Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 37,085
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 37,085
- 2013 (510)
- 2012 (319)
- 2011 (16)
- December (16)
- Older Archives
While I try to shine light on the fascist crapola from 50 years ago, I also shine light on stopping it in the present day.
It's also why I vote Democratic. Our party does something about it, like standing for Peace with Tehran and standing up to the NSA-Supreme KKKort Spy Ring.
Posted by Octafish | Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:15 PM (0 replies)
Lt. J. C. Day, the forensic guy from Dallas PD didn't follow procedures; not even those he, himself, had followed earlier, like taking photos of each print as it came off the various parts of the Mannlicher-Carcano carbine.
Posted by Octafish | Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:10 PM (1 replies)
Going by all your replies on them, I'm not surprised you don't want DU to see these examples of what we've learned since the CIA told us to "move on, nothing to see here."
JFK Conference: Bill Kelly introduced new evidence - adding Air Force One tape recordings
JFK Conference: Rex Bradford detailed the historic importance of the Church Committee
JFK Conference: Lisa Pease Discussed the Real Harm of Corrupt Soft Power
JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963
JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination
Lots of new information there, including a lot more stuff Allen Dulles doesn't want you to know about. What a coincidence.
Posted by Octafish | Sun Nov 24, 2013, 01:43 PM (0 replies)
by Robert Dallek
The Atlantic, Sept. 10 2013
From the start of his presidency, Kennedy feared that the Pentagon brass would overreact to Soviet provocations and drive the country into a disastrous nuclear conflict. The Soviets might have been pleased—or understandably frightened—to know that Kennedy distrusted America’s military establishment almost as much as they did.
JFK Special Issue
The Joint Chiefs of Staff reciprocated the new president’s doubts. Lemnitzer made no secret of his discomfort with a 43-year-old president who he felt could not measure up to Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former five-star general Kennedy had succeeded. Lemnitzer was a West Point graduate who had risen in the ranks of Eisenhower’s World War II staff and helped plan the successful invasions of North Africa and Sicily. The 61-year-old general, little known outside military circles, stood 6 feet tall and weighed 200 pounds, with a bearlike frame, booming voice, and deep, infectious laugh. Lemnitzer’s passion for golf and his ability to drive a ball 250 yards down a fairway endeared him to Eisenhower. More important, he shared his mentor’s talent for maneuvering through Army and Washington politics. Also like Ike, he wasn’t bookish or particularly drawn to grand strategy or big-picture thinking—he was a nuts-and-bolts sort of general who made his mark managing day-to-day problems.
To Kennedy, Lemnitzer embodied the military’s old thinking about nuclear weapons. The president thought a nuclear war would bring mutually assured destruction—MAD, in the shorthand of the day—while the Joint Chiefs believed the United States could fight such a conflict and win. Sensing Kennedy’s skepticism about nukes, Lemnitzer questioned the new president’s qualifications to manage the country’s defense. Since Eisenhower’s departure, he lamented in shorthand, no longer was “a Pres with mil exp available to guide JCS.” When the four-star general presented the ex-skipper with a detailed briefing on emergency procedures for responding to a foreign military threat, Kennedy seemed preoccupied with possibly having to make “a snap decision” about whether to launch a nuclear response to a Soviet first strike, by Lemnitzer’s account. This reinforced the general’s belief that Kennedy didn’t sufficiently understand the challenges before him.
Admiral Arleigh Burke, the 59-year-old chief of naval operations, shared Lemnitzer’s doubts. An Annapolis graduate with 37 years of service, Burke was an anti-Soviet hawk who believed that U.S. military officials needed to intimidate Moscow with threatening rhetoric. This presented an early problem for Kennedy, in that Burke “pushed his black-and-white views of international affairs with bluff naval persistence,” the Kennedy aide and historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. later wrote. Kennedy had barely settled into the Oval Office when Burke planned to publicly assail “the Soviet Union from hell to breakfast,” according to Arthur Sylvester, a Kennedy-appointed Pentagon press officer who brought the proposed speech text to the president’s attention. Kennedy ordered the admiral to back off and required all military officers on active duty to clear any public speeches with the White House. Kennedy did not want officers thinking they could speak or act however they wished.
Bamford is great, a sage. The more we learn, the easier it isto see JFK was facing a "Seven Days in May" situation from Day One. Nixon the warmonger vp would've fitright in.
Posted by Octafish | Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:51 AM (1 replies)
...truly profound, humbling experience. I asked what we could do? Mr. Douglass said, keep spreading the word. It's making a difference.
He spoke of President Kennedy in the Oval Office. A rainy day, JFK was looking out the window. He and his science advisor had been talking about fallout from the nuke tests. JFK asked if the rain contained radioctivity and learned it did.
President Kennedy worked to get a nuclear atmospheric test ban treaty worked out with the Soviets and through Congress in record time by enlisting the cooperation of all the various factions interested in peace - from the Quakers to moms of young kds to readers of The Saturday Evening Post.
Interestingly, the PBS profile on JFK, "The American Experience," included the fact Edward Teller virulently opposed the nuclear test ban and JFK didn't care. Teller got all he wanted under Teagan, plus more with his Start Wars scheme.
Posted by Octafish | Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:26 AM (1 replies)
Know your BFEE: A Crime Line of Treason
Some DUers don't believe there's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or even a Bush Family Evil Empire.
Hey, I'm a Democrat and respect other's opinions and views.
But I do believe in the VRWC and BFEE, perhaps more accurately termed the Bush Transnational Criminal Enterprise. Here's why:
Bush Crime Line
• Bay of Pigs
• October Surprise
• El Salvador
• Reagan Survives Hinckley and Bush
• NAZI Ethnics for Reagan-Bush
• Voodoo Economics
• Iraq-gate / Banca Nazionale del Lavoro arms to Saddam
• BCCI International Money Laundering for Terrorists & Intelligence Community arming Dr AQ Khan
• Savings & Loan scandal in general and Silverado in particular
• Iran-contra Guns/Drugs/Martial Law
• Gulf War I Glaspie Gives Go-Ahead
• Selection 2000 Shreds US Constitution
• Tax Cuts for UltraRich
• Criminal Justice Department
• Suicidal Environmental Policy
• ENRON Energy Policy
• 9-11 Criminal Negligence, at best; Treason, most likely
• Illegal Iraq Invasion
• Paperless Selection 2004
It’s interesting in reviewing the above list, just how much ultra-right, conservative Republican leadership has really been. More than a listing of criminality, the list demonstrates there have been many treasonous activites against “We the People” through “business opportunities” in the finance, energy, and defense industries.
There is one FAMILY name that runs through all the history, the four decades since the JFK administration. Since the very hour of President Kennedy’s death, and through the list of sinister events and unrelenting criminality noted above — a record of infamy stretching back 41 years today — appears the name George Herbert Walker Bush, a tradition continued by his son, George Walker Bush, beard of the BFEE.
DUers: Add, Discuss, Rip -- Whatever. I'd love to learn what y'all think, have to say and believe.
Original post on DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2748315
PS: Note Prof. McAdams even took the time to download and host the image. That's real class, DU.
PPS: I've written about all those "Conspiracy Theories" on DU and posted links showing where I got my information. Please show where I'm wrong. I've never failed to apologize and correct a mistake.
Posted by Octafish | Sat Nov 23, 2013, 03:58 PM (1 replies)
That's disinformation or misinformation, depending on your rationale. No problem. CIA printed up instructions for their assets in the American news media (illegal at the time, but since made A-OK when "everything changed" after 9-11):
CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.
CIA Instructions to Media Assets
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
From 2003, first OP on DU I could find on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x765619
So rather than an open investigation, where the facts can be examined in public, the instructions call for an attack on the messenger. Could it be that the CIA has something to hide?
First: CIA agents monitored Oswald in the weeks before the assassination.
Second: Top CIA officials knew Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City before the assassination.
Third: Former CIA director, fired by JFK, Allen Dulles kept this information from the Warren Commission.
These are the FACTS most Americans SHOULD know, but they don't. Because the government and its toadies in the press say, "Case closed. Move on. Nothing to see here."
Sorry, zappaman. I've heard that story for 50 years and seen the nation nearly ruined by wars for profit. That un-democratic authoritarian garbage doesn't cut it for me.
Posted by Octafish | Sat Nov 23, 2013, 02:35 PM (3 replies)
Victor Marchetti reported CIA director Richard Helms was very concerned about word leaking out that CIA agent E Howard Hunt was in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.
Lone Nut did it.
Mafia Did it.
Anti Castro Cubans did it.
Rich Oil Men did it.
Rogue CIA agents did it.
Not us, but another CIA did it.
Lone Nut did it.
The Big Con at Dealey Plaza
Posted by Octafish | Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:54 AM (0 replies)
Posted by Octafish | Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:23 AM (1 replies)
"Noah's Ark" is a play by Ginny Cunningham, based on the book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James Douglass. The book makes an excellent case that individuals within the United States national security apparatus were, literally, at war with JFK and carried out his assassination in order to maintain political, military, and economic power.
The play's title is from a letter from Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev to President Kennedy in which he described the miracle of existence on earth -- a vessel traveling through space like Noah's Ark traveled the waters of the Flood and protected the fragile life it carried. It was performed two weeks ago at Oakland Community College -- Royal Oak campus. The play was performed yesterday in Dallas by a group that included Martin Sheen and last week in Birmingham, Alabama, where Mr. Douglass works.
Ms. Cunningham, pictured on the far left of the photo above, was in the Detroit area community to hear a staged reading of her work. She discussed the play, which brought to life much of the history of Kennedy's struggles with the Pentagon and CIA, with the audience after the reading. Mr. Douglass is on the far right side of of the photo. He spoke earlier in the day about his book and was present for the reading. He also answered questions from the audience, many of whom were students of an OCC history class on the Kennedy administration.
The odds are there would very likely have been a different outcome had Richard Nixon been in office during the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall crisis, or the Cuban Missile Crisis. Perhaps a President Nixon in 1962 would have listened to Gen. Lemnitzer and CIA Director Dulles when they counseled all-out nuclear sneak attack on the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. If there had been a nuclear war, something that the warmongers considered a win "if only one American survives," perhaps life would not have survived. I know the world would be a very different place had he not served as president those 1,037 days.
So, I just wanted to say "thank you" to President John F. Kennedy. He's a big reason why we are all here today to enjoy our lives.
Posted by Octafish | Fri Nov 22, 2013, 10:35 PM (35 replies)