Sid Walker

Duane, I am not, thank heavens, someone who decides what goes in this forum and what does not. In general I suppose an inclusive approach. I have no particular desire to see the Apollo debate run off the forum, nor confined to a sole thread. I did, however, find the sheer number of threads tiresome - especially when there seemed to be so much overlap between them. Hence my concurrence with Len's remark. Perhaps with this feedback you can hone your approach so it is more effective to a wider range of people. Alternatively, of course, you might want to reconsider the thesis itself. Either way, don't misunderstand my support for Len's comment as support for censorship. Nor, in fairness to Len, do I believe he was taking the position that the topic should not be discussed here at all. A selection of rose bushes, nicely pruned, make for a pleasant garden. A tangle of thorns is not as appealing, either to residents or guests.

Gob smacked - at least I would have been, had I not observed the wily Brazilian perform many earlier feats of intellectual acrobatics. Brazilians are famous for their acrobatic and highly creative goals. Among other things. It's called nimble footwork, Mark. Hard to keep an eye on the ball as the Pele of logic twists, turns and dazzles us all with his ability. But I think the IHR citation was an own goal. Len must be panicking. He might be arrested on his next trip to Germany or Israel

Gob smacked - at least I would have been, had I not observed the wily Brazilian perform many earlier feats of intellectual acrobatics.

Len I read the Marchetti article before as well. Interesting to see you quoting from the Institute for Historical Review website. I am deeply shocked. Anyhow, here's the extract: Now, this does not seem to me in any way, shape or form to undermine claims that Angleton had allegiance to the Zionist cause, to the point of disloyalty, even treason. All it suggests is that the Israeli State treated his memory in a less than dignified way. Perhaps they had contempt for a traitor. Who knows? Regarding the disparate policies of the JFK and Johnson Administrations to Israel, in relation to arms supplies and a raft of other key policies, do we really need to go over that ground again?

Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh was murdered on September 10th 2003. Lindh was popular, politically experienced and often tipped as a future Prime Minister. The assassination occurred a few days before the Swedish referendum on the Euro. Lindh supported Sweden joining the Euro-zone. Most Swedes, as it turned out, opposed it. Lindh, as Sweden's Foreign Minister, was an outstanding and bold advocate for international justice. She was a strong opponent of the Iraq War. She also took a position more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than most, if not any, of her counterparts in other European countries. Her assailant was not caught immediately, but there appears to be consensus he was the assassin, based on forensic evidence and his own confession. His name is Mijailo Mijailovic, a young Swedish citizen of Yugoslav descent. According to the New York Times, January 15, 2004: Since his conviction for murder, there has been a legal tussle over whether his his incarceration is served in prison or hospital. ____________________________ Overall, there is little English-language information available on the web about this sad and puzzling murder. I wondered if anyone on the forum has a view on this - or information to share that may throw some light on the murder, which although apparently solved seems to me far from fully explained. What is known, for instance, of the earlier life of Mijailo Mijailovic? Is there anything in his history or background that might indicate his training as a latter-day Manchurian candidate... the 21st century equivalent of Sirhan Sirhan?

An antidote to the only take on French economic life that I ever see in the major English-speaking mass media - which sells Sarkozy on the basis that at least he offers hope of solving France's "economic woes" with "harsh medicine". Mark Weisbrot suggests these woes may be seriously over-stated, and the proposed cure a lot worse than the imagined disease. A must read, IMO - along with this additional bilingual reference: France is not in decline and the last thing it needs is "reform"

Len, I hope you won't think I'm being pedantic, but I'm sure you meant to type 'disparate' It's one typo we have a shared interest in correcting.

Really? Then why didn't the British and US Governments ally with Hitler and give the USSR a good thrashing? I imagine the Japanese and Italian Governments would have been keen for a piece of the action as well. France might have stayed neutral... but who cares about them? Recalcitrant Gauls!

John I suspect the real reason why Churchill was so desperate to silence ALL the Nazi leadership was to ensure they could not testify, at the time, to the nature and content of the deals offered by Hitler to the British Government in an attempt to restore peace, after Britain declared war in late 1939. These efforts to make peace with Britain continued after Churchill took power. But IMO, Churchill's reputation wouldn't have suffered had it been known he negotiated with the German Government. One expects national leaders to negotiate.. What one does not expect of leaders is complete refusal to negotiate - or willingness to negotiate only in bad faith. Not when millions of lives are at stake. Churchill's reputation would indeed have suffered had it been known on what basis he refused genuine negotiations and/or negotiated only in bad faith. He seems to have had an inexhaustible lust for war and enjoyed the personal thrill of being in the driving seat at a time of war. It would be nice to know more about why he rejected Hitler’s offers of peace. Unfortunately, British war propaganda from that era has since been elevated to Articles of Faith, and anyone who now doubts its veracity is branded as a fanatical supporter of Adolf himself. Hence it has become hard to see this clearly. Unable to see outside the fetid web of 60+ year old lies, it is true that most folk wonder why anyone should ever try to negotiate with a man who was the epitome of Evil with a Capital E. The reality was rather different - and Churchill knew it. Given a choice between peace or the 'thrill' of crushing Germany (only to empower another, more durable Imperium in the eastern European theatre), I suspect most Britons in the late 30s and early 40s would have opted for peace. In the event, they were never given the choice. Their elected government - like Roosevelt in America - spoke with a forked tongue, saying it wanted peace but instead helping to contrive war. IMO, that was the real dirty secret that required the elimination of the Nazi leadership. In our times, we've seen similar travesties of justice with Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. Guys like that are useful when dead (as living myths), but dangerous while still alive and able to tell their side of the story. Apparently Hess, each evening, was subjected to a process whereby anything he'd written that day by way of a diary entry was destroyed. That continued until his death - four decades after his 'capture' in Scotland. It tells of a very strong motive to silence the truth - a motive that goes well beyond defending the reputation of Winston Churchill - a motive that continues to this day. The Second World War was very hard to arrange, IMO. The forces that wanted it and made it happen had a serious problem. Only one generation earlier, Europeans had slaughtered each other in unprecedented numbers in a senseless, protracted orgy of violence. Few wanted to go there again. It was like trying to persuade Americans to butcher each other - all over again - in the 1890s. Most sane people didn't want a bar of war. Getting Europeans to willingly fight each other in the late 30s required trickery and deceit. Churchill was a player in that - but not a key player until 1940. He didn't have enough power, for one thing. Many of his contemporaries, with good reason, believed he was barking mad. They remembered Gallipoli and other Churchillian disasters. Churchill ultimately became PM when the pro-war faction gained ascendancy in Britain in 1940. Thenceforth, keeping Enigma secret from even close colleagues in Cabinet, he ran a war in which he seemed like a magician able to take huge risks... but the risks he took were much lower than they appeared to be, because Churchill could read, better than almost anyone else knew, Hitler's real intentions. He could terrify his colleagues by sending troops to North Africa (weren't they needed back at home for the defense of Britain?), secure in the knowledge that Hitler never actually intended to invade Britain. Until the Americans joined the war, Churchill's real military successes in WW2 were few indeed - and mostly attributable to Enigma, as far as I can see. His concern at war's end, I suspect, was to ensure that he was seen by history as a reluctant but necessary war leader - not the power-hungry pro-war fanatic who refused all reasonable offers of peace and helped ensure that Europe would needlessly suffer another horrific bloodbath, this one squarely on his watch. Under normal circumstances, with the passage of a couple of generations, propaganda heat dissipates and historians can pick over the entrails of history and piece together a balanced appraisal of what really happened. However, the myth that Hitler was the most Evil man who ever lived and a psychopath who actively worked to bring about World War - useful British War-Time propaganda – is now kept alive to sustain a grafted legend that has taken over its rootstock narrative, and is increasingly the determinant of the fruit it bears. This is The Legend of the 'Final Solution' aka The Origin Myth of the Israeli State. That's the real reason, IMO, why all these years later, key WW2 archives are still kept under lock and key - and what I have just written remains unprintable in the mainstream western press. No-one really gives a hoot anymore about Winston Churchill and his reputation. The Man himself is long dead. In general, if ever asked whether they’d like to know the real truth about their history, most people answer yes. Would they like historians to debate history freely? Of course they would! Why wouldn’t they? After World War One, apologies were proffered to the Germans over the worst lies promulgated by 'British Intelligence' during the war. That kind of after-the-event national honesty has been stymied, to date, in relation to World War Two, because the British intelligentsia has come close to losing control of its own historical narrative. People may legitimately disagree with what I have to say. I welcome intelligent responses. I may well have misread this time in history. If so, I’d like to know why and correct the record – for my own sake if no-one else’s. Sadly, unless history is not about to repeat itself, shrill, content-free ad hominem attacks are the most likely retort from those who treat World War Two like theological dogma. Lots of hot air and no illumination.

Count me in Larry. Ther word "incredible" springs to mind.

I found this letter from Rob Anderson interesting: A magazine called The Spotlight - what we'd now call an alternative newsweekly - published in 1964 an interview with an anonymous female "operative" who had one hell of a story to tell. Her claim was the she, two other men and E. Howard Hunt arrived in Dallas early on the morning of November 22, 1963. On the way Hunt had told them they were one of three "shooter teams" who were going to "take down someone very important." When the team arrived at their hotel in Dallas to prepare, Hunt dropped the bomb: It was going to be the President. The woman freaked but showed no outward sign, lest she be killed. Not long afterwards she used her covert skills to slip away and into hiding. Hunt sued the magazine for libel and defamation of character. And he LOST, on both counts. Why this - absolute, incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy, in a court of law no less, three years before Garrison - has never been widely reported is simply mind-blowing. And the cheap shot at Garrison was silly. Much of what Bobby Kennedy suspected Garrison later proved in court. So how was he a fraud? This guy is mixed-up. This is a reference to Marita Lorenz and the lawsuit described in Plausible Denial. This lawsuit didn't heat up till many years after the shooting. The line about Garrison is also not quite right. Most everyone concluded Garrison was a bit of a fraud. He kept spouting about solving the crime and yet his description of the culprits kept changing. If Garrison was in the midst of the first investigation into the murder of the President and gradually learning that the entire gov't was conspiring to destroy him and his case then I think it would be more accurate to say that his list of suspects was evolving and expanding, rather than to dismiss him as a fraud. If you insist on labeling him a fraud then perhaps you could be specific about your charges. What did he say that was fraudulent? Well said Nathaniel. Unless I've missed something major, use of the term 'fraud' to describe Garrison is wholly inappropriate. He was a very brave man indeed, IMO - operating in the most difficult of circumstances. Regarding The Spotlight, it was first published in the mid 70s, and yes, the writer must have been referring to the Plausible Denial saga, also covered in Final Judgment (Michael Collins Piper worked for The Spotlight). Victor Marchetti's Spotlight article that prompted Hunt to sue was published in 1978. Interestingly, although Piper believes Hunt was probably in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination, he doesn't believe Hunt was one of the killers of JFK. This discussion would be well served, IMO, by consideration of Chapter 16 of Final Judgment. _______________________ On a related but separate matter, I read the short article by David Talbot in Salon.com. Thanks to whoever provided the link. It concludes thus: Frank Mankiewicz is also cited as a source earlier in Talbot's article. There are grounds for thinking Mankiewicz, fomerly a PR man for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, who in later years became Vice-Chair of the PR company that sold the first Gulf War to the world on the basis of a pack of lies, is not a trustworthy source. Indeed, some believe he had a hand in the assassination of RFK - see THIS previous discussion on the forum.

I remember some on the British left running a similar argument about Thatcher in 1979. A very high risk strategy! Not only did the Tories last several terms - observe what really came next!

If you are serious (which of course you are not) I suggest you investigate sites like the following http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=70321 http://www.anl.org.uk/campaigns.htm A couple of links do not an explanation make. Anyhow, I visited both web sites, searching for clues as to the the source of "anti-fascist" antipathy for Le Pen. I encountered the word "fascism" many times, but not much explication. Loathing for Le Pen doesn't seem to be a matter of immigration policy - not in any consistent way. After all, the UAF doesn't seem to complain about Mr Olmert's immigration policy - which is more discriminatory than M Le Pen's, wouldn't you agree?

He's a fascist. Hitler for instance may have had interesting ideas on the most humane way of cooking lobster. It is however important to view the whole package Andy Perhaps you could explain the basis for your assertion. Le Pen does not call himself a fascist. Why do you think he is? What do you mean by the term in this context? Incidentally, your "cooking lobster" analogy is interesting. The expression rather accurately summarizes Zionist policy to the Palestinians over a 59-year long occupation. As you know, M Le Pen has been rather critical of this disgusting supremacist behaviour, whereas M Sarkozy has been amicably silent. Still, I imagine we both hope for the election of Madame Royal for both aesthetic and political reasons.

Good question Len! You weren’t being sarcastic with me now, were you Sid? If not I’m glad we can finally agree on something. No Len. You read me right. I considered pointing out the rarity of the event myself, then thought better of it. I'd rather you experience the shock of agreement without prompting Who knows where this might lead? One of these days I may be able to say that some of my best friends are Brazilians.

I don't see any signs of the demise of "American Democracy", Nathaniel. The source of disillusionment, IMO, is a clearer understanding of how the word 'Democracy' has been traduced in the USA by a partisan and self-serving elite, a corrupt mass media and bloated "intelligence services" that on any sane analysis are anything but. I feel more hopeful about the restoration of a more meaningful and genuine "American Democracy" than I have for a while. There are indications that a growing number of Americans are paying closer attention to reality. It bodes well for the future. At least, one would hope, enthusiasm for 'exporting' democracy through military might may be on the wane. Not a moment too soon.

Two days to go. Martin Jacques in The Guardian has a most interesting article about the choice ahead: A conventional, 'respectable' left-wing analysis is that by pandering to racism, Sarkozy locks in the support of Le Pen and his followers. Well, we'll have to wait and see how Le Pen supporters actually vote on Sunday, but if they support Sarkozy it will be in spite of Le Pen's best efforts: see Le Pen tells his supporters to abstain in French election

The point is that Browne was being investigated for corruption. In the same way that his mate Tony Blair is. What they have got him on so far is that he lied in court. That might not be a big deal in Australia but in in the UK it is perjury and considered to be a serious crime. BP has a terrible reputation in the UK. The green lobby will not be sad to see him go. The point that I am making is that the university someone goes to is very important to your employment prospects in the UK. You know that of course because I believe you are a graduate of Oxbridge. As was Lord Browne. Anji Hunter has indeed done well considering she went to Brighton Polytechnic. The point I am making is that the only reason she has had the jobs she has had is because of her relationship with Tony Blair. Perhaps I shouldn't weigh into a topic without knowing more about it. After all, the private lives of CEOs and Prime Minister's is not my special area of interest. However, forced to read a little more about this business because of my rash step, I have a few questions. Are Browne and Blair 'mates' in any sense more than Putin and Browne are 'mates'? As CEO of Britain largest company, he'd naturally mingle with senior politicians, I would have thought. Is there any evidence he obtained his peerage from Blair improperly? Was Browne really being investigated for corruption? The Daily Telegraph report - 'Lord Browne made atypical misjudgment' - suggests that he was caught out only because he tried to stop the publication of his disloyal ex-partners tawdry memoirs. So, this was his 'perjury' - and for this he will suffer a fate somewhat less severe than Oscar Wilde - but far, far worse than anything the pack-rape mass media is ever likely to suggest for liars such as Bush, Blair, Cheney, Olmert etc etc - men who lied to justify wars, men whose lies led to the death of many thousands of human beings and the destruction of whole countries. Well, I don't condone "perjury" - and as you know John, Australian courts take a similar view of this offense to the British courts on which they are based. I just think there's something very sad and rather sick about all this. The Telegraph article says "Browne believed with a passion, and still does today, that he had a right to keep his private life just that. Private." I agree with him. He would doubtless have not felt any need to do this if it were not for cultural attitudes, still obviously prevalent in Britain (and elsewhere), that it is in some way big and shocking 'news' that a prominent individual is homosexual - something which merits front page coverage in tabloids that specialize in supplying controlled dollops of voyeurism to their dumbed-down readership. His decision was also complicated, it is reported, by his desire to keep his sexuality secret from his mother while she was alive. If he misused his power in BP to arrange nepotistic deals, well, that's an issue - like it's an issue for Wolfowitz in the World Bank. I just happen to think that in both cases - but especially for Browne who has served this shareholder-owned corporation for nearly four decades - it is not a big deal. The BP Board, representing shareholders, might well feel that they got ample 'value' out of Browne's hard work and that if he squanders corporate small change on a pathetic friend... well, they can pocket the loss and still be well ahead. Are environmentalists cross with Browne? I haven't looked into this. You may well be right. If I was working in Britain as an environmental activist. I'd probably keep the pressure up on my country's largest oil company. Why not? Just because Browne began to turn the vessel tround doesn't mean it's steaming in the right direction... not yet. However, from the little I know about it, Browne seems to have been a more enlightened CEO than most during the last ten years. Ten years ago, greening the company required more courage than it might today. Browne helped create the bandwagon that others now sit on. For that, he deserves credit, IMO. Don't let's forget that during the same ten years, some of his counterparts were actively funding "think-tanks" to discredit the climate change hypothesis. That's real evil, in my books. Is Browne an innocent? Undoubtedly not. Has Britain moved on since it locked up Oscar Wilde in Reading Jail? Apparently not.

I like what I hear about Mike Gravel, as well. This from an optimistic fan: Meet the Next President of the United States of America Short extract:

Good question Len!

Not at all. It relies on no more than the collusion of those whom we already KNOW colluded when they helped promote Israel's cover story about the Liberty Their problem was that - in the event - there were survivors left to contradict them and honest people in the US Administration and military to deal with who could not accept such a ludicrous fall-back story (I refer to the 'accident' fable). Had there been no survivors, selling the intended false-flag story would have been a much easier task. Only the Egyptians would have protested. AS for your claim that Israel would have been blamed because it controlled those waters, well, I think you draw a very long bow. That control was very new. The world as a whole had little idea who controlled what in the fog of war. The USS Liberty was off the Egyptian coastline. I think it's fairly obviously who would have been blamed, in the absence of American survivors determined to tell the truth.

Well, while I haven't delved deeply into this scuttlebutt about Browne, nor do I intend to, but I must say I'm appalled at the little I've read. So... Mr Browne may face charges of perjury because he allegedly lied about how he met a former lover. Big deal. I know little about Browne, and I'm skeptical about corporate greenwash, but I suspect Browne may be about the best of the bunch when it comes to CEOs of leading energy company's. To be persecuted over one's sexuality in 2007 is disgusting, IMO. I thought our freedom and right to privacy in that most private part of our lives was one of the reasons "they" hate us. Must cross that off the list, as well. I'm surprised by your last remark, John. It seems a rather snobbish comment, out of character for you.

He certainly impresses me more than any of the other declared candidates.

Well, as the resident killjoy, I'd call his the limited hangout's last hurrah. A CIA-Mafia plot fails to explain many things... notably the mass media-assisted cover-up. I shall keep an open mind pending more information, but what I've read so far on this thread does not impress. Solved the mystery? I don't think so. It was essentially solved more than ten years ago, IMO... Does Talbot refer to Piper's hypothesis, I wonder - or just ignore it like most best-selling JFK authors?

Caracus inferno: 56-story Madrid inferno: 32-story WTC-7 'inferno': 47=story I'd say that makes them roughly comparable, but apparently the workmanship in NYC is below third world standard. Those shonky American builders! Sorry for bringing up old news, Len. I know we're supposed to be mesmerised by the latest "Islamic terrorist atrocity" and forget about past absurdities. Excuse me for retaining a memory.