01-07-2018, 08:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2018, 01:50 AM by James Lateer.)
My previous post is influenced by the trend of information (including on CNN) about the Kennedy Dynasty which puts that dynasty in a less and less favorable and less of a "Camelot" light. The death of JFK hit everyone like a death in our own family and still does after 55 years.
That being said, there has come to light more and more information which tends to paint a less of a Camelot image on that Presidency. That last thing I would intend would be inaccurate malicious slander or libel. But, sadly, more researchers are being put in the "kill the messenger" situation. However, we can't back away from the truth, no matter how much the truth may be disturbing.
I am genuinely respectful of people on this site who have been working on JFK research four or five times as long as I have and, like Mr. DiEugenio, have an encyclopedic knowledge of JFK's foreign policy and other esoteric but nevertheless important JFK subjects.
But alleging libel? Things are getting a little emotional here. I'm not sure that it's possible to libel the Kennedy Brothers because (1) they are deceased and (2) they are public figures under New York Times v. Sullivan and this would require me to know the falsity of my statement or be stating something with malicious intent. I, for sure, had no malicious intent in my posting. I'm not even sure what malicious intent would look like for a person criticizing a deceased President or Senator.
I can tell you for a fact that President George Bush's starting the Iraq War was as much of a war crime as those Germans who were convicted of "starting a war of aggression." Is that libelous? Yes? No? And George Bush is still living. This is all very confusing, isn't it?
And I feel the basic connection of the Kennedy's to fascism in general, at least at certain times, is not false or unrealistic. And not even that much of a big deal. And not the basis for a libel suit or even to be called libelous.
Criticizing past Presidents, Senators or members of their cabinets is (as far as I know) just an exercise of free speech. By the way, George Washington did not chop down the cherry tree, I'm pretty sure. That wouldn't be libel.
One can't divorce the Kennedys from McCarthy since they were the closest of friends. McCarthy's close ally, Senator Pat McCarran regularly called for the Franco government to be included in the Marshall Plan and NATO. In my opinion, McCarthy would have been in agreement with McCarran on that issue (and might have even said so). That is just my opinion. And the connection between Hitler and Franco is not subject to serious question due to Hitler's and Mussolini's military intervention on behalf of Franco.
Look, for instance, at this quote:
From:
Seeking Meaning, Seeking Justice in a Post-Cold War World,
edited by Judith Keene, Elizabeth Rechniewski
"In the US, the pro-Franco lobby that included Senator Joe McCarthy and the US military succeeded in persuading President Truman to establish a new economic and military relationship with Franco, despite his [Truman's] longstanding purported aversion to the Spanish dicator".
In my sincere opinion, there has been a cover-up on the facts regarding the post-World War II role of fascists worldwide and specifically in the JFK assassination. I am hopeful that The Skorzeny Papers by Ganis will further illuminate that situation. And Skorzeny may have been QJ/WIN which would place a very close associate of Hitler in the Kennedy's murder plots, be they Mongoose, CIA/Mafia or ZR/RIFLE. Not that I intend to libel Hitler. Let's get that clear.
As for the criticism of Evan Thomas as an author, the only problem which I saw reported that might discredit Evan Thomas, was criticism of one particular footnote which referred to an author who was arguably unreliable. I mean, ONE FOOTNOTE??? And I should add that I did read the critical analysis of the CNN series on the Kennedy's and I thing I posted something regarding it. I thought it to be an excellent review.
And I would think that relying on anything written by a CIA Inspector General would be naive, to me. I'm not sure it would be worth the time it would take to read it.
And regarding the Mongoose question: I have not focused that much on Mongoose, but I probably should have. Whether the plot to kill Castro was under the CIA-Mafia Plot, Operation Mongoose, the ZR/RIFLE program, etc. doesn't seem to change the basic question which started this issue: was there a US "Department of Political Assassination" which had a defined list of people involved? If all of these "plots" and "operations" amounted to a "Department of Political Assassination" then it should be possible to correlate this list of operatives to the citations in the JFK research materials. That's all I was saying.
LBJ put it this way:
"I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger," ... Johnson thought such a conspiracy had formed in retaliation for U.S. plots to assassinate Fidel Castro; he had found after taking office that the government "had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean."
I'm not sure why I would be using either Kennedys and King website, the James Fetzer website or any other such source, especially over and above such sites as Deep Politics Forum. As in the discussion above about author Evan Thomas, there often seems to be nit-picking involved in many arguments on a lot of such well-known sites. This applies especially to these arguments about Judyth Vary Baker. It (seemingly) all comes down to whether she was in an automobile at a certain time at a certain place. Kind of like trying to demolish author Evan Thomas over ONE FOOTNOTE.
If an expert has important criticisms about Baker, in my opinion, such criticisms should be on the tip of his tongue and not be buried is a second-hand article someplace. But that's just how I would try to respond. As I have said, what Baker fails to explain, in my opinion, is how she had such a "photographic recall" of everything she did on a daily basis over a three month period, 50 years in the past. It seems like she must have had a diary, a journal or a lot of detailed letters and correspondence to work from. Maybe she had such a thing but was fearful that it could be subject to subpoena. Just guessing.
By the way, please don't criticize my wife, my mother or my dog Copper in these pages. I would take offense. But feel free to criticize my favorite dead Presidents. I don't have any problem with that.
James Lateer
That being said, there has come to light more and more information which tends to paint a less of a Camelot image on that Presidency. That last thing I would intend would be inaccurate malicious slander or libel. But, sadly, more researchers are being put in the "kill the messenger" situation. However, we can't back away from the truth, no matter how much the truth may be disturbing.
I am genuinely respectful of people on this site who have been working on JFK research four or five times as long as I have and, like Mr. DiEugenio, have an encyclopedic knowledge of JFK's foreign policy and other esoteric but nevertheless important JFK subjects.
But alleging libel? Things are getting a little emotional here. I'm not sure that it's possible to libel the Kennedy Brothers because (1) they are deceased and (2) they are public figures under New York Times v. Sullivan and this would require me to know the falsity of my statement or be stating something with malicious intent. I, for sure, had no malicious intent in my posting. I'm not even sure what malicious intent would look like for a person criticizing a deceased President or Senator.
I can tell you for a fact that President George Bush's starting the Iraq War was as much of a war crime as those Germans who were convicted of "starting a war of aggression." Is that libelous? Yes? No? And George Bush is still living. This is all very confusing, isn't it?
And I feel the basic connection of the Kennedy's to fascism in general, at least at certain times, is not false or unrealistic. And not even that much of a big deal. And not the basis for a libel suit or even to be called libelous.
Criticizing past Presidents, Senators or members of their cabinets is (as far as I know) just an exercise of free speech. By the way, George Washington did not chop down the cherry tree, I'm pretty sure. That wouldn't be libel.
One can't divorce the Kennedys from McCarthy since they were the closest of friends. McCarthy's close ally, Senator Pat McCarran regularly called for the Franco government to be included in the Marshall Plan and NATO. In my opinion, McCarthy would have been in agreement with McCarran on that issue (and might have even said so). That is just my opinion. And the connection between Hitler and Franco is not subject to serious question due to Hitler's and Mussolini's military intervention on behalf of Franco.
Look, for instance, at this quote:
From:
Seeking Meaning, Seeking Justice in a Post-Cold War World,
edited by Judith Keene, Elizabeth Rechniewski
"In the US, the pro-Franco lobby that included Senator Joe McCarthy and the US military succeeded in persuading President Truman to establish a new economic and military relationship with Franco, despite his [Truman's] longstanding purported aversion to the Spanish dicator".
In my sincere opinion, there has been a cover-up on the facts regarding the post-World War II role of fascists worldwide and specifically in the JFK assassination. I am hopeful that The Skorzeny Papers by Ganis will further illuminate that situation. And Skorzeny may have been QJ/WIN which would place a very close associate of Hitler in the Kennedy's murder plots, be they Mongoose, CIA/Mafia or ZR/RIFLE. Not that I intend to libel Hitler. Let's get that clear.
As for the criticism of Evan Thomas as an author, the only problem which I saw reported that might discredit Evan Thomas, was criticism of one particular footnote which referred to an author who was arguably unreliable. I mean, ONE FOOTNOTE??? And I should add that I did read the critical analysis of the CNN series on the Kennedy's and I thing I posted something regarding it. I thought it to be an excellent review.
And I would think that relying on anything written by a CIA Inspector General would be naive, to me. I'm not sure it would be worth the time it would take to read it.
And regarding the Mongoose question: I have not focused that much on Mongoose, but I probably should have. Whether the plot to kill Castro was under the CIA-Mafia Plot, Operation Mongoose, the ZR/RIFLE program, etc. doesn't seem to change the basic question which started this issue: was there a US "Department of Political Assassination" which had a defined list of people involved? If all of these "plots" and "operations" amounted to a "Department of Political Assassination" then it should be possible to correlate this list of operatives to the citations in the JFK research materials. That's all I was saying.
LBJ put it this way:
"I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger," ... Johnson thought such a conspiracy had formed in retaliation for U.S. plots to assassinate Fidel Castro; he had found after taking office that the government "had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean."
I'm not sure why I would be using either Kennedys and King website, the James Fetzer website or any other such source, especially over and above such sites as Deep Politics Forum. As in the discussion above about author Evan Thomas, there often seems to be nit-picking involved in many arguments on a lot of such well-known sites. This applies especially to these arguments about Judyth Vary Baker. It (seemingly) all comes down to whether she was in an automobile at a certain time at a certain place. Kind of like trying to demolish author Evan Thomas over ONE FOOTNOTE.
If an expert has important criticisms about Baker, in my opinion, such criticisms should be on the tip of his tongue and not be buried is a second-hand article someplace. But that's just how I would try to respond. As I have said, what Baker fails to explain, in my opinion, is how she had such a "photographic recall" of everything she did on a daily basis over a three month period, 50 years in the past. It seems like she must have had a diary, a journal or a lot of detailed letters and correspondence to work from. Maybe she had such a thing but was fearful that it could be subject to subpoena. Just guessing.
By the way, please don't criticize my wife, my mother or my dog Copper in these pages. I would take offense. But feel free to criticize my favorite dead Presidents. I don't have any problem with that.
James Lateer