Mark Stapleton

Now it's TWO books demolishing Piper's book? It's becoming a virtual avalanche. Excellent timing, I must say. No coincidences there. Theodore Racoosin, eh? Gerry's point man at the White House, was he? So this means Racoosin and JFK were like blood brothers, eh? In the same way that C Douglas Dillon and JFK were like blood brothers, is that what you mean? I've heard his name before so I did a search on Google to refresh my memory. He gets a mention in Hinckle's "The fish is red" and William Turner's "Rear Window". If anyone has read these I would be keen to know in what context he is mentioned. He is also mentioned in the book which is the title of this thread. The most interesting thing was that I checked in Dallek's bio of JFK, "JFK-An unfinished life"---800 pages long and a great read if you're a fan of JFK like me, and guess what? That's right, nothing. Not a sausage. Not even a passing mention of JFK's recently discovered dear friend. p.s. Way to cause confusion and misunderstanding, Tim. Just post all these new discoveries on three different threads, using different bits on each thread. Kind of like immersing the Forum in a fog. However, some can see through it.

Finally I have a title, "the resident anti-Israel expert". Does that supercede "liberal" and "socialist"? What took you so long. I thought you might come up with something like that much earlier. Er, no I haven't read the book. But yes I do have the temerity to challenge it's assertions. The one about the reasons for the sale of Hawk missiles is wrong so why wouldn't I challenge other elements of the book? Any book that would seriously have a section entitled, "Overated Jewish Lobby" has to be highly suspect. Does it have other sections like "Meagre, Underfunded, US Military"? The reason I challenge that book by a real mid-East scholar is because I, too, have a book written by a real mid-East scholar. I must sound like I have a financial interest in this book but, once again, it's "Israel and the bomb" by Avner Cohen (1998). And I'm saying my book says your book is rubbish. I'll back it's credibility over your book, or any other you can throw up against it. What do you think, Len--do you think Tim's read my book? Tell you what, why don't we ask 10 or 20 of the most scholarly members to read both books (and I respect that some on the Forum don't want to get involved in this issue) and tell us which one has more credibility. I'll risk my credibility on Avner Cohen's credibility. Do you accept this challenge? Providing we can garner enough interested members, of course. Cohen's book is an interesting read. It traces the entire history of Israel's nuclear procurement in a very accessable style. What's yours about? Oh yeah, how JFK was the best buddy Israel ever had (but we're sure glad we got that goddam bomb). BTW, I have to ask. Tell me what it was Tim, my curiosity is killing me. Was this revelation that JFK was Israel's greatest ally just a recent breakthrough with very fortunate timing or did you know about all this before? If it was the latter, why have you kept it to yourself until now?

The Berlin Wall certainly made for good Cold War theater, serving as a moving symbol of communist oppression for a quarter century. The circumstances that led to the building of the Wall are seldom discussed. It's good to remember how the NATO countries were prepared to launch all-out nuclear war to defend West Berlin, a half city located over one hundred miles inside of East Germany. Khrushchev was in a bind over the flood of skilled professionals escaping to the West through that city. It had to be stopped, but if he stopped it, as he claimed at the Vienna Summit to be his intention, there was no form of conventional warfare to contest it. Kennedy deftly sent the subtle signal that there would be no violation of Western interests if the East Germans constructed a Wall on their own territory. The Wall calmed the Berlin Crisis, backfired profoundly as a propaganda symbol, and ultimately bought the time needed to avoid a nuclear war. It's also good to remember how many asserted that Kennedy's refusal to knock the Wall down was a sign of weakness. Berlin demonstrated the efficacy of Kennedy's kind of leadership, in contrast to the solutions preferred by militarists. The euphoria in the streets of Berlin that day of the Ich Bin Ein Berliner speech showed how much people all over the world recognized how Kennedy had brought everyone through the moment of maximum peril. T.C. Nice summary, Tim. Some interesting points, there. JFK's performance in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis was a huge hit in Germany and the rest of Europe. The American public appreciated it but the JCS, oil and arms industries thought it stank.

See my reply to your post on that thread. The author cited four reasons why the U.S. sold Hawk missiles to Israel in the early '60s and failed to get it right. From your excerpts, that book demolishes nothing.

That's a fine statement coming from someone who supports the Bush/Cheney regime, which gave us the horrors of 9/11 and the obscenity in Iraq. You look out for your financial affairs and I'll look out for mine. Nicely put, Ron. Tim, MCP is sending me a copy, too. Don't try to use moral arguments to dissuade people from reading a book. If it's rubbish I'll dismiss it and I'm sure Ron will too. The day I tell you what to read is the day you can tell me what to read.

Tim, The sale of the Hawk missiles was tied to Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem. In mid-August 1962, JFK sent Myer Feldman to Israel to craft the deal*--why didn't Mr. Bass mention this? Then, according to the fawning reviewer, Bass attributes no role in the sale to the Jewish Lobby! You must be joking. In fact, the Jewish Lobby is "overated" and the author devotes an entire section to this, entitled "Overated Jewish Lobby"! I give the author credit for a keen sense of humor. Are you going to drown us with this stuff? *From "Israel and the Bomb"--Avner Cohen, Columbia University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-231-10483-9: The conversation between Ben-Gurion and Feldman is recorded in an outgoing Foreign Ministry cable to the embassy in Washington, dated 20 August 1962 (ISA, FMRG 3377/7. Also, Myer Feldman interview by author 10 June 1992, 14 October 1994 and 14 July 1997.

You're wrong, Len. De Gaulle immediately halted French participation in the Dimona project when he was elected in 1960. The Israeli Government then turned to Norway. I'm not sure about Britain, I'll have to check it up. The US probably did know about Israel obtaining help with the construction of the plutonium separation plant. However, I can assure you JFK was very serious about Israeli non-proliferation. Most researchers know about Kennedy's letter to Ben Gurion on 15 June, 1963 and to new PM Eshkol on 5 July. Ben Gurion resigned and refused to open his letter and it was returned to Washington. The Eshkol letter has been posted previously, but its language is plain, direct and unambiguous. In part: "As I wrote Mr. Ben Gurion, this Government's commitment to and support of Israel (my italics) could be seriously jeopardised if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as the question of Israel's effort in the nuclear field." Avner Cohen, in "Israel and the bomb", describes the language as blunt and threatening. There's also NSAM 231, issued by JFK in March, 1963: "The President decrees, as a matter of urgency, that we undertake every feasible measure to improve our intelligence on the Israeli nuclear program as well as other Israeli and UAR advanced weapons programs and to arrive at a firmer evaluation of their import. In this connection he wishes the next informal inspection of the Israeli reactor complex to be undertaken promptly and be as thourough as possible....." JFK knew that Israel were planning to produce nuclear weapons at Dimona, despite repeated assurances from Shimon Peres and other Israeli officials that they were not. On April 2, 1963 JFK by chance happened to run into Peres and Myer Feldman in a White House corridor (Peres was in Washington on Hawk related missile business). JFK hastily arranged a twenty minute meeting with Peres which included the following exchange: JFK: You know that we follow very closely the discovery of any nuclear development in the region. This could create a very dangerous situation. For this reason we kept in touch with your nuclear effort. What could you tell me about this? PERES: I can tell you most clearly that we will not introduce nuclear weapons to the region and certainly we will not be the first. Our interest is in reducing armament, even in complete disarmament. Peres and other officials reassured Kennedy repeatedly. They lied. They did introduce nuclear weapons to the region and they were the first. JFK was determined to stop them.

I always had a suspicion about Dunkin' Donuts role in the assassination. They hate competition. Good luck with the surgery.

John, I agree with the other members that you have put together the pieces nicely to establish a very interesting argument. Perhaps 1960 should be regarded as the date when control of the Executive by Suite 8F Group interests really began. The group's watchdog was installed as VP in preparation for bigger things to come. Makes one wonder whether JFK's removal would have been necessary if he had "played the game" in regard to issues such as military expenditure, cold war rhetoric and largesse to oil and other big business. I think they might have left JFK alone, leaving LBJ to cry into a pitcher of warm spit.

Piper, that is the opinion of a professional. Steve is a psychological councilor. He's a what? Congratulations, Steve. Election to the local council is only the first rung on the ladder. After that it's Mayor, House of Reps, and Number 10.

Chris, Thanks for that. It's disappointing. I had my hopes pinned on the saliva on the envelopes as I thought it could only be that of the sender. Of course, who knows how many others handled the envelope. It was also probably re-sealed quite a few times.

Len, Well I read all his posts and those of his correspondents and I don't agree that he did all those things. His book hasn't been dismissed by everyone and there appears to be a significant minority, including Mark Lane, who think he might be on to something. It's in its sixth edition, so obviously some people want to read it. Mark I suggest you re-read both threads esp.the other one I don't think many serious JFK scholars take him seriously. As for Mark Lane he seems to have gone over the deeped a long time ago. There's nothing wrong with a Jew being anti-Israel but you gotta wonder when one becomesone of the top cheerleaders for America's leading purveyor of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and pro-Hilter litrature you have to wonder about self-loathing. Len I've read both threads quite carefully but thanks for the gratuitous advice. Maybe you're right in suggesting most researchers don't take him seriously. Maybe we should have a poll. In any case, Piper's book is in its 6th edition and if the sales figures he stated are accurate, then someone's reading it. Just because it doesn't get a lot of publicity in the mainstream press doesn't mean people aren't reading it. It seems that others are looking closely at this issue--Piper cited other recent books such as The Case against Israel and Bomb in the Basement. It's a little early to write him off, IMO. I have no idea if Mark Lane supports MCP's theory, I'm only taking MCP's word for it. But if he does, that doesn't mean he's gone over the deep end. Lane's written books and made significant contributions to the public understanding of this case. What have you done?

I did Jeff. I mean I E-mailed Mr. Piper and requested a copy (offered to pay of course), and I read those attachments in the book review thread (excerpts from chapters 11 and 12). I noticed that when I downloaded the attachment, the latter had only had 3 downloads. I don't think there'll be any hard evidence. Its a circumstantial case--just like every other theory about the assassination. There's never been any proof to back up any theory about the assassination and this one's no different, IMO.

Perhaps they agreed with me that it would take the thread too far off topic or perhaps they didn't think they were knowledge enough to comment. Again I think you misunderstood what pissed everyone off. Instead of defending his thesis he insulted the forum as a whole, kept on throwing in new Jewish conspiracies and repeatedly accused other members of lying or as I said before he "shat on the forum". Start the new thread and I'm sure you will get people to comment. Remember Piper wasn't a victim, he intentionally antagonized people and left of his own volition. Len Len, Well I read all his posts and those of his correspondents and I don't agree that he did all those things. His book hasn't been dismissed by everyone and there appears to be a significant minority, including Mark Lane, who think he might be on to something. It's in its sixth edition, so obviously some people want to read it.

It's quite incredible that the Bush Administration is still denying its intentions concerning the bases being constructed in Iraq. According to a recent article by Tom Engelhardt, they are starting to resemble mini-cities. There's no doubt these are permanent bases and America's long term intentions are clear. As recently as Christmas Day 2005, Donald Rumsfeld stated that the US had no plans to construct permanent bases in Iraq. He lied. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/32320/ I'm particularly interested in hearing what Tim Gratz has to say about this. Did Rumsfeld lie?

I never said that about Piper. He's controversial and forthright, that's what I said. Maybe he has witnessed the American Government's treatment of native Americans and compared that to the Government's especially favorable policy towards Israel, leaving him with a jaundiced view of American foreign policy. I don't dismiss his theory about the assassination, not by a long stretch. Although he wasn't here long and didn't really address the assassination sufficiently, not one point raised by the howling mob caused me to doubt my suspicion of Israeli Government involvement. And none of Piper's inquisitors can answer the question first raised by Jeff: What is the justification for the huge annual financial and military aid program for Israel ? Mark - I read too much into your comments. You said he's "not a debater" and that his evidence was "only circumstantial". Since I wasn't sure I said you "...seem(s) to recognize...". You refer to his critics as "the howling mob" and his “inquisitors” but don't criticize his atrocious behavior. He did of course provoke anger and I suspect that was intentional. I assume he realizes that his case is weak thus he prefers to have his critics focus in him and his controversial views than his evidence. I propose that we (any interested forum members) read through the chapters he annexed and evaluate them on their merits. The last thing he wants is that people knowledgeable about the assassination find flaws in his research or analysis. This might even draw him back here. Hopefully if he comes back he will return 'toliet trained'. Also if any one finds other excerpts on the Web to post them here. America's policy in the Middle East is an important issue but really should be debated in another thread. The most appropriate place would be "political conspiracies" but I suggest that a new section be added "politically controversies" for issues like this that don't fit into any of the existing categories in the "Controversial Issues in History" sub forum. Len Len, It interesting that those who expressed such outrage at Mr. Piper's theory about the assassination are silent about the incredible largesse granted to Israel by the American Government over many years. Tim Gratz has conspicuously failed to respond to my post. You're right that this matter should really be in the politics subforum but since this thread has already covered such a wide range of topics, I thought I might as well throw another one in.

I'm sure it partly has to do with Judeo-Christian religion. Bible-believing Christians still see Palestine as the "Holy Land," see Jews as God's "chosen people" (as most recently reiterated by Tim Gratz), and see the modern state of Israel as fulfillment of biblical prophecy that Israel would be restored. It naturally follows that Israel is to be supported. Otherwise God will get you. Ron, I think you're right about that. I've been doing a little browsing to find out more about this issue. Some of the numbers are staggering: * One third of all US foreign aid goes to Israel, depite the fact that Israel has only .01% of the world's population. * From 1973 to 2003, Israel has cost the US about $1.6 trillion, more than $5,700 for every US citizen, depite the fact that Israel ranks 16th highest in income per capita--higher than countries such as Ireland, Spain and Saudi Arabia. * According to Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington D.C., the cost of Israel's drawn out dispute with the Palestinians has cost more than twice that of the Vietnam War. * US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East by about $5 billion, Stauffer estimates, which costs America about 70,000 jobs. The requirement that US aid be used to purchase US products is waived in the case of Israel, costing another 125,000 jobs. * American financial and technical assisstance have helped Israel become a major weapons supplier. Domestic weapons manufacturers have complained about the Israeli lobby influencing Government decisions. In the 1980's the sale of aircraft to Saudi Arabia was blocked by Israel. One half of Israel's exports are weapons sales. This seems to be an issue that gets insufficient space in the US media, IMO. I'll keep digging. The magnitude of the US sponsorship of Israel appears even greater than I had thought.

Jeff I think you live a parallel universe with a different Ed. Forum and 2 different Piper threads. The First Amendment does not apply here because this is a private forum based in England. Piper however was granted free speech rights and basically shat on this forum. He revealed himself to be the bigot that he is and left because he choose too and is free to return until John or Andy say otherwise. Interestingly some of the most furious reactions to him didn't come from the Jewish/pro-Israeli members of the forum but from members that are neither. Even Mark seems to recognize that Piper has his head firmly implanted in his bowels. His version of events of course will be that he was hounded out of here by the Jews and "Israel lobby" and you to for reasons unknown echo that "Twilight Zone" version of reality. Len I never said that about Piper. He's controversial and forthright, that's what I said. Maybe he has witnessed the American Government's treatment of native Americans and compared that to the Government's especially favorable policy towards Israel, leaving him with a jaundiced view of American foreign policy. I don't dismiss his theory about the assassination, not by a long stretch. Although he wasn't here long and didn't really address the assassination sufficiently, not one point raised by the howling mob caused me to doubt my suspicion of Israeli Government involvement. And none of Piper's inquisitors can answer the question first raised by Jeff: What is the justification for the huge annual financial and military aid program for Israel ?

I guess MCP is not really the debating type. His views are controversial and cause ill feeling. By now he obviously knows where these debates end up. It must be remembered that his theory is just a theory, offering no more than circumstantial evidence, not proof. Just like every other theory about the assassination. The other questions raised are relevant, especially America's huge financial support for Israel. If this was more widely known by the American public, would the public still support this policy? What's the justification for such a policy? Is it in America's long term interests? Why don't Americans ask their Government to justify such a longstanding policy?

This is what I mean about you, Tim. As Michael has pointed out, this exercise in self-promotion is disingenuous and entirely in error, both in premise and conclusion. You're much more than merely an economic conservative, BTW. Even though you pretend to be socially progressive, you're a social conservative and a religious fundamentalist as well. Why didn't you expand your major premise to include those facts?

Duke, No need to worry about a re-enactment. Many facts including Oswald's behavior in custody and his assassination by Ruby means he didn't do it as far as I'm concerned. LN theories are not credible, IMO. Tom, Even though I've never shot anything except ducks in a sideshow alley, you must be wrong about the horizontal headshot being harder than elevated headshots from behind. As the Craig Roberts piece says, it's much closer and no adjustment is needed for elevation. It was like shooting ducks in sideshow alley.

Mr. Piper, I would like to know if you could address Ron Ecker's question on the other thread (post#237). So far I haven't found your views to be overtly racist. Forthright, but not racist. I also agree with your concern about the US spending many billions of dollars in aid to Israel. There's no explanation given to the public for this. Shouldn't there be an explanation?

It was Tim Gratz who, typically, claimed Bobby was a big supporter of Israel. As I pointed out to him, there's no proof that Bobby would have followed the strongly pro-Israel policy of LBJ. More likely, he might have followed his brother's impartial policy towards the Middle East.

Exactly. I thought that was a good question, too. Maybe in thread in the book review section.