Jump to content
The Education Forum

Republicans as Sources and Investigators


Recommended Posts

This is how Tim Gratz responded to a thread I started on Thomas Buchanan’s book, Who Killed Kennedy? (1964).

John, I assume when you posted you did not know that Buchanan had been a member of the Communist Party since at least 1948 (or you certainly would have so informed us).  Since the Communist Party is an obvious suspect in the assassination, Buchanan is hardly a "disinterested" observor.  As the article notes, he could have written the book under Communist discipline.  We know that the KGB did circulate false information about the assassination, including a cleverly forged letter from Leo Harvey Oswald. 

Remember, not all liars are communists, but all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!).

As Robert Charles-Dunne has pointed out on the thread on Enrico Mattei (Thomas Buchanan claimed that the same people were responsible for the deaths of Mattei and JFK) this kind of logic could be applied to any political party. For example:

Changed your tune a bit. When I originally posted information from Thomas Buchanan you responded by saying you did not believe anything said by a member of the American Communist Party. (John Simkin)

John, you understated it a bit.  I said one could not believe anything written by a Communist (not just American communists).  By that I meant a person willing to subject himself or herself to the discipline of the party.  Because a Communist member must be willing to subvert the truth to the "party line". (Tim Gratz)

Rather like being a Republican, then.  You must remember the Ziegler-ism that the truth in the Nixon White House is "no longer operative?"  Or, how about "Saddam's been trying to get uraniam from Niger?"  Or, "Saddam has WMD?"  Or, what about my personal favourite, "Saddam could launch a warhead against us in only 45 minutes?" 

Good thing Republicans said those things, or I might have moments of doubt about their veracity.... (Robert Charles-Dunne)

This simply means you must verify everything a Communist says.  A Communist could make a true statement if it is consistent with the then-current party position.  My point is that one ought not accord a Communist writer a presumption of honesty as one would accord, say, a socialist or a Republican. (Tim Gratz)

Why extend it to either of them?  Why not just presume that it's all propaganda to advance a cause until it resonates within your head and heart?  Or do you simply put your brain on auto-pilot because you're listening to one of your own?  If so, it would help explain a whole lot about the naivete behind your posts here.  (Robert Charles-Dunne)

A person political philosophy obviously has an impact on your views on the JFK assassination. The point is, will your political philosophy influence every thing you say. Is Tim right that some people are “willing to subject himself or herself to the discipline of the party”. That everything they say is guided by the party line.

This is of course possible. Some communist reporters went along with Stalin’s view that in the 1930s that the supporters of Leon Trotsky were really agents of Western fascists and therefore needed to be executed. (The vast majority of journalists in the UK and the US also agreed this was true at the time.)

Others went along with the idea in 1956 that it was necessary to send the Red Army into Hungary to defeat a “fascist counter-revolution”.

Although some Communist Party journalists went along with the Soviet line, large numbers resigned from the party over these two issues. In fact, the second of these two issues virtually destroyed the Communist Party in the UK.

The important question concerns the following: "Is a communist any different from any other supporter of a political party?" It is obviously true that any partisan political supporter is vulnerable to this kind of mind set. It is one of the reasons I am not a member of any political party. I dislike the idea of having to take into account what the party line is on any given subject.

It is interesting that Tim first brought this subject up as he is the most partisan of all our members. In several areas of the forum I have criticised the policies of George Bush. Not on one occasion has Tim agreed with me (even when I pointed out that Bush was providing financial backing to the communist dictator in Uzbekistan). Instead, he only defends Bush.

It is because of Tim’s partisan views that most members do not take his postings seriously. Tim always follows the party line. Sigmund Freud had something to say about this. It was his theory of “projection”. This is the tendency to see your own unacceptable attitudes in other people. According to Freud’s theory, Tim knows he is morally wrong to accept everything that George Bush says is true (probably something to do with being a born again Christian). Therefore, he projects this irrational feelings on the people he sees as the "enemy". When he was growing up in the 1950s and the 1960s he was constantly being told that the communists were evil. In fact, it was a form of brainwashing that resulted in a large proportion of the American population endured. Tim obviously got it worse than most.

This is not to say that all members of the Republican Party are not to be trusted (after all, then I would be guilty of Tim’s offence). However, it does mean that anyone who accepts the discipline of the party line, is a useless historian or an ineffective JFK researcher.

It also raises the question, if Tim is asked questions about his past, will he tell the truth, or will he follow the party line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who was raised Republican--my dad threw a fund-raiser for Barry Goldwater Jr. in 1970--I was indoctrinated into hating the commies and defending the Vietnam war as necessary to stop the spread of evil. Unlike Tim, however, I grew out of it and now see how wrong wrong can be.

That said, I think you're being a little unfair to Tim here, John. It seemed to me that his interest in the Mattei killing was an olive branch of sorts; he was letting us know that he remained open to the possibility some non-communist force was behind the assassination. I considered that progress.

I don't consider Republicans any more guilty of covering up the Kennedy assassination than Democrats. Just as there were Republicans whose interest lagged whenever the focus of the investigation was other than communist, there have been a lot of high-ranking Democrats whose interest in the Kennedy assassination has lagged whenever the focus has shifted to LBJ.

The problem with believing in a conspiracy is that someone had to be in the conspiracy. And neither right nor left is willing to admit their own people might be responsible. Even you, in some of your writings about LBJ, have sought to paint him as far more conservative regarding civil rights then he really was. I think people, and history, are far more complicated than most people want to acknowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how Tim Gratz responded to a thread I started on Thomas Buchanan’s book, Who Killed Kennedy? (1964).
John, I assume when you posted you did not know that Buchanan had been a member of the Communist Party since at least 1948 (or you certainly would have so informed us).  Since the Communist Party is an obvious suspect in the assassination, Buchanan is hardly a "disinterested" observor.  As the article notes, he could have written the book under Communist discipline.  We know that the KGB did circulate false information about the assassination, including a cleverly forged letter from Leo Harvey Oswald. 

Remember, not all liars are communists, but all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!).

As Robert Charles-Dunne has pointed out on the thread on Enrico Mattei (Thomas Buchanan claimed that the same people were responsible for the deaths of Mattei and JFK) this kind of logic could be applied to any political party. For example:

Changed your tune a bit. When I originally posted information from Thomas Buchanan you responded by saying you did not believe anything said by a member of the American Communist Party. (John Simkin)

John, you understated it a bit.  I said one could not believe anything written by a Communist (not just American communists).  By that I meant a person willing to subject himself or herself to the discipline of the party.  Because a Communist member must be willing to subvert the truth to the "party line". (Tim Gratz)

Rather like being a Republican, then.  You must remember the Ziegler-ism that the truth in the Nixon White House is "no longer operative?"  Or, how about "Saddam's been trying to get uraniam from Niger?"  Or, "Saddam has WMD?"  Or, what about my personal favourite, "Saddam could launch a warhead against us in only 45 minutes?" 

Good thing Republicans said those things, or I might have moments of doubt about their veracity.... (Robert Charles-Dunne)

This simply means you must verify everything a Communist says.  A Communist could make a true statement if it is consistent with the then-current party position.  My point is that one ought not accord a Communist writer a presumption of honesty as one would accord, say, a socialist or a Republican. (Tim Gratz)

Why extend it to either of them?  Why not just presume that it's all propaganda to advance a cause until it resonates within your head and heart?  Or do you simply put your brain on auto-pilot because you're listening to one of your own?  If so, it would help explain a whole lot about the naivete behind your posts here.  (Robert Charles-Dunne)

A person political philosophy obviously has an impact on your views on the JFK assassination. The point is, will your political philosophy influence every thing you say. Is Tim right that some people are “willing to subject himself or herself to the discipline of the party”. That everything they say is guided by the party line.

This is of course possible. Some communist reporters went along with Stalin’s view that in the 1930s that the supporters of Leon Trotsky were really agents of Western fascists and therefore needed to be executed. (The vast majority of journalists in the UK and the US also agreed this was true at the time.)

Others went along with the idea in 1956 that it was necessary to send the Red Army into Hungary to defeat a “fascist counter-revolution”.

Although some Communist Party journalists went along with the Soviet line, large numbers resigned from the party over these two issues. In fact, the second of these two issues virtually destroyed the Communist Party in the UK.

The important question concerns the following: "Is a communist any different from any other supporter of a political party?" It is obviously true that any partisan political supporter is vulnerable to this kind of mind set. It is one of the reasons I am not a member of any political party. I dislike the idea of having to take into account what the party line is on any given subject.

It is interesting that Tim first brought this subject up as he is the most partisan of all our members. In several areas of the forum I have criticised the policies of George Bush. Not on one occasion has Tim agreed with me (even when I pointed out that Bush was providing financial backing to the communist dictator in Uzbekistan). Instead, he only defends Bush.

It is because of Tim’s partisan views that most members do not take his postings seriously. Tim always follows the party line. Sigmund Freud had something to say about this. It was his theory of “projection”. This is the tendency to see your own unacceptable attitudes in other people. According to Freud’s theory, Tim knows he is morally wrong to accept everything that George Bush says is true (probably something to do with being a born again Christian). Therefore, he projects this irrational feelings on the people he sees as the "enemy". When he was growing up in the 1950s and the 1960s he was constantly being told that the communists were evil. In fact, it was a form of brainwashing that resulted in a large proportion of the American population endured. Tim obviously got it worse than most.

This is not to say that all members of the Republican Party are not to be trusted (after all, then I would be guilty of Tim’s offence). However, it does mean that anyone who accepts the discipline of the party line, is a useless historian or an ineffective JFK researcher.

It also raises the question, if Tim is asked questions about his past, will he tell the truth, or will he follow the party line?

Excellent points, in my opinion. The enshrined strictures of party membership goes across the board. Similar strictures are apparently imposed when blindly attaching oneself to anything, including conspiracy theories. I used to be a member of the youth wing of the SWP (militant) in Australia. I contemplated membership in the Labor party and various Unions. When approached to become member of the SWP proper I couldn't make the leap as quite simply some of my ideas would have to be ditched, for no good reason as I saw it. Today I am not a member of any party except the JohnD party. Mebership is small, well, in fact limited only to myself. Ah.. thats not entirely true, I and a friend who changed his name to Santa Clause did in the 1992 elections NSW form the Christmas Party, and yes we did affiliate with Godfrey Bigot who ran on a platform against Facism. However apart from that I'm independent. I'm also a born again christian. I think Bush is a very bad man, presiding over a very bad party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I appreciate your comments and would also point out that I had previously indicated that Laurie Schmidt probably merited additional research. I am still skeptical that "oil interests" (the "Mattei theory" if you want to call it that) killed Kennedy and I would find it more plausible that extreme right-wingers who detested JFK's stand on racial integration might have killed him. This would include, of course, Gen. Walker and others of his ilk. I think extreme hatred would be a greater motivating force than economic self-interest.

There were a few fairly "far-out" right-wingers I met in the early sixties, but none I would have believed would have contemplated an assassination. Their dislike of Kennedy was much less intense than that of Southern racists.

I think there is a great reluctance of left-oriented assassination researchers to even consider the possibility that JFK was not killed by right-wingers of some variety. And that seems strange to me because if, in fact, Castro did it that is not an indictment of the left in general. I think that the reluctance to consider a "Castro did it" scenario may be motivated more for a concern over what that might say about JFK and JFK's politics. A murder from the left seems to paint JFK as more of a cold warrior than most left-oriented assassination researchers want to consider him. And if Castro did it it also raises the disquieting possibility that the assassination resulted from a "blow back" of Kennedy's Cuban politics on him (if, for instance, JFK was witting of the Cubela caper). Which is why so many detest Russo's book (even its title is, of course, disquieting).

I am not concerned the least should it turn out that an extreme racist like Schmidt killed Kennedy, since I don't think the fact that there were a few extremist nuts on the right capable of killing Kennedy indict the entire conservative movement. Taylor Caldwell was, of course, a prominent conservative who was concerned with the villification of JFK and so wrote before the assassination.

I think we need to run down all of the leads regardless if the leads point us to the left or to the right.

And it did bother me that John, in violation of one of "the most important rules of the Forum", questioned my sincerity when I posted on the Mattei thread that you started. Like you, my immediate reaction when I heard about Mattei on the History Channel program was "Buchanan!". I would not waste my time formulating a post merely for some effect.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a great reluctance of left-oriented assassination researchers to even consider the possibility that JFK was not killed by right-wingers of some variety. 

This is based on a misunderstanding of our position. I am of course willing to believe that communist dictators like Fidel Castro are capable of ordering the deaths of political leaders. After all, Castro was willing to execute a lot of his former comrades in Cuba. My argument against your theory, and this is true of other, more right-wing members, is that it was not in Castro’s political interest to order the assassination of JFK. This has nothing to do with Castro’s political ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, this comment was not necessarily directed toward you. I would not question your sincerity in believing that it was not in Castro's interest to kill JFK. I, of course, believe Castro thought it was necessary--to save his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, this comment was not necessarily directed toward you.  I would not question your sincerity in believing that it was not in Castro's interest to kill JFK.  I, of course, believe Castro thought it was necessary--to save his life.

Tim, Castro had for a long time lived a very dangerous life. He had faced death in prison and on the battlefield. Death to a revolutionary like Castro was an everyday thing. The expendability of the individual for the revolution was a known and debated and accepted thing. His integrity as a leader of the Cuban revolution aroused sufficient loyalty to keep him alive. Therefore he knew the revolution did not need him, his survival was a testiomony to that. I suspect that when he dies that will continue to be the fact. Perhaps John is correct here in the 'projection' analogy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I appreciate your comments and would also point out that I had previously indicated that Laurie Schmidt probably merited additional research.  I am still skeptical that "oil interests" (the "Mattei theory" if you want to call it that) killed Kennedy and I would find it more plausible that extreme right-wingers who detested JFK's stand on racial integration might have killed him.  This would include, of course, Gen. Walker and others of his ilk.  I think extreme hatred would be a greater motivating force than economic self-interest.

And what a potent force one has when the two - hatred and economic gain - are inextricably intertwined.  Are defense contractors motivated by pecuniary gain or patriotism?  At a certain point, what's the difference?

There were a few fairly "far-out" right-wingers I met in the early sixties, but none I would have believed would have contemplated an assassination.  Their dislike of Kennedy was much less intense than that of Southern racists.

I think there is a great reluctance of left-oriented assassination researchers to even consider the possibility that JFK was not killed by right-wingers of some variety. 

It's funny, Tim.  You keep referring to left-ish researchers, and I've always wondered how one divines the political leanings of a researcher who - unlike you - doesn't self-identify along left-right lines.  I've read a thousand JFK-related books, and in all but a few instances, could never tell you how an author voted, nor would it be a consideration in determining the book's value. 

Is it that anyone who entertains US government personnel could have been involved is, ipso facto, a leftist?  If I wonder aloud about Phillips and Morales, does that fact alone make me a raving loony leftist?  What is the secret litmus test you use to reach these specious conclusions?

And that seems strange to me because if, in fact, Castro did it that is not an indictment of the left in general.  I think that the reluctance to consider a "Castro did it" scenario may be motivated more for a concern over what that might say about JFK and JFK's politics.  A murder from the left seems to paint JFK as more of a cold warrior than most left-oriented assassination researchers want to consider him. 

Tim, your retread of CIA's old and debunked Castro nonsense isn't disregarded because of the audience's political leanings.  It is dismissed as nonsense because each and every provocative piece of "evidence" used to argue for it has been scrutinized and found to be sorely wanting.  If you'd like to change that, perhaps you could start by providing evidentiary reasons to believe it, rather than simply critique the presumed motives of those who fail to embrace your second-hand bushwah.

And if Castro did it it also raises the disquieting possibility that the assassination resulted from a "blow back" of Kennedy's Cuban politics on him (if, for instance, JFK was witting of the Cubela caper).  Which is why so many detest Russo's book (even its title is, of course, disquieting).

Russo's just another Posner, and has the same intellectual integrity.  Like you, he argues irrespective of the evidence, cherry-picking what suits him and disregarding what he cannot rationalize.  That's a recipe for mediocrity no matter who the author is, and no matter what his/her political leanings might be.

I am not concerned the least should it turn out that an extreme racist like Schmidt killed Kennedy, since I don't think the fact that there were a few extremist nuts on the right capable of killing Kennedy indict the entire conservative movement.  Taylor Caldwell was, of course, a prominent conservative who was concerned with the villification of JFK and so wrote before the assassination.

I think we need to run down all of the leads regardless if the leads point us to the left or to the right.

And it did bother me that John, in violation of one of "the most important rules of the Forum", questioned my sincerity when I posted on the Mattei thread that you started.  Like you, my immediate reaction when I heard about Mattei on the History Channel program was "Buchanan!".  I would not waste my time formulating a post merely for some effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would find it more plausible that extreme right-wingers who detested JFK's stand on racial integration might have killed him.  This would include, of course, Gen. Walker and others of his ilk.  I think extreme hatred would be a greater motivating force than economic self-interest.

Just a small point, which may not help us in a quest to understand or resolve the Kennedy assassination, but... Isn't the bedrock of extreme racism rooted in economic self-interest? As I understand it, the greatest ill-feeling (apparent?) towards blacks in the South of US is among the lower income groups, whose economic self-interest was threatened by the ending of slavery and subsequently the Civil Rights movement. There are similarities in the UK in Ulster with the unionists feeling threatened by the NICRA agitation in the late 1960s early 1970s. The key issue is that the people who react fear that the new rights given to the (formerly???) oppressed will be at some supposed cost to themselves (jobs, income etc). This is then used by those with greater economic power (whether wittingly or otherwise) to deflect criticism of their own role in the paucity of lives the others have to endure.

To link this (tenuously perhaps) to the Kennedy assassination, inasmuch as it may have suited 'oil interests', it would also be very welcome to raise the stakes against communists at home and abroad to lay the blame at their door via the media which their rich friends doubtless controlled even then. This would potentially deflect blame for the assassination away from them, if they were responsible, and away from the declining economic climate of the 1960s. Thus it would leave the door open for 'Korea 2' (ie Vietnam War) as a crusade to rid the world of an identified evil (plus ca change).

Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a small point, which may not help us in a quest to understand or resolve the Kennedy assassination, but... Isn't the bedrock of extreme racism rooted in economic self-interest? As I understand it, the greatest ill-feeling (apparent?) towards blacks in the South of US is among the lower income groups, whose economic self-interest was threatened by the ending of slavery and subsequently the Civil Rights movement. There are similarities in the UK in Ulster with the unionists feeling threatened by the NICRA agitation in the late 1960s early 1970s. The key issue is that the people who react fear that the new rights given to the (formerly???) oppressed will be at some supposed cost to themselves (jobs, income etc). This is then used by those with greater economic power (whether wittingly or otherwise) to deflect criticism of their own role in the paucity of lives the others have to endure.

To link this (tenuously perhaps) to the Kennedy assassination, inasmuch as it may have suited 'oil interests', it would also be very welcome to raise the stakes against communists at home and abroad to lay the blame at their door via the media which their rich friends doubtless controlled even then. This would potentially deflect blame for the assassination away from them, if they were responsible, and away from the declining economic climate of the 1960s. Thus it would leave the door open for 'Korea 2' (ie Vietnam War) as a crusade to rid the world of an identified evil (plus ca change).

This is a very important point. It is necessary to distinguish between the racism of the poor & dispossessed and the rich & powerful. The evidence suggest that the people near the bottom are the worst racists. I remember one study in the United States that showed that it is often the group that itself suffers a great deal of discrimination is the most racist. I once had a conversation with someone from Ireland. She told me how she had suffered a great deal from prejudice since arriving in England. She then went on and on about how she considered the Welsh to be an inferior race.

The rich are rarely racist in the same way. As Ed points out, there only concern is exploiting racism to increase their income. This can be seen by studying the situation in Nazi Germany. Alfried Krupp showed no signs of obvious racism. However, he was quite willing to use the cheap labour from Auschwitz. It is estimated that around 70,000 of those working for Krupp in concentration camps died during the war. At Nuremburg Krupp argued that he had only been acting as a good businessman. This saved his life and in February, 1951, John J. McCloy (the same man who later served on the Warren Commission), the high commissioner in American held Germany, ordered his release from Landsberg Prison. His property, valued at around 45 million, and his numerous companies were also restored to him.

The same pattern can be found in South Africa. Initially, apartheid enabled the white business community to obtain cheap labour. However, after economic sanctions were applied, apartheid became uneconomic and was quickly abolished.

There is an interesting story concerning Lyndon Johnson that helps illustrates this point. In 1937 LBJ visited Herman and George Brown, the owners of a construction company called Brown and Root. The Brown brothers were extreme racists and supporters of local right-wing politicians in Texas. LBJ, like all Texas politicians at the time was also a racist, in fact his first speech in Congress was an attack on proposed anti-lynching legislation. However, LBJ was also seen as a supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the most hated liberal in America. As a result, the Brown brothers refused to fund LBJ.

During the meeting LBJ asked for money for his campaign. Herman Brown refused complaining he did not want any pro-New Deal candidates being elected to Congress. According to the historian, Robert Caro, Johnson said to Brown: “What are you worried about? It’s not coming out of your pocket. Any money that’s spent down here on New Deal projects, the East is paying for.”

At this time Brown and Root was close to bankruptcy. A deal was arranged where the Brown brothers would help to finance LBJ in return for New Deal contracts. Over the next few years Brown and Root grew rapidly as a result of obtaining a large number of municipal and federal government projects. This included the Marshall Ford Dam on the Colorado River. This was worth $27,000,000. In a letter written to LBJ, George Brown admitted the company was set to make a $2,000,000 profit out of just a small part of the deal. In 1940 the company won a $90 million contract to build the Naval Air Station at Corpus Christi.

In 1942 the Brown brothers established the Brown Shipbuilding Company on the Houston Ship Channel. Over the next three years the company built 359 ships and employed 25,000 people. This was worth $27,000,000. This contract was eventually worth $357,000,000. Yet until they got the contract, Brown & Root had never built a single ship of any type.

Eventually the Brown & Root company became part of the Halliburton group that funded George Bush and took large profits from the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

No doubt LBJ used the same arguments when he met people like George Brown before he promoted the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts. After all, this legislation posed no threat to Brown’s profits. Mind you, withdrawal from Vietnam would cause Brown & Root/Halliburton problems. Therefore, LBJ gave them the Vietnam War and in exchange got the Civil Rights legislation through Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I appreciate your comments and would also point out that I had previously indicated that Laurie Schmidt probably merited additional research.  I am still skeptical that "oil interests" (the "Mattei theory" if you want to call it that) killed Kennedy and I would find it more plausible that extreme right-wingers who detested JFK's stand on racial integration might have killed him.  This would include, of course, Gen. Walker and others of his ilk.  I think extreme hatred would be a greater motivating force than economic self-interest.

There were a few fairly "far-out" right-wingers I met in the early sixties, but none I would have believed would have contemplated an assassination.  Their dislike of Kennedy was much less intense than that of Southern racists.

I think there is a great reluctance of left-oriented assassination researchers to even consider the possibility that JFK was not killed by right-wingers of some variety.  And that seems strange to me because if, in fact, Castro did it that is not an indictment of the left in general.  I think that the reluctance to consider a "Castro did it" scenario may be motivated more for a concern over what that might say about JFK and JFK's politics.  A murder from the left seems to paint JFK as more of a cold warrior than most left-oriented assassination researchers want to consider him.  And if Castro did it it also raises the disquieting possibility that the assassination resulted from a "blow back" of Kennedy's Cuban politics on him (if, for instance, JFK was witting of the Cubela caper).  Which is why so many detest Russo's book (even its title is, of course, disquieting).

I am not concerned the least should it turn out that an extreme racist like Schmidt killed Kennedy, since I don't think the fact that there were a few extremist nuts on the right capable of killing Kennedy indict the entire conservative movement.  Taylor Caldwell was, of course, a prominent conservative who was concerned with the villification of JFK and so wrote before the assassination.

I think we need to run down all of the leads regardless if the leads point us to the left or to the right.

And it did bother me that John, in violation of one of "the most important rules of the Forum", questioned my sincerity when I posted on the Mattei thread that you started.  Like you, my immediate reaction when I heard about Mattei on the History Channel program was "Buchanan!".  I would not waste my time formulating a post merely for some effect.

Tim,

Castro had no reason for killing JFK. Details of JFK's secret negotiations with Castro aimed at normalising relations have already been posted on other threads. Most researchers on the Forum readily acknowledge this. What have you got against him? Your Castro theory is dead and buried. Move on.

John was right to start this thread. He's also correct in that your political philosophy influences everything you post. Despite George Bush's disastrous foreign policy exploits, including supporting some foreign dictators and invading others to enforce "freedom" and "democracy", you always defend him. In fact, I don't know any Americans who aren't at least partially critical of the President except you. Most are very critical. You can't impose western values on a Muslim society over the barrel of a gun and call it "freedom", no matter how many innocent soldier's lives you sacrifice. Bush himself managed to avoid being sent into combat, of course.

I say all this not because of personal dislike of you, but as you are the most vocal member of the Forum, with well over 2000 posts to your credit, your attempts to inject a partisan political element into JFK assassination research hit the readers of the Forum nearly every day. You said all communists are liars. All communists are liars. You said that. There's been no more politically partisan comment expressed on this Forum to date (to my knowledge). Yet you show great indignation when your factual assertions are challenged--on one thread you twice asked me the question, "Are you calling me a xxxx?". That's just a tactic used to bully the other party into backing down, isn't it? Ditto for threatening John and Shanet with legal action.

John notes when member Harry Dean (like yourself, a genuine player in the 60's and 70's) was implicated as a possible conspirator, his reaction was far more gracious than yours. Rather than hysterically over-reacting and threatening the rigors of the law, Harry calmly pointed out where he believed the author erred. Authors, like everyone else, make mistakes. Harry's handling of this was applauded by members, IMO. It certainly was by me. Because members are always interested in hearing from those who had personal involvement (even incidental involvement) in matters discussed on this Forum, you are currently being asked questions concerning the nature of your involvement in these matters as well as that of your general past. Sorry Tim, you'll have to regard it as the price of fame. You were a player, however minor, and players always get burdened with lots of questions. And due to the inquisitive nature of Forum members, we'll need the answers. We can't be brushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:

In fact, I don't know any Americans who aren't at least partially critical of the President except you. Most are very critical.

Gee, he somehow get himself re-elected, didn't he?

But let's look at the logic of your sentence and its conclusion.

You don't "know" any Americans who are not at least "partially critical" of Bush besides me.

Well, I have pointed out two items of Bush's politics with which I disagree. But that is beside the point for now. But overall I'd give my life for the man, that is how important I believe he is to the future of my country.

But back to your sentence: if you are only refering to Americans that you "know personally" (and you can fairly include me since we correspond via this Forum) then you are obviously using a skewed sample. You cannot make an assessment about the popularity of the President based on the presumably small number of Americans you know personally.

And you must be talking only of Americans you know personally. Otherwise you are forgetting, for instance, Dick Cheny, Bill Frist, Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, etc. etc. You get my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

Tim, your retread of CIA's old and debunked Castro nonsense isn't disregarded because of the audience's political leanings. It is dismissed as nonsense because each and every provocative piece of "evidence" used to argue for it has been scrutinized and found to be sorely wanting.

Sorry, Robert, but none of the reports of DGI agents in Dealey Plaza have been "debunked" to my knowledge. You have suggested that they need more careful evaluation before they can be credited. Was the informant reliable? had he or she reported reliable information in the past? Well, that may or may not be a fair critique. But that is a far cry from saying that even a single report has been "debunked". For instance, Miguelito's aunt made a report that pointed toward his involvement in the assassination. Have you (or anyone for that matter) proven her report was inaccurate? Not that I am aware.

I think it would be perhaps fair to say that several people reported that there were agents of Cuban intelligence in Dealey Plaza. The reliability of these reports have not yet been fully evaluated. To which I would add that if even ONE report was accurate, that is fairly significant evidence of Cuban involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I enjoyed reading your Post #10 and assume your interpretation is, in balance, correct.

In part I think the racism of people of lower socioeconomic class may be attributed to lower levels of intelligence.

But it cannnot be denied that there are some highly intelligent people who are also racist. I have never been able to understand this. Particularly when some of their rantings about race so clearly lack the intelligence of their other writings and or speech. I wonder if any member is aware of any sociological or psychological studies of racism?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have pointed out two items of Bush's politics with which I disagree. But that is beside the point for now. But overall I'd give my life for the man, that is how important I believe he is to the future of my country.

This is a very interesting comment. You are obviously a fanatical supporter of George Bush. It can mean one of several things:

1. You plan to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.

2. You would be willing to kill on behalf of George Bush and then be executed by the authorities. A sort of Jack Ruby type of sacrifice.

3. You plan to become a suicide bomber aimed at enemies of George Bush.

Or did you have something else in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...