Posts: 131
Threads: 23
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Rob:
You never answered my question.
Why did you leave out all that data about Nichols when you first mentioned him? You know about lying to get his job, about teaming up with Singlaub, about the over 1000 phone calls on state time and money, about the fraud and screwing over his victims by declaring bankruptcy?
This is the kind of guy you trust?
And then you have the Clintons running Arkansas like a Gestapo state. And forcing people to sign false affidavits. You left out: with a gun to their head. Sort of like Hitler's Night of the Long Knives perhaps?
This sounds very much like Aynseworth in Newsweek describing Garrison's "reign of terror" in New Orleans.
That is it for me.
This is funny. It was BILL CLINTON who was teaming up with Gen. John Singlaub, the Bushes, the CIA and the contras. Of course, Larry Nichols is doing the same. He is just doing what is practically official policy of Bill Clinton to facilitate the CIA's war in Nicaragua, and run drugs back to the USA, and skim some money on the side.
I don't get it. You are indicting Larry Nichols for being in bed with CIA covert operations. Aren't you leaving the big capo out: Bill Clinton?
Compromised: Bush, Clinton and the CIA by Terry Reed (1994): http://www.amazon.com/Compromised-Clinto...1883955025
Posts: 181
Threads: 31
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Nixon was chosen by the elites to run in 1968. All evidence points to that, dating back to 1946 when Prescott Bush, Mr. Perry of Bank of American, Lansky, and Dalitz all were Nixon backers. You don't get support like that, especially being a political novice such as Nixon, unless those backing have bigger plans for you, and within 6 years "Tricky Dick " was Vice President. The New York governor entered the race way to late to have any sort of a chance. After a 47 U.S. House seat pickup in 1966 the GOP should have had a huge slate of candidates running for President in 1968, but in that year Nixon was virtually unopposed for the nomination.
Posts: 131
Threads: 23
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
Kenneth Kapel Wrote:Nixon was chosen by the elites to run in 1968. All evidence points to that, dating back to 1946 when Prescott Bush, Mr. Perry of Bank of American, Lansky, and Dalitz all were Nixon backers. You don't get support like that, especially being a political novice such as Nixon, unless those backing have bigger plans for you, and within 6 years "Tricky Dick " was Vice President. The New York governor entered the race way to late to have any sort of a chance. After a 47 U.S. House seat pickup in 1966 the GOP should have had a huge slate of candidates running for President in 1968, but in that year Nixon was virtually unopposed for the nomination.
Yes, Lyndon Johnson made a secret big push to support Nelson Rockefeller. Imho, it was because they were in the JFK assasination together. I think the Lyndon Johnson/Nelson Rockefeller alliance is extremely important. Also, note that Nelson Rockefeller did not support or campaign for Barry Goldwater in 1964. Again, I think there were hidden politics at play relating to the JFK assassination.
Astoundingly, Republican Nelson Rockefeller was the TOP (behind the scenes) choice of
Democrat Lyndon Johnson in 1968!
From Robert Dallek's book Flawed Giant, pp. 544-545]
Lyndon Johnson's deep alliance with CIA and Eastern Establishment
Posts: 181
Threads: 31
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
After the 1964 GOP convention Rockefeller make a half hearted show of support for Goldwater by appearring with the Arizona Senator in a New York state campaign stop, I remember seeing it on the network news. Rockefeller and JBJ must have known thay Nixon was the odds on favorite to win the 1968 GOP Presidential nomination, beacause Nixon was agreeable to all wings of the party, to varying degress, relatively young ( 55 ) and because many rank & file Republicans believed that the 1960 Presidential elections was stolen from Mr. Nixon. To have any chance to win the nimination Rocky needed to get into the race early, he didnt, in fact he was about to annouce his candidacy somewhat early in the race, but instead of announcing his leap into the race, he announced that he was not running , about 1 month later he did get into the race, but by this time the horsse had left the barn. His earlier announcement about not running allegedly angered Governor Agnew of maryland, who later announced his support for Nixon and round up becoming Vice - President. Where does Mr Dallek show any evidence for his asserations. If LBJ was such a Mastermind in the JFK assassination how come he couldnt swing the GOP nomination to Rocky Nelson ? The powers the be had to eliminate RFK in order to assure that HHH revieved the Democrats nod. Inciddently if RFK had lived I do not believe that he would have won the nomination over Humphrey.
Posts: 3,905
Threads: 200
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Robert Morrow Wrote:I do need to get those books: 1) Dulles and 2) Cold Warrior. People need to focus on that, not Lee Harvey Oswald, US intelligence agent. (I just ordered Dulles for under 5 bucks total; as for Cold Warrior - have it have not read it - look at the photo inserts, page 20 James Angleton is carrying the ashes of Allen Dulles at his funeral. Now that is close!)
As for Gennifer Flowers - she was telling the absolute truth, unlike the scum Clintons and their lackeys, who were busy criminally terrorizing innocents. Beating them up in Gary Johnson's case. Hillary and her private detective goons like Anthony Pellicano (now in jail) and Jack Palladino asking Gennifer's neighbor: Does she ever talk about committing suicide? Beautiful people, those Clintons.
Vince Foster was Hillary's boyfriend - I mean that sexually. And Webb Hubbell, he is the biological father of Chelsea Clinton. I am the nation's #1 Clinton opposition researcher with 200-300 books, VHS tapes, DVDs on them, so take that for what its worth. Big lipped Chelsea is the daughter of Webb Hubbell, not wild Bill.
As for Scaife and his messy divorce. Yes, its a funny story. And he has made amends with the Clintons which is why Chris Ruddy gives the Clintions all that favorable press at News Max.
As for Hersh and Reeves and JFK's sex life - we will have to agree to disagree ... or we can talk until we are blue in the face.
Real issues of the JFK assassination:
1a. The upcoming personal/political immolation of Lyndon Johnson
1. Vietnam (my #4)
2. Cuba (my #2)
3. Detente with Russia (my #3)
4. Upcoming recognition of China
5. Federal Reserve (those Rockefellers sure did not like JFK's greenbacks!)
Truman's editiorial ... he is basically accusing the CIA of murdering JFK. Very important.
Madeleine Brown - extremely important. Mistress of 21 years. Can not be ignored. Or ignore at your peril.
Finally, James Angleton quote in 1985:
"Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. These people attracted and promoted each other. Outside of their duplicity, the o*nly thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back o*n my life, I regret. But I was part of it and I loved being in it. . . Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Carmel Offie, and Frank Wisner were the grand masters. If you were in a room with them you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell." Angleton slowly sipped his tea and then said, "I guess I will see them there, soon."
----JAMES ANGLETON, C.I.A. Counter Intelligence-Chief, 1985
Actually Robert there is a third solution here. You can take the time to read Jim's well sourced article. I will bet Jim will even be happy to supply the link for you.
Until you have read it, please stop the sex talk. This is a serious forum, as B said none of us are here to discuss anyone's sex life. You can do that on facebook all you want - and you do- it is disgusting what you post there, you are obsessed with sex, but that is your playground, this is not.
Thank you for your anticipated understanding.
Dawn
Posts: 906
Threads: 67
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2010
Robert Morrow Wrote:Nelson Rockefeller was a topic of your talk, Greg, except you did not know it. I am not the first person to say that one big reason JFK was murdered by the CIA was because of Vietnam. It may not be my #1 issue, but it was a factor. Nelson Rockefeller and those CIA Republicans like Allen Dulles, George Herbert Walker Bush, name 10 others, were hawks on Vietnam. If you read the thread above, you will see in JFK and the Unspeakable where Nelson Rockefeller is suggesting to JFK in 1961 to USE TACTICAL NUKES ON NORTH VIETNAM.
That is extremely signficant as is the fact Lyndon Johnson was supporting Nelson Rockefeller for president in spring, 1968 and the fact that Nelson Rockefeller ran the Rockefeller Commission, yet another cover up for the murder of John Kennedy.
It is also extremely signficant that McGeorge Bundy was a "Rockefeller man" - and also a hawk on Vietnam, -and also writing NSAM 273 with policy positions that JFK would not approve, the night BEFORE the assassination as you discussed. His brother Bill Bundy later - also in the Rockefeller controlled CFR - comes to work for LBJ and drafts the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in fall, 1964. Again, that is extremely significant.
I am trying to get you to think, Greg. McGeorge Bundy - that is a CFR Rockefeller man who is a hawk on Vietnam. The Rockefellers and the CFR wanted Vietnam, not John Kennedy. And the Rockefeller controlled CFR has been without a doubt one of the biggest cover up operations for the JFK assassination there is.
The CIA is just the military wing of the CFR.
Bottom line: McGeorge Bundy was working for the Rockefellers, the CFR and the hawks ... not John Kennedy. John Kennedy had already been overthrown in a coup before he was murdered.
And he feared it, too. Just read that Arthur Krock article in October, 1963.
The Lyndon Johnson - Nelson Rockefeller connection is a key link in the JFK assassination.
Robert, here's an article I wrote exactly 11 years ago this month. As you can see, I am NOT oblivious to DEEP connections and relationships between various players. However, your descriptions of those relationships are, IMO, based on inadequate research, and many times the conclusions you reach are based on unsupported assertions. Not only that, you incorrectly assume that I haven't read Arthur Krock, for example, or that I haven't researched the "players" that you implicate. Those assumptions are false, but making statements based on false assumptions or unjustified supposition is becoming one of your hallmarks.
=====
JFK Offered Peaceful Co-Existence To Castro
By Gregory Burnham
<MONK1133X@aol.com>
1-1-00
Castro had NO motivation to murder JFK. My reasoning in that regard is based on interviews I have conducted with persons in a position to know the details of JFK's (behind the scenes) CUBAN policy.
In those years, it was politically suicidal for any public figure to openly suggest any non-agressive option to dealing with Communism. The "cold war" dictated the rules of engagement - and those rules were primarily based on the pontifications of those in the John Foster Dulles camp. Dean Rusk, a J.F. Dulles protege, was incredibly silent during a period when he was considered an expert on China by his colleagues in the State Department. Rusk, a Rhoades Scholar, was the Assisstant Secretary of State for the Far East, a position that was called "the suicide seat" during those years, yet Rusk VOLUNTEERED for the position; VOLUNTEERED to take a demotion from his current position of Deputy Undersecretary. -- But by that time the careers of many of the real "China Experts" at State: Marshall, Kennan, Bohlen, Clubb, Service, et al, had been ruined.
Even the formidable, and formerly "untouchable" Dean Acheson was forever tarnished by the fall of China to Communism. Later, many of the best experts on China were described by Richard Nixon as graduates of "Dean Acheson's College for the Cowardly Containment of Communism..."
But not DEAN RUSK.
RUSK assumed the position of Assisstant Secretary (Far East) after China fell, thus escaping the China debacle unscathed... It was a fait accompli mostly because he did not participate in formulating policy, criticizing policy, or publically displaying an awareness of that doomed policy, in very much the same manner that he would later embrace as Secretary of State during Vietnam, attempting to project the appearance of having been "in no way involved ..."
The reputation and career of John Patton Davies (arguably the VERY BEST expert on China) was all but ruined by those in the State Department and elsewhere, who blamed the fall of China to Communism, on the "failure of the U.S. to properly contain it" under the policies of the Democratic [Truman] Administration.
Most people don't realize that Allen Dulles' brother, John Foster Dulles, was the Chairman of the ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION during the TRUMAN administration and that Dean Acheson, as Secretary of State was the prime architect of that administration's policy on South East Asia, with Dean Rusk as his principal Deputy for Asia. Together, they engineered the war in Vietnam at the end of WWII and the beginning of the end of a Democrat in the White House.
By 1952, upon Republican candidate Eisenhower's election to the Presidency, John Foster Dulles would be leaving his position as the Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation to accept the position of Eisenhower's Secretary of State. But, he needed to fill the position for ROCKEFELLER that he would be vacating. And he did just that.
So, when Ike became President, Nixon became Vice-President, John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State, Allen Dulles became Director of Central Intelligence, and who became the Chairman of the ROCKEFELLER Foundation, you ask?
Dean Rusk.
Eight years later, JFK defeated Vice President NIxon to become the 35th President, and Dean Rusk, like John Foster Dulles before him, vacated the Chairmanship of the ROCKEFELLER Foundation, and became Kennedy's Secretary of State.
Here's a rare memo from Richard Helms to National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, confirming the JFK plan to re-establish relations (and much more) with Castro's Cuba. JFK realized, as he expressed in his speech at the American University, that the only sound "deal" between the US and the Communists that would insure a true and lasting peace, NOT a Pax Americana, where American weapons of war were used to inflict "our peace" on nations around the globe. Rather, a true peace would necessarily depend on the deal's being in the Communist's best interest, as well as our own best interest. He said that the only dependable agreements reached between nations were those agreements, AND ONLY those agreements, which served that nation's own self interest...
That is the type of "language" that get's a President killed by those in the business of WAR, who depend on the escalation of fear in the hearts of the taxpayers who will fund this great Military/Industrial Complex of which we were warned against by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his parting address to the nation. "We must guard against undue influence, whether sought or unsought, by the vast Military/ Industrial Complex..."
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Dear Mr. Morrow,
I formally and publicly apologize for the rude manners in which I have addressed and described you on DPF
From this point forward, I shall take the high road thusly:
In my highly informed and Constitutionally-protected opinion, Phillip Nelson's "Mastermind" book amounts to an act of aggression in the wars for truth and justice regarding the JFK assassination. This act has been carried out on behalf of the Sponsors of the assassination -- willfullly or not, I cannot yet say, but I lean heavily toward the former.
Accordingly, I have taken an aggressive posture when confronting this disinformation.
Alas, like the little drummer boy at Isandlwana, you have been caught in the crossfire. (I choose this analogy carefully and fully mindful of its multiple layers of meaning.)
Again, in my highly informed and Constitutionally-protected opinion, you continue to evince not the slightest capability to see beyond the superficial regarding deep political analysis. I find your posts to be stunningly under-informed and absent all insight and erudition.
My considered choice of language when addressing you in the past now seems inappropriate as my colleagues and I who own and operate DPF move forward to enhance and expand our joint venture.
You have my word that if and when I respond to your posts in the future, I shall do so in language that is respectful of DPF, its owners, and its contributors and viewers.
And in the process, I shall continue to respond in the affirmative when you thank me for delivering the punishment you so richly deserve and then ask, "May I have another?"
Charles Drago
Posts: 131
Threads: 23
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
Greg Burnham Wrote:Robert, here's an article I wrote exactly 11 years ago this month. As you can see, I am NOT oblivious to DEEP connections and relationships between various players. However, your descriptions of those relationships are, IMO, based on inadequate research, and many times the conclusions you reach are based on unsupported assertions. Not only that, you incorrectly assume that I haven't read Arthur Krock, for example, or that I haven't researched the "players" that you implicate. Those assumptions are false, but making statements based on false assumptions or unjustified supposition is becoming one of your hallmarks.
=====
JFK Offered Peaceful Co-Existence To Castro
By Gregory Burnham
<MONK1133X@aol.com>
1-1-00
Castro had NO motivation to murder JFK. My reasoning in that regard is based on interviews I have conducted with persons in a position to know the details of JFK's (behind the scenes) CUBAN policy.
In those years, it was politically suicidal for any public figure to openly suggest any non-agressive option to dealing with Communism. The "cold war" dictated the rules of engagement - and those rules were primarily based on the pontifications of those in the John Foster Dulles camp. Dean Rusk, a J.F. Dulles protege, was incredibly silent during a period when he was considered an expert on China by his colleagues in the State Department. Rusk, a Rhoades Scholar, was the Assisstant Secretary of State for the Far East, a position that was called "the suicide seat" during those years, yet Rusk VOLUNTEERED for the position; VOLUNTEERED to take a demotion from his current position of Deputy Undersecretary. -- But by that time the careers of many of the real "China Experts" at State: Marshall, Kennan, Bohlen, Clubb, Service, et al, had been ruined.
Even the formidable, and formerly "untouchable" Dean Acheson was forever tarnished by the fall of China to Communism. Later, many of the best experts on China were described by Richard Nixon as graduates of "Dean Acheson's College for the Cowardly Containment of Communism..."
But not DEAN RUSK.
RUSK assumed the position of Assisstant Secretary (Far East) after China fell, thus escaping the China debacle unscathed... It was a fait accompli mostly because he did not participate in formulating policy, criticizing policy, or publically displaying an awareness of that doomed policy, in very much the same manner that he would later embrace as Secretary of State during Vietnam, attempting to project the appearance of having been "in no way involved ..."
The reputation and career of John Patton Davies (arguably the VERY BEST expert on China) was all but ruined by those in the State Department and elsewhere, who blamed the fall of China to Communism, on the "failure of the U.S. to properly contain it" under the policies of the Democratic [Truman] Administration.
Most people don't realize that Allen Dulles' brother, John Foster Dulles, was the Chairman of the ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION during the TRUMAN administration and that Dean Acheson, as Secretary of State was the prime architect of that administration's policy on South East Asia, with Dean Rusk as his principal Deputy for Asia. Together, they engineered the war in Vietnam at the end of WWII and the beginning of the end of a Democrat in the White House.
By 1952, upon Republican candidate Eisenhower's election to the Presidency, John Foster Dulles would be leaving his position as the Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation to accept the position of Eisenhower's Secretary of State. But, he needed to fill the position for ROCKEFELLER that he would be vacating. And he did just that.
So, when Ike became President, Nixon became Vice-President, John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State, Allen Dulles became Director of Central Intelligence, and who became the Chairman of the ROCKEFELLER Foundation, you ask?
Dean Rusk.
Eight years later, JFK defeated Vice President NIxon to become the 35th President, and Dean Rusk, like John Foster Dulles before him, vacated the Chairmanship of the ROCKEFELLER Foundation, and became Kennedy's Secretary of State.
Here's a rare memo from Richard Helms to National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, confirming the JFK plan to re-establish relations (and much more) with Castro's Cuba. JFK realized, as he expressed in his speech at the American University, that the only sound "deal" between the US and the Communists that would insure a true and lasting peace, NOT a Pax Americana, where American weapons of war were used to inflict "our peace" on nations around the globe. Rather, a true peace would necessarily depend on the deal's being in the Communist's best interest, as well as our own best interest. He said that the only dependable agreements reached between nations were those agreements, AND ONLY those agreements, which served that nation's own self interest...
That is the type of "language" that get's a President killed by those in the business of WAR, who depend on the escalation of fear in the hearts of the taxpayers who will fund this great Military/Industrial Complex of which we were warned against by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his parting address to the nation. "We must guard against undue influence, whether sought or unsought, by the vast Military/ Industrial Complex..."
That is right Dean Rusk ran the Rockefeller Foundation before he became JFK's Secretary of State. And as you probably know, John Kennedy's FIRST choice for Secretary of State was dove William Fulbright who JFK was forced to drop because he knew he could not get him confirmed in the Senate. So the Rockefeller man, with close ties to the Dulles brothers, gets in.
McGeorge Bundy - another CFR Rockefeller man and war hawk, after he left as National Security Advisor, goes and runs the Rockefeller influenced Ford Foundation from 1966 to 1979.
I keep bringing up the Rockefeller connection to Lyndon Johnson and the Rockefeller connection to all the hawks in JFK's cabinet who were working against his policy.
Everyone knows John Kennedy was not a favorite of Texas oil and military contractors. What they don't know is that he was not a part of the New York estatablishment that was opposed to him as well.
It was not just the rightwing Western "Cowboys" who murdered John Kennedy; they did it in concert with the Eastern "Yankees." And those are your CIA Republican/CFR/Rockefeller "Yankees."
Additionally, Barry Goldwater who folks like to portray as some sort of an extremist, foaming right winger (or principled conservative) - Barry Goldwater was a LOT less dangerous than a Nelson Rockefeller (often painted as a nice, "moderate" Republican in contrast to the "extremist" Goldwater).
It was Nelson Rockefeller telling John Kennedy in mid 1961 to use TACTICAL NUKES on the North Vietnamese, not Barry Goldwater.
The Vietnam War - like much of Lyndon Johnson's agenda a president - was CFR "Rockefeller" foreign policy.
Posts: 131
Threads: 23
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
I think it is funny that there are "deep politics" researchers saying they can't figure out who killed John Kennedy. They are convinced it was some unnamed power, but when you ask them to be specific they draw blanks and mutter something like "military industrial" complex ... or some other phrase describing some dark amorphous power.
Then there is the usurper traitor murderer Lyndon Johnson staring right in their faces. It is like folks on a farm running around saying "Where is the freakin calf? Where is the freakin calf?" while a python lays on the ground in front of them with a hulking 250 lb bulge in its belly.
Gee, I dunno - where do YOU think the calf is? How about you Mr. Python have you seen it? (burp).
Here is Lyndon Johnson overselling his play acting after his murder of John Kennedy. Johnson's immediate response post-assassination on 11/22/63 was to tell folks it was an "international conspiracy" and to play act scared and hysterical, hiding in the bathroom.
THEN, after LBJ figured he had fooled them enough, he and Hoover IMMEDIATELY went full bore attempting to frame/blame the JFK assassination on a "lone nutter" patsy US intelligence agent Lee Harvey Oswald.
After JFK assassination, LBJ was hysterical, hiding on the john in the airplane. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-m-g...39026.html
"McHugh, like most members of the Kennedy entourage, did not know that Johnson was onboard. They believed that the new president was on his own plane flying back to Washington. If LBJ was on the plane, McHugh wanted to see for himself. Since he had not seen Johnson in the aisle -- and at 6'4" Johnson would be tough to miss -- McHugh assumed that he must then be in the bedroom. When he checked there Johnson was nowhere to be seen. The only place on the plane he had not inspected was the bathroom in the presidential bedroom.
What McHugh claimed to have witnessed next was shocking. "I walked in the toilet, in the powder room, and there he was hiding, with the curtain closed," McHugh recalled. He claimed that LBJ was crying, "They're going to get us all. It's a plot. It's a plot. It's going to get us all.'" According to the General, Johnson "was hysterical, sitting down on the john there alone in this thing."
I soon discovered that McHugh had told a similar story when he spoke by phone with Mark Flanagan, an investigator with the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Ironically, McHugh gave the interview to the HSCA a week before he sat down with the Kennedy Library in May 1978. "McHugh had encountered difficulty in locating Johnson but finally discovered him alone," Flanagan wrote in his summary to the Committee. Quoting McHugh, the investigator noted that the General found Johnson "hiding in the toilet in the bedroom compartment and muttering, 'Conspiracy, conspiracy, they're after all of us.'"
Author Christopher Anderson claimed that McHugh shared a similar, although slightly more dramatic, version of this story when he interviewed the General for his book Jackie after Jack, published in 1998."
What McHugh told Christopher Anderson was that LBJ was so hysterical that he had to slap him! The usurper Johnson was faking it; another one of his diversionary tactics.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
06-01-2011, 07:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2011, 07:58 PM by Jim DiEugenio.)
May I comment on two important points being addressed here:
1.) There is a natural desire I think to trace the assassination cabal above the perpetrators, that is those who one can make a case against with evidence as being actually involved. When we do this, people like to use the term "deep politics" a phrase coined by Scott which replaced the other term he liked to use, "parapolitics". (He actually used to print a journal that used that title.) In fact, Scott was one of the first to speculate on this subject in his unpublished manuscript, "The Dallas Conspiracy". A work, to be charitable, that has not held up well.
As I said, there is a natural inclination to do this for the simple reason that to pull off a crime this huge, one must feel protected in advance from the wrath of the power elite. I mean we all know what happened when Nixon crossed swords with Katherine Graham.
Its something I have always tried to avoid, for the simple reason that it is not readily provable. I have always believed that in the face we show the public, we can only deal with what is tangible, what we have evidence for. Once we do that, then its their job to take it from there. I once did a talk in Lancaster Pennsylvania in which I laid out all the evidence of conspiracy in the case. Some guy in the back, toward the end, started talking about David Rockefeller as the guy who it all lead back to. Fine. That's as good a choice as any, and better than most. He said it. I did not. I did not even comment on the name.
Why? Because once you have outlined the actual evidence in the case to the highest points e.g. Hoover's atrocious cover up, Angleton's control of Oswald, Helms' lying to the WC about Mexico City, LBJ telling Russell he did not believe the SBT either, then the trail after that dissipates. I mean, one can throw in some very interesting stuff from Donald Gibson e.g. about Alsop, Rostow, and Whitney, which is all verifiable and true. One can talk about the so-called Murchison assassination ball, which is much less verifiable, and IMO, not true.
But why? With what the ARRB has declassified, we can now reach heights that we never thought we could. Why would one want to foul that up with stuff that is not verifiable, and therefore speculative?
I did a talk at Lancer in November that addressed this subject in a roundabout way. I talked about "Farewell America", "The Torbitt Document" and the 'Bush did it' tomes by Baker and Hankey. The first two are clear disinfo jobs. And the first is a provable case. One of the treasures of the Garrison investigation was the inquiry he did on this book. Since everyone tossed Garrison aside after 1969, until 1991, no one ever checked out what he had. I was lucky enough to get a look at this stuff and I found this file. The book was a put up job by Phillipe de Vosjoli. If you look at Mangold's book, he was a renegade SDECE agent and off the shelf operator for Angelton. And the book ends up in utter bombast about something called The Committee, a group of wealthy Texans who sponsored the assassination. The first book to proffer this kind of theory. Jim A., very early, was throwing out the disinfo to cover all the bases.
The Torbitt document covers all the other bases. That is a pamphlet that includes the wildest assassination cabal ever: LBJ, the Mafia, Hoover, the Pentagon, NASA, something called DISC, Division Five of the FBI, Permindex, the American Council of Churches, Albert Osborne, even, for God's sake, Roy Cohn!
There is one exception to this smorgasbord. The CIA. Who today almost no one denies was involved. Jim A. was making sure to throw the dust around everywhere on this one.
Then come Baker and Hankey in the new millenium. In the quest to expand the plot above the CIA they center on George H. W. Bush. To do this, they exaggerate and enlarge the Hoover memo beyond any kind of normal usage--way beyond what McBride did in The Nation. And what Baker did with the Parrott memo is simply unconscionable. In Baker's world, we are actually supposed to believe, that the newly elected GOP Chairman of Harris County took over the plot from say someone like Werbell, Phillips or Morales. Yeah, sure Russ.
This is my point. It is dangerous to do this stuff. We risk falling on our faces. Can one imagine giving John Hankey's film JFK 2 to Craig Watkins?
2.) This relates to my other point. Harold Weisberg once said that no single person could ever master all elements of the JFK case. This is a man who spent 40 years on it, and wrote something like 17 published and unpublished books. Many of us have spent well over a decade studying this case. We don't approach Weisberg.
So when a new guy comes in and makes a list of over 100 books to read and Texas in the Morning is on top of it, well what can one say? We try to chalk it up to newbie enthusiasm. Why? Because that is not a book about the JFK case, as are Meagher, Melanson, Fonzi. Its another "woman who slept with the president" book. And unlike them, it is anecdotal not factual. What a defense lawyer could have done to Madeleine Brown is rather withering.
And that is my point. That is what I am about at this stage. The Fiftieth will probably be the last chance we ever have to reopen this case. The JFK research community has produced some awesome work: John Newman, John Armstrong, Jim Douglass, Jerry McKnight, Bill Davy etc. It is a tremendous tradition. And this is the kind of stuff we should be leading with. And what most of us do.
And I think this helps explain, but not excuse, some of the rather over the top anger CD feels about Morrow. He has been out there in the fields for a long time. So he has loads of experience. And he understands the art and uses of disinformation. Because he has seen it before. Morrow is kind of new. So we get the likes of "Pegasus" etc. (See my essay on Regicide for another example of falling for disinfo.)
It takes a while to really get up to speed in this field. So understand if the vets don't exhibit a lot of patience for the new guys.
|
