COUP IN DALLAS

[Paul Brancato]

52 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I didn't mention Skorzeny and his wife because they have nothing to do with the non-assassination-related liberal political preaching in the book. My point is that the book would appeal to a wider audience if it did not have such a heavy dose of liberal politics and did not tar-brush conservatives. 

I don't know of anyone who thinks that identifying Skorzeny and his wife's role in the plot is either liberal or conservative, since 99% of Americans detest Skorzeny's racist, fascist ideology.

The label ‘conservatives’ needs clarification. 

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Michael, I'm curious if you've wrestled with President Kennedy's having been ultimately responsible for increasing US presence in Vietnam — regardless of the role those advisors/servicemen are alleged to have been filling — from some 700 when he took office to approx. 16,000?  Agreed, he made it quite clear he intended to begin a slow withdrawal, but I've yet to find an explanation for the over 20 fold increase during his nearly three years as Commander in Chief.  Does that number reflect rotation?  Were his hands tied? Were the increases in such small increments he didn't truly absorb the escalation?  You may know better than I whether experts in this field of research have addressed the increase. I've requested documents, but none to date have resolved the dilemma.

I'm not Miachel.  But I have to wonder if JFK might have acquiesced over time to the JCS to increase the number of "advisors" to appease them over his refusal to introduce combat troops.

[Leslie Sharp]

20 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I'm not Miachel.  But I have to wonder if JFK might have acquiesced over time to the JCS to increase the number of "advisors" to appease them over his refusal to introduce combat troops.

My apologies Ron, and to Michael Griffith for misspelling his name initially. I believe I edited it to read Michael.

I'm new on Ed Forum and learning the ropes by hit or miss.

I'll try to not make the same error twice.

best, L.

[Leslie Sharp]

20 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I'm not Miachel.  But I have to wonder if JFK might have acquiesced over time to the JCS to increase the number of "advisors" to appease them over his refusal to introduce combat troops.

I agree that it is logical  JFK may have acquiesced to JCS pressure for more advisors in order to buy time until he could gain footing and support for, not only no combat troops, but ultimately a slow withdrawal.  But where are the documents? Even his library couldn't provide documents that define the increase to nearly 16,000: how many in what increments during what time period, and who signed off, etc.

[Leslie Sharp]

On 9/1/2022 at 6:08 PM, Michael Griffith said:

I didn't mention Skorzeny and his wife because they have nothing to do with the non-assassination-related liberal political preaching in the book. My point is that the book would appeal to a wider audience if it did not have such a heavy dose of liberal politics and did not tar-brush conservatives. 

I don't know of anyone who thinks that identifying Skorzeny and his wife's role in the plot is either liberal or conservative, since 99% of Americans detest Skorzeny's racist, fascist ideology.

As an aside, Michael, and not to digress into a political debate,  you cannot seriously contend that only 1% of Americans are active racists and (closet) proto-fascists, not considering what we've lived through the past six years.  

You're reviewing a book, Coup in Dallas, that is centered on Hank's investigation which exposed the direct role of SS Otto and Ilse Skorzeny in the assassination of President Kennedy.  How is avoiding mention of these SS n a z I s not suggestive of someone attempting to deflect from the Skorzenys because a racist, fascist ideology with roots in their own [the Skorzenys et al] is alive and well in America today?  

I ask, why does the assassination of Kennedy and the other democratic-leaning world leaders of the era matter? Because, and I hesitate to invoke the tired cliché, "unless you understand history .... "  It was our observation, before Hank left this world, that we're in the midst of repeating it. 

Perhaps if we stay with the evidence presented in Coup, along with our fact-based accompanying analysis of the milieu of extreme right conservatives — yes, for the most part they were card carrying  —  who were prominent leaders in the religious, academic, corporate & financial, government, and military arenas during the 1930s, and follow the trajectory of their aligned ideology on an International scale that advanced the careers and the influence of characters like maniacal Gen. Pedro de Valle (named in the Lafitte material), Dulles's friend Gen. Charles Willoughby (named in the Lafitte material), racist anti-semitic Gen. Edwin Walker (named in the Lafitte material), we can come to some understanding.  

[Leslie Sharp]

On 9/1/2022 at 6:08 PM, Michael Griffith said:

I didn't mention Skorzeny and his wife because they have nothing to do with the non-assassination-related liberal political preaching in the book. My point is that the book would appeal to a wider audience if it did not have such a heavy dose of liberal politics and did not tar-brush conservatives. 

I don't know of anyone who thinks that identifying Skorzeny and his wife's role in the plot is either liberal or conservative, since 99% of Americans detest Skorzeny's racist, fascist ideology.

Michael, I want to correct the record related to several errors in your review of Coup in Dallas:  

You write, 
"Albarelli became aware of the existence of the Lafitte datebook in 2008." 

LS: Incorrect. Hank became aware as early as 2000 that Pierre Lafitte had maintained records. He states specifically that it was only over time that he became aware of the datebook.

You also write:
"After finally gaining access to the datebook from Lafitte’s widow . . . " 

LS: To Clarify, Hank did not come into possession of the actual datebook until late 2018.

And you write further:

"Albarelli and his team spent years researching the evidence related to the entries in the datebook."

LS: A small thing perhaps, but worth noting that yours is pure conjecture. You suggest that he/we had access to the complete datebook for years when in fact he/we did not. You might have reached out to Hank's coauthors to verify.

I think it's more appropriate to allow Hank to tell the story of his investigative coup, but first, I would draw further attention to how you chose to recap the sensational revelations left by Pierre Lafitte.

You write:

" . . . The Lafitte datebook chronicles the actions of major and minor participants in the JFK assassination plot, including a French assassin named Jean Soutre, Jack Ruby, Thomas Eli Davis, Clay Shaw, two retired high-ranking military generals, several rogue CIA officers/officials, and others."

LS: To be clear, the Ruby datebook entry does not indicate that he was directly involved in the actual killing of Kennedy, yet you lump him with one of the assassins, Jean Souetre.

Conversely, you choose to refer to "two retired high ranking military generals" instead of naming General Charles A. Willoughby and General Edwin A. Walker who Lafitte tells us were involved with (or at least contributed to consideration of) the selection of the hit teams. Why leave their names out of one of the more important paragraphs in your review?  You continue on to refer to "several rogue CIA officers/officials, and OTHERS" [emphasis added]. Who did you mean by "others"? and why would you avoid identifying them? Were you referring to the Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Crichton? Or perhaps Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler's Favorite Banker?    
 

 

LS: For those interested, and in an effort to ensure that your version of Hank's experience doesn't sink into the official record, the following is the relevant portion of his introduction to Coup:

H.P. Abarelli Jr.: Before I completed my book on Frank Olson’s murder, I had the opportunity to meet the one person who was quite close to Lafitte, his wife. I had been informed by a highly respected journalist for the New York Times, John Crewdson, that Lafitte had been living in a small town in New England for at least twelve years. By chance, I had relatives in a nearby town, and I turned to them for help in locating Lafitte. As it turned out, he was living openly with his wife. Understandably, I traveled as quickly as possible to the place where they resided, which was quite easy because I was still living in Vermont where I’d gone to write the Olson book. Of course, I shared the location and address with the DA’s office in Manhattan, but ventured there on my own. 

I was too late to find Pierre. He had passed away before my arrival. But, as said, I had the opportunity to meet his wife Rene. Our meeting was a cautious one, but I felt that by being honest about my interests and objectives an initial bond of friendship was formed. That bond grew steadily stronger through the time that Rene relocated to the Miami, Florida area. As far as I know, nobody from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office ever made the same trip I did. 

Through additional meetings with Rene, I became aware that Pierre, like George White, had kept datebooks within which he would jot down certain things, often specific to matters he was working on at the time. 

[Michael Griffith]

10 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You're reviewing a book, Coup in Dallas, that is centered on Hank's investigation which exposed the direct role of SS Otto and Ilse Skorzeny in the assassination of President Kennedy.  How is avoiding mention of these SS n a z I s not suggestive of someone attempting to deflect from the Skorzenys because a racist, fascist ideology with roots in their own [the Skorzenys et al] is alive and well in America today?  

Are you really, seriously, actually suggesting that I didn't mention the Skorzenys in my brief review of CID because I was trying to "deflect" from the Skorzenys? Gosh, seriously? I also did not mention David Ferrie, Guy Banister, David Atlee Phillips, Alan Dulles, and Richard Helms. It was just a brief Amazon review. The names I included and omitted were not based on any ideological agenda.

So you believe that more than 1% of Americans buy into Skorzeny's virulent brand of fascism and racism??? Well, I feel sorry for you. I can tell you that as a Trump volunteer who got to talk with dozens of Trump supporters and got to hang around hundreds of others, I never heard one word that would suggest such thing. 

I can't fathom why anyone who shares Skorzeny's anti-Semitic views would support Trump, since Trump is ardently pro-Israeli, since part of Trump's family is Jewish, since Trump has many Jewish friends, since Trump has invested in Israel, since Trump was the only president who had the guts to move our embassy in Israel to its rightful place in Jerusalem, and since Trump (before he became president) even appeared in political ads in Israel endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu.

Anyway, regarding your follow-on reply, I appreciate the corrections on the info about Albarelli and the datebook, etc. I will correct my review accordingly.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Paul Brancato]

So Trump supporters are Conservatives?

[Ron Ege]

P

13 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

So Trump supporters are Conservatives?

Paul, 

Interesting question.

Anecdotally, in casual conversation with Trump supporters over the past six years, I would have to opine that certainly, many profess to be.

Finding that I was not a Trump supporter, none ever did anything other than engage me in a short and polite conversation, regarding various issues. 

And I have not (yet) run into any fascist/racist ones.

Newt Gingrich is quoted as averring that Trump is more conservative than RWR. 

Perhaps Trump supporters agree?

 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Ron Ege said:

P

Paul, 

Interesting question.

Anecdotally, in casual conversation with Trump supporters over the past six years, I would have to opine that certainly, many profess to be.

Finding that I was not a Trump supporter, none ever did anything other than engage me in a short and polite conversation, regarding various issues. 

And I have not (yet) run into any fascist/racist ones.

Newt Gingrich is quoted as averring that Trump is more conservative than RWR. 

Perhaps Trump supporters agree?

 

Thank you Ron. I had asked Michael to help define what he meant when he criticized the book for a liberal bias because of its criticism of ‘conservatives’. What I really meant to insinuate is that labeling the far rightists that the book claims were behind the assassination as conservatives is simplistic. Are we now defining as conservative any ‘Republican’ ? 

[Leslie Sharp]

On 8/4/2022 at 4:24 PM, Michael Griffith said:

I think the book is very important and worthwhile, but its needless and irrelevant heavy dose of ultra-liberal politics substantially ruined the book for me and will turn off many centrists and center-right people. I mean, it borders on fringe to claim that Trump's election in 2016 was based on a resurgence of fascism, homophobia, racism, and xenophobia, or all of the above. "Make America Great Again" and "America First" are "fascist," and even "neo-Na-i," ideas??? Really? I lost count how many times the book says that Trump and his supporters are "anti-immigration." No, they're not anti-immigration; they are anti-illegal immigration--there's a huge difference.

I'm no big fan of Trump's as a person. I think he's a man of bad character and bad behavior, but he was not the first less-than-ideal man we've had in the White House.

I was surprised by the book's poor scholarship on the Amerasia case (pp. 603-604). I don't know if Albarelli wrote the segment and then Kent and/or Sharp revised it, or if Kent and/or Sharp wrote the segment. The segment substantially misrepresents the evidence, especially the nature of the government docs that were found in the Amerasia office. The segment's argument that "even the Justice Department" concluded that the people involved were merely guilty of "an excess of journalistic zeal" is erroneous. In truth, the Truman Justice Department whitewashed the matter and ignored the clear evidence of serious espionage. Albarelli was a thorough researcher, so if he wrote that segment, that means he had a serious blind spot when it came to dealing with communist espionage in the 1940s. 

Michael, Please read the postscript more carefully. The America First material is sound and well sourced. That it offends your own political bias hardly constitutes factual inaccuracy.  

Regarding the Amerasia Spy Case: We cite primary source material including the Dictionary of American History and the highly disenchanted former Communist Freda Utley, author of the The Dream We Lost in which she expresses disgust with the system and with the Soviet Union. Ultley also assisted Joseph McCarthy compile his lists of Communist suspects.  

What I find interesting in your consistent approach is that instead of informing your peers of the significance of the Amerasia Case, and why it might be a factor in understanding this investigation, you opt to deflect by reviewing the material through what I believe is a fairly transparent political bias.

For your edification, the Coup manuscript is copyrighted as a joint work manuscript; perhaps you might read up on the definition. However, to defuse any suggestion that Hank fell short of expectations, I am the author of the section; I did the research, Hank read the final draft, and we both agreed it was revelatory and belonged in the book.  

It was revelatory because it identifies Archbold van Beuren as having been johnny on the spot at the Amerasia office.  van Beuren was the Chief of Security for William "Wild Bill" Donovan, head of the OSS.  

Donovan and Dulles established the World Commerce Corporation and recruited SS Otto Skorzeny (and his wife Ilse) to run a number of operations under that banner from their perch in Madrid after the war. To suggest van Beuren didn't meet Otto Skorzeny seems patently absurd.

Before the outbreak of WWII, Archbold van Beuren had co-founded the highly popular NY based Cue Magazine. Following his service in the OSS directly under Donovan, he returned to Cue and Previews Inc., the global real estate firm he and his partners had created. Ilse Skorzeny was then brought on board Previews — a gig which served her very well over the years. She was able to navigate International travel fairly unimpeded. Not only did she profit as a r.e. agent, she pursued the interests of Otto — whose travel was somewhat limited after the Dachau trial! — with very little, if any interference. Previews Inc. was her cover.  The president of Previews used the Adolphus Hotel as an adjunct office — networking with Dallas powerbrokers —until the firm opened an office in the Oak Lawn neighborhood in the spring of 1963, despite already having a strong presence in the region near the campus of TCU in Fort Worth. 

Pierre Lafitte notes in his datebook the NYC address of van Beuren's Previews, Inc. in context of key meetings in 1963. He also notes that Ilse Skorzeny dined with her "uncle" Hjalmar Schacht, 'Hitler's Favorite Banker,' at the Old Warsaw in Oak Lawn the second week of November 1963, just blocks from her new office while in town.

Surely you recognize the significance and accept that the aforementioned — regardless of your interpretation of the actual Amerasia incident  — was a critical aspect of Hank's investigation. He certainly did.  

Edited September 3, 2022 by Leslie Sharp
grammar

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Michael, Please read the postscript more carefully. The America First material is sound and well sourced. That it offends your own political bias hardly constitutes factual inaccuracy.  

Regarding the Amerasia Spy Case: We cite primary source material including the Dictionary of American History and the highly disenchanted former Communist Freda Utley, author of the The Dream We Lost in which she expresses disgust with the system and with the Soviet Union. Ultley also assisted Joseph McCarthy compile his lists of Communist suspects.  

What I find interesting in your consistent approach is that instead of informing your peers of the significance of the Amerasia Case, and why it might be a factor in understanding this investigation, you opt to deflect by reviewing the material through what I believe is a fairly transparent political bias.

For your edification, the Coup manuscript is copyrighted as a joint work manuscript; perhaps you might read up on the definition. However, to defuse any suggestion that Hank fell short of expectations, I am the author of the section; I did the research, Hank read the final draft, and we both agreed it was revelatory and belonged in the book.  

It was revelatory because it identifies Archbold van Beuren as having been johnny on the spot at the Amerasia office.  van Beuren was the Chief of Security for William "Wild Bill" Donovan, head of the OSS.  

Donovan and Dulles established the World Commerce Corporation and recruited SS Otto Skorzeny (and his wife Ilse) to run a number of operations under that banner from their perch in Madrid after the war. To suggest van Beuren didn't meet Otto Skorzeny seems patently absurd.

Before the outbreak of WWII, Archbold van Beuren had co-founded the highly popular NY based Cue Magazine. Following his service in the OSS directly under Donovan, he returned to Cue and Previews Inc., the global real estate firm he and his partners had created. Ilse Skorzeny was then brought on board Previews — a gig which served her very well over the years. She was able to navigate International travel fairly unimpeded. Not only did she profit as a r.e. agent, she pursued the interests of Otto — whose travel was somewhat limited after the Dachau trial! — with very little, if any interference. Previews Inc. was her cover.  The president of Previews used the Adolphus Hotel as an adjunct office — networking with Dallas powerbrokers —until the firm opened an office in the Oak Lawn neighborhood in the spring of 1963, despite already having a strong presence in the region near the campus of TCU in Fort Worth. 

Pierre Lafitte notes in his datebook the NYC address of van Beuren's Previews, Inc. in context of key meetings in 1963. He also notes that Ilse Skorzeny dined with her "uncle" Hjalmar Schacht, 'Hitler's Favorite Banker,' at the Old Warsaw in Oak Lawn the second week of November 1963, just blocks from her new office while in town.

Surely you recognize the significance and accept that the aforementioned — regardless of your interpretation of the actual Amerasia incident  — was a critical aspect of Hank's investigation. He certainly did.  

I don't think your attacks on America First are sound or well sourced. Ditto for your sweeping, tar-brush attacks on Trump supporters. Why, why, why include material in your book that is going to turn off and alienate a large chunk of your potential audience? Why imply that one cannot really care about JFK's death if one believes in America First and supports Trump? 

Your conclusion that the Amerasia spy case was much ado about nothing is contradicted by very strong evidence. Citing the fact that Truman's Justice Department swept the matter under the rug is not at all convincing. 

Just FYI, when I first reviewed CID on Amazon, I gave it five stars. At that point, I was 2/3 of the way through the book and had not encountered the large amount of liberal preaching that comes in the last third of the book. I was so surprised and disappointed by the liberal preaching that reduced my rating to one star, although I still said that the book is a very important and worthwhile work. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I don't think your attacks on America First are sound or well sourced. Ditto for your sweeping, tar-brush attacks on Trump supporters. Why, why, why include material in your book that is going to turn off and alienate a large chunk of your potential audience? Why imply that one cannot really care about JFK's death if one believes in America First and supports Trump? 

Your conclusion that the Amerasia spy case was much ado about nothing is contradicted by very strong evidence. Citing the fact that Truman's Justice Department swept the matter under the rug is not at all convincing. 

Just FYI, when I first reviewed CID on Amazon, I gave it five stars. At that point, I was 2/3 of the way through the book and had not encountered the large amount of liberal preaching that comes in the last third of the book. I was so surprised and disappointed by the liberal preaching that reduced my rating to one star, although I still said that the book is a very important and worthwhile work. 

 

Michael, you're not responding to the specifics so I think this discussion has either plateaued or drawn to a close. Cognitive dissonance is unsettling at best, but your rationale for shifting from five stars to one star because you were perturbed that the investigation led to a series of spiderwebs made up mostly of extreme right ideologues — on an International scale —  is illogical and somewhat dumbfounding.

I'll close, respectfully, by saying that if this book alienates, as you suggest, a large swath of today's assassination community, maybe we should ask who and what shifted the ethos within said community? When Hank launched this investigation, he anticipated he might hit a wall constructed by insiders intent upon discrediting his work but he was confident the underlying spirit of the community — in spite of internal squabbling — had its head on straight; it was only toward the end that he realized we might hit a much more powerful wall, one steeped in the very authoritarian ideology we were exposing.

Btw, I have two friends who were at Monterrey Language Inst. in the 1970s. We might compare notes privately?  

All the best, and thank you again for reading Coup. 

[Leslie Sharp]

On 8/27/2022 at 6:49 AM, Michael Griffith said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree about Bobby's motives for saying what he said. I don't think he was posturing. I would note that even when Bobby turned against LBJ's handling of the war, he never once said that JFK intended to withdraw all troops, much less that he intended to completely disengage from South Vietnam. 

I think it is a very big deal that JFK did not want to introduce ground troops (aka combat troops). I think JFK would have handled the Vietnam War much more competently than LBJ did. However, I think Arthur Schlesinger put it best when he said "it is impossible to say with assurance" what JFK would have done about Vietnam.

This is one reason it is problematic and discrediting when conspiracy theorists insist that JFK absolutely, positively would have completely withdrawn and disengaged from Vietnam no matter what. Aside from a handful of second-hand anecdotes given many years after the fact, there is simply no evidence for such a position.

 

 

Michael, I think you may be the right person to broach this with: Have you studied the history of increase in American personnel in Vietnam from approx. 700 when Eisenhower left office to approx. 16,000 in November 1963?  As Commander in Chief, wouldn't JFK sign off on those deployments, or were they made without his knowledge? The latter seems implausible to me.  Also, do the numbers reflect some kind of rotation, or is it an accurate count of how many US military — regardless of role — were on the ground in Vietnam when he announced a slow withdrawal?  I've exhausted my search for records that might reflect an official order, a signature, for the (presumably) incremental increase during the nearly three years K was in office. Thanks for any info. or recommendation for further research.

[Leslie Sharp]

On 9/3/2022 at 6:08 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Are you really, seriously, actually suggesting that I didn't mention the Skorzenys in my brief review of CID because I was trying to "deflect" from the Skorzenys? Gosh, seriously? I also did not mention David Ferrie, Guy Banister, David Atlee Phillips, Alan Dulles, and Richard Helms. It was just a brief Amazon review. The names I included and omitted were not based on any ideological agenda.

So you believe that more than 1% of Americans buy into Skorzeny's virulent brand of fascism and racism??? Well, I feel sorry for you. I can tell you that as a Trump volunteer who got to talk with dozens of Trump supporters and got to hang around hundreds of others, I never heard one word that would suggest such thing. 

I can't fathom why anyone who shares Skorzeny's anti-Semitic views would support Trump, since Trump is ardently pro-Israeli, since part of Trump's family is Jewish, since Trump has many Jewish friends, since Trump has invested in Israel, since Trump was the only president who had the guts to move our embassy in Israel to its rightful place in Jerusalem, and since Trump (before he became president) even appeared in political ads in Israel endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu.

Anyway, regarding your follow-on reply, I appreciate the corrections on the info about Albarelli and the datebook, etc. I will correct my review accordingly.

 

 

 

Mike, my responses in italics.

Are you really, seriously, actually suggesting that I didn't mention the Skorzenys in my brief review of CID because I was trying to "deflect" from the Skorzenys? Gosh, seriously? I also did not mention David Ferrie, Guy Banister, David Atlee Phillips, Alan Dulles, and Richard Helms. 

For the record, Ferrie, Banister, DAP, Dulles, and Helms do not appear in the primary source material that is the center of Hank’s investigation, so it’s only logical you wouldn’t mention them in a review of Coup.

The concern is that the Skorzenys occupy a full chapter, titled The Skorzenys (some 50 pages) of a book you reviewed, and they do so because their involvement in the assassination plot was among the more sensational aspects of what Hank considered the “scoop” he had virtually stumbled across when he arrived on that doorstep to discuss the Olson murder. Failing to identify them as active players suggests you may not have read the book you assigned one star. Fred Litwin, who read nine pages of the book, reviewed it on Amazon with one star and 58 readers found it "helpful",  is fresh on my mind so perhaps I'm overreacting. You're of course entitled to review according to your conscience and bias. We all have them by the way.

Skorzeny was the impetus behind Major Ralph Ganis’ contact with Hank to collaborate on a Skorzeny-centered manuscript.  Avoiding mention of Ilse and Otto is a misrepresentation of the significance of Hank’s investigation and the resulting breakthrough book.

It was just a brief Amazon review. The names I included and omitted were not based on any ideological agenda.

Those you did identify by name vs. those you chose to couch in pronouns like “two retired high-ranking generals” — there were three, Willoughby, Walker, and del Valle who by the way had histories of extreme right racism both in and out of official military service — seems to reflect avoidance. 

So you believe that more than 1% of Americans buy into Skorzeny's virulent brand of fascism and racism??? 

I believe, as did Hank — spelled out clearly in one of his last emails — that there is a real and present danger of the Reich rising from the ashes not only in America but on a global scale. You may not agree.

Coup is an exposé, and as such, it does not, nor should it conform to an arbitrary definition of a "successful" book on the assassination. 

Well, I feel sorry for you. I can tell you that as a Trump volunteer who got to talk with dozens of Trump supporters and got to hang around hundreds of others, I never heard one word that would suggest such thing. 

I applaud anyone who “walks their talk” and our First Amendment rights are guaranteed. We are still a democracy, albeit hanging by a thread.

I can't fathom why anyone who shares Skorzeny's anti-Semitic views would support Trump, since Trump is ardently pro-Israeli, since part of Trump's family is Jewish, since Trump has many Jewish friends, since Trump has invested in Israel, since Trump was the only president who had the guts to move our embassy in Israel to its rightful place in Jerusalem, and since Trump (before he became president) even appeared in political ads in Israel endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu.

I hope you will reread the Postscript.

Anyway, regarding your follow-on reply, I appreciate the corrections on the info about Albarelli and the datebook, etc. I will correct my review accordingly.

Thanks for taking care of that. 

Regards.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Leslie Sharp
punctuation