Paul Rigby

John, First stab at an answer. Lodge appears to have shared JFK's conviction that no military solution, only a political one, was available or desirable in Vietnam. In his characteristically "diplomatic" memoir, The Storm Has Many Eyes (NY: WW Norton, 1973), Lodge wrote: Second, and relatedly, Lodge, like JFK, was a committed multilateralist: he left the Atlantic Institute, recall, to take the poison chalice that was the Saigon ambassadorship. Third, Kennedy's most pressing problem was the US press: Lodge was essentially being asked to reprise, only under much less favourable circumstances, the role of presidential shield he had undertaken for Eisenhower at the time of Khrushchev's visit. In both instances, Lodge was tasked with deflecting charges of insufficient presidential anti-communist zeal - the chief charge of Halberstam et al was, after all, that Diem wasn't prosecuting the war with anything like enough enthusiasm - while simultaneously not offending the the distinguished guest/host. Fourthly, Lodge, like Diem, spoke French. Sorry this is rushed, but tired and work beckons! Paul

Nat, I am interested in Wiener's portrayal: Fascinating to see just about every trick in the book thrown into this CIA-serving tripe. And, yes, I'm sure a) that this pabulum will influence far more people than anything I can offer by way of contrast; and that it is Dick Starnes being dismissed as a "journeyman reporter." Still, let's flip the argument on its head. What chance that in forty years time an Englishman previously unknown to Wiener will spend time and effort defending his journalism? Not a hope in hell! Your final question reminds me of something I think Charles Drago wrote, though in which thread I can't for the life of me remember. He characterised JFK's assassination as "a world-historical event," or something similarly Hegelian. He was right. The Agency understood this from the get-go, and prepared accordingly. The heirs of Dulles and Angleton continue to work from the same basic script. Weiner is manifestly in their service. Paul

Awful to hear, and my best wishes to her and her family. I disagree with the first half; couldn't agree more that "why" is hugely important. Agreed. Let's do our - inadequate, I know - level best to change that. Paul

And there's the view of Madame Nhu, as reported by one of the best journalists of the period. She was a source both well-placed and without obvious motivation to lie or guild the lily on the question of who destroyed her family:

Sorry, I don't invest in the drug trade. Here endeth research into the CIA!

"Today's World Report: Truce Moves Reported In Viet Nam," New York World-Telegram & Sun, (Friday), 25 October 1963, p.6: "LONDON - The government of South Vietnam and Communist North Viet Nam are apparently making exploratory contacts that could lead to a truce, diplomatic sources said. There was no official confirmation…Diplomatic sources said the current moves were believed to be aiming at some sort of truce arrangement with possible wider ramifications." Unconvinced, Cliff - you mean all those CIA guys masquerading as journos and cameramen at the storming of the Presidential palace were...Kennedy loyalists? I'm trying hard to convince myself, but, no, it just isn't working!

I recently rediscovered the following piece. It's tongue-in-cheek, deadly serious, and thought-provoking - not a bad combo. Enjoy! Fidel Castro - Supermole by Servando González http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagsg022.php

From the UK’s smuttiest tabloid, The Times, comes terrible news that British skies were blackened not by Starlings, but by Boris’ bomber squadrons: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2093759.ece While from the intellectual jewel in the Dirty Digger’s UK crown, The Sun, news of a very long spook briefing about a non-existent plot to kill the Robin Hood of modern London town, Boris Berezovksy: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007330145,00.html Time to buy shares in the arms industry. Pity we haven't yet privatized our heroic spooks. Shares in MI5, anyone?

Noel-Baker's view on who - or rather, what - was running US foreign policy in 1965 was hardly unique. Here's a similar point of view from the same year:

Richard Starnes’s first extended analysis of the State Dept White Paper referred to by Noel-Baker in his Times letter:

Here is the letter from PNB in question: Hard to imagine a letter of comparable literacy or courage emanating from a parliamentary drone of “New Labour.” Or Mockingbird Murdoch’s tabloid Times publishing it. *Eerily familiar. Iraq, Afghanistan anyone?

Unwitting dupe, quite probably due to premature senescence.

David J. Whittaker. Fighter for Peace: Philip Noel-Baker, 1889-1982 (York, England: William Sessions Ltd., 1989), pp.312-315: Noel-Baker “circled the globe in 1962, visiting Canada, the USA, Moscow and…Peking, Hong Kong, and Tokyo…By the summer of 1965…a letter to The Times…lamented the way in which the American President seemed influenced by military advisers and the CIA*…” *Philip Noel-Baker, “Letter to the Editor: An Authority Diminished – President Johnson’s Policies,” The Times, Monday, 19 July 1965, p.11. The CIA used a favoured creature of the period, Peter Bessell, to reply in The Times to Noel-Baker. Bessell’s letter appeared on 21 July 1965.

I can live with it, Sid. The most serious questions facing the Anglosphere today. And yet not a single politician of stature - at least, none that I'm aware - is asking any of them. It is a catastrophe; and will, if current trends are not reversed quickly and decisively, destroy our societies far more effectively than any external threats. Paul

Well, go on then, pick a relevant example and discuss "the evidence." And while you're at it, perhaps you'd deign to tell us who determines what is "evidence" and how it is presented. In cases of terrorism, could it be the intelligence services? And you trust them to give you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? Why? Is your seeming trust in the spooks based on personal experience, the product of extensive examination, or an article of faith? If you did, it isn't obvious. Good grief! The pomposity is magnificent.

I admire your steadfast refusal to consider the rich history of agent provocateur and false flag ops. Er, why? Why the disposition to see it from the establishment's point of view? The great lesson history teaches us is that we should start from the assumption that the terrorist activity has state sponsorship - until proven otherwise. Relatedly, what the rubes think they are doing, and what their masters really intend, have a tendency to be poles apart. In the case of 9/11, for example, the FBI early went on record as believing that the hijackers in among the passengers thought they were taking part in an old fashioned skyjacking, not a suicide mission. And of the men in the cockpit, was Mohammad Atta, for example, really a devout Muslim, with a head full of virgins? Or just not in nightclubs when knocking back the vodka? A final thought: Given that every time a bomb explodes the spooks' budgets increase significantly, what countervailing incentives are there for them to do better? After all, whoever heard of a spook sacked or disciplined for failing to prevent a bombing?

Gosh, here's hoping I can ascend to such giddy heights of reason as... And miss the fact that the London bombers were NOT suicide bombers. [Hint: they scarpered before anything exploded...] Very impressive. So who is the fool, and what exactly is it you teach? Elementary logic? Rhetoric? Religio-racial stereotyping, perhaps?

Great piece on yesterday's Whatreallyhappened page (July 1): http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ I confess - I find it strange.

Given the amount of unadulterated establishment nonsense you believe, I think a preventative watch essential. For your own good, of course. What a fatuous comment - whilst it is tempting to invite you to enlighten me as to what you mean, and to enquire where indeed you got the brass neck from to presume and then to project any of my "beliefs" as nonsense or otherwise , I fear it would lack interest for forum members coming here to discuss the recent terrorist attacks in London, David's theory of "tension" as I understand it, or my concerns about the dangers of the religious mindset. I have taken this unpleasant dispute off board. You therefore have a private message from me. David Guyatt You'll forgive my puzzlement, David, particularly as it was Andy Walker who intruded in the thread with a curious tirade about god heads with virgins on their mind - that's suicide bombers, I take it - when, as is perfectly clear, the London bombers were NOT suicide bombers. Correct me if I have any of that wrong? A second point, and one I've made before: If you're going to dish it out, as Andy unquestionably did to Sid in no uncertain terms, then be prepared to cop some back. A pretty fair rule of life, debate, and anything else, I would have thought. Paul

Given the amount of unadulterated establishment nonsense you believe, I think a preventative watch essential. For your own good, of course.

Thirded - and this is where I came in... "Thirded"? Are you counting yourself twice Paul? Yawn I watched the first 30 minutes or so. Its the same crap as other “Truther” “documentaries” misconceptions, distortions, misinformation (no Arab names on the manifests) documents selectively quoted out of context, intellectual dishonesty etc etc. If any of its “champions” want to highlight any specific points it made, along with an indication of where they appeared in the video I’ll reply. I particularly liked the fact a BBC documentary couldn't bring itself to include eyewitness accounts from, er, BBC reporters. Shifty types, you understand, not to be trusted.

Douglas, My regards to Oswald for this compelling piece of geopolitical fiction. Could I now persuade you - or perhaps you him - to turn instead to the more challenging task of furnishing non-Americans with an insight, of whatever value, into the fabulous mechanism that is Dubya's mind? Paul

So, Andy, which Bertrand Russell did you have in mind? The one who repeatedly advocated - then repeatedly lied that he hadn't - the unleashing, post-WWII, of a preventative atomic holocaust on the Soviet Union? (See here for more: http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/russell.html ) Or the Bertrand Russell who forged the British "Who Killed Kennedy?" Committee, and wrote this piece: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/R...ns_Russell.html ? Or did you have in mind someone else entirely? Pray tell! You were, after all, making some or other powerfully persuasive point about the superiority of non-religious reason, and the moral imbecility of conspiracism.

You are not all ears you are all mouth and what pours forth from that orifice is neither instructive nor helpful. You are a fool if you believe that the religious attacks on the UK, Australia and the USA have been inspired by anything other than misguided god heads hoping for a quick route to paradise and a large number of virgins. In answer to your question cited above the banning of the religious indoctrinination of children would be a start So, Andy, when do you start closing down Protestant and Catholic schools? Or is it just one form of religious indoctrination you're opposed to? The form favoured by people, say, with darker coloured skins than you? And not inspired by anything other "misguided god heads"? You mean Saudi Arabia, the CIA and ISI didn't pump all that money into religious schools in the 80s? We imagined this? You're attack on Sid was truly appalling stuff, unworthy even of a Sun editorial.

One very neglected thread of JFK's search for a way out of Vietnam is that leading through London. Traces are rare - I've found them so, anyway - but they exist. Here's two: *My best guess, and it is no more than a guess, would be Philip Noel-Baker. For more on his background, see the following links: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRnoelbaker.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Noel-B...aron_Noel-Baker