Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson discusses possibility of a conspiracy to kill JFK

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:09 PM
Original message
Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson discusses possibility of a conspiracy to kill JFK
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/56565

The entire interview is of interest, but the part focusing on the Kennedy assassination begins around 30:22.

In an interview on KPFA's "Letters to Washington" today, retired Army Colonel Lawrennce Wilkerson suggested that the "consequences for one of (our) presidents" for standing up to military-industrial complex "were not good."

Wilkerson, who was also Chief of Staff to former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that President John F. Kennedy stood up to military power in America twice: once during the Bay of Pigs invasion and once during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

According to Wilkerson, JFK "stood up to a very, very aggressive military" and, as a consequence, "we know what happened to John Kennedy."

When pressed by the incredulous interviewer, Mitch Jesserich, on whether he thought there was a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, Wilkerson said "there are consequences, whether they are direct consquences or indirect consequences, for standing up to corporate and military power in the United States of America."

Wilkerson said that he thinks "the Warren Commission was a complete whitewash. No question in my mind about it..." and that, in his view, disgrunteld Cuban Americans involved in the Bay of Pigs affair and "perhaps some rogue elements within the United States itself" worked together to kill the president in 1963.

"I've studied the ballistics...I've studied the area where Kennedy's assassin supposedly shot from...I've studied the grassy knoll...and there is absolutely no way the Warren Commission wasn't a whitewash," Wilkerson said.

However, Wilkerson seemed confused in his timeline about when the House Select Committee on Assassinations (which concluded there probably was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy) was convened. According to what he says in the interveiw, Wilkerson says that the Select Committee was convened after Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which was released in the early 1990s. HSCA was convened in the late 1970s.

Wilkerson also seemed to hedge his opinion about the extent of the alleged conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

"I'm not saying that...the military-industrial complex or any part of it...was responsible for Kennedy's assassination..." Wilkerson said. "I'm simply saying that you can set up circumstances...that are more conducive to those kinds of things happening."

Such circumstances, he said, can result when a president stands up to military power.

He said that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other conservative commentators can instigate "crazies" in the country to oppose President Obama for "the color of his skin...and the color of his actions" and could "incentivize" "some nut" to take a "potshot" at the president.

Refresh | +46 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks
I'll completely discount anything Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson has to say about anything in the future since he;s shown himself to be a complete nutball here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. The Warren Commission was hogwash.
Wilkerson's served his country. From what he's said regarding Bush and Cheney and their run up to war, the secret assassination programs, and all the rest, and he tells the truth.

In light of the assassination program, a few questions about some people I knew about...

No offense, but I'll take his word over yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Hi, Octafish
Nice to see you still fighting the good fight. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Hi, Dwayne!
You are tops, my Friend!

Smells Like Coup Spirit
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. i'll drink to that!
:beer:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Anybody who believes the JFK conspiracy shit is a nutball
End of discussion.

Same as Birthers, Truthers, and moon landing deniers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. You've said that before.
The Single Bullet Fact is the ONLY way it could have happened.

That is if you believe the hogwash that only served to give the FBI and CIA's version of events a modicum of plausible deniability.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
33. End of discussion? So--you're out of here?
I hope?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
50. What about people like me that know the identity of real "government protected" operatives that have
committed murder and left a surviving witness? What about those of US that were thrown under the bus to protect domestic black operations-and the best anyone can come up with is "a shared delusional system" from the so-called mental health profession which is full of criminals itself?

Go collect your privatized government protected paycheck WeDidIt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Why aren't you out there exposing these people who you say you know
are murderers? WeDidIt isn't covering up for them, you are.

Who's the government operative here?

Welcome to the nut ball world of the CTists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #52
77. Troll land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #52
119. For starters, Senator Feingold's office as well as Reps. Kind and Kagen's are aware of the facts in
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 03:20 PM by bobthedrummer
this matter as well as ethical law enforcement (for 4 decades). No one is going to do anything in terms of justice, which is newsworthy in and of itself don't you think? Hence my mentioning it and continuing to speak about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
56. Yes, anyone who believes in one unpopular version of events is exactly like
Edited on Tue Dec-01-09 04:48 PM by Time for change
anyone who believes that the earth is 4,000 years old or that it will end in 2013.

How many of the tens of thousands of pages of evidence that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy have you read that qualifies you to make a statement like that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rtassi Donating Member (486 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #56
64. Honestly TFC, is it any wonder why we can't make headway? ...
Without understanding how the JFK assignation has altered our "democracy" ... and the enormity of the task, to say nothing of the DANGER even a well intentioned and determined President might well encounter while attempting to move the US toward a direction of peace ... what hope can we possibly have of reshaping it to serve its people? I've never understood why the idea of a conspiracy to kill the Kennedy's seems to scare the shit out of some people, to the extent that any tiny shred of unsupported information, like a f---ing dictaphone recording, can and will give them the balls to call others who like myself, have in fact, read the Warren Report (twice) as well as many other books, including the one by Douglass you introduced me to ... a NUT-JOB or worse? It's for sure not very evolved, and detracts greatly from the effort to regain control of a country under the control of shadow government!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #64
91. I just don't know
There are of course many people who have a great stake in having Americans believe that they have a lot more control over their country than they do. And so, the PTB do everything they can to marginalize NUTJOBS like me and you who have the audacity to think for ourselves.

And a lot of people buy into that. Some out of denial inspired by fear. Others just because they want to think of themselves as too "rational" to believe that bad people would conspire to do terrible things. Others just because they want to go with the flow and avoid being seen as nutjobs. I don't even know how much of it is conscious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #56
74. Or how about all that is still sealed & may never be released.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. What, exactly, is sealed? Care to enlighten us?
Or do you prefer to repeat the rumors of the CT crowd?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #79
126. What a joke. There is a deathbed confession by one of the
Dealey Square CIA men...but I won't bore you with it, tho it came from his own son and was in an article on Vanity Fair (if I remember correctly).

The records that had some kind of 25 year seal on them has been delayed for longer, look it up online if you are so inclined. I'm not going to get into a p'ing match with you. Some so called "conspiracies" are more than wingnut imaginings, I will agree to disagree with you. But you are truly naive if you think all is well and everything has been transparent on a number of fronts...and somehow I think you are smarter than that, don't know why. You just like the contests, me thinks, mine's bigger than yours kind of thinking.

I'm thinking you prefer to mess on BB's and enjoy the power you get from dissing other viewpoints. To each their own, since I have better things to do, this is all I care to engage in with you. Have a nice evening, and remember Google is your friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #126
138. The deathbed "confession" you refer to was a cassette tape made by
E Howard Hunt, edited down to 4 minutes from 20 minutes and played after Hunt's death.

What does Hunt "confess" to on that tape? He does NOT confess to being involved in the JFK killing, he only says that he was approached by people in the CIA to participate in the killing. That's convenient, isn't it?: "I confess to no involvement on my part but I name names and smear others." On that tape, Hunt alleges that LBJ was heavily involved in the planning for and killing of JFK.

Who was E Howard Hunt? Well, he was one of Nixon's "plumbers." Hunt's first assignment for the White House was a covert operation to break into the Los Angeles office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding. Hunt and G Gordon Liddy cased the building in late August. The burglary, on September 3, 1971, was not detected, but no Ellsberg files were found. Hunt also organized the bugging of the DNC HQ at the Watergate Building. Hunt, along with Liddy, engineered the first Watergate burglary and in the ensuing Watergate Scandal, was convicted of burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping, eventually serving 33 months in prison.

According to Wikipedia, "Hunt's White House duties included assassinations-related disinformation. In September 1971, Hunt forged and offered to a Life magazine reporter top-secret State Department cables designed to prove that President Kennedy had personally and specifically ordered the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. Hunt told the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973 that he had fabricated the cables to show a link between President Kennedy and the assassination of Diem, a Catholic, to estrange Catholic voters from the Democratic party, after Colson suggested he "might be able to improve upon the record."

So, this is the "Dealey Square CIA man" whose non-confession confession you herald as the Rosetta Stone exposing CIA involvement in the JFK killing. A lowlife, RW operative who hated JFK. A convicted felon. A guy deeply involved as an architect in Nixon's dirty tricks squad, who worked hand in hand with that other bastion of freedom and truth, G Gordon Liddy. A guy who did everything he could to smear Democrats, planting assassinations-related disinformation against JFK while he was living and - I would aver - sowing disinformation about LBJ even after his (Hunt's) death. That's a guy that any first-year law student could rip apart and paint as an unreliable witness in about 45 seconds, simply by reading the guy's criminal record to the jury.

I wonder if you CTists who say that you are Democrats realize what you're embracing when you believe this kind of crap. You're believing that a sitting Democratic president was so hated by members of his own Party, his VP, his cabinet, his SS detail, the CIA, the FBI and possibly the WH protocol office that they plotted to have him killed. You're aiding and abetting the smearing of the Democratic president - LBJ - who was responsible for passing the greatest civil rights legislation ever enacted in this country. You're taking the word of a partisan, RW disinformation specialist, a proven liar and a convicted criminal as the gospel truth in determining what happened on that sad day in Dallas.

It boggles the imagination that you could be so naive and - even more disturbing - so WILLING to embrace the words of such a lowlife as E Howard Hunt, that one is left wondering whose side you're really on.

One thing is for sure - you are NOT on the side of the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #138
159. E. Howard Hunt was defending Nixon up until the very end....
Edited on Thu Dec-01-11 02:37 AM by AntiFascist
he likely knew, as the HSCA concluded, that eventually people would come to believe that there was a conspiracy. He also wanted to keep people from knowing that "All The President's Men" were heavily involved as well, so the best thing to do is blame it on the Democrat. Gerald Ford tried this tactic on his deathbed as well.

The meeting where LBJ allegedly learned the details of the assassination included the following:

"The group met for a party in Dallas hosted by Clint Murchison, another business tycoon with close links to the Genovese mafia, on November 21st 1963, the night before the assassination. Those present at the event included J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson, John J. McCloy, Jack Ruby, George Brown (of Brown and Root), numerous mafia kingpins, several newspaper and TV reporters, and Richard Nixon."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #79
129. Here's some interesting links to get you started. 3 more CT's.
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 08:20 PM by mother earth
http://www.crimemagazine.com/08/fordadmits,0109-8.htm
(You may consider Johnson & Nixon as conspiracy theorists too, guess I'm not alone ;))

"Two other U.S. presidents have expressed doubts about the commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the JFK assassination. On tapes released in recent years, Lyndon B. Johnson said he did not believe the single gunman theory; and Richard M. Nixon said the commission pulled off "the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated."

It is also now known that Ford made a key change in the commission's final reporta change that made the single-shooter theory easier to believe. He revised the description of the bullet wound in President Kennedy's back and placed it higher to make "the magic bullet" theory plausible, enabling the commission to conclude that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Recently released FBI memos show that Ford served as FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's informant on the commission. Hoover, of course, had proclaimed Oswald the lone killer long before the Warren Commission had even been appointed."

Here's another link for ya before I make a night of it. Sorry, the article is from Rolling Stone.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the...

Hmm...that's three others who seem to think it's not conspiracy...is a deathbed confession good enough for ya?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #129
137. You're grasping at the usual CT straws here, my friend.
I'll deal only with the Nixon quote, which you (and all other CTists) always seem to truncate to make your lie appear to have some truth to it. The full Nixon quote has been researched and posted by CNN.

The context is the 1972 shooting of presidential candidate George Wallace by Arthur Bremer. Here's the FULL Nixon quote:

NIXON: Why don't we play the game a bit smarter for a change. They pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers. It was done by a Communist, and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated. And I respectfully suggest, can't we pin this on one of theirs?

CHUCK COLSON: Ah, he (Bremer) is obviously demented.

NIXON: Is he a left-winger or a right-winger?

COLSON: Well, he's going to be a left-winger by the time we get through, I think.

NIXON: Ah, good. Keep at that. Keep at that.


Nixon is concerned with who will be blamed for the Wallace shooting, and he credits the left with a successful "hoax" in blaming the right for the Kennedy assassination.

That's it. Nixon NEVER said the Warren Commission was a hoax. He said the pinning of the JFK assassination on the right was a hoax.

The Gerald Ford fantasy you relate is also easily debunked, but I'll have to save that for another time.

Nighty night, all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #137
147. No, you are the one grasping at straws, but no amount of
Edited on Thu Dec-03-09 08:14 PM by mother earth
diaglog will change that. You can flame away about CT's all you want, things are not transparent in gov't, never have been and never will be. Why should my party affiliation have anything to do with what I believe is the truth or lack of truth? I've always believed my party was on the side of truth, much to my dismay it is not always acted upon.

I'm guessing you also believe that Bush won both elections and that votes are actually counted and democracy lives. Truth is stranger than fiction, to believe what you are told leaves critical thinking out of the equation and independent thought is the backbone of true democracy. Why would someone else's viewpoints be less than your own?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-04-09 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #147
151. Care to explain why you only provided half of that Nixon quote?
Care to comment on the full quote I posted to disencumber you of the lies you believe? Are you interested in the truth in this instance, or are your words about truth just as empty as your claim that Nixon called the WCR a hoax?

I'll wait for an answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-04-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #147
153. And I'm guessing that you're a birther, since you don't seem to believe
evidence that is furnished by the government. I'll assume you apply your knack for "critical thinking and independent thought" to the birther argument about Obama's birth certificate with the same gusto that you question the WCR. If not, why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-11 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #79
161. The CIA Ioanides files, for one thing... even Posner joined the lawsuit to release those.
Many thousands of pages on Oswald are still classified, including James Jesus Angleton's files on him (which predate the assassination by years). Angleton oversaw a program under which the CIA sent fake defectors to the USSR, and if anyone fits the profile, it's certainly Oswald.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
58. If you really believe that then you are the netball.
I lived through those times and know the possibilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
76. Troll land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
96. Anyone who believes that knows little about the facts . . .
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 12:45 AM by defendandprotect
Try the autopsy report --

Neck was an entrance wound -- with NO OUTLET --

Wound in rear, was in JFK's right shoulder blade -- and had NO OUTLET --

Further the woumd in JFK's shoulder was made at a 45 degree DOWNWARD ANGLE!!!

Work that out --

And stop being so naive --

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
98. And it doesn't make you look any smarter the second time around . . .
This isn't "conspiracy free America" as much as you might like to think so --

On the contrary, the only way the right wing can rise is thru political assassination,

lying propaganda, intimidation and cover ups . .

Same as in Germany --



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
127. Because, after all, you have the one and only version of the Truth, yes?
:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
61. Octafish!
Hey, I wanted you to know that I did read 'Family of Secrets' at your recommendation. It blew me away. It really took a whole new approach to the Bush Crime Family that filled in a lot of blanks and built on work by others brilliantly.

I'd read Webster Tarpley's well researched bio in the 1980's: "Bush: Unauthorized" and Kitty Kelley's "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty", Kevin Phillips' "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush" and others, but I gotta tell you, Ocatfish, that Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets" is the gold standard. Thanks for the recommendation.

I'm gonna ping you by e-mail and run something that came to mind when reading the book. It's about Nixon's first campaign out here in California. There's a very curious timetable that I've put together.

And a big hello to you, too. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
75. Chief Justice Warren was coerced into chairing this commission...
"Yes, there will come a time, but it might not be in your life time. I am not referring to anything especially, but there may be some things that would involve national security." Chief Justice Earl Warren; February 5, 1964

History Matters Archive - LBJ-Russell 11-29-63, 2nd call
This fascinating conversation between President Johnson and his old mentor Senator Richard Russell is very revealing. Johnson begins by reading to Russell the announcement of the formation of the President's Commission to study the assassination, to which he has named Russell. Not realizing that it's a done deal, Russell complains that he "couldn't serve on it with Chief Justice Warren--I don't like that man" and pleads with Johnson to reconsider. LBJ tells him that "Dick, it's already been announced and you can serve with anybody for the good of America, and this is a question that has a good many more ramifications than on the surface and we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khruschev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour."

Toward the end of the conversation, Johnson re-invokes the image of 40 million Americans killed in a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, and then tells Russell how he got Warren to serve on the Commission. After Warren refused several times, Johnson called him to the Oval Office and told him "what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City," whereupon Warren began crying and told Johnson "well I won't turn you down, I'll just do whatever you say."

MinM's Journal - Warren Commision Members expressed Doubt -- Ford changed final report

MinM's Journal - "I was not privy to who struck John." James Jesus Angleton (CIA); 1976

MinM's Journal - The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)

:dem: & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #75
99. Thanks Min . . . good to see someone tracking the JFK coup here . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #99
157. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson is one of the more astute political commentators out there.

I recall him going on the Rachel Maddow Show and making this prophetic point:

"The Democrats have neither the Political Will, or the Political Skill, to try Bush-Cheney and Co. on War Crimes."

BTW thanks d&p. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Oh, the irony...
Your reply, and sig line, says all we need to know about you.. and your judgement...

Thanks for the laugh....


Ghost

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Birthers, Truthers, JFK Conspiracy Theorists, New World Order nuts, People who believe in UFOs
Edited on Mon Nov-30-09 08:33 PM by WeDidIt
Lots of nutballs in this world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SutaUvaca Donating Member (472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Galileo was a nutball, once.
Just sayin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. No, he wasn't
He never advocated a single nutball conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-04-09 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #24
152. John Kerry was a nutball then.
During the 2004 campaign I read a lot on Iran Contra and BCCI and Kerry was regularly mocked, called all sorts of conspiracy buff or publicity seeker kind of names. He didn't have the support of either party on either investigation
Rather than digging up old articles I found years ago excerpts from this Salon article give the general idea

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/25/cont...
The mainstream press continued to publish stories that denigrated Kerry's investigation. On Feb. 24, 1987, a New York Times article by reporter Keith Schneider quoted "law enforcement officials" saying that the Contra allegations "have come from a small group of convicted drug traffickers in South Florida who never mentioned Contras or the White House until the Iran-Contra affair broke in November."

The drift of the article made Kerry out to be something of a dupe. His Contra-cocaine witnesses were depicted as simply convicts trying to get lighter prison sentences by embroidering false allegations onto the Iran-Contra scandal.


One of the best-read political reference books, the Almanac of American Politics, gave this account of Kerry's investigation in its 1992 edition: "In search of right-wing villains and complicit Americans, tried to link Nicaraguan Contras to the drug trade, without turning up much credible evidence."

Thus, Kerry's reward for his strenuous and successful efforts to get to the bottom of a difficult case of high-level government corruption was to be largely ignored by the mainstream press and even have his reputation besmirched.


from an earlier page
The New York Times, which had long denigrated the Contra-drug allegations, buried the story of Kerry's report on its inside pages, as did the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. For his tireless efforts, Kerry earned a reputation as a reckless investigator. Newsweek's Conventional Wisdom Watch dubbed Kerry a "randy conspiracy buff."
snip
The right-wing Washington Times denounced the probe as a wasteful political "witch hunt" in a June 12, 1986, article. "Kerry's anti-Contra efforts extensive, expensive, in vain," screamed the headline of a Washington Times article on Aug. 13, 1986.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. You're a real piece of work...
I bet you just LOVES you some good ol' gubmint and/or religious authority, don't you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. The religious bulshit is my primary reason for having never voted for a Republican in my life.
I'm not too big on authority, either.

I don't buy into nutball conspiracy theories. Never attribute to a widespread massive conspiracy that which can be explained through incompetence on the part of a few or a single whack job acting alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
65. Not that it will matter to you, WeDidIt, because you probably will not read them, but there
are lots of well-documented books that put the lie to the Warren Report. Over the years as more information has been declassified and investigators and researchers have studied that information thoroughly, the case has been made convincingly that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that the CIA and Secret Service were involved.

For starters, read "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs. He goes into great detail recounting eyewitness descriptions of the events in Dealey Plaza--as well as exposing the doctored versions of those witnesses' statements that the FBI presented to the Warren Commission. Regarding the physical evidence that President Kennedy's autopsy revealed--despite tampering that was intended to deceive the doctors performing the autopsy--"Best Evidence" by David Lifton is a must-read.

If you want to know who one of the assassins was (hint: not Lee Oswald) read "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane. This details Lane's efforts to bring E. Howard Hunt into the public spotlight for his role in the JFK assassination. Or you could read one of the most recent additions to the volumes of JFK assassination revelations, "JFK and the Unspeakable; Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James Douglass. The author tracks JFK's presidency and the efforts he made to institute a peaceful solution to the nuclear madness that was gripping our military chiefs and those of the Soviet Union. However, the most intriguing and revealing elements of the book are the reactions by the entrenched powerbrokers in our government, the CIA, Pentagon, and Big Business and the methods they used to set the President up and to assassinate him.

There are many more and I don't want to give them short shrift, but any or all of these books might help convince you that it is not nuts to view President Kennedy's murder as a conspiracy.

Colonel Wilkerson may have gotten his dates wrong regarding the HSCA investigation, but his analysis of why Kennedy was murdered and who played a role was spot on.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #65
81. No need to bother with any of these lousy books, We DidIt.
Edited on Tue Dec-01-09 09:59 PM by stopbush
In Crossfire, Marrs gets the seating positions of JFK & Connally absolutely wrong and then goes on to base his entire book on this bush-league mistake.

Mark Lane is probably THE most disreputable CTist out there. It's amazing that people still recommend him. The HSCA's tearing Lane a new asshole speaks for itself:

Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane, the attorney who represented James Earl Ray at the committees public hearings. As has been noted, the facts were often at variance with Lanes assertions. . . . In many instances, the committee found that Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them. In other instances, Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on little more than inference and innuendo. Lanes conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned. - (House Select Committee Report, Page 424, footnote 16)

Douglass' book is just pathetic. He believes shots came from the grassy knoll and killed JFK. Like every other CTist who advances that belief, he fails to explain how Jackie escaped being killed by a bullet that supposedly entered JFK's head from the front side and would have had to have exited his head and gone straight into Jackie's head. Oh, and no exit wound for any bullet fired from the grassy knoll. Could it be because there were no billets fired from the grassy knoll?

But the CT crowd eats this shit up because they just can't come to terms with the truth - that an insignificant dweeb like Oswald brought down the POTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #81
92. If you're going to give an honest rebuttal of the books that's one thing, stopbush.
But just flatout lying about them is another. Your analysis is bullshit.

It's really okay if you cannot follow simple arguments and therefore do not understand what any of the authors were trying to convey, but please don't try to drag others down into your pit of ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #92
94. Funny how you can't seem to give an honest rebuttal to my analysis.
You say I'm "flatout lying." Where's your proof? You have none.

Perhaps you'd care to dispute the HSCA quote I posted concerning the infamous Mark Lane. Perhaps you'd like to provide the diagram from Crossfire that shows JFK & Connally in their correct positions in the limo as established beyond any doubt by the Zapruder film, the measurements of the limo and every piece of photographic evidence available. Perhaps you'll be the lone JFK grassy knoll adherent who can explain how a bullet entering the grassy knoll side of JFK's head didn't come out the other side and kill Jackie. Take a look at ZF frame 313 and explain how that bullet missed Jackie. I'm sure it's child's play for a person like you who never jumps down into a pit of ignorance.

As far as "simple arguments" - what a crock. The JFK CTs are the most convoluted fantasies one could imagine. They don't even qualify as arguments because there isn't a shred of evidence to back up a single one of them.

Your last post was totally devoid of evidence, yet full of invective. I'd like to see one post from you with ONE piece of evidence to back up a single CT claim. And by evidence, I mean evidence, not one of your bullshit "but, how do you explain this or that fantasy I just pulled out of my CT-believing ass." I mean something like, "the kill shot was fired from the grassy knoll, and here's the evidence from the autopsy and the forensic investigation that proves it." Good luck with that.

As far as what the CT authors are trying to convey - all they need convey is a feeling in the CTist reading them that said CTist is some kind of moral and intellectual giant because they "fight the good fight" in the never-ending battle to turn logic and science on their ears and do the easiest thing possible: believe something for which there is no evidence because it makes a good story. Convey that, and you'll continue to make money off people who are SO concerned with the implications of the JFK killing that to a person, they can't be bothered to read the government reports (WCR & HSCA) that they so glibly criticize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #94
130. You say "Funny how you can't seem to give an honest rebuttal to my analysis."
"Your diatribe" would be more accurate. Analysis was lacking. While I find your response crudely amusing, you have piqued my curiosity so I'm going to go back and look at "Crossfire" to see what you're referring to. All I remember is a crude diagram that was not intended as a scientific rendering. But I could be wrong. Also, the Zapruder frame is worth a second look to see if your comment has merit.

Your demands for me to provide you with "evidence" are absurd and you know it. How can anyone now provide "evidence" when it has been known for years that the physical evidence was altered, destroyed, or non-existent due to the fact that the Warren Commission's claims were specious. Do you expect me to go to D.C. and demand that the CIA and FBI produce documents that they have refused to offer up for over 45 years?? The reason I cited the books was to give you somewhere to go to see what the findings have been when people other than the Warren Commission lackeys actually investigated and researched the information, which in many cases was suppressed for decades.

The books speak for themselves. You either believe them and the underlying facts, opinions, research that has been done to form their theories, or you believe some and discard other parts, or you believe none. Since you don't believe them, please feel free to continue wallowing in your self-righteous ignorance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #130
134. Would you care to provide one or two specific examples to back up your statement that
"it has been known for years that the physical evidence was altered, destroyed, or non-existent due to the fact that the Warren Commission's claims were specious."

What evidence was altered, destroyed or non-existent? I ask that you provide two specific examples for discussion. Who knows, you may prove me wrong. But until you get specific, there's no reason to take seriously your comment about what has been "known for years" in this case.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
32. Methinks the nutball here has been exposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
49. The guy isn't cognizant of the timeline for the HSCA, imagining that
it was convened AFTER Stone's risibly inaccurate JFK movie, yet he has the audacity to say, "the Warren Commission was a complete whitewash. No question in my mind about it..."

And so it goes with the people who get their jollies fantasizing about the grand conspiracy behind a simple and tragic murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #49
60. Rep. Richardson Preyer of the HSCA was no nutball
Edited on Tue Dec-01-09 05:55 PM by unc70
L. Richardson Preyer was about as mainstream, studied, non-delusional, as anyone I ever knew. Judge Preyer (in addition to Representative Preyer) understood law, evidence, power, wealth, and coverups. Hardly a wild-eyed nutcase.

BTW Several items have been declassified since Stone's movie was made which support his version of events. I have not seen any such items that contradict his version.

Care to list some of Stone's wild inaccuracies?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #60
82. You can read a list of Stone's JFK inaccuracies here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm

I doubt very much that you'll be bothered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #82
122. I would describe them as "alleged" and somewhat out of date
My initial comment was in defense of Rep. Preyer and the HSCA. I knew the Preyers my entire adult life until their deaths, have known some of the HCSA staff even longer. My comment about Stone's version was limited to items disclosed since the movie and since your list of allegations.

There was a whole industry around 1993 working to discredit Stone's version. Much of it resembled the silliness in your list, little of which is substantative, including the LOL motives attached to his "lies". The exact number of witnesses interviewed or whether there were any women on Garrison's staff are relatively minor points to me.

I am more interested to know of photo & film evidence connecting Ferrie and Oswald, or of files showing a deeper connection between Shaw and the CIA, or of any of a number of such items. It is important that we now know a lot more about the large context of secret actions at that time and their implications on this investigation: Operation Gladio and its many relatives in Europe, South America, and inside the US; Operation Northwoods and other anti-Castro efforts and the interesting cast of characters involved; side stories like the one involving the WaPost, Bradley, et al.

If I were spending much time and many posts on this subject, I would probably carefully recheck the validity of my external references to make sure they haven't been refuted somewhere during the past fifteen years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. The Stone-dismantling site I provided was provided because it is easily reached on the web.
If you want a more-recent dismantling of both Stone and Garrison (upon whose book Stone based his movie), then read Bugliosi's chapter on the same. His book was published in 2007. Bugliosi did numerous first-person interviews with many people associated with both Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison in researching this particular chapter. From a quick check of the book, I see at least one of the interviews dating from 2002 (there could be some even more recent) If you need a more recent external reference, then I probably can't help you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #49
63. Wilkerson made a mistake. You, OTOH, spout inanities.
Sorry if Lt. Col. Wilkerson misspoke about the HSCA chronology. His point was the Warren Commission is one steaming heap of cover-up, predicated on the "magic bullet" hogwash. WC member and then-U.S. Rep. Gerald Ford needed to rewrite its conclusions, moving the location of a bullet hole in JFK's back, in order to give it the veneer of possibility.

Oliver Stone made "JFK" as a counter-myth to the Warren Commission. Stone's story also is a more accurate portrayal of what happened. Here's a handy read for those interested in the subject: 'From Dirty Truths' by Michael Parenti.

No, stopbush. The assassination of President Kennedy was not a "simple and tragic murder." It was an act of treason that changed the course of history. The perpetrators, the record indicates, worked to instigate World War III.



Oswald in Mexico City

According to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald traveled to Mexico City in the fall of 1963, in search of a visa for travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union. He failed in that effort and returned to Dallas, where 7 weeks later he shot President Kennedy.

Allegations of a Cuban or Soviet conspiracy, based on events and stories related to this visit, bloomed in the aftermath of the assassination. They were apparently instrumental in the creation of the Warren Commission, and over the years more and more has trickled out regarding a trip which ultimately remains enigmatic.

The record on Mexico City is wildly muddled and mysterious. Was Oswald impersonated there? Who is the "mystery man" caught by photo surveillance? Why are CIA records on the trip at sharp variance with participant's memories? Were the witnesses who reported events indicating a Communist conspiracy telling the truth, spinning false tales, or perhaps reporting on staged incidents? Did Oswald, or someone pretending to be him, threaten the life of JFK in the Cuban Embassy?

Despite the mysteries, one thing is certain. The events in Mexico City had a profound effect on the federal government's response to the assassination. President Johnson invoked fears of nuclear war in putting together the Warren Commission, finally enlisting a recalcitrant Earl Warren by telling him "what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City."

CONTINUED w Lots o' Links and Sources:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Oswald_in_Mex...



The perpetrators did all they could to pin the blame on a fellah leading straight back to the Soviet Union.



This is the guy someone tried to pass off as "Oswald."



The Framing of Oswald

"The CIA advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."

The paragraph shown above comes from an FBI memo sent to both the White House and the Secret Service on November 23, 1963, the day after President Kennedy's assassination. It was a follow-up to a phone call at 10:01 AM, in which Director Hoover informed Lyndon Johnson of the same fact. Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of Kennedy held in police custody in Dallas, had been impersonated in phone calls to the Soviet Embassy in Mexio City.

The fact that Oswald was impersonated less than two months prior to the Dallas shooting was obviously important news. What made the revelation even more stunning was that, in one such call, "Oswald" referred to a previous meeting with a Soviet official named Kostikov. Valeriy Kostikov was well-known to the CIA and FBI as a KGB agent operating out of the Embassy under official cover. But, far more ominously, the FBI's "Tumbleweed" informant had previously tipped off the U.S. that Kostikov was a member of the KGB's "Department 13," involved in sabotage and assassinations.

An otherwise inexplicable impersonation episode takes on an entirely new meaning in this light. The calls from the Oswald impersonator made it appear that Oswald was a hired killer, hired by the Soviet Union no less. This was a prescription for World War III.

Perhaps the perfect plan was foiled by the fact that Oswald was captured, allowing the FBI to interrogate him and compare his voice to the tapes of these tapped phone calls, which were apparently flown up from the CIA's Mexico City Station on the evening of November 22. In any case, what should have been a hot lead to sophisticated conspirators was instead quickly buriedby November 25, FBI memos made no more mention of tapes, only transcripts. The CIA has maintained to this day that the tapes were routinely recycled prior to the assassination, and no tapes were ever sent. But the evidence that the tapes did exist and were listened to is now overwhelming, and includes several FBI memos, a call from Hoover to LBJ which appears to have been suspiciously erased, and even the word of two Warren Commission staffers who say they listened to the tapes during their visit to Mexico City in April 1964!

Back in November 1963, with the knowledge that it wasn't Oswald in these calls to the Soviet Embassy tightly held, and with witnesses coming forward to claim seeing Oswald take money to kill Kennedy from Cuban operatives, a coverup went into high gear. Lyndon Johnson used the fear of nuclear war, bandying about the figure "40 million Americans" who would die in a nuclear exchange. Even though he knew of the impersonation, Johnson used this false scare to press men like Richard Russell and Earl Warren onto a President's Commission which another Commissioner, John J. McCloy, said was to "settle the dust."

CONTINUED...

http://www.history-matters.com/frameup.htm



Now, who has that kind of power, to manipulate the investigation of the murder of the President of the United States?



The Good Spy

How the quashing of an honest C.I.A. investigator helped launch 40 years of JFK conspiracy theories and cynicism about the Feds.


By Jefferson Morley
Washington Monthly
December 2003

It was 1:30 in the morning of Nov. 23, 1963, and John F. Kennedy had been dead for 12 hours. His corpse was being dressed at Bethesda Naval Hospital, touched and retouched to conceal the ugly bullet wounds. In Dallas, the F.B.I. had Lee Harvey Oswald in custody.

The lights were still on at the Central Intelligence Agencys headquarters in Langley, Va., John Whitten, the agencys 43-year-old chief of covert operations for Mexico and Central America, hung up the phone with his Mexico City station chief. He had just learned something stunning: A C.I.A. surveillance team in Mexico City had photographed Oswald at the Cuban consulate in early October, an indication that the agency might be able to quickly uncover the suspects background.

At 1:36 am, Whitten sent a cable to Mexico City: Send staffer with all photos of Oswald to HQ on the next available flight. Call Mr. Whitten at 652-6827. Within 24 hours Whitten was leading the C.I.A. investigation into the assassination. After two weeks of reviewing classified cables, he had learned that Oswalds pro-Castro political activities needed closer examination, especially his attempt to shoot a right-wing JFK critic, a diary of his efforts to confront anti-Castro exiles in New Orleans, and his public support for the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. For this investigatory zeal, Whitten was taken off the case.

C.I.A. Deputy Director of Plans Richard Helms blocked Whittens efforts, effectively ending any hope of a comprehensive agency investigation of the accused assassin, a 24-year-old ex-Marine, who had sojourned in the Soviet Union and spent time as a leftist activist in New Orleans. In particular, Oswalds Cuba-related political life, which Whitten wished to pursue, went unexplored by the C.I.A. The blue-ribbon Warren commission appointed by President Johnson concluded in September 1964 that Oswald alone and unaided had killed Kennedy. But over the years, as information which the commissions report had not accounted for leaked out, many would come to see the commission as a cover-up, in part because it failed to assign any motive to Oswald, in part because the governments pre-assassination surveillance of Oswald had been more intense than the government ever cared to disclose, and finally because its reconstruction of the crime sequence was flawed.

CONTINUED...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.mor...



This doesn't seem like a "simple and tragic murder" to me or to most of those familiar with the facts, stopbush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
72. And then there are the nutballs who believe only what they
are told...even though there are white flag ops and BS investigations just to keep the masses thinking they got answers when anything we ever get is BS. And why all the delays in releasing records? They'll go on until everyone from that era is dead and gone, just like the non-answers of the 911 Omission...er, Commission.

Even a sweet little old lady as myself, has their BS meter filled to the brim. Don't lump us in with birthers and NWO nuts, and I'll never call anyone whose seen a UFO a nut...it's just unidentified, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #72
84. What records have not been released in the JFK killing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #84
143. For starters, records regarding CIA man George E Joannides hiding phony Oswald in Mexico City.
The Framing of Oswald

From what we now know, Joannides was brought out of retirement by CIA to stonewall the HSCA.
He also failed to report that in 1963 he had been CIA's contact with violently anti-Castro organizations,
including one that crossed paths with Oswald in New Orleans that summer.

These are some of the records that have not been released.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #84
144. Records detailing the CIA-Mafia relationship in regards to assassination
What LBJ referred to as a "damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean.

What do you suppose he meant by that?

Information that has yet to be released may tell.

New data will, at the least, help us better understand the assassination of President Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #84
145. Personally: I'd like to know who railroaded Abraham Bolden?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #84
148. It's important to know why did Secret Service allow JFK to ride in an open car after Miami, Chicago?
There were documented attempts of coordinated attacks on President Kennedy in:

Chicago

and

Miami.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #84
156. Literally -- a ton of documents from the Executive Branch, including FBI and CIA files.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
25. I'll take Wilkerson's word over yours, too...
All the way...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #25
109. Just as you took his word when he backed Colin Powell's mendacious presentation
at the UN, correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #109
149. Lt. Col. Wilkerson broke open the Blackwater - Predator drone assassination program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
55. blinders. it's easy to dismiss when you are uninformed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AlwaysQuestion Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
160. Enter Stage Left - On Cue
Why am I not surprised that a noble rep of the highest order has turned up on cue?

Sorry, I don't entertain the notion that you and "your group" actually believe that certain factions of your government haven't engaged in the most nefarious, stealthy, and even deathly acts against other factions of your government; e.g., JFK and 911 (just for openers). You execute people in your country based on far less circumstantial evidence than exists relating to 911. In any event, why you are on this board is clear to me. Do feel free to comment in usual fashion; just don't expect me to engage in any kind of dialogue. You know the saying about the point of diminishing returns. I've reached it. I'm sure others here have as well but for reasons known only to them don't mind continuing the engagement. As for the censorship which frequently occurs on this board and others I can only assume that it is done out of fear on some sort of level. Censoring ideas which go against that which is accepted by powers unknown clearly indicates that the decline of democracy is well, well underway. "Buying" anything of consequence dispersed by mainstream media is at best foolhardy; dangerous at worst. Too bad more people haven't figured it out yet. Blame the propaganda machinery--well thought out and certainly well administered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't know that he's a "nutball" but the interview veers way off track here
as you can tell by the tone of Jesserich's voice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Recommended.
I have long considered LW to be an intelligent, generally honest person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. Naval Intelligence.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, deutsey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
11. More and more brave public figures are stating what many have long known...
...JFK was murdered by War Inc.

To me, the facts show the assassins worked to make it look like Cuba and the USSR did it. They really, really wanted their "final conflict."

Thank you for the heads-up on Lt. Col. Wilkerson's interview, Deutsey. Thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I didn't think many mainstream news outlets would cover this.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Obama: Profile in Courage, or Cave-In?
Ray McGovern brought up the subject on ConsortiumNews and Common Dreams:



Obama: Profile in Courage, or Cave-In?

by Ray McGovern
Published on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

"It took a lot of courage on Kennedy's part to defy the Pentagon, defy the military - and do the right thing," said Col. Larry Wilkerson, USA (ret.), according to Robert Dreyfuss in his recent Rolling Stone article "The Generals' Revolt (1)."

Wilkerson, who was chief of staff at the State Department (2002-2005) and now teaches at George Washington University, was alluding to President John F. Kennedy's courage in 1962, when he faced down his top generals and refused to bomb Cuba and risk nuclear war. That was as close as we came to nuclear calamity during the entire Cold War.

Despite the urgency of the threat posed by the Russian military buildup in Cuba (we now know the Russians had already placed nuclear weapons on the island), Kennedy's deliberate decision-making style allowed enough time for cooler heads to prevail and yielded a peaceful solution.

A hallmark trait of John Kennedy was his ability to listen and learn. At the same time, he did not hesitate to challenge conventional wisdom.

Call that "dithering," if you wish. I, for one, applaud President Barack Obama for following Kennedy's calm, deliberative style, as Obama faces similar pressure from the military to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan.

Kennedy: Out of Vietnam

The Cuban crisis was not the only time JFK found himself at loggerheads with generals who thought they knew better and who verged on the insubordinate. Kennedy's sustained arm wrestling with his senior generals over whether to send more troops to Vietnam was just as tense, and much more sustained.

In the end, he concluded that they had it wrong and he decided against them. In short, he opted to behave like a president-a "decider" (pardon the odd word). His overruling of the U.S. military brass on Vietnam had huge implications, both short- and long-term. This "real history" is highly relevant today.

The 46th anniversary of John Kennedy's assassination passed by last Sunday virtually unnoticed. The unfortunate thing is this: his legacy on Vietnam is so widely misunderstood that it is easy to miss the relevance of his decision making in the early Sixties to the dilemma faced by President Barack Obama today as he decides whether to stand up to-or cave in to-the Pentagon's plans for escalating another misbegotten war in Afghanistan.

Faux history has it that President Lyndon Baines Johnson's infusion of hundreds of thousands, up to 536,000, combat troops into Vietnam was a straight-line continuation of a buildup started by his slain predecessor. Kennedy did raise the U.S. troop level there from about 1,000 to 16,500 "advisers" - a significant increase.

But as he studied the options, cost, and likely outcomes, Kennedy came to see U.S. intervention in Vietnam as a fool's errand. Few Americans are aware that, just before he was assassinated, Kennedy had decided to pull all troops out of Vietnam by 1965.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/24-11



Thank Gore for the Internets. The pen is still mightier than the sword.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
73. Hi, Octafish, you are so right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. Please spare us from the truth. We cant handle the truth. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
19. Yep... LIHOP...
Just get out of the way and let it happen.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
20. It's been a long time since I've seen you here.
Hello. Good seeing you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Oh, I've been lurking about.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
22. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
26. kickee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
27. Kpfa is the bright side of my exile in CA. Thanks for posting! K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. ''exile'' in CA? You came from a better place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. My heart belongs to the Pacific Northwest. :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. I listen online from the East Coast.
I wish I could get exiled to California...well, I did until all the budget problems started.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. It's beautiful right now, but just wait until summer - HOT!
Still, I am not really complaining. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
28. White House Intruders
Ya think, just as Obama is making his decision about the pentagon, that those two people were allowed to meet and greet the Prez and first lady, it was sending a message?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
30. Bravo Col. Wilkerson!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
35. I always heard it was the mafia
just to many theories out there but he is right about MIP. My husband who is nam vet thinks they are controlling Obama and possibly even threatening to kill his family if he doesn't do what they say.

I don't go that far because Obama doesn't look like a deer in the headlights, which is what I think anyone would look like if they were threatened like that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. From what I've read, the mafia and intelligence elements have worked together
Especially during WWII.

But you're right. It's hard to keep track of who's who in this murky underworld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #35
68. It seems the mafia were very much a part of it. They felt he'd double-crossed them,
after they'd helped fund his campaign, I believe. Furthermore, Fidel was holding a mafia boss, Santos Traficante, in prison there, whom they'd hoped to release.

Anyway, it's not a close secret that the CIA have long enjoyed cordial relations with organised crime, and I expect it's true to a certain extent with all clandestine services. Heck, it may have been the precursor of the CIA, the OSS, who arranged for Lucky Luciano to be released during WWII, to help the Allied cause in Sicily.

Chiang Kai Cehk had been a member of organised crime in China in his younger days. The far right always attracts the creme de la creme.

To me, the most compelling and unambiguous evidence of the conspiracy is the statistics relating to the untimely deaths of so many of the Grassy Knoll witnesses within such a short time-span. The magnitude of the actuarial odds against such an occurrence by natural causes is astronomical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
36. K&R ...funny how such topics bring about a Hategasm w/certain personality types
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Whether you think there was a conspiracy or not
it's surprising to hear someone like Wilkerson (ex-military brass, State Dept., William and Mary) say something like this.

(BTW: I happen to think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and that it involved the elements Wilkerson suggested along with some Mafia support).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Never trust the "official" explanation on such matters
As to the various and potential nuts n bolts of why/who re JFK, it's of little interest to me. He obviously wasn't killed in the way the 'official' version laid out - the "magic bullet" theory is about as plausible as three skyscrapers collapsing uniformly due to ...I digress. It's just speculation b/c it's not as though the actual, real, genuine, no-bullshit explanation would ever be given in any official/establishment manner ... but as I indicated, it's interesting how any type 'conspiratorial' (in the sense that high ranking members of the US govt/military may be guilty of the most heinous crimes) issue triggers off the reactionary responses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Agreed.
I actually believed Oswald acted alone until I did my own research into what happened. I tried to limit my rand learned what the doctors at Parkland hospital said about the head wound, and about the many other "strange" things that are never mentioned in the official narrative. They're not so strange when you stop trying to insist that the Warren Commission version is the only way it could've happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #47
54. Have you ever read the Warren Commission report on the shooting?
Just asking. Because there was a helluva lot mentioned in great deal in the WCR that the CTists are blissfully unaware of.

BTW - you do know, do you not, that the doctors at Parkland never discovered the entry wound to the back of JFK's head BECAUSE THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO TURN HIM OVER?

You do know that research shows that trained ER personnel misidentify bullet entry and exit wounds 52% of the time, do you not?

You do know that there was absolutely no unanimity on the bullet wounds among the doctors at Parkland, do you not (some thought they were entrance wounds, some thought they were exit wounds)?

You do know that the whole reason one does an autopsy is to establish facts in the case, and that eyewitness accounts are recollections are always over ridden by forensic evidence, do you not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #54
70. Do you really believe everything you read? Especially, official?
Or are you having us on?

Did you know that one of the country's top coroners who specialised in precisely those kinds of injuries, was only a few miles away and spent the day next to the phone, expecting to be asked to take charge of the autopsy. Instead they chose to use two men (I believe it was), who had only qualified a few years previously. Greenhorns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #70
78. You obviously haven't read the WCR.
Edited on Tue Dec-01-09 09:46 PM by stopbush
BTW - there is a very simple, non-conspiratorial reason that the two doctors - who you besmirch as "greenhorns" - did the autopsy: Jackie REQUESTED that the autopsy be done at Bethesda, rather than at Walter Reed. That is the ONLY reason the autopsy ended up being done at Bethesda. Are you suggesting that Jackie was involved in the cover-up of her husband's murder, that her role in the vast conspiracy was to make sure the autopsy was taken out of the hands of "competent pathologists?"

BTW - here's a list of the people who performed and witnessed the autopsy, as reported by the HSCA. Greenhorns indeed!:

J. Thornton Boswell, M.D., chief of
pathology at Bethesda
, (23) and Pierre A. Finck, M.D., chief of
the military environmental pathology division and chief of the
wound ballistics pathology branch at the Armed Forces Institute
of Pathology at Walter Reed Medical Center
, (241) to assist him
in performing the autopsy. During the autopsy, Special Agents
Sibert and O'Neill recorded the names of what they believed were
all the persons in attendance at any time. (25) In a report they
submitted subsequent the autopsy, they included: (26)

1. Adm. Calvin B. Galloway, commanding officer of the U.N.
National Naval Medical Center;
2. Adm. George C. Burkley, White House physician to the
President;
3. Comdr. James J. Humes, director of the laboratories of
the National Medical School, Naval Medical Center,
Bethesda, Md.;
4. Capt. James H. Stover, Jr., commanding officer of the
Naval Medical School;
5. John Thomas Stringer, Jr., medical photographer;
6. James H. Ebersole, assistant chief radiologist at the
Bethesda Naval Medical Center;
7. Floyd Albert Riebe, medical photographer;
8. J. Thornton Boswell, chief of pathology at Bethesda;
9. Jan Gail Rudnicki, laboratory technologist, assisting Dr.
Boswell;
10. Pierre A. Finck, M.D., chief of the military
environmental pathology division and chief of the wound
ballistics pathology branch at Walter Reed Medical
Center; (27)
11. Paul K. O'Conner, laboratory technologist;
12. Jerrol F. Custer, X-ray technician;
13. James Curtis Jenkins, laboratory technologist;
14. Edward F. Reed, X-ray technician;
15. James E. Metzler, hospital corpsman third-class;
16. Capt. David Osborne, chief of surgery;
17. Brig. Gen. Godfrey McHugh, Air Force aide to the
President;
18. Lt. Comdr. Gregory H. Cross, resident in surgery;
19. Gen. Philip C. Wehle, commanding officer of the U.S.
Military District, Washington, D.C.;
20. Chester H. Boyers, chief petty officer in charge of the
pathology division;
21. Dr. George Bakeman, U.S. Navy (the committee could not
locate this person);
22. Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman;
23. Secret Service Agent William Greer; and
24. Secret Service Agent John J. O'Leary. (28)

You can read the entire HSCA review of the autopsy here (I assume you've never bothered to read it. That would account for your "believing" the horse shit the CTists throw around, as outlined in your post): http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #78
124. My! My! You are a believer, aren't you.... You must be really dim.
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 06:10 PM by Joe Chi Minh
Did I mention Bethesda? No. You're not too scrupulous with your imputations are you?

Did that the autopsy's taking place at Bethesda preclude their calling upon one of the leading experts on gunshot wounds from a few miles away? The man I saw interviewed on that cable documentary sounded a lot more credible than you, I can assure you of that.

But you raise an interesting point. Have you ever wondered why, on an occasion such as that, when she must have still been in severe shock, Mrs Kennedy would have concerned herself with which hospital her husband's body should be taken to? I can think of just one reason, and one reason alone. She wouldn't trust the choice of the authorities.

What's your answer to the 'impossible' death rate of the Grassy Knoll witnesses, in view of the actuarial odds against them, nit-wit? Wriggle out of that.

PS: Do you like my tag-line?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #124
135. Sticks and stones, Joe.
Now, if you actually knew a damn thing about the case and the evidence, you wouldn't have to engage in speculation about why Jackie asked that JFK be autopsied at Bethesda rather than Walter Reed. Would you care to guess why she made that decision before I give you the answer in her own, fully documented words? Didn't think so.

The non-nefarious reason is quite simple: on the flight back to DC, an argument broke out about where JFK's body was to be taken. It was decided that the decision would be left up to Jackie. She was approached by Admiral Burkley who offered his opinion that JFK's body should be moved to a military hospital as he was CiC. That narrowed the choices to Walter Reed and Bethesda. "The president was in the Navy," Burkley said to Jackie. "Of course, Bethesda" was her reply. (Source: Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 138)

There you have it. Jackie picked Bethesda because her dead husband was a Navy man. I know the truth doesn't fit your exciting fantasies about Jackie mistrusting the authorities, but, hey - that's life.

And, hate to break another CT bubble, but there was no "impossible death rate" of grassy knoll witnesses. I know that's a favorite fantasy of the CT crowd, but it's just not true. The death rate fantasy is effectively debunked here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm ) with quite a bit of time spent on the lunacies provided by Jim Marrs.

BTW - The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that "the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one." Perhaps that's what you're thinking of when you make your erroneous if typical claim. In any case, The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.

The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.
Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied correctly that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.
(4 HSCA 464-65)


Funny how knowledge of the actual evidence in the case is seen by you and many others to indicate that possessing such knowledge makes one dim.

See ya later, bulb-y!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #135
140. My! My! Now the haughty, irate pedantry hasn't worked, we've become a real broth of a boy,
Edited on Thu Dec-03-09 04:16 PM by Joe Chi Minh
haven't we? But alas, pedantry dies hard, and I note you've been at it again with the 'official minutes'!

'However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower.'

'of course'? Oh, really...? Because they were all approaching death due to old age or sickness? I think not. Well, maybe their average age was a little older than the general adult population, but '.... much lower (odds against its occurrence)?' Now, there's a phrase to conjure with. In relation to one thousand trillion to one, one billion to one, nay one trillion to one, is very, very much lower. So, it's a nice polite 'cop-out' to keep our American friends happy, don't you think? The Times has always been the British Establishment paper, par excellence - even remains so, I expect, under Murdoch, emperor of the gutter-press. We were not party to the decision, of course, in relation to that letter of apology, but if it were simply to please the US authorities that would by no manner or means be unusual. Indeed, given the subject matter, it would have been truly astonishing if the Times had failed to cave to pressure put on it from the US.

But don't you find the notion that they couldn't track down the actuary concerned farcical. Maybe the actuary just wouldn't have wanted to be identified, for fear of becoming accident-prone, and they must have understood that very well. Such sources would probably prefer to be identified to the authorities for criminal prosecution, rather than to the authorities of a country that, to this very day, uses the very direst means of torture by proxy, i.e. renditions. Not to mention such prisons as Abu Ghraib, and the role of the School of the Americas, in South America.

That endless naivety of yours makes it heavy going, as you trot out OFFICIAL data which is supposed to impress everyone, but as good as guarantees that no person of sense or integrity would believe them. If that scene could be replayed, and the witnesses on the Grassy Knoll were to be drawn from today's population, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, I doubt if many would volunteer what they had seen. Would you?

You mention their testimonies in the Warren Report - the one I believe Warren stated he was ashamed of, before he died. And indeed, if I remember correctly, a second commision was held, which concluded that it was likely that there was a conspiracy. Were their testimonies ever published? You see, even if they had been, you know and I know and Uncle Tom Cobbley knows that the public would have been given all together different versions if they were not 'fit for purpose'. But then, you wouldn't suspect it would you? Are you aware that President Truman once commented that if he had known that the CIA were a bunch of Nazis, he'd have disbanded them? There was a considerable preponderance of them in it at that time. And the mafia weren't too pleased with John, were they? Or his brother. Do you think Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert? More magic bullets?

This economic cataclysm on the cusp of which we seem to be standing was sanctioned throughout at the highest levels of officialdom. What's more its leading lights have been put in charge in GOVERNMENT. And the evidence suggests the bonus-boys want more of the same. So, really, you need to start growing up. Or you will never understand zip about the adult world. But DU is here to help people like you, who had a poor start in life, though I don't mean economic privation. More likely the opposite, a plethora.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #140
142. I've already answered many of the errors you trollop out yet again
Edited on Thu Dec-03-09 05:29 PM by stopbush
elsewhere in this very thread. To that, you add even more baggage, most of it concerning your misremembering things that just happen to be well documented. You would do better if you were to take advantage of The Google and research your arguments to first establish a basis in fact for your wild claims, rather than qualifying your opinions with the ever-present "if I remember correctly," for no other reason that you do NOT seem to remember correctly.

To address you latest post - and then, I think I'll be pretty well done with you - you make the common CTist mistake of believing that a person/entity having the intent or even the means to do something means that they necessarily did such a thing. So, yes, the Mafia may well have hated JFK, and they could well have wanted him dead, but the question to be asked, the important question, is, were they involved in the killing? The evidence says they weren't, and that's exactly what the Warren Commission AND that "second commission" you mention (the HSCA) determined. No Mafia involvement. No CIA, FBI or SS involvement. No Castro involvement. In short, the HSCA AGREES ENTIRELY with the forensic evidence in the case and determined that the WC got it right. The ONLY thing the HSCA added was their belief that a conspiracy was involved in killing JFK, based ENTIRELY on the supposed evidence on a dictabelt tape. That evidence has long ago been proven beyond any doubt to have been false, so what you're actually left with is the HCSA being in absolute agreement with the WC.

And, yes, "their testimonies WERE published," and with the internet, you can read them all at your leisure.

As far as the death of Robert Kennedy, I am not so sure that Sirhan acted alone because the EVIDENCE in that room - the bullet impacts on the walls, etc, indicate that more than one gun was involved and possibly other shooters. I don't think the book is closed so easily on that killing because of the evidence, not because of some wild speculation about who hated RFK and wanted him dead. I'm also inclined to believe that there was a conspiracy behind the killing of Martin Luther King, even as I believe Ray was the lone shooter. Certainly, the weapon Ray used was a more-typical killing-for-hire weapon than was the weapon used by Oswald. Certainly the fact that Ray was able to elude the law and get out of the country raises questions about whether he had help. I would agree with the findings of the HSCA that there was a "small conspiracy" surrounding the King shooting. In fact, I would tend to believe their findings that a 4th shot was fired in Dallas had that dictabelt "evidence" not been convincingly falsified many times over since the HSCA released their report in 1979

Like you, I believe that conspiracies DO occur. Surely, the assassinations of Lincoln and Anwar Sadat were conspiracy based assassinations. Unlike you, I do NOT believe that every political assassination is the result of some grand conspiracy. I tend to follow the evidence in these matters, and in the JFK killing, the evidence points overwhelmingly to that SOB Oswald being the lone shooter.

Final thought - you seem uncomfortable with the "official data" in the JFK case. Why is that? Are you not aware that every JFK CTist out there is dependent on the official data in the case? Don't they all point to the same set of forensic data as do the non-conspiracy types? I think they do.

The HUGE difference is that the JFK CTists cherry pick and misrepresent the evidence from the WCR to make their case. How many CTists aver that Oswald was a lousy shot, ignoring the facts presented in the WCR that he was, in fact, a sharpshooter and an "excellent shot?" How many CTists aver that "most witnesses" thought the shots came from the grassy knoll when all studies and research prove that isn't true?

Look, I am open to any new evidence that can be presented in this case, but I'm not going to sit back while you and others present half-truths, hearsay and half-baked leaps of logic while you willfully or ignorantly misrepresent the actual evidence in the case. I'm not going to let it pass when you offer up that dirtball E Howard Hunt as a paragon of virtue as he slams LBJ and accuses him of being involved in a plot to kill JFK. I'm not going to stand idly by while your partner in fantasy Mother Earth provides half of a Nixon quote to falsely imply that Nixon thought the WC was a hoax.

Your MO in this respect is why it is so easy to pedantically refute your empty charges. I get the feeling that, like most JFK CTists, it isn't really your fault because you're only going by the half-truths you've read as advanced by this or that CTist who wrote a book (or made a blockbuster movie) and is looking to make a buck. Hell, they may even have the best of intentions in doing so. That said, one would think that for your own integrity - and to save yourself embarrassment in a public forum like DU - you would be a little more circumspect in what you post when it comes to this or any other topic where facts are going to win out over fantasy.

Or maybe not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #142
146. ".... ignoring the facts presented in the WCR that he was, in fact,
a sharpshooter and an "excellent shot?"

Really, what is the point of arguing with you? Such an elementary error... such superficial acceptance. "Sharpshooter" is not the highest, but the second highest grade of the geneic marksman qualification. He scraped thorugh this with two points above the minimum. Then a few years later he was down-graded to marksman, the third, i.e. lowest rank. He wouldn't have ben getting better by the time he left the Marines. He was no sniper, that's for sure. The perfect patsy - and already had ties with the CIA. He even got court-martialled for accidentally shooting himself in the elbow! A prize clutz. But how much circumstantial evidence do you need? I could probably spend a year providing it. And on more credible authority than the the US government of that day/'that day', for sure.

And not only was he classified as an inferior marksman, the Italian manufacturers specifically set out to test whether - and I think it's reasonable to assume they envisaged possible modifications without compeltely transforming the weapon - they set out to test whether the rifle was capable of killing Kennedy in the hands of a genuine marksman, and they concluded after their tests that it wasn't.

"Are you not aware that every JFK CTist out there is dependent on the official data in the case?"

Again, that desperate ingenuousness of yours. Of course there are plenty of things in the open arena that are a matter of public record and that everyone implicitly relies on, but the enormous majority of people, including, I would venture, the most educated and perceptive, not only in the US, but abroad, are completely persuaded that, not to believe JF's assassination was killed by an unknown number of conspirators is to exhibit a fatuousness so extreme that it is, itself, beyond belief.

To put it bluntly, they see conspiracy-deniers as either idiots or an extension of the conspiracy, in other words, operatives. No further word from you on those actuarial statistics - which is a shame, because conspiracies are formed to perpetrate a fraudulent crime or crimes of some kind, and statistics are the basis upon which frauds are proven in the courts. In this case, the fraud or main fraud was that Oswald was the sole gunman, although as a crime, it is, of course, ancillary to the actual conspiracy to murder JFK. There is such a plethora of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE pointing in the one direction that no reasonable person could entertain the doubts you appear to entertain. The evidence is not persuasive. It is binding.

Did you see the half-hour long video in which LBJ's girl-friend, Medeline Brown, talked at length about LBJ and what she had got to know about his circle from the outside? Most notably, she stated the following:

"The Merchison Mansion guests ate quail for dinner and, shortly after they finished, Lyndon Johnson arrived. The male members quickly assembled behind closed doors.

One of the female guests was Medeline Brown, LBJ's girlfriend. Brown had met Johnson right after he won the Senate seat and following the "Box 13" scandal. He was celebrating his victory in a Texas hotel and first danced with Medeline, then handed her his hotel room key. The two had an affair spanning many years and their "meetings" were often arranged with the help of Johnson's assistants.

That night, Madeline remembers being surprised to see Johnson, as he was not scheduled to be at the dinner party."

"When Lyndon arrived they all went into a conference room and you could just feel the atmosphere. When Lyndon came out... he was red in the face... he took my hand and said, 'Those god damned Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That's not a threat. That's a promise!'"

Anyway, here's a good link from which you learn about some of the circumstantial evidence:

http://www.viewzone.com/lbj/lbj2.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-04-09 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #146
150. There is no point in arguing with me when I am presenting facts
Edited on Fri Dec-04-09 01:45 AM by stopbush
while you are presenting opinion and conjecture. You're at a distinct disadvantage. One wonders why you continue with a failing strategy.

Why do you denigrate Oswald's attaining the rank of sharpshooter? Everybody knows that there is a rank above sharpshooter (Expert), but that has nothing to do with the fact that Oswald was an excellent shot. He hit targets at 200 yds with 98% accuracy. The kill shot to JFK's head was only 88 yds, and Oswald used a telescopic sight. The USMC testified to the WC that the kill shot to the head was not a difficult shot. As far as his lower Marksman score from 1959, the USMC reps provided their opinions on why his score was lower, and it had nothing to do with him losing his shooting skills. It's all in the WCR - which you won't bother reading.

I really don't give a rat's ass that "the enormous majority of people" believe there was a conspiracy. The enormous majority of Americans believed bush's lies that led us into Iraq. The enormous majority of people believe in god, and the enormous majority of Americans believe we're in the end times and that Jeebus will be returning soon. Like the JFK CTs, there's no evidence to support those beliefs either. The argument from authority is empty, and emptier yet when one feels that they need to help it along by using condescending (and paranoid) phrases like, "conspiracy-deniers (are) either idiots or an extension of the conspiracy,"* while making it clear that you believe that people who don't believe in your fantasies are not to be counted among "the most educated and perceptive."

Pretty childish name calling on your part.

The rest of your post is a mix of your tiresome speculation and bullshit. Who cares what the "Italian manufacturers" found? The WC hired and tested shooters who were able to BETTER Oswald's feat, firing 3 shots with accuracy in as little as 4.6 seconds, while Oswald took 8.5 seconds. They accomplished this using Oswald's own rifle, misaligned scope and all. Tough shit that the Italians couldn't come up with shooters of Oswald's caliber, let alone the WC shooters who were even better than Oswald. Are you really going to base your opinion that Oswald couldn't make those shots on the fact that the Italian manufacturers were so incompetent that they couldn't locate shooters to duplicate Oswald's feat, while the WC had no problem at all finding multiple shooters who could not only match the feat, but better it? Wow! Now that's real CT "insight" at its best! Is that the kind of logic you bring to bear when making your personal financial decisions? I hope not.

I'll pass on your tossing in the diversion about LBJ's girlfriend. It's a BS CT MO that one tires of - the constant throwing of new shit against the wall after the old shit has stunk up the place. Again, just because LBJ made a hearsay-reported threat in no way means he was involved with JFK's killing.

If you want to play the game of who said what before the assassination, there's an even more-damning quote that implicates a different person in the shooting, a quote that was uttered the morning of the assassination. Perhaps you know who said this: "It would not be a very difficult job to shoot the president of the United States. All you'd need to do is get up in a high building with a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight, and there's nothing anybody could do."

Do you know who said that? Was it Oswald? Ruby? One of the CIA guys? Mafia? The Dallas Police?

Nope. It was JFK himself. He spoke those words to Jackie and Ken O'Donnell at about 10:15 am the day of the shooting.

Based on what you believe passes for evidence, it all becomes clear: JFK himself was involved in the plot to kill JFK! His own words on the day of prove that he had foreknowledge of exactly what was going to happen that day!

I guess you're right. Based on that JFK quote, the plot to kill JFK went all the way to the very top!

*You wrote: "conspiracy-deniers (are) either idiots or an extension of the conspiracy." I leave you with this thought:

Political scientist Robert S. Robins and psychiatrist Jerrold M. Post discussed your type of paranoia in "Political Paranoia as Cinematic Motif: Stone's 'JFK,'" which was presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Robins and Post observed:

The paranoid message will give more and more, and then it will give even more. The entertainment resources of the paranoid message are unrivaled. It offers puzzles, drama, passion, heroes, villains, and struggle. If the story-line can be tied to an historical event, especially one that involves romantic characters and unexpected death, then fiction, history, and popular delusion can be joined in the pursuit of profit. The story, moreover, need never end. If evidence appears that refutes the conspiracy, the suppliers of the discrediting material will themselves be accused of being part of the conspiracy. The paranoid explanatory system is a closed one. Only confirmatory evidence is accepted. Contradictions are dismissed as being naive or, more likely, part of the conspiracy itself.

These guys described you and your fellow paranoids to a tee, and way back in 1997. How's that make ya feel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #54
83. Chill out, man
I did my research on the topic from what I considered reputable sources and formed my opinion based on that.

Believe it or not, I don't "get my jollies" or whatever you said from this topic, nor do I lay awake tossing and turning all night fantasizing about it. In fact, I go entire months and maybe even years without thinking about it. I just think there's a credible case to be made for a conspiracy. This kind of deadly force used by power elites against each other is nothing new...it goes way back to Greece and Rome.

I believe it, you don't. Yippie fucking skippy.

I'm not looking for a debate with you. I don't know who you are and you've raised points that if I get the time from my real life to research I'll check out. I didn't give an exhaustive list of my sources here because this isn't about whether deutsey thinks there's a conspiracy. Who the fuck cares about that but me and maybe people who know me?

The news here to me was that Wilkerson said what HE said. Whether you agree that there was a conspiracy or not, it's noteworthy to me that someone with his credentials would say such a thing. He's either a wacko as you apparently think he is or he knows what he's talking about. Frankly, I don't know enough about him to say. But the NEWS here is that he said something that is typically taboo from people in his position in society. You can hear the confusion and surprise, in fact, in Jesserich's voice.

You seem very uptight about the subject. If you're looking for a tangle with me, you're looking in the wrong place. Go fight someone who cares what you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. I guess it comes down to what you regard as reputable sources.
Funny how the "reputable sources" on the CT side of the discussion don't have the evidence and science on their side. Not that that stops them from selling their books and pocketing the change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. I suppose it does. Perhaps I'll dig through them and make a bibliography.
It's been a while since I did the research, though. Regardless, I'm a master's prepared researcher, so I think I'm capable of telling the difference between reliable and unreliable sources.

BTW, I usually avoid JFK assassination threads here at DU because I find there are too many cranks on both sides of the issue not willing to enter in a reasonable discussion of all the possibilities. That and the fact that I'm not obsessed enough with this topic to be a walking repository of information on it.

As I said, I was motivated to post this because I was so shocked that Wilkerson said what he said. It's rare you hear people with his background saying such things, so I thought it was of interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #86
141. Deleted by self. No need to be nastier than is absolutely necessary.
Edited on Thu Dec-03-09 04:57 PM by Joe Chi Minh
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #83
100. why does Wilkerson have credentials?
He was Powell's Chief of Staff at the time that Powell made his presentation to the UN about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Doesn't that kinda throw his credibility into question? Only now he is making a name by going on Rachel's show and saying things that she and her viewers want to hear. This current statement seems to fit that pattern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #100
101. Maybe "credentials" is the wrong word
I'm talking about his place in the social structure. Ex-military brass, Powell's staff, State Dept., affiliated with William and Mary.

I'm not saying I think he's a cool guy. I'm saying you don't normally hear someone of his social position say things like this.

That's all.

Frankly, I know very little about Wilkerson beyond this sketchy bio and that he didn't like Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #101
110. You act as if it's a big deal for a person of LW's "place in the social structure"
to disbelieve the WCR, when 75% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy involved in the killing and when the HSCA reached the erroneous conclusion that there was a conspiracy.

Just how un-normal is it to hear somebody toe the party line of received opinion? I'd say its pretty normal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. Can you name anyone of equivalent place in American society
who said something like this?

If so, I'd like to know. Seriously. Maybe Gaeton Fonzi, who was an investigator on the HSCA, comes close, but he's just a journalist, not ex-military etc. As I've said to you before, I really have not followed this closely since the early '90s. Nor am I as fixated on this as you seem to be, but this thread is inspiring me to do fresh research (assuming my real job and family/community responsibilities will allow that).

As I've also explained to you, I was as surprised by Wilkerson's comments as the interviewer seemed to be.

Now I'm going out for a walk in the real world for awhile.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. Sure. Gov Jesse Ventura made similar comments about the killing.
He was military (Navy Seal) and, as an elected Governor, out-ranked any position LW has attained.

Others include Rep. Tom Downing and Sen Richard Schweicker, who also outrank Wilkerson and who - as elected officials - would hold a higher place in American society than does LW.

Others more on the LW level "in American society" who publicly doubted the WCR include HR Haldeman and Joseph Califano.

That's all real world stuff, if you care to look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #112
116. Thanks, but your tone seems to imply that I'm trying to defend Wilkerson's rank
I'll lump him among these names you list (although I'm sure few people were really surprised to hear Ventura say something like that...I can remember him sashaying around a WWF ring in the '80s wearing a feather boa and "Plato's Retreat" T-shirt).

I'd also include Henry Gonzalez from Texas who was one of the few critics/elected officials who was actually in the motorcade. He was pretty adamant about his views, if I remember correctly. It's been a long time since I saw it, but in the extra features to "JFK", Stone included an interview with journalist Robert MacNeal who, from what I remember, gave the impression that he thought shots came from the grassy knoll (MacNeal was also in the motorcade but I'm really reluctant to cite this because I'm relying on admittedly faulty memory here...it's been about six or seven years since I saw this clip). I heard about Haldeman. Have no idea about Downing and Schweicker but will check out what they said.

But I don't really care if they "outrank" Wilkerson, whatever that means. I'm not saying "OMG!!!1!1! Wilkerson is the only one to dare speak the TRUTH about Kennedy's assassination!11!!" As your very short list here suggests, I'm just saying that it is not common or frequent that you hear someone of any "position" in the military/political circles that these people you list and Wilkerson inhabit say things of this nature in the media. Granted, KPFA is not part of the national mainstream media, which is why I wrote this.

Again, I don't know a whole lot about Wilkerson (in fact, beyond what the host of Letters to Washington said by way of introduction, I had to google him). I just thought it was interesting that someone with his background went off on the track that he went. As I've also already said, Mitch Jesserich (host of Letters to Washington) also seemed taken aback by what he said.

Cynical PR ploy on Wilkerson's part to throw red conspiracy meat to lefties? I don't know. That never occured to me when I first heard what he said because I had no idea he was a talking head or whatever.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. If it's not obvious, bringing up Oliver Stone's opinion in the JFK killing scores no points with me.
I don't see that citing the OPINIONs of Robert McNeil or Henry Gonzalez amount to anything. First, because eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, and their heat-of-the-moment impressions are always trumped by forensic evidence in a court of law; second, because the vast majority of ear witnesses heard three shots from the TSBD, so on the sheer numbers alone, you lose the grassy knoll argument; and, third, because the forensic evidence in the case - and it is vast and overwhelming - proves beyond any RATIONAL doubt that LHO did the killing and acted alone.

As far as my "short list" of official type people who believe there was a conspiracy, there are many more, of course. I just listed the names I thought most people would know. Besides, the fact that the HSCA found that there was a conspiracy means that a whole bunch of government-type people made their beliefs known in this matter. The fact is that within a month of the shooting, the vast number of Americans believed it was a conspiracy. LBJ went to his grave believing the Russians had something to do with it.

So, received opinion has always held that there was a conspiracy behind the JFK shooting. There's nothing original or brave about holding that opinion - it's a run-of-the-mill opinion held by the vast majority of people, most of whom know nothing of the actual evidence in the case and who base their knowledge of the JFK killing entirely on the admitted fiction presented in Oliver Stone's entertaining flick.

BTW - if you have any interest in the evidence and the truth of this case, then I strongly suggest you read Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. I don't know anyone who has actually read the thing to not come away with a new-found respect for the WCR and the law enforcement officers in Dallas that weekend - and with new-found and utter contempt for both Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone. Yes, you'll read plenty of diatribes against Bugliosi by the JFK CT crowd, but I have yet to find a single one of them who has bothered to read the book. They all care so much about what happened to JFK that they rely on the opinions of others to inform their beliefs about Bugliosi's massive book.

Funny, isn't it, that thinking outside the box in the JFK killing really amounts to believing the evidence as gathered and laid out in the WCR, and as explained and defended so definitively by Vince Bugliosi?

Who woulda thunk it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #118
120. Hello? I'm not citing them to make a case for anything. I was just adding to your list.
You know, the folks whom you say "outrank" Wilkerson and doubted the WC (which again was not my original point). :eyes:

And I wasn't bringing up "Stone's opinion". I was just giving you the source for that interview with MacNeil. It was in the extra features released with the film at some point. A friend loaned it to me.

I haven't read Bugliosi's book (or any book on JFK in about a decade...shortly after my initial research my wife and I had our first child and then a couple years later were surprised by our twins, so I've been a bit distracted in the ensuing decade). I did skim over Fonzi's retort to Bugliosi's book, but not having read the book, I couldn't say if Fonzi was really discounting the thesis.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. I read Fonzi's "review" after reading Bugliosi's book and it bore
little resemblance to the book I read. His review is full of loaded phrases and their associated negative connotations. After reading it, I doubted that Fonzi actually read the book he was reviewing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #100
107. Ta-da! I've always been a little suspect of him for the exact reasons you mention.
He is now pandering to the lefties after pandering to the righties. Well, I guess we all need to make a living.

Wilkerson's embracing the loony JFK CTs has totally blown his credibility. Typically, he touts CTs while not even being cognizant of the dates that the HSCA was in session. That's something that everyone learns in JFK CT 101, especially as most JFK CTists get a woody when they discover that the HSCA's report concluded (erroneously) that there was a conspiracy behind the killing of JFK (strangely, the same people who tout the 1976 HSCA finding seem totally ignorant of the fact that the Justice Department's Ramsey Committee refuted those claims in 1982). That Larry isn't even aware of the timeline for the HSCA speaks volumes about his lack of credibility on this subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
53. That would certainly apply to the HSCA which found there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.
That finding was based ENTIRELY on "evidence" presented at the 11th hour purporting to show that a dictabelt recording recorded a 4th shot. Upon that "evidence" hangs the entire finding of a conspiracy.

Of course, it has long been proven that the dictabelt proved no such thing, and that motorcycle officer HD McLain was NOT in the position he HAD to have been in at the corner of Houston & Elm to record such a shot. He was right where he testified to the HSCA that he was - over 100 feet behind the spot that he would have had to been in to record that shot. The HSCA chose to ignore his eye witness testimony.

HSCA lead investigator G Robert Blakey has said that if it could be proven that McLain wasn't in that spot, that it falsifies the dictabelt "evidence" absolutely. That has now been proven to be the case, but has Blakey ever recanted his support for the 4th bullet BS? No, he hasn't. In fact, you can catch his act on the History Channel as he pushes his groundless theory that the JFK shooting was a mob hit.

And still, the JFK CTists point to the HSCA report as proof that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

Mindless.

BTW - the evidence to support the "magic" bullet hitting both JFK & Connally is rock solid. Your doubts probably start with the viewing of a seating diagram of JFK and Connally in the limo that has the two men in the absolutely wrong positions in the car. It goes on to ignore the ballistics evidence that matched the bullet to LHO's rifle to the exclusion of ever other weapon in the world.

Read the WCR and you just might learn something (I'm going to go ahead and assume that you've never bothered reading it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #41
69. It seems strange that they still seem a little fearful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-04-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
154. Have you signed on with the birthers? You say to never trust the official explanation,
so why trust Hawaii when you don't trust the WCR?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
appleannie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
38. I agree with a lot of what he said. I've wondered if we would ever learn the truth
since the day Ruby conveniently shot Oswald. And I have seen what has been going on in this country since Obama was running for President and been afraid history would repeat itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. One of the oddities about Ruby was how he was
among the press during a press conference about Oswald:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #40
128. ''It's 'Fair Play for Cuba Committee'.''
Tied to the Mafia, rabid anti-communists, gun running to Cuba and the Dallas establishment Jack Ruby during a late-night press conference stated: He belongs to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee to correct a reporter who had asked District Attorney Wade whether it was true that Oswald belonged to the Free Cuba Committee? If Ruby shot Oswald on the spur of the moment, how is it he knew so much about his intel work? (Spy Saga by Philip H. Melanson; Rearview Mirror by William Turner).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #38
117. Where does it say that the President is excused from his oath...
When his life is being threatened?

Great men or women do not "change" things, by folding on their promises.

Great men or women, stand up for what is right. When they do that, others follow, and when others follow, it becomes harder for those to who are threatening you and they lose power to control things. When they lose power, they become more irrelevant and lose more power. That is how you "change" things. If you make the ultimate sacrifice along the way, you had better made sure that the people you are leaving in charge are committed to doing what is right for "change."

Americans have died for what is right... Nobody excused them from their oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
42. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
44. K&R!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
46. Sounds like HE may be part of some conspiracy
sending out barely coded messages about Afghanistan and that other war we're in...

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Ha..."we're down the looking glass here, people"
Isn't that what Costner says in "JFK"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
51. ... of course he'd couch his comments with 'I'm not sure but" ...
... he knows damn well. And he also knows that the people who were in charge still know where he lives and who his family members are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
57. Exactly why I think oxyrush's comments the other day should be taken seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rtassi Donating Member (486 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
59. A Great Book by James W. Douglass JFK And The Unthinkable ...
Why He Died & Why It Matters ... a must read ... IMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #59
66. "JFK and the Unspeakable", rtassi. And your are right about a "must-read".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rtassi Donating Member (486 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #66
131. Thank you bertman, lost a few brain cells in '69 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
62. Allen Dulles.
K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #62
71. John McCloy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
67. Thank you, Colonel Wilkerson. And thank you, deutsey. Recommend. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
80. It's so easy to recognize the trolls by comparison to the genuine contributors. The new flock of
trolls, or is it a herd, only have one liner intimidations full of bravado and macho. Stale and shallow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ShamelessHussy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
85. The Narrative keepers and thought managers of the m$m will tear him apart for that view
but that man has an integrity that can not be denied, which he has demonstrated repeatedly in the public square.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
88. Face it. We'll never know. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. I faced that a long time ago when I stopped looking into the subject.
I had to stop and put it aside. It really screws with your mind after a while.

Personally, I came away thinking that anti-Castro Cubans, some intelligence elements that were involved in CIA assassinations, along with some Mafia support were involved.

Do I insist that's THE truth? I'd be a fool to do so. Because we'll never really know, as you say, and I readily admit that.

I think for me it's more about how this assassination could fit into the larger historical reality of political elites killing each other for thousands of years. Maybe Oswald, a lone nut, did kill JFK. I still think it's naive to think that the elites in America are above such a thing.

The main point of what I wrote here was that someone like Wilkerson actually said something like this. I was pretty shocked when I heard it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
89. Can a person use the word hologram or holistic in relation to the assassination?
Or maybe it is a mountain, prairie, ocean look at it.

There are too many parts and the claims of the Commission and their followers who rally 'round the "Report' have to narrow their voices and words down to two statements - it was Oswald and there was a magic bullet. That's all they have.

Year after year , those who choose gullibility want to kill the talk by calling us crazy never let up in their intimidation.

He was killed for what he tried to do. He tried to make decisions based on truths.

Long live JFK in our hearts.

Bravo to all of you who are trying to talk sense in this thread. Thank you.

P.S. Everything new I've picked up on in the last six years - since the 40th year specials and some books I've read lock it in, but especially a video I saw of Senator Spector sealed the deal if there was ever any doubt in my mind. Spector was so intense on crafting the 'finding' for the Report that he appears to have been raw-ly unethical in his handling to testimony.

And six years ago I saw the film about the Southern France Mafia duo/trio who entered and exited the U.S. on convenient dates. Sharpshooters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #89
97. Wow. You've really bought the myths, hook, line and sinker.
Perhaps you're unaware that the supposed French Mafia trio were all IN JAIL at the time of the shooting. That fact happens to be one of the main reasons that the ludicrous "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" show has been yanked from being shown on respectable TV channels. BTW - that fact came out within months of the series first airing.

Senator Spector was not the author of the single bullet theory. I suggest you read his investigative sessions in the WCR before you call him unethical. There are many things to dislike Arlen Spector for. His performance in the WC is not one of them.

The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming. He owned both weapons used that day to kill JFK & Tippett. The Parkland stretcher bullet was matched to his rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The bullet fragments found in the limo matched the stretcher bullet - both came from the same lot of Western Cartridge Co ammo as purchased by LHO. He was seen and identified as the shooter of JFK by eyewitnesses looking at him as he shot. He was ID-ed by four witnesses who saw him shoot Tippet. He was caught in a web of lies of his own creation during the interrogations (like asserting that he didn't even own a rifle). The evidence against LHO goes on and on and on. You would know that if you read the WCR.

But you won't be bothered to read the WCR because it might upset your ignorance-is-bliss apple cart. How is one to be a crusader against the secret evil that infests big government if one reads the evidence and comes to the conclusion that the WCR was correct? OMG! You mean it's possible that the WCR was a good government effort, like the post office or Medicaid? You mean it's possible that the Democrat-dominated government of 1963 was not involved in the killing of a sitting Democratic president? How is that possible???
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #97
103. I will check out your claim about jail. An easy cover up. However, there is no
need to repeat stuff that I will never believe. I say WOW to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #103
106. "there is no need to repeat stuff that I will never believe."
Yes, facts are annoying things, are they not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #103
139. Re: the supposed French Mafia hit team.
Edited on Thu Dec-03-09 03:04 PM by stopbush
The three supposed assassins - as named in the TV series The Men Who Killed Kennedy - were Lucien Sarti, Sauveur Pironti and Roger Bocognani. Their alibis: Pironti was in the French navy from October 1962 to April 1964, and Bocognani was in prison at the time. Meanwhile Sarti, who it was alleged had fired the fatal shot, was partially blind and had had his driving license revoked in December 1962. In any event, Sarti's family proved he was undergoing serious medical treatment in France on the day of the assassination. The French government helped confirm the alibis, for it had a vested interest in the matter; it was trying to extradite the convicted felon who was the main source for the allegation.

Pironti's lawyers threatened a multi-million pound defamation lawsuit, and British-based Central Television (the company that produced TMWKK) was subjected to public criticism bordering on ridicule. On its own initiative, Central sent its own reporters to France after the program aired, and they promptly notified the company that the allegations were bogus and total nonsense.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/holland3.htm

If you consider that, "an easy cover-up," and, "stuff I will never believe," then I suggest you seek mental help.

BTW - the incident reported above happened back in 1988, ie: 21 years ago. The hoax has been debunked for over two decades. Yet here you are in 2009, posting on a public board that, "six years ago I saw the film about the Southern France Mafia duo/trio who entered and exited the U.S. on convenient dates. Sharpshooters," alleging to those as grossly gullible as yourself that there was a French mafia hit team responsible for killing JFK. Can one get any more irresponsible? Probably not, but it's the JFK CTist's stock in trade.

I doubt that you'll even apologize for your spreading of decades-old disinformation. Most likely, you try to weasel out of your little part in spreading the ignorance by claiming one can't trust all of the sources that were used to disprove the "French Mafia" stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
93. the "possibility of a conspiracy to kill JFK"
Gee, ya' think?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #93
102. Yeah, I do, but when I wrote this I wanted just "present the facts"
about Wilkerson's comments on KPFA. I didn't want to interject my opinion in the OP.

However, I have obviously done that in posts throughout the thread, which I didn't want to do initially because I didn't want to turn this into one of DU's infamous JFK assassination brawls, but just report what Wilkerson said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #102
105. Understood. I agree as well.
It just seems so obvious to me that a conspiracy was at the heart of it. I wonder these days how anyone could think otherwise. There are however always those who, for any number of reasons, would offer revisionist histories. I was fifteen when that happened so I'm old enough to remember the event clearly and to have looked at a lot of the evidence. As far as I can see, there's only one possible conclusion, and it doesn't include some half bright ex-marine Marxist wannabe that, according to his service record, couldn't shoot straight. Anyway, thanks for your post and your laudable objectivity. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #105
136. According to his USMC service record, Oswald qualified as a SHARPSHOOTER in 1956.
I'm sure that every other service man who attained that rank is pleased to hear you smear them by averring that sharpshooters can't shoot straight.

BTW - had you actually looked at the evidence (as you say you have), you would be well aware of Oswald's attaining the rank of sharpshooter in the USMC. You would also be aware that representatives of the USMC testified to the WC that compared to the typical Marine, Oswald was a "better than average shot," and when compared to the average civilian, Oswald was "an excellent shot." Funny choice of words by the USMC reps to describe a guy who (in your words) "couldn't shoot straight," wouldn't you say?

BTW - who is offering the revisionist history when it comes to Oswald's shooting abilities? You, or the Marine Corps that trained him, tested him and rated him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #93
114. I used to. I don't anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
95. Late K&R . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
104. The HSCA Convened sometime between 1976 and 1977
I worked on Capitol Hill at the time on the House Science and Technology Committee. Many notables such as the great Congressman Al Gore were on that Committee, among others. The HSCA used our hearing room. I think the year had to be 1977 - when the Carter Administration took over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #104
108. The HSCA was constituted in 1976 but didn't actually meet until mid-1977.
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 12:00 PM by stopbush
BTW - here are the basic findings of the HSCA. Save for their believing (erroneously) that a 4th shot was fired from the grassy knoll (which means there was a conspiracy), the HSCA AGREES with the WCR in every major respect:

The HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:

Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy (nb: this acoustical evidence has since been soundly disproved). Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfilment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.
The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:
four shots were fired
the third shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed.
The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory, but concluded that it occurred at a time point during the assassination that differed from any of the several time points the Warren Commission theorized it occurred.
The Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, and the Warren Commission were all criticized for deficient job performance in their subsequent investigations, deficient in revealing to the Warren Commission information available in 1964, and the Secret Service was called deficient in their protection of the President.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-r...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #108
115. HSCA also recommended DoJ continue investigation. Reagan-Bush said, 'No.'
From the HSCA Recommendations:

C. The Department of Justice should review the committees findings and report in the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and after completion of the recommended investigation enumerated in sections A and B, analyze whether further official investigation is warranted in either case. The Department of Justice should report its analysis to the Judiciary Committee.

SOURCE: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-r...

They never did. Now, why would Reagan and Bush and their Department of Justice ignore that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
113. he only got sucked in by the movie
...happens to the best of us
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
125. the south is as hateful toward Obama as they were toward Kennedy
and that's the larger message, whether you think Kennedy was shot b/c of his policy stances and his political coalition or whether you think Oswald acted alone.

in both cases, it is the height of irresponsibility for rich right wingers to call for the murder of a sitting president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
704wipes Donating Member (966 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
132. Isn't it odd this is not in the dungeon yet?
just sayin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-04-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #132
155. It is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
133. Well, we're officially discussing the possibility now at least
That's some progress in forty-six years. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
158. Agree MIC/CIA played large roles -- along with other powerful forces -- but they still couldn't have
done it without having the protection of the presidency -- i.e., LBJ.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC