Terry Mauro

Being a supporter of Lyndon Larouche, you apparently are. But good luck with it. Dan ***************************************************** "Being a supporter of Lyndon Larouche, you apparently are." I could be among worse company.

************************************************************************ "Your contention that Mr. Caddy was, and remains, a CIA asset of some sort is ridiculous on its face. The FBI, under the deeply-closeted Hoover, LIVED to find dirt on homosexuals, and expose them as security risks. Even if the CIA loved Mr. Caddy, it's highly unlikely they would consider using him for fear J. Edgar would use him to embarrass them." Come on, Pat. Since when has the CIA, let alone the FBI, allowed gender preferences to interfere with whom they employed as "assets," or Directors? What the hell was David Ferrie, or Clay Shaw, for that matter? Or, Gay Edgar's paramour, and right-hand man, whose name escapes me, at the moment. The whole sordid mess is beginning to resemble nothing less than a Monty Python epic.

********************************************************* "Please come to (Austin) in the springtime" In the springtime? I'm still trying to get there by the fall, fer cryin' out loud! Hopefully, this new job will afford me the luxury of actually having enough left over from my paycheck to save for the planefare and some 'mad' money to run all over town with. Keep your fingers crossed.

****************************************************** "Some of the new members now again parading LN theories probably are T.C. I don't miss his distracting babble at all." What! Are you nuts? You must be confusing Tim Carroll's intitials [T.C.] with our resident Lone Nutter's, [T.P.] aka Tom Purvis. Jeez...get yer facts straight.

to the U.S. of A. What kind of independence includes domestic spying, warrantless searches, incarceration without due process, and torture? My vocabulary may not be the best in the world, but the word "INDEPENDENCE" has no room in it for such activities. For those who consider the new methods to be necessary for the preservation of our freeedoms, I offer this quote from a great American, Carl Oglesby: "Tyranny and terror promote and multiply each other so well because each is the other's only possible legitimation. But they are actually the same ... they cannot legitimate each other.... The authentic rejection of terror mandates the rejection of tyranny. The authentic rejection of tyranny mandates the rejection of terror. There is no way to defend the democracy by the use of antidemocratic means. There is no antirepublican method corresponding to a republican purpose. There is no furtherance of national and personal, political and social independence through submission to national police controls. The state cannot at the same time uphold the law and trample it underfoot." Carl Oglesby, The Yankee and Cowboy War, (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1976), p. 20. Happy Fourth of July! Tim [T.C.]

************************************************************** "I propose the formation of a Committee to Re-Open Watergate." I'll C.R.O.W. for that! Show me where to I sign. Is Bill Kelly in the house? He's a good organizer.

********************************************************* "This is the beginning of Chapter 11: We are limited by textual sources and the images they evoke when we try to envision an ancient figure in an historical sense. If contrary images arise due to contrary information in different texts, we are forced to examine underlying assumptions and motivations on which the texts might be based. Then we have to deal with images evoked in the midst of assessing the assumptions and motivations. And all of these will be interpreted in different ways by people, as they evoke different images and suggest different conclusions for different minds. When the subject of an historical study is an object of religious faith such considerations are magnified, and the best we can hope for is a fair appraisal of the available evidence and the drawing of merely tentative conclusions. That is unsatisfactory, since we want certainty instead of ambiguity; but it is especially relevant in a study of John the Baptist, since there is so little information about him. Consider the figure of Apollos with which this study began. According to Paul, Apollos was a prominent leader among early Christians, on a level of authority with Simon Peter and Paul himself, who had succeeded Paul as the principal missionary for the Corinthian congregation. According to the author of Luke-Acts, Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew active at Ephesus and Corinth, who taught “accurately” about Jesus but “knew only John’s baptism.” This combined information is very suggestive and open to interpretation but one clear conclusion can be drawn: Apollos and Paul were actively involved in a movement inspired some twenty years earlier by Jesus of Nazareth and John the Baptist which had spread as far as Greece. This implies a close original association between John and Jesus; it should also make us think twice about ideas that John and Jesus were archaic figures shrouded in mystery, or that information about them can self-evidently be of dubious accuracy (a quarter of a century is not a tremendous period of time)." Dan, Sorry for sounding like a nitwit, or mentally challenged, but I'm having difficulty making the parallels of this very well researched and written chapter, follow an analogy with the timeline of the Watergate players. For instance, who represents Apollos, Nixon? Are Hunt, Liddy, Martinez, Barker, and McCord the disciples? And, the Pharisees, do they represent the CIA, the FBI, or the DNC? I'm lost here. Thanks, Ter

********************************************************** "But the issue is whether the scenario presented in the book is accurate --- as in, whether the stated evidence corresponds with reality or not. This is not something I am qualified to judge, dimwitted as I am, so I leave it to others to discuss and determine. And now, if you don't [expletive deleted] mind, I'll depart from this madhouse to continue trying to recover from recent virus wounds, and attend to my own work --- none of which is a topic of discussion here in this here forum/madhouse." Dan, if you want to refer to any forum as a madhouse, I suggest you refer to the alts. or McAdams' site in the same breath, instead of attempting to include The Education Forum in with the rest of those snakepits. Thank you. Now, get back to work on you Qumran project, as it will no doubt prove to be a more interesting read, at least for me.

THE "WHOLE BAY OF PIGS THING": FROM DALLAS TO WATERGATE In the year following the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy took measures that led some to conclude that he had experienced an epiphany as a result of his joust at the abyss. A hot-line was installed between Washington and Moscow to provide for better communication in the event of some future crisis. The superpowers entered into a limited test ban treaty, ending their testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, oceans, and space. During the last year of his presidency, Kennedy had also taken measures to shut down CIA-sponsored operations involving the exile community. This resulted in a schism between the FBI and the CIA, and generated new antipathy toward the Kennedy administration. The President's public assurance about what was "understood by the anti-Castro exiles" was more wish than fact.[1] Following incidents in March of 1963 when powerboats manned by anti-Castro exiles roared into Cuban harbors shooting up two Soviet freighters, President Kennedy began to take official steps to terminate U.S. support for groups like Alpha 66 that had become out of control. When Bobby Kennedy wrote his brother a memo promoting new efforts to "cultivate" an "internal breakup in Cuba," the President uncharacteristically did not respond, at least in writing. Apparently the brothers held a private discussion which led to an immediate turn-around, reflected in a presentation to the National Security Council in which Bobby dutifully played his prescribed role of informing the President that "a decision had been made to formulate a plan to shut down the hit-and-run attacks from Florida locales." The following day, the President publicly declared that he would "take every step necessary" to terminate the exile raids against Cuba. Shortly thereafter, mirroring the Kennedys' earlier turn against the Mafia, the Justice Department began prosecuting exile leaders for "violating U.S. neutrality laws."[2] At the same time, the CIA was ordered to cut off funding for the groups, leaving them to fend for themselves or draw on other sources. The President's public statement regarding the exiles' activities was unequivocal: "There will not be, under any circumstances, an intervention in Cuba by the United States armed forces. The government will do everything it possibly can; I think it can meet its responsibilities, to make sure that there are no Americans involved in any actions inside Cuba.... The basic issue in Cuba is not one between the United States and Cuba. It is between the Cubans themselves. I intend to see that we adhere to that principle and as I understand it this administration's attitude is so understood by the anti-Castro exiles from Cuba in this country."[3] Bobby Kennedy held a meeting to formulate plans to implement the new policy. It included two FBI agents, "officials of the CIA, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Navy, Coast Guard, Customs Service, the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department, and the State Department." He explained that the President "wanted to put a halt to the exile raids" and that "sixteen of the officials present" were to leave immediately for Miami "to decide what measures could be taken." Among the steps later taken were: "... serving restriction notices on certain exile leaders to prevent them from leaving the United States, refusing reentry to the United States to any exile who went beyond the 3-mile limit offshore, increased surveillance by the Coast Guard of the Florida coastline, and intensified FBI intelligence coverage of Cuban exile groups to ascertain and abort plans for future raids."[4] Following the Miami conference, the combined forces of the federal government clamped down on the same anti-Castro groups and activities that had previously been given such encouragement and support. Numerous raids were conducted in which agents of the FBI closed down exile training camps, seizing large amounts of weapons, ammunition, and explosives. While it is clear that the President was serious about doing nothing to disturb the fragile peace following the Missile Crisis, and had great reason to fear provoking disclosure of his Secret Deal with Khrushchev, it is not so clear that his brother was going along fully. Having little choice but to support the President's policy publicly, there is ample evidence that in private he continued to support the proscribed activities. The no-invasion pledge and withdrawal of support for exile activities ushered in a particularly bitter season of discontent within the anti-Castro Cuban community. A flyer dated April 18, 1963, and decorated with a profile of the Alamo, was distributed to Cubans in Miami's Little Havana. It stated: "Only through one development will you Cuban patriots ever live again in your homeland as freemen, responsible as must be the most capable for the guidance and welfare of the Cuban people." This blessing could only come to pass: "If an inspired Act of God should place in the White House within weeks a Texan known to be a friend of all Latin Americans...though he must under present conditions bow to the Zionists who since 1905 came into control of the United States, and for whom Jack Kennedy and Nelson Rockefeller and other members of the Council of Foreign Relations and allied agencies are only stooges and pawns. Though Johnson must now bow to these crafty and cunning Communist-hatching Jews, yet, did an Act of God suddenly elevate him into the top position [he] would revert to what his beloved father and grandfather were, and to their values and principles and loyalties." Obviously encouraging support for the forcible removal of the President among the anti-Castro exiles, the broadside was signed, "A Texan who resents the Oriental influence that has come to control, to degrade, to pollute and enslave his own people."[5] The least known of the measures taken by President Kennedy was a peace overture made toward Castro. To many, including top officials at the CIA and the State Department, the very idea of any sort of dialogue with Castro was heresy. Nevertheless, Kennedy authorized William Attwood, Special Adviser to the United States delegation at the United Nations, to begin informal talks with the Cuban Ambassador aimed at eventual normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba. He also set up a back channel communication with Castro through journalist Lisa Howard, who was flown to Cuba a number of times in 1963 using a covert operative pilot. A message had been received through U.N. personnel that Castro was displeased about the degree to which Cuba was becoming tied to the Soviet Union and was seeking to redress the balance by finding an accommodation with the United States. There was evidence that a rift had developed between Castro and some of his Communist colleagues, including Che Guevara. The Cuban leader had given an interview in which he expressed satisfaction over Kennedy's crackdown on exile raiding parties. It was at this same time that the CIA made its first contacts in nearly a year with Rolando Cubela, a high-ranking traitor in Castro's inner circle. Without the knowledge of the President or CIA Director John McCone, a small group of CIA officers, led by Desmond FitzGerald, an intimate associate of Bobby Kennedy's, prepared to use Cubela to assassinate Castro. Cubela requested a meeting with Bobby so that he could be sure that the scheme had the approval of the President. What he got was a meeting with FitzGerald, who claimed to be a U.S. Senator and Bobby Kennedy's personal representative. Government reports reveal that Cubela was in Paris being handed a poison pen and a gun at precisely the moment that President Kennedy was assassinated. In 1978, Arthur Schlesinger noted: "The whole Cubela thing raises even deeper questions. The CIA was reviving the assassination plots at the very time President Kennedy was considering the possibility of normalization of relations with Cuba-an extraordinary action. If it was not total incompetence-which in the case of the CIA cannot be excluded-it was a studied attempt to subvert national policy."[6] Although the President had specifically ordered that the U.N. discussions be kept secret, "it seems inconceivable that the CIA knew nothing about it. American intelligence had Cuban U.N. diplomats under incessant surveillance."[7] It tapped their phones, intercepted their mail, and followed their every movement. Schlesinger has noted that "if word leaked of President Kennedy's efforts, that might have been exactly the kind of thing to trigger some explosion of fanatical violence."[8] Ambassador Attwood, who subsequently realized that his telephone conversations and private meetings were insecure, agreed. He has said, "If the CIA did find out what we were doing this would have trickled down to the lower echelon of activists, and Cuban exiles and the more gung-ho CIA people who had been involved since the Bay of Pigs. If word of a possible normalization of relations with Cuba leaked to these people, I can understand why they would have reacted violently. This was the end of their dreams of returning to Cuba, and they might have been impelled to take violent action. Such as assassinating the President."[9] In an historical irony, one of the President's personal messengers, French journalist Jean Daniel, and Castro were together at the moment they learned of the President's assassination. This initiative was later described by the Cuban leader "as a gesture, as an indication of a desire to establish contact, to explore what our thinking was on all of this-and, furthermore, to establish a certain kind of communication." Castro continued, "We needed a kind of bridge, some sort of communication. Since Kennedy had such great authority in his own country after the crisis, he could have done things that he had not done before. In my view, he had the courage to do them. You had to have courage to defy the state of opinion on all these questions."[10] Castro's view of Kennedy's performances, as well as the Cuban historical view as a whole, is very interesting given the realities of the Bay of Pigs, the Secret War, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Listening to Castro's remarks at an oral history conference in Cuba, James Blight concluded: "Kennedy is by far the most respected-even loved-U.S. president since the triumph of the revolution in 1959." He recorded the statement of one Cuban official: "You see, by not attacking Cuba in April 1961 and October 1962, we believe Kennedy's anti-Cuban machinery turned against him, like Frankenstein's monster. Those forces-the Mafia, the radical Cuban exiles, and the CIA-afterwards conspired successfully to assassinate him, because he prevented them from assassinating Fidel and destroying the Cuban Revolution. In a strange way, we believe, Kennedy had to die so that the Cuban Revolution could live."[11] Blight's impression is that when Castro discusses Khrushchev and Kennedy, "one senses that the respect is highly qualified with respect to his old friend Khrushchev, but uncomplicated and sincere regarding his old enemy, Kennedy." Castro feels that because of the "boost in the authority he got after the October crisis, when his leadership was consolidated in the United States," Kennedy was "one of the presidents-or perhaps the president best able-to rectify American policy toward Cuba"[12] At the moment of his death President Kennedy was on his way to deliver a speech in which he would address the kinds of dangerously false constructions so popular at that time in Dallas, a city which had become the epicenter of right-wing jingoistic criticism. The speech presented an almost transcendental world view which is particularly relevant to the "What would Kennedy have done?" debate over Vietnam. While recognizing that dissent is inevitable, the speech was to go on to say: "But today other voices are heard in the land-voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality...doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of weakness.... I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere-it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean."[13] Political constructions gain a life of their own, making it difficult to harness the released energies. Like the proverbial genie out of the bottle, these manufactured realities are resistant to subsequent containment. Constructions require a special kind of devotion and loyalty; it may be hazardous to one's health to try to change course. President Kennedy knew that by reversing himself on his support of efforts to eliminate Castro, by arousing and then easing tensions against the Soviet Union, and by accepting the assistance of organized crime figures and then allowing his brother, the Attorney General, to vigorously pursue and prosecute them, he was making himself vulnerable to serious physical danger by those most disposed to lash out violently upon feelings of hatred and betrayal. During those same months of 1963 when the Cubela operation was implemented, a strange scenario was being acted out in the southwestern U.S. An ex-Marine who had previously posed as a defector to Russia was being constructed as a pro-Castro Communist. Records reveal that all of his associations were actually of the anti-Castro persuasion. He was intimately involved with the anti-Communist "White Russian" community, shared an office with the coordinator of anti-Castro activities in New Orleans, and was known to have been present at one of the exile training camps that was closed down by the FBI that summer. His name was Lee Harvey Oswald. The day after his brother's murder, Bobby Kennedy sought answers from Harry Ruiz-Williams, a CIA agent staying at a CIA-operated safe house used by Cuban exiles. Afterward, speaking with journalist Haynes Johnson, Bobby said that he "suspected CIA-backed anti-Castro forces of having been involved in his brother's death." He was later quoted as telling one of the investigators from his Senate committee days: "Those Cuban cunts are all working for the mob. They blame us for the Bay of Pigs, and they're trying to make this look like a Castro-Communist hit. I don't buy it. And I don't trust those guys at the CIA. They're worse than the Mafia."[14] Of course, Bobby knew better than anyone what had transpired beneath the surface of the administration's use of the exiles. More personally, he knew the dark side of his own role in the unleashing of elements he now considered responsible for his brother's death. Many of those close to Bobby who saw in him a classic case of survivor's guilt were unaware that a much deeper level of responsibility may have informed his anguish. Bobby had personally entertained Cuban exiles at his house, Hickory Hill, and kept in touch with them at their apartments at the Ebbitt Hotel in downtown Washington, where they were housed by the CIA. Even Desmond FitzGerald, Bobby's replacement for Wild Bill Harvey, was concerned about the directness of Bobby's involvement with the Cuban exiles. The Attorney General's freelancing with the the Cuban exile community was a formula for disaster. Peter Collier and David Horowitz have written poignantly about Bobby's anguish over what may have been an unintended consequence of his own actions: "It was Bobby who had led the administration into dangerous places, daring the gods of the underworld and seizing the fire that finally erupted into anti-Kennedy hatred. He had done it in the service of his brother's presidency, yet he had gone past duty or necessity, using his special status as the brother within to justify what had become at times an almost perverse exploration of self. While Jack was alive, everything was justified; now that he was dead, it was all called into question. Had his acts created an environment for assassination? Had his zeal helped create the concatenation of forces that wanted Jack dead?"[15] Four years after the assassination of the President, the CIA Inspector General conducted an internal investigation which was forwarded to Lyndon Johnson, who told newsman Howard K. Smith: "I'll tell you something that will rock you; Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got to him first."[16] In March 1967, columnist Drew Pearson wrote, "President Johnson is sitting on a political H-bomb-an unconfirmed report that Senator Robert Kennedy (Dem. N.Y.) may have approved an assassination plot which then possibly backfired against his brother." The source for the Pearson article was the original mafioso hired by the CIA to kill Castro, Johnny Roselli. The spin being placed on this new round of stories was, like the Oswald promotion, aimed at leading the public to believe that Castro was behind the conspiracy in Dallas. Roselli had revealed to Pearson, through his attorney, Edward Morgan, that "One of our assassination teams was captured and tortured until they told all they knew about our operation which they said was ordered by the White House." Roselli asserted that "the team was turned around, you know, brainwashed, and sent back into our country to kill Kennedy." All good lies contain a good measure of truth, and such may be the case with Roselli's attempt at history-making. Although this colorful rendition is compelling, given the source, it should be recognized that contained in this version is the admission that it was an anti-Castro hit team that had killed Kennedy. But this secret "team" would hardly have required anything so exotic as brainwashing to retarget its skills against the President. By November of 1963, Kennedy was clearly a foe to the extreme anti-Castro elements; they believed he had cancelled the airstrikes and betrayed the Bay of Pigs operation, then compounded the betrayal by giving the no-invasion pledge, and finally sealed the antipathy by shutting down the exile camps and beginning negotiations directed toward the normalization of relations with Cuba. When Roselli's well-connected lawyer asked him how he had contained such explosive information, Roselli noted that "all phases of this operation were approved by Allen Dulles and President Eisenhower." He questioned why neither Dulles, who was a member of the Warren Commission investigating the Kennedy assassination, nor Eisenhower, who had full knowledge of the plots, ever came forward. "So what was I supposed to think?" He inferred that the President "wanted to keep the lid on." Roselli speculated that perhaps Johnson "thought it'd be bad for the country to know about this operation-you know, the government of the United States involved with the so-called Mafia to kill the leader of a foreign country and then it boomerangs."[17] A possibility that may never be resolved is Johnson's notion that some action taken by Bobby Kennedy "backfired against his brother." There is ample evidence of Bobby's continued encouragement of anti-Castro efforts during a period of time when his brother, the President of the United States, was pursuing a very contrary policy. Because of the closeness of the brothers it is generally assumed that Bobby was fulfilling one aspect of a multi-track approach on the part of the Administration. While it is understandable that some token support for the exiles might be considered prudent as a way of co-opting more radical elements, the extent to which one approach represented the direct undermining of the other presents a historical conundrum regarding the brothers' coordination of authority. The possibility must be considered that Bobby crossed the line of plausible deniability into a realm in which he was acting in his own highly unofficial capacity apart from any directed intention on the part of the President. Had he, like King Henry II's henchmen, acted on his own to eliminate his brother's Becket? Consistent with Michael Beschloss' observation that "the most likely explanation for the cause of Kennedy's death lies in his policies,"[18] the convergence of CIA-Mafia-Cuban exile operations with the events surrounding the President's assassination provides strong circumstantial evidence of the motive and means for that crime. But there is more direct evidence. In a 1985 libel trial, E. Howard Hunt ("Eduardo") filed suit contesting an assertion in an article written by former CIA officer Victor Marchetti implicating him in the assassination, including an alleged 1966 memo initialed by CIA Director Richard Helms and Deputy Director for Counterintelligence James Angleton, which discussed Hunt's presence in Dallas and the possibility that "a cover story, giving Hunt an alibi for being elsewhere the day of the assassination, 'ought to be considered.'" Speculating on why such an extraordinary cover-up would be put in writing, a high level CIA source said, "The memo is very odd. It was almost as if Angleton was informing Helms, who had just become director, that there was a skeleton in the family closet that had to be taken care of and this was his response."[19] Castro's former mistress-turned-CIA agent, Marita Lorenz, testified of her direct knowledge of Hunt's participation, as well as that of other anti-Castro Cubans, in the events in Dallas leading up to November 22, 1963. She claimed to have been in a two car caravan with Frank Sturgis, Orlando Bosch and others traveling from Miami carrying numerous weapons. Upon their arrival in Dallas they were met at their motel on November 21st by their old paymaster, "Eduardo." An hour after Hunt delivered the money and departed, another character out of history arrived: Jack Ruby. In that trial, an amazing exchange took place after Hunt testified that, "like thousands of other Americans, millions," he, his wife and children had huddled together at home that fateful weekend, "and watched the burial services."[20] Yet, despite providing his own children as alibis, he had also asserted his legal damages to be the doubts in their minds about their own father's activities. The question was asked: "Mr. Hunt, why did you have to convince your children that you were not in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, if, in fact, as you say, a fourteen-year-old daughter, a thirteen-year-old daughter, and a ten-year-old son were with you in the Washington, D.C. area on November 22, 1963, and were with you at least for the next forty-eight hours, as you all stayed glued to the T.V. set?" After a long pause, Hunt lamely asserted that. "it was less a question of my convincing them that I was in Washington, D.C. with them-rather, reminding them that I was-than it was to assure them that none of the charges...had any substance to them at all." The magazine's attorney followed up with: "What I want to know is since they knew how outrageous the lies were, why did they have to be convinced by you that you weren't in Texas?" Hunt simply replied: "Reminded, reminded."[21] Hunt had failed to anticipate that the two elements of his story-that his children were with him the entire weekend and that his children were unsure of where he had been at the time-were mutually exclusive. Hunt lost his lawsuit. The jury did not even debate the malice issue because the truthfulness of the assertion had been sufficiently proven. On the tenth anniversary of the invasion fiasco, April 17, 1971, E. Howard Hunt had traveled to the Bay of Pigs Monument in the Little Havana area of Miami to recruit exile veterans for a new operation. Resurrecting the dream of overthrowing Castro, Eduardo had assured them that "the whole thing is not over."[22] Subsequent events would expose a high level role played by these terrorists when a team of Bay of Pigs veterans was caught burglarizing the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. Found among the burglars' effects was evidence that they were being coordinated by E. Howard Hunt, who had an office in the White House. In addition to political burglary, Hunt had been given the high-level assignment of manufacturing evidence of President Kennedy's complicity in the assassination of South Vietnam's leader in 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem. President Nixon subsequently managed to remain in power for more than two years, withstanding remarkable disclosures, until the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that he had to turn over tape recordings of certain Oval Office conversations. Nixon was out of office within two weeks, primarily because of the disclosure of a taped discussion about Hunt that occurred a few days after the break-in. This tape recording has become known in history as the smoking gun conversation. During that incredible exchange that would topple a presidency, Nixon ordered his Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, to meet with Richard Helms, the Director of the CIA, and tell him to call off the FBI's investigation of the burglary for national security reasons. Nixon suggested that Hunt's involvement be used as a lever to make sure the CIA would cooperate. The transcripts of President Nixon's rantings about Hunt are perhaps the most factually revealing evidence of deep politics in history: "Hunt...will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things.... Tell them we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves. When you get the CIA people in say, "Look, the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again." So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country don't go any further into this case. Period. Just say (unintelligible) very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, he knows too damned much.... If it gets out that this is all involved, the Cuba thing would be a fiasco. It would make the CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and it's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs which we think would be very unfortunate-both for the CIA, and for the country, at this time, and for American foreign policy. Just tell him to lay off....[23] Haldeman recorded Helms' dramatic reaction to the threat: "Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning forward and shouting, 'The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this'" Despite this, Helms acquiesced and Haldeman was able to report to the President that "his strategy had worked," that Helms would be "very happy to be helpful." But the remarks and Helms' behavior raised the question in Haldeman's mind: "What was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?" The more innocuous explanation is that Nixon, as the chief White House official involved with the Eisenhower administration's Cuba invasion planning, knew of the government's use of Mafia assassination assets in the efforts against Castro. However, following years of study, analysis and reflection, along with his personal knowledge of the players involved, Haldeman asserted a more astonishing answer to that question: "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination." Given his reaction, it is apparent that Helms clearly understood Nixon's message.[24] Aside from such an interpretation of the dark secret to which Nixon was alluding, he and the CIA director had a more current mutuality of interests. Helms wanted to suppress the CIA-Hunt relationship because it violated the Agency's charter regarding domestic spying. Nixon wanted to suppress the White House-Hunt relationship because it would reveal precisely for whom the chief Watergate burglar was working. E. Howard Hunt clearly represented a problem for more than one major Washington power center. Nine months after the smoking gun conversation, when Hunt was about to be sentenced, Nixon was told that Hunt had issued a blackmail demand in lieu of revealing some of the "seamy things" he had done for the President. Nixon's response was unequivocal: "Well, for Christ's sakes...get it."[25] Notes 1. Michael R. Beschloss, The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev, 1960-1963, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991), 687. 2. William B. Breuer, Vendetta: Castro and the Kennedy Brothers, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997), 209. 3. James Reston, "Top U.S. Advisers in Dispute on Aid to Castro's Foes," The New York Times, April 11, 1963. 4. Breuer, 210-211. 5. William Manchester, The Death Of A President, (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 46. 6. Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1980), 426. 7. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Robert Kennedy and His Times, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1978), 557. 8. Summers, 427. 9. Ibid., 426. 10. James G. Blight, Bruce J. Allyn and David A. Welch, Cuba On The Brink. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993), 237. 11. Ibid., 191. 12. Ibid., 191-193. 13. Gaddis Smith, Gaddis, The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1994), 111-112. 14. David C. Heymann, RFK. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1998), 10. 15. Peter Collier and David Horowitz, The Kennedys, (New York: Summit Books, 1984), 317. 16. New York Times, June 25, 1976. 17. Ovid Demaris, The Last Mafioso. New York: Bantam Books, 1981), 235-241. 18. Jefferson Morley, "November 22, 1963: Why We Need The Real History Of The Kennedy Assassination," Washington Post, (November 24, 1996). 19. Joe Trento and Jacquie Powers, "Was Howard Hunt in Dallas The Day JFK Died?" Wilmington Sunday News Journal, (August 20, 1978). 20. Mark Lane, Plausible Denial, (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991), 282. 21. Ibid., 283-284. 22. Carl Oglesby, The Yankee and Cowboy War. (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1976), 277. 23. H. R. Haldeman, The Ends of Power, (New York: Times Books, 1978), 33. 24. Ibid., 38-39. 25. Theodore H. White, Breach of Faith, (New York: Reader's Digest Press, 1975), 199-200. Great, I did not realize this had been re-posted. Yea. Now I want to see Tim posting here again- miss his brilliant "Oglesby-like" posts. Dawn **************************************************** "Now I want to see Tim posting here again- miss his brilliant "Oglesby-like" posts." Yeah, BRING BACK T.C.!

******************************************************** "Hey, Whoa yourself, Kingfish. You definitely must have missed "stand aside." Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to re-parse the paragraph." But boss, where are we going to find those "honest people" to get the job done, without risking them being harrassed by the DHS [which is really supposed to stand for Department of Health Services, and NOT for Department of Homeland "Sieg Heil" Security]? Don't you see, boss? They've all been conditioned to view their world through "1984/Animal Farm" glasses. Your faithful servant, Birmingham Hey folks, if you can't interject a little humor here, you're at risk for imploding at any moment.

Oh my god, this just goes round and round.... Pat I do not think Ashton is going to dignify these absurd- on- their- face questions. In fact he has already said "there are more than enough hooks to go around". (Referring toTricky Dick). This is NOT either/or Pat. It is BOTH are true. Nixon was a lying rotten crook who deserved to be trhown out of office. And, imho, he was set up. Period. I take it then you don't believe Watergate was any kind of a set up, that Mr. McCord was genuinly trying NOT TO GET CAUGHT??? No-one "caused" Nixon to lie EVER, he lied on a regular basis, from his famous "Republican cloth coat" speech (a/k/a known as "Checkers".) to this "Your president is not a crook" speech. Dawn Oh and Ashton is NOT related to Pat Gray, but I am assuming here, you asked this question in jest???? ************************************************************** "This is NOT either/or Pat. It is, BOTH are true. Nixon was a lying rotten crook who deserved to be thown out of office. And, imho, he was set up. Period. I take it then you don't believe Watergate was any kind of a set up, that Mr. McCord was genuinly trying NOT TO GET CAUGHT??? No-one "caused" Nixon to lie EVER, he lied on a regular basis, from his famous "Republican cloth coat" speech (a/k/a known as "Checkers".) to this, "Your president is not a crook." speech. Yeah Pat, nobody's cutting Nixon any slack here. They're just stating the facts as they stand. Just another, "patsy" syndrome, if you will, except that Nixon was guilty, albeit witless in his own attempts to whitewash his bumbling ineptitude in the office of the presidency, and his paranoia associated with that Bay of Pigs remark.

No way, Terry. But at least we're getting clearer on where we're drawing the lines. Nixon was not an idol to (his own) "elite fascist guard," but instead (seen by them as) a mere unsophisticated rube? Contending that is letting Nixon off the hook, as is contending he "was merely a puppet whose wims and idiosyncracies were becoming a liability to their secret teams real agenda." And Ronnie was "smacked down" by the powers behind the throne? when Ronnie had built his entire career being the willing spokesman of corporate power, reactionary ideological politics, and in summa that which is exactly the "real power behind the throne" in the larger society? I guess since Speer and me are the only ones who care enough to fight about this, I'll have to stay in the fight --- and begrudge you fun folks the time wasted when more important things are pressing. But we all have to choose what we consider as important, and right now it's pretty clear that this should be it..................... ;********************************************************* "And Ronnie was "smacked down" by the powers behind the throne? when Ronnie had built his entire career being the willing spokesman of corporate power, reactionary ideological politics, and in summa that which is exactly the "real power behind the throne" in the larger society?" I guess you're not quite aware of where Ronnie's "Star Wars" idea came from? Have you ever heard of Lyndon LaRouche? He was painted as a pariah, an anti-Semite, a homophobe, and a Communist by the Fourth Estate, in and around 1986, if memory serves me well. Just about the same time as the AIDS epidemic was becoming pandemic, and the Reagan administration was in denial and failing to address the issue. Too busy shutting down all the institutions which had served the disabled and kept them on their medications, and off the mean streets while providing them a safe haven in which to shelter them. All in the name of Reagan's handlers' "trickle-down" aka "voodoo" economics policy. Therefore, when Reagan began consulting with LaRouche, who was the originator of the idea of a Strategic Defense Initiative, his regime became concerned because of the smear campaign they were running on LaRouche and his organization, which ended up with the incarceration of LaRouche and three of his employees on trumped up fraud charges brought against the LaRouche organization by Richard Scaife, of the Mellon-Scaife empire. Apparently, one of the Scaife relatives, an uncle or nephew, had donated money to the LaRouche group in Lynchburg, VA. This didn't sit well with Scaife, who called for an investigation of LaRouche on the premises that his relative was mentally challenged, and at risk for being bilked out of his inheritance. I would venture to say that this was one of the instances where Ronnie was attempting to assert his authority, and even though his handlers went along with the SDI concept in an attempt to use it as trump card against the "evil empire," they were merely humoring him, as well as using him, and the concept, in a foreign policy PR campaign. After all, when Gorbachev took over as chairman of the "evil empire," it was already quite apparent that they were no more "evil" than their American counterparts. And, the SDI concept never did make it off the drawing board, did it? Reagan may have built his entire career by being a willing spokeman of corporate power and reactionary ideological politics, but he was merely a figure head, and not a very smart one at that. Especially, being married to a woman who needed to consult with an astrologist before allowing her husband to make a move, politically, or otherwise. It was Donald Regan, Howard Baker, George Schultz, and Caspar Weingarten, who were the Machivelli's behind that throne. Don't kid yourself, Dan. You'd be much better served by going back to your Qumran project and accomplishing something more worthwhile to contribute to civilization, than becoming bogged down in this quagmire.

Terry,Obviously I'm a bit hypocritical in sticking around, but I do have things to look into in the archives here and wanted to respond to your post and let you know more or less where I stand on the issue at hand. I completely agree with your points here. I spent much of the Summer of '74 at 11 years old watching and wondering what the continuous live coverage of hearings was all about. I have great admiration for all those who have been "labeled as radicals, kooks, hippies, and other assorted slurs and insults" for doing what in my judgement was their patriotic duty. I would like to believe that all this is about people being able to vent their frustrations and anger at real-live participant in the events. But when the chief interrogator asserts that Richard M. Nixon was "irrelevant" in the CIA's nefarious plans for national and world domination, very severe questions are raised in my mind. And I can't help but think that the extraordinary animosity towards Mr. Caddy is at best misplaced. Has he not sought to make amends? President Nixon never did. And his apologists have long sought to rehabilitate his image in a variety of ways. The "CIA-did-it" theory of Watergate was originally promoted by John Ehrlichman (in his pseudo-fictional The Company, a book in which a US President is blackmailed by a DCI) and by Charles Colson (who found Jesus in prison, like so many ohters, and has since proceeded to be a leading voice among those who claim Jesus Christ as their own exclusive personal property just as they make similar claims about patriotism and love of country). I frankly believe that anyone who is willing to let Nixon off the hook for what still clearly seems to have been a White House operation is at best misguided and barking up the wrong tree. At worst, it's something entirely different. And either way, I think it's legitimate to ask questions as to the motivations and "theorizing" of those who are doing so. In Mr. Caddy's case, I can't help but wonder whether the animosity directed at him has less to do with his admitted involvements and partially-understandable prevarications than with his "treasonous" going-over-to-the-other-side. Under a guise of righteous indignation, in other words, and while spreading a unique theory of the CIA ueber alles. Hopefully, I am wrong about this and we are all having a little misunderstanding among people who are passionate about the same things. In any event, I have too much on my plate right now to get any further involved (re-writing my book [which was the Qumran and Gospels reference] and doing research on another book [which is why I dropped in here and read your reply]). I do appreciate your reply and respect your point of view, and in fact agree with it. I just have some doubts about who is "on the up and up" and don't have the time or patience to while away still more time on it. I also can't take on another whole "line of inquiry" (burrowing into all the evidence and history of Watergate) without losing what little mind I have left. Sincerely, Dan *********************************************************8 "I frankly believe that anyone who is willing to let Nixon off the hook for what still clearly seems to have been a White House operation is at best misguided and barking up the wrong tree. At worst, it's something entirely different. And either way, I think it's legitimate to ask questions as to the motivations and "theorizing" of those who are doing so. In Mr. Caddy's case, I can't help but wonder whether the animosity directed at him has less to do with his admitted involvements and partially-understandable prevarications than with his "treasonous" going-over-to-the-other-side. Under a guise of righteous indignation, in other words, and while spreading a unique theory of the CIA ueber alles." Dan, nobody's willing to let Nixon off the hook. As I stated in another thread, a good friend of mine, David Lifton, pointed out to me that Nixon was thought of as a Quaker, unsophisticated, a rube, so to speak, by the likes of Hunt, Liddy, and the rest of the Allen Dulles' elitist fascist guard [my emphasis and description of them]. Nixon would never make the cut, and was merely a puppet whose wims and idiosyncracies were becoming a liability to their secret team's real agenda. When Caddy comes on board like some reformed Jesus freak, no longer consorting with his former fascist clientel, I find it hard to believe. As far as I'm concerned he's merely a former vestige of that group of crooks he agreed to represent. And, weren't all these clowns CIA operatives, in one capacity or another, anyway? They were looking to oust Nixon because Nixon was becoming too idealistic, as far as they were concerned. Same thing with adle-brained Ronnie. He was only as good as his rhetoric, and knack for flag-waving in stirring up the citizenry. As soon as he showed any comprehension of what bills he was signing, or tried to assert his presidential powers, or veto, he was smacked down. Look how easily they were able to pass off Iran Contra right under his nose? The old man had no clue, I'm sure. They used him much in the same way they used Oswald, in the same way they used Nixon, if you really want to split hairs over this issue. They were all patsies. And, Hunt, Liddy, McCord, and the rest must be enjoying themselves on the generous pension funds we've had to foot the bill for.

Hmmmmmmmmm? I am tempted to quote Shakespeare. Terry,It's admirable that you would take up for Dawn, just as it's admirable that Dawn would take up for Ashton. Loyalty among friends is a fine quality. I'm sure Jack doesn't consider me a friend or even an acquaintance, but his point is apt and Dawn has both side-stepped and denigrated Jack's questions (alleging that Jack has attacked her "friggen profession" with no evidence beyond this: "As an attorney, surely your reading comprehension is better than demonstrated.") That's a very good ("wily," not "admirable") tactic for an attorney to come up with when dealing with questions they don't want to answer or valid points that were made that they don't want to address. Such as: Pretty much the same thing Mr. Caddy is accused of doing, ain't it?As for me, I'm increasingly scared of all of you and think it's probably best to withdraw away from this apparent nut-house for the time being. Much easier to try dealing with the Qumran scrolls and the issue of anti-Semitism in the Gospels than it is to try and figure who's a provocateur and who's only loopy. Sincerely, Dan ************************************************************** "As for me, I'm increasingly scared of all of you and think it's probably best to withdraw away from this apparent nut-house for the time being. Much easier to try dealing with the Qumran scrolls and the issue of anti-Semitism in the Gospels than it is to try and figure who's a provocateur and who's only loopy. Sincerely, Dan" I am really sorry to hear that from you, Dan. Sometimes those of us who are passionate about this case, have a tendency to get fed up with the "pussy-footing" around of the issues that have taken place in its on-going investigation. Those of us who have witnessed the apparent dumbing-down of their fellow citizens and the accompanying "royal scam" that has been allowed to perpetuate for the past 46 years, can become impatient with all the "political correctness" that's often been called upon, like a stumbling block being placed in the path of disclosure. So if we become a little testy, especially when we find a previously thought-of "ally" calling for a "cease and desist" simply because he's had the unfortunate experience of being slammed by a handful of experts in the field of provocation, doesn't mean that we are resorting to, nor "flipping over" to, the use of the same said tactics of provocation. Ashton asks pointed, if not actual questions of a similar bent that should have been demanded by the American populace itself, long ago, and have been to a degree, by the small voice of a band of concerned and aware citizens who've had the misfortune of being labeled as radicals, kooks, hippies, and other assorted slurs and insults, for merely raising those same points of contention in the past.

Hmmmmmmmmm? I am tempted to quote Shakespeare. ************************************************** "Hmmmmmmmmm? I am tempted to quote Shakespeare." No Jack. You're off base here. "The lady doth NOT protest too much."

****************************************************************** "Among the tell-tale signs of these infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists are unbridled, unwarranted, unprovoked and vicious attacks on other forum members and the postings of so-called “information” that is essentially mis-information or trivia designed to affect adversely the Forum’s credibility." __________________________________________________________________ Dictionary Find definitions for: fifth' col'umn 1. a group of people who act traitorously and subversively out of a secret sympathy with an enemy of their country. 2. (originally) Franco sympathizers in Madrid during the Spanish Civil War: so called in allusion to a statement in 1936 that the insurgents had four columns marching on Madrid and a fifth column of sympathizers in the city ready to rise and betray it. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease. __________________________________________________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - The real "fifth column" While conservative pundits whine about treacherous lefty intellectuals, a real group of far-right traitors may be striking at America from within. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - By Joe Conason Nov. 1, 2001 | The war against the Taliban and the al Qaida, a single enemy with two names, is not only a just war, but a war that bears some striking parallels to the last great conflict between democracy and fascism. Among those haunting similarities is the apparent presence within the borders of the United States of enemy sympathizers and potential agents -- with the important difference that this time, the "ifth column" may be responsible for acts of terror as well as propaganda. The real fifth column is not, as some overwrought writers have suggested, represented by miniscule anti-war demonstrations or the handful of academics scribbling anti-American screeds. Such misguided people are of little consequence today and few, if any, of them has demonstrated a propensity for violence. Their right to dissent must be respected and protected. The true domestic threat is posed instead by an unknown number of organizations and individuals on the farthest fringes of the right, with ideologies that echo Nazism and rap sheets that include every crime from bank robberies to bombings. Having repeatedly declared their determination to overthrow the United States Government and exterminate the "racially impure," these outfits hailed the September 11 attacks as the opening salvo in a conflagration they hope will engulf us. _______________________________________________________________ Issues: War on Terror Connecting the Dots – Conjuring Fifth Columns Col. Daniel Smith, USA, Ret. Printer-Friendly Page 3/24/2004 Sometimes public and congressional outrage has an effect. First the White House and then Speaker Dennis Hastert refused to allow a 60 day extension for the commission investigating why no one in the U.S. intelligence community “connected the dots” before September 11, 2001. Both quickly retreated when their stance became public. The commission may well find that reports, properly shared, could have enabled analysts to connect the dots and prevent that awful day. It might also have recommendations for improving inter-agency communication beyond those already implemented so that a similar day can be avoided. What is also needed from the panel but may not be forthcoming is a clear caution against “connecting” the dots when there are no dots to connect. (The process is analogous to “seeing” the many constellations in the night sky by drawing together individual stars to form a mythic figure or geometrical shape.) Given U.S. history, such a caution would be most timely. In World War I, the targets were the 2.3 million “hyphenated” German-American immigrants, plus the second and third generations born in the United States. German books and newspapers were burned, German music was banned. In the category of the ridiculous, akin to last year’s renaming of French fries as “freedom fries,” people stopped eating sauerkraut. Fearing for their safety, many German-Americans changed their names (e.g., Schmidt to Smith), stopped speaking German, or stopped celebrating cultural holidays. At the start of World War II, President Roosevelt issued three directives declaring Japanese, Italian, and German nationals “enemy aliens” subject to internment or exclusion from extensive parts of the U.S. declared as military areas, particularly on the West Coast. While large numbers of Japanese-Americans were interned and even more forced from their homes, “enemy aliens” of European descent were also caught in the frenzy. During the inter-war period but more so in the first decades after 1945, there were real dots to connect. “Communists” and their “sympathizers” (as distinct from the Communist Party USA, which was said to have more undercover FBI agents in it than ideologues) were the “enemy within” that could destroy democracy by infiltrating government agencies, betraying U.S. agents, stealing secrets, and undermining policy. In the post-September 11, 2001 world, amid all the dire warnings by government about al Qaeda “sleeper cells” scattered across the U.S. and the mass detentions, arrests, and deportations of “Middle Easterners,” Washington has seized upon–and has been seized by–the spectre of a “fifth column” waiting to wreak havoc when ordered to strike. Yet so far, the evidence–the “connecting of the dots”–for the existence of a plan and the structure to carry it out seems limited largely to a few misguided men who traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan for “training,” Muslim chaplains in the military, and peace advocates opposed to the war in Iraq. (The term “fifth column” usually is traced to the 1936-39 Spanish civil war when a Nationalist general marching on Madrid with four columns of soldiers spoke of another “column” of supporters already in the city awaiting orders to create chaos from within.) What is equally troublesome is the appearance of the same mentality in other countries, which tends to reinforce the mindset in U.S. agencies. In Britain, which has a “special” intelligence relationship with the U.S., the internal security service (MI5) reportedly is expanding by nearly a 1,000 agents. Its budget is the only one in the British intelligence services that will increase beyond the rate of inflation. In Iraq, the U.S.-appointed Governing Council debated and then refused to reverse a 1950 decision that Jews, of all Iraqis exiled or forced to leave, could not return and regain their Iraqi citizenship. The New York Times reported the rationale–all too familiar–given by one council member: “as long as there is a state of war [in Palestine], then we should not allow the Jews to return.” In short, sometimes “connecting the dots” is the worst choice available, and not only for individuals and groups that might be adversely affected. A nation whose politicians and partisans conjure non-existent dangers from non-existent “dots” risk dissipating resources and energy searching for ephemeral constellations of their own making. The world has enough real nightmares; it doesn’t need phantoms. This analysis was prepared by Col. Dan Smith, U.S. Army (Ret). Smith, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is FCNL's Senior Fellow on Military Affairs. For more background and analysis by Col. Smith, click here.

A fine post, Doug. It's always nice to get mixed up with Pat Gray. (You mistakenly attribute my 6-23 post to the late Mr. Gray.) (Ashton, once again, was Pat Gray a relation?) Perhaps to assuage those concerned that our shared annoyance with Mr. Gray has anything to do with your fear of answering his questions, you should answer a few of his questions. I think the one question he's raised about your Watergate experience that most deserves an answer is whether or not you received a call from Barker's wife on that long long night. Evidently, you told Woodward you did. Evidently, Hunt says he told her to call you. Did she, in fact, call, or was this just something you told Woodward to help protect your clients? Of course, after the way Mr. Gray has treated you, you don't owe him anything. I only suggest you answer a few of his questions to show some of the Forum members seduced by his research and sarcasm that it's not the issues raised by Mr. Gray that have driven you to start this thread, but his behavior. As far as I'm concerned, a former conservative friend of Buckley's and Hunt's who would publicly out himself and become a liberal-sympathizer, has already demonstrated his commitment to the truth. But others more suspicious than I might need your assistance before determining that there is no fire beneath the smoke discussed in Mr. Gray's posts. If you offer a few good-faith answers, and he attacks you as he did Baldwin, well, then we'll know for sure he is what he appears to be. In the meantime, I believe he, at the very least, owes Mr. Baldwin an apology. His "I’m done with you, with your soul-less, conscienceless, lying co-conspirators, and with the entire evil hoax” ranks as one of the most self-aggrandizing and self-deluded comments in the history of this Forum, and is an embarrassment to this Forum, IMO. ************************************************************ "Mr. Gray has also used vituperative and threatening language against other members who find his postings to be in violation of Board Guidelines." Am I missing something here? What threats are you talking about, and where are they located? I honestly failed to denote anything resembling a threat from Gray.

****************************************************************** "Among the tell-tale signs of these infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists are unbridled, unwarranted, unprovoked and vicious attacks on other forum members and the postings of so-called “information” that is essentially mis-information or trivia designed to affect adversely the Forum’s credibility." __________________________________________________________________ Dictionary Find definitions for: fifth' col'umn 1. a group of people who act traitorously and subversively out of a secret sympathy with an enemy of their country. 2. (originally) Franco sympathizers in Madrid during the Spanish Civil War: so called in allusion to a statement in 1936 that the insurgents had four columns marching on Madrid and a fifth column of sympathizers in the city ready to rise and betray it. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease. __________________________________________________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - The real "fifth column" While conservative pundits whine about treacherous lefty intellectuals, a real group of far-right traitors may be striking at America from within. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - By Joe Conason Nov. 1, 2001 | The war against the Taliban and the al Qaida, a single enemy with two names, is not only a just war, but a war that bears some striking parallels to the last great conflict between democracy and fascism. Among those haunting similarities is the apparent presence within the borders of the United States of enemy sympathizers and potential agents -- with the important difference that this time, the "ifth column" may be responsible for acts of terror as well as propaganda. The real fifth column is not, as some overwrought writers have suggested, represented by miniscule anti-war demonstrations or the handful of academics scribbling anti-American screeds. Such misguided people are of little consequence today and few, if any, of them has demonstrated a propensity for violence. Their right to dissent must be respected and protected. The true domestic threat is posed instead by an unknown number of organizations and individuals on the farthest fringes of the right, with ideologies that echo Nazism and rap sheets that include every crime from bank robberies to bombings. Having repeatedly declared their determination to overthrow the United States Government and exterminate the "racially impure," these outfits hailed the September 11 attacks as the opening salvo in a conflagration they hope will engulf us. _______________________________________________________________ Issues: War on Terror Connecting the Dots – Conjuring Fifth Columns Col. Daniel Smith, USA, Ret. Printer-Friendly Page 3/24/2004 Sometimes public and congressional outrage has an effect. First the White House and then Speaker Dennis Hastert refused to allow a 60 day extension for the commission investigating why no one in the U.S. intelligence community “connected the dots” before September 11, 2001. Both quickly retreated when their stance became public. The commission may well find that reports, properly shared, could have enabled analysts to connect the dots and prevent that awful day. It might also have recommendations for improving inter-agency communication beyond those already implemented so that a similar day can be avoided. What is also needed from the panel but may not be forthcoming is a clear caution against “connecting” the dots when there are no dots to connect. (The process is analogous to “seeing” the many constellations in the night sky by drawing together individual stars to form a mythic figure or geometrical shape.) Given U.S. history, such a caution would be most timely. In World War I, the targets were the 2.3 million “hyphenated” German-American immigrants, plus the second and third generations born in the United States. German books and newspapers were burned, German music was banned. In the category of the ridiculous, akin to last year’s renaming of French fries as “freedom fries,” people stopped eating sauerkraut. Fearing for their safety, many German-Americans changed their names (e.g., Schmidt to Smith), stopped speaking German, or stopped celebrating cultural holidays. At the start of World War II, President Roosevelt issued three directives declaring Japanese, Italian, and German nationals “enemy aliens” subject to internment or exclusion from extensive parts of the U.S. declared as military areas, particularly on the West Coast. While large numbers of Japanese-Americans were interned and even more forced from their homes, “enemy aliens” of European descent were also caught in the frenzy. During the inter-war period but more so in the first decades after 1945, there were real dots to connect. “Communists” and their “sympathizers” (as distinct from the Communist Party USA, which was said to have more undercover FBI agents in it than ideologues) were the “enemy within” that could destroy democracy by infiltrating government agencies, betraying U.S. agents, stealing secrets, and undermining policy. In the post-September 11, 2001 world, amid all the dire warnings by government about al Qaeda “sleeper cells” scattered across the U.S. and the mass detentions, arrests, and deportations of “Middle Easterners,” Washington has seized upon–and has been seized by–the spectre of a “fifth column” waiting to wreak havoc when ordered to strike. Yet so far, the evidence–the “connecting of the dots”–for the existence of a plan and the structure to carry it out seems limited largely to a few misguided men who traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan for “training,” Muslim chaplains in the military, and peace advocates opposed to the war in Iraq. (The term “fifth column” usually is traced to the 1936-39 Spanish civil war when a Nationalist general marching on Madrid with four columns of soldiers spoke of another “column” of supporters already in the city awaiting orders to create chaos from within.) What is equally troublesome is the appearance of the same mentality in other countries, which tends to reinforce the mindset in U.S. agencies. In Britain, which has a “special” intelligence relationship with the U.S., the internal security service (MI5) reportedly is expanding by nearly a 1,000 agents. Its budget is the only one in the British intelligence services that will increase beyond the rate of inflation. In Iraq, the U.S.-appointed Governing Council debated and then refused to reverse a 1950 decision that Jews, of all Iraqis exiled or forced to leave, could not return and regain their Iraqi citizenship. The New York Times reported the rationale–all too familiar–given by one council member: “as long as there is a state of war [in Palestine], then we should not allow the Jews to return.” In short, sometimes “connecting the dots” is the worst choice available, and not only for individuals and groups that might be adversely affected. A nation whose politicians and partisans conjure non-existent dangers from non-existent “dots” risk dissipating resources and energy searching for ephemeral constellations of their own making. The world has enough real nightmares; it doesn’t need phantoms. This analysis was prepared by Col. Dan Smith, U.S. Army (Ret). Smith, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is FCNL's Senior Fellow on Military Affairs. For more background and analysis by Col. Smith, click here.

P.S. Has McKinney been indicted yet? I'm curious: were you assigned to McKinney randomly, or did you specifically request her? If the latter, I fear for your sanity (and politics). What's your infatuation with left-wing politicians and message boards? Are you unaware of McKinney's connections to CAIR and other radical Muslim groups? Are you unaware of her serial, disturbing run-ins with Capitol Hill law enforcement? http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...30-120057-3228r Just how was the Fox coverage "despicable"? Are you saying it's okay to assault a policeman and use race and gender as a defense? The Duke case? Um, in case you haven't notice, it's quickly going down in flames: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13392547/site/newsweek/ You see, even "rich, white boys" have rights in this country. If exhonorated, a lot of people should lose their jobs over this fiasco, starting with the race-hustling DA. Of course, you're working for a shameless race hustler this summer, so I don't expect you to "get it." ******************************************************************** "You see, even "rich, white boys" have rights in this country. If exhonorated, a lot of people should lose their jobs over this fiasco, starting with the race-hustling DA. Of course, you're working for a shameless race hustler this summer, so I don't expect you to "get it." " Back in the late 1950's - early 1960's, in NYC, we had a D.J. on one of the radio stations, either WINS or WNEW, I forget which one. Anyway, once a week at the 5:00 news, they'd give out something they called, 'The Clyde Award" for the most ridiculous gaff committed by any person, company, or organization. They'd usually start announcing this earlier in the broadcasting day around the news or station breaks. You'd hear the D.J.'s voice break in with a canned laughter track in the background [a pre-recorded advert] and him announcing, "THERE'S GOING TO BE A CLYDE AWARD!" Every time I come across one of Slattery's "hoof n' mouth" statements, that recorded announcement resonates through my mind's ear. I haven't thought about that in years, especially since moving to the "left" coast in 1966. So, everytime the Washingtonian utters one of his pearls of wisdom, or casts his pearls before swine [is probably how he figures it], I'm going to announce, "THERE'S GOING TO BE A CLYDE AWARD!"

I have several idle working theories, but I personally believe we're all standing on the threshold of the cellar door and haven't even gone down the stairs yet or rigged up the lights, so it's still a bit dark. What I know with personal certainty, is that it's the right door, the right cellar. The smell is overwhelming. We've never even been in the right zip code before to dig up actual evidence that will make a working theory on which to build the case. Now it's time to start the probably unpleasant task of digging in the right dirt. I'll say this: some things have no statute of limitations. Yes, ma'am. And Hunt and Liddy, at all relevant times, had CIA clearances (first), then were put into positions with full White House credentials (second), and at all relevant times were in possession of both. There is no more precise definition of "double agent." It wasn't an accident. Every single "nonsensical" thing done by the co-conspirators--all of which has been discussed and rationalized to death--is entirely consistent with the intent and desire to get "caught" on the night of 16-17 June 1972 with wiretapping equipment and traceable "clues" in their possession that would point away from CIA and point directly toward the White House, then to plant the big alibi story covering Memorial Day weekend, further implicating the White House in the process. Liddy and Hunt, along with CIA veteran McCord, were the pointers to the White House. They were working for CIA and its clandestine accomplices, with the malevolent intent of implicating the White House. That stark simplicity resolves all conflicting evidence, testimony, and intentionally generated confusion surrounding all related events. It's not even complicated. What a sick, twisted fraud on top of a fraud and waste of court and public time that was. It doesn't even bear comment. As I've said, "the what else was going on" part is what all of us now must demand to be told, with all the intensity and force of the original "investigation," and without compromise. As for Nixon, let me suggest an interesting exercise that I've done myself several times now: with this knowledge of a vast CIA cover-up, go back and read the full transcript of the so-called "smoking gun" tape. I've never been any fan of Nixon, and I have no doubt that he had his own sins that made him as blind as he was and vulnerable to exactly what happened to him, but the man was just being turned around and around like the blindfolded dupe in a vicious "pin the tail on the donkey" game. The only reason his so-called "cover up" fumbling instructions were issued was because he was being told that the FBI had concluded that they were up against a CIA op, and so was playing the little bit of hardball he could to get the heat off the White House and onto CIA where he felt it belonged. On that count, he was dead right. I don't know. I'd be willing to bet the farm, though, that the most crucial evidence of the JFK assassination is still buried in the exact same cellar. And the final exposure of this fraud, the Watergate fraud, is the key that finally unlocks the door to that cellar for everyone. I also don't think there's a ghost of a chance of finally unraveling the JFK assassination until the CIA Watergate hoax is completely stretched, salted, and tacked to the barn wall. We have a real chance now to do just that. And for all those reasons, on this anniversary of Watergate, I implore every person who ever has known with their own moral conviction that we all have been cheated and duped to take effective and forceful action to get that cellar fully excavated. I call on the new Director of CIA to act at once to instigate the most far-reaching internal investigation ever launched at CIA and finally to report to the world the truth about CIA responsiblity for Watergate and for the unconsionable hoax perpetrated by CIA on mankind. If he doesn't do it as a top priority, I call for his summary removal and charges as an accessory, and on misprison of felony. I call on the current President of the United States to use every tool, power, agency, and department under his influence and control to reopen Watergate, and for him to make a public demand for full and unvarnished CIA disclosure of CIA's involvement in the planning and execution of Watergate, including public disclosure of where Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and Baldwin actually were and what they actually were doing on Memorial Day weekend 1972. If he won't, I call for his impeachment and charges as an accessory, and on misprison of felony. And I beseech every person who can be reached by this message to make it happen. I beseech every thinking, caring American citizen, of whatever station, status, or political persuasion, to demand on every available official line that the Watergate case be reopened with a vengeance by every United States agency, department, and office at any level that has any jurisdiction whatsoever, including but not limited to the DOJ, the CIA itself, and Congress, and to include in that demand that the CIA and all living participants be held fully accountable. I call on investigators and law enforcement officials at any and all levels to use the power and influence of their office to make similar demands until they are heard. I entreat educators, researchers, writers, attorneys, and judges to use every line, connection, and influence available to them to make this information known to publications and institutions that can and will move this permanently into broad public view, into the public consciousness, and onto the public agenda as an irresistable force that will open this case to uncompromising scrutiny until every last secret and crime is wrung out of it, and the responsible parties are brought to justice. I appeal to honest and responsible journalists, commentators, talk show hosts, and media people in any station or position to use their sphere of influence to make this information known, and to raise a din that will not die down until justice is served and the truth is exposed. I demand our congressional intelligence "oversight committees" to stand aside and let honest people get the job done in disinfecting sunlight. I call on law enforcement agencies and agents to put the first "congressperson" who now attempts to keep any of this behind "closed doors" for "national security" reasons into cuffs as an accessory after the fact, and for misprison of felony. By having protected the guilty behind those "closed doors" of "national security" for so many decades, they already have breached and betrayed the very trust that grants such rights of "national security" secrecy, and so have forfeited any right to the use of any such deceitful cloak to continue to hide and protect criminal fraud against the people on a grand scale. Yes, I think it's just that important. We've all been made marks of a giant con. But it's not just a con; it's a criminal betrayal of the highest trusts granted anywhere in the world. I know that I haven't satisfactorily answered all your questions, Dawn, but for these crucially important and correct questions you've asked, I'm simply the wrong person to be asking. Now, though, we know who to ask, and we know what has to be asked. And we have to ask them together. And demand that they be answered. Ashton Gray *************************************************************** "I've never been any fan of Nixon, and I have no doubt that he had his own sins that made him as blind as he was and vulnerable to exactly what happened to him, but the man was just being turned around and around like the blindfolded dupe in a vicious "pin the tail on the donkey" game. The only reason his so-called "cover up" fumbling instructions were issued was because he was being told that the FBI had concluded that they were up against a CIA op, and so was playing the little bit of hardball he could to get the heat off the White House and onto CIA where he felt it belonged. On that count, he was dead right." And, wouldn't you venture to say that the CIA, along with their elite backers, considered Nixon to be a "Quaker," so to speak, and beneath their station, financially as well as politically? He was merely being used by them and their Secret Team. Just like they used Carter, to be a fall-guy, in order to justify their positions, as the war-mongering opportunists they actually are. The American people have been continually psy-op'd via Operation Mockingbird ad infinitum [since 1947]. These shysters are the original tricksters behind the supposed "Tricky Dicky" campaign, and assorted similar methods used in fabricating the wool to pull over the eyes of the American sheople, back even before the BoP's Operation. Nixon was nothing more than a hick-shuckster opportunist, along similar lines as LBJ, as far as the elites were concerned, and that's how they dealt with him. And, you must know who I'm referring to, here in the form of Allen Dulles, along with his band of merry men. "Send lawyers, guns, and money. The xxxx has hit the fan." All the other CIA directors following in his footsteps pale in comparison. "I call on the current President of the United States to use every tool, power, agency, and department under his influence and control to reopen Watergate, and for him to make a public demand for full and unvarnished CIA disclosure of CIA's involvement in the planning and execution of Watergate..." This is a neo-fascist regime we have in power at the moment. It ain't gonna happen, my friend. "I beseech every thinking, caring American citizen, of whatever station, status, or political persuasion, to demand on every available official line that the Watergate case be reopened..." If you can get them away from their playstations, soap operas, reality TV shows, moronic game shows, and all commerical channels between 2 and 13, long enough to get their attention. I call on investigators and law enforcement officials at any and all levels to use the power and influence of their office to make similar demands until they are heard." And, I'm sure they'd be more than willing to oblige you, just as long as they're not card-carrying neocons who voted for GW, or Arnold the Governator. "I entreat educators, researchers, writers, attorneys, and judges to use every line, connection, and influence available to them to make this information known to publications and institutions that can and will move this permanently into broad public view, into the public consciousness, and onto the public agenda..." Now, I must concede that you'll probably have more luck with this group. Especially if they tend to be like-minded and politically aligned with those of us of the more socially-inclined persuasion. "I appeal to honest and responsible journalists, commentators, talk show hosts, and media people in any station or position to use their sphere of influence to make this information known, and to raise a din that will not die down until justice is served and the truth is exposed." If Congress succeeds in its efforts to pull funding from NPR and similar subsidiaries, we'll definitely be xxxx out of luck. I seriously doubt you'll be getting any substantial response from the commercial venues. They're all running scared to save their own hides after the recent Dan Rather faux pas. "I demand our congressional intelligence "oversight committees" to stand aside and let honest people get the job done in disinfecting sunlight. I call on law enforcement agencies and agents to put the first "congressperson" who now attempts to keep any of this behind "closed doors" for "national security" reasons into cuffs as an accessory after the fact, and for misprison of felony." Hey, "Now Whoa dere, Sapphire!" Do we actually have such things as "legit" oversight committees? These days? It's a REPUBLICAN Congress, totally. You're gonna be pissin' in the wind asking for that kind of cooperation, honey. Earth to Ashton...Earth to Ashton...Come back down to Earth and head directly underground before you become a moving target for Cheney. All kidding aside though, your requests and honorable intentions are like a fresh spring rain to my ears and to my sore eyes. But, are we inhabiting the same planet, here? Surely not the same country? Keep up the outstanding work! You're a damned good investigator, and seem quite skilled at the art of cross-examinination/interrogation. Flawless, as well as fearless. And, if my damned computer weren't crawling along at a snail's pace, I would've gotten this off to you well over an hour ago. Best of luck and warmest regards, Ter

******************************************************** "Firefox is a Web browser that can be downloaded free, and IMO is a better browser." Absolutely, Ron! After downloading it the other night, it did seem to capture most of my "Favorites" Explorer bookmarks, except for the Ed Forum. I was using Explorer to access the forum earlier today and my computer was lagging and really slow on the draw. I went into Windows Explorer, cleaned out all the TMP files, clicked on Foxfire, plugged in www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, and there it was, clean and fast. I bookmarked it straight away! And, it does render the pages a whole lot better, just like Francesca said. Although, I did click on the little arrow between the back and forward buttons like Mark had done, and this is what was in the window that dropped down: ____________________________________________ Snipernet & SystemDoctor - The Education Forum Please stand by... Log in Snipernet & SystemDoctor - The Education Forum Snipernet & SystemDoctor - The Education Forum Snipernet & SystemDoctor - The Education Forum Snipernet & SystemDoctor - The Education Forum Snipernet & SystemDoctor - The Education Forum Snipernet & SystemDoctor - The Education Forum The Education Forum-> JFK Assassination Debate The Education Forum-> JFK Assassination Debate The Assassination of John F. Kennedy Spartacus Educational - Home Page http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk - Google Search Mozilla Foxfire Start Page _____________________________________________ But, I didn't get any pop-ups that I'm aware of. And, the speed with which this browser moves sure makes up for the "spying," I suppose. But, if it's happening with both Explorer and Firefox, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it? Thanks again for your input, folks. Ter

undefined It is not true that I have tolerated the “trashing Jack because he was banished from Rich's forum years ago”. All members of this forum are exposed to criticism. That includes people like Len Colby and Bill Miller. That is the purpose of this forum. People put up their theories for peer review. Len has given me a hard time in the past. In fact, we agree about very little. However, I have always found him to be a polite and able opponent. It is true that Jack gets very little support for his views on the forum. But that is Jack’s problem. Unlike Rich I will not protect him from criticism. If he views are correct, I am sure he will be able to defend them. If he cannot, then I suspect he needs to take a closer look at his theories. What usually happens is the intellectually able stay on the forum whereas those unable to cope with debate, call for critics to be removed from the forum. Eventually, they leave the debating chamber. I have never criticised Rich for charging people to use his forum. The fact that I have the financial resources to fund this forum does not make me a good person. My problem with Rich is that he appears to ban people who he disagrees with. The fact that he did this on behalf of Bob Vernon seems very strange. You are your colleagues from JFK Research are welcome to freely express your thoughts on me or the forum. For example, you were allowed to speak up for yourself when you were roundly criticised for your management of the recent Washington conference. I don’t have an opinion on whether the Zapruder film was altered or not and never join in those debates. However, I do think it is intellectually unhealthy to have a forum where these ideas cannot be debated. Personally, I think researchers are misguided in spending so much time on the Zapruder film. We already have the evidence that JFK was the victim of crossfire. I would have thought we would be better employed looking for the people who ordered and carried out the assassination. I am sorry that you consider this forum to have “fallen a long way”. Luckily for us, most members do not agree with you and it has never been more popular. ********************************************************** "Personally, I think researchers are misguided in spending so much time on the Zapruder film. We already have the evidence that JFK was the victim of crossfire. I would have thought we would be better employed looking for the people who ordered and carried out the assassination." Exactly. And, as Peter Lemkin very appropriately stated forward in this thread, "people focus on certain aspects of the case in their research, and guard their discoveries for personal, or business [a book they're writing] reasons." And, another couple of friends of mine, David Lifton and Steve Gaal, have also stated more or less the same thing, but added the factor of coming to terms with new discoveries in the case that force one to acknowledge the outdated-ness [?] of former theories in order to get past the quagmire one inadvertently encounters following the constant re-hashing of that particular aspect. I believe it goes along with accepting change after having thoroughly reviewed all new evidence or discovery being brought to the forefront. You may counter, "But, how are we to know we're not being fed disinfo or being scammed by some gov. lackey being paid to specifically distract us?" Well, that's what research and development are all about. Being able to investigate a new hypothesis or theory, gathering all relevant data, cross-referencing all viable leads, replicate and duplicate the findings. It's one of the hallmark techniques used in developing a logical premise for your presentation. But, you always run the risk of being branded as someone who's been "flipped," or "gone over to the 'dark side'," which isn't the case at all. Especially, when all you've been doing is keeping your nose to the grindstone [such as those two friends of mine have] and working off-site with a selected "few" partners, [and, don't include me in that few, either. I'm only a student. TM] sans the distraction of having to defend themselves on the forums. I am in total agreement with Dawn and Peter on this subject after having spent a good part of the last nine years [since first going on-line] intensely immersed in what I consider to be an equivalent to what we refer to as "Applications," when learning a new imaging/computer system in my field of work. A "JFK Assassinations applications class," if you will. I appreciate the work and time John and Andy have put into creating an excellent educational tool, having much more to offer than merely assassination theories. I often recommend this site to friends and colleagues with school-aged children as a wonderful database from which to glean information for their school projects. Of course, I don't direct them to the assassination section, but to the Spartacus Learning Center url. This website is large and accommodating enough to keep them adequately occupied with its other venues, especially those friends and colleagues who have absolutely no interest in our obsession, whatsoever. LOL I'll stick by my guns regarding the importance of the Wall Street connection, and how deep and long their tentacles actually reached on that sunny November day in Dallas. Why do you think it's so damned hard to "pin the tail on the donkey," let alone find the missing pieces to this puzzle? Scads of money. Loads of it. "All roads lead to Rome..."

Yes, you can run it according to the listed requirements: http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/system-requirements.html ************************************************* Thanks, Ron. I just downloaded it. Funny how I never made the connection of IE. I guess it's because I've always referred to it as "Explorer," totally disregarding, "Internet." Ter

[/color]Hey Girlfriend, Missed you around here. Ter, is this song actually about JFK? I remember hearing it alot when it was out but not really listening to the lyrics (unlike when I was younger knew em all!) Sure sounds like it could BE about JFK. Dawn ********************************************************* Hey Dawnie, Sorry I missed your call this weekend. I've been trying to cover all bases since my department is being officially decommissioned on 6/19/06. Looks like I'll be heading to UCLA-Santa Monica on June 26th. I'll call you with the particulars, either Saturday or Sunday. Regarding ELP's "Lucky Man," I believe it may have been off the King Crimson album circa 1971. I remember attending their concert at the Fillmore East, in April or May of 1971, while visiting my parents back in New York, at that time. But, hearing it in my car on the way home from work, sometime in 1976, and being held a captive audience sans the light shows and special effects of their concert, I heard all of the words. I immediately thought of the whole "Camelot" legend surrounding the Kennedy family, especially when hearing the words of the last stanza or verse: "A bullet had found him, his blood ran as he cried no money could save him, so he laid down and he died" Which really hit home, and sealed it for me. Whether ELP was intentionally calling reference to the JFK assassination, or not, "A bullet had found him," drove the thought home to me that late afternoon on the 405 FWY. And, if they were referring to King Arthur's Camelot, I don't believe they had gun powder or bullets back in those days, but I could be mistaken? Ter