Robert Howard

Miguel Casas Saez - Cuban in Dallas - Of Possible interest 'GPFLOOR'(which is a CIA acronym for documents pertaining to the Kennedy assassination)

WAVE-93

A G-2, and D.T.I.Agent (DGI error?) allegedly in Dallas on 11/22/63, it is difficult to ascertain how 'all of this fits in the big picture.' It is said he was trained in the Russian language, left Cuba on Sept 26th came to US (allegedly on a mission of 'infiltration to sabotage and report on your plans there') illegally under the fictictous name of 'Angel' Dominguez Hernandez. Was sighted in Miami attempting to obtain a boat and then it is difficult to tell what happened. An intel source states he was back in Cuba on Nov. 18, he was also allegedly in New York and seen again in Miami on October 31; Saez's aunt however says that 'Miguelito' was in Dallas when Kennedy was assassinated. He is ostensibly one of Raul Castro's men 'and is very brave, very brave.' He is said to have left Dallas with two other men, and came back with a lot of money.

Other names mentioned are Wilfredo Ruissch and Jose Blancos Matias Hernandez

The document is new to me, but I am sure someone on the Forum is familiar with Saez, anybody?

Documents cite some AMOT Report's;

CC-409 Nov. 5, 1963

CC-412 Nov 15, 1963

EE--774 Nov 29, 1963

See

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=255661

This NYT editorial, coupled with one that I linked to earlier, has me fairly convinced that the CIA is essentially writing these NYT editorials against the Bush/Cheney regime, in much the same way that the CIA used the Washington Post to bring down Nixon. Of course, these editorials alone are not going to send Bush packing prematurely and permanently for Crawford, but to me the tone is remarkably atypical of the establishment corporate media. I can't help but hear in them the distant sound of an angry mockingbird.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23fri1.html

Ron, I think you hit the nail on the head, the comparison to the media dynamic that is in play regarding Pres. Bush, and similarities to the Nixon Era post June 72, is beyond reproach, I believe. Ironically if you read the stroy that is on the Internet today about the 'White Houses List of Accomplishments' for the year 2005, is so 'doublespeak and Orwellian in its overtones that the same mentality that brought down the Nixon White House, is what I would say 'front and center' this Christmas 2005. I would also sadly note, that if the same shennanigans that have taken place since Inauguration Day in America were taking place in 1973, the President would have left office long ago. That in itself is a fact that should make everyone aware of just how far the dynamics of Operation Mockingbird and the American peoples apathy have taken us.

I learned about this Forum by doing a Web search for “Shirley Martin” and appreciate all the information being shared.

The mention given Ms. Martin in Thomas Mallon’s Mrs. Paine’s Garage fuels my interest. He quotes Ruth Paine as saying, “You have to understand, I think her life came apart . . . I believe her daughter was struck as a pedestrian and killed, and I think she saw it as part of the plot” (p. 125).

Hopefully, Paine’s belief is plain wrong. At least, Teresa Smith is alive and well.

Welcome to the Forum.

Can anybody answer these questions for me?

What radio frequencies did the SS use?

And what frequency were LBJ and Bowers operating on?

Thanks.

I really have no idea, but I would peruse the LBJ section at [maryferrell.org] as well as searching under radio, frequencies etc, to find out. the NARA Archives would probably be worth a try also.

Hartmann is guest-hosting Air America in the 7-10pm Eastern Time slot this week. This is a national radio

show that goes to 84 stations nation-wide.

Carefully crafted questions could convey information to a relatively large audience. Given that there are a lot of liberals on this network who scoff on que whenever the media types the words 'conspiracy theory,' some pointed questions--for example concerning the C.I.A. and the media-- could prove "gate opening".

I didn't listen to the whole show last night, but did catch one disturbing comment by Hartmann. He suggested that Thursday night he would pretty much devote to JFK stuff. Then in response to a caller's comment about Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission, he said something to the effect of the Warren Commission serving a noble purpose that he would talk more about Thursday.

The words he used -- again I could be wrong, because he didn't go into detail-- suggest that he might be

buying the line about the WC going along with the lone nut in order to flush the far right "communists did it "

argument from public perception, thereby preventing a possible nuclear war. I personnaly see this argument-- which was also offered by Michael Bechloss, the acceptable liberal historian on PBS-- to be a planned patch in the cover up quilt: the conspirators knew that by playing up the threat of nuclear war they could get many different parts of the political spectrum involved in the cover up. Most of these, of course were not involved in the assasination itself.

I see this argument as a kind of liberal firewall, or last ditch effort to defend the Warren Commision. I find it absolutely disgusting. In its elitism, it is every bit as cynical as the neocons. It is just the kind of elitism that was pushed like a drug among cold war liberals like Hoffsteder and Hartz, and we see it today in the Nation magazine's unciritical defense of Plame and Wilson, who worked for April Galispie in the machinations around Sadam Husseins Iraq invasion of 1990.

Professor McNight, are you doing anything Thursday night?

P.S. How great is was to wake up this morning and see posts from Peter Dale Scott and Prof Alfred McCoy.

These are clean-up hitters!! I think they will be able to help us synthesize a lot of disparate threads.

It also seemed that something always went wrong during these sabotage operations. Was there something in our methodology, we wondered, that was tipping our hand to the enemy? Or, despite the high standards of security at our paramilitary training sites and launch facilities, was our mechanism penetrated somewhere along the line?

Dave and I decided one Saturday afternoon we wanted to create a new, compartmented operational cell that would be kept totally apart from everything else we were doing in the paramilitary field. We felt that with new training facilities, new safe houses, new personnel, and new trainers, we would be in a better position to discover whether something was wrong with our previous methods.

I just wanted to respond to this excerpt from John's post from Shackley's book. Is it an item of agreement in general that the JM/WAVE station was penetrated by the DGI and/or pro-Castro Cuban's? If so, is there a angle to the possibility that the CIA 'knew' it was penetrated and 'incorporated' that fact into the assassination of JFK, in the sense that it would make the 'Castro and Oswald did it' scenario so vigorously promoted by the DRE seem 'very likely?'

My position is that the Castro did it theory is implausible if not an outright joke, by virtue of the fact that 'if it were true, the CIA would undoubtedly have put it out in concrete, concise factual terms from the beginning; the fact that in 43 years this theory has never been proven gives the lie, compounded by the fact that the more one looks at the CIA/Oswald/Mexico City conundrum, I think it is patently obvious that certain transcripts were 'created after the fact' by Ann Goodpasture, and David Phillips as well as the fact that after Silvia Duran was tortured by the D.F.S. the Agency still had to delete her references to the Oswald she encountered having 'blond hair,' a fact that has never been resolved in any sense of the word.

In her book Professor Mellen writes:

Gerry Patrick Hemming concurs: "Helms is [was?] behind the entire operation to kill JFK." (Ch. 10.)

I can find no cite to this statement, and Mr. Hemming vigorously denies making it to Professor Mellen (or anyone else, for that matter).

So my question for Professor Mellen is what is your support for Hemming ever blaming the assassination on Richard Helms?

I have Gerald Patrick Hemming on tape to the tune of boxes and boxes of tapes from our conversations. Yes, he cited Helms as behind the assassination - on tape with me in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He also cited Lawrence Howard as being in Dealey Plaza, and as a crackerjack shooter and sniper, although more recently he has denied that. This is a individual who has contradicted himself, as many authors and historians have noted. Note that I do not call him a witness.

Ms Mellen,

It's an honor to have you here. I asked Gerry about this also and he became quite rattled and even talked of lawsuits. I suspected -(and hoped)- that anything he told you would be on tape.

Some of us wonder why you included anything Hemming told you in AF2J?

Dawn

Gerry, for all your apparent anger towards the US Government for their B.S., (and I would be the last one to disagree with you) some of us out in the same 'real world' you live in, would wonder why you don't tell all, it wouldn't even have to be on the Forum, there is the print media, and certainly no shortage of 'inquirin minds". Whats up with that?

P.S. I may not be a member of 'Fearless Leader's 2% of black voters trust me camp', but Feedel Castro has never been a big fav of mine either.

I wanted to explore a few areas, that ostensibly provide new avenues of research within the context of "what we know now, that we didn't know then."

First of the bat is a name that is familiar to some - Warren Caster; He was the District Mgr. for Southwestern Publishing Co in the Texas School Book Depository, he also garnered attention by virtue of the fact that 'he brought a Mauser rifle (30.06) into the Depository (along with a Reminigton single shot rifle) two day's before the assassination, and there is more! At the time of the assassination he was eating lunch at North Texas State University, which oddly enough was also where the universities "Young Peoples Republican Club" had planned to join alongside Edwin Walker in a protest during President Kennedy's (now infamous) motorcade. The protest was called off after the Dallas Police learned of said plan, ostensibly Walker departed on Nov. 21, and neither he nor his 'group' as the Warren Commission referred to it materialized. It would be 'interesting to ascertain' whether there was any possible connection between this 'group' and the individuals who were arrested at Dallas Market Hall (William Lee Cummings, Gene Guinn, and the Joiner family) across from the Trade Mart, where Kennedy would have spoken that day, or even others. Is it true that 'bullets' were found on these individuals?

There are a plethora of other interesting characters, that may need to be looked at in light of what we now know. But I felt this would be a good beginning; Incidentally, Gene Guinn was 'rumored' to have done printing for George Lincoln Rockwell, a well known 'Nazi lover,' whose name glances the pages of Joan Mellen's infamous AFTJ as 'someone' who was associating with Thomas Beckham. But I guess since her book has been 'discredited' that is irrelevant.

George Lincoln Rockwell's name and address are in LHO's address book. Rockwell was also an associate of Banister's and Walker's. Walker's chief aide, Robert Surrey, later became Rockwell's printer and head of the Dallas branch of the American Nazi Party.

David, thanks for the input G.L. Rockwell sure seems to fit the category of those who walk 'between the raindrops' doesent he, I was looking at your posts and think you certainly have made your share of contributions to same; In that same spirit I felt that this document deserves attention as well.

From that always interesting 'Russ Holmes Work File'

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...593&relPageId=1

By the way, it would really be good if Gerry Hemming could talk about Mr. Augustinovich, and the FBI's S.A. Robert J. Dwyer memo's circa 1962-63 he wrote about anti-Castro goings on in the Miami area, those Dwyer memos seem to have wound up at the Dept. of Justice because 'Dame Edna' Hoover didn't want anyone to know about them.

You don't know Florence Pritchett was Kilgallen's source on anything related to the JFK assassination. People have debunked the Pritchett connection in this group before. Search it. Florence died after lying in bed for months with leukemia. She was not a serious journalist. She wrote a column of kitchen recipes in the Sunday Journal American. She wrote nothing more than that during the last ten years of her life. Her son, today a 52 - year - old Massachusetts resident, would like JFK researchers to leave his mother alone.

This message has been posted before. Like last time I asked questions that were not answered. Maybe I will have better luck this time.

(1) Does Florence Pritchett’s son object to his mother being named as the long-time mistress of JFK or by the suggestion that she might have been one of Kilgallen’s sources?

(2) In your book you do not mention that Pritchett was JFK’s mistress. Is that because you did not know or was it a case of you protecting her privacy?

(3) You do not mention that Pritchett was married to Earl E. T. Smith, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Cuba (1957-59). Did you know that at the time you wrote the book? Is it not possible that Pritchett passed on information to Kilgallen as a result of her relationship with her husband and JFK?

(4) In your book you make a lot of Kilgallen’s relationship with the man you call the "Out-of-Towner". In fact, you imply that he was in some way involved in her death. Is it correct that the man’s name is really Ron Pataky?

(5) Did you find any evidence that Ron Pataky was working for the CIA?

(6) Do you believe that Ron Pataky murdered Dorothy Kilgallen?

I would be willing to make a stab in the dark, could it have been the evening that the Warren Commission came a calling?

I wanted to explore a few areas, that ostensibly provide new avenues of research within the context of "what we know now, that we didn't know then."

First of the bat is a name that is familiar to some - Warren Caster; He was the District Mgr. for Southwestern Publishing Co in the Texas School Book Depository, he also garnered attention by virtue of the fact that 'he brought a Mauser rifle (30.06) into the Depository (along with a Reminigton single shot rifle) two day's before the assassination, and there is more! At the time of the assassination he was eating lunch at North Texas State University, which oddly enough was also where the universities "Young Peoples Republican Club" had planned to join alongside Edwin Walker in a protest during President Kennedy's (now infamous) motorcade. The protest was called off after the Dallas Police learned of said plan, ostensibly Walker departed on Nov. 21, and neither he nor his 'group' as the Warren Commission referred to it materialized. It would be 'interesting to ascertain' whether there was any possible connection between this 'group' and the individuals who were arrested at Dallas Market Hall (William Lee Cummings, Gene Guinn, and the Joiner family) across from the Trade Mart, where Kennedy would have spoken that day, or even others. Is it true that 'bullets' were found on these individuals?

There are a plethora of other interesting characters, that may need to be looked at in light of what we now know. But I felt this would be a good beginning; Incidentally, Gene Guinn was 'rumored' to have done printing for George Lincoln Rockwell, a well known 'Nazi lover,' whose name glances the pages of Joan Mellen's infamous AFTJ as 'someone' who was associating with Thomas Beckham. But I guess since her book has been 'discredited' that is irrelevant.

Deliver Us From Ignorance

What America needs is an antidote for brainwashing

A massive dome of delusion has been constructed over heads!

Now we are slaves to the media, slaves to the government's "truth"

The monkey on our backs has a sack over our heads

We are totally blinded and conditioned to accept the government's version of "truth"

It is no longer our government, but a government run by the rich and powerful

Our military nothing more than a tool for global corporations

A weapon to keep the world "safe" for their material greed

Americans are decent, hard-working and law-abiding people

They have been goaded into hate and anger and misguided by gigantic lies

The government and media cultivate a lynch-mob mentality to foster war

Then pass off this frenzy as American support for its unlawful actions

War to protect the material interests of the rich and powerful

When demand for government accountability dies out we are at the mercy of tyrants

True Americans who abide wholeheartedly by the Constitution will demand truth

Phony "patriotic" Americans will blindly accept the government's lies

Jumping on a bandwagon of national arrogance

Leaving all of us vulnerable to the abuses of power

And the destruction of our Constitution!

God Bless America, she really needs your blessing badly!

"The rest is up to You"

Under the Public Order Act the police are forced to investigate anyone who says something that a member of the public objects to. If found guilty, the person is forced to apologise and to undergo “training”. Recently a woman was questioned by the police under this act after claiming on the radio that it was a bad idea to place boys for adoption with two homosexual men.

Yikes, this one's a bit looney. Don't you guys have any murders to investigate? Your Talk Radio must be awfully tame by U.S. standards.

Everyone has heard the adage 'A picture is worth a thousand words' yet music also has the capability to touch 'hearts and minds' as well. I wanted to post these lyrics from a Stevie Wonder song from the Nixon Era to ask 'does this ring a bell in 2005?'

"You Haven't Done Nothing"

We are amazed but not amused

By all the things you say that you'll do

Though much concerned but not involved

With decisions that are made by you

But we are sick and tired of hearing your song

Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong

'Cause if you really want to hear our views

"You haven't done nothing"!

It's not too cool to be ridiculed

But you brought this upon yourself

The world is tired of pacifiers

We want the truth and nothing else

And we are sick and tired of hearing your song

Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong

'Cause if you really want to hear our views

"You haven't done nothing"!

We would not care to wake up to the nightmare

That's becoming real life

But when mislead who knows a person's mind

Can turn as cold as ice un hum

Why do you keep on making us hear your song

Telling us how you are changing right from wrong

'Cause if you really want to hear our views

"You haven't done nothing"!

Yeah

Doo doo wop

Doo doo wop - oh

Doo doo wop - co co co

Doo doo wop - sing it baby

Doo doo wop - bum bum bum

Doo doo wop - um

Sing it loud for your people say

Doo doo wop - um um um

Doo doo wop - stand up be counted, say

Doo doo wop......

"President Bush is to conservatives what the FOX Network is to news"

What I find interesting about the whole thing isn't that the Bush Administration admitted spying on us... well, DUH. Nor is it that they've been doing this in the name of our defense...well, yeah, that's their built-in excuse. It's that they already have special courts to authorize these things, and that Bush decided with the help of his torture-is-acceptable-if-you-say-so Justice Department, that he no longer needed to follow the law. Many of Bush's Republican supporters are even scratching their heads on this one. How is ignoring the law and going behind the backs of the courts--which have served as basically a rubber stamp--saving lives and making us more secure? Bush has not even tried to explain this one. He hasn't pointed out one incident where time was oif the essence and where he couldn't wait the day or two necessary to get court approval. It was just a pure power play on his part, and he got caught playing king in what is supposedly a democracy.

Yes, Pat and then he had the audacity to 'blame the leakers;' as if revealing (what according to the media said initially was 'the leaking' of an 'illegal act' (didn't Woodward and Bernstein get a Pulitzer Prize for doing something in that vein when another Prez was in office?) was some type of moral transgression. If it was truly illegal why haven't charges been filed as in an 'article of impeachment.' Could it be that the Democratic Party is so tuned in to the reality that in the Wonderland of FOX News and MSNBC etc.., legality vs illegality are 'irrelevant' when faced with a population so out of touch with reality that 50 plus % of the American people believed that Iraq was 'connected' to 9-11? Ostensibly they failed to notice that not a single hijacker was from that country? It is an inversion of the Groucho Marx quote "Who are you going to believe me, or your own eyes?"

All I can say is that I have a strong instinct that there is a lot that is taking place behind the scenes (Example a 'closed-door session of Congress' two or three weeks ago,) that prevents one from getting the 'big picture' of what is happening. I realize that to say that is 'classic conspiratorial rhetoric' but if we can discover over 40 years after the fact that there was going to be 'an invasion of Cuba on Dec 1, 1963,' I suppose to say that is not as illogical as one might think.

What do Americans think about this development?

Here's what the New York Times thinks of it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/opinion/18sun1.html?hp

It strikes me as an oddly defiant editorial (with no mention, incidentally, of how the Times sat on this story for so long). I wonder if it was actually written in Langley. Perhaps the CIA resents the attention and privilege given to the NSA, hence the bitter tone of the editorial.

In any case, most Americans don't read Times editorials. Only one big terrorist attack away from martial law (and they've been assured by Cheney that another terrorist attack a la 9/11 is not a matter of if but when), the American sheeple, I believe, are now sufficiently conditioned to live willingly under fascism. Such an American state is manifestly in development.

What is ridiculous about this whole thing (the Patriot Act, domestic spying, torture, the "war on terror" in general) is that it's a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic and horrific in terms of lives lost or ruined.

I would like to post an email that was sent to Senator John Cornyn today by me with regards to his comments that implied that the 'uproar over the NSA revelations was to sell a book.'

"I would first like to state that I voted for you the last time your name was on the ballot, here in Texas, my contacting you today is in reference to the grave 'status-quo' when it comes to the modus operandi of the Bush administration, in its manner of constantly "invoking 9-11, and the particular irksome habit the administration utilizes regarding the use of 'fear as a political weapon,' when it comes to the issue of 'terrorism.' I am not a liberal, I am a conservative, however the increasingly shrill tone coming from the Republican dominated Congress was only exacerbated by your comments regarding 'NSA wiretap revelations being revealed for the purpose of selling a book.'

I would submit to you Senator, that your comments were very disappointing in the sense, that the crux of the debate is not 'the timing of when this information came out' but the actual information ITSELF. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware the N.S.A is a 'left-wing organization.' The very fact that this act was 'illegal' according to our current laws combined with the fact that there were some members of the NSA who refused to carry out the directives, concerning the wiretaps 'IS THE STORY!'

It is very difficult for me not to believe your comments served 'no other purpose' than to exacerbate an already fatigued dynamic that exists between the left and the right in this country, if that was not your intention, I apologize. The American people are not idiots Senator, it does not matter how many times 'the President, VP-Cheney, or 'Condi' tell us that 'nothing was done that was wrong'. Intent is not the issue, at least for me, in the sense that I will give our Chief-Executive the 'benefit of the doubt' that he was trying to protect Americans, but at the same time I see very distressing elements in this that are very evocative of the FBI's COINTELPRO program which contributed to the scandalous environment which Washington D.C. was percieved as being during the Nixon Administration Era. In closing, I would suggest to you and your 'party' that you remind yourselves that 'according to the Constitution of these United States' elected officials are the 'servant's of the people' not their masters. There is, whether you happen to agree with the premise or not, a large amount of Americans who see in the policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party in this country an almost 'contempt' for American's who fall under the category of being the have-nots, (some would say the marginalized) and those who are not as enthusiastic for the continual assault on our civil liberties regarding the 'Patriot-Act.' For the record, I share the perception many, many American's have that in these very, very difficult day's our country faces, the status quo in Washington D.C. is a domestic policy that is an embarrassment to this country's status in regards to how the rest of the world see's us, at best and displays the potentiality of turning towards some kind of 'Orwellian nightmare' at worst. I will continue to work peacefully, and with malice towards none, for the common good of this country, but I will do so without any ties whatsoever to the Republican Party until it shows the inclination to abandon 'business as usual' as its guiding vision in the third millennium. Regards Robert Howard"

Bill, Thank You for posting this, it is, besides one of the most eloquent statements to 'what ostensibly motivates us', (or at least should be) very timely; in light of the fact that her online database may be the most significant plus to emerge in JFK research in the last decade. I am sure I will have my critics in saying so, but if every 'JFK researcher' was a registered member of maryferrell.org and 'we' operated more as an integrated unit, in the endeavor, the 'mystery surrounding the assassination' will soon no longer be a mystery.

I think the Tookie Williams debate simply humanized the existing capital punishment debate.

Most of the discussion I have heard on this case relates directly to the speaker's opinion about the death penalty.

I do not think that Mr. Williams had made a clear case of having been a redeemed man as far as his clemency hearing. I think he is an interesting case in that he may have had the power with his gang contacts to continue to cause harm in society from behind bars. I think he was given due process.

I also think it is irresponsible to use the word murder in the case of capital punishment. I think a much better term is killing.

I do not agree with capital punishment and I do indeed hang my head whenever my government kills someone in my name for the purposes of justice.

I add my assent to the expressed opinions, the Death Penalty is not only not a deterrent, which is what its proponents used to cite in defending it, but in the 21st century the idea of 'an eye for an eye, is a little obsolescent, to say the least. What is so frustrating is the fact that in my view Eldridge Cleavers infamous comment about 'violence is as American as Apple Pie,' could arguably be said to be true. America has increasingly become more violent throughout the years, having said that the fact that Williams was ostensibly a co-founder of the Crips, wasn't exactly a good thing for him, it is just an observation, but if the Crip's connection hadn't been an issue, perhaps things would have been different. I also feel that his victims are the most deserving of sympathy, but I do not believe that feeling frustrated about the death penalty issue and feeling sadness over the people's lives that Williams took are mutually exclusive concepts.

Didn't Robert Blakey start the Castro rumors?

For the record, I would like to state that I do not subscribe to the 'Castro/Cuba did it theories' for God's sakes that is the ultimate dead horse, but it sure could have been a angle manipulated by 'rogue elements' to cover their butt, regarding dastardly deeds in Dealey. Especially in light of that 'relationship' between CIA and the Warren Commision, or lack thereof, when it came to procuring info.

The reason I ask is that I am not familiar with every de-classified document that is out there, but there are Church Committee Document's that are very salient to the topic you are mentioning. See Church Committee Misc Documents (157-10014-10138 warning it is more than just a few pages, but is 'required reading') Task Force W seemed to be a pretty hot little item in the fall of 1962, William Harvey, Desmond Fitzgerald and Edward Maurelius, the latter 'died' during the time of the Church Committee Hearings, and from what I gather the Church Committee Hearings seem to go to the 'heart of the matter' and are very overlooked by a lot of JFK researchers, which is really unfortunate.

Interesting comment on Edward Maurelius. Have you got the spelling right? There was a Donald Charles Marelius (1914-2002). He was a senior CIA officer in El Salvador (1947-1949), Colombia (1949-1952), Chile (1952-1958) and Brazil (1958-1963). He then held a senior position at Langley until he retired in 1973. I am in contact with his grandson who interviewed him before he died and is currently working on a book on him.

http://www.namebase.org/xmar/Donald-Charles-Marelius.html

I was relying on the document below for Maurelius, which indeed does identify him as 'Edward' but the namebase.org listing you have makes me think that it was actually 'Donald Charles' This is confusing, but my guess is that the 'subject' (who may be named Weatherby) got the name wrong, but that is just speculation.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...69&relPageId=10

FYI, the link I provided is an interview with someone (is anonymous during interview, although at one point I believe he is 'accidentally referred to as Weatherby,') who was the Case Officer for AMLASH during late summer 1962, his mentioning that 'AMLASH' wanted assurances from RFK that he 'supported' the ostensible assassination of Castro via AMLASH seems very suspicious, equally suspicious to me 'is the whole scenario with AMLASH on November 22, according to the case officer he indicated in his testimony that the idea of AMLASH committing the 'assassination of Fidel' was really not too believable, (ostensibly according to said Case Officer, Cubela didn't even like to use the word, there is also a reference to periods of time when AMLASH/Cubela's wherabouts were unknown, although he was (according to the subject the No. 4 man in Cuba, (only behind Fidel, Raul and Che) his disillusionment with Fidel 'selling out to the Soviets' (my characterization, not a quote) seems on the surface to have been something that was at least a thought in the mind of DGI, but that is sheer speculation on my part, Sen Hart interviewed 'Weatherby' on that very subject.

See

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...c.do?docId=1370

Interesting, to say the least.

Tim, I call this type of logic "Jack the Ripper thinking" it goes like this,Well I think (insert name of suspect) did it because 1, he had a sharpe knife, 2, he was in London at the time of the murders 3, he didn't like women (give example of mysogony) 4, He was known to be out late at night 5, he was questioned by the Police. There, now prove he wasn't Jack.. Of course as the perpetrator of these awful crimes remains unknown, you can't prove it wasn't their suspect.

So lets try it with someone else,Oh say Richard Nixon. (and no I dont believe Nixon had any thing to do with the assassination, just playing devils ad) 1, Nixon, with good reason believes JFK stole the 1960 election, compounded by his recent defeat to Gov Brown Nixon feels the only way to prevent a Kennedy dynasty, and thus an end to his presidential hopes, is to remove the head.

2, Where was Dick on the day in question? to my knowledge at least three versions have been given over the years, as my recent thread "So where were you" proved people of a certain age remember that day, You would have thought Nixon would remember better than most..

3, His Bay of Pigs references, WHAT is that all about. Makes it sound like he's using insider knowledge to threaten certain parties. All that said your points about Cubela are well made.. Steve.

Tim, I believe you make some very valid points, what would you say if I told you that during the critical day's after Nov. 22 when ostensibly LBJ and Hoover were trying to 'nail down' just what did happen in Dealey Plaza, that Richard Helms intentionally neglected to tell Johnson about the AMLASH project specifically that Cubela and Castro's so-called assassination were on the table. One can infer two different things that Helms was trying to obstruct justice and more importantly he 'could be said' to be preventing knowledge of 'what really happened' from being ascertained conclusively with regards to the Chief Executive.

The reason I ask is that I am not familiar with every de-classified document that is out there, but there are Church Committee Document's that are very salient to the topic you are mentioning.

See Church Committee Misc Documents (157-10014-10138 warning it is more than just a few pages, but is 'required reading')

Task Force W seemed to be a pretty hot little item in the fall of 1962, William Harvey, Desmond Fitzgerald and Edward Maurelius, the latter 'died' during the time of the Church Committee Hearings, and from what I gather the Church Committee Hearings seem to go to the 'heart of the matter' and are very overlooked by a lot of JFK researchers, which is really unfortunate.

The Guardian newspaper asked six Americans for their views on George Bush's five years as president.

Jacob Weisberg is the editor of Slate.com and the author of the "Bushisms" series

George Bush seems less likely to be remembered as a disastrous American president than as an ultimately insignificant one. Despite his ambition to reshape American politics and society in the order of a Reagan or a Thatcher, Bush has presided over a period of national and economic drift that more closely resembles the forgettable reign of his father.

The main goal of the Bush presidency was to transform the American electorate by creating a durable Republican majority. Karl Rove, the architect of Bush's political career in Texas and Washington, has drawn an implicit analogy between his own role and that of the legendary fin-de-siècle political boss Mark Hanna, who served President William McKinley in the 1890s.

Hanna was McKinley's political brain in the way Rove is Bush's. McKinley was an affable, not-too-bright former congressman when Hanna helped to elect him governor of Ohio. In 1896, Hanna raised an unprecedented amount of money, and ran a ruthless and sophisticated campaign that got McKinley to the White House. One could go on with this analogy. McKinley governed negligently in the interests of big business and went to war on flimsy evidence that Spain had blown up the USS Maine.

The key to McKinley's success was the alliance Hanna forged between wealthy industrialists like himself, who provided cash, and workers, who provided votes. In the Bush version, the rich again provide the cash and religious conservatives provide the votes. The wealthy have been rewarded with tax cuts, the evangelicals with hard-line conservative policies on abortion, gay rights and a school prayer. Bush's re-election victory last year seemed to vindicate his and Rove's strategy of attempting to turn the country to the right. Though it was hardly a landslide, Bush did, unlike in 2000, win a genuine, popular endorsement of his policies.

But a year later, that re-election victory looks like an aberration, explained more by factors such as a weak Democratic opponent rather than any sea-change in American politics. Less than a year into Bush's second term, his approval rating has fallen to less than 40%, which approaches the nadir for any modern president at any moment in his tenure. This has happened at a time when the US economy, usually a reliable predicter of presidential popularity, has continued to grow robustly, oblivious to Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies and neglect of global competitiveness issues surrounding America's education and health care systems.

Many things have gone wrong for Bush, most notably everything that has happened in Iraq since he declared "Mission Accomplished" in the spring of 2003, but the underlying problem is his relationship to the rightwing constituency that elected him. Bush's debt to his big donors and to religious conservatives has boxed him in and pitted him against the national consensus on a range of issues. It has proven impossible for Bush to satisfy both the militant conservative base and the eternally moderate US electorate.

The president has never understood the brilliance of Ronald Reagan's way of dealing with this conflict. Reagan managed to appease the religious right with rhetoric, without actually forcing retrograde changes on divisive social issues. Reagan also placated conservatives by challenging the growth of the public sector. This is a theme Bush has soft-pedalled, preferring to allow federal spending and deficits to rise.

Whether because he is less adroit or because he truly believes what he says, Bush seems able to appease his conservative evangelical base only by surrendering to its wish-list. He has caved in to conservatives on issues including stem-cell research, pension privatisation and the teaching of "intelligent design" in schools. With his most recent Supreme Court nomination, Bush has given in further, creating at least the appearance that he is trying to get enough votes to remove the constitutional protection for abortion rights.

Through such choices, Bush propels his increasingly beleaguered administration further towards the right-hand margin - a place where his party cannot win future national elections. Possessed of the notion that he had won a mandate for radical change and enshrined a new governing majority, Bush lost sight of the eternal moderation of the American electorate. Now even rock-ribbed conservatives who face re-election next year are running away from any association with Bush because of his unpopularity.

When it comes to America's relations with the rest of the world, the damage Bush caused may take longer to repair, but his historic influence is unlikely to be any more durable. He will bequeath to our next president the remnants of a negligently planned entanglement in Iraq, but not any coherent American approach to foreign policy or international economics.

Kathleen Parker is a political commentator whose weekly column in the Orlando Sentinel is syndicated to more than 300 US newspapers

The marriage between President George Bush and his base is like any other - fraught with tensions and imperfections. So much so that, to appraise his popularity with those who brung 'em to the party, one might need to think in terms of the Ford Theatre's most infamous drama: "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Other than Bush's "fiddle-de-dee" Scarlett O'Hara approach to deficit spending ("I'll think about that tomorrow"), an immigration policy that threatens to turn the US into a private piñata for Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, and a fuzzy relationship with the religious right that has even Catholics lurching for the balcony ... he's still got a full orchestra pit.

Those most willing to give him a pass on domestic issues tend to be those who think it is critical that a Republican president restore conservatives to the federal courts, or who believe that the war in Iraq is of paramount importance, or who think both. And there still are plenty who do. These are the folks who, though they may share everyone's dismay that the war has dragged on at greater cost in blood and money than many expected, tend to see the war in Iraq as part of the second world war: not just a skirmish over oil or an exercise in daddy-revenge, but as a systemic approach to an enduring problem, a theatre in a wider war against a new and virulent fascism.

But his domestic policies have been a mixed bag - so that the conservative party has become divided over the central question of what it means to be a "conservative". Is it about protecting unborn life or keeping government out of personal decisions? Is it about preserving "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or about freedom from all belief? Is conservatism about controlling government's appetites or about feeding the beast in the name of national security, even at the expense of civil liberties?

Thus, contradiction and paradox have become bedfellows in the Republican party's sleepover for the past five years. And much of the confusion stems from Bush's seminal decision - with the approval of the Congress, we feel compelled to note - to invade Iraq. It is hard to make a case for fiscal conservatism when you are underwriting a war. It is hard to keep government small when the mandate to prevent another 9/11 results in the creation of a mammoth new bureaucracy such as the Department of Homeland Security.

Bush's spending habits cannot be blamed entirely on the war. To true conservatives who vote Republican because they prefer limited government and low taxes, the president spends like a day-wager on a three-day drunk. His is the visionary perspective of a man for whom perfectionism is neither flaw nor pathology, but an achievable goal. Combine that philosophical perspective with the money-is-no-obstacle legacy of a born-rich kid, and you see Bush in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, no longer a mere compassionate conservative but His Majesty Comus astride his Mardi Gras float, tossing gold coins to the homeless and hungry.

Bush enjoys the further distinction of increasing spending more than his Democratic predecessor via passage of the pharmaceutical drug bill in 2003 - the largest entitlement since Medicare in 1965. And then there is his "No Child Left Behind" package that enhanced the federal government's role in education more than any measure since the 1960s.

Which is to say, a large portion of Bush's Republican base feels betrayed - even if some of their pain has been eased by recent reports of a healthy economy, new jobs, and a 20-year low in unemployment (5% as of this week). The tax cuts didn't hurt, either.

Bush's greatest failing may be his continued wooing of illegal immigrants at a time when his biggest supporters want secure borders and for whom Bush's proposed guest-worker programme is a euphemism for amnesty. His argument that "guests" will do the work that Americans are unwilling to do is viewed as an insult to the many citizens already waiting tables and cleaning hotel rooms, and suggests the same disconnect with working folk that plagued his father, who failed to recognise the scanner in a grocery store.

Not surprisingly, the most steadfast of his supporters are social conservatives who applaud Bush's court appointments - surely his most lasting legacy. By the end of his second term, Bush will have appointed more than half of the Appellate and US district judges. He is also more than likely to fill three seats on the US Supreme Court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Judge Samuel A Alito Jr and at least one more, possibly the multiple-niche-filling Viet Dinh, a Harvard-educated Vietnamese-American law professor and former assistant attorney general.

Only Baghdad Bob would insist that Bush is doing swimmingly at his five-year marker, but only a pessimist would deny that the night is still young. The next three years may be enough time for Bush to reach an acceptable level of success in Iraq, which has to do more with leaving Iraqis in charge than in defeating every last insurgent/ terrorist. In the meantime, the president has accomplished much of what he promised, from arranging conservative courts to imposing trickle-down economic policies. Those distressed by his performance must have been dozing when the curtain rose on The Bush Show, Part II.

Howell Raines is the former editor of the New York Times and author of a forthcoming memoir, The One That Got Away

At this point, the policy legacy of George Bush seems defined by three disparate disasters: Iraq in foreign affairs, Katrina in social welfare, and corporate influence over tax, budget and regulatory decisions. As a short-term political consequence, we may avoid another dim-witted Bush in the White House. But what the Bush dynasty has done to presidential campaign science - the protocols by which Americans elect presidents in the modern era - amounts to a political legacy that could haunt the republic for years to come.

We are now enduring the third generation of Bushes who have taken the playbook of the "ruthless" Kennedys and amplified it into a consistent code of amorality. In their campaigns, the Kennedys used money, image-manipulation, old-boy networks and, when necessary, personal attacks on worthy adversaries such as Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey. But there was also a solid foundation of knowledge and purpose undergirding John Kennedy's sophisticated internationalism, his Medicare initiative, his late-blooming devotion to racial justice, and Robert Kennedy's opposition to corporate and union gangsterism. Like Truman, Roosevelt and even Lincoln, two generations of Kennedys believed that a certain amount of political chicanery was tolerable in the service of altruism.

Behind George W, there are four generations of Bushes and Walkers devoted first to using political networks to pile up and protect personal fortunes and, latterly, to using absolutely any means to gain office, not because they want to do good, but because they are what passes in America for hereditary aristocrats. In sum, Bush stands at the apex of a pyramid of privilege whose history and social significance, given his animosity towards scholarly thought, he almost certainly does not understand.

Here is the big picture, as drawn by the Republican political analyst Kevin Phillips in American Dynasty. Starting in 1850, the Bushes, through alliance with the smarter Walker clan, built up a fortune based on classic robber-baron foundations: railroads, steel, oil, investment banking, armaments and materiel in the world wars. They had ties to the richest families of the industrial age - Rockefeller, Harriman, Brookings. Yet they never adopted the charitable, public-service ethic that developed in those families.

Starting with Senator Prescott Bush's alliance with Eisenhower and continuing through the dogged loyalty of his son, George HW Bush, to two more gifted politicians, Presidents Nixon and Reagan, the family has developed a prime rule of advancement. In a campaign, any accommodation, no matter how unprincipled, any attack on an opponent, no matter how false, was to be embraced if it worked.

The paradigm in its purest form was seen when the first President Bush, in 1980, renounced a lifelong belief in abortion rights to run as Reagan's vice-president. His son surpassed the father's dabbling with pork rinds and country music. He adopted the full agenda of redneck America - on abortion, gun control, Jesus - as a matter of convenience and, most frighteningly, as a matter of belief. Before the Bushes, American political slogans of the left and right embodied at least a grain of truth about how a presidential candidate would govern. The elder Bush's promise of a "kinder, gentler" America and the younger's "compassionate conservatism" brought us the political slogan as pure disinformation. They were asserting a claim of noblesse oblige totally foreign to their family history.

But whether Bush the father was pandering or Bush the son was praying, the underlying political trade-off was the same. The Bushes believe in letting the hoi polloi control the social and religious restrictions flowing from Washington, so long as Wall Street gets to say what happens to the nation's money. The Republican party as a national institution has endorsed this trade-off. What we do not know yet is whether a Republican party without a Bush at the top is seedy enough to keep it going. Americans have had an ambivalent attitude toward their aristocrats. They have also believed that dirty politics originated with populist machiavells such as Louisiana governor Huey Long and Chicago mayor Richard Daley. The Bushes, with such minders as Rove, Cheney and Delay, have turned that historic expectation upside down. Now our political deviance trickles down relentlessly from the top. The next presidential election will be a national test of whether the taint of Bushian tactics outlasts what is probably the last Bush to occupy the Executive Mansion.

In 1988, the first President Bush secured office by falsely depicting his opponent as a coddler of rapists and murderers. In 2000, the current President Bush nailed down the nomination by accusing John McCain of opposing breast-cancer research. He won in 2004 with a barrage of lies about John Kerry's war record.

With the right leadership, the US can stop the blood-letting in Iraq, regain its world standing, avert the crises in health care and social security, and even bring disaster relief to the Gulf Coast. But that's not simply a matter of keeping Bushes and Buxxxxes, with their impaired civic consciences, out of the White House. The next presidential campaign will show us whether these miscreant patricians have poisoned the well of the presidential campaign system. If so, there is no telling what we kind of president we might get.

Kitty Kelley is author of Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty

George Bush became "born again" when the bottom dropped out of the oil boom in Midland, Texas. In the spring of 1984, the town's bank failed, fortunes crashed and overnight millionaires tumbled into life-wrecking debt. In a desperate effort to rescue lives and restore morale, the church elders invited the evangelist Arthur Blessitt to stage a revival. Blessitt was known as the man who had wheeled a 96lb cross of Jesus into 60 countries on six continents. Midland residents lined the streets during the day and watched Blessitt roll his 12ft-high cross through the boomtown gone bust.

Bush felt uncomfortable about attending the revival, but he listened to the broadcast. On the second day, he asked a friend to arrange a meeting with the evangelist at a coffee shop. Bush told Blessitt: "I want to talk to you about how to know Jesus Christ and how to follow him."

The evangelist quoted Mark and John and Luke to George, who held hands with the two men, repented his sins, and proclaimed Jesus Christ as his saviour. "It was an awesome and glorious moment," said Blessitt. He later wrote in his diary on April 3 1984: "A good and powerful day - Led Vice-President Bush's son to Jesus - George Bush Jr.!! This is great. Glory to God ..."

That conversion eventually led Bush to give up tobacco, alcohol and drugs at the age of 40, illustrating the wisdom of philosopher and psychologist William James (elder brother of the writer Henry), who said "the only radical remedy I know for dipsomania is religiomania".

Ever since Bush came to Jesus, his religion has ruled his life and, as president, his policies reflect his fierce religiosity. Within 48 hours of his first inaugural, he issued an executive order banning US government aid to international family planning groups that perform abortions or provide abortion counselling. He also signed a bill that required that a foetus that showed signs of life following an abortion procedure be considered a person under federal law. He later signed a law prohibiting partial-birth abortion. The measure, which had been vetoed twice by President Clinton, was the most significant restriction on abortion rights in years. Federal judges in Nebraska, San Francisco and New York ruled that the law was unconstitutional, but Bush did not care. He had placated his evangelical base for his re-election.

By defining a foetus as a person, Bush had forced himself into taking a hard line against providing federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research - a decision that will hamper scientific research for decades. Former First Lady Nancy Reagan, whose husband was dying of Alzheimer's, urged Bush to back stem-cell studies. Instead, he restricted federal funding to only 60 stem-cell lines, already in existence. He felt his compromise was the perfect political, if not moral, solution. He satisfied the religious right while giving something to moderates in his party who wanted the federal government to advance rather than hinder research into debilitating diseases.

Bush proposed several constitutional amendments to appeal to the 30 million evangelicals in the US, including a ban on same-sex marriage. By executive fiat he allowed contractors to use religious favouritism in their hiring practices. He also asked Congress to make it easier for federally funded groups to base their hiring decisions on a job candidate's religion and sexual orientation. The Rev Barry W Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the president had instituted "taxpayer-subsidised job discrimination" by allowing tax-payer-funded groups to hire and fire based on religious belief.

As president, Bush had crossed the constitutional line separating church and state. Within days of taking office, he made federal funds available to faith-based groups that provided social services. More than $1.1bn was disbursed by his administration to Christian groups. No Jews or Muslims received funds. Over time, W's "faith-based initiative" came to look like a political pay-off to church groups to keep them voting Republican. And it worked. In 2004, Bush was re-elected by 3.4 million religious conservatives, who, like him, oppose teaching evolution in schools, and insist on substituting a God-based version of "intelligent design".

From Abraham Lincoln to Franklin Roosevelt, all presidents have invoked providence and appealed to a higher power, but Bush actually sees himself as a divine messenger. "I trust God speaks through me," he told an Amish community in Pennsylvania. "Without that I could not do my job." After 9/11, he told Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, "I believe God wants me to be president." After the World Trade Centre attacks, Time magazine reported that the president spoke of "being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment".

With messianic zeal, Bush took the country to war in Iraq against "evil doers" and, despite the lives lost and maimed, he, unlike a growing majority of Americans, has never questioned his policy. "Absolutely not," he said during the presidential debates. "It was the right decision."

R Emmett Tyrrell, Jr is the founder and editor-in-chief of the American Spectator

With his detumescent polls, his unpopular war and his faltering domestic policy, George Bush is very much in the sorry state that an earlier president, Harry S Truman, found himself when he left office in 1953. Truman's approval rating then was 23%, worse than Bush's present 38%. Truman was in a war he saw as an extension of the war against tyranny that his predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt, had fought and that Truman had successfully concluded. Then, too, he was engaged in consolidating FDR's New Deal, a consolidation that earned him the profound resentment of the Old Order that he and FDR had replaced, the Republicans.

Alhough Truman was viewed a failure, he is now esteemed as one of the "near-great" presidents. He was inspired in the 1940s by high-minded ideals, as was FDR, who perceived Hitler's threat to our civilisation perhaps even before Winston Churchill. Truman, too, was an enemy of tyranny; in March 1947, he told a joint session of Congress: "I believe that it must be the policy of the US to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

This was called the Truman Doctrine. Today, with minor emendations, it might be called the Bush Doctrine. Like Truman, Bush will be adjudged a failure or a success on the outcome of his "support of free peoples". His foreign policy is his greatest gambit.

It is not his foreign policy, however, that explains his weakness in the polls. At roughly 38%, it is down from his natural approval rating of 45-48%. The erosion has been from his conservative base. He was elected by the growing conservative disposition within America to consolidate the policies of the first epochal president since FDR - namely, Ronald Reagan. As FDR in 1933 began the age of big government in America, Reagan in 1981 began the era of alternatives to government. Bush came to the White House believing he would continue the Reagan regime. He has won significant victories - for instance, tax cuts that have led to 10 straight quarters of near 4% growth in GDP, with low unemployment and usually low inflation. He continued the Reagan policy of free trade with his Central American Free Trade Agreement, though he has occasionally parted with free trade for political expedience. With the successful nomination of John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court, and with at least one conservative justice on the way, he has continued the conservative drift in the judiciary.

Yet his conservative base feels he has failed to keep down spending. He has failed to champion various hot-button matters that ephemerally inflame each constituent group in the conservative amalgam: piety for the people of faith, deregulation for the economic conservatives, attention to immigration for the national security-conscious. But these are distractions. The main point is that Bush has to leave the presidency with a healthy economy, which he probably will, and stability and something like democratic government in Iraq, which I believe he is closer to achieving than his critics contend.

One thing is certain. He will leave the White House with many Americans furious with him, much as Truman did. Most of those who seethed at Truman were Republicans from the Old Order, with a few conservative Democrats along for the wrathful ride. Those who seethe at Bush are from America's present Old Order - to wit, Democrats, who have been steadily losing power nationwide and who now hold power mainly in the media and the universities.

They loathe this president. They are proud of their anger. The intensity of this anger is peculiar. After all, Bush's domestic policy is not that much different from Reagan's and his foreign policy is pretty much in line with the doctrine that Truman lent his name to and which FDR would indubitably have approved. How does one account for this dispendious wrath? More than principle or personal interest, politics is the domain of psychological need. In the case of Bush, the need of a passing Old Order to have enemies.

Dee Dee Myers is a political analyst and commentator, and a former White House press secretary in the Clinton administration

George Bush is talking again, and I don't have a clue what he's saying. It's not that he's mangling his syntax. That's par for the course. And while it's as amusing as it is disconcerting, I usually think I know what he's trying to say (though I do confess to being stumped by "more and more of our imports are coming from overseas").

Bush is talking about Iraq, which is always confusing for those of us who like our words and facts to match. He's saying he'll "settle for nothing less than total victory". And I'm wondering: what in the world is total victory? Does it mean large numbers of American troops will stay until Iraq is a fully functioning democracy with a vibrant economy and the political will to help spread freedom across the Middle East? That could take, like, 100 years. Or does it mean that we'll stay until we stand up enough Iraqi police officers and soldiers to claim with a straight face that they can handle their own security? That could mean substantial troop reductions in time to prevent total defeat in next year's mid-term elections. I just don't know.

But this is a familiar feeling for me. I think I know what something means - until I hear George Bush say it.

My trouble with Bush's words started early. When he was running for president in 2000, Bush said he was a "compassionate conservative". I thought I understood compassion and conservatism separately, but put them together and it might as well be cold fusion, a concept that, I confess, totally eludes me. Five years later, I'm still trying to get my head around it. I guess cutting income, estate and capital gains taxes is the compassionate part, since the cuts really help the rich, who did have it awfully tough during the Clinton years. Or perhaps that's the conservative part, because I'm pretty sure that adding $2.4trn to the national debt isn't.

Neither is vastly expanding the size of government. Bush says he's for "fiscal restraint". But during his first term, federal spending increased by $616.4bn - not that anyone's counting, in the wake of 9/11. Obviously, I'm not looking at this right. But even when I don't count the vast sums spent on defence and homeland security, Bush is still the most profligate president in 30 years; domestic spending alone is up 36%. OK, so maybe the Congress is to blame. Even though Republicans control the place, they don't seem to have got the message about "fiscal restraint"; they passed $91bn more in programmes than Bush requested during his first term. Surely Bush fought hard to slow them down, refusing to go along with their mountain of cockamamie spending measures? Or not, since he's the first president since John Quincy Adams (1825-29) to serve an entire term without vetoing a bill.

"Uniter" is another word that gives me trouble. Bush says he is one. Granted, he ran a campaign aimed at dividing the country, but who can blame a guy for wanting to win? He decided early on that he would forget about building a broad consensus for his second term. That kind of talk is for sissies, like John Kerry. Bush wanted a narrow victory, 50% plus one - and that's what he got. But after the election, he said he wanted to be president of all the people, even the dummies who didn't vote for him. And he welcomed us to just change our views so we could all agree together. That was pretty big of him.

My list of confusing words and concepts gets longer all the time. "Competence" is on the list. George Bush promised us he was the first MBA president and would run the White House with cold-eyed efficiency. And it's very reassuring to hear him say that from Iraq to New Orleans, the government is doing a "heck of a job". Ditto torture. The president says the United States doesn't torture. Boy, is that a relief. Now if only I had a new word for what I saw at Abu Ghraib. Let's not forget "energy policy". I'm sure there's a good reason why Bush's friends in the oil business ran up record profits while American consumers were choking on record prices.

I wish I had Bush's ability to tell all those voices in my head to shut up. Maybe I need to learn his squinty-eyed stare; it certainly seems to have had the desired effect on the press corps. I, too, want to believe that the world is black and white, that all problems have simple solutions, and that doubts are for the weak and faint-hearted. I, too, want to ignore complexity and laugh in the face of contradictory facts. I, too, want to be 14 again

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1665822,00.html

Out of all the varied views expressed above, my vote for most insightful analysis goes to Howell Raines, I believe that in the future political commentary by those 'across the divide' (Ex. Dee Dee Myers above) will come under increasingly more stringent analysis by the reader as to 'objectivity' in light of the current political maelstorm in America. (I am not being critical of Myer's comments at all, they are in my opinion insightful, I am just giving an example).

Perhaps the only observation that I can make that would be noteworthy, is that as an American, having lived in the US for 47 years, it is my perception that the 'average American' is 'beyond fed up' with the shrill tone of what is considered (or passed off as) political discourse. But getting back to the point, my prediction is that American's have become so cynical and distrustful regarding politics in general, that success or failure in Iraq (and if he can finish his term w/o a 'major terrorist attack on US soil'), will be the ultimate yardstick by which 'the people' will judge George W. Bush, excepting the economy.

The reason being is that despite all the criticism, I believe American's whether to the right, or to the left are caring people; in this context meaning the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of them have families here that irrespective of political outlook want to see them come back, alive and without the added colossus of being seen as anything other than honorable people who served their country, also irregardless of whether the 'war' was 'justified' based on what we all know (i.e. the 'W..M.D.' issue).

Before anyone criticizes me about calling the troops honorable in light of Abu Ghraib, I would say it is not level headed to condemn soldiers who were not party to those events, along with those who were. I would also say that it is my perception that whoever said that those "responsible for the policy', should be held to a more vigorous accounting than those who were caught (England, etc..) probably knows more about events behind the scenes than all the self-proclaimed experts in the media.

The people of the world and American's in particular, have paid through the nose for George Bush before he has even left office, the 'real cost' of the war, in dollars and cent's doesen't even kick in until after he leaves office (how convenient!). Not to mention, whether the world is a 'safer place' (I bet I speak for a lot of people when I say it will at least be safer because he will no longer be President, and not because of what he 'accomplished' while Commander In Chief)

As a result of the Bush Doctrine, the world situation, already fraught with tensions in regards to North Korea, the ever violatle Middle East and the ascension of China as both an economic and military power, is compounded by a 'psuedo-Crusade slant' to the ostensible 'War on Terror', a direct result of the Iraq conflict, which, regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is percieved by many countries in the rest of the world as being -

A. Unjustified, in light of the absence of W.M.D.'s

B. A product of the neo-conservatives "Project for the New American Century."

C. Just good-old fashioned desires in the power-elite of this country for 'American hegemony in the world."

or

D. All of the above.

Can you imagine how much damage could have been avoided if the military action had stopped after Afghanistan, and a resolute campaign to manifest American resolution against terrorism across the board was the design instead of toppling Saddam? Our prestige would certainly be basically intact, it certainly isn't anymore.

The right wing was laughing to scorn media comparisons to Vietnam in 2003, but they aren't laughing anymore.

Torture simply produces what the torturer, or their sponsor, wishes to hear. Quite apart from the moral dimension, its simply one of the most unproductive methods of information gathering you could think of. The thumb screw, rack and iron maiden could make Elizabethian prisoners confess to cavorting with the devil, or what ever, what they could not do was make the confession true. If you mimic the methods of your enemy, what then are you protecting?

Or to put it another way, once a individual (or a nation) adopts 'the ends justifies the means' as their 'credo' a pandora's box of potentialities arrive at the door to the great unknown, commonly referred to as 'the future' none of which, in my opinion are 'choices' at all, but merely the equivalent to entering a room full of the most sordid characters imaginable, beckoning "Come on In."

It seems that an important question that is lost in all this (unless I missed the answer) is, what was the outcome of the Bendix v. Bray trial? (And what became of the alleged assassination film, and what became of Bray?)

Can someone who knows Gordon Winslow (who Bill says has the microfilm of the court case) ask him how the story ended?

Unfortunately, I do not have anything to offer regarding Gordon Winslow, but am searching other information sources, in the meantime there is this, from maryferrell.org on "Thresher" search Hull-DeMohrenschildt, interesting

THRESHER, ----- -----

Sources: CD 913, pp. 67-68; CD 1484, pp. 8-10; HSCA Vol 12, pp. 91-92; The Iconoclast, march 19026, 1976, p. 3, Vol X, No. 2; CIA 225-89, released as CIA 104-10015-10221, Lifton's pp. 107-111

Mary's

Comments: Nuclear-powered, deep-diving submarine sunk April 10, 1963, with 129 aboard. See Edward Frank BRAY. "Lt Cdr Harry Hull (housemate of George deMohrenschildt in Washington, D.C., September 1941) commander of Thresher during World War II according to Who's Who in America, 1968-1969." On page 2, paragraph 5, of CIA 225-89, Polish chauffeur told of Soviets' part in sinking of U.S. Navy nuclear submarine (see Lifton p. 110).

During the second COPA organizational conference, at the Chinatown Holiday Inn, I shared a room with Dennis Bartholowmew, and was very impressed with his research on the Rambler.

Dennis actually purchased the car, and if we can get a grand jury going, the Rambler will be one of the first items to be subpoened and given a thorough shakedown for evidence.

In addition, Formet, the Ohio researcher who came up with the microfilm of the official court records of the Bray v. Bendix trial, says that he sent the microfilm to Gordon Winslow in Florida, if anybody wants to follow up on that.

Also, a New Orleans researcher, John Gooch, says that in his investigation of the Rosco White ONI teletype orders, he is led to beleive that the teletype maching that made them was from the Thresher.

Now I know Roscoe and Ricky White's story has been challenged, but you can't take away the fact the Roscoe's wife worked for Jack Ruby and Roscoe served in the USMC with Oswald, two established facts.

Although I haven't been in contact with Gooch in the post-Katrina world, I hope he and other researchers down there are all right.

BK

Thanks you James for posting the crew list.

Also, a New Orleans researcher, John Gooch, says that in his investigation of the Rosco White ONI teletype orders, he is led to beleive that the teletype maching that made them was from the Thresher.

Bill, With reference to the above, what do you make of it?

John,

One possible strategy of the conspirators would be to suggest that JFK was killed by accident. That the real target was John Connally. This seems to me to have all the signs of a disinformation campaign.

FWIW

Well, for some reason the software is not allowing me to upload this, but if you go to Box 1, Folder# 3, Item# 26 of the DPD Archives:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box1.htm

There is a memo there from Detective B.M. Waters to Deputy Chief Lunday concerning a 1966 phone call from a guy named James Hacker in Los Angeles. He said that Oswald was paid by Jack Ruby to kill Connally.

What was interesting to me is the amount of time he spent on the phone with two Detectives and FBI Agent Bob Gemberling.

I spent some time on this subject a shile back. Coincidentally, the Thresher went down on the same day that someone took a potshot at General Edwin Walker.

I tried to determine if the initials JFCOTT were an acronym for something. I didn't come up with anything.

Steve Thomas

Coincidentally, the Thresher went down on the same day that someone took a potshot at General Edwin Walker.

If one goes to the Dallas City Hall Website under JFK Collection, there is some documentation in relation to the 'Justice For the Crew of the Thresher,' allegations.

This is the main URL

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/

Go to Box 18, and the documents are listed under

Box 18, Folder 5

1. Handbill, by Edward F. Bray. Handbill concerning the Warren Commission and Justice for the Crew of the Thresher, (Original Signed), 03/15/65. 00003740 3 pages 18 05 001 3740-001.gif 3740-002.gif 3740-003.gif

I decided to update this thread for two reasons.

1. I have been studying this story recently and after looking at it have decided 'if it is credible' (key point) that it was a 'back-up story' to the now-infamous assertions that Lee Harvey Oswald was a 'lone-nut Communist.' (If you disagree read another post and don't read anymore please)

2. In light of an old story that COULD be related but is itself controversial and that is the 'allegations of Carrol Jarnagin,' Jarnagin was a Dallas attorney who testified before the Warren Commission asserting that he had overheard a conversation at Ruby's Carousel Club on October 4, 1963 'between Ruby and a man who he alleged was Lee Harvey Oswald, see (W.C. Vol 26 Exhibit 2821)

The difficulty gauging Jarnagin's assertions (I will be forthright, in pointing out that he admitted to the Warren Commission he "had a drinking problem" and that the Commission Exhibit states that while he was listening to the conversation that "he was talking to Robin Hood,") is that in my opinion the Commission cannot be trusted as having the 'final say' on matters regarding the issue of conspiracy because of the numerous accounts of either 'altered testimony, badgering witnesses when they did not conform their testimony to the lone-nut version of Lee Harvey Oswald that was the foundation of the Commissions conclusions, etc...) Having said all that I discovered a 'transcript' of the conversation from Penn Jones Forgive my Grief Vol 1. page 54 which 'may be more detailed and lengthy' than what was contained in the WC Report.'

In the transcript Ruby talks to Oswald 'about the job' half the money now and the other half later, as the conversation unfolds the key phrase in relation to the preceeding information posted is:

"Are you sure that you can do the job without hitting anybody but the Governor"

Jarnagin's story has been dismissed for the most part, Oswald's 'official' whereabouts on October 4, 1963 are that he had just returned to the United States from Mexico City.

For more information see Crossfire - Jim Marrs pages 409-411

Final Comment: As with many other issues concerning events, chronology and credibility, Oswald's activities in the 30 day period prior to the assassination are still disputed and debated. I personally believe that the allegations of Oswald being in Austin and Houston prior to the assassination are true. I even have certain misgivings about the 'Jarnagin allegations' as I believe that Oswald and Ruby knew each other prior to October 4, but I am posting this 'for the record' and not to assert my own 'version of event's.' I have the pages copied from Forgive My Grief but did not put it on this post because it is incredibly long, I will do so if John Simkin, or members of the Forum feel it would be beneficial.

Well I had read those names but if he named them to Buttimer why did she not put them in her report.

How do we know Wheaton was talking about Jenkins and Quintero here? I don't say this for sure but Wheaton may be a xxxx. And liars change their stories as circumstances change. I noted that the Buttimer report says "the Cubans" plural. Quintero is only one guy. So who were the others?

You really need to look at all the documents, including those provided about AMWORLD in Lamar Waldron’s book, and the filmed interview that Wheaton gave to William Law to fully understand how the evidence is building to show that Carl Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero were involved in the assassination of JFK.

The reason that Buttimer did not name Jenkins was because Wheaton asked her not to do this. Jenkins was identified by Wheaton because he sent the ARRB his CV (I have a copy of this CV). This CV clearly identified Jenkins. The other document that is important is the following:

Gene Wheaton, note to the Assassination Records Review Board on National Air notepaper (undated):

Carl (Jenkins) was my (National Air) Washington, D.C. rep. who connected me to Nestor Pino, Bill Bode, Rob Owen, Vaughn Forrest, Chi Chi Quintero, Nestor Sanchez, et al.”

In the filmed interview Wheaton pointed out that it was Carl Jenkins he was talking about. He also added the name of Chi Chi Quintero as being one of the “assassination team”. The other gunmen came from the Operation 40 team.

I can see why you are getting very emotional about this issue. People like Rob Owen are linked very closely to George H. W. Bush. I have also discovered other information that links Bush to this CIA team of assassins that killed JFK (I will be posting this later today under the heading "Ted Shackley and the Secret Team").

Carl Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero are both alive. They are both aware of my web pages on them (the pages are both ranked number one on most of the search-engines). On these pages I have provided the evidence that I have accumulated against them. Through an intermediary I have sent them a list of questions concerning Gene Wheaton’s allegations. They have responded with “no comment”. I think that says a great deal. Compare it to the way you reacted when it was suggested that you might have been linked to the attempted assassination of George Wallace.

There is an extensive amount of material concerning the Christic Institute, Daniel Sheehan, Kerry Sub-committee etc., (as well as how Oliver North asked the FBI to 'investigate' Sheehan

in Peter D. Scott's book "Cocaine Politics."

If you "search" the Mary Ferrel database (maryferrell.org under 'Christic Institute' then ONLY if you have an account with Amazon.com, you can search Scott's book, and it will pull up the pertinent pages, see 137,138 and 157, it is enlightening, to say the least.)

A Record from Mary Ferrell's Database

WHEATON, GENE "MILTON GENE WHEATON"

Sources: Inside the Shadow Government, Christic Institute; Radio tapes from Oct and Nov 1992.

How would one go about locating a copy of the Sheehan affadavit?

ATTORNEY DANIEL SHEEHAN'S AFFIDAVIT

Now comes Attorney Daniel P. Sheehan, and having been duly sworn hereby swears

and affirms that the following facts are true:

1. I am a duly licensed attorney at law, admitted to practice before the

State and Federal Courts of the State of New York in both the Northern and

Southern Districts of New York.

2. I am duly licensed and have been admitted to practice before the

Courts of the District of Columbia, both local and Federal and I am in good

standing before both the Bar of New York and the Bar of the District of

Columbia.

3. I have practiced law before the courts of New York and numerous other

states in our nation since 1970, having served as counsel in some 60 separate

pieces of litigation in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina,

Virginia, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio,

Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming and Mississippi.

4. I graduated from Harvard college in 1967 as an Honors Graduate in

American Government, writing my Honors Thesis in the field of Constitutional

Law, and was the Harvard University nominee for the Rhodes Scholarship from

New York in 1967. I graduated from Harvard School of Law in 1970, having

served as an Editor of the Harvard Civil Rights)Civil Liberties Law Review and

as the Research Associate of Professor Jerome Cohen, the Chair of the

International Law Department of Harvard.

5. While at Harvard School of Law, I served as a summer associate at the

State Street law firm of Goodwin, Proctor and Hoar under the supervision of

Senior Partner, Donald J. Hurley, the President of the Boston Chamber of

Commerce and Massachusetts Senatorial Campaign Chairman for John F. Kennedy.

At this firm I participated in the case of BAIRD v EISENSTAT, under Roger

Stockey, General Counsel for the Massachusetts Planned Parenthood League

(establishing the unconstitutionality of the Massachusetts anti)birth control

law) and in the Nevada case, under Charles Goodhue, III (establishing the

constitutional right to bail in criminal extradition cases, including capital

cases). While at Harvard School of Law, I authored "The Pedestrian Sources of

Civil Liberties" in the Harvard Civil Rights)Civil Liberties Law Review and I

served under Professor Milton Katz, the President of the International Law

Association, as the Chairman of the Nigerian Biafran Relief Commission

responsible for successfully negotiating the admission of mercy flights of

food into Biafra in 1968.

6. While serving as a legal Associate at the Wall Street law firm of

Cahill, Gordon, Sonnett, Rheindle and Ohio under partner Theodore Shackley and

Thomas Clines directed the Phoenix Project in Vietnam, in 1974 and 1975, which

carried out the secret mission of assassinating members of the economic and

political bureaucracy inside Vietnam to cripple the ability of that nation to

function after the total US withdrawal from Vietnam. This Phoenix Project,

during its history, carried out the political assassination, in Vietnam, of

some 60,000 village mayors, treasurers, school teachers and other non)Viet

Cong administrators. Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines financed a highly

intensified phase of the Phoenix project, in 1974 and 1975, by causing an

intense flow of Vang Pao opium money to be secretly brought into Vietnam for

this purpose. This Vang Pao opium money was administered for Theodore

Shackley and Thomas Clines by a US Navy official based in Saigon's US office

of Naval Operations by the name of Richard Armitage. However, because

Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Armitage knew that their secret

anti)communist extermination program was going to be shut down in Vietnam,

Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand in the very near future, they, in 1973, began a

highly secret non)CIA authorized program Thus, from late 1973 until April of

1975, Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Armitage disbursed, from

the secret, Laotian)based, Vang Pao opium fund, vastly more money than was

required to finance even the highly intensified Phoenix Project in Vietnam.

The money in excess of that used in Vietnam was secretly smuggled out of

Vietnam in large suitcases, by Richard Secord and Thomas Clines )) and carried

into Australia, where it was deposited in a secret, personal bank account

(privately accessible to Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Secord).

During this same period of time between 1973 and 1975, Theodore Shackley and

Thomas Clines caused thousands of tons of US weapons, ammunition, and

explosives to be secretly taken from Vietnam and stored at a secret "cache"

hidden inside Thailand.

The "liaison officer" to Shackley and Clines and the Phoenix Project in

Vietnam, during this 1973 to 1975 period, from the "40 Committee" in the Nixom

White House was one Eric Von Arbod )) an Assistant Secretary of State for Far

Eastern Affairs. Von Arbod shared his information about the Phoenix Project

directly with his supervisor Henry Kissinger.

Saigon fell to the Vietnamese in April of 1975. The Vietnam War was over.

Immediately upon the conclusion of the evacuation of U.S. personnel from

Vietnam, Richard Armitage was dispatched, by Theodore Shackley and Thomas

Clines, from Vietnam to Tehran, Iran. In Iran, Armitage (the "bursar" for the

Vang Pao opium money for Shackley and Clines' planned "Secret Team" covert

operations program), between May and August of 1975, set up a secret

"financial conduit" inside Iran, into which secret Vang Pao drug funds could

be deposited from Southeast Asia. The purpose of this conduit was to serve as

the vehicle for secret funding by Shackley's "Secret Team," of a private,

non)CIA authorized "Black" operations inside Iran )) disposed to seek out,

identify, and assassinate socialist and communist sympathizers )) who were

viewed by Shackley and his "Secret Team" members to be "potential terrorists"

against the Shah of Iran`s government in Iran. In late 1975 and early 1976,

Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines retained Edwin Wilson to travel to Tehran,

Iran to head up the "Secret Team" covert "anti)terrorist" assassination

program in Iran. This was not a U.S. government)authorized operation. This

was a private operations supervised, directed and participated in by Shackley,

Clines, Secord and Armitage in their purely private capacities.

At the end of 1975, Richard Armitage took the post of a "Special Consultant"

to the U.S. Department of Defense regarding American military personnel

Missing In Action (MIAs) in Southeast Asia. In this capacity, Armitage was

posted in the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. There Armitage had top

responsibility for locating and retrieving American MIA's in Southeast Asia.

He worked at the Embassy with an associate, one Jerry O. Daniels. From 1975

to 1977, Armitage held this post in Thailand. However, he did not perform the

duties of this office. Instead, Armitage continued to function as the

"bursar" for Theodore Shackley's "Secret Team," seeing to it that secret Vang

Pao opium funds were conducted from Laos, through Armitage in Thailand to both

Tehran and the secret Shackley bank account in Australia at the Nugen)Hand

Bank. The monies conducted by Armitage to Tehran were to fund Edwin Wilson's

secret anti)terrorist "seek and destroy" operation on behalf of Theodore

Shackely. Armitage also devoted a portion of his time between 1975 and 1977,

in Bangkok, facilitating the escape from Laos, Cambodia and Thailand and the

re)location elsewhere in the world, of numbers of the secret Meo tribesmen

group which had carried out the covert political assassination program for

Theodore Shackley in Southeast Asia between 1966 and 1975. Assisting Richard

Armitage in this operation was Jerry O. Daniels. Indeed, Jerry O. Daniels was

a "bag)man" for Richard Armitage, assisting Armitage by physically

transporting out of Thailand millions of dollars of Vang Pao's secret opium

money )) to finance the re)location of Theodore Shackley's Meo tribesmen and

to supply funds to Theodore Shackley's "Secret Team" operations. At the U.S.

Embassy in Bangkok, Richard Armitage also supervised the removal of arms,

ammunition and explosives from the secret Shackley)Clines cache of munitions

hidden inside Thailand between 1973 and 1975 )) for use by Shackley's "Secret

Team". Assisting Armitage in this latter operations was one Daniel Arnold,

the CIA Chief of Station in Thailand )) who joined Shackley's "Secret Team" ))

in his purely private capacity.

One of the officers in the U.S. Embassy in Thailand, one Abranowitz came to

know of Armitage's involvement in the secret handling of Vang Pao opium funds

and caused to be initiated an internal State Department heroin smuggling

investigations directed against Richard Armitage. Armitage was the target of

Embassy personnel complaints to the effect that he was utterly failing to

perform his duties on behalf of American MIAs, and he reluctantly resigned as

the D.O.D. Special Consultant on MIA's at the end of 1977.

From 1977 until 1979, Armitage remained in Bangkok opening and operating a

business named The Far East Trading Company. This company had offices only in

Bangkok and in Washington, D.C. This company was, in fact, from 1977 to 1979,

merely a "front" for Armitage's secret operations conducting Vang Pao opium

money out of Southeast Asia to Tehran and the Nugen)Hand Bank in Australia to

fund the ultra right)wing, private anti)communist "anti)terrorist"

assassination program and "unconventional warfare" operation of Theodore

Shackley's and Thomas Cline's "Secret Team". During this period, between 1975

and 1979, in Bangkok, Richard Armitage lived in the home of Hynnie Aderholdt

)) the former Air Wing Commander of Shackley`s "Special Operations Group" in

Laos )) who, between 1966 and 1968, had served as the immediate superior to

Richard Secord, the Deputy Air Wing Commander of MAG)SOG. Secord, in 1975,

was transferred from Vietnam to Tehran, Iran.

In 1976, Richard Secord moved to Tehran, Iran and became the Deputy Assistant

Secretary of defense in Iran, in charge of the Middle Eastern Division of the

Defense Security Assistance Administration. In this capacity, Secord

functioned as the chief operations officer for the U.S. Defense Department in

the Middle East in charge of foreign military sales of U.S. aircraft, weapons

and military equipment to Middle Eastern nations allied to the U.S.. Secord's

immediate superior was Eric Van Marbad )) the former 40 Committee liaison

officer to Theodore Shackley's Phoenix program in Vietnam from 1973 to 1975.

From 1976 to 1979, in Iran, Richard Secord supervised the sale of U.S.

military aircraft and weapons to Middle Eastern nations. However, Richard

Secord did not authorize direct nation)to)nation sales of such equipment

directly from the U.S. government to said Middle Eastern governments.

Instead, Richard Secord conducted such sales through a "middle)man", one

Albert Hakim. By the use of middle)man Albert Hakim, Deputy Assistant

Secretary of Defense Richard Secord purchased U.S. military aircraft and

weapons from the U.S. governament at the low "manufacturer's cost" )) but sold

these U.S. aircraft and weapons to the client Middle Eastern nations at the

much higher "replacement cost". Secord then caused to be paid to the U.S.

government, out of the actual sale price obtained, only the lower amount equal

to the lower manufacturer's cost. The difference, was secreted from the U.S.

government and Secord and Albert Hakim secretly transferred these millions of

dollars into Shackley's "Secret Team" operations inside Iran )) and into

Shackley's secret Nugen)Hand bank account in Australia. Thus, by 1976,

Defendant Albert Hakim had become a partner with Thomas Clines, Richard Secord

and Richard Armitage in Theodore Shackley's "Secret Team".

Between 1976 and 1979, Shackley, Clines, Secord, Hakim, Wilson, and Armitage

set up several corporations and subsidiaries around the world through which to

conceal the operations of the "Secret Team". Many of these corporations were

set up in Switzerland. Some of these were: (1) Lake Resources, Inc.; (2) The

Stanford Technology Trading Group, Inc.; and (3) Companie de Services

Fiduciaria. Other companies were set up in Central America, such as: (4) CSF,

Investments, Ltd. and (5) Udall research Corporation. Some were set up inside

the United States by Edwin Wilson. Some of these were: (6) Orca Supply

Company in Florida and (7) Consultants International in Washington, D.C..

Through these corporations, members of Theodore Shackley's "Secret Team"

laundered hundreds of millions of dollars of secret Vang Pao opium money

pilfered Foreign Military Sales proceeds between 1976 and 1979. named in this

federal civil suit to be placed under oath and asked about their participation

in the criminal "enterprise" alleged in this Complaint is probative of the

criminal guilt of the Defendants of some of the crimes charged in this

Complaint.

Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel, The Christic Institute, possess evidence

constituting "probable cause" that each of the Defendants named in this

Complaint are guilty of the conduct charged.

If further detailed evidence is required by the Court to allow the Plaintiffs

to begin the standard process of discovery in this case, the failure to place

it in this Affidavit is the function of the short time allowed by the Court

for the preparation of this filing )) it is not because the Plaintiffs lack

such evidence.

Daniel P. Sheehan

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this day of December, 1986

Fascinating! It is easy to see why the "Sheehan Affadvit" resulted in the hammer coming down, none too lightly on the Christic Institute, my first reaction on seeing this with my own eyes, is that this country is in urgent need of a "mechanism" for lack of a better word to deal with a largely 'compartmentalized' independent media that is only appreciated by those who are not mesmerized or duped by Murdoch's "Fox News," etc., that seems so benign and trustful towards our government and the myriad N.G.O.'s, (Non-Governmental Organizations) that are carrying out their agenda's right before the eyes of a largely (unsuspecting 'still'?)American public.

Said mechanism, which is only necessary, due to the conspicuous absenceof any semblance of accountability by the body politic not just Republican's but Democrat's as well, is a result of the same type of 'moral relativism,' or process of rationalizing acts which are inherently against the 'common good' as far as the American people are concerned.

Example: America ostensibly, is a democracy in which the Constitution is the 'guiding light' for the principles of how the government 'acts' to reflect the will of the governed.

According to the Constitution, "We the People" are not 'the servants' of this country, our elected officials are, yet, I stipulate, that this realization in Washington has become an anachronism, and just as much in the case of many of the American people.

Having said that, to return to the original point. Such a mechanism ideally would be a grass roots campaign to 'restore authentic Constitutional Law as a working principle in American government.'

Gerry Hemming articulated some of the examples of how 'the law' can be circumvented to allow individuals within the government to go scot-free for 'crimes committed in the past' including the assassination of a President if one is well versed in the current legal system, I believe they would find his contention is absolutely correct. Not that it would be 'well recieved.'

I will go a step further, and before I do I ask the members of the Forum to approach the question with an open mind;

Many Forum members may be familiar with the use of the "Executive Order" by the Executive branch over the last 60 or 70 years.

Although I am not a lawyer, the concept (while hopefully in the beginning was brought into being for a 'good reason') of a Presidential Order was rarely used initially, but if one were to view the number of times it has been used by successive Presidential administrations in terms of a graph it would look very much like a graph of the price of oil, comparatively speaking over the last 35 years. In other words, by the Bush-Clinton Era it was being used on a very elongated scale compared to the past, for purposes that do not square with 'how our government should operate, within the context of the constitution, itself.

In its current context, the ability of a sitting President to issue an Executive Order, is an abomination to the entire idea of constitutional government, yet nary a word is spoken about it. Does that make me 'paranoid' to raise the point, I will say no, it makes me one of those who does not blindly trust individual persons 'who happen to be in the highest echelons of power' as to their personal integrity when it comes to 'the governance of this country according to the constitution, both now and in the future.

What would stop, not just President Bush but any President in the future, Democrat or Republican from issuing an Executive Order declaring 'martial law' in the United States?

Under the current system of government, nothing would. (Never mind that it would result in, chaos, but ultimately whose 'chaos' would it be?

Does this seem like a good thing to members of the rest of the Forum? I would like to know.

Leadership in this country, I submit is an anachronism, across the board. When a politician has the balls to stand up and start doing something to rectify some of the injustices that are being perpetrated against the American people, then I will respond accordingly.

Final Thought concerning the "mechanism" referrred to above, if one is not found soon the same pattern of the American people operating in what is "an information vacuum" (see Iraq, and every other scandal of the last 30 years) will result in a status quo' finalizing what is rapidly becoming "Orwellian in nature."