Nathaniel Heidenheimer

Let's look at what Caro writes about the Bay of Pigs: please read all of page 183 here http://books.google....f power&f=false Now I will type the top part of 184 which is not available on Google Books. ".. he was arranging the ransom of the prisoners the next year, "It was,"Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston said, "the first time I ever saw tears in his eyes"), no one was taking the blame but him. During the postmortem meeting on the catastrophe, however, Johnson launched into what has been described as "a general criticism of " the CIA. Kennedy said, "Lyndon, you've got to remember we're all in this, and that, when I accepted responsibility for this operation, I took the entire responsibility on myself, and I think we should have no sort of passing the buck of backbiting, however justified." A the first meeting on the Bay of Pigs to which Johnson was invited, he had been rebuked by the President in front of the other men at the table." I am left with a lot of questions re: this depiction of the Bay of Pigs. None of them reflect kindly on Caro's scholarship. What do you think?

Civil Rights had tremendous implications for the price of US labor. That's why LBJ started NAFTA. Now who would you expect to make this connection, the left or the right? That is why you need special liars crafted just for the left. To create a firewall between liberal and left so liberals would stop playing offense in this new price-of-labor environment that had been altered by Civil Rights.

Rodney, yes this is certainly a great contrast with the post 1968 Democrats. who never give a full-throated defense of their philosophy [more recently IMO that is because they don't have a philosophy other than the Republicans' and the Dems are just playing the role of Sirhan's ""defense"" lawyer] More and more I see the JFK years as the division point between Industrial Capitalism and finance capitalism. And Tom perhaps it would help if I elaborated on what I mean by Industrial policy. This means greater government involvement in promoting economic planning, while still capitalism. Kind of similar to Japan and European style capitalism, some argue. ---- Kennedy's answer to David [in the 1962 Life Magazine face-off] while confident in tone , was defensive in substance. The president insisted that the economy's basic position was strong....But where Kennedy perhaps inadvertently, touched a raw nerve was in the area of corporate America's hidden wealth abroad. While reassuring the United States foremost international banker that he had no plans to restrict the flight of private capital, Kennedy insisted that "our tax laws should surely not encourage the export of dollars by premitting 'tax havens' and other undue preferences" The President had struck home. The Rockefellers had many such tax havens abroad. Small Caribbean "brass plate" banks, large Swiss commercial banks, and vaguely named private investment firms in small countries like Luxembourg overflowed with American cash, precious metals ,a most important for tax purposes, portfolios of stock holdings in foreign companies. Most large American corporations doing business overseas also "parked" their profits in foreign commercial banks under the names of wholly owned subsidiaries or limited partnerships, and often in foreign subsidiaries or megabanks like David's Chase Manhattan. The Rockefellers' top financial aide, J. Richardson Dilworth, was a director of two Luxembourg holding companies with investments in Latin America and oversaw the investment firms of the International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC) in Colombia, Brazil, Peru, and other countries. In addition, IBEC's American Overseas Finance Company held over $26 million worth of holdings in twenty-nine countries. Kennedy's 1962 tax bill directly challenged these tax benefits by removing the distinction between repatriated profits and profits reinvested abroad, making both taxable. It also brought under the scrutiny of the Internal Revenue Service revenues "parked" in overseas tax havens by subsidiary companies." Thy Will Be Done, pp. 402-3

Ok... fine! What do you make of this Conspiracy Theory of Henry Luce's from April of 1962? Oh I forgot. Some conspiracy theories get called the news. ------- "The depth of corporate hostility toward Kennedy after the steel crisis can be seen by an unsigned editorial in Fortune, media czar Henry Luce's magazine for the most fortunate. The editors of Fortune knew the decision to raise steel prices had been made by the executive committee of U.S. Steel's board of directors. It included top-level officers from other huge finanical instututions, such as the Morgan Guaranty Trust COmpany, the First National City Bank of New York, the Prudential Insurance Company , The Ford Foundation, and AT&T.(32) When Roger Blough handed U.S. Steel's provocative press release to the president, he did so on behalf of not only U.S. Steel but also these other financial giants in the United States. The Fortune editorail therefore posed an intrigueing question: Why did the financial interstes behind US.S. Steel announce the price increase in sucha a way ast to deliberately "provoke the President of the U.S. into a vitriolic and demgogic assualt?"(33) With the authority of an insider's knowledge that it denied having, Fortune answered its own question: "There is a theory--unsupported by an y direct evidence-- that Blough was acting as a 'business statesman' rather than as a busenessman judging his market" According to "this theory," Kennedy's prior appeal to steel executives not to raise prices, leading to the contract settlement between the company and the union, had "poised over the industy a threat of 'jawbone control' of prices. For the sake of his company, the industry , and the nation, Bough sought a way to break through the bland 'harmony' that has recently prevailed between government and business." (34) In plainer language, the president was acting too much like a president, rather than just another officeholder beholden to the powers that be. U.S. Steel on behalf of still higher financial interests therefore taunted Kennedy so as to present him with a dilemma: he either had to accept the price hike and lose redibility, or react as he did with power to roll back the incrase and therey unite the business world against him. His unswerving activist response then served to confirm the worst fears of corporate America: "That the threat of 'jawbone control' was no mere bugaboo was borne out by the tone of PResident Kennedy's reaction and the threats of general business harassment by government that followed the 'affront' (35) Thus the steel crisis, in Fortune's view, threatened to propel an activist anti-business president toward a fate like that of Julius Ceasear. As Shakespeare had it, Caesar was warned o f his coming assassination by a soothdsayer: "Beware the ides of March." Fortune gave Kennedy a deadly warning of its own by the title of its editorial: "Steel: The Ides of April." Robert Kennedy's Justice Depearment continued its anti-trust anvestigation into the steel companies. U.S. Steel and seven other companies were eventually forced to pay maximum fines in 1965 for their price-fixing activities between 1955 and 1961.(36) The Steel Crisis defined John and Robert Kennedy as Wall Street enemies. The president was seen as a state dictator. As the Wall Street Jurnal put it oin the week after Big Steel surrendered to the Kennedys, "The Government set the price. And it did this by the pressure of rear--by naked power, by threats, by agents of the state security police." (37) U.S. News and World Report gave prominance in its April 30, 1962, issue to an anti-Kennedy article on "Planned Economy that suggested the president was acting like a Soviet commissar.(38)-- JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 140-141

Paul, I think the main reason there is no left today is because of the success of top-down CIA media operations. I do not think that the reason is because of a lack of relevance of left ideas. These top-down media operations have largely dealt with creating false dichotomies between "structural" analysis on the one hand, and key events that are more open to large numbers of people to interpret, on the other hand. These successful media ops-- as best exemplified in the CIA's Encounter Magazine-- but which are being practiced on a much wider and more sophisticated scale today, have in essence made the tip of the iceberg seem like the opposite of the iceberg. I.e the RFK assassination is portrayed as somehow "the opposite" of the institutions that produced it. This of course is BS but it keeps people employed and safe for capitalism.

I got a message from an administrator named "Mandy" saying that I was "banned for typing gibberish". I was a very well known commodity on that site. Known primarily for posts that 1) put the extreme rightward lurch of the Democratic party in its post 1968 perspective and 2) posting about the political assassinations and how they effected the extreme rightward movement of the post June 5th 1968 Democrats. Rarely did I feel mellow, but I was very well known and lots of my threads got thousands of views. I was able to get back on Hotmail after a lengthy process. The reason I mentioned it was because my password was changed at the same time as my FB account appeared with a false email address which I had never owned, and was hence unavailable. I plan on contacting FB about the tens of thousands of content MOST OF IT POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS AND RIGHTWARD MOVEMENT OF THE DEMOCRATS RELATED, that i had reposted to a monotonous degree, and planned on doing more of. I had posted these threads in a broad variety of non- assassination related sites. Most were built with what I called "Snags" or kind of trout flies for potential newbies that would attract by some name recognition figure countering the CT baby-with-UFO-bathwater-BS we have all become too familiar with since 1992. That is the point of this thread, and why it might still belong here, maybe. Because if it is true that I am being censored, then it could prove my hypothesis that what is most feared is those who challenge the niche-carvers and moat-diggers who have, in effect, made what was once deemed the internet-frontier of freedom a labyrinthine political prison that makes Machiavelli seem like a breeze over a swingset. Or at least partly prove it. I look forward to the results being printed in Scientific American, right after Mr. Baby N Bathwater's monthly column. I have not yet had the time it will take to wrestle with FB and Amazon. I work in Czar Bloomberg's Unchartered unairconditioned oven schools binding with briars dreams and uncorporate desires. And it has been Regents Week. I have spoken with a computer expert who asked me if I used the same password on these accounts. The answer was no. He said then it was very likely it was the result of deliberate hacking. I was trying to create the middle brow. That is what once existed. Remember when pro-conspiracy books could get reviewed by the NYT. That's not possible anymore. Its gone where woodbines twineth. We have to BE THE MIDDLE BROW or the political assassinations will continue down the pushed path of trivialization by the corporate fascists who own the five media channels of the world's mind.

Look at this point It is necessary to address one of Mr. Brazil 1964s accusations, namely that I think of myself as some kind of important researcher. O well advertised contrair. I have repeatedly said that I do not consider myself a researcher at all, but rather some dude who cuts and pastes, and through some bizarre brain-alchemy actually seems proud of it. This is because, as I have stated repetitively, THE SOLUTION TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION IS NOT ONLY ABOUT FINDING NEW MATERIAL BUT IN CONSTRUCTING A NEW SOCIALLY MEDIATED NARRATIVE IN WAY WAY WAY MORE SKULLS and hopefully they're not all over 45. To this end I have posted threads exactly where my reading and historical ""research"" shows they are not supposed to be posted i.e. in areas that would counteract all the gatekeeping that we now know has been done to prevent these audiences from learning the truth about the assassination and more importantly the truth about the assassinations in terms of the long term trajectory of the Democratic Party and US Capitalism which, by the way, has not been in the general direction of happy land. Have certain web sites at certain months over the last three years been experiencing leaps ? Have certain internet radio shows? Well its more than meets the eye, folks. That is what MIGHT need to be censored. Connections. Research DE niched. Not my research. Who cares if it contains important elements of the truth. Knowledge is socially constructed, The internet makes us forget that more than any other medium, and that sure has become the message. Don't you see what the Great Liberator of "the Internet" has turned this country into? Open your eyes. I hate to bring this thread up again, but who the hell wouldn't after discovering thousands and thousands of their work gone, and most of it re JFK and media ops?? Who would not harbor doubts?

Who in my shoes would not think of censorship??? Perhaps Mr. Brazil 1964 can reassure me?

OH MY GOD AMAZON HAS DELETED ALL OF MY BOOK REVIEWS!!! look this might not be worth caps to you but consider what has happened to me all around June 4th 2012. 1) I was kicked off STL Today website which reaches tens of thousands after posting a 12/1/ 1963 article that appeared in the St. Louis Post Dispatch Front page about a bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limo in Dallas. The article was by the lead Washington Bureau writer of the Post-Dispatch and the site is the affiliate of that paper. I had been a member on that site for ten years. 2) My FB account with 5000 friends and countless hours of typed notes that I sent around and posted where they were not supposed to be (left sites where most disinfo about political assassinations is aimed) was suddenly GONE where FB woodbines twineth 3) My hotmail account was hacked and a new password was created so I could not get in it. and now 4) about 50 book reviews NEARLY ALL OF THEM DEALING WITH CIA HISTORY, LEFT-GATEKEEPING AND COLD WAR COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH ARE REMOVED. WHAT THE XXXX I AM SORRY I DO NOT WANT A THREAD ABOUT ME ON HERE, BUT I JUST LEARNED THIS AND I no longer know what to think. Literally thousand of hours of bad writing have been taken down but at least it was trying to say stuff into the wrong pidgin whole. Literally thousands of hours of reusable bad typing have been lost. WHAT THE XXXX.

Official US McLeftists are allowed to print famous quotes from Smedley Butler. Yet this quote from David Shoup of the JCS is virtually unknown to readers of the major McLeftists. After his retirement, Shoup became an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War. He publicly supported the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) VVAW by 1971. In May 1966, he said about the building war in Vietnam: “ I believe if we had, and would, keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. That they design and want. That they fight and work for... and not the American style, which they don't want. Not one crammed down their throats by the Americans. ” This statement ties back to an assessment made by Shoup that "in every case... every senior officer that I knew... said we should never send ground forces into Southeast Asia." Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because the most senior of these senior officers took The Constitution seriously?... and where that would lead fledgling leftists...right into the No-Fly Zone that should be their widest horizon?

Paul I am forced to agree with Tom in his conclusion that there is no US left. This, however, does not mean that there is a shortage of fake leftists paid to pose for the sole purpose of spreading lies ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO WOULD ONLY BELIEVE THEM IF THEY CAME FROM A MOUTH THAT SEEMED TO BE LEFT. I have frequently heard people say that Chomsky, Goodman, etc have had the effect of dissuading them from looking into the JFK and RFK assassinations. Moreover, the widely accepted lie that JFK was just another Cold Warrior is accepted by 70% of the population because of work done by the fake leftists, whether the believer is leftist OR NOT. The only leftists allowed in the US are writers who guarantee that this particular strain of left will self-abort before they become large enough to matter. It is 100% psyops, and anyone who dismisses this possibility out of hand simply needs to read more about the history of communications research. The fake-leftward origin of most of the disinformation regarding the JFK assassination is a fact that cannot be denied and a fact that is far more important than many realize if one seeks to realize why so many have failed to connect the political assassinations to our current american fascism.

Obama's legacy will be he continued the autopilot that was set between 1953-57. The only two administrations where the fingerprints of this autopilot can be seen are those of JFK and Nixon. Two detentes. Different agendas. Two coups done with different techniques.

Jefferson Morley is not the topic of this thread. However he is a key variable in the legitimation of this narrative for the Ed Forum audience, because he has a reputation of being "between two worlds" i.e. open to the evidence that suggests conspiracy but also ...employed in big money journalism. Recently I got around to reading Deborah Davis' book on Katherine Graham. I found it intriguing and very interesting, if, at times, uneven in the amount of evidence it offered for some of its assertions. Kind of like my view of the Mary Meyer book. But here's the thing: when we are reading about the extremely guarded world of media elites and their alleged intelligence friends it's like trying to pluck lint from your own eye. Depth perception can be affected, and possible corroboration was long ago swallowed by Georgetown fondu. Which can get Jesuit. These problems of corroboration are there for all aspects of history but are unique for increasingly centralized Cold War Corporate media. Therefor, it's important to remember the difference between journalism and history. Sometimes I think that critics judge some books AS IF those books were pretending to be history rather than its first draft. That is a feeling I had about how some individuals -- perhaps unduly influenced by elbows from New Zealand which might be redundant-- were too dismissive of the Russ Baker book on the Bushs. Recently I bumped into Baker, and he told me he did not even know who Hankey was. When asked about putting Bush higher on the food chain than Dulles he winced, and seemed shocked that anyone might in any way attribute such a view to his book. I saw Baker's book as journalism, not history. It was asking questions, for further research. The Janney book has faults and a few of them are gaping. But it did not seem to me that it was assuming the air of history rather than new investigative journalism. If it did, my judgement of the book would have been vastly different. Now re: Morley I was interested to learn that Jefferson is the grandson of 1930's and 40's WaPost op ed page editor Felix Morley who apparently was very tight with Philip Graham. Can this be verified from other sources besides the Davis book?

"What does what Chomsky, Cockburn, Goodman and Sir Seymour of McClain have to do with me. Nothing. I don't consider myself a leftist, at least what passes for one these days" That right? Well then lets just allow the complete decoupling of the JFK assassination from the following events and issues: 1) The further evolution of a permanent war economy. 2) the credibility of the billionaire's media 3) the assassination of the first detente 4) the development of the US Latin American relations ever since 5) the origins of NAFTA and Rocky's Free Trade Zone 6) the ability of the public to see and analyze the final fingerprints of the permanent military and intelligence bureaucracies before they went permanently sub rosa 7) The VIetnam War 8) The genocide of 1.25 million people in Indonesia 9) The Coup d'etat in Brazil in the early Spring of 1964 10) the transition of the US from industrial to finance capitalism... 11) more to come as I remember them... ALL OF THESE ARE OF NATURAL CONCERN TO THE LEFT. Therefor, if the assassination was to be shorn of implications for these areas of concern, it would take a McLeftist (i.e. a US Foundation Funded quid pro quo ""leftist"") with credibility among the most critical audience whose skepticism needed to be worked over the most. The assassination has-- for the general brainwashed corporate media american-- been entirely shorn of its historical implications. Regardless of one's political orientation it is imperative to recognize that the most important sheering is done by official McLeftists on their quid pro quo (not really) " "Alternative" radio shows. 10)

Oh goodie now more people can say "Only anti-semites believe in these wacky conspiracy theories" I am getting this response more and more from people who have actually gone to colleges. We are in mediated styraphome. This is another example of why lies aimed at the left are most important. Only cutting off the assassinations from their structural connections to the growing dominance of the military industrial congressional complex can these alternative jello packets be served in school lunch trays. I know there are those who are going "no left right, no left right no left, right" Let me be clear, what I here mean by left can be reduced to "non-corporate control" and right can mean "corporate control" There is no doubt that the US and most of the world have moved in only one of these directions for 45 years in a row. Now I completely agree that there have been fake lefts which are completely controlled by the right. Oodles of em. But this sort of brain deadening dismissal-mechanism can only flourish in an ahistorical environment in which the unyielding rightward result of the assassinations is deliberately obscured.

I am reading this book right now, while at the same time reading 3 others. Choosing War, JFK and Vietnam, and Death of A Generation. I had read most of the Newman book earlier. In part my decision to read all 4 was motivated by Jim D's excellent essay on Halberstam, critiquing his Best and The Brightest book, which came at such an important time, when the major mining of the blame-game harbor were being laid by the US Corporate media and ... friends. Wow, is Kaiser's book deeply suggestive about the role of Halberstam. I have long been suspicious of him. Apparently, not enough. The other reason I am reading all 4 is because I read Caro's book and it REALLY REALLY NEEDS TO BE addressed before a large audience. There is a huge forum just waiting for us. What I find intriguing is why Caro chooses to use only Choosing War of these big 4 books. I think it has a lot to do with where Logevall begins and ends his book: late 63 and early 65. The deeper, longer conflict between JFK and the permanent military and intel bureaucracy is thus edged out of the book. This corresponds with Caro's latest volume, which seems to take pains to avoid any policy contrasts between JFK and LBJ.

There are a number of incorrect assumptions made by Len here, but I do not want to clog up the JFK forum. If it interests anyone I will be glad to explain Len's incorrect assumptions wherever moderators find it a fit place to move this thread. I don't think it will sell many ads, though. Again, I do NOT CONSIDER MYSELF A "RESEARCHER". I consider myself an organism who enjoys cutting, pasting, and posting great research in special places where I think it will have a greater chance of mattering. MODERATORS please feel free to place this thread elsewhere if you feel it inhibits the flow of JFK debate. Thank you, Nathaniel Heidenheimer, very tired social studies teacher in Czar Bloomberg's NYC.

Dawn thanks for the concern, and I hate to clog the forum with my laborious false, though richly deserved, humility. What happend was this, which I just posted to someone on an email "Internet weirdness of the sort to leave one of my ilk head-scratching. First my FB account suddenly had the wrong email address to contact me by It had my name @ Yahoo when I have never had an account there. Then at the exact same time I cant get in my hotmail account, because my password no longer worked there. Weird that that should happen at the same time. It was shortly after I made a post mentioning the Strategy of Tension in Italy, ( in a casual kind of way, which is a unique ability of mine) Just speculating, but given my earlier censorship after being removed from the very high volume stl today site POSSIBLY because of posting the 12/1/63 article by their lead Washington reporter, Richard Dudman* about the hole in the windshield. Regardless, I remain convinced that the proverbial they remain most concerned with "wide angle' posting and less concerned with specialist niche-site posting, 2) that the internet can take pressure of the really big media and allow it to get even worse because the very people who should be pointing out its faults are off in false-"alternative" sites, and 3) the way to solve this is by posting JFK specific back into the wider media circulatory system, because this can begin to impose a COST on the larger audience MSM and the specialized decoy Chris Mathews like shows, for being so bad. " I post this here because I think the communications aspect might have greater relevance. At any rate I have now lost 5000 FB friends. Admittedly, my posts were too frequent so probably I was one of the most blocked citizens since Casandra went on FB, but I think some of my posts, at least were more accurate. Our media environment has changed so fast, that there is not enough analysis of how this effects power in a "medium is the message" sort of way. And it is, more than ever, promise. I do not consider myself a researcher, but a spreader of some provocative aspects of the case to new audiences. That, IMO, is what we need more of. *In this instance, I was removed from the St. Louis Post Dispatch website, after being a member of that VERY LARGE AUDIENCE site for ten years. It was the day after I posted the 12-1-63 Dudman windshield article. Dudman is still alive, and I wonder if my posting it may have irked him. This was certainly not my intention. The reason I think it matters is because I have noticed an increasing pattern of censorship lately , especially when posting CIA history material on non-specialist, full spectrum sites. At any rate I have now lost 5000 friends and a means of spreading JFK history that I had worked a long time on. Another medium seems to be closing. Specialized sites are great, but if they do not reconnect back into broader oceans of the internet they lead to extinction.

I find it really classy. Upper.

While I can understand these comments as attempts to balance earlier negative ones, I think they are overstated. This Caro book is really quite bad, IMO. Yes the Bobby Baker scandal is covered in a way that makes it seem unequivocally terminal for LBJ's career. But the deeper structural ties of the scandal and also the TFX scandal are only lightly touched upon. Everything is seen in terms of one pol's career rather than in terms of what this core sampling indicates about the shifts in wider economic interest groups. What a remarkable contrast with the great description of the oil and natural gas legislation of 1948, as depicted in Master of the Senate! Moreover there is virtually NO POLICY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JFK AND LBJ in the entire book!! Yes the differences during the CMC are very lightly hinted at, but with no background whatsoever. Caro gets out of there ASAP. No referencing to Newman's point about LBJ getting different intel from Vietnam than JFK was getting. Almost no reference to JFK's struggle to get Laos done and the strong opposition it generated. We never hear about Johnson on that. You will not believe how fast Caro goes from 263 to 273. Think ski-jump. The Vietnam differences are cauterized by Caro, and he does this by waxing long and heavy on the ceremonial aspects of the secession... er.. succession to the point that policy differences in Vietnam are crowded out of the Volume. Then at the end he hints he will do Johnson's big decisions on Vietnam in the next volume, but one senses by the little contrast that he does do that the bigger contrasts will be left out, as if lost between volumes. Needless to say there are no contrasts between the two on Brazil, Indonesia, or even Soviet relations. Caro hints that LBJ was not all that popular with unions, but does not go there at all. The CIA and its ongoing struggle with elected officials-- including Eisenhower and JFK-- is nonexistent in this book. Continuity via cauterization. Caro's decision to place the back cover between the assassination and most of LBJ's radical policy shifts has the effect of creating continuity where disjuncture ruled, and the effect is profoundly deceptive.

Re The Uncoolest Assassination:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoRG5cMrfIk the best part starts at the end of this youtube and then continues onto part 2 and 3. Hank Hernandez and Many Pena were CIA and LAPD. One reason these fake elections can still be taken seriously is that the cause and effect of them are broken up among audiences. How can so many be interested in the JFK but nobody is interested in this one, which is so much simpler and potentially with greater ramifications? How and why are these audiences fragmented? The RFK hit in conjunction with the MLK and JFK one form a clear picture of a path heading in the direction of todays Other Republicans. Were I the CIA I would want to break up and fragment these audiences so that the cumulative long term direction of them all would not be discussed by large groups of citizens. My strategy would be to form separate groups of assassination fetechists for each distinct assassination, so the tree wouldhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoRG5cMrfIk become more topical than the forest. Then the game keepers of the forest could more easily deal with the assassinations with ridicule.http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=youtube%20the%20polka%20dot%20dress%20girl&tnr=21&vid=5021959796162864&l=583&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D5021959796162864%26id%3Dd7f5b1598943366f3207833b8c004f5a%26bid%3Dq8KYBbjla2zMlg%26bn%3DThumb%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.youtube.com%252fwatch%253fv%253dFoRG5cMrfIk&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DFoRG5cMrfIk&sigr=11a9c1hcf&newfp=1&tit=RFK+Assassination%3A+The+Girl+In+The+Polka+Dot+Dress+%28Part+1+of+3%29 Part 2 part 3

Contrast how the media treated Golden right-democrat Clinton with how they tore down Dean between December 27 and the Iowa primary The Dean hit was not the scream. It was the six weeks before the election. He at one point insinuated he was going to speak out about the media hit, but never did. I think he may well have been an op, similar to Gene McCarthy in 1968: control the anti-war vote but make it ONLY middle class with no working class support so later it is easy to fold into the pro-War Cold War consensus fold. Of course RFK was an entirely different matter and was getting renegade unions to break from the Humphrey national union leaders, not that the CIA would ever notice a thing like that. Then RFK was shot in the head, but hey it was just the last time a Democrat was redistributive and strongly anti-war, why would the left or anyone here care about that. Another indication of why left-gatekeeping is the critical variable not just for the left but for the entire political spectrum. These elections are entirely rigged, the only thing to argue about it the number of ways. Political assassinations are signposts. They might not be the sole cause of corruption but if ANY of them are ignored, it produces a distorted, schizoid view of reality that makes it seem like elections are possible even when these historical conspiracies are never acknowledged, or socially mediated so that it becomes shared history, the only real kind.

What I don't get is how so many can seem to believe that a country can have an unacknowledged coup d'etat AND still have real elections 48 years later. It is not possible. This is not mere postulate, but is born out by 48 years of uninterrupted rightward movement, no matter of what type of organisms are in elected offices. To maintain the fiction that these elections are in any sense real, distracts from the significance of the coup. Worse than that, it is lying to school kids.

Jim if you think I am so stupid as to believe Ben Bradlee on even a Boxscore.... I hope I'm not. I don't think that the book takes either Angleton or Bradlee at their word. It seeks to interrogate what each said. Given the significance of both, and their cooperation in creating their respective stories about the diary, I don't see how it is not a story whether they are lying or not. I mean say they are lying. Then you have the editor of Watergate making up a story to obfuscate the death of an important figure, and the CIA at the heart of a media-murder of a person and of history. How is that not a story? Either way, to ignore the whole thing seems to be helping Bradlee not hurting his worthless credibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/books/review/Bass-t.html Did you know that Sen Moynihan was far more vigilant re the CIA than JFK was? Stalin could not abort minds like this fake left brain-sewage. Folks its time to get off the reservation and post SIDEWAYS across the spectrum where huge numbers of people can actually see what you write. If you don't do that now, what you do here is utterly meaningless. We have reached that late a stage of fascism.--