James DiEugenio

About a month or so after they met, Ruth wrote a letter to Marina, inviting her to live with the Paines. She says it was not sent, but still? Kind of weird if you ask me.

Why not?

Ron: Thanks so much for this. Johnny is a much undervalued researcher on the JFK case. He does not get the credit he deserves in my view. His six part series on the 60th is simply excellent all the way through. He was a contributor to a book called JFK: Case not Closed with Dave Obrien. And now this fine work on Ruthie. BTW, not to toot my own horn, but did anyone else cover this event? He was there live.

Thanks for that Peter. Whew, pretty strong stuff.

Joe: This is my point about the paradox of what the WC says: Walker, and JFK? The evidence says that Oswald liked Kennedy. So in addition to the gigantic evidentiary problems in both cases, the Commission was never able to find a motive in the JFK case. Liebeler even joked about this. But its weird that no one asked Ruthie about that political paradox.

Oh and let me add another issue Johnny brings up: What is the ACLU about? And were not the Paines members? Did not Mike take Oswald to an ACLU meeting? Did not Oswald end up joining? So what is so outlandish about an ACLU member asking another ACLU member to contact an attorney? Why did no one ask that question? I think we know why since we know who Mallon is.

Man, that is a good one Robert. You one upped me.

Really funny Cory. Maybe Roe wants a list of all donations to K and K for the last year? That will still not make Kirk Coleman go away, or the original 30.06, wrong color bullet in the Walker case. Or Ben Cole's and Gerald McKnight's work on that case. And can anyone explain why Oswald would shoot at a rightwing fascist like Walker and then kill the most liberal president since FDR? Let us not forget: Kennedy relieved Walker of his command, Walker then started a riot over Kennedy's integration policies at Ole Miss, a riot that left two people dead. If Ruthie does not know any of this, she should not be shooting her mouth off about it.

What about my other point, was Connally leaned forward enough for the entry to miss the jump seat? Or was he just that tall?

The limo slowed significantly, but there was a lead car in front of fit. DId it keep up speed or slow down also, thus making the limo slow down? I am not a film expert. Also, how far from the jump seat was JBC, was he leaned forward? Or was he just so tall the shot missed the jump seat? ( I am not talking about the SBT of course.) Thanks.

Ruth Paine is one of the most extreme zealots I have ever seen for the Warren Commission. At times she reminds me of the late David Belin in her incredible vituperativeness. The most bizarre thing about her is that she never questions any of the evidence.

He then says the Paines really did not have anything to do with convicting Oswald for the Commission. LOL. They were clearly the most questioned people of anyone. Over 6,000 questions combined. Now compare that to how many question were asked of Thornton Boswell. Go ahead, count them up. That, in and of itself, proves the Commission was a set up. He then says we should ignore this, it was really the evidence. Geez Tracy, ever hear of Mrs. Paine's garage? Or the limitless stream of stuff that Ruth kept turning up: like vacation guides for Mexico City?

I love what he says about Ed Curtin and his review of Max Good's film. Tracy leaves out the article that Holland wrote for the CIA's online zine. And what Max exposed about Priscilla Johnson. Let alone as Leslie has shown, the Paines did have a cozy relationship with FBI agent Bardwell Odum.

You know, I have both DVP and Parnell on ignore. I will never take DVP off. But I stupidly took at look at Parnell's. What a mistake. "Attorney General Robert Kennedy oversaw an organized assassination operation against the bearded leader." With the declassification of the CIA's IG report, writing something like that is just pure ignorance or its a deliberate, desperate smear. On pages 132, 133 of that report the authors ask the question: can we claim we had presidential approval for the plots? They answer that they cannot. Since Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ were ignorant of them. The only way Bobby Kennedy knew about them was through the bungled wiretap in Las Vegas that Maheu approved for Giancana to spy on his girlfriend Phyllis McGuire. When Bobby found out about it through the FBI he wanted to know why Maheu was so kind to a thug like Giancana, who Bobby was pursuing with all he had. It was then that CIA briefed him on the plots, since they had to. They then assured him they were stopped. This was false and the briefers knew it was false when they told RFK that. Anyone who has not read that 145 page report which was declassified by the ARRB, should not be writing on the topic since it is the definitive document on the subject matter. But with many of these Krazy Kid Oswald zealots--like the late John McAdams--there is a dual agenda at work. Cover up the facts of JFK's murder, and also cover up who he really was.

Thanks Cory. It has always puzzled me how Ruth extends out the Walker case as some kind of ace to bolster the case on the JFK side. When, as many have pointed out, like Ben Cole and Scott Reid and the late Gerald Knight, that case is fraught with problems all the way. I mean Oswald was not even a suspect in it for like 7 1/2 months. And OMG, an ACLU member objecting to a man asking for a lawyer?

Johnny Cairns crossed the pond over the anniversary to go the scene of the crime. On the way he witnesses an interview by author and good buddy Thomas Mallon for good ole Ruthie to go through her paces. As you will see it was all a set up from go one. Which Johnny does a nice job exposing. No one asks, for instance, what sense does it make for Oswald to shoot at a fascist type rightwing nut, but then shoot and kill the most liberal president since FDR? I mean was anyone awake? Plus he missed from close range at Walker, but performs a fantastic piece of marksmanship in the Kennedy case. Hmm. Mallon marches on. With Ruthie. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/our-lady-of-the-warren-commission-part-1-2

Let me add one other point about McNamara. I have also thought, but cannot prove, that this was the reason he commissioned the Pentagon Papers and kept them secret from Johnson. In that notable book, The War Within, McNamara is depicted as being wracked with guilt about Vietnam, and in late 1966 Galbraith said the same thing after meeting him for dinner. And this is about when the creation of the PP started. My personal opinion is that McNamara understood how huge the split was between Kennedy and Johnson on the war and part of his aim in the PP was to show how it happened. In the Gravel Edition there is a whole section called Phased Withdrawal 1962-64 which demonstrates this. For whatever reason, neither the Post nor the TImes printed that section.

When people reply to Mike, I have to read his stuff. Geez. Look, Mac Bundy was in the room when McNamara said they were pulling out the first thousand. Bundy asked what this was about. McNamara said that it was part of a withdrawal program that should be started. When Gordon Goldstein confronted him with this exchange for his biography of Bundy, he realized what had happened. Kennedy was going around him because he felt he was too hawkish and McNamara was reciting what JFK wanted said. That ended up being correct, because we know this from John K Galbraith's biographer RIchard Parker. Does anyone here think that JFK did not know what would happen in VIetnam after the withdrawal? Its right in the O'Donnell and Powers book. Nixon and Kissinger both knew what was going to happen and they kept it secret. Their knowledge was not exposed until their tapes were declassified. Nixon realized the war was hopeless before he was sworn in. But he wanted to try for a Korea type settlement, first with Duck Hook, and then with the invasions of Laos and Cambodia. Neither one worked, but it got millions of Cambodians killed later. So who was correct? Kennedy who just did not think that Vietnam was worth anywhere near 5.8 million corpses? Or Nixon who knew it was hopeless but still tried to get a Peace with Honor--he got neither. But he did not mind all those millions of dead bodies along the way. Mac Bundy told Goldstein that Kennedy understood Vietnam because of his experience in Saigon from 1951, when he saw that the French effort was futile and was told so by Topping and Gullion. He knew that if it became a white man's war, America would lose because they would be perceived as the imperial power suppressing nationalism. This colored all he was doing from 1961. The key moment being when he sent Galbraith to Saigon after the November debates. The clear reason was to get different advice from the man he knew would give it to him. As Galbraith told his son, he wanted to counter the hawks. These are all facts. To me, they make Kennedy look much better than LBJ and RMN. Why anyone would argue the contrary is simply weird.

Now, let me ask this: When did JFK ever propose sending in combat troops to fight the war for Saigon? Sound of crickets in the night. When did JFK ever call in the Pentagon to design going to war with the north? Sound of crickets in the night. The amazing thing about Johnson is he reversed both of those policies quickly. He called the Pentagon into his office in January, and they were advising him on war plans, which were then written up in NSAM 288 in March. In the summer of 1964, the Pentagon moved 93 planes from Thailand to South Vietnam. Even Taylor objected to this. Why? Because he knew you were going to need American combat troops in theater to protect such a large air arsenal from the Viet Cong. Therefore, by early August of 1964 Kennedy's policy had been completely negated, largely reversed. Just recall, the volumes of the Warren Commission would be released three months later. Try to find any major news source which related one to the other.

The policy in Vietnam changed almost immediately and Newman notes this at the first 11/24 meeting. And it is there to see: "I am not going to lose Vietnam, I am not going to be the president who saw Southeast Asia go the way China went" (Newman, p. 459). LBJ then added that he had never been happy with our operations in Vietnam. He felt we spent too much emphasis on social reforms, he has little tolerance with spending time being "do-gooders". He then added that if there was any future bickering on the issue, that person would be removed. (Ibid, p. 460). John McCone for one noted the difference in tone. Any idiot can contrast this with the last words of Kennedy both officially and not officially. It was Kennedy who pushed through 263. He put back in the withdrawal program to the Taylor/McNamara Report, which Sullivan wanted to take out. As Newman notes, Kennedy more or less steamrolled the opposition. (p. 411) William Sullivan bitterly disagreed with what Kennedy was doing. He thought that instead of withdrawing people and finishing the withdrawal by 1965, it should be contrary: we should be putting more people in by the end of 1963. During the NSC discussion over the 1000 man withdrawal in October, it was McNamara who pressed the issue of taking our men out and training the ARVN to replace them.(Newman, p. 413). This indicates that as Gordon Goldstein and John K. Galbraith have noted, and has been proven, Kennedy designated McNamara as his point man on the withdrawal. Privately, on November 12th, Kennedy told Sen. Morse that he was in the midst of a review and when he was done he wanted to share it with him for a couple of hours. Morse was one of the strongest critics of American involvement in Vietnam. (Newman, p. 432) When Johnson took over he was clearly aware of all this. He attacked McNamara for withdrawing men from a conflict we were losing. And he appointed Sullivan to a secret mission inside the White House to plan for direct American entry into the war, including the "causus belli", the Tonkin Gulf incident. If anyone thinks that was a coincidence you need some serious counseling with your priest, reverend or rabbi. Because it was not.

Here is another interview, this time by Jeff Crudele of JFK: The Enduring Secret. This his first You Tube video. I thought it was good. His audio podcasts gets hundred of thousands of views, and this will transfer there soon.

Here is another article about good old Hugh. This one is even more extensive than mine. https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/02/13/hugh-aynesworth-cia-media-asset-fbi-informer-friend-of-lyndon-johnson-white-house-and-medias-darling-jfk-assassination-lone-nutter-journalist-dies-at-92/

Oh no. Not that one. Kennedy said that he would be branded an appeaser after the election.

Johnson was obsessed with RFK's candidacy, and I think one reason he dropped out is that he could not take the humiliation of losing to him. But he did not want to see him win so he tried to get Rockefeller to run against him. Thinking that Rocky could appeal to a wider spectrum, including students and African Americans as he was perceived as being more liberal. This is how LBJ was intent on injuring his own party in 1968, by limiting what Humphrey could say on the one hand, and by handpicking a safety valve in case RFK won.

The Daily Beast was the publication that first exposed Max Holland's nutty idea that somehow the Permindex story was a creation of the KGB. A piece of manure if you ever read one.