Mark Stapleton

Top Post

B.,

In your travels through this evidence morass, have you run across a date [month,day,year] when the NPIC first evaluated the Zapruder Film?

Thanks -- DHealy

Pat Speer' wrote:

A couple of corrections to Bernice's list...

Ford was a congressman in 1963. He never was a Senator.

B: Correction, Pat, he was a Congressman...

**************************

Pat: He changed the back wound from "back" to "back of the neck" and the report ended up saying "base of the back of the neck." This was probably an innocent mistake in that Ford was not the sharpest tack in the box and was almost undoubtedly basing his impression of the wound on the Rydberg drawings, which depicted the wound at the base of the neck.

Bernice : Not innocent IMO....."In editing the initial draft of the Warren Report , Ford moved the the wound In Kennedy's back from a "point slightly below the shoulder to the right of the spine " to " the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine" . Ford's revision brought the posterior wound in line wiht the Commission's no-conspiracy conclusion, repositioning it to make it consistant with what came to be called " the single bullet theory"..Ford's editing of the Warren Com Report draft dated 6/26/64 ,can be found in the Rankin Papers ,box 26, folder 385 ,NARA.

Pat: The real question is why Arlen Specter, who'd seen the back wound on an autopsy photo and knew the Rydberg drawings were incorrect, never tried to have the drawings corrected and said nothing to the commission. And I have an answer to that question: he was an ambitious spineless coward. The head wound wasn't moved till 1968.

Bernice : "During Specter's and the commission's "March 16th questioning , Humes repeatedly referred to these drawings ( Ryberg's because they were denied access to the autopsy pictures and X-rays .According to Hume's testimony , the drawings depicted the trajectory of the nonfatal bullet ( CE 399) entering Kennedy's lower neck at a downward angle and exiting his throat in the region of the Adam's Apple.)

when describing JFK's neck wounds . When McCloy asked the navy Doctor if the bullet trajectory took " roughly the line which is shown on your Exhibit 385", Hume's succinct response was "Yes, Sir". Even to the medically or forensically untrained eye it is patently obvious that the depciations of JFK's nonfatal wounds presumably produced by bullet CE 399 in photograph Number 12 and CE 385 and CE 386 are hopelessly irreconcilable .There is no way that these separate representations can coexist in the Commission's own permanent record without inviting skepticism of the deepest die.

Commissioner Gerald Ford spotted this "eccentricity" in the report's third draft where it asserted , "A bullet entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."..Ford edited the sentence to read, " A bullet entered the back of his neck slightly to the right pf the spine."

With just a few facile changes, Ford and the Reediting Committee were satisfied that photograph Number 12, based on Specter's prized autopsy picture ,and Hume's much-exploited drawing's ...stand ins for the best evidence ....were now compatible ans would travel well together.

Ford's editing of the Warren Com Report draft dated 6/26/64 ,can be found in the Rankin Papers ,box 26, folder 385 ,NARA

************************************

Pat:The NPIC study was done for the Secret Service.

dgh: Pat, do you have a cite re: the NPIC study was done for the Secret Service, [specifically? Or, are you assuming that conclusion from Doug Hornes interview with NPIC employees[/b]. Thanks -- David Healy ..

Bernice : "Zapruder Film re NPIC ...also the following from "Breach of Trust.".for information..

"Several days after the assassination the CIA received, from the Secret Service a copy of the Zapruder film. In return for a copy of the film the SS received an analysis of the film from the agency's National Photographic Intelligence Center (NPIC) in Washington. It had the reputation as being the finest photo-interpretation center in the world. The center's interpretation had come to the conclusions, that (1) the first shot had not come from the TSBD.."Sniper’s nest "..And (2) that there had been at LEAST two gunmen in Dealey Plaza shooting at the limo...But the results were supressed..page 6..

The three cartridges found in the TSBD on the 6th floor, corresponded with the time frame dictated within the Zapruder Film...which allows for only three shots from the MC rifle..It took at best a little more than two seconds just to cycle the rifle ,with no leeway factored in for the shooter to keep the scope fixed on the moving target. The manual that accompanied the model determined that all the shooting had occurred within a span of 6.4 to 8.0 seconds. But seeing and having to acknowledge the shot that had hit the curb on the South side of Main St. and wounding, on the cheek, bystander JamesT.Tague..a fourth shot could only be explained by a second gunman, but this was politically unacceptable...

( FBI Manual, Rankin Papers, " Investigation and Evidence"..RG 12, box 8, folder 7.Nara, 14-15.)

The FBI chose to ignore the Tague shot, and the wound in the front of JFK's throat...page 99-100

The CIA uncovered critical evidence in the assassination before the government's official version was agreed upon..and before President Johnson appointed the WC..after the SS turned over a copy of the Zapruder film to the CIA, and the NPIC had completed it's analysis ,it had been discovered that the first shot, according to the film, had come Before Zapruder frame 210.....and a second shot at frame # 242,

just 1.6 seconds after the first shot. All the WC experts agreed that even the most experienced and skilled gunman would require at least 2.4 seconds..the 1.6 second shot interlude meant there had to be more than one shooter..

Page: 151.

(.McKnight’s telephone interview , May 2,2003...with Dino A.Brugioni, the center’s chief analysis who was in charged of the NPICs interpretation of the Zapruder film..( Conclusion that follows are McKnights..not attributed to Brugioni, "When Brugioni turned over to McCone, or Helms the four-photo briefing boards with accompanying memoranda or explanations interpreting the calculations in the document, he had no knowledge of the "Official Truth"..of JFK's assassination that had been decided upon over the weekend..( notes page 406)

See also..Philip Melanson, "Hidden Exposure: Cover Up & Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film"..The The Third Decade no.1 ( November 84).9. Melanson makes a strong circumstantial case the NPIC received a copy of the Zapruder Film the day after the assassination"...

Also see CIA document 1641-450 for NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film..of JFK's assassination These results were pried loose from the CIA by a FOIA request in 82 by Harold Weisberg ..or see Wiesberg's "Photographic Whitewash --Suppressed Kennedy Assassination Pictures"..1967..available at Hood College..pages: 302-303.)

The Warren Report held that the first shot could not have been fired before Z..210..Therefore the analysis and results of the FBI and CIA, of the Zapruder film were ignored....

The FBI and Rankin and staff suppressed the findings of the Bureau's photo interpretation of Zapruder's film. It is not certain whether McCone or Helms ever shared with the Commission the NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film. What the record does show is that the FBI and CIA colluded in the fabrication of a story that the CIA never received a copy of the Zapruder film..until Dec.1964..after the Commission disbanded Hoover told Rankin that in Dec. 64 the CIA requested a copy of the film for training purposes"..pages 151-152..

( Hoover to Rankin Dec4/64..Copy of letter appears in Wiesberg's , "Photographic Whitewash." page 143..)

The three cartridges found in the TSBD on the 6th floor, corresponded with the time frame dictated within the Zapruder Film...which allows for only three shots from the MC rifle..It took at best a little more than two seconds just to cycle the rifle ,with no leeway factored in for the shooter to keep the scope fixed on the moving target. The manual that accompanied the model determined that all the shooting had occurred within a span of 6.4 to 8.0 seconds. But seeing and having to acknowledge the shot that had hit the curb on the South side of Main St. and wounding, on the cheek, bystander JamesT.Tague..a fourth shot could only be explained by a second gunman, but this was politically unacceptable...

( FBI Manual, Rankin Papers, " Investigation and Evidence"..RG 12, box 8, folder 7.Nara, 14-15.)

The FBI chose to ignore the Tague shot, and the wound in the front of JFK's throat...page 99-100

The CIA uncovered critical evidence in the assassination before the government's official version was agreed upon..and before President Johnson appointed the WC..after the SS turned over a copy of the Zapruder film to the CIA, and the NPIC had completed it's analysis ,it had been discovered that the first shot, according to the film, had come Before Zapruder frame 210.....and a second shot at frame # 242,

just 1.6 seconds after the first shot. All the WC experts agreed that even the most experienced and skilled gunman would require at least 2.4 seconds..the 1.6 second shot interlude meant there had to be more than one shooter..

Page: 151.

(.McKnight’s telephone interview , May 2,2003...with Dino A.Brugioni, the center’s chief analysis who was in charged of the NPICs interpretation of the Zapruder film..( Conclusion that follows are McKnights..not attributed to Brugioni, "When Brugioni turned over to McCone, or Helms the four-photo briefing boards with accompanying memoranda or explanations interpreting the calculations in the document, he had no knowledge of the "Official Truth"..of JFK's assassination that had been decided upon over the weekend..( notes page 406)

See also..Philip Melanson, "Hidden Exposure: Cover Up & Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film"..The The Third Decade no.1 ( November 84).9. Melanson makes a strong circumstantial case the NPIC received a copy of the Zapruder Film the day after the assassination"...

Also see CIA document 1641-450 for NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film..of JFK's assassination These results were pried loose from the CIA by a FOIA request in 82 by Harold Weisberg ..or see Wiesberg's "Photographic Whitewash --Suppressed Kennedy Assassination Pictures"..1967..available at Hood College..pages: 302-303.)

The Warren Report held that the first shot could not have been fired before Z..210..Therefore the analysis and results of the FBI and CIA, of the Zapruder film were ignored....

The FBI and Rankin and staff suppressed the findings of the Bureau's photo interpretation of Zapruder's film. It is not certain whether McCone or Helms ever shared with the Commission the NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film. What the record does show is that the FBI and CIA colluded in the fabrication of a story that the CIA never received a copy of the Zapruder film..until Dec.1964..after the Commission disbanded Hoover told Rankin that in Dec. 64 the CIA requested a copy of the film for training purposes..pages 151-152..

( Hoover to Rankin Dec4/64..Copy of letter appears in Wiesberg's , "Photographic Whitewash." page 143..)

*****"" In my ( McKnight’s) conversation with Brugioni , he was absolutely clear that it was over the week-end following the assassination that McCone requested that NPIC submit the Zapruder film to analysis. Brugioni still recalls his shock when he

witnessed the Fatal Shot That took off the right side of the President’s Head”.

(Notes: page 407)

The work of compiling the medical evidence record of the President's autopsy did not require neither the co-operation of the FBI nor the CIA....so in this area of the investigation the Commissions efforts were not impeded nor distorted..by any investigative dishonesties and or cover-ups perpetrated upon such by the agencies..The WC condoned the sanctioned perjury ,connived, at the destruction of the best evidence ,boycotted key witnesses ,and deliberately and knowingly suppressed materials, medical records and legal documents. The massive corruption of the autopsy records was undertaken with one purpose : To ensure that the Medical evidence in the President's assassination was consistent with the Official Government's version of a Lone Assassin..

"The Overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the view that President Kennedy's official autopsy report was Deliberately Falsified to suppress the fact that he was a victim of a conspiracy."

"It is a joyless irony that the autopsy of Kennedy's alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald ,performed by the Dallas County medical examiner ,Dr..Rose ,was worthy of a President. By comparison. President Kennedy received an autopsy unworthy of even the most unfortunate and unlamented derelict.."

page: 153...(For critics and information of the President's autopsy see..... Henry Hurt aptly described JFK's autopsy as "the autopsy of the century" .See Hurt " Reasonable Doubt "..Sylvia Meagher ,"Accessories After The Fact." ..reprint 1992..

David Lifton " Best Evidence" 1981..Harold Weisberg " Post Mortum"..1975..Weisberg's powerful work still remains the most forcefully argued critique of the official autopsy..The official defenders of the President's autopsy whom usually argue that whereas the autopsy had starling deficiencies, it still arrived at the correct and valid conclusions ..such as Gerald Posner.."Case Closed"..1993..David Wobbling "November 22,1963:You are the Jury." 1973..David Belin’s, Wobbling "Final Disclosure"..1988..Denis L.Breo."JFK's Death"..parts 1-3..Journal of the American Medical Association 267 ,no.20 & 268.no.13...and John K. Latimer "Kennedy and Lincoln..Medical and Ballistics Comparisons of Their Assassinations..1980..notes p:407..

"Anticipating the FBI ,the CIA's NPIC ran it's own analysis of the Zaprduer film over the week-end following the assassinations. Like their FBI counterparts , the NPIC interpreteurs established that the first shot came before Oswald could have a clear view of the presidential limo and that there were at least two shooters". p.355 and chapter 6..

"Breach of Trust"

************************

Pat: Burkley's placement of the back wound at the third thoracic level was not confirmed by the Parkland witnesses, as none of the Parkland witnesses, save a nurse many years later, made any statements indicating they even knew of this wound's existence. While Burkley may have simply said third thoracic based upon his own observation, the possibility he saw the face sheet at the autopsy, which places the wound in that area, seems m ore likely. As Burkley spent most of his time with the family, it seems likely he only took a passing glance at Kennedy, and deferred to the face sheet. There is certainly no report of Burkley making a close inspection of the body. When you look at the face sheet it is clear the drawing is inaccurate in the shoulder area. A mark in line with the shoulder is way too far from the head, and a mark the correct distance from the head is way too far above the shoulder. On the night of the autopsy I believe Boswell placed the wound--which was around T-1 T-2, in line with the shoulder. Later, when it became a huge issue, he placed the wound in relation to the head, effecvtively moving the wound onto the neck. A wound at T-1, as acknowledged by the HSCA, is still too low to be in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest to the throat. As a result I feel the T-3 T-1 dispute is a non-issue. What remains an issue is whether the doctors deliberately lied to Rydberg when he created his drawings depicting the back wound 2 inches higher than T-1.

Bernice :Correction....*****It should read Rear Head Wound"****** will correct and add in Head"....

B: "Why------was John F .Kennedy’s death certificate---signed by Dr. G. Burkley treated as such...

The death certificate sheet headed by the words “summary of the facts related to death “-----Places the President Kennedy’s non-fatal back wound “ in the posterior back at about the level of the Third thoracic vertebrae …Recall that Dr.Burkley wrote the death certificate a day before he had received the Bethesda autopsy report..along with the six copies, before the assassination accounting was manipulated and settled upon….Burkley’s positioning of the Rear Head Wound in the Death Certificate was and is consistent with the Parkland Doctors and Nurses reports of said wounds, along with the Dallas Inquest Report signed on Nov.22/63…the press meeting announcement at Parkland as well as the 15 Doctors,3 Surgery Traumatic Nurses ,Television, radio newspaper reports, eye witnesses ,SS agents, FBI observers and Jacqueline Kennedy".

..The document that was treated like the “plague” to the Commission’s already predetermined conclusions…”one it treated like a poisonous snake”..

------was John F .Kennedy’s death certificate---signed by Dr. G. Burkley

The death certificate sheet headed by the words “summary of the facts related to death “-----Places the President Kennedy’s non-fatal back wound “ in the posterior back at about the level of the Third thoracic vertebrae …Recall that Dr.Burkley wrote the death certificate a day before he had received the Bethesda autopsy report..along with the six copies , before the assassination accounting was manipulated and settled upon….(notes..page 415..For Burkley’s Nov.24/63 ,receipt of the official autopsy report ,see ARRB Master Set of Medical Records.).

Burkley’s positioning of the Rear Wound in the Death Certificate was and is consistent with the Parkland Doctors and Nurses reports of said wounds, along with the Dallas Inquest Report signed on Nov.22/63…the press meeting announcement at Parkland as well as the 15 Doctors,3 Surgery Traumatic Nurses ,Television, radio newspaper reports, eye witnesses ,SS agents, FBI observers and Jacqueline Kennedy,,

It is not however CONSISTENT with, nor seen in the ZAPRUDER FILM….film, nor the individual frames from such….

The Dallas Inquest Report…and Burkley’s positioning of the rear head wound that was “signed on Nov. 22/63..at 1pm..states, by Theran Ward justice of the peace ,Precinct Nov.2, Dallas County…

Under the heading “Findings of the Justice” ,it reports the cause of death as “ two gunshot wounds..” one of which was “near the center of the body and just above the right shoulder .”” Ward’s information comes from Dr .Malcolm Perry, This document also destroys the information that the body was not turned over and was therefore they were unaware of JFK’s back wound.. and that the Parkland emergency team never checked such..

Harold Wiesberg also in a interview with” Dr. Charles Carrico of Parkland ,who reported that he ran his hands down the sides of Kennedy’s body to determine whether there was a large wound in the back . Carrico noted that this was standard operational procedure in all gunshot cases..”

(Notes :page 415.”.It should be noted that there are Two Dallas JFK death certificates . The one signed by Theran Ward on November 22/63, it placed the non fatal rear wound “just above the right shoulder “ as sited in the text..A second death certificate signed by Ward on December 6/63..reported that the immediate cause of death was “ multiple gun shots wounds to the head and the neck”….Since the later was issued after the official autopsy report was released the author Gerald McKnight regards this repositioning of the none fatal posterior wound with great suspicion .For copies of these Dallas County death certificates ,see ARRB ,Master Set of Medical Exhibits ,MD 42 and MD 43 ..The HSCA forensic panel chose to site the second Dec.6/63 version od the death certificate in its critique of the official autopsy report because that version was compatible with it’s findings that the report , while sullied by gross errors and deficiencies,had arrived at “correct and valid conclusions”. See HSCA .Mar.79 vol.7,189..see Weisberg interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, Dec. 1/77,Southwestern Medical School ,Univ. Texas ,Harold Weisberg’s autopsy file ,Weisberg archive..”..

John F. Kennedy’s death certificate affected greatly, the Warren Commission’s

Weekend conclusions that a lone assassin had shot and killed the President, from the TSBD…so they therefore ignored and suppressed the report on his wounds.The Death Certificate does not appear in the Report, now the 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits….Ignoring it appears that is was his Assassination after all that generated the 914 page investigative report displayed with almost seven thousand footnotes and a “bodyguard” of 26 stout volumes of more than 10 Million Words…

A two page death certificate threatened to bring down this astounding, regarded as a respectful officially “sanctioned truths and conclusions is a scenario worthy of George Orwell”..

Pages…6-7-167-8-177-8-9-

BOT..McKnight..

**********************************************

B...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat: He changed the back wound from "back" to "back of the neck" and the report ended up saying "base of the back of the neck." This was probably an innocent mistake in that Ford was not the sharpest tack in the box and was almost undoubtedly basing his impression of the wound on the Rydberg drawings, which depicted the wound at the base of the neck.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One can no more "change" the physical existence of a wound, than they can change the physical existence of other known forms of matter.

One can however, in writing, make changes which not unlike much of the WC, tell a truth, yet only confuse.

And, since JFK had a "back" wound which was in the vicinity of the C-7/T-1 vertebrae, and he also had a neck wound which was located just in the edge of the hairline, then Ford actually "changed" nothing.

Of course it has certainly confused a lot of those who have no full understanding of the bullet wounds incurred by JFK.

Might I recommend that one read up on the hairline entry point which struck at the base of the neck and thereafter "tunnelled" upwards* and slanting slightly to the left.

P.S. * "upwards" is a relative position and applies only when the head/neck is in the normal vertical position.

P.P.S. I do frequently enjoy observing those of the Multiple Assassin/CT persuasion, chase their own tail.

Glad you're having fun, Tom, but I get tired reading your long and repetitious posts which lead to an aimless journey into confusion. Do you want to have a crack at any of the non bullet wound questions? There's about 56 so far by my counting.

Tom

P.P.P.S. Check the tangential bullet entrance hole through the coat of JFK which is located immediately below the point where the collar turn-down is located, and thereafter compare this with the neck/base of neck/edge of hairline entrance wound in the neck of JFK.

Just might learn something!

It just seems strange to me that all Naval personnel were given an order "not to talk" about the events that went on that fateful day of Nov 22 1963.Did something sinister happen that our Government officials or Military leaders don`t want "We The People" to know about?

I think I can help you with this one, Mike.

The answer is, yes, something sinister most assuredly did occur that fateful day. Your Govt., military officials and your media conspired to murder the President and/or conspired to coverup that murder. Their loyalty to the killers outweighed their loyalty to the President and to that nebulous concept of justice. It's true.

Just answer 'because it was a conspiracy' to all the questions posed to far and you'll see. The argument supporting the WC requires suspension of disbelief barely possible for objective observers. The lone nut theory has become so fragile and brittle that none of its major supporters, like Gerald Posner, will ever show their faces on a thread like this. Even the fringe dwellers who argue so forcefully that photographs and films of DP were not altered have taken a hike.

p.s. looks like I spoke too soon. Tom's here. Bonus points if you can figure out what the hell he's talking about.

"O'Reilly was rude to a certifiable nut! How dare he!"

Um, you have watched his show before, right? Fetzer knew he wasn't there to play pattycake. Fetz is leveling some pretty serious charges, and O'Reilly cross-examined him quite devastatingly. The ex-professor did nothing but stammer, plug his website, and fade into a catatonic trance when challenged. It was almost as good as Groden on the witness stand in the OJ civil suit. That's what happens to the nuts when they leave their comfort zones. They fall apart under the weight of their own hubris. Nor is it particularly libelous to describe Fetz as an "anti-American loon." Why is it so hard to believe that there are Islamic jihadists in the world who wish the US and the West nothing but death and destruction?

Your last sentence is a good example of the media's presumptuous dishonesty concerning the so called war on 'Islamofacists'.

Islamic jihadists have a problem with America and Israel and the close allies of this axis, like Britain and Australia, unfortunately.

The 'west' is commonly added to widen the issue and create an 'us against them' mentality. Many western countries don't support the aggression of the US and Israel.

Most people in these countries don't support the US presence in Iraq. Why does the media imply that they have a stake in joining disputes they want no part in?

And that “those who were close by were asked the wrong questions…and if any of them actually provided information that was accurate and important on relevant topics they had their testimony changed”

Fetzer made these claims in a presentation about 9/11

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8648669617598919525&q=fetzer&hl=en starting at 38:45

Most of his claims about 9/11 were false so why should his claims about the assassination be any different?

Len

So Len, what's the point of this thread?

Are you trying to say that claims made by James Fetzer about 9/11 are equally applicable to the JFK assassination? The claims about DP witnesses being persuaded to see things the Governments way are many. See the posts from Bernice and Pat for starters. The tenuous connection between this and claims made about 9/11 is one you have yet to establish, IMO.

Are you using the knowledge of researchers on the Forum in order to contradict Fetzer and support an argument against him? Shouldn't you research the statements of the witnesses yourself? Much of it is already here--just use the Forum index.

Judging by your posts on other issues, you seem to be an expert on many subjects. It should be child's play for you to gather the necessary information from sources available online. You seem to handle this task with consummate ease when discussing other issues.

An expert on a wide range of subjects and a 'newbie' on this. Give me a break.

I'm beginning to regard your presence here with a degree of suspicion.

Get ready to pop the champagne.

My spies tell me Dubya has just been diagnosed with terminal stupidity--no cure.

The good news is that it's not contagious--except for those who blindly follow his brain-dead ideology.

Pop the bubbly.

Just published:

Justice for All: Earl Warren & the Nation He Made

http://www.amazon.com/Justice-All-Earl-War...n/dp/1594489289

From Publishers Weekly:

Starred Review. Los Angeles Times editor and reporter Newton delivers the definitive biography of Earl Warren (1891–1974) for this generation. Newton's masterful narrative synthesizes Warren in all his contradictory guises: the dynamic and outsized California prosecutor and attorney general whose own father's mysterious murder perhaps derived from that ambitious career; the man of great liberal instinct who (as a three-term Republican governor of California) insisted on the internment of Japanese-Americans following Pearl Harbor; and the hard-driving Supreme Court chief justice (1953–1969) who'd never sat on a bench anywhere, but nevertheless shepherded such historic decisions as that in Brown v. Board of Education. It was also under Warren that the Court articulated the constitutional right to privacy, abolished prayer in public schools, clarified and guaranteed voting rights for minorities and created a right to counsel in state criminal trials. As well, Warren served as head of the commission bearing his name and charged with examining the Kennedy assassination—an exercise Newton reveals as to have been part investigation, part experiment in public relations and damage control. In the course of his research, Newton has garnered extensive interviews with Warren's surviving colleagues and children, and uncovered significant new archival sources, all of which he marshals to great effect. For the first time, Newton portrays an intricately complex Warren who—though liberal in his interpretations of the Constitution and progressive in his agenda for America—remained far from radical in other respects. Using testimony of insiders who knew the man well, Newton brilliantly depicts the many-sided Warren as ferociously ambitious, smartly calculating in advancing his career, prickly and contrary when challenged and eminently attracted to both wealth and power. As Newton shows, the ardent judicial defender of the dispossessed summered at California's Bohemian Grove and made a point of dying a rich man. Warren, writes Newton, "was no Eldridge Cleaver," despite rhetoric by contemporary conservatives who routinely invoke him as the poster boy for "bad behavior" in the form of liberal judicial activism.

Michael,

Sounds like an interesting read.

Warren's an interesting historical character. One striking feature of his role in the JFK saga is the animosity some harbored towards him. When recieving the LBJ 'treatment', Senator Russell said something along the lines of 'I have no faith in Earl Warren and I won't sit on a commitee chaired by him'. Of course, Russell, like Warren, really had no choice at all.

For my part, Warren was a minor villain in a story of major villainy. He knew he was part of a coverup but was performing under the closest scrutiny. He didn't want the job and he knew it would permanently tarnish his contribution to and place in US legal history. When Lyin' Lyndon urged him to consider that 'the fate of the world is in your hands', I bet he felt like saying 'Don't talk xxxx, Mr, President'.

Remember Watergate? There were Republican factions who wanted Nixon out, Ford in.

There are anti-Dubya factions also.

That's the great thing with these types of CT the logic and the theories can twisted to fit the facts. OK so the Foley scandal was created by anti-Bush Republicans to get him, except that wait, he's not up for election this year and can never be reelected president (effectively ending his career in US politics, this scandal doesn't directly affect him and the scandal could help end the GOP majority in the House and (hopefully) even the Senate which would be bad for all Republicans.

I'm in the strange predicament of agreeing with Len here.

While I agree with Jack's Circus Maximus theory, I think the Foley scandal might be different.

Under normal circumstances, I would expect this would result in the end of Republican dominance of the House and Senate, but these are not normal times.

The culture of electoral democracy has particularly weakened the notion of politics. The idea that politics must necessarily take the form of a transparent, electoral and parliamentary democracy with eligible parties on the left and on the right, with a normal level of corruption instead of massacres, has perverted our sense of the stakes involved. One need not adhere to conspiracy theories in order to admit that oligarchic, and therefore antidemocratic, sovereignties and empires exist. Working to clearly define these phenomena is necessary for an effective reorganization of the left. The American program of "democracy for all" is all well and good, but it sounds like a missionary toasting at a cannibal banquet. The problem must be dealt with at its source. There can be no democracy without the victory of popular power over the oligarchy. (Alain Joxe)

50-60% of Americans are against the Iraq war now. They do not have a single senator articulating thier principles. Burke suggested that a representative not have to litterally represent the views of his constituents. Here in the US, we have trumped Ed: in our new theory of representation 1 senator out of a hundred can represent 40-60% of the population, and he can die in a small plane crash (Wellstone) as the wiser intonation of the general will are manifest in the new republic. Poli sci profs take note.

The net result? 60% might be for or against something passionately, but they will never get thier talking head on TV that is required to galvanize a general opinion into a clearly articulated policy option. This guy understands how American media- fascism works. Brown shirts not required, but definiately not excluded either.

The same is also true of the UK. The polls show high percentages against the invasion of Iraq, sending troops to Afghanistan, PFI, low-rates of taxes on the rich, high defence spending, etc. However, the two main parties, as in the US, do not reflect the public mood. As we have a system of first past the post, only these two parties can form a government. Not surprisingly, the British public has become politically apathetic (the same thing appears to have happened in the US).

The main reason for this state of affairs is the corruption of the political system. As in the US, the same people are funding both political parties. They both want the same sorts of things. For example, low rates of tax on the rich, high defence spending, PFI contracts, low wages, globalization, etc.

The UK, like the US, is now run by an oligarchy. This oligarchy currently controls both political parties. There is evidence that the oligarchy is currently trying to gain control of the Liberal Democrats. (See today’s conference’s vote on taxation).

However, it is not all doom and gloom. The internet is undermining the power of the oligarchy to control our political information. Tony Blair will soon have to resign. Potentially, over 2 million will have a vote in this election (all members of trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party can vote). Maybe we can get a prime minister who can free himself of this oligarchy.

This is a very good point. Many people may disagree strongly with the Government about policy issues, but if there is broad agreement from the major parties about an issue (let's say globalisation, for example), then the alternative argument gets starved of oxygen. Only independants or minor parties dare raise the issue. If they do, they are swiftly condemned by the media as radical or out of touch. The media points to the policy positions adopted by minor parties on unrelated issues to discredit them on issues which may have a genuine public resonance. It's unfair and highlights the limitations of the current western democratic systems. The democratic system has failed to keep pace with the needs of a rapidly changing society.

The British and American systems of parliamentary representative democracy were not designed to operate in the current environment of wholesale corporate capture. Corruption of the political process has resulted in the democratic system becoming grotesquely warped. The question of what is fair and just for the average citizen has been transformed into a question of what is fair and just for the corporation, right in front of our noses. Politicians are elected by us to act on behalf of us. The fact that wealthy corporate interests now own all the politicians (except for some free thinking independants) means that we have been effectively squeezed out of the process. Politicians fight like Kilkenny cats to gain favor with wealthy corporate donors. Once this is done, the pitch for the public vote becomes a banal succession of tiresome cliches. The politician's primary loyalty is to his corporate donors.

Just a question:

Why would DCM wave with his arm streched up to the max? Wouldn't it be more natural to wave with your arm extended forward, rather than all the way up? To me it looks more like a signal for something than an innocent wave.

A very good point.

To me, it doesn't look like an enthusiastic greeting from a fan of the President. I agree with you that it looks much more like a signal.

The evidence continues to mount up.

Mark,

It would be interesting to hand over the DCM and UM material to an unbiased jury and see what they decide. I speculate such a jury would unanimously conclude that both were involved. (ie.conspiracy)

The photo evidence is damning enough, especially the fact that they appeared to behave differently from almost every other onlooker AFTER the assassination occured. Add to this the fact that they subsequently disappeared into thin air (I don't believe the Louie Witt story) and what you have, in the absence of any further information on these two, is guilt beyond reasonable doubt, IMO.

Mark,

I agree, it would be interesting to have a disinterested group examine this particular situation. I have to disagree with you about the outcome -- their behavior is suspicious in light of what just happened in front of them, no question about it.

But what could a jury find them guilty of? Holding something that looks like a communication device? Seriously, what offense could you even charge them with? Not grieving? Not running for cover? Not being stunned by the shooting? They're just sitting there.

Normally 'just sitting there' would hardly be called suspicious behavior. However, considering what they have just witnessed, how close they were to it and the reaction of all the other witnesses in close proximity, I do consider it very strange and unusual.

And many people blended into the crowd and into the mist of history that day, not just them.

You said "in the absence of any further information on these two, is guilt beyond reasonable doubt" - Mark, do you really believe that? Guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

The reason I'm hammering the point is that it's vital not to either maximize or minimize the importance of any particular detail without proof.

Mark, I believe the photographs of DP are the closest thing to proof we are ever going to get.

If you're willing to convict these two for just sitting there, I'm sorry, that leaves me speechless. Which may be a good thing.

If a hypothetical jury had to decide whether or not they believed these two were involved, based on what information is known, I think they would conclude that they were involved. It's not only their strange behavior, it's also the fact that they vanished after November 22. DCM was the closest witness to the assassination. Why wouldn't he want to share with others what he saw?

and I won't even consider that this guy and TUM were not operational or operational diversion.

Peter,

I totally agree with you on everything you say on this issue. If ever any evidence were needed to prove a conspiracy, it's the photos taken of DCM and TUM. It's so darn obvious...

--Thomas

_____________________________________________

You don't know what the man is holding, you are only guessing. And yet you are utterly convinced that these photos prove a conspiracy? Wouldn't it be more prudent to simply state that the photos are suggestive of unusual activity and leave it at that? Have you ever served on a jury? Would you like to be convicted based on someone's hunch?

You can't tell anything with certainty from these fuzzy photographs.

MV

Mark,

It would be interesting to hand over the DCM and UM material to an unbiased jury and see what they decide. I speculate such a jury would unanimously conclude that both were involved. (ie.conspiracy)

The photo evidence is damning enough, especially the fact that they appeared to behave differently from almost every other onlooker AFTER the assassination occured. Add to this the fact that they subsequently disappeared into thin air (I don't believe the Louie Witt story) and what you have, in the absence of any further information on these two, is guilt beyond reasonable doubt, IMO.

Good post, Sid. Very interesting indeed.

I hope your optimism is well founded, but there's still 10 days or so till October 16 so Tony Judt might still get the night off, IMO.

Good move posting the Sun article. It might end up as a rare collector's item.

The Romans invented it. They built a Coliseum where Christians

were thrown to lions and gladiators fought to the death. It provided

entertainment for the masses while distracting from the abuses

of the emperor.

The powers behind the govt have long used DISTRACTION as one

of their most powerful propaganda tools.

My theory is related to PLANNED MEDIA EVENTS used to distract

the public from REALLY IMPORTANT EVENTS. Really important

events are pushed to back pages by indiscretions of a congressman.

Anthrax is sent to various people, relegating important news to

bare mentions. A sex pervert is brought back from Asia to face

10-year old murder charges, and who knows what events of that

week were really important? The media is regularly manipulated,

sometimes to distract from other things.

Next time there is a BIG WORLDWIDE MEDIA EVENT, stop and

ask yourself..."is there something really important that this is

stealing the headlines from?"

Jack

I tend to agree, Jack. Stories are sometimes manufactured to hide nastier issues from public scrutiny.

In this case, however, it's surprising that the Republican-friendly media would highlight an issue which is so damaging to the Republicans, unless they plan to limit the electoral damage by claiming the Monica Lewinsky affair was equally scandalous. If so, they are seriously insulting the public's intelligence. The Mark Foley scandal is far worse.

They seek him here,

They seek him there,

Those 17 FBI agents and 10 postal inspectors

Seek him (almost) everywhere!

With such a massive number of people on the case, the culprit's as good as caught.

Nice article by Matt Hutaff. Yes, where are all the flowery commemorations of the victims?

I think this case has a decidedly pungent odour. Hypothetically, if Zack is the culprit, several interesting scenarios emerge. Was he a lone nut or, dare I say it, part of a wider conspiracy?

If the latter, then who would be leading candidates for conspirators? I think I might have a rough idea who.

All wild speculation, of course.

Well, Arnie put the kibosh on the hemp bill:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2...ies/03local.htm

Those hapless farmers in California don't know what they're up against. The DEA has become an uncontrollable bureaucracy, impervious to logic or reason. Another problem for plantation hemp is the fact that it requires no pesticides. Good for the environment but very bad for the manufacturers of these products.

At least it's proven one thing--Arnie's got his eye on the White House.

It's approximately FIVE years since, in the aftermath of 9-11, a terror scare was unleashed on the USA that killed a few innocent victims and created a stampede in Congress to pass the first version of the PATRIOT Act.

For nearly the same length of time, it's been clear that:

(i) there is an obvious suspect who should be interrogated and held to account.

(ii) the US Government has no intention of 'solving' this crime - although it is willing to ruin the lives of innocent people as a diversionary tactic.

(iii) the mass media is effectively complicit in the criminal cover-up and also has no inention of seriously following up on this story and exposing the truth.

To many of us dubious about the Government version of 9-11 but doubtful inside forces could be so outrageously criminal and so widely supported by the mass medai, the obviously phoney nature of the anthrax attacks and subsequent media follow-up helped clinch the matter.

I was under the impression that civil cases may be brought in the USA in cases one might usually expect dealt with by the criminal justice system. The second OJ Simpson trial is a case in point.

Isn't it time for Americans with sufficient resources to support the anthrax victims' relatives and friends and help bring a civil case against Dr Philip Zack?

There's been so little media follow up of this matter that I almost forgot it had occured.

I think you're right Sid. It stinks horribillus. Like so many other things.

All this and he's Bush's best buddy, too. What a winning team.

The interesting point is whether the Labour Party will be able to survive the Blair scandals. It's the kind of bad publicity that can put a party in opposition for a decade.

The last thing you need is a decade of crazy-ass Tory policies.

Maybe there's hope for the party. The post from Michael Meacher on this thread was impressive:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7829

From Wikipedia: "In politics, right wing, the political right or simply the right, are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum often associated with any of several strains of conservatism, the religious right, libertarianism, fascism or simply the opposite of left-wing politics".

Using this definition, most of America's population would have been classified as right-wing, because left-wing, socialist and communist were odious epithets in the 50's and 60's.

That's why I believe your claim that right wing Jews of any stripe were few and far between back then is dopey. Your request that I provide a list of right wing Jews is equally silly.

You're quoting Wikipedia, are you serious? Couldn't you find a definition from a more definitive source? Or did you look at several and cherry pick the one that best suited your argument? You even cherry picked (not coincidentally I would suggest) the last part of their definition. Definitions of the phrase in the order I found them:

American Heritage Dictionary

1. The conservative or reactionary faction of a group.

See

right

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...ntry/right+wing

Right noun - 3. often

Right

1.The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called

right wing

.

The opinion of those advocating such measures.

Webster's Dictionary

Function:

noun

1

:

the rightist division of a group or party

2

:

RIGHT

8

http://m-w.com/dictionary/right%20wing

8 a

often capitalized

:

individuals professing support of the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and conservative governmental policies

b

often capitalized

:

a conservative position

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

right wing

•

noun

1

the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system. see

LEFT WING

.

2

the right side of a sports team on the field or of an army.

— DERIVATIVES

right-winger

noun.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rightwing?view=uk

7

(often

the Right

) treated as sing. or pl. a group or political party favouring conservative views.

So right wing is a relative expression and the standards of the US in the 50s and 60s Jews were overwhelmingly not right-wing.

Even if we would accept the definition of your favored source you are pinning your hopes and the last part of the definition "the opposite of left-wing politics". And how does Wikipedia define "left-wing politics"? Read it yourself.

"In

politics

,

left-wing

,

the political left

or simply

the left

are terms that refer to the segment of the

political spectrum

typically associated with any of several strains of, to varying extents,

socialism

,

anarchism

,

communism

,

social democracy

,

progressivism

,

American liberalism

or

social liberalism

, and defined in contradistinction to its polar opposite, the

right

."

Did you simply not bother to click the link to check how Wikipedia defined "left-wing politics" or did you see it and conveniently ignore it?

No, I didn't want to get the thread too sidetracked with tedious definitions of left and right wing politics.

Conservative is normally associated with right wing. Now prove that conservative Jews were few and far between in the 50's and 60's. You said it. You prove it.

The evidence suggests the vast majority of American Jews supported "American Liberalism" traditionally 90 of them voted for the Democratic party though (unfortunately) those numbers have dropped to 60 -75%

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_co...Republicans.htm

In the 1960's Nathan Glazer, a (liberal Jewish) sociologist, wrote "Jews are the most liberal group in the country,"

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/FalkBooklet.pdf pg. 10

In 2000 a Historian who teaches at San Francisco State University concluded in a book publish by Princeton University.

"For over sixty years, Jews have ranked as the most liberal white ethnic group in American politics, figuring prominently in social reform campaigns ranging from the New Deal to the civil rights movement. Today many continue to defy stereotypes that link voting patterns to wealth."

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6952.html

My request is not silly, if my assertion is so obviously wrong you should easily be able to come up with contrary evidence rather than simply assert it is self evident.

Yes, many Jews have been active social reformers and many traditionally vote Democrat. But that's not what you said, was it? You said "rightwing Jews of any stripe were few and far between then". Prove it. Good luck.

In any case equating a racketeering outfit with a political organization is a bit of a stretch. Did Lemnitzer hang out with Mickey Cohen?

Why is it 'a bit of a stretch'? This was a perfect example of politics and racketeering acting in concert. Raising funds for Israel was a perfectly legitimate cause for the Jewish underworld to embark on, IMO. I think it was a worthwhile patriotic cause. Remember, this was well before America became Israel's financial and military underwriter.

I don't know whether Lem hung out with Cohen. Future Israeli PM Menachem Begin did--and he was a suspected terrorist at the time.

You have yet to turn up evidence that Cohen, let alone his gang as a group were right-wing let alone extreme right.

It's "a bit of a stretch" because as Norman pointed out (specifically in the case of Lansky) mobsters generally are not political their only interest in politics and politicians is how it and they can further their criminal enterprises.

Thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious. Of course the main reason criminals infiltrate political parties is to further their criminal enterprises. Luciano and Lansky used their influence to help FDR win the Democratic nomination in '32, for example.

This example alone shows the folly of your statement "equating a racketeering outfit with a political organisation is a bit of a stretch". Racketeers have dabbled in politics ever since Prohibition made them rich enough to do it.

If you think equating racketeers with political parties is a bit of a stretch, you are more naive than I thought.

I doubt the author of that line about Lemnitzer had criminal organizations in mind.

Mark so far you have utterly failed to turn up any evidence of pro-Israel extreme right groups in the US in the late 50's early 60's, let alone ones that Lemnitzer associated with.

I don't have to because that's not what I said, was it? You've failed to show that right wing groups cannot be pro-Israel. That's the debate. You've totally failed to prove your highly questionable hypothesis.

"Until recently you were denying the existence of the Kosher Nostra."

Straw man

You can call it a straw man but it's still an accurate statement, isn't it?

1 – We're talking about the late 50's early 60's rightwing Jews of any stripe were few and far between back then.

Do you seriously believe such a dopey statement or are you just kidding me?

OK prove me wrong, I didn't say rightwing Jews didn't exist just that weren't very many. If I'm wrong you should be able to cite an extensive list of rightwing Jews in the US and the names of rightwing Jewish organizations from that period.

From Wikipedia: "In politics, right wing, the political right or simply the right, are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum often associated with any of several strains of conservatism, the religious right, libertarianism, fascism or simply the opposite of left-wing politics".

Using this definition, most of America's population would have been classified as right-wing, because left-wing, socialist and communist were odious epithets in the 50's and 60's.

That's why I believe your claim that right wing Jews of any stripe were few and far between back then is dopey. Your request that I provide a list of right wing Jews is equally silly.

(Mark) "The posted reference to Lemnitzer being pro-Israel is something I have read before. I believe it's probably true."

(me) I've read that 1) the Holocaust never happened,2) man never walked on the Moon and 3) Earth and the Universe were created by "intelligent design" before and many people believe these ideas are "probably true". Provide evidence that your belief is true. Even if true which extreme right pro-Israel groups did he associate with to the exclusion of extreme-right anti-Semitic groups?

(Mark) This rant proves nothing except that you'll go to great lengths to defend Israel from any implication in JFK's assassination.

No, I was pointing out a logical fallacy, one could say they have a) read something before and believe to be true about just about anything thus it proves nothing. Even IF Lemnitzer was pro-Israel that wouldn't implicate Israel. I assume he supported the government of Australia too.

Agree. If Lemnitzer was staunchly pro-Israel, it doesn't necessarily implicate Israel in the assassination. However, if he was, it would be worth noting for the record. That's all I'm saying.

(Mark) "As I said before, right-wing and pro-Israel are not mutually exclusive."

(me) Straw man fallacy

(Mark) "Really? So you're now on record as stating that being right-wing and pro-Israel ARE mutually exclusive. That's a big call. Ridiculous, but a big call anyway."

No, look up the meaning of, 'straw man argument' (or fallacy), a straw man argument is when you refute an argument not made by the person you are debating with. I never said that "being right-wing and pro-Israel ARE mutually exclusive"

Fine. I'm glad we agree that right wing and pro-Israel are not mutually exclusive.

(me) You might be confusing Lansky with Bugsy Siegel who helped raise money for and smuggle arms to the Jews in Palestine after WW2 40's. But I have never heard he was political one way or the other either and since he was killed in 1947 it is highly unlikely he was involved with extreme right groups in the early 60's.

(Mark) "Seigel's successor Mickey Cohen was heavily involved in supporting Israel well beyond this period. His regular Hollywood companion was Menachem Begin."

Cohen and Begin were both violent men with similar ethnic backgrounds; can you show that they associated because of shared politics or any indication that Cohen and his gang would otherwise be considered "extreme right" in the US? This quote from your previous post seems to indicate Cohen didn't know or care much about the differences between Israeli political factions.

"Anyway, he (Begin) makes a speech and after him just about everybody made a speech. It just goes on and on. Afterwards, these other guys from the Haganah, another underground outfit, start arguing with Begin about who's going to handle the money. So Mickey chips in and its agreed that his rabbi will handle the money and Mickey will buy guns and ammo and ship them over there"."

In any case equating a racketeering outfit with a political organization is a bit of a stretch. Did Lemnitzer hang out with Mickey Cohen?

Why is it 'a bit of a stretch'? This was a perfect example of politics and racketeering acting in concert. Raising funds for Israel was a perfectly legitimate cause for the Jewish underworld to embark on, IMO. I think it was a worthwhile patriotic cause. Remember, this was well before America became Israel's financial and military underwriter.

I don't know whether Lem hung out with Cohen. Future Israeli PM Menachem Begin did--and he was a suspected terrorist at the time.

Until recently you were denying the existence of the Kosher Nostra. At least we're making progress.

Len

In April 1961 Gen Edwin walker was fired from his post by President Kennedy. He was accused of encouraging far right wing elements within his command, and distributing JBS/KKK propaganda to the troops, he was, at this time, a member of both the JBS, and the KKK. Senators including Albert Gore ® suspected that Chief of staff Lemnitzer was was also involved with Walkers extremist right wing beliefs.

Nat, is this what you mean?

Stephen, I was familiar with the Walker stuff. What I had heard much less about was Ford and Lyman in 1975. It seems an interesting appointment made by a member of the Warren Commission at a time when there may have been some worry that legislative oversight of the CIA might finally prove to be something other than an oxymoron. Any signs that this appointment was related to the assassination?

The bit about Lemnitzer being on the Rockefeller Commission is interesting, it goes beyond conflict of interest and makes one think of line about the fox and the hen house but Ford probably didn’t know about O. Northwoods. Didn’t they reveal MLK/Ultra?

Most right-wingers are strongly anti-Communist, wouldn't you say?

Yes and?

"As you point out, many right-wing groups were (and still are) strongly anti-Semitic, hence most unlikely to be pro-Israel. However, what about right-wingers who are Jewish?"

1 – We're talking about the late 50's early 60's rightwing Jews of any stripe were few and far between back then.

Do you seriously believe such a dopey statement or are you just kidding me?

2 – There is a difference between "extreme right" and "right" you did notseem to have understood my last post reread it.

"Most of Israel's strongest American based supporters were anti-Communist both then and now."

Logical fallacy a)"Most right-wingers are strongly anti-Communist" "Most of Israel's strongest American based supporters were anti-Communist", therefore many (most) supporters of Israel are right wingers, um no because one can be anti-Communist and not be a right winger. John Simkin and Peter Lemkin have gone on record here as being anti-Communist (or at least anti-Soviet) most American (and I believe European and Australian) progressives of that period were anti-Communist.

Most of the early Neocons were Trotskyites or leftists back then and most Jewish Zionists still are leftist or liberals and were overwhelmingly so in the period we're talking about.

"The posted reference to Lemnitzer being pro-Israel is something I have read before. I believe it's probably true."

I've read that 1) the Holocaust never happened,2) man never walked on the Moon and 3) Earth and the Universe were created by "intelligent design" before and many people believe these ideas are "probably true". Provide evidence that your belief is true. Even if true which extreme right pro-Israel groups did he associate with to the exclusion of extreme-right anti-Semitic groups?

This rant proves nothing except that you'll go to great lengths to defend Israel from any implication in JFK's assassination.

"As I said before, right-wing and pro-Israel are not mutually exclusive."

Straw man fallacy

Really? So you're now on record as stating that being right-wing and pro-Israel ARE mutually exclusive. That's a big call. Ridiculous, but a big call anyway.

"And yes, I can cite an extreme right group from that period which was pro-Israel. The Lansky crime syndicate. Not exactly bleeding heart left-wingers, were they? "

Another logical fallacy (your 3rd or 4th)"extreme-right" is not the only alternative to "bleeding heart left-wingers". Can you provide any evidence that Lansky was political one way or the other let alone rightwing let alone "extreme-right"? I've never heard anything along those lines. I would imagine that he was basically apolitical and if he took interest in politics at all it was only to further his "enterprises" i.e. he would be more interested a how amenable candidate was to doing what he wanted than his politics. Even if he was political was his gang as a group political. Have any evidence he was especially pro-Israel in this period?

You might be confusing Lansky with Bugsy Siegel who helped raise money for and smuggle arms to the Jews in Palestine after WW2 40's. But I have never heard he was political one way or the other either and since he was killed in 1947 it is highly unlikely he was involved with extreme right groups in the early 60's.

Seigel's successor Mickey Cohen was heavily involved in supporting Israel well beyond this period. His regular Hollywood companion was Menachem Begin.

Unless you can cite any evidence in support of your position this is my last post on this question, our discussion is becoming circular.

Nice closer. In the final analysis, your argument that the terms 'right wing' and 'pro-Israel' are mutually exclusive is as false now as it was when you first posted it.

A few months ago you asserted that Meyer Lansky was an insignificant underworld figure, a claim you quickly backed away from.

I give you points for consistency.

I seem to have gotten the colors mixed up in my last two replies. Apologies for the posts confusing appearance.

According to his biography 'Little Man', Lansky was very active raising money for Israel.

Thanks for that Norman. I guess I was wrong about that. What I really meant to say was that Lansky only started supporting Israeli later in life. If you still have the book handy or have a good memory I have few questions:

When did he start raising money for Israel? Was this an individual effort or did he involve his gang?

Was he particularly political? If so what were his leanings? Did involve his gang in his political activism?

Did Lemnitzer have any dealings with Lansky or his gang?

To make a long story short is there any truth to Mark’s contention that Lansky’s gang was an extreme right pro-Israel organization in the late 50’s early 60’s?

Lansky's group was first and foremost a criminal group. However, as Lansky's syndicate was mostly Jewish, many had strong feelings about Israel.

From Mickey Cohen's memoir, Mickey Cohen: In my own words:

"Now I got so engrossed with Israel that I actually pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this Irgun war. It's a nature of mine, see. Either I go whole hog or nothing".

Other excerpts from Cohen's memoir have previously been posted on the Forum.

From Jimmy Frattiano's memoirs:

"After Cohen's little speech we start moving around the room and Mickey's rabbi introduces us to a guy called Menachem Begin, who's the boss of the Irgun, an underground outfit iin Palestine. The guy's wearing a blaqck armband and tells us he's wanted back there for bombing a hotal which killed almost a hundred people.

Anyway, he makes a speech and after him just about everybody made a speech. It just goes on and on. Afterwards, these other guys from the Haganah, another underground outfit, start arguing with Begin about who's going to handle the money. So Mickey chips in and its agreed that his rabbi will handle the money and Mickey will buy guns and ammo and ship them over there".

From Gary Wean's There's a fish in the Courthouse:

"At that time the rabbis were pushing them hard as hell to squeeze every bit of dough they could get out of Hollywood for Israel. Menachem Begin was spending more time in Hollywood hanging aroung Cohen than in Israel. Begin desperately wanted to know what Kennedy's plan was for Israel if he became President"

Len

Ah, you slipped one in there, Len. There's no rule book which says 'right wing' and 'pro-Israel' are mutually exclusive, to my knowledge.

Mark the extreme right were and are a subset of the larger rightwing movement or perhaps even a separate movement, they accused Ike and other Republicans of being "Communist agents".

Perhaps there were one or two small Jewish groups or a couple that had a few Jewish members but the extreme right in the late 50’s early 60’s was overwhelmingly anti-Semitic and consequentially anti-Israel. Groups that weren’t anti-Semitic would probably had been put off by the fact that it was governed by Socialists. Can you cite any extreme right groups from that period that were pro-Israel? Even if such groups existed they would have been a small minority and Lemnitzer would have had no reason ally himself with them to the exclusion of the larger movement.

Israel becoming a cause celebre among the right is a relatively recent development which came about with the advent of the neo-cons which happened around the same time as a pronounced rightward shift of Jews in Israel, America and elsewhere. But even now extreme right groups to the right of the neo-cons are still ardently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.

Len,

Most right-wingers are strongly anti-Communist, wouldn't you say?

As you point out, many right-wing groups were (and still are) strongly anti-Semitic, hence most unlikely to be pro-Israel. However, what about right-wingers who are Jewish?

Most of Israel's strongest American based supporters were anti-Communist both then and now. The posted reference to Lemnitzer being pro-Israel is something I have read before. I believe it's probably true.

As I said before, right-wing and pro-Israel are not mutually exclusive.

And yes, I can cite an extreme right group from that period which was pro-Israel. The Lansky crime syndicate. Not exactly bleeding heart left-wingers, were they?

It's difficult to say which way a new Government will move when it's comprised of a coalition of four different parties. Moving too quickly in any direction may cause the coalition to fracture.

However, it's probably safe to say that the free market ideology will be adopted. It's popular with 'right of centre' Governments. If, as Anders says, the media is already behind them then this is a major concern. It means the new Government won't have to fully justify its arguments to the public---the media will help do it for them. This has been a feature of Australian politics for the last decade. It has enabled the conservative Government here to install a political paradigm which basically reads: "What's good for Corporate profits is good for the country". Now, while this is true up to a point, it has implications which can be detrimental to the wider community.

The first implication is that the economy must be modified to adapt to 'the new global marketplace'. Supporters of the globalisation philosophy argue that the Government has a duty to assist Corporations to compete in this new, tariff-free environment by removing many of the costs which currently encumber them. Corporations, by their nature, oppose collective bargaining and centralised wage-fixing systems and always push for the dismantling of such systems, arguing that the cumbersome, bureaucratic nature of these structures harms their competitive potential. Replacing centralised wage-fixing with individual contracts and enterprise agreements is more efficient, they argue. This may help Corporations and their shareholders, but it will leave many employees in a very poor bargaining position and will quickly erode their income-earning potential, and consequently their standard of living.

Another implication of the Corporatist dogma is that Governments are duty-bound to privatise all major Government institutions. Here in Australia we have seen the privatisation of Government owned banks, insurance companies, airlines, airports, electricity companies and the partial privatisation of the Government telecommunications company. A recent attempt to privatise the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority, which provides much of the water supply to southeastern Ausralia was aborted due to community opposition to the plan. People realised that water is a basic human need and should not be in the marketplace, especially in the world's driest inhabited continent. The only public assets the Corporations don't want to own are the relatively unprofitable ones like public schools and the postal service. When Governments relinquish their role, the public are at the mercy of the marketplace. Unlike Governments, Corporations have no duty to the public.

In Australia, Corporations lobby the Government to underwrite infrastructure costs which should rightly be borne by the Corporations. The Government here is considering a $100 million training package to address the apparent skills shortage. While Governments have always played a role in training, it seems that the Corporate sector would like to offload its role and place the burden squarely on the taxpayer. Even profitable mining companies, who in the past built entire towns and all the ancillary infrastructure, are now reluctant to absorb costs such as housing and roadbuilding. There is a major housing crisis in some northwestern mining towns, despite the availability of lucrative employment opportunities. Some mining companies feel they have no duty to provide this infrastructure and argue the cost should be sheeted home to the taxpayer, despite record profits being earned and dividends paid.

All these factors, combined with other forms of Government largesse, such as generous tax breaks and subsidies to Corporations, eventually cause a major redistribution of wealth from the lower to the upper strata of society, IMO.

Hopefully, the Swedish public won't allow the Government to become a victim of complete Corporate capture (as in America). When Corporations fund the political parties, and by extension own the political process, they tell Government, "Don't spend taxpayers money on the public---spend it on us".

Any country boasting such an enviable welfare structure is too smart to let this all happen, IMO. I hope the Swedish political system resists sweeping reforms.

Apologies--regarding the Time cover story concerning the US plan to blockade Iranian ports. The full article is only available online to Time subscribers.

From the same issue, here is an article about Hugo Chavez's speech to the UN in New York--in which he refers to President Bush as the devil. Worth reading:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1537357,00.html

Chavez is one of the world's great statesmen, IMO.

The current issue of Time magazine contains an interview with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recently conducted in Havana. It's fascinating stuff. Also, there's a story outlining a plan for possible military action against Iran.

It's hard to believe America would contemplate such an action on behalf of Israel, but these are strange times.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...35827-1,00.html