Let's broaden discussions to JFK's policies.
DSharp673
Frankly, these debates about whether Oswald was a good shot or not are getting
a bit boring after 35 years.
Let's shift the dialogue.
Let's discuss JFK's foreign policy.
Let's discuss JFK's Vietnam policy.
Let's discuss JFK's Middle-Eastern policy.
Let's discuss JFK's effort to end the Cold War with the Soviet Union. His
shift in policy was clearly stated in a speech he delivered at American
University in June 1963.
Most important, let's discuss why the news media has suppressed this
information from the public for 35 years.
Dave Sharp
Thpa2d
In article <19981013002033...@ng62.aol.com>, dsha...@aol.com
(DSharp673) writes:
>
>Let's shift the dialogue.
>
This is part of the files that I used in writing a Star Trek series of scripts
Since the scripts are finished the material makes for good debate. The
ST series concerns the beginings of "Star Fleet". One of JFK's military
advisors latter on his history becomes the first Star Fleet commader.
It is through the efforts of JFK and LBJ that the space program has
made such an impact on our lives today. John Glenn rules!
Message From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy
Moscow, February 15, 1961.
//Source: Department of State, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 66 D 204. No
classification marking. The source text is a Department of State translation of
a commercial telegram from Moscow. Other copies of this message are in the
Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, USSR, Khrushchev
Correspondence, and Department of State, Central Files, 761.13/2-1561. The
transliterated Russian text is ibid.
Received your telegram of congratulations on the occasion of the launching of
the Soviet cosmic spaceship to the planet Venus./1/ I express gratitude to you
for this telegram giving high appraisal to this outstanding achievement of
peaceful science and for wishes for success in the new stage of the exploration
of the cosmos. In your speech of inauguration to the office of President, and
likewise in the message to Congress of January 30 you, Mr. President, said that
you would like for the Soviet Union and the United States of America to unite
their efforts in such areas as the struggle against disease, mastering the
cosmos, development of culture and trade. Such an approach to these problems
impresses us and we welcome these utterances of yours.
/1/Document 5.
We consider that favorable conditions for the most speedy solution of these
noble tasks facing humanity would be created through the settlement of the
problem of disarmament. And we would like every country to make every effort
for the solution of this problem with the establishment of such a strict
international control under which no one could arm secretly and commit
aggression.
All agree to the fact that the solution of the problem of disarmament depends
to a great extent on agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States
of America. If we reached such an agreement, it would be a great joy for all
people on Earth and a great blessing for all mankind.
N. Khrushchev/2/
/2/Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.
John McAdams
: Frankly, these debates about whether Oswald was a good shot or not are getting
: a bit boring after 35 years.
: Let's shift the dialogue.
: Let's discuss JFK's foreign policy.
: Let's discuss JFK's Vietnam policy.
: Let's discuss JFK's Middle-Eastern policy.
: Let's discuss JFK's effort to end the Cold War with the Soviet Union. His
: shift in policy was clearly stated in a speech he delivered at American
: University in June 1963.
OK, for a start, look at:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/stjohn.htm
There was no "shift in policy." Kennedy was a Cold Warrior, but like
Eisenhower before him and Nixon after him he sought to reduce tensions,
while maintaining a strong military.
: Most important, let's discuss why the news media has suppressed this
: information from the public for 35 years.
Nonsense. Only recently has "debunking" of St. John of Hyannis been
commonplace in the media. For two decades, more or less, the media bought
the myth of Camelot.
.John
Daeron
> There was no "shift in policy." Kennedy was a Cold Warrior, but like
> Eisenhower before him and Nixon after him he sought to reduce tensions,
> while maintaining a strong military.
Ahhhh, I see the primary asset is at it again. Sowing disinfo in the
'nuthouse' which he purports to disdain so violently. How quaint. Now
for a reality check:
A 'cold warrior' (bona fide) would emphatically not:
1) Co-sponsor a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets.
2) Ignore the solemn advice of the JCS to bomb Cuba at the start of the
Cuban missile crisis, in Oct. 1962.
3) Surreptitiously remove Jupiter missiles in Turkey, targeted at the
USSR, as part of the brokered pact with Krushchev for his withdrawing
Soviet missiles from Cuba.
4) Issued NSAM-263 for the withdrawal of U.S. advisors, remaining
personnel from S. Vietnam, by 1965.
All of the above are fully documented in sources that even 'nuts' ought
to accept, and are also corroborated by a number of file releases under
the ARRB's supervision.
Get your facts (and history) straight .John, if you have any at all that
have not been pre-processed through the company's disinfo mills.
--
"We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis.
John McAdams
: John McAdams wrote:
: > There was no "shift in policy." Kennedy was a Cold Warrior, but like
: > Eisenhower before him and Nixon after him he sought to reduce tensions,
: > while maintaining a strong military.
: Ahhhh, I see the primary asset is at it again. Sowing disinfo in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 'nuthouse' which he purports to disdain so violently. How quaint. Now
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: for a reality check:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: A 'cold warrior' (bona fide) would emphatically not:
: 1) Co-sponsor a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets.
: 2) Ignore the solemn advice of the JCS to bomb Cuba at the start of the
: Cuban missile crisis, in Oct. 1962.
: 3) Surreptitiously remove Jupiter missiles in Turkey, targeted at the
: USSR, as part of the brokered pact with Krushchev for his withdrawing
: Soviet missiles from Cuba.
: 4) Issued NSAM-263 for the withdrawal of U.S. advisors, remaining
: personnel from S. Vietnam, by 1965.
: All of the above are fully documented in sources that even 'nuts' ought
: to accept, and are also corroborated by a number of file releases under
: the ARRB's supervision.
: Get your facts (and history) straight .John, if you have any at all that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: have not been pre-processed through the company's disinfo mills.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep, Phil is another of the Nuthouse buffs who holler "spook, spook" at
anybody who disagrees.
Savor the lunacy!
.John
duquesne
> : Get your facts (and history) straight .John, if you have any at all that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : have not been pre-processed through the company's disinfo mills.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Yep, Phil is another of the Nuthouse buffs who holler "spook, spook" at
> anybody who disagrees.
>
> Savor the lunacy!
>
> .John
>
single line of the post and shout..See...more spook spook stuff! How come
your source, Dr. Flaherty, who is a professor of economics, doesn't know
the difference between a Silver Certificate and a United States Note? The
Dr. also uses "Crossfire" as a reference stating page numbers. Jim Marrs
had it correct, he never mentioned Silver Certificates on the cited
pages, but the doctor mentioned them many times on the page you sent us
to and even included a picture of one. I'm not saying the Fed had
anything to do with the JFK murder, but I wonder how many other URL's you
seem to throw out every chance you get that are also full of non-facts
and incorrect information. If you are going to try to debunk the ideas
and beliefs of other people at least try to read and understand what they
are even saying first instead of throwing out nonsense from a list of
URL's for every occasion you have acquired.
As it is, your page has lost a lot of credibility for me also. I
especially liked the pic of the "magic bullet" on your page. You know the
one, right? The one shown end-on, highly magnified...that one? It seems
when you try to debunk you just get yourself in deeper. The fact that you
have to show the bullet under high magnification to show the damage to it
only serves to prove how little damage there actually is to it. If you
magnify a pore on your skin that highly it would appear to have more
damage than that bullet does. But then, I have learned to "savor the
lunacy" myself.
Gene
Daeron
'JFK and the FED', which appeared in late March of this year. The first
points made are generally Prof. Flaherty's, with mine in rebuttal. Dates
are provided, and times, for each separate exchange:
Subject: Re: JFK and the FED
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:06:41 -0500
Edward Flaherty wrote:
>
> There was one point only to my article: To evaluate the
> claim that the FED had a motive to kill JFK, as per the
> theory of Jim Marrs. It certaily appears not to be so.
> It is not intended to be a theory of everything.
If it is not a 'theory of everything' then why posit all authority or
power in the Fed? I don't think any of us here has ever made such a
claim, so you are effectively tilting at windmills of your own
imagination.
What we (or at least I) have said - time and again - is that if there
were such a plot (which I believe there was) a number of groups that
stood to lose power from a 2nd JFK term would *band together* and ok
the hit. It is a fact, whether you accept it or not - that the New York
Fed and Rockefeller-Morgan interests, which JFK strongly opposed - were
linked together, and that the latter were (in their turn) linked
strongly to Oil companies (Gibson, D. 1994, 'Battling Wall Street',
Sheridan Square Press, p. 131).
There was therefore, more than ample reason for the Oil Companies,
Morgan-Rockefeller financial interest and at least one branch of the Fed
to throw their lot together - perhaps with other interests who would be
served by an execution of JFK as well.
----
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:43:08 -0500
Edward Flaherty wrote:
> It is plausible that some groups might have formed such a coalition,
> but based on Marrs' evidence there is absolutely no reason to think
> the Fed would have been a part of it.
I was not invoking any scenario by Marrs, but rather the information
given - with a vast number of sources and citations, by Donald Gibson.
> What my station does permit me to do, however,
> is recognize bogus arguments based on economics -- and that is what
> Marrs' hypothesis is: bogus.
See above. As I indicated I was not using any arguments, or hypotheses
by Marrs. I regard my foremost source here as Donald Gibson (and by
extension, the thousand and more sources cited in his book). These show
compellingly that financial interests - *including* the NY Fed, the
Morgan-Rockefeller interests, the Oil companies and intelligence
community which "by the early 1960s were so extensively inbred as to be
virtually a single entity" (op. cit., p. 72) had more than ample
motivation to dispose of JFK and ensure he would not impede their plans
and machinations.
As Gibson notes (p. 74):
The Federal Reserve, particularly the New York regional bank, has always
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
been tightly interconnected with Morgan and Rockefeller banking."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Morgan-Rockefeller Banking also financed oil companies since the 60s and
before, cf. Gibson. p. 131), and these, as noted by Gibson, "were so
extensively inbred with the intelligence community as to be a single
entity". It doesn't require a giant leap of imagination to see that any
repeal of an Oil Depletion Tax Allowance by JFK, would have seriously
damaged the oil company interests (27.5% less yearly income), plus the
bankers behind them - and arguably the Fed branches that interacted with
those.
What is or is not 'on paper' is neither nor there (most files to do with
it are probably locked deep in CIA vaults anyway - since they're in
league with the financial interests). Rather, a substantial synergy
between these interests has been demonstrated - certainly by Gibson (if
not by Marrs) and their complicity in the coup d'etat cannot be
cavalierly dismissed or swept under a rug.
-----
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 06:22:43 -0500
Edward Flaherty wrote:
>
> Daeron <sta...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > Rather, a substantial synergy
> > between these interests has been demonstrated - certainly by Gibson (if
> > not by Marrs) and their complicity in the coup d'etat cannot be
> > cavalierly dismissed or swept under a rug.
>
> Yes it can, until someone presents good evidence that a
> conspiracy of oil companies or bankers actually had something to
> do with the assassination. The mere fact that they sometimes
> opposed JFK policies is not evidence of involvement. How can
> you seriously believe they had something to do with it based
> on evidence this flimsy?
I don't think the repeal of a 27.5% oil depletion tax allowance is
'flimsy' at all - it would certainly hit the Oil companies, and their
banker supporters, equally hard. It provides more than ample motivation
particularly when the 'Potus' has proposed to use it the year before his
re-election. In addition, as has been documented often enough,
*both* oil and (eastern) banking interests (represented by John McCloy )
were at the clandestine meeting held at Clint Murchison's the night
before the assassination. This is generally agreed to be the final meet
before the hit.
It seems clear to me that, like the lnutters in this ng, you are
determined to exclude any evidence that does not comport with your world
view of Fed-non-participation. To me, the evidence speaks volumes. Btw -
have you gone back and referenced the Wall Street (and Lucepress)
sources that launched their respective financial tirades against
Kennedy? No. Probably not. And, even if you did - you would no doubt
gloss overt those as readily as the other indicators. Some people won't
connect the dots, even when the picture is nearly completed for them.
------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 06:29:45 -0500
Edward Flaherty wrote:
> The bottom line, however, is that JFK did nothing to
> warren the label of an anti-Fed crusader as both Gibson
> and Marrs try to give him. As I conceded before, it
> may be possible that some oil-banker coalition may have
> opposed some JFK policies. But it is a huge and unwarrented
> leap to assume they would want to kill the POTUS. Moreover,
> there is absolutely no reason to include the Fed in the
> group of alleged conspirators.
I think there is, since it is an organization-institution that cannot be
willy-nilly separated or divorced or isolated from the wealth
accumulaton dynamic in the country. It is, therefore, little wonder that
- under Fed policies - wage stagnation has been the rule for the past
two decades or more, and the income differential has reached the highest
it has ever been - with the top fifth controlling 93% of the wealth (as
R. Reich notes in his recent editorial in *The American Prospect*).
The Fed is behind this by their tight fisted, deflationary policies (at
least for the low and middle income earners). The Fed was up against JFK
incessantly for his similar policies, or proposed policies, as Gibson
notes. Check out his news sources - from the bibliography in his book.
> I'll read the rest of Gibson, but based on this small sample
> it is not likely to be very reliable.
Hmmmmmm....why am I hardly surprised you would think so? Clearly - your
version of the nation's economics is at variance with how Gibson shows
it. But, Gibson's is predicated on *many years* of research - so, I
suspect I would take his hypotheses before someone who has barely
scratched the surface. I have also cross-checked many of his sources
(listed at the back of the book) and am confident that the perspective
he shows is mostly correct.
------
Subject: Re: JFK and the FED
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:10:39 -0500
Edward Flaherty wrote:
>
> Daeron <sta...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > It seems clear to me - that, like the lnutters in this ng, you are
> > determined to exclude any evidence that does not comport with your world
> > view of Fed-non-participation. To me, the evidence speaks volumes.
>
> The "evidence" speaks volumes to you because your standard of
> evidence is quite low. For argument, let's assume the oil-banker
> interests were actually in on the kill. It does not logically
> follow that the Fed was also in on it. This has been my point all
> along: There is no evidence that THE FED was a part of the plot.
> The error Marrs, Gibson, and you make is assuming that the oil-banker
> crowd controlled the Board of Governors of the Fed. This assumption
> is unwarrented by the facts and is obviously false just by looking
> at the organizational structure of the Fed.
But - the Fed is a private (banking ) corporation, and was originally
formed - under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to give bankers and
corporations de facto control over the money, banking system. (See, e.g.
'Origins of the Federal Reserve System - Money, Class and Corporate
Capitalism' 1890-1913) by James Livingston, Cornell Univ. Press, 1986.
In effect, the Fed has always had the interests of bankers, corporations
and, by extension, stock-bond traders at stake, before the average
working American. The fact is, the Fed's tight fisted policies have
undermined all wage growth. As for benefits, they are regularly taking a
beating. More and more employer plans are now demanding workers cough up
even more of their dwindling disposable income to fund their own health
care. (My wife's company wants her to ante up $100 per month out of her
pocket). As for pension plans - don't make me laugh. The majority 51%
are now those bogus 401k plans - as opposed to genuine pension plans
totally financed by corporations.
Obviously, as one of the elite intelligentsia - ensconced comfortably in
the hallowed halls of academia, you know little of this (blessed as you
no doubt are by generous plans at the taxpayers' expense).
In their article 'Fed Follies', Sheldon Friedman and Tom Schlesinger
note (Working USA, July-August, p. 30):
"For millions of Americans in the process of being dumped onto low
-wage labor markets as a reesult of 'welfare reform' - the Fed's
decision in March (1997) to tighten could not have come at a worse time.
According to the government's broadest measure, 9.6 million of the
nation's working age adults already are unemployed, under-employedor
marignally attached to the labor force when the Fed pulled the trigger.
Less-skilled, low income earners are always the first to lose their jobs
during a money tightening. Rising interest rates cause low
unemployment's virtuous circle - employers investing more in productive
plant and equipment while hirign and training workers they would shun at
other times, many of them minorities, youth and women - to shift in
reverse
All of which points to the most troubling aspect of harsh monetary
policy: its capacity to frustrate and undermine people power. With a
powerful central bank poised to curb the healthy job growth and rising
pay that empowers workers, even the most comprehensive living wage
ordnance...stands in jeopardy of being sacrificed on the altar of the
bond market."
By contrast - as Gibson notes (p. 30):
"While Kennedy actively solicited, and perhaps temporarily gained, the
cooperation of the Federal Reserve Board, he was alert to any chance of
increasing his own influence over the money supply and interest rates."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<snip>
"Kennedy's concerns with growth and investment shaped his policies in
the area of spending, deficits and money. He was committed in principle
to economic progress, not to either balanced budgets or deficits. He
enthusiastically embraced deficits, however, in order to prevent an
interruption of the increasing rates of investment and growth. He wanted
to increase the capacity of the President to take action to counter
economic downturns. He wanted the Federal Reserve's cooperation in
making sure there was enough low -interest credit available and looked
for other means to do this."
> Btw -
> > have you gone back and referenced the Wall Street (and Lucepress)
> > sources that launched their respective financial tirades against
> > Kennedy?
>
> No, I haven't because it is irrelevant to the hypothesis that
> the Fed was in on the conspiracy. The Fed is not the same
> thing as the oil-banker clique.
But the Fed's component banks, e.g. the NY branch, have had interaction
and shared interests with the Morgan-Rockefeller bunch, which is also
tied to Oil and the intelligence community.
> The fact is that the Fed was highly cooperative with JFK's
> monetary policy aims. They were not at odds in the erroneous
> way that Gibson asserts.
Gibson's assertions are not 'erroneous' at all, but predicated on more
than 15 years of comprehensive research. As I said, I would be more
inclined to go by such a solid and extensive research base, than by a
few statistics wrenched out of context for convenience.
DSharp673
>:
>: Frankly, these debates about whether Oswald was a good shot or not are
>getting
>: a bit boring after 35 years.
>
>: Let's shift the dialogue.
>
>: Let's discuss JFK's foreign policy.
>
>: Let's discuss JFK's Vietnam policy.
>
>: Let's discuss JFK's Middle-Eastern policy.
>
>: Let's discuss JFK's effort to end the Cold War with the Soviet Union. His
>: shift in policy was clearly stated in a speech he delivered at American
>: University in June 1963.
>
>Eisenhower before him and Nixon after him he sought to reduce tensions,
>while maintaining a strong military.
[Sharp:] BULLSHIT !!! Do you want me print the entire transcript of his
speech at American University? The one where stated is goal of ending the Cold
War.
>: [Sharp]
>: Most important, let's discuss why the news media has suppressed this
>: information from the public for 35 years.
>
> [McAdams:]
>Nonsense. Only recently has "debunking" of St. John of Hyannis been
>commonplace in the media. For two decades, more or less, the media bought
>the myth of Camelot.
>
[Sharp:]
What does buying into the myth of Camelot have to do with anything? Whether
people think he was a saint or not has nothing to with his policies as
president. Yes, he started out as a Cold Warrior. Later in June 1963, he
shifted. He extended an olive branch to the Soviet Union. Historian Michael
Bechloss wrote the following of Kennedy's American University speech (June
1963) in his book, "The Crisis Years - Kennedy and Khrushchev":
"The lyrical address was easily the best speech of Kennedy's life. Read three
decades later, the words do not exert the power they did at the time. The
reason for that power was their startling dissonance with the shrill alarums of
the President's first two years in office. The speech was light-years from
Kennedy's Salt Lake City jeremiad of the 1960 campaign and his muscle-flexing
Inaugural Address.
No Cold War President, save Eisenhower after Stalin's death, had so publicly
endorsed the need to find a way out of the conflict. Even during the detente
of 1959-1960, with no need to worry about reelection, Eisenhower had been too
timid about raising public expectations to educate Americans about why better
Soviet relations were in their interest.
Later historians have cited the American University speech as evidence that
Kennedy's turbulent experience managing Soviet relations, especially throught
the Missile Crisis, had brought some kind of epiphany, showing the error of his
ways, allowing his idealism to prevail at last over caution and political
calculation.
....Kennedy's text appeared in the Soviet press. Citizens tore out copies and
carried them in wallets and purses."
(pages 599-601, "The Crisis Years...", by Michael Beschloss, ISBN
0-06-016454-9, Copyright 1991 by author, published by Edward Burlingame Books)
Have I made my point? Kennedy started out as a Cold Warrior, then he changed
six months before his death.
Woody Brison
> I would say that what neither the common LN theory or the common crossfire CT has
> grappled with is that those intimate with the corridors of power understood what had
> happened.People with some power had understood what was at stake, in such circumstances.
>
> About those circumstances, the historian Manchester commented, " the peaceful succession
> was remarkable".
I have trouble with the peaceful succession scenario. I see Lyndon
Johnson being sworn in while the body of his predeccesor is still warm.
The widow is standing there beside him drenched in the blood of her
husband. Within a couple of months we were charging off to drop napalm
for "Uncle Sam, who's got hisself in a terrible jam, way off yonder in
Vietnam." This is peaceful? I think it was just rigged to look peaceful
in the news.
It is true that there did not erupt a civil war at the time over who
should next be Prez. So? The Nazis got control of Berlin, it was quiet
on the streets. As long as you didn't criticize their doings. Even as
politically apathetic and naive as I was at the time of Vietnam, I knew
this was not what Kennedy had tried to do.
Kennedy created the U.S. Special Forces. These were supposed to be guys
who understood not only combat and weapons, but the language of the people
where they worked, and also understood the institutions of democracy.
They were supposed to create free nations not just destroy bad guys.
Assume for a moment that many of the people that were witness to the
events that have died were snuffed -- and I haven't determined that to be
true for myself yet -- then there is a lot of cosmic energy, or martyrs
before the altar pleading for justice, or however you want to express
it... JFK came forth with ideas and ideals. If those are not snuffed but
continue to be discussed and the best adopted, then the folks who killed
him will have ultimately failed in their objective.
Wood
ritchie linton
but in the end, you doubledback on yourself, saying:
>
>
> I have trouble with the peaceful succession scenario. I see Lyndon
> Johnson being sworn in while the body of his predeccesor is still warm.
> The widow is standing there beside him drenched in the blood of her
> husband. Within a couple of months we were charging off to drop napalm
> for "Uncle Sam, who's got hisself in a terrible jam, way off yonder in
> Vietnam." This is peaceful? I think it was just rigged to look peaceful
> in the news.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
But in the end you say:
> . JFK came forth with ideas and ideals. If those are not snuffed but
> continue to be discussed and the best adopted, then the folks who killed
> him will have ultimately failed in their objective.
>
> Wood
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
that they did was my point. There were no reprisals against the conspiracy, and the
succession followed the constitution.It has ever since.There was no change in power.
RJ
Tony Pitman
> ritchie linton wrote:
> > I would say that what neither the common LN theory or the common
> crossfire CT has
> > grappled with is that those intimate with the corridors of power
> understood what had
> > happened.People with some power had understood what was at stake, in
> such circumstances.
> >
> > About those circumstances, the historian Manchester commented, " the
> peaceful succession
> > was remarkable".
>
> I have trouble with the peaceful succession scenario. I see Lyndon
> Johnson being sworn in while the body of his predeccesor is still
> warm.
> The widow is standing there beside him drenched in the blood of her
> husband. Within a couple of months we were charging off to drop
> napalm
> for "Uncle Sam, who's got hisself in a terrible jam, way off yonder in
>
> Vietnam." This is peaceful? I think it was just rigged to look
> peaceful
> in the news.
>
> It is true that there did not erupt a civil war at the time over who
> should next be Prez. So? The Nazis got control of Berlin, it was
> quiet
> on the streets. As long as you didn't criticize their doings. Even
> as
> politically apathetic and naive as I was at the time of Vietnam, I
> knew
> this was not what Kennedy had tried to do.
>
> Kennedy created the U.S. Special Forces. These were supposed to be
> guys
> who understood not only combat and weapons, but the language of the
> people
> where they worked, and also understood the institutions of democracy.
> They were supposed to create free nations not just destroy bad guys.
>
> Assume for a moment that many of the people that were witness to the
> events that have died were snuffed -- and I haven't determined that to
> be
> true for myself yet -- then there is a lot of cosmic energy, or
> martyrs
> before the altar pleading for justice, or however you want to express
> it... JFK came forth with ideas and ideals. If those are not snuffed
> but
> continue to be discussed and the best adopted, then the folks who
> killed
> him will have ultimately failed in their objective.
>
> Wood
That is right Woody. As an example try to find some reading on the way
the British, Australian and New Zealanders of the SAS handled a similar
scenario in Malaya before it could get out of hand. They did the same in
other countries too and enjoy a reputation as the best of the worlds
special forces.
They do as you say and try to include people who can speak the required
language along with others who teach the locals how to look out for
themselves with pride.
Diplomacy with a gun I guess but wherever they've been they've come away
leaving friends behind them.
There are one or two exeptions of course such as Iraq but that was a
different story.
Tony
Tony Pitman
> John McAdams wrote:***See below****
> >
> > DSharp673 <dsha...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > :
> > : Most important, let's discuss why the news media has suppressed
> this
> > : information from the public for 35 years.
> >
> > Nonsense. Only recently has "debunking" of St. John of Hyannis been
>
> > commonplace in the media. For two decades, more or less, the media
> bought
> > the myth of Camelot.
> >
> > .John*******************
>
> *******************
> True enough.
>
> By this, both you and the media at large are hoist on your own petard.
> The reality, as
> you say, is that there was in fact a dark side to Camelot.Unkown by
> the public at the
> time-the failure of the media, as you say- those intimate with the
> corridors of power
> saw many things which disturbed common sensibilties. That was why
> those in power whacked
> the guy. It goes to motive, a thing you say the meida never understood
> at the time-and
> still it seems, for they mostly report as they do.
>
> The essence of the question is why would a CT whack a good guy? They
> think what you
> think-except that now, you think differently. Kennedy was not that
> nice a guy.
>
> Someone close to the power of the day said the the Kennedy killing was
> the convergence
> of:
>
> "bigotry,the hatred,prejudice and arrogance"-that was what converged
> to "stike him
> down".
>
> Mrs. Kennedy, "thought it was the one thing that said what happened".
>
> To John: Have you found out yet who said these things? I asked Mr
> Hiatt if he knew,
> based on his claims of knowledge, and he withdrew. That is a clue.
>
> I would say that what neither the common LN theory or the common
> crossfire CT has
> grappled with is that those intimate with the corridors of power
> understood what had
> happened.People with some power had understood what was at stake, in
> such circumstances.
>
> About those circumstances, the historian Manchester commented, " the
> peaceful succession
> was remarkable".
>
> Ritchie
Dead right Ritchie. That's why they the would be dynasty was known as
Camelot maybe.
Does everyone think King Arthur and his crowd were all nice guys or some
such. They were prone to hacking each other to bits with axes and swords
and such. Serial murderers the lot of them. Grisly too just like the
manson family:-)
Tony