Mark Stapleton

Guilty. Can't help it. You're as phony as a three dollar note. Hysterically funny, but you can't see the joke.

Of course you do, Tim. Of course.

Westdeutscher Rundfunk produced it. They seem to be a production company that makes mainly German movies. Without knowing who has controlling interest in that company, it's hard to know whether any sinister motives can be attributed to this effort. Probably just a harmless diversion. If they seriously expect the public to believe Castro was behind it, it's just a nice, scary work of fiction.

Gee Tim, I thought you were on our side. No, I didn't really think that.

Thanks to Myra and Bill for keeping this important thread on the board. Just read it in full, and thanks Bill for your overview of how the committee system operates and your diligence in keeping this hope alive. Now is an important time for American members of the Forum to write to Congressmen, especially those represented by Waxman and Clay. (I don't suppose anyone has spoken to either of these guys or otherwise know if they share our special obsession with closure on JFK). I like Peter Lemkin's suggestions, especially the suggestion that a bigtime Hollywood star could lend weight to the urgency of JFK oversight hearings. I've heard Bruce Willis, among others, has a thing about the JFK assassination, stressing this is only gossip.

Tim, whenever you want to emerge from the bubble and seriously discuss JFK's death, I will be glad to engage. You don't really want to solve the case because you didn't care too much for the man or his policies. It's painfully obvious. People who want to find out what happened in DP share a level of respect for JFK which you clearly consider is too high. You're wasting your time here.

Not quite, Tim. You are free to express your opinions, and the basis upon which they are founded, and so am I.

And I gather that you have not read Avner Cohen's "Israel and the bomb". Shameful.

THIS is your response to the several points I made in the previous post? The Israel lobby's disinformation campaign must be in worse shape than I thought.

What garbage. JFK's relationship with the Israel lobby was, for the most part, testy and mistrustful. JFK's July 2, 1957 Senate speech in support of Algerian independence riled Israel, who were strongly opposed to the creation of a new and independant Arab state in the region. During the 1960 campaign JFK met with Jewish financier Abe Feinberg in an effort to secure campaign funds, but was shocked to discover that in return for the financial support, the Israel lobby wanted complete control over US Middle East foreign policy. In fact, in 1962 he submitted five bills to reform campaign financing to Congress, and two more in 1963. Seymour Hersh cites Kennedy criticising the current method of campaign financing as 'highly undesirable' and 'not healthy' because it made candidates 'dependant on large financial contributions of those with special interests'. Unfortunately for JFK (and us), the bills were defeated by those same special interests, the Israel lobby prominent among them. There was Kennedy's December 1962 meeting in Palm Beach, Florida with Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir in which Kennedy emphasised to his guest that US-Israeli relations were 'a two way street'. Also, there was Kennedy's final White House press conference--November 14, 1963--at which Kennedy bemoaned the fact that Congress had voted to cut off aid to Egypt. The powerful pro-Israel lobby were responsible for this and one of their lobbyists, I.L. Kenan, described the scene this way, "Kennedy ruefully surveyed the debris of his Nasser policy at a press conference on November 14, 1963. He was sharply critical. The Senate amendment required him 'to make a finding which is extremely complicated' and he did not believe that this language would strengthen our hand or our flexibility in dealing with the UAR". There was also JFK's bitter dispute with Ben-Gurion over Israel's nuclear plans--a dispute which for some strange reason the US media decided should be hidden from the public. Israel didn't get a better deal from JFK at all. They saw JFK's attempt to establish a fair and bipartisan US foreign policy in the Middle East as a crap deal.

I agree with that, Charles. Despite the fact that there were nutjobs in the military and agencies talking about a nuclear war, the real 'masters' never really contemplated it and quietly kept the nutjobs on a tight leash. The fact that LBJ kept waving the nuclear spectre in order to coerce Earl Warren into chairing the WC (and helping it come to the 'right' conclusion) further indicates that it was merely a useful tool for persuading recalcitrants to see things their way. For one thing, a nuclear war, as Charles intimated, is terrible for business. There's a vast difference between dropping nuclear bombs on two cities in a defeated nation (with a war weary Europe keen for hostilities to cease looking on) and devastating major population centres during peacetime. And it only takes a few hours--there's not enough time to make the real money that long, gruelling military campaigns provide. To add insult to injury, no costly fleets of ships, planes or choppers are required. No fancy weaponry and ammunition. Hence, fat, profitable Government contracts are also not required. Why, there's barely a buck to be made! Moreover, Wall Street would be paralysed by a peacetime nuclear strike. Fear of escalation and reprisals would probably shut it down, imo. The fallout, in every sense of the word, would have a very skinny upside for business. The Wall Street end (of the suggested finance, oil and military power alliance) would be highly unimpressed, imo. Despite the fact that the fear of nuclear war has proved quite useful in scaring the pants off the public when necessary, the power elite would never have seriously contemplated nuclear war, imo. Too much financial downside and, unlike the conventional wars they've grown to love, in a nuclear war they themselves, and their families, could get, um........killed. p.s. Charles, I have Evica's book on order and eagerly await its arrival.

Pamela, I agree. As regular readers of the Forum would be aware, I believe Mossad was involved in the assassination. JFK was involved in a bitter dispute with Ben-Gurion over Israel's nuclear weapons at the time of his death. When LBJ moved into the White House, Israel was rewarded by increased military aid and a sham inspection regime which allowed them to become the only nuclear power in the region--something Ben-Gurion and Shimon Peres had promised to JFK would not happen. Good points,Pamela and Mark.Both JFK and DeGaulle were enemies of Israel's interests,JFK in regards to Israel's nuclear project and DeGaulle in regards to Israel's opposition to Algeria's independence.Final Judgement is a must read,imo,when looking at theories involving the assassination of JFK and the attempted assassination of DeGaulle..It has been awhile since i read Final Judgement.I thought Piper did an outstanding job showing that,coincidently??,many of the same journalists and authors that embraced,promoted,and advertised the "Oswald lone nut Communist assassin did it theory" were also shills for other Israeli interests at later dates...Back on topic,anyone interested in the DeGaulle assassination attempt with in the context of the JFK assassination should read Final Judgement. Yes, I'm thinking the same way Mark. I haven't looked into the DeGaulle attempts in depth but I think it's possible that the same sponsors were involved. One lesson they would have learned from the 1962 attempt on DeGaulle would have been that if you're shooting at a motor vehicle/ motorcade, then make sure you NOBBLE THE DRIVER. Bill Greer was nobbled, imo. You don't want heroic drivers threatening the whole plan. The issue of Israel runs through the entire JFK milieu, imo. Israel had strong support within the US media, intelligence agencies and executive in 1963 (and still do now), in part because they readily identified with the anti-Communist paradigm which existed at the time. Some influential players, like JJA, who have been identified as strongly supportive of Israel or perhaps even Mossad, were rabidly anti-Communist. For me another factor is the mainstream media solidarity which has stifled a real look into Dealey Plaza. All the major media players in the US were (and still are) strong supporters of Israel. Cui bono works fine for me but sometimes you need to ignore the hecklers in order to discuss this issue rationally.

Pamela, I agree. As regular readers of the Forum would be aware, I believe Mossad was involved in the assassination. JFK was involved in a bitter dispute with Ben-Gurion over Israel's nuclear weapons at the time of his death. When LBJ moved into the White House, Israel was rewarded by increased military aid and a sham inspection regime which allowed them to become the only nuclear power in the region--something Ben-Gurion and Shimon Peres had promised to JFK would not happen.

According to this article from Jeremy Scahill, there are now more private contractors in Iraq than soldiers. The size of the 160,000 US troop force has been more than doubled by a shadow army which operates outside military and civil scrutiny: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/59571/ p.s. (Estimated) 500 people were killed by a suicide bombing today.

LeMay's persistent advocacy of the nuclear option made him extremely dangerous. In 1949, as head of the newly formed strategic air command, he formulated a plan to drop America's entire nuclear stockpile on 70 cities over 30 days. He was apparently unable or unwilling to understand the global consequences of such an action, and was still arguing for a nuclear strike during Kennedy's administration. Lucky for us, more rational heads prevailed, although LeMay, cold warrior to the end, regarded Kennedy's resolution of the missile crisis as a defeat of sorts. I maintain LeMay was unable to adjust to peacetime priorities and couldn't acknowledge the fact that the people elect civilian administrations to act in the nation's interest. He couldn't detach himself from the wartime mindset and as such, was suffering some kind of psychosis. Maintaining a strong defence force is one thing, but advocating nuclear attacks which would cause millions of deaths is too much. He was mad, bad and dangerous.

Get a grip, Tim. There's no doubt he was highly decorated but you left out one important fact----by 1963 LeMay was as mad as a meat axe, completely crazy, out of his mind. JFK was sure of this, that's why he disregarded LeMay's loony suggestions regarding nuclear attacks.

John, As to the author of the Warren Report, are you thinking of Otto Winnaker? James I don't know who Otto Winnaker is, but if anyone was the intellectual father of the WC, it was Eugene Rostow, imo. Rostow was Dean of Yale Law School at the time. Apart from being the first to suggest the establishment of the WC to LBJ, he also wrote this piece of purple prose about the Warren Report in the Washington Post on the first anniversary of JFK's death: The Report is a masterly and convincing state paper. It has the high polish of legal writing at its best, carefully composed, terse, restrained and meticulous. In a detached and judicious tone, it deals with every feature of the case, discussing and evaluating the basis for the conclusions the Commission reached, and their rejection of the various contrary theories which had been advanced.

And of course, LBJ dutifully complied with all RFK's recommendations, despite the personal animosity which existed between them, right? Like when RFK 'recommended' LBJ's immediate swearing in on AF1, for example.

9/11. The moral outrage following 9/11 provided the justification for a full invasion of Iraq which the neocons had been looking for and allowed the US and its allies to disregard the the more rational voices within the media--like Scott Ritter--who correctly claimed there were no WMD's in Iraq. History might well regard 9/11 as a lethal double blow for America, with the loss of life and all the horrific imagery of that day on one hand, and the foreign policy disaster which resulted on the other. Only the hardline holdouts continue to support the war in Iraq. The morality of this position cannot be justified, imo, and the fact that many who still support the war also proudly boast Christian ethics makes it even more perplexing. p.s. I saw on the news tonight that Karl Rove intends to resign at the end of this month. The fattest and ugliest rats are now deserting this sinking ship.

Paul and Myra, As one who had previously not considered Diana's death as anything more than a reckless accident, I must say you are making a strong case that there was more to this than we have been told. And Myra, your reasons for suspecting foul play are convincing, imo. In relation to landmines, Diana was well known for her campaign to end the use of these weapons. She would have been a powerful foe of the US on this issue. According to this 2005 article about proposed changes by Ambassador Bolton to a draft document on UN Reform, the US said this (in relation to landmines): "The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants is without justification or legitimacy but only when committed by terrorists" Of course, further down the document, the US submits its definition of what it considers 'terrorists' to be: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/ArticleID/2568 Diana would have been horrified at the elevation of these criminals to high office in the US. Were she alive today I suspect that a vocal campaign from her targeting the land mine issue would shame the US Government into doing the right thing in very short order, considering her enormous popularity throughout the world. Yep, it's a fair bet we've been dudded by the media again. I'm beginning to believe that starting with the assumption that the media is lying and work back from there is the shortest route to establishing the truth.

"A wise man's heart leads him to do right, and a fool's heart leads him to do evil". So which one are you, Tim?

Lyman L. Lemnitzer, General, United States Army b. 29 Aug 1899, d. 12 November 1988 Born in Honesdale, Pennsylvania, August 29, 1899. Died November 12, 1988. General Lemnitzer was an Eisenhower appointee and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy administration. A leading proponent of pre-emptive action against Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Lemnitzer believed that the United States had to destroy Cuba and the Soviet Union before it lost its strategic advantage in the missile gap that secretly was tilted heavily in favor of America, though the media was being fed the opposite message. From released KGB documents and meetings between Robert McNamara and Castro during the 1990s, it is now known that Lemnitzer was wrong and warheads were actually in place during the crisis. A preemptive strike would have resulted in mass US casualties. Kennedy's gut instinct was correct. However, Lemnitzer secretly harbored a deep resentment of Kennedy after the crisis ended, believing the president had missed a golden opportunity to permanently rid the world of the communist-atheists. When the CIA's Operation Mongoose was canceled due to repeated failures, The Cuba Project was created within the Pentagon to continue these types of activities. Lemnitzer relished the opportunity to show up the "company" who he believed was treading on the military's solomn black ops ground, and ineffectively at that. This led him to approve Operation Northwoods, the plans to attack US targets and blame it on Castro to create a pretext for a complete US invasion of Cuba, and potentially a definitive (at least in Lemnitzer's eyes) WWIII scenario with the Russians. Revealingly, his chairmanship was not renewed and he was sent off to command U.S. forces in Europe. Prior to the Kennedy assassination, Lemnitzer had been implicated in an investigation into extreme right-wing and anti-communist/pro-Israel hardliner connections in the Defense Department which had already forced the resignation of several Pentagon officials, including one who'd been caught handing out John Birch Society literature while on assignment overseas. The conclusions called for further extensive investigation of Lemnitzer to determine just how far his connections ran, but these were never carried out. This has led some to suspect a DoD, rather than CIA, involvement in the death of JFK. Ironically (or not), in 1975 the retired General Lemnitzer was appointed by Gerald R. Ford to the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States. (my italics) source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...an_L._Lemnitzer 4apr2006 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ridiculous.

Anyone who actively participated in the coverup was guilty, correct. By that I mean those who helped orchestrate the coverup, like LBJ, Hoover, Paley, Luce, Sarnoff etc. To suggest that I think Warren was a conspirator is not correct. Being forced to sit on LBJ's whitewash doesn't make you a conspirator--just a victim of circumstance. You forget that the subsequent coverup was an integral part of the overall plan. Without a strategy for avoiding a murder conviction the plan would never have been carried out. The murderers weren't that brave. Those involved in the conspiracy to conceal the truth of Dealey Plaza are conspirators. Those who were coerced into going along with America's most egregious lie and fiercely protected secret are, again, victims of circumstance. Finally, I'm still awaiting evidence to support your belief in the existence of the devil. A lame quote from a Hollywood movie is not evidence. It's solid evidence I need (4 points will do).

For God's sake, LBJ established the Warren Commission--the official coverup. He's part of the US power structure, isn't he? btw, can you produce ONE evidentiary basis for asserting that the character you describe as the devil actually exists?