Tim Gratz

"I'm convinced we can make the case," said Schrade, who is assembling a legal team to challenge the verdict that put Sirhan, now 64, behind bars.

From what I have read, Sirhan Sirhan probably did not fire the shots that killed RFK. Nevertheless there seems to be no question whatsover that he was in possession of a gun and had fired multiple shots at the same time that RFK was killed. So he is hardly an innocent man. Situation far different than that of LHO who may have been as he declared "a patsy". No one grabbed LHO in the sixth floor window and took a rifle away from him.

If Phillips brought Veciana in to the plot, it of course makes no sense whatsoever that Veciana would tell Fonzi about seeing Phillips with Oswald.

Veciana's tale told to Fonzi (whether true or not) IMO exculpates him from any role in the conspiracy.

And if Veciana had no role in the conspiracy, then Hunt's version is false.

And of course the version propounded here is in total contradiction to wjat he wrote in his book "American Spy".

. . ."Kennedy was murdered by the National Security State."

Ha!

Nathan, who constituted the "National Security State"? Did it have a board of directors which voted whether or not to off JFK? Were there any members of its board which dissented from the idea of murdering a United States president?

Please cite any evidence you have to support your allegation that any such organization participated in the assassination.

Thanks.

Indeed I am aware of several significant errors in "Crossfire".

I had read the Truman quotation several years ago.

Last Thursday, June 26, by the way, was both the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift, haled by most historians as one of Truman's finest hours, and JFK's magnificent speech in Berlin in which he held upon West Berlin as a shining beacon against the peridies of Communism totalitarianism. I submit that JFK's actions vis a vis Cuba were more in keeping with the Cold Warrior spirit of his Berlin speech and his Inaugural than his "peace" speech.

I have argued that Ronald Reagan (and the Pope) deserve a lot of credit for the collapse of Communism. There is no question however that the seeds of the Western triupmph were planted by HST by his actions in standing for Berlin and that JFK's speech in West Berlin echoed that.

It is interesting that JFK's West Berlin speech was fifteen years to the day from the launch of the Airlift but there is no historical record indicating that the timing was other than an interesting coincidence.

Don't know how many caught it but during the final minutes of Russert's funeral they played a very modern rendition of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" while several people delivered touching eulogies about Russert. Then when the audience left the Kennedy Center, there in the Washington sky was an incredibly beautiful RAINBOW.

Perhaps it was just a coincidence. Then again, perhaps it was more than that.

John, I think there are different circumstances. For one thing, McCain had not spent long years associating with Hagee as Obama had with Rev. Wright. What most bothers me is his flip-flop, first using Wright when he needed him and then quickly abandoning him when the liability became too clear. I think Rev. Wright was very hurt by how Obama dumped him. As much as I disagree with a lot of Rev. Wright's outrageous statements, I think I can empathize with how he felt let down by Obama.

Re Obama's moral courage:

Sen McCain risked his life to save a friend's leg.

Obama embraced Rev Wright when he needed his suppoort in Chicago; when the minister's controversial views became a liability to Obama's presidential bid he dropped his friend as one might drop a hot potato.

Contrast a person willing to risk his life for a friend with a person who will not let a long-standing friendship stand in the way of his politcal ambitions.

Is THIS the sort of man you would want to be President?

Although he claims to have always disliked your political views, he never had the guts to say that to your face. Them, when his association with you may harm his political chancers, he publicly DENOUNCES your views but still embraces your views. When the political heat continues, he then abandons you as a friend. What moral cowardice is this?

I'll take a man with dignity and moral courage and fiftgy IQ points less than a moral midget like Obama. I'm glad I do not have friends like him, that's for sure! What US ally would count on this man's steadfastness? Reminds me of George McGovern who proclaimed he was 1,000 percent behind Eagleton and then a day later threw him to the wolves!

Sen. Clinton is not right about many things but she was right about Obama.

I agree with Mr. Frank that St. John's story was garbage. It is difficult to evaluate whether E. Howad knew anything about the assassination since his accounts were so often contadictory.

Hilary's best bet is to abandon ship and endorse McCain in exchange for being selected as HIS VP candidate. If the McCain-Clinton ticket is then elected, she would have a reasonable chance of assuming the presidency due to his natural death.

Kidding aside I think McCain should select a woman as his running-mate, namely Margaret Hoover.

So what were the circumstances of the son's death? Was it a hit and run? Did the driver stop? Who was the driver? Did the nine year old run in front of the car? Without knowing these details it is ludicrous to claim the CIA was sending Meyer a message by killing his nine year old. John, you either know the details and aren't sharing them (which is troubling, suggesting the details do not support your proposition) or you do not know the details in which case the proposition you advance is meaningless. If there is any evidence the CIA killed a nine year old, can you provide it?

I will, but probably tonight.

Thanks, John.

Dear Peter:

I once worked in a state legislature and know how the legislative process works.

The laundry list you gave me proves zip.

It does not distinguish between bills he sponsored or co-sponsored. The way the process works is that a bill's sponsors, who in more cases than one would expect are from both sides of the aisle, will try to get as many co-sponsors on a bill as they can. If Obama is simply a co-sponsor of a bill, it means really nothing at all. You'd probably find at least twenty co-sponsors of it. It's almost like him trying to take credit for supporting the bill.

And even if he "sponsored" a bill, it does not mean that it was his idea. If it was his idea, you would probably remember the bill as having some significance. Remember for instance the campaign finance reform law known as McCain-Feingold. Or the bill to reform corporate financial reporting which is known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. I do not recall one reference to a Obama---Act, and I did not see one so listed on the site you referenced. If you are aware of an important act known by his name, please let me know.

Moreover, the propodition that a bill passed by Congress is a good idea is itself a logical fallacy. The bill may make law something which is really terrible social policy. I like the old Barry Goldwater adage that he was more interested in seeing what bad laws a person had worked to repeal than what new laws a legislator has adopted. I also remember the maxim that no one's liberty is safe when the Legislature is in session.

Of course many conservatives detest Sen. McCain precisely because of his sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold law.

And let us not forget the accurate charge made by Sen. Clinton that Sen. Obama was too busy running for president to hold legislative hearings on foreign policy.

It is clear that Sen. Obama is not only one of the best rhetoricians we have seen since Ronald Reagan, JFK or Martin Luther King, Jr. but also one of the most intelligent. But intelligence does not always translate into good judgment or courage. Sen. Obama now says at the end of his speeches "God bless America" but he never had the courage to tell Pastor Wright how outrageous it was for him to denounce this country from the pulpit. As Hillary, who now bows in humble obeisiance to the Senator in the vain hope that he will put her on the ticket, once said: "You cannot pick your relatives but you can pick your pastor." Think, friends, if the situation were reversed, if it should suddenly be revealed that Sen. McCain had attended for twenty years, and counted as a friend, a pastor who spewed racial hatred from the pulpit. How far would it get if Sen. McCain protested that the pastor was a friend of his but he had never gotten around to condemn the pastor's racism? It would certainly demonstrate that Sen. McCain lacked the courage to stand up for racial equality to his racist pastor.

This is what someone wrote about the courage Sen. McCain showed when he was a guest at the Hanoi Hilton:

It came to me while I was having dinner with Doris Day. No, not that

Doris Day. The Doris Day who is married to Col. Bud Day, Congressional

Medal of Honor recipient, fighter pilot, Vietnam POW and roommate of

John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton.

As we ate near the Days' home in Florida recently, I heard things about

Sen. McCain that were deeply moving and politically troubling. Moving

because they told me things about him the American people need to know.

And troubling because it is clear that Mr. McCain is one of the most

private individuals to run for president in history.

When it comes to choosing a president, the American people want to know

more about a candidate than policy positions. They want to know about

character, the values ingrained in his heart. For Mr. McCain, that means

they will want to know more about him personally than he has been

willing to reveal.

Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It

involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese

prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke

his arm and said, 'I told you I would make you a cripple.'

The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in

prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and

be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a

bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was

done so that the arm would heal at 'a goofy angle,' as Mr. Day

explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.

But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe

punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the

prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor

of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place.

Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the

bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.

Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complimented the

treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was

Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.

Another story I heard over dinner with the Days involved Mr. McCain

serving as one of the three chaplains for his fellow prisoners. At one

point, after being shuttled among different prisons, Mr. Day had found

himself as the most senior officer at the Hanoi Hilton. So he tapped Mr.

McCain to help administer religious services to the other prisoners.

Today, Mr. Day, a very active 83, still vividly recalls Mr. McCain's

sermons. 'He remembered the Episcopal liturgy,' Mr. Day says, 'and

sounded like a bona fide preacher.' One of Mr. McCain's first sermons

took as its text Luke 20:25 and Matthew 22:21, 'render unto Caesar what

is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.' Mr. McCain said he and his

fellow prisoners shouldn't ask God to free them, but to help them become

the best people they could be while serving as POWs. It was Caesar who

put them in prison and Caesar who would get them out. Their task was to

act with honor.

As the old saying goes, Obama may talk the talk but McCain has walked the walk.

There is now question that Sen. Obama has the least legislative experience of any presidential candidate in modern history. And that is the scary thing.

Sen. McCain is a genuine and courageous war hero who risked death to help his fellow political prisoners. Gee, what other presidential candidate do I remember who is remembered for his courage in saving his fellow soldiers when the Japanese sunk his ship? Sen. McCain is indeed the JFK in this case when it comes to both personal and political courage. Obama's failure to stand up and protest his pastor's outrageous statements is the exact antithesis of the politicians JFK memorialized in "Profiles in Courage"--politicians who were willing to sacrifice their career and ambitions to stand up for what was right. Obama only abandoned his pastor when it was clear the pastor was becoming a political albatross to him; he embraced him when he needed his support in Chicago. Sen. McCain has demonstrated that political courage by taking stands that cost him the support of many conservatives--which could have cost him the nomination of his party.

" . . . liberals who proved that government is not a necessary evil, but rather the best means of creating a healthier, more educated, and more prosperous America. "

Any one who thinks that government creates better educated persons and that government can create prosperity should immediately seek help.

Prosperity is created by jobs which are in turn created by entrepeneurs willing to take risks. Prosperity is also created by competition between businesses. Most often government harms job creation through confiscatory tax policies.

The charter school movement was born by the conviction that public schools were often failing to edeucate students. Colleges and universities do better because there is competition.

There is no question that Sorenson was and is a most talented wordsmith but that does not mean that the programs his speeches promoted worked. Experience demonstrates they did not. One exception of course is the Kennedy tax cut, an idea that is now anathema to modern Democrats including Barack Obama. Obama's rhetoric is no match for McCain's experience. The other day Obama complained that McCain failed to recognize his accomplishments but Obama failed to cite even one. Can you name any major legislation that Obama pushed through in his short time in the Senate? I thought not.

Antti, obviously when I spelled spell with only one "l" my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek.

However, that raises an interesting question: why in the world should there be two "ls" at the end of words like spell, hell, well, etc.? I read an article the other day about people who want to reform the English language, to make it more phonetic. Why for instance should words contain consonants that are not pronounced? Why not write "buffet" as bufa? Or perhaps bufaa to indicate the "a" is long?

If double "ls" and silent consonants were removed, there would be less ink consumed in printing documents and over the long run less paper used as well.

BK, you can attempt to set me stright whenever you want but I suggest you first learn to spel.

Bill wrote:

Johnson knew he would be too old to run for President after serving eight years

Well, tell that to John McCain.

Dawn, as you know I am all in favor of reading books (I suggest you might profit from reading a book which has a premise you scorn) and I certainly intend to read Mr. Douglass' book.

But one need not read it to know that an assertion that President Kennedy was killed by "his government" is about as daft a statement as could be made by anyone holding a high school diploma.

Kennedy of course headed the executive branch of government so it can hardly be said that the executive branch of the government committed the assassination, unless you think it was an assisted suicide.

As I recall, the Democrats controlled both branches of the legislative branch. So do you think that Congress took a secret vote to assassinate the president who was the head of that party?

Or maybe it was the Earl Warren Supreme Court. Both Warren and Oswald were Commies, weren't they? But how did Warren get it by Justice White?

Of course none of the three branches of the federal government killed Kennedy. Indeed, there is no proof whatsoever that anyone receiving a federal paycheck was a conspirator. But even if rogue CIA agents were involved, or even if a CIA officer (or two) were involved, or an FBI agent or officer that does not translate into the proposition that the United States government killed Kennedy. The mind boggles at the size of that leap in logic.

It would be at least a more defensible statement if Douglass wrote that forces within the government killed Kennedy.

But since you have read the book, perhaps you could offer one or two items of evidence against the persons that Douglass, with his Christian ethics, brands as murders and traitors. I would think a miminal sense of ethics would require Douglass to have at least some evidence before he brands people as murderers. As far as I can tell, his argument boils down to something like: JFK was working for peace and the MIC did not like it so they killed him--with no evidentiary support for the involvement of any specific person.

And as I wrote before, if anyone seriously believe that JFK was turning into some sort of peacenik, read his scheduled speech before the Trade Mart in which he brags about the extent of his military build-up.

To Paul Rigby:

If you listen to scorpions, give me your address and I will find a competent mental health professional to consult with you. (If you listen to hyenas, perhaps you share their sense of humor, for which I applaud you.) I do suggest that mixing scorpions with hyenas is

a rather strange assortment.

I take it your reference to an organization is to the United States government and your opinions simply demonstrates your state-of-mind, which would no doubt be appreciated by your hyenas if not by your scorpions.

BK wrote:

Yo! Tim,

You were a teenager in the 60s and already committed to the Republicans?

How did you know so much so early?

Bill, my father was a died-in-the-wool Democrat and my mother a strong Republican. The ONLY disagreements I ever remember them having were about politics.

I started following public affairs in late 1957, when I was eight years old. (The first historical events I can remember are from about 1957--including Sputnik, the Appalachin conference, the IGY, etc.)

I became a Republican, I believe, because I really liked President Eisenhower and believed he was doing a good job as President.

I suspect mine is not an unusual story. I suspect many young people became Democrats under the influence of JFK just as many young people became Republicans while Reagan was president.

To Stu:

It is my OPINION that the Odio incident had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.

Since there are at least several non-sinister explanations for what happened there, it cannot be considered evidence of a conspiracy. Therefore, those who argue the Odio incident is "prrof of the plot" are wrong.

To Bill:

So do you think the Odio incident was an attempt to link Oswald to anti-Castro Cubans? If so, perhaps the men at Odio's doors were in fact Castro agents pretending to be anti-Castro exiles.

So it is now BK's assertion that the Teen Age Republicans (the only political group with which I was associated in 1963) were part of the plot? Unreal!

There was an interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal re what happens to the brain with increasing age.

BK wrote:

Every time this opinion is made, it should be pointed out that the "Castro did it" cover story was part of the plot, and those who have voiced that opinion from day one have all been connected with the network that killed the President.

Utter nonsense and without an iota of evidentiary support. Of course Castro was involved in the plot. Why do you think Gilberto Policarpo Lopez fled back to Havana after the dirty deed was done? Just a coincidence, I suppose. And where was Mr. Escalante on that terrible Friday?

In my opinion the Odio incident has nothing to do with the plot to kill JFK. Fonzi and others who say it is proof of the plot are, to put it simply, wrong.

Mr. Palamara:

The phone call that Jack Ruby made to Dallas police dispatcher Billy Grammer approximately nine or ten hours before he killed Oswald demonstrates that Ruby had been ordered or pressured to kill Oswald and was looking for a way out. That fact alone proves there was a conspiracy. But you won't find the Grammer incident noted in any of the 2,500 or so pages VB wrote, even though the incident is reported in two of the books VB claims to have read.

That is just one of the facts peoving a conspiracy that VB simply ignores.

VB is an excellent attorney and rhetorician but, respectfully, he has duped you.