Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
The problem for the US in the case of Iraq is that the companies which intended to establish there now find they can't, due to the suicide bombers who will target the employees of such companies immediately. Hence, one of the primary reasons for the invasion has been rendered redundant. Add to this the fact that Iraq is sending America broke, causing the redirection of funds and people from that other stunning global initiative--the war on drugs--towards the lost cause in Iraq. I think George Bush will pull out of Iraq before Christmas.
Add to this the increase in oil prices (the main reason that the Rupert Murdoch empire supported the invasion was the belief that it would bring down oil prices and stimulate the economy) and Bush does indeed have serious problems. Further evidence of global warming has also made his relationship with the oil industry more difficult. However, I cannot see how he can withdraw from Iraq (even loyalists like Tim will have difficulty with this one). What he might do is to hand over the problem to the UN. That will also help Tony Blair with his problems as well. The problem with that option is that any true and fair elections will hand Iraq over to anti-American Muslim fundamentalists. That was the one thing that Bush did not want. However, that is what his actions will eventually achieve. That is the problem with having an American president who has no understanding of foreign affairs. In fact, going my interviews I have seen, I am not sure if he understands anything at all, other than the way to receive large donations from the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
Yes, good points John. I don't think Bush will abandon the bases in Iraq but they will have to leave the cities. The Iraqi leaders trip to Iran means they've no real loyalty to the US, so the presence of US soldiers in the urban centres is going to look increasingly foolish. It might even transpire that the Shiite governments in those countries may unite and form an enlarged Shiite nation. The exact opposite of what America wanted (another stroke of genius, George). This was not a contingency for America when Saddam Hussein, a Sunni moslem, was in power.
I agree they will hand the problem to the UN and I agree with the witty last sentence about GWB. The man's as thick as two short planks, as the wider American public is discovering to their horror. They should applaud Rupert Murdoch for keeping it a secret so long. Great gag, Rupie.
-
I have found it useful to employ the device called "Ignore Users"
Go to "My Controls", then "Manage Ignored Users" KEY IN THE NAME OF ANYONE YOU WISH
This is a very good way to limit your interaction with questionable and provocative members.
It will lower the Volume in more ways than one........
Great to see you back, stranger.
-
The problem for the US in the case of Iraq is that the companies which intended to establish there now find they can't, due to the suicide bombers who will target the employees of such companies immediately. Hence, one of the primary reasons for the invasion has been rendered redundant. Add to this the fact that Iraq is sending America broke, causing the redirection of funds and people from that other stunning global initiative--the war on drugs--towards the lost cause in Iraq. I think George Bush will pull out of Iraq before Christmas.
Just speculation, of course.
For more on the redirection of funds by a desperate administration, see here;
-
The agent in charge of the follow-up car, Emory Roberts, has always interested me if only for the fact that it's difficult to find much info about him. In the books I have he's not mentioned, except for the briefest of mentions in Manchester and Posner. Most info concerning him appears to come from Vince Palamara's work. He didn't testify before the WC (nor did Floyd Boring or David Grant, which arouses suspicion, IMO).
Palamara states that Roberts became LBJ's records secretary after Dallas. He apparently died in the late 60's from causes unknown. In interviews with former SS agents, Palamara states that they wouldn't reveal the cause of his death.
Roberts behavior in Dallas is interesting because he ordered Agent Rybka from the back of JFK's limo at Love Field and also ordered his agents to hold back as the shots were fired. But the thing that is most intriguing is the unconfirmed report that he was responsible for a brief transmission to LBJ's car immediately after the assassination to the effect of "They got him, they got him".
Can anyone add anything to this or correct me on any inaccuracies?
p.s. James, Lee, Robin--any chance of a non Dealey Plaza photo?
-
Robin, Lee, Martin, James,
Sensational photos. Most I hadn't seen before. James's photo resemblance of the guy in the photo acquired from E-Bay is a very close match. Could he have been a shooter/spotter?
-
Mark, I believe your use of the term "political illiteracy" regarding Tim is both unfair and incorrect.
I don't believe that Tim is politically illiterate; I believe that he is, instead, politically agnostic...that he is quite aware of the truths that exist on the side opposite his own, but chooses to ignore them rather than to confront them.
Hmm...so you're saying he's being disingenuous? Maybe, but I think that makes your evaluation of Tim's malaise more damning than mine. The question of fairness is not relevant here, IMO. I reject that criticism.
Mark,
I'll tell you what--my criticism of Tim might have been a little harsh. I'll concede this point to you. What burns me (and I suspect others) is Tim's dismissive manner in dealing with dissenters. Tim should focus on this.
My main sticking point with Tim concerns the question of what JFK's intentions were--would he have invaded Cuba? Sadly, no one knows for certain, we can only go on the available evidence. Hence, Tim's argument that JFK had a second invasion in the works but Castro got in first and assassinated him can't unequivocally be disproved--only argued. Most of the Forum, myself included, think it's rubbish but if we, as researchers, are to entertain all probabilities in this vexing conundrum we must concede that a probability exists, however minute, that Tim is correct. Perhaps Kennedy harboured a deep and hidden hatred for Castro because of the embarrassment of the BOP, cleverly managing to suppress crazed, table thumping diatribes of venomous invective directed at the beard. If, by a miracle, history reveals Tim to be correct then I would be prepared to publicly declare Tim the Guru of JFK research--conditional upon Tim acquiring the mandatory flowing beard and robes which a Guru of Tim's stature would then require. What a frightful ear-bashing we would all then recieve, myself in particular.
I post this on the record just in case Tim is right. (Tim, don't cherry pick it)
-
Mark, I believe your use of the term "political illiteracy" regarding Tim is both unfair and incorrect.
I don't believe that Tim is politically illiterate; I believe that he is, instead, politically agnostic...that he is quite aware of the truths that exist on the side opposite his own, but chooses to ignore them rather than to confront them.
Hmm...so you're saying he's being disingenuous? Maybe, but I think that makes your evaluation of Tim's malaise more damning than mine. The question of fairness is not relevant here, IMO. I reject that criticism.
-
The figures John mentions are absolutely staggering. Cheney et al having hands in the cookie jar would be less of a surprise!
This level of 'investment' in arms/defence should be a cause for concern for every US citizen. Not only is the potential corruption an issue.
As Britain found to its cost in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, overcommitment to one (or a handful) of industries is likely to lead to economic difficulties. It begins with balance of payments problems, because the country has to import increasing amounts of newer or different technology and exports fall foul of competitors' strengths and developments. It ends with prolonged economic hardship (long term unemployment, underinvestment in social spending) that restructuring brings. It will not have escaped many that Britain has never really recovered from the difficulties that became most apparent in the years after WW1.
The continued focus of investment (because that's where the best returns are) will deprive other areas of the US economy of investment, and leave the way open for others (Japan, China to name to most obvious in the short term) to replace US manufacturers. It is true that other 'western' countries are travelling a similar path, with likely similar consequences.
Solutions that have worked in the recent past are to loan money (let's call it aid) and tie strings to it (in return: interest and defence contracts). It can be of little coincidence that following the victory in Iraq (sic) there were some in US circles who were most keen to secure contracts for US companies. It's not just about jobs and profits for friends and backers, but also about supporting the overall US economy.
Ed
Good points, Ed. The securing of lucrative rebuilding contracts in Iraq is seen as a form of payoff for the backers of the invasion. The military knocks 'em down, we rebuild 'em. The US taxpayer foots the bill.
-
Re corrupt presidents, I probably agree with you about LBJ (which makes the things he accomplished for civil rights so incongruous). Obviously I disagree with you about President Bush. I understand there may be a difference between policies you consider corrupt and personal morality. I am certainly not aware that the personal morality of Pres Bush has ever been questioned.
From my previous post, you know I would not be so enthusiastic a Bush backer if I thought he was personally corrupt.
You are always telling me to read certain books. If you don't think George Bush is corrupt I suggest you read: Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate and Dan Briody, The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money.
You may wish to contribute to these two debates:
John,
While I haven't read Bryce or Briody's books, those links to the other threads are very interesting. The Halliburton thread makes one think the conspiracy in DP was larger than we think. There's smoke there. I recommend these threads to those who have not yet read them. I especially recommend them to Tim Gratz, but unfortunately his political illiteracy will probably prevent him from understanding them.
-
Again, sir, you do not understand the difference between a spirited debate and name-calling. And I would also point out that when I suggested someone lacked basic knowledge of the Kennedy administration, indeed it turned out I was right: the person had admittedly not read the "basic" books on the Kennedy administration written by Kennedy insiders.
To suggest someone lacked this knowledge was not a "rude insult"; 'twas the truth.
By the way, can you differentiate for me the difference between a "rude" insult and a "polite" one? Are not all insults "rude"?
Tim,
So you were right all along, were you? That's very funny. It turned out you were wrong, as usual. Shanet was right. There were elements of JFK's administration who are now being closely looked at, among them C Douglas Dillon. Your knowledge of JFK is woeful, fatally flawed by your obvious political illiteracy. You claim he was a hardline cold war warrior, hellbent on invading Cuba at all costs. I really think John should ensure that those who intend to make thousands of postings, such as yourself, posses a modicum of political literacy. The Forum has standards to uphold, after all. You must learn to READ and UNDERSTAND before you write, mister two and a half thousand postings.
-
To Mark:
Respectfully, sir, you just do not understand debate. (I was on a debate team for two years in college and won a city-wide debate class in high school.)
To tell someone his "logic is as sloppy as his grammar" is not unusual in a sprited debate. So is the suggestion that someone is debating without adequate knowledge of the facts (e.g. "learn some more history of the Kennedy administration".
To call people names, e.g. a "cowardly charlatan" and "a rat" is, however, puerile and it reflects on the person calling the names, not on the person to whom the name-calling is directed.
Moreover, it is clear all I was doing was making a joke, not insulting Charles and Jack. Pat even suggested that had it come from Ron it might have been funny. Kind of like "things may not always be black and white, but Charles and Jack will always be (respectively). Moreover, it is not a joke occasioned by a funny name. In no way did I think it would offend either one of them. And it apparently did not.
I will not direct this to you but I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of why some people cannot differentiate between jokes and serious statements, or between good-natured jokes and insults.
Don't give me any phony indignation. I agree with John Simkin, you should be totally ashamed of yourself. Your behavior has been a disgrace. Forum members should read the aforementioned Communication Breakdown thread if they want to determine who throws the most mud here.
You claim that to call people names is puerile and reflects on the name caller, but how does it reflect on you when you claim that the stupidity of another is increasing with every post or when you rudely dismiss others as having no knowledge of events when all they are doing is disagreeing with you. Insulting people and then claiming to have suffered injury when they respond is very cowardly behavior. Sadly, you do it all the time.
-
Mark, while I, too, have been annoyed by much of Tim's behavior, I interpreted his bad "black and white" joke as an attempt to make nice. I don't see how it qualifies as a smear.
Probably more a sneer than a smear. Anyway, what's the point of Tim starting such a thread. There's nothing of research value in it, just mild ridicule of others' thoughts (I get the black and white joke--is that funny?).
And since Tim is claiming that he has been the victim of childish name-calling, a few of Tim's gratuitous insults directed at others should be brought to the attention of the Forum, lest they forget who starts these things. Tim's pompous dismissals of others' opinions, peppered with rude insults, runs through many threads, and causes many heated exchanges.
-
Nic wrote:
If you don't like members of this board, by all means, you are entitled to that - but please, take your bad jokes, your childish insults, and your pathetic vendetta elsewhere.
Nic, perhaps you are not reading the posts carefully enough.
I admit to having told a few "bad" jokes, but I suggest a review of the Forum will indicate that the "childish insults" have been directed at me ("cowardly charlatan" is one recent one that comes to mind).
And just to male it clear my "bad" joke about an assassination book written by Black and White was simply a bad play on words. In no way was at directed at or intended as any put down of either Charles Black or Jack White. I do not agree with all of their ideas, but I respect each of them.
Thanks, Nic!
P.S. I hope you change your mind and decide to have children some day, by the way! Most parents will tell you what joy children bring to their lives.
Tim,
You start a thread which is no more than a clumsy and pointless smear of two respected members, then have a front to claim that most "childish insults" have been directed at yourself. (sorry Nic, but might as well have it out here on a thread created by Tim with no bearing on the assassination).
It's amazing that while many of the insults emanate from you, you are the only member who regularly whines about being insulted. Here's a short list of some of your insults from the Communication Breakdown thread, AKA Tim's tantrum thread:
Post#19--Tim's first post in this thread where he suggests Shanet Clark "take a month or two leave of absence from the Forum, read the history books and come back when you have a better understanding of what was going on in the Kennedy Administration". What a humiliating insult to someone whose only crime was to propose a theory.
Post#72--Tim to myself, "Frankly Mark, its attitudes like yours that discredit the assassination community". This statement of Tim's is repeated in Post#83, with the additional rejoinder that my behavior is "beyond reprehensible".
Post#164--Tim to myself, "Your remarks just seem to increase in stupidity with each passing day".
Post#202--Informs Shanet that "his grammar is as loose as his logic".
I've left plenty out for brevity's sake, and this is just one thread. So Tim, instead of moaning like a child and piously proclaiming that you have no time for those who "stoop to name calling", have the courage to be more honest about the entire context of the exchanges in which you partake. You claim you love the cut and thrust of lively debate, you dish out insults like a pro, many without provocation, then have the hide to say you've been wronged, while simultaneously trying to enlist the sympathy of the Forum. I've never known an adult to behave like this. Maybe I've led a sheltered life.
I can see why John Simkin has been so bitterly disappointed at your recent behavior. It's been pitiful.
p.s. don't start any more threads with unprovoked smearing of other members.
-
Pat, I appreciate your comments and would also point out that I had previously indicated that Laurie Schmidt probably merited additional research. I am still skeptical that "oil interests" (the "Mattei theory" if you want to call it that) killed Kennedy and I would find it more plausible that extreme right-wingers who detested JFK's stand on racial integration might have killed him. This would include, of course, Gen. Walker and others of his ilk. I think extreme hatred would be a greater motivating force than economic self-interest.
There were a few fairly "far-out" right-wingers I met in the early sixties, but none I would have believed would have contemplated an assassination. Their dislike of Kennedy was much less intense than that of Southern racists.
I think there is a great reluctance of left-oriented assassination researchers to even consider the possibility that JFK was not killed by right-wingers of some variety. And that seems strange to me because if, in fact, Castro did it that is not an indictment of the left in general. I think that the reluctance to consider a "Castro did it" scenario may be motivated more for a concern over what that might say about JFK and JFK's politics. A murder from the left seems to paint JFK as more of a cold warrior than most left-oriented assassination researchers want to consider him. And if Castro did it it also raises the disquieting possibility that the assassination resulted from a "blow back" of Kennedy's Cuban politics on him (if, for instance, JFK was witting of the Cubela caper). Which is why so many detest Russo's book (even its title is, of course, disquieting).
I am not concerned the least should it turn out that an extreme racist like Schmidt killed Kennedy, since I don't think the fact that there were a few extremist nuts on the right capable of killing Kennedy indict the entire conservative movement. Taylor Caldwell was, of course, a prominent conservative who was concerned with the villification of JFK and so wrote before the assassination.
I think we need to run down all of the leads regardless if the leads point us to the left or to the right.
And it did bother me that John, in violation of one of "the most important rules of the Forum", questioned my sincerity when I posted on the Mattei thread that you started. Like you, my immediate reaction when I heard about Mattei on the History Channel program was "Buchanan!". I would not waste my time formulating a post merely for some effect.
Tim,
Castro had no reason for killing JFK. Details of JFK's secret negotiations with Castro aimed at normalising relations have already been posted on other threads. Most researchers on the Forum readily acknowledge this. What have you got against him? Your Castro theory is dead and buried. Move on.
John was right to start this thread. He's also correct in that your political philosophy influences everything you post. Despite George Bush's disastrous foreign policy exploits, including supporting some foreign dictators and invading others to enforce "freedom" and "democracy", you always defend him. In fact, I don't know any Americans who aren't at least partially critical of the President except you. Most are very critical. You can't impose western values on a Muslim society over the barrel of a gun and call it "freedom", no matter how many innocent soldier's lives you sacrifice. Bush himself managed to avoid being sent into combat, of course.
I say all this not because of personal dislike of you, but as you are the most vocal member of the Forum, with well over 2000 posts to your credit, your attempts to inject a partisan political element into JFK assassination research hit the readers of the Forum nearly every day. You said all communists are liars. All communists are liars. You said that. There's been no more politically partisan comment expressed on this Forum to date (to my knowledge). Yet you show great indignation when your factual assertions are challenged--on one thread you twice asked me the question, "Are you calling me a xxxx?". That's just a tactic used to bully the other party into backing down, isn't it? Ditto for threatening John and Shanet with legal action.
John notes when member Harry Dean (like yourself, a genuine player in the 60's and 70's) was implicated as a possible conspirator, his reaction was far more gracious than yours. Rather than hysterically over-reacting and threatening the rigors of the law, Harry calmly pointed out where he believed the author erred. Authors, like everyone else, make mistakes. Harry's handling of this was applauded by members, IMO. It certainly was by me. Because members are always interested in hearing from those who had personal involvement (even incidental involvement) in matters discussed on this Forum, you are currently being asked questions concerning the nature of your involvement in these matters as well as that of your general past. Sorry Tim, you'll have to regard it as the price of fame. You were a player, however minor, and players always get burdened with lots of questions. And due to the inquisitive nature of Forum members, we'll need the answers. We can't be brushed.
-
Tom
I do not find your most recent post any more relevant than your prior ones!
Charlie Black
Charles,
I agree with you. I don't really see the significance of Tom's complicated postings concerning the family lineage of certain people. Also, since when is New Orleans the centre of organised crime in the U.S.? It's had it's moments, like when Frank Costello shifted the slot machines there to avoid reformist New York Mayor Fiorelli La Guardia in the 1930's (with the approval of Louisiana Senator Huey Long) and Carlos Marcello's ascension to leadership of the New Orleans mob in 1947, but to claim it was the hub of the American underworld is a big leap.
-
Mattei must have really annoyed the Texas oil producers. Quoting more from Buchanan's book:
"When the war was won, he was elected to the Italian Chamber of Deputies and placed in charge of Italian oil resources. He was ordered simply to take care of liquidating its' affairs; the plan was to turn back this corporation (ENI), organised by Mussolini, to some private group of oil producers. Mattei tried instead to run it at a profit. So successful was he that the Government allowed it to remain nationalised, despite the outrage of foreign oil companies who felt it represented unfair competition. He brought the price of petrol down and accordingly, though hated by the rival oil producers who were forced to meet his prices, he was joyfully applauded by consumers.
Italy, despite Mattei's substantial natural gas discoveries the Po Valley, is far from self-sufficient in fuels; the Italians formerly bought oil, like other countries, in the Middle East. The formula was long established, by a "gentlemen's agreement", that the profits of oil exploration in the Middle East were to be divided on a 50:50 ratio between the native governments and the foreign oil companies. To win concessions for Italian oil, Mattei disregarded this convention. He signed a pact with Iran which gave Iran 75% of the profits and followed this with similar concessions in India, Egypt, Tunisia, Morrocco, Somalia and the Sudan. The oil companies of the world were immediately up in arms against him. If Mattei had been foolish enough to go to Texas, they would certainly have lynched him".
Buchanan also notes that there had been several earlier attempts at sabotage. He had often recieved death threats but disregarded them and pursued policies which he believed were in the interests of the Italian people. His brother, and a majority of the Italian people, believe he was murdered. So do I.
-
You might already have one (like John Cleese said about the Holy Grail in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"--we've already got one, "it's very narce"). His name's Pieterson.
-
Worse news. 5/156 needing 420 to win. If Warnie wasn't in the team it would be an even series, with the batting and pace bowling about even--maybe a slight edge to Australia due to Glen McGrath. But Warnie seems to have the middle and tail end batsmen completely spooked, especially in the second innings of matches, when there's a few rough patches to aim for. Warne had five fieldsmen in close after a few overs today. Your batsmen have to attack him, the way guys like Sehwag and Tandulkar do. You might lose a wicket or two, but you'll lose them anyway by playing defensively--there's five fieldsmen around the bat who don't drop catches. And you'll have more runs to show for it.
I've seen Warnie belted out of the attack before--it can be done. For England to have any chance this must become your batting strategy.
-
I know Tim didn't start this thread, but there are so many threads on this forum which have degenerated into shambolic, vitriolic and pointless debates on Castro, courtesy of Tim, that it makes one wonder whether there'll be anything to show for John's efforts in creating the forum in the first place.
Cannot agree with this Mark. This thread alone has seen great postings from Pat, Larry, Robert, Chris and Mark. This alone was worth Stephen starting this thread. You must remember that the vast majority of people who read the threads are not members. They also can see what Tim is up to. It is clear we cannot educate Tim on these matters. However, his faulty reasoning is helping educate others.
Yes, I guess reading this thread was making me a bit depressed. The thing is, how many times must a point be proven before it is acknowledged? I agree with you about the quality of the aforementioned postings, that's why I find it so exasperating--they will never be acknowledged as conclusive by the person to whom they are directed. Like Groundhog Day, we'll be forced to relive endless reenactments of these exchanges, with Tim perpetually maintaining that the flat-earth theory is the way to go. You can escape to other threads, but (surprise, surprise) Tim's there too--carrying that stinking dead-cat theory under his arm, wherever he goes.
Maybe I need a break. Is it possible to be haunted over the internet? I'd better not say anymore, Tim might sue me for implying he's a voodoo master or something.
-
I'm not out to "lynch" Tim.
I'm out to show that his own words belie his statement that he shows respect for the intelligence of folks with whom he disagrees.
Tim has, on NUMEROUS occasions, questioned the intelligence of others on the forum. I have cited only FOUR examples so far; many more exist that I am aware of, in just the relatively short time I've been on the forum. And Tim has, to this point, only tried to rationalize his behavior, rather than to admit that his statement about showing respect for the intelligence of others is incorrect.
Tim, I ask you: Did you, or did you NOT, post the statements I have cited?
Do these statements, or do they NOT, question the intelligence of the person to whom they are directed?
If the answer to these two questions is "YES," then does that not prove your statement about respecting the intelligence of others is factually incorrect?
No further questions.
Mark,
Judging by Tim's silence, I believe it's game, set and match.
-
Another great post, Robert. However, it's become obvious to me that it's pointless arguing with Tim. He's just wasting everybody's time. In addition to yourself, Tim's theory has been dismissed for lack of evidence by Stephen, Pat, Larry and Chris on this thread alone but still he won't concede a yard. You might as well argue with a brick wall. The man's just running interference, trying to sidetrack and stymie genuine research into this disgusting crime. Tim doesn't want it solved, despite his holier than thou statements to the contrary. Instead, like the Pied Piper, Tim leads this forum on a merry dance to nowhere. Anyone with an ounce of tact or decorum would, after so many comprehensive rebuttals, begin to entertain the idea that they may be wrong. Not Tim. It's such a shame to witness pointless debates such as this where distinguished researchers--with enough collective knowledge of the case to fill a medium sized library--waste their time trying to talk reason with a person who just won't listen, and will never listen.
I know Tim didn't start this thread, but there are so many threads on this forum which have degenerated into shambolic, vitriolic and pointless debates on Castro, courtesy of Tim, that it makes one wonder whether there'll be anything to show for John's efforts in creating the forum in the first place.
Apologies for the depressing tone of my post, but that's the way I feel.
-
John wrote:
Tim, the reality of Kennedy's intentions appear to have been known by Castro right at the time of the assassination
John, what is your basis for this conclusion? How does it comport with the representations Fitzgerald made to Cubela on October 29, 1963?
Tim, my conclusion that "Kennedy's intentions appear to.." are derived from reading the contents of National Security Archive website at :http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/
::
U.S. UN Mission memorandum, Secret, Chronology of events leading up Castro invitation to receive a U.S. official for talks in Cuba, November 8, 22, 1963. This chronology was written by William Attwood and records the evolution of the initiative set in motion by Lisa Howard for a dialogue with Cuba. The document describes the party at Howard's Manhattan apartment on September 23, 1963, where Attwood met with Cuban UN Ambassador Carlos Lechuga to discuss the potential for formal talks to improve relations. In an addendum, Attwood adds information on communications, using the Howard home as a base, leading up to the day the President was shot in Dallas.
White House memorandum, Secret, November 12, 1963. McGeorge Bundy reports to William Attwood on Kennedy's opinion of the viability of a secret meeting with Havana. The president prefers that the meeting take place in New York at the UN where it will be less likely to be leaked to the press.
White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Approach to Castro," November 19, 1963. A memo from Gordon Chase to McGeorge Bundy updating him on the status of arrangements for a secret meeting with the Cubans.
approach to castro:
John,
Lovely style. I believe you've cracked Tim's argument like the proverbial walnut. John Simkin has previously stated that backchannel talks with Castro were underway, brokered with the assistance of Lisa Howard, among others. Is it possible that Tim might give Castro a rest now? (I doubt it).
The idea that JFK was planning another attack on Cuba is just so dopey that it makes me quite angry when Tim continually refers to it as if it's an established fact. I probably should exercise more restraint in my exchanges with him. The three strikes which render such a plan as folly are:
1. As outlined by Pat, why would JFK revisit the BOP after all the ill-feeling and opprobrium, especially from within the intelligence community, after the first attempt?
2. Why would JFK risk upsetting the Soviets after all the trouble he'd been through in establishing a civilised dialogue with them? For starters, they would have torn up the Nuclear Test Ban treaty. Kennedy was planning to campaign hard on this treaty in '64, IMO. Why wouldn't he, it was the world's first and it made him look like a statesman.
3. How would it look to the American public? After resisting the nuclear option in '62, signing a treaty with Russia and making speeches which included lines such as, "mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind", he then goes and invades Cuba. It would have made the public think twice about the man they thought they knew. That would be the last thing Kennedy, as a politician, would want in an election year.
Tim's assertion that JFK was in trouble electorally, and was thereby willing to consider desperate measures such as invading Cuba, in order to bolster his "waning" popularity, is not supported by the facts. This is an argument introduced by Tim in order to give his Cuban invasion theory some efficacy. It's a fallacy.
-
I just love people who call names. They are usually of the highest intelligence, I have found.
So Mark, why do YOU think Kennedy's popularity was declining?
Tim,
Who's using sarcasm now? Are you implying I have low intelligence?
Regarding your question, I don't believe JFK's popularity was declining. I've never heard this argument before, except from right wing loonies. His tenure was marked by several controversies, the biggest being the CMC, which he successfully navigated. Do you think he was seriously worried by the prospect of facing Goldwater? An issue like civil rights was always going to be tough, but Kennedy relished the prospect of putting his case to the American people, especially since the other side had no alternative but to side with racism and intolerance. Who would have won this debate, Tim, considering Kennedy was articulate and persuasive, hadn't broken his trust with the people and already had the Republicans painted into a corner? How stupid are you asserting your countrymen were? You constantly insult the intelligence of your own people. Disgraceful.
-
Bravo for Mark conceding he does not have the data to support his contention.
Should that surprise anyone?
The facts are Kennedy's popularity was declining in large part because of his support for civil rights. Granted he needed some pressure from his associates and Bobby but he did the right thing and paid the political price for it.
Would he have been re-elected? I say yes because his plans were to eliminate Castro between August and October of 1964. Had that plan succeeded, he would have won big.
But Mark please don't make factual representations unless you have the basis for them. Even if you don't have the actual numbers, a reference to what you said reported in a history book would suffice. But if you don't have the facts, don't guess. This is a history forum after all.
Tim,
"The facts are Kennedy's popularity was declining in large part because of his support for civil rights". Prove this unsupported fact (and not with quotes from unknown sources). I want poll numbers, dates and names of polling agencies who conducted the polls. You're the one trying to turn history on its' head, so forward the evidence. Then when you've made a fool of yourself on that, get over to the YAF thread and answer the questions John and others have been trying to get you to address for days, you cowardly charlatan.
Military Industrial Complex: Bush and Halliburton
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Public pressure, Ron. That's what will do it. I agree they will maintain the military bases there as they would never voluntarily abandon such a strategic position in the oil fields, but the American public won't wear a casualty list of three a day for long, IMO. Also, even the Government offering a 30-40K sign on isn't beefing up the numbers of people willing to become soldiers and take their chances over there. Despite the American media's attempts to rationalise the war in Iraq, the public will reject it. Remember, although the media spoonfeeds the public the news they want them to hear, there's also a thing called the internet where ideas can be exchanged without the necessity of having to adhere to the corporate imperative. The sponsors of news networks can't influence my opinion, and never will.
Once the US withdraws from all but the military bases, things might get interesting. It's all fertile ground for speculation.