Pat Speer

Or as the great yodeler Slim Whitman might sing, "Odio lady who?" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That wacky poetry-lover, Ron! Always quoting Whitman...

In this debate, I find myself empathizing with both Nic and Tim. I think I understand where they both are coming from. In my 44 years I have been the father of three children who didn't reach birth. One girlfriend acknowledged that she had an abortion and the other 2 had miscarriages while I was out of town and forgot to tell me for a few days. That's right: 3 girlfriends, 3 dead babies. In each instance I wanted the child to live. In fact, I had a fourth ex-giirlfriend who told me she'd lost our baby after we split as a way of weasling money out of me, only she later confessed she'd never been pregnant and had lied. Tim, you're right--a fetus is a life and it deserves protection. We, as a society, should decide the appropriate protection. Nic, you're right about almost everything else. Men have NO rights to tell women what to do with their bodies anymore than women have the right to tell men not to masturbate. Men who ejaculate regularly have a 50% less chance of getting prostate cancer and a woman who tries to interfere with a man's ejaculation is putting his health at risk. Similarly, women who don't have children or decide not to carry a child full term drastically decrease their chances of many health problems, mental and physical, and no man should have the say-so on how they protect their bodies. If we, as a society, feel it best to pass laws regarding abortion, men should be 100% excluded from the voting process. 100%. Even in the Bible belt, the majority of women are pro-choice, so Roe v. Wade will stand, as long as MEN DON"T TRY to take women's right to choose away from them. Nic knows this, Tim, and that's why she is so insulted by your attitude. You know damn well that a woman with female problems is like a man with erectile problems--the last thing they need to hear is how deficient they are. Consequently, although Nic was the one who was verbally abusive, I believe you were the one who was being more cruel. I feel you should have cooled your rhetoric when it became apparent that she had highly personal reasons for feeling the way she feels. I'm also surpised that you seem unaware of Project Rescue and these other groups that go out and intimidate young women attending abortion clinics. They've been in the news for 25 years at least and are treated in some segments of America as genuine heroes. Some years ago they targeted my ancestral home of Sioux City, Iowa, and put posters of aborted fetuses literally everywhere and tried to intimidate the local populace--heavily catholic--from having abortions. BTW, Tim, the religion in America which has the highest percentage of abortions is indeed catholic, because the last Pope, in his infinite wisdom, issued an edict of papal infallibilty that using CONDOMS is a sin. In the words of Monty Python "every sperm is sacred." Sorry if this devolved into sex talk. When I was in the third grade I learned about the birds and the bees and became the resident "sexpert" at my elementary school. Years later, a guy came up to me in high school and accused me of spreading disinformation when we were in elementary school together, as he'd taken from my lectures that babies came out of a woman's belly button on a slide.

Unfortunately the shrubya et al will probably try and force Scalia on America as the new Chief. After all, he's Cheney's pal. At such time the Supreme Court will officially be the anti-Warren Court, and try to overturn every ruling of the last 50 years. Ironically, long after Dubya has been flushed back home, Scalia (George) and Thomas (Lenny) will be wandering the back roads of American justice. (A reference to Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. I like the image of Thomas playing Lenny, trying to pet them rabbits.)

Did he wear a wet suit when he swam? If so, did LBJ give him an old hand-me-down that was originally intended for Castro?

Mr. Thompson, I am engaged in a similar study as your own, and am coming up with quite different results from yours. This is, in large part, a result of my understanding of the autopsy photos, which were not even available to you. I have a presentation explaining these views in the Online Seminars section of this website and will also present at Lancer in November, if you're interested. Question: have you changed any of your opinions as a result of your viewing the autopsy photos? Has other evidence emerged that has led you to change your findings in Six Seconds in Dallas? On another thread, Dr. Fetzer has related that you now claim to be an agnostic on the case, and yet you still seem skeptical of the case against Oswald, as proven by your recent collaboration with Dr. Gary Aguilar on the history-matters website. Are you in fact an agnostic? Or do you remain convinced that Oswald was not the only shooter?

I think I can probably answer this. There were no PLANS to use the school buses. The details were too sticky. Who would drive the buses? Would the drivers be insured? Who would pay for the gas? Who would divvy up the cash to the drivers to pay for the gas? Where would the people go? What about those who missed the buses? Since the NEED for a shelter was obvious, the use of the Superdome would be necessary no matter what. It simply made more sense to allow those with NO PLACE to go and no way to get there to go to the Superdome. The inadequate supplies in the Superdome is a different story. Water, at the least, should have been plentiful. It's important to remember here that apparently VERY FEW people died in the storm itself. The failure of the mayor to evacuate every last soul from a city of a half a million is to me a NON-ISSUE. The slow response afterwards and the National Guard's unwillingness to engage the crazed snipers, which apparently caused the death of many people drowing in attics and dehydrating in shelters, deserves examination. It is my suspicion that someone somewhere decided it would LOOK BAD for the National Guard to be firing on brown skinned people in the U.S. whilst simultaneously firing on brown skinned people in Iraq. Someone just wasn't comfortable with it. Might make W look like he's declaring war on his own people. Perhaps this was the decision of a gun shy Governor equally as concerned with how it might make her look. Mr. Purvis is correct on New Orlean's historical resentment of the Federal Govt. In a prominent square by the French Quarter there's a column topped by a statue of Robert E. Lee. Across from the statue is a YMCA. It is an ongoing joke, said with pride, even by the black bus drivers in the NO tourist industry, that the YMCA Lee is pointing to stands for "Yanks May Come Again!"

I don't know a lot about Wellstone's death, but there was obviously something suspicious about it. A little too convenient, etc.. While Dr. Fetzer may not have proved that Wellstone was murdered, the attacks on his book and on his work seem to be of the mind that because Fetzer hasn't PROVED his case, he should just shut up, or even worse, because he hasn't PROVED it, the reverse must be true, that the Wellstone crash MUST have been an accident. This is BS. While quite often those on the left react to every possible right-wing conspiracy as if it was a done deal, there is undoubtedly a growing movement of men who immediately pounce on these scenarios and try to expose and humiliate anyone who would dare espouse such a scenario. In some cases this has been demonstrated to be more than an accident--as in the websites which popped up overnight to repudiate the Dan Rather story about Bush's military "service". While one might say that this is business as usual, the fact is when the right declared war on Clinton and started their Clinton murder lists etc. there was NO immediate response by the left, as they failed to take these things seriously. The right--KNOWING how they used lies and innuendoes to blacken Clinton--are especially sensitive to these kinds of stories, and have made it their mission to respond in kind. In other words, the real battle for America's heart and soul is no longer on the nightly news, which is bland as rice wafers, but is on the internet, where e-mails calling John Kerry a communist apparently won the day in 2004. ( I received one which reported, in all seriousness, that John Kerry was in the North Vietnamese Hall of Fame...Sadly, my aunt forwarded this to everyone from her church, so that they would "know" what kind of man he really was.) I am therefore skeptical that all the negative comments on Dr. Fetzer's book were aroused purely by the quality of his analysis. I suspect that much of the criticism serves a political purpose. That said, I think that Vincent Salandria is alarmingly paranoid, and am distressed that Dr. Fetzer seems to be following his lead regarding Thompson. Salandria's claims that the Big Bad Boogeymen who killed Kennedy DELIBERATELY left a trail of conflicting evidence so that the left in general and men like Salandria in particular would feel powerless, is nothing but a paranoid's excuse for the simple fact that he couldn't figure things out. If Salandria had been willing to open his mind and consider that some of his pre-conceptions could be wrong then maybe he'd have discovered that the evidence DOES add up and point convincingly towards conspiracy. As for Dr. Fetzer's claims about the Z-film and alteration in general, I am admittedly a skeptic. I just don't understand why the CIA or whomever would fake a film which in my interpretation demonstrates that a conspiracy was likely. Since I also believe the autopsy photos demonstate that Kennedy was hit by at least three shots, I believe they also demonstrate a conspiracy was likely. If anyone who believes this evidence was altered to PROVE there was one shooter firing from behind is willing to put ther money where their alterationist mouths are, and debate me publicly whether or not this evidence demonstrates there were two shooters firing from behind, I'm game. Somehow I just don't see Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Mantik, Harrison Livingstone, and David Lifton willing to argue on behalf of the SBT, which they must believe WORKS if they do in fact believe that the evidence is convincing for Oswald's sole guilt minus their alteration theories. As with Thompson, I believe strongly that the case for conspiracy can be made without insinuating that everything is fake and everyone who disagrees with me is part of the plot. So on this point I take Thompson's side. As far as his going on to Amazon and trashing all of Dr. Fetzer's books, in an attempt to discourage people from even reading them, I do think that's a bit low. The suggestion of a busy-body: Mr. Thompson should apologize for publicly trashing Dr. Fetzer's books, while Dr. Fetzer should apologize for suggesting that Mr. Thompson, who put in a lot of work on the case in the 60's and was considered by many THE most convincing voice in argument for a conspiracy, was a disinformation agent on behalf of the CIA.... If I'm not making sense here, please slap me down.

Tim, you're a bit wrong here. If I'm not mistaken the show that used "the City of New Orleans" as its theme song was the show named after the first words of its chorus..."Good morning, America". And the REAL connection between the assass and the disaster is Carlos Marcello and the NO mob. New Orleans was for decades and decades firmly in the grip of organized crime. As a result a disproportionate amount of its wages went into the pockets of Marcello and his ilk--money that should have went into government projects ended up repaving roads by his farm, with him receiving a kickback. Money that should have went into the pockets of the banana boat workers went into the pockets of their protective muscle--the mafia. Gambling and prostitution were everywhere--the bars were open 24/7--and Marcello and his ilk received a piece of all of it. It is undoubted that the economic conditions of the poor were exacerbated by the corruption of the city by the likes of Marcello. The same man who killed JFK may have indeed been the spiritual father of the current disaster.

I've been staying out of this one but feel a few points should be made. 1. New Orleans WAS 80% evacuated, which I believe is an unparalled event in American history. If anyone else can think of any time where so many took flight so fast they should cough it up now. When Miami has been threatened by hurricanes I doubt they've ever had even 50% evacuation. I doubt there is any large city in America that could be fully evacuated. In New Orleans' case it is particularly difficult, as just a few small highways stretch across the swamps surrounding New Orleans. The many small towns along these highways are notorious inhospitable to blacks heading to and from New Orleans, by the way, which could very well have been a factor in some staying put. Poverty was obviously the main factor. 2. Mr. Purvis makes a good point when he describes the slums of New Orleans as being some of the worst in the country. I think he's incorrect to describe them as being in the French Quarter, however. I believe they lie just west of the French Quarter in an area once upon a time called Storyville--the birthplace of an American art form known as JAZZ. Still, there are slums all over New Orleans. Anyone wishing to know more about the streets of New Orleans should watch I'm "Bout It, a low-budget movie about the life of the rapper Master P (who once called me up and threatened to put a cap in my ass, but that's a different story). 3. I witnessed the Rodney King riots, and the government and police basically abandoned the city for two days and watched the looting on TV with the rest of us. There is a feeling among police officers, fireman, and care workers that if a "community is gonna threaten them--let the sucker burn." This happened in Watts and again in South Central. It's happened in Detroit, Newark, and Miami as well. In New Orleans, however, this resulted in people dying of dehydration when those wanting to help them got scared off by some sicko sniper. While I think emergency service workers might be more willing to risk their lives if those dying were predominantly white, I also think the chances of a sniper shooting at an emergency worker in a white neighborhood would be far smaller. (Firemen were shot at during the riots.) Black rage and white apathy towards black rage are facts of life in the USA. Very little of what's happened in New Orleans has surprised me. I don't think this will do much one way or the other for Bush. Probably hurt him a little. Most Americans I know are more upset about the skyrocketing gas prices than by Bush's lack of response in New Orleans. An investigation into FEMA that shows Brown was selected for his religious beliefs might prove an embarrassment.

Sturgis died some time ago. According to the Odio thread, De Torres is still alive. Sturgis was an American citizen of Italian descent. I believe de Torres was a Cuban exile. While it's possible the men knew each other--maybe someone more knowledgeable on De Torres than myself can say for sure--there's no reason to believe they are related in any way. While there's a slight resemblance in the nose, they really don't even look that much alike. I get sidetracked on stuff all the time, John. I think you've let yourself get sidetracked with this one.'

I guess the part of the story I doubt most is that this so-called trap would silence Bobby. How did he even know it was Murgado in Dallas with Oswald? Since Bobby never read the Warren Report, what reason do we have to believe he even knew about the Odio incident? Does Murgado say he told Bobby about this? If so, then why didn't Bobby go after de Torres? After all this is the big murderous brat Bobby Kennedy, who was supposedly foaming at the mouth to kill Castro simply because the BOP embarrassed his brother... The other part that smells is that Murgado would go to the Odio's apartment seeking assistance. Nonsense. They told the Odio sisters they were friends of her father's and members of JURE. That was a lie. That's called disinfo. Going to someone's house and telling them lies and then insinuating that a man affiliated with her father's political group wants to kill Kennedy is not seeking assistance. While Murgado was supposedly betrayed by Leopoldo, I see NO reason to believe him. The whole thing reeks of a man with his back against the wall clutching at straws. If Murgado was in Dallas, he was there as part of the plot. This cover story stinks.

Just a hunch: Murgado lied through his teeth. Insinuating Bobby into the Odio incident is just the kind of thing the Bringuiers of the world specialized in. I'm extremely skeptical about this new development. If anyone is ever able to show that Bobby knew about Oswald before 11-22 1963 I'll eat my hat, which means I'll have to buy one first.. The "one of your guys" comment was made while Bobby was lashing out and in shock. On the morning after the assassination, he is reported to have asked McCone if the CIA did it. Days later he told Schlesinger it was either Castro or the gangsters. He knew nothing but suspected everything. If he'd have heard of Oswald, known Oswald, or recognized him from the camps, he would have used this information and conducted his own investigation. Don't swallow this new info whole. How much do we really know about Murgado? If he'd have heard via Eduardo and Artime that Second Naval was a scam and that Attwood was talking to Lechuga, what would have been his response????

As I recall the story, the CIA had an assassination capacity since its inception. The ZR/Rifle program, on the other hand, of having a permanent and ongoing capacity-a hit man on retainer--was something that Bundy brought up to Bissell and Bissell brought up to Harvey. Admittedly, I'm confused about this because I believe QJ/WIN was sent to the Congo to take care of Lumumba, and Lumumba was killed before Bundy took office. Perhaps the Bundy/Bissell talks took place just after the November, 1960 election, while JFK was preparing his Best and Brightest for the road ahead. Or perhaps the use of QJ/WIN in the Congo pre-dated his involvement in ZR/Rifle. I'll clear this up once I get home. Meanwhile, I'm intrigued by Mr. Turner's relationship with Edward Bennett Williams. Mr. Turner, what was your take on Williams? Did he have an agenda? Or was he just a hired gun? One minute he'd be representing the Democrats in the Watergate break-in, the next he'd be sending messages to Nixon advising him to burn the tapes. What was he like? What was his vision of America?

Tim, does Trento's targeting the House of Bush mean you're gonna stop citing him as a supporter of your "commies did it" scenario?

John, you are correct of course that I over-generalized when I lumped all the historians into the "Oswald-probably-did-it" camp. This quote from Helms, however, shores up my larger point. Since Helms was willing to say the CIA was under intense pressure from Bobby to kill Castro, and blame him for the atmosphere that led to the assassination attempts, why would he refuse to say that Bobby knew all about the attempts if that was the case? In his Church Committee testimony, Helms pretty much agreed that the concept of Plausible Deniability led to sloppy government. I see no reason to believe he would lie about Bobby's involvement, even when they both were in their graves. Since Harvey didn't tell Bobby and Helms didn't tell Bobby, and there's no evidence Fitzgerald told Bobby about AMLASH, I am at a loss to understand just who would have told Bobby about the Harvey/Rosselli meetings and the murderous planning with Cubela. Consequently, I don't think he knew. While I am basically a fan of Robert Kennedy's, I don't think that, prior to his brother's death, he would have frowned automatically on the CIA's attempting to kill Castro. I think Helms, Harvey, and Fitzgerald kept this from him more to keep his fingers out of the cookie jar than to preserve his "Plausible Deniability." They saw his hands-on involvement in Mongoose more a hindrance than a help.

John, these are the same historians who are still leaning towards the "Oswald-did-it" scenario. They are by nature conservative. They refuse to believe what was not so hard for the Senators of the intelligence committee--people who actually had dealings with the CIA-- to believe--that the CIA during the cold war was given a free reign to beat the Reds by any means necessary, and that they failed to respond appropriately when Kennedy came along and wanted to bring them under his control. Since the CIA blamed the interference of the White House and State Department for the Bay of Pigs, they just stopped telling the White House and the State Department what they were up to. It's really that simple. The idea that William Harvey would lie to protect Bobby Kennedy's reputation is absolutely ridiculous. By ALL reports, Harvey hated Kennedy with a burning passion. No way in hell would he allow himself and Helms take the heat if Bobby was responsible. It's amazing that someone like yourself who is so willing to consider that men like Helms and Harvey would kill Kennedy is so unwilling to consider that they would refuse to take the blame for decisions He made, as if they considered their highest duty the protection of the Presidency at all costs, while reserving the right to kill the President if need be. I asure you these men placed the CIA and the Cult of Intelligence on a throne much higher than the Presidency. I'm wondering if we're hitting a cultural divide here. The President is not supposed to be a King and all the members of government are not supposed to risk their careers to protect him. The book title "All the President's Men" was intended to point out the misguided loyalties of the House of Nixon. Arthur Schlesinger wrote on this phenomena and called it "The Imperial Presidency." The point is, however, that, outside of McCone, who was kept out of the loop, the Kennedys had no loyal "President's men" in the CIA, only pissed-off cold warriors with an agenda all their own..

You're right, Mark, in that the sweariing in was a perfect example of LBJ in action. He asked Bobby to find him the oath and whether or not he oughta be sworn in in Dallas before the plane took off. When Bobby didn't raise a fuss--after all he was sorta depressed--LBJ took this as Bobby giving his consent. (Of course, in reality Bobby had no say one way or the other.) LBJ then proceeded to tell people it was Bobby's idea he be sworn in in Dallas. The man was a weasel.

Based upon LBJ's personality, I find it highly unlikely he allowed Bobby to pick anyone for the Commission. He and Fortas picked the Commission, and then had Fortas or someone run them by Bobby. When Bobby voiced no objections, LBJ had the go ahead to tell everyone that Bobby picked them. This was LBJ's MO--he NEVER wanted to take responsibility for anything. I think it was Dean Acheson who wrote about how LBJ would call him periodically and tell him that he was thinking about escalating the war in Vietnam. Acheson said that if you disagreed with LBJ when he said this, he'd say "but then the right-wingers will eat me up", and then blubber on about how he "can't win for losing etc woe is me etc etc etc" until Acheson would finally say "well, then, do what you have to do." Acheson wrote that a week later he'd find out that LBJ immediately called McNamara and demanded that the war be escalated, and insisted that it was ACHESON'S IDEA. The man was as slippery as they come and nothing he said can be taken at face value. Based on the way HE ordered Warren and Russell to be on the Commission, it's clear he had a design for the Commission. No way would he have placed a liberal Northerner on the Commission. No way would he have placed any close political ally of the Kennedy family on the Commission. That said, there is reason to believe the Kennedys respected both Dulles and McCloy and were comfortable with their appointment.

Larry's post reminded me of another reason I doubt the whole argument that the CIA acted with the Kennedy's overt permission, and then said they didn't to preserve the concept of "Plausible Deniability." Desmond Fitzgerald represented himself as Bobby Kennedy's personal emissary when he met with Cubela, without telling Kennedy of his act. His personal emissary! How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, preserving Plausible Deniability? While some here on this thread want to believe that Helms and Fitzgerald, et al, would fall on their sword so that those cowardly Kennedys wouldn't have to admit they did some bad things, the REALITY, as admitted by Helms, is that the CIA did exactly the opposite--they implicated the Kennedys into scenarios the Kennedys knew nothing about. The idea that Helms and Bissell, who by the time they testified in the Church hearings were no longer with the CIA, would lie to protect the Kennedys and in the process make themselves look like rogue elephants, is a pipedream. Bissell and Barnes, let's remember, wrote a response to Kirkpatrick's IG report on the BOP that blamed everything on the White House and the State Department and bent over backwards to absolve themselves of all responsibility for the snafu. These men would not fall on the sword for anyone, with the possible exception of Allen Dulles. The idea that the CIA is made up of honorable men who will do anything to protect the Presidency is further proven false by the CIA's reaction to Watergate, where Walters and Helms placed the interests of the CIA over the interests of the Presidency and left Nixon on the beach. From what I've read, it's clear there was and probably still is a widespread conviction within the intelligence community that they are the real government, and that elected officials are undeserving of their loyalty and are basically a nuisance. William Casey wouldn't even tell Barry Goldwater what he was up to, even when mandated by law! This "Cult of Intelligence"believes it's up to them to do what's right, and that we're just supposed to trust them. The problem is, we can't.

Good question, John, and similar to one I've been pondering. Since Kennedy's head was tilted backwards when they placed him in the coffin, and rigor mortis locked his skull leaning back at roughly 30 degrees, it makes sense to see what leaning your head back does to your neck. And it pulls the skin tight in the area of the tracheostomy. Consequently, I suspect the tracheostomy incision was extended by the weight of Kennedy's own head during the long trip from Dallas.

John, a quick search through U.S. history will show that we "got rid of" Mossadegh, Arbenz, Sihanouk, Noriega, Ortega, Duvalier, and Hussein, without killing them. There is no evidence the Kennedy brothers were ever briefed on the concept of Plausible Deniability; consequently, there is no reason to believe that when they said things like "get rid of him" they understood the CIA would interpret that to mean they had Presidential authority to hire members of organized crime, currently under investigation by Bobby's Justice Department, to accomplish the task. There is evidence that McNamara and Bundy, among others, contemplated the use of assassination. They may have discussed this with JFK and RFK. There is more evidence, however, that the known attempts were spawned by Bissell, Barnes, Helms, and Harvey, with little or no input from the Kennedys. Hunt testified that it had NEVER occurred to him that the CIA was not authorized to kill. Virtually all the CIA men involved in assassination participated in WW2 and then dived right into a Cold War. In their minds, they were still at war. The concept of Plausible Deniability, which as I said, there is no evidence the Kennedys even knew about, is a dangerous one. It works both ways. It allows cowardly executives to deny responsibility for reprehensible acts. Even worse, however, it allows ambitious underlings to engage in reprehensible acts THAT THEY THEMSELVES WISH TO UNDERTAKE and then claim they thought they were doing the bidding of their superiors--nowhere is this more clear than with Ollie North. EVERYTHING about JFK's administration indicates he had come to the realization that he was the man in the driver's seat, and that he alone must be responsible for what took place. We also know that he, as McCone, had ethical problems with assassination. (Reportedly, he was horrified by the Diem assassination and his role in Diem's death.) It is totally against everything we know about the man to think he would casually tell the CIA to kill Castro, and NOT want to be involved in the details. After all, he put Bobby on the Cuba project for this very purpose, to oversee the details. That neither Helms nor Harvey--who, in fact, hated Bobby's guts-- testified that they EVER talked to Bobby about the details of their use of Rosselli is to me a clear-cut indication the Kennedys were out of the loop. If someone can find an instance where Plausible Deniability was performed by someone who was personally against the action undertaken, I'd be surprised. People use Plausible Deniability in eveyday life all the time. When someone hints that they want you to do something that you don't want to do, you make them articulate it so that you have a clear request. When it's something you do want to do, you LEAP at the opportunity and then say "but you said.." if they complain. The CIA was no different. They used Plausible Deniability to enact their own agenda much as a 6 year-old will use his mom's permission to have some cookies as an excuse to eat the whole box and ruin his dinner.

John, the Church Committee got into all this, and the CIA did not come across as innocent as you paint them. RFK was told that the CIA/Mafia attempts on Castro were in the past; supposedly Houston did not know that Helms and Harvey were in the process of starting them up again. Helms, however, was fully witting that RFK, and his brother, the President, did not know about the resurrected assassination plans , and never thought to tell them. Even worse, he and Harvey agreed not to tell their boss, DCI John McCone, about their new plans. Instead they opted to take Bobby's ordering them to get rid of Castro as his giving them permission to have the man murdered, no matter what it took. Their use of the mob in this endeavor without telling him--which was a direct violation of his commands as attorney general--is reflective of how much they really cared about what Bobby or his brother had to say. Frank Church had it right--there was a rogue elephant on the loose within the CIA.

I think it's inaccurate to call Anderson or his mentor Drew Pearson CIA assets. While I'm sure there were times that they cooperated with the CIA, they also drove them crazy at times, so much so Hunt and Liddy made plans to murder Anderson with the stated reason that his columns had endangered CIA assets in Pakistan. In order to understand Pearson and Anderson, I believe, you have to accept the fact that, like Edward Bennett Williams and Robert Maheu, they were powers unto themselves, willing to connect themselves to whatever powerful force was moving in their direction. And just as willing, at times, to go it alone.

It doesn't say where he was arrested, but I assumed it was in Madison. The article says he was from Madison, and that's where he was arrested the second time. I guess he didn't play on your block. Sprague would be disappointed.

But so did John McAdams. One of the reasons why I don't think this is a very productive line of inquiry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Does this mean you think someone, even at this late date, is coaching McAdams and Posner on what to cover-up? I think their reasons for signing the letters, as stated in the recent letter, make perfect sense. They believe Oswald did it and that the Joannides files will reveal nothing new. They are anxious for his files to be released so they can say "see, I told you so." I wouldn't be surprised if there are some real nuggets in the file--perhaps a report from Bringuier indicating the fight in the streets of NO (currently under water) was staged.