. Howard Hunt. Over the years he has written a series of novels about CIA covert operations. His hero is named: Blackford Oakes. It seems he learnt a lot during his short time in the CIA. In 2001 he published the novel "Spytime: The Undoing of James Jesus Angleton".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spytime portrayed Angleton's drift into paranoia. I've read it. By the end of the book Angleton is relieved when Colby fires him, because he at long last knows the identity of the mole he's been searching for: Colby himself.. It works as literature but is not the glamorous portrait of the CIA you might envision. In another one of Buckley's books, Blackford Oakes befriends Che Guevara. He has the chance to save Guevara's life at the end but chooses not to when Guevara acknowledges his role in killing one of Oakes' lady friends, who'd been spying on Fidel. I suspect he'd talked to Rodriguez before writing that one.

Thanks for telling us the ending of the book.

My favorite story about Buckley is his famous run-in with Gore Vidal. Vidal called him a "crypto-fascist' during a live television debate, to which Buckley called Vidal a fag and threatened to sock him in the face. Classic stuff. Another great Buckley moment came when the movie and TV personality Gary Merrill--an ardent leftist--came across Buckley in an airport. As Merrill tells it, he banged on the phone booth Buckley was in and started calling him the pig that he was, to which Big Bad Buckley responded by...cowering in the phone booth till the airport security could drag Merrill away. I'd have paid to see that.

The last debate at the Democratic Convention in Chicago was great.

Vidal: ...you're the only crypto Nazi-I know --

Buckley: Call me a crypto-Nazi again, you queer (pronounced kwe-er), and I'll punch you in the face. And you'll stay plastered.

Close up of Gore Vidal's reddened face [you can tell in B&W]. His smile is twitching and a tear comes into his right eye.

Buckley: Oh, yeah.

Buckley was referring to the story of Gore Vidal being thrown out of the White House one night because he was so drunk. Vidal denies this. He had words with Bobby Kennedy. Bobby knocked Vidal's hand off Jacqueline Kennedy's shoulder twice. Vidal followed him and they wound up in a hallway where all the doors were shut. Vidal says he said:

Vidal: Don't you ever do that again.

Bobby: XXXX off, Buddy-Boy.

To which one of America's Man of Letters heard himself saying:

Vidal: You XXXX off.

He was never invited back to the White House. I don't think he ever spoke to his step-sister, Jackie, again -- which is sad. He admired her and after she died, told how cool, intelligent and quick-witted she was.

Buckley continues:

Buckley: Myra Breckinridge. Go back to writing your pornography. ...when it concerns American marines. I was...

Vidal: See, you distort your own military history.

Vidal had the last laugh. Esquire mag wanted him to write an article about the 6 debates with William F. Buckley. This was secret. Esquire asked Buckley to write about the 6 debates. His would be published first, then the next month, Gore Vidal's essay would follow. Vidal got to read Buckley's essay and wrote his response. Buckley went off on "why is it OK to be homosexual, but you can't say someone's homosexual." Which, to me, he was cowering about the word "queer." I guess he didn't want to lose the queers that watched his show, etc. Then Vidal had his comeback:

Vidal (re Buckley): They sent him and his siblings to [certain schools] so they could all come back with Patrician accents.

Then he accepts Buckley's apology. Well, Buckley sued Vidal and Esquire. The judge threw the case against Gore Vidal out. But Buckley said Vidal still had $70,000 in legal costs and he was happy about that. Buckley won his case against Esquire.

I just thought I'd share this.

Kathy

Edited October 29, 2007 by Kathleen Collins

John Bevilaqua · October 29, 2007

Buckley on himself.
FWIW.

James

That line about Dr. Revilo Oliver stating that JFKs funeral had been

rehearsed before JFK even died is quite revealing. I had forgotten about

that line but will always recall Oliver's rants in Marxmanship in Dallas.

Condon even wrote a rebuttal to all the right wing rhetoric following

the JFK hit, in what became Victor Navasky's (sp?) left wing newspaper,

The Nation. Wish I had not filed everthing into boxes and folders. It

was a really great article and might have been around Christmas of 1963

as I vaguely recall. So that also places a historical timeframe around

the intensity and the immediacy of these scapegoating tactics from

the right. Within 30 days the scapegoating was so well planned and

so well rehearsed and so intense that Condon was inspired to write

an article and have it appear in the perhaps the 4th weekly issue of

The Nation following JFKs death. Why didn't Prouty say something

like: "The right wing extremists like GLK Smith, Revilo Oliver, Billy

James Hargis, Clare Booth Luce not only knew a lot about Oswald

and Ruby immediately after the assassination but they must have

had major portions of the research on Oswald completed even before

the assassination occurred to be able to produce so many articles

about Oswald and some by Ruby in such short order with such great

detail. If they had to wait until the assassination to begin this

research there is no way possible that the volume could have reached

such a level. The content could never have been presented in such

meticulously refined and in depth detail unless they had advanced

knowledge that Oswald and later Ruby would be chosen as scapegoats

or patsies."

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

"Why didn't Prouty say something like: "The right wing extremists like GLK Smith, Revilo Oliver, Billy James Hargis, Clare Booth Luce not only knew a lot about Oswald and Ruby immediately after the assassination but they must have had major portions of the research on Oswald completed even before the assassination occurred to be able to produce so many articles about Oswald and some by Ruby in such short order with such great detail."

Why didn't you bother to track him down and ask him yourself? You had close to 40 years to do so before he passed away.

And, even if you didn't agree with what he was writing back in the 70's and 80's, you still had a good 20 years with which to have confronted him.

Lord knows he was one of the most accessible people to reach. You could have contacted Len Osanic, who surely would have put him in touch with you.

Did you even bother to try?

Twice. Once at the JFK Harvard School of Government conference with Marvin Kolb when the movie

JFK came out. In front of an entire crowd of JFK enthusiasts...

Mr. Prouty, can you tell us a bit about your associations with The Liberty Lobby's attorney

Mark Lane and The Institute for Historical Review and Willis A. Carto the owner, who some have

identified as a dedicated neo-Nazi and a staunch anti-Semite?

Blank stare.

And the second time during the famous: THERE ARE NO FILES? Where have we heard that before?

confrontation with Mark Lane. Were you there? Lou Wolf from CAIB was and he thanked me.

I asked him about his belittling comments about the Kennedys. Same response...

Blank stare.

Why would I contact him again? Twice he clammed up and went comatose.

Do you have some kind words to say about Prouty and his so called Search For the Truth?

Read this part below about Chatty Kathy... you may find yourself saying... Gee I resemble her.

And get a copy of Right Woos Left by Chip Berlet. I may even post that.