Mark Stapleton

Dammit, I missed all the fun. On whether Barack will be assassinated, I agree with an earlier opinion from Scott---almost zero chance, at least before his inauguration. It would just be too much, especially with the 40th anniversary remembrance of MLK just gone and RFK soon to come. He's playing a smart game, our bold Barack, causing as little offence as humanly possible before he becomes #44. Very impressive. What happens in the months after his inauguration will be fascinating. I hope he develops a rational and independent approach to the job--like JFK. In fact, he will effectively become #36, imo. LBJ thru GWB were merely corrupt servants of wealthy interests, not real Presidents, although Jimmy Carter tried to do the right thing, imo. Barack will be a breath of fresh air on foreign policy and will be the first Prez in quite a while to show an understanding of foreign culture. I hope he can transform America from global renegade to responsible global citizen. He'll be risking his life.

I guess HRC is learning what its like to endure Bosnian sniper fire.

A very interesting article. Thanks for posting this, Maggie. Looks like the US will leave no stone unturned in honoring its promise to its masters (Israel), that it will destroy Iran for them. Countries who reluctantly participate in such a cowardly strategy should ponder whether they will become the next "global menace, threat, terrorism sponsor, wearer of bad clothing and all-purpose enemy of the day". Americans might wonder why Iran has become their specific mortal enemy. They have a different culture, religion, and form of Government to the US, but the same can be said of other many countries. They may desire a nuclear deterrent, but so what? That's no threat to America. There can be no doubt about the reason for all this. Israel. As usual, Israel benefits from a convenient cloaking cover which runs in tandem---the greed of America and its oil interests in controlling the 'jewel in the crown' of Gulf States and its ample resouces. Israel's strategic interests and US corporate greed seem to compliment each other perfectly--as usual. But who's being wagged, the dog or the tail? And as usual, the psychopaths running Israel and the US give no thought to the consequences which might be suffered by 'collateral' innocent parties who have no stake in this odious conflict. The 70 million people of Iran, for example. After recieving orders from her masters, Peahen Merkel leads the chorus, hoping the EU and China follows: "Give us Barabbas, give us Barabbas". "He's not that bad".

David, Just a draft posting, I guess. I've only skimmed through the article but I intend to read it fully tomorrow when I have more time. However, from my early vantage point I suspect this article (and the book) may explain many of the ills which bedevil modern society. Thanks for posting this.

Thanks Mark, When Don Flusche was interviewed by the HSCA he stated that he had informed his superior, Lieutenant Knox, about his observations soon after the event. It appears that Lt. Knox did not pass on the information to the Dallas Police team investigating Oswald's shooting, the FBI or the Warren Commission. This appears to be the reason why the Warren Commission knew nothing about the important observations made by Sergeant Flusche. The question is then why did Lt. Knox not pass on the information to any of the investigating bodies? I can find no answer to this question. Did he simply forget? Did he think that the information was not very important? or was it because the Dallas Police Department had quickly developed an official position on the question of how Ruby got down into the basement and were the members of the Department under pressure not to supply information which might contradict the official position? Or was there some other reason? This is all just speculation of course, I did not come across any record of Lieutenant Knox being interviewed about this matter and giving his explanation. Tony Thanks, Tony. I guess the full story behind the early official oversight of Sergeant Flusche's statement will never be known but I take note of your observations concerning possible explanations. One other part of your fine research was also quite intriguing: Additionally, security at the relevant point in the basement was not airtight. Patrolman Alvin R. Brock had been assigned to watch the door leading from the fire escape to the nearby elevator doors, but he was reassigned by Sergeants Putnam and Dean at 10:45 am.” I wonder on whose orders Putnam and Dean were acting when they reassigned Patrolman Brock from guarding the fire escape door a mere 36 minutes before the shooting of LHO? I suppose the answer to that was also lost in the confusion, but it further indicates collusion, imo. p.s. I fully agree that careful analysis of Ruby's movements and actions, despite the confusion injected by those who had something to hide, is a more direct route to the identity of the conspirators than most other aspects of the case.

I agree with John. Great article, Tony. One question: Do you know the reason why the Sergeant Don Flusche statement would not be available to the WC, but later was available to the HSCA? Who would have made that particular determination?

Taunts won't tempt me, Len. Your MO has become very predictable.

Scuse me? What wild claim? If you're alluding to the Fisher/Ford issue, then I don't think there's anything wild about it. Could a wealthy, influential and generous donor to the Republican Party influence and control a feeble-minded mediocrity like Ford, also from Michigan? More of a certainty than a wild claim, imo. You do under the difference between 'could' and 'did'? You have been unable to produce any evidence he did. You're in denial. I agree that one of us is “in denial” regarding this matter. If you want to establish that it is me I suggest that (in the appropriate thread) you make a post summing up all the evidence you have that Fisher actually controlled Ford *rather than it simply was possible). As for Ford being “feeble minded” numerous sources indicate he finished in the top third or even top quarter of his class at Yale Law School, one of the top two law schools in the US. http://www.google.com/search?q=GERALD+OR+J...r%22+class+yale No dice, Len. I've decided to respond only to those who are rational and unbiased. You miss on both counts. In any case, your ridiculous pedantry reminds me of school age debates. Forget it. Keep shilling---you might find a sucker.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120...1.html?mod=blog (Link is slow to load) It's easy to see why the rest of the world feels it should be allowed to vote. What does the world see when it glances toward the US? An insane Administration itching to start and maintain wars, both real (Iraq) or imagined (terror, drugs). Vast wealth inequality. Potential economic collapse caused by greed of the most vulgar kind, and which could have widespread global repercussions. A predisposition towards religious zealotry which seems as dangerous and foolish as that of its sworn enemies. Enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the planet many times. A country about to get very angry about the fact its primacy among the wealthy nations is now a thing of the past. A notorious foot dragger on the urgent global need to address rapid environmental change. I'm sure I could think of more. When you throw in the fact that the US political process has been corrupted by wealthy interest groups, it's no wonder the rest of the world is trembling. We don't trust you when it comes to elections. p.s. because Australia has been such a faithful, obedient lapdog of the US, I almost feel entitled to vote in November.

Burkett pulls out (nearly?) all the stops on what Bill Richardson calls THE CLINTON ENTITLMENT The experts appear to agree that Clinton cannot become the Democratic presidential candidate. If Barack Obama wins the presidential election Clinton's desire to get the top job is likely to be frustrated. However, if McCain wins, Obama becomes like Gore and Kerry, and it is his political career that is at an end. Clinton therefore has the chance of becoming president in four years time if McCain becomes president. Especially if one takes into account what is going to happen to the American economy over the next four years. To my mind, Clinton has already started her 2012 presidential campaign. I can't see how McCain could possibly win the election against an opponent like Obama--unless the election was rigged. Obama would murder him in the debates. The media couldn't smear Obama by inventing skeletons in his closet because the public is much wiser now than four years ago. Any large scale duplicity by the media during the campaign would be exposed on the blogs and forums like this. McCain might have a chance against HRC because she is damaged goods, imo. Hilary's only chance for power will be as the junior partner on a joint ticket with Obama, and fortunately it appears the Obama camp are not interested. Good riddance to a power hungry phony I say.

Thanks for the replies, guys. My guess is that such an action would eventually destroy the Democratic Party, so I doubt they'll risk it.

Has there ever been a precedent for the superdelegates overturning the will of the party's voters?

See the following: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArostow.htm I was pointing out, albeit not very clearly, that Rostow's page should also be in the JFK section of Spartacus, under 'possible conspirators'. He's a major player in the JFK story, imo.

John, the timeline is very incriminating. Who were in Rostow's 'party' I wonder? The conspirators of course. As the person responsible for the WC's birth, he merits a page on Spartacus, imo. Just a suggestion.

Don't forget the grassy knoll--if you have time. It's an eerie place.

It's ominous. I think another reason can be added, Peter. America's economic troubles will soon have the public asking questions about extravagant military spending. So they might seek to remind the public of their value with an impressive demonstration.

I actually think it's a great idea but I share your skepticism about HRC's intentions. If fears about America's economic future prove accurate, it might be a smart move by big oil to kick in 50 billion to help allieviate the economic pain Americans will soon be experiencing. In fact, they might want to double the pot to 100 billion considering they've made more money from Americans than from anyone else. For another 500 billion they could be offered naming rights, imo. The United States of America is just a brand name (and not exactly accurate, imo). The absurdity of the oil subsidies is quite plain.

Maybe we should just trot over there and bring them home on the business end of a pitchfork. I'm up for it.

I agree, Bill. Overpopulation is an urgent global crisis. An economic system based on endless growth can't be sustained so rampant capitalism will need to be confronted otherwise we'll be history.

James, I think you can change your DVD's region to global with most brands. I did this with mine by following the instructions here (scroll down): http://www.cameratim.com/reviews/video/lg-...21p-dvd-player/ If you google your brand with 'change region' you will probably find the page you need. The region format is ,of course, designed to line the pockets of the big film studios. Sadly for them, the internet is here.

You would have to think that this an alarming development. The timing of it doesn't bode well. Bill, thanks for keeping us updated. The Fox will be missed. I salute the Fox. What about this: Suppose the hawks removed the main obstacle to bombing Iran as a way of assisting McCain in any Presidential battle against Obama. If Israel or the US initiated a bombing of Iran during the final weeks of the campaign, they might believe this could place Obama in a difficult situation. Just a thought. I can't believe the US Government would do it, against all sane advice, including the NIE. However, it appears you can never underestimate the evil of that crowd.

It's a pity you're not Barack's chief adviser, Ray. I'm also grateful for your fine analysis here. You're making me worried but bookmakers have Obama a short odds favorite to win the nomination. He's at 4/11 (73.3%) and Clinton at 15/8 (34.8%). Money talks. http://www.electionbetting.com/

The one area of the campaign which, predictably, is not being seriously analysed is US Middle East relations. Considering the financial and human cost of Iraq, coupled with America's poor image in the region, one might consider it an important campaign issue but acting tough is easier than sense and reason, writes Rami Khouri: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/78552/

Very interesting, Peter. I wonder if Risen will hold strong? I hope so. The case concerning the two former AIPAC employees will be fascinating indeed. I suspect we won't hear much about it in the mainstream media. It's the first indication I've seen of any turbulence in the normally silky smooth relationship between US and Israeli intelligence. Again, very interesting.

Scuse me? What wild claim? If you're alluding to the Fisher/Ford issue, then I don't think there's anything wild about it. Could a wealthy, influential and generous donor to the Republican Party influence and control a feeble-minded mediocrity like Ford, also from Michigan? More of a certainty than a wild claim, imo. You do under the difference between 'could' and 'did'? You have been unable to produce any evidence he did. You're in denial.