Mark Stapleton

John, Michael Collins Piper has some interesting things to say about Colby. Quoting his book "Final Judgement" (pp353-357): "The August 20, 1996 issue of The Sun, a supermarket tabloid, carried an exciting 'newsflash' which announced, "Dead CIA Chief Was Set To Finally Blow Lid on JFK Assassination". The tabloid announced that former CIA director William Colby had been planning to blow the whistle on the truth about the assassination. Although the tabloid provided no evidence whatsoever that this was the case, there is no question but that Colby's strange demise did give many people--not just so called conspiracy theorists--reason to pause. Colby himself had indeed made cryptic remarks about the JFK assassination in one interview shortly before his death, so perhaps there is reason for suspicion. ....The fact is, that while serving as CIA director, William Colby was considered hostile to Israel's interests, so much so that it was Colby who fired the Mossad's longtime agent-in-place at the CIA, James Jesus Angleton, who has been documented in 'Final Judgement' as the key CIA player in the JFK assassination conspiracy. Evidently, most press reports at the time, describing Colby's sacking of Angleton, didn't tell the whole story. However, according to Wolf Blitzer, longtime Washington correspondent for the Jerusalem Post: 'CBS News back in 1975 reported that Angleton had lost his job in December 1974 because of policy disputes over Israel and not because of allegations of CIA domestic spying as originally reported...[and that] Angleton was said to have argued with CIA director William Colby over Middle East policy questions as well'1. In fact, according to Blitzer, it was one week before the New York Times first published a story by Seymour Hersh alleging that the CIA was engaged in domestic spying that Colby told Angleton he could no longer handle the Israeli desk at the CIA after which Angleton resigned--effectively forced out by Colby. As early as 1967 Angleton's behavior had become so bizarre that on one of Angleton's trips to Israel, John Denley Walker, the CIA's station chief in Israel, believed Angleton 'was on the edge of a nervous breakdown'. CBS News reporter Daniel Shorr has described meeting with Angleton shortly after he had been dismissed by Colby. According to Schorr, Angleton 'rambled on circuitously, the conversation disjoined. He had been to Israel thirty times. He had never met Howard Hunt. Angleton added that: 'For twenty two years I handled the Israeli account. Israel was the only sanity in the Middle East. As Angleton's ravings continued, Schorr decided that Angleton was 'really crazy'. Schorr said that Angleton 'went on speaking almost as though I wasn't there'. 'He was talking as though he was looking into his own mind'. Wolf Blitzer has written about how many high ranking CIA officials didn't share Angleton's enthusiasm for Israel, citing Colby as a specific example: 'In 1975, for example, there was an increasing concern among Israeli intelligence officials over what appeared to be a growing pro-Arab tilt among several senior analysts in the CIA. The November 1975 closed door testimony on the Middle East arms balance offered by outgoing CIA director William Colby was one of the first indications of this attitude. Colby, who had just been dismissed by President Ford, but was asked to remain in office until his designated successor, Ambassador George Bush, returned from China and won Senate confirmation, argued in his testimony that the balance of power was shifting in Israel's favor. Colby's testimony, which disputed figures offered by Israeli officials, was widely seen as having damaged the Administration's own pending request before the Congress for $1.5 billion in military aid for Israel during that fiscal year'. In the Spring of 1996, Colby contacted a veteran journalist whom he knew to be friendly with top Arab diplomatic, military and intelligence officials and requested that the journalist arrange for Colby to meet with a certain high-level Arab official.2. The first meeting was held at the exclusive (and now infamous) Watergate Hotel in Washington DC. According to a former federal security administrator who attended one of the meetings, Colby and his Arab associate 'had shared concerns. Both men knew that their respective Governments were being infiltrated and manipulated by Israeli agents. Following these meetings, Colby agreed to go to work as a confidential advisor to Arab interests'. It is interesting to note further that Colby's death came at a critical time when the Israeli lobby in Washington was engaged in a major behind-the-scenes effort to substantially expand the power of the CIA and its then director, John Deutch, a Belgian born Jewish refugee and longtime Washington figure known for his close ties to Israeli intelligence. The so called reform measures were of such a nature that a genuine CIA reformer such as Colby would have emerged as a very loud and public critic of such proposals. On April 24, 1996--two days before Colby disappeared--a little noted Senate committee vote laid the groundwork for a bizarre and unprecedented proposed restructuring of the US civilian and military intelligence system. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, pushed through a vote on a measure to extend the author of the CIA director to control the budgets of all US intelligence agencies, most of which were then under the purview of the military divisions. Under Spector's proposal, the CIA director would have been granted the authority to play a major role in the appointment of the directors of various intelligence agencies, including those inside the Pentagon. This would have put Deutch in control of not only the CIA but also the NSA, DIA and the National Reconnaissance Office, as well as the Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force intelligence groups. On April 25, the Washington Post commented that, 'such a radical change is likely to run into strong opposition not only from the military services themselves but also from other Congressional committees with Pentagon oversight. The Senate Armed Services Committee has already sent a letter to Specter saying it wants to hold off any action on any of the reforms that would limit the powers of the Pentagon, such as proposals to give the CIA director a role in the naming of agency heads'. In fact, in the end, the CIA power grab orchestrated by the Israeli sympathisers in Washington was defeated but in the meantime the man who would have been one of its most effective opponents--William Colby--had been removed from the scene. 1. Wolf Blitzer: Between Washington and Jerusalem. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), p.89. 2. Author's interview with Andrew St. George, the journalist who arranged the meeting.

Dropping all the lower case words leaves you with: (October 15); "RUNNING MAN". LEE. (October 16); I WANT "THE RUNNING MAN". LEE. (October 17); I'VE "THE RUNNING MAN". LEE. It's a message.

I'm sure it's a tie-in to the movie. Lee Remick is begging for her "Running Man" to come back. In the movie she plays the wife of Laurence Harvey, who may have inadvertently just played a different Lee in the Manchurian Candidate. He fakes his death in an insurance scam and goes on the run. Sounds very plausible Pat - but why not use the name 'Stella' in that case? It's not Lee Remick doing the begging, it's her character? - lee Lee submitted his job application with the TSBD on October 15. It was a coded message, sent three days in a row, confirming the patsy was being positioned. IMO, of course.

It doesn't look good. Israel's rockets are now reaching the Syrian border and the Hezbollah rockets are hitting numerous Israeli cities. It seems to be an Israeli/Syrian conflict being played out in poor old Lebanon. How many times are they going to have to rebuild Beirut? The Arab League has given the 'peace process' the last rites and the coward who calls himself Australia's Prime Minister has yet to condemn Israel's disregard for civilian deaths--now 100 and rising. The only thing our Prime Minister says, over and over, is, "It's Hezbollah's fault, it's Hezbollah's fault". He's no statesman, he's a poodle.

If Brendan's political orientation is typical of Washington's new breed of opinion leaders and movers and shakers then it's a more scary place than I had previously imagined. Don't think I'll visit the US again.

Good idea! I wish I had thought of that sooner. I hope it's not too late to get started. The odds maybe stacked against you, Ron--unless of course you, too, can attach two lobbyists to every member of the US Congress and spend millions corrupting politicians to legislate favorably. Never fear, I can loan you ten bucks to get you started. (And don't worry, according to Craig, corruption is an ever present human condition)

Jack, The resemblance between George Bush and Lance Link is striking. I like your style.

Getting a little hysterical aren't we, Brendan? All John's done is create a new category in the index section--something he does periodically. Boy, what a performance!

The thing that surprises me is that some right-wing extremists like Brendan Slattery are not concerned by this corruption. I always thought conservatives were always in favour of keeping government spending down. Yet, when they get in power, like Reagan and the Bush dynasty, they always seem to have large budget deficits. This is partly because they reduce government revenue by cutting taxes on the rich (as a reward for financing their campaigns). They are always very good at cutting government spending on health and education but always increase spending on the military. This again pleases their financial backers who are rewarded with lucrative contracts. I suspect Brendan Slattery is really a left-wing activist who is trying to discredit George Bush. Surely the Republicans could have found a more intelligent person to defend their record of corruption. Ha--yes, the old disinformation double agent routine. I don't know whether your suspicion is right, John, but its quite strange that a person of Brendan's obvious intelligence can't put two and two together. Another quick observation (slightly off-topic rant): Governments are elected by the people but then act on behalf of those who financially support them--not on behalf of the people. Allowing private donations to political parties allows these donors to interpose themselves into the political process and effectively disenfranchise those who elect the Government. Political donors, mainly Corporations, exert disproportionately high influence on Government policy. Democracy is still the best form of Government, IMO, but this is a critical weakness in the system. Unless this problem is addressed, parliamentary democracy, as currently practised, cannot claim to be the best way to organise society. There's got to be a better way. Banning donations to political parties seems the best solution, IMO.

I am afraid your memory fails you. This is the story of what is now called the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap). In 1992 Dick Cheney, head of the US Department of Defence, gave a $3.9m contract (a further $5m was added later) to Kellog Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract involved writing a report about how private contractors could help the Pentagon deal with 13 different “hot spots” around the world. The KBR report remains a classified document. However, the report convinced Cheney to award a umbrella contract to one company to deal with these problems. This contract, which became known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap), was of course awarded to KBR. It is an unique contract and is effectively a blank cheque from the government. KBR makes it money from a built in profit percentage. When your profit is a percentage of the cost, the more you spend, the more you make. KBR’s first task was to go to Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope. KBR arrived before the US Army. Over the next few months KBR made a profit of $109.7m. In August 1994 KBR made $6.3m in Rwanda. Later that year they received $150m profit from its work in Haiti. KBR made its money from building base camps, supplying troops with food and water, fuel and munitions, cleaning latrines and washing clothes. The contract came up for renewal in 1997. By this time Cheney had been appointed as CEO of Halliburton. The Clinton administration gave the contract to Dyncorp. The contract came to an end in 2001. Cheney was now back in power and KBR won back the Logcap contract. This time it was granted for ten years. The beauty of this contract is that it does not matter where the US armed forces are in action, the KBR makes money from its activities. However, the longer the troops stay, the more money it makes. KBR is now busy in Iraq (it also built the detention cells in Guantanamo Bay). What is more Halliburton was given the contract for restoring the Iraqi oil infrastructure (no competitive bid took place). Cheney sold his stock options in Halliburton for $30m when he became vice president. He claimed he had got rid of all his financial interests in Halliburton. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) discovered that he has been receiving yearly sums from Halliburton: $205,298 (2001), $162,392 (2002), etc. They also found he still holds 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton. John, Good post. There's nothing arm's length about awarding defence contracts. Anyone silly enough to argue that the system hasn't been corrupted just has to look at the plain facts. War makes money. Why doesn't the mainstream media ever point out that fact?

I agree. Israel's response to the second kidnapping is over the top. Unless the US pressures Israel to cease hostilities, war with Syria and Iran is will come any day now, the UN being routinely ignored in matters like this. Bush has stated Israel "is entitled to defend itself" so he may be hoping for an excuse to join Israel in declaring war on Iran. That would probably cause major global economic problems as the oil price surges. Unfortunately, the idea that this might all be part of a contrived scheme to both take over the Middle East oil supplies and destroy opposition to Israel can't be discounted. Many would baulk at such a suggestion but when you look at the players involved, it starts to seem not so unlikely. (The quote from Moshe Dayan in Sid's post shows why I believe Israel would have had no qualms about organising and/or participating in the plan to remove JFK. Dayan was JFK's contemporary and it was this mindset he was determined to confront.) I think this is a very important thread.

Uh huh. You're a smart guy, John. Tell the rest of us dummies what it's really all about. Hmmm. In a poll conducted in January for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, Iraqis were asked, among other things, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US- Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?" 77% say it was worth it, while 22% say it was not. Overall, 64% of Iraqis say that Iraq is heading in the right direction, while just 36% say it is heading in the wrong direction. This represents a sharp upward movement from when the International Republican Institute asked this question in November 2005 and just 49% said that Iraq was headed in the right direction and 36% said the wrong direction. But of course! Um, these two men do not unilaterally award contracts. But please continue with your insane rant. You wanna know why? Because they're GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. That's why they get hired. And they're willing to go places other companies aren't. They were a multi-billion dollar company well before this war. They didn't need the Iraq contract to get into the black. Uniform makers too. Their bloodlust must be stopped! You're wondering why they supported a candidate who was on their board of directors?? You can't be this dense. Contractors overcharging their clients? That's right up there with "dog bites man." Curiously, you want the Guantanamo savages to have every legal benefit of the doubt/consideration, yet you're all too eager to pronounce Halliburton guilty. invasion liberation There was competition. They won the bid. If they overcharged, they will be rightly punished. What company doesn't dream of market advantages? Microsoft sure does. Who was bribed, John? Sounds like you're sitting on some bombshell info. Please share. No, I'm much more concerned about left-wing, America-hating British academics who have access to young, impressionable minds. I'm concerned about the wholesale slaughter of innocent Indian commuters that killed 200 and wounded 700. I'm concerned about home-grown Muslim extremists in the UK and North America. I'm concerned about the cowardly and craven European reaction to Muslim cartoons. I'm concerned about the pathology of hate in Iran, North Korea, and Palestine. I'm concerned about The New York Times's incomprehensible and indefensible publication of two classified anti-terrorist programs and the Times's haughty, imperious defense. Why is the Left making it easier for terrorists to kill Americans? Ostensibly, they are "protecting our freedoms." The one glaring - and unconscionable - exception? The freedom to live. Brendan, The tactic employed by the US forces from the start of the Iraq war was to DESTROY THE INFRASTRUCTURE. So from day one it was power stations, Government buildings which controlled sewage, health etc which were targeted. Curiously, the oil ministry was left untouched. The plan called for Halliburton to then step in and rebuild Iraq's devastated infrastructure at ten times the price. Alas, the emergence of suicide bombers put a stop to Halliburton's profit forecasts. What a shame. Yes, it was about money....and oil. Liberating the people from tyranny? Give me a break. Iraqi's can't even stand in line for a job without risking being killed. You seem to uncritically accept everything NBC, CBS, Foxnews etc. tells you without searching alternative media for corroboration. You just don't know what the hell's occuring.

Thanks for the heads up, John. So we're going to see it at last eh? (SAT NITE, July 15, 7.30pm, SBS) (Just thought I'd repeat it for the Aussie readers). After all that's been written on this thread, I'll be very keen to see it but at the risk of prematurely judging it, I'm already inclined to agree with Robert Charles-Dunne's comment way back in post #27, namely that it merely provides employment to "a cottage industry of Castro-did-it flakes and flunkies". RCD has a great turn of phrase.

Great to see Chaney's being hung out to dry. Bush and Rumsfeld must follow. The US War College told them but they wouldn't listen. They could only see the dollars: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0112-01.htm

Douglas, Thanks for that. The interview with Abe Bolden will be a fascinating feature, although I don't trust the NBC. I wonder if Abe will talk about his claim that he discussed the breakdown in SS security with SS Chief Rowley in person about two weeks before the assassination? About the same time Rowley wrote the article in the November '63 Readers Digest stating how easy it would be to assassinate a President with a high powered rifle. See Bolden thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6064 I'm very interested in what Abe says.

Frankly, I'm here to pick up women. The crazier the better. Some other reasons: 1. To laugh at Jack's latest photographic "revelations" 2. To roll my eyes at the anti-US/Bush/Republican poison that bleeds into almost every thread 3. To shake my head in disgust when innocents like LBJ, Nixon, and Bush Sr. are implicated as possible conspirators 4. To monitor Simkin's flat out obsession with American flaws and wrongdoing, real and imagined (mostly the latter) 5. To recoil when a non-secretive, wonderfully useful outfit like YAF is likened to Nazi Youth 6. To study pathological behavior P.S. I have stood in DP and it is quite small. Small enough for one man to do the deed. #2: So you interpret criticism of Bush and the Republican Party as anti-US poison? You're taking patriotism to its ugly extreme. #3: Innocents like LBJ, Nixon and Bush snr? Chortle. #4: John Simkin's 'obsession' with American flaws and real and imagined wrongdoings? Yes, well I guess you probably classify Vietnam and Iraq as perfectly justified adventures. I'm mightily pissed off with the US Government's behavior over the last 43 years too as it happens. Ditto the CIA, the US oil, banking, and pharmaceutical industries and the military industrial complex, which diverts billions annually from US taxpayers to feed its global presence. My strongest criticism is for the US media. I hate their guts because they create people as blithely ignorant and arrogant as you.

Er, excuse me. It so happens that you're the one who pushes the dopiest crackpot theory in history, ie. the ridiculous LN theory. You wear the crackpot crown. Don't go around accusing others of pushing crackpot theories---you're the crackpot guru.

Sad also to see one Argentinian player offering a German player a fist rather than a handshake at the end of the game I saw this incident. While I don't condone it, I can understand the frustration of the Argentinian players. The referee was penalising or even yellow carding tackles by Argentinians and allowing similar tackles by German players. Taken in isolation, these incidents appear to be trivial but when aggregated they amount to a substantial advantage, IMO. If visiting teams aren't going to get a fair deal from referees and line officials, then why should they be gracious and polite after the game? Why don't FIFA save time and just award the trophy to Germany now? If England meets Germany in the final, you would expect the referee to call the game as he sees it, not as the crowd wants him to see it. You might be in for a nasty surprise.

Well, Germany's into the last four but I hope the other teams who play Germany don't have to endure this kind of refereeing. Germany's equaliser was a good goal but prior to that the referee was handing Germany all the close calls. It's supposed to be the world's greatest global sporting event so it shouldn't be marred with blatant displays of home town refereeing like the one witnessed here. IMO, the better and more skillful team lost. The referee was more interested in being popular. Football was the loser.

That's football. I was pleasantly surprised to see Australia dominate the second half, although Italy were a man down. Italy's defensive capabilities are renown but their failure to create more opportunities in attack indicates they will struggle against creative attacks like those of Brazil, Spain and Argentina. I doubt Italy can win the tournamant but they only have to get past Ukraine to make the semis, so they might go a bit further. Ukraine's attack seems to depend solely on the 80 million dollar man, so Italy might successfully blot him out. I can't see Italy defeating a team that has five or six elite players who can fire cannonball shots from medium or long range. Italy don't have the attacking power to reply in kind.

John, Just two conclusions can be drawn from your post: 1. You are now leaning towards Sicilian Mafia involvement in the assassination or 2. You have been misinformed as to where the World Cup is being played.

Were girls wearing mini-skirts that common in November 63? It thought it took off a bit later. FWIW.

First Nazis, now kamikazes. What is it with you people and irresponsible WWII imagery? Here's the bottom line: Dawn compared the United States to the Third Reich, and no one here batted so much as an eye, save for me. You can have your differences with the Bush Admin and still recognize that this is a hideous, STOO-PID, undeserving slur. My conscience is clear. BTW, I was the first person to respond to this thread and did so completely on-topic, point by point. I didn't ruin this thread; others did. It's very interesting that you display such righteous indignation at the mention of the words "nazi" and "kamikaze". What's the story?

Best game of the tournament, IMO. Great intuitive speed passing, shooting and amazing saves. Rodriguez's extra time winner--stunning.

Pat, I've never understood how Tom could adopt these two seemingly incompatible scenarios of lone assassin and subseguent WC obfuscation and present them as a cohesive argument. But I'm not a genius like Tom. Great post. I ,too, have become decidedly scintilla averse. "There's not one scintilla of evidence" always sets off alarm bells. Tim used to say that.