Sid Walker

For the nth time, Len, no-one in the Iranian Government has called for "the killing or expulsion of the entire population of a country" (Israel, or any other country). At least, you and your chums have been unable to present evidence to that effect. When you find some evidence, please do get back to me. You further say, referring to the Zionist plans to attack Iran in an illegal first strike, "attacking a WMD production facility... would only result in property damage and perhaps a few casualties " Care to share with us the analysis, or better, the evidence on which you base such marvellous optimism? Remember the cakewalk? One final thing. In an earlier reply, you attacked James Petras as follows. Now it's true that Petras doesn't use footnotes in that article, Len. But here's a hint. Check what's inside the brackets. They look like this ( ) You'll find reference after reference - mostly to the Financial Times

Are you implying that the Barnes Review folk are sympathetic to COINTELPRO? Or to the Ku Klux Klan and violent racist whites? That's drawing rather a long bow, Daniel, from my observation of the contents of that journal. You may not like Barnes Review (I have little doubt you don't). But have the decency to charactize its views with accuracy.

Sid your research skills impress me the quote is from the linked page! Look at the “Ahmadinejad: Supporters of Israel will face wrath of Islamic ummah” article it’s just over half way through (I’d tell you the exact line but that will change with browser settings). If you still can’t find it try using your browser’s “Find (on this page)” (or equivalent function). Why isn’t calling for destruction of a counties nuclear weapons production facilities analogous to calling for the destruction of an entire country? Is that really a serious question? As for the Petras essay, political and economic analysis from a sociologist who doesn’t cite any sources [Yawn] how compelling! It's basiclly just an update of his usual "Jews run America diatribe" Ah! Thanks, Len. So you did refer to the phrase: He (the Iranian President) further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. Trouble is, Len, that is in absolutely NO way equivalent to "Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map" So it doesn';t make your case. Sorry for being slow on this. I thought you must have found something else on his site that actually made the case he's threatened Israel with annihilation. Apparently not. Why isn't it equivalent? Back to the schoolyard. It's about the level of analysis appropriate to this grotesque, war-justifying 'beat-up'. Imagine Jonny says to Jimmy "if you keep on picking fights and stirring trouble, you'll get beaten up!" Imagine then Jimmy tells the rest of the playground "Jonny just threatened to beat me up. Let's get him before he gets me!". Can you - Len - spot how Jimmy is trying to pull a swift one? I can. I wonder about the rest of the kids in the playground, who get most of their news from TV stations and newspapers contolled by little Jimmy's dad and uncles. Will they figure it out too?

Hi Tim You may be interested to know that the thread on Michael Collins Piper's book Final Judgment , in which you were such an enthusiastic participant, has now reached the 29th page. Have you have used your time out to prepare a definitive rebuttal of Piper's thesis? (as opposed to slurs, abuse and ad hominem attacks)

There'sa fascinating new article by James Petras, entitled Who rules America? Petras sees a fundamental contradiction between the interests and goals of US finance capital as a whole and the war plans of the Israel Lobby. The picture is highly complex, because the two are so closely intertwined. Petras concludes: The Future of the Financial Ruling Class

I'll add one more reason why I think that named editors are a prerequisite for a credible encylopedia. Many subjects are controversial. A comprehensive enclopedia should therefore attempt to ensure that all perspectives are given a fair airing - or at least, that none are excluded. If there are to be exclusions, that should be explicit (and reasons provided). The current system makes accountability of this type impossible.

Well, you'd be right that there is no interest in changing the pseudonymous character of editing at Wikipedia. The standard explanation is this: the editing process is entirely transparent, in that all changes are logged. Editors at the site have little difficulty in assigning 'reputations' based on track record. This is not the academic way, but then it is all more interactive: when puzzled, you can go and ask anyone why they wrote something, do they have a source for those facts, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, there is no 'hidden hand'. There are plenty of editors who have some agenda, but the whole thing is too big (and spread over too many languages, also) for much major manipulation, though people are constantly trying for petty advantages. As for Google, their PageRank algorithm is a secret in the legendary Coca-Cola formula class. The only thing I heard about this was a while back, when it was being said that Google wanted Wikipedia to be ahead of its mirror sites (i.e. the same material posted elsewhere). I have no idea what foundation there was for that rumour. The more people linked directly to Wikipedia, the higher it would climb anyway. Charles Thanks for your reply. I hate to be an nuisance... but it contains, IMO, no real substance. After confirming that editiorial anonymity is likely to stay at Wikipedia, you provide no meaningful rationale for the policy. Yes, contributions of individual anonmyous editors can be tracked (taking the software on faith). But who are these anonymous editors? Why should their names be kept secret? How can you counter suspicions that many of them - at least - are not bona fide volunteers but paid representatives of unidentified outside forces? (perhaps I should say 'inside forces') I won't pursue the page ranking issue with you here. As I said, it is, after all, a matter more appropriately to be taken up directly with the search machine companies.

If indeed we go to Ahmadinejad’s site* we see that is exactly how they paraphrased him in English. Perhaps someone should tell Mr. Cole. He is still the ONLY expert you could find disputing that he called for Israel’s destruction; I already acknowledged that he didn’t use the word for map. * http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cr...8/4/index-e.htm I already pointed this out in message #28 of this thread. As for the Rasfenjani quote it’s true that the Iran Press Service is not government run but it fits the allegation of a senior fellow in the Center for Strategic and International Studies: that “Some members of the government have even boasted how they would use them: to destroy Israel. "Islam could survive the retaliation," they insist, "but Israel would be gone forever." (post 28) The part about "Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world" doesn’t seem to leave much doubt. And fits Iran hanginging banners with the slogans: “Death to Israel” and “wipe Israel away” from missiles capable of striking Israel with nuclear warheads. As to whether or not Iran is developing such weapons you seem to be the only person here in denial regarding this, even Mark Stapleton said he thought they were. Your analogy of comparing calls by Israelis (wrongheaded as they maybe) for destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons production capability with (apparent) calls by leading Iranian government officials for Israel’s destruction is a laughably false one. Len First, you provide a general link to the Iranian President's website, but not a specific page ref that proves your point. I've just wasted minuites trying to verify your claim. I can't. But that's not's to say it's incorrect. Please provide an exact web reference for your claim that Ahmadinejad’s site upholds your (mis-?) interpretation of his words. You say my "analogy of comparing calls by Israelis (wrongheaded as they maybe) for destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons production capability with (apparent) calls by leading Iranian government officials for Israel’s destruction is a laughably false one." Please explain why. Incidentally, I understand that Israel's new deputy PM - Avigdor Lieberman - seeks a Zionist State that is 100% 'Jewish'. Even The Jewish Forward expresses some shock at the rantings of this grotesque bigot: Notice that I provide a PRECISE web link reference, Len? I don't just link to The Forward and expect you to find the page. It's not very hard to do. You should try it yourself (on those odd occasions when you have the facts on your side).

Taking up John's points: (1) Jimmy Wales himself often says the making of Wikipedia is like the making of sausages: you really don't want to know the details. That's a slight misquote of something always attributed to Bismarck, on sausages and laws (Wurst und Gesetze). Jimmy was saying that again on Tuesday evening, in London (he'd been talking to the LSE, and had an LSE researcher in tow, who is looking at the management of Wikipedia). I really don't think that Wikipedia articles (though some of them are good) can replace academic monographs. If someone does five years of a doctorate, they will come up with something that differs in kind. But those writings are read by very few, and are prohibitive to buy, unless you know exactly why you are looking at them. A good Wikipedia article provides very quick, accessible reading on a topic. (2) I think Orwell is quite shrewd, at least in his own terms. Most active Wikipedia writers treat it as a hobby, in fact. (You can tell from the statistics that many people access Wikipedia at work, and mostly, one guesses, as an alternative to actual work.) My own motivations are not quite that. (3) There is a fair amount on the record about Jimmy Wales; but (as usual) the media often don't have it quite right in parts. Basically he dropped out of graduate school to become a day trader, and did very well. Wikipedia was a surprise development out of Bomis, his dotcom. It was not the first plan for an online encyclopedia, but it succeeded where others had failed. Basically, I think the acceptance of the provisional naure of the articles was a breakthrough. (4) Not quite how I see it at present. Of course Wikipedia articles are not the last word on anything. Thy are developing now a kind of dual nature, with a basic text kept deliberately simple, and many notes hanging off it. (5) Wikipedia is now a big voluntary organisation (it has a paid skeleton staff). In fact Jimmy Wales has founded Wikia, which is a regular for-profit company hosting wikis, and so is back in business. On the business of links to sites with ads: the latest I hear is that there is a big rise in people 'spamming' Wikipedia with unsuitable links. All removals of links ought to be on a case-by-case basis; but there is quite a blacklist of sites that take advantage. In reply to the point about who is tasked with this: there is the group of admins (1000+ strong) who take on such things, under agreed guidelines (there is a WikiProject Spam). I would prefer to be writing articles, myself, but there is a division of labour on such things, and admins find their niches. Thank you once again for replying in this debate. The reputation of Wikipedia has been much enhanced by your willingness to answer your critics in an open forum. I wrote to all the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee about the dispute about providing links on Wikipedia articles, but you were the only one who had the decency to reply. You are also one of the few editors who is willing to provide a photograph and biography on Wikipedia (something that this forum tries to enforce). I would have thought this was the bare minimum that was needed in order to provide some sort of credibility for writing and editing Wikipedia entries. I hope Jimmy Wales is aware of your importance to the public image of Wikipedia. I like most people who use the web, consult Wikipedia on a daily basis. In fact, every new page I create includes numerous links to Wikipedia pages. I genuinely believe that Wikipedia enhances the experience I give to my visitors. In most cases, the pages I visit give a fairly balanced view of the subject. The problem comes when the page is about a politician or an intelligence agent who has been involved in illegal and covert activities. I suppose the main reason is that the original writer is not aware of these events. After all, I spend my life studying this subject. When I come across examples like this I rarely edit the narrative of the page. Instead, I add a link to my own page on the person where I provide a referenced account of their past behaviour. I therefore get a bit angry when one of your editors removes this link on the grounds that I am spamming. I get even angrier when I get emails from people who claim they have been banned for providing links to my website. One cannot help but get suspicious when the people I am writing about are former CIA officials, agents or associates. I can fully understand why you need to take action against spammers, but it is vitally important that you allow links to pages that contain alternative interpretations or provide supplementary information on the subject. In many ways Spartacus and Wikipedia are rivals. When I have created a page on a subject, we often rank 1st and 2nd on search-engines. I think it is healthy that we provide different interpretations of past events. Students can then decide for themselves which one has got closest to the truth. John writes to Charles: "You are also one of the few editors who is willing to provide a photograph and biography on Wikipedia (something that this forum tries to enforce). I would have thought this was the bare minimum that was needed in order to provide some sort of credibility for writing and editing Wikipedia entries." I wholeheartedly agree! This lies close to the heart of my concerns about Wikipedia - along with its obviously manipulated high search ratings on Google (and other search engines?), at least in many cases - although I guess Wikipedia can't be blamed directly for that). In any event, the No 1 ranking obtained by Wikipedia for so many search terms puts great power in your hands. Anonymity should not be permitted - not at least for main entries (there's a stronger case for anonymous participation in discussions - accessible by clicking the discussion tag). The sceptic in me doesn't believe Wikipedia is likely to abandon its current policy of allowing anonymous editors any time soon. In part, that's because I don't believe that Wikipedia really does function as a volunteer organisation - not at its core. I suspect a hidden hand. But I could well be wrong - and I'd prefer to be proved wrong, in this case. Suspicions like these would be lessened if editors are required to reveal their identity. Importantly, transparent authorship would also enable users to better assess the credibility of material in Wikipedia. Traditional quality encyclopedias identified the authors of various entries. Why can't Wikipedia do the same? The answer proferred that "Jimmy Wales himself often says the making of Wikipedia is like the making of sausages: you really don't want to know the details" is witty but fails to convince. Making an encylopedia is not like making sausages. We do want to see the details.

- deleted duplicate post -

Taking up John's points: (1) Jimmy Wales himself often says the making of Wikipedia is like the making of sausages: you really don't want to know the details. That's a slight misquote of something always attributed to Bismarck, on sausages and laws (Wurst und Gesetze). Jimmy was saying that again on Tuesday evening, in London (he'd been talking to the LSE, and had an LSE researcher in tow, who is looking at the management of Wikipedia). I really don't think that Wikipedia articles (though some of them are good) can replace academic monographs. If someone does five years of a doctorate, they will come up with something that differs in kind. But those writings are read by very few, and are prohibitive to buy, unless you know exactly why you are looking at them. A good Wikipedia article provides very quick, accessible reading on a topic. (2) I think Orwell is quite shrewd, at least in his own terms. Most active Wikipedia writers treat it as a hobby, in fact. (You can tell from the statistics that many people access Wikipedia at work, and mostly, one guesses, as an alternative to actual work.) My own motivations are not quite that. (3) There is a fair amount on the record about Jimmy Wales; but (as usual) the media often don't have it quite right in parts. Basically he dropped out of graduate school to become a day trader, and did very well. Wikipedia was a surprise development out of Bomis, his dotcom. It was not the first plan for an online encyclopedia, but it succeeded where others had failed. Basically, I think the acceptance of the provisional naure of the articles was a breakthrough. (4) Not quite how I see it at present. Of course Wikipedia articles are not the last word on anything. Thy are developing now a kind of dual nature, with a basic text kept deliberately simple, and many notes hanging off it. (5) Wikipedia is now a big voluntary organisation (it has a paid skeleton staff). In fact Jimmy Wales has founded Wikia, which is a regular for-profit company hosting wikis, and so is back in business. On the business of links to sites with ads: the latest I hear is that there is a big rise in people 'spamming' Wikipedia with unsuitable links. All removals of links ought to be on a case-by-case basis; but there is quite a blacklist of sites that take advantage. In reply to the point about who is tasked with this: there is the group of admins (1000+ strong) who take on such things, under agreed guidelines (there is a WikiProject Spam). I would prefer to be writing articles, myself, but there is a division of labour on such things, and admins find their niches. Thank you once again for replying in this debate. The reputation of Wikipedia has been much enhanced by your willingness to answer your critics in an open forum. I wrote to all the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee about the dispute about providing links on Wikipedia articles, but you were the only one who had the decency to reply. You are also one of the few editors who is willing to provide a photograph and biography on Wikipedia (something that this forum tries to enforce). I would have thought this was the bare minimum that was needed in order to provide some sort of credibility for writing and editing Wikipedia entries. I hope Jimmy Wales is aware of your importance to the public image of Wikipedia. I like most people who use the web, consult Wikipedia on a daily basis. In fact, every new page I create includes numerous links to Wikipedia pages. I genuinely believe that Wikipedia enhances the experience I give to my visitors. In most cases, the pages I visit give a fairly balanced view of the subject. The problem comes when the page is about a politician or an intelligence agent who has been involved in illegal and covert activities. I suppose the main reason is that the original writer is not aware of these events. After all, I spend my life studying this subject. When I come across examples like this I rarely edit the narrative of the page. Instead, I add a link to my own page on the person where I provide a referenced account of their past behaviour. I therefore get a bit angry when one of your editors removes this link on the grounds that I am spamming. I get even angrier when I get emails from people who claim they have been banned for providing links to my website. One cannot help but get suspicious when the people I am writing about are former CIA officials, agents or associates. I can fully understand why you need to take action against spammers, but it is vitally important that you allow links to pages that contain alternative interpretations or provide supplementary information on the subject. In many ways Spartacus and Wikipedia are rivals. When I have created a page on a subject, we often rank 1st and 2nd on search-engines. I think it is healthy that we provide different interpretations of past events. Students can then decide for themselves which one has got closest to the truth. John writes: "You are also one of the few editors who is willing to provide a photograph and biography on Wikipedia (something that this forum tries to enforce). I would have thought this was the bare minimum that was needed in order to provide some sort of credibility for writing and editing Wikipedia entries." I wholeheartedly agree, This lies very close to the heart of my concerns about Wikipedia (along with its obviously manipulated high search ratings on Google (and other search engines?), at least in many cases - although I guess Wikipedia can't be blamed directly for that). In any event, the No 1 ranking obtained by Wikipedia for so many search terms puts great power in your hands. Anonymity should not be permitted - not at least for main entries (there's a stronger case for anonymous participation in discussions - accessible by clicking the discussion tag). I'll be up front and say that I don't believe Wikipedia is likely to abandon its current policy of allowing anonymous editors any time soon. In part, that's because I don't believe that Wikipedia rteally does function as a volunteer organisation - not at its core. But I could well be wrong - and I'd like to be proved wrong.. Suspicions like these can be lessened if editors are required to reveal their identity. Importantly, users can also much better assess the credibility of material they are reading if the authorship is transparent. Traditional quality encyclopedias identified entries by author; I believe Wikipedia should do the same!

Tarrants and Ainsworth The case is set out in the lengthier references, such as The Girl in the Polka Dot Dress: New Light on the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy What is not discussed - presumably for lack of evidence - is the manner in which Tarrants and Ainsworth were (allegedly) drawn into the plot to kill RFK, although a case is made they were both potential assassins who match the descriptions of people observed at the murder scene.

Peter Your Rafsanjani quote, of course, is NOT from the OFFICIAL Iranian News Agency. It's from a 'news agency' vehemently opposed to the current Iranian Government. CIA funded? It wouldn't be the first time. Even so, the DIRECT Rafsanjani quote in the that agency's report is: "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world" That seems to me no more or less than a statement of fact. Does it indicate support for nuclear weapons programs in the Islamic world? Given continued possession of nukes by the Islamic world's self-proclaimed enemies, yes it does. Does it call for Iran to start a nuclear war against Israel? Not on my reading. In any case, I can (and have) quoted senior Israelis openly calling for attacks on Iran. It would be amazing indeed, in this over-heated political environment, if you couldn't find some threatening quotations by some senior Iranians. No-one seriously believes that Iran would start a nuclear war against Israel - or the USA. To do so would, in the present world, be an act of suicide. tThis is clearly about maintaining Israel's military dominance in the middle east and upholding its one-sided possession of WMDs - not only nukes, but a large range of vile biological and chemical weapons as well. Israel never talks straight about the WMDs it possesses... but its apologists regularly claim that Israel needs these WMDs so it can feel secure. But how valid is that argument? Israel has had nuclear weapons since 1966/7. Has Israel's exclusive possession of WMDs in the middle east - and consequent regional military dominance - made it less warlike? Its track record of armed agression against neighbouring states suggests not. What's worse, in this new century, Israel demands support for attacks on any countries that might be seeking to level the playing field. I have advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament all my adult life... and find it bizarre to be pushed into qualified support for 'deterrence'. However, Israel's incessant bullying behaviour and frequent attacks on neighbours, its manipulation of the west into wars against its perceived enemies, it's repeated use of false-flag black ops, its record of political assassinations, its imposition of a system of apartheid that makes South Africa look benign - against such a rogue State, well-armed opposition may not be such a bad idea after all and 'deterrence' may, indeed, be necessary to limit its agression. What we really need to do, of course, is outgrow the anarchy of current international power politcis and negotiate phased, worldwide nuclear disarmament along the lines proposed by JFK and his administration. Unfortunately, that agenda is antithetical to the supremacist ideology of the dominant (Zionist) paradigm. Regarding Cole, I'm sure you can find people who don't like him and say so. I am not Juan Cole's apologist. But on that single crucial issue of the oft-quoted remark by the Iranian President that, mistranslated, appears to threaten Israel with military destruction (and therefore allegedly 'justifies' pre-emptive action against Iran)... on that one issue, Peter, I have a lot more respect for Cole's analysis than for yours - or any of the other 'critics' you've adduced so far, many of whom don't even appear to speak Farsi at all.

Len - no matter how many times I post detailed, documented material from Juan Cole indicating that the 'wipe off the map' comment was a blatant mistranslation of the Iranian President's words - and despite your apparent inability to rebut Cole on this - you continue repeating the same old scare story. Oh well, I guess if I too held a 'my country right or wrong' approach to life - and 'my country' was menacing it's neighbours with, among other things, REAL nuclear weapons, I might also be desperate to hang onto this particular lie. Without it, Israel's threats to Iran are more clearly seen for precisely what they are: outrageous, dangerous, aggressive bullying that attempts to enforce egregious double standards in Israel's favour. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is and always has been a secular spokesman for the true power in Iran, the Clerical leadership, who has spoken for the obliteration of Israel so pervasively that it has become the stuff of slogans and banners. Juan Cole’s credentials as an expert in Iranian policy are not impeccable. For example: http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/ “Cole is a minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic Muslim apologist community.” It would be better put to say that in the light of international scrutiny over what is obviously Iran’s goal of uranium high enrichment, President Ahmadinejad has been told to lower the tenor of his anti-Israeli rhetoric by his handlers. The evidence that Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons is convincing. Unless Iran is in pursuit of advanced nuclear research (that they are only developing peaceful nuclear power capability for electricity generation is laughable) on their current course (unless the recent stall in enrichment work indicates a more permanent diplomatic shift) they should have a nuclear weapon(s) within two or three years. Would military action against Iran prevent a limited nuclear war in the Mid-east or could it cause one? The effect of a military strike against Iran could have the effect of polarizing Arabic speaking nations against Israel and possibly the US, resulting in a much more dangerous situation than would otherwise exist, even with Iran having nuclear weapons capability. The effect of any overt military action against Iran could easily backlash. The war in Iraq and the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor should have taught us that. Peter You write: Why?That statement grossly misrepresents the facts. Ahmadinejad made a statement that was mistranslated. The mistranslation was probably deliberate; certainly, incessant repetition of the mistranslation has been a deliberate act of deception. As he NEVER threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" in the first place - he can't tone down a statement that he never made. Is that too hard to grasp? I checked to see what sage wrote "Cole is a minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic Muslim apologist community.” which you quoted to bolster your case." Imagine my astonishment when I discovered it was none other than the 'formidable' Zionist shill Chris Hitchens, whom, I suppose, has had it in for the Mullahs ever since they closed down his favourite bars in Tehran. Hitchens... now I really must look up what Hitchens wrote in the lead up to the Iraq invasion of 2003... I presume he was urging caution and querying the "intelligence" reports of Iraqi WMDs, LOL. Anyhow, at least Slate, in this instance, has the decency to publish Cole's response to Hitchens, so here it is for the record: Regarding the question whether Iran is following Israel's lead and is developing nuclear weapons in secret, opinions differ on that. It seems eeriely like a replay of the debate within the US "intelligence" community over Saddam's alleged WMDs. In late November, the BBC told us: The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported. But I suggest we keep this simple. You write: "Would military action against Iran prevent a limited nuclear war in the Mid-east or could it cause one?" Whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons, military action against Iran that involved the use of Israeli or US nuclear weapons would, in fact, start a nuclear war - because nuclear war is war in which nuclear weapons are used. To claim that by attacking Iran (possibly with nuclear weapons) the Israeli-US war machine would be acting to prevent nuclear war is to succumb to - or deliberately perpetrate - uni-directional Zionist spin. It's the kind of logic that allows Israeli politicians to openly threaten and incite attacks on Iran while claiming to be the victim. It's 'logic' that rest on foundations of lies. You seem remarkably determined to uphold those lies.

Len - no matter how many times I post detailed, documented material from Juan Cole indicating that the 'wipe off the map' comment was a blatant mistranslation of the Iranian President's words - and despite your apparent inability to rebut Cole on this - you continue repeating the same old scare story. Oh well, I guess if I too held a 'my country right or wrong' approach to life - and 'my country' was menacing it's neighbours with, among other things, REAL nuclear weapons, I might also be desperate to hang onto this particular lie. Without it, Israel's threats to Iran are more clearly seen for precisely what they are: outrageous, dangerous, aggressive bullying that attempts to enforce egregious double standards in Israel's favour.

More links worth checking out which consolidate and amplify the case that Israeli black-ops were involved in RFK's assassination: 1/ A brief article on the Xymphora blog: 'The girl in the polka dot dress' 2/ WHO WAS THE GIRL IN THE POLKA DOT DRESS? 3/ The Girl in the Polka Dot Dress: New Light on the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy by Carl Wernerhoff. (in PDF format)

Frank Mankiewicz, incidentally, has a fascinating cv. Wikipedia - at present - simply doesn't do it justice. Surprising really, because Mankiewicz has been busy throughout his long career. According to Michael Collins Piper, Mankiewicz's early career in PR involved working for the ADL. He was RFK's press sec in 68 - then McGovern's Campaign Manager in 72. By 1983, Frank joined PR giant Hill & Knowlton and held the post of Vice Chairman until recently. In his own words: "I have a very favored position here. I can do almost anything." While he can't be blamed for Hill & Knowlton's infamous work on behalf of big tobacco in the 50s, he may have had a little more to do with the stunts pulled by H&K in the run up to Bush Snr's assault on Iraq. Hill & Knowlton organized testimony given to Congress about Kuwaiti babies being ripped out of incubators by Saddam Hussein's thugs (client: Kuwaiti Government). This testimony, it later transpired, was a blatant falsehood. Mankiewicz also served as President of National Public Radio for six years.

I wonder if anyone else on the forum has come across this rather interesting article in the Barnes Review? I've copied the text below for convenience. Usually, I'd be disinclined to give much credence to an anonymous story. However, this narrative , for me, hasthe ring of authenticity. What do others think? ___________________________- I Was There When Robert F. Kennedy Died By Anonymous Irish-American Robert F. Kennedy liked to wade—“movie star style”—through cheering crowds during his 1968 presidential campaign. However, the night he was shot, Kennedy suddenly and abruptly changed his traditional pattern and exited the ballroom where his adoring supporters were gathered and instead left through a rear door into an adjoining kitchen where one or more assassins lay in wait. Here’s a first-hand account of the events of that fateful evening that may explain why Kennedy inexplicably altered his long-time habit of greeting his admirers and walked into an ambush. In late May and early June of 1968 I was working with Sen. Robert F. Kennedy’s campaign in Oregon and California in his bid to become the Democratic nominee for president. I was on the staff of Bill Wilson, the New York and Hollywood producer, who handled production for the campaign. Wilson’s headquarters was set up at the Chateau Marmont on Sunset Boulevard There was a large suite at the Chateau where contractors, subcontractors, and other production people met to plan strategy and discuss business. The campaign was in full swing with people working long hours, juggling multiple jobs, and doing whatever had to be done to keep production moving forward. There were vegetables, fruits, and snack foods always available but little time for meals. Senator Kennedy had just returned from Oregon, where he campaigned to win over Oregon Democrats opposing Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn.). Reinvigorating himself after his speaking tour, RFK told reporters to turn off the cameras. He jumped into the cold Pacific and swam a good mile or so out to sea and back. Topnotch videotape producers such as Jack Cox and film producers such as Jerry Syms prepared clips for distribution to TV stations to be aired that evening. I was tasked to distribute videotape to different cities in Oregon. Timing was precise. I flew from LA to key Oregon cities including Medford, Salem, Eugene and Portland. By advance arrangement, personnel from the TV stations met me at the airport, collected the videotapes, and I hopped a plane on my way to another city. Everything went like clockwork and without a flaw. When I arrived at campaign headquarters in LA the mood was upbeat. Though McCarthy defeated Kennedy in Oregon the real prize was California and the campaign team felt invincible. They were on a roll and working well together. Everyone thought that if RFK could take California he would win the presidency. In fact some of the insiders were already making plans to take the campaign all the way and begin campaigning against Nixon immediately after California. Now the momentum was on to take California. The producers completed their footage and then edited and re-edited until Bill and the campaign bigwigs were satisfied with the results. There was a film of RFK on the train and of RFK giving speeches throughout California. His charisma was contagious as the crowd hung onto his every word. Film and video didn’t do him justice. Like a well-oiled machine, production kept rolling along. Finally the day arrived for the Democrats of California to vote for their nominee. The polls closed and the votes started coming in. Everything was looking good for “Bobby.” Though exhausted many people associated with production went to the Ambassador Hotel for the victory speech. The plans were to meet with RFK after his speech at “The Factory,” a discotheque. After arriving at the Ambassador people were buzzing about RFK and how he had just saved his son’s life. He and his son were at Hollywood producer John Frankenheimer’s house in Malibu. RFK’s son was caught in a rip tide and carried out to sea. Bobby dove in and rescued him. At the time we weren’t sure which son he saved. But he achieved hero status and everyone was on a “high.” What could possibly go wrong? A few people voiced their concern, afraid he might be assassinated like his brother. But no one wanted to think about that during this victory celebration. Rooms on the fifth and sixth floors were used for the campaign. I was headed for an elevator to go to the Ambassador ballroom when I passed Ethel Kennedy, standing alone by the wall obviously pregnant, looking tired and tense. I caught up with the campaign’s press secretary, Frank Mankiewicz, and some of his people. One of them asked me if I would sit with Bobby in a hotel room while he was interviewed by a local radio station prior to giving his speech. He said Bobby liked to be with other people, to have an audience when doing radio interviews. There were half a dozen of us who agreed to be the audience. All of the major networks except for NBC conceded victory for RFK. It bothered Bobby that NBC had not conceded. He was smoking a cigar and looking around at the people while the interviewer focused on that point. Along with other staffers I was seated close to Kennedy and the interviewer. In no time the interview was over. We departed with RFK and while walking toward the elevators people were talking about how he would leave the Ambassador Hotel after the speech. RFK wanted to walk through the crowd rather than go out a back door. I was told he felt comfortable and safer doing that. It made sense that he could do this when I saw that less than half the ballroom was filled with people. The ballroom could have been filled because there were many more people wanting to get in who were in the lobby and outside. When I asked why more people were not allowed in the ballroom I was told it was for “security” purposes. There were guards by the ballroom doors. Bobby felt that it “looked good” (in televised media re ports) to have cheering crowds surrounding him in his moment of victory. In fact, during that campaign, it was almost a tradition that cheering RFK supporters would practically tear his shirt off in their enthusiasm, to the point that Bobby was known to wear inexpensive shirts with the expectation that they would eventually be torn and ruined by screaming admirers. RFK gave a rousing victory speech and when he started to finally leave the ballroom, I was surprised to see him turn around and start walking through the kitchen door, even though I was sure that he would go out through the ballroom. Clearly someone or something influenced him to alter his normal procedure of going through the crowd. His decision to leave through the kitchen was alien to his nature. I was standing close to the kitchen door but not close enough to see the actual shooting itself. There were hundreds of balloons floating around the ceiling. It sounded like the balloons were popping when I heard people saying there were gunshots. There were a lot of shots. A man standing close to me had blood on his face. I looked around for the guards but they were standing by the doors, not making any move. I ran to the guard closest to me and told him that there were shots being fired. He told me that he thought I was trying to trick him into leaving his post so that I could let friends in from the lobby. I tried to think of a way to convince him there was a problem. So I told him whether there were people shooting or not that many people believed there were gun shots and that there could be a stampede and people could get hurt. I insisted that he had better do something and check it out. He finally moved. I went into the lobby area and told someone who looked like a hotel official to call an ambulance as there were people hurt. I went back into the ballroom. People were milling all around I worked my way through the crowd to a door that led through some offices into the kitchen. RFK was on the floor surrounded by his wife and others. The CBS cameraman fainted. Working with the grip, one of the producers grabbed the camera and kept filming everything going on in the kitchen. By this time he had completed seven trips to Vietnam as a film producer inventing most of the portable hand-held equipment used for filming in places such as Vietnam. He had worked for CBS at one time and knew this footage would be valuable and historical. He never stopped filming until RFK was taken away. There were five other people shot and bleeding. The waiter brought ice and I helped get ice to the injured. The ambulance attendants finally got to RFK after what seemed to me like a long time Surprisingly, the attendants plopped him in a wheelchair. I couldn’t figure out why they would put any man with head injuries in a wheelchair and roll him out like that. As they wheeled him out, his head and arms were so limp that it looked like all life was out of him. I couldn’t see how he could survive. Later when I learned the doctors were still working with him at the hospital I was surprised he lived for as long as he did. I walked back to the ballroom with others who had been in the kitchen. We saw sports legends Rosey Grier and Rafer Johnson walk out with Sirhan Sirhan between them. His eyes looked like they were rolling around in his head. It looked like he was on something, perhaps some sort of drug. He didn’t look normal. It didn’t look like he had his wits about him to shoot straight. In fact, in a lot of published evidence that has since come out, there is good reason to believe that Sirhan was under some sort of “mind control”—either through drugs or hypnosis. Sirhan himself has said that he has no actual memory of being in the kitchen at the time Bobby was shot. At the time, though, I heard people say Sirhan had a gun and was shooting but never got close enough to Kennedy to shoot him at point blank range. There seemed to be too many bullets going off at one time for one man to shoot six people. Something wasn’t right in my mind or in the minds of others around me. A producer and I looked at the bullet holes in the frame around the door. There were too many bullet holes for one man to have fired, to have come from a single gun. Later with the final “official” analysis on RFK’s assassination it looked like a story to fit another cover up that didn’t make sense but would be fed to the American people as fact. It looked too much like another “magic bullet” that was purported to have been fired by Lee Harvey Oswald at JFK in Dallas. Later, after events began to wind down, I remembered the strange incident where Frank Mankiewicz was insistent that Bobby leave through the kitchen, rather than the ballroom. I discreetly asked others who had campaigned with him for a long time if it made any sense that Bobby would leave through the kitchen rather than through his crowd of supporters and they all said RFK preferred to walk through a crowd after a speech. Neither at the time—nor for many years afterward—did I mention the incident that I witnessed, nor did I see any published accounts anywhere explaining why Bobby went through the kitchen. However, some years ago, when Michael Collins Piper was writing his book, Final Judgment, about the JFK assassination, which also featured a chapter on Bobby’s assassination as well, people suggested to me that I tell Piper about the incident and he did describe it in his book when it was finally published. Later, I was very intrigued to learn, from Piper, that Mankiewicz had written an article for Washingtonian magazine, describing his last days with Bobby Kennedy. In that article Mankiewicz described how he had insisted that Bobby leave through the ballroom but that Bobby had said, instead, that he wanted to leave through the kitchen. That was not the conversation that I heard, nor, as I noted, was it consistent with Bobby’s previous pattern nor was it consistent with the pattern that had been witnessed by other longtime RFK campaign workers. In his book, Final Judgment, Piper points out that Mankiewicz started his career as a public relations man for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith in Los Angeles—an interesting point since Piper’s book contends that Israeli intelligence played a part in the assassination of both President Kennedy and Senator Kennedy. And now, adding fuel to the fire of Piper’s allegation, independent RFK assassination researcher Lisa Pease has come forth with evidence, for example, that a British national of Jewish origin, Michael Wien, who went by the name of “Michael Wayne,” was in the Ambassador ballroom before the shooting and seemed to have had advance knowledge of the impending assassination. Later, after the shooting, there were allegations that Wien (or “Wayne”) was carrying what appeared to some to be a cardboard tube or some similar item and some people thought he had a gun concealed inside. Although the police apparently took Wien into custody for a brief period, Pease suggests that there are many more questions about Wien—and other suspicious individuals who were there that day—that remain unanswered. Pease seems afraid to mention a possible Israeli or Zionist connection and has even excised previous references to the work of Piper from a republished version of one of her earlier-published essays on the Kennedy assassinations that appears in her new book (co-edited with James DiEugenio), The Assassinations (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2003). With good reason, she is evidently afraid of being tarred with the same smear of “anti-Semitism” that has been leveled at Piper. However, her revelations seem to confirm at least some of what Piper has written on the topic and certainly add new dimensions to what I personally witnessed that tragic day when Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated.

Of course not all political activity is futile. My reference is to the decline and fall of the American republic, and the degree to which the people have let it happen. The country I loved has been taken away from me, if it ever really existed. And there is no way to get it back, particularly if it never existed. Do I have to be a party to what it's become, because I was born here? I'm basically an expatriate who can't leave. But there are plenty of Americans who have (I believe Peter Lemkin, for example, is an American who lives abroad, though I'm not familiar with his circumstances.), and I envy them all. I would feel so much cleaner living in some other country. Well I find that anger and disgust and embarrassment very understandable Ron. Though I'm starting to think it would be hard to go anyplace where the American Empire can't control it. The sun never sets on it you know... It's less understandable to direct that bitterness at the victim, and Ted Kennedy is certainly that. His two older brothers murdered, one attempt on his life (in an airplane crash that killed others and seriously injured Senator Kennedy) and--as Dawn noted--the "dire warning" of Chappaquidick. ("If Teddy knew the bear trap he was walking into at Chappaquiddick." --John Dean, 1973/http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html.) And hell yes John Kennedy Junior was murdered. His whole damn family slaughtered, his own life threatened, his career damaged by the Rulers, and the ongoing smears of him remind me of the post-assassination assassination--also ongoing--of President Kennedy through propaganda. All Kennedys must be discredited so that no one cares enough to learn some history and thereby understand the present. So he's a victim in that sense too. Yet he continues to "have a go." I hope you know that there were only 21 Democratic Senators who had the courage and integrity to vote against the Iraq invasion in 2002. Senator Kennedy was one of them Ron. Another in that (too) elite group was the *late* Paul Wellstone. Senator Kennedy is most definitely showing courage, and routinely gives some of the most blistering and pointed speeches against the regime. He's having a helluva go. And he does not deserve to be called names by people who can't possibly comprehend what he's had to endure over the decades as his family is picked off one by one and he lives in the crosshairs. So even if he wasn't a brave and principled Senator I'd, as Sid said, give him the benefit of the doubt. Sid>"Without claiming his voting record - or anything else about him - is perfect, I think fair-minded observers might agree he's been one of the more effective legislators in Congress with a much better-than-average commitment to decent, progressive policies over a long period of time." I agree Sid. And thank you for posting the Senator's bold remarks after the JEL (Just Enough to Lose, per Time Magazine... ol' Luce must be spinning in his hell) surge was announced. Ron>"I'm basically an expatriate who can't leave." That's just beautifully put Ron. I'm sure many can relate. It's damn hard to stay upbeat nowadays. Still, there's work to be done... Well said, Myra! And yes, the gaze of the Evil Alliance is ubiquitous - there's no safe hideaway on the planet. Here in Oz, the media is so monolithic and the sheeple so thoroughly tamed that we even elect crims like Howard in fair votes! Get that? They don't even need to rort our voting system (just a little pruning here and there, especially in the Labor Party leadership, is all it takes to have duopoly consensus arounds such things as the sacredness of the 'American Alliance', the centrality of the War on Terror etc). So cheer up. At least Americans are smart enough to necessitate systematic vote rigging.

Israel's 'threat' to go ahead and bomb another country - unless the US acts first - is really an absurdity. I remember bullies in the playground, many years ago, putting propositions like that. "Beat up X, Y or Z - because if you don't, I will!" The appropriate reaction was to tell them to get stuffed. That Israel dare even float such a 'threat' into the political ether illustrates just how pathetically captive to the Zionist lobby the USA has become. Would Eisenhower or JFK have reacted favourably to such a 'threat' from Ben Gurion, had BG taken a similar tack in the 50s or early 60s? In view of their known reactions to the Suez fiasco and Dimona, I suspect White House memos to Tel Aviv would have been along these lines: "Mr Prime Minister, do NOT start an unprovoked bombing war with your neighbours. If you do, the US Government will condemn Israel in the UN Security Council and call for international sanctions." These days, of course, the USA has even more (potential) leverage - because Israel now receives many billions of dollars each year in grants, gifts, loans and 'loan guarantees, technology transfers and all the rest of it. Israel's reliance on US military technology is far greater now than at that time. If the US had the will to do so, it could curb Israel's ambitions and put an end to the aggressions of this serial offender. Unfortunately, that will was largely blown away in the coup d'etat of November 1963.

Are you thinking of Iran, Ron? Venezuela? Cuba, perhaps? Do you favour Peter's private island fortress solution? Or should he go to the moon? Please note: I don't object to criticizing Ted Kennedy and I am not his apologist. But branding him a "pathetic human being" seems way over the top. I'd like to better understand your position, Ron. Do you hold the view that any and all political activity is futile? Do you believe that everyone involved in politics, by definition, is a "pathetic human being"? Are there any exceptions? Robert Kennedy Junior, for instance, while not a member of Congress, has worked as an environmental lawyer/activist. Last year, he joined the campaign against electronic 'no-receipt' voting, writing an infulential piece for Rolling Stone entitled "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?". He has not, however, dedicated himself solely to discovering and exposing the murderers of his father and uncle. Another "pathetic human being" in your eyes, Ron?

Are you thinking of Iran, Ron? Venezuela? Cuba, perhaps? Do you favour Peter's private island fortress solution? Or should he go to the moon? Please note: I don't object to criticizing Ted Kennedy and I am not his apologist. But branding him a "pathetic human being" seems way over the top.

Still having a go at what? The move to counter Bush's Iraq surge was the example I gave earlier. Not bad for a 'pathetic human being'. There's more at Ted Kennedy's rather impressive website Not that's enough from me in defence of Ted Kennedy, or I'll be accused of being on his payroll.

Congress is full of crooks and miscreants. What difference does the year make? It's a thoroughly corrupted institution. Those in the House and Senate who aren't crooks in their own right are all accessories after the fact to all the crimes of the federal government that we all know have been perpetrated over decades and continue unabated. I'm through with it. I don't care who's nominated for what. I still live in this country out of necessity, not choice. I'm embarrassed to be here. I can sympathize, Ron and agree with your assessment to a considerable extent - but I can't applaud. It seems to me that if you really have 'given up' on trying to effect any significant and worthwhile change in your society, it ill-behoves you to brandish labels such as "pathetici human being" against someone who is still having a go.

I'd agree 100% with your Ron...a very, VERY patheitic person....on a human level and on a political one. He likely thinks his weak simpering liberalism is some compensation for the damage...I don't. He obviously doesn't need a job and could buy an island, put missiles around it for protection, with submarines aircover and guards and work day and night exposing the plot to kill his brothers [and a hell of a lot of others - and our country and polity!]...but instead he does his minstral blackface senate routine only needling - not opposing - the very villians who did it [and he knows exactly what forces did...and did him in too]. He has one last chance [i doubt he will take] and release something substantial upon his death....don't hold your breathe. With 'patriots' like that, we will never stop the slide toward a policestate and fascism. He would have it with universial medical insurance...fine...but how about NO policestate and a vibrant, safe democracy run by the people and not the oligarchs [of which he is one..even if on the less regressive side of the oligarchy]. Ted, shame on you! If he took your advice, Peter, I can imagine how the story would play in the 'balanced and fair' western mass media. Something like: "Paranoid Ted Skips America for Luxury Island Hideaway"... or "Al Qaida Base on Kennedy Island Shock!" Meanwhile, his significant role as head of the family (and elder statesman in he Senate of principled liberalism) is taken over by...? Let me be clear. I am no apologist for Ted Kennedy. But there is something rather curious about the extraordinarily high standards set for this man by some participants on this forum. He is, after all, just a human being. In the early 21st century US Congress, that's also quite an achivement in itself.