Mark Stapleton

Tim and Al,

You're getting sidetracked. It's not about whether or not it was a military hit or even if the SS expected that kind of hit.

It's about placing second and third stringers in Dallas that day, ordering Rybka off the limo, Greer stopping twice and looking back, changing the motorcade route, changing the normal motorcade order, ordering agents to hold back before the final shot, greatly reducing the number of flanking motorcycles and apparently having no protection plan for the return trip.

How many mistakes can professional agents make in a day?

Taken individually, these issues might appear to some as nit-picking, but when they're put together they amount to a substantial argument--whether you look at it from forty years ago or now.

Lee,

I haven't got to the Abe Greenbaum bit yet. When I'm through, I'm keen to ask Dick Russell a few things about the book. Excellent book. Thanks for the link, btw. Interesting.

Frame Z. # 343 depicts Jackie beginning to rise from the rear seat and commencing her climb onto the trunk.

This is approximately only 1.6 seconds following the fatal head shot. If one imagines being seated in Jackie's position at the exact moment that JFK's head quite literally exploded before her very eyes, it's not a very big stretch of the imagination to conclude that her immediate reaction would have been to close her eyes, duck her head downward , and turn away automatically. Is it then reasonable to believe, that in such circumstances it is humanly possible for anyone to recover sufficient presence of mind after only 1.6 seconds , and for whatever the reason, to decide to climb onto the trunk of a moving automobile ?

Was Jackie so shocked that she did not know what she was doing, and what she did was basically through panic and/or an innate reponse to survive? Or was she climbing onto the trunk spontaneously to retrieve a shattered fragment of JFK's skull? Or ...... what ?

The final question: If what Jackie is depicted as doing in Z.#343 is time-wise an impossibility, what then may be concluded about the Zapruder frames following the fatal head shot?

Something's not right, perhaps?

Very interesting. It's either the biggest stuff-up in USSS history or it was planned as a one way trip. It raises some interesting questions.

Three that pop immediately to mind are:

1) How did Oswald stage-manage all of this?

2) Could there

possibly

have been a conspiracy?

3) Can Al Carrier

really

"defend" this all away?

Stay tuned ...! Somehow I suspect it will all get much more interesting ....

Hazarding a guess, my answers are he must have been a genius, yes and I doubt it.

The question of the motorcycle flanking units is an interesting one. Vince Palamara states that, according to the DPD, this was a last minute change which resulted from a November 21 meeting via David Grant (Vince Palamara's words). The decision to downsize the number of flanking units from 18 to 4 was unique to Dallas. 18 units were used in Fort Worth earlier that day.

Strange things were happening which were unique to Dallas. Second and third stringers were being put in charge (in some cases for the first time). Palamara's analysis of the SS White House Detail reveals that SAIC Jerry Behn took his first holiday in three years leaving ASAIC Floyd Boring in charge--but he organised the trip from Washington, leaving third stringer Roy Kellerman in charge in Dallas (his first time in charge). Kellerman's order to driver Bill Greer was disobeyed and his authority at DP and Parkland was usurped by a subordinate, Emory Roberts. Roberts was later promoted to be Official Records Secretary to LBJ (whatever that is). Roberts had also ordered Agent Rybka from the back of the Presidential limo at Love Field and also ordered the agents not to move seconds before the fatal headshot.

Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, well versed in motorcade security arrangements, was on a plane to Japan. Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff, a third stringer and relatively inexperienced, was on his own for the first time.

Boring's advance man, David Grant, arrived from Miami on November 18 and, according to Palamara, had a major influence in security arrangements including the motorcade route and motorcycle escorts. The more high profile partner from the advance party, Win Lawson and Agent Forrest Sorrels had driven the route--the one which went straight down Main Street-- on November 14 but we all know it was subsequently changed prior to November 22. Boring was later promoted to Inspector.

Niether Boring, Roberts nor Grant were interviewed by the WC, HSCA or the FBI.

Remember Al, the HSCA didn't judge that security arrangements for Dallas were insecure. They judged that security arrangements for Dallas were "uniquely insecure".

... Pages 618 through 623, inclusive, of FBI Sorry, that is HSCA "JFK Exhibit F-679" (part of CD-13, as I recall) are the assignments of officers for "President J.F. Kennedy's Dallas Visit and Parade." It is dated November 21, 1963 ...

Not to say that it necessarily means anything, but I have always found it interesting that this report covers only the trip TO the Trade Mart, and that there isn't one for the trip BACK from the Trade Mart.

... Yet you apologize for DPD by saying that their (only?) "major screwup was allowing DP to be opened up to pedestrian and vehicular traffic immediately after the incident," passing off "allowing unauthorized personnel atop of the overpass" (which is a straw man because no shots came from atop the bridge) as "poor judgement or miscommunication," saying they were "stretched very thin" so apparently couldn't do any better than they did? You can attribute these criticisms to "20/10 hindsight," but I'm not paid to anticipate these things and keep anyone alive. Those who were did a remarkable job of it ... but unfortunately, those "remarks" aren't particularly laudatory!

Some adds:

HSCA document F-679 is also WC Lawrence Exhibit 2 found at 20H489 et seq. Immediately preceding that is Lawrence Exhibit 1, seven handwritten pages entitled "Instructions to Capt. Lawrence by Chief Batchelor," which Lawrence followed nearly to the letter.

Lawrence Exhibit 3, dated 11/22/63, is "Supplemental Assignments" for the motorcade, and Lawrence Exhibit 4 is Lawrence's 7/15/64 follow-on report to Chief Curry, presumably at the behest of the WC. It states in part:

... other assignments would be made

after the President left the Trade Mart

(emphasis added)

... in other words, they had nothing pre-planned for the return trip, even despite the fact that the plans TO the Trade Mart were compiled and discussed for several days leading up to November 22, including in a meeting at DPD with USSS personnel during which these arrangements (and the fact that motorcycles were not to be at the sides of the limousine) on the evening of November 21.

Duke,

Very interesting. It's either the biggest stuff-up in USSS history or it was planned as a one way trip. It raises some interesting questions.

Although I've never read the LBJ tapes, I've read so many excerpts from it that I feel I must have read most of it by now. The conversations between Hoover and LBJ remind me of amateur actors reciting a script.

I can't take these two at face value. Don't they both have massive credibility problems?

First let me add something re the infamous poster:

Clearly, very clearly, none of the JFK actions criticized there amount to treason.

In fact, some are laughable. Appointing "non-Christians" to federal office is treason?

Lying to the American people is treason? (My gosh, Bill Clinton should have been executed, not impeached!)

Speaking of which, if you go through the litany of offenses claimed in the poster, most are policy disagreements which do not even rise to the level of impeachable offenses, let alone acts of treason.

This does not mean to imply, of course, that presidential policy is not important. At the height of the cold war, a policy mistake could have led to a Communist victory or a nuclear war. And I myself think that JFK made some serious policy errors, including endorsement of the coup in Vietnam. At the same time i think he was a cold warrior, and for that I would commend rather than condemn him.

To call JFK a traitor, as the poster did, far exceeded the limits of reasonable debate.

Now people may accuse me of getting on my soapbox again but I think it is appropriate here to note that the hatred that some far right-wing zealots exhibited toward JFK is comparable to the hatred that the left holds against Bush because they disagree with his policies. I understand the intensity of the feeling of those who disagree with Bush's policies including the war in Iraq but even deep policy agreements ought not devolve into personal hatred. Disagreement with a president's policies ought not result in labeling him a traitor or a moron.

But to reiterate my review of the poster indicates its criticisms of JFK involved policy differences that did not even rise to the level of impeachable offenses let alone treason.

Time flies. I will have to comment on the "habeas corpus" issue tomorrow.

Tim,

Good post but why always the bit about JFK being a cold war warrior? All the evidence points the other way. That's just your right wing mindset affecting your objectivity.

I agree with your points about the poster. They were just policy differences dressed up as treason. Re the zealotry, never having lived there, the right wing zealotry that existed in the South at the time is something I've never experienced. In Alastair Cook's "America", there's a photo of a happy lynching mob with two dead negroes hanging from a tree. Undated but the author suggests the early 1920's. Not really that long before Dealey Plaza.

Tim, I personally believe that the "moron" references aimed at GWB have more to do with a Yale graduate being unable to speak in coherent sentences without the help of a teleprompter, and less to do with policy differences.

But that is merely my own impression, and I may be wrong.

Mark,

I think you're right.

Bush isn't called a moron because he's a rabid right winger. He's called a moron because he's a moron. Simple.

Lee and Mark:

The "Wanted for Treason" poster was of no legal significance.

The definition of treason is contained in Chapter 115 of Title 18 of the United States Code. (The United States Code are the statutes of the United States.)

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I have not researched it but it is highly questionable that the President or Vice-President or a member of Congress could be convicted solely for policies such a person might advocate or promote.

If a President was determined to be actually giving national security secrets to our enemies, I suspect even the President could be tried for treason but I suspect he would have to be impeached first.

Even if there was clear evidence that a president had committed treason, no one has a license to kill him (clearly)--any more than anyone can use "vigilante justice" to execute a person who has even admitted commiting a capital crime. If a person is scheduled to be executed in five minutes (after ten years of appeal have been exhausted) no private citizen even then has a right to murder the person.

Clearly the infamous poster has no legal effect whatsoever.

With respect to what is the effect on the statute of limitations that there was no federal statute prohibiting the murder of the president, the answer again is clearly none. The murder was a crime under the laws of Texas, and the Texas statute of limitations would apply.

Should anyone want to read the United States criminal code, here is one on-line collection of the entire criminal code:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit...._sup_01_18.html

Thanks for that,Tim. Ever efficient.

Lee,

I've often wondered about the "Wanted for Treason" poster. It's been suggested before that it may have been a message or signal to others. I can't see how it impacts on the legal status of the crime. Maybe Tim's sharp legal mind can assist here (although he's been pretty busy lately, gleefully telling everyone that it's now an established fact that the mob was behind the assassination).

It's probably of no significance, but it's interesting that it shows JFK's left profile, rather than his right. "A good commie's a dead commie".

Hey Mark.

That's an interesting observation. I often wonder what Nagell was trying to say.

Yes - I am hoping to get Tim's opinion, and anyone else with any sort of legal background. I also like the idea of running through each one of these 'criteria' and seeing if anything adds. I may be way off base, but at least I'll have some fun thinking about it.

- lee

Abe Greenbaum, long suspected leftist is actually confirmed rightist, in deep cover, working plausible denial bit with one of nation's leading and best-financed foreign policy-making firms. He is driving along highway not far from Langley, Va., peering intently out of jagged hole in windshield of his Volkswagen, searching for sign bearing acronym "BPR". Date is November 21, 1963. BPR-Bureau of Public Roads-is innocuous designation used by Abe's firm. "Gee, the Chief must be upset about something," Abe mutters to self, "he used a rock this time instead of the ol' soap-the-windshield trick." Purposefully cruising past BPR sign, Abe makes U-turn in center of highway, barely missed by Fruehauf semi-trailer, then turns right onto road leading to firm's Main Office Building. "Must not be seen making left turn this close to headquarters," Abe mutters. Arriving at destination, Abe circles Main Office Building five times, finally enters parking lot abutting wooded area to right rear of building, drives to extreme right end of lot, parks Volkswagen on right side of firm's undercover utility truck, disguised with Bell Telephone Company markings. Sliding across right-hand seat, he exits from right door of auto, walking long distance to right rear entrance of Main Office Building which is draped with high Quonset-hut type roof. "Hello there," Abe mutters as he slips by uniformed guard he recognizes as Soviet defector, former KGB light colonel. Abe proceeds down mile-long, musty-smelling corridor, pauses under tiny, inconspicuous replica of firm's seal which is painted upside-down on right wall, notices that Bald Eagle's beak on seal is pointing to far left. "Must tell Chief Bald Eagle looking wrong way," mutters Abe. He then takes elevator to fourth floor, goes directly to Chief's office, raps out coded knock on unmarked door, enters. Chief is reclining in swivel-chair with feet on desk, arms folded, sleeping. On desk Abe sees torn-up typewritten letter addressed to CHIEF, DIVISION OF DIRTY TRICKS, signed by B. KNOWNOTHING. Chief is balding, slender man, oft referred to by underlings as "Dirty Dick", albeit behind back. "What's up, Chief?" asks Abe. Chief blinks eyes, opens them, snaps, "I see you got my message!" Chief smiles. "What's with this guy Osborne recruited for Fair Play Caper? XYZ man claims he's being used for wet affair by team we sold out at Cochina Bay." Abe shifts weight to left foot, uncomfortably. "Don't know, Chief," he mutters, "Ozzie seems like good man for penetration of target." Chief stands and yawns, grins slyly. . "Well, just the same you'd better contact Tidbit and have him execute alternate . . . plan." Abe stares at Chief with knowing-look. "Right, Chief, I'll get on it . . . first thing Monday morning." Abe picks up cloak and dagger conveniently lying on desk, turns to leave, stops dead in tracks. "Incidentally, Chief, Bald Eagle on firm's seal is pointing left." Chief grins, sits down in swivel chair, leans back, puts feet on desk, clasps hands behind head, closes eyes. "Really?" He says. Soon Chief is snoring. Abe departs, returns to Volkswagen, worried about jagged hole in windshield. Mutters to self, "Gee, I hope it doesn't rain tomorrow."

Lee,

You've caught me out. I didn't know that quote was attributed to Nagell--I just read it somewhere. Re Nagell, I'm just reading TMWKTM now and it's fascinating.

Terrorists like J. Edgar Hoover make security irrelevant.

This thread's not about Hoover. Put that link in your Hoover thread and get lost.

Lee,

I've often wondered about the "Wanted for Treason" poster. It's been suggested before that it may have been a message or signal to others. I can't see how it impacts on the legal status of the crime. Maybe Tim's sharp legal mind can assist here (although he's been pretty busy lately, gleefully telling everyone that it's now an established fact that the mob was behind the assassination).

It's probably of no significance, but it's interesting that it shows JFK's left profile, rather than his right. "A good commie's a dead commie".

Duke,

First class analysis of the security, or lack thereof, provided by the DP.

I've got a couple of comments but I'll hold them over until your debate with Al is over.

I'm always willing to change my mind, but until I have read this book (which will take some time, since I can't even finish Harvey and Lee), I will believe the following, which I have believed for some time. The Mafia was involved, the Mafia was happy to be involved, but this was a coup d'etat of which the Mafia was not in charge and in which the Mafia did not call the shots.

Whether or not the Mafia wanted to see JFK dead by December 1, 1963, there is no doubt in my mind that LBJ wanted to see JFK dead before the end of Don Reynolds's Capitol Hill testimony on November 22, 1963. Talk about good timing!

Ron,

Exactly. For LBJ to be innocent of implications in JFK's death, he would have to be acclaimed as the luckiest politician in world history.

I mean, the assassin's bullets are sending him to the White House while simultaneously Reynold's testimony is sending him to jail. And the US media (fearless bastion of truth) said nothing of this. Still don't. Today. Now. Never?

Mark,

I've always found the various "fortuitous circumstances" that befell LBJ to be quite extraordinary. Various authors over the years have exposed the LBJ political machine and the personality of LBJ. Suffice it to say that after reading various accounts of LBJ's exploits, it is not outside the realm of possibility for him to have more than "fortune smiling on him."

On the other hand, he could be the intended and designed recipient of such good fortune... How better to control than with a dutiful puppet (a puppet fearful on all levels; from life and limb all the way through exposure and political/personal ruin).

His personality and actions tend me toward the former, but the latter is certainly within the realm of reason as well.

Regards,

Frank

You're right, Frank. LBJ may have been the innocent beneficiary of such timely good fortune. However, a study of "Lucky" Lyndon's career reveals an alarming pattern of similar man made providence, like the sudden death of an honest Texas Government official named Henry Marshall who was threatening to expose the activities of Lucky and his buddies (see the thread on Larry Hancock's book in the book review section) or his "miraculous" victory over fellow Texan Coke Stevenson in 1948.

That LBJ was the innocent recipient of anything other than help from friends who knew that LBJ (like Don Corleone) always rewarded those who did him a service, is about as likely as the possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world (apologies to any devout Pastafarians).

Now a book comes along to explain this phenomenon with a body of evidence that says Kennedy bros. Planned an attack that backfired (I will read book to be fair) . Have yet more researchers taken some bait?

Chris, it is intriguing to me that Waldron's scenario has seemed to light so many fires. I'm wondering if the attraction isn't that it clears LBJ and the CIA of any malevolence. The one piece that is an ABSOLUTE CROCK, as far as I'm concerned, is that Bobby Kennedy went along with the cover-up of his brother's death in order to protect the proposed coup. Anyone who's been around grieving people should understand that Bobby and Jackie were in deep shock, the kind of shock that takes months if not years to get over (if ever). If I'm reading Waldron right in that he proposes RFK went along with the Warren Commission cover-up in the name of national security, I must admit I'm skeptical.

Pat and Chris:

Thank you for these probative posts. Having just read all about the alleged Bobby cover-up in Mellen's book I have been quite saddened by such a prospect: something I always considered disinformation in prior books. Indeed, in 1986, when I read that Bobby and JFk were trying to kill Castro in Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt" I was so incensed that I called "411", got his phone number and we had quite the debate, which continued by mail for months. I have read the closing chapters in "AFTJ" twice now. The first time I did not buy the story Angelo gave to Mellen. But yesterday, after reading at length about Sheridan being sent, allegedly by Bobby, to destroy Garrison-to cover for the get Castro allegations, again attributed to Bobby (and presumably JFK) I jumped ahead to see if Bobby was still portrayed this way in Melen's book. This required reading the last chapter again, and this time the story seemed more compelling. BUT: So what? Does this make it so? One poster here writes that this is "old news" called by a new name, but I find the above two posts more pursuasive.

We know that JFK was planning to meet with Castro. We know that the CIA likely overheard this, via wiretaps and it was at total odds with the Agency's plans. We know that JFK and CIA were at war. We know that The Company has produced a number of "authors" to really muddy the waters. It's really back to that old LBJ quote : "Kennedy was trying to get Castro; only Castro got him first" (paraphrased).

Now we are to believe this stuff, this time, on the basis of a few interviews? We do have Dick Goodwin, quoting how angry Bobby was to hear that he was "trying to kill Castro". That RFK was in reality the one trying to keep Castro alive. Is Goodwin fabricating? Is his view not instructive here?

Dawn

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

The ONLY time that Bobby & Company "backed-off" from hitting Fidel & Company was: When even "non-ex-Fidelista" Manolo Reboso aligned himself with "Harry" in the CONTINOUS ARGUMENTS [by others than just myself] -- and explained that: WITHOUT Fidel & Company, the Soviet Brigade would pull a coup d'etat and thenceforth we would be dealing with a SOLID Soviet satellite !!

Too bad you have been fooled by the REAL experts for so long, but you are only one of thousands who have swallowed the tabloid trash about this matter for years. However, don't burn your books yet -- more is yet to come (FORTH) !!

Chairs,

GPH

______________________

Gerry, this is a strange post. It's well established that the Kennedys were running a carrot and stick game with Castro, trying to get him to jump through a ring of fire and back into the American sphere of influence. It's NOT well established, outside of the tabloid trash gossip of a few discreditable sources, that they had a commitment to whack the beard. It's a matter of historical record--not tabloid gossip--that JFK became quite upset upon hearing of the deaths of Diem and Trujillo. His reaction to Diem's death was even a source of ridicule to the hardened ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge. The Church committee, furthermore, discovered that the state department was undecided about supporting the coup in the Dominican, and that Kennedy called it off after the BOP disaster. Nevertheless, the coup went off, due in part to the fact that the CIA's Tracy Barnes had arranged for rifles to be transferred to the plotters without the state department's knowledge, and without higher approval, and had thus set the wheels in motion months before. The record is therefore that the Kennedys were more moderate in their use of violence and murder than the rest of the government. This is proved once again by the October Missile Crisis, where the Kennedys stared down the Pentagon (and quite possibly saved the world from a nuclear catastrophe).

And yet you seem to think that those of us who doubt the Kennedy's blood lust for Castro have been fooled by "experts". You seem to be stating that the REAL Kennedys were out for Castro's blood, yummy-yummy, and were committed to ending his life, even while they were secretly beginning negotiations whereby they would quite possibly receive all they could hope for in Cuba--a liberal democracy.

If you honestly believe this I firmly believe that it is you who has been duped. I ask you, who among the anti-Castro community is so sure that the Kennedys were REALLY going to kill Castro? How can they be so SURE the Kennedys were not just playing along and giving them something to do (conveniently getting them out of the country) while the Kennedys were in fact secretly attempting to make peace with Castro? How can they be so SURE? I believe that if anyone within that community is SURE, then they are a xxxx. I suggest you take the names of those that are sure and draw a ring around them. I suggest that within that ring you will find the names of those that should be immediately investigated in order to determine who REALLY killed Kennedy. And it wasn't a commie.

Pat,

Great post. Revisionists like Gerry and Tim G would have us believe that Kennedy was secretly planning to invade Poland next and his assassination was a milestone for world peace.

I'm always willing to change my mind, but until I have read this book (which will take some time, since I can't even finish Harvey and Lee), I will believe the following, which I have believed for some time. The Mafia was involved, the Mafia was happy to be involved, but this was a coup d'etat of which the Mafia was not in charge and in which the Mafia did not call the shots.

Whether or not the Mafia wanted to see JFK dead by December 1, 1963, there is no doubt in my mind that LBJ wanted to see JFK dead before the end of Don Reynolds's Capitol Hill testimony on November 22, 1963. Talk about good timing!

Ron,

Exactly. For LBJ to be innocent of implications in JFK's death, he would have to be acclaimed as the luckiest politician in world history.

I mean, the assassin's bullets are sending him to the White House while simultaneously Reynold's testimony is sending him to jail. And the US media (fearless bastion of truth) said nothing of this. Still don't. Today. Now. Never?

While I have not yet read Lamar's book, I have to admit I am skeptical of any so-called invasion. I've read enough about the Kennedys to have a feel for how they thought about things, and an invasion of Cuba was not at the top of their agenda in November, 1963. While it's possible they might have given someone, even Guevara, the U.S.' blessing to overthrow Castro, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they have authorized the landing of U.S. troops in Cuba as part of the plan. This would have given the Russians the green light to move on Berlin.

Having not read the exact plans for AMWORLD myself, however, I remain open-minded.

If there's anyone here who thinks the case remains where it was after JFK and Case Closed, by the way, they need to read Larry Hancock's book and my own presentation, among other sources. While my presentation uses the medical evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was a conspiracy, Larry's book draws a circle around the likely culprits. Does anyone have Liz Smith's phone number?

Pat,

The plan involves stunning the Soviets from action (by framing someone with obvious Soviet ties... someone like Oswald ... for the murder of Castro) and the *Cubans* insisting on U.S. intervention. If someone like Che Guevera openly ASKED for U.S. intervention following a coup, that would have been an entirely different situation than if the U.S. invaded on its own accord.

-Stu

Stuart,

Although I haven't read the book either, this really sounds like a scheme more in keeping with Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney rather than something JFK would approve. And why assume the Russians would believe in the guilt of a hand delivered (and undoubtedly dead) patsy? They weren't as dumb as Gerald Posner.

As Pat stated, JFK was not about to risk his growing dialogue with the Russians and risk an invasion in Berlin, just to whack the beard. He got his fingers burned badly with the first attempt, so why risk it again, less than 12 months from the election, when he knew Tim's Party was going to nominate a looney right winger who he could beat with two hands tied behind his back? It's ridiculous.

Killing civilians for no apparent purpose?... If there is any other member of this Forum that believes that American soldiers are killing Iraqi civilians for no apparent reason let them rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne!!

Oh, yeah right, I forgot. We're in there to shove DEMOCRACY down their throats at all costs because it's the American way to deal with these rag heads and goat herders.

Where are the John F. Kennedy Democrats who supported his 1961 Inaugural promise that America would 'pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty?'

I would have thought that a lot of young Democrats have died in Iraq on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex. A more relevant point is what price are warmongers like you paying.

I don't need to "rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne" because my own views are at least as cynical as his about the Iraq War.

In 1968, when LBJ wanted nothing more than to finally end the war before going off to his haunted retirement, Nixon's election strategy involved conspiring to undermine the Paris Peace Talks. In 1980, during the Reagan/Bush election bid, there was a backdoor deal to undermine a resolution of the Iran hostage crisis. In 2004, the Republican Senate brazenly admittedly to delaying the investigation of the White House manipulation of the intelligence leading to the war until after the election, only to have them subsequently assert once the election was over that the issue no longer had revelation - since the election was over. And of course, everyone stonewalled the Plame treason (Poppy Bush's term) to get through the election.

For four years, every American life lost in Vietnam from 1969 to 1973 under Nixon was wasted; the final settlement was not materially different than the terms available at the beginning of the four years. Even worse, the Watergate corruption and resultant weakening of the government made the later agreement unsustainable. Meaning, for all of those lives lost, we turned a stalemate into a loss. And why? Because we wanted peace with honor. I'm still waiting to hear a single non-excusatory articulation of what honor there is in what Americans did, and what they died for there. As an expression of will, it failed.

After the Republican subterfuge leading up to the election in 1980, whaddya know! We started selling them sophisticated weaponry, paying ransom for hostages, and used the mark-up on the arms sales to fund Latin American attrocities in specific violation of American law. And most of us are aware that many of the Latin American Contra activities involved the same School of the Americas thugs trained up to take out Castro, and who possibly turned on JFK.

Now this current crowd relies for its power on a constant barrage of fearmongering, wrapped in the flag. But what honor is there in using White Phosphorus against civilian populations? How is it not an illegal occupation when, by democratic standards, the majority wants us out? We relied on an agent known to lack credibility named Curveball to take out the secular strongman dictator of a country with three distinct ethnic/religious factions, never considering that democracy is the worst thing that could happen there. The majority of Iraqis support the Shiite theocracy in Iran. We're not worried that if we "cut and run" there will be chaos and civil war; we're worried that Iraq will become Iran's by osmosis.

The use of Kennedy's "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty?" is obscenely disingenuously applied to the current circumstance. I know that the death of American soldiers is a minor consideration to some, but how is it that Kennedy navigated the most dangerous era in the history of humanity without any combat troops dying? Less than two hundred military personnel died during the entire course of his presidency, including training accidents and advisors in Vietnam. And most forget the value he placed on the incarcerated Bay of Pigs Cubans, whose ransom was greatly opposed by Republicans. Manuel Artime alone cost $500,000.

The lesson from Vietnam, the so-called Powell Doctrine (how does he live with what he's done?) is that you don't go into a military conflict without overpowering force and a clear Exit Strategy, along with a tenacious avoidance of mission creep. Absent all of these requirements, with no clearly defined mission or exit strategy, every life lost contributes to worse than nothing; it contributes to diminished respect and influence for America in the civilized world and diminishes civil rights and liberties domestically. MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED IN IRAQ THAN FROM ALL THE TERRORISM IN HISTORY.

T.C.

T.C.

Now that's a fine post.

I don't believe Astucia should be banned from the Forum.

Everyone has a right to an opinion and there's a nut or two on the Forum already

My opinion is that I should not offer a platform to Nazis.

"....for a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people"

JFK

An intelligent post, Mark.

But I do agree with Shanet that the Astucia fellow is reprehensible.

Tim,

Thanks for your comments. While Astucia may be a nut, others have supported his claims concerning Israel's possible involvement. So I guess he's not a "lone nut".

Many nuts have put forward ridiculous theories about the assassination. My favorite is the one blaming Jackie. All those nutbag theories collapse under the mildest scrutiny. However, the claims concerning Israel don't collapse. They hold firm. Lack of public discussion doesn't diminish the significance of the fact that Israel emerged from the assassination as a clear winner. The other two parties who recieved tangible benefits from the event were the MIC (Vietnam) and LBJ (a "get out of jail free and proceed straight to the White House" card.)

Others, such as Texas oil, big business, the intelligence agencies and the mob also benefitted but I see their main dividend as preservation of the status quo rather than tangible gain. While preservation of the status quo can't be ruled out as motive, I rank tangible gain as a more reliable indicator of complicity to induce change.

As such, I now believe the three aforementioned parties as the prime movers behind Kennedy's removal, with assistance from an amalgum of the lower ranked parties.

p.s. I don't believe Astucia (or anyone) should be banned from the Forum. Everyone has a right to an opinion and there's a nut or two on the Forum already, IMO. A more pressing concern is to find closure before we all go to that big Dealey Plaza in the sky.

Mark,

The U.S. hasn't had a legitimate federal government since 1963. Every president has been a crook and/or traitor (even that fine Christian Carter has his house-building hands soaked with blood, having conspired as president to suck the Russians into the bloody "Afghan trap," from which arose Al Qaeda and much of our present grief), with never a viable or decent alternative to vote for. For the last two decades the White House has been handed back and forth between two crime families, with all indications that this will continue as long as the deals prove satisfactory or the CIA gives its okay. To vote in such a corrupt system is to condone criminal government, to be an accessory to all that the ruthless powers that be who govern us have inflicted on the world and on their own citizens. So I let others vote, I've basically been reduced to a cynical observer.

As for compulsory voting, we will surely never see that in America. In a land of stolen elections or agreed-to anointings, the less voters the better, for it means less votes that have to be manipulated.

Ron

A sad state of affairs indeed.

Terry, you may disagree (you DO disagree!) with the war in Iraq, but that is a far, far cry from claiming that American soldiers are killing innocent civilians! Which is what Mr. Charles-Dunne asserted.

Also, if we effected regime change in Iraq because of oil, then it is fortunate indeed for the Iraqi citizens that we removed the brutal despot terrorist Hussein because of that oil!

A toast to Ramsey Clark, defender of the WC and Sadam Hussein! Where was Clark when Hussein was murdering tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis? Where was their legal defense? The hypocricy of liberals boggles the mind!

As Lenin once called them: useful idiots! (Not intended as a slam against any Forum members, of course)

Tim,

American soldiers aren't there to kill innocent civilians. I believe most don't want to be there. They are there to follow orders. If innocent civilians die, responsibity lies with whoever gave the orders. Who gave the order to invade Iraq ? That's where the buck stops.

I watched Jack Ruby execute LHO in vivid black-and-white. At this point, my dad said, "Looks like someone wanted to keep him from talking!" At that point, I believed in conspiracy.

I was incredibly naive back then. I hesitate to say I was stupid because, after all, I was a college student. I too watched Ruby execute LHO live, but I don't recall the thought of conspiracy ever even occurring to me. The only thing that made sense in the United States of America was that it was a lone nut killing another lone nut, just like the government concluded.

I even voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. I still haven't lived that down (never will), and I haven't voted since then in a presidential election. Fool me once, shame on you . . .

Ron,

So you first began to suspect LBJ sometime between '64 and '68? Or were you like many others, just protesting America's involvemnt in Vietnam by not voting?

I ask because it's unusual for someone not to vote for so long. Over here it's compulsory to vote, Or I should say, it's compulsory to get your name marked off from the electoral roll. Once in the privacy of the polling booth, you can write anything on the ballot paper, as many do. Failure to vote results in a nasty fine. One wag noted that compulsory voting was designed by our politicians to keep us from becoming fat and lazy. (A walk to the polling booth every couple of years might improve our fitness). They keep us fit--for free!

I've got to proceed with some tact here but I feel it's quite important to respond.

I've never owned Astucia's book but, like Lee, I've read lengthy excerpts on the net before, including the material Lee posted. I agree that Astucia seems to have a bee in his bonnet about Israel but I also think that Lee's remark about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater is an extremely important comment to bear in mind.

Since joining the Forum, I've learned many things about the assassination and a great deal about US history as well. It's all a steep learning curve and I'm extremely grateful to be able to access the research of the many excellent researchers who post here (too numerous to name). John Simkin's recent comment about authors using the Forum in preparation for publishing their works didn't surprise me because the Forum is the best research tool available anywhere, IMO.

However, the one aspect which I've found surprising and disturbing is the inexplicable reluctance of the Forum to seriously investigate the possibility that the Israeli Government and, by extension, Mossad, were implicated in this crime. While Astucia, rightfully or wrongly, may be branded racist and anti-Semite, it is a poor investigator who subsequently dismisses his every utterance concerning this unsolved crime as the ravings of a madman.

Discussing the possible involvement of the Israeli Government is no more racist than discussing the involvement of the Cuban, Russian or American Governments. I've yet to read of Cubans or Americans complaining of racism. No aspersions are being cast on the people of these nations, the focus of investigation is on the behavior of these Governments, not the people. The absence of discussion concerning the Israeli Government is consistent with the inexplicable silence of Forum members on other matters concerning the Israeli Government, for example the sinking of the USS Liberty by Israeli forces in 1967, and the subsequent coverup of this tragedy by LBJ and the American media. The coverup seems to have been effective, as few seem to know of it. I knew nothing of it until visiting sites such as Astucia's because it doesn't rate a mention elsewhere. It's incredible to accept that people who rail (justifiably) with such unctuous zeal about the duplicity of politicians, agencies and Governments regarding other events can be stony silent about outrages such as this. It worries me. The possibility of agendas rears its ugly head.

If this is to be a genuine investigation into JFK's murder, I would have thought ALL possibilities need to be examined otherwise we're just a newer, more well informed version of the Warren Commission, aren't we?

Does Israel warrant scrutiny? IMO, they do:

1. JFK and Israeli PM Ben-Gurion had heated exchanges about JFK's insistence that Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona be subject to inernational inspections. JFK's policy was one of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons for all Middle Eastern countries, with no exceptions. Ben-Gurion was reported to have stated that JFK's policy was a "threat to the very survival of Israel". Under LBJ, military aid to Israel increased exponentially and it became the superpower of the region. The issue of inspections of their nuclear facility was quietly dropped.

2. Yitzakh Rabin's memoirs fail to mention the assassination or even JFK. Rabin was highly placed in the Israeli military at the time. His presence in Dallas at the time of the assassination was only discovered when his wife mentioned it in her autobiography. Rabin's memoirs detail his great excitement at being in America at the time, his admiration for the US military and yet fails to mention a word about JFK or the assassination. Why?

3. The Israeli Government defied America during the Suez crisis in 1956, refusing to withdraw from territories acquired, unlike France and England who did withdraw, until Eisenhower cut off their aid, which was subsequently restored after Israel finally relented.

4. Mossad's efficiency as an agency has long been held in awe by the rest of the world. Their pursuit and execution of all the terrorists involved in the murder of their athletes in the 1972 Montreal Olympics shows their skill at breaching international borders. It's quite a story.

I can post links to various sites which expand on these matters but they can be googled and I prefer researchers to investigate for themselves rather than being directed to sites by me.

When investigating JFK's murder, which has remained unsolved for so long, I don't believe any area should be "off limits".

Stephen wrote:

secondly where do you get the notion that Christianity brought democracy about, this was achieved by the working class, though their unions, every foward step that has been taken in this regard was though relentless pressure being brought to bare on the rich and powerful, and their payed lacky's in Government.

Sorry, Stephen, it is you who are so wrong. The institution of democracy was really established in the United States but based on the work of great English philosophers e.g. John Locke, as I am sure you knew. The development of democracy was accelerated by the pilgrims who fled your country seeking religious liberty. The development of democracy had very little to do with "working class unions".

If you have historical authority for the thesis you posited, please post or recite it.

Thanks!

Tim, are you familiar with the Chartists?A mass working class movement of the late 19th century, that demanded the franchise from parliament, at the point of a gun if needed, and was decried and hated by so called religious leaders. Have you heard of the Communards in France, and their ultimate fate at the hands of Christian leaders, I have lots more examples if you want. No "philosopher" ever changed a damn thing, pressure from below is what counts. Oh and BTW, look up the role that the Catholic church played during the Spanish civil war. Anti democrats to a man. Steve.

Don't forget that particularly undemocratic performance by the Catholic Church a few years back known as the Spanish Inquisition. Took the masses by surprise, I'm told.

Why? Because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Sorry, Mark, the "holy war" is being fought by the Muslim fundamentalists.

Although Christianity certainly had its problems, it was through Christianity that the concept of a religiously tolerant liberal democracy came to being.

GB II and I advocate political and religious freedom throughout the world.

What do you advocate: the Muslim fundamentalist subjugation of women?

So Tim, if I argue against Christian fundamentalism, this makes me a supporter of Muslim fundamentalism? Is that your reasoning?

I eagerly await Gerry's reply to Mr. Dunne.

Dunne is done. He repeats the lie that Bush lied. Even Eric Alterman won't buy that one.

No one of the Bush bashers here has accepted my challenge to post a reference to any single document that Bush saw that opined that Iraq had no WMD. Not a single document to that effect.

And it is absolutely ridiculous to claim the Dems were only allowed to see the documents that Bush allowed them to see. That assertion is horsefeathers (I'd put it stronger but this is a "G" rated forum (except for Gerry who has a "special dispensation").

Robert may be right about one thing: that the US helped create the monster that Hussein was. Does that mean we had no right to remove him? To the contrary, I think it imposed a responsibility on the US to remove the monster from Iraq.

Every single American life lost in Iraq is regrettable. But one must consider the tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis Hussein killed oft using WMD. His atrocities would have continued had the US not effected regime change when it did.

Re Canada's lack of participation, if I was a Canadian I would be hanging my head in shame!

Finally, I have to add this:

Robert wrote:

Apparently allowing UN inspectors to determine at no cost in lives that there were no WMD is just no substitute for the brutal carnage your nation has unleashed.

Robert blames the US for the "brutal carnage" of the terrorists? A bit derriere backwards, if you ask me, to blame the savages for attacking the peacekeepers! Typical left-wing hogwash.

BTW, I just read in USA Today that Ramsey Clark will be joining Hussein's defense team. Perhaps Robert will be contributing to the Hussein defense fund!

Since you feel so strongly about America's global role of removing harsh dictatorships, I assume you advocate immediate American intervention in various countries, like North Korea and China for example. You could also help with America's current recruitment shortage by donning the khaki yourself, of course.

If there was no oil in Iraq, the Bush group wouldn't be there and no amount of sanctimonious crocodile tears about the suppression of the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein can change that indisputable fact. If Bush's motives are as pure as you asking us to believe, then why aren't they spending billions removing dictatorships and enforcing "democracy" on dozens of counties, non-oil producing ones, all around the globe?