Republicans as Sources and Investigators

[Tim Gratz]

John, I meant that in the unlikely event that I would have to interpose myself between George Bush and someone making an attempt on his life, I would like to think I would do so.

Once again you are implying that I have the mind of a murderer. I can assure you I believe in neither murder nor suicide. How dare you!

Charles Colson once famously said that he would walk over his grandmother for Richard Nixon. I can also assure you that to the extent I had high loyalty to a president, that loyalty would disappear if the president expected me to commit an illegal, or even an immoral, act on his behalf.

It can perhaps be argued that any patriotic American ought to be willing to sacrifice his life to save the life of the president. But I do not think this is the way it works. Even before Nixon was exposed, I doubt whether I would have been willing to accept a bullet intended for him. And I also sincerely doubt I would have given my life for Bush I. For Reagan, probably yes. For many Republicans, Bush inspires the same loyalty that Reagan did.

But your response demonstrates your conspiratorial mind-set. I was nonplussed the way you interpreted my comment when I thought it clearly related to saving the president's life. Your strange response reminds me of the old joke about the psychiatrist giving the patient the Rorsach test. After he is shown every photo, the patient suggests a different sexual activity or position. After about a dozen ink blots, the psychiatrist tells the patient he thinks the patient is sex-obsessed. To which the patient remonstrates: "But doctor, you are the one showing me the dirty pictures!"

But I do not mean to imply that you yourself would engage in any of the acts you suggested. It just seems strange to me that this is what came to your mind.

[Ed Waller]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I take it this is ironic....

I grew up on a council housing estate in SE London, my parents did the same in the East End, they were both manual workers before retirement. QED I grew up in the heartland of the Working Class (or lower socioeconomic class if you like). From my class in school, there have been 2 Uni lecturers (one still does, and is exceptionally well known in his field), I gave it up because I wanted more of a life, and now teach in school. There I'm referred to as Dr Waller!

There is no necessary link between class and racism or class and intelligence. To prove that in another way, look to the Whitehouse... or in the UK the House of Lords...

Ed

[John Simkin]

John, I meant that in the unlikely event that I would have to interpose myself between George Bush and someone making an attempt on his life, I would like to think I would do so.

Therefore this is an empty gesture. The possibility that you will be standing next to George Bush during an assassination attempt is zilch. I made the mistake that you meant what you said. Mind you, I should have realised by now that is not always the case.

What do you think of my point that Lyndon Johnson and George Bush are the two most corrupt presidents in American history?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4347

[Tim Gratz]

Ed, I certainly did not mean to imply that all people of lower socioeconomic class have lower intelligence, or have racial biases.

To a certain extent I think racial biases can be learned behavior.

I too grew up in a lower to mid-class home. My father was a clerk in the post office. Both my father and mother sacrificed much so my sister and I would each have a college education. I suspect your parents may have done the same for you.

Congratulations on being a teacher. I have great respect for educators at all levels, which is why I so admire the educational aspects of this web-site.

I never heard a racial comment, or a swear word, or a dirty joke, from my father or mother.

And in Sunday School, we sang a song that said: "Red or yellow, black or white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world." No child who sings that song should grow up harboring any racial prejudices.

When I think of educated racists, one who comes to mind is Prof. Revilo Oliver (I think the name is not quite right) a member of the John Birch Society and a professor of classics at a major university. But he was a bitter, bitter racist, whose views on race were so extreme he was drummed out of the John Birch Society.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John, thank you for accepting what I said. You are right that my remark about Bush was really an empty gesture because it is very unlikely (your "zilch" is probably right) that I would ever be in a position to have to make such a sacrifice.

Re corrupt presidents, I probably agree with you about LBJ (which makes the things he accomplished for civil rights so incongruous). Obviously I disagree with you about President Bush. I understand there may be a difference between policies you consider corrupt and personal morality. I am certainly not aware that the personal morality of Pres Bush has ever been questioned.

From my previous post, you know I would not be so enthusiastic a Bush backer if I thought he was personally corrupt.

To get back to LBJ, if you have not had the opportunity, read the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece in the Hoover files thread started by Wade. In it, the author reveals that during the 1964 campaign the sanctimonious Bill Moyer tried to get "dirt" on the private sexual lives of Goldwater campaign workers to try to counter the developing Jenkins scandal. I understand that Moyers was also involved in trying to interest the media in the illegal tapes on Martin Luther King, Jr.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Since John has now all but accused me of being a party to a conspiracy to commit murder, I think I should have the liberty to report that in other sections of this Forum he has admitted to being a great admirer of both Marx and Lenin.

Fairness, though, compels me to add that he was refering to Groucho Marx and John Lenin--oops, spelling error: John Lennon!

Sorry, I tend to come up with these bad jokes as morning nears but John I am NOT cracking up.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

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.

Horse pucks.  I've spent the past six months asking you, goading you, begging you, to provide any credible evidence of Cuban agents in Dealey Plaza.  This is what led you to provide the only thing even vaguely resembling something of substance, the Veciana comment to a Church Committee interviewer about having seen a photo of a guy who looked like a guy who mighta been.... 

The photo's never been found by Veciana [or Abella when HSCA investigated his similar comment], and it carried so much weight with the Church Committee that rather than include this nugget in its report, it made its way into the waste basket marked "Miscellaneous."  Your pathological obsession with Castro drives you to conclude this is "unresolved."  Those unafflicted by your condition would consider it "debunked."  Find the photo, Tim, and one of Diaz for comparison purposes, and proof that Diaz was DGI and then we'll have something to talk about.  Perhaps.

Or is that too much effort for you, Tim?  If you want to be taken seriously, take the burden of your responsibility in making assertions about Castro seriously.  If not, then shoo-fly.

Now we have an unsourced comment from an aunt who thinks that perhaps her nephew was involved.  Why's that, Tim?  Did he return to Havana with a few bucks and a new pair of shoes?  Big payoff for the hit, was it? 

The real problem we have, Tim, is different conceptions of what constitutes "evidence."  By my definition, it should be something substantive in the textbook sense, something tangible to justify pursuing it to a definitive conclusion.  This might be a photograph, an eyewitness report, ballistics, fingerprints, medical evidence, etc.

Your definition seems to include second and third hand reports of undetermined provenance ["informant who has provided reliable information in the past," indeed], invariably trackable back to a CIA functionary who floated them for consumption by the authorities, missing photos, whisps, delusions, hallucinations, just so long as they point to Castro.     

I think it would be perhaps fair to say that several people reported that there were agents of Cuban intelligence in Dealey Plaza. 

It's "fair" to say it once you've provided evidence to support it.  How can you have the cheek to repeatedly state this as fact, without ever once having provided a basis for the assertion? 

Who are these "several people?"  Veciana and Abella?  Neither man was in Dealey Plaza, unless they've been withholding information.  Hence, neither man was in a position to see anyone there.  While both men seem to have made allusions to the presence of a DGI operative there, neither man has procured the photo they allegedly recall seeing.  [itself an odd omission, given that both were anti-Castro firebrands, yet they seem to have disposed of the magazine containing the evidence of Castro's culpability.  How strange...]  Neither man has provided any basis for asserting that Diaz was a Castro operative.  Neither man has yet reported seeing Diaz with a weapon, which illustrates something peculiar about you and your skewed view of this, Tim. 

Whenever another Forum member [by which I don't mean me] points to a figure in the Dealey Plaza crowd and photographically compares him to Lansdale, Robertson, Morales, et al, you insist that even if they were there, it had nothing to do with the assassination.... they mighta been there to help save the President, blah blah blah.  This is how you contend with actual photographic evidence, and what it could imply.

However, let a second or third hand report indicate that there might have once been a photo of a guy who looked like a guy who mighta been a Castro agent, and - poof, voila - Tim has ironclad proof of Castro's culpability. 

Then, when your pathological obsession is met with a round of yawns from fellow Forum members, you have the temerity to insist that the fault lies not with you and your inability to muster evidence, but is somehow due to the fact that you are surrounded on all sides by "leftists" unwilling to admit the obvious.

Based upon this callow refusal to comply with textbook protocols regarding evidence, what shocks me is not that you're no longer a lawyer, but that you were ever called to the Bar in the first place. 

The reliability of these reports have not yet been fully evaluated. 

Try providing the reports.  Then perhaps they can be evaluated.  But of course, this is precisely why you refuse to provide any such reports; you know they'll be slashed to shreds, and demonstrated as agenda-driven disinformation fabricated for the sole purpose of implicating Castro.  You're not the first to have undertaken this mission, Tim; merely the latest.  You'll have as little success as your predecessors, because you're peddling half-baked malarkey manufactured by a transparent party for a transparent purpose.  

To which I would add that if even ONE report was accurate, that is fairly significant evidence of Cuban involvement.

Try providing "ONE."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[John Simkin]

Re corrupt presidents, I probably agree with you about LBJ (which makes the things he accomplished for civil rights so incongruous).  Obviously I disagree with you about President Bush.  I understand there may be a difference between policies you consider corrupt and personal morality.  I am certainly not aware that the personal morality of Pres Bush has ever been questioned.

From my previous post, you know I would not be so enthusiastic a Bush backer if I thought he was personally corrupt.

You are always telling me to read certain books. If you don't think George Bush is corrupt I suggest you read: Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate and Dan Briody, The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money.

You may wish to contribute to these two debates:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1160

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2700

[Mark Stapleton]

Re corrupt presidents, I probably agree with you about LBJ (which makes the things he accomplished for civil rights so incongruous).  Obviously I disagree with you about President Bush.  I understand there may be a difference between policies you consider corrupt and personal morality.  I am certainly not aware that the personal morality of Pres Bush has ever been questioned.

From my previous post, you know I would not be so enthusiastic a Bush backer if I thought he was personally corrupt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are always telling me to read certain books. If you don't think George Bush is corrupt I suggest you read: Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate and Dan Briody, The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money.

You may wish to contribute to these two debates:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1160

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2700

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

While I haven't read Bryce or Briody's books, those links to the other threads are very interesting. The Halliburton thread makes one think the conspiracy in DP was larger than we think. There's smoke there. I recommend these threads to those who have not yet read them. I especially recommend them to Tim Gratz, but unfortunately his political illiteracy will probably prevent him from understanding them.

[Mark Knight]

Mark, I believe your use of the term "political illiteracy" regarding Tim is both unfair and incorrect.

I don't believe that Tim is politically illiterate; I believe that he is, instead, politically agnostic...that he is quite aware of the truths that exist on the side opposite his own, but chooses to ignore them rather than to confront them.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, I believe your use of the term "political illiteracy" regarding Tim is both unfair and incorrect.

I don't believe that Tim is politically illiterate; I believe that he is, instead, politically agnostic...that he is quite aware of the truths that exist on the side opposite his own, but chooses to ignore them rather than to confront them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm...so you're saying he's being disingenuous? Maybe, but I think that makes your evaluation of Tim's malaise more damning than mine. The question of fairness is not relevant here, IMO. I reject that criticism.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, I believe your use of the term "political illiteracy" regarding Tim is both unfair and incorrect.

I don't believe that Tim is politically illiterate; I believe that he is, instead, politically agnostic...that he is quite aware of the truths that exist on the side opposite his own, but chooses to ignore them rather than to confront them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm...so you're saying he's being disingenuous? Maybe, but I think that makes your evaluation of Tim's malaise more damning than mine. The question of fairness is not relevant here, IMO. I reject that criticism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark,

I'll tell you what--my criticism of Tim might have been a little harsh. I'll concede this point to you. What burns me (and I suspect others) is Tim's dismissive manner in dealing with dissenters. Tim should focus on this.

My main sticking point with Tim concerns the question of what JFK's intentions were--would he have invaded Cuba? Sadly, no one knows for certain, we can only go on the available evidence. Hence, Tim's argument that JFK had a second invasion in the works but Castro got in first and assassinated him can't unequivocally be disproved--only argued. Most of the Forum, myself included, think it's rubbish but if we, as researchers, are to entertain all probabilities in this vexing conundrum we must concede that a probability exists, however minute, that Tim is correct. Perhaps Kennedy harboured a deep and hidden hatred for Castro because of the embarrassment of the BOP, cleverly managing to suppress crazed, table thumping diatribes of venomous invective directed at the beard. If, by a miracle, history reveals Tim to be correct then I would be prepared to publicly declare Tim the Guru of JFK research--conditional upon Tim acquiring the mandatory flowing beard and robes which a Guru of Tim's stature would then require. What a frightful ear-bashing we would all then recieve, myself in particular.

I post this on the record just in case Tim is right. (Tim, don't cherry pick it)