Peter McGuire

Do you have an opinion - tentative or otherwise - about the question you have posed, Peter? Who, in your view, was in control of the Secret Service detail at the time of the assassination? The Secret Service detail of that day is locked. They are the smoking gun. We can all see what they did and didn't do. We can also see Radio and Cuban man. They had no business being there and acted suspiously. They also did not move after the shooting. Everyone around them were scattering in panic. There seems to be a connection between RM and CM to the CIA, and they also seemed to be working towards the same goal.

Peter, The Secret Service is key here. Without their complete lack of response that day, the assassination would not have happened. Period. I think that many present day researchers are reluctant the call the conspiracy what it was; a gigantic plot by some of the most powerful people in America to murder a sitting U.S. president. I guess the logic is that if we scale down the number of persons involved, or even the power of the forces they represented, then the conspiracy is somehow made more acceptable to those who regularly decry "conspiracy theories." It would take a very large conspiracy indeed to cause the mainstream media to still lie about it over 40 years later. Imho, Oliver Stone portrayed the conspiracy as it probably was in "JFK." Yes, since what the Secret Service did and didn't do are right in front of our eyes. It is a hard and bitter pill to swallow for sure. But if they were doing their job, they would have went into action while Kennedy was choking on something in his throat. For six seconds, the Agents did nothing. They turned around ( as seen in the Atgen's photo) , Johnson's follow up car door was open, Greer SLOWED DOWN , an Agent was CALLED BACK , Kellerman just SAT THERE! Given that, reluctance to call it was it is , is almost an understatement. Even the Z Film is so altered as to have very little value. I could never figure out why they cut that thing to pieces , then allowed the frontal shot to remain. The movie "JFK" laid out a lot of material we know to be true, but the premise layed out in "Executive Action", works for better me; that is, stopping the decades long Kennedy Dynasty. It also accurately portrays the shot sequence and the framing of Lee Oswald.

Whoever controlled the Secret Service detail , on that day, was involved. Did the CIA have control of the Secret Service Agents in Dallas that day? If the answer is yes to that question, then the answer is yes, to your question.

Well written, Don.

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=78278 "Ok, if it as proven he was killed by someone else, in 2007 would it even matter?" (From a discussion at http://eslcafe.com )

" Up for auction for the first time, the actual window and frame from the shooter’s nest on the 6th floor of the Dallas Texas School Book Depository where Lee Harvey Oswald fired off those fatal shots that took the life of our 35th President of the United States - John F. Kennedy. " It is propaganda. In "Case Closed" style, it's description has the case against Oswald all sewn up.

Good catch. I do find the Parkland Dr.'s to be reliable witnesses in general. The main problem with reliability is that Parkland Dr.'s recall (just about unanimously) an entry wound to the base of the throat and a large grape fruit size exit wound in the occipital-parietal region of the head. The Bethesda Dr.'s performing the autopsy didn't even notice the entry wound in the throat (due to a tracheotomy performed in Dallas, directly on to of the entry wound), and claim the head wound to have been towards the side of the head above the ear, and being much more irregular in size. But that's another thread. Who to believe....? I tend to believe the first hand witnesses, in this case Parkland. I agree with Antti, and think Myra raises a valid point about the closed eyes 're-opening', the witnesses at Parkland should IMO be given the benefit of the doubt, so.....all I can add is a question? What does the timeline regarding any scenario [involving shennanigans? alteration, on the scale of surgery of the head area Sibert/O'Neill doesent seem to fit] as in pre-Air Force 1, return to Washington D.C., the timeline doesent allow for it, does it? The John Liggett allegation/story has always been 'interesting' to me, but I tend to avoid the whole 'coming out of the woodwork' years later for obvious reasons, also there are no "John Liggett documents at NARA," [at least under his name] Coincidence? Jack I just read McAdams "spin" on Dr. Crenshaw's "Conspiracy of Silence' entitled " The Long Surpressed Truth" , or a Bunch of Fibs? My question is : who is the fibber? Here you have a physician who says Kennedy was hit in the front of the head and everyone was too afraid to speak out about it. What more needs to be said? Cat's out of the bag, right? No problem. Here come the spin doctors and everything is handled and we are "back to normal" We can sleep at night again. This case has been exposed over and over again, only to hear some non-sensical rebuttal that flies in the face of reality and common sense.

or the source. ( youtube) But the premise ( that JFK Jr, was also the victim of the ongoing conspiricy), is something to consider. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMpTvULvPUI

This is what I am saying.

I find that an extraordinarily harsh judgment, Ron. You do indeed have very high standards. How do you rate the rest of the 2007 Congress? Do you believe no-one at all should attempt to win elected office in the USA's (admittedly) corrupted political system?

Check out this discussion of Gerald Ford: Go to http://eslcafe.com current events. Joined: 25 Apr 2006 Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:33 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You know, my opinion of Ford has only grown since his passing. I only wish the guy had had the balls to speak his honest opinions while he was alive. I have always thought he was a bit underrated as a President. While my opinion on his Presidency has remained unchanged (overall ineffectual, but necessary), my thinking regarding his intelligence has increased tremendously. Too bad for us he was the last of his kind: a Republican President with a truly moderate political ideology. Since Ford, you might say, the Republian Presidents have been rather extremists (possibly with the exception of Bush, 41, but then he had his own issues). _________________ http://inanities-and-absurdities.blogspot.com/

Your story is suspect, but the premise of your writing is one that should not be forgotten.

Warren Commission?

duplicate post

duplicate post

duplicate post

duplicate post

Merry Christmas everone where ever you are!! I am starting my holiday early and promised myself to only be an observer over the next few days. I dont want any regrets about a Jack on the Rocks induced post. Peter

One may find it interesting that Wikipedia does not hesitate to implicate the good old CIA in Coup D Etats in other parts of the world, such as the 1979 assassination of Park Chung Hee of South Korea. Park was killed by the head of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, KIm Jae-Kyu. Kim's attempt to blame it on North Korean guerrillas was exposed and he and five co-conspirators were executed within a year of the Coup. According to Wikipedia , Kim repeatedly asked if the American CIA had attempted to contact him yet. No hiding that story like in Dallas. As we know, Lee Oswald attempted to call his contacts as well. The "Presidents Last Bang" , the movie about the assassination, has been attacked by Park's son , but it there is not much controvery about what happened. Park supporters do not like the film because it simply does not put President Park in a very good light, since he died in the company of two young women. One of the women is the famous Korean singer Sim Soo-bong http://www.simsoobong.com who suspended her career over the trauma, but continues to perform in Korea today. Park Chung Hee assassination From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The assassination of Park Chung Hee, the former president of South Korea, occurred on October 26, 1979 at a secret house in the Blue House compound connected with Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) in Gungjeong-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea, at 7:41pm. It is simply known as "10.26" or the "10.26 incident" in South Korea. Contents [hide] 1 Assassination 2 Those involved in assassination 3 Possible motivations of assassination 4 See also 5 External links [edit] Assassination KCIA director Kim Jae-kyu invited Park to a dinner at a KCIA building in the Blue House compound. After Park and guests were seated, Kim Jae-kyu left the dining room to convene with his co-conspirators. Kim reentered the room, pulled a .38 revolver, shot a bodyguard of the president, and then fired several shots at Park. Upon hearing the shots, five armed KCIA agents stormed the room and adjacent rooms to kill two of the president's security detail and his driver. [edit] Those involved in assassination Kim Jae-kyu: Hanged on May 24, 1980 Park Heung-ju: Executed by firing squad on March 6, 1980 Park Seon-ho, a KCIA agent and a longtime friend of Kim Jae-gyu : Hanged on May 24, 1980 Yoo Seong-ok, a driver in the secret house: Hanged on May 24, 1980 Lee Ki-ju, head of secret house security service: Hanged on May 24, 1980 Kim Tae-won, secret house security agent: Hanged on May 24, 1980 Seo Young-jun, secret house security agent: Released after imprisonment [edit] Possible motivations of assassination Kim Jae-kyu testified in court: I shot the heart of Yusin Constitution like a beast. I did that for democracy of this country. Nothing more nothing less. Another interesting note: shortly after shooting president Park, Kim Jae-kyu allegedly made frequent and desperate inquiries as to whether the "American CIA" have attempted to contact him yet. This lead to a possible conspiracy theory involving CIA. [edit] See also The President's Last Bang: a movie describing the event [edit] External links BBC News' "On this day": a recollection of Park's assassination. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung_Hee_assassination" Category: Assassinations Tax-deductibility of donations | FAQ | Financial statements (pdf) The President's Last Bang From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The President's Last Bang The President's Last Bang poster Directed by Im Sang-soo Produced by MK Pictures Written by Im Sang-soo Starring Song Jae-ho Han Suk-kyu Baek Yun-shik Distributed by MK Pictures Release date(s) 2005 (South Korea) Running time 102 min. Language Korean IMDb profile Korean name Hangul: 그때 그사람들 Hanja: (n/a) Revised Romanization: Geuddae Geusaramdeul 1 McCune-Reischauer: (n/a) The President's Last Bang is a satiric black comedy film by South Korean director Im Sang-soo about the events leading to and the aftermath of the assassination of former Korean President Park Chung-hee by his close friend and Korean Intelligence Agency director Kim Jae-kyu. The negative portrayal of the former President has raised a storm of controversy, leading to a suit against the film by Park Chung-hee's only son, Park Ji-man. A ruling by the Seoul Central Court ordered that 3 minutes and 50 seconds of documentary footage (mostly of demonstrations) be edited out of the film, so as to not confuse the film with real events. This ruling is being appealed, and the excised footage replaced with a blank screen for its running time. Contents [hide] 1 Plot 1.1 Cast 2 Footnotes 3 External links [edit] Plot Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow. Almost the entirety of the film focus on the few hours before and after Park's assassination on October 26, 1979. Undoubtedly the most controversial aspect of the film is its portrayal of Park. In the film, he is shown to be a cowardly libertine, having late-night drinking parties, pawing young women, and in particular having much admiration for Japanese culture, to the point of occasionally speaking Japanese himself2. The film starts out in the Blue House, where KCIA Chief Agent Ju deals with the outrage of the mother of a young woman who was one of Park's playmates by interrogating and intimidating them. KCIA director Kim gets scolded by a doctor about his drinking, a direct result of having to attend President Park's drinking parties. Scenes of various officials and low officers making their way to a heavily-guarded safehouse follow, including Chief Agent Ju procuring an attractive young woman and the famous enka singer Sim Soo-bong for the party. During the dinner, President Park, his personal bodyguard Cha Ji-Chul, Director Kim, Chief Secretary Yang (appointed to the post to be Park's drinking buddy, portrayed as a total sycophant) discuss how to deal with demonstrators, with Cha berating Kim for not being repressive enough. Kim, having been agitated the entire day, decides then to kill Park, and hatches the plan with Chief Agent Ju and KCIA Col. Min. Director Kim returns to the party, shoots Cha (who is unarmed) and Park, each with a single shot, jamming the pistol on this second shot. Soon thereafter, Agent Ju and Col. Min and a few minions kill the president's personal bodyguard staff and secure the building. Kim comes back with another gun and finishes off Cha and tells off Park before shooting him in the head. They move to make the scene resemble an ambush by North Korean forces, and Kim uses the political fear and tension to his advantage while convening a Cabinet Council. Director Kim and Colonel Min meet with the Army higher-ups to sell them his version of events, but Chief Secretary Yang gets to them first and tells what really happened. With every agency under its own authority and the possibility of inter-agency war looming over, the Army arrests Director Kim, leaving Agent Yu and Colonel Min helpless and confused. Realizing their fate, they call their families to say goodbye. Prime Minister Choi Kyu-ha ascends to the presidency, and the fates of those involved at the party, mostly execution, are listed. [edit] Cast Song Jae-ho - Park Chung-hee Han Suk-kyu - KCIA Chief Agent Ju Baek Yun-shik - KCIA director Kim Jae-kyu [edit] Footnotes 1. The original title (in English, "The People of Those Days") refers to a famous Korean song of a similar title - "The Person of those Days". According to official sources, this song was performed by Sim Soo-bong during the party the night of Park's assassination. In the movie, however, Sim Soo-bong is summoned to perform Japanese enka songs. 2. The memory of Japanese Occupation fresh in the minds of many Koreans, this implies affection for if not association with Korea's former colonizers. [edit]

This was a brave thing to do so soon after the assassination.

[quote name=Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests. If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment. And there lies the still undisclosed thought. There lies the source of evil intent. There lies the power. There lies the unseen hand. Ashton Gray

For me, it's the photo of the motorcade heading into the ambush. Notice the people watching from the fire escape. The Presidential Limousine seems to be unguarded and notice how close the follow up car is, which had eight Secret Service Agents on board.

I certainly think so. It is usually an Anti-Semite issue, but it could be nit picking as well. Pipers central thesis; that Israel had a motive , is just that, a theory. There are a thousand theories to this unsolved case. Why shouldn't this one be considered? Furthermore, Piper finally takes a look at Jack Ruby's long term connections to the Meyer Lansky crime syndicate. Until Final Judgment, very little was written about the real Jack Ruby. Take a look at what happens when someone writes about the influence of the Israel Lobby: Everyone should be familiar with the paper written by Harvard and University of Chicago professors Walt and Mearsheimer: March 31, 2006 The Lobby Strikes Back Harvard study of Israeli lobby's influence costs the academic dean of the Kennedy School his job by Justin Raimondo The reaction to the Harvard University study by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," [.pdf] has been fury by the Lobby and its partisans – and a demotion for Walt, who, it was announced shortly after the paper's release, would be stepping down from his post as [academic] dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government. As the New York Sun reports (via the Harvard Crimson): "Yesterday's issue of The New York Sun reported that an 'observer' familiar with Harvard said that the University had received calls from 'pro-Israel donors' concerned about the KSG paper. One of the calls, the source told The Sun, was from Robert Belfer, a former Enron director who endowed Walt's professorship when he donated $7.5 million to the Kennedy School's Center for Science and International Affairs in 1997. 'Since the furor, Bob Belfer has called expressing his deep concerns and asked that Stephen not use his professorship title in publicity related to the article,' the source told The Sun." The Kennedy School has removed its logo from the front page of the paper, and made more prominent a boilerplate statement to the effect that the school doesn't necessarily endorse any or all of the views expressed therein. Now, somebody please tell me that Mearsheimer and Walt have overplayed the power and influence of the Lobby in American political life. The hate campaign directed at Mearsheimer and Walt underscores and validates the study's contention that all attempts to objectively discuss our Israel-centric foreign policy and the pivotal role played by the Lobby are met with outright intimidation. We have O.J. Simpson defender and pro-Israel fanatic Alan Dershowitz claiming that the scholarly duo filched the majority of their sources from "hate sites" – although how Dershowitz knows this, without having looked directly over their shoulders as they wrote, is very far from clear. But don't worry, he assures us, a "team" of researchers on his staff is looking into the matter. One wonders if this is the same "team" that looked into the evidence and concluded that Simpson was innocent. Virtually every mention of the study informs us that David Duke is among its most fervent defenders. The Boston Globe and the Washington Post both featured Duke's endorsement in their respective summaries of the controversy, and when the shameless Joe Scarborough of MSNBC had him on, he introduced the notorious racist this way: "Thank you for being with us tonight, Mr. Duke. You have been attacked as a former Klansman, an anti-Semite, but tonight you're in league with Harvard University. Do you feel vindicated?" Mearsheimer and Walt are the ones who should feel vindicated, because this sort of cheap demagoguery proves their point about the Lobby's modus operandi. Always they seek to set the terms of the debate in their favor: If you disagree with them and decry their influence, you're a "Nazi." How very convenient. What would the Lobby do without the former Ku Klux Klan leader, who now inveighs against "ZOG" and the alleged perfidy of the Jews from somewhere in Central Europe? He ought to be getting some kind of stipend from them, in view of the tremendous service he performs: by setting up an avowed neo-Nazi as the chief spokesman for the other side, the Lobby gets to control the discourse. Naturally, Scarborough would never have invited anyone like, say, Juan Cole on the show to defend the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis. He might have invited any one of a number of people cited in the study's 200-plus footnotes, including Antiwar.com's Ran HaCohen. But that is expecting far too much of the Lobby and its allies: intellectual honesty is not one of their strong points. The same trope is continued and expanded on with Max Boot's contribution to the debate, in which he conjures the ghost of Richard Hofstadter, departed neocon scholar of "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," which sought, back in the early 1960s, to show that "right-wing agitation" (i.e., mainstream conservatism) was a psychopathology, rather than a bona fide ideology, consisting of little more than paranoid fantasies brought on by acute "status resentment." Hofstadter, in turn, was simply carrying forward and applying the "social science" of Theodore Adorno, the Marxist sociologist who famously diagnosed opposition to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's policies as evidence of an Oedipal "father complex." So far, it's the same old malarkey, minus the footnotes, until, at the end, Boot bares his teeth: "After finishing their magnum opus, I was left with just one question: Why would the omnipotent Israel lobby (which, they claim, works so successfully 'to stifle criticism of Israel') allow such a scurrilous piece of pseudo-scholarship to be published? Then I noticed that Walt occupies a professorship endowed by Robert and Renee Belfer, Jewish philanthropists who are also supporters of Israel. The only explanation, I surmise, is that Walt must himself be an agent of those crafty Israelites, employed to make the anti-Israel case so unconvincingly that he discredits it. 'The Lobby' works in mysterious ways." But not too mysterious. As we see, above, Belfer got on the phone to Harvard – and Walt was out of the dean's office in no time. To notice this, however, is "paranoid." There have been a few substantive commentaries on the Mearsheimer-Walt study, to my knowledge, one by Daniel Drezner, and another by Daniel Levy, a former top adviser to Israel's prime minister, which originally appeared in Ha'aretz. Drezner, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago and a very smart blogger, gives credit to the study for exploring truths that make people feel "very uncomfortable at cocktail parties," and concedes that there is much to be said for the thesis that Israel seems to dominate "some aspects" of U.S. policy-making. However, he nits and picks: "Shot through these papers are an awful lot of casual assertions that don't hold up to close scrutiny. … The authors assert that, 'If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran.' I'm pretty sure that there's more to U.S. opposition to Iran possessing nuclear weapons than the protection of Israel." It is true there may be other reasons why Washington might not want Iran to go nuclear, but there is no reason to believe that these might prevail over prudence in the absence of the Lobby's decisive influence. Drezner cites the study's contention that the Lobby's mere existence proves an imperfect congruence of Israeli and American interests – otherwise, "one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about." Drezner finds this "fascinating," he writes, because of "The implicit assumptions contained within it: i) the only interest group in existence is the Lobby, and; ii) in the absence of the Lobby, a well-defined sense of national interest will always guide American foreign policy. It would be very problematic for good realists like Mearsheimer and Walt to allow for other interest groups – oil companies, for example – to exist. This would allow for a much greater role for domestic politics than realists ever care to admit." Contra Drezner, Mearsheimer and Walt do not contend that the Lobby is the sole organization of its kind, only that they do a better job than anyone else. Far from denying the influence of domestic politics on foreign policy, the study shows that this sort of influence is decisive, especially in its discussion of the Christian evangelical-neocon convergence on the issue of Israel. Whether this comports with Drezner's understanding of "realism" is, really, irrelevant. While Drezner does not agree with Mearsheimer and Walt, he is too intellectually honest to go along with the Smear Brigade's calumnies: "On the one hand, it's a shame that this isn't being debated more widely in the mainstream press. On the other hand, it might be good if the mainstream media didn't cover it, if this New York Sun editorial is any indication: "'It's going to be illuminating to watch how Harvard handles the controversy over the decision of its John F. Kennedy School of Government to issue a "Faculty Research Working Paper" on "The Israel Lobby" that is co-authored by its academic dean, Stephen Walt. On page one this morning we report that Dean Walt's paper has been met with praise by David Duke, the man the Anti-Defamation League calls "America's best-known racist." The controversy is still young. But it's not too early to suggest that it's going to be hard for Mr. Walt to maintain his credibility as a dean. We don't see it as a matter of academic freedom but simply as a matter of necessary quality control.' "This is an absurd editorial – just about any argument out there is endorsed by one crackpot or another, so that does not mean the argument itself is automatically invalidated. As for Walt's sympathies towards David Duke, in the very story they cite, Walt is quoted as saying, 'I have always found Mr. Duke's views reprehensible, and I am sorry he sees this article as consistent with his view of the world.' "I didn't say this explicitly in my last post, but let me do so here: Walt and Mearsheimer should not be criticized as anti-Semites, because that's patently false. They should be criticized for doing piss-poor, monocausal social science." Bravo – except for the "piss-poor" stuff. Drezner should ask himself, however, why it is that the debate over this study is being engaged in such a vicious manner by opponents of the Harvard study. Doesn't that say something about the role of the Lobby and its methods, as characterized by Mearsheimer and Walt? Drezner believes the authors have failed to demonstrate that Israel is a strategic liability, that "U.S. foreign policy behavior" is determined "almost exclusively by the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'" and that the authors "omit consideration of contradictory policies and countervailing foreign policy lobbies." Fine. All those points are debatable. But they aren't being debated. Instead, the Lobby is busy smearing the authors and getting Walt kicked out of his job as Kennedy School dean. Daniel Levy, a former adviser in the office of Israel's prime minister, a member of the Israeli negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks, and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative, has the most thoughtful commentary to date, averring that the Harvard study "should serve as a wake-up call, on both sides of the ocean." He notes that "the tone of the report is harsh," and "jarring," that it "lacks finesse and nuance," but nevertheless, "Their case is a potent one: that identification of American with Israeli interests can be principally explained via the impact of the Lobby in Washington, and in limiting the parameters of public debate, rather than by virtue of Israel being a vital strategic asset or having a uniquely compelling moral case for support (beyond, as the authors point out, the right to exist, which is anyway not in jeopardy). The study is at its most devastating when it describes how the Lobby 'stifles debate by intimidation' and at its most current when it details how America's interests (and ultimately Israel's, too) are ill-served by following the Lobby's agenda." Hear! Hear! Levy goes on to note that the response to the study by the Lobby "has been characterized by a combination of the shrill and the smug. Avoidance of candid discussion might make good sense to the Lobby, but it is unlikely to either advance Israeli interests or the U.S.-Israel relationship." In the course of his argument that the Lobby is just as bad for Israel as it is for America, Levy makes a salient point: "The Lobby even denies Israel a luxury that so many other countries benefit from: of having the excuse of external encouragement to do things that are domestically tricky but nationally necessary (remember Central Eastern European economic and democratic reform to gain EU entry in contrast with Israel's self-destructive settlement policy for continued U.S. aid)." The Lobby, by its success at neutralizing any effort to rein in the Israeli leadership's more extreme impulses, undermines the interests of the Jewish state. But the ideologues who make up the Lobby don't care about that: what they really care about is having the power to silence – and punish – their enemies. The firing of Dean Walt is an outrage, one that should be met with a storm of indignation. That the Amen Corner would even attempt it – let alone go on the record as taking credit for it – is a testament to the Lobby's enduring and unchallenged power. It shows how the Lobby operates, and why they must be stopped before any real debate over the foreign policy of this country can be conducted. The reasons for this extreme defensiveness on the part of the Lobby are not hard to discern. If they are the prime movers of U.S. foreign policy, then they do indeed have a lot to answer for. As the consequences of the Iraq war roll across our television screens, tracing a path of blood and mindless destruction, we have to wonder: who got us here? We have to question their motivations. And we have to ask: Why? Who lied us into war? For whose sake did 2,300 American soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, die? Whose interests were served? The tip of the spear Mearsheimer and Walt have pricked the Lobby with is the contention that they were the decisive influence in pushing us into war with Iraq. And the howls that are coming from right, left, and center are proof enough that they have struck home.

Yes I have. I have also invited Gerald Posner, Hugh Aynesworth, Dave Reitzes and Kenneth A. Rahn. So far none of the lone-gunman theorists have accepted the offer.