Silence from the Oval Office
claviger
office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
would ask the same question. We can assume the current resident in the
Oval Office now knows the truth. He promised transparency and honesty in
government during the campaign.
Why hasn't he revealed the truth of this national tragedy to the American
people?
Why has he not moved up the date for full disclosure from 2017 to 2010?
Does silence mean he's gone over to the dark side and is now part of The
Conspiracy?
Should we interpret his silence as an endorsement of the Warren Commission
Report?
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
>office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
>would ask the same question.
You're kidding, right? That's the very first question that any new
president would have been expected to ask in January 2009? The very
first?
> We can assume the current resident in the
>Oval Office now knows the truth.
The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
> He promised transparency and honesty in
>government during the campaign.
You're kidding, right?
>Why hasn't he revealed the truth of this national tragedy to the American
>people?
There's nothing in it for him.
>Why has he not moved up the date for full disclosure from 2017 to 2010?
There's nothing in it for him.
>Does silence mean he's gone over to the dark side
My mind is percolating with word jokes that are best left unsaid.
> and is now part of The
>Conspiracy?
>Should we interpret his silence as an endorsement of the Warren Commission
>Report?
Silence from the current resident of the Oval Office can only be
interpreted to mean that he has laryngitis.
Peter Fokes
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
Well, I see John McAdams's predilection for allowing political posts
attacking Obama is exposed again.
PF
j leyden
> On 7 Aug 2010 00:35:35 -0400, Grizzlie Antagonist
>
> <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
>
> Well, I see John McAdams's predilection for allowing political posts
> attacking Obama is exposed again.
>
> PF
Pay attention, Peter. Clavinger's post relates directly to the JFK
assassination. He's under the impression that Obama shares his
obsession with JFK's murder and getting to the bottom of it should
have been his first order of business. An OT post would have asked why
the US economy still is in the dumpster after 18 months of Obama's
expensive remedial programs.
JGL
Peter Fokes
> On Aug 7, 8:18 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7 Aug 2010 00:35:35 -0400, Grizzlie Antagonist
>
> > <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
>
> > Well, I see John McAdams's predilection for allowing political posts
> > attacking Obama is exposed again.
>
> > PF
>Clavinger's post relates directly to the JFK
> assassination.
Pay attention, Leyden. The comment I am referring to wwas written by
Grizzlie, not Clavinger.
We judge each post on its own merits.
He's under the impression that Obama shares his
> obsession with JFK's murder and getting to the bottom of it should
> have been his first order of business.
Good for Clavinger. His post was acceptable.
> An OT post would have asked why
> the US economy still is in the dumpster after 18 months of Obama's
> expensive remedial programs.
Or, for example, suggesting Obama couldn't tell the time of day.
That's a political comment, and has nothing to do with the
assassination.
>
> JGL
PF
claviger
perceived as a Liberal. Some CTs believe the assassination was
politically motivated by those opposed to this popular president. If
this theory is true I would think a brave Liberal president would want
to get to the bottom of this assassination and expose the perpetrators
who planned this terrible crime and controlled the cover-up. I would
expect a crusading Liberal president to seek justice for his martyred
predecessor. There is no statute of limitation on the crime of murder.
All those who might have plotted the assassination can still be
prosecuted. If they are dead they should be exposed and their names
condemned to infamy. After four decades it is time to set the record
straight and punish the evildoers.
So why no effort to reopen the investigation? If that is too
complicated, then why not simply release ALL the documents still being
withheld? That would be easy to do by executive order. Unless the
truth is the Warren Commission got it right the first time. Problem is
the HSCA said someone took a 4th shot at the Limousine, but missed.
After coming to this dubious conclusion they made no attempt to
identify the second shooter, what kind of weapon was used, or how they
got away unseen by so many witnesses. To expose the conspiracy that
murdered one of the most admired presidents in US history would make
the current president enormously popular with many Americans and many
more admirers from around the world.
The only logical reason this president does not take steps to bring
closure to this historic crime is the Kennedy family. For some reason
they are not in favor of full disclosure to the public. So I guess we
will have to wait until 2017 to see why that is. Only problem is THC
and TDC tell us the world might end in 2012. Another good reason for
the president to release all documents in 2010.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On Aug 6, 10:40 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
>> office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
>> would ask the same question. We can assume the current resident in the
>> Oval Office now knows the truth. He promised transparency and honesty in
>> government during the campaign.
>>
>> Why hasn't he revealed the truth of this national tragedy to the American
>> people?
>>
>> Why has he not moved up the date for full disclosure from 2017 to 2010?
>>
>> Does silence mean he's gone over to the dark side and is now part of The
>> Conspiracy?
>>
>> Should we interpret his silence as an endorsement of the Warren Commission
>> Report?
>Here is the point. Our current President is a Liberal. JFK was
>perceived as a Liberal. Some CTs believe the assassination was
>politically motivated by those opposed to this popular president. If
>this theory is true I would think a brave Liberal president would want
>to get to the bottom of this assassination and expose the perpetrators
>who planned this terrible crime and controlled the cover-up.
Why? You are saying his agenda should be set by a few CTs? Lol.
That is absurd.
Politicians are concerned with the here and now and upcoming
elections. For example, ongoing wars preoccupy their time; disasters;
unemployment; compromise (when statesmen not simply idealogues are
involved); climate change; etc.
Of course, the logical extension of your idea would have Obama exhume
JFK. Is that political feasible? No. Should he waste his time on
that issue, rather than, say, health care, or getting a handle on the
finances of a country?
> I would
>expect a crusading Liberal president to seek justice for his martyred
>predecessor.
Crusading? My goodness, The Crusades were a Christian endeavour to
eliminate heretics from the face of the earth. Bush was more
crusading. "Your either with us, or agin us." The JFK assassination
is an historical event.
>There is no statute of limitation on the crime of murder.
Oh well then, lets tally up the thousands of unsolved cases in the
20th century, and set the pile on the desk of the President. What
about some of those Klan killings? All solved? If Obama is going to
set a priority on the issue of unsolved crimes, would it be astute to
begin with JFK?
>All those who might have plotted the assassination can still be
>prosecuted.
Really? So you know who they are, and you know they are alive!
Tell us their names.
> If they are dead they should be exposed and their names
>condemned to infamy. After four decades it is time to set the record
>straight and punish the evildoers.
So you don't believe in the Gerald Ford philosphy of pardon for high
crimes and misdemenours? Politicians have been getting knocked off for
centuries? What about that Vietnamese guy, Diem? who is responsible
for that? Should Obama send the FBI after those guys? Or maybe the
hundreds of thousands of people killed in Guatemala? Was Reagan
responsible? What about the United Fruit Company?
Boy, he would be a busy guy, eh?
>So why no effort to reopen the investigation?
Kinda obvious, eh.
> If that is too
>complicated, then why not simply release ALL the documents still being
>withheld?
Isn't the US governed by 3 branches? Wouldn't the Courts have a say
in that matter? Look at the Joannides case. How can the President
ignore the rulings of the Courts?
> That would be easy to do by executive order.
Really? So the President can overturn any ruling of a Court like a
King?
> Unless the
>truth is the Warren Commission got it right the first time.
Well, that's what the debate is all about.
> Problem is
>the HSCA said someone took a 4th shot at the Limousine, but missed.
Ya. Cost millions too.
>After coming to this dubious conclusion they made no attempt to
>identify the second shooter, what kind of weapon was used, or how they
>got away unseen by so many witnesses.
And this crime is the only unsolved crime in the U.S. of A?
Are all crimes solvable?
> To expose the conspiracy that
>murdered one of the most admired presidents in US history would make
>the current president enormously popular with many Americans and many
>more admirers from around the world.
No, he wouldn't. He would be attacked relentlessly by opponents for
wasting time while unemployment climbed and the economy deteriorated.
And how can you be sure he would be anymore successful than anyone
else? Why get bogged down. The term of a President is short, and he
prefers two terms.
>The only logical reason this president does not take steps to bring
>closure to this historic crime is the Kennedy family.
The only logical reason? Well, that's just not true.
> For some reason
>they are not in favor of full disclosure to the public.
How do you know?
>So I guess we
>will have to wait until 2017 to see why that is. Only problem is THC
>and TDC tell us the world might end in 2012. Another good reason for
>the president to release all documents in 2010.
If only it was so easy, eh?
Maybe in the days of monarchs and dictators.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
timstter
LOL! The idea that a newly elected US President, circa 2009, is going to
ask, first question, what REALLY happened in Dealey Plaza back in 1963 is
absurd, on the face of it.
It's a dead issue to many, many people, including Obama, apparently.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
John Blubaugh
>
> >On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
>
> Well, I see John McAdams's predilection for allowing political posts
> attacking Obama is exposed again.
>
> PF
He never has any problems tossing my comments about W. This is a
rightwing blog, Peter, you know that. Just read the comments and you
will see that many who post here hated JFK and are glad he was
assassinated. Do you not think they would be over the top joyful if
something happened to Obama? I wouldn't go out to dinner with many of
these people nor would they care to associate with me (thank God).
There heroes are Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the like. What do you
expect? McAdams is the worst of all of them.
JB
John McAdams
wrote:
You have no standing to complain, Peter, since you have long
specialized in posts attacking Bush.
But the post you were replying to does follow from a clearly
acceptable post asking people here who are both conspiracists and in
thrall of Obama why he hasn't done anything about what they view as a
monstrous historical evil.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
But he just deleted my post for praising Obama.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about, Tony, since a post on this
thread saying Obama *is* competent and would (will) expose the
conspiracy would be acceptable.
In some other context, a pro-Obama post would be out of bounds.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger<histori...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
>> office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
>> would ask the same question.
>
>
>
> You're kidding, right? That's the very first question that any new
> president would have been expected to ask in January 2009? The very
> first?
>
Silly. The President is often the last to find out. It took a while for
Kennedy to find out that the CIA was using the Mafia to bump off Castro.
j leyden
> Pay attention, Leyden. The comment I am referring to wwas written by
> Grizzlie, not Clavinger.
Ok, one for your side. There goes my hope of a shutout.
JGL
John McAdams
wrote:
Actually, in context it does.
The original post was clearly claiming that Obama would have worked to
expose a conspiracy *if* there was a conspiracy.
But a counter-argument to that would be to argue that Obama is simply
incompetent. That might suggest that his failure to try to expose a
conspiracy doesn't prove anything about whether there was a
conspiracy.
Several other counter-arguments have also been posted.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
My gosh, you would make a great spin doctor for your favorite President
you seem to have a man-crush on, just like Matthews and Olbermann. You
threw a bunch of chaff out there hoping some of it might deflect the
simple truth. No such luck but it was a game effort. If Robert Gibbs is
following this debate you may get a phone call from him with a job offer!
Here is the point you missed entirely. More than one CT has claimed the
assassination of President Kennedy was a "coup d'etat". You saw the movie
"JFK" so you remember Kevin Costner making that statement in his dramatic
closing argument to the jury. Living in Canada I'm sure you know the
meaning of this French term. Some CTs go so far as to say this "coup"
forever changed the American government and the bad guys have been in
charge ever since.
If this tragedy did change the course of American history then it should
be the highest priority of any politician who feels the same way to
rectify this wrong. The best way to do that is prove the assassination was
a conspiracy and name names. No one is in a better position to do that
than our current president. With his creation of numerous "czars" with the
stroke of a pen, an executive order to release public documents to the
public should be no big deal. This president has created his own
czaristocracy which gives him enormous power as Head Czar. So yes it is
easily doable by signing his autograph.
He is also the president of "transparency" so he would also be keeping a
campaign promise. It would be understandable for a very Liberal president
to take revenge on The Conspiracy for what they did to a previous Liberal
president. This effort would be applauded by a majority of Americans based
on polling data that 75% believe it was a conspiracy. They would stand up
and cheer that justice has been done at long last.
I think this president can find time for that kind of justice don't you?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
bobr
> On 7 Aug 2010 12:31:36 -0400, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
What is going to be so magical about what someone is going to tell you
in 2017 that you are going to believe them?
Just be patient, you are going to find out what happened soon enough!
John Blubaugh
>
I doubt that but he had more pressing issues coming in to replace
Bush.
JB
Coondog
> On 8/7/2010 12:35 AM, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
> >> office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
> >> would ask the same question.
>
> > You're kidding, right? That's the very first question that any new
> > president would have been expected to ask in January 2009? The very
> > first?
>
> Silly. The President is often the last to find out. It took a while for
> Kennedy to find out that the CIA was using the Mafia to bump off Castro.
>
Why did Bobby wait so long to tell the president?
Bill Clarke
Sandy McCroskey
For anybody who can still think the case wasn't solved forty-six years
ago, a presidential "revelation" would settle exactly nothing.
You know the joke, don't you, about a couple CTs who go to heaven and
have a chance to ask The Big Guy Himself—Who answers, "It was Lee
Harvey Oswald, all on his lonesome."
And one turns to the other and whispers, "I had no idea the conspiracy
went *this* high up!"
/sm
John McAdams
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Another version of that joke has God answering:
". . . you know, I have a theory about that."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
He's about worn out that excuse. As they say in rural America,"That
dog just won't hunt anymore!"
claviger
> On Aug 6, 11:40 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
> > office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
> > would ask the same question. We can assume the current resident in the
> > Oval Office now knows the truth. He promised transparency and honesty in
> > government during the campaign.
>
> > Why hasn't he revealed the truth of this national tragedy to the American
> > people?
>
> > Why has he not moved up the date for full disclosure from 2017 to 2010?
>
> > Does silence mean he's gone over to the dark side and is now part of The
> > Conspiracy?
>
> > Should we interpret his silence as an endorsement of the Warren Commission
> > Report?
>
> For anybody who can still think the case wasn't solved forty-six years
> ago, a presidential "revelation" would settle exactly nothing.
Sandy, not looking for a presidential revelation. Releasing ALL documents
in 2010 would suffice.
> You know the joke, don't you, about a couple CTs who go to heaven and
> have a chance to ask The Big Guy Himself—Who answers, "It was Lee
> Harvey Oswald, all on his lonesome."
> And one turns to the other and whispers, "I had no idea the conspiracy
> went *this* high up!"
> /sm
Great joke Sandy! Had not heard that one.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On 7 Aug 2010 12:22:46 -0400, Peter Fokes <boreal4...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And I also suggested that Obama was not only incompetent, but crooked.
Thus, when claviger pointed out that Obama pledged to run an open
government, I asked, "You're kidding, right?" Because there's reason to
believe that his devotion to that pledge has flagged somewhat.
And when claviger asked why Obama wouldn't advance the date of disclosure,
I pointed out twice, "There's nothing in it for him."
These are also reasons why, even if Obama learned of a JFK conspiracy, he
wouldn't necessarily disclose it. It's almost surely a moot point anyway.
claviger
> What is going to be so magical about what someone is going to tell you
> in 2017 that you are going to believe them?
After four decades why are any records or documents being withheld?
Must be a reason.
> Just be patient, you are going to find out what happened soon enough!
I look forward to your final conclusion.
Anthony Marsh
Gee, isn't this fun resurrection old jokes from decades ago?
So a WC defender goes to Heaven and sees no other WC defenders only
conspiracy believers. Then sees and enormous wall and asks St. Peter,
"What is that wall for"? And St. Peter says, "Oh, that's where we keep
the WC defenders so they won't get disillusioned."
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Blubaugh
>
That excuse can never be worn out. Bush had us in two wars that were
unfunded with his tax plan and the country was in deep financial trouble.
I doubt that any American had inherited such a mess since FDR took office.
Obama will go down as a great President who restored confidence in the USA
around the world, worked toward ending some very bad military
entanglements and saved us from a 1930s style depression. Bush? Well, Bush
will just go down, and down, and down.........
JB
Anthony Marsh
Define "so long." Three hours? Maybe he was double checking the facts
first rather than report a rumor.
Anthony Marsh
Try to play innocent. We know what you are up to.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 08:18:51 -0400, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7 Aug 2010 00:35:35 -0400, Grizzlie Antagonist
>> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger<histori...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
>>
>> Well, I see John McAdams's predilection for allowing political posts
>> attacking Obama is exposed again.
>>
>
>
> You have no standing to complain, Peter, since you have long
> specialized in posts attacking Bush.
>
You told me that no one is allowed to attack Bush.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/7/2010 10:29 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 08:18:51 -0400, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Aug 2010 00:35:35 -0400, Grizzlie Antagonist
>>> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger<histori...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
>>>
>>> Well, I see John McAdams's predilection for allowing political posts
>>> attacking Obama is exposed again.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You have no standing to complain, Peter, since you have long
>> specialized in posts attacking Bush.
>>
>
>You told me that no one is allowed to attack Bush.
>
I told you you were not allowed to attack Bush unless it has something
to do with the assassination.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
But when I make direct comparisons between Obama and JFK, McAdams deletes
my post as being political. For example, we have a certain militarist here
who claims that JFK did not plan to pull out the troops from Vietnam in
1965 even though he announced it shortly before he died. Likewise Obama
recently announced that he plans to pull out the troops from Iraq by the
end of August 2011. If Obama were assassinated before then that decision
would be reversed and the troops would stay forever and that certain
militarist would then claim here that Obama never announced his plans to
pull out the troops from Iraq by the end of August 2011. Then when I would
try to upload the documentation that he did McAdams would delete my post
to protect his buddy.
Anthony Marsh
> On 7 Aug 2010 12:31:36 -0400, claviger<histori...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 6, 10:40 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
>>> office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
>>> Oval Office now knows the truth. He promised transparency and honesty in
>>> government during the campaign.
>>>
>>> Why hasn't he revealed the truth of this national tragedy to the American
>>> people?
>>>
>>> Why has he not moved up the date for full disclosure from 2017 to 2010?
>>>
>>> Does silence mean he's gone over to the dark side and is now part of The
>>> Conspiracy?
>>>
>>> Should we interpret his silence as an endorsement of the Warren Commission
>>> Report?
>
>> perceived as a Liberal. Some CTs believe the assassination was
>> politically motivated by those opposed to this popular president. If
>> this theory is true I would think a brave Liberal president would want
>> to get to the bottom of this assassination and expose the perpetrators
>> who planned this terrible crime and controlled the cover-up.
>
>
> Why? You are saying his agenda should be set by a few CTs? Lol.
> That is absurd.
>
What? Are you saying that the agenda of the Congress should be set by a
few CTers? RFLMAO! That is absurd. That's EXACTLY what we did in 1975.
Of course the difference is that we had 90% of the public on our side.
Obama has less than 50% of the public on his side.
> Politicians are concerned with the here and now and upcoming
> elections. For example, ongoing wars preoccupy their time; disasters;
> unemployment; compromise (when statesmen not simply idealogues are
> involved); climate change; etc.
>
You can't do anything if you don't get elected.
Remember that JFK himself pointed out that he couldn't pull the troops
out of Vietnam unless he got reelected.
> Of course, the logical extension of your idea would have Obama exhume
> JFK. Is that political feasible? No. Should he waste his time on
> that issue, rather than, say, health care, or getting a handle on the
> finances of a country?
>
How about just ordering the CIA to comply with the LAW?
Is that too much to ask or does he provoke his own assassination by
doing so?
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 6, 10:40 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
>> office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
>> would ask the same question. We can assume the current resident in the
>> Oval Office now knows the truth. He promised transparency and honesty in
>> government during the campaign.
>>
>> Why hasn't he revealed the truth of this national tragedy to the American
>> people?
>>
>> Why has he not moved up the date for full disclosure from 2017 to 2010?
>>
>> Does silence mean he's gone over to the dark side and is now part of The
>> Conspiracy?
>>
>> Should we interpret his silence as an endorsement of the Warren Commission
>> Report?
> Here is the point. Our current President is a Liberal. JFK was
> perceived as a Liberal. Some CTs believe the assassination was
JFK was a Liberal. Obama is slightly more Liberal than JFK.
> politically motivated by those opposed to this popular president. If
> this theory is true I would think a brave Liberal president would want
Sure, sure. A brave Liberal President would have pulled out all the
troops. A brave Liberal President would have ordered the end of Don't
Ask, Don't Tell.
> to get to the bottom of this assassination and expose the perpetrators
> who planned this terrible crime and controlled the cover-up. I would
> expect a crusading Liberal president to seek justice for his martyred
> predecessor. There is no statute of limitation on the crime of murder.
> All those who might have plotted the assassination can still be
> prosecuted. If they are dead they should be exposed and their names
Prosecuted? Where? In Texas? Not bloody likely. Is there any statute of
limitation on Treason?
> condemned to infamy. After four decades it is time to set the record
> straight and punish the evildoers.
>
> So why no effort to reopen the investigation? If that is too
> complicated, then why not simply release ALL the documents still being
> withheld? That would be easy to do by executive order. Unless the
> truth is the Warren Commission got it right the first time. Problem is
Even if the WC got it right, what problem is there in just releasing all
the documents as required by LAW? Why allow certain agencies to disobey
the law. You know, the certain agencies that are in the business of
assassinating political leaders?
> the HSCA said someone took a 4th shot at the Limousine, but missed.
> After coming to this dubious conclusion they made no attempt to
> identify the second shooter, what kind of weapon was used, or how they
> got away unseen by so many witnesses. To expose the conspiracy that
Because they ran out of time and money. Because they were shut down by
conservatives like you.
> murdered one of the most admired presidents in US history would make
> the current president enormously popular with many Americans and many
> more admirers from around the world.
>
Exactly the opposite. Doing the right thing is exactly what makes this
current President hated by 40% of the American public, people like you
who do not want the Truth to come out.
> The only logical reason this president does not take steps to bring
> closure to this historic crime is the Kennedy family. For some reason
> they are not in favor of full disclosure to the public. So I guess we
The Kennedy family gave Tip O'Neil their consent to reopening the
investigation.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 7, 8:18 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7 Aug 2010 00:35:35 -0400, Grizzlie Antagonist
>>
>> <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
>>
>> Well, I see John McAdams's predilection for allowing political posts
>> attacking Obama is exposed again.
>>
>> PF
>
>
> assassination. He's under the impression that Obama shares his
> obsession with JFK's murder and getting to the bottom of it should
No, he doesn't. He is constructing a straw man argument to trivialize
the issue.
> have been his first order of business. An OT post would have asked why
> the US economy still is in the dumpster after 18 months of Obama's
> expensive remedial programs.
>
> JGL
>
An OT post would have pointed that out that Obama's first priority was
to repair the damage done by the Republicans and he has stopped the
downward slide and is bringing the economy back up.
>
>
>
bigdog
Obama will do all that in just one term?
Coondog
> On 8/7/2010 10:26 PM, John Blubaugh wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 8:18 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 Aug 2010 00:35:35 -0400, Grizzlie Antagonist
>
> >> <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
>
> >> Well, I see John McAdams's predilection for allowing political posts
> >> attacking Obama is exposed again.
>
> >> PF
>
> > He never has any problems tossing my comments about W. This is a
> > rightwing blog, Peter, you know that. Just read the comments and you
> > will see that many who post here hated JFK and are glad he was
> > assassinated. Do you not think they would be over the top joyful if
> > something happened to Obama? I wouldn't go out to dinner with many of
> > these people nor would they care to associate with me (thank God).
> > There heroes are Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the like. What do you
> > expect? McAdams is the worst of all of them.
>
> > JB
>
> But when I make direct comparisons between Obama and JFK, McAdams deletes
> my post as being political. For example, we have a certain militarist here
> who claims that JFK did not plan to pull out the troops fromVietnamin
> 1965 even though he announced it shortly before he died.
I assume I’m this terrible militarist you are referring to. For what
seems like the millionth time I’ve pointed this out to you, here it is
again. Here is exactly what JFK announced shortly before his death:
2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential
functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by
Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to [withdraw the bulk
of U.S. personnel by that time]. Emphasis mine so Marsh can find this.
Now General, “should be possible” and “withdraw the bulk” shows
your claim of what JFK announced to be WRONG. Once again VERY WRONG.
Nonsense about Obama and whining about John Adams snipped for good
taste.
Bill Clarke
mark drenning
five decades ago. maybe he has more current problems on his mind.
claviger
prime housing market and almost put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of
business, and this whole mess caused a huge financial disaster. That's
OK cause this Congress is gonna raise everybody's taxes and fix
everything. Only problem is our economy can't absorb higher and higher
taxes, and keep employment high. For one thing higher taxes drive
corporations offshore to remain competitive in the world market. So
get ready for a long term recession stamped Made in the USA.
claviger
> On 8/7/2010 12:17 PM, j leyden wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 8:18 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 7 Aug 2010 00:35:35 -0400, Grizzlie Antagonist
>
> >> <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
>
> >> Well, I see John McAdams's predilection for allowing political posts
> >> attacking Obama is exposed again.
>
> >> PF
>
> > Pay attention, Peter. Clavinger's post relates directly to the JFK
> > assassination. He's under the impression that Obama shares his
> > obsession with JFK's murder and getting to the bottom of it should
>
> No, he doesn't. He is constructing a straw man argument to trivialize
> the issue.
issue. 'The President is too busy to be bothered with something so
trivial as a conspiracy that committed the crime of the century by
murdering a famous President' is what they are saying. Does this topic
and this book trivialize the issue?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/482fa1d607ceb525
THE CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN KENNEDY
by John G. Hornberger August 4, 2010 "Future of Freedom Foundation"
This author thinks the Federal Government did a less than thorough job
of investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. OK, isn't it
time the Federal Government finally did a more thorough job? There are
still a few witness left and we have more technology available today.
So why not this President to authorize the ultimate criminal
investigation?
claviger
> JFK was a Liberal. Obama is slightly more Liberal than JFK.
JFK was the last conservative Democrat. The current president is far
to the left of JFK, LBJ, and FDR.
> > politically motivated by those opposed to this popular president. If
> > this theory is true I would think a brave Liberal president would want
> Sure, sure. A brave Liberal President would have pulled out all the
> troops. A brave Liberal President would have ordered the end of Don't
> Ask, Don't Tell.
So he's a cowardly Liberal President?
> > to get to the bottom of this assassination and expose the perpetrators
> > who planned this terrible crime and controlled the cover-up. I would
> > expect a crusading Liberal president to seek justice for his martyred
> > predecessor. There is no statute of limitation on the crime of murder.
> > All those who might have plotted the assassination can still be
> > prosecuted.
> Prosecuted? Where? In Texas? Not bloody likely. Is there any statute of
> limitation on Treason?
No. He can prosecute Treason anywhere he wants to.
> > So why no effort to reopen the investigation? If that is too
> > complicated, then why not simply release ALL the documents still being
> > withheld? That would be easy to do by executive order. Unless the
> > truth is the Warren Commission got it right the first time. Problem is
> Even if the WC got it right, what problem is there in just releasing all
> the documents as required by LAW? Why allow certain agencies to disobey
> the law. You know, the certain agencies that are in the business of
> assassinating political leaders?
I agree. He can release those documents by executive order. All
agencies must comply.
> > the HSCA said someone took a 4th shot at the Limousine, but missed.
> > After coming to this dubious conclusion they made no attempt to
> > identify the second shooter, what kind of weapon was used, or how they
> > got away unseen by so many witnesses. To expose the conspiracy that
> Because they ran out of time and money. Because they were shut down by
> conservatives like you.
This conservative wants all documents released this year. Why don't
you?
> > murdered one of the most admired presidents in US history would make
> > the current president enormously popular with many Americans and many
> > more admirers from around the world.
> Exactly the opposite. Doing the right thing is exactly what makes this
> current President hated by 40% of the American public, people like you
> who do not want the Truth to come out.
Then release all documents and let the Truth come out now!
> > The only logical reason this president does not take steps to bring
> > closure to this historic crime is the Kennedy family. For some reason
> > they are not in favor of full disclosure to the public. So I guess we
> The Kennedy family gave Tip O'Neil their consent to reopening the
> investigation.
When did they do that? And why did he not reopen the investigation?
Another cowardly Liberal?
Are there no brave Liberals left in DC who will seek justice for JFK and
demand release of all documents this year?
claviger
> > Pay attention, Peter. Clavinger's post relates directly to the JFK
> > assassination. He's under the impression that Obama shares his
> > obsession with JFK's murder and getting to the bottom of it should
>
> No, he doesn't. He is constructing a straw man argument to trivialize
> the issue.
Does post this trivialize the issue?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/206f358a18299f37
> > have been his first order of business. An OT post would have asked why
> > the US economy still is in the dumpster after 18 months of Obama's
> > expensive remedial programs.
>
> > JGL
>
> An OT post would have pointed that out that Obama's first priority was
> to repair the damage done by the Republicans and he has stopped the
> downward slide and is bringing the economy back up.
He has no idea how to do any of that. Raising taxes won't bring the
economy back. And even Communist China wrote the President expressing
their concern over his massive deficit spending and the negative impact
it's having on their investments in US dollars and treasury paper.
claviger
JB,
Remember this topic: "If they can exhume the Gipper, why not JFK?"
This fellow makes a good argument for reopening the case:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/f13a4faa75636fb2
claviger
> > Pay attention, Peter. Clavinger's post relates directly to the JFK
> > assassination. He's under the impression that Obama shares his
> > obsession with JFK's murder and getting to the bottom of it should
>
> No, he doesn't. He is constructing a straw man argument to trivialize
> the issue.
Are these people trying to "trivialize the issue"? You will see some
familiar names on this list. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks
there should be final resolution to this case. Search by title or simply
type "exhume" in the 'Search this group' box above.
Topics:
_________________________________________
Exhume JFK
Why not exhume JFK?
Solution in your lifetime?
Exhume Kennedy’s Body
Exhumation. The Only Chance
Throw out the autopsy - exhume the body
DAVE PERRY AGREES TO EXHUME JFK!
To exhume or not to exhume, that is the question
Houdini & Doctor Baden/Conspiracy Rumors and Exhumation
_________________________________________
claviger
> maybe the current president,doesnt care what happened in dallas nearly
> five decades ago. maybe he has more current problems on his mind.
So you're saying the current president doesn't care about the
assassination of President Kennedy? He is the only one who can initiate a
new investigation or release the documents with the stroke of a pen.
However, Speaker Pelosi or Mjority Leader Reid could also call for an
investigation. Maybe they don't care who killed President Kennedy either.
Or could it be all three know what really happened and there is no need
for another investigation?
John Blubaugh
Then it will be the only thing left that "made in the USA".
JB
John Blubaugh
>
Four more years, four more years......
JB
Anthony Marsh
Did he promise to do everything in his first term? No.
Anthony Marsh
Not what you said. So now I have to allege that Bush was the grassy
knoll gunman to mention him?
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/8/2010 9:30 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 8 Aug 2010 21:28:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I told you you were not allowed to attack Bush unless it has something
>> to do with the assassination.
>>
>
>
>Not what you said. So now I have to allege that Bush was the grassy
>knoll gunman to mention him?
>
>
Or part of a "cover-up" or some such.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
> > Pay attention, Peter. Clavinger's post relates directly to the JFK
> > assassination. He's under the impression that Obama shares his
> > obsession with JFK's murder and getting to the bottom of it should
>
> No, he doesn't. He is constructing a straw man argument to trivialize
> the issue.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8cf54abfae462067
Another call to exhume the body. To do that would necessitate a
reopening of the case and hopefully a crescendo of public demands to
release all documents this year.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>> JFK was a Liberal. Obama is slightly more Liberal than JFK.
>
> JFK was the last conservative Democrat. The current president is far
> to the left of JFK, LBJ, and FDR.
>
More proof that you are a Kennedy hater. JFK was proud to call himself a
Liberal. And you hate him for that so you call him the worst thing you
can think of, what you are, a conservative.
>>> politically motivated by those opposed to this popular president. If
>>> this theory is true I would think a brave Liberal president would want
>> Sure, sure. A brave Liberal President would have pulled out all the
>> troops. A brave Liberal President would have ordered the end of Don't
>> Ask, Don't Tell.
>
> So he's a cowardly Liberal President?
>
>>> to get to the bottom of this assassination and expose the perpetrators
>>> who planned this terrible crime and controlled the cover-up. I would
>>> expect a crusading Liberal president to seek justice for his martyred
>>> predecessor. There is no statute of limitation on the crime of murder.
>>> All those who might have plotted the assassination can still be
>>> prosecuted.
>> Prosecuted? Where? In Texas? Not bloody likely. Is there any statute of
>> limitation on Treason?
>
> No. He can prosecute Treason anywhere he wants to.
>
The President prosecutes Treason?
It wasn't his committee.
> Are there no brave Liberals left in DC who will seek justice for JFK and
> demand release of all documents this year?
>
Probably not. Not even Kuccinich.
>
>
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
>office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
>would ask the same question. We can assume the current resident in the
>Oval Office now knows the truth. He promised transparency and honesty in
>government during the campaign.
>
>Why hasn't he revealed the truth of this national tragedy to the American
>people?
>
>Why has he not moved up the date for full disclosure from 2017 to 2010?
>
>Does silence mean he's gone over to the dark side and is now part of The
>Conspiracy?
>
>Should we interpret his silence as an endorsement of the Warren Commission
>Report?
Obama is making efforts to set the historical record right:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/08/the_stars_fall_on_a_fallen_gen.html
In this case, he is correcting the lies of President Nixon.
Perhaps Obama is not done yet.
PF
Sandy McCroskey
> On 8/8/2010 12:05 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8 Aug 2010 00:04:14 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> > <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Aug 6, 11:40 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
> >>> office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
> >>> would ask the same question. We can assume the current resident in the
> >>> Oval Office now knows the truth. He promised transparency and honesty in
> >>> government during the campaign.
>
> >>> Why hasn't he revealed the truth of this national tragedy to the American
> >>> people?
>
> >>> Why has he not moved up the date for full disclosure from 2017 to 2010?
>
> >>> Does silence mean he's gone over to the dark side and is now part of The
> >>> Conspiracy?
>
> >>> Should we interpret his silence as an endorsement of the Warren Commission
> >>> Report?
>
> >> ago, a presidential "revelation" would settle exactly nothing.
> >> You know the joke, don't you, about a couple CTs who go to heaven and
> >> have a chance to ask The Big Guy Himself—Who answers, "It was Lee
> >> Harvey Oswald, all on his lonesome."
> >> And one turns to the other and whispers, "I had no idea the conspiracy
> >> went *this* high up!"
>
> > Another version of that joke has God answering:
>
> > ". . . you know, I have a theory about that."
>
> > .John
>
> Gee, isn't this fun resurrection old jokes from decades ago?
> So a WC defender goes to Heaven and sees no other WC defenders only
> conspiracy believers. Then sees and enormous wall and asks St. Peter,
> "What is that wall for"? And St. Peter says, "Oh, that's where we keep
> the WC defenders so they won't get disillusioned."
>
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
A weird joke. As if differing opinions about the JFK assassination
would be a major zoning issue in designing the abode of the blessed.
And how would a "WC defender" note the absence of others of his ilk?
Why isn't s/he on the other side of the wall? Breach of security? A
gate-crasher, eh? Who's going to get fired over that?
This just seems a somewhat half-hearted reworking of a much older joke
that circulates among various Christian sects. Instead of "WC
defenders," insert a denomination that thinks they are the only ones
who were saved.
"You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free."
/sandy
claviger
> > JFK was the last conservative Democrat. The current president is far
> > to the left of JFK, LBJ, and FDR.
> More proof that you are a Kennedy hater. JFK was proud to call himself a
> Liberal. And you hate him for that so you call him the worst thing you
> can think of, what you are, a conservative.
Quite the contrary. I like being a Conservative. And I rather liked JFK.
It was fun to watch in his press conferences and he was a great speech
maker. He was a gutsy CIC who stood up the Soviets, enforced the Monroe
Doctrine, befriended Nicaragua to keep an eye on Castro, closed the
missile gap, supported the Space Program, and created the Peace Corp. He
also pushed for a tax cut to stimulate the economy, along with funding
NASA and increased spending on Defense. Florida, California, Texas, and
Massachusetts were the primary beneficiaries of these Federal spending
programs. Three of them are key states with a lot of electoral votes and
of course the other one his home state. No problem there just smart
politics. His administration also went after organized crime and their
influence on labor unions. His record on Civil Rights is well known. I
liked his love of sports like football, golf, sailing, and other forms of
fun exercise. What's not to like?
I naturally appreciate people who think like me so Conservative is one of
the highest compliments I will give someone I admire. There was a lot to
admire about JFK.
> > No. He can prosecute Treason anywhere he wants to.
> The President prosecutes Treason?
I once had a conversation with an FBI agent and said to him "the Attorney
General is the top law enforcement agent in the Federal Government." He
immediately corrected me and informed me "The President of the United
States is the top law enforcement officer of the Federal Government." As
such, the President would be involved in any investigation and prosecution
of Treason, which is a Federal crime.
> It wasn't his committee.
Are you telling me the Speaker of the House has no influence on what
happens in that House?
> > Are there no brave Liberals left in DC who will seek justice for JFK and
> > demand release of all documents this year?
> Probably not. Not even Kuccinich.
Dennis Kucinich - America's Most Courageous Congressman
http://www.kucinich.us/ - 8k - similar pagesCongressman Dennis J.
Kucinich of Ohio - America's Congressman.
Gosh if America's Congressman won't do it then Liberal's really are
morally defunct. They should change their symbol from a kicking donkey to
the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz. I suppose it's now up to
Conservatives or Tea Party Americans to solve this case.
mark drenning
Anthony Marsh
I guess you don't know anything about Christianity. He just arrived in
Heaven and was greeted by St. Peter who will then assign him to the
appropriate abode.
> This just seems a somewhat half-hearted reworking of a much older joke
> that circulates among various Christian sects. Instead of "WC
> defenders," insert a denomination that thinks they are the only ones
> who were saved.
>
As I said some people like to recycle jokes from decades ago.
claviger
> thats it they know what happened OSWALD DID IT THE END.
Correct.
Sandy McCroskey
Ha. To paraphrase an old country-western song (once sung by Dylan), I
forgot more about "Christianity" than you will ever know!
There is, of course, nothing in the New Testament about admissions
procedures at the Pearly Gates or St. Peter checking IDs there.
Your joke makes no sense simply because it would defeat the wall's purpose
to reveal that purpose to a WC defender.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Why is it that YOU are allowed to post that and I am not?
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>>> JFK was the last conservative Democrat. The current president is far
>>> to the left of JFK, LBJ, and FDR.
>> More proof that you are a Kennedy hater. JFK was proud to call himself a
>> Liberal. And you hate him for that so you call him the worst thing you
>> can think of, what you are, a conservative.
>
> Quite the contrary. I like being a Conservative. And I rather liked JFK.
> It was fun to watch in his press conferences and he was a great speech
> maker. He was a gutsy CIC who stood up the Soviets, enforced the Monroe
Until you found out that it was Kennedy who caved in during the Cuban
Missile Crisis, agreeing to remove our missiles from Turkey and to not
invade Cuba. Until you found out that Kennedy was secretly negotiating
an agreement with Castro.
> Doctrine, befriended Nicaragua to keep an eye on Castro, closed the
> missile gap, supported the Space Program, and created the Peace Corp. He
Until you found out that Kennedy knew there was no missile gap and
created a phony controversy to stick it to your Republicans.
> also pushed for a tax cut to stimulate the economy, along with funding
> NASA and increased spending on Defense. Florida, California, Texas, and
> Massachusetts were the primary beneficiaries of these Federal spending
> programs. Three of them are key states with a lot of electoral votes and
> of course the other one his home state. No problem there just smart
> politics. His administration also went after organized crime and their
> influence on labor unions. His record on Civil Rights is well known. I
> liked his love of sports like football, golf, sailing, and other forms of
> fun exercise. What's not to like?
>
> I naturally appreciate people who think like me so Conservative is one of
> the highest compliments I will give someone I admire. There was a lot to
> admire about JFK.
>
I don't understand the mental process you exhibit of self-loathing, but
it must be pretty extreme for you to have to call Kennedy a conservative
to insult him.
>>> No. He can prosecute Treason anywhere he wants to.
>> The President prosecutes Treason?
>
> I once had a conversation with an FBI agent and said to him "the Attorney
> General is the top law enforcement agent in the Federal Government." He
> immediately corrected me and informed me "The President of the United
> States is the top law enforcement officer of the Federal Government." As
> such, the President would be involved in any investigation and prosecution
> of Treason, which is a Federal crime.
>
Baloney. You are making up crap. You can't prove anything you say. You
make up stories with your drinking buddies.
>> It wasn't his committee.
>
> Are you telling me the Speaker of the House has no influence on what
> happens in that House?
>
I thought you were talking about Teddy not Tip. Love the way you snip
our context to misrepresent who said what.
>>> Are there no brave Liberals left in DC who will seek justice for JFK and
>>> demand release of all documents this year?
>> Probably not. Not even Kuccinich.
>
> Dennis Kucinich - America's Most Courageous Congressman
> http://www.kucinich.us/ - 8k - similar pagesCongressman Dennis J.
> Kucinich of Ohio - America's Congressman.
>
> Gosh if America's Congressman won't do it then Liberal's really are
> morally defunct. They should change their symbol from a kicking donkey to
> the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz. I suppose it's now up to
> Conservatives or Tea Party Americans to solve this case.
More nonsense. No one from either of those groups has indicated any
interest in solving the JFK case.
Coondog
> Anthony,
>
> > > JFK was the last conservative Democrat. The current president is far
> > > to the left of JFK, LBJ, and FDR.
> > More proof that you are a Kennedy hater. JFK was proud to call himself a
> > Liberal. And you hate him for that so you call him the worst thing you
> > can think of, what you are, a conservative.
>
> Quite the contrary. I like being a Conservative. And I rather liked JFK.
> It was fun to watch in his press conferences and he was a great speech
> maker. He was a gutsy CIC who stood up the Soviets, enforced the Monroe
> Doctrine, befriended Nicaragua to keep an eye on Castro, closed the
> missile gap, supported the Space Program, and created the Peace Corp. He
> also pushed for a tax cut to stimulate the economy, along with funding
> NASA and increased spending on Defense. Florida, California, Texas, and
> Massachusetts were the primary beneficiaries of these Federal spending
> programs. Three of them are key states with a lot of electoral votes and
> of course the other one his home state. No problem there just smart
> politics. His administration also went after organized crime and their
> influence on labor unions. His record on Civil Rights is well known. I
> liked his love of sports like football, golf, sailing, and other forms of
> fun exercise. What's not to like?
A small point. There was no missile gap. Ike knew it from the U-2
flights but couldn’t reveal this knowledge without jeopardizing the
secrecy of the U-2. Obliviously Ike didn’t tell Nixon who would have
used it in the election. In the very close election it could have tipped
the balance.
What JFK did do was abandon the ill conceived policy of Ike’s “New
Look” policy of depending on nuclear weapons at the expense of the
conventional military. JFK cut funding to the Air Force and directed
these funds to conventional military branches as well as the Special
Forces.
I think he was a man of courage and was cool under pressure. Good things
to have in a president. I’m not sure we have had it since.
Bill Clarke
mark drenning
there of being hidden by Ike, to keep the U2 a secret. i am fairly
certain the russians were aware of its existence after they shot one
carrying Francis Gary Powers, down in 1960 causing Kruschev, to call off
his summit with Ike.
Grizzlie Antagonist
JFK was an arrogant elitist womanizing drug addict who was pampered by
his daddy and who left the world in a worse condition than it was when
he found it, and JFK hagiography always makes me sick to my stomach.
Why was he ever even in danger of drowning in the Pacific if he had
the ability to walk on water?
claviger
> > > More proof that you are a Kennedy hater. JFK was proud to call himself a
> > > Liberal. And you hate him for that so you call him the worst thing you
> > > can think of, what you are, a conservative.
> > Quite the contrary. I like being a Conservative. And I rather liked JFK.
> > It was fun to watch in his press conferences and he was a great speech
> > maker. He was a gutsy CIC who stood up the Soviets, enforced the Monroe
> Until you found out that it was Kennedy who caved in during the Cuban
> Missile Crisis, agreeing to remove our missiles from Turkey and to not
> invade Cuba. Until you found out that Kennedy was secretly negotiating
> an agreement with Castro.
JFK didn't cave in at all. He traded obsolete Jupiter missiles in Turkey
for medium range missiles in Cuba. By then the US Navy had developed
nuclear subs and we no longer needed those missiles anyway. Kennedy
allowed the Russians to save face and while maintaining a missile free
Cuba on our doorstep. Shrewd move on his part. He did open a minor back
channel contact with Castro, but no evidence of negotiations taking place.
In the long run, not invading Cuba turned out much better for US foreign
policy anyway. Cuba proved to be an enormous financial burden for the
Soviets and eventually they ceased to support Castro. When the Russians
pulled out Cuba became a showcase for the inefficiency of Socialism.
Without massive funding from the USSR it reverted to a one crop third
world country. When the price of sugar fell the Cuban economy went
flatline. All this time Castro let his people suffer poverty and
unemployment, foregoing millions in lost revenues generated by tourism
from the States. In the meantime JFK recruited allies in Central and South
America to resist attempts by Castro to bring this region under his
control.
> > Doctrine, befriended Nicaragua to keep an eye on Castro, closed the
> > missile gap, supported the Space Program, and created the Peace Corp. He
> Until you found out that Kennedy knew there was no missile gap and
> created a phony controversy to stick it to your Republicans.
How did that "stick it to" Republicans? The GOP has always supported a
strong national defense. The US missile arsenal became even stronger. No
complaints by Republicans.
> I don't understand the mental process you exhibit of self-loathing, but
> it must be pretty extreme for you to have to call Kennedy a conservative
> to insult him.
Not only do I like myself just fine, I like and admire other Conservatives
too, whether Democrat or Republican. One thing any student of history
can't help but notice is the similarity between Kennedy and Reagan. One
might even accuse Reagan of being a Kennedy copycat. Both cut taxes to
stimulate economic vitality and high employment. And both were strong on
defense and foreign policy. Kennedy and Reagan proved to be a very
successful tag team in winning the Cold War, because their policies were
so similar. And both were marvelous speech makers who invigorated
Americans and inspired freedom loving people around the world.
> > I once had a conversation with an FBI agent and said to him "the Attorney
> > General is the top law enforcement agent in the Federal Government." He
> > immediately corrected me and informed me "The President of the United
> > States is the top law enforcement officer of the Federal Government." As
> > such, the President would be involved in any investigation and prosecution
> > of Treason, which is a Federal crime.
> Baloney. You are making up crap. You can't prove anything you say.
Why don't you call the nearest FBI office and ask them?
> You make up stories with your drinking buddies.
I've noticed you use this phrase from time to time. You must spend a lot
of time drinking and making up stories, assuming everyone else does the
same.
> > > It wasn't his committee.
> > Are you telling me the Speaker of the House has no influence on what
> > happens in that House?
> I thought you were talking about Teddy not Tip. Love the way you snip
> our context to misrepresent who said what.
Then read this again:
_________________________________________
> > The Kennedy family gave Tip O'Neil their consent to reopening the
> > investigation.
> When did they do that? And why did he not reopen the investigation?
> Another cowardly Liberal?
It wasn't his committee.
_________________________________________
> > Gosh if America's Congressman won't do it then Liberal's really are
> > morally defunct. They should change their symbol from a kicking donkey to
> > the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz. I suppose it's now up to
> > Conservatives or Tea Party Americans to solve this case.
> More nonsense. No one from either of those groups has indicated any
> interest in solving the JFK case.
The only people on this forum now urging early release of remaining
documents are LNs. McAdams, Perry, and myself are on board and ready to
go. All I read from CTs is the current President is too busy to worry
about uncovering the truth about the Kennedy assassination.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/7/2010 10:32 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2010 22:30:22 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/7/2010 8:18 AM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>>>> On 7 Aug 2010 00:35:35 -0400, Grizzlie Antagonist
>>>> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6 Aug 2010 23:40:16 -0400, claviger<histori...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The current resident of the Oval Office doesn't know the time of day.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I see John McAdams's predilection for allowing political posts
>>>> attacking Obama is exposed again.
>>>>
>>>> PF
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But he just deleted my post for praising Obama.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are talking about, Tony, since a post on this
>> thread saying Obama *is* competent and would (will) expose the
>> conspiracy would be acceptable.
>>
>> In some other context, a pro-Obama post would be out of bounds.
>>
>
>Try to play innocent. We know what you are up to.
>
We know who you are, Tony.
Your political obsessions utterly distort your view of the
assassination.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 7 Aug 2010 12:31:36 -0400, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Aug 6, 10:40 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
>>> office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
>>> would ask the same question. We can assume the current resident in the
>>> Oval Office now knows the truth. He promised transparency and honesty in
>>> government during the campaign.
>>>
>>> Why hasn't he revealed the truth of this national tragedy to the American
>>> people?
>>>
>>> Why has he not moved up the date for full disclosure from 2017 to 2010?
>>>
>>> Does silence mean he's gone over to the dark side and is now part of The
>>> Conspiracy?
>>>
>>> Should we interpret his silence as an endorsement of the Warren Commission
>>> Report?
>
>>Here is the point. Our current President is a Liberal. JFK was
>>perceived as a Liberal. Some CTs believe the assassination was
>>politically motivated by those opposed to this popular president. If
>>this theory is true I would think a brave Liberal president would want
>>to get to the bottom of this assassination and expose the perpetrators
>>who planned this terrible crime and controlled the cover-up.
>
>
>Why? You are saying his agenda should be set by a few CTs? Lol.
>That is absurd.
>
But if the CTs are right, and if American government has been corrupt
since the Kennedy assassination . . .
. . . and if the assassination is a terrible blight on American
history, his agenda *should* involve the assassination.
>Politicians are concerned with the here and now and upcoming
>elections. For example, ongoing wars preoccupy their time; disasters;
>unemployment; compromise (when statesmen not simply idealogues are
>involved); climate change; etc.
>
>Of course, the logical extension of your idea would have Obama exhume
>JFK. Is that political feasible? No. Should he waste his time on
>that issue, rather than, say, health care, or getting a handle on the
>finances of a country?
>
You are assuming that Obama would have to spend days and weeks on the
assassination.
In reality, all he would have to do is sign a few executive orders.
>
>> I would
>>expect a crusading Liberal president to seek justice for his martyred
>>predecessor.
>
>Crusading? My goodness, The Crusades were a Christian endeavour to
>eliminate heretics from the face of the earth.
No, just to reclaim the Holy Land.
>Bush was more
>crusading. "Your either with us, or agin us." The JFK assassination
>is an historical event.
>
>>There is no statute of limitation on the crime of murder.
>
>Oh well then, lets tally up the thousands of unsolved cases in the
>20th century, and set the pile on the desk of the President. What
>about some of those Klan killings? All solved? If Obama is going to
>set a priority on the issue of unsolved crimes, would it be astute to
>begin with JFK?
>
So you think that the JFK assassination is not big deal.
No more important than "thousands" of other cases.
Odd argument for a conspiracist.
>
>
>>All those who might have plotted the assassination can still be
>>prosecuted.
>
>Really? So you know who they are, and you know they are alive!
>Tell us their names.
>
You are the conspiracist! You tell us.
>
>> If they are dead they should be exposed and their names
>>condemned to infamy. After four decades it is time to set the record
>>straight and punish the evildoers.
>
>So you don't believe in the Gerald Ford philosphy of pardon for high
>crimes and misdemenours?
There is a difference between covering something up, and pardoning the
evil doer.
>Politicians have been getting knocked off for
>centuries? What about that Vietnamese guy, Diem? who is responsible
>for that? Should Obama send the FBI after those guys? Or maybe the
>hundreds of thousands of people killed in Guatemala? Was Reagan
>responsible? What about the United Fruit Company?
>
You don't see how severely you are undermining the conspiracist
position.
>Boy, he would be a busy guy, eh?
>
You conspiracists have long claimed that the JFK assassination was a
very special crime. A coup d'etat. Something that has corrupted
American politics ever since.
>
>>So why no effort to reopen the investigation?
>
>Kinda obvious, eh.
>
Yes it is.
Nobody of any importance in Washington takes you folks seriously!
>
>> If that is too
>>complicated, then why not simply release ALL the documents still being
>>withheld?
>
>Isn't the US governed by 3 branches? Wouldn't the Courts have a say
>in that matter? Look at the Joannides case. How can the President
>ignore the rulings of the Courts?
>
Obama could overturn the CIA position in the Joannides case with one
signature on an executive order.
The court ruled that the CIA has the right to keep those documents
secret. No court would insist they have to.
>> That would be easy to do by executive order.
>
>Really? So the President can overturn any ruling of a Court like a
>King?
>
See above.
The documents are secret because of a position taken by the CIA.
The president can order the CIA to take a different position.
>
>> Unless the
>>truth is the Warren Commission got it right the first time.
>
>Well, that's what the debate is all about.
>
And Obama is apparently not on your side, maybe because he's
incompetent, or corrupt . . . or maybe because he's simply sensible on
this issue.
>> Problem is
>>the HSCA said someone took a 4th shot at the Limousine, but missed.
>
>Ya. Cost millions too.
>
>>After coming to this dubious conclusion they made no attempt to
>>identify the second shooter, what kind of weapon was used, or how they
>>got away unseen by so many witnesses.
>
>And this crime is the only unsolved crime in the U.S. of A?
>
>Are all crimes solvable?
>
Are you admitting that if the Federal government released all the
documents, exhumed Kennedy, and did another investigation (all under
the control of Obama) this would not prove a conspiracy?
>> To expose the conspiracy that
>>murdered one of the most admired presidents in US history would make
>>the current president enormously popular with many Americans and many
>>more admirers from around the world.
>
>No, he wouldn't. He would be attacked relentlessly by opponents for
>wasting time while unemployment climbed and the economy deteriorated.
>And how can you be sure he would be anymore successful than anyone
>else? Why get bogged down. The term of a President is short, and he
>prefers two terms.
>
>
Translation: this issue isn't very important, and Obama doesn't care
what a handful of buffs want.
I have to hand it to whoever started this thread. That hit you
Obama-loving buffs where it hurts.
You have the choice of making tendentious excuses for your hero Obama,
or admitting that the JFK assassination either wasn't a conspiracy (or
at least that it wasn't very important).
He has left you twisting in the wind.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/7/2010 12:31 PM, claviger wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 10:40 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The first question any newly elected President would ask the first week in
>>> office is what really happened in Dealey Plaza? Any rational human being
>>> would ask the same question. We can assume the current resident in the
>>> Oval Office now knows the truth. He promised transparency and honesty in
>>> government during the campaign.
>>>
>
>The Kennedy family gave Tip O'Neil their consent to reopening the
>investigation.
>
Citation!
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/10/2010 3:27 PM, claviger wrote:
>> Anthony,
>>
>>>> JFK was the last conservative Democrat. The current president is far
>>>> to the left of JFK, LBJ, and FDR.
>>> More proof that you are a Kennedy hater. JFK was proud to call himself a
>>> Liberal. And you hate him for that so you call him the worst thing you
>>> can think of, what you are, a conservative.
>>
>> Quite the contrary. I like being a Conservative. And I rather liked JFK.
>> It was fun to watch in his press conferences and he was a great speech
>> maker. He was a gutsy CIC who stood up the Soviets, enforced the Monroe
>
>Until you found out that it was Kennedy who caved in during the Cuban
>Missile Crisis, agreeing to remove our missiles from Turkey and to not
>invade Cuba. Until you found out that Kennedy was secretly negotiating
>an agreement with Castro.
>
>> Doctrine, befriended Nicaragua to keep an eye on Castro, closed the
>> missile gap, supported the Space Program, and created the Peace Corp. He
>
>Until you found out that Kennedy knew there was no missile gap and
>created a phony controversy to stick it to your Republicans.
>
You mean Kennedy lied during the 1960 election?
That's not something I would expect you to admit.
Unless you think "sticking it to Republicans" is a fine reason to lie.
I imagine you do believe that.
John McAdams
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well that idea involved conflating the image of the New Jerusalem in
Revelations 21:21 . . .
"And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a
single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like
transparent glass."
. . . with Jesus' statement to Peter that Peter was given "the keys to
the Kingdom" in Matthew 16:19.
But you are essentially correct. "Peter at the Pearly Gates" is a
literary conceit, not some sort of theological position.
But it is an extremely handy literary conceit. *So* many good jokes
use it.
Coondog
It is a hoot. When I referenced Bernard Fall long ago Marsh asked if he
was one of my drinking buddies. Well no, Marsh, the man was killed in
Vietnam in 1967 but he was one of the few knowledgeable of Vietnam in the
early years. Most familiar with the war have at least heard of him.
And then the hoot about JFK caving in on the missile crisis. And the hoot
about Jack making pals with Castro. You try to kill a man for years and
then want to shake his hand? Fat chance.
It is a hoot.
Bill Clarke
claviger
JFK's Biggest Secret Revealed -- But Will Congress Keep History ...
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1019-21.htm - 21k - similar
pagesOct 19, 2006 ... JFK, not Bush, was the first president to use
those terms -- and to .... to get the files JFK released before the
year 2017 (when all the ...
JFKcountercoup: 1100 CIA JFK Assassination Records Withheld
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com / 2010 / 03 / 1100-cia-jfk-
assassinati... - 53k - similar pagesMar 21, 2010 ... In the course of
the long and drawn out legal document the CIA ... until 2017, all of
the CIA's JFK-related documents were released in full or in part to
NARA. 7. ... either to provide or not provide records sought, ...
Legacy of Secrecy | The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination
http://www.legacyofsecrecy.com/ - 17k - similar pagesThe long shadow
of secrecy surrounding both JFK's murder and the coup plan ... you
want all the JFK and King assassination files released now, not in
2017 or 2029! ... “Explosive new material, based mainly on government
documents from the ... until 2017” when “the CIA and Kennedy papers
are all finally released.” ...
mark drenning
Osama than to dig up kennedy. if you wish to do some digging. you can
start at the Rose Hill cemetary in Fort Worth Texas. that is where you
will find the assassin.