Michael Clark
-
Posts
4,737 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Clark
-
-
On 8/28/2017 at 0:52 PM, Pamela Brown said:
I don't believe anything Judyth says. That's my starting point. JVB has gone out of her way to try to discredit me once I ended my agreement with her to keep an open mind to what she had to say until her book came out. She even came all the way from Turkey to my local library to hawk her books, which I found unnerving.
As far as LBJ being involved, I think it is evident that he masterminded the cover-up. I think he knew what was going to happen beforehand, and that's why he didn't want Connally in SS100X during the Dallas motorcade. It is my thinking that the last argument LBJ and JFK had, the night before the assassination, could have been over trying to put Yarborough in 100X instead of Connally. There is a reference to the argument in DOAP, pp 82-83, though LBJ claimed afterward they fought over how Yarborough was being treated. I think LBJ was being disingenuous in that recollection. That's my interpretation.
Thanks Pamela, i thought-as-much, but your post left me unsure as to your take on the subject of JVB vs. the the subject of the EF forum.
I do wish that you shared your insight here, at EF, more often, and felt comfortable doing so.
Cheers,
Michael
-
Joe Bauer, thank you for the photos. I had most recently thought that Landsdale had a squarish-head because of the video posted above. That is likely due to a format issue. Your pics and comments have changed my mind. The "gate-walker" looks very much like Landsdale.
-
On 8/28/2017 at 2:35 PM, Douglas Caddy said:
Well worth the time of listening:
Yes, well worth worth listening to. Transcript:
As a service to our readers, we provide transcripts with our podcasts. We try to ensure that these transcripts do not include errors. However, due to resource constraints, we are not always able to proofread them as closely as we would like, and we hope that you will excuse any errors that slipped through.
Barrett Brown: This is Barrett Brown. Thanks for listening to our WhoWhatWhy podcast. Barry Eisler is a former CIA Director of Operations official and a best-selling thriller novelist. He’s also a long time critic of CIA practices and a here-and-there sort of pundit who’s weighed in a number of issues facing the republic over the last 15 years. Barry, let me ask you this. Are we facing a different politic fundamentally, a different civic situation than we were 10 years ago? Barry Eisler: The short answer, I guess, would be yes but not necessarily so much because our civics have changed as much as our circumstances have. Changing circumstances would require changing civics and if the circumstances change and the civics don’t, then that’s going to create a problem for the republic. The circumstances that have changed, as I see it, is the increasing metastasis of surveillance technology, such that the government is able to know more and more about the citizenry, even as we the citizenry know less and less about the government. That’s going to require a different kind of civics, but I don’t think a different kind of civics has adequately emerged to meet those changing circumstances. Barrett Brown: Is our republic viable? Barry Eisler: I can’t say I feel terrible optimistic at the moment. In part, just because I try to place most of my confidence in patterns I see rather than particular historical moments. And the pattern is, how long do empires last? The American experiment has now been around for close to 250 years, that’s a reasonably long run, and I see a pattern in which the kinds of fights our ruling elite are willing to engage in have changed from fights you could at least reasonably argue were more important from any sort of reasonable national security perspective, to ones that are primarily petty and have more to do with ego than any kind of substantive national security concerns. I look at that as kind of the psychology of an increasingly old and senescent empire, it’s just what happens. I think there’s even an expression that empires start off fighting big opponents, big enemies and end up fighting small ones. And I think that pattern tends to fit what we see here in the American empire. Barrett Brown: Sort of a two part question. For one thing, do you believe that, aside from its expanded surveillance capabilities, that the CIA plays less of a central role in these fights than it did, say, in the ’50s and ’60s? If so, does that reflect what you’re referring to regarding the lessening of what these struggles are about? The struggles among the elites. Barry Eisler: When you’re talking about the ’60s and ’70s, or I guess even earlier, the ’50s, are you talking about CIA-inspired coups like in Iran and Guatemala, that sort of thing? Barrett Brown: Yeah, in general. Both in terms of its ability to exert power domestically within … We had that complicated situation with Nixon where of course the CIA played some role in surveilling the White House, just as the Pentagon did, and over time obviously had some degree of influence. In addition to that, also, it’s power projection, with governments abroad and that sort of thing, influenced policies, splashed-back information. Has its role, or has its ability to serve as the policy-making tool of one or more people, a handful of people, has that diminished since the ’60s and ’70s? Barry Eisler: It’s a good question, and the short answer I guess is, well, it would be hard to know, right? You wouldn’t know necessarily what’s going on inside the CIA, you’d have to try to work backwards from results in the external world and then try to deduce from that what sort of power the CIA might be able to wield. And one way of looking at one side, at least arguably of diminishing CIA ability to influence the outcome of elections is of course the 2016 election in America, where the CIA establishment seemed intent on stopping Trump. Now, I wouldn’t call this a slam-dunk argument, there are different ways of looking at this. I think most of what self-confused as the American national security establishment has been against Trump because he seems psychologically unfit, he’s erratic, he’s a threat to the kind of stability at home and abroad from which American elites, the American establishment profits and derives its power. From that standpoint, the CIA establishment would be expected to be against Trump and indeed, various former high-level CIA people like Mike Morell were actually writing New York Times and Washington Post op-eds criticizing Trump, saying he’s unfit and praising Hillary Clinton as being an experienced, trustworthy, foreign policy hand. On the other hand, Trump seems fairly easy to manipulate when it comes to military, intelligence, and security budgets, that sort of thing. So from that standpoint you might think that the intelligence establishment, the deep state, would welcome a Trump. But overall the evidence is, it seems to me, the American deep state has not been in favor of Trump. And yet despite whatever efforts they were able to try to pull off, Trump was still elected president. So I would look at that as an example of … in the heyday, back in the 1950’s in Iran and Guatemala, the CIA was able to successfully install minority governments that America favored in those countries. It seems that in 2016 it has lost some of that mojo. Barrett Brown: From the outside, from the public space, it looks like the caliber of say presidents and other high figures in this country and throughout the west are of a smaller stature, setting aside morality, a smaller stature in terms of their ability to achieve tremendous change, compared to the 20th century. Like we have smaller presidents now than Lyndon Johnson and Nixon and that sort of thing. Do you think the same is true in the intelligence establishment and the rest of the peripheral bureaucracy around them? So that their leadership — George Tenet is no Allan Dulles, is that correct in terms of capabilities? Barry Eisler: It seems fair to say, doesn’t it? The reason I hesitate is because there seems to be a tendency to look back and recognize that presidents were more capable than people thought at the time. So I know for example, when FDR died and Harry Truman became president, people thought he was a lightweight and now there’s been this revisionist approach where people look back at Truman as really capable, a good president. Eisenhower also, at the time was looked at as someone who didn’t have a lot of brains, which is kind of weird when you consider his accomplishments growing up from nothing, he was nobody, grew up poor and wound up commanding Overlord in World War II. President Eisenhower, I think, actually played it a bit dumb in front of the press. When there was something he didn’t want to acknowledge, he would garble the syntax and everybody thought he was stupid. But still, at the time, he was considered a bit of a lightweight compared to someone like Adlai Stevenson and now in retrospect, people realize this guy knew exactly what was going on, whether you agreed with his policies or not. Reagan would be another example. There’s been… when Reagan was elected, at the time, he seemed a bit dim. Now people look back and think he was this great manager who ended the cold war. There’s even a revisionist approach right now with George W. Bush, which I personally find really surprising. Almost the best proof I know of, certainly the most recent, the tendency to look back at almost any former president is with a degree of nostalgia. So it’s hard for me to imagine people looking back at the Trump presidency and saying, you know what, he was more capable than we thought. I think this … it’s hard for me to imagine that this is not some sort of nadir of incompetence and unfitness, psychological unfitness, but maybe people will find a way to rehabilitate him too. So I don’t really know, my sense is that yes, there has been a decline in the quality of leadership at the national level, and if that’s the case, why wouldn’t it be true in some of the lower-ranking roles in the national security apparatus, the deep state as well. It would seem to follow if the head is dying, why would the body be thriving. That wouldn’t necessarily make sense to me. Barrett Brown: If there’s a problem with the body itself, it seems like we’re not entirely in agreement on whether or not there has been a clear deterioration of the presidency. I would say, it would be hard to point to someone like Woodrow Wilson or Theodore Roosevelt in terms of mental power, not in terms of whoever we agree with their policies. But to the extent that we acknowledge it, to the extent that we say there has been some deterioration in it, enough to decide that yet, has there been a similar deterioration among the body politic, since say the ’30s and ’40s? Barry Eisler: I think the answer is yes. And to the extent I would hesitate at all, it’s in recognition of a pattern, and the pattern is every generation thinks that the new generation, the one coming after it, is doomed. So I’ll bet if you go back 200 years in American history, you’ll have people … John Quincy Adams, who’s probably saying “Oh, this next generation is doomed. They’re lazy, they’re thoughtless, they have no idea how hard we had it, or how hard we had to fight for everything that they take for granted, and the republic is now doomed.” It just seems like it’s always like that. The parents always think the children’s generation is lazy or has it too easy and is just going to spell doom for civilization. So there’s that pattern, and that pattern to some degree gives me some hope because it makes me think maybe I’m wrong in what I’m about to say, which is, yeah, it does seem like there’s just a kind of bread-and-circus mentality in America, a distractibility that reminds me almost of the way prison guards set prisoners against each other so that they can divide and rule. It’s almost just a reflex on the part of any ruling establishment to do that with the numerically superior prisoners or polity, or whatever. So when I look at the kinds of arguments that citizens are often having, I find it astonishing. I think a Martian certainly would be astonished, is this a democracy? And just off the top of my head a couple of quick examples: it’s amazing to me, three years ago, four years ago now, when Edward Snowden first came forward and shared his trove of secret documents with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. I was amazed at how many journalists were pushing the propaganda line that Snowden violated his oath of secrecy. First of all, there is no oath of secrecy, that’s pure propaganda. There’s only an NDA that CIA employees, NSA employees and other people who have top secret clearance in the American government, do in fact sign a non-disclosure agreement, an NDA. But there is an actual oath that is sworn, and that is the oath to protect and defend the constitution. So the fact that journalists, I don’t even think it was deliberate, I think it was out of ignorance, like Josh Marshall and TPM I remember, were talking about this oath of secrecy, and I was thinking “what are you talking about?” But I don’t think Marshall understood that he was just parroting a line of government propaganda, he just wanted to believe that Snowden had done a terrible thing because Josh Marshall himself believes that secrecy is in some way sacrosanct. So because he has that framework, he believed it when someone told him: “Hey, there’s an oath of secrecy.” Makes perfect sense to him that secrecy is something someone might swear an oath to. So when I look at journalists adopting that kind of line, I find it really concerning. But then similarly when the citizenry, at least at the outset, seemed equally divided on the somewhat simplistic question of whether Snowden was a hero or a traitor, and I thought, the government is abusing its secrecy powers. No one actually disputes this. Literally no one would argue that the government doesn’t over-classify. So in the face of all this, the situation, this dynamic I mentioned earlier where the government knows more and more about us and we know less and less about the government, in the face of all that, to be on the side, to be a citizen, to be the one who knows less and less and is more and more exposed and yet when finally somebody shines a little bit of light on government activities that actually turned out to be criminal or unconstitutional and still to say, oh it would have been better if we didn’t know that? That makes me feel like there may be something rotten in the citizenry itself. To be so, in the grip of some sort of Stockholm Syndrome that you would actually take the side of your oppressors when someone tries to give you information that can better enable you to govern yourselves, as you’re supposed to be able to do? Yeah, that really does make me very concerned about the state of American politics. Barrett Brown: Barry Eisner, thank you for joining us. Barry Eisler: Thank you, Barrett. Barrett Brown: In December of 2001, the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman took a trip to Moscow in order that the American citizenry might be better informed regarding the nation with which it had previously been locked into a half-century struggle that had ended millions of lives and threatened a billion more. The resulting column began with two observations: it seemed that “Sushi bars are opening all over, yes from Borscht to Big Macs to California-Kremlin rolls in one decade! And so many people have cars now that traffic is permanently stalled.” One could have perhaps described such growth to the 1998 devaluation of the ruble, several years of significant increases in the price of oil and other Russian exports, or to the economic reforms that had been spearheaded largely by former prime minister Primakov a few years prior to Friedman’s writing. But such things as those lack a certain thematic oomph. The Russians, Friedman explained, had finally gotten themselves a leader worth having in the transformative person of Vladimir Putin. “He’s not a tougher Mikhail Gorbachev, or a more sober Boris Yeltsin, he is Russia’s first Deng Xiaoping, Mao’s pragmatic successor who first told the Chinese that to get rich is glorious and put in place the modernizing reforms to do it.” He went on to summarize Putin’s thought process vis-a-vis Russia as “Passing real reform legislation, so we can get real investment to build a real modern economy.” Friedman therefore ends his column with the following call to action: “So keep rooting for Putin, and hope that he makes it to the front of Russia’s last line.” The last line, established earlier in the column, is a line for money, for some reason. Friedman wrote his sushi-oriented pro-Putin column in December of 2001. In March of that same year, Friedman had written another column on Russia in which he summarized our post Cold War espionage efforts by way of the following framework: “What is it that we and Russians are actually spying on each other about? This whole espionage affair seems straight out of MAD Magazine spy versus spy cartoon. The Russians are spying on us to try to find out why we are spying on them. I mean, to be honest, is there anything about the Russians today that you want to know? Their navy is rusting in port. Their latest nuclear submarine is rusting on the bottom of the ocean. We know they’re selling weapons to Iran and Iraq, because they told us. And their current political system, unlike communism, is not exactly exportable, unless you think corruption, chaos and KGB rule amount to an idealogy. Khrushchev threatened to bury us. Putin threatens to corrupt us.” Having made such an unusual assertion, Friedman’s next quote notes the following conundrum: “How you pull a country like Russia away from being an angry failed state, acting out on the world stage, and making a responsible member of the world community, has no easy formula.” We have here two assertions then. Allow me to organize them into a list. Number one, we now have good reason to be covertly gathering intelligence on Russia. Number two, unless it is somehow “pulled away” from doing so, Russia is set to become an “angry, failed state acting out on the world stage.” Remember that these two assertions are both made in the space of a single column. In 2008 the large adversarial and nuclear-equipped nation upon which we apparently need not bother to spy, launched a military incursion into Georgia. Friedman responded with a column entitled “What Did We Expect?” It begins thusly: “If the conflict in Georgia were an Olympic event, the gold medal for brutish stupidity would go the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin. The silver medal for bone-headed recklessness would go to Georgia’s president Mikheil Saakashvili, and the bronze medal for rank short-sightedness would go to the Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams.” The bronze medal winners in this case had advocated NATO expansion after the end of the Cold War, whereas Friedman and other leading foreign policy experts, Friedman explains, had opposed such a move on the grounds that it might antagonize the Russians without providing the west with any particularly crucial benefits. As he concludes, “the humiliation that NATO expansion bred in Russia was critical in appealing Putin’s rise after Boris Yeltsin moved on.” So March of 2001, Friedman mocked the US intelligence community for wanting accurate information about Russia. Later that year, he explained to us what was going on in Russia. They had just elected a great, reformer president, of whom we should strongly support. Years later, when Putin turned out to be a tyrant and invaded Georgia, he criticized the US intelligence community for being unprepared. Thomas Friedman is a Pulitzer Prize winner. He now sits on the Pulitzer prize board. Thanks for listening to ourWhoWhatWhy podcast. -
1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:
Hi Michael,
Don't you think a fair argument can be made by reading Sylvia's entire testimony that Oswald only said he wanted to go to Russia because he determined an in-transit visa to Cuba was much easier to get than a regular visitor's visa???
Sylvia says a regular Cuban visa requires friends in Cuba or the help of the American Communist Party. Absent either of those, for someone who wants to get to Cuba, isn't a transit visa the only immediate option?
"TIRADO - Yes, he, well, he enter and he ask me if I speak english and I say yes, and the he start asking me about requirements to get to Cuba, to get a visa to go to Cuba..."
Jason said:
"Don't you think a fair argument can be made by reading Sylvia's entire testimony that Oswald only said he wanted to go to Russia because he determined an in-transit visa to Cuba was much easier to get than a regular visitor's visa???
Sylvia says a regular Cuban visa requires friends in Cuba or the help of the American Communist Party. Absent either of those, for someone who wants to get to Cuba, isn't a transit visa the only immediate option?
"TIRADO - Yes, he, well, he enter and he ask me if I speak english and I say yes, and the he start asking me about requirements to get to Cuba, to get a visa to go to Cuba...""
Jason, IMO.... no; not with any sense of honesty.
I apreciate your having read and used the Duran testimony. If you have another run through it to see if Trejo's take passes the smell-test, rather than using an eye towards whether he can be defended, I think you might say not. Take into consideration that Trejo does not even suggest that this is "his-reading", as he has recently struggled to do. Its just another Trejo Christmas Turkey. Trejo should have used the testimony in his fibble. It is worse than disingenuous not to do so.
-
4 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:
I find it hard to believe that Judyth is quoted as an expert on anything in this forum, and certainly not LBJ. Just my 2 cents...
Pamela, what do you think? I don't read much about JVB, here or anywhere. I do, however, think you are the in-house expert.
-
22 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:
Hi Michael,
Marina did in fact say Oswald wanted to go to Cuba, IIRC. She said nothing about LHO going to Mexico in order to get to Russia, agree?
Isn't it Paul's suggestion here that Oswald is using the ostensible destination of the USSR in order to more quickly get to Cuba? Isn't the implication here that Cuba is more likely to grant a transit visa than some kind of more permanent visa? Is this really so outrageous as to deny with such certainty?
The details of what I'm about to say are sketchy and come from some of the less trustworthy characters in all this, but I think there it is reasonable to suppose Oswald imagines he will be evacuated from Dallas on 22Nov; don't you agree? David Ferrie or Quentin Pino Machado or Tosh Plumlee, et al., have been mentioned as planned evacuation facilitators. We are drifting more and more into supposition now but I think furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that not only did LHO believe he would be evacuated from Dallas ASAP, but that he also thought he was going to Cuba for awhile. Hence the need for a Cuban visa. But, perhaps he really wanted to go to Moscow; in fact we just don't know for sure.
Now, I agree that once we get beyond [what I consider to be] Marina's factual recollection of what she was told by LHO, we are all kind of guessing about what did happen or what was intended to happen in MC and with the visas. As usual, I don't want to get in between your feud with Paul, but it seems to me this comes down to a relatively minor detail, i.e. whether Oswald plans to go to Havana and stay for awhile, or go to Havana and then go on to Moscow. It's not really something we can say with certainty and a case for either destination can be made, don't you think?
Jason
Jason: for your information:
-
37 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:
Jason,
The following is my opinion.
It is a slight detour -- but I want to repeat again that I accept Marina Oswald's insistence that Lee Harvey Oswald told her repeatedly -- and she testified repeatedly -- that he was going to Mexico City in order to get to Cuba. Not Russia. Cuba. Only Cuba. No place else.
The one and only reason that Lee Harvey Oswald went to the Russian Embassy in Mexico City was because the Cuban Consulate turned him down flat for a Visa to get to Cuba -- despite his Fake FPCC "credentials." They dared him to go to the Russians -- and Oswald took the dare.
My further evidence is that when Oswald returned from the Russian Embassy, he lied to the Cuban Consulate clerk, telling her that the Russians said everything was OK. Naturally, she called the Russians right away, and the Russians told her everything was not OK. So she called her manager.
Her manager escorted Oswald out of the Consulate. My point is that there WAS NEVER TO BE ANY RUSSIAN VISA. Never.
So -- the question now becomes this -- where did the Radical Right get the rumor that Lee Harvey Oswald was looking for a Russian Visa?
There is only one explanation that I can find for this -- and his name is FBI agent James Hosty. This, actually, is the main theme of James Hosty's book, Assignment Oswald (1996), from beginning to middle to the end -- namely, that the purpose of Oswald's visit to Mexico City was to meet Kostikov. He said he knew this only weeks after it happened.
Well -- the Kostikov connection was really a CIA secret. So, how did James Hosty know? This is part of the JFK conspiracy, IMHO.
Regards,
--Paul TrejoPaul's fabrications in bold, above. Bold is mine.
Paul, we have been through this before. You cannot claim ignorance.
Testimony of Sylvia Duran:
"Cornwell - When he first asked about the requirements for a visa, did he tell you that his objective was to go to cuba or to another country?
TIRADO - To the Soviet Union."And, in case the reader is unfamiliar with Paul's fiction, according to Paul, LHO was trying to get all this in-Transit to Russia, Via Havana stuff done, with his Manlicher Carcano rifle in a duffel bag, so he could kill Castro on the layover. That is Paul's story and he repeats his Consulate visit fiction every time. He never provides evidence or testimony and he disregards the testimony of Sylvia Duran, every time.
-
Nancy Carole Tyler died in a small-plane crash in Maryland, off shore of a Bobby Baker establishment named "The Carousel". I mention this because I will be tying this into a thread I intend to revive.
-
On 11/16/2004 at 10:30 AM, John Simkin said:
I believe this woman is an important witness who had vital information on the assassination. Does anyone know who she is? I will give you a clue. The photograph shows her just before she took the fifth amendment in 1964. This pleased both Lyndon Johnson and Robert Kennedy. Unfortunately she changed her mind about this and died in an accident in 1965. Her roommate also died in another accident as well.
Tim Gratz said:
"I believe her name was Carol Tyler and she died in a plance crash in 1965. Her rrommate's name was Mary Jo Kopechne. Kopechne died in a car accident in July of 1969. Both ladies were secretaries for U.S. Senator George Smathers."
-
Nancy Carole Tyler
-
-
Mary Jo Kopechne deserves a thread in the JFKA forum.
-
Looking at the EF body of knowledge regarding Bobby Baker and LBJ, it is difficult to reconcile the immediate peril they faced with a longer-term plan to assassinate JFK. Yet, is the latter theory that is, to me, valid.
-
And, I think that my musing that the "Alien Presence" was a codename for Guantanamo got missed, or dismissed, or ignored.
-
My thinking is that, prior to the Assassination, all the DPD and radical right elements had to do was turn a blind eye and create background noise. Immediately after the assasssination these same elements were supposed to present a case for conspiracy, probably with the body of LHO and 1 dead Anti-Castro Cuban who was previously sheep-dipped as a Commie, but sacrificed at the scene.
So the job of the local, radical right, before the assassination was passive. And then, after the assassination they went passive, by not presenting the conspiracy. There inlies the double cross.
The Guantanamo angle just gives the ultimate motive for the assassination itself. The Double-cross explains how the ACC's were motivated, but ultimately left hanging.
-
I created a new thread for the interesting discussion which has evolved here.
-
Trejo uses a distinction that a patsy is a player, in the game. He uses that distinction to the extent that he says "I am a patsy" is a confession.
-
My favorite Shakespeare quote comes from the Tempest. I can still (para-quote) it after 25 years:
Miranda (or Prospero): " I pitied thee, took pains to make thee speak. And when thou, savaged, did not even know thy own meaning, and would babble like a thing most brutish, I taught thee words which made thy purposes known to thee"
Caliban: " arrrgh! And now I am all the better for it, for now I can Curse!"
This passage struck me as funny and brilliant. The takeaway, for me, was the nature vs. nurture dichotomy with regard to language. The question: can you have thoughts, emotions and feelings without having a name for them, or having some definition for them? Surely, simple emotions are out of box, factory options (pain=ouch!), but it seems to me that higher, and much higher concepts and even emotions have no meaning without a definition within a community.
-
I know something is up when I feel a bit bad for Jeff Sessions and Mitch McConnell; and when I look at these guys, who are supposedly "in power", and they look like they are lost.
-
An interesting topic has arisen and I would like to see it continued and expanded.
------------------------
Mark Knight wrote:
Posted 14 hours ago
"Since this is the JFK assassination forum, I'm not going to sidetrack myself with Watergate itself. The common denominator in all this is Nixon. Nixon didn't pull any triggers himself. We all can agree to that. But I think that the key to it all is Nixon. The hush money conversations about Watergate shows a Mafia-style knowledge on Nixon's part. Bags of untraceable cash? Yeah, we can do that.
So who (plural) was bankrolling all this? To what end? Johnson gave the MICC Vietnam. We weren't getting out very quickly on LBJ's watch. But Johnson was savvy enough to know that when he lost Cronkite's support, he'd lost America's support as well and a second term simply wasn't in the cards.
What I don't understand--and I lived through that era-- is what happened to Gene McCarthy after RFK's assassination. Humphrey, initially a stand-in for LBJ, never had the nomination sewed up. McCarthy was "persuaded" to step aside...somehow. Money? Threats? Blackmail? Not sure, but I'd wager that Nixon's backers found a way to "convince" McCarthy to drop out. I don't think anyone on the Democrat side of the ledger was was behind it. McCarthy seemed to fold his cards after RFK's death, and he only offered a token challenge to Humphrey.
Once Humphrey was the nominee, Nixon's election was assured. Until someone decided they weren't getting their money's worth from Nixon, and Watergate came about. The cabal giveth the White House, and the cabal taketh away. Not convinced the warhawks were the only kingmakers of the Nixon presidency."
Paul Brancato wrote:
Posted 23 minutes ago
"The big question I have now (I know I'm way off topic) is whether the 'deep state' which to my mind controls the center of the Democratic Party, has lost control of the Republican right, and of Trump and his criminal gang in particular. When Bush and Romney start looking like good guys you gotta wonder. "
-
2 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:
It wasn't going to be a Lone Nut. It was going to be a commie. Also, I don't want LHO's involvement decided "as close to 11-22" as possible. I believe LHO is crystallized as a potential patsy on 10April63. He was finalized around Mexico City I'm thinking.
The Dallas/walker/KKK/JBS faction always intended for this to be an event blamed on a commie with ties to Cuba and/or the Soviets.
Jason
Roger that. But we digress from the topic of my pet CT thread. Debate is what these threads are all about. Walker stuff spills everywhere, all to often.
-
2 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:
We didn't invade and we fell back on the lone-nut angle because the conspirators were unable to control Hoover + LBJ; in particular they were unable to manage public perception. As you've determined in your original CT at the top of this thread, there are multiple enemies of JFK and even those who did not participate in the Conspiracy take advantage of his death. I think it's worth considering that Hoover + LBJ knew what was going on from day one and then went full speed at framing a coverup via Oswald that ends up being the safest outcome for America. It pleases neither the Left nor the Right.
Jason
Jason, it just does not make sense to me that a Dallas/Walker/KKK/JBS driven plot would include all the MC stuff, including so many CIA assets, rogue or not. LHO, the CIA sheep-dipped Commie does not fit that conspiracy. I now see why you want to see LHO as "crystallized" as close to 11-22 as possible. The earlier and earlier LHO's crystallization happens, the more and more difficult it is to accept your theory.
If it was going to be a Lone Nut, it did not matter what the ideology of the perp was.
Michael
-
Is "The Alien Presence" a code name for "Guantanamo"?
lol
-
1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said:
Michael - you think that JFK was killed in order to secure long term control of Guantanamo bay? Despite the various logical suppositions in your theory, I find your conclusion extremely unlikely.
Yes, I don't expect to find much support, but it answers the largest question I have. Why did we not invade? Why set-up the Commie-LHO, stage an obvious conspiracy, and then fall back to the Lone-nut angle?
A WW3 threat does not answer that question for me. That threat would not have been new on 11-22-63. This is the largest factor that drove me to this theory. Second largest=Castro's survival and the perpetual antagonism (we could have killed him).Third largest= Watergate.
JFK was killed due to a UFO conspiracy?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I suggest that that this thread be moved to the JFK Discussion subforum, or another subforum. I am reporting it thusly.
I found some pleasure in being able to use the word "thusly", to be sure.