Pat Speer

Thanks, John, for taking a look. My girlfriend threw the presentation up onto her free Mac page. I was gonna get my own webpage for the sucker, but I kept delaying it due to my concerns over some of the stuff that's crippled this Forum from time to time. I decided a Mac page would be safe. What I didn't realize until it was too late was that the Mac page uses a template that shrinks the page and makes the text even smaller. So I'm sorry for any inconvenience to your eyes. I had 20/20 vision going into this two years ago and now, 50,000 or so pages later, I need glasses. I'm still thinking of creating the webpage. I'm told there's a program that will change Power Point presentations into a web article. I was hoping to get some feedback and make some changes before I do something that drastic, however. Once again, thanks.

Come on, guys, this place is beginning to look like Conspiracies R Us. The CIA condoning central American operatives in the drug trade is not the same as the CIA orchestratiing the drug trade and specifically targeting the black population. I suppose the current Meth epidemic devastating White Trash America is the CIA's attempt to balance the scales?

Notice how they are not consistent in their placement of the wound. Notice how a number of them place the wound in on the far back of Kennedy's head. If you check their testimony of these men, you won't find one of them that says there was an entrance near the temple and a large blow out in the back. The Parkland witnesses are consistent only in that they saw one large hole and that it wasn't on Kennedy's face. Think about it. If you saw a famous person in a hospital what would you notice? You'd look at that person's face, and having satisfied yourself that the face was intact, you'd look beyond that. Since the rest of Kennedy's head was a mass of blood, brain, and hair, it would be awfully hard to look at. You might even look away. But would you inspect the brain-soaked hair to make a mental note of the exact location of the wound on the skull? Hell, no, that was Clark's job. Clark said he believed the wound to be one large gutter wound, on the right side of Kennedy's head. He remembered it as being towards the rear but decided he'd goofed after being shown the autopsy photos. Bernice is correct to point out that he left open the possibility that the explosion of the skull was an exit for a bullet entering the throat. This means there was NO entrance wound near the temple or anywhere consistent with a shot from the stockade fence. None. No one saw such a wound. In Dallas or Bethesda. I believe the Dallas/Bethesda wound controversy has been a HUGE distraction. It has prevented many researchers from even analyzing what the photos actually show. While my presentation has had over 500 visits and 200 downloads, not one person has e-mailed me and told me where I'm wrong on any of my points. I know that can't be true. I know I've made some mistakes. Thankfully, John Hunt corrected me on one factual error. If he hadn't done that, I'd have my doubts that anyone was even reading my monster. Lone-nutter or conspiracist, alterationist or not, I demonstrate a number of things in my presentation that should be obvious to everyone, e.g. that the bullet slice on the back of the skull was not on the back of the skull at all, and that both the Clark Panel and Forensic Pathology Panel made serious mistakes. Anyone interested in the truth should take a look. Some specific responses to Bernice's second re-cap for the alteration theory. Zapruder and Newman both said they heard shots from behind them. This is not in dispute. A look at Dealey Plaza indicates that the stockade fence where most place a shooter at frame 312 WAS NOT behind Newman and Zapruder, but to their right. Newman has said several times that there was no shooter from that corner. Marilyn Sitzman was adamant about this as well. Although widely quoted, Moorman's credibility is among the lowest of any witness. She repeatedly changed the number of shots she remembered, but was consistent with her gal pal Hill in that both believed the FIRST shot they heard was the head shot. In other words, they were just about the only two people in the plaza not to hear the neck shot at 224. This is an indication to me that the first shot (or shots) came from behind, back by the corner of Houston and Elm. While Hill and sometimes Moorman make up for missing the first shot by insisting they heard more than 3 shots, the majority of those on the grassy knoll itself, only remember hearing ONE shot after the neck shot. Thus, the idea that Hill heard multiple shots from the knoll is lacking corroboration from those on the knoll. I know that there are many who have grown accustomed to the idea of alteration, and consider any argument against alteration an argument against conspiracy, but they are wrong. In my presentation I play on the playing field of the WC, the HSCA,. and the mainstream media, and demonstrate that there was almost undoubtedly more than one shooter. I believe I've PROVEN a few of my points beyond any reasonable doubt. I hope you will agree.

Anderson was a muckraker, in the best sense of the word. Too bad he got too close to some of his subjects, i.e. Rosselli and Sturgis. If he hadn't, who knows, he may have broken the case back in the seventies.

Below is a blurb from one of Hoffman's articles, which includes more quotes from Wheaton's article. Wheaton's credibility is sinking by the minute. It's not that he's necessarily a xxxx, it's just that he has a history of speaking out on controversial subjects and espousing conspiracy theories. He is far from the reluctant witness we would like him to be. He's even written conspiracy-oriented articles, apparently espousing the belief that the Oklahoma City bombing was covered-up or caused by Bush 41 (and a secret team, no doubt). While I'm still inclined to believe that Wheaton had legitimate suspicions about Jenkins and Quintero, I must admit I'm skeptical about the over-all picture he's painted. As one versed in conspiracy theories, it's quite possible he threw names like Morales and Davidson into the mix just to add flavor. Here's the Hoffman excerpt: 5: Washington's "Lunatic Fringe" "There's some reason they're covering this up. After awhile, they must think they can get away with anything. But they're not gonna get away with this." -- State Representative Charles Key The government didn't stop at intimidating victims like Edye Smith and jurors like Hoppy Heidelberg. Manipulating evidence also seemed to be a major tool in their arsenal of deceit. Located just four miles from Oklahoma City, the seismic data monitor at the Omniplex had recorded the shock waves of the explosion on April 19th. The seismograph readings, including one from the University of Oklahoma 16 miles away in Norman, presented startling evidence -- evidence that the explosion that ripped through the Alfred P. Murrah building may in fact have been several distinct blasts. The implications of this are ominous. At a meeting of the Oklahoma Geophysical Society in October, Seismologists Ray Brown and Tom Holzer gathered to discuss the findings. Pat Briley, a seismic programmer, attended the meeting, as did U.S. Attorney Patrick Ryan. As Briley describes it, less than a third of the way through the presentation, Ryan got up, walked to the back of the room, and began giving a private press conference. "I haven't heard these scientists present any evidence that there was more then one bomb," said Ryan, "and I don't think it will come up in the trial." "They hadn't even gotten half way through their presentation when Ryan said this," recounts Briley. "Patrick Ryan lied very heavily. This guy really lied." [18] After the meeting, Briley politely asked Ryan to give him the original seismogram in his possession. Ryan got up, angrily accused Briley of working for the defense team, then stammered out of the room. While direct intimidation remains the pervue of agencies such as the FBI, both Ryan and Keating have had convenient platforms from which to blow smoke at their critics. Keating has made many appearances on Jerry Bohnen's talk radio, KTOK. KTOK is located at 50 Penn Place, in the same building that houses the FBI. KTOK and The Daily Oklahoman have provided Keating with a convenient platform to dismiss critics of the government's handling of the case, including Representative Charles Key and Edye Smith. In fact, Keating wasted no time in discrediting Smith, calling her allegations "hysterical." [19] Yet it is interesting to note that out of thousands of checks that people mailed to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army for Smith, none were ever received. Those sent through Keating's office had been opened, checks and pages missing. Keating's answer: interning college students were responsible for the thefts. [20] Perhaps former G-Man Keating was training the young lads for upcoming counter-intelligence operations. Such are not unusual tactics for a man who worked as an FBI agent during COINTELPRO (the FBI's Counter Intelligence Program of the mid-60's to mid 70's), where he infiltrated anti-government organizations like the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, and the SDS (Students For A Democratic Society), and stated he sees little difference between them and the militias. [21] Keating also served as Assistant Attorney General under Edwin Meese. Meese was Attorney General during the 1985 fire-bombing of the MOVE headquarters. MOVE was a group of black housing activists who were living in a squatted building in Philadelphia. The satchel charge, dropped from a helicopter by Philadelphia's finest, resulted in the deaths of over 11 people, including five children, and destroyed an entire square block of the city. Instead of launching a proper investigation into the matter, Meese's response was "consider it an eviction notice." But Keating's involvement with the scions of truth and justice doesn't end there. Keating served in the Bush administration as Assistant Treasury Secretary during the Iran-Contra investigations. Gene Wheaton, an investigator who specializes in counter-terrorism, assassinations, and international narcotics and weapons trafficking, observes that it was George Bush who personally selected Keating as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in 1986, where he supervised the Customs Service, The Secret Service, and the ATF. Keating has always been at the nexus bridging the agendas of good ol' boys like George Bush, with their elitist agendas, and the subsequent covert-operations sub-cultures which they spawned. In an article in the Portland Free Press entitled "Another Bush Boy," Wheaton writes: The covert-operations "lunatic fringe" in Washington, which took over key operations at the national security level, still controls them today, was Bush's 1981 agenda, and Keating is the next generation to carry it on. It was only three months after Keating's inauguration as Governor that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building occurred. Given his background and grooming, Keating was in a perfect position to direct "damage control." As Wheaton notes: Keating is an a perfect position to control the direction and scope of any state investigation which might not correspond to the official federal inquiry. It appears that Keating is doing just that. As Governor, Keating was in a position to halt the hurried demolition of the Murrah building, ordered by federal authorities under the guise of "safety." Bob Ricks, the FBI PR flack who spoon-fed a daily dose of lies to the press during the Waco siege, was appointed Director of Public Safety in Oklahoma by Keating after the bombing. [22] The demolition was ordered under the pseudo-psychological premise of providing "closure" to the festering wound hanging over the city. The demolition also effectively prevented any independent forensic investigation of the bomb site. [23] "There's some reason they're covering this up," stated Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key. "After awhile, they must think they can get away with anything. But they're not gonna get away with this." Eight months after the demolition, Key, dissatisfied with the official investigation, attempted to form a state investigative oversight committee. House Speaker Glen Johnson successfully blocked Key's attempts, stating his satisfaction with the official investigation. Key also attempted to impanel a County Grand Jury. Such a jury, operating outside the scope of the federal investigation, would not only have the power to investigate facts ignored by the federal Grand Jury, but have the power to level criminal obstruction of justice charges against anybody whom they believed might have impeded the investigation.

Here's another tidbit on Wheaton from an online blog mentioning David Hoffman "Investigative Reporter David Hoffman 11/25/02 I recently made the acquaintance of journalist David Hoffman. He emailed me Friday: Gore Vidal wrote an article about Timothy McVeigh in last September's Vanity Fair, promoting my book, The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror, as the best work on the case. I was also the reporter indicted by an Oklahoma Grand Jury three years ago in the same case, for jury tampering (a sham charge by a corrupt government designed to silence me). And a few weeks ago, I beat the former Deputy Director of the FBI in the Federal Court of Appeals. He had sued me for libel. The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals just unamimously upheld my victory against former Deputy Director of the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell (who also served on V-P George H. W. Bush's National Security Council, Interagency Group for Counterintelligence and Task Force on Terrorism), in his $2 million dollar libel lawsuit against Me and my former backer, Americans for Responsible Media (He also sued the Columbia Journalism Review, Gene Wheaton, Paul Hudson, and Feral House). I reported in my book, The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror, that Revell had his son Chris switch planes before the flight he was on - Pan Am 103 - was blown up by a terrorist's bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. I also reported that Revell was an FBI 'cover-up man', and a friend of Lt. Col. Oliver North's, running damage control for Iran-Contra activites, and other sordid affairs. In an 11-page court ruling, the federal three-judge panel stated: "Revell fails to offer any evidence concerning defendant's subjective state of mind.... Further, we have no evidence that Hoffman purposefully avoided the truth. On the contrary, Hoffman did conduct an investigation prior to publishing, [1] and we have no facts before us that might call into question the veracity of Hoffman's sources.... "[1] Hoffman relied upon several sources, including: (1) a Public Broadcasting System sponsored book and a 1995 documentary, both accusing Revell of efforts to obstruct justice in collaboration with a former Marine Lt. Col. Oiver North; (2) an essary by Hart Lidov highly critical of Revell, posted on the website Columbia Journalism Review, USA (www.cjr.org); (3) an article by Gene Wheaton, formerly with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, published in 1996 by the Portland Free Press, in which Wheaton alleges that several security consultants, including Revell, approached him proposing to create a 'Death Squad'‹a group to assassinate individuals identified as 'terorists' by the White House; and (4) statements of Paul Hudson, an attorney and head of the Pan Am 103 survivor's group, concerning the alleged advance warning of the Pan Am 103 bombing and allegations that Revell pulled his son off Pan Am 103." My victory against Revell was announced in all the Oklahoma papers, radio and TV news shows. Not only did we win, but we made the former FBI Director look like a fool. I hear he is livid."

Thanks for your response. Is this just your hunch, or have you spoken to some of your friends in intelligence about this? How is Wheaton viewed in that community? Is he just a wanna-be or once-was upset because he was cut-out of the loop? Did William Corson have anything to say about him? Part of the reason he appears to have credibility is because we know so little about him. Anything you can add might be of help. Experience. Specifically his activities on Pan Am 103. Until I finish this airline security book I will not have time to look at the documents. I should have it wrapped up in the Spring. I found this article online on the explosion of Pan AM 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. Gene Wheaton is mentioned in the article as someone espousing a conspiracy theory. Evidently Mr. Trento has looked into this and has concluded Wheaton's theory has no merit. The entire article can be found here: http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails...lock920427.html Here is the reference to Wheaton: "The theory that Jibril targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the hostage- rescue team is supported by two independent intelligence experts. M. Gene Wheaton, a retired U.S. military-intelligence officer with 17 years' duty in the Middle East, sees chilling similarities between the Lockerbie crash and the suspicious DC-8 crash in Gander, Newfoundland, which killed 248 American soldiers in 1985. Wheaton is serving as investigator for the families of the victims of that crash. ''A couple of my old black ops buddies in the Pentagon believe the Pan Am bombers were gunning for McKee's hostage-rescue team,'' he says. ''But they were told to shift the focus of their investigation because it revealed an embarrassing breakdown in security.'' The FBI says it investigated the theory that McKee's team was targeted and found no evidence to support it. Victor Marchetti, former executive assistant to the CIA's deputy director and co-author of The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, believes that the presence of the team on Flight 103 is a clue that should not be ignored. His contacts at Langley agree. ''It's like the loose thread of a sweater,'' he says. ''Pull on it, and the whole thing may unravel.'' In any case, Marchetti believes the bombing of Flight 103 could have been avoided. ''The Mossad knew about it and didn't give proper warning,'' he says. ''The CIA knew about it and screwed up.''

The 1980 election was very tight until the last weekend, when a developing initiative for the release of the hostages held by Iran fell apart. Little did we know then that the Reagan campaign had pulled Nixon's 1968 Vietnam ploy out of the playbook, and secretly negotiated for Iran to get a better deal by waiting for Reagan's inauguration. T.C. I'm with you on this one, T.C. The "October Surprise" has been covered by two books I believe to be credible, by Barbara Honegger and Gary Sick, and was even investigated by congress. (The charges were basically tossed out after Clinton was elected, but before he took office; the reasons given for throwing them out were completely contrived, as I remember.) I believe this is one of the great under-investigated stories of recent times.

John, I believe a close look at the film will show that JFK merely leaned to his left and that it was Jackie who did the actual moving. In my presentation I get into some possible medical explanations for this lean.

Anyone interested in Win Scott and the CIA's attitude towards his book should read this memo, available over on Rex Bradford's website. http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/cia/...10314_0001a.htm History Matters Archive - 00/00/ [104-10419-10314] COMMENTS ON CHAPTER XXI OF WINFIELD SCOTT'S MANUSCRIPT (DRAFT) 'IT CAME TO LITTLE', pg

So, you're saying both sequences are faked? I really don't understand why anyone would fake or doctor the Z-film to depict what it depicts. To me, it's a clear depiction of a man being ambushed by more than one shooter... If the government or conspirators doctored it, it would have shown Connally and Kennedy react separately three seconds apart, so that the Single Bullxxxx Theory would not have been necessary to believe Oswald acted alone. l mean, doesn't that make more sense than altering the film and having it still poiint towards a conspiracy?

As I've attempted to show in my presentation, the accepted evidence, when properly interpreted, can be used to demonstrate the likelihood of more than one shooter. If we can get prosecutors to look at the evidence and not just at the official reports, officially regurgitated, maybe we can get a Grand Jury. One problem: who do you go after? It seems to me that Hunt is the only one with the track record...blackmailer... perjurer...his involvement in the Bay of Pigs thing...his assassination planning on Anderson...Lorenz testimony placing him in Dallas, etc, who might reasonably be prosecuted. Maybe such a case can be built against Jenkins and Qunitero, provided Wheaton testifies. But at this point???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not at all, Pat, it was no trouble at all; and I am pleased to hear that you found it of some assistance. I sent the file to Bernice yesterday to have her take a look at it, but unfortunately she had problems in downloading it. I had a couple of questions for Bernice about the clip, so I might as well ask them here and now: - How does the clip square with the evidence that John Connolly provided to the Warren Commission? Connally told the W.C as follows: "So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now, facing, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.... Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him."(W.C.R.vol. IV, H-132-133) - I though that Connally was struck by the 'magic bullet' that went clean through JFK's body after hitting him in the back. Judging by what is shown in the clip that must never have happened, and the first and only time Connally was hit was as is shown in the clip. In other words, either there were two shooters firing , and both fired almost simultaneously...one being responsible for delivering the fatal head shot to JFK, and the other for wounding Connally, or there was only one shooter and he brought down both men with a single shot. My question : It's understandable why the LN community upholds the integrity of the Zapruder film, but if anyone claims to espouse CT beliefs and rejects the Warren Commission report as being a complete and utter whitewashing job, how can she/he then conclude that the release of the film to Jim Garrison must have been to assist him in his inquires as to the probability of a conspiracy.? If anything, don't you think it would have been the direct opposite, and that it was intended that the footage would do nothing more than uphold the WC's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the LN assassin? By the way, the clip was abstracted from an oldie version from the UK. If you compare it with similar sequences in N.American renditions, you may notice differences. Ed, are you saying that Connally was never hit until this sequence? It seems quite clear that Connally was hit at Z-224. That's the one thing Lattimer/Posner et al got right. The Connally testimony is important nonetheless, as it debunks the HSCA and Dale Myers' representations of the SBT. Both show Connally far left of the the door and Kennedy hanging over the right side of the limo. Both are at odds with Connally's testimony, as Connally says he believed he'd get a better look at Kennedy by turning to his LEFT, which is unthinkable if he was truly sitting in the middle of the car.

Thanks, Ed, for posting the head shot. To my eyes this shot came from behind, impacting on the top of the head and leaving a large gutter wound. The autopsy photos and x-rays support this conclusion. So does the nose of the bullet found on the front seat, which was covered with SKIN. Bernice, I'm glad you're gonna read my presentation. And thank you for your breakdown of the evidence. But you don't seem to understand. I'm not some guy who came up with a theory. I'm someone who studied the evidence FULL-TIME for two years, and came to some conclusions as a result. You say you are a student of the early testimony. Then you should know that not one of the Dallas witnesses described an entrance on the side of the head and an exit at the back. Not one. They all describe one large wound. If Kilduff pointed to his temple, and Zapruder pointed to the side of his head, and Newman pointed to the side of his head, all within minutes of the assassination, then we should conclude the wound was on the side of the head, not the back. Furthermore, Dr. Clark, the only one in Dallas to inspect the head wound, testified it was a tangential wound, ONE large wound, on the side of Kennedy's head . If there was one large wound on the side of his head it is not any more an indication of a shot from the front then a shot from behind. The Harper fragment, windshield damage, and ballistics evidence all indicate the shot came from behind. I know my findings will upset a lot of people, but I've been able to make sense of a lot of stuff that no one could make sense of. I'm convinced there was a conspiracy. I'm equally convinced that most of the research community is wrong in their assessment of what actually happened in the plaza. As far as the earwitnesses, it's important to remember that when Newman and Zapruder siad they heard shots from behind, their backs were turned towards the arcade area, NOT the stockade fence. And I think it was Jean Hill who claimed to have heard a bunch of shots, not Moorman. Moorman said there were 2, then 4, then 3. I believe she's said 3 for some time now.

Tim, I believe Summers cites Lamar as his source for this in one of his articles. Lamar's book has been 17 years in the making, but that doesn't mean he hid his research from others.

Thanks for your response. Is this just your hunch, or have you spoken to some of your friends in intelligence about this? How is Wheaton viewed in that community? Is he just a wanna-be or once-was upset because he was cut-out of the loop? Did William Corson have anything to say about him? Part of the reason he appears to have credibility is because we know so little about him. Anything you can add might be of help.

Tim, you might find Eric Hamburg's book (JFK, Nixon, Oliver Stone, and Me) interesting regarding Escalante. It makes it fairly clear that Escalante was co-operating with the researchers purely on his own intitiative, and that he was not given access to the Cuban archives to do this. If Escalante makes reference to files he can not access, it's because there is no FOIA in Cuba. Nevertheless, some documentation somehow made its way into Furiati's ZR Rifle--maybe Escalante employed the Groden technique--including Ruby's passport photo from his visit to Trafficante. Escalante may be a disinformationist, but, as hard as it will be for you to believe, it seems likely he is not operating with Fidel's blessing.

John, if I'm to read you right, in your mind Mockingbird is the manipulation of the media, domestic or otherwise, by the CIA. I believe I previously interpreted it as domestic only. The international manipulation, of course, is well documented and openly admitted. A Citizen's Dissent, by Mark Lane, gets into some of this, including the role of the BBC. Lane appeared on the BBC to debate the merits of Rush To Judgment with Warren Commission counsel Specter and Belin, only to find that they had been there for days and had been given a script by which to prepare. I don't remember the name of it but I came across a book from the early seventies on the media. This book, which didn't even mention the assassination and was by no means a pro-conspiracy book, mentioned in passing that A Citizen's Dissent, Lane's follow-up to his massive best seller Rush to Judgment, received something like 2 book reviews nation-wide, compared to 190 for RTJ. The obvious implication was that Lane's continued pressing for a finding of conspiracy (and possibly his relationship with Garrison) had turned him into a non-person as opposed tof a best-selling author.

Nathaniel, the Alsops, Lippman, Pearson, et al, obtained their power DECADES before the CIA ever existed. Do you think they willingly handed over their power to influence history to a bureaucrat, a government yes-man? Hell, no. Newsmen like Pearson and businessmen like Armand Hammer booked their own trips to Russia to talk to Khruschev, and played their own role in history. Ask yourself, was William Randolph Hearst anyone's puppet? To consider these men to be puppets of some government employee, even a President (which is, after all a government temp job) is to misunderstand their role in history, even history itself. While most history books build history around Presidents and "great men" and revisionists like Zinn build it around populist movements, there are the lesser known, not-so-famous men, like John McCloy, who played key roles... and were No One's puppet.

Pat, did you actually ask any photographers or film-makers if it would have been possible to pull off the alterations that the contributors to Hoax claim were made? Film-maker Mark Sobel, who has only spent 5 years of his life filming and editing his movie The Commission, has said publicly that the film could not have been faked as suggested. I have a close friend who is a film producer and music video director, and who is aware of all the visual gimmicks under the sun, and he laughs at the notion the film was faked. Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden, two of the reseachers who pioneered the study of the Z-film, are also skeptical about any alteration. This of course makes them "the bad guys" to the alterationists.

Ron, to follow-up on your Clinton crime spree theory, I have to ask "was Ken Starr part of the plot?" I mean, this man had unlimited resources to investigate any aspect of Clinton's life he wished, and he spent the bulk of his time looking into a stupid lie about a blow-job. Furthermore, since Starr was connected to and promised future employment by right wing think-tanks and Richard Mellon Scaife, were they part of this plot as well? Were they rewarding Starr for keeping the lid on the "Clinton crime spree". Were they all partying together on the weekends with the drugs smuggled in by Barry Seal? The Clinton death list and Clinton crime spree nonsense was a fraud perpetrated by right-wingers angry over having a supposed liberal (but actual moderate) in The White House. Please read Blinded by the Right and The Hunting of The President if you don't believe me. While Clinton was a deeply flawed human being, he was nowhere near the beast you make him out to be. If he'd been so evil and powerful, wouldn't Newt and Ken have disappeared long before they publicly self-destructed? Wouldn't his crony Al Gore, who only created the internet, have stopped you from writing about his crimes? (A JOKE)

John, the CIA has always been allowed to plant stories overseas. In the Pike Report, (or is it the Church Report?), they get into the issue of planting stories overseas that end up in U.S. papers, particularly stories from Reuters, as I remember. And the CIA says "oh well, what can we do...we have no control over where the stories go once we plant them!" And that was the end of that. My understanding of "Mockingbird" is that it related to stories intended for domestic distribution. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

There is also the General Dynamics connection. LBJ was certainly under a lot of pressure to keep the war going and growing by his ole pals in big business. At the height of the war, LBJ closed the naval shipyards, deciding it was more cost-efficient to use private contractors exclusively. One of the companies to be rewarded with billions of dollars in new business was General Dynamics. Of course, General Dynamics was also the recipient of Johnson and McNamara largesse through their selection of its TFX fighter over a superior fighter created by Boeing. The Boeing fighter was both preferred by the Pentagon and cheaper to make, but Johnson and his cronies insisted in the more expensive fighter, which only so happened to be made by a Texas company. Just so happened to be the home state of Secretary of the navy Fred Korth as well... McNamara is reported to have wanted the TFX because he believed having interchangeable parts would be an economic advantage in the long run. (The TFX would be used by the Air Force and the Navy). He failed to understand that the needs for land-based fighters and carrier-based fighters were different. His Ford background was NOT applicable to understanding the military. The conservative notion that the Federal Gov should be run like a business by businessman hit a brick wall in Vietnam, and yet we don't seem to have learned from it. Cheney's inclusion of Haliburton into the Iraq effort will be studied one day, and revealed to be one of the most corrupt acts of modern times. I predict. (I mean, how can we justify paying a private citizen 150k to drive the same truck a 35k a year serviceman would drive? Especially when the private citizen is under no obligation to stick it out when the going gets tough. It's a complete joke.)

In these cynical times, I'm not so sure the U.S. ever had the goal of winning the war in Vietnam. Our goal may very well have been to slow down the growth of communism...at any cost, even if it meant fighting an unwinnable war. The eyes of history may still consider the U.S. the "winner". As far as Whiz Kid McNamara, he totally screwed up, and admits it. He crunched some numbers early on that said there would be a point at which the North Vietnamese forces would begin shrinking, but then found out he was wrong and changed his mind. The CIA also had these numbers and honestly reported them in their reports. Johnson had access to these reports. He just chose to ignore them, and ordered the Pentagon to misrepresent the numbers in their reports. This was at the heart of the lawsuit brought against CBS by William Westmoreland. Both sides were right: CBS was right in that Westmoreland's figures grossly exaggerated enemies killed and enemy strength; Westmoreland was right in that he wasn't deceivng LBJ. In McNamara's In Retrospect, a remarkable book and the basis of The Fog of War, he admits that LBJ knew Westmoreland's numbers were cooked because LBJ himself had ordered them to be cooked in order to deceive congress. (At least that's how I remember it.) In any regard, he claims that LBJ was not deceived. Westoreland, by the way, never could accept that the North Vietnamese forces were growing in direct proportion to his own and like a good hawk insisted we were just around the corner from total victory. He'd insisted the same thing when there were 100,000 men, 200,000 men etc... all the way up to the half a mil it eventually became. His refusal to accept the failure of his command and his continued insistence that we were only 200,000 soldiers away etc. is part of the reason we're having this conversation now. He came home a total failure and insisted it was the fault of dem bureaucrats in Washington who tied his hands, etc. This myth has gained popularity over the years with those who have a hard time believing the great U.S. could ever make a mistake. Guess what? We did. And McNamara's book is the proof. And your bit about Nixon and the bombing is largely untrue. It was Nixon who drove the North Vietnamese away from the tables in 68 when he got word to Thieu through Madame Chennault to cut off negotiations with the North. The North was ALWAYS willing to talk, just not to budge on their conditions. Nixon and Henry the K just felt THEY could get a better deal by putting added pressure on the North Vietnamese. They used what they called a "madman strategy," as I remember. This strategy entailed the targeting of civilians in order to force the North Vietnamese to capitulate out of fear. In some circles, this is called terrorsim and murder; we in the United States justify it all the time however, because we used this tactic to end WW2. You really need to take a gander at the Palace File, written by a former official in the South Vietnamese government. It may open your eyes and give you yet another thing to be disturbed about. As stated several times previously, the treaty signed in 73 was almost identical to the one on the table in 68. So what were the last five years about? Richard Nixon getting elected. Twice.

Intiguingly, Howard died on the fourth of July, 1965. American Independence Day. Is this a clue? Even more intriguing, one of the other links in the peace chain, Adlai Stevenson, dropped dead on the streets of London only 10 days later, on the 14th of July. This is Bastille Day, French Independence Day. Is this just a coincidence?