For Charles Drago

[Albert Doyle]

But since you insist upon rejecting the validity and effectiveness of the Evica/Drago Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model, then by all means provide your own conspiracy model and defend it (in the academic sense) as I defend E/D.

We're all cyber-ears ...

But that's too easy Charles and is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not rejecting the Evica model - it's highly important and has taught me something. And I'm no more threatening to protect the real sponsors than Mark Lane is with his title "My Indictment Of The CIA". I think it says something that Mark Lane, at his age, chooses to send a last message directly accusing the CIA. Lane doesn't accuse them of being the masterminds nor do I. Those are words you put in my mouth, not I. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that the Evica model does soundly expose CIA involvement to a significant degree and that their involvement can be pressed and emphasized within the Evica model without dismissing or ignoring the greater sponsors. Whether intended or not the overemphasis of the sponsor part of the model might come at the expense of recognizing real players and their significance.

I might equally accuse others of dismissing responsible recognition by ignoring how CIA is responsible for preventing such things within their own house. CIA Internal Affairs just so happened to be run by Angleton. The Assassination was no more CIA's than Viet Nam was, even though Viet Nam is referred to as "The CIA's war". From what I've read it is fairly reasonable to conclude there were greater sponsors influencing the facilitators. So now that we know that why not go after those CIA violators? In my opinion it's not an all or nothing proposition.