Thomas Graves Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) Tosh, I appreciate the fact that you are on this forum to share what you can, and that there are limits to that. I have two questions that should allow for your necessary discretion, and is something I would really like your input on. -What did you think of President Kennedy prior to Nov 22, 1963? -What do you think of him now, in retrospect? Thank you. Myra ___________________________________________ Dear Myra, Do you think William Plumlee willingly and knowingly participated in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK? (If I were you, I'd ask him if he was the SOB CIA contract pilot who made the Z313 head shot. (Or if he saw Joseph Milteer, Ted Shakley, David Morales, Santa Claus, Ed Lansdale, etc in DP that day. Oh!! I forgot! You already have!!!) Hey! I have an idea! Maybe "Tosh" is a member of this forum just to spread evil disinformation! Sincerely, Thomas [edited to correct typos in the interest of reducing confusion and, at the same time, dispense a healthy dose of overall comfort and security to those would in all probability feel an overwhelming sense of guilt, paranoia, persecution, insecurity, and/or shame and/or frustration, angst, and last-but-not-least, anger for not being able to understand and/or "deal with" the above post in an unedited/uncorrected form, gramatically, syntactically, and spelling-wisesidlly (sp?)] ___________________________________________ Edited November 1, 2006 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Tosh, I appreciate the fact that you are on this forum to share what you can, and that there are limits to that. I have two questions that should allow for your necessary discretion, and is something I would really like your input on. -What did you think of President Kennedy prior to Nov 22, 1963? -What do you think of him now, in retrospect? Thank you. Myra ___________________________________________ Dear Myra, Do you think William Plumlee willingly and knowingly participated in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK? Sincerely, Thomas (edited to correct typos in the interest of reducing confusion and, at the same time, dispense a healthy dose of overall comfort and security to those would in all probability feel an overwhelming sense of guilt, paranoia, persecution, insecurity, and/or shame for not being able to understand and/or "deal with" the post in an unedited/uncorrected form) ___________________________________________ I don't know Thomas. I think, as Terry said, there was a "need to know" system that insulated individuals, each of whom only had part of the picture. That makes sense with an agency of spooks. So it's possible that he wasn't knowingly an accessory during the fact. I do know that the CIA could not overthrow elected leaders, foreign and domestic, without a propaganda component. I know we've been lied to for 50 years about their activities, and more relevant to this forum, about their bloody 1963 coup. And the propaganda is still going strong; we're treated to a steady stream of books insisting LHO/the mafia/Castro dunnit alone, and McAdams rules google. So when I read WP's statements in conjunction with his posts, and they seem incredible in the ways I've already described, I lean towards believing it's conscious disinformation. I've also given my opinion on how I think disinformation has led us down the road to fascism. (It's so bizarre when people say "on the brink of fascism;" we were there decades ago.) Secrecy is the enabler of fascism. A better way of saying it is: "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. ... For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. " --President Kennedy, April 27, 1961 What's especially interesting about this speech is that the President was struggling to reconcile the need for circumspection for the sake of national security (second paragraph), with his total rejection of national security as an excuse for secrecy. He clearly knows that secrecy can undermine a democracy. And in the second paragraph he's probably talking about the cold war, but could just as easily be describing the CIA. What he warned us about did, in fact, come to pass. So I definitely don't appreciate the WP mindset that the CIA and it's agents protect us dumb rubes from the scary facts. That it's the stern daddy who knows best and we mustn't bother our feeble little heads with reality now run along. Bullxxxx. It's this very contempt for people who want to go to the voting booth and hire representatives and have some godamn idea what those representatives are doing, and even dare to demand some voice in the direction of our government policy, that makes the CIA so...repugnant. Even if they had good motives, this covert hijacking of our government would be unacceptable. But the good motives were also lacking, as we can see from the carnage in Dallas. WP's mindset, expressed in post #21, seems to be an endorsement of the CIA abuses that got us where we are in the guise of national security. Clearly his definition of freedom is not my definition of freedom. I'm sorry I can't be more succinct in expressing this, but I think the patronizing platitudes about protecting us from ourselves are really alarming. If WP was one of the more decent operatives, and he may well have been, imagine how fanatical that environment must have been. So back to the issue of actual culpability for President Kennedy's murder, I doubt he was a knowing accomplice. But at some point he had to know or suspect and likely be an accessory after the fact. I think he must have known that in general he was doing illegal things even if they were for a gov't agency (just following orders...). As I said I do think the business of the CIA was murder (often on behalf of businesses) and propaganda. I doubt it was possible to work for them for long without getting bloody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) Dupe. Edited November 2, 2006 by Myra Bronstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Plumlee Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 (edited) deleted Edited November 3, 2006 by William Plumlee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted November 3, 2006 Author Share Posted November 3, 2006 Myra...,You don't get it: Your post below (in red) was in respond to my previous reply to yours. ("I can't handle the truth") .., from the movie.... ("And I see dumb people all around",) is mine to you, .., also from a movie. Got It? Kind of like "tit for tat" so to speak... However, even this you quoted the post and my intentions wrong. You got it all wrong... Just like your judgements about me and what I am; and what I stand for... So be it... Its your freedom to think what you want and to believe what you like about me. I am not responsible for your stupidy. Why does this sound familiar? Oh, yeah... Jessep: You want answers? Kaffee: I think I'm entitled. Jessep: You want answers?! Kaffee: I want the truth! Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?! You, Lieutenant Weinberg?! I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said, "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to! Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red? Jessep: I did the job I was sent to do-- Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?! Jessep: (shouting) You're goddamn right I did!! (Practically word for word. Nathan R. Jessep.) I totally got it William. I quoted a movie, then you paraphrased a movie. Ok. We're in synch there. And if nothing else we each have good taste in movies. If you say I'm wrong about you then I would have to respect that. And I certainly don't know what you stand for; that's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Plumlee Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 (edited) deleted Edited November 3, 2006 by William Plumlee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Plumlee Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now