Mark Stapleton

Sid, Agree 100% (sooner or later we'll find something to disagree on). I am often stunned and aghast at the self serving lies and hypocrisy contained within the war on drugs stance adopted by so many legislators and commentators, who are owned lock, stock and barrel by the same interests which benefit from prohibition. Prohibition now serves as a gravy train for a vast conga line of hangers on: More police to investigate and apprehend the (drug) criminals, lawyers to act for them in court, more prisons and prison staff to house the increasing prison populations (70 to 80 percent of whom are there for drug related crimes), more insurance and home security devices to protect against theft from drug addicts who steal in order to pay for drugs at black market prices, and a greater than necessary burden on hospitals and ambulance services in order to treat overdose victims and drug related assault victims. The DEA in America has now become a huge and costly bureaucracy hostile to any attempts to contain it. Prison building in the US is big business, too. The DEA also influences drug policy in other countries. What does the public get for this massive investment? Illicit drug use at record levels, billionaire drug barons amassing arsenals of stolen weapons, massive police corruption, a much higher tax burden on the public and inexperienced kids dying in the streets or having their future propects diminished through drug convictions. Sounds like a rotten deal to me.

Mark, I somehow doubt it, these crazies believe they are going to be "raptured away"to sit at Gods right hand throughout the Earthly tribulations. What is truely terrifying is that many in this nut-job neo-con administration, Bush included, believe in essentially the same thing. Makes the Regan admin seem tame by comparison. Hi Steve, Abolish religion and most of the world's problems go away.

The decriminalisation of drugs is certainly a controversial topic. I have believed for a long time that the 'war on drugs' is a sham designed to line the pockets of parasites within society. Decriminalising drugs puts the drug lords out of business--immediately. It also benefits society in many ways. It doesn't make it a perfect society, just a better society, imo. The following is an article by Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief and now a board member of LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition): http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/39565/ Any thoughts are appreciated.

San Antonio televangelist Pastor John Hagee wants the US to preemptively strike Iran in order to fulfil a biblical prophesy. A European antichrist has to be included. Enter the EU. Maybe this will shake followers of evangelical Christianity out of their slumber: http://www.alternet.org/story/39748/

It's a bit strange how Castro has managed to stay on top for so long. His popularity with his people might be the crucial factor. Also, the fact that more than half his reign encompassed the cold war period, with America more interested in building weapons superiority rather than direct confrontation with the USSR through invasion of its close ally. However, there's been a lot of wealthy people waiting for a long time to get back in, so maybe Castro does hold an Ace.

John, Cynthia McKinney sounds like a politician of substance. Of course its ridiculous to brand someone as anti-Semitic for merely questioning America's current Middle East policy. Anyone in America brave enough to question America's wholesale support for Israel's actions in Lebanon risks being branded as such, in these decidedly dodgy times. I must confess that I was unaware of the media's attempt to smear McKinney until you brought it to our attention. It's disgraceful of course. Apparently the mainstream media is attempting to marginalise 'independent' thinkers in the Democratic Party in an attempt to mould that party into a pale reflection of the Republicans, thus giving the electorate no choice at all, really. The question of America's Middle East policy is important and it's a debate Cynthia McKinney shouldn't shy away from (I'm not saying she does, btw). Sooner or later America must face this question. It may be just one of many progressive policies she advocates, but it's one of the most important, IMO. You're getting a close-up look at 'democracy' in action Thanks for your posts keeping us informed, btw. Maybe you should write a book about it all.

I'm not certain but I think Holt drowned. The problem with a conspiracy scenario is that the conspirators would have had no certainty about who would succeed him. William McMahon was favored to win the subsequent leadership ballot but it was won by John Gorton, McMahon becoming PM three years later upon Gorton's resignation. Their policies differed, Gorton leaning more to the left. The famous 'all the way with LBJ' tour of Australia in 1966 was organised by Holt and the US Ambassador. As for Holt having second thoughts about Vietnam, I don't know. I can't really see CIA complicity in Holt's death.

Jack Ruby a communist? Seems unlikely. Mob connected since youth, suspected of drugs and gun smuggling, then a nightclub owner prone to violent outbursts, with his staff often the target. He never stated his advocacy of the working classes. He was never known for his anti-capitalist sentiments. He lived and operated in the middle of nut country, committing a string of offences with seeming impunity, due to his connections with the DPD and perhaps beyond. His general demeanor is erratic. He's a candidate for psychopath and psychotic. As for being a communist, the evidence seems to be thin.

Yes, I agree with Evan's opinion of Gough (pronounced Goff). He was a great PM. The introduction of universal health care was his greatest legacy, IMO, although he also did great things for indigenous Australians with the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Council and the handing back of much Commonwealth land to its traditional custodians. A few things impacted adversely on his time in office, IMO. After 23 years in opposition, most of the incoming ministers had never been in Government and had sat on opposition benches for many years. Few were media savvy and Gough's time in office was peppered with scandals involving ministers. The OPEC oil shocks of the early seventies also caused high inflation which was exacerbated by Gough's loose fiscal policy. Australia had seldom seen such free spending Governments and the media fanned the flames of an electorate which was soon suffering from reform fatigue. One particularly bitter media criticism concerned the Government's purchase of Jackson Pollock's painting 'Blue Poles' for the National Gallery for $1 million. Of course, it turned out to be the Gallery's shrewdest investment (now valued at about $100 million, I think). The ACTU, led by future PM Bob Hawke, also did Gough no favors. The militant fringe of the union movement called many strikes in support of pay claims considered unreasonable by those in the non union sector. With the backdrop of high inflation, a credit squeeze largely blamed on the Crean budget of '73 which caused high interest rates, Government scandals and a media driven perception of Gough as haughty and imperious, the last thing he needed was an overly militant union movement. Ironically, one of Hawke's first actions on becoming PM in '83 was to introduce Government mandated national wage accords between unions and employer groups, which minimised the potential of union militancy doing the same thing to him. A great PM, who dragged Australia across 20 years of much needed change in just three. As with many reformist Governments, he exceeded the electoral 'speed limit' and paid the price exacted by a very conservative electorate. I've got no doubt your research on the CIA's involvement in Gough's sacking by the Governor-General is close to the mark. The Pine Gap issue really rankled our American allies.

Great timeline, Michael. Thanks for posting that. At last--an honest investigation.

Another 57 dead from the bombing of a building in Qana. Connie Rice told to get lost (she denies it of course). Israeli PM says Israel might need 'another ten to fourteen days' to achieve its aims. Nice going Israel, you murderous scum. How about the 411 members of Congress who voted in favor of Israel's continuance of hostilities, against 8 against. So much for those who say Israel doesn't control the US Congress. http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25251&l=i&...size=1&hd=0

More odd sexual innuendo. A week ago, I was accused of 'masturbation' on this forum. Whatever next? Paeodophilia? The truth is that Len started this thread - not me. He may very well prefer to confine debate to 'faux arts students in Florida' or some other distraction, but his intent was clear: to suggest that massive Israeli 'intelligence' penetration of American society is purely mythic. If he can also insinuate that the suggestion arises from malice alone, so much the better... A confession. I have no real idea what the 200 Israeli spies were doing in the USA between 2000 and 2001. How could I? The authorities in the USA simply want to forget about the whole incident. Israeli ain't saying. The mass media is not following up. In any case, this particular Israeli spook 'operation', while significant because there were so many arrests (it was by far the largest 'intelligence' bust on home soil in US history), is in the past. More important, perhaps, to consider more current events. In this context, I recommend a couple of recent articles by Christopher Bollyn, an investigative journalist who writes for American Free Press: Israelis Hold Keys to NSA and U.S. Government Computers Ehud Olmert's Ties to 9/11 _____________________________________- A short quote from the former article: Here's an extract from the latter: Bollyn recently began a weekly two-hour radio program - the archives are freely available HERE. Bollyn's interview with international lawyer Francis Boyle (second half of second hour on July 28th) is especially recommended. Sid, I just listened to an hour of Bollyn's radio show from the archive link you posted. The interview with Professor Boyle was fascinating. It provides a great insight into the way the Israelis and their neocon buddies in Washington view the Middle East. Israel considers Palestinians to be a lower life form, unworthy of protection within the Geneva Convention provisions, which is why they sought to have them excluded. The two articles by Bollyn were also interesting. Thanks again. It seems that America's defence and security is inextricably tied to Israel. Maybe its time for Israel to become the 51st state, or more accurately, for America to declare it is merely a colony, wholly controlled by Israel.

Sid, Thanks for posting that piece. Strong words indeed. There'll be hell to pay when Americans eventually realise how they've been decieved into blindly supporting Israel's every move, regardless of its morality and damage to America's credibility in the wider global community. Over the last 40 years or so Israel and its multitude of influential supporters in America seem to have cleverly embedded within the American psyche the idea that what's good for Israel must be good for America. There seems to be some kind of prevailing paradigm, which stretches from the intelligensia down to the person in the street, that criticism of Israel is somehow immoral, regardless of how outrageous Israel's actions become. There's a similar situation here and in Europe but its nowhere near as strong, IMO. European leaders regularly criticise Israel, mostly with justification. I guess if I lived in America there's a chance I might subscribe to the 'Israel is on God's side' argument too. But from here in Australia, America's endless pandering to Israel sticks out like the proverbial dog's balls. It might also explain the reluctance of American members of this Forum (with a few notable exceptions) to express their concerns about an ally who has clearly slipped over the edge. They don't want the anti-Semite tag, or any other label inferring immorality.

It's quite incredible. Of course, Rupert Murdoch and friends try to ensure that the American public only get to hear one side of the debate. Hezbollah = Terrorism = Evil is the theme hammered home in all Murdoch's media outlets. All his 200 odd newspapers supported the invasion of Iraq. He's strongly pro-Israel. War and carnage also sells newspapers and increases ratings. It's win win. My opinion of Murdoch is unprintable.

Very interesting pieces from Owen and Peter. I notice the US didn't veto UN resolution 425 calling for Israeli withdrawal in 1978, when Carter was President, but they did veto a resolution in 1985, when Reagen was President. I also remember Carter being critical of Begin during the peace talks between Israel and Egypt during that period. America's brief flirtation with impartiality during Carter's administration must have alarmed Israel greatly. No matter, it's been all one way traffic since.

This guy is a little pessimistic for me. He also fails to take into consideration the economic consequences of such a strategy. Against that, you should never underestimate the stupidity of the Bush regime: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0724-21.htm

I came across this yesterday in an Oklahoma State University student publication: http://www.ocolly.com/read_story.php?a_id=30268 Does anyone have any idea what LBJ tape(s) about the Liberty the writer is talking about? Nice find, Ron. I suspect the writer is using a bit of 'student poetic license' there. I've never heard of anything like this on the LBJ tapes. LBJ always removed incriminating evidence. I would be keen to find out the author's sources. Sadly, from what has been revealed in the last 30 years about LBJ's activities, I wouldn't put it past him. Hezbollah was reportedly using the UN post as a shield to launch rocket attacks. If true, then a tactical decision was made to remove the shield. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...a9-7f94d5fc6d50 Very interesting. If true, then Kofi Annan was right. They were told repeatedly that the observers were in the shelter. That would make it murder--and another war crime.

Five myths supporting Israeli war crimes: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0725-35.htm

A disturbing post. The major difference between the Liberty incident and the killing of the UN observers is that there was no internet in 1967. Besides the statements of those involved, there was only the mainstream news media so this issue was silenced by LBJ and his friends by threatening retribution for those who spoke out. Even if they did, the media, deeply sympathetic to the Israeli cause, wasn't interested. That's why the Liberty story was never really fully exposed and analysed when it occurred. The fact that the victims of the Liberty attack were all Americans also made it easier for LBJ to cover for Israel. Actually, the death of the observers could turn out to be a disaster for Israel as it will prompt more thinking people to circumvent the mainstream media and find out what Israel has actually been doing to the Palestinians. The US/Israeli propaganda machine only gives us the story from the Israeli perspective but the internet provides the opportunity to look beyond the superficiality and get a glimpse of the real story. Of course, the internet can be spiked also, but more politicians and opinion leaders (those not captive to the Israeli lobby, that is) are beginning to speak out. Hopefully, we're getting close to critical mass. The old fighting terrorism line is wearing very thin. It can't justify the mass slaughter of civilians and constant oppression of civilian populations. It's all total bullxxxx. The Jewish terrorists of pre-Israel days called themselves warriors in the noble struggle for Hebrew liberation. What's it going to take for the world to see the double standards being employed here?

Thanks John. I knew I'd read somewhere of JFK wavering and LBJ's subsequent insistence and (perhaps) reassurance. I'm not going nuts, after all. Question for all: Who might have overruled the Advance Man? And who is the mysterious SA Glen Bennett, assigned to the WH detail on November 10, who lied to the HSCA about not being on the Miami trip and whose contemporaneous notes buttressed the notion that JFK was hit from behind?: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/02-VP.html Anyway, back to the main theme of this critical thread. Do we have consensus that September was the month that the trip was extended to include November 22? The reason I ask is that if Cliff Carter is the only source then I remain skeptical. This is the man who was a longtime LBJ aide and who called Waggoner Carr, Jesse Curry and Henry Wade (3 times) on the night of the assassination to reinforce the lone nut scenario, adding that any conspiracy talk could be a great threat to America's security. I don't trust his statements at all. The other thing which is critical to this thread is establishing LBJ's exact movements from the October 4 argument with Governor Connally up to the assassination. We have the Murchison party on November 21 but that's hotly disputed and its the rest of that 7 weeks that is of major importance, IMO. That's a critical period and it seems hard to pin down with certainty. Apparently he was 'ranching' it. The Dallek bio I have doesn't have anything. Maybe the voluminous Caro bio or Larry can tell us more. Why don't the official bios reveal more? Did he need 7 weeks at the ranch to plan this two day extravaganza? btw, this is pure speculation but I believe the reason LBJ was so annoyed with JBC at not being told about the October 4 meeting till afterwards was because he didn't want JBC and JFK to inadvertently change the delicate arrangements he was putting in place. Dawn, did you actually post that message you were given about DNC man Jack Puterbaugh? If so, which thread is it on--sounds interesting.

The IDF was reportedly reminded 10 times of the UN peacekeepers presence. Still they copped a direct hit. I can't see the IDF deliberately hitting them because there's no military or political advantage in doing so. However, if it was not deliberate then it's a shocking display of carelessness. Is the IDF that careless? As far as world opinion is concerned, this war is going very badly for Israel. The death of the peacekeepers means the PR battle is comprehensively lost, IMO. China is furious and demanding an explanation from Israel. I'm keen to see what excuse John Howard comes up with for his dear friends in Jerusalem. What an embarrassment this man is.

I agree Sid. The sad thing is that they'll convince gullible people in the West that they're being fair and reasonable (because the Western media will say this is so, of course). Israel and the US have zero respect for the sovereignty of other nations. That's an undisputable fact. Under the dubious pretexts of spreading democracy, liberating them from oppression and eradicating terrorism (a problem mostly of their own making), our allies have sunk to the status of global cowards and bullies. The emperor is buck naked and what an awful sight it is. From today's Sydney Daily Telegraph comes this quote from Connie Rice during her visit to Sydney four months ago: I do think we were hurt by sixty years of turning a blind eye to the absence of freedom in the Middle East. But we have a different course now and I believe over time the people of the Middle East will see that that's a course supportive of their aspirations. My interpretation of this garbage is: We are in deep trouble. We want that oil--ALL the oil, before China gets a sniff. Because of the way Israel and the US have behaved in the region since WW2, there's no chance of us getting it peacefully so we're just going to take it by force. But don't worry friends--we'll say we're bringing freedom to the region. Ain't that hilarious? We get the oil and Israel gets to destroy its regional enemies. It's win win. BTW, if you're not with us, you're against us. That should keep you all in line.

(This isn't my discovery by the way, thanks go to Francisco Gil-White's latest article, although he draws all the wrong conclusions from this.) EDIT: I've just found some additional interesting information. Apparently Israel conducted a joint "tactical exercise" with NATO about a month ago (its first). IDF AND NATO STRENGTHEN TIES "For the first time since its founding in 1949, NATO will fully integrate Israeli naval forces into a military exercise, Arutz-7 reported. Israel has previously only been allowed to observe such exercises. The military exercise will take place in the Black sea off the coast of Romania. The exercise will involve simulated combat between missile boat fleets as well as search-and rescue drills. Senior IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers said that the NATO mission was designed to strengthen ties between Israel and the alliance and to look into possibilities for future military cooperation. Some analysts have speculated that Israel would apply for membership in the NATO alliance, but IDF officials have indicated that formal membership would limit Israel's ability to apply military force independently, as it sees fit." (source) From the Jerusalem Post: Israel in first NATO tactical exercise "The purpose of the exercise, explained Lavi, was to create better interoperability between the Israeli Navy and NATO naval forces. To do that, the exercise practiced communicating between the fleets and emphasized how the different independent systems on each boat worked in concert with one another." (source) Owen, Well that is very interesting. It would seem that there's a larger strategy being employed here. The US can't wait any longer. Control of the entire region, with Israel as a willing ally, would seem to be the big picture. Maybe the concern over Iran's pending nuclear capability has forced their hand. Once Tehran has this capability, there's no way the US and Israel could throw their weight around like this.

This only emphasizes the fact that the UK no longer has an independent foreign policy. Blair/Beckett refused to condemn the actions of the Israelis (Blair called it regrettable) or to call for a cease-fire. Whereas the rest of the world, including officials of the United Nations pointed out that Israel’s action was completely out of proportion, and some rightly argued that the bombing of civilian areas in the Lebanon was a war crime. Rumours began to spread that Bush had given Israel seven days to smash the infrastructure of Lebanon. As it turns out, it seems it was ten days. Today US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has suggested that Bush is now ready to accept a cease-fire. A few hours later Blair claimed he was now in favour of an “immediate cessation of hostilities" in Lebanon. There was no need for Blair to issue this statement. All we need to do is to read the ones issued by the White House. I agree, John. It seems this has been a joint US/Israeli effort to establish Israel as a regional superpower. Ultimately Syria and Iran are the targets. Blair and that other poodle John Howard just follow like sheep. The outcome for Lebanon is that this smoking wasteland will become a rich breeding ground for terrorists. I've read that many fleeing Lebanese have stated they are now prepared to give their lives for Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. As if the US and Israeli Governments didn't know this would be one of the consequences. They would be more than happy to see this occur, IMO. A cynic might suggest that the fanatical Christian neocons in Washington and the equally fanatical zeolots in Tel Aviv are dragging the world into some kind of biblical Armagedden prophesy. Bush has already claimed that his orders come from a "higher power". When the smoke clears, I wonder who'll get the contract for restoring Lebanon's shattered infrastructure? War on terror indeed. Create the terrorists, then drag the western world into a war on them. Make billions while you're at it. I know who the "axis of evil" is.

Ron, From the info you posted, it would seem that the details of the Texas trip itinerary had not been finalised before Connally's meeting with JFK on October 4. This would make the period October 4 to October 14 the critical time during which the motorcade was appended to the schedule. Can Cliff Carter's claim that the motorcade was added in September be verified?