Charles Drago

Henrik Kruger, The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence, and International Fascism, published in Boston by the South End Press in 1980.

A softcover version is available from alibris.com for $20, and is worth every penny. If that one is gone, try www.froogle.com, type in the title in quotes, and I'm sure you'll find a reasonably priced copy.

The ideal place to start, Myra.

Charles

John,

Thank you for your reasoned contribution to this discussion.

I would suggest that tactical choices made in the midst of a highly dynamic and, in the case of LBH, unique battlefield environment cannot be fairly evaluated based solely upon the degrees to which they conform to textbook formulae.

An aside: To venture into post-Aristotelian territory, the answer to the question "Did the Indians lose at LBH, or did Custer lose?" is "yes."

Charles Drago

Sir,

Your analyses of the events which in the agregate are commonly referred to as "Custer's Last Stand" might engender, oh, a tad more respect if you got the damn date right!

Good God, your ignorance even of the copiously documented uncontested events in question is impenetrable. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Shame on me for going even this far with you.

One final -- and this time, I mean final -- comment: George Armstrong Custer is not my "hero." Nor am I a Custer "enthusiast" -- whatever that means. Again, saying so does not make it so.

Custer was in fact a witting and horrifically effective instrument for the extermination of the tribal peoples of North America, one who was discarded by his masters when they deemed him to be more useful dead than alive. As such, he engenders in me nothing but contempt.

And oh yeah, the date of the destruction of Custer's command battalion at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, or the fight at Greasy Grass, was June 25, 1876.

What color is the sky on your world?

Charles Drago

Mark,

I take your point.

But if you'll permit me just a bit of latitude, perhaps I can indicate where the connective tissue -- thin though it may be -- lies.

At the level of the "Kennedy-Lincoln coincidences" nonsense, we find the three Custer brothers -- George, Tom, and Boston -- getting theirs at LBH. Armstrong was glamorous, popular, celebrated in a major faction of the media of the period. He harbored presidential aspirations. There were rumors of rampant womanizing by the elder two, etc. etc. etc.

I can give you more, but you get the drift.

The significant relevance of a Custer discussion to this Forum? As is the case with the events of 11/22/63 at Dealey Plaza, the events of 6/25/1876 at LBH cannot be understood if they are viewed in a vacuum -- which is to say, outside the deep political context of the period. Imperialistic interests (political, economic), for whom even a dimunition of hostilities with a foreign power perceived to pose a threat to their respective bottom lines (the tribes of the Great Plains and elsewhere) was unacceptable, directly benefited from Custer's demise. And at least one had a family score to settle.

Did they help bring about the end of Yellow Hair? Such is my hypothesis.

But said hypothesis has ZERO impact on my analysis of what factually went down. For regardless of their hidden motivations (conscious and/or otherwise), Reno and Benteen acted -- and failed to act -- in manners that doomed the command column.

Further, this Custer discussion has prompted some extremely one-dimensional "analyses" (examples: going "by the book" trumps dealing with cold, hard realities in the field; the officially generated, press-supported versions of the "truth" are to be accepted without question or dissent; etc.) and in so doing has provided meaningful insight into the value of their originators' views on JFK-related issues.

This sort of thing.

Charles

Good lord, this is against my better judgment, what with Bud and Lou riding to the sound of the guns. But what the heck, I've got a spare five minutes.

My responses are in red.

Charles Drago

As usual, I found your last post to be vague, circular, and stating a most "general" point with out the slightest indication that you have studied the subject.

Your mastery of complexity and nuance never fails to impress. So to your genteel nature.

You stated that you did not in any way agree with my asessment of the Little Big Horn Battle.

I will challenge your knowledge and perceptions.

You won't even come close.

What do you not agree with? Just please answer the following.

1) Did Custer perform proper reconaissnce on the enemy village before the attack ? This would be the most basic and primary error. Attacking an enemy without knowing his strength or position is in military thinking undefendable.

The nature of the reconnaissance -- admittedly less than what the textbooks would call for -- was dictated by battlefield exigencies, as were subsequent decisions in the field. The best laid plans ...

2) Dividing the inferior number of the attacking force into three even smaller units cannot be rationally explained to any military strategist.

The division of forces at LBH was consistent with previous and successful assaults on large villages. It failed to produce the desired and emminently attainable results due to the cowardice and dereliction of duty of battalion commanders.

3) A commander conducting a military attack without his primary sub commanders even being aware of ANY battle plan, is absolutely unforgiveable and can only lead to chaos and mass confusion.....which it did.

Custer's battle plan was clear, and it was communicated in as much detail as possible to Reno and Benteen, the sub-commanders previously referenced.

4) He disobeyed his "general orders" by attacking a day ahead of the planned three pronged atack. He did not wait for the other elements as ordered. He imagined a plausible explanation of why he could have considered it necessary to disobey orders and atack with "his command only". He was a known "glory seeker" of the lowest caliber.

Custer's orders allowed for a wide lattitude of interpretations as events warranted. See my earlier post. As for what Custer may have "imagined" -- does John Edward know you're cutting into his act?

5) His attack, as pitiful as it was, reeks of the lack of reconaissance. It became obvious that he not only did not know the strength of his enemy, but worse yet he, absolutely inexcusably, did not even know the layout of the village or at what point he could ford the river.

Quite wrong. The layout of the village and its size/strength were plain to see, and Custer's Arikara scouts ably directed the command column to at least two accessible fording points.

6) He issued Major Reno orders to attack and that he (Reno) would be suppored by the rest of the force. Custer instead "abandoned" Reno, whose small detachmet was met by the full enemy force.

Quite wrong (big surprise). Custer did not abandon Reno. Reno panicked in the middle of his charge on the lower end of the village. Reno abandoned Custer.

7) During this attack, he ridiculously had Captain Benteen's third Batallion, acting upon very muddled and unreaonable orders, to proceed away from the village and halt any attempted "Escape" of the hostiles.

Benteen's column always was within striking distance. Benteen was ordered to come on; instead, he dallied at the morass. Benteen disobeyed a direct order to ride to the sound of his commander's guns, thus dooming Custer.

8) He proceded with his attack knowng that his needed ammunition wagons were miles away.

The pack train too was within striking distance in the event of a prolonged seige (it reached Reno's position without difficulty and in a timely fashion). Custer's command column enjoyed plentiful ammunition for the assault phase of the operation. Benteen refused to obey Custer's orders to bring up the "pacs", issued when, due to the perfidy of Reno and Benteen, Custer was forced to change plans in the face of such unforseen developments [sic].

Charles ! This is but a sampling of the myriad of miltary "very basic errors" which Custer set into play.

You have been corrected, sir.

Please explain to me your understanding of military battle tactics which forces your statemet that you Disagree with my tactical asessment: as you most always "disagree with most that I post".

In the overwhelming majority of instances, I find your posts to reflect the musings of an undisciplined, ill-informed, ego-driven intellect with which no amount of rational discourse can make much headway.

Pleae don't circle away from this post by stating that it is "Unworthy" of your reply...as you have done so frequently in the past.

I'm done.

Let us hear from you Charles Drago !

So you have.

Charles Drago

Let's make lemonade from this lemmon!

The entire Kissinger angle is a class/courtroom example of how disinformation and targeting the future works.

It also exposes the superficiality of the media and punditry. They are INCAPABLE of seeing beneath the surface.

But this is good news.

Here's how we awaken, educate, and enlist our somnambulistic allies: We do not reference this hang-out without explaining how and why Kissinger's claim must be discounted.

It might go something like this:

"But Chris, here's what you're missing and what you have to understand. There is every good reason to believe that what Henry and Helms were saying was designed as a cover story. In point of fact ... "

Chris Matthews, over the past two or three editions of "Noballs" ... I mean "Hardball" ... has put his dillitanteism on display by dropping names related to '60s CIA operations. He declares his ignorance with an air of pride.

He needs to be called on this. Publicly. In the same tone in which he addressed David Talbot in re LHO's TSBD employment opportunity.

Shame the no good son of a b***h. Force him into the truth.

Charles

Sorry.

Patsy Kensit. Brit actress. Played Daisy Buchanan's daughter in the Coppola Gatsby, Mel Gibson's love interest in the second Lethal Weapon, and a bisexual killer in How's Your Father (or something).

My attempt at a little joke ... a mini haha, so to speak.

Charles

Just ask Ms. Kensit.

Is "Lansdale" wearing eyeglasses?

I think so; with this in mind, can we look closely at as my post-shooting DP photos as possible in the effort to find this person before and/or after the tramp photo?

Charles

John,

Nicely elucidated. Thanks.

The word, by the way, is gurney. (As opposed to Guernsey -- if you excuse my utterance.)

"The Coat as presented by the HSCA 'looks' like it has far less blood than it actually does. Shifting hue saturation and gammas will reveal this."

Agreed. Your clarification is most appreciated.

Charles

While we're at it:

The shirt and jacket seem to present blood stains that are inconsistent with each other.

My first guess is that mine is a misperception caused by poor photographic reproductions (I have not personally examined the clothing) and/or differences in fabrics and colors. But the shirt seems to be stained in a wider and longer pattern than the jacket.

One supposes that the jacket's lining, which is not visible in any views I've seen, may have absorbed the blood before it could saturate the outer layer. And why, for that matter, would we expect overlaying stain patterns in the first place?

Charles

Charles B.,

Seriously, thanks for the reference. I own Fox's books and they are indeed important and revealing.

As for your analysis of Custer and LBH -- Well, let's just say that once again I find absolutely nothing with which I can agree with you.

So it goes.

Charles D.

It's option two.

Most don't even realize there's a war on.

While we disagree on much of substance, Mr. Purvis (snatchers and shooter, for example), I think it is safe to say that we share an understanding of the appropriateness of such bellicose metamphors as those you herein utilize.

Bugliosi and his masters enjoy temporary and pyrrhic victory only.

Michael,

The "victor's" perspective on the LBH has been minimized -- almost criminally so -- from day one.

A notable exception to the racist rule: Dr. Thomas Bailey Marquis, who practiced medicine in Montana, also was the USG's physician on the Tongue River-Cheyenne Indian reservation. He ended up forsaking his medical career and devoted his life to interviewing and writing about the Lakot and other native peoples.

Two important Marquis contributions to the Custer story: Wooden Leg: A Warrior Who Fought Custer, and Keep the Last Bullet for Yourself.

The Day the World Ended at Little Bighorn is a worthy contribution to the literature. Thanks for your interest.

Charles

If I'm looking at the figure under consideration, he appears to be African-American.

DSM by all accounts was "darkly complected." But in none of the admittedly few photos we have of him can he be described as African-American.

So ... was he wearing make-up in Dealey Plaza?

And how can we leap to a judgment of this figure's height beyond noting that he is, so to speak, head and shoulders above the crowd?

I would not discount the possibility that DSM, were he at the scene, might have had cause to be milling around the TSBD steps; perhaps something went wrong, an operative was missing, etc.

But based on what we have ... not to my eyes.

Charles

Chris Matthews and the Beltway Boobs are all aflutter as they await the release of the so-called Family Jewels report from Langley, due next week.

They are all KUBARKing up the wrong tree, I fear. This is a hangout -- not exactly limited, but a hangout nonetheless.

At least such is my expectation.

Let's take full advantage of what transpires in this regard over the next few weeks to gain understandings of just how much we have learned about how THEY attempt to beguile us.

Already a Kissinger quote about RFK's alleged direction of the Castro hit attempts is making the circuit. If such information were to be released, the bloodthirsty doctor is said to have opined way back then, there will be blood in the streets.

Clever boots! What a fiendish way to lend believability to that myth for future generations -- always the bastards' prime target of opportunity.

Let the games ... continue.

Charles

As is the case today, operators at the deep political level in the early 1960s chose for their primary target of opportunity the historical record.

A paper trail (within high levels of government) to RFK vis a vis anti-Castro assassination plots would suffice to occlude the record for future generations of historians.

Why bother? Because the forces behind the murders of the Kennedys and other world-historic crimes before and after are institutional (as opposed to personal).

Thus, preservation of the species trumps all other considerations.

How ... biological!

Charles

By sheer coincidence I was just thumbing through Lamia, by P. L. Thyraud de Vosjoli (the title was his code name), published by Little, Brown in 1970.

The author claims to have spent 20 years in the French intelligence apparatus, culminating in Washington, where he served as de Gaulle's intel chief in charge of coordinating liaison between the services of his and other NATO countries.

The book is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its references to "Action," the SDECE (Service de Documentation Esterieure et de Contre-Espionage -- France's CIA, which, by the by, was statutorily prohibited from operating domestically) special operations group responsible for wet work.

M. Lamia was rabidly anti-Gaullist, and his memoir should be read with all due caution.

Then move on to Henrik Kruger's The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence, and International Fascism, published in the U.S. by the South End Press in 1980 (originally titled Smukke Serge og Heroinen when published in Denmark in 1976). There you can read at length about the Ben Barka affair and enjoy a revealing, pre-Steve Rivele review of Christian David, Lucien Sarti, the Guerinis, and their merry cohorts.

Kruger's volume is essential.

Charles

The earliest JFK book to postulate conspiracy is Red Roses from Texas, by Nerin Gun, published by Frederick Muller in 1964.

Rumor has it that the US embassy in London bought up all but a few copies of the first and only press run. If you can find a F/F copy today, expect to spend between $300 and $1,000.

I purchased mine from Andy at The Last Hurrah (which also is the last word on JFK-related books and other publications) about 15 years ago. I remember paying $200.

In fact there is little of value to be found in RRFT. For completists only, as they say. Check www.abebooks.com if you're interested.

Charles

And let's not lose sight of the fact that some of this site's most ... well ... gifted correspondents would add the names John and Robert Kennedy to the list.

Charles

James,

Nicely done. Thanks.

From these angles ... more DISsimilarities are apparent.

Although the vertical fold of flesh on the right side of each face is ... intriguing.

Charles

When I reference the Old Tramp, I'm referring to the character in a hat who has been identified in the past as Howard Hunt and Chauncy Holt.

Weberman and Canfield refer to the old tramp as the "short tramp," which may be confusing. However, the old tramp appears to have been the shortest of the three.

On page 201 of Coup D'etat in America, they estimate the old/short tramp's height to be five foot eight (the same as Hunt's).

I've always had the impression that Helms was a tall man. If he was, King is too tall to be the tramp. But I don't know what Helms's height was.

Ron,

There are many legitimate problems with a King-Old Tramp ID. My interest was peaked by what to these eyes are remarkable facial similarities -- which individually or in the agregate do not amount to "proof" of anything other than my myopia.

I wish I could post the damn side-by-side to illustrate what caught my attention.

At this point criticism of the comparison as a waste of valuable research energies is overdue. I would submit that not only do we have sufficient strength to explore -- for a reasonable amount of time -- interesting tributaries to the investigative mainstream, but also that such exercises stimulate creativity and just might provoke an invaluable leap of vision to something more promising.

So ... As Jack White and I vie for the title of "Mr. Computer Literacy," let us hope that someone elso can post the King and Old Tramp headshots (so to speak) side by side.

Charles

Another try, and if it doesn't work I'll ask Jack White for help.

"There are tramps and then there are tramps."

Boys, boys, boys, the tramps are marching ...

I think that's the lyric.

Charles

I wonder if King isn't too tall to be "the short tramp." He looks like he would be approximately as tall as Helms without the slumped shoulders. How tall was Helms?

Ron,

Good point.

Point of clarification: When I reference the Old Tramp, I'm referring to the character in a hat who has been identified in the past as Howard Hunt and Chauncy Holt.

I've made a valid side-by-side comparison image, but I can't upload it -- yet.

I'll try again in a bit.

Charles