Mark Knight

Now, put yourself in the shoes of one of the poorest of New Orleans...annual income of under $10,000 a year. You rent your home, and you don't own a car. An order comes down to evacuate the city. But they don't offer buses, they don't offer hotel/motel costs when you get wherever you might end up. So what do you do? Do you stay put, and hope they're wrong about the hurricane...or do you start off walking, not knowing where to go, and not sure you can walk your way out of the path of the destruction? You sure as hell can't sleep in the car you don't have, can you? We've all heard about folks who didn't have sense enough to come in out of the rain; and yet these people are supposed to take off walking into a HURRICANE? Obviously there must not have been any school buses available on a Sunday for the state or city to commandeer...after all, that's a pretty busy day for school buses, traditionally. Church buses? New, all these folks were busy gettin' outa Dodge themselves. City buses? Military buses/ troop transport trucks? The entire evacuation situation was FUBAR from the get-go, and the response in the aftermath of the destruction was WORSE. NOW...rather than sit here and AFFIX the BLAME...maybe someone can FIX THE PROBLEM! In light of the debacle in New Orleans, MAYBE the executive offices [mayors, city councils, etc.] in other cities can sit down and map out a strategy in case an evacuation becomes necessary in THEIR city. Sit down with school officials and make arrangements for the use of buses in emergencies, WITHOUT having to wait a week for a directive from Washington; Make arrangements for medivac helicopters to get sick and injured people out of hospitals IN LARGE NUMBERS in case the need arises. And--shades of the Cold War days and the old Civil Defense--make PLANS for shelters and supplies of food and drinking water in case it's needed. New Orleand was a disaster waiting to happen, and it finally did. It wasn't so much that emergency folks planned to fail, but more that they FAILED TO PLAN. "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history..." well, you know the rest.

Congress Likely to Probe Guard Response By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer Sat Sep 3, 6:38 PM ET WASHINGTON - Another 10,000 National Guard troops are being sent to the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, raising their number to about 40,000, but questions linger about the speed with which troops were deployed. Several states ready and willing to send National Guard troops to the rescue in New Orleans didn't get the go-ahead until days after the storm struck — a delay nearly certain to be investigated by Congress. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco help from his state's National Guard last Sunday, the day before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana. Blanco accepted, but paperwork needed to get the troops en route didn't come from Washington until late Thursday. California troops just began arriving in Louisiana on Friday, three days after flood waters devastated New Orleans and chaos broke out. In fact, when New Orleans' levees gave way to deadly flooding on Tuesday, Louisiana's National Guard had received help from troops in only three other states: Ohio, which had nine people in Louisiana then; Oklahoma, 89; and Texas, 625, figures provided by the National Guard show. Maj. Gen. Thomas Cutler, who leads the Michigan National Guard, said he anticipated a call for police units and started preparing them, but couldn't go until states in the hurricane zone asked them to come. "We could have had people on the road Tuesday," Cutler said. "We have to wait and respond to their need." The Michigan National Guard was asked for military police by Mississippi late Tuesday and by Louisiana officials late Wednesday. The state sent 182 MPs to Mississippi on Friday and had 242 headed to Louisiana on Saturday. Typically, the authority to use the National Guard in a state role lies with the governor, who tells his or her adjutant general to order individual Guard units to begin duty. Turnaround time varies depending on the number of troops involved, their location and their assigned missions. One factor that may have further complicated post-Katrina deployment arose when Louisiana discovered it needed Guardsmen to do more law enforcement duty because a large portion of the New Orleans police force was not functioning, according to Lt. Gen. Steven H. Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon. Because the agreement that was already in existence for states to contribute Guard troops to Louisiana did not include a provision on their use in law enforcement, Blum said, Gov. Blanco had to get separate written agreements authorizing Guardsmen to do police-type duty. Still, Blum said, this took only minutes to execute. With many states' Guard units depleted by deployments to Iraq, Katrina's aftermath was almost certain from the beginning to require help from faraway states. Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress are just beginning to ask why one of the National Guard's most trusted roles — disaster relief — was so uneven, delayed and chaotic this time around. Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., said the situation has shown major breakdowns in the nation's emergency response capabilities. "There must be some accountability in this process after the crisis is addressed," he said. Democrat Ben Nelson, Nebraska's other senator, said he now questions National Guard leaders' earlier assertions that they had enough resources to respond to natural disasters even with the Iraq war. "I'm going to ask that question again," Nelson said. "Do we have enough (troops), and if we do, why were they not deployed sooner?" President Bush was asked that question Friday as he toured the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast area and said he disagrees with criticism the military is stretched too thin. "We've got a job to defend this country in the war on terror, and we've got a job to bring aid and comfort to the people of the Gulf Coast, and we'll do both," he said. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., plans to make oversight of the Defense Department, the National Guard and their assistance his top priority when he returns to Washington next week from an overseas trips, spokesman John Ullyot said Friday. Bush had the legal authority to order the National Guard to the disaster area himself, as he did after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks . But the troops four years ago were deployed for national security protection, and presidents of both parties traditionally defer to governors to deploy their own National Guardsmen and request help from other states when it comes to natural disasters. In addition to Guard help, the federal government could have activated, but did not, a major air support plan under a pre-existing contract with airlines. The program, called Civilian Reserve Air Fleet, lets the government quickly put private cargo and passenger planes into service. The CRAF provision has been activated twice, once for the Persian Gulf War and again for the Iraq war. ___ Interesting stuff...especially about the New Mexico National Guard being offered and accepted on SUNDAY, but not getting their OK from Washington until THURSDAY. I don't believe the NO mayor or the Louisiana governor were either one in Washington holding up the issuance of those orders...do you?

Dawn wrote [to Tim]: ...so you will just offer up another right wind editiorial. Freudian, but appropriate. Back in the long-ago, Harry Truman's desk had a plaque that stated: The Buck Stops Here. Far removed from the Truman era, you can bet this administration won't take the hit for the failure of FEMA--or Homeland Defense, depending upon which jurisdiction finally accepts responsibility--to get food and supplies rolling in a timely manner. Even though they're PART of this amninistration, it'll be "those guys" who are at fault. Taking a cue from Nixon's policies, the president has acknowledged that "mistakes were made." But you can bet your bottom dollar he'll never say "WE made some mistakes." Contrast that with JFK's response to the failures at the Bay of Pigs, where he took responsibility. Different era, different level of character...a level we'll probably never see again. And the 7,500 troops on the ground within 24 hours that Tim's quoted piece cites? Obviously, it wasn't nearly enough, quickly enough, to even keep order...never mind that they evidently brought no food or water [which apparently didn't arrive until Friday?]. And 7,500 troops where 40,000 were requested? That's a DAMN poor response. Does FEMA NOT have emergency supplies stockpiled somewhere? Did they have to gather the food and water AFTER they got the call? If that's how America plans for an emergency [second letter in the FEMA acronym], something's drastically wrong. Of course, I understand about the funds for the Army Corps of Engineers's requested repairs to the levees being diverted to Homeland Security instead. Has anyone besides me read the stories of Homeland Security grants to local communities being used for such things as lawn-mower races? [True story.] Obviously, the lives lost in New Orleans weren't as important as these activities, and knowing that the federal government has set lawn-mower races as a higher security priority than securing a community from what was inevitably going to be a flood disaster without federal intervention, makes me sleep more securely at night...how 'bout you?

Al, I'm not in any way disagreeing with you; I'm just passing along what appears to be an adjusted-for-inflation version in current use within the military [and probably elsewhere as well].

OK...here's one to ponder: With the seriously-depleted National Guard fighting a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and now stretched to the limits just to respond to a natural disaster in the Gulf Coast states...who's "got our backs"?? Who's minding the store, where are our defenses, who's available in case of , heaven forbid, a serious military attack on American soil? The solution to the disaster should be self-evident: give Halliburton a no-bid, no-ceiling contract to clean up the mess, and it'll be handled so quickly it'll make your head swim. Of course, there's no money in the budget to pay them, but when have deficits ever stopped this forward-thinking nation? Just take the money out of what's left of the Social Security fund, and then tell the boomers, "OOPS! 2032 came early!" Just like private accounts, by taking THIS money out of Social Security as well, it should help make Social Security even MORE secure, right? And if we take ALL the money out of Social Security, it should be the most secure government program ever...extrapolating out the current administration's "logic." So how do we fund the rebuilding? Let's cut taxes again, and see if we have more money THIS time! Unfortunately, the budget is looking like the board the kid brought to my high-school shop teacher, complaining, "I've cut this board twice, and it's STILL too short!" Unfortunately, the intellectual heir of this shop student now occupies the highest office in the land. As far as the US economy, as far as US defense, the distaster in New Orleans and surrounding states may well be "the straw that broke the camel's back." When gasoline prices rise 30% in one day, as they did here on Tuesday, the extra money spent on gasoline is money that can't be spent on other consumer goods. Lower spending equals lower consumption; lower consumption eliminates jobs; fewer jobs means even less spending. No man is an island, and every transaction has ripple effects. When John can't buy the new Ford he wants because he's spending all his money to buy gasoline and groceries and heating oil, Joe at the Ford plant will eventually lose his job. And when those depending on Joe's income for their own living can't count on their incomes, THEY cut back...and others down the line are affected. [Traditionally, Republicans have never grasped this concept; they apparently can't see past the immediate higher profits that higher prices bring.] Unfortunately, Democrats are no better. In the tragedy that is New Orleans in the past several days, I've heard no Democrats stand up and offer any significant leadership...although a friend emailed me a Michael Moore rant this morning [heavy on criticism, absent any suggestions to solve the crisis].

Tim, just an update for modern, inflationary times...my son, who's in the Army Reserve, tells me that the current phrase regarding the cost of a round of .223 ammunition, is "the eighteen-cent solution." According to him and his compadres, a lot of the world's political problems merely need to have "the eighteen-cent solution" applied to them.

Stephen, my point was merely that Posner's tactics, while commonly used, don't necessarily lead one to the truth. Posner's concern is with selling the LN theory, and truth is just an expendable inconvenience to folks of his ilk. And I also agree with the original purpose of this thread, which is the exposure of Posner's less-than-forthright tactics, so that rookie researchers aren't taken in by his bogus arguments. As we used to say in the '70's...keep on truckin', Stephen!!!

Is Posner not simply employing the tactics of a lawyer? He hammers home the point he wants to make, and when he can't shake the testimony of the rebuttal witness, he attacks the credibility of the witness. While his tactics may outrage folks, the very same ones are played out in courtrooms across the US every day. And as with Posner, the attorney is concerned with winning the case, and not necessarily with discovering the truth. Perry Mason was, after all, a fictional character. Never forget that.

I believe that Hart, as a onetime leader of the Democrat party, understands better than anyone the Democrats' leadership crisis. In that respect, he's as insightful as he ever was, and said a lot of things that the Democrats in positions of power today might think, but dare not say. Whether or not you agree with his points about the war in Iraq, I don't see how anyone could argue against his charge of a lack of courage in Democrat party leadership. They lack insight, they lack foresight, and they lack a vision as well. [i know a lot of hard-core Republicans who have stopped reading newspapers altogether because they perceive the media to have a left-wing slant. I wondered if Tim might be another of those. I choose to read all that I can, and to then try to think for myself, instead of either "following" the "liberal media" or "marching in lockstep" as a "mind-numbed robot" of the "Dittohead" persuasion. ] While Hart's influence is diminished from what it was in the 1970's, his words still carry the weight of his convictions, right or wrong...and I don't think they're saying what either the Democrats OR the Republicans want to hear...so they're probably right.

Gary Hart authored an insightful article on the Iraq war that appeared In the Washington Post on August 24, 2005: Who Will Say 'No More'? [Of course, since it was published in that "liberal rag," I don't expect Mr. Gratz to read it...but perhaps someone could give him a synopsis of it.]

...which brings us back to the world of postal inspector Harry Holmes. John Dolva may be right...Harry might have been the man who kept the truth from coming out, moreso than anyone else.

Dawn wrote: I am not a Lifton loyalist...but I think his theory advanced the case. While I don't necessarily agree with Lifton's conclusions, I agree with Dawn's assertion that his theory DID advance the case. Folks who weren't primarily oriented toward examining the medical evidence began to do so...some attempting to prove Lifton right, and others trying to make his claims sound ridiculous. In that respect, Lifton provided a valuable service: he caused people to think about areas they possibly hadn't considered before. If not for folks like Lifton, I doubt that anyone would've taken Mantik seriously. [iIRC, it was Mantik who espoused the theory that the problems with the examination of the head wounds wasn't the evidence being examined, but it was the orientation of that evidence that called some of the conclusions of the WC and others into question]. So, while Lifton's theories of body snatchers and wound alteration may not have stood the test of time in the eyes of many researchers, they did cause many folks to take a second look at an area they may not have been so inclined to do so...and so Lifton's work has proved to be valuable.

Gary Mack wrote: Mark, You sure did miss my point, so let me explain it a different way. $170 was all the money Oswald had in the world. There were no known bank accounts or money stashes anywhere. He had no assets, no car, no valuable jewelry - nothing of value of any kind. He also had two young girls and a wife whom he beat regularly and who wanted nothing to do with him. His minimum wage job was about to end within the next few weeks and his past work experience was not enough to land a decent job. So he gave virtually all of it to Marina along with his wedding ring. I don't know of any clearer way to say, "This marriage is over." If you really think his finances don't add up, then do the resarch. Read "Oswald's Finances" in chapter six of the Warren Report. It's crucial background information researchers need to know to figure out what did and did not happen. Here's the link: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0176b.htm Then look at the actual numbers in Appendix XIV of the Report, which includes documented and predicted expenses based on the Oswalds' known lifestyle and activities : http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0383a.htm If you still think they don't make sense, then it shouldn't be too hard to find the holes in the official story of Oswald's money trail, right? Just ignore what folks like Mary Ferrell, David Lifton, Mary La Fontaine, Marina Oswald and others have already found and do your own study. Let me know what you find. Gary Mack Gary, I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Obviously, Oswald didn't smoke, dring, drive a car, or engage in any hobbies more expensive than reading books, probably those borrowed from the nearby library. So while it's possible--and entirely likely--that he actually did save nearly a month's pay after less than two months on the job...the fact that he had nearly a month's pay doesn't make him destitute. Putting myself in his shoes...if I had $3000 [approximately a month's pay, before taxes] in my pocket, and had someone else supporting my family, and had only the expense of my own meals and a cheap sleeping room to pay for, I'm pretty sure that I'd feel as though I was on top of the world! As far as the state of Oswald's marriage, I think the fact that he'd already contacted the Soviet embassy about getting Marina a visa back to Russia might suggest that he was looking for a way to send her back. As far as June and Rachel were concerned, he'd never been much of a father to them--possibly due to the lack of a suitable role model in his own life--and I doubt that, had the marriage broken up and Marina taken the girls to the USSR, Oswald would've lost much sleep over it. It wasn't as if Oswald was heartbroken, or as if he was fighting to preserve his marriage. It seems that it was more of a case that he was resigned to the outcome, and he was emotionally fairly detached from any consequences. And as far as his employment prospects, even the WC report talks of Oswald's high opinion of his own intelligence...implicitly making the case that, rather than being despondent, Oswald had every reason--in his own mind--to think that he'd easily land another job, and that once Marina and the girls were headed back to Russia, life for him would be looking up. After all, hadn't he just proven that he could live on half his salary...meaning, of course, that within the next few weeks, if he could continue to do so, he could then weather a month or more of being unemployed without having to depend upon any unemployment compensation, while he sought another job that a bright young fellow like him should be able to land? So I believe that you and I see the same evidence, but we come to exactly opposite conclusions about Oswald's outlook on life as of the morning of November 22, 1963. You see him as destitute and desperate, while I see him as having a bundle of cash, and having a new future ahead of him...at least until fate intervened at 12:30 pm.

Carrie, I don't doubt for a moment that Oswald had a wallet(1) on him at the time of his arrest. But the WC, and others, reported that he left his wallet(2) containing $170 on the dresser at the Paine house as well. And there are reports of a wallet(3) being found, containing Oswald ID--and thereby tying him to the Tippitt killing--at the 10th and Patton murder scene. Seems like a lot of wallets for one man to carry...and a lot of cash for a $1.25-an-hour working stiff to be packing as well. In Gary's case, I don't understand the logic of his argument...first he tells me that the $170 is the equivalent of $1038 in today's money, and then he tells me that it's an indication that Oswald was nearly broke. Now, maybe in GARY'S world, having a grand in your pocket is "almost out of money," but that's not the case in MY neighborhood. Or let's frame it another way...the total [$184] that Oswald had access to on November 22, 1963 was nearly a month's pay. A month's pay is not usually considered just "walkin'-around money," whether you're a lawyer or a welder or a checkout clerk; it's usually considered a healthy chunk o' change. And having a whole month's pay in your hands at once usually doesn't constitute "almost out of money." So I guess I must've missed Gary's point completely.

Gary Mack wrote me again: Mark, Sorry, the typo was mine. I was referring to Oswald's 1962 tax return, filed in 1963, which Marina has and which she has shared with other researchers. My point is simply that there is no evidence or indication of any significant unknown income for Oswald. The 1962 return matches all his sources and his known income and expenses for 1963 are in line with the amount of cash he had on hand the morning of 11-22-63, which was $184. Without any contrary evidence, it would appear that Oswald was almost out of money, had only a temporary job, and faced the prospect of providing for a family of four. What he did as a result of that realization is a matter of some controversy, isn't it? Gary Mack Now, wait a minute, Gary... "...almost out of money..."??? With nearly [/b]an entire month's pay in his pockets? I would think that, if I were carrying nearly a month's pay in my pockets, in cash, that I was a wealthy man, indeed! In 1963, $10,000 would buy an adequate home in may communities...$20,000 an average 2- or 3-bedroom ranch style, and $30,000 a "dream home." House payments in the $50-$100 range weren't uncommon. For a "working stiff" to be carrying around the equivalent of $1,000 in today's dollars is simply fantastic [as in, 'the stuff of fantasies]. With that kind of cash on hand, the average "working stiff" in 1963 would have thought himself to be unbelievably wealthy, not in dire straits at all! For example, in 1963, my dad had a salary of $65 a week, and there were 5 of us in that household. We weren't vacationing in Acupulco, but we had food. clothing, and a roof over our heads. Believe me, if Dad ever carried $184, it was after he'd sold something [he was in the auto/farm equipment business]. Usually, if he had a spare $10, we'd go out to eat or maybe visit the local drive-in movie [in 1963, we could do both on $10!]. Having $184 in cash, after living expenses...well, it just seldom happened. And I think that's true for Oswald as well.

David G. Healy wrote: Mark, Be prepared , thoughts, original ideas or assumptions not in agreement with Gary -or- the lacking WCR, will earn you the occasional note of correction, corrections that adhere to the party line, of course... David David, I thought it odd that someone of Gary Mack's stature in the community of JFK assassination-related research would be a member of this forum, but have zero posts to his credit here. So when I received his first message this morning, I made a point to post the message in its entireity; therefore, no one could accurately accuse me of taking any of Gary's statements out of context and twisting them. I will be sure to post any further messages from Gary, as I certainly don't want to deprive the forum of any comments made by any researchers as important as Gary Mack. Nor do I want there to be any impression that I am doing anything differently in private than what I am publicly posting on the forum. Now, let's get back to discussing the contents of the two undisputed Oswald walltes...the one left at the Paine house, and the one he was carrying when he was arrested. There was $170 in one, and $13 and change in the other...or, $183 total after his Coca-Cola, his bus ride, and his taxi trip. Thats still a lot of money for a minimum-wage worker to be carrying.

Gary Mack sent me yet another message: Mark, $170 is $1038 in today's money, so it was not just spare change. Oswald did receive unemployment comepensation from Louisiana following his job loss in New Orleans. As I said, it's obvious from the known documentation that he had no other income, at least, not of any significant amount. Researcher Mary Ferrell studied his 1962 return and found it matched within a dollar or less. She also had, as do others, access to his 1963 return and it accurately reflected his known income. If you'd like to speculate that he had other income sources, fine, but guesswork isn't going to get anywhere. Gary Mack Obviously, Gary has missed my point. I was trying to make the same point that Gary did in his message, that in 1963, for a person making $1.25 an hour, $170 was a considerably large mound of cash to be carrying on one's person. Gary, I apologize for the lack of clarity of my original statement. But let's be honest here. In 1963, a 6-ounce Coca-cola was 10 cents, having not long before gone up from 5 cents. A plate lunch in a restaurant was around 80 cents to $1.25, depending on geographic region. And $170 was a suspiciously large amount of cash for a minimum-wage worker to be carrying at one time. Just as $727 would be a huge wad of cash for today's minimum-wage worker to be carrying [bTW, Gary, thanks for demonstrating how the US minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation since 1963...despite what Limbaugh and others may claim]. I'm just trying to understand what Gary's point is. First he states that in 1963 dollars, $170 is a huge amount of money for a minimum wage worker to have [which echoes my point]. Then he implies that there's nothing unusual about Oswald ahving that amount of money on him. So which is it, Gary....is it unusual for a minimum-wage worker to be carrying nearly an entire month's wages on him, after working on his latest job less than two months? Or is it a normal, everyday occurrence which should raise no eyebrows, because apparently everybody does it? Gary, you seem to want to have it both ways. Either it's an unusually large amount of cash for someone in Oswald's financial circumstances to be carrying at one time...or it isn't. I contend that it's aberrant behavior, even for Oswald, to be carrying a month's pay. And Chris, I'm not speculating on other income sources...I'm just stating the facts as I know them, and trying to put them into context of the time period as I knew it. And as far as Oswald's 1963 tax return...it wasn't due to be filed until April 15, 1964...so I'd say the figures there weren't posted by Oswald...and since Marina had little command of English at that time, I'd suggest that someone else filled in the blanks. Whether the information was accurate or not is a wide-open field, since Marina admitted that Lee handled all the money, and Lee was no longer among the living [and therefore not liable for perjury charges if the information on the form was false]. So the 1963 Oswald tax form could state whatever those who handled it wanted it to state. Dead men don't go to jail for tax evasion. But this tax form discussion takes us away from explaining why Oswald would be carrying nearly a month's pay, and yet his family was living in poverty. Obviously, he wasn't saving that money for his retirement.

I received the following message: Hi Mark, You've made an erroneous assumption that ALL of Oswald's money came from his TSBD employment. In fact, he had saved money from earlier jobs and unemployment compensation. All his tax returns were released except for 1962. Marina has a copy and researchers have examined it and found nothing suspicious or anything that was not already known. Gary Mack Thanks for the info, Gary...but I never was quite satisfied with the WC explanation for Oswald's cash-on-hand. I mean, here's a guy who's been out of work for quite some time, and then, AFTER traveling to Mexico AND getting a new place to live in a rooming house, is able to save MOST of what he made on the job? I realize he wasn't like folks today, with car payments and hobbies that take cash away...but evidently he didn't eat for days at a time, and his clothes just never wore out or got torn or damaged while working in a warehouse... I still find all this just highly incredible. After losing a job in Texas, he moves to New Orleans and starts a new job. THAT should be enough to STOP the flow of Texas unemployment compensation funds. But his employment at the coffee company doesn't last long, and there's no record of him taking another job in New Orleans. Yet he can travel to speak at a college, he can travel to Mexico and back...and still have money left over from his unemployment compensation? Give me a break...I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night. While Oswald's in jail in Dallas, he tells Marina to buy June some shoes...as if, up to this point, he didn't have money available to buy shoes for June. Yet he's packing around almost 4 weeks' pay...which means that he must have had money for shoes for June prior to this, UNLESS the $170 came from some sort of windfall. And his visit to Irving on the 21st wasn't the first since he started working at the TSBD...nor was it the first visit in four weeks, which might've explained why he'd still be holding nearly 4 weeks' pay rather than buying shoes for his daughter. The WC explanation was fishy, and it doesn't take an icthyologist to figure that out.

On one level, it appears that the military advisors are discussing the war of attrition that a conventional war would turn into, and the fact that the Chinese would win that by the sheer force of numbers...and that the only viable option for enforcement of a defense pact with India would be the nuclear option...this being said, ostensible to deter JFK from agreeing to such a pact, which he apparently favored. On another level, this might be construed as evidence that someone in the military hierarchy had an itchy trigger finger for that nuke button. Hard to tell, just seeing the words without also seeing facial expressions and body language.

JFK Tape Recording Declassified August 24, 2005 11:41 PM EDT BOSTON - Top advisers to President John F. Kennedy warned him in 1963 that if he pledged to defend India against any attack by China, the United States would likely have to use nuclear weapons to enforce the commitment, according to a newly declassified tape recording. George Ball, undersecretary of state in the Democratic administration, also warned in what today would be considered insensitive language that a nuclear response could subject the United States to charges of racism following the two atomic bombings of Japan that ended World War II. "If there is a general appearance of a shift in strategy to the dependence on a nuclear defense against the Chinese in the Far East, we are going to inject into this whole world opinion the old bugaboo of being willing to use nuclear weapons against Asians when we are talking about a different kind of strategy in Europe," Ball told the president during a May 9, 1963, national security meeting in the White House. "This is going to create great problems with the Japanese - with all the yellow people." A six-page summary of the top secret meeting was released in 1996, but a tape of the conversation was made available only after it was subjected to a national security review based on updated federal guidelines. The recording is the latest to be released by the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, the official repository for Kennedy administration documents. At the time of the 1963 tape, India was a fledgling democracy emerging from British colonial rule. China, bordering in part on northern India, was a firmly entrenched Communist country under the rule of Mao Zedong. In one exchange on the tape, Army Gen. Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is heard telling Kennedy: "Mr. President, I had hoped before we get too deeply in the India question, we take a broader look at where we are coming, the attitude we're going to maintain versus Red China... This is just one spectacular aspect of the overall problem of how to cope with Red China politically and militarily in the next decade... I would hate to think that we would fight this on the ground in a non-nuclear way." Later, when Kennedy begins discussing the idea of guaranteeing India's security, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara steers the conversation back to China. "Mr. President," McNamara is heard saying, "I think General Taylor is implying that before any substantial commitment to defend India against China is given, we should recognize that in order to carry out that commitment against any substantial Chinese attack, we would have to use nuclear weapons... Any large Chinese Communist attack on any part of that area would require the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S., and this is to be preferred over the introduction of large numbers of U.S. soldiers." The British government, then headed by Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, was reluctant to offer a similar security guarantee for India, which it granted independence in 1947. That vexed Kennedy, according to the tape, who asked Secretary of State Dean Rusk why it was important that the United States seek validation from its ally. Rusk said: "I think we would be hard pressed to tell our own people why we are doing this with India when even the British won't do it or the Australians won't do it and the Canadians won't do it. We need to have those other flags flying on these joint enterprises." Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, before he could issue such a guarantee. --- On the Net: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum: http://www.jfklibrary.org Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Now, I've been thinking about something related to Oswald's wallet...the one left behind at the Paine house...the one that allegedly contained $170. As I understand it, Oswald made $1.25 an hour. For him to be carrying $170, that amounts to the pay for 136--yes, one hundred thirty-six--hours' work, at straight time [haven't seen any evidence that he worked any overtime at TSBD]. Based upon a 40-hour workweek, that equals the pay for 3 weeks and 2 days [3.4 weeks @ 40 hours/week]. Now, let's put that in the perspective of today's dollars...at minimum wage of $5.35 an hour, the average McDonald's counterjockey would be carrying $727 and some change at the corresponding rate. Just doesn't compute. Goes against human nature. So Oswald's got a wife and two children, one an infant, and he's been walking around with over three weeks' pay in his wallet while the family has to depend on the kindness of strangers for food, shelter, and clothing. And then when he's arrested--with another wallet on his person, by the way--he's got what appears to be the remnants of $15 in his pockets [$13.85, after bus/cab fare and the Coke in the lunchroom at the TSBD]. For a man making minimum wage, he's rollin' in dough, comparatively speaking. So that means that, sometime within the 24-hour span of November 21/22, Oswald has had the equivalent of almost four weeks' pay [3.7, to be exact] in his hands...and that's apparently after paying rent on his room! [While tax withholding is common in the US today, in 1963 it wasn't as commonly done. I haven't investigated whether the TSBD withheld taxes from paychecks; if so, then Oswald might have been carrying the after-tax proceeds of nearly ALL his TSBD paychecks...] While it's probably an understatement to characterize Oswald's behaviour as "eccentric," this amount of money being carried, relative to his weekly income of around $50, begins to border on bizarre. Anybody have further insight on this aspect?

I believe a letter to Humes would end up in the...ahem..."dead letter office."

Televangelist Calls for Chavez' Death August 22, 2005 10:06 PM EDT VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States. Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism." Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous. "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening. Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports. Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez. Robertson accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002. "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said. "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. And this is a minister--allegedly one who preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ--advocating murder. So...when did they become the "Ten Suggestions"?? I must've missed that.

Castro....bombing plot...NYC..... Where's the beef? [Apologies to the late Clara Peller.]

I don't think that Jarman did it and I am concerned about muddying his name. But he was not a friend of JFK and he was in the TSBD. Fidel wasn't a friend of JFK either, and he wasn't in the TSBD...just thought I'd point that out as well. [This is an attempt at humor; please regard it as such, no matter how lame you find it to be.]