J. Timothy Gratz

[John Simkin]

I have decided to create a page on Tim Gratz.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgratzT.htm

As a result of this I have decided to reinstate Tim. I know he was originally removed for threatening to sue me and I fully expect him to do so again, however, I think it is only fair that he gets the opportunity to defend himself. (He might also be able to provide some insight into Bush's decisions in Iraq and Iran.)

Most of you will know Tim for his postings on Fidel Castro's involvement in the JFK assassination. This is only the latest example of his role as a disinformation agent.

Tim obtained a political science and law degree from University of Wisconsin. As a student he was active in the Republican Party and a member of the Young Americans for Freedom.

Tim became Chairman of Wisconsin Republican Party College Organization. On 18th December, 1971, Gratz received a phone call from a man calling himself Don Simmons. In fact, his real name was Donald Segretti. Apparently, Dwight Chaplin had hired Segretti to disrupt the Democratic campaign. Tim later recalled: "Simmons said he was interested in running a "negative campaign" in Wisconsin. He explained that the purpose of the campaign was to create as much bitterness and disunity within the Democrat primary as possible.... He also said he was interested in planting spies in the Democrat candidate's offices."

Donald Segretti offered Tim $100.00 per month, plus expenses, to co-ordinate these projects. Tim agreed to work on the project and he was given an advance payment of $50.00. Tim later told Anthony Ulasewicz that "although the whole incident seemed strange" he agreed to help "as most of the ideas he suggested seemed like they were worth doing anyway". However, Tim claimed he told Karl Rove, Chairman of the College Republican National Committee, about this dirty tricks campaign.

This is strange as we now know that Rove himself was part of Segretti's campaign. In fact, he probably played a leading role in this dirty tricks operation. Rove had becoome friends with CIA asset, Bob Bennett. in 1968. According to one report, Bennett became a "mentor of Rove's".

In 1970, Rove used a false identity to enter the campaign office of Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who was running for Illinois State Treasurer, and stole 1000 sheets of paper with campaign letterhead. Rove then printed fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters, with the effect of disrupting Dixon's rally. It is important to remember these details of this dirty tricks campaign.

Donald Segretti later told the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (3rd October, 1973) the main objective of his dirty tricks campaign was to discredit Edmund Muskie as he was the candidate that Richard Nixon feared the most. As one political commentator pointed out: "he seemed unstoppable; he had had ample financial backing, name recognition, experience, image, endorsement, and top standing in the polls."

Other targets included Edward Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson. It was decided that George McGovern was the candidate that Nixon wanted to face in the presidential election. Tim was one of 28 people hired by Segretti to carry out this smear campaign.

During the New Hampshire primary, the Manchester Union Leader, published a letter that claimed Muskie had made disparaging remarks about French-Canadians. The newspaper also attacked the character of Muskie's wife Jane, reporting that she drank heavily and used bad language during the campaign. Muskie made an emotional speech defending his wife. The press reported he had broken down in tears and this damaged his image as a calm and rational politician. Although Muskie won the New Hampshire primary, this incident had raised doubts about his ability to be a strong president.

As Keith W. Olson (Watergate: The Presidential Scandal That Shook America) has pointed out: "Segretti carried out his tricks to the fullest extent in Florida". Patrick J. Buchanan told John N. Mitchell and H. R. Haldeman on 2nd January, 1972, "clearly, the Florida primary is shaping up as the first good opportunity and perhaps the last good opportunity to derail the Muskie candidacy".

One of Segretti's agents stole Muskie campaign stationery and mailed a fraudulent letter to 300 supporters of fellow contenders, Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson. This letter claimed that Jackson had fathered a child with an unmarried teenager and that the police had arrested him on homosexual charges. It went onto claim that Humphrey had been arrested while in the company of a prostitute, for driving under the influence of alcohol. It was assumed that Muskie was behind this smear campaign and his credibility as a honest politician was severely damaged.

Other dirty tricks in Florida included a naked girl running through Muskie's hotel claiming that she was in love with the Democratic contender. Segretti's agents, posing as Muskie supporters, telephoned voters in the middle of the night asking them to support their candidate.

George Wallace, won 42% of the vote in the Florida primary. Hubert Humphrey came in second, with 18.6%, then Henry Jackson with 13% and the the pre-election favourite, Edmund Muskie, finished fourth with 8.9%. This result added support to Segretti's claim that his dirty tricks campaign had the ability to remove people like Muskie from the race.

Segretti and his team of agents, including Tim, now began to concentrate on the Wisconsin primary. Dirty tricks included distributing leaflets that appeared to have been produced by Muskie's campaign team. One of these invited Milwaukee's black residents to a free lunch and beer picnic at which they could meet Coretta Scott, the widow of Martin Luther King and famous television stars. When they arrived their excitement turned to anger when they found no celebrities, no lunch, and no beer. Sound familiar? Yes, it is virtually a carbon copy of Rove’s activities against Alan J. Dixon in 1970.

Once again this dirty tricks campaign worked. On 4th April, 1972, George McGovern won the Wisconsin primary. George Wallace came second with Edmund Muskie in fourth position. A few days later, Patrick J. Buchanan reported to John N. Mitchell and H. R. Haldeman that "our primary objective, to prevent Senator Muskie from sweeping the early primaries.... and uniting the Democratic Party behind him for the fall has been achieved." Buchanan then recommended that they concentrate on assisting McGovern's bid to be the presidential candidate "in every way we can".

During their investigation of the Watergate Scandal the journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discovered that Donald Segretti had attempted to smear leading politicians such as George McGovern, Edward Kennedy, Edmund Muskie and Henry Jackson. This included the letters sent during the Florida primary elections. The FBI had also revealed that the letter that had been sent to the Manchester Union Leader during the New Hampshire primary was also a forgery.

On 27th October, 1972, Time Magazine published an article claiming that it had obtained information from FBI files that Dwight Chaplin had hired Segretti to disrupt the Democratic campaign. The following month Carl Bernstein interviewed Segretti who admitted that E. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy were behind the dirty tricks campaign against the Democratic Party.

It is not known what role Tim Gratz played in this campaign. Nor do we know details of all the dirty tricks campaigns organized by Segretti/Rove. Segretti only confessed to those that the FBI had discovered. We can assume that there were others that have never come to light.

The date of the meeting that Tim had with Segretti is very important. According to the statement he gave to Anthony Ulasewicz hey met on 18th December, 1971. This is at the very beginning of the proposed dirty tricks campaign. Their main activities were in 1972. It is also interesting that Tim tells Rove about his meeting with Segretti who then arranges for him to meet Ulasewicz. We now know that Ulasewicz and Rove both held important roles in these dirty tricks campaigns. In fact, Ulasewicz, was in charge of Operation Sandwedge. This was a highly secret operation that has never been fully revealed. In fact, as Ulasewicz points out in his autobiography, the Senate Committee looking into the Watergate Scandal, avoided all questions on Sandwedge. The name gives as a clue, a sand wedge is a club that you use when you are in serious trouble.

In his book, The Taking of America, Richard E. Sprague argued that Gratz was involved with Donald Segretti and Dennis Cassini in supplying money to Arthur Bremer before he attempted to assassinate George Wallace. After Nixon had arranged to face McGovern in 1972, Wallace posed the main threat to his election. Wallace intended to run as a third-party candidate. Polls were suggesting that if this happened, Wallace would take Nixon's right-wing votes and McGovern could win the election. Wallace had to be removed from the race. The link between Segretti, Ulasewicz, Gratz and Bremer is therefore, highly significant.

We mainly know J. Timothy Gratz as a supporter of Bush's right-wing policies and his theory that Fidel Castro was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Is there a link between these activities and Tim's shady political past?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgratzT.htm

[Dawn Meredith]

Well it will be interesting to see Tim back. We all miss the debates between him and Robert -Charles Dunne. RCD always kicked butt. Now that W is in the tank in terms of popularity it will be fascinating to read Tim trying to defend his president, (who is indefensible in my opinion). And to respond to the Rove dirty tricks information. I can hear him now!

But 'cha know he will turn every thread into his Castro -did -it nonsense.

None-the less- let me be the first to say "welcome back Tim".

Dawn

[John Geraghty]

Welcome back Tim,

I await with intrigue your continued input,

John

[John Simkin]

In case you missed it, here are a couple of classic Tim Gratz and Robert Charles-Dunne confrontations on Watergate:

(9th July, 2005)

J. Timothy Gratz: Re dirty tricks, without looking at the memorandum, I do not recall ever writing a memorandum. I had told you that before, in a private e-mail. This is not to say I had not written a memorandum to anyone about Segretti's approach to me, and if I saw the entire memorandum I might be able to determine from the verbiage whether I actually wrote it.

Robert Charles-Dunne: But counsellor, in your very first sentence you admitted having written a memo, and wish only that it be reproduced here in its entirety to ensure proper context. I know that certain memories may fade with time, but just how many memos must one write on just how many political scandals, before one fails to recall their own footnote to political sleaze culture history? Geez, Tim; you're the good guy in this tale... can't you remember what you did to earn that qualification?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that the hierarchy of your own Republican party would forge a memo and falsely attribute it to you? If so, why do you remain a member of so corrupt and despicable a party?

J. Timothy Gratz: I was concerned about much of what Segretti was proposing, which, of course, was why I reported him. As I said before (and is the truth) I was concerned that Segretti (who I knew as "Simmons") was being funded by a well-meaning but ill-informed rich Republican (perhaps W. Clement Stone) or by a Democrat or by the Democratic Party as an agent provocateur.

Robert Charles-Dunne: Your mind works in interesting ways. You can actually envision a scenario in which the Democrats would recruit a young Republican to spy on the Democrats' own campaign for the Democrats? Couldn't Democrats simply spy on their own campaign? It seems much simpler. I don't know which is odder: that you believed that then, or that you think we will now. Your elaborately byzantine Castro-did-it nonsense pales by comparison.

J. Timothy Gratz: I wanted to report Segretti's activities to the highest level of the Committee to Re-Elect the President which is why I contacted Karl Rove (who was then the Chairman of the College Republican National Committee). I asked him to contact a high official in CREEP for me.

Robert Charles-Dunne: Reporting the mysterious "Simmons" to Rove only alerted Rove that his former mentor Segretti was running a non-secure operation. Rove may assert that he didn't know "Simmons" was Segretti, but that's an obvious falsehood. Among the things that got Segretti disbarred and sent to jail was the 1972 poaching and improper use of a rival candidate's letterhead. Two years earlier, Karl Rove did the same thing while under Segretti's tutelage. Rove would have recognized Segretti's modus operandi, even if Rove didn't know Segretti was using the nom de guerre "Simmons," which is itself highly questionable. Irrespective of your claimed aims, your actions did not cause Segretti's operation to be shut down; only to be made more secure, which I suspect was your real intent. If anything, Ulasewicz was dispatched to learn how much you knew and exercise damage control in the event that you really were a square john who'd stop at nothing to get to the truth of the matter. No worries there, apparently.

J. Timothy Gratz: I cannot remember all of the things that Segretti suggested doing. Some were clearly objectionable, which is why I reported him of course. Some I thought were probably not only objectionable but also illegal (e.g. printing bogus tickets to Democratic fund-raising dinners).

Robert Charles-Dunne: So, you thought some of these suggested acts were "illegal," but didn't report them or "Simmons" to the police; instead you sought to protect the Republican party from its own excesses, which is precisely what informing Rove accomplished.

J. Timothy Gratz: Whether or not campaign espionage, that does not involve an illegal activity such as wiretapping, is unethical, is, I submit, a close question, in part because both parties do it. (As you are probably aware, LBJ assigned Howard Hunt to spy on the Goldwater campaign.)

Robert Charles-Dunne: Uh-oh. Slippery ethical slope ahead... using somebody else's purported excesses to justify one's own real ones.

J. Timothy Gratz: Also, to the extent Segretti proposed distributing literature truthfully exposing "issues" with the Democratic candidates, I clearly would have approved of that idea, but if it was to be done, thought that CREEP ought to know WHO was doing it.

Robert Charles-Dunne: Perhaps you could point out why you thought at the time that CREEP didn't know "who was doing it." You may not have known, but what made you suspect they didn't?

J. Timothy Gratz: Why did I not report Segretti to the police? Well, he had not at that time suggested any specific ILLEGAL activities.

Robert Charles-Dunne: Two grafs above this one, you claimed: "Some I thought were probably not only objectionable but also illegal (e.g. printing bogus tickets to Democratic fund-raising dinners)." Which is it, counsellor?

J. Timothy Gratz: What he was trying to get me to do at the outset was to get a college student to volunteer for the Muskie campaign so the student could spy on the Muskie campaign. I thought it more appropriate for CREEP to find out who he was and close down his operation.

Robert Charles-Dunne: You just finished saying, again two grafs above this one, that you thought at the time that CREEP didn't know "who was doing it." Now you seem to admit that CREEP had the power to "close down his operation," indicating that "Simmons" must have in some way been answerable to CREEP, and not the Democrats as per your prior fantastic assertion. Which is it, counsellor?

J. Timothy Gratz: And by the way John, as a result of CREEP finding out that Segretti was working for the WH due to my complaints, it is NOT true that Segretti was "shut down" because he was becoming careless. Segretti continued to perform his dirty tricks right up until the election.

Robert Charles-Dunne: So, Rove and Ulasewicz and Caulfield didn't seem to care what Segretti did; only that he not be caught doing it. Nice to see that your party's hierarchy took your concerns to heart.

(10th July, 2005)

J. Timothy Gratz: I received a telephone call at my apartment on Saturday morning, December 18th, 1972, from a man who identified himself as Mr Don Simmons. He said he wanted to find a young person in Madison to do work for the reelection of the President, for about ten to fifteen hours per month, and wanted to put this individual on a retainer basis. He said the work involved opposition research, etc.

He said he was from a political consultant firm in New York. He said he received my name from Randy Knox. We set up a meeting in the Park Motor Inn Lounge for that afternoon.

Robert Charles-Dunne: We must question why "Simmons" placed a called to Knox, and why Knox suggested Tim Gratz was the man with whom "Simmons" would wish to speak. Given the planned agenda of disrupting and sabotaging rival political candidates, surely "Simmons" was seeking operatives with both flexible morality and tight lips. Unless "Simmons" was just cold-calling anyone and everyone within the Young Republican camp - a surefire invitation to the entire plan being exposed and backfiring against the Republican "dirty tricks" squad - "Simmons" must have had reason to believe that Knox was unethical and could be relied upon to keep his mouth shut, and/or Knox had reason to believe that Tim Gratz could be recommended for the same reasons. It may prove to Tim's credit that he alerted Karl Rove.

J. Timothy Gratz: Simmons said he was interested in running a "negative campaign" in Wisconsin. He explained that the purpose of the campaign was to create as much bitterness and disunity within the Democrat primary as possible. He suggested doing things such as planting questions in student audiences before which the Democrat candidates were working, getting students to picket the Democrat candidates, e.g. a black student to picket Muskie regarding his remark on a black V.P. candidate, etc. He also said he was interested in planting spies in the Democrat candidate's offices. He said that he wanted to concentrate on Muskie, and give second priority to McGovern.

Robert Charles-Dunne: How, exactly, does this square with Tim's current contention that he thought "Simmons" might have been sponsored by Democrats? In this very thread, he has asserted: "I was concerned that Segretti (who I knew as "Simmons") was being funded by a well-meaning but ill-informed rich Republican (perhaps W. Clement Stone) or by a Democrat or by the Democratic Party as an agent provocateur." One cannot dismiss as wholly fantastic the notion that Democrats would recruit a young Republican to damage their own campaign, only to unmask the charade at a later date, for whatever damage it might do to the Republicans. However, even in the murky world of political intrigue, common sense dictates that it is such a stretch of the imagination as to be highly unlikely. The more compelling rationale is that it was what it purported to be: a campaign designed to inflict maximum damage against the Democratic candidate for President, be it Muskie or McGovern.

J. Timothy Gratz: Simmons said he wanted to pay someone $100.00 per month, plus expenses, to co-ordinate these projects. He also said he was willing to pay a salary of up to $50.00 per month to a person we could plant in Muskie headquarters. I asked him if he was working for the CCREP or the RNC. He replied he was working on his own, with his own money. (He implied that he was saying this because he did not want anyone to be able to trace his activities to the Nixon campaign or the Party officially.) I asked him how I could establish his credentials, and he was, frankly, evasive, although I got the impression that he was implying this evasiveness was deliberate.

Robert Charles-Dunne: This is precisely the vague, but reassuring, come-on used by "Maurice Bishop" in recruiting Veciana: "I represent certain interests of considerable authority and influence, but they must remain unnamed. Draw your own conclusions."

J. Timothy Gratz: Although the whole incident seemed strange, I tentatively agreed to work on his project (as most of the ideas he suggested seemed like they were worth doing anyway). He gave me $50.00 in advance payment, and said he would call back in early January. He said I should concentrate initially on finding someone to plant in Muskie HQ. He said that we would communicate only by telephone, for security reasons.

Robert Charles-Dunne: One notes the interesting use of language in the graf above: "I tentatively agreed to...." Upon acceptance of the $50 on offer, I suggest there was nothing "tentative" about the arrangement. "Simmons" clearly thought he had bought and paid for services yet to be rendered, an impression Tim deliberately sought to foster.

One also notes that Tim didn't balk at agreeing to the arrangement, and did not storm out of the meeting or threaten to report "Simmons" to the authorities. That he was never asked to actually deliver on what he had agreed to do was due only to the fact that "Simmons" never called back.

Why didn't he call Tim back? Because Ulasewicz (or someone within his White House group), alerted by Karl Rove, tipped off "Simmons" that Tim Gratz had loose lips. Otherwise, "Simmons" would have continued to assume that Tim Gratz was his man - bought and paid for - and contacted him again to put the plans in motion. Clearly, someone advised "Simmons" not to pursue contacts with Tim Gratz, or there would have been follow up contacts.

J. Timothy Gratz: Mr. Simmons registered at the Park Motor Inn on Dec 16, 1972, and checked out on Dec. 19th. He listed his home address as 1400 Olympic Avenue NW, Wash DC. He paid his bill in cash. He made approximately twelve local phone calls, and three long distance calls. One of the long distance calls was to Randy Knox' home in Fort Atkinson; one was to a Madison area (884 exchange) number, and one was to Peoria, Ill., 309-674-2143. (We are checking this number out through contacts in Illinois.)

Robert Charles-Dunne: Precisely how did you ascertain the above details, Tim? It seems as though you managed to procure a copy of "Simmons"' hotel bill. Surely the staff of the Park Motor Inn - even in the less sophisticated times of 1972 - would not disclose to anyone confidential information about a guest, his home address, his method of payment, the number of phone calls he placed, the numbers to which those calls were made, etc. In order to obtain this information, did you use the $50 to bribe a Park Motor Inn employee, or did you misrepresent yourself to such an employee as a police officer? Who were these "contacts in Illinois" from whom you expected to learn the subscriber to whom the number 309-674-2143 was registered?

Up until the final graf of the memo, one might reasonably believe your assertion that you were simply a waif who got caught up in something larger and uglier than you had expected to find. The reportage of the above details, however, suggests that you were more skilled or schooled than you were naive, or that you wished to demonstrate to the memo's intended audience that you might offer some utility to them in their future plans. Either way, it seems that your final graf in the memo sinks any plausible credibility to the central tenet of your story: that you were an "innocent" who found himself embroiled in something through no fault of his own.

[Ron Ecker]

Welcome back Tim,

I await with intrigue your continued input,

I also welcome you back, Tim. I await with input your continued intrigue. (Just kidding.)

Ron

[Sid Walker]

Hi Tim

You may be interested to know that the thread on Michael Collins Piper's book Final Judgment , in which you were such an enthusiastic participant, has now reached the 29th page.

Have you have used your time out to prepare a definitive rebuttal of Piper's thesis? (as opposed to slurs, abuse and ad hominem attacks)

[Jim Root]

John

Tim never did like my suggestion that John J. McCloy may have been involved with the assasination of JFK.

Perhaps we will have an opportunity to continue the discussion.

Jim Root

[Dawn Meredith]

So where is Tim? Usually by now he would have had 10 new threads and 50 new posts.

Is he actually back here? Does he even want to be? Or is he even aware that he's been re-admitted?

Dawn-

trying to stay warm here in a rare freeze and ice storm in Austin, TX.

[Terry Mauro]

T.G.

Your "femme nikita" awaits the return of her "favorite Fascist she just loves to hate."

I'll be here to defend your right to defend yourself.

There hasn't been the high caliber of thought-provoking debate carried on here since you left the place [well maybe Simkin has carried on a few, but it's a tough job trying to keep that ball rolling].

Look at all the folks on site here, right now! I haven't seen that tray filled with so many names here before, EVER!

Come back, Gratz! I miss you.

Ter [freezing her ass off in SoCal]

Edited January 16, 2007 by Terry Mauro

[Terry Mauro]

So where is Tim? Usually by now he would have had 10 new threads and 50 new posts.

Is he actually back here? Does he even want to be? Or is he even aware that he's been re-admitted?

Dawn-

trying to stay warm here in a rare freeze and ice storm in Austin, TX.

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

Dawnie, T.G.'s probably just soaking up the rays down there in Key West before heading in-doors to put his final editorial note in his newspaper column. Lucky stiff.

[Ron Ecker]

I'll bet Tim is busy down in Key West, perhaps with a federal grant, trying to figure out what happened to the 2006 hurricane season. (Nature's dirty tricks.)

[Sid Walker]

I'll bet Tim is busy down in Key West, perhaps with a federal grant, trying to figure out what happened to the 2006 hurricane season. (Nature's dirty tricks.)

Perhaps he's in Cuba, researching the Castro Government's highly effective hurricane survival strategies?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cuba’s achievements in risk reduction come from an impressive multi-dimensional process.

Its foundation is a socio-economic model that reduces vulnerability and invests in social capital

through universal access to government services and promotion of social equity. The

resulting high levels of literacy, developed infrastructure in rural areas and access to reliable

health care and other created capital function as “multiplier effects” for national efforts in

disaster mitigation, preparation and response.

At the national level, Cuba’s disaster legislation, public education on disasters, meteorological

research, early warning system, effective communication system for emergencies, comprehensive

emergency plan, and Civil Defense structure are important resources in avoiding

disaster. The Civil Defense structure depends on community mobilization at the grassroots

level under the leadership of local authorities, widespread participation of the population in

disaster preparedness and response mechanisms, and accumulated social capital.

Here's another quote from Oxfam's fascinating report Weathering the Storm: Lessons in Risk Reduction from Cuba:

Cuba’s impressive work at the national level has created measures, structures and assets that

are fundamentally necessary in the long run. However, this analysis of Cuba’s risk reduction

model also demonstrates that much can be accomplished through a focus on the local

level. It is precisely through Cuba’s reliance on far more intangible assets such as:

• local leadership;

• community mobilization;

• popular participation in planning;

• community implementation of lifeline structures; and

• the creating and building of social capital that the nation’s tangible assets

in risk reduction are enhanced and made far more effective.

Indeed, we have argued in this report that, in the absence of these locally-focused

measures for popular participation, national level assets would have minimal effectiveness.

Cuba’s example, therefore, offers rich lessons for work in risk reduction at the local

level in other countries even in the absence of national political will or resources.

If I lived in Florida, with criminal incompetents like FEMA ultimately responsible for my safety in climatic disasters made ever more likely because the Dubya gang are in charge of US climate change policy... well, a trip to Cuba might seem like a very good idea.

Perhaps, for his safety and well-being, he might decide to stay?

Edited January 17, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Terry Mauro]

I'll bet Tim is busy down in Key West, perhaps with a federal grant, trying to figure out what happened to the 2006 hurricane season. (Nature's dirty tricks.)

Perhaps he's in Cuba, researching the Castro Government's highly effective hurricane survival strategies?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cuba’s achievements in risk reduction come from an impressive multi-dimensional process.

Its foundation is a socio-economic model that reduces vulnerability and invests in social capital

through universal access to government services and promotion of social equity. The

resulting high levels of literacy, developed infrastructure in rural areas and access to reliable

health care and other created capital function as “multiplier effects” for national efforts in

disaster mitigation, preparation and response.

At the national level, Cuba’s disaster legislation, public education on disasters, meteorological

research, early warning system, effective communication system for emergencies, comprehensive

emergency plan, and Civil Defense structure are important resources in avoiding

disaster. The Civil Defense structure depends on community mobilization at the grassroots

level under the leadership of local authorities, widespread participation of the population in

disaster preparedness and response mechanisms, and accumulated social capital.

Here's another quote from Oxfam's fascinating report Weathering the Storm: Lessons in Risk Reduction from Cuba:

Cuba’s impressive work at the national level has created measures, structures and assets that

are fundamentally necessary in the long run. However, this analysis of Cuba’s risk reduction

model also demonstrates that much can be accomplished through a focus on the local

level. It is precisely through Cuba’s reliance on far more intangible assets such as:

• local leadership;

• community mobilization;

• popular participation in planning;

• community implementation of lifeline structures; and

• the creating and building of social capital that the nation’s tangible assets

in risk reduction are enhanced and made far more effective.

Indeed, we have argued in this report that, in the absence of these locally-focused

measures for popular participation, national level assets would have minimal effectiveness.

Cuba’s example, therefore, offers rich lessons for work in risk reduction at the local

level in other countries even in the absence of national political will or resources.

If I lived in Florida, with criminal incompetents like FEMA ultimately responsible for my safety in climatic disasters made ever more likely because the Dubya gang are in charge of US climate change policy... well, a trip to Cuba might seem like a very good idea.

Perhaps, for his safety and well-being, he might decide to stay?

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

"...well, a trip to Cuba might seem like a very good idea."

Hey, don't be knockin' Cuba. That's where I want to retire.

[Tom Marchand]

Most of you will know Tim for his postings on Fidel Castro's involvement in the JFK assassination. This is only the latest example of his role as a disinformation agent.

Why is this such an incomprehensible idea?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Most of you will know Tim for his postings on Fidel Castro's involvement in the JFK assassination. This is only the latest example of his role as a disinformation agent.

Why is this such an incomprehensible idea?

The idea is not considered incomprehensible.

The briefest possible explanation for why it is eschewed by anyone who has troubled themselves to investigate this case is:

All "evidence" of Castro complicity crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.

All such "evidence" of Castro complicity originates with CIA.

All such "evidence" of Castro complicity that has previously been debunked is resurrected every four or five years as though it is newsworthy.

All such regurgitated "evidence" is trafficked by those "researchers" who have their own ties to the Agency that originally scripted it.

Perhaps rather than inquiring why the idea is considered "incomprehensible," you - and an honest resolution to this case - would be better served by determining why an Agency of the US government has elected to repeatedly lie to the very taxpayers upon whom its very existence depends.

Need more be said?