Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

HBO/Hanks/Playtone JFK Assassination Series Set For 2013 Release
  • ngantngant
    Posts: 107
    It official now, Bill Paxton:

    "And I thought, has anyone ever just told this story without bias, without an agenda, without a conspiracy? Just tell it as a human interest story. And as I researched it I found out Vincent Bugliosi was just about to release a book which is unbelievable, it's a cellular analysis called "Reclaiming History."

    I took this to Tom. Tom Hanks' company, Playtone, do these long-form series about American history - "John Adams," "Band of Brothers," "Earth to Moon." And so Tom said, "This is our next project." So we're working on it for 2013."

    http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200903/20090316_paxton.html

    More drivel on the way.
  • ngantngant
    Posts: 107
    The purpose of Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History is to defend the integrity of the USG National Security State by grossly distorting its nature and function, by disguising that it is the servant of factions of the ruling classes within the United States, and by pretending that the people who control it did not and could not contemplate the assassination of a democratically elected President whose recalcitrant politics fell outside their parameters.

    According to Bugliosi, only the lunatic can seriously entertain that Kennedy was murdered because he pursued détente with the USSR (and a proposed a joint lunar mission with the Soviets), championed nuclear disarmament, decided not to back the invasion of the Bay of Pigs with US military might, made a peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Joint Chiefs wanted invasion and war, and decided to withdraw US troops from Vietnam rather than pursue by brute force an imperial venture in Southeast Asia.

    Bugliosi considers himself at liberty to mock those who appreciate the truth of the opposing world view: “conspiracy icon Vincent Salandria ‘the killing of Kennedy represented a coup d’état. ’…I suppose that since a coup d’état is defined as a sudden, unconstitutional change of state policy and leadership ‘by a group of persons in authority,’… you couldn’t even have a coup without the involvement, cooperation, and complicity of groups like the FBI, CIA, and military-industrial complex.” Individuals who entertain such notions are so wrapped up in “their fertile delusions” that they substitute finding a motive for finding evidence, make no connections between, e.g., the CIA and Oswald, and thus sadly show nothing but “this crazy, incredibly childlike reasoning and mentality that has driven and informed virtually all of the pro-conspiracy sentiment in the Kennedy assassination from the beginning.” (985-987)

    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html

    This essay answers Bugliosi by showing direct involvement of the Warren Commission and the US military in the cover-up, and by demonstrating that the assassination was a state murder, without attempting at this point the far more difficult and far less important task of saying which individuals did precisely what. All of the organs of state power participated in the cover-up; indeed none could do so without confidence in the cooperation of all the others. Some did so as part of their role in the murder, some like the FBI did so reluctantly, but there were no institutional whistleblowers because the consensus of persons with political power was firmly opposed to Kennedy’s foreign policy and they used their control of the organs of state power to kill him, and then replaced his foreign policy with theirs.

    the second paragraph, in particular, pretty well sums up the motive.
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    author said:


    The purpose of Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History is to defend the integrity of the USG National Security State by grossly distorting its nature and function, by disguising that it is the servant of factions of the ruling classes within the United States, and by pretending that the people who control it did not and could not contemplate the assassination of a democratically elected President whose recalcitrant politics fell outside their parameters.

    According to Bugliosi, only the lunatic can seriously entertain that Kennedy was murdered because he pursued détente with the USSR (and proposed a joint lunar mission with the Soviets), championed nuclear disarmament, decided not to back the invasion of the Bay of Pigs with US military might, made a peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Joint Chiefs wanted invasion and war, and decided to withdraw US troops from Vietnam rather than pursue by brute force an imperial venture in Southeast Asia.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html



    Tom Hanks doing Bugliosi will simply equal shit multiplied, no doubt about it. Hanks is an out and out state and corporate propagandist. (although the battle scenes in Band of Brothers are first rate, using real WW2 German armor, no less!)

    I have something of a problem with viewing JFK as some kind of messianic "bringer of peace to the world." He was the "missile gap" cold warrior, citing the threat of communism as the great challenge we had to defeat. On most foreign policy issues, he pursued a "middle of the road" course, a path not much different, I think, than many "moderate" Republicans would've followed. In short, I don't think his "recalcitrant politics" were all that recalcitrant, really.

    I don't believe that Oswald shot JFK, and obviously there was a massive coverup after his death. I've become less convinced over time that it was America's ruling class or the military-industrial complex (one in the same, to a large extent) that put out the hit on JFK. I do think the mafia was involved, although obviously they didn't create the great Warren Commission hoax. I think a foreign power and its intelligence service were involved, but not the Cubans or Russians. It's too late tonight to ramble on, but the main point I wanted to raise in response to your post was Vietnam. For years I accepted that Kennedy was going to pull us out of there, also, thus incurring the wrath of the MIC, but the more I've really looked into it, the less I'm inclined to think he'd have actually abandoned Vietnam to those terrible commies.

    Anyway, the ball's in your court Nathan, (or anyone else) if you'd like to toss this back and forth a little. I'm always open to being shown where I'm wrong, or if what I'm reading is incorrect. (well, at least I like to think I'm open to that)  ;) You've probably seen the article highlights I've copied below. What about Kennedy's press conference remarks about withdrawing troops? They sound just like Obama's promises to get us out of Iraq; everything depends on "the situation on the ground."

    image

    Kennedy's Private War
    During its thirty-three months in office, the Kennedy Administration managed and directed an illicit war. By sending an additional 1,000 troops to Vietnam in 1961, Kennedy broke through the MAAG ceiling and violated the Geneva Accords. Speaking to Rusk at a National Security Council meeting in November, 1961, Kennedy defined the Presidential manner proper to breaching international laws: "Why do we take onus, say we are going to break the Geneva Accords? Why not remain silent? Don't say this ourselves!"

    Kennedy's policy toward Vietnam, then, was to accelerate the war while denying that he was doing it. His policy was to prosecute a private war. He was willing to go it alone in Asia, but not to admit it. He disregarded the counsel of his advisers only to the extent that they preferred a public war.

    By the end of 1961, the private war consisted of covert operations directed against North Vietnam and Laos, and the concealed use of US air and ground combat personnel against the Viet Cong in South Vietnam. Each element of the private war increased in tempo and intensity throughout 1962 and 1963. By the time Kennedy was assassinated, the United States had 16,500 troops in South Vietnam pretending they were not fighting, and the Special Forces were executing a host of covert programs in North Vietnam and Laos.

    As early as 1961, the defoliation program, originally called Operation Hades and subsequently accorded the euphemism Operation Ranchhand, was granted Presidential approval. Limited at first as an experimental measure, it soon became an exercise in wholesale crop destruction. The expanded program received strong financial and political support. Discussions of Operation Ranchhand in Washington were instructive, especially since they showed the bureaucrats' lack of any concern whatever for the consequences of their decisions.

    The events of the early 1960s strongly suggest that had John F. Kennedy lived, he would not have pulled out of Southeast Asia. He would more likely have taken any steps necessary to avoid an ignominious defeat at the hands of the Viet Cong. In a nationwide interview on NBC television two months before his assassination, when asked whether the US was likely to reduce its aid to Vietnam, Kennedy replied:

    "I don't think we think that would be helpful at this time. If you reduce your aid, it is possible you could have some effect upon the government structure there. On the other hand, you might have a situation which could bring about a collapse. Strongly in our mind is what happened in the case of China at the end of World War II, where China was lost—a weak government became increasingly unable to control events. We don't want that. What I am concerned about is that Americans will get impatient and say, because they don't like events in Southeast Asia or they don't like the Government in Saigon, that we should withdraw. That only makes it easy for the Communists. I think we should stay. We should use our influence in as effective a way as we can, but we should not withdraw."  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10494                                                                                                                                                                                   

    News Conference, October 31, 1963

    QUESTION: Mr. President, back to the question of troop reductions, are any intended in the Far East at the present time, particularly in Korea, and is there any speed-up in the withdrawal from Viet Nam intended?

    THE PRESIDENT: When Secretary McNamara and General Taylor came back, they announced we would expect to withdraw a thousand men from South Viet Nam before the end of the year, and there has been some reference to that by General Harkins. If we are able to do that, that would be our schedule. I think the first unit or first contingent would be 250 men who are not involved in what might be called front-line operations. It would be our hope to lessen the number of Americans there by 1000, as the training intensifies, and is carried on in South Viet Nam. As far as other units, we will have to make our judgment based on what the military correlation of forces may be.
    http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Press+Conferences/003POFO5Pressconference63_10311963.htm

    image
  • ngantngant
    Posts: 107
    I think your thesis that Pres. Kennedy was a de facto cold warrior fails on several levels.  In the first place, I have researched Pres. Kennedy's policies wrt NASA and the Apollo programme and it is fairly obvious to me that he would have shook up NASA from the top down (NSAM 271), not unlike his famous remark to scatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. A joint moon mission with the Soviets?  This is not what a cold warrior would have done in late 1963. 

    A cold warrior like Johnson did even want to think of space cooperation.  OTOH, a cold warrior like Nixon could pick up JFK's mantle again and recast it ten years later, with the Apollo-Soyuz missions.  Which is to say there is a big difference between a dumb cold warrior (LBJ) and a smart  cold warrior (Nixon). Nixon had the brains to make it happen, just like JFK would have made it happen, too.  Just as Nixon recognized China instead of ostracizing it as the rightwing extremists wanted, I believe JFK would have done the same, whether it would have been a communist Vietnam or a communist China.  Cold warrior? JFK was neither. He was in a class by himself. But he was definitely not a cold warrior.

    Examine Vietnam,the nuclear test ban treaty, the secret Cuba negotiations. JFK may have wanted to project a public image to appease some of the conservatives, but he was working on a much more profound and deeper level than that. And you have to put it in historical context, as Jim Douglass did in his well-researched book.  He concluded that JFK had a conversion at a certain point. He had turned away from the Cold War.

    Clearly, we must draw a distinction, before and after this conversion. Politically, for JFK, 1961 and 1963 were as far apart as the night and day.  If you freeze JFK in the time of 1961, yes, I suppose you could be right. But Kennedy never allowed his thinking and intellect to become so ossified as the rightwing had become at that same time. He evolved, and it was his revolution in thinking that created so much opposition against him.

  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    Thanks for the response, Nathan. I apologize for my slow one.

    author said:


    I think your thesis that Pres. Kennedy was a de facto cold warrior fails on several levels. In the first place, I have researched Pres. Kennedy's policies wrt NASA and the Apollo programme and it is fairly obvious to me that he would have shook up NASA from the top down (NSAM 271), not unlike his famous remark to scatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. A joint moon mission with the Soviets? This is not what a cold warrior would have done in late 1963. 

    A cold warrior like Johnson did even want to think of space cooperation. OTOH, a cold warrior like Nixon could pick up JFK's mantle again and recast it ten years later, with the Apollo-Soyuz missions. Which is to say there is a big difference between a dumb cold warrior (LBJ) and a smart cold warrior (Nixon).



    I don't think he was a de facto cold warrior, I think he was a very up front cold warrior. I don't see where the world was improved in any way by Nixon's joint space ventures with the Russians, so I don't see any reason to think that a Kennedy joint venture would've made any difference, either. Personally, I think going to the moon was just a waste of money, anyway. What do we have to show for it? A handful of rocks? That money could've been spent in much better ways, down here on earth. (IMHO)

    Are you saying that JFK was a smart cold warrior, like Nixon?

    Kennedy was pissed at the CIA because he felt they'd misled him about the Bay of Pigs. I think his intent afterward was to create a spy agency that would be more under his control. Why did Kennedy authorize the attack on Cuba in the first place, if he wasn't a cold warrior?

    Nixon had the brains to make it happen, just like JFK would have made it happen, too. Just as Nixon recognized China instead of ostracizing it as the rightwing extremists wanted, I believe JFK would have done the same, whether it would have been a communist Vietnam or a communist China. Cold warrior? JFK was neither. He was in a class by himself. But he was definitely not a cold warrior.

    Examine Vietnam,the nuclear test ban treaty, the secret Cuba negotiations. JFK may have wanted to project a public image to appease some of the conservatives, but he was working on a much more profound and deeper level than that. And you have to put it in historical context, as Jim Douglass did in his well-researched book. He concluded that JFK had a conversion at a certain point. He had turned away from the Cold War.

    Clearly, we must draw a distinction, before and after this conversion. Politically, for JFK, 1961 and 1963 were as far apart as the night and day.  If you freeze JFK in the time of 1961, yes, I suppose you could be right. But Kennedy never allowed his thinking and intellect to become so ossified as the rightwing had become at that same time. He evolved, and it was his revolution in thinking that created so much opposition against him.



    Kennedy was sounding very much like a cold warrior on the day he died. (see below) I'm not trying to disparage the man; he was a hero of mine when I was a kid, I can still get choked up listening to some of his speeches, and I'd sure as hell like to see the people who were behind his murder exposed, but I'm buying less and less into the conventional wisdom that he was killed because he was going to get us out of Vietnam, make peace with communism, etc.
    -------------------------------------

    "The U.S. has either intervened, invaded, or supported dictators in: Chile, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic, and Haiti (just to name a few).
 


    It must be said, only slightly tongue-in-cheek, that the U.S. has never met a dictator it didn't like -- especially when opposed by a populist or a nationalist.

    Kennedy smiled, and he was a brilliant politician, but he sent in Green Berets when he couldn't get his way." - Mumia Abu-Jamal

    image

    Ironically, although Jack Kennedy had not been courted by the foreign policy establishment because of his family history, he nonetheless became its political voice. Those who believed in and quietly promoted an internationalist role for the United States began to see Jack Kennedy in a different light. "Now that he was President … they were prepared to rally around; and … he was prepared to receive them." The term "liberal" was not yet associated with "socialist" or "leftist" policies and programs. Thus, the "liberalism" John F. Kennedy shared with establishment leaders was essentially conservative but grounded in the recognition that the Soviet and Chinese states, under the guise of communism, were determined to expand their spheres of influence - or direct control - over as much of the globe as possible and by whatever means necessary. Kennedy surrounded himself with individuals who believed these threats superior to all other considerations, a perspective dictating that the United States take the side of despots and dictators against oppressed peoples struggling for self-determinationhttp://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/dodson_review_of_parmet_on_jfk.html

    "In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent. I hope those who want a stronger America and place it on some signs will also place those figures next to it.

    This is not an easy effort. This requires sacrifice by the people of the United States. But this is a very dangerous and uncertain world. As I said earlier, on three occasions in the last 3 years the United States has had a direct confrontation. No one can say when it will come again. No one expects that our life will be easy, certainly not in this decade, and perhaps not in this century. But we should realize what a burden and responsibility the people of the United States have borne for so many years. Here, a country which lived in isolation, divided and protected by the Atlantic and the Pacific, uninterested in the struggles of the world around it, here in the short space of 18 years after the Second World War, we put ourselves, by our own will and by necessity, into defense of alliances with countries all around the globe. Without the United States, South Viet-Nam would collapse overnight. Without the United States, the SEATO alliance would collapse overnight. Without the United States the CENTO alliance would collapse overnight. Without the United States there would be no NATO. And gradually Europe would drift into neutralism and indifference. Without the efforts of the United States in the Alliance for Progress, the Communist advance onto the mainland of South America would long ago have taken place."
    - John F Kennedy, November 22nd, 1963  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9538&st=&st1=

    Year - Vietnam Troop Level
    Eisenhower, 1960 - 900
    Kennedy, 1961 - 3,025
    1962 - 11,300
    1963 - 16,300
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/U.S._Troop_levels_in_Vietnam_War

  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    Any thoughts about a possible Israeli angle, Nathan?
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    "Ben-Gurion could be vicious, and he had such a hatred of the old man [Joe Kennedy, Sr., JFK's father]." - New York banker Abe Feinberg
    http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/mossadandtheassassination.htm

    Although Stone portrayed former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison as a hero for pointing the finger in the direction of elements of the U.S. military and intelligence networks as the guiding force behind JFK's murder, what Stone didn't tell his audience was something even more controversial: that, privately, after some years of research and reflection, Garrison had reached an even more startling determination: that the driving force behind JFK's murder was no less than Israel's feared intelligence service, the Mossad.
    http://www.afrocubaweb.com/news/mossadjfk.htm

    Permindex was clearly the Israeli link to the JFK assassination, so much so that Jim Garrison himself later circulated the manuscript for a never-published novel in which he fingered the Mossad as prime mover behind the conspiracy although Garrison never otherwise mentioned a Mossad connection publicly. Where, you ask, does the CIA fit alongside the Mossad in the JFK assassination? By 1963 John F. Kennedy was not only at war with Israel and the Meyer Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate, but he was also at war with their close ally in the international intelligence underworld - the CIA. Final Judgment shows that Israel’s chief contact at the CIA, the Soviet-hating James Jesus Angleton, ultimately played a pivotal role in the JFK assassination conspiracy cover-up. You may ask why Hollywood’s so-called "radical film-maker" Oliver Stone, whose film JFK was a virtual tribute to Garrison never mentioned any of this. I would contend that Stone failed to mention these details in JFK because the film was financed by Arnon Milchan, an Israeli arms dealer linked to smuggling of materiel to Israel’s nuclear program - the very point of contention between JFK and Israel...  http://www.dialogue-yemen.org/en/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=20

    Vanunu: Israel Killed John F. Kennedy
    July 26, 2004

    In a startling accusation, nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu has alleged that Jerusalem was behind the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, who was exerting pressure on the then Israeli head of state to shed light on the Dimona nuclear plant.

    In defiance of a ban on talking to the media and meeting with foreigners, Vanunu is said to have made the accusation in an interview to London-based Al-Hayat newspaper.

    As per the interview published in newspaper's Arabic supplement Al-Wassat yesterday, Vanunu said according to "near-certain indications," Kennedy was assassinated due to "pressure he exerted on then head of government, David Ben-Gurion, to shed light on Dimona's nuclear reactor."  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/07/295523.html?c=on

    Gadhafi: Obama fears Israel will assassinate him like it did JFK
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/991948.html

    John F. Kennedy apparently was the last U.S. president to directly challenge Israel about its true intentions at Dimona.
    http://www.sptimes.com/2004/01/19/Worldandnation/Critics_want_Israel_t.shtml

    Avener Cohen, in Israel and the Bomb, stresses, "No American president was more concerned with the danger of nuclear proliferation than John Fitzgerald Kennedy. He was convinced that the spread of nuclear weapons would make the world more dangerous and undermine U.S. interests." Cohen continues at the end of this passage, "The only example Kennedy used to make this point was Israel." 
    http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/mossadandtheassassination.htm

    image

    JFK’s Letter to (Israeli PM) Eshkol About Dimona - July 5, 1963

    Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

    It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time.

    You are aware, I am sure, of the exchange which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits to Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister’s strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel’s willingness to permit periodic visits to Dimona.

    I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion’s May 27 letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.

    I am sure you will agree that these visits should be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government’s commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel’s effort in the nuclear field.

    Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel’s purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27 letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion’s letter was in accord with this, that our scientist have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time to be allotted for a thorough examination.

    Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention.

    Sincerely,
    John F. Kennedy
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/exchange/01-01.htm
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "My friend, my name is Roy Kellerman. I am special agent in charge of the White House detail of the Secret Service. We are taking President Kennedy back to the capitol."

    "You are not taking the body anywhere. There's a law here. We're going to enforce it."

    Admiral George Burkley, White House Medical Officer, said, "Mrs. Kennedy is going to stay exactly where she is until the body is moved. We can't have that … he's the President of the United States."

    "That doesn't matter," Dr. Rose replied rigidly. "You can't lose the chain of evidence."

    For the second time that day, there was little doubt in my mind as to the significance of what was happening before me.

    "Goddammit, get your ass out of the way before you get hurt," screamed another one of the men in suits. Another snapped, "We're taking the body, now."

    Strange, I thought, this President is getting more protection dead than he did when he was alive.

    - Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw, attending physician at Parkland Memorial Hospital  http://www.jfkmontreal.com/inside_parkland.htm

    image
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    JFK came into office as a cold warrior, but by the time of his assassination he was not.

    Many of the materials necessary to establish this fact are readily available to research for oneself, but if you want to skip a few steps you could read "Jfk and the Unspeakable" by Jim Douglass.
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    author said:


    JFK came into office as a cold warrior, but by the time of his assassination he was not.

    Many of the materials necessary to establish this fact are readily available to research for oneself, but if you want to skip a few steps you could read "Jfk and the Unspeakable" by Jim Douglass.



    Hello Joe,

    I haven't read JFK and the Unspeakable yet, but I have listened to Jim Douglass when Len's had him on as a guest, and Douglass himself doesn't claim that Kennedy had made a full conversion to the status of "peacenik." (my term) "He wasn't Ghandi," is how I'd paraphrase his remarks. I think that would be quite an understatement. Yes, there's lots of material to research out there. Do you have any opinion about a Mossad link to the assassination? That seems to be a possibility that few want to consider, although Garrison himself reportedly came to believe it was true.
    -----------------------------------------------

    from "Empire as a Way of Life"
    by Dr John Marciano, Professor Emeritus, State University of New York at Cortland

    John F. Kennedy dramatically increased US imperialism in Latin America, something that liberal admirers of the late president refuse to acknowledge. He “campaigned in the 1960 presidential election as a committed militarist” and promised “to establish a new foundation on which to ensure the continuance of American power in such changing times.” He attempted to maintain US hegemony throughout the hemisphere in the face of powerful movements for radical change. The key was to appear to support the ideals of these movements while at the same time deepening US militarism against them.

    Despite his image as an “idealist,” it was during Kennedy’s era that national security states in Latin America “strengthened and in some cases created by the US … began to transform themselves into command centers of the region’s death-squad system [which] executed hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans and tortured tens of thousands more.” This is an absolutely critical point: the real – as opposed to the fantasy – Kennedy helped lay the groundwork for later genocidal levels of violence throughout the region.

    Historian Richard Walton has analyzed Kennedy’s foreign policies in Latin America in Cold War and Counterrevolution. Walton argues that the context for Kennedy’s aggression in Latin America and his terrorist acts against Cuba are to be found in Cold War efforts to increase US military superiority over the Soviet Union. Immediately after his inauguration in 1961, Kennedy moved to increase US military strength across the board, including a dramatic jump in the nuclear missile program. This was barely two weeks after Eisenhower warned us about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell address.

    JFK asked for huge increases in military spending despite “intelligence studies that revealed” there was no “missile gap” with the Soviet Union. Walton asserts Kennedy shared the view of other US presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt, i.e., “… the US has the unique right to intervene by force of arms in the domestic affairs of other nations.” This arrogant view became a cardinal tenet of US policy after WW II under both Democrats and Republicans. The US reserved this right for itself but was quick to condemn any nation acting in a similar manner, e.g., condemning Soviet actions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

    Kennedy was obsessed with Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution, approving Operation Mongoose that included assassination attempts against Fidel and terrorist attacks against that nation. To undermine Cuban influence in Latin America, Kennedy combined violence with the rhetoric of democratic concern, e.g., the Alliance for Progress. The rhetoric, however, was aimed here at home against US citizens, since he never intended to attack deep-seated social and economic injustices abroad. His imperialist, class-based policies were continued by Johnson and Nixon, and culminated in the genocidal US-supported death squad regimes under President Reagan.

    Kennedy supported the invasion of Cuba in April 1961, proving, in Walton’s view, that “he was prepared to violate the territorial integrity of a sovereign state [and] violate … international law,” as well as an American pledge “not to intervene in the domestic affairs of hemisphere states.” In a public statement shortly after the invasion, Kennedy lied about US involvement. “Any unilateral American intervention, in the absence of an external attack upon ourselves or an ally, would have been contrary to our traditions and to our international obligations.” He made this statement before major US newspaper editors: not one confronted him on this egregious distortion of the truth, in keeping with the mass media’s lapdog tradition of supporting US aggression.

    Walton writes that this was an “extraordinary statement. No only was the invasion planned by the US, but the US recruited, paid and trained” an exile force that had “American military equipment [and were] trained by American military men…. The warplanes were American, flown by Americans.… American ships carried the invaders, and American naval units accompanied them. Americans were killed in the operation. To claim that America did not intervene was to lie and be caught in a lie.”

    Walton challenges the so-called “crowning” achievement of Kennedy’s administration: JFK’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis in the fall of 1962. Although it has been called Kennedy’s “greatest triumph,” Walton profoundly disagrees: “… [Kennedy’s] decision to go to the brink of nuclear war was irresponsible and reckless to a supreme degree…. [He] … consciously risked nuclear catastrophe….”

    When one looks objectively at JFK’s record of infamy in Latin America: the numerous assassination attempts on Castro’s life and hundreds of terrorist acts against Cubans (which went far beyond Kennedy’s era and have killed more people in that nation in the last 47 years than the number of US citizens killed in 9/11), the Bay of Pigs invasion, the missile crisis, US efforts to destabilize the government in the British Guiana (now Guyana), the refusal to support the elected Dominican leader Juan Bosch when he was overthrown by a military coup in September 1963, and national security state violence throughout Latin America, they reveal a violent leader who was a supporter of entrenched class rule in Latin America.

    In their analysis of contemporary US imperialism, writers and activists John Bellamy Foster and Robert McChesney (Pox Americana) also place the recent history of US aggression in Latin America in the context of the Kennedy era. In a June, 1963 speech, Kennedy declared that the US sought peace in the world, “not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.” He dismissed as “wholly baseless and incredible” – as Marxist propaganda – the charge that the US was engaged in imperialism in Latin America and elsewhere. The facts prove otherwise. Including his administration and continuing to the present, covert and outright US imperialist actions in Latin America attacked Cuba, British Guiana, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Grenada, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti and Venezuela.

    Kennedy’s policies had helped lay the foundation for what ultimately became the death-squad regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala. Even though “there was not even a whiff of rural insurrection” in El Salvador in the early 1960s, this did not stop “agents from the State Department, Green Berets, CIA and USAID [that] organized … groups that would become the backbone of that country’s death-squad system” – led by soldiers who were often trained by the US at Fort Benning, Georgia. A Pentagon report stated that it was “precisely the young, aggressive, US-trained officers … who are the most intoxicated by the extreme right’s vision and … who commit many of the worst atrocities.”  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/369757.html

    The Cuban revolution was declared to be socialist by Fidel Castro speaking before an approving crowd as US planes flew over Havana dropping bombs. The April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion had begun. Following its rapid failure, President JF Kennedy instituted a blockade of Cuba, which remains today.

    In 1967, President LB Johnson, then bogged down in war against the Indo-Chinese peoples, expressed to a reporter: “We were running a goddamn Murder Incorporated in the Caribbean.” He said so after learning the CIA had used the Mafia to try to assassinate Fidel Castro. The CIA was also infecting humans, animals and crops with poisons, terrorizing its people from the air and on the ground.
    - Ron Ridenour  http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/12/half-century-of-cuban-revolution-challenges-2/

  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    JFK wasn't a peacenik, but his dealings with the Joint Chiefs had taught him they were maniacs willing to blow up the world, which he was not prepared to do. Although the American University speech goes pretty far in that direction and it seems clear that he was going to pull out in Vietnam.

    It's possible that the Mossad played some role in the assassination, but basically I think it's a distraction. The level of control established on the day of the assassination points to an internal process. Mossad simply does not have control over the codebooks in the military planes, or the ability to shut down the phones in DC, or control the parade route, etc.
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    author said:


    JFK wasn't a peacenik, but his dealings with the Joint Chiefs had taught him they were maniacs willing to blow up the world, which he was not prepared to do. Although the American University speech goes pretty far in that direction and it seems clear that he was going to pull out in Vietnam.

    It's possible that the Mossad played some role in the assassination, but basically I think it's a distraction. The level of control established on the day of the assassination points to an internal process. Mossad simply does not have control over the codebooks in the military planes, or the ability to shut down the phones in DC, or control the parade route, etc.



    Mossad certainly has the ability to shut down phone systems and access our codebooks today, if not in 1963. And, actually, I'm not sure they couldn't have done it back then, either, in collusion with the CIA. The State of Israel benefited tremendously from the death of JFK, just as it benefited greatly from 9-11. Do you think James Jesus Angleton just might've had a hand in Kennedy's murder? How about Frank Sturgis and Clay Shaw?
    ---------------------------------

    In addition to owning counterintelligence, Angleton also had control over the FBI’s relationship with the Agency (he owned the liaison relationship between FBI and CIA), and sole control of the Israeli desk, which included liaison with their intelligence service, the Mossad.  http://www.ctka.net/pr700-ang.html

    In addition to trying to ferret out "moles," Angleton was involved in other facets of the "spook" business, including disinformation and personally overseeing formation and ongoing liaison with the Israeli foreign intelligence arm, Mossad. His early work in Italy is thought to have laid the groundwork for later cooperative associations with Mafia figures when their particular "talents" and connections were required. Conspiracy theorists believe there is evidence to link Angleton, directly or indirectly, with involvement in the John F. Kennedy assassination; the slaying of a JFK mistress, Mary Pinchot Meyer; and the suspicious "suicide" of a senior CIA official by carbon monoxide poisoning, among others.  http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/32253.php

    Based on his own extensive study of the JFK assassination Cuba's former chief of counterintelligence, General Fabian Escalante Escalante, told journalist Claudia Furiati that Cuban intelligence had determined that, in fact, "Sturgis was in charge of communications—receiving and transmitting information on the movement at Dealey Plaza and the motorcade to the shooters and others."

    If Sturgis was involved in the actual mechanics of the assassination, the historical evidence suggests that Sturgis could have been functioning as a knowing Mossad tool in the conspiracy.

    The truth is that going back some fifteen years prior to the JFK assassination, Sturgis had worked for the Mossad.

    ...we not only find CIA asset Clay Shaw of New Orleans tied to the Mossad through his association with the Permindex operation (as were Banister and Ferrie), but we also find two other CIA-connected players in the anti-Castro operations out of New Orleans (Sturgis and Hemming) were in the Mossad's sphere of influence. And Lee Harvey Oswald is tied to all of the key players involved. http://www.saveourwetlands.org/mossadrolejfkass03.html
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    No one is denying Angleton's role, or that of Sturgis. They don't work for the Mossad.
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    author said:


    No one is denying Angleton's role, or that of Sturgis. They don't work for the Mossad.



    The Mossad is an interesting angle. I just watched a documentary on the web on Mordechai Vanunu and according to the show Kennedy was the only president trying to keep Israel from getting the bomb. All others after him turned a blind eye to the development of nuclear capability in Israel. It is well known that JFK was scared that nuclear weapons might be used in battle. His handling of The Cuban Missile Crisis proved that, so maybe there's a bit of smoke in the Mossad direction. Certainly they can't be ruled out.
    Hmmmmm Interesting!
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    Paraphrasing JFK:

    "Could the Mossad change the parade route, Bill? Or eliminate the protection for the President? Could the Mossad send Oswald to Russia and get him back? Could the Mossad get the FBI, the CIA, and the Dallas Police to make a mess of the investigation? Could the Mossad get the Warren Commission appointed to cover it up? Could the Mossad wreck the autopsy? Could the Mossad influence the national media to go to sleep?"

    This is like the Mossad 9/11 stuff. There is evidence to show that the Mossad were spying on the alleged hijackers and, indeed, Israel was one of the many countries to warn the U.S. about the terrorist attacks. That's not the same thing as causing the attacks.

    These events are the result of internal processes.  The people who work within these internal departments are the ones with the power to deliver the results we all see.
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    Joe, do you think the skipper of PT109 would've turned his back on the crew of the USS Liberty while Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats were attacking her, even strafing US sailors in lifeboats, as LBJ did? Johnson had no problem with Israeli nukes, either. It could be said that JFK's death was therefore mutually beneficial to both LBJ and Israel, couldn't it? In the same way, both Bush and Israel benefitted from 9-11. The Israelis were indeed aware of every move the alleged hijackers (true identities unknown to this day) made, and yet the attacks succeeded spectacularly. Obviously, their "warnings" didn't amount to much.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 1967, the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty, in international waters, 13 miles off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, and tried to sink it, and kill all 294 American on board the spy ship (“Assault on the Liberty,” James M. Ennes, Jr. and James Bamford’s “Body of Secrets.”) The Israelis then falsely claimed it was just a case of “mistaken identity.”

    However, according to Peter Hounam, the author of the expose’, “Operation Cyanide,” the murderous Israeli attack was a set up to blame the Egyptians and bring the U.S. into the 1967 war on their side. The Liberty was a “sitting duck” for the Israeli jet planes’ missiles and rockets and their torpedo boats. The attack lasted at least 75 minutes, killing 34 brave Americans and wounding 172 others. Liberty survivor, Petty Officer Ernie Gallo, said, “I mean for a group of people who are supposed to be the children of God, (the Israelis) they didn’t show any mercy for us.”

    Both Captain Ward Boston, an ex-Navy attorney, who participated in a Court of Inquiry, with respect to the Liberty, and Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff, (who recently died) believe that President Lyndon Baines Johnson ordered a massive “cover-up” after the attack by the Israelis. (10/23/03, CBSNews.com)

    Just imagine for one moment, if an individual dedicated to putting America’s interests first - before the interests of the Zionists - had been the U.S. President on June 8, 1967. Instead of recalling our aircraft that were on their way to rescue the Liberty, he (or she) would have ordered them to continue on their mission, not only to defend the Liberty and to stop the massacre, but to retaliate against the Zionist aggressors by bombing their naval base at the port of Ashdod, their military headquarters at Tel Aviv and Haifa, and for good measure, dropping a few MX missiles on Dimona, their secret nuke-making plant, located in the Negev desert. If, only?
    http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/4731/

    - In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States.
    - The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.
    http://www.realnews247.com/uss_liberty_betrayal_moorer.htm

    image
    http://www.ussliberty.org/index2.html

    And McNamara burns in hell... ;-)

    image
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    I'm familiar with the USS Liberty incident.

    The one thing about Israeli involvement in this incident is that they had the power to affect the situation and did so, by sending planes to shoot at an American ship.

    Do you see the distinction?

    The Mossad, whatever their intent, did not have the power to assassinate JFK and cover it up in the manner that we see.  You may be right, and the Israelis wanted JFK dead.  So did a lot of people.  And many of those people had access to the internal structures of power within the United States, which is where you would need access in order to kill him.
  • PurpleHazePurpleHaze
    Posts: 717
    author said:


    Paraphrasing JFK:

    This is like the Mossad 9/11 stuff. There is evidence to show that the Mossad were spying on the alleged hijackers and, indeed, Israel was one of the many countries to warn the U.S. about the terrorist attacks. That's not the same thing as causing the attacks.

    These events are the result of internal processes. The people who work within these internal departments are the ones with the power to deliver the results we all see.



    EXACTLY.

    Many of us have come to the realization that Israel has played a major role in 9-11 (PNAC, dancing Israeli spies, Odigo, Wolfowitz Doctrine, The Clean Break, Netanyahu and Silverstein phone buddies, Israeli security in charge of US airports, Marvin Bush in charge of security of WTC at time of attacks, implosions, explosions, Silverstein said on video “they decided to pull it” with regards to WTC building 7 which was not even hit by a jet, and it takes weeks to set up an implosion, the resulting “war on terror” based on false info provided by Israel’s Mossad, and so on and so forth— see the DVDs and research on the internet using google). Therefore any book, DVD, film or article which does not point to or even allude to the role of Israel in 9-11 is obfuscating and hiding the Truth about 9-11http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=624

    ..."the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor!"

    image

    Put this name into your system: Dov Zakheim
    From 1985 to 1987 he was deputy under secretary of defense for planning 
and resources, and held various other senior Pentagon posts in the 
Reagan administration. He was previously with the Congressional 
Budget Office. Zakheim is currently corporate vice president of Systems Planning Corporation (SPC), a high-technology research, 
analysis, and manufacturing firm, and chief executive officer and 
president of SPC International, Inc. In 1998, Zakheim, an expert in ballistic missiles, worked in 1998 with Rumsfeld Commission. More significantly, he is a long time Bush associate, having served as a 
policy advisor to the governor during the 2000 campaign. In May, 2001, Zakheim was sworn in to the Bush Administration as Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) of the DOD.

    Zakheim's company produces advanced Command Transmitter Systems, designed to provide "remote control and flight termination functions through a fully redundant, self-contained solid state system." The unit is just 5 feet high and can be mounted easily on a mobile platform. Although designed to control unmanned flights such as Global hawk from remote positions on the ground, one British aviation engineer said after 9/11 that the planes used in the attacks could have been equipped with, or suitable for, such remote control units.
    http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/14509.php

    Rabbi Zakheim not only was remote control specialist, he also was very well acquinted with financial affairs of the Pentagon. In March 2001, that is 6 months before 9/11, Zakheim was appointed comptroller at the Pentagon. He was hired to shed some light about some trillions missing in the books. Now is that a coincidence or what! A guy who worked 4 years as CEO for a company specialized in remote control moves to a new job in a new building which gets hit by a plane. And where did it hit? At an almost empty, newly renovated part of the Pentagon. So here comes Hanni Hanjour, dedicated to sacrifice his life in his resentment against all those Americans 'enjoying their freedoms'; he ignores breathtaking targets like the White House or Capitol Hill; he could have nose-dived in a straight line onto the Pentagon. He does not. Instead he makes an almost impossible 270 degrees turn to park his plane into exactly that spot that solved all of Zakheim's problems. http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com/#zakheim

    Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's Comptroller (in charge of the money) on 9/11, was co-author of the notorious "Project for a New American Century" September 2000 report that stated the US empire needed a "new Pearl Harbor" and that the US should seize oil-rich Iraq even if Saddam Hussein were deposed. His involvement with PNAC, his previous directorship of a corporation that manufactures remote control flight systems, and his inability to document how the Pentagon has spent our money suggests that real investigations into the crimes of 9/11 and the US invasion of the Middle East would put Mr. Zakheim near the top of the witness list if there is ever a real 9/11 investigation with subpoena power.  http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html#zakheim

    ...in 2001 Dov was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.

    Wikipedia points out that Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.

    Dov’s Father, Rabbi Jacob I. Zakheim was born in 1910 and reared in Poland’s swarm of Zionist hard guys, read assassins and bombers. His Polish town, near Bilaystok, also brought us Yitzhak Shir, and family friends included Menachem Begin and Moshe Arens. http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1047.shtml

    Prior to 9/11, the FBI had discovered the presence of a massive spy ring inside the United States run by the government of Israel. This seems a harsh gratitude from a nation which obtains 10% of its annual budget from the American taxpayer, $3+ billion a year. Over the years, American taxpayers have been required to send Israel more than four times what the US spent to go to the moon.

    What Israel has done in return was to set up government subsidized telecommunications companies which operate here in the United States. One of these companies is Amdocs, which provides billing and directory assistance for 90% of the phone companies in the USA. Amdocs' main computer center for billing is actually in Israel and allows those with access to do what intelligence agencies call "traffic analysis"; a picture of someone's activities based on a pattern of who they are calling and when. Another Israeli telecom company is Comverse Infosys, which subcontracts the installation of the automatic tapping equipment now built into every phone system in America. Comverse maintains its own connections to all this phone tapping equipment, insisting that it is for maintenance purposes only. However, Converse has been named as the most likely source for leaked information regarding telephone calls by law enforcement that derailed several investigations into not only espionage, but drug running as well. Yet another Israeli telecom company is Odigo, which provides the core message passing system for all the "Instant Message" services. Two hours before the attacks on the World Trade Towers, Odigo employees received a warning.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744 
    Odigo has an office 2 blocks from the former location of the World Trade Towers. 
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spyring.html?q=spyring.html

    The Dancing Israelis on 9/11
    After reviewing the evidence, there can only be one logical reason as to why a group (perhaps multiple groups) of young Israeli men, in which some where found out to be Mossad agents, were filming the Twin Towers on 9/11 before the attack and then were celebrating and taking pictures of themselves with the burning WTC in the background; they were in on it.
    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html

    Netanyahu Says 9/11 Was Good For Israel
    Asked tonight what the (9-11) attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli prime minister, replied, ''It's very good.''  http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2008/160408Netanyahu.htm

    911, Iraq, PNAC, All roads lead to Israel
    http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nixon administration pressured Israel on nukes
    http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/06/24/nixon-administration-pressured-israel-on-nukes/

    image

    * And I'm pretty sure that Israel started the Korean War, too. ;) Seriously, I absolutely believe that "all roads lead to Israel" with regard to 9-11, although I don't think it was strictly a Mossad operation. With regard to JFK, I basically agree with what Steve said, that it's "an interesting angle," but obviously there'd have to have been major collusion with elements of the U.S. gov't and intelligence apparatus.

    You mentioned the fabled change of the Dallas motorcade route. When do you think it was changed, and who changed it?

    Are you still out there, Joe? I hope so.
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    I'm not inclined to believe Israel had anything to do with Korea or Vietnam. Fletcher Prouty talks about how those conflicts were wholly created by the CIA. The reason? ... They dropped the bomb.
    Once the nuclear cat was out of the bag, there was never to be a winnable war again. The loser, no matter who they were had the power to annihilate the winner with the press of a button. The Cold War, Korea, Vietnam and the multitudes of post WWII conflicts since were designed to use up weapons and keep their manufacture a going concern. The weapons industry encompasses about 10% of the world economy and those people do not like to be left out.
    Prouty explains how the CIA has maneuvered it's mandate to create conflicts through the Department of Defense... a "reactionary" entity. The CIA creates conflict... Defense reacts. A simple money making venture. That's all it is. Corrupt as hell but this is what Prouty teaches us is at the root of post-war conflict.
    Israel is something else. I don't see the connections in the Kennedy era or before. What Israel has become seems to me to have manifested itself afterward. I really believe the Jews (The Zionists, not the average Jewish citizen) have become the Nazis especially with regard to the Arabs in Israel. America and indeed most of Western civilization has begun to pander and cater to the Zionists in recent times. I haven't studied this enough to determine a reason why though.

    Quote>>>>* And I'm pretty sure that Israel started the Korean War, too.  Seriously, I absolutely believe that "all roads lead to Israel" with regard to 9-11, although I don't think it was strictly a Mossad operation. With regard to JFK, I basically agree with what Steve said, that it's "an interesting angle," but obviously there'd have to have been major collusion with elements of the U.S. gov't and intelligence apparatus.

    You mentioned the fabled change of the Dallas motorcade route. When do you think it was changed, and who changed it?

    Are you still out there, Joe? I hope so.<<<<Quote
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    I am indeed still around, but life's been insanely busy for me over the last couple of months.  I am stretched in a hundred directions.

    Getting back to this debate, however, I dislike getting into these sorts of discussions because I think they are pointlessly divisive. I am not arguing that the Mossad didn't have a role in the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 or that Israel does not have an influence on world politics wildly at odds with its size and population. However, if you've read my CTKA piece, you'll know that I am, as George Bush once declared, "a uniter."

    That is, I think arguing about what percentage of the problem is created by the Mossad is not that helpful in the long run.  It may come to be that every key position necessary to run 9/11 was owned by the Mossad; i.e., that Donald Rumsfeld is an Israeli asset, or so on. We're not going to establish that, however, except at the end of a real investigation. People get very hyped up by this, and it can go wrong; Eric Hufschmid in many ways has been discredited by his overly vociferous attacks on Israel and insistence that they are the key to everything. I reached out to Eric myself about this issue, and we had some back and forth, but there was no real resolution, because to him it's the most important issue. And it might be, but in my mind I can't say that because the evidence isn't there.  The strongest evidence, in my view, is the lack of response by the defense department, which was commented on that day by the head of the Russian air force. There are other things too, which are well known, I am sure, to everybody here.

    My whole point is that we both agree that a new investigation is needed, and research is ongoing, but if you make statements with insufficient evidence you run the risk of being charged with anti-semitism. And, rightly or wrongly, in today's culture that's like being called a pedophile. It will destroy your credibility forever. So it seems to me -- even in pure pragmatic terms -- that we should restrict ourselves to what we can generate the best evidence for in piece-by-piece terms. It's the way the earliest researchers attacked the Kennedy case, and they did such a good job that we know now that when Bugliosi writes a book arguing the other side, he is forced to obfuscate and twist the truth in knots because otherwise he can't make his case.

    In any event, sorry about the long post. Hope this makes sense, it comes at the end of a long day. :)
  • author said:


    I am indeed still around, but life's been insanely busy for me over the last couple of months. I am stretched in a hundred directions.



    I know what you mean, although I'm only being stretched in 99 directions.  ;) I meant to reply to Steve, and then MinM jumped in with a post which he almost immediately deleted, and then you replied.

    Getting back to this debate, however, I dislike getting into these sorts of discussions because I think they are pointlessly divisive. I am not arguing that the Mossad didn't have a role in the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 or that Israel does not have an influence on world politics wildly at odds with its size and population. However, if you've read my CTKA piece, you'll know that I am, as George Bush once declared, "a uniter."

    That is, I think arguing about what percentage of the problem is created by the Mossad is not that helpful in the long run.  It may come to be that every key position necessary to run 9/11 was owned by the Mossad; i.e., that Donald Rumsfeld is an Israeli asset, or so on. We're not going to establish that, however, except at the end of a real investigation. People get very hyped up by this, and it can go wrong; Eric Hufschmid in many ways has been discredited by his overly vociferous attacks on Israel and insistence that they are the key to everything. I reached out to Eric myself about this issue, and we had some back and forth, but there was no real resolution, because to him it's the most important issue. And it might be, but in my mind I can't say that because the evidence isn't there.  The strongest evidence, in my view, is the lack of response by the defense department, which was commented on that day by the head of the Russian air force. There are other things too, which are well known, I am sure, to everybody here.



    Oh Gawd, Hufschmid... Daryl Bradford Smith's former ghost writer. There are those who accuse Hufschmid of being a Zionist agent. Everybody accuses everybody of being "disinfo" in the 9-11 movement.
    Smith blows it all over Hufschmid:
    http://www.takeourworldback.com/mp3/smith-angry-1.mp3

    My whole point is that we both agree that a new investigation is needed, and research is ongoing, but if you make statements with insufficient evidence you run the risk of being charged with anti-semitism. And, rightly or wrongly, in today's culture that's like being called a pedophile. It will destroy your credibility forever. So it seems to me -- even in pure pragmatic terms -- that we should restrict ourselves to what we can generate the best evidence for in piece-by-piece terms. It's the way the earliest researchers attacked the Kennedy case, and they did such a good job that we know now that when Bugliosi writes a book arguing the other side, he is forced to obfuscate and twist the truth in knots because otherwise he can't make his case.

    In any event, sorry about the long post. Hope this makes sense, it comes at the end of a long day. :)



    Your post wasn't overly long, by my wacky standards at least. I disagree that we should ever restrict ourselves, however, because what good is research if certain areas are taboo? That would put us on the same level as the MSM, wouldn't it? What good would a new investigation do if certain aspects were "off the table?" 

    Personally, I don't worry about being called an "anti-semite." Disliking the apartheid state of Israel, and recognizing the hold it has over the U.S., (which is extreme) doesn't equate to hating Jewish people. When it comes to 9-11, though, there is overwhelming evidence of Israeli involvement. Which is why, I think, that there's no chance that we'll ever get a new investigation.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Neighbor Sees Suspicious Men Documenting First WTC Attack and Cheering, Calls Police
     
    A homemaker living near Liberty State Park, Jersey City, New Jersey sees three men behaving strangely on a nearby roof and alerts the authorities. This homemaker, who has given only her first name Maria, is called by a neighbor shortly after the first plane has hit the WTC and is told about the impact. She has a view of the WTC from her apartment building so she gets her binoculars and watches the disaster. However, she also notices three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. Maria will later recall, “They seemed to be taking a movie.” They are taking video or photos of themselves with the WTC burning in the background. But what strikes Maria is their expressions: “They were like happy, you know… They didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange.” She writes down the license plate number of the van and calls the police.

    Shortly after an FBI lookout bulletin was issued for a van with the words “Urban Moving Systems” written on the side, officers with the East Rutherford Police Department in New Jersey stop the van after matching the license plate number with the one given in the bulletin. According to the police report, Officer Scott DeCarlo and Sgt. Dennis Rivelli approach the van and demand the driver exit the vehicle. The driver, Sivan Kurzberg, does not obey after being asked several more times, so the police physically remove Kurzberg and four other men from the van and handcuff them. They have not been told the reasons for their arrest, but Kurzberg tells them, “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

    One man is found with $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, another has two foreign passports on him, and a box cutter is found in the van. The next day it will be reported that “bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives.”

    ...one photograph developed by the FBI shows one of the men, Sivan Kurzberg, holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the burning WTC in the background.  http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=urban_moving_systems

    image
    Deported occupant of white van on Israeli TV:
    "Our purpose was to document the event."
    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html

    Sources close to the investigation said they found in the van “maps of the city... with certain places highlighted,” adding that “it looked like... they knew what was going to happen.”
    http://www.christopherketcham.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Gerald Shea Memo to the 9-11 Commission.pdf

    image
    The white van used by five Israeli agents as they were leaving New York on 9/11

    What did Israel know in advance of the 9/11 Attacks? Cheering movers and art student spies...
    http://www.christopherketcham.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Final PDF of CounterPunch article re Israelis 01-29-07.pdf

    ...none of this information found its way into Congress's joint committee report on the attacks, and it was not even tangentially referenced in the nearly 600 pages of the 9/11 Commission's final report. Nor would a single major media outlet track the revelations of The Forward and ABC News to investigate further. "There weren't even stories saying it was bullshit." says The Forward's Perelman. "Honestly, I was surprised." Instead, the story disappeared into the welter of anti-Israel 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    It's no small boon to the U.S. government that the story of 9/11-related Israeli espionage has been thus relegated: the story doesn't fit in the clean lines of the official narrative of the attacks. It brings up concerns not only about Israel's obligation not to spy inside the borders of the United States, its major benefactor, but about its possible failure to have provided the U.S. adequate warning of an impending devastating attack on American soil. Furthermore, the available evidence undermines the carefully cultivated image of sanctity that defines the U.S.- Israel relationship.  http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/080307Israel.htm

    FBI Turning Over Stones
With Israelis Underneath
    While we can be sure that the Israelis were all trained in the military, we do not know whether any of them have specific knowledge pertaining to flying aircraft or bomb-making. The FBI, it is known, is investigating these Israelis because, after seeing what has happened to two of the tallest buildings in the United States, we've learned that what we don't know can hurt us. The actual identity of Mohammed Atta may never be known, since the planes that tore into Manhattan surely disintegrated all passengers. Until details as to where the cash he used to pay for his Pontiac Firebird is discovered and made public, it is wisest to follow the lead of the Justice Department's spokesperson Dan Nelson and leave "no stone unturned"http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/qualitysales.html

    As the world watched in disbelief and asked the question...
    image
    ...Mossad operatives were seen dancing with joy.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/israel_9-11_index.html
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    I hadn't heard that phone call before. That's the kind of lunacy I can do without...
  • author said:


    I hadn't heard that phone call before. That's the kind of lunacy I can do without...



    There are lots of crazy fucks out there in the "9-11 Truth" movement, muddying the waters. I understand what you were saying (I think) about Israeli 9-11 involvement and "anti-semitism." When I talk to someone about the WTC - Pentagon attacks who's already got a fair understanding of the basic theories, then I might bring up possible (pretty much certain, IMO) Mossad involvement. However, if the other person was new to the whole "inside job" angle, I'd start off with the basics, such as WTC 7, the military stand down, etc. I wouldn't blurt out "The Israelis did it." I don't think they could've done it alone, anyway, without a lot of help from the PNAC crowd. Of course, if you look at who comprised PNAC...

    I didn't know that Nathan believes that the moon landings were faked until I looked at his website recently. My brother introduced me to those theories a few years back. I think it's possible, but NASA taking out JFK seems as far fetched to me as Mossad involvement does to others. ;)

    The Kennedys vs Israel’s Lobby
    by Grant F. Smith

    The lobby’s accolades for the late Ted Kennedy and his support of Israel mask the generally unknown conflicts fought by the senator’s older brothers.  It is likely that lessons from the fiercest of all battles, fought behind the scenes by President John F. Kennedy alongside his brother and Attorney General Robert—guided the younger sibling’s political choices.  Details of the JFK-RFK duo’s effort to register the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) parent organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC) as an Israeli foreign agent were shrouded in mystery until declassified in mid-2008.

    Between 1962 and 1963 Senator J.W. Fulbright uncovered a massive network of financial “conduits” moving funds directed by the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem to Israel lobby startup groups across the United States.  Even as JFK attempted to place Israel’s Dimona nuclear weapons program under US inspection, RFK ordered the AZC to openly register and disclose all of its foreign funded lobbying activity in the United States.

    The DOJ and AZC fought their secret battle as Fulbright’s hearings disclosed the immense proportions of the Israel lobby effort.  Nathan B. Lenvin, a DOJ attorney who had been after AIPAC’s founder Isaiah Kenen since 1951 to continue registering as a foreign agent after he left the employ of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs took copious notes of the many meetings, AZC’s offers of limited registration and the DOJ’s counter offers.

    But the law enforcement effort ended in tragedy.  JFK’s assassination on November 22, 1963 in Dallas meant RFK’s political cover for the prosecution was gone and his days at the DOJ were numbered.  He left to run for a New York senate seat.  In 1965 the DOJ allowed the AZC to file a highly redacted and non-standardized FARA declaration in secret.  The AZC then shut down and transferred lobbying activity to AIPAC, which refused to register.

    RFK’s assassination in 1968 was followed a few months later by the quiet death of the 58 year old Nathan Lenvin during a DOJ recruiting trip in Chicago.  Low level DOJ officials involved in the AZC registration battle such as Irene Bowman were gently eased out, while high officials willing to defer to the lobby, such as Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and J. Walter Yeagley, moved on to stellar careers.

    As details of the secret DOJ-Israel lobby showdowns continue to emerge, it is hard not to conclude that the younger Kennedy’s renowned accommodation, mastered as a child from within the shadows of his siblings, was as much a survival strategy as the hallmark of an effective politician.  http://pulsemedia.org/2009/08/28/the-kennedys-vs-israels-lobby/

    image

    image
  • I can't stop reading this forum and learning, learning, learning.  JFK's letter to the prime minister of Israel regarding "DIMONA", RFK making Israeli lobbyists register as "agents" of Israel, the white van, WTC #7 falling which is now on my "favorites" site and about to be e-mailed to a few friends.  Thank you!  On another thread someone had posted a fake nigerian request for funds letter and signed it "Secretary of the Treasury", USA.  I laughed and laughed.  How clever.  Who are you guys?  For  awhile I've been wondering about the contraption I see on the underbelly of one the planes that flew into the towers and with the Dov Zackheim posting, (remote control) I now get it. Thank you.
  • A member argues that JFK was behind the mayhem in Latin America.  Incorrect.  The mayhem doesn't begin until JFK is removed from the scene. Brazil falls almost immediately to a military coup with the rest of Latin America soon following.  David Rockefeller's hands are tied by the Kennedy brothers and only by removing the brothers from power can David Rockefeller start his rape.
  • author said:


    A member argues that JFK was behind the mayhem in Latin America.  Incorrect.  The mayhem doesn't begin until JFK is removed from the scene. Brazil falls almost immediately to a military coup with the rest of Latin America soon following.  David Rockefeller's hands are tied by the Kennedy brothers and only by removing the brothers from power can David Rockefeller start his rape.



    The USA was raping Latin America long before either JFK or David Rockefeller were born. Kennedy, on behalf of global capitalism and Amerikan dominance, initiated the Cuban embargo, which continues to cause great hardship for the Cuban people to this day.

    History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America
    http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html

    Keep posting, jfkvscia. There are still plenty of beds available here in the asylum.  ;)
  • Exclusive BREAKING information. 14 Art Students, it has now been confirmed, were in the World Trade Center Towers with Construction Passes, Connection to Mossad Spy Ring.



    http://coreofcorruption.com/
  • "Overall, I'd call the debate a draw. I'll be listening to it a few more times, I'm sure, and I think it was a great idea, well executed.

    I'd never heard McAdams speak before. I didn't get the same impression of him that most of the other posters here did; that he was "slick" and deceptive. He just sounded calm and well informed, and I thought he countered DiEugenio very well on some points. When Jim said that JFK wasn't telling the truth to the American people about his intentions in Vietnam, my immediate reaction was "so he was willing to let more GI's die just in order to better his reelection chances? That sucks." That's exactly what McAdams countered with, so I have to give that point to McAdams.

    I've looked at McAdam's site quite a few times, and I've got to admit that the information there destroyed some of my long held beliefs and assumptions, such as the "last minute" motorcade route change, and Prouty's assertion that all of the windows in tall buildings along the route should've been closed. When you see other JFK motorcade pics where people are in high windows and on balconies, it kind of shoots that claim down, doesn't it? I'd never have known that Prouty was a spokesperson for Scientology, either, if I hadn't seen that info on McAdam's site.

    I'll never believe that all of the medical personnel at Parkland just hallucinated a gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, and I have lots of questions about the (non)performance of the Secret Service that day, and many other things. I still think Oswald was a patsy. But, again, McAdams didn't come off to me like Satan's Uncle or anything. Are you sure that he doesn't just simply believe what he's saying?

    Feel free to toss the rotten tomatoes..."



    This marks (at least) the second post where Purple Haze not only advocates McAdams' joke of a website, but now he also attempts to humanize McAdams himself. In the process, Purple Haze doesn't pass up the opportunity to throw in a back-handed swipe at Fletcher Prouty for good measure.

    Does anybody know the number of a good exterminator?  I smell a rat.

    If I didn't know any better, I'd think I was on the IMDB website.

    Right, Purple?



  • author said:



    This marks (at least) the second post where Purple Haze not only advocates McAdams' joke of a website, but now he also attempts to humanize McAdams himself. In the process, Purple Haze doesn't pass up the opportunity to throw in a back-handed swipe at Fletcher Prouty for good measure.

    Does anybody know the number of a good exterminator?  I smell a rat.

    If I didn't know any better, I'd think I was on the IMDB website.

    Right, Purple?



    My first reaction here was to wonder why you just didn't reply to this in the thread where it was posted?
    http://www.blackopforum.info/index.php/topic,387.0.html
    Why did you feel compelled to copy and paste it here, instead? I smell a distraction.

    Attempting to "humanize" McAdams... is he an untermensch, who (like me) should be exterminated, in your opinion?

    Mentioning Prouty's involvement with Scientology is a "back-handed swipe?" Why? If McAdams was linked to Scientology I suspect you'd point it out as being more proof that he's a crackpot.

    "At the heart of Scientology’s activities is the betterment of all people no matter what creed, what race, what socioeconomic status to develop themselves spiritually and mentally so that each individual can improve his own life. Scientology’s far-reaching goals are designed to tend to each individual uniquely with compassionate concern and commitment. These rare attributes are essential in these times of trouble and uncertainty and most assuredly provide the Church with a platform for growth and strength in the years to come."
    - L. Fletcher Prouty, Col. US Air Force (Ret.)  http://www.whatisscientology.org/To/Part11/Chp34/pg0609-b.html

    I don't understand your Internet Movie reference. Does it mean something?

    Is anyone else discerning a tendency toward censorship among some of the enlightened truth-seekers here?

    MinM wrote:

    Here's my take on the 'Great Debate':

    First, anything that helps disseminate more information about the case is a good thing.

    Secondly, why would anyone be surprised that the likes of McAdams and Bugliosi refuse to see the light? That's there job. They are getting paid to recite from the Warren Commission Script.

    In fact it seems to me that this whole exercise was a win-win for McAdams. By finally taking Jim and Len up on the debate he was able to save face with his followers. While at the same time having the opportunity to preach to DiEugenio's Choir, and perhaps winning some converts, or planting some doubt in the process ...
      http://www.blackopforum.info/index.php/topic,387.0.html

    That comes pretty close to saying "but the downside to disseminating information is that opposing views will get heard, too."

    I understand the frustration with the lop-sided MSM propaganda, but I hope that JFK assassination research doesn't devolve into being just another "faith-based religion." Everything should be challenged, and nothing taken for granted.
    ---------------------------------------

    Exclusive BREAKING information. 14 Art Students, it has now been confirmed, were in the World Trade Center Towers with Construction Passes, Connection to Mossad Spy Ring.



    http://coreofcorruption.com/
  • author said:


    I understand the frustration with the lop-sided MSM propaganda, but I hope that JFK assassination research doesn't devolve into being just another "faith-based religion." Everything should be challenged, and nothing taken for granted.



    Religion is not based on facts.  But the JFK assassination is based on facts.  McAdams fudges those facts.  With great relish. There is NO point in going to McAdams' website because we know he is a legendary disseminator of falsities.  For you to encourage people to visit his website shows you are not interested in pursuing the truth. Further, by encouraging people to visit McAdams' website, you are exposing yourself as someone who has an ulterior agenda.
  • author said:


    author said:


    I understand the frustration with the lop-sided MSM propaganda, but I hope that JFK assassination research doesn't devolve into being just another "faith-based religion." Everything should be challenged, and nothing taken for granted.



    Religion is not based on facts.  But the JFK assassination is based on facts.  McAdams fudges those facts.  With great relish. There is NO point in going to McAdams' website because we know he is a legendary disseminator of falsities.  For you to encourage people to visit his website shows you are not interested in pursuing the truth. Further, by encouraging people to visit McAdams' website, you are exposing yourself as someone who has an ulterior agenda.


    A Bible thumper would vehemently disagree with you about religion not being based on facts, but of course would disagree with everybody else's interpretation of those "facts." That's why there are so many different "Christian" churches, right? I see similarities to that in both the JFK research community and the 9-11 truth movement. I've seen you jump down people's throats on this board over this detail or that, and question whether others are "for real" or not, because they aren't conforming to your interpretation of the "facts." We all tend to do that. It's something that "disinfo agents" can count on and use to their advantage.

    McAdams may be Satan incarnate and the Father of Lies, but when you say there's "NO point" in going to his website, you sound like you're afraid of the guy. As I said before, I like to challenge my own beliefs and assumptions (and other people's too) and I do find his site useful for that with regard to the Kennedy case. If you're proven wrong on just one point in a debate with a "lone nutter," they'll use that to imply that you're wrong about everything else, won't they? Yes, they will. So, doesn't it make sense to examine and consider everything they could possibly throw at you? It does to me, and that's all I'm saying. Some "facts" do turn out to be myths when you examine them closely. Would you agree that many JFK researchers seem to regard him as having been something of a Christ figure?

    Another issue that I'm becoming skeptical of, but accepted as "fact" for years...

    THE JFK MYTH

    Was he assassinated because he opposed the Fed?
    The proponents of the JFK Myth assert that Kennedy was assassinated because he was about to issue Silver Certificates, thereby denying the bankers their customary interest payments on the nation's currency. However, the reality was just the opposite.

    by G. Edward Griffin - Updated December 13, 2006
    http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth&refpage=issues


    image

    "...that, that miserable inebriate Johnson, had cognizance of my husband's death - Why was that card of Booth's, found in his box, some acquaintance certainly existed - I have been deeply impressed, with the harrowing thought that he, had an understanding with the conspirators & they knew their man... As sure, as you & I live, Johnson, had some hand in all this..."
    - Mary Todd Lincoln to her friend, Sally Orne, in a letter dated March 15, 1866
    http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln74.html
  • robert1robert1
    Posts: 116
    Forum member & visitors,

    Does anyone have a NAME & ADDRESS for the producers of the Tom Hanks mini series re: JFK assassination.  I think it would beneficial to have this information so that we can write in advance of this tidal wave.  They must know that other versions of the assassination exists.  Maybe if enough of us write, one of our truth telling guys could be used as a consultant.  Remember the movie JFK had many consultants, as Jim Marrs, Jean Hill, Robert Grodon, etc.  Please let us not sit back passively!