Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Charles Drago]

Alas, such is what we get from Morrow -- Jim Fetzer's "genius" student of deep politics.

I have been other than Dorothy Parker-esque in my denunciations of Morrow's naive (I'm being generous), simple-minded, school boy rants. The reason: I wanted to provoke him to expose his own intellectual limits and emotional liabilities.

And so he has.

If he continues to abide by the rules of DPF conduct, he may continue to rave on these cyber pages.

And as I have done so often in the past, I shall continue to expose his disinformation whenever, in my judgement, it gives succor to the true Sponsors and Facilitators of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

[Jim DiEugenio]

PN:Jim, he may have cited the reference to the news item in his book, but the actual news article which he wrote that it referred to was dated August 25, 1970. Hersh wrote it, look it up. He "owned" that story throughout that period.

Did Nelson actually think I was going to trust him on this? That I would take his word for it and not call his bluff? Especially when a lying CIA slut like Hersh was involved?

So yesterday, I went down to my local library to see if they had the NY TImes on microfilm. They did not but they ordered it for me and it came in today. So I looked it up and printed it out.

There is NO ONE"S NAME on this story! It came across the UPI wire. So much for Hersh "owning this story." ANd so much for Nelson's credibility.

But alas, what else could be the case? Valentine would have mentioned Hersh had his name been on the story. When I e mailed him yesterday, he told me he did not recall the name. Because, as it turned out, there was no name to recall. That would not have been the case if Hersh was involved.

Now, let us turn to the article itself. And we will see why Hersh could not have originated it. It was a report on how Calley's defense was trying to unearth CIA documents related to the Phoenix Program. Now, as I said, if one reads Hersh's 1970 book on the massacre, it is quite hard to find any evidence of this there. But clearly, Calley had tipped off his lawyers about Phoenix and wanted to use it as a defense. It is very hard to conclude that in the year Hersh spent on his first book, somehow he was so bad of a reporter that he never surfaced any of this. I beleive this is not tenable. I beleive he did find out about it and chose not to write about it.

Now, after this story, and after the ridiculousness of the Peers Report and Calley's trial, even the village idiot had to know that Phoneix had to be involved. Or else how could 504 people be slaughtered like cattle, and no one spend a week in jail? So Hersh HAD to mention it in in his 1972 book. But even there, he tried to smudge the issue as to whether My Lai was such a result.

I was correct on this. Hersh spent three years covering up the true circumstances of what happened at My Lai. And then when he was finally cornered, he still tried to have it both ways. THerefore my conclusion stands. Hersh has been a CIA asset from the beginning of the rise of his career. And this culminated in his lying, hatchet job of a book on President Kennedy. Who else would use a lying douche bag like Sam Halpern as a source anyway? (Who, by the way, Talbot exposed as lying to Hersh in Brothers. Somehow, Nelson missed that also.)

Up until now, I have thought CD was stretching it in implying Nelson's book had a mission. But now, with this, how else does one explain his rabid and relentless attempt to cover up for Hersh?

Why do that at the expense of your own credibility? Which is now in tatters.

[Charles Drago]

Up until now, I have thought CD was stretching it in implying Nelson's book had a mission. But now, with this, how else does one explain his rabid and relentless attempt to cover up for Hersh?

Why do that at the expense of your own credibility? Which is now in tatters.

Jim,

Before I got to the end of your post I had decided to respond thusly:

The subtlety of Nelson's feints -- subtle, that is, to all but those who know the record and are willing to expend the effort to report it -- is the stuff of disinformation.

Nelson is merely a sapper, and Morrow but a sap. The former's credibility is expendable to his masters. I'm afraid that the Mastermind damage, while minimized by your efforts and, to a lesser degree, my own, has been done.

Now more than ever we must be vigilant to expose disinformation -- including the presentation of False Sponsors -- in real time.

CD

[Greg Burnham]

That's a very ugly and useless characterization.


I've consulted the Rules of our hosts on this forum. Looks like there's not much else I might want to say that's permitted.

I do have an observation which I hope is not in violation of our civil guidelines:

President Kennedy could control neither the enemies who conspired to kill him nor the quality of his health. Your crude characterizations of his personal life are inaccurate and impolite, and do nothing to further your argument that Lyndon Johnson was the diabolical mastermind of the mother of all conspiracies in which he involved most of the people who were not assassinated in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.

If you have so little respect for President Kennedy's life, why do you concern yourself with the circumstances of his death?

I couldn't agree with you more, Alan. I find the irresponsibly phrased critique of JFK's personal life to be offensive and devoid of foundation upon which to make such a claim. Moreover, his personal life is arguably irrelevant to his presidency, and certainly it is irrelevant to this topic.

[Dawn Meredith]

That's a very ugly and useless characterization.


I've consulted the Rules of our hosts on this forum. Looks like there's not much else I might want to say that's permitted.

I do have an observation which I hope is not in violation of our civil guidelines:

President Kennedy could control neither the enemies who conspired to kill him nor the quality of his health. Your crude characterizations of his personal life are inaccurate and impolite, and do nothing to further your argument that Lyndon Johnson was the diabolical mastermind of the mother of all conspiracies in which he involved most of the people who were not assassinated in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.

If you have so little respect for President Kennedy's life, why do you concern yourself with the circumstances of his death?

Really!!!!! Robert would you please spend less time defaming JFK and read Jim D's article. PLEEEEASE.
This is really getting old. You are absolutely consumed with all things sexual and therefore believe all the disinfo about JFk and even Bill Clinton. (You might try "Blinded By the Right" on the Clinton case...David Brock is the author, good read).

I know you do not care what people think of you but...you are truly embarrassing yourself. I see RED when someone repeats this defamatory bs about John F. Kennedy.

Dawn

[Robert Morrow]

Being in denial about John Kennedy's out of control sex life does not help get at the truth on the JFK assassination. Worshipping the Kennedys will not help you find truth.

In fact, JFK's out of control sex life is a big reason John Kennedy was murdered. It was just the opening that allowed Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn to BLACKMAIL Kennedy and FORCE LBJ on the ticket on the night of July 13, 1960 at the Democratic convention in Los Angeles.
Johnson and Rayburn made it clear to Kennedy that they were going to sink the Demo ticket if Johnson was not on as VP.

That was a fatal mistake by Kennedy, putting that traitorous viper Johnson on the ticket. That same guy who plotted his death just 3 short years later.

Like Jack Ruby said, it Adlai Stevenson had been on the ticket, John Kennedy would not have been murdered. I think that is a very revealing comment by Ruby.

And by the way, one of John Kennedy's closest aides agrees with me. Evelyn Lincoln, JFK's very loyal secretary for 11+ years had this to say, as relayed by Anthony Summers:

"During the 1960 campaign, according to Mrs. Lincoln, Kennedy discovered how vulnerable his womanizing had made him. Sexual blackmail, she said, had long been part of Lyndon Johnson's modus operandiabetted by Edgar. "J. Edgar Hoover," Lincoln said, "gave Johnson the information about various congressmen and senators so that Johnson could go to X senator and say, `How about this little deal you have with this woman?' and so forth. That's how he kept them in line. He used his IOUs with them as what he hoped was his road to the presidency. He had this trivia to use, because he had Hoover in his corner. And he thought that the members of Congress would go out there and put him over at the Convention. But then Kennedy beat him at the Convention. And well, after that Hoover and Johnson and their group were able to push Johnson on Kennedy."LBJ," said Lincoln, "had been using all the information Hoover could find on Kennedyduring the campaign, even before the Convention. And Hoover was in on the pressure on Kennedy at the Convention." (Summers, Official and Confidential, p. 272).

(Note to other researchers. You people are in denial about JFK's out of control sex life and its consequences. Above is Evelyn Lincoln - an extremely loyal and close aide to John Kennedy, explicitly saying that Johnson and Rayburn, using Hoover's info, were using sexual blackmail on John Kennedy. Live in your fantasy world if you like, I like to deal with reality even if it is ugly.)

[Alan Dale]

Your pot is cracked.

[Magda Hassan]

I agree the Kennedy had extra-marital sex and so did LBJ. And so do many men especially 'powerful' men. I don't think John Kennedy was particularly different to others. I don't think it was 'out of control' either. I don't understand the focus on his sex life.

[Robert Morrow]

Your pot is cracked.

Oswald and the CIA, 2008 ed., John M. Newman
Deep Politics ll, 2003 ed., Peter Dale Scott
Our Man In Mexico... 2008, Jefferson Morley
Wilderness of Mirrors, 1980, David C. Martin
JFK and Vietnam, 1992, John M. Newman
JFK and the Unspeakable, 2009, James W.Douglass
Brothers, 2007, David Talbot

These are all good books. Let me add one more that is extremely important: The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh. He quotes several Secret Service agents who were disgusted with John Kennedy's sex life...

Not being "moralistic" here, but an *honest* researcher needs to deal with the reality of it and its consequences:

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Camelot-...0316359556

As for Lyndon Johnson and HIS promiscous sex life ... LBJ once said in contempt that he got more women by accident than Kennedy got on purpose.

[Robert Morrow]

I agree the Kennedy had extra-marital sex and so did LBJ. And so do many men especially 'powerful' men. I don't think John Kennedy was particularly different to others. I don't think it was 'out of control' either. I don't understand the focus on his sex life.

One's sex life is dangerous and out of control when you can be BLACKMAILED to put a psychopathic, serial killer Lyndon Johnson as the VP on your Democratic ticket. That is something John Kennedy absolutely would NEVER have done if it had not been for LBJ's BLACKMAIL. Johnson was not on the "short list" or the "long list" to be a running mate with JFK. He simply was not on the list ... until he and Rayburn intimated Kennedy into making the fatal move.

Putting Lyndon Johnson a *heartbeat* away from the most powerful job in the world is like putting Ted Bundy in a Florida sorority at 2AM. Not a good idea!