04-01-2011, 06:46 AM
Robert, you've revealed a major weapon of the Warrenati: project paranoia, accuse Kennedy:
In his articles in The Nation, American Heritage Magazine[155] and elsewhere, Holland follows a path Alex Cockburn blazed in The Nation in the early 1990s: As a "functional representative"[156] of American elites, the deceitful and arrogant, and "always hawkish," Kennedy was an enthusiastic manifestation of America's powerful militaristic inclinations. He in no way represented a change in America's direction--whether on Vietnam, on Cuba, or on the Cold War. In Holland's world, the Kennedys themselves bear the greatest responsibility for not only the President's death but also the weaknesses of the controversial investigation of it in 1964: Kennedy's rabid anti-Castroism provoked an unstable Castroite to take his revenge. After that, the family hobbled the government's no-holds-barred investigation to protect the daft myth of Camelot.
Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and the Nation
by Gary L. Aguilar
http://www.ctka.net/pr900-holland.html
In which Holland smears Garrison, and blames the skepticism and paranoia re le affaire Kennedy on RFK.
Holland holds CIA harmless.
In the manner of Hunt, Eduardo Howard, who managed to fall like Saddam in the square, pointing away from Langley to the last gasp.
Oh no, there was no change in foreign policy; that Kennedy was a Cold War hawk, blah blah, blah blah blah, rinse, repeat.
In The Assassinations, Jim DiEugenio gives a hint of the op mounted against Garrison involving CIA lawyers for Shaw, ten moles, a teletype in the Agency's New Orleans office, and Helms (the Man Who Kept the Secrets and Lied Til His Nose Entered an Adjacent Zip Code) inquiring of his morning briefees after the welfare of "our people down there."
Alan, you pine for the days of debate of Buckley and Vidal, and you know as well as all of us Buckley was serving the Agency from his beginning, and Vidal was the sand grain becoming the pearl with public anger and quiet scholarship, e.g., The Art and Arts of E. Howard Hunt.
"They tell you a beautiful story, but it isn't the truth," she said of the King of Nepal and his brother.
Holland airbrushing history, with Posner, Epstein, any number who've taken the Agency's shilling.
Was Oswald in Mexico City. Why no photo; why no recording. Where is the proof beyond the reasonable doubt.
Holland cannot dismiss the ninety-per cent choosing the coup solution with his assertion of Kennedy's hawkishness, RFKs secretiveness, Garrison's gullibility before the KGB, and the lucky double-shot of the loony Castro-loving loner.
Holland hollers, "Paranoia! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Too late, Max. The curtain rods are out, and you're left holding the bag.
In his articles in The Nation, American Heritage Magazine[155] and elsewhere, Holland follows a path Alex Cockburn blazed in The Nation in the early 1990s: As a "functional representative"[156] of American elites, the deceitful and arrogant, and "always hawkish," Kennedy was an enthusiastic manifestation of America's powerful militaristic inclinations. He in no way represented a change in America's direction--whether on Vietnam, on Cuba, or on the Cold War. In Holland's world, the Kennedys themselves bear the greatest responsibility for not only the President's death but also the weaknesses of the controversial investigation of it in 1964: Kennedy's rabid anti-Castroism provoked an unstable Castroite to take his revenge. After that, the family hobbled the government's no-holds-barred investigation to protect the daft myth of Camelot.
Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and the Nation
by Gary L. Aguilar
http://www.ctka.net/pr900-holland.html
In which Holland smears Garrison, and blames the skepticism and paranoia re le affaire Kennedy on RFK.
Holland holds CIA harmless.
In the manner of Hunt, Eduardo Howard, who managed to fall like Saddam in the square, pointing away from Langley to the last gasp.
Oh no, there was no change in foreign policy; that Kennedy was a Cold War hawk, blah blah, blah blah blah, rinse, repeat.
In The Assassinations, Jim DiEugenio gives a hint of the op mounted against Garrison involving CIA lawyers for Shaw, ten moles, a teletype in the Agency's New Orleans office, and Helms (the Man Who Kept the Secrets and Lied Til His Nose Entered an Adjacent Zip Code) inquiring of his morning briefees after the welfare of "our people down there."
Alan, you pine for the days of debate of Buckley and Vidal, and you know as well as all of us Buckley was serving the Agency from his beginning, and Vidal was the sand grain becoming the pearl with public anger and quiet scholarship, e.g., The Art and Arts of E. Howard Hunt.
"They tell you a beautiful story, but it isn't the truth," she said of the King of Nepal and his brother.
Holland airbrushing history, with Posner, Epstein, any number who've taken the Agency's shilling.
Was Oswald in Mexico City. Why no photo; why no recording. Where is the proof beyond the reasonable doubt.
Holland cannot dismiss the ninety-per cent choosing the coup solution with his assertion of Kennedy's hawkishness, RFKs secretiveness, Garrison's gullibility before the KGB, and the lucky double-shot of the loony Castro-loving loner.
Holland hollers, "Paranoia! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Too late, Max. The curtain rods are out, and you're left holding the bag.