Jump to content
The Education Forum
Lynne Foster

Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone

Recommended Posts

...Ferrie described Garrison as "a joke". Several hours later, Ferrie died of a cerebral hemorrhage. [but he was probably murdered because "the joke" needed a corpse like Lee Harvey Oswald, to get away with promoting his bizarre allegations.]

Now we have the "bizarre allegation" that Ferrie was murdered to suit Jim Garrison's purpose.

Tim

Not too bizarre when you consider the Kennedy assassination cover up.

Garrison is caught lying during Playboy interview: October 1967

GARRISON: Until as recently as November of 1966, I had complete faith in the Warren Report. As a matter of fact, I viewed its most vocal critics with the same skepticism that much of the press now views me --- which is why I can't condemn the mass media too harshly for their cynical approach, except in the handful of cases where newsmen seem to be in active collusion with Washington to torpedo our investigation. Of course, my faith in the Report was grounded in ignorance, since I had never read it; as Mark Lane says, "The only way you can believe the Report is not to have read it."

But then, in November, I visited New York City with Senator Russell Long; and when the subject of the assassination came up, he expressed grave doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin...

PLAYBOY: So you began your investigation of the President's assassination on nothing stronger than you own doubts and the theories of the Commission's critics?

GARRISON: No, please don't put words in my mouth. The works of the critics --- particularly Edward Epstein, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane --- sparked my general doubts about the assassination; but more importantly, they led me into specific areas of inquiry.

PLAYBOY: Why did you become interested in Ferrie and his associates in November 1963?

GARRISON: To explain that, I'll have to tell you something about the operation of our office. I believe we have one of the best district attorney's offices in the country. We have no political appointments and, as a result, there's a tremendous amount of esprit among our staff and an enthusiasm for looking into unanswered questions. That's why we got together the day after the assassination and began examining our files and checking out every political extremist, religious fanatic and kook who had ever come to our attention. And one of the names that sprang into prominence was that of David Ferrie. When we checked him out, as we were doing with innumerable other suspicious characters, we discovered that on November 22nd he had traveled to Texas to go "duck hunting" and "ice skating."

Well, naturally, this sparked our interest. We staked out his house and we questioned his friends, and when he came back --- the first thing he did on his return, incidentally, was to contact a lawyer and then hide out for the night at a friend's room in another town --- we pulled him and his two companions in for questioning. The story of Ferrie's activities that emerged was rather curious. He drove nine hours through a furious thunderstorm to Texas, then apparently gave up his plans to go duck hunting and instead went to an ice-skating rink in Houston and stood waiting beside a pay telephone for two hours; he never put the skates on. We felt his movements were suspicious enough to justify his arrest and that of his friends, and we took them into custody. When we alerted the FBI, they expressed interest and asked us to turn the three men over to them for questioning. We did, but Ferrie was released soon afterward and most of its report on him was classified top secret and secreted in the National Archives, where it will remain inaccessible to the public until September 2038 A.D. No one, including me, can see those pages.

___________________________________________________________

Truth is, Garrison was in on the cover up with J. Edgar Hoover from day ONE ! How could he possibly have faith in the Warren commission until 1966, when he knew that Hoover was covering up the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Ferrie described Garrison as "a joke". Several hours later, Ferrie died of a cerebral hemorrhage. [but he was probably murdered because "the joke" needed a corpse like Lee Harvey Oswald, to get away with promoting his bizarre allegations.]

Now we have the "bizarre allegation" that Ferrie was murdered to suit Jim Garrison's purpose.

Tim

What's is so bizarre about the predictable death of David Ferrie? Do you think we have to wait until September 2038 A.D. to figure it out?

Garrison is caught lying during Playboy interview: October 1967

GARRISON: Until as recently as November of 1966, I had complete faith in the Warren Report. As a matter of fact, I viewed its most vocal critics with the same skepticism that much of the press now views me --- which is why I can't condemn the mass media too harshly for their cynical approach, except in the handful of cases where newsmen seem to be in active collusion with Washington to torpedo our investigation. Of course, my faith in the Report was grounded in ignorance, since I had never read it; as Mark Lane says, "The only way you can believe the Report is not to have read it."

But then, in November, I visited New York City with Senator Russell Long; and when the subject of the assassination came up, he expressed grave doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin...

PLAYBOY: So you began your investigation of the President's assassination on nothing stronger than you own doubts and the theories of the Commission's critics?

GARRISON: No, please don't put words in my mouth. The works of the critics --- particularly Edward Epstein, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane --- sparked my general doubts about the assassination; but more importantly, they led me into specific areas of inquiry.

PLAYBOY: Why did you become interested in Ferrie and his associates in November 1963?

GARRISON: To explain that, I'll have to tell you something about the operation of our office. I believe we have one of the best district attorney's offices in the country. We have no political appointments and, as a result, there's a tremendous amount of esprit among our staff and an enthusiasm for looking into unanswered questions. That's why we got together the day after the assassination and began examining our files and checking out every political extremist, religious fanatic and kook who had ever come to our attention. And one of the names that sprang into prominence was that of David Ferrie. When we checked him out, as we were doing with innumerable other suspicious characters, we discovered that on November 22nd he had traveled to Texas to go "duck hunting" and "ice skating."

Well, naturally, this sparked our interest. We staked out his house and we questioned his friends, and when he came back --- the first thing he did on his return, incidentally, was to contact a lawyer and then hide out for the night at a friend's room in another town --- we pulled him and his two companions in for questioning. The story of Ferrie's activities that emerged was rather curious. He drove nine hours through a furious thunderstorm to Texas, then apparently gave up his plans to go duck hunting and instead went to an ice-skating rink in Houston and stood waiting beside a pay telephone for two hours; he never put the skates on. We felt his movements were suspicious enough to justify his arrest and that of his friends, and we took them into custody. When we alerted the FBI, they expressed interest and asked us to turn the three men over to them for questioning. We did, but Ferrie was released soon afterward and most of its report on him was classified top secret and secreted in the National Archives, where it will remain inaccessible to the public until September 2038 A.D. No one, including me, can see those pages.

___________________________________________________________

Truth is, Garrison was in on the cover up with J. Edgar Hoover from day ONE ! How could he possibly have faith in the Warren commission until 1966, when he knew that Hoover was covering up the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
...Ferrie described Garrison as "a joke". Several hours later, Ferrie died of a cerebral hemorrhage. [but he was probably murdered because "the joke" needed a corpse like Lee Harvey Oswald, to get away with promoting his bizarre allegations.]

Now we have the "bizarre allegation" that Ferrie was murdered to suit Jim Garrison's purpose.

Tim

What's is so bizarre about the predictable death of David Ferrie? Do you think we have to wait until September 2038 A.D. to figure it out?

Garrison is caught lying during Playboy interview: October 1967

GARRISON: Until as recently as November of 1966, I had complete faith in the Warren Report. As a matter of fact, I viewed its most vocal critics with the same skepticism that much of the press now views me --- which is why I can't condemn the mass media too harshly for their cynical approach, except in the handful of cases where newsmen seem to be in active collusion with Washington to torpedo our investigation. Of course, my faith in the Report was grounded in ignorance, since I had never read it; as Mark Lane says, "The only way you can believe the Report is not to have read it."

But then, in November, I visited New York City with Senator Russell Long; and when the subject of the assassination came up, he expressed grave doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin...

PLAYBOY: So you began your investigation of the President's assassination on nothing stronger than you own doubts and the theories of the Commission's critics?

GARRISON: No, please don't put words in my mouth. The works of the critics --- particularly Edward Epstein, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane --- sparked my general doubts about the assassination; but more importantly, they led me into specific areas of inquiry.

PLAYBOY: Why did you become interested in Ferrie and his associates in November 1963?

GARRISON: To explain that, I'll have to tell you something about the operation of our office. I believe we have one of the best district attorney's offices in the country. We have no political appointments and, as a result, there's a tremendous amount of esprit among our staff and an enthusiasm for looking into unanswered questions. That's why we got together the day after the assassination and began examining our files and checking out every political extremist, religious fanatic and kook who had ever come to our attention. And one of the names that sprang into prominence was that of David Ferrie. When we checked him out, as we were doing with innumerable other suspicious characters, we discovered that on November 22nd he had traveled to Texas to go "duck hunting" and "ice skating."

Well, naturally, this sparked our interest. We staked out his house and we questioned his friends, and when he came back --- the first thing he did on his return, incidentally, was to contact a lawyer and then hide out for the night at a friend's room in another town --- we pulled him and his two companions in for questioning. The story of Ferrie's activities that emerged was rather curious. He drove nine hours through a furious thunderstorm to Texas, then apparently gave up his plans to go duck hunting and instead went to an ice-skating rink in Houston and stood waiting beside a pay telephone for two hours; he never put the skates on. We felt his movements were suspicious enough to justify his arrest and that of his friends, and we took them into custody. When we alerted the FBI, they expressed interest and asked us to turn the three men over to them for questioning. We did, but Ferrie was released soon afterward and most of its report on him was classified top secret and secreted in the National Archives, where it will remain inaccessible to the public until September 2038 A.D. No one, including me, can see those pages.

___________________________________________________________

Truth is, Garrison was in on the cover up with J. Edgar Hoover from day ONE ! How could he possibly have faith in the Warren commission until 1966, when he knew that Hoover was covering up the truth?

Lynne, did you feel that the above was so full of blinding insights that it needed posting twice. "garrison was in on the cover up with J. Edgar Hoover from day ONE" and when do you intend to produce ONE piece of independant evidence to back this nonsence up. endlessly repeating something does not make it so. As wolfgang pauli said "thats not right, its not even wrong" keep taking the tablets.. Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Jay Epstein aptly illustrated, Garrison's investigation shed absolutely nothing new on the assassination itself and according to the New Orleans States-Item, once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal process to his own ends."

Needless to say, assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away from more salient leads in New Orleans.

Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Jay Epstein aptly illustrated, Garrison's investigation shed absolutely nothing new on the assassination itself and according to the New Orleans States-Item, once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal process to his own ends."

Needless to say, assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away from more salient leads in New Orleans.

Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Well, one can rest assured that I am not an "assassination buff", and being considerably more familiar with New Orleans than most others who are posting here, I can assure you that Garrison was a shrewd as well as politically knowledgeable individual.

Therefore, for him to sacrifice his own personal integrity with the Clay Shaw "Circus & Sideshow", was not an act of ignorance on his part.

Therefore, if it were not an act of ignorance, then it was obviously a deliberate "act".

In addition to this, one must also consider that Garrison was formerly one of "Hoover's" boys, and for him to give a performance which was as inept as was the Clay Shaw trial, also meant that it would bring some discredit to the "Hoover" family.

Therefore, whatever political entity Garrison was dancing to the tune of, he obviously considered it to be far more critical to his long term livelihood than was the risk of offending JEH, or of even bring completely false charges against Clay Shaw.

Certainly brings to mind such items as the "Spruce Goose" and the "Glomar Explorer".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More evidence of Garrison's deliberate deceptions:

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS

NAME Jim Garrison Date 11/8/78 Time 11:00 am

Address Federal Court House Place New Orleans, La.

Interview:

Gary Cornwell, Bob Buras, and myself (Mike Ewing)

interviewed Garrison for approximately 45 minutes

in his office at the Federal Courthouse in New Orleans.

Garrison began the conversation with a lengthy recounting

of his efforts during 1967-69 to re-investigate the

Kennedy assassination and prosecute Clay Shaw. Garrison

spoke in general terms about the power of the CIA and FBI

and their ability to "control and evade" the

investigative resources of any other body, including a

District Attorney's office or a Congressional committee.

Garrison stated that he assumes that the Select Committee

has learned of this unchallengeable power and has met

with the same frustration that he did.

Garrison spoke in somber tones about his investigation,

saying that he had done his best under very difficult

circumstances, and had of course made a few mistakes in

the process.

During the course of Garrison's long monologue about the

power of the federal government, particularly the CIA, it

was most difficult to ask him specific questions;

Garrison would continue to talk without responding to a

question on most occasions when they were asked.

In response to the question of exactly when and why he

first began re-investigating the Kennedy in 1966,

Garrison gave a very vague answer, stating that he simply

became interested in some manner with David Ferrie and

Dean Andrews' 1964 story about a mysterious "Clem

Bertrand." Garrison would not elaborate.

In response to the question of how he came to obtain

David Ferrie's phone records of January to October of

1963, Garrison stated that he asked for and received them

from Marcello's attorney G. Wray Gill. He indicated that

he had long known Gill. He stated that Gill drew a line

through his own calls listed on the bills, and thus

Ferrie's calls were the other ones listed on the bill; as

they had not shared an office. When asked if he had ever

asked Gill why he had not turned over Ferrie's calls from

November 1963 (which were not included) Garrison at first

stated "I don't know." When the question was repeated,

with the comment that he must have viewed the absence of

the November 1963 calls disturbing, Garrison stated that

he thinks that he did ask Gill about the missing

November billing, and that Gill stated that they were

missing. When asked if he followed it up, perhaps by

asking Gill to make a further search for the records,

Garrison said he couldn't recall.

________________________________________

Notice the deliberate amnesia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Oh my aching b**s, so now were all disinformation agents, talking CIA folding green? As I said keep talking the tablets. And if you wonder why people are so aggressive toward you, try looking at your own style of communication, mayhap the answer lies there. Now are you going to take part in the wider debate about the assassination of JFK, or keep pounding this strawman arguement, the one note solo is getting boring. Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Stephen Turner' date='Nov 10 2005, 04:39 PM' post='44760']

Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Oh my aching b**s, so now were all disinformation agents, talking CIA folding green? As I said keep talking the tablets. And if you wonder why people are so aggressive toward you, try looking at your own style of communication, mayhap the answer lies there. Now are you going to take part in the wider debate about the assassination of JFK, or keep pounding this strawman arguement, the one note solo is getting boring. Steve.

Steve,

It's quite clear she's only here because of JOan Mellen's new book. She has NOTHING to say on the assassination of JFK. SHe cites known disinfo people like Epstein. And to say that we are trying to "obscure the truth about the assassinaion of John F> Kennedy" is such a vile absurd comment, it did not warrant a response.

It's clear she has not the slightest interest in this case, only smearing Garrison. If we all ignore her she WILL go away. Internet trolls come and go.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Dawn, my friend, message well and truely recieved. Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Jay Epstein aptly illustrated, Garrison's investigation shed absolutely nothing new on the assassination itself and according to the New Orleans States-Item, once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal process to his own ends."

Needless to say, assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away from more salient leads in New Orleans.

Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Well, one can rest assured that I am not an "assassination buff", and being considerably more familiar with New Orleans than most others who are posting here, I can assure you that Garrison was a shrewd as well as politically knowledgeable individual.

Therefore, for him to sacrifice his own personal integrity with the Clay Shaw "Circus & Sideshow", was not an act of ignorance on his part.

Therefore, if it were not an act of ignorance, then it was obviously a deliberate "act".

In addition to this, one must also consider that Garrison was formerly one of "Hoover's" boys, and for him to give a performance which was as inept as was the Clay Shaw trial, also meant that it would bring some discredit to the "Hoover" family.

Therefore, whatever political entity Garrison was dancing to the tune of, he obviously considered it to be far more critical to his long term livelihood than was the risk of offending JEH, or of even bring completely false charges against Clay Shaw.

Certainly brings to mind such items as the "Spruce Goose" and the "Glomar Explorer".

Good Post, now you are thinking like a good investigator Purvis.

That is what I call an intelligent response.

I really don't know how anybody can possibly respect a prosecutorial jackass, but then again, even ken Starr has his fans. Oh well, I guess some people are here for political, rather than investigative purposes.

Funny when they deny the obvious... why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Jay Epstein aptly illustrated, Garrison's investigation shed absolutely nothing new on the assassination itself and according to the New Orleans States-Item, once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal process to his own ends."

Needless to say, assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away from more salient leads in New Orleans.

Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Well, one can rest assured that I am not an "assassination buff", and being considerably more familiar with New Orleans than most others who are posting here, I can assure you that Garrison was a shrewd as well as politically knowledgeable individual.

I really feel sorry for you, most of, if not all of the Forum members are dedicated to authentic research into the JFK Assassination. You, whether by design, or out of ignorance choose to post your insane ramblings, at the same time that the most definitive book on the JFK assassination ever written is about to come out. Your dilemma is that your argument has been pre-emptively destroyed, actually nuked would be a better description, before you have even gotten started. Your "arguments" are a rehash of the CIA backed/media witch-hunt of Jim Garrison that has been minutely and in extreme detail written about by Joan Mellen. Your arrival here on the Forum with your rants about the evil Jim Garrison is somewhat akin to "a squadron of Japanese soldiers landing on the West Coast to declare war on America, the day after the atomic bomb fell on Nagasaki;" I have decided to just read your dribble as a source of amusement, as the only thing you accomplish is making yourself look more idiotic each and every time you post. What's the matter with you girl? Are you devoid of both self-esteem and common sense. And remember, if you don't get help at Charter, get help somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have me convinced, Garrison's apologists are merely trying to divert attention away from the truth.

Clearly, brilliant researchers like Harold Weisberg have exposed Garrison for the crackpot that he was, and for your information, when you lose your reputation, you can't get it back.

I think you have reached that stage as well, if you disagree with Harold Weisberg's assessment.

Edited by Lynne Foster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, in my experience, the Internet is becoming a major source of disinformation. I think the following story illustrates how easy it is to create the false impression that a crackpot like Jim Garrison was dedicated to authentic research into the JFK Assassination:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (United News Service) -- The George W. Bush Campaign's strategy to get their message out to the nations internet chat rooms and message boards appears to be a huge success. Edward Straight, chairman of Bush's internet operations staff, said his organization's latest research shows that fully 80 percent of messages favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.

The entire operation is run out of basement offices in a downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. bank, Straight reports. "the cost advantages of this kind of campaign are enormous," said Straight. "For a few hundred thousand dollars we have been able to hire nearly 400 internet users to repost our campaign materials and to maintain a presence on all message boards."

"Make no mistake about it," Straight said, "The postings you see extolling and defending the candidacy of George W. Bush Jr. are not for the most part posted by amateurs -- they're paid professional and there are a lot of them. We think they're doing a bang up job."

He said the first goal of Bush public relations staff is to post a lot of messages. "The paid posters thus make it seem as though there is overwhelming support for the candidate," We have the money to bury the opposition and we're prepared to shovel tons of it into the effort," he said. The second major goal of the Bush Internet 2000 team is to smear President Clinton and Vice President Gore and, increasingly, Bill Bradley, Straight said. "We'd also like them to go after the other candidate's posters and rough them up a little bit to show them that we mean business," added Straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, in my experience, the Internet is becoming a major source of disinformation. I think the following story illustrates how easy it is to create the false impression that a crackpot like Jim Garrison was dedicated to authentic research into the JFK Assassination:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (United News Service) -- The George W. Bush Campaign's strategy to get their message out to the nations internet chat rooms and message boards appears to be a huge success. Edward Straight, chairman of Bush's internet operations staff, said his organization's latest research shows that fully 80 percent of messages favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.

The entire operation is run out of basement offices in a downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. bank, Straight reports. "the cost advantages of this kind of campaign are enormous," said Straight. "For a few hundred thousand dollars we have been able to hire nearly 400 internet users to repost our campaign materials and to maintain a presence on all message boards."

"Make no mistake about it," Straight said, "The postings you see extolling and defending the candidacy of George W. Bush Jr. are not for the most part posted by amateurs -- they're paid professional and there are a lot of them. We think they're doing a bang up job."

He said the first goal of Bush public relations staff is to post a lot of messages. "The paid posters thus make it seem as though there is overwhelming support for the candidate," We have the money to bury the opposition and we're prepared to shovel tons of it into the effort," he said. The second major goal of the Bush Internet 2000 team is to smear President Clinton and Vice President Gore and, increasingly, Bill Bradley, Straight said. "We'd also like them to go after the other candidate's posters and rough them up a little bit to show them that we mean business," added Straight.

By the way, where does Joan Mellen get off crediting Jim Garrison with this:

"Garrison began by exposing the contradictions in the Warren Report, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was an unstable pro-Castro Marxist who acted alone in killing President Kennedy. "

Jay Epstein discredited the Warren Report in "Inquest" is she also going to give him credit for inventing the Internet?

Even Jim Garrison disputes Joan Mellen:

GARRISON: No, please don't put words in my mouth. The works of the critics --- particularly Edward Epstein, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane --- sparked my general doubts about the assassination; but more importantly, they led me into specific areas of inquiry.

Edited by Lynne Foster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, in my experience, the Internet is becoming a major source of disinformation. I think the following story illustrates how easy it is to create the false impression that a crackpot like Jim Garrison was dedicated to authentic research into the JFK Assassination:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (United News Service) -- The George W. Bush Campaign's strategy to get their message out to the nations internet chat rooms and message boards appears to be a huge success. Edward Straight, chairman of Bush's internet operations staff, said his organization's latest research shows that fully 80 percent of messages favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.

The entire operation is run out of basement offices in a downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. bank, Straight reports. "the cost advantages of this kind of campaign are enormous," said Straight. "For a few hundred thousand dollars we have been able to hire nearly 400 internet users to repost our campaign materials and to maintain a presence on all message boards."

"Make no mistake about it," Straight said, "The postings you see extolling and defending the candidacy of George W. Bush Jr. are not for the most part posted by amateurs -- they're paid professional and there are a lot of them. We think they're doing a bang up job."

He said the first goal of Bush public relations staff is to post a lot of messages. "The paid posters thus make it seem as though there is overwhelming support for the candidate," We have the money to bury the opposition and we're prepared to shovel tons of it into the effort," he said. The second major goal of the Bush Internet 2000 team is to smear President Clinton and Vice President Gore and, increasingly, Bill Bradley, Straight said. "We'd also like them to go after the other candidate's posters and rough them up a little bit to show them that we mean business," added Straight.

By the way, where does Joan Mellen get off crediting Jim Garrison with this:

"Garrison began by exposing the contradictions in the Warren Report, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was an unstable pro-Castro Marxist who acted alone in killing President Kennedy. "

Jay Epstein discredited the Warren Report in "Inquest" is she also going to give him credit for inventing the Internet?

Even Jim Garrison disputes Joan Mellen:

GARRISON: No, please don't put words in my mouth. The works of the critics --- particularly Edward Epstein, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane --- sparked my general doubts about the assassination; but more importantly, they led me into specific areas of inquiry.

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

Couldn't help but notice that the last 3 posts were made by Ms. Lynne Foster Dulles, all to herself, alone.

I guess that's what happens when you keep blowin' the same song out yer ass. It falls on dull ears, after awhile. :pop

Now catch that thread on Murgado. It really cooks!

Just breezin' through. :plane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...