Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Gratz: Right-Wing Extremist


Recommended Posts

You claim I must be a right-wing extremist because Donald Segretti targetted me. Segretti, dear John, was a Nixon operative, and the first person he approached in Wisconsin was Randy Knox, a Rockefeller left-wing Republican. Segretti was a rascal to be sure, who broke (I believe) numerous campaign laws, but he did so in support of a president who was a left-oriented Republican. Nixon's nomination was opposed by conservatives in 1968 (I supported Reagan over Nixon) and his renomination was opposed by some conservatives in 1972. There is no nexus between Segretti and the extreme right-wing. Get your facts straight.

"No nexus?" It is a classic fascist tactic to neutralize the power of the ballot box by thieving elections. If that "rascal" Segretti was part of such an attempt, which is fairly clear from the agenda he outlined for you and others on behalf of the Nixon re-election campaign, then he was not acting in the service of any [small "d"] democratic ideal to further a "left-oriented Republican." Rather, he was using fascist tactics to ensure his candidate would never face the viable opponent who might have made it a horse race, Ed Muskie. That you consider Nixon to have been a "left" Republican tells us more about you than it does Nixon. That you seek to distance Nixon from the machinations employed to maintain him in office, and thereby conclude that Segretti wasn't serving the extreme right wing, is equally illustrative.

Now if you have a shred of intellectual responsibility, you will admit that you have no reason to assert that I am anything but a fairly conventional traditionalist conservative.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why so much time and attention on this Forum is devoted to plumbing the political leanings of those who contribute. In my own life experience, I've had common cause with those on all points of the political spectrum, depending on the issue and their sincerity.

If somebody is genuinely interested in probing the Kennedy assassination to the extent that it remains possible, why should I care what their politics are? And if they are not sincere in that quest, should I regard them as colleagues, simply because we happen to vote for the same candidates?

I have great disdain for the tack taken here by Tim Gratz, because I think he is shilling for a Castro-did-it tale that he either knows to be wrong, or should. His unwavering support for the Republican party is immaterial. Were he a Democrat, it wouldn't make his performance here any more acceptable to me.

Robert,

I agree with you entirely but the problem with Tim Gratz is that all his offerings on JFK are influenced by his right wing world view. Tim's incapable of evaluating information which doesn't conform to his pre-existing prejudices: ie. left equals bad, right equals good, a woman choosing not to give birth equals evil etc.

Tim's intellectually incapable of removing his politics from his analytical skills. He lacks this ability. His constant denial of this handicap combined with his haughty dismissal of dissenters (and his disgraceful threats of legal recourse), make it difficult not to criticise him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mark, if you had an iota of intellectual discernment you would have grasped by now that I think that if Castro did participate in the assassination, as I think the evidence suggests, it is not because he was just being a bad Communist, but because the United States was (illegally and immorally in my opinion) trying to kill him. This analysis has nothing to do with my politics.

Is Castro an evil cut-throat dictator who killed hundreds of political opponents and continues to imprison political opponents? Yes. Did the US have the right to remove him from power (regime change) so he could not establish a Communist beach-head in our backyard? Of course we did. But not through assassinations and other nefarious machinations such as sabotage of Cuban businesses, etc.

Had we invaded Cuba, did Castro have the right to fight back to protect his regime? Certainly he did.

Since the US was attempting to assassinate Castro, did he have the right to fight that action by retaliating against U.S. leaders? The verry unplesant answer suggests itself. Without condoing what Castro may have done, I think the title to Russo's book is appropriate (using the entire phrase): "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword." If the United States undertook to assassinate foreign leaders, one should not be surprised if our own leaders fell risk to assassination in retaliation, in revenge, or in defense.

Whether Castro did it to prevent his own assassination or Trujillo's disciples did it to avenge CIA participation in the assassination of Trujillo, the principle is the same. Makes no difference that Castro is a left-wing dictator and Trujillo was a right-wing dictator. When the CIA (with or without the President's approval) "took up the sword (of assassination)" against foreign leaders it clearly put the POTUS under threat of a foreign sword (regardless of the politics of the foreign leader).

The scenario that Castro killed Kennedy to prevent Kennedy (or his administration) from killing him has absolutely nothing to do with whether Castro's politics were left or right.

Is that really so hard for you to understand?

Obviously the assassination of JFK was a great American tragedy. If his assassination was in retaliation for US assassination plots that Kennedy had not approved, it only increases the tragedy.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the United States undertook to assassinate foreign leaders, one should not be surprised if our own leaders fell risk to assassination in retaliation, in revenge, or in defense.... When the CIA (with or without the President's approval) "took up the sword (of assassination)" against foreign leaders it clearly put the POTUS under threat of a foreign sword (regardless of the politics of the foreign leader).

So, as Tim Gratz puts it, when the Eisenhower administration "'took up the sword (of assassination)' against foreign leaders it clearly put the POTUS [subsequent presidents, like JFK] under threat of a foreign sword...." Ike's bequeathment to history was attrocious, and he has made out too well with historians.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, as I know you know, historians are not sure of Eisenhower's personal knowledge of the assassination attempts but it is certainly undeniable that they started under his administration.

I am also sure that you know how Bissell equivocated in testifying whether he had told Dulles about the assassination attempts against Castro that Bissell initiated. It is not clear to me why Bissell would have to be so guarded in his language when he was having a private conversation with Dulles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not clear to me why Bissell would have to be so guarded in his language when he was having a private conversation with Dulles.

Why would anyone believe Bissell was that guarded with Dulles? Why would someone consider the possibility of Eisenhower's ignorance but not Kennedy's?

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim there may be more evidence that JFK (or RFK) were asware of the assassination attempts.

But I would agree that the evidence is ambiguous whether either Eisenhower or Kennedy knew. Of course, in one sense that is what plausible deniability is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim there may be more evidence that JFK (or RFK) were asware of the assassination attempts. But I would agree that the evidence is ambiguous whether either Eisenhower or Kennedy knew.

One big difference is that President Kennedy's approval of assassination plots was actually tested. Cubela demanded a meeting with RFK to be sure that it had the approval of the Kennedys. He didn't get the meeting.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he did get a meeting with Fitzgerald who claimed to be RFK's emissary. There is a substantial argument over whether the Kennedys were aware of the Cubela operation. In "Live By the Sword" Russo argues, fairly persuasively, I think, that they were.

The above evades the basic point: if Cubela was sufficiently suspicious and/or investigative to demand a meeting with RFK, why would his inability to obtain the requisite meeting be interpreted as Kennedy approval?

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim appears to me to be a religious nutter and very right wing to boot ( and I am sure many would like to add "to boot very hard indeed" :D ).

I for one am tolerant of his postings and continued participation on this forum despite his considerable intolerance of many of the principles I hold dear - human rights, social justice, sexual tolerance, equality of the sexes. This I put down as one of life's little ironies.

His views on the assassination of JFK are a matter of quite marked indifference to me ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cubela, a medical doctor, was certainly intelligent enough to understand that it was most unlikely that request would be honored. But my suspicion is Cubela was acting on behalf of Castro and that Fitzgerald's assurances to him were recorded.
The above evades the basic point: if Cubela was sufficiently suspicious and/or investigative to demand a meeting with RFK, why would his inability to obtain the requisite meeting be interpreted as Kennedy approval? What did FitzGerald have to offer that would provide assurance of Kennedy complicity? It couldn't be the easily proven lie that FitzGerald was a senator.

A while back, Tim Gratz asserted that there was a critical timing involved that demonstrated RFK's actual support for the Cubela initiative. He claimed that RFK's phone logs reveal that he had contact with FitzGerald the same day that FitzGerald met with Cubela in October, 1963. I have still seen no evidence of this. It's in this cognitive dissonance that Tim's right-wing bias is demonstrated.

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this on a Conervative (US) website, it always pays to know what their up to, anyway hope you get a laugh out of it,I did.

"Conservative Christian groups are upset about the cartoon character SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS, claiming the well known childrens television programme is promoting a homosexual agenda." Must be the crabbie paties. LOL, Steve.

Conservative Christian groups accuse the makers of a video starring SpongeBob SquarePants, Barney and a host of other cartoon characters of promoting homosexuality to children.

It is not the first time that children's TV favorites have come under the critical spotlight of the Christian right. In 1999, the Rev. Jerry Falwell described Tinky Winky, the purse-toting purple Teletubbie, as a

gay role model.

http://t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessioni...titan?id=548768

{quoting CNN/Rueters}

I have it on good authority that SpongeBob, Barney and Tinkly-Winkly are involved in a love triangle.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Len:

That would not surpise me a bit! TCD!!

****************************

Tim Carroll wrote:

A while back, Tim Gratz asserted that there was a critical timing involved that demonstrated RFK's actual support for the Cubela initiative. He claimed that RFK's phone logs reveal that he had contact with FitzGerald the same day that FitzGerald met with Cubela in October, 1963. I have still seen no evidence of this. It's in this cognitive dissonance that Tim's right-wing bias is demonstrated.

Tim has it a bit wrong. When RFK's phone logs were released (in the nineties I believe) they revealed a single phone call between RFK and Fitzgerald in the six month period preceding the assassination. The phone call occured on the very day the CIA HQ received news that Cubela was requesting a personal meeting with RFK. Although there is no record of the substance of the call, the timing certainly could indicate that the topic was Cubela's request.

No cognitive dissonance here. Nor any ideological bias. A call is a call, and the possible significance of the timing speaks for itself.

Tim also wrote:

The above evades the basic point: if Cubela was sufficiently suspicious and/or investigative to demand a meeting with RFK, why would his inability to obtain the requisite meeting be interpreted as Kennedy approval? What did FitzGerald have to offer that would provide assurance of Kennedy complicity? It couldn't be the easily proven lie that FitzGerald was a senator.

What Fitzgerald offered was that Kennedy would insert langauge in a speech indicating his approval. A CIA officer testified to delivering the language was drafted by Fitzgerald to the WH and JFK employed the language in his Monday, November 18 speech to the IAPA.

Edited by Tim Gratz
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...