Dawn Meredith

At the same time the shock treatment stories broke, Jack Anderson also broke false reports of Eagleton's "drunk driving" record. The media went wild and demanded McGovern dump Eagleton . Later this same media was critical of McGovern for dumping his first vp choice. Dawn

At the same time the shock treatment stories broke, Jack Anderson also broke false reports of Eagleton's "drunk driving" record. The media went wild and demanded McGovern dump Eagleton . Later this same media was critical of McGovern for dumping his first vp choice. Dawn

I had the pleasure of having a meal with David Talbot in San Francisco a couple of years ago. I fully expect the book to be dynamite. I agree. Those new to this forum should know that David and Jeff Morley are about the only two journalists open-minded on the conspiracy issue, and interested in pursuing it. David came here a few years back and asked if any of us had hard-core evidence that the CIA was involved. I sent him some info on the HSCA's changing of the titles of its exhibits in order to hide that Sturdivan was testing subsonic M-16 ammo. The M-16 (then known as the AR-15) was being tested by the CIA's Special Forces in Viet Nam on 11-22-63, and was considered a state of the art assassination weapon. I thought then and continue to think that the HSCA's disguising Sturdivan's testimony was no accident. I'm not positive that it's relevant, but it speaks volumes about whether or not the HSCA deliberately hid info which might lead to speculation of a conspiracy (such as the Bethesda back of the head witnesses). Of course, they turned around at the last second and said they suspected a conspiracy... I'm hoping David's book will close the door on the "Bobby believed the Warren Commission was correct" claims by LNTs. We'll see... I totally agree with the foregoing posts. I hope David's book also puts to rest the idiotic idea that Bobby tried to sabotage the Garrison investigation; or that JFK and RFK were trying to kill Castro. Of course Bobby was going to re-open his brother's assassination. But he was met by the same murderous power. No wonder Ted is silent. I expect Talbot's book to be a blockbuster. I admire both he and Jefferson Morley greatly. Dawn

Correct. What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was a failure. The express purpose of the assassination was to pin the crime on Castro and establish a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba. Cliff I agree with you that this was ONE express purpose, but that it was "the " express purpose is your opinion. Kennedy was killed for many reasons. Trying to stand up to the CIA, plans to pull out of Viet Nam. I'd say those were pretty "express" reasons as well. And it was no "rogue" anything; this was the top of the top. Dawn ps Ashton:

Last night it was over $900,000. I cannot for the life of me imagine WHY. Some people just have money to burn I guess. Dawn

A sterling suggestion. In the decade that I've been posting to various JFK forums, I've witnessed much uncouth behaviour, flame wars over trifles, namecalling and puffy-chested posturing. There has been some of that in this forum as well, but it has usually been brief and over matters of some substance. However, this thread has become a pathetic display of thin-skinned vituperation and ill-considered nationalistic arrogance. If John Simkin maintains that virtually all complaints are about US Forum members, and are likewise nearly always initiated by other US Forum members, I have enough respect for his honesty to take that as a fact. Those who do not share that faith in John's honesty should perhaps relocate to other forums where their own excesses are more likely to be tolerated. If they choose to stay, perhaps they'd be courteous enough to keep their self-righteous comments to themselves. Speaking only for myself, I am sick to the eye teeth with complaints about our hosts who, in my view, have been nothing but courteous in their attempts to keep the level of bile to a minimum. Moreover, those who appear to have taken the greatest ill-considered umbrage over our hosts' comments have nonetheless used this thread as an opportunity to display precisely the kind of arrogant sanctimony that first led to John Simkin's comments, in his bid to have Forum members police themselves. Given that this appeal from our host has demonstrably been ignored, we now have moderators to conduct that policing. That this has become necessary is a poor reflection on those who cannot resist a cheap shot at every turn. Fifteen forum pages devoted to this topic is fourteen pages too many. If we are all finished with our petty pissing and moaning over perceived slights against our respective nationalities, can we instead now resume devoting that vital energy to the topic that led us all here, the assassination of the 35th President of the United States? If, instead, you insist upon continuing with your self-important bickering over comments which you have misconstrued as a slight against your nation, please go elsewhere. Your are contributing nothing but unpleasantness and, worse by far, you are an intolerably tedious bore. As always Robert, excellent advice. Dawn

************* They look like two completely different people to me. The Hidell pic is the face we are familiar with, the one labeled Oswald is someone else. Couldn't be a "younger LHO" . Notice the distinct difference in the noses. Dawn

If this document can be authenticated this is indeed a bombshell. Nothing we here at the forum have not known for decades. I am unfamilar with Casey's signature, but Nixon's looks real. I could not read the FTW pages, so thank you Ashton for whatever you did- or found- to make this letter readable. Dawn

deleted- duplicate post

Ultimate Sacrifice Reviewed by James DiEugenio The first time I heard Lamar Waldron's name was through the auspices of Gus Russo. It was at the famous (or infamous) 1993 ASK Conference in Dallas. Now, after reading Waldron's book Ultimate Sacrifice (co-written with Thom Hartmann), I think it is relevant and enlightening to describe some of the things that happened back in 1993. Somehow, some way, Russo had been given control over a panel and had also invited some rather odd guests to attend, e.g. Ed Butler. As described elsewhere (see my article on Russo in Probe Vol. 6 No. 2 p. 12) it was at this conference that Russo basically reversed course from his earlier days and went over to the "Krazy Kid Oswald" camp. He had completed work on his shockingly one-sided PBS special and at this conference he and Mark Zaid began to forcefully divorce themselves from any kind of conspiracy angle. For example: The late Larry Harris had gotten several witnesses to arrange themselves in Dealey Plaza. Zaid went there and passed out leaflets attempting to discredit them. Zaid also helmed a panel on Oswald and he proclaimed that Oswald had no ties to the intelligence community. Zaid also was screaming at people who used the Zapruder film to advocate conspiracy: "You know more than Dr. Luis Alvarez, huh!" The conference culminated in a shouting match between Dr. Cyril Wecht and Russo over his loaded PBS special. It was during this singular conference that I first heard Lamar Waldron speak. Apparently, Waldron was another one of Russo's invitees. On the panel he helmed, Russo had given Waldron a solid hour to expound on his "Project Freedom" thesis. This was an extraordinary amount of time: 20-25 minutes had been the outer limits before Waldron appeared. The talk Waldron gave has become one of the main concepts of the book under discussion. In retrospect, considering where Russo had been and was headed, I now fully understand why he was promoting Waldron. I recall listening to Waldron for about 10 minutes and being puzzled as to how the unconvincing hodge-podge he had assembled fit together. I walked out. When I returned he had fielded a question by mentioning that Robert Kennedy controlled JFK's autopsy at Bethesda. Even at that time this idea was dubious simply because of, among other things, Pierre Finck's testimony at the Clay Shaw trial. In light of that evidence I remember thinking: Lamar Waldron has an agenda the size of a football stadium. After reading Ultimate Sacrifice I think I was wrong. Lamar Waldron has an agenda the size of the Grand Canyon. I can also see why Waldron needed an hour. The authors are nothing if not long winded. They make the likes of Joan Mellen, Dick Russell (in his revised version), and Noel Twyman look like models of brevity. The book's text comes in at 786 pages. With photos, exhibits, and footnotes the hardcover edition is 875 pages. It was published by Carroll & Graf, a house that is notorious for skimping on editing, fact, and source checking (see the works of Harrison Livingstone.) As we shall see, this book needed serious help in all those areas. In no way does it justify its length. Most of the book is a tedious rehash of the work of dubious authors, so it could have easily been half as long. And what makes that aspect worse is, when all is said and done, they have not proven any of the central tenets of the volume. Even though, as we shall see, they have brazenly cherry-picked the evidence they present. The book is divided into three parts. Part One deals with the so-called discovery of C-Day. That is, a plan for a coup in Cuba to be carried out by the Pentagon and the CIA. This would be coordinated with the murder of Castro by a secret collaborator on the island. The murder would be blamed on the Russians, this would create a crisis on the island and that would precipitate an invasion by a large flotilla of Cuban exiles led by Manuel Artime, Tony Varona, Eloy Menoyo, Manolo Ray and a group of Fort Benning trained Cuban militia. A provisional government would then be erected. This first part of the book also discusses the CIA-Mafia plots against Castro, two previous assassination attempts in Chicago and Tampa and profiles of major players involved in C-Day. (Part of the book's turgidness comes from repetition. There was no need to discuss the two previous plots against JFK here since they are detailed much later.) Part Two deals further with the CIA-Mafia plots, and what they see as the actual perceived build-up to the assassination by the Mob. Part Three is essentially a chronicle of November 1963. It includes longer versions of the Chicago and Tampa attempts, the actual assassination, and how that impacted C-Day, and a final chapter entitled The Legacy of Secrecy, in which the authors trace how the assassination enabled a cover-up of C-Day and how this had an effect on events afterwards. If one examines the text, the first of many curious aspects becomes evident. The longest part of the volume is the middle section, which is not actually about C-Day. It is really about the Mob's motivation, planning, pretexts, and precedents for killing JFK. And this is really the subject of the last section also. So by my rough estimate, about 2/3 of the book is not about what the author's trumpet as their great discovery. The larger part of the book is actually a kind of concentration and aggrandizement of all the Mob-did-it books rolled into one. As we shall see, this book is actually a new (and fatuous) spin on an old and discredited idea, namely Robert Blakey's Mob-did-it theory. The reader can see this just by browsing through the footnotes, which I did for this review. The familiar faces are all there: John Davis, Dan Moldea, Blakey, the HSCA volumes, David Scheim, even, startling enough, Frank Ragano. They are all quoted abundantly and, as we shall see, indiscriminately. I can literally say that this book would not exist in its present (bloated) form without that gallery of authors. But before dealing with that aspect of the book, let's deal with Part One, where Waldron and Hartmann present the concept of C-Day to us. The plan I summarized above was scheduled for December 1, 1963, nine days after JFK was killed. The sources for this is a series of CIA documents codenamed AM/WORLD, interviews with former Kennedy Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and a man named Harry Williams who was a friend of Bobby Kennedy's and was allegedly coordinating this plan with the exiles. In the hardcover edition of the book, they do not name the coup leader, but they very strongly hint that it was Che Guevara. They do everything except underline his name in this regard. Whole chapters are written about him. Now, considering that, I had a hard time digesting the logic of AM/WORLD. As anyone would who has read the history of Castro's revolution. We are to believe that Che Guevara, the man who came to symbolize worldwide Marxist rebellion, would betray that lifetime struggle, murder his partner in revolution, ally himself with the capitalist colossus of the north, and blame the murder of his friend on his Russian communist allies. Further, he would then cooperate in a provisional government with the likes of CIA stooges like Artime and Varona. Had Che Guevara undergone a rapid and extreme conversion without anyone noticing? Did the bearded revolutionary icon really believe that by killing Castro and throwing in his lot with Artime, Varona and the CIA that he would be purifying the communist zeal of 1959 which Castro had somehow subdued? To put this strange scenario on the page, the authors leave out some facts that made Che Guevara the living legend he was. And also the facts of his death, when he was hunted down and killed in Bolivia with the help of the CIA. (Poor devil, he actually thought the guys who killed him were his allies.) Let's fill in some of those expurgated pages. After Castro's revolution took hold, he began rounding up all the higher ups left over from the Batista government. He then arranged a series of show trials before he imprisoned and/or executed them. The number put before the firing squad is estimated at about four hundred and up. The man in charge of the phony trials and summary executions was Che Guevara. So the idea that he would turn around and be palsy-walsy with Artime and Varona, who were much closer to Batista than to him, is kind of weird. In 1959 he may have had them shot or imprisoned. Second, one of the reasons Che left Cuba is that he wanted to spread the Marxist revolt abroad, whereas Castro was trying to solidify it at home. Yet the authors want us to believe that Guevara would put an end to this foothold right in the place he struggled to establish it. Third, during the Missile Crisis, it was feared that the US would launch a huge armada to invade the island. The Russians had given the Cubans not just ballistic missiles, but tactical nukes. Reportedly these were under the control of the Cubans. It was Che Guevara who urged Castro to use them to vaporize any invasion crossing the Caribbean. If you buy this book, a year later he was inviting them with open arms to take over the island he was willing to partially nuke in order to save. Maybe Che Guevara had a nervous breakdown in the interim? Or did he really believe that Artime, Varona and the CIA would allow him, Ray and Menoyo to construct a leftist paradise after the invasion? Evidently, others, like David Talbot in Salon, had some trouble with this aspect of the book. So in the trade paper version, the authors changed their tune. The new identity of the coup leader is Juan Almeida. Now Almeida does not really fit the profile the authors describe in the hardcover version. That is, a person of such enormous stature and appeal that he could seamlessly replace Castro, convincingly blame the murder on the Russians, and then set up this Provisional Government with a group of people who had invaded their country two years ago and then almost nuked it 13 months before. Further, he is still alive and in the titular position of Revolution Commander. There is a recent photo of him with Raul Castro at a session of the National Assembly in Havana. It was after the trade paper version was released. I wonder what the conversation was like between the two when Raul learned of Juan's plan to murder his brother, and probably him, and turn the country over to the CIA, the Pentagon, and Artime. What makes this switch even more bracing is the person who rode to the rescue for Waldron and Hartmann. It was none other than Liz Smith. The same Liz Smith who is always good for a blurb on the books of John Davis. Who is always there for a "Kennedys and the murder of Monroe" spiel (which, predictably, figures in this volume on pp. 402-407). And who has always been an avid promoter of Judith Exner. In fact she penned the last installment before Exner passed away. (Of course, Exner appears here more than once.) In her column in the New York Post dated 9/22/06 she says she found out about the coup leader's actual identity through some new CIA documents. Hmmm. (She is not known as an ace archival researcher.) Another interesting aspect of this coup in Cuba idea is who knew about it and who did not. According to Talbot, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara did not know. Even though the authors insist that it was more a Pentagon operation than a CIA one. (Even more puzzling: they state on p, 42 that the operation could rise to the level of a full-scale invasion by US forces. When were they going to tell McNamara, the day before?) And although the authors use Rusk to bolster their claim, he says he did not know about it at the time, but learned about it later. National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy did not know about it either since he told author David Corn that in 1963, the operations against Cuba were winding down to a dribble. So the three highest Cabinet level officers, who should have known about such an operation, somehow were left in the dark. But the authors know who was in the light. They were: Jack Ruby Guy Banister David Ferrie David Morales Howard Hunt John Martino Richard Nixon Carlos Prio Santo Trafficante Jimmy Hoffa Carlos Marcello Sam Giancana Johnny Roselli David Phillips Rolando Masferer Bernard Barker James McCord Michael Mertz Charlie Nicoletti Gilberto Lopez Richard Cain Frank Sturgis George Nonte And I saved the best for last: Lee Harvey Oswald. So the Kennedys were so careless that the word about this secret operation leaked out to people like Ruby and Ferrie; but yet they were paradoxically so careful that they managed to keep it from McNamara. Now some people would think this odd. The authors anticipate this by saying that some people in the administration knew and some did not. They even go to the lengths of depicting meetings at which some know about it and some do not. (p. 51) Even when it's actually under discussion. Yet, to use a figurative example, McNamara never said to Richard Helms, "Dick, did you say we were sponsoring a coup in Cuba next month?" To which Helms must have replied, "Oh no Bob, the Cubana Coupe is a new car model I'm buying." The aspect of who knew and who did not is so tenuous, so questionable, so minutely balanced on the head of a pin that serious questions arise about those who the authors say were witting. As stated above, Helms was supposed to be knowledgeable about C-Day. Yet there is a revelatory anecdote about this issue in his book, Over My Shoulder (pgs 226-227). Helms got word of a large arms cache that had landed in Venezuela from Cuba. It was allegedly shipped to help some communist guerillas there. In other words, Castro was exporting revolution into South America. Something the Kennedys did not want him to do. Helms was so alarmed by this that he personally went over to see Robert Kennedy to plead his case for emergency action. After all it was three tons of armaments. RFK passed on it and told him to go see the president. He did and he even took over one of the rifles supposedly found, presumably to convince JFK of the urgency of the situation. Here was the casus belli. Yet JFK was non-plussed. But Helms did salvage something for his efforts. He asked for and got a photo of Kennedy. What I find so interesting about this episode is the date Helms places it on: November 19, 1963. Did Helms forget C-Day was coming up in 12 days? Did he want to move it up because he knew the Mafia was going to kill JFK? Was it all a silly charade? Or maybe Helms just wanted the picture. But that's not all. In Joseph B. Smith's book Portrait of A Cold Warrior (p. 383), he refers to the seizure of this cache of arms. He apparently got some reports on it, and skillful and veteran analyst he was, he quickly deduced it was planted. So if we take Ultimate Sacrifice seriously, Helms went to the trouble of creating a phony provocation when he knew that C-Day was less than two weeks off. But the capper is this: both the Helms and Smith books appear in the footnotes to Ultimate Sacrifice. David Talbot raised an interesting point about the central thesis. If the Kennedys were sponsoring a coup in Cuba for December 1st, why would the Mafia, and some Cubans, conspire to assassinate him nine days before? It's especially odd since one would think that the exile Cubans who Waldron and Hartmann say knew about it, like say Masferer and Sturgis, would likely want it to succeed. After all, they had been working for this for years. Interestingly, the authors don't even mention some of the Cubans who are highly suspect in the JFK case, like say Bernardo DeTorres and Sergio Arcacha Smith. Now, if Smith was involved in JFK's murder, it is really odd. He was part of the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) as was Varona, who the authors maintain was one of the major players in the operation. Yet Varona apparently never told his colleague Smith. Or maybe there was nothing to tell. For as Bill Davy noted in Probe Magazine(Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 5), FBI informants within the CRC, including leader Jose Miro Cardona, were disgusted with Kennedy in 1963 over his Cuba policy. After a high level meeting in Washington, Cardona came away with the feeling that "the United States policy is now one of peaceful co-existence with Communist Cuba." More to the point, "the United States has no plan to free Cuba of Communism." The Justice Department report continued that the CRC's feeling about the US was "very bad, and they feel they had been abandoned in their fight." Is this perhaps why people like Smith and DeTorres became suspect in the JFK case and why Smith tried to set up the seemingly pro-Castro Oswald, in order to provoke an attack against Cuba? You won't read a sentence about that in Ultimate Sacrifice. Although the authors mention the Lisa Howard/William Attwood back channel to Castro in the attempt for détente with Cuba, they downplay it (p. 113), and later they actually dismiss it as meaningless. They also do not mention Kennedy's 1963 letter to Khruschev, which Davy quotes: "I have neither the intention nor the desire to invade Cuba. I consider that it is for the Cuban people themselves to choose their destiny." (Davy, op. cit.) And of course, Waldron and Hartmann ignore the important Peter Kornbluh article in Cigar Aficionado (summarized in Probe, Vol. 7 No. 1 pp. 8-9). Probably because it paints a quite different picture of the quest for détente. When Castro learned of Kennedy's death, he told JFK's envoy in the process, "This is an end to your mission of peace. Everything is changed." And as Kornbluh notes, Castro was right. LBJ pursued it no further. This rigorous, systematic refusal to acknowledge or confront contrary evidence is nowhere more demonstrable than in the treatment of the Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis. One would think that in a book concentrating on Cuban-American relations from 1960-63, these two events would get special treatment. One would be dead wrong. Combined they get all of five pages. Even though there have been reams of documents declassified on both events by the Assassinations Records Review Board, they use none of it. Incredibly, they ignore both the CIA Inspector General Report by Lyman Kirkpatrick, and the White House sponsored Taylor Report on the Bay of Pigs. Concerning the Missile Crisis, they fail to quote from the landmark book The Kennedy Tapes, which is the closest thing we have to a verbatim account of the crisis. This was unfortunate for me since I wanted to get their take on why JFK would not OK an invasion during those two events when everyone in the situation room was demanding it, yet he would OK one in 1963 when tensions had decreased and fewer people were egging him on. If you essentially skimp the two incidents, you can dodge the question. II The second part of the book is about the plotting of the Mafia Dons to assassinate President Kennedy. It also discusses the idea that the Mob discovered the C-Day plan, and then used this to somehow cover up their murder plot. This is the new twist to another Mob based scenario. This part of the book is heavily -- and I mean heavily -- reliant on the authors of three decades ago whose books were spawned by the work of the House Select Committee's unremitting focus on the Mob. Waldron and Hartmann line them all up and use them profusely and without care: Dan Moldea, John Davis, Robert Blakey and Dick Billings, David Scheim. Even Frank Ragano and Aaron Kohn appear. As we shall see, some of the statements made in this section of the book are rather startling. But even I was surprised at what the authors pulled in Chapter 33. Like Joan Mellen, they want to rewrite the history of the CIA-Mafia plots. To do so they question the best source we have on that subject, namely the 1967 Inspector General Report done for Richard Helms at the request of President Johnson. They say it is incomplete and that it leaves out certain aspects. Maybe this is so, and maybe it is not. For instance, there are rumors that the writers of the report actually did interview John Roselli. Did Waldron and Hartmann actually stumble upon this tape, or transcript or at least the interviewer? Is this what they found that was left out? That would truly be new and important. But that isn't it. What is it then? None other than Dan Moldea (pp. 380-390). They actually say that material in Moldea's 1978 book The Hoffa Wars should have been in the IG Report. I had to smile. Let me explain. After I read Moldea's disgraceful book on the RFK case, I was shocked at its shoddiness (Probe Vol. 5 No. 4, p. 10, and The Assassinations pgs 610-631). I wondered how someone like this ever got started. So I went back and borrowed his first volume, the book on Hoffa. I took 30 pages of notes and came to the conclusion that it was almost as bad as his RFK book. (I never reviewed it since we decided to discontinue Probe.) Since Moldea is relying a lot on Walter Sheridan and other such sources, the portrait of Hoffa is aggrandized and sensationalized. The reason for this is twofold. Sheridan furnished Moldea with his prime witness against Hoffa, Ed Partin. Second, Moldea was writing right after the revelations of the Church Committee Report, which exposed in public the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Partin, Sheridan, and Moldea had a problem with those plots. Hoffa wasn't in on them. So Sheridan let Moldea borrow Partin so he could further his mendacious magic act. And Waldron and Hartmann suck this all up -- and expand it even further. But being indiscriminate with a writer like Moldea is like a boxer leaving his chin exposed in the ring. You're looking for trouble. When Sheridan was heralding Partin as his star witness he had to do a lot of rehab work on him. Because writers like Fred Cook had shown that Partin had a criminal record that, to say the least, was rather compromising. So he decided to give Partin a lie detector test. Needless to say, since Sheridan arranged it, he passed with flying colors. But years later, something interesting happened to this test. A professional society of polygraph technicians got hold of the raw data from it. They were worried that less than scrupulous people were abusing legal ethics in using the machine. So a team of the country's leading experts studied the results and unveiled their findings at a convention. They concluded that Partin was deceptive throughout, but he almost broke the machine at the part where he related Hoffa's plot to murder RFK. Partin was so bad that the society deduced that the administrator of the test had to turn down the detection device to ensure the results Sheridan wanted. Ace archivist Peter Vea mailed me these documents over a decade ago and I discussed them at the 1995 COPA Conference in Washington. Vea later sent me a newspaper story about one of the original technicians being later convicted for fraud. So the information has been out there for about 12 years. Somehow, Waldron and Hartmann missed it. (And so did Moldea since he was still vouching for Partin in 1997 when his RFK book was published.) But as I said, Moldea's book came out in 1978. Well after Hoffa was convicted and passed away so mysteriously. So the act Partin did for Sheridan was not enough for Moldea.. Watergate and the Church Committee had occurred in the interim. So for Moldea, Partin added some current sex appeal to his already fatuous story. He now told Moldea that Carlos Marcello contributed a half million to Nixon's campaign in 1968 (Moldea pp. 108, 260). The go-between was Hoffa. Hoffa was also supplying arms to Castro before he took over Cuba (Ibid. p. 107). Waldron and Hartmann use these tales and source them to Moldea-- without telling the reader that the source is Partin! At one point they even refer to this proven xxxx as a most trusted source. In this day and age, with all we know about Partin, this is academic irresponsibility. But if Moldea is bad, what can one say about Frank Ragano? Ragano is mentioned many times by Moldea in his Hoffa book. Ragano was an attorney for Hoffa, Marcello and Trafficante. He did this for many years. And during this time, many of these Mafia did it books emerged. But it was not until Oliver Stone's JFK came out that he decided to write about how his three clients conspired to kill President Kennedy. The other curious thing about the timing of Ragano's 1993 book Mob Lawyer, is that he was in trouble with the IRS over back taxes and cried out that he was being persecuted: perhaps for his much delayed broadcast about his clients assassination conspiracy? Or maybe he was just using the delayed expose to plea bargain the charge down? Whatever the case, Ragano made two mistakes in his coming out party. First, he sold Moldea the old chestnut about Jim Garrison's investigation of Clay Shaw being a method to divert attention away from Marcello. I exposed this for the canard it was at the 1994 COPA Conference, and Bill Davy expanded on it in his book, Let Justice Be Done (pgs 149-167). Evidently, Ragano had not done his homework on the issue. And that crack investigative reporter Moldea was not up to checking it out beforehand. (See Ragano's biography at spartacus.schoolnet.) Second, Ragano tried to get cute and was a bit too specific about Trafficante's convenient deathbed confession to him. He said it occurred on March 13, 1987 in Tampa. He says the ailing Don called him and asked him to come down and pick him up. When Ragano arrived to take him for a spin, the dying 72-year-old Mob boss trotted out to the car in pajamas and robe. He told Ragano that he and his underworld cohorts had erred. They should have killed Bobby, not John. His conscience cleansed by his confession to his consigliore, Trafficante passed away a few days later. Unfortunately for Ragano, Tony Summers checked up on his belatedly revealed tale. According to Summers, who sources several witnesses, Trafficante was living in Miami in March of 1987 and had not been to Tampa for months. He was very ill at the time and was receiving kidney dialysis and carrying a colostomy bag. Further, Summers interviewed at least two witnesses who placed Trafficante in Miami on that day. There are also hospital records that put him in Miami's Mercy Hospital for dialysis treatment on both the day before and the day after the Ragano "confession". And Trafficante's doctor in Tampa said he was not there on March 13th. (Vanity Fair 12/94) Now, from Miami to Tampa is about 280 miles. To think that a 72 year old dying man would drive four hours one way and then four hours back -- between dialysis treatments -- to do something he could have done with a call on a pay phone strains credulity to the breaking point. To postulate that he would fly the distance is just as bad. Did he buy two seats in order to put his colostomy bag next to him? Ragano told Summers he could produce other witnesses. But only if he was sued for libel. Since it is next to impossible for a family to sue for a deceased member over libel, Ragano was being real gutsy. Another spurious author used extensively in this section is Davis, who they refer to as a "noted historian" (p.264) and later (p. 768) as an "acclaimed historian." (The authors are quite liberal in their use of the term "historian": Tony Summers, Peter Dale Scott, even Tad Szulc are all given the title. Yet none of them are historians.) Others, like Bill Davy and myself have questioned the methodology of this "noted historian". As I once wrote of him, although Davis likes to use a large bibliography to lend weight and academic ballast to his work, he does not footnote his text. And as Davy and I have both pointed out, even the freight of his pretentious bibliography is spurious. In his two books on the JFK assassination, Mafia Kingfish and The Kennedy Contract, Davis listed two primary sources: the transcript of the Clay Shaw trial and 3, 000 pages of CIA documents. He said they were housed at Southeastern Louisiana University at Hammond. Davy checked and I called. They aren't there. (Probe Vol. 5, No.1, p. 9) In that same issue, in discussing his Kennedy biography, Dynasty and Disaster, I showed how Davis distorted his sources to twist words and events into something they do not really mean. And sometimes into the opposite of what they mean. I then demonstrated how his lack of footnoting made this hard to detect for a novice. But Ultimate Sacrifice ignores all this. The book uses Davis, and even some of the claims that Davy actually addressed head on. For instance: the 7,000-dollar payoff, which Marcello supposedly admitted in his HSCA executive session testimony. The problem here is he actually didn't admit it. (Ibid) Further, Davy and I interviewed U.S. Attorney Jon Volz who was in on the prosecution that put Marcello away. He and his cohorts listened to years of surveillance on Marcello, including the storied "Brilab tapes". Volz told us, "There's nothing on those tapes." (Ibid). In fact, Volz told us that far from the fearsome, all-inspiring Mafia Don Davis makes him out to be, Marcello was kind of slow and dull. Further, Waldron and Hartmann use their "noted historian", to make Marcello an all encompassing Mafia Superman, his Hitlerian reach extending throughout ten states, Central America, the Caribbean and beyond. (Ultimate Sacrifice p. 264). Funny, because Volz told us that, by the time he prosecuted him, Marcello was not even the number one godfather in Louisiana. Anthony Carolla was. But Waldron and Hartmann need to use Davis to exalt Marcello because they want us to believe, as Davis and Blakey do, that Marcello was reaching through to Oswald through Guy Banister and David Ferrie. Repeatedly, throughout the volume, Ferrie and Banister are referred to as "working for Marcello.". In no other book I have ever encountered have I seen this rubric used with these two men anywhere to the extent it appears here. Further, Banister and Ferrie are pretty much cleaned off of their other well-documented ties to the CIA and the FBI. There is almost no mention of Ferrie's ties to the Bay of Pigs, how he trained Cuban exiles for that operation, how he engineered aquatic equipment like a miniature submarine, how he watched films of the debacle with his friend Sergio Arcacha Smith. There is also no mention of Ferrie's attempts to recruit young men for MONGOOSE. And it's almost the same for Banister. Again, this was an eccentric trend that was started with Blakey and Billings at the end of the HSCA. Ferrie had worked for Wray Gill, one of Marcello's local attorneys. So Blakey shorthanded this into Ferrie working for Marcello. In 1962 and 1963, Ferrie got Banister some investigatory work through his Gill employment. But not even the HSCA and Blakey construed this as Banister being an employee of Marcello. Waldron and Hartmann do this throughout. Again, this is deceptive and journalistically irresponsible. But, as I will show later, its part of a grand design. But it's not just Marcello who gets the Superman treatment. Apparently modeling themselves on Davis, they attempt to enlarge John Roselli beyond any dimensions I have ever read. Roselli was seen previously as a second tier Mafia figure, right below the top Godfathers who sat on the national council. And his affable demeanor, brains, and facility in conversation made him a good ambassador and envoy for the Cosa Nostra to gain entry into things like the film business and the CIA-Mafia plots. This book goes way beyond that to places I had never seen or imagined. Did you know that Roselli was somehow in on the murder of Castillo Armas in Guatemala in 1957? How about the assassination of Trujillo in the Dominican Republic in 1961? If you can believe it, the dapper, satin shirted, silk tied Roselli was in training with the Cuban exiles at JM/WAVE. He even makes an appearance at Banister's office at 544 Camp Street. Roselli is somehow involved with Marilyn Monroe in a ménage a trois with Frank Sinatra and Sam Giancana before she tries to warn the FBI about a Mob hit on RFK. (This whole episode with Monroe has to be read to be believed. Its on pages 405-409.) And with Waldron and Hartmann, its Roselli who introduced Judith Exner to Senator Kennedy, since Roselli is trying to play it safe in the 1960 election (p. 390). And as the Mob plot heats up, he maneuvers her around to somehow monitor JFK. Except it's not true. Unfortunately, I read Exner's book My Story (see The Assassinations pp. 329-338 for my essay on Exner). In that book, Exner describes her first meeting with Senator Kenendy. She met him through a dinner hosted by Peter Lawford and Frank Sinatra (see pp. 86-89). In that book, contrary to what Ultimate Sacrifice clearly implies, there is not a hint that John Roselli had anything to do with her relations with JFK. In their further aggrandizement of Roselli, they attempt to place him in Dallas on 11/22/63 but they qualify this by saying that none of the sources meet their standard of reliability. (p. 712) But they state the accusation anyway by noting the multiplicity of accounts. Also, according to them, Roselli had no alibi for that day. When I looked up their multiplicity of sources, I smiled and shook my head. The three were James Files, Robert Plumlee, and Chauncey Holt. Gary Aguilar wrote a searing expose on the whole Files affair, which resulted in a rather embarrassing video on the JFK case. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 6 p. 27) Plumlee has been marketing his story for years about flying various people in and out of Dallas before and after the assassination. He figured in one of the early cuts of that video which the producer tried to sell to investors. The late Chauncey Holt was trying to sell himself as one of the three tramps for a number of years. The fact that the authors include these men is critical comment in and of itself. III But even using all these dubious books and authors, with their questionable sources and bibliographies, Waldron and Hartmann still suffer greatly from the "conditional syndrome". That is, something can happen only if something else occurs i.e. the contingency or assumption factor. To give the reader a representative sample: If Roselli had told David Morales that Ruby would be helpful in the fall 1963 CIA-Mafia plot, Morales would have had no reason to doubt him. (565) It is possible that the call was related to Oswald...or a trip Ruby would soon make to Chicago... (566) And even on November 1, Ferrie might have flown to Chicago instead of back to New Orleans, if the Chicago assassination plan had not been uncovered ...(577) Phillips was saying that about Oswald in the context of an autobiographical Novel, but it could indicate that the CIA's "plan we had devised against Castro" was similar to the way JFK was killed. (p. 580) The sad thing is that the Mafia may have taken the very plan that the CIA had intended to use against Castro...and used it instead to kill JFK in an open limousine. That could account for the comments of Bobby and David Atlee Phillips after JFK's death. (P. 581) And my favorite: Morales probably engaged in business with Trafficante associate John Martino in the years after JFK's death. On the other hand, Morales may have simply provided help and information to Roselli during his nighttime drinking binges. (p. 584, italics are mine in all excerpts) I am reminded of Cyril Wecht's response to one of Michael Baden's inventive rationales for the single bullet theory: "Yeah, and if my mother had a penis she'd be my father." The book is literally strewn with these kinds of "would have" "could have" "might have" scenarios. In the sample above, I culled from a span of 20 pages and I cited six passages, leaving at least one other one out. Go ahead and do the math for a text of 786 pages. There must be well into the hundreds of these Rumsfeldian "unkown unknowns" populating this book-- like autumn leaves in a Pennsylvania backyard. When I wrote my introduction to Bill Davy's fine work, Let Justice Be Done, I noted that one of its qualities is the author used very few of these types of clauses. He didn't have to. I also noted that the Mafia theory advocates were noted for these kinds of contingency phrases. Since Ultimate Sacrifice is essentially the "Mega Mob Did It" opus, it amplifies the usage of them exponentially. Which leaves one to ask: If you need so many of these clauses then what is the real value of the book and its research? Hand in glove with the above feature is the "he had dinner with him" syndrome. Peter Dale Scott 's works were rich in this kind of thing and then Robert Blakey brought it to new heights in the field. Waldron and Hartmann continue in this tradition. Back in Dallas on Thursday evening November 20, Ruby had dinner with ... Ralph Paul. Paul was associated with Austin's Bar-B-Cue, where one of the part-time security guards was policeman J. D. Tippit. (p. 713) The Teamster organizer was an associate of Frank Chavez, linked to Jack Ruby by FBI reports. (p. 740) Ruby called the home of friend Gordon McLendon, owner of KLIF radio, who was close to David Atlee Phillips and had a connection to Marcello. (747) If you use the sources the authors use, and a lot of conditional phrasing, and you make the connections as oblique and inconsequential as a Bar-B-Cue pit, then you can just about connect almost anything and anyone. Sort of like the Six Degrees of Separation concept. You can even come close to duplicating that masterpiece of disinformation, Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal, aka The Torbitt Document (which is not a document and is therefore even deceptive in its nickname.) The point is that now, with the work of the ARRB, we don't need to do this anymore. Waldron and Hartmann want to take us back to the Torbitt days. In this middle section of the book, which allegedly describes the plotting of the assassination, appear some of the most bizarre statements and

John G has my vote. He is very mature, intelligent and I think would do an excellent job. I think we all need to be mindful that John is going through a very difficult time right now; as would anyone with a very ill wife. Can't people just moniter themselves? Type something, then walk away for a bit, then come back and look at it and imagine what you have typed directed against you. Some posters here can certainly dish it out but when the least bit of critical comment is directed in said person's way he or she screams "unfair". We already have rules. People just need to follow them. Dawn

I agree Nathaniel. But I have the emails from Rich ( forwarded by Terry), including one today. Terry is not the person lying here. Dawn

So, yet another LHO- did- it book from the former DA. Ho -hum. Dawn

I agree Peter. Dawn

[quote name='Robert Howard' date='Feb 3 2007, 04:10 AM' post='92449'] ·We will definitely miss The Unsinkable Molly Ivins.. Oh yes!! I was so saddened yesterday to learn of her death. She was virtually the only reason to read the local rag. Dawn

There is copious correspondence from Walter Sheridan to Herbert J. Miller asking permission to report on Garrison's investigation to the CIA. See the National Archives. Miller denies Sheridan's request and insists that he, Miller, be the intermediary. This seems to be irrefutable evidence that it was not the CIA that sent Sheridan to New Orleans, but the man for whom he worked, Robert F. Kennedy. On the Murgado credibility, I can say no more. He was the most reluctant witness in the world. Hemming has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Oh my, this is your PROOF? Ok, so Sheridan is asking permission of an assistant attorney general under RFK to report TO THE CIA on the Garrison inverstigation. The very agency that Garrison took on in the murder of our president. So, because there is some corespondance of Miller's saying "no" - how very convenient- you leap to the conclusion that it therefore MUST have been RFK who sent Sheridan to sabotage Garrsion??? I am beyond incredulous. Ms. Mellen I really, really like you and I admire the project that you undertook tremenously. Jim Garrison has been a major hero of mine my whole life...so anyone who furthers his work, and , like you, proves just how right he was has my upmost respect. But when such a leap of faith is required one must expect some critical questions. PLEASE do not take this as a personal attack. Dawn

John and Andy are providing a forum here to share research, thoughts, and ideas. At their own expense; and John with a very ill wife. Robert Charles-Dunne made some excellent points a few posts back. I strongly urge all forum members to re- read this post and then follow it. Points CAN be made without insults; infact insults greatly detract from otherwise valid points. Dawn

Hi Ashton, Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post. A hundred mea culpas, and one for lagniappe. Yes, I was guilty of a cursory read and a quick hand to the keyboard on that part of my earlier reply to you. The whole Yankee/Cowboy thing was astir in a few threads at the time, and when you put "Texas oilmen" and "big finance/banking" in the same sentence, my knee jerked. It's always unfortunate when one's jerking knee breaks one's own nose. The point you actually made—that they all came "from similar peerage and lineage"—is certainly worth a look, and I have no argument with it. I believe that the trump card to all of it, though, is what I mentioned somewhere (in the thread Paul Rigby started about Castro, etc., I think, where I cribbed from an early draft of this reply) concerning the inescapable interdependancy of oil interests everywhere and international banking. They are joined at the hip and head, and not one is going anywhere without the other, I don't care if their lineage goes back to Ra, the Sun God, or Rae, the trailer-trash hooker with a sunny disposition. I don't know how any serious study of CIA and its creation possibly can lead to any other conclusion. In fact, I've searched in vain for any rational justification for its creation. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the "Cold War" was created by CIA and its masters and minions, after the fact, to sort of reverse-engineer some kind of "reason" for its existence, and to provide "justifiable" cover for its rampant criminal activities all over the globe.One of the most chilling insights into the kind of amoral thugs who knew how to hold their pinky fingers correctly while sipping tea, and who formed the core of this criminal organization from the beginning comes from E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography. It isn't chilling by it's scope or infamy, because it just isn't. What's chilling about it, to me, is the off-hand, business-as-usual way Hunt writes the following about an event at the end of the war, in Shanghai (boldface added): "In the basement of the American Club someone came across a dozen cases of prewar Scotch whiskey. These were brought up to the bar, but the first drinker of that Scotch died in agony beside the American Club bar: the Japanese had doctored random bottles of whisky with cyanide before leaving. "This was bad news for a pair of OSS senior officers who had set about cornering the Shanghai market on Scotch. Their hotel rooms were filled to the ceiling with cases of it, and they had made large investments in the whisky, anticipating thirsty visitors from the fleet. Now no foreigners in Shanghai dared drink Scotch whiskey, and the enterprising black marketers went bankrupt, to the general satisfaction of those of us who had been excluded from the promising transaction." —E. Howard Hunt, c/o General Delivery, Hell <SPIT!> There you go. There's a glimpse into the writhing snake-pit of CIA standard-issue "ethics." You can take that further. I believe the actual underlying thought is this: international oil and international arms and international banking could not operate internationally as monopolistically as they have without just such a covert international force. So if it isn't CIA—who is it? With a ready-made army of covert criminal OSS scum at the end of WW II—many of whom, like "the Oily Boys," had worked directly in the interests of the oil and finance barons throughout the war—CIA had to be created. I don't know how far I can follow you down that path. At this point, I'm not so sure it entirely mattered that it was Kennedy. (I just know that's going to win me a whole new batch of friends, right there.) I'm beginning to form a hazy consideration that it simply was a coup, and he happened to be there. I'm beginning to squint at all of the proposed "motives" for "getting Kennedy," per se, very narrowly. I'm beginning to believe that there was something larger at work than simply "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."There's no question that ramping up war in Southeast Asia was on the CIA agenda. That's why CIA arranged for the Diem coup 21 days before they took out Kennedy. And there's no question that Vietnam did absolute wonders for the arms, banking, and oil worms. And there's no question that Kennedy was leaning toward bailing from Vietnam shortly before the assassination—but! There's also no question that the planning of his murder was in the works long, long before the events in October-November 1963 related to Kennedy's intentions to extract U.S. involvement. Ayup. International banking first, I think. Oil and armaments (oh, yeah: and drugs, all varieties) are their handmaidens. See above. Because they are amoral scum who like to take $50 out of your pockets by loaning you $5. Then taxing you another $20 on all of it.That's even easier than cornering the black market on Scotch and fleecing the U.S. fleet. Ashton Ashton: This is one of the most perceptive posts I have ever read. (I wonder if and how Charlie will spin THIS? You have taken the Yankee/Cowboy analysis to its most logical conclusion. I am sure Oglesby will be proud. Dawn

Hi Ashton, Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post. A hundred mea culpas, and one for lagniappe. Yes, I was guilty of a cursory read and a quick hand to the keyboard on that part of my earlier reply to you. The whole Yankee/Cowboy thing was astir in a few threads at the time, and when you put "Texas oilmen" and "big finance/banking" in the same sentence, my knee jerked. It's always unfortunate when one's jerking knee breaks one's own nose. The point you actually made—that they all came "from similar peerage and lineage"—is certainly worth a look, and I have no argument with it. I believe that the trump card to all of it, though, is what I mentioned somewhere (in the thread Paul Rigby started about Castro, etc., I think, where I cribbed from an early draft of this reply) concerning the inescapable interdependancy of oil interests everywhere and international banking. They are joined at the hip and head, and not one is going anywhere without the other, I don't care if their lineage goes back to Ra, the Sun God, or Rae, the trailer-trash hooker with a sunny disposition. I don't know how any serious study of CIA and its creation possibly can lead to any other conclusion. In fact, I've searched in vain for any rational justification for its creation. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the "Cold War" was created by CIA and its masters and minions, after the fact, to sort of reverse-engineer some kind of "reason" for its existence, and to provide "justifiable" cover for its rampant criminal activities all over the globe.One of the most chilling insights into the kind of amoral thugs who knew how to hold their pinky fingers correctly while sipping tea, and who formed the core of this criminal organization from the beginning comes from E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography. It isn't chilling by it's scope or infamy, because it just isn't. What's chilling about it, to me, is the off-hand, business-as-usual way Hunt writes the following about an event at the end of the war, in Shanghai (boldface added): "In the basement of the American Club someone came across a dozen cases of prewar Scotch whiskey. These were brought up to the bar, but the first drinker of that Scotch died in agony beside the American Club bar: the Japanese had doctored random bottles of whisky with cyanide before leaving. "This was bad news for a pair of OSS senior officers who had set about cornering the Shanghai market on Scotch. Their hotel rooms were filled to the ceiling with cases of it, and they had made large investments in the whisky, anticipating thirsty visitors from the fleet. Now no foreigners in Shanghai dared drink Scotch whiskey, and the enterprising black marketers went bankrupt, to the general satisfaction of those of us who had been excluded from the promising transaction." —E. Howard Hunt, c/o General Delivery, Hell <SPIT!> There you go. There's a glimpse into the writhing snake-pit of CIA standard-issue "ethics." You can take that further. I believe the actual underlying thought is this: international oil and international arms and international banking could not operate internationally as monopolistically as they have without just such a covert international force. So if it isn't CIA—who is it? With a ready-made army of covert criminal OSS scum at the end of WW II—many of whom, like "the Oily Boys," had worked directly in the interests of the oil and finance barons throughout the war—CIA had to be created. I don't know how far I can follow you down that path. At this point, I'm not so sure it entirely mattered that it was Kennedy. (I just know that's going to win me a whole new batch of friends, right there.) I'm beginning to form a hazy consideration that it simply was a coup, and he happened to be there. I'm beginning to squint at all of the proposed "motives" for "getting Kennedy," per se, very narrowly. I'm beginning to believe that there was something larger at work than simply "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."There's no question that ramping up war in Southeast Asia was on the CIA agenda. That's why CIA arranged for the Diem coup 21 days before they took out Kennedy. And there's no question that Vietnam did absolute wonders for the arms, banking, and oil worms. And there's no question that Kennedy was leaning toward bailing from Vietnam shortly before the assassination—but! There's also no question that the planning of his murder was in the works long, long before the events in October-November 1963 related to Kennedy's intentions to extract U.S. involvement. Ayup. International banking first, I think. Oil and armaments (oh, yeah: and drugs, all varieties) are their handmaidens. See above. Because they are amoral scum who like to take $50 out of your pockets by loaning you $5. Then taxing you another $20 on all of it.That's even easier than cornering the black market on Scotch and fleecing the U.S. fleet. Ashton Ashton: This is one of the most perceptive posts I have ever read. (I wonder if and how Charlie will spin THIS? You have taken the Yankee/Cowboy analysis to its most logical conclusion. I am sure Oglesby will be proud. Dawn

Hi Ashton, Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post. A hundred mea culpas, and one for lagniappe. Yes, I was guilty of a cursory read and a quick hand to the keyboard on that part of my earlier reply to you. The whole Yankee/Cowboy thing was astir in a few threads at the time, and when you put "Texas oilmen" and "big finance/banking" in the same sentence, my knee jerked. It's always unfortunate when one's jerking knee breaks one's own nose. The point you actually made—that they all came "from similar peerage and lineage"—is certainly worth a look, and I have no argument with it. I believe that the trump card to all of it, though, is what I mentioned somewhere (in the thread Paul Rigby started about Castro, etc., I think, where I cribbed from an early draft of this reply) concerning the inescapable interdependancy of oil interests everywhere and international banking. They are joined at the hip and head, and not one is going anywhere without the other, I don't care if their lineage goes back to Ra, the Sun God, or Rae, the trailer-trash hooker with a sunny disposition. I don't know how any serious study of CIA and its creation possibly can lead to any other conclusion. In fact, I've searched in vain for any rational justification for its creation. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the "Cold War" was created by CIA and its masters and minions, after the fact, to sort of reverse-engineer some kind of "reason" for its existence, and to provide "justifiable" cover for its rampant criminal activities all over the globe.One of the most chilling insights into the kind of amoral thugs who knew how to hold their pinky fingers correctly while sipping tea, and who formed the core of this criminal organization from the beginning comes from E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography. It isn't chilling by it's scope or infamy, because it just isn't. What's chilling about it, to me, is the off-hand, business-as-usual way Hunt writes the following about an event at the end of the war, in Shanghai (boldface added): "In the basement of the American Club someone came across a dozen cases of prewar Scotch whiskey. These were brought up to the bar, but the first drinker of that Scotch died in agony beside the American Club bar: the Japanese had doctored random bottles of whisky with cyanide before leaving. "This was bad news for a pair of OSS senior officers who had set about cornering the Shanghai market on Scotch. Their hotel rooms were filled to the ceiling with cases of it, and they had made large investments in the whisky, anticipating thirsty visitors from the fleet. Now no foreigners in Shanghai dared drink Scotch whiskey, and the enterprising black marketers went bankrupt, to the general satisfaction of those of us who had been excluded from the promising transaction." —E. Howard Hunt, c/o General Delivery, Hell <SPIT!> There you go. There's a glimpse into the writhing snake-pit of CIA standard-issue "ethics." You can take that further. I believe the actual underlying thought is this: international oil and international arms and international banking could not operate internationally as monopolistically as they have without just such a covert international force. So if it isn't CIA—who is it? With a ready-made army of covert criminal OSS scum at the end of WW II—many of whom, like "the Oily Boys," had worked directly in the interests of the oil and finance barons throughout the war—CIA had to be created. I don't know how far I can follow you down that path. At this point, I'm not so sure it entirely mattered that it was Kennedy. (I just know that's going to win me a whole new batch of friends, right there.) I'm beginning to form a hazy consideration that it simply was a coup, and he happened to be there. I'm beginning to squint at all of the proposed "motives" for "getting Kennedy," per se, very narrowly. I'm beginning to believe that there was something larger at work than simply "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."There's no question that ramping up war in Southeast Asia was on the CIA agenda. That's why CIA arranged for the Diem coup 21 days before they took out Kennedy. And there's no question that Vietnam did absolute wonders for the arms, banking, and oil worms. And there's no question that Kennedy was leaning toward bailing from Vietnam shortly before the assassination—but! There's also no question that the planning of his murder was in the works long, long before the events in October-November 1963 related to Kennedy's intentions to extract U.S. involvement. Ayup. International banking first, I think. Oil and armaments (oh, yeah: and drugs, all varieties) are their handmaidens. See above. Because they are amoral scum who like to take $50 out of your pockets by loaning you $5. Then taxing you another $20 on all of it.That's even easier than cornering the black market on Scotch and fleecing the U.S. fleet. Ashton Ashton: This is one of the most perceptive posts I have ever read. (I wonder if and how Charlie will spin THIS? You have taken the Yankee/Cowboy analysis to its most logical conclusion. I am sure Oglesby will be proud. Dawn

Hi Ashton, Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post. A hundred mea culpas, and one for lagniappe. Yes, I was guilty of a cursory read and a quick hand to the keyboard on that part of my earlier reply to you. The whole Yankee/Cowboy thing was astir in a few threads at the time, and when you put "Texas oilmen" and "big finance/banking" in the same sentence, my knee jerked. It's always unfortunate when one's jerking knee breaks one's own nose. The point you actually made—that they all came "from similar peerage and lineage"—is certainly worth a look, and I have no argument with it. I believe that the trump card to all of it, though, is what I mentioned somewhere (in the thread Paul Rigby started about Castro, etc., I think, where I cribbed from an early draft of this reply) concerning the inescapable interdependancy of oil interests everywhere and international banking. They are joined at the hip and head, and not one is going anywhere without the other, I don't care if their lineage goes back to Ra, the Sun God, or Rae, the trailer-trash hooker with a sunny disposition. I don't know how any serious study of CIA and its creation possibly can lead to any other conclusion. In fact, I've searched in vain for any rational justification for its creation. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the "Cold War" was created by CIA and its masters and minions, after the fact, to sort of reverse-engineer some kind of "reason" for its existence, and to provide "justifiable" cover for its rampant criminal activities all over the globe.One of the most chilling insights into the kind of amoral thugs who knew how to hold their pinky fingers correctly while sipping tea, and who formed the core of this criminal organization from the beginning comes from E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography. It isn't chilling by it's scope or infamy, because it just isn't. What's chilling about it, to me, is the off-hand, business-as-usual way Hunt writes the following about an event at the end of the war, in Shanghai (boldface added): "In the basement of the American Club someone came across a dozen cases of prewar Scotch whiskey. These were brought up to the bar, but the first drinker of that Scotch died in agony beside the American Club bar: the Japanese had doctored random bottles of whisky with cyanide before leaving. "This was bad news for a pair of OSS senior officers who had set about cornering the Shanghai market on Scotch. Their hotel rooms were filled to the ceiling with cases of it, and they had made large investments in the whisky, anticipating thirsty visitors from the fleet. Now no foreigners in Shanghai dared drink Scotch whiskey, and the enterprising black marketers went bankrupt, to the general satisfaction of those of us who had been excluded from the promising transaction." —E. Howard Hunt, c/o General Delivery, Hell <SPIT!> There you go. There's a glimpse into the writhing snake-pit of CIA standard-issue "ethics." You can take that further. I believe the actual underlying thought is this: international oil and international arms and international banking could not operate internationally as monopolistically as they have without just such a covert international force. So if it isn't CIA—who is it? With a ready-made army of covert criminal OSS scum at the end of WW II—many of whom, like "the Oily Boys," had worked directly in the interests of the oil and finance barons throughout the war—CIA had to be created. I don't know how far I can follow you down that path. At this point, I'm not so sure it entirely mattered that it was Kennedy. (I just know that's going to win me a whole new batch of friends, right there.) I'm beginning to form a hazy consideration that it simply was a coup, and he happened to be there. I'm beginning to squint at all of the proposed "motives" for "getting Kennedy," per se, very narrowly. I'm beginning to believe that there was something larger at work than simply "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."There's no question that ramping up war in Southeast Asia was on the CIA agenda. That's why CIA arranged for the Diem coup 21 days before they took out Kennedy. And there's no question that Vietnam did absolute wonders for the arms, banking, and oil worms. And there's no question that Kennedy was leaning toward bailing from Vietnam shortly before the assassination—but! There's also no question that the planning of his murder was in the works long, long before the events in October-November 1963 related to Kennedy's intentions to extract U.S. involvement. Ayup. International banking first, I think. Oil and armaments (oh, yeah: and drugs, all varieties) are their handmaidens. See above. Because they are amoral scum who like to take $50 out of your pockets by loaning you $5. Then taxing you another $20 on all of it.That's even easier than cornering the black market on Scotch and fleecing the U.S. fleet. Ashton Ashton: This is one of the most perceptive posts I have ever read. (I wonder if and how Charlie will spin THIS? You have taken the Yankee/Cowboy analysis to its most logical conclusion. I am sure Oglesby will be proud. Dawn

Glen: Are you doing any more research on the fingerprint issue? If not do you know if anyone is? Thanks, Dawn

Wim: Where the heck did that come from? And what does it have to do with Joan Mellen's speech? I know that Joan totally believes Murgado, but I and many others feel she was taken in, first by Hemming, who streered her to Murgado, then by the man himself. As for Walter Sheridan, he was doing the CIA's bidding, not RFK's. This could have been a great book, in fact on the Garrison parts it is, imo. But, no matter how many critics disagree with her, such as Peter Dale Scott, Lisa Pease, JimDiEugenio- who wrote a brilliant review of this book- she holds steadfastly to her very anti- RFK views. When asked who killed RFK and why she has no viable response. And I REALLY like this woman, so this is not an attack on her, just that I feel she was conned. Dawnl Dawn, if you re-read Ms. Mellen's speech, she cites James as a confidante of Bernardo de Torres, and says James is an ex-mercenary living among exiled Cubans. Thanks Pat. I read the speech yesterday, hurriedly, and obviously I must have missed this. Somehow I CANNOT picture James as any kind of mercenary. Dawn