Pat Speer

Myra, I don't believe anyone in the SS was in on the killing, per se, but I do believe that a number of them helped cover-up some things, e.g. the clean-up of the limo outside Parkland. This may have been done to save the administration some embarrassment, but either way it was wrong. The main reason I don't believe any of them was in on the killing is that the earliest statements of the agents in the motorcade almost all suggest a second shooter. Most, including Kellerman, heard the last two shots on top of each other. They knew enough about weapons to know that Oswald could not have made these sounds with his bolt action rifle. The real shame is that, to help protect the new president, they kept quiet for so long afterwards. I would prefer to live in a world where the president's bodyguards would do their utmost to make sure his assassins were brought to justice, and not just role over when the new president puts the squeeze on them to shut up. Sadly, this is not that world.

Is this an actual quote? Ron, I wrote those words while trying to paraphrase what I interpret to be Ashton's theory on Watergate. He now posts it as an exact quote by me and implies it is my own theory as a way of discrediting me. He does this for the exact reasons someone is saying John is a CIA agent. Some have a real hard time engaging in debate. They believe the purpose of debate is to convince others their way is the light. When that fails they seek to question the other person's intelligence and/or integrity. But enough about the unknown entity using the name of "Gray." LOL As for John being CIA, nothing could be more ludicrous. If anything, John himself is spreading rumors that he is CIA in order to deflect attention away from the more obvious fact he is KGB. LOL. I honestly don't believe anyone on this forum represents any intelligence agency. The CIA concept of "limited hangout" has become so ingrained in the thinking of conspiracy researchers that it is now used as an "unlimited copout." I disagree with person X, and he agrees with me part of the time, and fails to agree with me on some matters that I consider important, and disrupts me on these matters whenever I try to talk about them with others, so THEREFORE person x is a CIA agent performing a limited hangout. This kind of thinking is self-serving, and overly paranoid, IMO. Outside of their refusal to give up certain documents, I doubt the CIA has a policy about the Kennedy assassination. I doubt they give a crap about it. Why would they? The public record is a confusing mess. The media, the AMA, and the Justice Department have all staked their reputations on Oswald acting alone. Let them do all the fighting. The only possible role I see for the CIA is in the representation of the assassination overseas, which COULD include this forum, as it is based out of England. If the CIA, as a matter of policy grandfathered from LBJ days on down, considers it a matter of national interest that the single-assassin myth be pushed into foreign countries, it is not unreasonable to believe they provide funding and/or tech support for foreign channels running such bs fests as JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet and JFK: Beyond Conspiracy. It's possible they are involved in such matters. I suspect, however, that they are much more interested in infiltrating and controlling the new Al Jazeera station. If ever a media outlet was of interest to the CIA, this would be it.

I heard a similar story except I think it was about Max Holland. I respect McAdams for the most part but find his blind defense of the HSCA FPP perplexing. It is simply impossible for him to perceive that nine top "experts" could be wrong. Ironically, several of the main LNers on his forum, including Chad Zimmerman and John Canal, believe the HSCA FPP was full of doodoo, and that the "cowlick" entrance is a fraud. They stand by the WC entrance. My experiences on the McAdams forum have been somewhat comforting, in that they revealed to me that the LNers are nowhere near as united as they might seem. As a result. I suspect it's only a matter of time before the mainstream media and historians catch on that there is no there there.

Not everyone was as kind as those posting above. I received some hatemail as well. I suspect the nastiness of the email below is an indication I'm getting somewhere. Talk about confusion ! Wow ! Your series of video cartoon's , I suppose intended to confuse a person with a 3rd grade education is laughable at best . Which brings up the point of your education level ; if you ever passed the 6th grade , your not using the marbles god gave you . So , what's the real problem here ? Low self esteem ? Unable to admit to a failed world view ? Unable to come to grasp with an act of inexplicable violence , which goes on around us every minute of every day ? When you do come down to earth after soaring like a eagle , perhaps you'd like to talk turkey with Prof. Rahn who's 300 page Monograph Length Treatises blows your silly assumptions asunder : http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_to..._head_shot.html I don't think you'll do this because like most Con - Artists in ' The Great JFK Assassination Hoaxing ' business , you run faster from challenges like this then you talk . I invite you to prove me wrong .........Sincerely Tom Lowry PS : So where's the beef ? After studying this case for 25 years , I've yet to find one demonstrable thing wrong with the WCR , which stands as a bedrock of honesty and unlike your presentation , stands for the truth . If you honest with yourself , you'll remove this rubbish off the Internet , it serves no good , except to confuse people who like yourself are unqualified to pass judgment upon technical issues , that you've proven by your video , are quite beyond your grasp . Over on the McAdams forum, John McAdams defended Baden by claiming Baden obviously understood the photograph because he knew it was the forehead. This evades every question raised by the video. If Baden had studied the photo long enough to know it was the forehead, how come he presented it upside down, and how come his interpretation differed so much from Angel's interpretation?

Thanks for the kind words. Feel free to pass the word and post the link anywhere you think relevant. Most of the material had been explored before, by men like Weisberg, Lifton, and Aguilar. The one new discovery, as far as I can tell, is that Baden testified with the autopsy photo upside down, when compared to the already incorrect official understanding of the photo. I still cringe every time I see him point to the skull above the exit on the drawing and tell the congressman it corresponds to the bone on the photo.

Hi Robin, it was in Merriman Smith's recollection of events that he mentions a 'radio-telephone'. The link to the thread is: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=Merriman+Smith I believe the car itself was the "phone car" and owned by the phone company. The two wire reporters, Smith of UPI and Jack Bell of the AP, rode in it along with acting press secretary Mal Kilduff. Smith grabbed the phone first and made his famous phone call reporting shots before they even reached the hospital. Smith then pretended the phone was broken and wouldn't let Bell use the phone. It is purported that Bell struck Smith repeatedly while trying to get the phone, but Smith refused to give it up, ensuring his papers would have an exclusive. For this he is a legend in journalism circles. He was given the Pulitzer prize.

A few weeks back a friend of mine expressed an interest in creating a series of short videos on the medical evidence. We got together a few days later and did a little filming in a park. He's spent the last week or so editing it and adding digital images. While my "performance" if you can call it that is a bit rough, I believe this video will help expose what is to me the most critical cover-up involving the medical evidence, the misidentification of the "mystery photo." I included some video of Michael Baden's testimony to show just how wrong wrong can be... http://www.noisivision.com/JFK.htm We tried to keep it a bit light, which might offend some viewers, but we are aiming for a large audience, many of whom know next to nothing about these issues. Please help spread the word...

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Larry had to cut the Hargraves interview for the second edition.

Lisa Pease's work with Jim DeEugenio and PROBE always adhered to a very high standard. However, her comments on Shane O'Sullivan's work seem somehow lacking to me. First of all, she has not yet seen the video. I suppose that, in and of itself, does not invalidate her opinions. But the fact that she does not even acknowledge Ed Lopez' positive identification of Joannides, speaks to the incompleteness of her evaluations, in my opinion. This is what she writes about Joannides: The other big red flag in this story is the suggestion that George Joannides would be there, or involved. Consider: 1. I believe the CIA directed and controlled the assassination of John Kennedy. I think Joannides was involved in helping set up Oswald as a Communist through his role with the DRE (Carlos Bringuier of the DRE "fought" Oswald in the street, leading to Oswald's arrest and subsequent appearance on a televised debate, enhancing the "legend" (intelligence parlance for a false identity story) of Oswald as Communist rebel. But Joannides was a headquarters man, from what I gather. He was not a field operative. He has never been placed in Dealey Plaza, even though there's strong reason to believe he abetted the coverup and possibly helped orchestrate events from a distance. Joannides is a handler, a puppetmaster. And his region was Florida and the East Coast. If he was going to handle someone killing Bobby, the last place he'd be would be the site of the crime. 2. I believe Morales was likely involved in the Kennedy assassination. But with Jim Garrison concurrently conducting his investigation into the CIA's role in the assassination of John Kennedy that same year, that very month - why on Earth would anyone in the CIA been so stupid as to send someone involved in one assassination to commit another? It makes much more sense that a new team would be used - all new players. Different reporting structure. Different agents, assets, and cutouts. It makes NO sense that the team that had so botched the Kennedy assassination as to have given rise to a real life prosecution effort in New Orleans would be used again. I'm sorry, Shane O'Sullivan. I really think you've been had. In light of Lopez' positive ID, the above just seems weak and primarily just her speculation. Perhaps Lopez is mistaken, but Lisa Pease can do better than that if she wants to demonstrate him wrong. Thanks to Mark for posting that link. Pease makes a major mistake in her reasoning. In her assertion that the CIA would use different operatives to kill RFK she misses two HUGE reasons to think just the opposite. First, IF the CIA killed JFK they would want to keep the loop as small as possible and re-use the same men; the lives of these men would be at risk should RFK get elected and they would go along out of self-interest, if for no other reason. Second, she misses that it's entirely likely, even probable, that men like Morales were not working for the CIA when they killed Kennedy, but for the mob. Corruption is everywhere in American society. Most conspiracy theorists have no problem thinking LBJ took bribes from oilmen, and Dick Cheney took bribes from Enron. And YET, for some strange reason, the idea that Morales or Angleton or Hunt were on Trafficante's or Marcello's payroll when they helped to kill Kennedy (IF they helped to kill Kennedy) is not to be considered, even though it is one of the most logical scenarios. Somehow the idea that the men who killed the Kennedys were scumbags simultaneously trying to get paid and rid the world of some pinkos is not as appealing as the idea that a secret cabal of boogie men programmed like robots and with no thoughts of their own would kill the Kennedys for the benefit of the power elite. Well, guess what... original thought time... the mafia and the power elite are two sides of the same coin... and have been since the Mafia's earliest days in New Orleans.

John, do you have one iota of evidence that G. Gordon Liddy and L. Pat Gray ever worked for the CIA? or Mark Felt? EVERY bit of history from this period indicates the FBI and CIA were in the middle of a rivalry. Is it really likely that both Gray--a Nixon appointee--and Felt--by all accounts a Hoover loyalist, were doing the CIA's bidding? The "CIA overthrew Nixon because he was gonna blow the whistle on their scientology research" theory proposed by the mythical figure in the fedora is looneytunes... Do you believe it?

Other possible players... Jim Braden...reported to have been staying across town at the Century Plaza when Kennedy was at the Ambassador. Robert Maheu... had a number of associates within the LAPD. At one point he aproached Darryl Gates on behalf of Howard Hughes. Johnny Rosselli... implicated Sirhan's attorney in some legal entanglements just as he took Sirhan's case. Sirhan's recent attorney Larry Teeter believed this was designed to compromise Cooper and get him to convince Sirhan to plead guilty. Sidney Korshak... had close ties all over Los Angeles, including the L.A. FBI, who took his word, the word of a mob lawyer, over the words of an eyewitness when investigating Marcello's threats on JFK's life.

I disagree. True he mentions all these characters but does not provide any information that links them to the assassination. I don't blame him for trying to get a late pay-day but I would advise serious researchers to ignore the book. Thanks for the tip.

I share some of the concerns of Summers and Morley. It seems to me the program should have contacted men other than Lopez, men like Blakey and Cornwell, to see if they would also ID Joannides. I would also liked to have seen a close-up comparison of the Morales look-alike. I live in Los Angeles, an area that is roughly 50% latino, and I see Morales look-alikes every day. This gets into the uncomfortable issue of race, but experts on eyewitness testimony, like Elizabeth Loftus, have found that people's ability to recognize faces is somewhat limited when looking at faces outside their own race. I couldn't help but notice that all the men IDing Morales were white. John, in your post on the blog you stated outright that Morales was murdered. I don't remember seeing any evidence for this. If I remember correctly he died of a heart attack. Since Sullivan, Artime, Prio, DeMohrenschildt, Giancana, Rosselli, and Hoffa all died in this same 2-3 year window, I at first found Morales' death suspicious. I think Fonzi looked into this, however, and found that Morales had had a history of heart disease. If I'm remembering incorrectly, or if there's evidence for foul play in Morales' death, I'd appreciate a reminder.

If one were to look for possible suspects in the killing, one would have to consider the possibility that Kennedy was killed for political reasons, that is, killed by someone with an eye on the Presidency. In such case, LBJ is suspect number 1. Not far behind, however, were Republican candidates believing they stood a shot as long as Kennedy was out of the way. This is a fairly short list, with Goldwater, Rockefeller and Lodge leading the way. While Goldwater was an outsider with little clout in high places like the Treasury Department and the CIA. Rockefeller and Lodge were plenty connected and plenty wealthy. After Johnson, they should have been considered suspects. Of course, neither of them was investigated by the FBI or Warren Commission.

I agree. Overall, this was quite a good program. They called Specter on some of his bs, but not all. They implied he never saw the autopsy photos during the WC investigation, but failed to note that, by his own admission, he did see the back wound photo. They had the golden opportunity to show him the photo and ask if the wound was on the back or back of the neck, but failed to ask him the 1 million dollar question.

FDR was far from being the ringleader of the "lock up the Japs committee." Two little birds named Warren and McCloy were far more responsible. Incidentally, I met a Japanese-American historian last year whose dissertation was on McCloy and his decisions regarding the internment camps. She studied his personal papers and correspondences and concluded, much to the dismay of some of her fellow Asian studies students, that McCloy and Warren were honest men who thought long and hard about their decisions. She noted that, in opposition to most people's impressions, not all Japanese were locked up, just Japanese within West Coast communities where spies would be tempted to hide. She determined that much of McCloy's concerns were justified, and that he thought of locking up Germans as well, but found they were too integrated into American society, and too hard to identify by appearance. She was impressed that McCloy even considered such things. The American attitude towards Asians in California prior to WW2 was cruel and racist, to say the least, and she considered it surprising that men like McCloy and Warren paid any mind at all to the problems and rights of Japanese-Americans...

The American pilots were Alabama National Guard pilots recruited by the CIA to fly with the Cubans and sheep-dipped as mercenaries in case they got killed. A few of them did. After they died, a CIA cut-out company paid their families while the families fought to get the U.S. Government to recognize them as Americans killed in service to their country. Eventually, they won recognition. Even so, the pilots are still anonymous stars on the wall at CIA headquarters. By the way, Ashton, I know you'll love this. The fake company used to pay the families was a creation of Hunt's boss Tracey Barnes and his Domestic Operations Division. Barnes' and Hunt's ability to make paper companies and funnel money through these companies to hide operations from congressional oversight was pretty much a license to kill, don't you think?

Typical Hoover, Sullivans account just shows how difficult matters of this magnitude are to investigate and what international forces you may or may not be dealing with. I find Hoover interupting bobbys burial truly sickening. John Hoover's trying to cut into the coverage of the funeral was not just Sullivan's theory. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Hoover's boss at the time, discovered the same thing, and has mentioned it in several interviews. In Robert Kennedy's FBI file, moreover, there are memos regarding a memorial service for Kennedy held at the Justice Department. Hoover had one of his men take notes on everyone who attended and what they had to say. Hoover was a sick S.O.B. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he had something to do with the JFK, MLK and RFK killings. While many of the Europeans on this forum tend to think CIA CIA, within the United States Hoover and his FBI were far more powerful, and far more evil.

Myra, my statements about Dulles and McCloy were based on the executive session transcripts of the WC. The two of them are fairly forthcoming about items they would not be IF they were knowing participants in a conspiracy. Dulles, for example, talks openly about Hoover's vanity and dishonesty. As my specialty is the medical evidence, I consider it EXTREMELY revealing that Rankin, Dulles and McCloy pressed for an examination of the autopsy materials by, at the very least, the autopsy doctors, but that the supposedly good-guy Warren blocked this inspection. While Dulles was guilty of protecting the CIA during the WC investigation, there is no evidence that he KNEW Oswald was anything more than he was led to believe. McCloy, on the other hand, perhaps out of ego, perhaps out of some misguided notion of duty, used his influence in 1967 to get CBS news to come to the WC's defense. In his televised interview, he told America that the one regret he had about the WC was that they didn't look at the autopsy evidence. He said that Warren was supposed to look at it, but did not. Of course, Warren did look at it, but supposedly found it too horrifying for even the doctors who performed the autopsy to look at (give me a break!). This is a reversible error. In other words, IF Warren had come to this conclusion in a court of law, an appeals court would rightly have reversed Oswald's conviction. Anyhow, I find it hard to believe that, after agreeing to look at the photos, Warren would have looked at them, came to the conclusion they were too terrible to be looked at, and disallowed Kennedy's autopsists from looking at them, and NOT told Rankin, McCloy and Dulles of his decision. As a result, I am forced to conclude that McCloy told a BIG FAT LIE on CBS, when he told them Warren never looked at the photos. His conduct re the CBS 67 special is questionable in other ways as well. For one, his daughter was the personal assistant to CBS News president Richard Salant, and he had been a behind the scenes adviser to CBS' supposedly independent investigation, and yet this was not revealed to the viewing audience. Even worse, the producer of the program, Les Midgely, wrote a memo to McCloy informing him of the program's need for an on-screen interview with Dr. Humes, and the need for Dr. Humes to assert that the autopsy photos supported the drawings created for the Warren Commission. By amazing coincidence, McCloy flew to Washington that day, and met with the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury. By an even more amazing coincidence, the autopsy doctors were ordered to re-inspect the photos the next week, the Justice department prepared for them a report stating that the photos confirm the drawings they'd created for the Warren Commission, they signed the report, and 5 months later Dr. Humes was interviewed by Dan Rather on National television, after being given "talking points" by the "justice department." And what a surprise, he said the autopsy photos confirmed the wound locations as shown on the drawings created for the Warren Commission!!!! (Of course, subsequent examinations determined that the entrance wound on the skull was four inches higher and on a different bone than on the drawings, and the entrance wound on the back was two inches lower!) So...McCloy was both a xxxx and an agent of the cover-up... But...did he KNOW Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy??? I suspect not. He knew that it would be bad for U.S. economic interests to have people think there was a conspiracy, and think of the U.S. as an overgrown "banana republic." He also knew how pointless it would be to go up against Hoover, Johnson, and Warren, to try to get at the truth. So... I believe he took the businessman's way out--when in doubt, do what's good for business...and that's just what he did. If history has shown us anything, besides that anyone can be killed, it's that what's good for business is NOT always what's good for the country. P.S. Have you looked into the "Black Tom" case? I keep meaning to look into it but haven't quite made it. While it's awfully convenient to consider McCloy a closet fascist, I'm not sure he was as simple as that. He was a Capitalist, with a capital C. After WW1, he led an investigation into some terrorist activities. (This is what is called the Black Tom case.) . My understanding is he concluded that the German government was behind these activities. As a result, I don't think one can assume he was a friend to Germany. His decision to help German industrialists avoid punishment for their war crimes after WW2 was quite possibly based upon his desire to get Germany back on its feet, along with a gut feeling that, in Hitler's Germany, most Americans would have behaved in the same way. It's easy, in retrospect, to think of Krupps and Thiessens as evil people, but, in the context of their times, what American CEO or Wall Street banker wouldn't have behaved as they did? The bankers and industrialists of that time were a breed apart from the rest of us. McCloy was a champion purebred.

Myra, do you have a link or a source on your statement that Prescott Bush was involved in the potential coup reported by Smedley Butler? Richard, have you ever looked at the medical evidence? If so, since you think everything adds up just fine, where did the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 enter the President's skull? Why did a subsequent panel decided the autopsists were wrong? Tonight, Fox news is running a special on the forensic evidence. Evidently they concluded it doesn't add up. Perhaps you should take a look. Ashton, how many CIA apologists admit it's likely that prominent CIA officers were involved in his murder?

Richard, there is substantial medical evidence indicating a conspiracy. Please read my presentation at the link below for the details. You are correct in some of your assertions, however. Most of the people on this forum do tend to think of the assassination as a symptom of a larger illness, and look at American history to try and understand the context of the assassination. This leads to a lot of digging in the dirt. This obsession with digging in the dirt leads to an anti-American tone. As a patriotic American, I understand your concerns. It cannot be disputed, however, that most American politicians, in their rise to power, make compromises, and play ball with special interest groups. This often leads to genuine quid pro quo type corruption. Other times it leads to a corrupt environment, whereby basically honest men, like Eisenhower, will be influenced, without their necessarily even knowing it. Are you disputing that there is corruption in the political process, and that people in power almost always benefit financially from their power? Are you disputing that U.S. foreign policy is conducted largely for the benefit of U.S. economic interests? Are you disputing that political corruption and U.S. economic interests could have played a role in Kennedy's death? Or are you merely disputing our right to discuss such things?

I'm quoting myself here only because I inadvertently omitted an important point: Archbishop Colby's overwhelming divine inspiration for CIA confessionals came only, of course, after his cult-bretheren, Richard Helms and Sidney Gottlieb, had destroyed the evidence of all the sins they really wanted hidden, and then almost immediately had gone up in the Rapture. (Wait: no, Helms had been given a cushy ambassadorship on the other side of the world, and Gottlieb had "retired" with a fat pension right after they destroyed the CIA records at the end of 1972-beginning of 1973. Well, okay: they'd gone up in the Rapture.) I can't think of any more propitious moment for a sudden inspiration of "let's all hold hands and confess." "Kumbaya, my Lord. Kumbaya." (Okay, put down the iron: I'll stop singing.) Ashton Once again, you're citing made-up facts to suit your own bizarre scenario. It fits into your own little world-view that Colby ordered the creation of the family jewels, so you state it as a fact, even though the admitted facts by ALL involved is that Schlesinger, a Nixon loyalist, ordered the creation of the family jewels, so that he (and Nixon, obviously) could know what the CIA had been up to during the Kennedy and Johnson years. Based on everything we KNOW about Nixon, it seems likely he was looking for leverage on the CIA--after all, they refused to bail him out of Watergate and may have even (according to Colson's theory) orchestrated it. Was it a coincidence then that the family jewels remained safe until Nixon's downfall, and that they then were leaked to the press, and that this led to subsequent investigations? Was it a coincidence then that Helms was revealed as a perjurer, as a result of these leaks, and as a result of Colby's testimony? And isn't it ironic that the lies Helms told were lies designed to protect NIXON, of all people, and that the media paid as much attention to Helms' lying as they did to Nixon and Kissinger's acts against Allende? Isn't it likely that Nixon was behind the creation and exposure of the jewels, including MKULTRA? Or do you see Nixon hobbling off to San Clemente, with no thoughts of revenge?

It should also be pointed out that in his memoirs, while discussing the corrosive influence of oil money on American politics, Eisenhower told the story of one Senator whose oil businessman son was offered business deals in an attempt to sway the father. The Senator? Eisenhower's golf buddy, Prescott Bush. The son? George H. W. Bush. As far as the value of Eisenhower's land going up, that may have been a coincidence. Eisenhower's farm was built near the Gettysburg battlefield. The increase in land value may have been related to the rapid commercialization of the area in the fifties. On the other hand, maybe not. In Dark Victory, Dan Moldea discusses a similar sweetheart land deal created for Reagan by his supporters. It smelled to high heaven. Of course, Nixon had his Hughes loan and his FLA and CA houses and the Clintons had their Whitewater fiasco. Perhaps Presidents and Governors should be prohibited from making real estate transactions while in office. Perhaps the SEC should investigate real estate transactions as well as stock transactions.

I'll let honest and prudent people who have waded through seven pages of this topic decide for themselves whether I have honored my promise to engage with you and answer relevant question on this one specific issue of the Diem cables or not, and whether that makes your statement above a damned lie or not. It's in the record. And they also know exactly and unequivocally what my own position is. By contrast, here is the precisely on-topic, relevant, pertinent question of material fact that goes to the very core of this entire issue, the question that you have gone through seven forum pages dodging and evading and now have squandered yet another post on, wasting everyone's time, in further dodging and evading. So I'm going to ask you again: Do you claim that there was one "forged Diem cable," or that there was more than one "forged Diem cable"? Ashton It makes absolutely NO difference if Hunt forged one cable implicating the Kennedy Administration in Diem's death, or made ten separate cables. It makes no difference if Hunt had earlier versions of the finalized cable in the safe or not. What matters is that he admitted making A cable designed to fill in the historical record re the Diem assassination and indicate Kennedy Administration complicity, and that numerous men without any shared loyalties with Hunt confirmed the creation of this cable. Hunt did this knowing that NIXON'S FORMER RUNNING MATE Henry Cabot Lodge was in fact the U.S. citizen most responsible for Diem's death. The cable was designed, then, not just to implicate the Kennedy Administration, but, more specifically, the Democrtatic elements of the Kennedy Administration, in the murder, and free up Nixon to use the Diem assassination to silence Ted Kennedy's criticism of the Vietnam War. LBJ used the Castro hit turnaround story implicating Bobby Kennedy in his own brother's murder in the same way. When Bobby came out against the war, guess what column appeared in the next day's paper. That's right, the Drew Pearson column claiming Bobby's bloodlust killed his brother and that, even more tellingly, LBJ knew all about this but was sitting on the info. (Give me a break!) In short, the fabrication of the Diem cable or cables was a sleazy politcal act and should be revealed as such. It was also almost certainly an impeachable act, if Nixon had prior knowledge, as stated by Ehrlichman. In order to hide this act, and push your own bizarre view of history, however, you have to make it look like there was no legitimate reason for Nixon's removal. So you stomp your feet and insist there was no cable, and that ALL of the men who expressed knowledge of the cable, including Nixon's closest advisers, conspired against him to invent this cable, (as if they didn't have enough dirt on Nixon already, now really...). So, once again, I ask you... do you believe Nixon was guilty of an impeachable offense? Would your e-meter short-circuit if you answered this simple question?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Pat! <Tweet! Whistle> Yoo-hoo! Quit shuckin' and jivin' and dodgin' and slitherin' and sidewindin' Pat. Everybody can see what you're doing. Just answer the pertinent question of material fact: Do you claim that there was one "forged Diem cable," or that there was more than one "forged Diem cable"? Still waiting... Ashton Ashton, I don't take questions from make-believe people spouting insane nonsense about aliens and volcanoes, etc. You have refused to answer any of my questions. Why should I answer any of yours, particular when they are irrelevant to the thread? By asking if I believe there was one cable or two cables, are you implying that you believe one of them is the correct answer, and are you thereby acknowledging there was at least one cable?