James DiEugenio

It was a very secretive witness for the HSCA and Fonzi talked about him but did not name him in his book. I am pretty sure that he has been named since. Dave can probably tell you who he was. Let us not forget how DeTorres was one of the first infiltrators into Garrison's inquiry.

To give just one example: he did not write his book on RFK.

About Heymann, it is not true that he did not make up books. He did. He made up people who did not exist, and he created interviews that he never did. He made up police departments. He put his name on books he did not write, forbidding the real authors to take credit for them. Heymann represented all that was wrong about the publishing business and their lack of pre publication review. Becuase Heymann manufactured so much salacious and sensational stuff, and he worked to sell the fabricated products, and the MSM bought into them since they have no standards also, his books sold. And that is why they got published even though they were full of pernicious BS. I know someone who has done a lot of work on Heymann. I mean a lot. The guy was a skunk. No one here should quote a man who was that amoral.

You hover over the picture and on the right the ignore option apepars. Also, thanks William about my VIetnam commentary. And understand when I say, I did not buy into the withdrawal thesis at first. I was very skeptical about it when I first encountered it. I can see now it was because I was brainwashed by all that Kennedy/Cold Warrior junk. So I decided to make that a prime focus of my research for a very long time. I concluded that I was wrong, Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam. And the guiding hand was Galbraith.

I think I will now put Matt on ignore.

I am beginning to have my doubts about Matt. First there is this: If you're stuck thinking that the CIA is an instrument of imperialism you do not understand what it has been doing since its inception. It is and always has been a progressive organization. How in Hades was what David Phillips and the CIA did in Chile in 1973 progressive? How on earth was what the CIA did in Jakarta in 1965 progressive? How the heck was what the CIA did in Congo to get rid of Lumumba, progressive? How was propping up a monomaniacal dictator who deprived citizens of free speech, the right to petition, the right to organize, religious rights for the majority, and ultimately torture and death for dissidents in Saigon, how was that progressive? In all these cases, the CIA was on the side of fascism. For instance, in Congo, Lumumba came to power in a free election with a written constitution. Lumumba could have been a great example for Africa. Kennedy backed Lumumba, so did Hammarskjold. All three men were killed, with a prime suspect in each case being the CIA. This is progressive? Matt has a weird idea of progressivism. And who the heck is Deep Throat anyway? And why would his diary be at NARA? Are you talking about Felt? Bennett? Inman? Someone else? If its someone else, who is it and why?

Well William, we did get a disclosure out of Matt. Perhaps two. Maybe three. 1. Pat Moynihan was the deep cover Moscow mole inside the government. 2. Although I might have this wrong, he was Deep Throat. 3. And he agrees with Marc Selverstone on Kennedy's (maybe) withdrawal plan

Matt, NSAM 263 is not what I or any other commentator chose to "hang their hat on" for a withdrawal thesis. One of the most important, if not the most important, document released by the ARRB was the Sec Def conference meeting of May 1963. In that conference, McNamara had asked for withdrawal schedules. They were handed in to him. He looked at them and then announced, this is too slow. We have the notes to that meeting. Wheeler was there. He wrote that any contra argument to withdrawal would meet with a negative response. We then have the tapes of the October meetings where Kennedy and McNamara are talking about withdrawing and Mac Bundy does not know what they are talking about. McNamara replies that they have to find a way to get out of Vietnam. Many years later, Bundy heard this tape and told his biographer Gordon Goldstein that Kennedy had instructed McNamara to run the withdrawal program. And he deliberately went around him since he thought he was too hawkish. He told Goldstein that was the right decision and he had nothing but admiration for what Kennedy had done. We then have the evidence of the handing in of the Taylor/McNamara report and how Sullivan had tried to pull the withdrawal plan out of it. Kennedy called them into a conference room and made them put it back in. He then rode herd over the dissenters and announced, we now have a plan. He then told McNamara to announce it to the press. But while he was walking out to do so, JFK opened a window and told him, "And tell them that means the helicopter pilots also!" In Stone's film, John Newman talked about the McNamara debriefs. How the Secretary said that he and Kennedy had agreed that America should only have a training and equipment program for Saigon. They could not fight the war for them. Once that training program was complete, America could get out. And it did not matter if Saigon was winning or losing, we were getting out of Vietnam. Now I could go even further in this, because I have not even included Galbraith and his strong influence over JFK on this issue. Or the advice of DeGaulle and MacArthur. Or the 19 witnesses who said that Kennedy told them he was getting out of Vietnam. Are they all lying? I have done a lot of work on this angle in the last several years. One reason being that I did not buy into at first. I can now see I was wrong. Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam, and that decision was knowingly halted by Johnson within days, and it was then reversed by NSAM 288 in March of 1964. These are all facts. And only the Noam Chomskys of the world would beg to differ.

Yes i agree. That is why I think so many people did not want to see it disappear and ponied up some money to see it survive. I don't think any other forum can match the stature of the contributors or the quality of the info that one sees here. And with a bit of digging you can find almost any subject. Concerning Vietnam, I was so glad we got John Newman and Jamie Galbraith to talk about that in JFK Revisited. I thought that was one of the highlights of the film.

William, if you have not read Secret Agenda, all the way through, you really should. Even today, 40 years after it was published, its the best book on Watergate. There is no doubt that Mark Felt was one of the main sources for Woodward. But there appear to be a couple others, Robert Bennnett, as Hougan proves, was one. The other two suspects are Haig and Bobby Inman.

Sandy, there is a way to get around it. There is no doubt the Felt was one of Woodward's sources. But, for example, in the book In Nixon's Web -which I am one of the very few who have read--he proves that Deep Throat was a composite. And he does this from Woodward's own notes at the University of Texas Library. One of the prime suspects for the composite was Robert Bennett. Which is what I believe. Another one was Haig. But I have never seen anyone infer it was Moynihan. In fact, in the two most famous revisionist versions, Secret Agenda and Silent Coup, his name is in neither index. So I await Matt's David Copperfield act on this.

Here is another one, Moynihan vs Reagan. https://blogs.bl.uk/americas/2015/09/reagans-critic-daniel-patrick-moynihan.html I am still waiting for how he figures into Woodstein and Watergate.

Now explain to us how you figure him into Watergate and Woodstein?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moynihan_Commission_on_Government_Secrecy I saw him debate Helms on TV, Moynihan wanted to completely eliminate the CIA. He was also a harsh critic of Reagan's Central America policies. The Neocon crowd you are talking about, like Abrams, came into Washington under Henry Jackson. Al From and Will Marshall created the DLC. Most people called Moynihan a neoliberal.

The three godfathers of the Neocon movement are considered to be, Strauss, Albert Wohlstetter, and Irving Kristol. Please explain what you mean about Moynihan.

MC: P.S. The long-absent motives for both JFKA and Watergate now solved. That is what you think. If anyone buys this, or that Moynihan was the leader of the Neocons, which he was not, I can sell you the proverbial bridge in Arizona.

MC: "But of course the only interpretation of this fact that gets considered here is that that somehow proves the assassination was over Vietnam. It was not. It had little to do with Kennedy personally, but no one can seemingly conceive of this inherent deception. " Matt, the above sounds close to Sean Fetter's Under Cover of NIght. If the assassination of JFK had little to do with Vietnam or with Kennedy's policies, then what was it about?

Well Pat, that is true, the movie business is a craps shoot most of the time. (Unless its a sequel to Indiana Jones or Star Wars.) All I am saying if that Barry did have two hits since 1984 and The Killing Fields, namely Wag the Dog and Rain Man. But yes, its a crap shoot. After all, Lucas had trouble selling the first Star Wars.

And BTW, Joffe had not just been without a hit since The Killing Fields, but his films for theaters have been bomb after bomb. Not only do they not make money, they lose millions. Sometimes tens of millions. For one example, compare his film about the creation of the atomic bomb, Fat Man and LIttle Boy with Chris Nolan's recent film, Oppenheimer.

Crudele is a really good host and his show is a real asset to our cause.

Well if they were promised Mamet and Levinson and now to Joffe? Who has not had a hit movie since The Killing Fields back in the 1980's and has done a lot of TV since? I think Celozzi did not like the idea that the film was getting away from him. And he decided to start over. But its still a BS story anyway.

So now we go from Mamet and Barry Levinson to Roland Joffe? How does a project, with Pacino, Viggo M, and Travolta get ditched for Joffe? Only in TInsel Town. https://variety.com/2024/film/news/november-1963-killing-president-jfk-roland-joffe-mob-1235996417/

This is what I wrote about Sheehan and Halberstam when Sheehan died. What he and Halberstam did in Vietnam was really shameful. Neither man, as far as I can find, ever acknowledged that Kennedy was getting out at the time of his death. Neither man ever acknowledged that this decision had been severely altered, and then changed by Johnson with NSAM 273 and NSAM 288. Neither man acknowledged that the American commitment of combat troops, asked for by Vann, turned out to be an epic debacle. And, as you will see, what Sheehan did to Mark Lane showed that as late as 1971 he was doing his master's bidding. https://www.kennedysandking.com/obituaries/neil-sheehan-in-retrospect

Glad Matt posted that memo. The first paragraph is really interesting. And it explains a lot about later works by Halberstam and Sheehan. See, what those two did later was really kind of a disgrace, and they were never called out on it since they were part of the MSM. But the truth was rather simple: they were hawks on Vietnam who did not think Kennedy was doing enough to win. Halberstam was later so embarrassed by this fact that he went back and cut a very revealing portion out of his first book on Vietnam, The Making of a Quagmire. The truth is they wanted Kennedy to escalate, and that part of Halberstam's book he later cut was explicit about this point. Kennedy actually wanted Halberstam rotated out of Saigon. Well, after Kennedy was murdered, they got their escalation. And it turned out to be a disaster of epic proportions. In other words, Kennedy was right and they were wrong. So what happened? In their books, The Best and the Brightest and A Bright Shining Lie, they tried to downplay their early hawkishness and somehow blame Kennedy for what happened in Vietnam. Halberstam's book is really bad as history today. Both men were greatly influenced by John Paul Vann who thought Saigon needed more American aid and not less. For this deception they became paragons of the Establishment. Sickening.

By the way, I did not go into the whole moronic and evil phony charges the local US attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, the DA Anthony Zappala, and the FBI agent Brad Orsini cooked up against him because he was challenging how they abused African American and Latino suspects. That was a sickening spectacle that cost Cyril millions and dragged on for years. I did not include since it was not directly related to the JFK case, but Dave Perry actually put the whole indictment on his web site. How low can one go. I mean using a fax machine in the coroner's office for a private expense. Whew. The most one could ask for is a reimbursal, but criminal charges? Wecht could argue back that he never asked to be reimbursed by the city for working overtime, which he did all the time. When he took over the office, they did not even have a microscope or an autopsy table. He made that office into one of the best in the state.