Myra Bronstein

Also, if true , the President's father having a dedicated telephone line to the White House was not right , either.

Even if it were true, this must be a candidate for the title of Most Absurd Motive Ever Offered for the Assassination, considering that it was a well-known fact that Joseph Kennedy suffered a serious stroke in early 1962, and was ever after unable to communicate by telephone with anyone.

Credit Seymour M Hersh in the Dark Side of Camelot.

Yeah...about that.

I'm trying to decide what's up with Sy. Did he do the hatchet job on President Kennedy for the obvious, CIAesque, reason?

He's released some truly good info over the years, thanks to his, uh, access to certain kinds of whistle-blowers. And I've seen him give a speech where he talked about Abu Ghraib torture of kids, which he reported to the embarassment of the regime, and he was damn near crying. I'm having some trouble believing he's a total hack.

But... that hatchet job on President Kennedy--what's up with that?

Huh? Is Ashton saying I'm a CIA apologist?

Please don't feed the trolls.

Ashton

Well, good line Ashton. But what exactly are you saying?

1) You were responding to a rhetorical question asked to me, simply for effect, by a person who knows well that I don't respond to his asinine trolling at all.

2) If I ever want to say you are "a CIA apologist," you won't have to ask anybody else whether I did or not. Trust me.

3) You were asking the resident CIA apologist, who by his rhetorical question, of course, was making the case that he is not. On that subject, here is just one quote of note (and you can do any more research on this point yourself if you choose):

Having recently read McCloy's HSCA testimony, along with much of the Executive Session testimony, I must admit I now believe that McCloy and Dulles were both committed patriots trying to do a good job.

It just warms my heart. How about yours?

Ashton

Oh, sorry Ashton. I read too much into the context. Thanks for clarifying.

>"Having recently read McCloy's HSCA testimony, along with much of the Executive Session testimony,

>I must admit I now believe that McCloy and Dulles were both committed patriots trying to do a good job."

"It just warms my heart. How about yours?

Ashton"

Oh...

Oh dear.

Oh good lord.

Ok, so back to Eisenhower, I feel that he may not have been above taking a few favors, like those John described (and needless to say Johnson was a lying thug), and letting the spooks go way too far. But he didn't grasp the true scope and depths of the evil he was dealing with in terms of Nixon, Dulles brothers, CIA, Prescott Bush, etc. And the U-2 episode was the eye-opener, but it was too late.

Anyone agree, disagree?

Feel free to post VCR/Tivo alerts for special pertinant programs everyone...

Check this link to the Lancer forum.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search

Thank you!!!

Huh? Is Ashton saying I'm a CIA apologist?

Please don't feed the trolls.

Ashton

Well, good line Ashton. But what exactly are you saying?

Maybe this is a quibble, but Dr. King broadened his scope to encompass human rights. He wasn't just a spokesman for one segment of society. In fact I believe his expanded focus in his later year(s)--to include opposition to the Vietnam war, much like JFK...--is what cost him his life. Along with his outspoken support of the unsightly poor.

I'd like to see this forum title changed to reflect his true focus on all disenfranchised people. I really think he earned it. And the corporate powers that be would prefer that we see him in the more limited capacity of a civil rights hero. He was that but he was more.

Thank you.

Hello, Ms. Bronstein.

Re: Ashton Gray's posts, I've read quite a few. And I'm not very knowledgable about Watergate, tho' I want to remedy that, in particular how it relates to President Kennedy's murder. And from what little I do know I believe they were closely related.

Careful, now; I fear you may be drifting somewhat toward the Ashton direction. Better furl the jib and trim the sheets.

So I'm surprised to see him say that the Bay of Pigs was just the Bay of Pigs (and a cigar is just a cigar) in Nixon-speak...

Oh, dear me. I'm a bit surprised myself to see you have "read quite a few" of my posts, then have elected to make an issue of a mere opinion I expressed concerning a very smoky opinion issued by H.R. Haldeman years after the fact—and have done so to the complete exclusion of a mini-encyclopedia of exhaustively researched solid and incontrovertible facts that I have posted.

With all due respect, from where I sit this is somewhat on the order of razing the cornfield to find a weed.

Glad to hear that...Mr. Gray. I will read more of your writings on the subject of Watergate. It's critical to establish what that was all about in order to turn on the light for 'Merkans in general.

Now that you've found one, though, I'm happy to pull at it with you. I'd be very entertained to hear not only the foundation, but the relevance—to you—for divining what Nixon meant when he said "the whole Bay of Pigs thing."

And I'll even start the pulling: I for one think "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" goes much, much deeper than thee or we currently know, and by "Bay of Pigs," I mean as the Bay of Pigs, of the Bay of Pigs, and for the Bay of Pigs. Amen. And I have very solid foundation, indeed, for not just believing, but knowing damned well, that Nixon was dead center in the initial planning of the Bay of Pigs—literally. In fact, where I've discussed this before, I've documented that fact, including Nixon's liaison with the CIA factions who engineered that infamous international fiasco—a few things you omitted in your maize-razing and weed-pulling.

In the same post I very overtly and decisively drew the connection from Bay of Pigs straight through the Kennedy assassination to Watergate, and I invite your attention to that post in a topic I started: Nixon, Cushman, Hunt and the Bay of Pigs

Thanks for the URL; I'll read it much more thoroughly.

Then I would be absolutely enthralled to hear from you what Nixon "really meant" when he mouthed the words "Bay of Pigs," and to learn your sources and foundation (hoping dearly that it eschews tea leaves, telepathy, or embarrassing references to "body language").

...and that Nixon had no hand in JFK's death. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting his opinions.)

The administrators thoughtfully have provided a search function and quoting capabilities. The use of them in tandem will completely obviate the possibility of such misrepresentation. Perhaps you would be kind enough to use them and quote what you're referring to in some semblance of context.

so far I'm leaning in the opposite from Ashton direction.

Well, now, I sure never said a cigar is just a cigar. Monica Lewinsky settled that question once and for all.

Pleasure to make your acquaintance.

Likewise fer sure.

I'm much less flowery in my prose. Hope that's not offputting for an articulate gentleman such as yourself.

Ashton

]

Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.

What's "SDS"?

Myra:

SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.

Dawn

Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.

Also, if true , the President's father having a dedicated telephone line to the White House was not right , either.

Even if it were true, this must be a candidate for the title of Most Absurd Motive Ever Offered for the Assassination, considering that it was a well-known fact that Joseph Kennedy suffered a serious stroke in early 1962, and was ever after unable to communicate by telephone with anyone.

Hell, it was when Poppy Kennedy had his stroke that the bad guys lost any supposed control over President Kennedy and he really blossomed into a great president. He totally had his own mind, and that is why he was murdered.

Isn't it interesting the way that people who are rhetorically all in favour of 'freedom' turn out to be so controlling and censorious, when faced with freedom in practice …

They like to appeal to the best qualities in humankind to bring out the worst qualities in society, for their own financial gain of course.

Myra, do you have a link or a source on your statement that Prescott Bush was involved in the potential coup reported by Smedley Butler?

Richard, have you ever looked at the medical evidence? If so, since you think everything adds up just fine, where did the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 enter the President's skull? Why did a subsequent panel decided the autopsists were wrong? Tonight, Fox news is running a special on the forensic evidence. Evidently they concluded it doesn't add up. Perhaps you should take a look.

Ashton, how many CIA apologists admit it's likely that prominent CIA officers were involved in his murder?

Huh? Is Ashton saying I'm a CIA apologist? Oh yeah, I heart the CIA.

Pat, I'm convinced that Prescott was part of the American Liberty League behind the 1933 coup attempt, but I'm looking for the same evidence you are. Smedley Butler supposedly listed the people involved, and I can't find Prescott in the lists.

As far as I know John Buchanan has done the most pointed reporting on it. I really don't know how credible he is but I think he helped find docs confirming the Prescott/Nazi link. Here's some stuff mentioning the 1933 caper (same year as the Reichstag fire?...) and Prescott:

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f481.html

"Among the most substantively interesting of John’s recent discoveries is the fact that Prescott Bush was an early financier of the Liberty League, a domestic fascist organization that was the primary element in the 1934 fascist plot to overthrow President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (For more about the 1934 coup attempt, see—among other programs—FTR#’s 448, 475.)"

If he really proved that link, with Prescott financially supporting the American Liberty League, that's huge.

Among his info is this video on youtube.

He is very specific about Prescott's role in the attempted overthow of FDR here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MTzfi7SJ-Kk

He says he has testimony from the McCormack-Dickstein committee about the ALL's plans for a hitler style fascism after they killed FDR. If we can find that testimony, or proof of Prescott's funding of the ALL...oh yeah. I'll keep looking. I'm adding "McCormack-Dickstein " to my search strings on the subject.

How do you feel about Rense? I'm really asking. They have lots of good info but I don't know about their credibility. Anyway, there's this:

http://www.rense.com/general66/butler.htm

Well this isn't much but I'm still looking. If you find better evidence please let me know.

Myra, do you have a link or a source on your statement that Prescott Bush was involved in the potential coup reported by Smedley Butler?

Richard, have you ever looked at the medical evidence? If so, since you think everything adds up just fine, where did the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 enter the President's skull? Why did a subsequent panel decided the autopsists were wrong? Tonight, Fox news is running a special on the forensic evidence. Evidently they concluded it doesn't add up. Perhaps you should take a look.

Ashton, how many CIA apologists admit it's likely that prominent CIA officers were involved in his murder?

Pat, can I get your input on the rest of my Eisenhower premise? I ask since you seem to share my opinion the Eisenhower was a fundementally decent guy who fell in with a bad crowd and well...oops.

But I'd really like input from anyone/everyone (almost ) on my summary.

WHO IS JOHN SIMKIN WORKING FOR?????????????? AND BY THE WAY'THIS FORUM IS ONE SIDED???????????????????????????????????

I work for myself. In fact, I am a fairly successful capitalist. My income comes from the advertising that appears on my website. My sponsors therefore are often the corporations that I am attacking. Isn’t the web wonderful?

What are my motivations? This is what appeared in the Times yesterday:

“Governments perpetually try to keep secrets from the public” says John Simkin. They call it national security but in reality, it’s an attempt to cover up illegal or immoral activities. I’m just being an active citizen. I don’t like being misled and the Kennedy assassination is an incredible case of the public being misled.”

Yes I am biased (subjective) in my comments. We all are. So are you, although you hide behind the label of “patriotic American” you are probably a right-wing Republican. Anyway, that does not matter, as long as you can logical argue your case.

Nor am I anti-American. I am just against corruption. See for example my thread on the corruption of Tony Blair.

Therefore, what did I get wrong about Eisenhower’s dealings with the oil industry? If I didn’t get anything wrong, why are you not concerned about corrupt politicians and businessmen? The large number of Americans on the forum are concerned about this corruption. They are the real patriotic Americans.

Furthermore Americans need the European perspective. We don't get real news here, especially about the Kennedy assinationS and government lies. So we have to import real news. Thanks again to the CIA and their very successful Operation Mockingbird.

You need to learn real history Richard. That's ok, we all do. Just don't expect it from the mainstream media or official approved packaged homogenized history books.

Man. Looks to me like the recent exposures in the forum have really hit a nerve somewhere.

Ashton

[/quote]EXPOSURES!!!!!!!!! IF YOU PEOPLE HAVE A CASE FOR A CONSPIRACY AND THE PROOF OF IT! TAKE IT TO THE WORLD COURT...........I'VE HEARD THE SAME CRAP FOR 43 YEARS!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME A PHOTO OF A SHOT FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL??? TAKE IT TO SCOTLAND YARD! YOU DON'T TRUST AMERICA......ALL I'M SAYING ........IS SHOW ME THE PROOF.......EVERYONE HAS SEEN UFO'S!!!!!!! BUT ? CAN THEY SHOW YOU FILM FOOTAGE OR A CRASHED UFO?????? YOUR TRYING TO PICK GNAT xxxx OUT OF A BOWL OF PEPPER WHEN YOU CONDEM EVERY USA PRESIDENT FROM HARRY TRUMAN TO G.W. BUSH........FOR THE MURDER OF JFK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ASHTON GREY....YOU DIDN'T HIT A NERVE..MAYBE YOUR ANOTHER ONE WHO IS TRYING TO PROFIT FROM THE DEATH OF JFK!!!!!!!!!THE GREATER QUESTION IS!////???? WHO IS JOHN SIMKIN WORKING FOR?????????????? AND BY THE WAY'THIS FORUM IS ONE SIDED???????????????????????????????????

Hee hee! It already went to court. The jury decided that the CIA did in fact murder President Kennedy. E. Howard Hunt Vs. The Liberty Lobby was the case name, Mark Lane was the winning attorney and he wrote a book about it called "Plausible Denial."

Why are you demanding proof that's already been provided? Sounds like you just aren't willing to find or acknowledge the truth, even though it's easy to find on the web.

HOLD ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONE THREAD AFTER THE OTHER , YOU PEOPLE KNOCK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.......DON'T BELIEVE ME? GO BACK AND READ PREVIOUS THREADS!!!!!!! IT'S ONE CONSPIRACY AFTER THE OTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED NOVEMBER 22,1963 ALSO.............. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!!!!!!! NOT THIS CRAP ABOUT HARRY TRUMAN BOMBING HIROSHIMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1THE FORUM NAME IS THE JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE! NOT RUNNING THE USA DOWN!!!!!!! YES I'M PISSED OFF! AMERICA NEEDS TO PULL BACK AND STAY OUT OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE REST OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND THE MINUTE SOMETHING SOMETHING GOES WRONG.. THE WORLD CRIES OUT WHERE IS AMERICA...NO MORE AMERICAN BLOOD FOR ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This forum is also about connecting dots Richard. The dots go back at least to 1933-FDR's presidency, when nazi Prescott Bush (father of one of JFK's murderers), and his American Liberty League, tried to murder FDR and wage a military coup (thwarted by Marine General Smedley D. Butler--genuine 'mercan hero) to oust the US government.

The Bushes have been waging war on elected presidents, committing treason, and stealing elections ever since. There is not one presidency since FDR's that has not been contaminated by the Bush Crime Family and the Dulles brother's CIA. The events of Nov 22, 1963--when they finally succeeded in a coup--created the situation we are currently in wherein yet another Bush is having their fascist way with the world.

I personally am much more interested in the big picture than in which cowardly thug hid behind a...bush...to wack President Kennedy (what you presumably consider "sticking to the point"). I want to know who was in the ruling class was that hired the shooters. Nov 22, 1963 did not happen in a vacuum.

This is a huge consipiracy and cover-up spanning decades. If you dont or wont see that I wonder what you'd get out of this forum.

In 1950 Dwight Eisenhower had purchased a small farm for $24,000. According to Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson (The Case Against Congress), several oil millionaires, including W. Alton Jones, B. B. Byers and George E. Allen, began acquiring neighbouring land for Eisenhower. Jonathan Kwitny (Endless Enemies) has argued that over the next few years Eisenhower's land became worth over $1 million: "Most of the difference represented the gifts of Texas oil executives connected to Rockefeller oil interests. The oilmen acquired surrounding land for Eisenhower under dummy names, filled it with livestock and big, modern barns, paid for extensive renovations to the Eisenhower house, and even wrote out checks to pay the hired help."

In 1956 there was an attempt to end all federal price control over natural gas. Sam Rayburn played an important role in getting it through the House of Representatives. This is not surprising as according to John Connally, he alone had been responsible for a million and a half dollars of lobbying.

Paul Douglas and William Langer led the fight against the bill. Their campaigned was helped by a speech by Francis Case of South Dakota. Up until this time Case had been a supporter of the bill. However, he announced that he had been offered a $25,000 bribe by the Superior Oil Company to guarantee his vote. As a man of principal, he thought he should announce this fact to the Senate.

Lyndon B. Johnson responded by claiming that Case had himself come under pressure to make this statement by people who wanted to retain federal price controls. Johnson argued: “In all my twenty-five years in Washington I have never seen a campaign of intimidation equal to the campaign put on by the opponents of this bill.” Johnson pushed on with the bill and it was eventually passed by 53 votes to 38. However, three days later, Dwight D. Eisenhower, vetoed the bill on grounds of immoral lobbying. Eisenhower confided in his diary that this had been “the most flagrant kind of lobbying that has been brought to my attention”. He added that there was a “great stench around the passing of this bill” and the people involved were “so arrogant and so much in defiance of acceptable standards of propriety as to risk creating doubt among the American people concerning the integrity of governmental processes”.

The decision by Dwight D. Eisenhower to veto this bill angered the oil industry. Once again Sid Richardson and Clint Murchison began negotiations with Eisenhower. In June, 1957, Eisenhower agreed to appoint their man, Robert Anderson, as his Secretary of the Treasury. According to Robert Sherrill in his book, The Accidental President: "A few weeks later Anderson was appointed to a cabinet committee to "study" the oil import situation; out of this study came the present-day program which benefits the major oil companies, the international oil giants primarily, by about one billion dollars a year."

According to Jonathan Kwitny (Endless Enemies) from 1955 to 1963, the Richardson, Murchison, and Rockefeller interests (arranged by John McCloy) and the International Basic Economy Corporation (100% owned by the Rockefeller family) gave "away a $900,000 slice of their Texas-Louisiana oil property" to Robert B. Anderson, Eisenhower's Secretary of the Treasury.

This is excellent info John. Thank you!

So Eisenhower had a diary eh? That's significant.

Ok, so the timing of this post is excellent. I'm researching the Nixon/(Eisenhower) era. If I had to summarize it briefly I'd say:

Eisenhower was a relatively decent fellow (more so than Truman). But he was sick a lot with at least one serious heart attack (presumably not CIA induced...?...Did Ike have heart trouble before his "presidency"?) and strokes (?). And he was a tad lazy and preferred a game of golf with Senator Prescott Bush to presidential biz.

He also trusted the wrong people. Prescott Bush convinced him to run for president (I haven't found solid sources for this though--anyone know of some?) and got Nixon in the VP slot. The Eisenhower "presidency" was actually a co-presidency between "VP" Nixon (with Prescott pulling the strings for the CIA), and Sect of State John Foster Dulles dictating foreign policy (with brother Allen pulling more strings for the CIA). However, Eisenhower was aware and complicit enough to approve the CIA crimes in Guatamala and Iran etc.

Once the CIA poisoned his overt foreign policy by sabatoging the U-2 spy plane and letting Eisenhower make a fool of himself denying it to Khrushchev and the world, Eisenhower realized he'd created Frankenstein's monster and left office with his military-industrial-complex warning speech to the nation. Good luck Mr. Kennedy; you try to clean up the impossible lethal mess Truman and I left you.

Any additions/subtractions to/from the thumbnail summary?

It should also be pointed out that in his memoirs, while discussing the corrosive influence of oil money on American politics, Eisenhower told the story of one Senator whose oil businessman son was offered business deals in an attempt to sway the father. The Senator? Eisenhower's golf buddy, Prescott Bush. The son? George H. W. Bush.

As far as the value of Eisenhower's land going up, that may have been a coincidence. Eisenhower's farm was built near the Gettysburg battlefield. The increase in land value may have been related to the rapid commercialization of the area in the fifties. On the other hand, maybe not. In Dark Victory, Dan Moldea discusses a similar sweetheart land deal created for Reagan by his supporters. It smelled to high heaven. Of course, Nixon had his Hughes loan and his FLA and CA houses and the Clintons had their Whitewater fiasco.

Perhaps Presidents and Governors should be prohibited from making real estate transactions while in office. Perhaps the SEC should investigate real estate transactions as well as stock transactions.

The "Whitewater fiasco" amounted to nothing. Zero, zilch.

It was one of the many Scaife funded attacks on Clinton (Ref "The Hunting of the President"). After years of harrassment it became obvious that it was a small land deal that the Clintons lost money on.

In addition it occured prior to Clinton's presidency.

I haven't seen Jack post anything lately. I hope we don't have to add his name to Penn Jones mysterious death list! Can someone please check on Jack. Thanks

I can try criticizing his remarks in one of the old threads. That should flush him out.

JFK: Breaking the News(PBS)

Sunday, November 19, 1:00pm

A look back at how Dallas reporters covered the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Included: how the limited technology hindered their efforts; and the journalistic decisions reporters faced when reporting the news. Jane Pauley narrates.

I just finished watching the above documentary on PBS. Basically, it concerns the reporters and photographers that were in Dallas that weekend. To me, it served as a powerful reminder why the events of that weekend still reside in so many people's memories, even to this day. It features interviews with Hugh Aynesworth (claimed to be the only human being to witness President Kennedy's murder and Lee Oswald's arrest and subsequent shooting by Jack Ruby), who doesn't miss his opportunity to dismiss conspiracy theorists. PBS also plugs Aynesworth's book, which shares the same title as the documentary.

Also featured was Gary Mack. In a brief discussion at the end of the show, Mack allowed how so many books on conspiracy erroneously claim the motorcade route was changed. Mack said the route was known for a week. He may well be right, but the context in which this was presented was dismissive of all conspiracy by implication. I have a feeling Mack's remarks were heavily edited, or selectively chosen for inclusion.

There's a lot of interesting footage, much of it familiar. One news cameraman was filming Oswald's arrest inside the theatre, but his settings were wrong and most of the the images he captured were too dark. For just a few moments though, Lee Oswald's face is in the light, and the anguish and shock on his face is plainly visible as the police are leading him outside. I wonder if Oswald's captors were aware that someone was filming.

Another brief clip shows Ruth Paine speaking in front of the camera, stating that Oswald never displayed any signs that he was capable of such an act, but that he mostly kept to himself and wasn't the type to be a part of any organization. I have paraphrased her comments, and would like to view that clip again.

There are a lot of recollections by reporters that were there and are still alive today.

JFK: Breaking the News winds up paying homage to the reporters and photographers in Dallas that weekend. According to the narrator, that weekend marked the beginning of the modern era in televison news journalism. I found the black and white film clips riveting, but much of the narration and conclusions very superficial.

Has anyone else seen this program? If so, I would be interested in their impressions.

Dammit! Are they rerunning it? (I'll check.)

Feel free to post VCR/Tivo alerts for special pertinant programs everyone...

JFK: Breaking the News(PBS)

Sunday, November 19, 1:00pm

A look back at how Dallas reporters covered the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Included: how the limited technology hindered their efforts; and the journalistic decisions reporters faced when reporting the news. Jane Pauley narrates.

I just finished watching the above documentary on PBS. Basically, it concerns the reporters and photographers that were in Dallas that weekend. To me, it served as a powerful reminder why the events of that weekend still reside in so many people's memories, even to this day. It features interviews with Hugh Aynesworth (claimed to be the only human being to witness President Kennedy's murder and Lee Oswald's arrest and subsequent shooting by Jack Ruby), who doesn't miss his opportunity to dismiss conspiracy theorists. PBS also plugs Aynesworth's book, which shares the same title as the documentary.

Also featured was Gary Mack. In a brief discussion at the end of the show, Mack allowed how so many books on conspiracy erroneously claim the motorcade route was changed. Mack said the route was known for a week. He may well be right, but the context in which this was presented was dismissive of all conspiracy by implication. I have a feeling Mack's remarks were heavily edited, or selectively chosen for inclusion.

There's a lot of interesting footage, much of it familiar. One news cameraman was filming Oswald's arrest inside the theatre, but his settings were wrong and most of the the images he captured were too dark. For just a few moments though, Lee Oswald's face is in the light, and the anguish and shock on his face is plainly visible as the police are leading him outside. I wonder if Oswald's captors were aware that someone was filming.

Another brief clip shows Ruth Paine speaking in front of the camera, stating that Oswald never displayed any signs that he was capable of such an act, but that he mostly kept to himself and wasn't the type to be a part of any organization. I have paraphrased her comments, and would like to view that clip again.

There are a lot of recollections by reporters that were there and are still alive today.

JFK: Breaking the News winds up paying homage to the reporters and photographers in Dallas that weekend. According to the narrator, that weekend marked the beginning of the modern era in televison news journalism. I found the black and white film clips riveting, but much of the narration and conclusions very superficial.

Has anyone else seen this program? If so, I would be interested in their impressions.

Thanks for the summary. Sounds like it's part of the official mythology.

The Catholic Missal item seems very odd to me, wonder what that was all about?

It is what was utilized when LBJ was sworn in aboard AF1.

There was no "Bible" present, and thus the Catholic Missal which belonged to JFK/The Kennedy's was used since no one had a bible.

LBJ wanted to keep it!

Of course he did. I'm surprised he didn't insist on exhuming President Kennedy's casket and displaying it--like a hunting trophy--in HIS library. He probably figured there was no body there so why bother.

Anyway, I doubt Johnson said too much that's incriminating since he knew he was on tape, though there must be a reason that 13% of the tapes have been withheld. But I'd love to know if there's any evidence of his blackmailing tactics in any context on the tapes. I assume he saved that strategy for in person discussions.

.

Reagan appointed Casey as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In this position he was able to arrange the delivery of arms to Iran. These were delivered via Israel. By the end of 1982 all Reagan’s promises to Iran had been made. With the deal completed, Iran was free to resort to acts of terrorism against the United States. In 1983, Iranian-backed terrorists blew up 241 marines in the CIA Middle-East headquarters.

The ultimate Iran-y, of course, was that Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada to cover his retreat from Lebanon. I'd been skeptical that the move into Grenada was so calculated until reading Maggie Thatcher's memoirs. She claimed that Reagan invaded Grenada, a British protectorate, without even discussing it with her, and that the U.S. invasion was unnecessary.

************************************************************

"The ultimate Iran-y, of course, was that Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada to cover his retreat from Lebanon."

I was absolutely appalled when that ridiculous fiasco was going down! They carried on as if it were Pearl Harbor or something, those damned arm chair warriors! How embarrassing to have to claim to be an American after witnessing that total display of ineptitude. Grenada was about as threatening to the sovereignty of the United States as Jamaica, or Bermuda, or Nassau and the Bahamas, for chrissakes! Is that all the Reagan/Regan regime could muster up was to go and invade a resort town? Or, maybe the "Resorts International" front was somehow at risk, or in danger of losing most of its clientel from the in-coming spring-break cruise lines, what with the bad PR being aired on the newswires and all? What a bunch of worthless yahoos!

___________________________

Ha. There was a priceless New Yorker cartoon that showed an overblown General, presumably at home with spouse, in full uniform with a gazillion medals, holding a drink and posturing. His wife says to him:

"you're insufferable after a 'big win.' Anyway, I realize that a heard melody is sweeter.

But the Greneda thing was done to obfuscate matters involving the execution of some Castro associates, including someone named Maurice Bishop (no relation). Two birds, one stone; as usual.

Thank you, Michael.

I guess I really get pissed off by things that inadvertently equate me [as an American citizen] with asinine gov. strategies deployed in my name [as an American citizen], and with my tax dollars. Especially, when these strategies appear to me [as an American citizen] to be a complete exercise in banality, a comedy of errors, and a total embarrassment due to the waste of resources which could have been put to better use on projects here at home.

______________________

"Once again, Terry masters the art of understatement.

I do admire her passion in every one of her posts.

________________________

What the heck...I'd probably admire her passion without the posts (you can tell it's a Friday).

JG

********************************************************

"But the Greneda thing was done to obfuscate matters involving the execution of some Castro associates, including someone named Maurice Bishop (no relation). Two birds, one stone; as usual."

Yeah, there they go with those damned "cut-outs" of theirs, again. Smoke and mirrors. Now you see 'em, now you don't. Masters of deception, as well as the masters of invention of "identity theft," as the term has been coined. There always seems to be a "double" popping up somewhere for the seemingly expressed purpose of "You can't put the blame on Mame, here." We've got 2 John Hulls [F. or L., take your pick], we've got 2 Maurice Bishops [well, how convenient!], and let's see, now who else can I think of...

Just thought I throw this in for posterity. I believe the last verse is apropo:

You Can't Always Get What You Want

Lyrics by Rolling Stones

[verse]

I saw her today at a reception

A glass of wine in her hand

I knew she would meet her connection

At her feet was her footloose man

[chorus]

No, you can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

And if you try sometime you find

You get what you need

Yeah, baby

[verse]

And I went down to the demonstration

To get my fair share of abuse

Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration

If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"

Sing it to me now...

[chorus]

You can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

But if you try sometimes well you just might find

You get what you need

Oh baby, yeah, yeah!

[verse]

I went down to the Chelsea drugstore

To get your prescription filled

I was standing in line with Mr. Jimmy

And man, did he look pretty ill

We decided that we would have a soda

My favorite flavor, cherry red

I sung my song to Mr. Jimmy

Yeah, and he said one word to me, and that was "dead"

I said to him

[chorus]

You can't always get what you want, no!

You can't always get what you want (tell ya baby)

You can't always get what you want (no)

But if you try sometimes you just might find

You get what you need

Oh yes! Truly.

You get what you need--yeah, baby!

[verse]

I saw her today at the reception

In her glass was a bleeding man

She was practiced at the art of deception

Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands

[chorus]

You can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

But if you try sometimes you just might find

You just might find

You get what you need

[repeat chorus]

Lyrics! I love lyrics.

And the rolling stones are an appropriate choice given their role in the drowning murder of Brian Jones.

Of course people here tend to know why they died young.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ddress=385x2005

Has anybody here seen my old friend Abraham?

Can you tell me where he's gone?

He freed a lot of people,

But it seems the good they die young.

You know, I just looked around and he's gone.

Anybody here seen my old friend John?

Can you tell me where he's gone?

He freed a lot of people,

But it seems the good they die young.

I just looked around and he's gone.

Anybody here seen my old friend Martin?

Can you tell me where he's gone?

He freed a lot of people,

But it seems the good they die young.

I just looked 'round and he's gone.

Didn't you love the things that they stood for?

Didn't they try to find some good for you and me?

And we'll be free

Some day soon, and it's a-gonna be one day ...

Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?

Can you tell me where he's gone?

I thought I saw him walk up over the hill,

With Abraham, Martin and John.

Reprise...

I think this forum is dedicated to getting justice for these men.

Even Lincoln in fact. Does anyone else think that he was murdered because he--like President Kennedy--wanted to start printing money (per the constitution) and stop the federal reserve from making interest off the US gov't?

5. In a recently published book, Ultimate Sacrifice, the authors argue that in 1963 JFK and the CIA were working with Juan Almeida Bosque and Che Guevara in a plot to overthrow Fidel Castro. Do you think this is possible? If so, why has Castro allowed Almeida to remain in office (according to the authors, Castro has known about the plot since the early 1990s)?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKalmeida.htm

No, I do not think it is possible that JFK and the CIA were working with Che and Juan Almeida against Castro. The authors must have been smoking something!

Well, I frankly have a lot of problems with the premise of the book. And with the claim that the CIA was duped.... Anyway, I've asked the same question twice with no reply. Here it is again:

I just read "Ultimate Sacrifice" and have a question for Mr. Waldron.

If the Kennedys were close to overthrowing Castro, why wouldn't the mafia wait until Castro was out of power to kill JFK? Wouldn't they want to get their casinos and property back after capitalism is, presumably, restored -- *before* assassinating their enemy?

Thank you.

Myra

Is Mr. Waldron still going to answer our questions?

Wow now I really want to find that entire article: "The CIA & The Media" from Rolling Stone, 10/20/77.

Carl Bernstein, CIA and the Media, Rolling Stone Magazine (20th October, 1977)

...

Woo hoo it worked again!

Thank you John. Very useful article.

I already have a page on Colby.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SScolby.htm

However, I would like to add the quote to it. Do you know when and where he said it?

...I'll see if I can find a bonafide source for that dubious quote I posted.

(If I can't then maybe you can just post it and claim that "truthiness" is on your side.

You know, from the gut.)

This page lists the source as Colby being quoted by Dave McGowan in Derailing Democracy:

http://mtracy9.tripod.com/cia_media.htm

Ashton

Woo hoo! Procrastination paid. Someone else went and did the work.

Thanks Ashton.

Another good quote there:

""You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month."

--CIA operative, discussing the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. Katherine the Great, by Deborah Davis"

Ain't that the truth. Wonder whatever happened to the Media Whores Online website. It was a good one.

Wow now I really want to find that entire article: "The CIA & The Media" from Rolling Stone, 10/20/77.

I like this one:

“The business of a journalist now is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, fall at the feet of Mammon and sell himself for his daily bread. We are tools, vessels of rich men behind the scenes, we are jumping jacks. They pull the strings; we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are the properties of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

Attributed to John Swainton, Chief of Staff of the New York Times.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq32.html#_ednref1

Oh yeah, very good. And the NY Times...well they really walk that walk; don't just talk the talk.

Sleazeballs.

The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

- William Colby, former CIA Director. Guess that would make Colby a logical addition to that section of your website.

I already have a page on Colby.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SScolby.htm

However, I would like to add the quote to it. Do you know when and where he said it?

Well for "synergy" on general propaganda subjects, this page has a good overview John.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com...gory:Propaganda

I'm guessing you know about it since you're referenced on the Operation Mockingbird page:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com...n_MockingbirdOf

Of course Wiki has one too (they tend to be sort of right wing on specific people, but good for general reference):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

I'll see if I can find a bonafide source for that dubious quote I posted.

(If I can't then maybe you can just post it and claim that "truthiness" is on your side.

You know, from the gut.)

John, Here's a quote that I find very relevant to the topic of propaganda and Operation Mockingbird:

The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

- William Colby, former CIA Director

Guess that would make Colby a logical addition to that section of your website.