Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: Debate

[William Kelly]

Was Joseph Kennedy part of the Suite 8F Group?

No. You had to be based in Texas to become a member. Herman Brown was the gatekeeper.

The case of Lawrence Bell was an interesting one. He helped finance LBJ’s 1948 campaign. For example, he supplied LBJ with a 47-B helicopter (LBJ was the first American politician to use a helicopter for campaigning). Bell wanted to join Suite 8F Group but he was refused as he was based in New York State. As a result, Bell moved his operations to Fort Worth, Texas. This was the beginning of Bell obtaining lucrative government contracts.....

THE CASE OF LARRY BELL IS AN INTERESTING ONE.

I TESTED PETER DALE SCOTT'S "NEGATIVE TEMPLATE THEORY" THAT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SUSPECTS ARE THE LEAST MENTIONED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS BY INVESTIGATING ARTHUR YOUNG. HIS NAME, AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE, APPEARS ONLY ONCE IN JFK ASSASSINATION LITERATURE, IN GERALD FORD'S PORTRAIT OF THE ASSASSIN, WHEN HE QUOTES FROM A LETTER MARINA OSWALD SENT TO RUTH PAINE, C/O ARTHUR YOUNG, PAOLI, PENNSYLVANIA, AGREEING TO MOVE TO TEXAS WITH HER TO HAVE THE BABY.

ART YOUNG IS THE INVENTOR OF THE BELL HELICOPTER 47B, THE FIRST HELICOPTER COMMERCIALLY APPROVED BY THE FAA. AFTER A FEW YEARS OF INQUIRY I FINALLY TRACKED ART YOUNG DOWN AT HIS RURAL PHILADELPHIA FARMHOUSE, WHERE HE DEVELOPED THE HELICOPTER USING REMOTE CONTORL SCALE MODELS IN HIS BACKYARD AND BARN. ONCE HE HAD IT PERFECTED, HE TOOK IT TO LARRY BELL IN UPSTATE NEW YORK AND SOLD HIM THE IDEA, AND WAS ASSIGNED TO BUILD A FULL SIZE MODEL, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE THE 47B - THE MASH HELICOPTER WITH THE GLASS BUBBLE COCKPIT AND GIRDERS.

A PHILADELPHIA QUAKER, YOUNG WAS PROUD THAT HIS INVENTION WOULD BE USED TO SAVE LIVES, BUT WAS DISENCHANGED WHEN THEY DEVELOPED THE HELICOPTER FOR ATTACK PURPOSES IN VIETNAM.

THE MOVE OF BELL HELICOPTER FROM NY TO TEXAS, LIKE COLLINS RADIO FROM CEDAR RAPIDS TO RICHARDSON, TX, WAS DONE FOR "SECURITY REASONS."

WHEN ART YOUNG MET RUTH FORBES PAINE, HE DIVORCED HIS WIFE AND MARRIED RUTH FORBES PAINE, WHO SHARED IS EXCENTRIC QUESTS - ESP, UFOS, ETC. AND HE TOOK HER SON MICHAEL PAINE UNDER HIS WING, GOT HIM A JOB AS A DESIGNER AND INVENTOR AT THE BELL HEL IN TEXAS, WHERE MICHAEL AND HIS WIFE RUTH HYDE PAINE MOVED AFTER LIVING IN PHILLY FOR A FEW YEARS.

I TAPE RECORDED AND TRANSCRIBED A TWO HOUR PLUS INTERVIEW I DID WITH ART YOUNG, SHORTLY BEFORE HE DIED. I BELIEVE I AM THE LAST INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST TO INTERVIEW HIM, AND WILL POST MORE ABOUT HIM ON A SEPARATE THREAD IF PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED.

WHILE I DON'T THINK LARRY BELL OPENED THE TEXAS PLANT JUST TO GET INTO SUITE 8F, WHEN I READ JOHN'S LIST OF MEMBERS, HIS NAME CERTAINLY JUMPED OUT OF THE PACK.

BILL KELLY

Edited January 20, 2006 by William Kelly

[Pat Speer]

Corcoran had been close to Joe Kennedy. When Corcoran left Roosevelt in 1940, Kennedy, unaware of what Corcoran was up to, offered him a full-time job. However, the two men fell out over a deal that took place in 1950 (I will write about this when I cover the period 1950-1960). From that point on, Corcoran lost access to the Kennedy family. That is why Corcoran had to work through LBJ. All this will become clearer, including Corcoran’s links with John McCone, etc. during the 1950s.

Well, he must not have lost all his access to the Kennedys. In 1956, Joe Kennedy wanted LBJ to run, with JFK as his running-mate. The man he sent to present this opportunity to LBJ was Tommy Corcoran. Similarly, in 1972, Nixon was concerned about Ted Kennedy jumping into the race. Connally called Nixon to tell him that Teddy was definitely toying with the idea. Connally's source? Fellow 8Fer Tommy Corcoran.

[John Dolva]

"The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was also having trouble with Chiang Kai-shek. The OSS arrived in July 1942. Known as Detachment 101, members of the OSS had been instructed to train Chiang’s men in guerrilla warfare. One of those officers sent to China was Captain Walter Mansfield. He later wrote: “By ordinary standards of guerrilla warfare, these Chinese were a pretty poor lot. I could not help contrasting them with Serbian guerrillas with whom I fought… Here in China, individual bravery was the exception rather than the rule.”

US Gov. WW II propaganda film (F. Capra) I've been viewing presents the Chinese farmer as a tenacious and inventive guerilla fighter. Perhaps referring to the Communists?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Stepping back and viewing "the next layer"

"construction on the Passamaquoddy Dam"

"build the Marshall Ford Dam"

"road projects."

"giant cableway."

"Cameron Iron Works"

"Defense Supplies" "war"

"the arms trade"

"Reconstruction"

"shipbuilding"

"German Steel Trust"

"building refineries, chemical plants and pipelines" etc etc

in fact, in short, all major industry either in the finished product or in the production process and in the machinery and transport tentacles:

One thing that all these major 'military industrial' industries share is 'a need for steel'

http://davidicke.www.50megs.com/icke/magaz.../bushskull.html

"Cornelius Lievense President, Union Banking Corp. and Director of Holland American Investment Corp.

Established in 1924 as a unit of W.A. Harriman and Co. A joint Walker, Thyssen, Harriman operation). The founding partners were George Herbert Walker, Co-founder & sponsor (Grandfather of George Herbert Walker Bush, Ex-President, on the Father's side. William Averill Harriman and Fritz Thyssen of the German Steel Trust. The office of Union Banking Corp. was the N.Y. office of the German Steel Trust."

"Guaranty Trust was founded in 1864 in New York. Over the next 100 years the banking firm expanded rapidly by absorbing other banks and trust companies; in 1910 it merged Morton Trust Company, in 1912 the Standard Trust Company and in 1929, the National Bank of Commerce. The J.P. Morgan Firm has effectively controlled Guaranty Trust since 1912 when Mrs. Edward Harriman (Mother of Roland and Averell Harriman) sold her block of 8,000 shares of the total outstanding 20,000 shares to J.P. Morgan. By 1954 Guranty Trust had become the most important banking subsidiary of the J.P. Morgan Firm and since 1954 the merged firms have been known as Morgan Guaranty Company."

The next thing all these need is cheap labor

"Suite 8F group as working towards a “healthy business climate characterized by a minimum of government regulations, a weak labor movement, a tax system favorable to business investment, the use of government subsidies and supports where needed to spur development, and a conservative approach to the expansion of government social services.”

Guaranty was THE major funder of the Southern Sovereignty Commisssions anti 1963 Civil Rights Bill.

And you are prbably aware that segregation is an economic construct controlling the cheapest labor both in cost and availability. Industry is located in areas of cheap labor pool. Segregation allows a control of residence, cost and training of the large cheapest source. Also it indirectly controls the next layer, the poor white and gives a good incentive for them to maintain the status quo.

[Chris Cox]

Detailed and interesting work John

You are telling the story of the men at consulate cocktail parties while I'm more interested in "cowboys" like Rip and DeLarm, but you've gathered a tidy overview-very helpful. Now I'm looking forward to 1959 Cuba installment moving us up to more contemporary "Dems in DC" JFK tie in.

Jerry Fred DeLarm was like a Gerald Murphy loved flight first then involved in intrigues of highers up but really the guys doing the work. More beer than cocktails. A bit of skim left over for them, maybe, but they were in the fight more for flying adventure and anti-red cause than pay. Jerry Fred more successful than some. DeLarm stepped up for Castillos's bounty on a radio station and claimed the lives of 200 at Fort Matamoros. Rip's from the same mold, tho' his claim to fame in Guatemala is less glamourous. These guys were heros to a young LHO I figure.

See Flying Magazine July 1957 for the complete tale of Guatemala from the commie hating pilot perspective. Chance Vought is on cover with an F8U-1 Crusader. Small world this.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

John -- interesting point about the pragmatic economics of the segregationist SSC

Am intersted about the connection between Guaranty Trust financing of the Southern Sovereignty commission. What is your source on this?

Also a potentially related question: P. D. Scott uses an interesting verb "park" regarding intel.

e.g. "Mr. Smith may parked this information in the 902nd M.I.G."

I understand this term to mean tucking inteligence away for later use without it going upwards in the

Washington D.C. bureaucracies.

Are you aware of many individuals within the Southern Sovereignty Commission with this type of parallel

parking ability?

[John Dolva]

Nathaniel

It's a fairly classical concept. Many issues can be distilled down to some economic reason. I wont elaborate here on Johns thread. Likely it's not a new concept to you. It's one I think cuts through a lot of smoke.

this one is interesting http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...35|4|1|1|81802|

The sovereignty commission files are a good source. In amongst them are confidential lists, accounts, money orders and cheques donated to the MSC (which in turn involved the LSC) in Jul Sep Nov 1963 amounting to 130.000+ with about 110,000 being from the Guaranty trust.

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...10|1|1|1|83305|

Click new search down the bottom to go to main search site. Search for Dulles for his connections. Abrahams boss in the pres detail is there as well, sharing info as well as a number of other people. Spending some time looking through it builds an interesting picture of a behind the scenes intelligence network. It's a hugesite, and a lot of documents are not referred to except in obscure names, so I spend a lot of time just hopping around and much is found like this. Which ij turn gives keywords and names to do a more targeted search.

I'm not familiar with this term park. Should I gain a more thorough understanding of it I'll post. Thank's for raising it. I have gotten a sense of connections etc that went past the perhaps official channels. They're not documented in detail and sometimes stand out more in what is not said.

There are also a collection of links that may be of of interest in the Sovereignty Commisssion Files thread.

Edited February 11, 2006 by John Dolva

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

John Simkin: have read this thread and new thread on MICIC with great interest.

By connecting the nominally political (congress) with Deep Politics ( corporate, lobbying, media,and intelligence interests) you are showing how otherwise amorphous--and hence easily dismissible--forces

can have concrete and measurable results. In other words, it will be harder for this line of reasoning to be dismissed as mere "conspiracy theory".

I was ignorant about the early Guatemala stuff during the Truman administration. This fascinated me, because it seems like a "glass half full moment". The question I think all of us on this forum want to know is: "When,exactly, during the 1950s, did the CIA get the idea that they could opperate pretty much on theier own, to the extent that, by 1960, they were telling the newly elected President Kennedy, welcome, and by the way, were about to invade Cuba" Also HOW did they get this autonomy?

Your description of truman in 1950-52 seems interesting in this light. 1) At first the State Dept tells Corcoran that, Arbenz has been elected so chill. 2) Corcoran meets with Dulles who seems to make some kind of assurance to Corcoran, (independent of the State Dept?) that the something big will happen if Arbenz attempts further land reform 3) Corcoran and Dulles get to Truman via Somoza, and Truman seems to move toward the CIA position. But 4) the Acheson once again affirms that the overt policy will still triumph over covert (CIA) policy. This is an interesting picture of ambiguity, and fluidity leading into a period in which covert policy will dominate.

One question, concerning Corcoran's comment that lobbying--though it had been around along time--had changed in an important way after WWII. You don't specify exactly what this change was, but I am assuming he is talking about what later(when?) came to be called "the revolving door"?? If not, what change was he talking about?

Once again it is interesting that Tommy Corcoran had made the transition from New Dealer to seemingly unilateralist Latin America interventionist. In doing so he made connections with China Lobby people who also were unilateralists. Yet, possibly because of his New Deal past,he maintained connections to liberals e.g. when you mention that he targeted liberal senators to be lobbied with thier own carefully tailored line.

I have typed elsewhere this foot in both camps ability reminds me of John Jay McCloy. As I push through Caro's Master of the Senate, I also find it reminds me LBJ, when he rescued Ike from the unilateralsits of his own party, and also when he made his alliance with Humphry, all the while being very carefull not to seem too anti-McCarthyite, and hence risk his unilaterlist backing from the Suite 8F Group.

It might be worth remembering that as early as 1919 Latin America had been a rallying cry for unilateralist

opposition to the dreaded creep of internationalism. Many senators who voted against the Versailles Treaty

did so not only because they felt it violated Senate's soveriegnty, but also because they felt Latin America should remain a unilateralist "back yard" of the U.S. and not subject to League of Nations' gatekeeping.

One last suggestion. What about think -tanks during this same critical period that you are writing about. The same corporate ties that you illuminate between corporations-lobbyists- and legislators, could perhaps be made between corporations-think tanks and legislators.

Also did you get a chance to look at the Frank Kofsky book a mentioned earlier? It bears directly on both of these threads. The title is "Harry Truman and the War Scare of 1948" Its about the air-craft industry lobbyists, the media, and congress.

[John Simkin]

One question, concerning Corcoran's comment that lobbying--though it had been around along time--had changed in an important way after WWII. You don't specify exactly what this change was, but I am assuming he is talking about what later(when?) came to be called "the revolving door"?? If not, what change was he talking about?

Nathaniel, are you referring to this passage?

The accusation that Corcoran was involved in corrupting political leaders had not gone away. In 1950 a committee headed by Frank M. Buchanan, began investigating lobbying activities. Buchanan reported that “In the 1870’s and 1880’s, lobbying meant direct, individual solicitation of legislators, with a strong presumption of corruption attached.” (1) According to Buchanan, the “business of influencing legislation is a billion dollar business.” However, he added that lobbying had undergone a transformation that made it very difficult to show that corruption had taken place. (2)

The point Buchanan is making is that in the early days lobbyists would hand money directly to the politicians. It would seem that very little attempt was made to disguise this type of corruption. For example, the large payments of money paid by Brown & Root to LBJ during the 1930s.

It was Tommy Corcoran’s idea that Lady Bird Johnson should buy KTBC. Companies paid LBJ for government contracts by buying advertising on his radio/television station. This is why Don Reynolds testimony to the Senate Rules Committee was so important. He explained how the system worked. LBJ sometimes got lazy and used people like Walter Jenkins, Cliff Carter and Bobby Baker to transfer cash. I suspect Baker leaked information like this to people like Reynolds in order to blackmail LBJ into covering up his own illegal activities. For example, the Serv-U Corporation scam that LBJ does not appear to have been involved in.

If done in the right way, it is very difficult to prove corruption. Here are two examples. When Tony Blair announced he was going to run as leader of the Labour Party he was given £7 million by a group of Jewish businessmen led by a man called Michael Levy. The money was for him to run his campaign. In the UK politicians don’t need such large sums to campaign within the party. Levy also agreed to become the Labour Party’s main fundraiser after Blair was elected. It is therefore no surprise that Blair has followed such a pro-Israel foreign policy.

Just before the 1997 election, Blair had a meeting with Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the right-wing newspaper, The Sun. This newspaper has the largest circulation in the UK and has been blamed for keeping Labour out of power since 1979. However, surprisingly, The Sun supported Labour in the 1997 election. Soon afterwards, Blair signed a book contract with HarperCollins for £3.5 million (this was only revealed when he used this contract as security when he purchased a large house in London). HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Of course the company will never make those sorts of profits from Blair’s autobiography. It is in fact a bribe. Similar contracts were given by HarperCollins to Margaret Thatcher and John Major. It is therefore no surprise that Blair has moved his party sharply to the right. In fact, the policies are no different from those followed by the Conservative Party under Thatcher and Major. Gordon Brown, the man who will replace Blair, has done a similar deal with Murdoch. Just wait for the smear stories to appear against anyone who stands against Brown for the leadership.

This sort of corruption is of course impossible to prove in a court of law (it is no coincidence that so many of our leading politicians are former lawyers).

[John Simkin]

I was ignorant about the early Guatemala stuff during the Truman administration. This fascinated me, because it seems like a "glass half full moment". The question I think all of us on this forum want to know is: "When,exactly, during the 1950s, did the CIA get the idea that they could opperate pretty much on theier own, to the extent that, by 1960, they were telling the newly elected President Kennedy, welcome, and by the way, were about to invade Cuba" Also HOW did they get this autonomy?

The election of Dwight Eisenhower seems to have been crucial in this. Up until then, the Truman administration had been trying to control the covert activities of the CIA. Eisenhower immediately gave the go-ahead for the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Guatemala. As David Atlee Phillips pointed out in his autobiography, Eisenhower was tremendously impressed by the way the CIA got away with their illegal activities in Guatemala (mainly because of Operation Mockingbird). Understandably, Eisenhower, made no more attempts to restrain the CIA’s covert operations and appears he have given his approval for the overthrow of Castro.

JFK was briefed by Richard Bissell before he was elected to power about these attempts to overthow Castro (Nixon was furious and believed from then on that the CIA were pro-Democrat). JFK told Bissell that he approved this strategy and made speeches during the campaign attacking Eisenhower and Nixon for not doing more to bring down Castro. However, once in power, JFK was much more cautious than Eisenhower. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he attempted to control the CIA (he even considered making Robert Kennedy director of the CIA). However, he was persuaded to appoint John McCone as director. This was a strange choice as McCone was a key figure in the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence Complex. It is at this point that Kennedy lost full control over the CIA.

[Tim Gratz]

I find your last sentence rather strange. JFK lost all control of the CIA under McCone? Is it your position that the CIA under Allen Dulles was more subject to presidential control than it was under the McCone leadership? Perhaps I missed your point.

I would certainly agree that Eisenhower had approved of the concept of U.S. manuevered "regime change" in Cuba. I don't think there is much question of that.

But JFK and RFK certainly carried on that policy with a vengeance. JFK was willing to have the CIA to topple Castro in the BOP; he simply wanted it done as surreptitiously as the CIA had accomplished the regime change in Guatemala. And Operation Mongoose was certainly a "secret war" against Castro.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

John,

Thanks for posting this material. Your research output on the forum amazes me. While I have nothing like your background in historical study, it has occurred to me that it was inevitable that the American capitalist system would produce a fascistic shadow government or network of covert, selfish, unelected movers and shakers, and that the time will come when dictatorship results. Money is power and, as it is often said, power corrupts. Given human nature, it is natural and to be expected that the wealthy class will rule, that the capitalist system would go hand in hand with Social Darwinism or an attitude of survival of the fittest, the wealthy seeing itself as manifestly the fittest, and that the wealthy would thwart attempts by the unfit to effect actions or policies by democratic means that are against the financial interests of the fit. Belief in true democracy is for the unfit common herd. And the historical reality that the ruling class will assassinate leaders, slaughter fellow citizens, and otherwise engage in nefarious covert operations to protect and promote its financial interests does not speak well of human nature. Humans are capable of anything and that ain’t good. So it is rather naive to ask how such things as assassination and genocide can happen in a “free society” and why people among the powerful don’t do something about it.

Ron

The main reason I spend so much time on this issue is that I think it is of the utmost importance. I am of the opinion that the JFK assassination is just part of the long-term conspiracy against democracy. That is why the topic goes right up to the present. Where we probably disagree is over the ultimate consequence of these actions. I am the eternal optimist who believes enough freedom of expression exists in the system to create a truly democratic society. I believe the internet is another important factor in this (before the ruling elite also controlled the mass media).

However, as we saw in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany in the 1930s, in a crisis, the ruling elite will resort to fascism. Would this happen in the US in the future? For example, what would happen if the full story of “Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade” was fully exposed in the US in the next couple of years? How would American people react if they really believed that Bush invaded Iraq in order to make money for his financial backers (in the same way that LBJ did in Vietnam)? This is a difficult concept for people to grasp. I am sure that even most conspiracy theorists think I have gone too far to suggest that a politician would act in such a way. Yet I belive this is the key to understanding these events.

At the moment a large percentage of the American people believe that Bush made a silly mistake by invading Iraq. However, if the majority of American developed the opinion that Bush took this decision as a result of pressure applied by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc., I would like to think the American public would demand reform of the system and to break the link between politicians and the arms manufacturers. At a time like this the ruling elite would no doubt consider the possibility of a military dictatorship. After all, China is now showing how a military dictatorship can successfully run a capitalistic system.

The main test will be the way the rest of the advanced world would react. Bush might be able to rely on Tony Blair to defend this military coup (maybe one would take place in the UK at the same time). However, other European countries have a more sophisticated understanding of the political process. I think the power of the European Union is important here. We also still have the internet (something that China is still finding impossible to control). I therefore thing a military coup in the US would end in failure.

I would be interested in how others see this developing situation.

[Jim Hackett II]

John,

I don't have a lot to add to your material as you have done a great job with a complex issue and often covered up series of dry footprints falling between the raindrops.

What I do have to add is to draw attention to the paucity of documentation on this assemblage of criminal power brokers mentioned (examples being Tommy the Cork and J. McCloy), again to the point of the quality of your work and the depth of the background work.

I find it most odd, though not at all surprising but almost expected, the confluence of international trade ports, interests and so forth to the power centers and corporations tied most closely to the shadow elite network that arose out of CAT/AVG.

Again too often the issues of the "China hands" if covered in books the exposure of the reality stops on September 2, 1945 with Imperial Japan's surrender. Some do go past the Japanese surrender to the "fall of China" all the while tip-toeing around the CAT-KMT-TV Soong-"Chinese Nationalist" opium empire that was already growing in 1948.

Kudos for just that one point --- NOT STOPPING the research in 1945.

Thank You Most Kindly

Jim

Edited March 27, 2006 by Jim Hackett II

[Jim Hackett II]

John,

This passage is important.

"However, as we saw in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany in the 1930s, in a crisis, the ruling elite will resort to fascism. Would this happen in the US in the future? For example, what would happen if the full story of “Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade” was fully exposed in the US in the next couple of years? How would American people react if they really believed that Bush invaded Iraq in order to make money for his financial backers (in the same way that LBJ did in Vietnam)? This is a difficult concept for people to grasp. I am sure that even most conspiracy theorists think I have gone too far to suggest that a politician would act in such a way. Yet I belive this is the key to understanding these events.

At the moment a large percentage of the American people believe that Bush made a silly mistake by invading Iraq. However, if the majority of American developed the opinion that Bush took this decision as a result of pressure applied by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc., I would like to think the American public would demand reform of the system and to break the link between politicians and the arms manufacturers. At a time like this the ruling elite would no doubt consider the possibility of a military dictatorship. After all, China is now showing how a military dictatorship can successfully run a capitalistic system.

The main test will be the way the rest of the advanced world would react. Bush might be able to rely on Tony Blair to defend this military coup (maybe one would take place in the UK at the same time). However, other European countries have a more sophisticated understanding of the political process. I think the power of the European Union is important here. We also still have the internet (something that China is still finding impossible to control). I therefore thing a military coup in the US would end in failure.

I would be interested in how others see this developing situation."

-------------------------end excerpt from Mr. Simkin's post above -----------------------------

As refreshing as the rising tide of backlash in America is after 6 years of rubber stamping Fascist agendas, I worry that nothing substantive will come of it all.

I see so many politicos running for cover and assholes of both parties screaming at the top of their voices "Vote for me, I'm not like him!"

Not in those words but the intent is clear.

I saw a billboard recently that someone paid for, it read: "Will someone give this man a blow job so we can impeach him?" superimposed over a unflattering picture of GW Bu$h.

Someone put up good money for that billboard seen by many thousands everyday. It stopped me cold, I turned around to see if I had seen what I thought I saw. I did.

A huge difference from 2001-2002 when I was flipped off by Bu$hite Fascists for a thing in my car window with an upside down flag and the caption "BUSH KNEW!". Today I get no such redneck display but many thumbs up from the same population that was so blinded by the right in the lust for war in 2001-03.

IF the opposition to Bu$H solidifies into a confrontational newly elected House of Representatives in 2006, THEN Articles of Impeachment will follow.

Iraq alone isn't the issue, it is the string of arrogance, errors of policy, repeated claims of being above the law and being the law. Again an unbroken string of governance for the War-Profiteers has worn thin.

I'll date myself right here: I have been saying for 2 years after 2004's second consecutive stolen US election that the arrogance and attitude of beng above reproach is only a mirrored reflection of the Nixon White House after the STOLEN election of 1972. Nobody could touch them or stop their war. THEY THOUGHT.

My question is: Will the American People stand for another dose of limited hang-out and create another pair of manufactured heroes as Woodward and Bernstein became?

Time will tell IF the Empire of the Bu$h Crime Family will fall. IF it does, will the American Republic be subjected to a repeat in another 30 years?

Will the new boss be any different than the old boss?

America once had more products to offer the world markets than WAR, WEAPONS and EXPORTED WARS.

Just too much manipulated profit today in war for corporate international interests to ignore for the sake of the "investors". Investors, so it comes full circle back to the Fascists and lovers of war promoting the system that creates the power base and the piles of dead people and even larger piles of profits for ready cash.

Jim

PS I am a registered independent voter and I will vote again in 2006 and beyond. They made the white boy (me) mad enough to act. Citizenship and the attending responsibility doesn't stop when leaving the voting booth or kiosk ever other year as the last 5 years show.

Go VOTE YANKS, you may not get another chance in your lifetime if you don't.

Edited March 27, 2006 by Jim Hackett II

[Pat Speer]

John, I think these papers are your best work. A kind of "Unified Field Theory" if you will. While there will be nay-sayers who will doubt your conclusions, no one willl be able to make the claim you didn't do your homework or that you had no evidence to support your interpretation of recent history.

Two minor points in part 3 that can be improved or expanded come to mind. On footnote 174 you mention the Huey helicopter. I believe this was called the Huey because it was developed by Howard Hughes. While I don't remember how it became a joint project with Bell, I think that would prove interesting, particularly if Johnson played a role. He may very well have told Hughes he needed to put the jobs and money in Texas in order to get the contract. In some of the books on Hughes, there is an anecdote about the helicopter that would fit in quite nicely with the theme of your work. Evidently, when Hughes discovered that his break even point on the helicopter would only come after selling x amount, and that he'd only been able to sell y amount, he instructed Maheu to talk to LBJ and make sure the war continued on long enough so that Hughes could recoup his initial investment. Don't remember exactly what was said or whether Maheu ever admitted to talking to LBJ about this issue, but Hughes' thinking--there may even be a memo reflecting his thoughts--is revealing. I can dig through my books on Hughes and find the quotes and exact context if you like.

A second minor point comes soon after: On footnote 176 you write that General Dynamics received contracts worth 24 billion, then on footnote 177 you write that it received contracts worth 2,200 million in 1968 alone. Well, 2,200 million is only 2.2 billion. Is this 2.2 billion included in the 24 billion contract listed right before? I found these comments confusing. Maybe the 24 billion number was supposed to say 2.4 billion.

Anyhow, like I said, this is great work. While LBJ liked to think of himself as a victim of Vietnam, and many historians have bought into this, you've successfully presented an argument that he was a victim of his own greed, and of his own desire to appease the men who made him (and possibly killed Kennedy).

[Antti Hynonen]

http://www.battleshipcove.org/aircraft-huey.htm

THE IROQUOIS NATIONS: US military helicopters are frequently named after Native American tribes, (e.g., Apache, Chinook, Comanche, etc.), and the Bell Iroquois, or "Huey," UH-1 helicopter derives its name from the Iroquois.

The Iroquois Nations occupied a region from central New York westward to the Illinois River. Comprising five (later, six) tribes of peoples with closely related languages, the Iroquois confederacy comprised the Mohawk, Oneida, Onotague, Cayunga, and Seneca tribes, and then absorbed the Tuscarora in 1712.

Despite the enmity that frequently existed between Native Americans and the early English settlers, the Iroquois were allies with the British during the French & Indian Wars. Largely due to the diplomacy of Sir William Johnson, the British Superintendent of Indian Affairs, this alliance continued into the American Revolutionary War, when nearly one half of the New York Iroquois fled to Canada to enlist in the British service against the Americans.

To learn more about the Iroquois, visit the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

--------------------------------------

http://www.helis.com/60s/h_h1.php

In the original helicopter designation series, the first three aircraft received the XH-40 designation.

First flight of the new design was in October 1956, development and production following.

When the US Army adopted its own two-letter designation system, the H-40 became the HU-1 (Helicopter Utility). From this designation came Huey, the name by which it has remained known. The US Department of Defence ( DOD ) standard designation system reversed this to UH-1, the first designation in the new DOD helicopter series. With larger engines and increased capacity, the UH-1 was developed through successive models.

Officially the UH-1 series is the Iroquois. But its unofficial name, Huey, became so commonly used that the AH-1 attack version was officially named the Huey Cobra.

The Huey story traces back some four decades. In 1955, with an interest in a utility helicopter designed around a turboshaft engine, the US Army had the US Air Force develop a new helicopter for its use. At that time the US Army did not have its own aircraft development capability. The design selected, Bell's Model 204, was to be powered by a new Lycoming T-53 engine of some 850 shaft horsepower and featured a typical Bell two-blade teetering rotor.

----------------------------------

Pat Speer Posted Yesterday, 06:34 PM

John, I think these papers are your best work. A kind of "Unified Field Theory" if you will. While there will be nay-sayers who will doubt your conclusions, no one willl be able to make the claim you didn't do your homework or that you had no evidence to support your interpretation of recent history.

Two minor points in part 3 that can be improved or expanded come to mind. On footnote 174 you mention the Huey helicopter. I believe this was called the Huey because it was developed by Howard Hughes. While I don't remember how it became a joint project with Bell, I think that would prove interesting, particularly if Johnson played a role. He may very well have told Hughes he needed to put the jobs and money in Texas in order to get the contract. In some of the books on Hughes, there is an anecdote about the helicopter that would fit in quite nicely with the theme of your work. Evidently, when Hughes discovered that his break even point on the helicopter would only come after selling x amount, and that he'd only been able to sell y amount, he instructed Maheu to talk to LBJ and make sure the war continued on long enough so that Hughes could recoup his initial investment. Don't remember exactly what was said or whether Maheu ever admitted to talking to LBJ about this issue, but Hughes' thinking--there may even be a memo reflecting his thoughts--is revealing. I can dig through my books on Hughes and find the quotes and exact context if you like.

Now, the Howard Hughes helicopters are the Cayuse OH-6A type or Hughes Helicopters 500 series. The "egg shell" -type chopper.

http://www.rotaryaction.com/history.html

The Hughes Helicopters 500 series was derived from the US military's OH-6A Cayuse, which first flew on 27 February 1963, and was chosen by the army as their preferred 'Light Observation Helicopter'. Many variations of the 500 family (aka: 369), were built from 1960s to 1990s, for military and civil use, and the 'flying egg' (as it's nicknamed) became one of the most popular helicopters ever seen in cinema and TV. Hughes Helicopters (founded by the legendary Howard Hughes), was bought out by McDonnell Douglas in 1984, though MD itself merged with Boeing in 1997, only for its commercial line to be sold off by Boeing two years later.