Glenn Nall

I remember reading about 30 years ago somewhere in which Prouty stated something to the effect that Kennedy was not at fault (or didn't order its cancellation, or whatever) for the cancellation of the air strikes -- for which he took the blame and for which pretty much everyone else happily let him have it. (In this same piece, whatever it was I read, Prouty was describing an island in the Pacific where all the Korean "War" surplus was staged - in the mid-fifties, right? - "in preparation for Viet Nam.")

Speaking of hatchet jobs, if you guys haven't read Mark Lane's last book Last Word, My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK (2011) you should - it's a real (documented) eye opener into the way the CIA has 'hatcheted' the media - print and TV - since the assassination. Posner is far from the worst propagandist.

very good. thank you for this...

explains both this drivel and the blind, "tolerant" left overall. Well done, Paul.

an extra copy of the book? i wish. no, lost the first one years ago. I have just the one. I posted the clean on-line version in this thread again. most of the "on-line" versions, like the one Doug posted, are incomplete, along with the downloadable pdfs. careful to ensure you're getting a full copy.

this is the full version, much more readable than the one at archive.org, here on this forum:

yeah, they're about $75 anywhere on the net. Amazingly I found my one copy (after I lost my first one) on one of the free book shelves at the Atlanta VA Med Center about three years ago (among other very unique books i've come across - like a Nelson DeMille autographed Hard Cover, etc... ). You better believe i'm still amazed that I came across this one sitting on a giveaway bookshelf. Two years ago I scanned all the pages from it and reproduced a full copy of the book here in the forum - in text form; not jpgs. Before that i could never find a full, online copy. Come to think of it, I actually first discovered the book on a thrift store bookshelf in Daytona Beach, FL at least 30 years ago. Always on the lookout for JFK related material, i grabbed it and right away realized its uniqueness and quality of work (as opposed to the vast majority of the other material "out there.") It was only after having read it the second time many years later that its significance affected - and rearranged - my approach to viewing our FedGov (while maintaining 100% patriotism; otherwise known as 'compartmentalization' ). Funny how these things work - one of the most important books ever written on such an important topic, in my opinion, and I discover it not once but twice on toss-away bookshelves.

"It is an underrated volume," (that means 'book,' right?). To say the least. His underlying premise is the foundation upon which most theories, acknowledged, recognized, or not, find ground. No question. It is the book that taught me how to view our federal government with realism - (on the second read). Carl Oglesby, SDS or not, was brilliant. Dawn knew him and always speaks reverently of him, and I wish I had had the chance to meet him. Richard Bartholomew wrote a good bit about SNG. His research, as well, is brilliant. I don't remember LBJ's name being connected by him, but sometimes I don't remember my wife's name. Or if I have one. So...

This second issue was mentioned to Mr. Clapper, and he stated that he's heard no discussion of any rearrangement of the current Intelligence structure. For whatever that's worth. I think the Times (for whatever that's worth), or maybe the Wash Post (repeat), reported that PEOTUS is looking into "streamlining" these 17 agencies, but I think I heard that was denied by PEOTUS personnel. For whatever that's worth.

I'm watching the Senate Armed Services CMTE hearings. Tim Kaine (current Senator because he's not the Vice-President Elect) referred to Watergate as a "bungled burglary of the DNC HQ, somewhat launched from the White House." I'm just curious (Mr. Caddy?): if there's such overwhelming proof that a "bungled burglary" is pretty much the last thing Watergate was, why is still what most high-end elected officials think? It's not just Mr. Kaine, by any means; I hear it all the time from these pols. I guess what I'm asking is (and it can only be a guess, of course), are these just "talking points" - the "official version," or are there many pols who really believe the official version because they just don't know xxxx about Watergate and recent political history...? On another, similar, note. Opinion: It's been noted that there are 17 (SEVENTEEN!) Intel Agencies in our Intel "community." SEVENTEEN. As the antipathy between just the FBI and the CIA is historic and well-known, is it safe to say that 17 intel agencies might be too many, and that it's highly likely that few of them would play well together or share their Big Wheels...?

The James and Paulie Show has gotten very old. [switching channels]

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said [ex-British Ambassador Craig and Assange partner] Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

I'm pretty sure I just referred to things that Hillary has said, not to her "campaign speak."

I'm pretty sure I just referred to things that Hillary has said overall, not to her "campaign speak." In fact I, and then even Sandy, mentioned her 30+ year history...read it again, Kirk. It's on page 15. "I contributed what I could." Oh I'm sure you did. "I'm not sure where you were but I personally see no reason to re- litigate it." I was asked by Sandy to produce a list. I offered to do so. That's all. You're the one keeps pushing it. obsess much?

yes, when PT classified Hunt as "Rogue" and Phillips as not "Rogue" - and seemed to categorize "Rogue CIA" as some official organization indigenous to Dallas - I realized, like DVP, he really doesn't read, grasp, or give a damn about the things anyone else says. dead horses. beating dead horses. and pearls before swine. that one works, too.

you make the same point we're all making, but then you twist it. all you want to do is effin' argue. done.

In the sixties they executed people in county jails? is that what you just said?

This is, today, about as untruthful as it can get, and it is also where I stopped reading. You are very unfair and very self-righteous - "smug" - while pointing so many others out to be. And yet you wonder why so few take your theories and your reason seriously.

This is, today, about as untruthful as it can get, and it is also where I stopped reading. You are very unfair and very self-righteous - "smug" - while pointing so many others out to be. And yet you wonder why so few take your theories and your reason seriously.

Paul, please hear what I'm trying to say. Please try to understand what I'm trying to say: " People in the CIA that were blamed included Allen Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Tracy Barnes, Richard Helms, George Joannides -- ..." What I'm pointing out is that, aside from Oliver and Garrison (and I don't think Garrison's really included) I'm not sure anyone realistically thinks "the CIA did it." "The CIA" is as different from "people in the CIA" as Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera are from the New York Yankees. Mark Lane did not think "the CIA did it." The cover of his famous book Conspiracy refers to a "rogue element in US intelligence" which may have manipulated both Oswald and pawns in the anti-Cuba movement (which are mostly the same) and the Mafia. His last book, The Last Word, also is subtitled "My indictment of the CIA in the murder of JFK," and having just read it, it's very obvious that he's not saying the entirety of the CIA. This sounds like i'm nit-picking, but i'm really not. When you toss around overgeneralizations like you do this does not represent what theories people have formed and is not fair to the theory itself. I'm absolutely convinced Hunt, Phillips, et al, were in on it. Likely pretty deeply. I also think that it's likely General Ed Lansdale was. Does that mean that I think the CIA AND the Army did it? I also think that Roselli and Giancana and maybe Nicoletti, and Marcello and certainly Trafficante had some involvement. Is it fair to label me a CIA-Army-Mafia-did-it CTer? When people on the streets ask me, as they invariably do, "do you think the CIA did it?" I am forced to explain in general what that really means, lest they go on thinking that they've met yet another lunatic CTer who thinks the CIA did it. I do not think that, and such a label is unfair to most people to whom you are referring. If you care.

that particular sentence/question wasn't meant to be discourteous. It was just matter-of-fact, like Jerry Seinfeld would ask it - like "and come to think of it, what the hell is a ____________ anyway?!"

" everybody in the 20th century failed to look at General Walker " doesn't that say something to you, Paul? everybody in the 20th century failed to look at Mayor Richard Daley, too.

without reading so much drivel, it looks to me like you took the bait all the while knowing what it was. wow.

wow. where to start... the point i'm making is - and it seems that you almost got it, but are still letting good, solid leftist self-righteous resentment cloud your judgement - very simply that, outside of our rights as guaranteed by, (and NOT created by), the 4th amendment as they are applied in a courtroom, the value of evidence in and of itself has nothing to do with the source of the evidence. I have a "mean streets" history. (i have no problem sharing this here because a- those who are prone to pass judgement already have, and b- those who aren't probably won't, even on such an admission - and just might find my story a bit interesting, care they to ask, and c- it gives me insight that few in here have) I know "criminalist" behavior. it is my conclusive experience that perhaps nine out of ten criminals caught will blame a snitch for the situation they're in, or the cop that busted them, or their probation or parole officer, or their mom and dad, or their boss, or the position of Capricorn... I'd ask someone, "what are you here for," and he'd respond, "probation violation," which is patently false on its face. They are there for being guilty of committing the crime for which they were originally charged, convicted and then given probation. And i have failed repeatedly to convey this concept to almost any i've tried to explain this to. So many (people) don't get it. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS. PERIOD. NO ONE ELSE EVER IS. EVER. So If I robbed a store (I never have) and get snitched out and go to prison, or suffer whatever consequences, then it's not the snitch's fault. You got that part right. But it's also NOT because I willfully told my best friend the professional snitch and fellow criminal (there are no best friends in the armed robbery community, by the way, Kirk), or didn't tell him. Separate issues. It's clearly not because he snitched - regardless of his motives, how much money he made, or what his own crimes are. I suffer consequences, be they legal or social or electoral, based on the perception (and in a court of law, the available evidence) of my own guilt in the "crime." Many people don't realize that as thinking human beings we are not bound to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim. I'm pretty sure that the phrase concludes with "in a court of law," but I could be wrong. Doesn't matter. I knew OJ was guilty - and said so - long before a jury was bound to the selective evidence which forced them to find him, officially, not guilty. The majority of America did. and it didn't matter the source of the evidence. I'm not particularly concerned with the 4th amendment in my own living room watching snakes and slugs writhe on TV. And neither are you, unless you're one of 6 Billion who can refrain from opinion and trust every decision every jury has ever made. And so Hillary Clinton suffered the consequences of her (perceived by an enormous number of Americans) actions. To discuss Russia's probable involvement in the release of perfectly valid emails is most certainly a discussion that's necessary and valuable to a particular end - but it has nothing to do with whether or not Hillary's a snake. The voting public's perception of her behaviors, as exhibited by herself for two years - or for twenty-five years, depending on the impetus of the voter - and as revealed by so much documentation, is the only thing that's pertinent. As witnessed in November. Popular vote vs. electoral college argument aside, if Hillary had had something to offer besides her own entitlement, she'd have won the more important tally. And she didn't. There's no blaming Russia. There's investigating Russia, and Wikileaks and the NSA dude, etc, for other reasons, but Hillary's loss can only be chalked up to the fact that her secrets were revealed, and that her lies were blatant and pathetic. Even HL Mencken's American public saw through them. Now. You've compared me to Sandy. Neato. Unless you've been stalking me, you have no idea - no right - to be so presumptuous. It's as if you think you know what my time consists of, what I do all day, whether my computer's hard drive has failed and my data lost, what I do for a living - - it's also as if you presume that access to Hillary's every word is on every news webpage on the planet like Trump's is and is simply a matter of copying and pasting. - it's even as if you know for certain how long it took Sandy to put that together (and I'd guess about the same, 10 minutes, since it really isn't that much of a list) - but I'm only guessing - you asserted it and then used it to compare my argument with his. That's pretty dumb, technically. But there's another perspective that you've (predictably) failed to recognize. You've categorized the election as "appalling" (x2) and "bull***ted" (did I get my stars right?). And in general, you're probably right. But you present your reason for this as definitive, as if there can be no one who might think it appalling for very different reasons. It was, in your opinion, appalling. Cool. And it was, in mine, also appalling. So what do we do here. evaluate opinions? does yours trump mine? does mine trump yours? does it matter that one group of voters' opinions carried more weight than the other's? Perhaps "in my opinion" was implied. in which case it's hardly an argument, since I already know what your opinion is, and it has nothing to do with mine. For just a moment, let's assume that BOTH candidates are equally guilty of all the things of which they've been accused. The real point, in my opinion (clearly) is that some people in the world think that racism (and I really hate to write this, because there's little in the world I hate more than racism) and mysogeny and self-important lying, and civil lawsuits - for a Presidential candidate - is worse than national security apathy and negligence, and boldly failed foreign policies which led to rampant international terrorism, and bold-faced lying to the country in the face of criminal accusations, and a lengthy history of criminal investigations and charges - and evidence of so many more; and some do not. You've decided that Trump's crimes are worse than Hillary's. My choice is the opposite. Now, if you can go find something else to obsess over, I'll post this list when i effin' post it. It's not as important to me as it might be to you. But I did say I will, so I will. and no, you guessed wrong. although that certainly did her some real damage - in the public's eyes, not just mine.

dead horses, James. wearisome battles.