Black Propaganda Ops

[Steve Thomas]

Michael,

Hoover told Rowley that the assassin had gunned down a Secret Service agent when in fact is was actually a Dallas cop, J D Tippit, who was killed.[/b][/indent]

I'm sorry I didn't save it, but just the other day I ran across an FBI memo that Hoover's assumption about a Secret Service Agent being killed was based on a phone call from Gordon Shanklin in Dallas to Hoover somewhere in the 2:00 PM time frame.

My assumption was that Shanklin, or someone in the Dallas FBI office was listening to the police dispatcher and when it came across the radio, Shanklin called Hoover to fill him in.

Steve Thomas

[Charles Drago]

5. Harriman and other transportation tycoons and criminal

syndicate chiefs conspired to kill Kennedy in such a way as to establish a pre-text

for the invasion of Cuba. Their ultimate goal was the re-establishment of the

Havana-to-Florida smuggling routes that flourished pre-Castro. When Oswald

was captured the plan was foiled (the plot required "irrevocable proof of Castro

involvement," not a live patsy) and Harriman cut his losses by scotching the

Castro-did-it scenario.

My Dear Cliff,

Yet again I must reluctantly take you to task for clinging to that absurdly literal appreciation of the ultimate purpose of the Cuba ruse.

I do so not out of any personal animus; truth be told, I find much to admire and agree with in the majority of your unrelated analyses. My purpose here is once again to direct inquiring minds to the earlier, lengthy exchanges between myself and Robert Charles-Dunne on this matter. Therein the truth doth reside.

At the sponsorship level, the assassins NEVER intended for the death of JFK to prompt an invasion of Cuba. If such had NOT been the case, there was absolutely NOTHING about the capture of LHO that would have necessitated a pull-back from a real invasion plan.

Repeat: There was absolutely NOTHING about the capture of LHO that would have necessitated a pull-back from a real invasion plan.

The false linkage of LHO to Cuba was developed to scare off would-be investigators who otherwise could not be bought off, and to secure the low-level services of certain of the anti-Castro crew.

Period.

The so-called evidence for the false linkage had to be good enough to withstand superficial scrutiny.

The ruse worked. Earl Warren soiled his robes worrying about World War III being unleashed should the Castro-did-it leads prove real. The denizens of Little Havana locked and loaded.

By the time of the assassination, Cuba was no longer in play in terms of drug trafficking. Alternatives -- more profitable alternatives -- long had been identified and activated. We are, after all, talking about the ultimate capitalists when we reference drug traffickers; to think that they would have maintained a dependency on Cuba or endured a significant disruption of their operations when superior options were on the table makes no sense whatsoever.

Further, Castro was then, as he is now, of ultimate value as a bogey man. In other words, he's more valuable alive than dead.

At the facilitator level of the assassination there were, of course, individuals who believed that their actions inevitably would lead to the liberation of Cuba. After the fact they were either bought off or put down.

And spare me the "JCS wanted to invade" argument. The anti-Communist crusade in Southeast Asia had become their number one priority. Cuba was contained. Cuba could be used to justify immense defense expenditures in its region.

Cuba and Fidel would be protected at all costs.

The real fight -- for the military and the drug traffickers (distinction without a difference?) -- was to be fought in and around the Golden Triangle.

Charles Drago

Edited October 18, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Ashton Gray]

Accursed double post. Actual reply below

Edited October 18, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

As ever, Robert, your keen insights advance knowledge with a commanding mastery of the facts at issue rivaled only by the style with which you present them. Damned shame you have such a stump as Gratz for a foil. I would submit just a few suggested minor refinements:

One notes that DRE first phoned CIA [prior to publication of the Oswald-Castro smear rag], and CIA didn’t say it couldn’t do so, only that DRE should do so only after having first heard back from CIA.

I merely would point out that while we have confirmation from both ends of the conversation that contact took place, both ends were on the payroll of the CIA, who of course are professional liars, and there is no independent confirmation or evidence whatsoever concerning the actual content of the conversation.

This is one of the most prevalent methods of disinformation in all the annals of black ops, one that I covered last year in an article in the Watergate forum, CIA Psy-Ops of Watergate and Beyond, which I quote from in pertinent part here:

CLOSED DOORS AND CLANDESTINE INTERACTION

A psy-op technique heavily relied upon in "Watergate"...is alleged private, secret talks and meetings and activities between two (or a few) of the principal actors, with nothing more than their own assertions of what the subject and substance of such an interaction was. An almost inconceivable amount of what we know as "Watergate" is built on no more foundation, and it is no foundation at all. It often is pure fiction.

In most instances where we literally are forced to rely on the accounts of a small number of the co-conspirators interacting, one of more of the persons involved has known CIA background, connections, clearances, employment, or all four. The Watergate literature is so strewn with one-on-one encounters that the exceptions are easier to count than the instances.

All of the people involved in these countless clandestine interactions have been solidly documented as having told knowing, willful lies, even under oath, about these same events. Therefore, it is of an importance that cannot be overstated to recognize, in each instance where a private meeting or phone call purportedly takes place between two criminal co-conspirators, that the only thing that can be known with any relative certainty is that such an interchange took place.

And so it is in the Case of the Cuban Student Directorate Phone Call.

Only days before the assassination, CIA had advised DRE that there would be no further CIA funding. And yet, despite this knowledge, DRE personnel continued to defer to CIA, refusing to cooperate with FBI without receiving prior clearance from CIA.

This is perhaps the most telling datum of the lot. It is entirely consistent with the stateside incarnation of Cuban Student Directorate/DRE having been at all relevant times a CIA front operating as an integral part of CIA machinations that culminated with the assassination of Kennedy.

The DRE essentially dried up after the assassination, though not formally being laid to rest until "a suitable period of mourning," as the saying goes, in 1966.

It bears noting that its arch nemesis in this drama, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), also folded its tents and disappeared in the night immediately after the assassination.

Given this duality of demise, it then is only fitting to glance in the direction of the genesis of these two entities whose strident opposition looms so large in the Oswald legend and the assassination—and the glance becomes a fixed stare.

Consider this small portion of select entries from the timeline of the first few months of 1960 for the context—keeping in mind that CIA always plays both sides of the game:

18 January 1960

The first meeting of CIA's Cuban Task Force, part of Operation 40, is chaired by Tracy Barnes in his office. It is attended by David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, Jack Esterline, and Gerry Droller (a.k.a. Frank Bender).

1 c. February c. 1960

Bernard Barker is evacuated from Cuba where has been "a regular contact of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," but has been "turned over to the Agency [CIA]" since "mid-1959." He is "hired by the Agency" for "work among exile groups."

15 c. February 1960

The Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE), also known as the Cuban Student Directorate, is formed by Alberto Muller, Ernesto Travieso, and Juan Manual Salvat, young Catholic students at the University of Havana.

4 March 1960

La Coubre,

a ship flying a Belgian flag, explodes in Havana Bay. It is loaded with arms and ammunition that have been sent to help defend Cuba's revolution from its enemies. The explosion kills 75 people and over 200 are injured. [NOTE:Fabian Escalante, an officer of the Department of State Security (G-2), later claims that this was the first successful act carried out by CIA's Operation 40.]

15 c. March 1960

E. Howard Hunt is summoned to CIA headquarters from Montevideo and named to be "chief of political action for a project recommended by the National Security Council and just approved by President Eisenhower: to assist Cuban exiles in overthrowing Castro." V.P. Richard Nixon secretly is "White House action officer" for the covert plan to overthrow Castro. Marine General Robert Cushman (same boy Hunt had shared an office with at CIA, and who will furnish Hunt with all the props involved in Watergate) is Nixon's "senior military aide" in this covert plan, and is the go-between for Nixon and Hunt, purportedly telling Hunt to "inform him of any project difficulties the Vice President might be able to resolve."

5 April 1960

The formation of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) is announced at a cocktail party given by the Cuban Conulate, followed by a full-page ad placed in the

New York Times

the following day announcing that the purpose of organization is to promulgate "the truth about revolutionary Cuba" to neutralize the distorted American press.

1 c. May 1960

A CIA station is established in Coral Gables, Florida as headquarters for CIA Cuban operations and as the "forward base" of the project for which E. Howard Hunt has been made "Chief of Political Action." [NOTE: This is the forerunner to CIA's JM/WAVE headquarters in Miami.]

4 May 1960

Carlos Bringuier leaves Havana, Cuba and travels to Guatemala.

3 June 1960

Text of memo from J. Edgar Hoover:

Date: June 3, 1960

To: Office of Security

Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

Subject: LEE HARVEY OSWALD

[iNTERNAL?] SECURITY - [illegible letter?]

Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning subject will be appreciated.

1 - Director of [Naval?] Intelligence

The DRE and FPCC were born only about a month and a half apart, and functionally died at the same time less than three years later.

They certainly served Oswald's legend well, though, dinnit they?

Even given these understandings—or perhaps due to these understandings—I believe it cannot be overstated that the one common thread running through all wrinkles of the fabric of the Oswald legend is summated in one word: Communism.

It was not about Cuba, it was about Communism. It was not about Castro, it was about Communism. It did not matter a damn to CIA whether the perceived Communism was "primitive communism" or Stalinism or Marxism or Castroism or Trotskyism or any other -ism, as long as it was perceived by the public at large as some brand of Communism.

The concentration on Cuba and Castro, per se, is a grossly altered importance, because the underlying pounding message in all of the literature (however false or staged or manufactured or hearsay) concerning Oswald and anything to do with Cuba is summated entirely in one word that absolutely radiated in 1963 America with loathing, fear, and hatred: Communism.

That was Oswald's scarlett letter.

Ashton

Edited October 18, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

5. Harriman and other transportation tycoons and criminal

syndicate chiefs conspired to kill Kennedy in such a way as to establish a pre-text

for the invasion of Cuba. Their ultimate goal was the re-establishment of the

Havana-to-Florida smuggling routes that flourished pre-Castro. When Oswald

was captured the plan was foiled (the plot required "irrevocable proof of Castro

involvement," not a live patsy) and Harriman cut his losses by scotching the

Castro-did-it scenario.

My Dear Cliff,

Yet again I must reluctantly take you to task for clinging to that absurdly literal appreciation of the ultimate purpose of the Cuba ruse.

I do so not out of any personal animus; truth be told, I find much to admire and agree with in the majority of your unrelated analyses.

Thank you, Charles. I regard you as a Brother-in-Arms, and our

disagreements are minor in comparison to that upon which we agree.

My purpose here is once again to direct inquiring minds to the earlier, lengthy exchanges between myself and Robert Charles-Dunne on this matter. Therein the truth doth reside.

At the sponsorship level, the assassins NEVER intended for the death of JFK to prompt an invasion of Cuba. If such had NOT been the case, there was absolutely NOTHING about the capture of LHO that would have necessitated a pull-back from a real invasion plan.

Repeat: There was absolutely NOTHING about the capture of LHO that would have necessitated a pull-back from a real invasion plan.

This is where we diverge. The capture of Oswald rendered inoperable major

parts of the Castro-did-it "black op."

How could Hoover claim as a fact that LHO had been to Cuba, or Phillips/CIA claim

as a fact that LHO had met with Kostikov -- and make it stick -- with the patsy

alive and declaring his innocence?

Again, I cite the Pentagon's own evidentiary standards for a false flag attack on Cuba:

From James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS (pg 84)

(quote on, emphasis added)

On February 20, 1962, [John] Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida,

on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues

of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But [Chairman

of the JCS] Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to

[Operation Mongoose chief] Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn,

"the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the

Communists et al Cuba [sic]." This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued,

"by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference

on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into

space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as

a pre-text to launch a war.

(quote off)

The objective in the Kennedy assassination was the same as in Operation Dirty Tricks

(the exploding Glenn scenario): to provide irrevocable proof of Castro sponsorship

of the assassination. This absolutely required either a patsy shot dead or a patsy who

"disappeared."

The worst possible outcome for the perps, short of JFK surviving, actually occurred:

a patsy captured alive who needed to be silenced in a very messy, very public manner.

The false linkage of LHO to Cuba was developed to scare off would-be investigators who otherwise could not be bought off.

Period.

The false evidence for the linkage had to be good enough to withstand honest, intelligent, superficial scrutiny.

The ruse worked. Earl Warren soiled his robes worrying about World War III being unleashed should the Castro-did-it leads prove real.

By the time of the assassination, Cuba was no longer in play in terms of drug trafficking. Alternatives -- more profitable alternatives -- long had been identified and put into play.

After he was kicked out of Havana in 1959, Lanksy needed

several years to re-constitute his casino/narcotics operations in the Bahamas.

From Life magazine, 2/3/67, "Scandal In The Bahamas":

[The member of Bahamas' elite] who held more power and

influence than anyone else in the colony--more than either the royal governor or the

premier--was the Minister of Finance and Tourism...Sir Stafford Sands, 53,

multimillionaire lawyer, gourmet, collector of antique paperweights and of Yankee

dollars. In the halcyon pre-election days, nothing involving any substantial exchange

of money was likely to take place in the Bahamas without the consent and support of

Sir Stafford, who also often expected a whopping legal fee.

Bigtime gambling was conveyed to the islands in 1964 by Sir Stafford, and it

has proved to be a bigger tourist attraction than all the sun and sea and French

perfume and duty-free liquor put together...

Sir Stafford's name is not listed on the board of directors of Bahamas Amusements,

Ltd., which controls the islands' big casinos, but neither are the names of Meyer

Lansky and his confederates in the Mafia...

Sir Stafford admits he has met Lansky, long-time associate of the late Bugsy Siegal

and Lucky Luciano. As Sir Stafford recalls it, the mobster, a specialist in casinos,

came to call on him in his Bay Street offices in 1960 and offered him $1 million to his

credit in a secret Swiss bank account in exchange for exclusive gambling rights on the

islands. Sir Stafford says he indignantly turned the offer down. Yet, when bigtime

gambling finally did come four years later, Lansky's henchmen were dealing the cards.

This indicates to me that Lansky didn't find it a piece of cake to re-establish

his operations in the Bahamas. As of November 1963, I'll argue, the return

of the easy days of 1950's Havana remained at the top of Lansky's wish list.

We are, after all, talking about the ultimate capitalists when we reference drug traffickers; to think that they would have maintained a dependency on Cuba or endured a significant disruption of their operations when superior options were on the table makes no sense whatsoever.

I'll argue that none of the options on the table were

superior to the Havana-to-Florida smuggling funnel of the '50's. The

governments of Haiti and the Dominican Republic were highly unstable;

the Bahamas was more expensive.

Further, Castro was then, as he is now, of ultimate value as a bogey man. In other words, he's more valuable alive than dead.

At the facilitator level of the assassination there were, of course, individuals who believed that their actions inevitably would lead to the liberation of Cuba. After the fact they were either bought off or put down.

And spare me the "JCS wanted to invade" argument. The anti-Communist crusade in Southeast Asia had become their number one priority. Cuba was contained. Cuba could be used to justify immense defense expenditures in its region.

Cuba and Fidel would be protected at all costs.

The real fight -- for the military and the drug traffickers (distinction without a difference?) -- was to be fought in and around the Golden Triangle.

Charles Drago

Then why take out Kennedy? He was AWOL in the decision-making over the Diem

coup -- his Secretary of the Treasury, one C. Douglas Dillon, verbally bitch-slapped

Kennedy for his indecisiveness over Diem.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn07.pdf

What did Harriman/Bundy and the other dedicated cold warriors in his

Administration fear from JFK? They over-ruled Bobby on Diem, after all.

And Charles, if the sole purpose of the assassination was to remove Kennedy,

why not whack him in his sleep, which was well within their capability?

Edited October 18, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Charles Drago]

Cliff,

My responses in blue.

You wrote, "The capture of Oswald rendered inoperable major parts of the Castro-did-it 'black op.' How could Hoover claim as a fact that LHO had been to Cuba, or Phillips/CIA claim as a fact that LHO had met with Kostikov -- and make it stick -- with the patsy alive and declaring his innocence?"

Who held LHO? The wholly corrupt and controllable DPD. Who had access to him during intense periods of interrogation? No one who couldn't be counted on to forget/destroy "inconvenient" utterances. What was to prevent the release of a fabricated post-mortem declaration "by" LHO that he did it on instructions of Fidel? NOTHING!

You wrote, "They proposed to [Operation Mongoose chief] Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn,

'the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic].' This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, 'by manufacturing various pieces of evidence[.]'"

There was abundant "proof" -- of the whole cloth variety -- of LHO's affiliations with Castro sufficient to withstand initial, superficial scrutiny by the Earl Warrens. As history has demonstrated, none of it could have survived in-depth, long-term, honest analyses. But none of it was designed to. It was a feint with a relatively brief shelf life, one intended to scare the rubes into committing to the LN lie.

And to keep us confused, guessing, and arguing ad infinitum!

You wrote, "This indicates to me that Lansky didn't find it a piece of cake to re-establish his operations in the Bahamas. As of November 1963, I'll argue, the return of the easy days of 1950's Havana remained at the top of Lansky's wish list."

I see no reason within the parameters of this argument to conflate the perceived value to Lanksy, et al of gambling in the Bahamas with the alleged value of continued utilization of the Havana-to-Miami drug route.

Do you seriously expect to sell the image of old Hyman Roth wringing his hands before the fire and yearning for what once was?

The game had changed, starting when Trafficante traveled to the Golden Triangle in the effort to eliminate Corsican middlemen brokering Turkish product. Don't underestimate the Devil's wisdom. Change was in the air -- and not half-ass change, either.

Finally, you wrote, "Then why take out Kennedy? He was AWOL in the decision-making over the Diem coup -- his Secretary of the Treasury, one C. Douglas Dillon, verbally bitch-slapped Kennedy for his indecisiveness over Diem.

"What did Harriman/Bundy and the other dedicated cold warriors in his Administration fear from JFK? They over-ruled Bobby on Diem, after all.

"And Charles, if the sole purpose of the assassination was to remove Kennedy, why not whack him in his sleep, which was well within their capability?"

Here, Cliff, we come to the ultimate point -- the significance of which can be measured in inverse proportion to its popular acceptance.

The evolution of John Fitzgerald Kennedy as a politician, intellect, warrior, and spirit had to be dealt with. "Bitch-slap me once, shame on me ... " if you prefer.

They feared JFK's evolving understanding of their game and increasing strength and will to defeat them. They feared JFK's ability to inspire, to lead, to elevate a people from the ignorance and fear upon which the powerful minority depended then, as it does now, for its very existence.

They killed John Kennedy like a dog in the street so that his putative heirs and all the world could bear witness to their work. For generations to come. Which explains the Z-film, by the by.

In other words, the "sole purpose of the assassination" was NOT to remove Kennedy from life. Intelligence operations by definition are multi-purpose (so teacheth Bud Fensterwald). There were many reasons to strike John. Most significant among them were the needs to remove him from short-term influence and to control the future.

And I'm not talking about "influence" as in the re-namings of countless town squares and the hangings of countless portraits.

I am talking about the power to remove the yoke.

They won. All that remains is to determine if their victory is temporary or permanent.

Charles

Edited October 19, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Michael Hogan]

Michael,

Hoover told Rowley that the assassin had gunned down a Secret Service agent when in fact is was actually a Dallas cop, J D Tippit, who was killed.

I'm sorry I didn't save it, but just the other day I ran across an FBI memo that Hoover's assumption about a Secret Service Agent being killed was based on a phone call from Gordon Shanklin in Dallas to Hoover somewhere in the 2:00 PM time frame.

My assumption was that Shanklin, or someone in the Dallas FBI office was listening to the police dispatcher and when it came across the radio, Shanklin called Hoover to fill him in.

Thanks Steve. Yes, the memo you ran across is consistent with McKnight's account. He gives his source as:

C D DeLoach to Mohr, 6/4/1964, FBIHQ JFK Assassination File, 62-109060-NR

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff wrote:

Their ultimate goal was the re-establishment of the

Havana-to-Florida smuggling routes that flourished pre-Castro. When Oswald

was captured the plan was foiled (the plot required "irrevocable proof of Castro

involvement," not a live patsy) and Harriman cut his losses by scotching the

Castro-did-it scenario.

Of course there is no more evidence that Harriman did it than that Dillon did it. There, I defended a Democrat!

But there is a point Cliff made that is salient: if there HAD been a "black op" plot to blame Castro, you can bet your very last dollar that such proof would have been manufactured by the sponsors of the "black op". As I said before, referring to "irrevocable proof" as a "smoking gun", the absence of a "smoking gun" proving Cuban involvement is almost concluusive evidence there was no "black op" going on. That point out to be obvious to any clear-thinking soul.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff wrote:

Their ultimate goal was the re-establishment of the

Havana-to-Florida smuggling routes that flourished pre-Castro. When Oswald

was captured the plan was foiled (the plot required "irrevocable proof of Castro

involvement," not a live patsy) and Harriman cut his losses by scotching the

Castro-did-it scenario.

Of course there is no more evidence that Harriman did it than that Dillon did it. There, I defended a Democrat!

Actually, I'm leaning toward the view that Harriman tried to abort the

assassination of JFK, an operation he sponsored with others but could

not call off. Nor did he want the operation exposed, as he intended it

to remain as a contingency.

I suspect Tosh Plumlee was telling the truth about an abort mission.

After the overthrow of Diem as per his desire, Harriman was in charge

of U.S. foreign policy. He had his own back door channel to Castro going,

and, I'll argue going forward, Harriman "felt adventuresome enough" to try

and land an exclusive smuggling arrangement between Castro's people

and the Harriman-Bush Crime family entity -- Zapata Off-Shore.

Remember this fact: in 1989 several men who worked directly under

George H. W. Bush were barred from entry into Costa Rica because,

according to the Costa Rican parliament, these "contra supply" people

had set up a drug-smuggling operation on Costa Rican soil.

http://www.fair.org/extra/8910/north-banned.html

At the head of the American "contra supply" network was George H. W. Bush.

They don't call him "Poppy" because of his kids.

[Tim Gratz]

And why pray tell would Harriman want a contingency plan to kill the President whose election he had supported?

[Cliff Varnell]

And why pray tell would Harriman want a contingency plan to kill the President whose election he had supported?

I think you're under two mis-impressions.

1) You think the President of the United States is in charge. (And right

now it isn't Cheney, either. It's James Baker.)

2) You think that the D/R dichotomy is real at the elite levels. (The Bush family

embodies the legacy of W. Averell Harriman -- the Clintons embody the legacy of

Pamela Harriman.)

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff, that did not, however, answer my question.

And to say Baker is running THIS Bush WH is to laugh! Look at how the POTUS treated the recommendations of the panel upon which Baker served.

[Cliff Varnell]

[cue Silence of the Lambs]

Lecter: I've read the case file -- have you? Everything you need

to find him is right there in those pages.

Starling: Then tell me how.

Lecter: First principles, Clarice! Simplicity! Read Marcus Aurelius -- of

each particular thing ask, What is it in itself? What is it's nature? What does

he do -- this man you seek?

Starling: He kills women.

Lecter: That's inciden-tull. What is the first and principal thing he does?

What needs does he serve by killing?

Starling: Anger...um...social acceptance...and, uh...sexual frustration--

Lecter: --No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet,

Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.

Starling: No, we just...

Lecter: No, we begin by coveting what we see every day.

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_226-250/doc0234-66A.html

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

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, that did not, however, answer my question.

And to say Baker is running THIS Bush WH is to laugh! Look at how the POTUS treated the recommendations of the panel upon which Baker served.

You're not keeping up.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-infor...12112006-1.html

The 2006 election cost Cheney the presidency.

[Tim Gratz]

Keeping up? I do not believe Cheney ever contemplated running for the presidency. If he had, I think that hunting accident did him in!