Warren and 40 million dead

[Larry Hancock]

Of course I second everything Rex said in his post and I'd just like to add a few items

for thought on how ironic (or implausable) things were in the 24 hours after Oswald

was taken into custody.

1. Hover knew that Oswald had apparently met with and possibly had multiple

contacts with Kostikov, thought to be a senior KGB officer in charge of covert

actions. Kostikov was taken seriously enough to be under constant daily

surveillance in Mexico. The information about Kostikov and Oswald had been shared

with a number of other security agencies including CIA. But ostensibly not with

Oswald's assigned office of responsiblity (Dallas) or Agent of responsiblity (Hosty).

In fact Hoover had a query memo from his HQ chief of security bringing up

concerns on this subject.

2. Hoover had files or information which led him to belive Oswald had been

in Cuba on multiple trips. Others may have had similar reports.

3. The CIA had files on telephone intercepts suggesting some special relationship

between the Cuban embassy and Oswald including the datum that the Cuban embassy

knew where to contact Oswald in MC.

........and yet we see no sign that the FBI, CIA or any other security agency

reacted to conduct a focused interview with Oswald on Mexico City, Kostikov, the Cubans etc

while Oswald was alive and in custody. Given the potential seriousness of the situation

at the height of the cold war why wasn't Oswald given the same treatment Duran was

or at least given a dose of babblejuice.

4. We now know the Soviets were worried about being blamed and that personnel

were sent out from their embassies to reassure people. Think about this for a moment,

if you are Soviet, know Kostikov and his business, know Oswald was in contact with

him......and worry that Oswald may say anything to save his rear. At what point to

you panic and decide you had better launch before the Americans do? Or at least get on

the Red phone and offer to turn over tapes of your own of his visit to the embassy

to clear yourself. Speculative, certainly. Impossible...think about it.

[Robert Howard]

Re: 40 million Americans, LBJ put this specifically in the context of Mexico City and such, telling Russell on 11/29 for instance that "we've got to be taking it out of the arena where they're testinfying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=2

I think it's clear that, whether LBJ was playacting or not, the game was that the "evidence" that Oswald was working for the Soviets or Cubans could have pushed the U.S. into the position of war, and a first strike was certainly a possible form for that.

Mexico City is crucial here of course and gets less attention than it deserves, partly because the documents have been long-delayed and partly due to the complexities of understanding what was really going on due to the cover-up which ensued. But there are many reasons to believe that the false evidence tying Oswald to a plot to kill Kennedy emanating from Mexico City was stronger than we now have "in the record," and much of that (ultimately false) evidence was later suppressed. Some indications of this:

* The two CIA translators remembered a "third call" not in the record, lengthy, in English, in which Oswald or "Oswald" purportedly tried to get the Soviets to pay for his passage to Russia and hinted at special knowledge he had. Not an assassination call per se, but possibly implying a deeper relationship than the more innocuous visa calls we have.

* Both Hoover and Army Intelligence happened to have false information in their files saying that Oswald had been to Cuba. In the case of Army Intelligence, this resulted in a cable to the U.S. Strike Command in Florida on 11/22.

* Al Haig writes in his memoirs about a memo he saw on 11/23 which put Oswald in Havana in the company of two Cuban agents, and that he had gotten their from Mexico. Was this false information planted in govt. files on the assumption that Oswald would have made it to Cuba instead of being turned back (or that, if he had ended up on the streets of Dallas, papers could have been planted on him to make it look like he had)? I don't know what to make of Haig's assertion, but it indicates that more might have been floating around DC than the Alvarado and other stories we now have.

* There are indications that Elena Garro de Paz may have been telling her story about Oswald and Cubans hanging together as early as 11/22 or 11/23, not a year later as the official chronology has her starting her tale.

* Chief of CIA Station Win Scott wrote in his memoirs a story which completely contradicts the official story about Oswald's trip. Anne Goodpasture, his chief aide, also wrote about things not otherwise in the record, including someone calling the Soviet Embassy and using both the name Lee and the name Harvey.

And on and on. I think we are looking through a different lens than the one the highest levels of govt. had on 11/22. Theirs included more now-buried evidence of commie complicity. Again, I should stress that this was false evidence,and I'm not even saying that LBJ or even Warren believed it. But if the forum for deciding what happened in the Kennedy assassination had been the Senate Internal Security Committee or other venues like that, you can bet that "they'd be testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that", with government evidence to back it up.

I think we may all be lucky that Oswald ended up in police custody rather than being found dead on 11/22. Then the missiles might really have flown, based on false evidence which could no longer be refuted (including a tape of him talking to the Soviets, with no way for the FBI to determine it wasn't his voice on the tapes, which is what actually happened).

Peter Scott and John Newman have written on this topic, as many people know. Here is a link to some other essays from them and from myself, along with supporting documentation.

http://www.history-matters.com/frameup.htm

Rex

One of the most interesting items in the ARRB Final Report concerns those darn missing/and or destroyed records which can be so damaging when one tries to hide evidence. Does anyone feel "it is in the realm of possibility" that the referenced items below 'may be relevant in relation to the subject of this thread?'

"Within the McCone papers, the Review Board noticed several file folders with notations or sheets indicating documents on a wide variety of subjects which are either missing or were destroyed. Of the missing or destroyed documents, two refer to the Kennedy assassination. One document from a 1963 listing is described as "Date of Meeting 26 Nov; Participants DCI & Bundy; Subjects Covered Msg concerning Pres. Kennedy's assassination." The second document is described as "Date of Meeting19 May 64; ParticipantsDCI, J.J. McCloy; Dinner at ResidenceRe: Oswald." This document is annotated "Destroyed 12872." CIA historians noted that both documents were missing when they reviewed the files in 1986. The Review Board designated as assassination records all relevant documents from the McCone files including the notations on the destroyed and missing records.........

.........The Review Board requested that NSA locate the original files of top NSA officials during the period of the Warren Commission (NSA Director Lt. Gen. Gordon Blake and NSA Deputy Director Dr. Louis Tordella). NSA located materials on the Warren Commission from files of Deputy Director Tordella."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part08.htm

Just food for thought.

Edited August 21, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Dawn Meredith]

Legend has it that Warren left the meeting with LBJ in tears, finally assenting to heading the commission. Legend further has it that these tears were for the fallen president and/or the concept of 40 million dead. I have alsways thought they had something on Warren and it was blackmail, thus the tears.

Anyone ever learn if Warren had some deep secret, perhaps unearthed by Hoover's goons?

Dawn

[Michael Hogan]

I wonder if President Johnson or Chief Justice Warren ever saw this movie. I'm guessing they did.

It's Dr. Strangelove, but without the laughs.

Fail Safe

, made within a year of Strangelove and at the height of cold war atomic anxiety, posits a similar nightmare scenario. A U.S. bomber is accidentally ordered toward Moscow, ready to drop its load. The U.S. president (Henry Fonda) and various military and congressional leaders must then scramble to deal with the disaster. The built-in suspense is well maintained by director Sidney Lumet, working from a script by former blacklisted writer Walter Bernstein. The solemn, serious approach doesn't begin to touch the brilliance of Strangelove's inspired take on the nuclear nightmare, but Fail Safe is absorbing and well acted (a memorable role for Walter Matthau, for instance). The movie enters unexpected territory in its final minutes; conditioned for feel-good endings, viewers are still genuinely shocked by the plot turns in the final reels. The climax comes as a sobering slap in the face, intriguingly staged by Lumet. Now that the cold war has passed on into history, Fail Safe stands as--thank goodness--an interesting period piece. (Robert Horton)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004XPP...=UTF8&s=dvd

[Rex Bradford]

Legend has it that Warren left the meeting with LBJ in tears, finally assenting to heading the commission. Legend further has it that these tears were for the fallen president and/or the concept of 40 million dead. I have alsways thought they had something on Warren and it was blackmail, thus the tears.

Anyone ever learn if Warren had some deep secret, perhaps unearthed by Hoover's goons?

Dawn

We have a bit more than legend. Lyndon Johnson himself on 11/29 told Richard Russell a story about how he got Warren to sign onto the commission earlier the same day:

Transcript: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...oc.do?docId=912

Recording: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b...v-1963_855P.mp3

LBJ: "Well, you want me to tell you the truth? You know what happened? Bobby and them went up to see him today and he turned them down cold and said NO. Two hours later I called him and ordered him down here and he didn't want to come. I insisted he come. He came down here and told me NO twice.....and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City and I said now, I don't want to Mr. Khrushchev to be told tomorrow and be testifying before a camera that he killed this fellow, and that Castro killed him, and all I want you to do is look at the facts and bring in any other facts you want in here and determine who killed the President, and I think you can put on your uniform of World War I - fat as you are - and do anything you could to save one American life. And I'm surprised that you, the Chief Justice of the United States, would turn me down. And he started crying, and said, well I won't turn you down, I'll just do whatever you say. But he turned the Attorney General down."

I doubt LBJ actually told Warren he was fat, but the general story is corroborated by Warren himself in his memoirs (minus the tears, I believe).

I don't think Warren was threatened by some personal peccadillo. I think he did what he did "for the good of the country" as he saw it.

I suspect, and it is only speculation, that Warren was smart enough to realize that this probably was a domestic conspiracy and not an international one. But that doesn't change the fact that he would have to run a cover-up to keep the missiles from flying. Perhaps he was crying for himself, for being forced into a position of having to conduct an immense lie.

In his memoirs, Warren wrote a passage which I think can be interpreted two ways:

"Practically all the Cabinet members of President Kennedy's administration, along with Director J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI and Chief James Rowley of the Secret Service, whose duty it was to protect the life of the President, testified that to their knowlege there was no sign of any conspiracy. To say now that these people, as well as the Commission, suppressed, neglected to unearth, or overlooked evidence of a conspiracy would be an indictment of the entire government of the United States. It would mean that the whole structure was corrupt from top to bottom, with not one person of high or low rank willing to come forth to expose the villany....."

Given that we know that Warren and others indeed conducted a knowing cover-up, the paragraph above takes on new meaning. This is the real tragedy of the Kennedy assassination I think which is missed in all the debates about the single bullet theory and so on. The level of corruption exposed by the cover-up is why the national media can never deal honestly with the topic.

Rex

[Robert Howard]

Legend has it that Warren left the meeting with LBJ in tears, finally assenting to heading the commission. Legend further has it that these tears were for the fallen president and/or the concept of 40 million dead. I have alsways thought they had something on Warren and it was blackmail, thus the tears.

Anyone ever learn if Warren had some deep secret, perhaps unearthed by Hoover's goons?

Dawn

We have a bit more than legend. Lyndon Johnson himself on 11/29 told Richard Russell a story about how he got Warren to sign onto the commission earlier the same day:

Transcript: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...oc.do?docId=912

Recording: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b...v-1963_855P.mp3

LBJ: "Well, you want me to tell you the truth? You know what happened? Bobby and them went up to see him today and he turned them down cold and said NO. Two hours later I called him and ordered him down here and he didn't want to come. I insisted he come. He came down here and told me NO twice.....and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City and I said now, I don't want to Mr. Khrushchev to be told tomorrow and be testifying before a camera that he killed this fellow, and that Castro killed him, and all I want you to do is look at the facts and bring in any other facts you want in here and determine who killed the President, and I think you can put on your uniform of World War I - fat as you are - and do anything you could to save one American life. And I'm surprised that you, the Chief Justice of the United States, would turn me down. And he started crying, and said, well I won't turn you down, I'll just do whatever you say. But he turned the Attorney General down."

I doubt LBJ actually told Warren he was fat, but the general story is corroborated by Warren himself in his memoirs (minus the tears, I believe).

I don't think Warren was threatened by some personal peccadillo. I think he did what he did "for the good of the country" as he saw it.

I suspect, and it is only speculation, that Warren was smart enough to realize that this probably was a domestic conspiracy and not an international one. But that doesn't change the fact that he would have to run a cover-up to keep the missiles from flying. Perhaps he was crying for himself, for being forced into a position of having to conduct an immense lie.

In his memoirs, Warren wrote a passage which I think can be interpreted two ways:

"Practically all the Cabinet members of President Kennedy's administration, along with Director J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI and Chief James Rowley of the Secret Service, whose duty it was to protect the life of the President, testified that to their knowlege there was no sign of any conspiracy. To say now that these people, as well as the Commission, suppressed, neglected to unearth, or overlooked evidence of a conspiracy would be an indictment of the entire government of the United States. It would mean that the whole structure was corrupt from top to bottom, with not one person of high or low rank willing to come forth to expose the villany....."

Given that we know that Warren and others indeed conducted a knowing cover-up, the paragraph above takes on new meaning. This is the real tragedy of the Kennedy assassination I think which is missed in all the debates about the single bullet theory and so on. The level of corruption exposed by the cover-up is why the national media can never deal honestly with the topic.

Rex

Perhaps he was crying for himself, for being forced into a position of having to conduct an immense lie.

It would not be too radical a concept to compare Warren's dilemma, as being analagous to someone hearing the words, "Aren't you lucky, you're the last passenger to get on the Titanic."

[Michael Hogan]

In his memoirs, Warren wrote a passage which I think can be interpreted two ways:

"Practically all the Cabinet members of President Kennedy's administration, along with Director J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI and Chief James Rowley of the Secret Service, whose duty it was to protect the life of the President, testified that to their knowlege there was no sign of any conspiracy. To say now that these people, as well as the Commission, suppressed, neglected to unearth, or overlooked evidence of a conspiracy would be an indictment of the entire government of the United States. It would mean that the whole structure was corrupt from top to bottom, with not one person of high or low rank willing to come forth to expose the villany....."

Given that we know that Warren and others indeed conducted a knowing cover-up, the paragraph above takes on new meaning. This is the real tragedy of the Kennedy assassination I think which is missed in all the debates about the single bullet theory and so on. The level of corruption exposed by the cover-up is why the national media can never deal honestly with the topic.

Rex

Rex, its always a pleasure to read your posts. And again, thanks for everything else you have done to make important research accessible to anyone with a computer.

Mike Hogan

[Cliff Varnell]

The "40 million dead" scenario was a con job from beginning to end.

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

(quote on)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a pre-text to launch a war.

(quote off)

BODY OF SECRETS (pg 87): Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Lyman

Lemnitzer wrote in a memorandum to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara,

April 10, 1962...

(quote on, emphasis added)

The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near

future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present

communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic

or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the

United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...The Joint

Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military intervention in Cuba

WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL WAR. They also believe that the intervention can be

accomplished rapidly enough to minimize communist opportunities for solicitation of

U.N. action.

(quote off)

In order to successfully establish a pre-text to invade Cuba, "the objective is to

provide irrevocable proof" that anti-American acts were ordered by Castro, and

that such proof would allow the US to invade Cuba "without risk of general war."

Such was the thinking at the top of American military circles in 1962, and, I'd

speculate, on 11/22/63.

Such was the thinking of at least one Cuban journalist on Eleven Twenty-Two,

according to this:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2303/sto...24001605500.htm

(quote on)

On November 22, 1963, I was in the picturesque La Percherie restaurant in the port of

Algiers, anticipating the house's excellent snails with Helen Klein, the United States

press chief of President Ahmed Ben Bella. We suddenly received the terrible news.

"President Kennedy has been assassinated!" Now they are going to blame Cuba," I

immediately told her.

"Don't exaggerate," she said.

We quickly went to the Prensa Latina agency on 26, Rue Claude Debussy, where I was

working as a correspondent. There I learned how the radio stations were repeating that

the Cuban government was responsible for the assassination. Surprised, Helen asked me

how I had guessed it.

"I'm not a fortune-teller," I explained, "but for the United States, Cuba is the cause of all

evil. A little bit of it because of hysteria and another little bit because they are looking for

a pretext to try and crush us."

However, a few hours later, the accusation vanished into the air with the same speed that

it had entered...

A Washington-based journalist with close links to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

told me in confidence that the version originally came from the CIA, which distributed a

note stating that Lee Harvey Oswald had committed the murder on behalf of the Cuban government. He added that the FBI forced the media to withdraw the accusation.

When I asked the veteran journalist why the FBI had taken the trouble to do so, he

explained that they considered the initiative an irresponsibility that could have unleashed incalculable consequences, such as a third world war.

(quote off)

Plan A of the assassination plot, to murder JFK in a manner that could be blamed on

a Castro conspiracy, became Plan B in the cover-up: when the lone assassin scenario

(Cover-up Plan A) falls apart, blame Castro and conjur the vision of "40 million dead."

Clearly, the bar that the super-hawks established for a fruitful pretext for invasion had

not been cleared when Oswald was captured alive. Civilian hawks like McGeorge Bundy

understood this, even if the CIA did not. According to Vincent Salandria, Bundy first

transmitted the "news" that Oswald was a lone nut to LBJ before the new President

even landed in DC.

From Salandria's article, "The Tale Told by Two Tapes,"

(quote on)

The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the lone assassin...

McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending that fateful

afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from Air Force

One when the lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth...

(quote off)

According to Max Holland's THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION TAPES, Bundy,

Sec/Def Robert McNamara, and George Ball discussed the "overseas implications of

the assassination" on the helicopter ride from Andrews AFB to the White House (pg 57).

LBJ wasn't in the White House more than a few minutes before another major figure

popped in to tell the new Prez what's what...

THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION TAPES, pg 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m.Johnson has a ten-minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

(D-Arkansas) and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement

in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half year Soviet sojourn of Lee

Harvey Oswald, a twenty-four-year-old man apprehended by Dallas police who is now

considered the chief suspect. Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during

World War II, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the

President the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None

of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination.

(quote off)

I'd speculate that Harriman and Bundy -- rocks of the Eastern Establishment -- would

have signed off on a Cuban invasion if Oswald had been gunned down on Eleven Twenty-Two.

A dead patsy would have enabled the "rapid intervention" required to avoid "general war."

That the patsy was captured alive muddled the picture, so Harriman and Bundy killed the

Castro-did-it scenario.

The man caught in the middle of all this was J. Edgar Hoover. Sympathetic with the

super-hawks, Hoover was given the job of proving that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone

without any foreign involvement.

It was not a job that Hoover relished, I'd speculate, which is why he expressed his

"confusion" during the 11/23 call from LBJ:

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/fram...enMinuteGap.htm

I find this passage from Gerald McKnight's BREACH OF TRUST most telling:

(quote on)

Cartha D. "Deke" DeLoach, the assistant director in charge of the Crime Records Division,

the bureau's well-oiled and effective public relations machine, leaves us with the image of

"the Director" as a natural leader abled to rise to the occasion and surmount any crisis.

DeLoach's Hoover faced national traumas with "a cold and analytical eye," transforming

himself into a high performance machine, spitting out orders...measuring his words with

the precision of a jeweler." Nevertheless, on the day of the assassination DeLoach's

unerring, machinelike director unaccountably broke down. Before that shattering day was

over, virtually every fact he reported to high government officers was wrong. He had shots

coming from the fourth and fifth floors of the book depository building and a Winchester

rifle as the murder rather than the now familiar Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly owned by

Oswald. He had Oswald shuttling back and forth to Castro's Cuba, when in fact Oswald's

one effort to get to Cuba from Mexico in the fall of 1963 had proven futile. There is no

FBI or other government record made public that documents Oswald ever being in Cuba...

Before the day was over, Hoover, despite his record of factual error, hade envisioned the

solution to the crime -- Oswald, "a nut of the extreme pro-Castro crowd," was the lone

assassin.

(quote off)

So, was Hoover a senile old man venting his delusions, or was there a method to

his madness?

The following suggests the latter:

BREACH OF TRUST pg 16:

(quote on)

As the result of stellar investigative techniques or an informant, the FBI had traced

Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano...to Klein's [sporting Goods Company] the day of

the assassination.

(quote off)

So Hoover had his boys hot on the trail of the MC while Hoover spouted out about

a Winchester, as well as multiple shooting locations and a lone assassin.

I'd speculate that Hoover was keeping both scenarios open -- Castro Conspiracy and

Lone Nut -- in order to accomodate both the Harriman/Bundy crowd (Yankees) and the

Generals "L" -- LeMay, Lemnitzer and Lansdale (Cowboys). Hoover wanted to push for

Castro Conspiracy, but the Yankees held sway over the new President.

This ambiguity extended to the way in which the evidence was handled as it came in

to the FBI Lab on 11/22 and the morning of 11/23.

This document, unearthed by Anthony Marsh, is the contemporaneous notes of

FBI lead examiner Robert Frazier.

http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/436461A.gif

Note the two references to "Q1" and the listing of the limo frags initially as "#1 #2 #3".

Those frags were later designated "Q11 Q12 Q13" (according to John Hunt) and still later

designated together as "Q14."

http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/436461A.gif

This document, unearthed by John Hunt, is Frazier's "evidence roadmap," which

he prepared for his WC testimony. Note the reference to the distribution of

master evidence lists with "the Q & K #s blanked out." (#5)...

http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/...aks/Figure3.jpg

At 10:01am on 11/23/63 LBJ called Hoover and told him to squelch all talk

of conspiracy. The Northwoods option had failed, and Hoover was stuck

with the job of turning an obvious conspiracy into the work of one man.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[John Dolva]

If there was real indisputable proof of Cuban involvement, I suspect the hawks would have little difficulty in isolating Cuba from the Soviet block.

Kruschev could have been forced to stand back and wash his hands of whatever the US choose to do there. It in itself need not have caused a nuclear exchange.

A reading of the history of the Missile Crisis and the negotiations there and the different powerplays that evolved from it. Kruschevs candid and voiced support of the Kennedy style etc would remove a nuclear option.----if it was indeed the Cubans behind the assassination.

Yet it is there, and it's there with a peculiar number that corresponds to a first strike by the US on the USSR.

Which of the conspiracies suggested would cause a first strike option?

What about the one that threatens to expose a US domestic military coup?

Should that have begun to surface as a real possibility, waiting in the wing was the damning Cuba 'evidence' and the Hawks for the sake of national security diverting attention in the most attention grabbing way possible while annihalating their sworn enemy. so:: first strike..shoot first worry about the questions later.

So it's in the enemy of bolshevism, the last bulwark of capitalism one should look.

Communist analysis determines this to be the Fascist. I think in this instance, the Corporate Fascist.

("As the result of stellar investigative techniques or an informant*, the FBI had traced

Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano...to Klein's [sporting Goods Company] the day of

the assassination." *HarryD. Holmes)

Edited August 22, 2006 by John Dolva

[Dawn Meredith]

I wonder if President Johnson or Chief Justice Warren ever saw this movie. I'm guessing they did.

It's Dr. Strangelove, but without the laughs.

Fail Safe

, made within a year of Strangelove and at the height of cold war atomic anxiety, posits a similar nightmare scenario

HI Mike:

I saw Fail Safe one time in the mid 80's. Found it to be possibley the most upsetting film I have ever seen. I have not viewed it a second time for that reason.

Watching the news these days makes me think that this scenario could happen at any moment. (nukes in Iran, W in the WH). Informed reason out the window. "Strange days indeed"

Dawn