Mark Stapleton

From reading this thread, it seems that the biggest problem is that there has been too much influence exerted by military industrialists to drag the US into theatres of war all over the globe as justification for the enormous and unneccesary largesse granted them by their friends in Government. There's also too much free passage of civilian MICIC members into influential Government positions (Fred Korth for example), which further reinforces the strong alliance between Government and the MICIC.

In Australia this couldn't happen because the Ministry is drawn from sitting MP's, not outsiders. Of course, this doesn't preclude influential friends from outside the Government being appointed to head statutory authorities and important commissions of enquiry, which happens all the time.

This practise of using Government policy and the American taxpayer to allow a small group of military industrialists to amass huge wealth was obviously threatened by JFK, which makes the MICIC or certain elements from within the MICIC prime suspects in planning JFK's assassination.

Today, so much money is being allocated for military expenditure that the US has little left for important social programs (some form of universal health coverage for example) which would benefit its rapidly expanding underclass. Amazingly, this is despite the fact that since the end of the Cold War, the US has not been seriously threatened by enemies, except for those enemies the US has made because of its own greed and exploitation.

It's so bad now that there's little point in Americans voting at all because everyone knows that the Government is merely the loyal servant of the MICIC. FWIW.

In regard to this story, I think I saw it mentioned in one of the TV docos I've seen over the years. I also believe I read about it on one of the JFK sites I've visited over the years. Unfortunately I don't remember where. It's an obscure little story and doesn't get a mention in most JFK sites. I'll keep searching and if I find it mentioned anywhere, I'll post the link. Judging by the lack of reponse from the Forum, it's probably just a fabrication.

I've heard the story over the years that someone ran out into traffic on Turtle Creek, waving frantically and attempting to warn the president. Unfortunately, I can't search for the story on this forum as I have a midnight flight to Cozumel. But I seem to remember the issue being discussed in conjunction with the story of an SS agent having been killed that day.

Tim

Tim and Lee,

Thanks for the info. I think it was that Salandria article where I read about it. Could the man who (reportedly) jumped out at the limo on Harwood Street with a warning to JFK be the same Mr. Robertson, missing presumed dead SS Agent?

The dead SS Agent story just won't go away. It's interesting that the official denial from Asst. Treasury Secretary Wallace only refers to the assassination scene, not other areas of downtown Dallas.

That movie "Paradise Now" is given a very high rating of 7.8 on IMDb, so it's no turkey.

The story of the man who, before the motorcade had reached Dealey Plaza, broke through the cordon and ran alongside the Limo warning JFK of what was going to happen before being hauled away.

Was that a fabrication or is there evidence that this occured?

Mark,

Could you provide a link or two to this as story, allegation or rumor?

Thanks,

John Gillespie

John,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Been busy over the weekend. In regard to this story, I think I saw it mentioned in one of the TV docos I've seen over the years. I also believe I read about it on one of the JFK sites I've visited over the years.

Unfortunately I don't remember where. It's an obscure little story and doesn't get a mention in most JFK sites. I'll keep searching and if I find it mentioned anywhere, I'll post the link. Judging by the lack of reponse from the Forum, it's probably just a fabrication.

Well, I goofed. David Gilbert was on tonight--I thought they said he would be on in two weeks. Anyway, he ran second to an expert whose special subject was Thomas the Tank Engine. Gilbert played well. One thing I learned was that the color of JFK's limo wasn't black.

Criticising the actions of the Israeli Government doesn't make you anti-Semitic.

Has anyone (other than you) suggested or implied that it does?

Yes. I've seen it employed quite often. Critics of the Israeli Government often get accused of anti-Semitism.

Thanks for the link, Andy.

You have to give him points for answering his critics. Livingstone's comments regarding the usefulness of the Standards Board were refreshingly direct.

Seriously though, I think Livingston has a point. Criticising the actions of the Israeli Government doesn't make you anti-Semitic, any more than criticising the actions of the British Government makes you anti-British. There's a false link there.

Many Governments get criticised. Look how many critics the Bush Government has here but that doesn't make the critics anti-American. You should be aware that the Israeli Government has done some pretty wacky things over the years, worthy of criticism, IMO. Livingstone's well within his rights to discuss issues such as these.

I believe Livingstone's suspension was harsh. I also think that banning plays from the theatre and attempting to have movies removed from the Oscar awards is a backward step and reflects badly on the Jewish lobby. Corrie was killed by Israeli forces while they were demolishing Palestinian settlements and the Jewish lobby has to face that fact. Should such a story not be told just because it may reflect badly on Israel? No way.

Basically, I agree with the main argument of this thread. Jewish pressure groups are wielding too much power and in some cases are using that power quite irresponsibly.

The story of the man who, before the motorcade had reached Dealey Plaza, broke through the cordon and ran alongside the Limo warning JFK of what was going to happen before being hauled away.

Was that a fabrication or is there evidence that this occured?

It is clear that some members have difficulty with using the “quote” feature of the Forum. Therefore, here are some basic instructions on how to do it. Select the post of the person you wish to quote. Displayed below each post on the far right is button that says “REPLY. If you press this button, an extra text field will appear in the main text input box. At the top it will look like this:

Below will be the text from the posting you wish to reply to. This will include the following:

In order to get the desired effect it is important to make sure that you leave in

as this seems to be the main mistake people are making.

You then type your reply under quote. Press ADDREPLY when you are finished.

Please use this thread to ask for help concerning the use of this Forum.

I felt the crosshairs centtering in on me when I read this post....talk about embarrassing.

Thanks for the tip and I will try to get it right. Bear with me.

Chuck

Well, I still don't have any luck. I pressed reply and then addreply when finished...?? Arrgghh..i'll try later.

Please use this thread to ask for help concerning the use of this Forum

It is clear that some members have difficulty with using the “quote” feature of the Forum. Therefore, here are some basic instructions on how to do it. Select the post of the person you wish to quote. Displayed below each post on the far right is button that says “REPLY. If you press this button, an extra text field will appear in the main text input box. At the top it will look like this:

Below will be the text from the posting you wish to reply to. This will include the following:

In order to get the desired effect it is important to make sure that you leave in

You then type your reply under quote. Press ADDREPLY when you are finished.

Please use this thread to ask for help concerning the use of this Forum.

Don't worry Chuck, I can't do it either. I suspect it's a conspiracy to make fools of us.

Question: What about the "wrap in a quote" icon, second from the right, up top. Is that used?

Who's acting like Nazis here?

No one.

The Nazi approach to "justice" is not meaningfully comparable in either of these very diverse cases and it is disingenuous to claim that it is.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc.../peoplesct.html

What I meant was, in Livingstone's case, it seems there was no deliberate attempt to cause distress to Jewish people so the punishment is excessive, IMO.

We have also the recent case of David Irving being imprisoned in Austria for making a speech questioning the Holocaust. Laws like this have been passed all over Europe after campaigns by Jewish pressure groups.

Codswallop!

The law Irving was tried under dates back to the immediate post war period and is a reflexion of the revulsion most people felt at that time (and thankfully some still feel today) when confronted by antisemitism.

Livingstone was suspended for bringing his office into disrepute.

I must confess I'm not fully familiar with all the details of either the Livingstone or the Irving issue. Regarding Livingstone's suspension, how does merely using the expression "concentration camp guard" in an analogy bring his office into disrepute? He must have said more, otherwise the Standards Board and Jewish Board of Deputies are incredibly oversensitive and narrow minded. Who's acting like Nazis here?

I always thought he was a very popular figure. His congestion tax innovation is something we could do with here in Sydney, btw.

His promises to rebuild New Orleans have proved as empty as many of his other promises about Iraq, saving Social Security, etc.

There was a short film on New Orleans on BBC news the other night. I was amazed by the state of New Orleans. It seemed there had been no attempt to clear up the mess. They spoke to one woman who was trying to continue to live in this completely destroyed neighbourhood. As she was being interviewed a coach arrived full of holidaymakers who had paid to be taken on a tour of the devastation. The woman clearly became distressed and said that she felt totally humiliated by these constant coach tours.

Are people in America seeing film on your news about the state of New Orleans? If so, what are they saying about it?

I saw it last night, too. It appeared that the only work done by the authorities was to clear the roads (so the tour buses could get through I assume). All that debris was left at the kerbside, stretching for hundreds of yards.

It seems that Jewish pressure groups are having a great deal of success recently. Ken Livingstone has been suspended as mayor of London for comparing a Evening Standard journalist with a concentration camp guard. In reality, the newspaper wanted to drop the matter as in the 1930s the Associated Newspaper Group, had supported the rise of Hitler in Germany and the National Union of Fascists in the UK. The last thing they wanted was a discussion of these issues.

Livingstone was also a poor target as he had been a leading figure in anti-racist groups such as the Anti-Racist Alliance and the National Assembly against Racism. What is more, the Evening Standard had discovered that the anti-Livingstone campaign was unpopular with readers and circulation was in sharp decline. However, the Jewish Board of Deputies pushed the issue and Livingstone has got suspended as mayor by the Standards Board.

We have also the recent case of David Irving being imprisoned in Austria for making a speech questioning the Holocaust. Laws like this have been passed all over Europe after campaigns by Jewish pressure groups.

Then we have the case of the successful campaign by Jewish groups to get the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, banned from the New York theatre. The play tells the story of Rachel Corrie, the American peace-activist killed in Gaza.

Last night it was reported on the news that Jewish pressure groups are trying to get Paradise Now removed from Sunday's Oscar competition. Paradise Now tells the fictional story of two young mechanics from the West Bank town of Nablus sent to carry out a double suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. The film won a Golden Globe award in January and is nominated for an Oscar for best foreign film. Director Hany Abu-Assad is an Arab born in Israel. Israeli Amir Harel produced the film. Both Palestinians and Israelis acted in the movie, which was filmed in the West Bank and Israel.

It's all quite ridiculous. Jailing people for expressing an opinion (albeit a ridiculous one) on an historical event is a throwback to the dark ages. Surely he must win on appeal.

What if one goes to Russia and says they don't believe that at the end of WW2 Stalin threw hundreds of thousands of Russian troops at the German defense, effectively murdering them, until the Germans literally ran out of ammunition? Would one be imprisoned?

I didn't know Livingstone was suspended for merely using the term 'concentration camp guard' in an analogy. I suspect the Standards Board's actions may start a public debate which the Standards Board doesn't want to have. It's laughable overuse of their power.

I agree that it is regrettable that it has come to this. Personally, I'm not in favor of banning individuals from expressing their views but Tim's habit of threatenng to sue members was highly unpleasant and a threat to the Forum's ongoing viability. Some time ago Tim threatened that he would bring an action which would force the Forum's closure.

It's interesting that Tim got so upset on the Guatemala thread in relation to the question of who was telling the truth. Insults and allegations of dishonesty flew back and forth and Tim, to his discredit, threatened to sue. However, on the "Final Judgement" thread Michael Collins Piper recently accused Tim of being a xxxx seven times in one post, by my count (post #318). He called Tim among other things, a xxxx, a dirty xxxx, an egregious xxxx and a big fat xxxx. Here I was thinking that the lawsuit threats would soon be flowing but Tim's commendable response was on the lines of, "what are you getting so upset about?". No anger, no threats of lawsuits, no demands for an apology. It doesn't square with Tim's subsequent indignation with John Simkin.

Using threats of legal action to bludgeon other members into compliance is a low tactic and should be roundly condemned.

Jack and Bobbie gave him the moniker "Lyin' Lyndon".

Nice post. I agree 100% with your comments. The neocon mindset thought it could just take over, establish itself in Iraq and make a (financial) killing. They don't understand foreign cultures. They don't understand why the rest of the world didn't support them. They don't understand suicide bombers. And they don't understand how America itself is imploding because of free trade, the level playing field, zero tariffs, outsourcing and all the other devices designed to maximise shareholder returns at the expense of everything else.

It is true that Bush has failed but he is only the front man. The multinationals that backed him have done very well out of his foreign policy. They are laughing all the way to the bank. What amazes me is that the American public are putting up with this blatant corruption. Why are they not taking to the streets?

Complacency. It will probably come down to America reaching a critical point of wealth depletion. The big debt has America in financial trouble. There's been a sharp rise in foreign ownership of land and capital in the US so it's a huge worry for them and us.

On top of that, there's two other big factors bearing down on the US:

Terrorism: It can't really be prevented and it can potentially cripple an economy (esp. biological agents). If a terrorist used a hand held rocket launcher and brought down a passenger plane it would probably close down the commercial airline system. These are terrible scenarios but the average American probably doesn't understand the extent of ill-feeling that exists towards them in the Middle East. GWB has made it all much worse.

Oil: America's massively overexposed to oil price rises. Double the price of oil and it's like an earthquake for the economy. America should reduce consumption urgently. Other country's economies will suffer but the one's best equipped to wheather it are the countries whose oil consumption is already on the way down.

Once America gets a good dose of hard times, and it looks quite likely, then they'll wake up to what's been occuring and make changes, IMO. It's possible they may turn sharply to the left. The mega rich are really global citizens and can live anywhere.

The issue of the extraordinary influence Israel obtained in bilateral arrangements between themselves and the US during the Johnson administration is highlighted by the story of Paul Warnke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. The following excerpts are taken from Avner Cohen's, "Israel and the Bomb" (ch.16--The Battle over the NPT):

The advent of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 (negotiated in Geneva 1966-1968) set the stage for the most direct confrontation between the US and Israel over the nuclear issue during the Johnson-Eshkol period. The two had crafted the the nuclear issue with political ambiguity, and the NPT threatened to shatter that ambiguity. Israel's signature was an important objective for the US. It meant that Israel renounced its nuclear weapons option. Israel, however, could not sign the treaty because of this implication. Israel's need to purchase Phantom jets set up the context for the confrontation.

In August 1967, Israel submitted an emergency request to the US for fifty Phantom F-48 jets and 28 additional Skyhawk A-4s to recover war losses and replace the French Mirage Vs which were now under embargo. The opportunity for the US to raise the NPT issue with Israel had arrived.

The negotiations were conducted between Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Ambassador Parker Hart and Warnke from the US, and Ambassador Rabin and IAF Commander Mordachai Hod from Israel. The US was after firm assurances concerning Israeli "advanced weapons" and Warnke believed the only way to obtain such assurances was via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would firmly link the nuclear issue with the sale of the F-4s:

No American official before Warnke had dared so directly and openly to confront the Israelis on this issue.

Rabin submitted a proposed MOU and added that he wanted the next session to "to get an agreement on how to proceed but not go into details". Warnke countered that because of the magnitude of Israel's requests, the US needed up to date assurances and that his office would draft a revised MOU that would "incorporate the kind of assurances we require". This draft MOU could not be found in the US National Archives. However, Cohen reconstructs the most contentious part, Article 3, from Rabin's Memoirs and Warnke's recollections. Rabin rejected the MOU and its formalising of the linkage between the sale of weapons and firm assurances over Israeli "advanced weapons", reaffirming the oft-repeated pledge not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region. Warnke countered by stating that, "It is the national interest of the United States that I am charged with protecting. By law I am required to consider the impact of the sale on the United States".

The next session ended with the same sharp exchange regarding the legitimacy of the linkage. For Rabin, Warnke's zeal in in pursuing the nuclear issue seemed to run against the subtle and tacit American-Israeli code of behavior that had evolved between Eshkol and Johnson since 1964. The issue concluded as follows:

Shortly after the November 8 session, Israeli representatives petitioned the White House to intervene. Apparently Rabin contacted Abe Feinberg, a friend and strong supporter of the President, and asked him to get Johnson to end the stalemate. Within days Warnke was instructed by Clifford to cancel the MOU at the request of the White House. Warnke was told that President Johnson wished to finalize the Phantoms deal swiftly and without conditions.

I believe that TG has gotten what he deserves for once again threatening John with legal action, but I will surely miss these near one- sided debates between Tim and the brilliant RC Dunne!!

Dawn

Dawn,

I must have missed something. Did Tim get the boot? If so, I also will miss his jousts with Robert and I agree they were very one-sided. Tim's dissembling, disingenuous departures from reality where routinely detected and exposed by Robert, with great wit and skill.

Robert,

Great post again. With Tim, I always assume deceptive, selective quotation. His track record requires this assumption.

John, as I posted in another thread, to the best of my knowledge Vanunu claims no special knowledge of the Kennedy assassination. Therefore, how can he state that the people who killed Kennedy were "in favour of nuclear proliferation"?

Moreover, it is not clear that the US policy toward the Israeli nuclear weapond program changed under LBJ.

The book "Every Spy a Prince" is a highly praised study of Israeli intelligence and it has an interesting segment on the Vanunu story.

But listen to what the book says about LBJ's policy toward the Israeli nuclear program:

In his trips to Washington, [israel Prime Minister] Eshkol reached a tacit agreement with the Johnson administration that Israel would receive stepped up conventional military aid in exchange for slowing down the nuclear project.

Conclusion: Despite what Piper writes, LBJ, like JFK, desired and acted to slow down the Israeli nuclear program.

I hate to use a phrase popularized by Posner, but "Case Closed".

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Posner, but no the case isn't closed, not by a long way.

So now we have "Every Spy a Prince" as the new hope of the side. Catchy title. But Tim, what happened to "Support Any Friend", by Warren Bass? (a real mid-east scholar). That's the book that was supposed to demolish Piper, according to your post #1. Don't you want to talk about it anymore. That's not what I call supporting your friend, Tim.

Then there was Len's book, "John F Kennedy and Israel", by Herbert Druks. Reviwed by Jack Fischel (Special to NJ Jewish News). I know Len's on a break at the moment, but I'd like to hear more excerpts from that book, too. Lots more.

This is becoming a more interesting thread every day. The one thing which is fascinating to me though, is the fact that while you never miss an opportunity to rail against Piper, his book, his associates etc, you never seem to criticise Cohen's book. Why is that? Have you read it? I don't suppose so.

You quote the following from "Every Spy a Prince":

In his trips to Washington, {Israeli PM} Eshkol reached a tacit agreement with Johnson that Israel would recieve stepped up conventional military aid in exchange for slowing down the nuclear project

This is rubbish. Israel never agreed to slow down the nuclear project. Two of the main conditions JFK insisted on were never agreed to by Israel and never enforced by LBJ. They were: semiannual visits and permission to pass on information from the inspections to third parties. However, LBJ ramped up the conventional military aid. In January 1964, LBJ and Eshkol came to a "compromise" regarding Israel's nuclear program: (Cohen, p.196)

The parameters of the compromise on Israel's nuclear program that Eshkol and Johnson cobbled together were these: Israel would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, while the US would provide Israel with sophisticated conventional armaments so that Israel could defend itself without recourse to nuclear weapons. This compromise was followed by other understandings reached during Johnson's tenure: Eshkol's visit in June 1964 resulted in the supply of hundreds of M-48 tanks to Israel: the Harriman-Komer mission to Israel in March 1965 led to the sale of 48 A-4 Skyhawk planes to Israel: and the understandings concerning visits to Dimona.

There was no quid pro quo for the sale of the weapons because the inspections at Dimona were reduced to farce during the LBJ years, the inspectors eventually complaining that the restrictions made the inspections worthless. They were never allowed to discover the plutonium separation plant Israel had built underneath the Dimona reactor complex. Israel gained a massive increase in conventional weapons, while conceding nothing on Dimona. JFK would not have allowed this, IMO. Israel would also not permit LBJ to give assurances to Nasser concerning Dimona, despite repeated requests from LBJ.

The balance of power relating to negotiations between the US and Israel changed markedly in the aftermath of JFK's death. Israel recieved what it requested and gave no ground in return.

Moshe Dayan stated: "Our American friends offered us money, arms and advice. We took the money, took the arms and declined the advice".

Have you seen the interview on this thread?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6230

Silvia Cattori: It seems that in the 1960s, President Kennedy asked that inspections be carried out in Dimona, Israel. Do you see any links between that request and his assassination?

Mordechai Vanunu: I believe that, at that time, the United States opposed the Israeli nuclear program. Kennedy tried to stop Israel but he was assassinated before he could do it. For me, his assassination had to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Israel and in other countries. Those who killed him were in favour of nuclear proliferation. Thanks to his death, proliferation continued. In fact, presidents Johnson and Nixon, who succeeded Kennedy, saw no inconvenience with that. They let Israel act. We can simply see that there was a change in that direction after Kennedy's assassination.

John,

Yes, I read that. He's still under some kind of house arrest. He's right of course. JFK was determined to stop Israel's proliferation. LBJ looked the other way, and that's not all he did. If you get the opportunity, grab a copy of Avner Cohen's book. I would be very interested in your opinion of it.

FOCUS | William F. Buckley: It Didn't Work

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022506Z.shtml

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes - it is America." William F. Buckley explores the violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq, finding that the "troublemaker in the middle" who is propelling the clash is the interfering United States.

__________________________________________________

It Didn't Work

By William F. Buckley

The National Review

Friday 24 February 2006

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes - it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that "The bombing has completely demolished" what was being attempted - to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.

The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats.

A problem for American policymakers - for President Bush, ultimately - is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.

One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.

The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.

This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail - in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.

Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.

He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.

Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

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

"The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism."

Why not? The "shrine of American idealism" is nothing more than a pillar of salt, lost on the neocon economic philosophy of greed established in the 1980's, culminating in all its "global" glory in the 1990's, and morphing into the out-sourcing monster presently devouring the American manufacturing and industrial base in the 21st Century.

Terri,

Nice post. I agree 100% with your comments. The neocon mindset thought it could just take over, establish itself in Iraq and make a (financial) killing. They don't understand foreign cultures. They don't understand why the rest of the world didn't support them. They don't understand suicide bombers. And they don't understand how America itself is imploding because of free trade, the level playing field, zero tariffs, outsourcing and all the other devices designed to maximise shareholder returns at the expense of everything else.

Folks, I haven't forgotten about you.

How could I forget such lovelies as that bigoted poppinjay, Andy Walker, who, I'm told, is particularly exercised about the fact that my name is "Michael Collins" Piper. Andy, yes, I'm a mick, forgive me for that.

And then there's Tim Gratz who is busy forum jumping. Posting crap about me and occasional commentary somewhat related to FINAL JUDGMENT on one thread and then another --- a very clever legal trick.

Plus there's Len Colby --- who brags that he wants to debunk conspiracy theories ---- and I guess that means all of them.

Folks, I occasionally have day to day work to take care of and just haven't had the time to respond to the LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS (not to mention the Walker-Gratz garbage --- I exempt Len Colby because of his ethnic concerns here) but I assure you I will.

In the meantime, without having read Gratz's latest emission on the other thread, which I gather is probably a reference to the Bass book which paints the LIE that it was JFK who forged the "special relationship" between Israel and the United States--- a lie that is easily debunked by such writers as

Pulitzer Prize winning Jewish-American historian Seymour Hersh in THE SAMSON OPTION

Progressive writers James and Leslie Cockburn in DANGEROUS LIAISONS; AND

Jewish-American historian Stephen Green in TAKING SIDES

All of whom make it very clear that the relationship between the US and Israel under JFK was considerably tense, at the least.

The Bass book plays up this theme that JFK sold Israel defensive conventional weapons and this is "proof" that JFK loved Israel and vice versa.

Bass---a so-called "Middle East scholar" --- was funded by Israeli interests. Doesn't that make him somewhat BIASED.

But the Bass book and the Gratz emissions do not take into account the SOLID HISTORICAL FACT that NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE ACQUISITION THEREOF WERE THE ABSOLUTE CORNERSTONE OF ISRAEL'S ENTIRE GEOPOLITICAL/NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY AND JFK WAS TRYING TO STOP ISRAEL FROM BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Gratz knows this and he's a clever boy, but the bottom line is that the "line" that he is promoting --- that JFK was a "special friend" of Israel is ABSOLUTE CRAP.

Folks --- don't listen to Michael Collins Piper.

Read the above three-mentioned books.

And then also ask yourself the question: why in all of the hundreds of books written about JFK and his administration that there was not---until the last two years --- a book about JFK's Middle East policy?

And if you look in all of the books about JFK and his administration --- how much IF ANYTHING is said about his Middle East policy?

Why has all of that been pushed aside?

Was it not worthy of discussion?

In all the millions of words written about JFK in books focusing exclusively on his life and his presidency (excluding books about the assassination itself)--- his Cuba policy, his Soviet policy, his sexual affairs, his health condition, his assassination ---- his Middle East policy (found offensive by israel and its lobby in America) is hardly noted.

And if JFK was so pro-Israel, why was Abe Feinberg, the American Jewish community's unofficial liaison to the JFK White House, threatening JFK with withdrawal of American Jewish financial support in the 1964 election due to his Middle East foreign policy. (This has been referenced in a non-Holocaust Denial book, the specific citation escaping me at the moment.)

Prior to the release of FINAL JUDGMENT . . . How many "serious, scholarly" JFK assassination researchers EVER pondered JFK's efforts to stop israel from building the Hell Bomb and its possible impact on the

assassination conspiracy?

Tim Gratz: we know YOUR AGENDA. it is a pro-israel Neo-Conservative agenda. You are following the agenda of these insane lunatics, religious fundamentalist extremists, who dominate the policy mechanism in the Bush White House.

Let's rally together to fight all forms of extremism!

Tim,

I notice you haven't addressed the issues in this post from Mr. Piper. The feeble argument that JFK was a special friend of Israel appears to be full of holes. It appears to be as fragile as your short lived assertion that Theodore Racoosin and JFK were close friends (not a single mention of Racoosin in Dallek's 800 page bio of JFK).

All your posts focus on Mr. Piper's associates and which meetings he attended. But what about the book and the assassination, Tim. What about them?

Sorry, but since I have what I consider definitive proof that the Z film was altered, I’m going to post it here. Look at this crop from Z371:

Obviously the person playing Clint Hill in this reenactment was running with nothing on his feet but black socks. (Possibly he had some new Florsheims that had started hurting his feet after several takes.) Not only that, but he appears to be in the very act of fracturing his left foot by hitting it under the bumper. Note how the foot is grotesquely bent. (There’s no way to bend a man’s dress shoe that way.) Obviously there would be no more takes after that.

Robin ... I cannot think of any socks that reflect sunlight, but shiny black mens dress shoes do. You did notice that the sun was shining off the shoe and it only made the foot look to be a different shape - right?

Bill

Question?

Which foot (left or right) is on the bumper & which foot (left or right) is on the street?

Inquiring minds (or at least partially senile ones) want to know!

Tom,

I'll hazard a guess and say his left foot is on the bumper and his right foot is on the ground. That's how it looks to me. FWIW.

On your other points, I think you're underestimating the tone of JFK's letters to Ben-Gurion and Eshkol. There were several exchanges and the language become more direct each time. Most commentators I have read (including MCP) say the tone and content went beyond accepted diplomatic protocol and I must agree.

No offense but I don’t think you or Piper are qualified to make such a determination, how familiar are either are either of you with secret diplomatic exchanges? Piper is a bigoted, intellectually dishonest, hypocrite with an “ax to grid” so any analysis he makes is suspect. Who are the other commentators? Since Kennedy hadn’t threatened any specific sanctions it’s hard to believe this disagreement would have been sufficient motive to assassinate him. Many other motives have been suggested for the assassination but in most of those JFK had taken or had indicated he would take specific action (pull out of Vietnam etc). If Kennedy was considering any immediate action it’s odd that none of his advisors or biographers have written about it and that there isn’t any documentary evidence other than the letters.

You should really get Cohen's book and post your opinions. I'd be keen to hear them.

I’ll probably pick up a copy when I’m back in the US but that won’t be until July or August.

Your point about Israel not taking such a risk doesn't wash, IMO. Somebody took a risk, didn't they? Israel took bold risks in the past. They defied the US over withdrawal from the Sinai during the Suez crisis long after Britain and France backed down. The Lavon affair you mentioned was the result of a failed covert operation by Israel against British and US installations in Egypt in July 1954. They sunk the USS Liberty in 1967. They took risks. And the risk is reduced when you can make your presence opaque.

What doesn’t wash are your comparisons. IIRC Israel, Britain and France all withdrew from the Sinai and Suez Canal more less simultaneously in March '57, but even if you’re correct Ben-Gurion did eventually give in to US pressure without getting any concessions from Egypt and this doesn’t come anywhere close to assassinating the President of the US. The Lavon affair doesn’t compare either it involved a few bombs that only caused minor property damage.

As for the USS Liberty, you are obviously less familiar with the case than I am because the ship wasn’t sunk. The US and Israel have always maintained the attack was a case of mistaken identity which fits the evidence. No realistic motive has ever been given as to why the Israelis would intentionally attack a US warship during the Six Day War. The fact that the Israelis eventually cut off the attack, informed the US what had happened and offered to participate in the rescue operations don’t fit with an intentional attack scenario. The US told the Israelis that they didn't have any warships in the area and the Navy told the Liberty not to approach the coast (though it seems they didn't get the message) and an Egyptian ship had shelled the Israelis the day before.

The 2 moles that Israel had recently caught also make it very unlikely that the Israelis would risk getting involved. If they had not been caught both probably would have involved in an operation of that magnitude. They would have to consider the possibility that their was still an unidentified double agent amongst their ranks. For that very reason I’m sure that the CIA etc would have been very leery of working with the Israelis.

The risks for the other suspects was different than for the Israelis because in the case of the former the risks were merely personal and didn’t imply the destruction of the very country they were supposedly trying to save. More so than for the other ‘suspects’ the risks were high and motive was vague.

It’s Carnival now and my city has one of the best in the World so I won’t be posting much till Wednesday.

Len

Len,

I think you're in denial here. The tone of JFK's final two letters is unmistakeable. Do you really think JFK wasn't serious? I would like to know what members think of the tone of these letters. I think JFK was deadly serious but, of course, I might be wrong. Moreover, JFK also issued NSAM 231 on March 26, 1963, aimed squarely at dissuading Israel from nuclear proliferation. There was also his April 2 meeting with Shimon Peres at which he expressed his concern at Israel's reluctance to divulge information about their plans for nuclear weapons. To doubt that JFK was serious about confronting Israel over nuclear weapons is contrary to all the available evidence, IMO.

The Suez crisis also showed that Israel was prepared to defy the US. On October 26, 1956, President Eisenhauer sent the first of two messages to Israeli PM Ben Gurion asking that Israel do nothing to endanger the peace. Israeli forces began attacks on Egypt three days later. The Anglo-French forces began air strikes the following day. The whole thing lasted about one week, France and England agreeing to a cease fire on November 6. However, Israel, which occupied all of the Sinai, was reluctant to withdraw. Eisenhauer threatened sanctions. They withdrew, but only after considerable pressure.

On the issue of the USS Liberty you're wrong. Most of the survivors consider it to be an unprovoked attack. A case of mistaken identity is considered most unlikely. LBJ ordered the rescue mission to be aborted because he didn't want to "embarrass our friends". 34 sailors died, 172 injured. Survivors were threatened with court martial if they spoke about it. The IDF attacked the ship from air and sea and, although it didn't sink, it remains one of the greatest scandals in US maritime history. Survivors and their families are still campaigning for the historical record to be set straight. If you want to argue, why don't you debate the issue with the people involved. There's plenty of sites. See link below:

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

Israel were prepared to take risks, no question. If you don't know that, then you are not familiar with Israel's history and that of its early leaders, like David Ben-Gurion. What about the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, where 91 died, including many civilians. Do you wish to have a debate about this issue?