Dawn Meredith

[quote name='Ron Ecker' date='Nov 20 2005, 03:35 PM' post='45848'] For months now the mainstream media has had a feeding frenzy over the Plame affair. It's gotten almost as much coverage as Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson. While in one sense this has obviously been a negative for the Bush regime, there is also a method to this madness. The Plame affair has served as a good smokescreen to keep a far more serious issue out of the headlines, and that is the Able Danger scandal, the revelation that a Pentagon unit identified 9/11 hijack leader Mohamed Atta as a terrorist in the U.S. long before 9/11 and did not share this information with the FBI. Able Danger (and the military's blatant persecution of whistleblower Col. Anthony Shaffer) continues to be minimized by the media, which prefers to make a mountain out of a molehill, relatively speaking, with the Plame affair. This is very reminiscent of how the Lewinsky sex scandal saturated the airwaves during the Clinton regime, totally drawing attention away from the serious crimes of Slick Willie that truly warranted impeachment and removal from office. I suspect that the Bush regime wants to keep Able Danger minimized, and the media will oblige, because it does not want Congressional or other investigators looking too deeply into why the Pentagon unit was blocked by "Pentagon lawyers" from passing the info on Atta to the FBI. The real reason may have had nothing to do with lawyers or the so-called "wall" erected between foreign and domestic intelligence by Jamie Gorelick or any other useless bureaucrat. I strongly suspect that the info was not passed along because there were folks in the Pentagon, perhaps even sitting in the DOD secretary's office, who knew that Atta had a specific mission to fulfill and must not be impeded. For the Bush regime (and the Clinton regime before it), keeping something like that under wraps is well worth the heat being taken over Valerie Plame. Ron: I TOTALLY agree with you here. This is a much bigger story and the media is shamefully avoiding it. Maybe, just maybe, someone wanted 9-11 to be successful. I am not saying this is what I believe, but there are certainly a lot of anomalies. I still don't buy the notion that the buildings came down from the "hot oil". Sure looks like implosion to me. But I have not really studied this case. Just a bit online and I don't believe it was not a plane that flew into the Pentagon. If not, where did the 757-200 go??? And all the people on it? I don't think Barbara Olsen is in France. Dawn

[ No. Nor did they attend the other conference in Dallas. Thanks John, Now I don't feel quite so bad for missing the conference. I had a lot to ask Billie Sol, but, as usual he chickened out. Barr had told me in an email a few weeks back he had no plan to attend, but I figured he changed his plan. Maybe he chickened out when he found out Walt Brown was speaking. Walt is very angry with Barr. (But I am keeping out of this one!!) What are you thoughts of DP? Isn't it a lot smaller than it appears in the pics? My first time there was very overwhelming. I was literally in tears walking around that first night. Will await Pat's pics!!! Dawn

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Nov 20 2005, 04:57 PM' post='45858']

John: Did Billie Sol ever show? Did Barr? Did you have an opportunity to speak with Joan Mellen? Will she join us here on the forum? Hope you take lots of (digital) pics so you can post em. DAwn

I totally agree that it was Rove. And Cheney. These are cold men and vicious. They don't take to criticism and pay back is swift and furious. I am interested to learn that more indictments may be in the works. (Otherwise why convene a new Grand Jury?). If this goes to the top, as it should, Fitzgerald should get a metal for integrity, and bravery. (imho) Dawn

[quote name='Terry Mauro' date='Nov 19 2005, 10:06 PM' post='45777'] ***************************************************************************** Owen, you are SO gifted!!! Thank you for the link. Dawn, this kid should go directly to Harvard or Stanford, NOW! Then, we should send him on a summer sabbatical, to do internship for the Education Forum, at NARA. If there's anyone who'd be able to decipher the filing system over there, it'd be him. Ter, I totally agree. He's one very bright boy/man. I hope he's applying to Ivy League. Certainly deserves to be in the best this nation has to offer. Dawn [Tim: I am not going to debate you on the Hiss case. I believe he was framed. Period. You believe the opposite, that your guy Tricky Dick could do no wrong. Read the posted article Tim. If you disagree it's your right to do so. After all you still support the disinformation that it was Castro that killed JFK, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, so your logic is not something I am going to attempt to "take on". I will leave that to your able debating partner Robert Dunne (sp?) (Sorry Robert if I should have an "o" and not a "u".) I really enjoy THOSE posts and debates!!!. "There ain't not good guys, there ain't no bad guys; there's only you and me and we just disagree" On pretty much everything. Dawn

************** While I am on the subject of "JFK", Ian Griggs' "No Case To Answer" does a wonderful job of debunking the myth that there was anything sinister about the coverage in the Christchurch, New Zealand newspaper of the assassination (the famouse scene with "X"). Mr. Griggs is quite critical of Mr. Stone in this regard. This may be more important because it is one of the linchpin's the movie uses to prove a conspiracy. Tim Gratz That Donald SUtherland's character (really F. Prouty) could not have seen this in the New Zealand paper when he claimed? Is that your point? If so it's hardly a "linchpin" in an over 3 hour film. Yor're nitpicking again. The press "problem" in general that told me from the start that this was conspiracy is that they "knew" too much about LHO way too soon. Real life and real homicides don't work that way. But setting up a patsy does. And of course what the press "knew" turned out to be false: him being a Marxist and all; his "defection" to Russia was phony. That the trip home was paid for the the state department proves that this was no standard "defection". And "not debriefed"? Permitted to enter with his Russian bride? All indications that he was over there as part of an intelligence operation. Back to the film, "X" has MUCH to say in this scene. It was one of the most powerful scenes in this excellent film. Dawn

Owen: Thank you sooo much!!!. I have cut and pasted the articles to copy and save, as well as sent them to Erick, my husband, with whom I had a disagreement about this a few years ago as he too believed the big lie. Yes, those clips are from that wonderful film. Maybe I can find it on Amazon or ebay. Comments Tim? Do you agree that this is indeed "Case Closed"? Alger Hiss was framed. But Tricky Dick built his carrer by trying to ruin that of his oppenents. He had such a wacked realtionship with his mother and due to his poverty was hateful and jealous of anyone like Hiss or JFK from Harvard and the eastern establishment. And handsome and congenial to boot: all the things Dick lacked. He was one evil, sick man. I remember an article in Rolling Stone back in the early 70's on Tricky's childhood and there was a reproduction of a note he'd written to his mon -("the saint")- which was signed by him: "Your loving dog, Dick". Indeed!! Dawn

"Face it, Mr. President, you're just not a likeable fellow!" Tim: We can most certainly agree on that one!! From day one I believed LBJ had Kennedy killed. That's why I was so excited about Barr's book, but was so disappointed in his faction nonsence. (I sent him a three page detailed email after I read the book). He visited here for 2 days 11/23 and 4 and answered some of my questions, but not the way I wanted. Said his follow-up book would address my issues. The 40th was quite interesting: Barr McClellean and Nathan Darby sitting on our courch watching themselves on" The Guilty Men". Did you happen to see that episode of TMWKK? If so what did you think of it? Dawn

John: Will you ask Billie sol a question for me, if you are able: If he has the copyright on the manuscript of the late Steven Pegues? If so why? And if he intends to publish this work or sit on it. I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanx, Dawn I'm so jealous!!!! Wish I could be in Dallas. Tell us your opinion of seeing Dealy Plaza for the first time. John: I know you are busy but am hoping you check the forum so I am bringing my question back to the top. I am not in touch with anyone else in Dallas (forgot to get cell numbers) to ask this question. Thanx. Dawn

[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Nov 19 2005, 05:13 AM' post='45702'] Okay, I get the point, but I still don't see any value in anything that Jim Garrison did. It would be like trying to rehabilitate Nixon or some criminal, it just does not work for me. Too many good researchers have exposed Garrison for what he was, and his lies, his deception and the circus he created cannot be reversed, despite your friend Lisa or anybody else who supports him. And I don't need to read what anybody says about Garrison, his own words expose his lies. So remain closed-minded. But don't write pretending to be all nicey nicey. I won't respond to it next time. You have ONE AGENDA here and it's NOT to learn who killed JFK. So drop the act. No one's buying. So long Lynne/Mat. Dawn

[quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Nov 19 2005, 06:09 AM' post='45709'] Gee, have neither of you read of the Verona files? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...hissvenona.html In doing a quick web-search for the Verona files I found a fascinating web-site called "Famous Trials". Worth checking out. It is run by a law professor. His evaluation is that Hiss is guilty, and he states that he so believes with a 99% confidence: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...ls/FT_GorI.html From the Hiss obituary published in Salon Magazine: By the time Alger Hiss died, on Friday at the age of 92, just about everyone conceded that he was guilty; that the brilliant, suave, well-educated, well-connected lawyer-diplomat had indeed been a Communist and a spy for the Soviet Union during the 1930s and '40s. Allen Weinstein's massive 1978 book, "Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case," had convinced even pro-Hiss liberals of that. My question was has anyone seen this film? It was very convincing. I will continue to look for it online. Lynne, NO you did NOT "have to throw that in" about Garrison. You did it just to be vicious. So, I am going back to just ignoring you. Even when we agree, you are just too weird to know how to behave on this forum. (Whomever you are, Mat/Lynne) Dawn This is certainly a case that should be considered closed! I disagree, but I generally do disagree with you Tim Dawn

I am troubled by this tone as well. Of course he did not "railroad" Hoffa. And I DO NOT BELIEVE that RFK was secretly trying to kill Castro. I think she got suckered into this one and needs to do her homework here. More on this when I have finished the book. It has been PROVEN that JFK and Castro were about to have detente. This is now history!! I really do not believe that the Attorney General was going behind the president's back and doing the very opposite. Mellen needs to read the IG report. Dawn

I keep forgetting you sense of humor. I figured that perhaps she had uncovered something about Scaife that went back further than what we already know. NOT that Mellen had any ties HERSELF to Scaife. My humor detector is not up to speed. Been ill with the flu and way overworked, with 17 hour work days for past two weeks. Remember when you were an atty how crazy it could get??? Or did you job give you the luxury your presently have? (Of being able to read many hours a day- I am sooo jealous). Dawn

[quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Nov 18 2005, 07:33 AM' post='45610'] Re Mellen's book [this is my Popst #36 on the "Book" thread]: I found one incident cited in Mellen's book that is so preposterous that it staggers the mind! Lambert covers it in her review: [From Lambert's review:] I would not trust a thing by Patricia Lambert. Her book "False Witness" (On Garrison) is horrendoous and error filled. JimDiEugenio did a GREAT job in Probe a few years back setting the record (and Ms Lambert) straight on this hatchet job. The article may be online. I suggest you READ it before you start to quote Lambert as someone trustworthy. Dawn

[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Nov 18 2005, 09:15 PM' post='45648'] Dawn, you always condemn everybody else's effort to talk about the Kennedy assassination but you seldom share your expertise about the Kennedy assassination. I know you always come off as a "peace and love" hippy, but you can also be extremely cruel, why the mixed messages? Why don't you try and teach those uf us who are not as informed as you are? Can you direct us to key documents, rather than to books that most of us do not have time to read, or perhaps discuss the significance of key documents. A paper blizard of opinionated books about the Kennedy assassination is not very helpful unless you take the time to provide some direction, some scrutiny about the strengths and weaknesses of the books you recommend. Lynne: FIrst of all I did not start this. You did. I get along just fine with people here. I am not at all cruel by nature but your one line over and over about Garrison was getting mighty old and we are all very tired of you hijacking threads with this spam. If you are interested in this case, and I will take you at our word here, all I can tell you that there is NO easy way to learn. You read the books. A very long time ago I thought it would be a great idea if someone summerized books so that newcomers could more easily get up to speed, but there's really no substitute for doing the actual work. Many of us here can recommend good books, but as for smoking gun docs that will teach you this case...it just doesn't work that way. I have already recommended several excellent books but your turned yor nose up at the thought... Then you call my friend Lisa Pease "Lisa Peon" and refer to Ms Mellen as "Mellen-Scaife"...and you call me cruel??? (Oh you also call me CIA for God sakes!!!) You came here with an attitude and one agenda: that of trashing Garrison. So why not start there and read some books on Garrison. You're so closed minded and so uninformed, yet come here oh so opinionated based on this Mat guy and you expect to be treated with some sort of respect. You need to be a bit more humble my dear and willing to try to learn the case. I seem to recall that your bio says you have a college degree, so you know that you had to read a lot of books to get that BA. Well this case is far more complex than college, and there are no short cuts. If you truly want to learn there are people here who can give you advice, but again, we all have our own favorite books. SOme of the books can be redundant. I'd start with "Conspiracy" by Tony Summers and fallow it up with Henry Hurt's Reasonable Doubt. You will get a good working knowlegde with those two books. (Hurt has some wacko stuff to ignore tho). I personally got started in my 20's (I'm now 56) and read about 25 books in 75 to do a college research paper. Myabe you could combine your reading to get an MA like TIm Carroll did and do so in an area of this case, that way you'd be gaining knowledge as well as an advanced degree. Bottom line is if you care about this case you will read the books. If you are really interested I can promise it will be quite a ride. It is the most complex murder mystry of all time and when people get bit by the who killed jfk bug they tend to just read all they can. Dawn

And rest asured, any "serious study" would ultimately reveal that there was only a single "Lone Assassin". Of course, I, as well as no doubt many more, thoroughly enjoy sitting back and observing those of you with all of this "education" in covert opns, chase your own tale. Then why do you waste time here in this debate? Why not just go over to McAdams who agrees with your silly view of the lone assassin. I'd like to know how you think the magic bullet theory was accomplished. Perhaps you can write darlin arlin and he can fill you in on his legal insights. Otherwise, you're so full of xxxx Purvis you can't be taken the least bit seriously. Dawn

There was a GREAT movie in the 70's called I think "The Trial OF Alger Hiss", which convinced me that Nixon (and Roy Cohn) framed Hiss. Chambers was a proven nut and xxxx. I have tried to find this film to purchace it but have not been successful. Anyone rember it? It was circa 79-80. Dawn

[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Nov 18 2005, 07:13 PM' post='45635'] You tried to insult me, it didn't work. Am I missing something here? Tim's comment was NOT insulting. It was commentary about the article mentioned. "Paranoia strikes deep...." Geez..... Dawn

Well, on this upcoming anniversary, let us all take note of JUST what the media says. We know there are three conferences going on. Let's see if any warrant so much as a mention from our "vigorous and free press". I mean, after all aren't Brittany and her husband having some spats? And Cheney was just on tv. Priorities, ya know. Catch it on "fair and balanced" Fox Maybe they will even rerun that HORRIBLE Peter Jennings 40th anniversary disinformation piece. Or perhaps it's time to revive Dan I-d Rather not and let him remind us that the head went FORWARD with the last shot, or that "Jackie did it"- (pulled JFK backwards, during the headshot) . (Quotes of Rather, from two CBS anniversary docudramas in the 70's). George Will must have something to say of import. Another year, and no justice. "In The Name OF Love" (U-2)

John: Will you ask Billie sol a question for me, if you are able: If he has the copyright on the manuscript of the late Steven Pegues? If so why? And if he intends to publish this work or sit on it. I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanx, Dawn I'm so jealous!!!! Wish I could be in Dallas. Tell us your opinion of seeing Dealy Plaza for the first time.

[quote name='Tim Carroll' date='Nov 18 2005, 03:22 AM' post='45592'] Could Iraq be a destabilizing influence in the region without being a significant oil-producing nation? I take exception to Purvis' declaration that I "should remain in the 'para-legal' &/or 'legal' field and avoid any discussins [sic] which border on the effects of aggressor nations...." I notice that Purvis excluded my Masters Degree in International Relations, not that it is relevant to participation here. I don't question his right to post here, but I certainly don't agree that being a soldier qualifies one, metaphorically, as a surgeon in the operations of history and political science. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers understood these human attitudes and implemented a civilian-controlled military. Tim Problem is when seeking to debate a lone nutter, all you are ever going to encounter is an attack on your "credentials". These nuts ignore and distort the evidence, so a balanced debate is virtually impossible. The Purv will ignore your Masters degree and your serious study into this case, while Hemming will attempt to dismiss you as merely a "book reader", as if that somehow makes your studied opinions any less valuable. I give you credit for trying to debate in such a vacuum of logic. Dawn