2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
griffi94
(3,733 posts)probably celebrating her lead in the primaries
of 300 delegates and 3 million votes.
That would be my guess.
She has written fawning reviews of his book, bragged of him as a friend and adviser and vacationed with him and his family.
The Clintons, Bushs and Kissingers are tight..
griffi94
(3,733 posts)is why she's winning by 300 delegates and 3 million votes.
It suggests being able to work with everybody.
Across party lines.
Whatever she has going. It's working pretty well.
She's got an insurmountable lead.
300 delegates and 3 million votes.
She's got this in the bag.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in order to retain and mollify the party base
Obama had more delegates than she did.
He also had the majority of women and POC.
Bernie tanked with both of those demographics.
Bernie leads in white males
Bernies supporters are hardly the base as is clear by the fact that she's steamrolled him on votes and delegates.
300 more delegates and 3 million more votes.
That's not IMO.
That's the real number
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)He's not going to win
but I haven't seen any official tell him to concede.
It's out of his reach now.
He's down 300 delegates and 3 million votes.
He's stopped running on his issues and is mostly trying to make up ground with his message that Hillary and the Democrats all suck.
She's got this in the bag.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that will fight and die for MIC profits and the spreading of "democracy" (read neocon imperialism).
griffi94
(3,733 posts)also women, POC, and moderate Republicans who
won't vote for Trump or Cruz.
Any Democrat would have won this year.
Bernie would have won handily in Novemebr.
He just wasn't able to win the nomination.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)middle and working classes to pay for the safety nets and infrastructure. Her 1% have been draining wealth and resources from the lower 99% for decades. We can not survive this. But Goldman-Sachs will get bigger profits.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)That remains to be seen.
What isn't an opinion is that regardless of waht you or the
other Bernie supporters feel about it.
She's winning.
Democratic voters prefer her to Bernie.
Democratic voters also have a high opinion of President Obama. Hillary wants to continue what President Obama started.
Bernie could have been president except he wasn't very prepared.
Hillary is.
She's got this in the bag.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)than Dick Cheney?
griffi94
(3,733 posts)She's winning.
300 delegates and 3 million votes.
She's got this in the bag.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Win at all costs, no matter what.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)"Just win baby"
She's up 300 delegate already.
And 3 million votes.
Indiana votes tomorrow but I don't think
there are enough delegates in play to really move
the needle very much.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I am sure someone will pat you on the head.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)was the owner of the Oakland Raiders.
I don't think he was connected to Hillary.
Revolution is goog as far as it goes
but you have to win first.
Not going to get much done otherwise.
At this point her 300 delegat and 3 million vote lead is
insurmountable.
She's got this in the bag.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)"At this point her 300 delegat and 3 million vote"
griffi94
(3,733 posts)that's the actual number.
Hillary is up 300 delegates and 3 million votes.
It's now a statistical impossibility for
Bernie to catch her in the pledged delegate count.
Her 300 delegate 3 million vote lead isn't an opinion
it's the real number that she's leading him by.
Hillary's got this in the bag.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)thus your talking point of the day.
If she's "got it in the bag" why keep on about it?
griffi94
(3,733 posts)For months I've read all the Hillary bashing here
and the tortured math.
The opinions that aren't backed up by anything
other than opinions and the hatred of people
who just can't stand Hillary.
Now the reality is clear.
Bernie can't catch her in the delegate race.
So it doesn't matter what he might have done or any of the opinions put forward as facts to smear my candidate of choice.
Hillary is ahead by 300 delegates.
Fact
Hillary is ahead 3 million votes.
Fact
Hillary's got this in the bag.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)why do you care? She has it in the bag and she doesn't need any of us "Hilary bashers" to win. When you keep repeating yourself who are you trying to convince? Hell, you even went out of your way to say that you will vote for HRC regardless of her policies or what war criminals she follows.
Got it.
You are a very loyal.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)and 3 million votes.
I didn't know she'd ever been charged with war crimes.
Or is that another opinion. That she's a war criminal.
300 more deleagtes and 3 million more votes
is a fact.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)a war criminal. Now, that doesn't make her a war criminal, but it sure says a lot about both her character and the character of folk who would vote for her knowing that.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)That you have to work with all kinds of people
But as you just said that doesn't make her a war criminal.
The rest about her character and the character of her supporters
is pure speculation on your part.
IOW it's your opinion.
What is a fact is that Hillary leads Bernie by 300 delegates and 3 million votes.
Bernie's not going to be our nominee.
I could give you my opinion on why I think he's not but
the fact is he's not because not enough voters want him.
Democratic primary voters rejected him and his agenda.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Keep repeating those talking points, I am sure you will get a treat some day.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)Purity for you huh?
Bernie seems to like purity as well.
Of course it's not going to matter in Bernies case.
He doesn't have to compromise to get his agenda implemented
because his agenda is DOA.
You have to win to be in a position to implement an agenda.
He's behind 300 delegates and 3 million votes.
Go Hillary
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)all the things that can be discarded as long as you win with your 300 delegates and 3 million votes.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)I also understand in politics or any real world position that
you have to compromise since purity morality and integrity
is largelyin the eye of each individual.
Anti choice people are convinced they're position is the only correct one.
Same with pro gunners and the homophobes.
Zealotry is easy to mask using words like purity moarality and integrity.
Our candidates are running for POTUS
not head boy scout.
I get it. You're unhappy that your candidate lost.
But he lost because his message didn't appeal to Democratic primary voters
not because everybody who didn't vote for him is immoral with no integrity.
300 more delegates and 3 million more votes
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)are NOT determined based on who wins votes.
History is littered with majority voters who thought numbers made them right. Hell, in my state the HB2 passed by a landslide. By your standard of "anything that it takes to win", I guess that makes it a great law.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)I said numbers make you win.
You can't effect anything if you don't win.
All you can do then is play critic and gladfly.
Reality isn't a bubble.
Lots of nuanced landscapes.
Hb2 visas will I'm sure negatively effect some percentage of your states population.
They'll also have some positive effects as well.
Very little ever clearly black & white.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and it pleases no one but the usual crowd of bigots. But it got an overwhelming majority of votes, thus it won, and winning is everything.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)it was also costing NC a lot of money.
Bigotry is never good and I said no such thing.
I said zealotry leads to idiotic un-nuanced absolutes and your HB2
law is proof of that.
Those bigoted zealots are absolutely convinced that their position is the pure, moral stance and that denying others their rights they're showing their integrity.
More than a few Bernie supporters are purist zealots.
It doesn't matter in the end.
Your HB2 is going to get overturned.
Hillary is going to be president.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Don't let any yellow ribbons you see fool you; these civvies just don't care.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)they are totally cool with eternal war as long as its there candidate who's waging it.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)with all the goddamned fascists in the current GOP!
It's NOT a selling point!
But these kinds of pics make it appear that Hillary
won't be "working across party lines",
but rather,
kissing neoconservative fascist ASS on a regular basis,
while selling out her base.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)I disagree and so does the majority of Democratic primary voters.
Bernie supporters aren't Hillarys base.
They're also not the Democratic Party base.
The base is women, older voters, POC.
Those are the people who have given
Hillary a lead of 300 delegates and 3 million votes.
Bernies base wasn't able to overcome Hillarys superior numbers.
Bernie being the nominee is now a statistical impossibility.
You're wearing me out. Take all you need.
mooseprime
(474 posts)we're stamping LOVE AND KINDNESS(TM) on our cluster bombs now too
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
JSup
(740 posts)...to your political enemies is just the worst thing in the world.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She was happy to oblige and even repeated the Republicon lies. What will she tell the Republicons when they ask her why she changed parties in 2002 when the chips were down.
The Clintons, Bushes and Reagans were close.
bvf
(6,604 posts)
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Presidents, a Sec of state, a world leader.. you will have many of these pics taken. So what? Obama has them now too. Bernie does not, because he has not been relevant enough to meet word leaders and political adversaries
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)who is not as pure as him, right? Oh, that'll work out for him. LOL.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)
Tarc
(10,472 posts)
scscholar
(2,902 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)she wants to be just like him when she grows up 
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)How has that worked out for you guys?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Of course it wasn't, but it's certainly paying off in this thread.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Deal with it! 
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
What Hillary tells the Big Wigs:
C-SPAN aired Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks at the Peter G. Peterson Institute. Pete Peterson made billions as a private equity underwriter (PEU). He used $1 billion to establish his institute, focused on getting America's financial house of cards in order (without asking corporations or the rich to step up in any major way.)
[font color="green"]America believes government cannot do anything competently, thus the private sector is the answer. That goes for international development.[/font color]
SNIP...
That requires partners. Giants of philanthropy gathered in New York in 2009. This list included Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Pete Peterson, George Soros, David Rockefeller, and Oprah Winfrey.
SNIP...
Clinton stated in her talk:
[font color="green"][font size="5"]Aid chases need, investment chases opportunity.[/font size][/font color]
[font color="green"]She mentioned the Clinton Foundation as a partner. President Bill Clinton privatized government functions during his two terms, benefiting multiple private equity underwriters.[/font color]
CONTINUED...
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2010/01/hillary-clinton-speaks-from-peter-g.html
And money trumps peace.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)What the nice people do over seas they will do upon Der Homeland.
Did you see this, yourpaljoey? The Chicago Boys created the Chilean Piratization Model -- a model admired by President Bill Clinton.
The story, told by a Chicago Boy, who helped implement the privatization scam for Pinochet, ITT, and the globalist crowd:
President Clinton and the Chilean Model.
By José Piñera
Midnight at the House of Good and Evil
"It is 12:30 at night, and Bill Clinton asks me and Dottie: 'What do you know about the Chilean social-security system?'” recounted Richard Lamm, the three-term former governor of Colorado. It was March 1995, and Lamm and his wife were staying that weekend in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House.
I read about this surprising midnight conversation in an article by Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, May 13, 1996), as I was waiting at Dulles International Airport for a flight to Europe. The article also said that early the next morning, before he left to go jogging, President Bill Clinton arranged for a special report about the Chilean reform produced by his staff to be slipped under Lamm's door.
That news piqued my interest, so as soon as I came back to the United States, I went to visit Richard Lamm. I wanted to know the exact circumstances in which the president of the world’s superpower engages a fellow former governor in a Saturday night exchange about the system I had implemented 15 years earlier.
Lamn and I shared a coffee on the terrace of his house in Denver. He not only was the most genial host to this curious Chilean, but he also proved to be deeply motivated by the issues surrounding aging and the future of America. So we had an engaging conversation. At the conclusion, I ventured to ask him for a copy of the report that Clinton had given him. He agreed to give it to me on the condition that I do not make it public while Clinton was president. He also gave me a copy of the handwritten note on White House stationery, dated 3-21-95, which accompanied the report slipped under his door. It read:
Dick,
Sorry I missed you this morning.
It was great to have you and Dottie here.
Here's the stuff on Chile I mentioned.
Best,
Bill.
Three months before that Clinton-Lamm conversation about the Chilean system, I had a long lunch in Santiago with journalist Joe Klein of Newsweek magazine. A few weeks afterwards, he wrote a compelling article entitled,[font color="green"] "If Chile can do it...couldn´t North America privatize its social-security system?" [/font color]He concluded by stating that "the Chilean system is perhaps the first significant social-policy idea to emanate from the Southern Hemisphere." (Newsweek, December 12, 1994).
I have reasons to think that probably this piece got Clinton’s attention and, given his passion for policy issues, he became a quasi expert on Chile’s Social Security reform. Clinton was familiar with Klein, as the journalist covered the 1992 presidential race and went on anonymously to write the bestseller Primary Colors, a thinly-veiled account of Clinton’s campaign.
“The mother of all reforms”
While studying for a Masters and a Ph.D. in economics at Harvard University, I became enamored with America’s unique experiment in liberty and limited government. In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville wrote the first volume of Democracy in America hoping that many of the salutary aspects of American society might be exported to his native France. I dreamed with exporting them to my native Chile.
So, upon finishing my Ph.D. in 1974 and while fully enjoying my position as a Teaching Fellow at Harvard University and a professor at Boston University, I took on the most difficult decision in my life: to go back to help my country rebuild its destroyed economy and democracy along the lines of the principles and institutions created in America by the Founding Fathers. Soon after I became Secretary of Labor and Social Security, and in 1980 I was able to create a fully funded system of personal retirement accounts. Historian Niall Ferguson has stated that this reform was “the most profound challenge to the welfare state in a generation. Thatcher and Reagan came later. The backlash against welfare started in Chile.”
But while de Tocqueville’s 1835 treatment contained largely effusive praise of American government, the second volume of Democracy in America, published five years later, strikes a more cautionary tone. He warned that “the American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” In fact at some point during the 20th century, the culture of self reliance and individual responsibility that had made America a great and free nation was diluted by the creation of [font color="green"] “an Entitlement State,”[/font color] reminiscent of the increasingly failed European welfare state. What America needed was a return to basics, to the founding tenets of limited government and personal responsibility.
[font color="green"]In a way, the principles America helped export so successfully to Chile through a group of free market economists needed to be reaffirmed through an emblematic reform. I felt that the Chilean solution to the impending Social Security crisis could be applied in the USA.[/font color]
CONTINUED...
http://www.josepinera.org/articles/articles_clinton_chilean_model.htm
Remember when money wasn't the guiding star? Yeah. Me, neither.
Democratic solutions work because they are Democratic, not capitalist.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
democrank
(11,085 posts)..
Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)
pdsimdars This message was self-deleted by its author.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Because Bibi was out of town on business?
Because it's more rewarding than kissing a sex addict?
Because Lloyd Blankfein's whiskers are just too scratchy!
Because kissing Berta Cáceres would've been even more awkward?
Because she has a good sense of Huma?
mooseprime
(474 posts)made my day, thank you!!
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
Now, pick a card:
B Calm
(28,762 posts)stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. Smooch
2banon
(7,321 posts)some of her closest friends are war criminals, you got a problem with that?
get a job! 
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)In politics, you don't go out of your way to make enemies. A politician can smile and appear charming and still not give 2 shits about the person they are with.
Another word is 'diplomacy'. If you think some photo is 'proof' that Clinton is taking advice from Kissinger, you're seeing what you want to see.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
angrychair
(8,678 posts)The Clintons call him a friend and spend personal time with himand his family. During a debate she listed Henry Kissinger has an idol and friend. It's not the worst thing I the world but it is unsettling and it should be unsettling to any Democrat.
randome
(34,845 posts)And GWB said he could see into Putin's soul. Politicians say stuff all the time. They spend time with VIPs, even someone no longer 'in demand' as Kissinger. It gives the impression -legitimate or not- that she is not playing sides.
Kissinger is too old to be giving advice on anything.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
angrychair
(8,678 posts)This wasn't lip service, they have vacationed together. They have been friends for years. Clinton even said she looks to him for advice. Again, it's not the worse thing in the world but a Kissinger world is a very ugly world.
When we talk about her friendships, like the tRumps or Bushs, those are acquaintances or people that your assistant sends a Christmas cad too. They are real friends, the tRump daughters went to school together and have been friends for years.
No, not the worst thing ever but should be cause for concern.
MuseRider
(34,095 posts)<-----Bloody hands.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)... to keep him alive until the next regime-change.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)that ends with the witch kissing a goat on the rectum. Hail Satan.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)You, without a doubt are the most aggressive ANTI Hillary DU'r on the site. Those days are coming to a close, in a month or so...
Cicada
(4,533 posts)Maybe jimmy carter was clean but I think being a war criminal is part of the job of president. It's creepy but huff is best alternative in our imperfect world.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Please stop with the disinformation. Here's the history:
In fact, CIA went out of its way to keep that hidden not only from the Warren Commission and the American people, but hidden from President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. Something very telling is how CIA connected individuals now float the idea that the assassination plots were these Kennedy brother's idea. Nothing could be further from the truth, it was CIA director Allen Dulles under Eisenhower (and Nixon) who contracted with the MAFIA to assassinate Castro in 1960. Since then, the rightwing and their cronies in the mass media have done all they could to associate the Kennedys with the smear.
A little history:
AUG 1960: Richard Bissell meets with Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, and discusses with him ways to eliminate or assassinate Fidel Castro. Edwards proposes that the job be done by assassins hand-picked by the American underworld, specifically syndicate interests who have been driven out of their Havana gambling casinos by the Castro regime. Bissell gives Edwards the go-ahead to proceed. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursues a series of plots to poison or shot Castro. The CIA’s own internal report on these efforts states that these plots "were viewed by at least some of the participants as being merely one aspect of the over-all active effort to overthrow the regime that culminated in the Bay of Pigs." (CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3, 14)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/chron.html
Details on the actual sit-down, which to an amateur democratic detective interested in justice would seem like a lead worth pursuing:
Ever wonder about the sanity of America's leaders? Take a close look at perhaps the most bizarre plot in U.S. intelligence history
By Bryan Smith
Chicago Magazine
November 2007
(page 4 of 6)
EXCERPT...
By September 1960, the project was proceeding apace. Roselli would report directly to Maheu. The first step was a meeting in New York. There, at the Plaza Hotel, Maheu introduced Roselli to O'Connell. The agent wanted to cover up the participation of the CIA, so he pretended to be a man named Jim Olds who represented a group of wealthy industrialists eager to get rid of Castro so they could get back in business.
"We may know some people," Roselli said. Several weeks later, they all met at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami. For years, the luxurious facility had served as the unofficial headquarters for Mafioso leaders seeking a base close to their gambling interests in Cuba. Now, it would be the staging area for the assassination plots.
At a meeting in one of the suites, Roselli introduced Maheu to two men: Sam Gold and a man Roselli referred to as Joe, who could serve as a courier to Cuba. By this time, Roselli was on to O'Connell. "I'm not kidding," Roselli told the agent one day. "I know who you work for. But I'm not going to ask you to confirm it."
Roselli may have figured out that he was dealing with the CIA, but neither Maheu nor O'Connell realized the rank of mobsters with whom they were dealing. That changed when Maheu picked up a copy of the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade, which carried an article laying out the FBI's ten most wanted criminals. Leading the list was Sam Giancana, a.k.a. "Mooney," a.k.a. "Momo," a.k.a. "Sam the Cigar," a Chicago godfather who was one of the most feared dons in the country—and the man who called himself Sam Gold. "Joe" was also on the list. His real name, however, was Santos Trafficante—the outfit's Florida and Cuba chieftain.
Maheu alerted O'Connell. "My God, look what we're involved with," Maheu said. O'Connell told his superiors. Questioned later before the 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (later nicknamed the Church Committee after its chairman, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho), O'Connell was asked whether there had ever been any discussion about asking two men on the FBI's most wanted list to carry out a hit on a foreign leader.
"Not with me there wasn't," O'Connell answered.
"And obviously no one said stop—and you went ahead."
"Yes."
"Did it bother you at all?"
"No," O'Connell answered, "it didn't."
CONTINUED...
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-2007/How-the-CIA-Enlisted-the-Chicago-Mob-to-Put-a-Hit-on-Castro/index.php?cparticle=4&siarticle=3
Yet, for some reason, the CIA continues to the present day to imply that it was Kennedy who did that.
Spies: Ex-CIA Agent In Raleigh Says Castro Knew About JFK Assassination Ahead Of Time
Former CIA agent and author Brian Latell in Raleigh
By The Raleigh Telegram
RALEIGH – A noted former Central Intelligence Agency officer, author, and scholar who is intimately knowledgeable about Cuba and Fidel Castro, says he believes there is evidence that Castro’s government knew about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 ahead of time.
SNIP...
Robert Kennedy, as the Attorney General of the United States, was in charge of the operation, said Latell. Despite the United States’ best efforts, the operation was nonetheless penetrated by Cuban intelligence agents, said Latell.
Latell said there were two serious assassination attempts by the United States against Castro that even used members of the mafia to help, but both of them were obviously unsuccessful.
He also said that there was a plot by the United States to have Castro jabbed with a pen containing a syringe filled with a very effective poison. Latell said that he believes the experienced assassin who worked for Castro who originally agreed to the plan may have been a double agent. After meeting with a personal representative of Robert Kennedy in Paris, the man knew that the plan to assassinate Castro came from the highest levels of the government, including John F. and Robert Kennedy.
The plan was never carried out, as the man later defected to the United States, but with so many double agents working for Castro also pledging allegiance to the CIA, Latell said it was likely that the information got back to Havana that the Kennedy brothers endorsed that plot with the pen.
CONTINUED...
http://raleightelegram.com/201209123311
Yet, the Mighty Wurlitzer continues to play the false tune that Kennedy was the guy who wanted Castro dead -- never mentioning Kennedy ordered the program halted.
What the Warren Commission Didn’t Know
A member of the panel that investigated JFK’s death now worries he was a victim of a “massive cover-up.”
By PHILIP SHENON
February 02, 2015
EXCERPT...
Slawson feels betrayed by several senior government officials, especially at the CIA, whom he says he trusted in 1964 to tell the truth. He is most angry with one man—then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who assured the commission during the investigation that he knew of no evidence of a conspiracy in his brother’s death. It is now clear, as I and others have reported, that Robert Kennedy withheld vital information from the investigation: While he publicly supported the commission’s findings, Kennedy’s family and friends have confirmed in recent years that he was in fact harshly critical of the commission and believed that the investigation had missed evidence that might have pointed to a conspiracy.
“What a bastard,” Slawson says today of Robert Kennedy. “This is a man I once had admiration for.”
Slawson theorizes that that attorney general and the CIA worked together to hide information about Oswald’s Mexico trip from the commission because they feared that the investigation might stumble onto the fact that JFK’s administration had been trying, for years, sometimes with the help of the Mafia, to assassinate Castro. Mexico had been a staging area for the Castro plots. Public disclosure of the plots, Slawson says, could have derailed, if not destroyed, Robert Kennedy’s political career; he had led his brother’s secret war against Castro and, as declassified documents would later show, was well aware of the Mafia’s involvement in the CIA’s often harebrained schemes to murder the Cuban dictator. “You can’t distinguish between Bobby and the CIA on this,” Slawson says. “They were working hand in glove to hide information from us.”
Although there is nothing in the public record to show that Robert Kennedy had specific evidence of a foreign conspiracy in his brother’s death, I agree with Slawson that RFK and senior CIA officials threw the commission off the trail of witnesses and evidence that might have pointed to a conspiracy, especially in Mexico. Slawson also now suspects—but admits again that he cannot prove—that Chief Justice Earl Warren, who led the commission that bore his name, was an unwitting participant in the cover-up, agreeing with the CIA or RFK to make sure that the commission did not pursue certain evidence. Warren, he suspects, was given few details about why the commission’s investigation had to be limited. “He was probably just told that vital national interests” were at stake—that certain lines of investigation in Mexico had to be curtained because they might inadvertently reveal sensitive U.S. spy operations.
That might explain what Slawson saw as Warren’s most baffling decision during the investigation—his refusal to allow Slawson to interview a young Mexican woman who worked in the Cuban consulate in Mexico and who dealt face-to-face with Oswald on his visa application; declassified CIA records would later suggest that Oswald had a brief affair with the woman, who was herself a committed Socialist, and that she had introduced him to a network of other Castro supporters in Mexico. “It was a different time,” Slawson says. “We were more naïve. Warren would have believed what he was told.”
CONTINUED...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/warren-commission-jfk-investigators-114812_Page2.html#.VN982vnF-UV
Why would CIA not want the Warren Commission, and the American public to which it reported, know the truth about its illegal assassination program?
From the Water is Wet as all Wetwork Department:
If things had gone according to plan, Nixon would've been president during the Bay of Pigs and would've sent in the Marines, along with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, making Allen Dulles and Meyer Lansky and all their rich and corrupt friends very, very happy.
President Kennedy, temporarily, put a kibosh on the warmongers' plans during the Bay of Pigs, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and in Vietnam.
Lucky on the docks may've been known to Naval Intelligence and those who the history of the United States in World War II, but to Everyman, no. The CIA and Mafia working together to kill leaders is news. And it shouldn't have been kept from the Warren Commission by the CIA as an agency and by its representative on the Warren Commission, Allen Dulles.
Any questions?
