Mark Stapleton

Bush followed his mentor's orders. Harriman decided (I suspect, and thus speculate) to cut his losses and push the cover-up away from the Castro-did-it scenario. And towards a lone Parrott instead. But what's the point if it's the wrong lone nut?

Bush called the FBI in Dallas on 11/22/63 to tell them that a guy in Houston named Parrott had once threatened the president. Can anyone think of a reason why he would do this? I think the most likely explanation is that he needed an excuse to make a phone call to authorities to establish a record of where he was (in Tyler, Texas) at the time of the assassination. (I know what Tim will say: he was just trying to catch the assassins!) As I recall, General Walker did something similar, letting a bunch of passengers know on a commercial airplane flight that he was amongst them, and nowhere near Dallas. Thanks Ron. I think there was a thread on Parrott a while back. I can't think of a better explanation than the one you provided. The call makes no sense to me either.

Mark, thank you for your kind comments. I'll be getting into this more in my response to my Brother Charles' bracing challenge, which I wish to make as thorough as possible, and will take some time to put together (Brother Drago deserves no less!) Shorter take: the black markets in guns, oil and drugs have been facilitated for 80+ years by the Harriman-Walker-Bush Crime Family. I suspect the JFK assassination and the 9/11 attacks were rooted in the machinations of this criminal legacy. Ah yes, Bush = Oil. Sorry I missed the connection. I think GWH gets a few mentions in the JFK saga, although he maintains his status was nothing more than a humble CIA functionary. Didn't he try to finger an assassin shortly after DP? Anyhow, I'll leave it to you to join the dots. I read Brother Charles's elegantly worded invitation. An esteemed member of the brethren. I can't wait. Do we get jackets and a secret handshake? Can we schedule breakfast meetings? If so, I have a name for our group: Bull and Scones. B.C. World domination should be the first order of business. After that, we persuade Rod Stewart to retire.

Your narrow definition renders most of this Forum anti-American. So why are you hanging out with a bunch of subversives? My criticism of Israel doesn't contribute in tarnishing their image. They are doing an excellent job by themselves. Step out of your parallel universe and take a look.

Mark, thank you for your kind comments. I'll be getting into this more in my response to my Brother Charles' bracing challenge, which I wish to make as thorough as possible, and will take some time to put together (Brother Drago deserves no less!) Shorter take: the black markets in guns, oil and drugs have been facilitated for 80+ years by the Harriman-Walker-Bush Crime Family. I suspect the JFK assassination and the 9/11 attacks were rooted in the machinations of this criminal legacy. Ah yes, Bush = Oil. Sorry I missed the connection. I think GWH gets a few mentions in the JFK saga, although he maintains his status was nothing more than a humble CIA functionary. Didn't he try to finger an assassin shortly after DP? Anyhow, I'll leave it to you to join the dots. I read Brother Charles's elegantly worded invitation. An esteemed member of the brethren.

Herb, The issue of the fake Israeli art students was discussed a while back on this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0 It remains a suspicious incident, imo, and drawing attention to the fact that 9/11 played right into the hands of the neocons in both the US and Israel does not make you anti-semitic.

Okay, Thread Cop, write me up and I'll be on my way... When Len starts protesting about others drifting off topic, it's a sure sign Len is losing the debate. Len, the thread title is 'OBL's views on the assassination', so by discussing Bin Laden and the PNAC report you've already started drifting. Stop acting like a moderator. It's a fascinating thread, with several debates being conducted simultaneously. Cliff, I'm interested to hear the rest of your reasoning as to why DP and ground zero are uniquely connected. I can see the weapons and narcotics connections but not the oil connection insofar as DP is concerned. The one obvious connection is that both events were followed by feeble, half-hearted Government enquiries. It took much longer for the penny to drop in JFK's case because people were more trusting of officialdom in '63 (and there was no internet), but I agree the 9/11 facade is collapsing quicker than a pancaking tower building. Len, it's a big ask arguing on three fronts all at once--especially against formidable opponents like Ron, Robert and Cliff. The fact that you're getting trounced notwithstanding, I truly admire your fighting spirit, which is matched only by your ability to go to any lengths of logic-bending denial in order to avoid confronting the truth.

Point number four in Marina's letter is an eyebrow raiser---LHO was interrogated in the presence of Elrod! What the......! I was not aware of this claim. I assume Elrod had no official capacity, he must have been there as a fellow detainee. Otherwise, what the......!

The bit about shutting down the Jihadist web sites is scary. Nerds rule.

For the record, what's the consensus on ABL? Is the video a fake or he is still alive?

Interesting post, John. I agree with your suggestion that the web is threatening the global capitalist structure. It has become a real threat to those wanting to manipulate all we see and hear. The media is reluctant to discuss issues which could be harmful to their interests, so these issues become taboo. The war on drugs is one example. Here the mainstream media owners stand to lose from changes in the laws so genuine debate is replaced with fear and sensationalism. Unfortunately for them, the explosion in internet blogs and forums has allowed the public to discuss these issues and reach conclusions independent of mainstream media involvement. The mainstream media is losing its grip on moulding public opinion. Its refusal to openly discuss issues it deems harmful to its interests is the media's problem, not the public's problem. Here in Australia the conservative Howard Government is in freefall in the polls. The illusion of great prosperity which has been trumpeted by Howard and gleefully echoed by our mainstream media is being ignored, according to all the polls. Howard is 14 to 20 percentage points behind and rapidly falling. Despite all the best efforts of the mainstream media to reverse this trend, it appears the Australian people have already made up their collective minds and are ignoring the increasingly desperate efforts of Howard and the corporate media. The corporate media's frustration with this state of affairs is palpable, but they have only themselves to blame.

Sure, Peter, but there's not much to add. Thomas Graves asked about the oddity of OBL, in his most recent release, blaming Donald Rumsfeld for the deaths of two million Vietnamese. I merely pointed out that prior to being your nation's oldest defense secretary, Rumsfeld was also its youngest defense secretary when he was tapped for the job by Gerald Ford in '75. As such, he was responsible for prosecuting the tail end of the Viet Nam conflict, but surely couldn't be blamed for the entirety of the carnage there, which one could rightly infer from OBL's wording [or perhaps a glitch in translation?] I am greatly heartened by Charles Drago's reference to OBL as a 'dramatic character,' for I think this accurately reflects his role in contemporary events. A few points I'd like to raise in this regard, corollaries to the JFK assassination that seem to have somehow escaped a few of our esteemed fellow Forum members. First, on Nine-One-One Bush publicly identified OBL as the sole culprit, just as Oswald had been immediately identified as the sole assassin. In neither case had there been sufficient time to investigate and reach a tenable conclusion, but that was somehow deemed unnecessary by the accusing parties in both events. We know how [in]accurate the first charge was; I urge those with an open mind to consider that the second charge might have been equally misleading. Second, just as Oswald proclaimed his innocence, and thereby missed a singular opportunity to propagandize for whatever cause might have compelled him, so too did OBL initially renounce - and disclaim responsibility for - the events of that dreadful day, and thereby forego a chance to proclaim what had led to the act. While prisons are full of those who falsely proclaim their innocence, it is also true that some innocent parties have not only been incarcerated but executed. It is worth recalling that the founding principles of the USA include the presumption of innocence, a formality never extended to either LHO or OBL. Third, despite the mountain of so-called evidence levelled against Oswald, the closer one scrutinized any individual piece of that evidence, the more readily apparent it became that it didn't, nay couldn't, withstand examination without collapsing. Meanwhile, anything that might reasonably be viewed as exculpatory toward Oswald was either scuttled and ignored, or twisted to conform to a predesigned brief against him. Witnesses were intimidated, interviews were misreported, evidence was suppressed or baldly fabricated, and connections between Oswald and various branches of the US government were either falsely denied or deep-sixed. Can anyone who has pored over the Nine-One-One chronology presented by the US government claim it is any more accurate? Fourth, despite desperate attempts to preclude any official investigation, the Bush administration was finally shamed into empanelling just such a probe. In announcing its formation, George Bush actually referred to it as a modern-day "Warren Commission," which those who have studied the Warren Report should bear in mind when studying the shoddy output of Kean, Hamilton, et al. It may have been an unintentional truth, but Bush accurately predicted the veracity of the Nine-One-One report when he made the comparison. Fifth, an interesting parallel exists regarding the official version of both events. In the case of Oswald, he stood accused of having fired a rather shoddy weapon with a lethal accuracy unrivalled by those world-class marksmen who were press-ganged into attempts to replicate the feat. Rather than accept that no single shooter could achieve what was attributed to Oswald, the naysayers merely repeated the mantra that he must have done so, for that was the initial allegation, contrary facts be damned. Similarly, when skeptics on the Nine-One-One issue point out that OBL couldn't have predicted, nor arranged for, the inexplicable stand-down of US airpower on that dreadful day - that the event couldn't have occurred without some type of connivance by or contribution from someone within the US government itself - the modern-day nay-sayers repeat the mantra that a conspiracy within any quarters of the US government couldn't have gone unnoticed, and was hence impossible to credit, but nevertheless bray accusations toward a man half a world away whom, as they point out gleefully, lives in a cave. It is remarkable that those who denounce charges of US governmental collusion as an impossibly complex "conspiracy theory" nevertheless attribute that same impossibly complex feat to a single man in a cave that cannot be located. Does not the Bible caution against "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel?" Finally, it should not go unnoticed that in Bush's immediate identification of OBL as the mastermind of Nine-One-One, he didn't bother to include any basis for believing his charges to be true; he thought it sufficient to merely make the claim. While the US populace may be forgiven for having foolishly placed that degree of faith in their so-called [but appointed, not elected] leader's integrity and judgement then, with the benefit of hindsight, can any rational person still take this man's claims at face value? Having been so consistently wrong, about virtually everything ever claimed, is acceptance of his claims re: OBL anything more than an article of faith? Would those prepared to place their own fellow countrymen and women in harm's way not rest easier knowing, rather than merely supposing along with Bush, who was responsible? Only this morning I encountered a man from Florida who has spent most of his adult life in the US military. We chatted amiably about a number of things Floridian [Kitty Harris, Charlie Crist, Jeb Bush - whom he extolled as a great governor, by the way], but when it came to George Bush, he said that all he knew was that nobody had launched an attack on US soil in the past five years, all credit for this, apparently, going to the USA's Dear Leader. When I asked if he didn't think it odd that somebody fiendishly clever enough to mount so complex a plot five years ago was somehow now too impotent to even explode a couple of car bombs in Daytona or New Jersey, just to remind us all of his continued existence and relevance, he said that he'd never really thought about it. Therein lies the rub; too few people are prepared to think for themselves and undertake the homework necessary to reach a personal conclusion, rather than one that has been prefabricated and premasticated for their consumption. [My new acquaintance from Florida was a splendid chap, by the way, and despite being a diehard Republican was quite willing to entertain any number of possibilities as at least theoretically possible, unlike certain hidebound Forum members with a far narrower view of the world and how it is made to work, by whom, and for what ends.] I realize that all of the foregoing is far more than you asked for, Peter, and that I will likely be pilloried by some other Forum members for having the audacity to make some of the statements above. However, as the topic of the thread includes both JFK and OBL's observations on JFK's demise, I thought it might be the right time to remind some Forum members that they are ill-served by a credulous willingness to accept and parrot only what they've been told, rather than what they've discovered for themselves through diligent research. The same nation that was successfully lied to once on an issue of paramount importance can never rest easy in the belief that it could never happen again, a point that often seems lost on some here. Great post, Robert.

A hotshot, self-promoting lawyer. How could we lose?

It would be nice to think that the Mearsheimer/ Walt book, now that it has been published, might lead to a rational, sober debate about America's Middle East policy and whether it currently serves the long term interests of the American people. Fat chance. America's ties to Israel are deeply rooted in religion and the Judeo-Christian ethic, making rational discussion almost impossible--and that's the way the Israel lobby wants to keep it. America's current Middle East policy is carefully crafted for the sole purpose of satisfying Israel's regional needs and ambitions. Israel knows it, the Arab world knows it and unblinkered observers throughout the world know it. One day America might realise it and try to do something about it, but it still won't do them any good because the Israel lobby won't let them change it. They have a vice-like hold on the American legislature. Fear and intimidation render Congress a timid, sycophantic little mouse. So much for being the world's most powerful nation. America isn't even permitted to formulate its own foreign policy. America's capital city is not Washington but Tel Aviv.

Hmmm... Bill, I don't know if I share your confidence in Admiral Fallon's ability to prevent a strike on Iran. Have a look at this: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/05/3630/

Pamela, I'm not surprised Vanunu was terse in his reply to you. There's a good chance his emails are being monitered by the authorities, imo. I'm in agreement totally. There are too few people in the West who are actively concerned about the plight of the Palestinians, due in part to the efforts of Israel and its friends in the western media and various western Governments to conceal the real state of affairs.

Bill, You misread my intention. No way I want either Israel or the US to attack Iran. But I have read somewhere that some commentators think it's possible that Israel could strike the Iranian nuclear facilities should America decide it's too risky. At the moment I would estimate the chances of a strike against Iran to be about 30-40%. There's too much downside. All the sabre rattling is probably designed to bluff Iran into abandoning its nuclear program, however at this point the bluff doesn't seem to be working. An attack would be disastrous. Iran is equipped with an effective missile deterrent: http://www.spacewar.com/2006/070610184915.89pghmna.html It would not be a repeat of Israel's easy strike on the El Soraq reactor in Iraq in 1981, so here's hoping they are not stupid enough to try it.

Reliable evidence? Your choice of term is interesting: eyewitness testimony is "lightweight supposition"? I'm leaving the satire to the opposition on this thread. They're doing a great job. Paul Point taken about Manchester. His references are the 200 or so personal interviews he conducted with the parties, which are listed in the back of the book. Manchester's interview with Greer was conducted on 19/11/64. Given some of the ridiculous comments Manchester makes about LHO, I have reservations about the author's credibilty, but I don't know what Manchester would gain by lying about Greer's behavior at Parkland. Others who were present would be able to contradict his account. The eyewitness testimony you selected has been chosen because it seems consistent with your argument. Testimony not consistent has been omitted. Lightweight supposition is probably a poor choice of words on my part. Are the reactions to your theory consistent with your expectations?

David, I see you've recieved the ritual initiation. Chortle. Welcome to the club.

Looks like no takers from Britain yet, Pamela. You'll have to settle for a tired and cynical Australian for now. I'm amused but not surprised at the silence of our British compadres who are so knowledgeable on historical and controversial issues--as long as you don't mention Israel's apartheid. However, I doubt anything the Queen or PM would say could get Vanunu released, but it's interesting that they haven't tried. I think fear of incurring the wrath of the mainstream media--or those who control it I should say--is pervasive everywhere. The public statements of prominent people are carefully vetted (to make sure they are 'sound', shall we say?) and this forum is a public forum. I speak from the comfortable vantage point of comparative obscurity, similar to you, perhaps, so I have nothing to lose by drawing attention to the unique lack of accountability awarded to Israel on issues ranging from human rights breaches, illegal occupation of territory, illegal invasions and nuclear proliferation. Global condemnation from politicians, journalists, actors, human rights activists and other prominent talking heads if another country was guilty of half as many things but barely a peep if its Israel. I never cease to marvel at this amazing spectacle. It seems the Palestinians are not the only people Israel has imprisoned. The Vanunu saga stands in stark contrast to the global campaign to release Nelson Mandela. Moreover, I don't see much difference between South Africa's apartheid and Israel's apartheid (complete with a brand new wall), except that the traditional left, which so admirably campaigned against South Africa's apatheid, apparently lacks the balls to campaign against Israel's apartheid. Could it be that they realise they won't recieve the mainstream support from the Western media which they recieved in the campaign against South Africa? I've seen Vanunu interviewed once on TV and he seems a bit hyperactive. Understandable. What I would like to hear are his reasons for claiming he had 'almost certain indications' that Israel was involved in the assassination of JFK. He has yet to elaborate, as far as I know. Maybe I give the claim more credibility than it deserves because Vanunu is clearly pissed at Israel. But I suspect the thing Israel is really worried about is not the nuclear secrets but the JFK secrets---which would surely have a more pungent odour if they were true.

I can assure you, Mark, I had precisely the same reaction when I first began kicking this solution around. But force of logic compelled. Let me offer you another important reason why. In no other scenario do we find this advantage - the gunman controlled the speed of his prey. I put it to you that this is no small advantage. I'll try and dig out something that addresses directly Connally's post-Dallas attitude to the SS. Not seen any reliable evidence for this. By all mean produce for consideration. But I can offer you this: And, in fairness, the reader will also find this within the same footnote: Mrs. Kennedy later sent William R. Greer, the driver of the Presidential limousine, a handwritten note. It said, “For Bill Greer, whom the President loved, and who was with him until the very end. Thank you.” (New York Times, July 2, 1966, p. 10.) Paul Paul, The incident between Greer and Jackie at Parkland is described in Manchester, page 290. Please, no more lightweight supposition in support of this theory. I can't shake the feeling that you are an accomplished satirist. I applaud you.

On closer inspection of this thread, I think its probable that Greer shot JFK but I disagree on one important point---how Greer shot JFK without the other occupants knowing. The timing had to be perfect. While slowing the car down, he deftly manouvered one hand down to his holster which contained his pearl-handled six shooter and at the precise moment, he pulled it out and, while his other hand still held the wheel, he twirled the gun rapidly on one finger (much like the Cisco Kid) and fired two fatal shots while still facing ahead and replaced the gun before anyone knew what was happening.

Interesting Bill, but not a totally convincing argument, imo. The problem is this Administration's iron clad loyalty to Israel. Israel thinks Iran's attainment of nuclear weapons will spell the end for them. While I think the idea that Iran would launch a nuclear attack on Israel is sheer fantasy, designed to frighten the public into supporting any action targeting Iran, there is one possible consequence of a nuclear Iran which could spell trouble--Iran could place itself on nuclear alert, which would necessitate Israel following suit whenever Iran does this, making everyday life in Israel almost intolerable. This was an argument recently put forward by a neocon cheerleader in an Australian broadsheet, and I guess it is a fair point. Judging by the sabre rattling from Washington and the predictable op-ed pieces in the mainstream media, I think a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is possible. Of course, this is an act of war. I've read that if America doesn't have the will then Israel might go it alone. Both Israel and the US are capable of anything, imo. If such a course resulted in a revolt by the US military leaders, then fine. Maybe they can get rid of Bush before he can cause any more damage.

Paul, I applaud your research and your ability to think outside the square. This idea is too much for me, though. I think there were things that occurred in DP which have been concealed from the public but this isn't one of them. JBC, Nellie and Jackie are going to see the driver shooting at them and if they did, no amount of pressure or intimidation would have prevented them from saying so. And Jackie's gonna let Greer tearfully hug her later at Parkland? No. "My God, the driver's going to kill us all". Thumbs down.

Obviously a cross post as I hadn't read your post when I posted mine. Please, save yourself the trouble and don't bother posting a reply to David. You'll only be carved up. It's clear that David has expertise in this area and you have no chance of matching it. I doubt even your tiny band of devotees will enjoy the spectacle. Tell him, Craig.