WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION MAY HAVE MISSED
Steve Bochan
The following book review written by Edward Jay Epstein of Jefferson
Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO, appears in today's WSJ, and may be of some
interest to the readers here.
STEVE
-------------------------------------
Bookshelf
What the Warren Commission May Have Missed
By EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN
March 20, 2008; Page D7
Our Man in Mexico
By Jefferson Morley
(University Press of Kansas, 371 pages, $34.95)
Within hours of President Kennedy's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, the
CIA had established that Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged killer, had met
with Cuban officials at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City eight weeks
before. The CIA had also established that, four weeks after the meeting,
Havana had approved a visa for Oswald, even though it normally did not
grant visas to American citizens. At the time, Oswald was working under
the alias "O.H. Lee" at the Texas Book Depository in Dallas.
Such facts obviously point toward the sinister possibility of foreign
involvement in the Kennedy assassination -- Cuban involvement. That two
CIA sources independently reported seeing a Cuban official giving money to
Oswald at Cuba's embassy in Mexico City only adds force to the
possibility. And Fidel Castro himself had said, in the summer of 1963,
that if American leaders continued "aiding plans to eliminate Cuban
leaders . . . they themselves will not be safe." As CIA officials knew,
such U.S. "plans" -- i.e., the CIA's efforts to assassinate Castro -- had
continued up to the day of the Kennedy assassination.
So when the Mexican federal police, after the Kennedy assassination,
arrested a female employee of the Cuban Consulate who had been in contact
with Oswald, the CIA suggested that the Mexicans hold her incommunicado.
The agency also suggested that they ask her such questions as: "Was the
assassination of President Kennedy planned by Fidel Castro . . . and were
the final details worked out inside the Cuban Embassy?" Thomas Mann, the
U.S. ambassador to Mexico, alerted Washington that there might be an
indictable case against Cuban officials.
Little wonder, then, that the Warren Commission -- put together within
days of Kennedy's death to investigate the assassination -- asked the CIA
to provide it with everything the agency had regarding Oswald's activities
in Mexico. The commission dispatched its top staff members to Mexico to
meet with Ambassador Mann and Winston Scott, the CIA's station chief
there. But nothing ever came of this Cuban connection. As we know, the
Warren Commision, in its final report, determined that Oswald acted alone.
What happened?
For one thing, the CIA had changed its tune by the time the Warren
Commission staff members got to Mexico. The agency now claimed that it had
learned of Oswald's activities in Mexico long after the assassination, by
way of the FBI, and that stories about a Cuban official giving money to
Oswald did not hold up. The Warren Commission concluded that there was no
credible evidence of Cuban involvement.
Years later, thanks to congressional investigations, it emerged that the
CIA had not been forthcoming with the Warren Commission about what it knew
of Oswald's Mexican activities. Jefferson Morley's "Our Man in Mexico"
brilliantly explores the mystery of this reticence. Though Mr. Morley is a
dogged investigative reporter, he has not discovered any jaw-dropping
evidence that will change forever the way we think about the Kennedy
assassination, but he uncovers enough new material, and theorizes with
such verve, that "Our Man in Mexico" will go down as one of the more
provocative titles in the ever-growing library of Kennedy-assassination
studies.
The book begins as a straightforward biography of Winston Scott, the CIA
station chief in Mexico City in the early 1960s. It is an enthralling
account of Scott's career as one of America's most accomplished spy
masters. Mr. Morley memorably depicts not only Scott's espionage exploits,
from London in World War II to Mexico City at the height of the Cold War,
but also his complicated love life and his ambitions as a poet.
"Our Man in Mexico" moves onto murkier ground as it explores Oswald's
movements in Mexico City during Scott's tenure there. But Mr. Morley has
succeeded in ferreting out a wealth of CIA documents that reveal lapses,
misreporting and destroyed evidence. He maintains that the CIA once
possessed photographs of Oswald entering the Cuban Embassy and audiotapes
of wiretaps that picked up Oswald's conversations with Cuban officials.
The evidence is missing, he says; in fact, the disappearance of so much
material has led him to conclude that Scott "perpetrated a wide-ranging
coverup of CIA operations around Oswald." But why would Scott have done
it?
Mr. Morley advances the theory that the CIA had to cover up an "operation"
of its own that employed Oswald. While that theory might explain the holes
in the record he encountered, Mr. Morley offers no evidence that such an
operation ever existed. Instead he resorts to dredging up the
"tantalizing" outline for a proposed novel by an ex-CIA officer in which a
character working for the CIA recruits Oswald to assassinate Castro. Using
fiction to make a factual argument is dubious enough, but what makes this
exercise particularly absurd is the identity of the aspiring novelist:
David Atlee Phillips, who testified repeatedly under oath to Congress that
he did not know of any CIA plots involving Oswald.
There are, of course, more mundane explanations for the gaps in the CIA's
surveillance of Oswald. Consider, for example, the agency's inability to
produce photographs of Oswald entering the Cuban diplomatic compound in
late September 1963, when eyewitnesses attested to his presence there. Mr.
Morley shows that if Oswald used the public entrance to the embassy, he
almost certainly would have been photographed by the CIA. So he concludes
the CIA hid the evidence.
But what if Oswald had entered through the embassy's back garage, which
was not covered by the CIA camera? As it turns out, two other
investigators, Wilfried Huismann and Gus Russo, researching for their
documentary "Rendezvous With Death," tracked down the guard who was on
duty at the garage back then. He recalled seeing Oswald in the garage,
explaining that he would have noted the outsider's presence since Oswald
was accompanied by a Cuban intelligence officer.
Winston Scott was naturally aware that the CIA's surveillance cameras
could be avoided by using the embassy's nonpublic entrances. After the
assassination, why didn't he investigate the reasons behind such limited
observation of the site at a time when Oswald was being tracked? My own
guess is that Scott realized that a consensus had been reached in
Washington according to which Oswald had acted alone, without foreign
assistance; in short, there was no need to pursue that avenue of inquiry.
He probably also realized that opening up the Cuban angle would lead to
embarrassing revelations about the CIA's earlier operations against
Castro. In other words, he acted like a bureaucrat by protecting the
government's secrets.
As with so many of the tangents in the history of the Kennedy
assassination, the record of Oswald's activities in Mexico City is so
spotty that we likely will never know what really happened there and can
only speculate. Scott supposedly wrote a memoir in which he refuted the
Warren Commission's conclusions. But shortly after he died in 1971, the
manuscript disappeared -- at the instruction, Mr. Morley suggests, of CIA
Director Richard Helms. Maybe it will surface one day.
Mr. Epstein is the author of "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the
Establishment of Truth."
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120597563340550573.html
thali...@hotmail.com
The section about two independent CIA souces indicating they saw
Oswald being handed money inside the Cuba consulate sets my b******t
radar off. As if a Cuban official would give money to Oswald in such
an obvious fashion. What, this official just handed wads of money to
Oswald in an open area? Gimme a break. Oh, and why was no report of a
Cuban official giving money to a US citizen written at the time?
According to the CIA they were not the slightest bit interested in
Oswald, and furnished very few documents about him to the WW.
(Whitewash, my name for the Warren Commission)
It is more likely that this Oswald/Cuban official story was circulated
to complete the 2nd part of the CIA plan: Bump Kennedy off and blame
it on the Cubans instigating an invasion of Cuba by the US.
cdddraftsman
Why don't you ask the world's formost authority on what they missed ? Tom
Rossley . He has yarns that will make your loom spin .
For example :
In the past 44 years *They* (Rossilites) have proposed or supported
the following :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The people Rossley supports say JFK was killed by :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
LBJ-
SS-
FBI-
DEA-
Homo's-
Military Industrial Complex-
Big Texas Oil -
JBC From The Floorboards Of The Limo (Think About It)-
Nellie-
TUM- The Umbrella Man
Castro-
Diem-
French(Sarti)-
Oswald Imposter-
Mafia/Mob-
KGB-
ATF-
Raul-
White-
Stugis-
Carswell-
Dolye-
Piranti-
Bass-
Foyle-
Koysikian-
Diaz-
Factor-
Carlos-
Gedney-
del Vallee-
Bocononi-
Rogers-
Wise-
Bloomer-
Cain-
Rosselli-
Hunt-
Greer-
Nicolleti-
Rivera-
Lawrence-
Hertz-
Patrick-
Files-
Carelis-
Abrams-
Badgeman-
Black Dog Man
Hicks-
Holt-
Hickey-
Yares-
Gains-
or maybe Wallace ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The people Rossley supporst say JFK was shot from :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Limo Trunk?
The Overpass?
The Grassy Knoll?
The Picket Fence ?
The Storm Drain?
The Pergola?
Any window in the TSBD except where the rifle was found? (*)
The Dal-Tex-Building 2nd Floor?
The Dal-Tex-Building Roof?
The Court House?
The SS Follow Up Car?
The Driver of JFK's Limo?
The Umbrella Near The Stemmons Frwy Sign ?
Hmmmmmm......? Really .......?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The people Rossley supports say JFK was shot at :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
One
Two
3..........WCR We Will Exclude
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleven
Twelve
Thirteen
Fourteen
Fifteen
Times ! Whoooooooooaaaaaa Nellie !
tl
(*) Why didn't LNer's think about it ?
Anthony Marsh
> The following book review written by Edward Jay Epstein of Jefferson
> Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO, appears in today's WSJ, and may be of some
> interest to the readers here.
>
> STEVE
>
Thanks for posting that. Did it ever dawn on you why such an article would
appear in the Wall Street Journal, which is not known for covering news?
It is a CIA front.
> -------------------------------------
>
> Bookshelf
> What the Warren Commission May Have Missed
> By EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN
> March 20, 2008; Page D7
>
> Our Man in Mexico
> By Jefferson Morley
> (University Press of Kansas, 371 pages, $34.95)
>
> Within hours of President Kennedy's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, the
> CIA had established that Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged killer, had met
> with Cuban officials at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City eight weeks
> before. The CIA had also established that, four weeks after the meeting,
> Havana had approved a visa for Oswald, even though it normally did not
> grant visas to American citizens. At the time, Oswald was working under
> the alias "O.H. Lee" at the Texas Book Depository in Dallas.
>
>
> Such facts obviously point toward the sinister possibility of foreign
> involvement in the Kennedy assassination -- Cuban involvement. That two
> CIA sources independently reported seeing a Cuban official giving money to
> Oswald at Cuba's embassy in Mexico City only adds force to the
> possibility. And Fidel Castro himself had said, in the summer of 1963,
> that if American leaders continued "aiding plans to eliminate Cuban
> leaders . . . they themselves will not be safe." As CIA officials knew,
> such U.S. "plans" -- i.e., the CIA's efforts to assassinate Castro -- had
> continued up to the day of the Kennedy assassination.
>
Only a few CIA officials knew about the CIA efforts to assassinate Castro.
> So when the Mexican federal police, after the Kennedy assassination,
> arrested a female employee of the Cuban Consulate who had been in contact
> with Oswald, the CIA suggested that the Mexicans hold her incommunicado.
> The agency also suggested that they ask her such questions as: "Was the
> assassination of President Kennedy planned by Fidel Castro . . . and were
> the final details worked out inside the Cuban Embassy?" Thomas Mann, the
> U.S. ambassador to Mexico, alerted Washington that there might be an
> indictable case against Cuban officials.
>
> Little wonder, then, that the Warren Commission -- put together within
> days of Kennedy's death to investigate the assassination -- asked the CIA
> to provide it with everything the agency had regarding Oswald's activities
> in Mexico. The commission dispatched its top staff members to Mexico to
Little wonder that CIA HQs sent a telegram telling Mann to cool it.
> meet with Ambassador Mann and Winston Scott, the CIA's station chief
> there. But nothing ever came of this Cuban connection. As we know, the
> Warren Commision, in its final report, determined that Oswald acted alone.
> What happened?
>
> For one thing, the CIA had changed its tune by the time the Warren
> Commission staff members got to Mexico. The agency now claimed that it had
> learned of Oswald's activities in Mexico long after the assassination, by
> way of the FBI, and that stories about a Cuban official giving money to
> Oswald did not hold up. The Warren Commission concluded that there was no
> credible evidence of Cuban involvement.
>
No, as Ford carefully explained, what they said was that they could not
find any evidence, not that there was no evidence.
This does not explain how Oswald was supposedly never once photographed
while in Mexico City.
> investigators, Wilfried Huismann and Gus Russo, researching for their
> documentary "Rendezvous With Death," tracked down the guard who was on
> duty at the garage back then. He recalled seeing Oswald in the garage,
> explaining that he would have noted the outsider's presence since Oswald
> was accompanied by a Cuban intelligence officer.
>
Except for the fact that this is a fairy tale, it would seem suspicious
that an ordinary citizen seeking a visa would be sneaking into the
Embassy from the garage.
> Winston Scott was naturally aware that the CIA's surveillance cameras
> could be avoided by using the embassy's nonpublic entrances. After the
Not true. The CIA had surveillance on all entrances.
Steve Bochan
news:Y4qdnRhUs9dwu3na...@comcast.com...
> Steve Bochan wrote:
>> The following book review written by Edward Jay Epstein of Jefferson
>> Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO, appears in today's WSJ, and may be of some
>> interest to the readers here.
>>
>> STEVE
>>
>
> Thanks for posting that. Did it ever dawn on you why such an article would
> appear in the Wall Street Journal, which is not known for covering news?
> It is a CIA front.
I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would be surprised to learn that, Tony. Maybe you
should mention to him that he paid billions for a CIA front? <g>
The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most widely read
newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the most important news of
the day, in addition to the most important business news. Even Michael
Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has praised the Wall Street Journal (except
he doesn't like their editorials). Sorry about that, Tony. But you're
entitled to be wrong - it's not the first time. <BG>
STEVE
John McAdams
<stev...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:Y4qdnRhUs9dwu3na...@comcast.com...
>> Steve Bochan wrote:
>>> The following book review written by Edward Jay Epstein of Jefferson
>>> Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO, appears in today's WSJ, and may be of some
>>> interest to the readers here.
>>>
>>> STEVE
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for posting that. Did it ever dawn on you why such an article would
>> appear in the Wall Street Journal, which is not known for covering news?
>> It is a CIA front.
>
>
>I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would be surprised to learn that, Tony. Maybe you
>should mention to him that he paid billions for a CIA front? <g>
>
>The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most widely read
>newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the most important news of
>the day, in addition to the most important business news. Even Michael
>Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has praised the Wall Street Journal (except
>he doesn't like their editorials).
Actually, I know of one well-done content analysis that shows the WSJ
as having a *liberal* bias in its news columns.
Which would explain why Kinsley likes it. :-)
Of course, the editorial page is a different matter.
And Tony really should quit seeing spooks everywhere.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 22 Mar 2008 00:06:30 -0400, "Steve Bochan"
> <stev...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Y4qdnRhUs9dwu3na...@comcast.com...
>>> Steve Bochan wrote:
>>>> The following book review written by Edward Jay Epstein of Jefferson
>>>> Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO, appears in today's WSJ, and may be of some
>>>> interest to the readers here.
>>>>
>>>> STEVE
>>>>
>>> Thanks for posting that. Did it ever dawn on you why such an article would
>>> appear in the Wall Street Journal, which is not known for covering news?
>>> It is a CIA front.
>>
>> I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would be surprised to learn that, Tony. Maybe you
>> should mention to him that he paid billions for a CIA front? <g>
>>
>> The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most widely read
>> newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the most important news of
>> the day, in addition to the most important business news. Even Michael
>> Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has praised the Wall Street Journal (except
>> he doesn't like their editorials).
>
> Actually, I know of one well-done content analysis that shows the WSJ
> as having a *liberal* bias in its news columns.
Liberal does not mean that it is not controlled or used by the CIA.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Y4qdnRhUs9dwu3na...@comcast.com...
>> Steve Bochan wrote:
>>> The following book review written by Edward Jay Epstein of Jefferson
>>> Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO, appears in today's WSJ, and may be of
>>> some interest to the readers here.
>>>
>>> STEVE
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for posting that. Did it ever dawn on you why such an article
>> would appear in the Wall Street Journal, which is not known for
>> covering news? It is a CIA front.
>
>
> I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would be surprised to learn that, Tony. Maybe
> you should mention to him that he paid billions for a CIA front? <g>
>
A lot of publishers have.
So, you think Rupert Murdoch is a Liberal? McAdams says Wall Street
Journal is a Liberal publication.
> The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most widely
> read newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the most important
> news of the day, in addition to the most important business news. Even
> Michael Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has praised the Wall Street
> Journal (except he doesn't like their editorials). Sorry about that,
> Tony. But you're entitled to be wrong - it's not the first time. <BG>
>
Was it an editorial? Or a book review?
Steve Bochan
> Steve Bochan wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Y4qdnRhUs9dwu3na...@comcast.com...
>>> Steve Bochan wrote:
>>>> The following book review written by Edward Jay Epstein of Jefferson
>>>> Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO, appears in today's WSJ, and may be of some
>>>> interest to the readers here.
>>>>
>>>> STEVE
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for posting that. Did it ever dawn on you why such an article
>>> would appear in the Wall Street Journal, which is not known for covering
>>> news? It is a CIA front.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would be surprised to learn that, Tony. Maybe
>> you should mention to him that he paid billions for a CIA front? <g>
>>
>
> A lot of publishers have.
A lot of publishers have ... what? Have you got documentation that shows
the WSJ is a CIA front, or were you just being Tony again when you hurled
that accusation?
> So, you think Rupert Murdoch is a Liberal? McAdams says Wall Street
> Journal is a Liberal publication.
You need to stop being so silly. John said no such thing - he reported on
what a content analysis said about the reporting in general. If it were a
liberal publication, I'm sure you'd be subscribing. Matter of fact, why
don't you do yourself a favor and buy a 13-week subscription delivered to
your doorstep every morning, so you can familiarize yourself with that
important paper and how it does cover the news? You'll love the
editorials!
>
>> The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most widely
>> read newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the most important
>> news of the day, in addition to the most important business news. Even
>> Michael Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has praised the Wall Street Journal
>> (except he doesn't like their editorials). Sorry about that, Tony. But
>> you're entitled to be wrong - it's not the first time. <BG>
>>
>
> Was it an editorial? Or a book review?
You could have clicked on the link I provided and it would have taken you
to the page, Tony. It was a book review. Geesh.
STEVE
Anthony Marsh
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ZMidnbqlHapuGXja...@comcast.com...
>> Steve Bochan wrote:
>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Y4qdnRhUs9dwu3na...@comcast.com...
>>>> Steve Bochan wrote:
>>>>> The following book review written by Edward Jay Epstein of
>>>>> Jefferson Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO, appears in today's WSJ, and
>>>>> may be of some interest to the readers here.
>>>>>
>>>>> STEVE
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for posting that. Did it ever dawn on you why such an article
>>>> would appear in the Wall Street Journal, which is not known for
>>>> covering news? It is a CIA front.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would be surprised to learn that, Tony.
>>> Maybe you should mention to him that he paid billions for a CIA
>>> front? <g>
>>>
>>
>> A lot of publishers have.
>
>
>
>
> A lot of publishers have ... what? Have you got documentation that
A lot of published have paid lots of money for a CIA front.
Some have been well known and admitted, like Fodor.
> shows the WSJ is a CIA front, or were you just being Tony again when you
> hurled that accusation?
>
Oh yeah, I forgot, the Wall Street journal is known for its
investigative journalism and ran a five-piece article about CIA
controlled press and name itself as one of the CIA stooges?
Or maybe I was thinking of Rolling Stone.
>
>
>> So, you think Rupert Murdoch is a Liberal? McAdams says Wall Street
>> Journal is a Liberal publication.
>
>
>
> You need to stop being so silly. John said no such thing - he reported
> on what a content analysis said about the reporting in general. If it
> were a liberal publication, I'm sure you'd be subscribing. Matter of
> fact, why don't you do yourself a favor and buy a 13-week subscription
Liberal also means Eastern Establishment.
> delivered to your doorstep every morning, so you can familiarize
> yourself with that important paper and how it does cover the news?
> You'll love the editorials!
>
>
>
>>
>>> The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most widely
>>> read newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the most
>>> important news of the day, in addition to the most important business
>>> news. Even Michael Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has praised the
>>> Wall Street Journal (except he doesn't like their editorials). Sorry
>>> about that, Tony. But you're entitled to be wrong - it's not the
>>> first time. <BG>
>>>
>>
>> Was it an editorial? Or a book review?
>
>
>
> You could have clicked on the link I provided and it would have taken
> you to the page, Tony. It was a book review. Geesh.
>
That was my point and why I object to the shift to discussing editorials.
>
> STEVE
Steve Bochan
> Steve Bochan wrote:
>>
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:ZMidnbqlHapuGXja...@comcast.com...
>>> Steve Bochan wrote:
>>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Y4qdnRhUs9dwu3na...@comcast.com...
>>>>> Steve Bochan wrote:
>>>>>> The following book review written by Edward Jay Epstein of Jefferson
>>>>>> Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO, appears in today's WSJ, and may be of
>>>>>> some interest to the readers here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> STEVE
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for posting that. Did it ever dawn on you why such an article
>>>>> would appear in the Wall Street Journal, which is not known for
>>>>> covering news? It is a CIA front.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would be surprised to learn that, Tony. Maybe
>>>> you should mention to him that he paid billions for a CIA front? <g>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A lot of publishers have.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A lot of publishers have ... what? Have you got documentation that
>
> A lot of published have paid lots of money for a CIA front.
> Some have been well known and admitted, like Fodor.
Focus Tony. The Wall Street Journal. You claimed: "It is a CIA front."
Now pove it.
Documents?
>
>> shows the WSJ is a CIA front, or were you just being Tony again when you
>> hurled that accusation?
>>
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot, the Wall Street journal is known for its investigative
> journalism
.... Daniel Pearl ring any bells?
> and ran a five-piece article about CIA controlled press and name itself as
> one of the CIA stooges?
> Or maybe I was thinking of Rolling Stone.
How about some of the other great anti-establishment publications and
websites out there? Is that where you get your information from?
>
>>
>>
>>> So, you think Rupert Murdoch is a Liberal? McAdams says Wall Street
>>> Journal is a Liberal publication.
>>
>>
>>
>> You need to stop being so silly. John said no such thing - he reported
>> on what a content analysis said about the reporting in general. If it
>> were a liberal publication, I'm sure you'd be subscribing. Matter of
>> fact, why don't you do yourself a favor and buy a 13-week subscription
>
> Liberal also means Eastern Establishment.
So?
>
>> delivered to your doorstep every morning, so you can familiarize yourself
>> with that important paper and how it does cover the news? You'll love
>> the editorials!
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most widely
>>>> read newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the most important
>>>> news of the day, in addition to the most important business news. Even
>>>> Michael Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has praised the Wall Street
>>>> Journal (except he doesn't like their editorials). Sorry about that,
>>>> Tony. But you're entitled to be wrong - it's not the first time. <BG>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Was it an editorial? Or a book review?
>>
>>
>>
>> You could have clicked on the link I provided and it would have taken you
>> to the page, Tony. It was a book review. Geesh.
>>
>
> That was my point and why I object to the shift to discussing editorials.
I clearly pointed out that I was posting a *book review*. I also included
a link to the page of WSJ online, where the review was located. You chose
to go off on some tangent about the supposed lack of quality and agenda of
the newspaper.
There is no excuse for your hysteria over a newspaper you obviously don't
read. Maybe you've been out on the edge for too long, seemingly at odds
with everyone over every little thing. Try not to be so frightened by the
mainstream: they really don't care about JFK or the assassination the way
you do, and they really do have more important issues to occupy themselves
with than worrying about CIA fronts.
STEVE
Anthony Marsh
Rolling Stone.
>
>
>
>>
>>> shows the WSJ is a CIA front, or were you just being Tony again when
>>> you hurled that accusation?
>>>
>>
>> Oh yeah, I forgot, the Wall Street journal is known for its
>> investigative journalism
>
>
>
> .... Daniel Pearl ring any bells?
>
And that was investigative journalism? The CIA embeds agents into the
Wall Street Journal for undercover work.
>
>
>> and ran a five-piece article about CIA controlled press and name
>> itself as one of the CIA stooges?
>> Or maybe I was thinking of Rolling Stone.
>
>
>
> How about some of the other great anti-establishment publications and
> websites out there? Is that where you get your information from?
>
Why wouldn't you consider Rolling Stone anti-Establishment? Surely
Establishment publications are not going to blow their own cover.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, you think Rupert Murdoch is a Liberal? McAdams says Wall Street
>>>> Journal is a Liberal publication.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You need to stop being so silly. John said no such thing - he
>>> reported on what a content analysis said about the reporting in
>>> general. If it were a liberal publication, I'm sure you'd be
>>> subscribing. Matter of fact, why don't you do yourself a favor and
>>> buy a 13-week subscription
>>
>> Liberal also means Eastern Establishment.
>
>
>
>
> So?
>
Your premise is wrong. Just because I am Liberal does not mean I am
pro-Establishment.
>
>
>
>>
>>> delivered to your doorstep every morning, so you can familiarize
>>> yourself with that important paper and how it does cover the news?
>>> You'll love the editorials!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most
>>>>> widely read newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the most
>>>>> important news of the day, in addition to the most important
>>>>> business news. Even Michael Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has
>>>>> praised the Wall Street Journal (except he doesn't like their
>>>>> editorials). Sorry about that, Tony. But you're entitled to be
>>>>> wrong - it's not the first time. <BG>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was it an editorial? Or a book review?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You could have clicked on the link I provided and it would have taken
>>> you to the page, Tony. It was a book review. Geesh.
>>>
>>
>> That was my point and why I object to the shift to discussing editorials.
>
>
>
>
> I clearly pointed out that I was posting a *book review*. I also
> included a link to the page of WSJ online, where the review was
> located. You chose to go off on some tangent about the supposed lack of
> quality and agenda of the newspaper.
>
I didn't say anything about quality. They use very nice paper.
Of course their agenda is pro-Establishment.
> There is no excuse for your hysteria over a newspaper you obviously
> don't read. Maybe you've been out on the edge for too long, seemingly
Out of all the newspapers why do I have to read an Establishment paper?
> at odds with everyone over every little thing. Try not to be so
I am mainly at odds with people who promote the cover-up.
> frightened by the mainstream: they really don't care about JFK or the
> assassination the way you do, and they really do have more important
> issues to occupy themselves with than worrying about CIA fronts.
>
Because they ARE CIA fronts.
>
> STEVE
>
>
>
>
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> The following book review written by Edward Jay Epstein of Jefferson
> Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO, appears in today's WSJ, and may be of some
> interest to the readers here.
>
> STEVE
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Bookshelf
> What the Warren Commission May Have Missed
> By EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN
> March 20, 2008; Page D7
>
> Our Man in Mexico
> By Jefferson Morley
> (University Press of Kansas, 371 pages, $34.95)
>
> Within hours of President Kennedy's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, the
> CIA had established that Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged killer, had met
> with Cuban officials at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City eight weeks
> before. The CIA had also established that, four weeks after the meeting,
> Havana had approved a visa for Oswald, even though it normally did not
> grant visas to American citizens. At the time, Oswald was working under
> the alias "O.H. Lee" at the Texas Book Depository in Dallas.
Off to a fine start!
Oswald was hired at the Texas *School* Book Depository under his real
name.
(Never come across the claim before that Oswald used an alias at the
TSBD before? There's a reason for that...)
After all, Ruth Payne arranged for the interview with Truly, and she
did not know about the alias Oswald used at the rooming house.
/sm
Steve Bochan
>>
>> Documents?
>>
>
> Rolling Stone.
That's what I thought. No proof - just an anti-establishment publication.
Great Tony. What's next: a 9-11 truth website that also hates the
government, as a source for this nonsense?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> shows the WSJ is a CIA front, or were you just being Tony again when
>>>> you hurled that accusation?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, I forgot, the Wall Street journal is known for its
>>> investigative journalism
>>
>>
>>
>> .... Daniel Pearl ring any bells?
>>
>
> And that was investigative journalism? The CIA embeds agents into the Wall
> Street Journal for undercover work.
Just what the terrorists thought! And they killed him. Congratulations -
you're of like mind with our enemies, Tony.
>
>>
>>
>>> and ran a five-piece article about CIA controlled press and name itself
>>> as one of the CIA stooges?
>>> Or maybe I was thinking of Rolling Stone.
>>
>>
>>
>> How about some of the other great anti-establishment publications and
>> websites out there? Is that where you get your information from?
>>
>
> Why wouldn't you consider Rolling Stone anti-Establishment? Surely
> Establishment publications are not going to blow their own cover.
You missed the point. Of course Rolling Stone is anti-establishment,
otherwise you wouldn't be citing it. You won't believe any establishment
*anything* because you despise the establishment.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, you think Rupert Murdoch is a Liberal? McAdams says Wall Street
>>>>> Journal is a Liberal publication.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need to stop being so silly. John said no such thing - he reported
>>>> on what a content analysis said about the reporting in general. If it
>>>> were a liberal publication, I'm sure you'd be subscribing. Matter of
>>>> fact, why don't you do yourself a favor and buy a 13-week subscription
>>>
>>> Liberal also means Eastern Establishment.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So?
>>
>
> Your premise is wrong. Just because I am Liberal does not mean I am
> pro-Establishment.
Hello? Who ever said or implied you were pro-Establishment? Your
attitude displays your hatred of the establishment.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> delivered to your doorstep every morning, so you can familiarize
>>>> yourself with that important paper and how it does cover the news?
>>>> You'll love the editorials!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most widely
>>>>>> read newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the most
>>>>>> important news of the day, in addition to the most important business
>>>>>> news. Even Michael Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has praised the
>>>>>> Wall Street Journal (except he doesn't like their editorials). Sorry
>>>>>> about that, Tony. But you're entitled to be wrong - it's not the
>>>>>> first time. <BG>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Was it an editorial? Or a book review?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You could have clicked on the link I provided and it would have taken
>>>> you to the page, Tony. It was a book review. Geesh.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That was my point and why I object to the shift to discussing
>>> editorials.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I clearly pointed out that I was posting a *book review*. I also
>> included a link to the page of WSJ online, where the review was located.
>> You chose to go off on some tangent about the supposed lack of quality
>> and agenda of the newspaper.
>>
>
> I didn't say anything about quality. They use very nice paper.
> Of course their agenda is pro-Establishment.
And that's "bad" ?????? If something is not necessarily against the
government, it must be bad ??????
The Wall Street Journal is pro-business, thus by definition, it is
pro-establishment - though the paper does not shy away from criticising
government policies that it views as anti-growth or anti-business, no
matter which political party is in power. Many good folks actually
believe that being pro-business is a good thing for ALL. And correct me
if I'm wrong, but wasn't JFK pro-business as well?
>
>> There is no excuse for your hysteria over a newspaper you obviously don't
>> read. Maybe you've been out on the edge for too long, seemingly
>
> Out of all the newspapers why do I have to read an Establishment paper?
To educate yourself and know what the hell you're talking about.
>
>> at odds with everyone over every little thing. Try not to be so
>
> I am mainly at odds with people who promote the cover-up.
You seem at odds with EVERYONE and that's sad. Not the Tony I remember
from the old days at all.
>
>> frightened by the mainstream: they really don't care about JFK or the
>> assassination the way you do, and they really do have more important
>> issues to occupy themselves with than worrying about CIA fronts.
>>
>
> Because they ARE CIA fronts.
So proclaims Tony Marsh, with no proof except what he reads in
anti-establishment publications.
STEVE
Anthony Marsh
The proof came from the Rolling Stone article. And I have never cited any
9/11 Truth Website for proof of anything. Not everyone hates the
government. Some people are paid by it and quite happy with it.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> shows the WSJ is a CIA front, or were you just being Tony again
>>>>> when you hurled that accusation?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, I forgot, the Wall Street journal is known for its
>>>> investigative journalism
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .... Daniel Pearl ring any bells?
>>>
>>
>> And that was investigative journalism? The CIA embeds agents into the
>> Wall Street Journal for undercover work.
>
>
>
> Just what the terrorists thought! And they killed him. Congratulations
> - you're of like mind with our enemies, Tony.
>
Is that why they did it or because he was Jewish? You seem to have some
insider knowledge about their thinking.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and ran a five-piece article about CIA controlled press and name
>>>> itself as one of the CIA stooges?
>>>> Or maybe I was thinking of Rolling Stone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How about some of the other great anti-establishment publications and
>>> websites out there? Is that where you get your information from?
>>>
>>
>> Why wouldn't you consider Rolling Stone anti-Establishment? Surely
>> Establishment publications are not going to blow their own cover.
>
>
>
> You missed the point. Of course Rolling Stone is anti-establishment,
> otherwise you wouldn't be citing it. You won't believe any
> establishment *anything* because you despise the establishment.
>
Hmm, pretty close.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you think Rupert Murdoch is a Liberal? McAdams says Wall
>>>>>> Street Journal is a Liberal publication.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to stop being so silly. John said no such thing - he
>>>>> reported on what a content analysis said about the reporting in
>>>>> general. If it were a liberal publication, I'm sure you'd be
>>>>> subscribing. Matter of fact, why don't you do yourself a favor and
>>>>> buy a 13-week subscription
>>>>
>>>> Liberal also means Eastern Establishment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>
>> Your premise is wrong. Just because I am Liberal does not mean I am
>> pro-Establishment.
>
>
>
> Hello? Who ever said or implied you were pro-Establishment? Your
> attitude displays your hatred of the establishment.
>
You suggested that I might want to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal,
yet even you admit it is Eastern Establishment.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> delivered to your doorstep every morning, so you can familiarize
>>>>> yourself with that important paper and how it does cover the news?
>>>>> You'll love the editorials!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most
>>>>>>> widely read newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the
>>>>>>> most important news of the day, in addition to the most important
>>>>>>> business news. Even Michael Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has
>>>>>>> praised the Wall Street Journal (except he doesn't like their
>>>>>>> editorials). Sorry about that, Tony. But you're entitled to be
>>>>>>> wrong - it's not the first time. <BG>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was it an editorial? Or a book review?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You could have clicked on the link I provided and it would have
>>>>> taken you to the page, Tony. It was a book review. Geesh.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was my point and why I object to the shift to discussing
>>>> editorials.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I clearly pointed out that I was posting a *book review*. I also
>>> included a link to the page of WSJ online, where the review was
>>> located. You chose to go off on some tangent about the supposed lack
>>> of quality and agenda of the newspaper.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say anything about quality. They use very nice paper.
>> Of course their agenda is pro-Establishment.
>
>
>
> And that's "bad" ?????? If something is not necessarily against the
> government, it must be bad ??????
>
Pretty much.
> The Wall Street Journal is pro-business, thus by definition, it is
> pro-establishment - though the paper does not shy away from criticising
> government policies that it views as anti-growth or anti-business, no
> matter which political party is in power. Many good folks actually
> believe that being pro-business is a good thing for ALL. And correct me
> if I'm wrong, but wasn't JFK pro-business as well?
>
And you see lots of editorials railing against the CIA?
JFK was Eastern Establishment, which is why he is hated by so many
people who want to push the right-wing agenda.
>
>
>>
>>> There is no excuse for your hysteria over a newspaper you obviously
>>> don't read. Maybe you've been out on the edge for too long, seemingly
>>
>> Out of all the newspapers why do I have to read an Establishment paper?
>
>
>
> To educate yourself and know what the hell you're talking about.
>
Nonsense. I sometimes have to read CIA propaganda just to see what latest
tricks they are trying, but I don't have to subscribe to the Wall Street
Journal to know it for what it is.
>
>
>>
>>> at odds with everyone over every little thing. Try not to be so
>>
>> I am mainly at odds with people who promote the cover-up.
>
>
>
> You seem at odds with EVERYONE and that's sad. Not the Tony I remember
> from the old days at all.
>
I have always been against people who support the cover-up. If you think
that makes me at odds with some people that defines who they are.
Steve Bochan
So this is what you now call proof - a sweeping generalization lacking
specifics? Please cite the direct quote that *proves* that the WSJ is a CIA
front.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> shows the WSJ is a CIA front, or were you just being Tony again when
>>>>>> you hurled that accusation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yeah, I forgot, the Wall Street journal is known for its
>>>>> investigative journalism
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .... Daniel Pearl ring any bells?
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that was investigative journalism? The CIA embeds agents into the
>>> Wall Street Journal for undercover work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just what the terrorists thought! And they killed him.
>> Congratulations - you're of like mind with our enemies, Tony.
>>
>
> Is that why they did it or because he was Jewish? You seem to have some
> insider knowledge about their thinking.
No, I read. According to Associate Provost and Assistant Legal Counsel at
Rider University, Jim Castagnera's article on of the movie "A Mighty Heart,"
the following:
<quote on> ---
Pearl's kidnappers had many possible motives for the crime. He was American,
Jewish, and a reporter for a newspaper which is as much a symbol of American
capitalism as was the World Trade Center. Midway, the movie also hints that
the Journal had turned over information on shoe-bomber Richard Reid to the
CIA. Pearl apparently thought the source he was meeting had information
about Reid's terrorist connections. The kidnappers apparently thought at
first that Pearl was CIA. Another reason expressly given by the kidnappers
in their early e-mail communications is the treatment of Guantanamo's
inmates, whose freedom they initially demand.
<quote off>---
I'm sure you'll find fault with this man's credentials, so before you trash
him, you ought to know that he is also a 2007 Academic Fellow on Terrorism
of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and ran a five-piece article about CIA controlled press and name
>>>>> itself as one of the CIA stooges?
>>>>> Or maybe I was thinking of Rolling Stone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about some of the other great anti-establishment publications and
>>>> websites out there? Is that where you get your information from?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why wouldn't you consider Rolling Stone anti-Establishment? Surely
>>> Establishment publications are not going to blow their own cover.
>>
>>
>>
>> You missed the point. Of course Rolling Stone is anti-establishment,
>> otherwise you wouldn't be citing it. You won't believe any establishment
>> *anything* because you despise the establishment.
>>
>
> Hmm, pretty close.
Yes, pretty close to Oswald's point of view, too.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you think Rupert Murdoch is a Liberal? McAdams says Wall Street
>>>>>>> Journal is a Liberal publication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to stop being so silly. John said no such thing - he
>>>>>> reported on what a content analysis said about the reporting in
>>>>>> general. If it were a liberal publication, I'm sure you'd be
>>>>>> subscribing. Matter of fact, why don't you do yourself a favor and
>>>>>> buy a 13-week subscription
>>>>>
>>>>> Liberal also means Eastern Establishment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your premise is wrong. Just because I am Liberal does not mean I am
>>> pro-Establishment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello? Who ever said or implied you were pro-Establishment? Your
>> attitude displays your hatred of the establishment.
>>
>
> You suggested that I might want to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal,
> yet even you admit it is Eastern Establishment.
Only in your twisted spin could you believe that I "admit" the WSJ is
"Eastern Establishment".
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> delivered to your doorstep every morning, so you can familiarize
>>>>>> yourself with that important paper and how it does cover the news?
>>>>>> You'll love the editorials!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Wall Street Journal, despite your spin, is one of the most
>>>>>>>> widely read newspapers worldwide and does indeed report on the most
>>>>>>>> important news of the day, in addition to the most important
>>>>>>>> business news. Even Michael Kinsley, liberal of liberals, has
>>>>>>>> praised the Wall Street Journal (except he doesn't like their
>>>>>>>> editorials). Sorry about that, Tony. But you're entitled to be
>>>>>>>> wrong - it's not the first time. <BG>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was it an editorial? Or a book review?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could have clicked on the link I provided and it would have taken
>>>>>> you to the page, Tony. It was a book review. Geesh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That was my point and why I object to the shift to discussing
>>>>> editorials.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I clearly pointed out that I was posting a *book review*. I also
>>>> included a link to the page of WSJ online, where the review was
>>>> located. You chose to go off on some tangent about the supposed lack of
>>>> quality and agenda of the newspaper.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say anything about quality. They use very nice paper.
>>> Of course their agenda is pro-Establishment.
>>
>>
>>
>> And that's "bad" ?????? If something is not necessarily against the
>> government, it must be bad ??????
>>
>
> Pretty much.
OK, so like Oswald, you think the government is bad. You despise the
establishment. So we know what you're against, so that only begs the
question: what are you for?
>
>> The Wall Street Journal is pro-business, thus by definition, it is
>> pro-establishment - though the paper does not shy away from criticising
>> government policies that it views as anti-growth or anti-business, no
>> matter which political party is in power. Many good folks actually
>> believe that being pro-business is a good thing for ALL. And correct me
>> if I'm wrong, but wasn't JFK pro-business as well?
>>
>
> And you see lots of editorials railing against the CIA?
> JFK was Eastern Establishment, which is why he is hated by so many people
> who want to push the right-wing agenda.
Another sweeping generalization which is inaccurate on it's face. Was LBJ
pushing a right-wing agenda by being even more liberal than JFK?
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> There is no excuse for your hysteria over a newspaper you obviously
>>>> don't read. Maybe you've been out on the edge for too long, seemingly
>>>
>>> Out of all the newspapers why do I have to read an Establishment paper?
>>
>>
>>
>> To educate yourself and know what the hell you're talking about.
>>
>
> Nonsense. I sometimes have to read CIA propaganda just to see what latest
> tricks they are trying, but I don't have to subscribe to the Wall Street
> Journal to know it for what it is.
Suit yourself. You display your ignorance then by making claims about a
newspaper that, according to you, is not known for "covering news" --
something that is FALSE yet you proclaim it as truth.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> at odds with everyone over every little thing. Try not to be so
>>>
>>> I am mainly at odds with people who promote the cover-up.
>>
>>
>>
>> You seem at odds with EVERYONE and that's sad. Not the Tony I remember
>> from the old days at all.
>>
>
> I have always been against people who support the cover-up. If you think
> that makes me at odds with some people that defines who they are.
No Tony, it defines who YOU are. Oswald also thought the world was wrong
and he was right - he could tolerate no other point of view other than his
own.
STEVE