Live by the Sword
and...@my-dejanews.com
few questions.
Russo finesses the issue of whether Oswald knew Ferrie by ignoring it totally.
Has the CAP issue ever been settled?
Russo suggests that even a moronic lone nut like Oswald would have easily
found out about assassination plots against Castro when Oswald went to New
Orleans. How did the rest of the world remain so ignorant? Many Warren
report staffers say they might have worked differetly if they had known.
Contrary to some posts here, Russo suggest that LHO acted on behalf of a
Cuban Communist conspiracy which paid him to shoot JFK. Russo never goes into
how this would make Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton
the biggest wimps of all time for letting Castro get away with it. Saddam
Hussein is a piker in comparison.
Many critics have suggested over the years that one desire of the real JFK
assassination plotters was to invade Cuba right after. Russo seems to either
be sucked in by their spin or fronting for them.
Andy
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Amethyst
>
> Although this book has been deservedly trashed around here, it did suggest a
> few questions.
>
> Russo finesses the issue of whether Oswald knew Ferrie by ignoring it totally.
> Has the CAP issue ever been settled?
The HSCA found witnesses that placed Oswald in CAP meetings at a time
when Ferrie was present - though not the leader at this time. This was
at Beaureguard.
>
> Russo suggests that even a moronic lone nut like Oswald would have easily
> found out about assassination plots against Castro when Oswald went to New
> Orleans. How did the rest of the world remain so ignorant? Many Warren
> report staffers say they might have worked differetly if they had known.
Oswald wasn't moronic at all. And he was reading leftist publications
that contained info on the secret war against Cuba -- and in that
regard, the letters
of V.T. Lee and the Fair Play For Cuba material are preeminent.
Castro gave a speech in the summer of '63 in which he reacted to the
assassination plots against him by saying to those undertaking them:
"they, themselves, won't be safe" and that such actions would be
"answered in kind."
> Contrary to some posts here, Russo suggest that LHO acted on behalf of a
> Cuban Communist conspiracy which paid him to shoot JFK.
Not true. Gus believes that Oswald may well have had contact with lower
level DGI agents who either merely gave him knowledge of what the
Kennedy bros were doing, or actively encouraged him to take action.
Russo never goes into
> how this would make Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton
> the biggest wimps of all time for letting Castro get away with it. Saddam
> Hussein is a piker in comparison.
Gus makes the point that investigations were cut off. Therefore, we have
suspicions
only and no proof that there was a Cuban involvement.
I believe the evidence is that there was not; however, had an
investigation been diligently pursued, there may have been something
uncovered.
I'm talking about investigating leads originating in Mexico City.
>
> Many critics have suggested over the years that one desire of the real JFK
> assassination plotters was to invade Cuba right after. Russo seems to either
> be sucked in by their spin or fronting for them.
There was an OPLAN 380-63 that RFK was working on that would have
resulted in a second invasion of Cuba and Castro's removal before the
election of '64, or even in the late autumn of '63.
Jerry
BKLATTY
<snip>
>Many critics have suggested over the years that one desire of the real JFK
>assassination plotters was to invade Cuba right after. Russo seems to either
>be sucked in by their spin or fronting for them.
I believe that to be the true scenario. Oswald was sucked into a coup by
anti-Castro cubans (and the mob, and Lbj). I don't think Ozzie knew which side
he was playing for.
Stugrad98
>Although this book has been deservedly trashed around here, it did suggest a
>few questions.
It doesn't deserve to be trashed. It's quite good, though I disagree with it's
ultimate conclusion.
>
>Russo finesses the issue of whether Oswald knew Ferrie by ignoring it
>totally.
>Has the CAP issue ever been settled?
I don't think he ignores it completely. He sort of skims around the
"did-Oswald-know-Ferrie" issue but, ultimately, offers the scenario that Ferrie
would have no motive to kill JFK anyway. I think someone has to doublecheck
that scenario a little bit more, and, moreover, seriously look into Ferrie's
post-raid reactions. Personally, I think many of the people Russo has
"working" with RFK were doing so with serious reservations about the intentions
of the person behind it. If they felt, for an instance, that the Kennedies
were double-crossing them or going back on their word, I'd think they be *more*
inclined to take drastic action.
>
>Russo suggests that even a moronic lone nut like Oswald would have easily
>found out about assassination plots against Castro when Oswald went to New
>Orleans.
I agree. He uses some serious anectdotal stretching to get the "Oswald *had*
to have known" argument down. But it's not entirely implausible.
How did the rest of the world remain so ignorant? Many Warren
>report staffers say they might have worked differetly if they had known.
>
>Contrary to some posts here, Russo suggest that LHO acted on behalf of a
>Cuban Communist conspiracy which paid him to shoot JFK. Russo never goes into
>how this would make Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton
>the biggest wimps of all time for letting Castro get away with it. Saddam
>Hussein is a piker in comparison.
Johnson most definitely *did* think Castro was behind it, but the important
thing to remember is, that many amongst those who think Castro did it also
think Kennedy had it coming.
>
>Many critics have suggested over the years that one desire of the real JFK
>assassination plotters was to invade Cuba right after. Russo seems to either
>be sucked in by their spin or fronting for them.
I agree. Ultimately, I believe Oswald was set up by anti-Castroites (not
limited to exiles but to, generally, people who wanted Castro out)
and that he thought they were pro-Castro.
But I think without question, it breaks down to one of two things: either
Castro or people trying to frame Castro. If you think there is a conspiracy
there is simply no other way to really explain Mexico City. Now, for reasons
that are too long to go into, I think that it's clear that-- *if* Castro were
involved-- he was involved directly. I don't think the evidence can favor a
"he whispered in Oswald's ear" approach which is yet another Russo-favored
theory. With that in mind, it seems silly that Castro would use someone who so
obviously led back to him.
>
>Andy
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
></PRE></HTML>
Leo Sgouros
Amethyst wrote in message <3671F2...@prodigy.net>...
>and...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> Although this book has been deservedly trashed around here, it did
suggest a
>> few questions.
>>
totally.
>> Has the CAP issue ever been settled?
>
>when Ferrie was present - though not the leader at this time. This was
>at Beaureguard.
>>
>> found out about assassination plots against Castro when Oswald went to
New
>> report staffers say they might have worked differetly if they had known.
>
>that contained info on the secret war against Cuba -- and in that
>regard, the letters
>of V.T. Lee and the Fair Play For Cuba material are preeminent.
>
>Castro gave a speech in the summer of '63 in which he reacted to the
>assassination plots against him by saying to those undertaking them:
>"they, themselves, won't be safe" and that such actions would be
>"answered in kind."
>
>> Cuban Communist conspiracy which paid him to shoot JFK.
>
>level DGI agents who either merely gave him knowledge of what the
>Kennedy bros were doing, or actively encouraged him to take action.
>
>> how this would make Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and
Clinton
>> the biggest wimps of all time for letting Castro get away with it.
Saddam
>> Hussein is a piker in comparison.
>
>suspicions
>only and no proof that there was a Cuban involvement.
>
>I believe the evidence is that there was not; however, had an
>investigation been diligently pursued, there may have been something
>uncovered.
>
>I'm talking about investigating leads originating in Mexico City.
>>
JFK
>> assassination plotters was to invade Cuba right after. Russo seems to
either
>> be sucked in by their spin or fronting for them.
>
>resulted in a second invasion of Cuba and Castro's removal before the
>election of '64, or even in the late autumn of '63.
>
>Jerry
Weberman and hemming say S.N.G got Kennedy killed. I say it was the shared
assets that got Oswalds ear.A double whammy to try to investigate. Go Jerry
Racer, Go!!
Leo
Blackburst
>Has the CAP issue ever been settled?
>
I don't know which "CAP issue" you reference, but it is a fact that Ferrie left
hi position as Commander of the Lakefront Airport CAP squadron in April 1955,
and went to the Moisant Airport CAP squadron as a volunteer trainer during
June-August 1955, and it is a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald became a member of
the Moisant squadron for "a few weeks" beginning on July 27, 1955. A cadet
named John Ciravolo photographed both Ferrie and Oswald at a CAP bivouac in
early August 1955.
As for a Ferrie-Oswald relationship in 1963, there are a number of people who
later claimed to have seen them together, but no single witness of high
credibility has yet emerged. The question of a 1963 relationship is suggestive,
but unresoved.
oo
David
Atlasrecrd
regarding the assassination are to protect Bobby Kennedy. That's right,
the obstruction of justice and witness tampering seen in the Garrison and
HSCA investigations by the CIA was simply to protect the name of
Bobby Kennedy. Wanna buy a bridge?
Leo Sgouros
Atlasrecrd wrote in message
<19981212035435...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
BINGO{to quote}the illtimate ulterior motive.
Sickening.
and...@my-dejanews.com
> > Contrary to some posts here, Russo suggest that LHO acted on behalf of a
> > Cuban Communist conspiracy which paid him to shoot JFK.
>
> Not true. Gus believes that Oswald may well have had contact with lower
> level DGI agents who either merely gave him knowledge of what the
> Kennedy bros were doing, or actively encouraged him to take action.
>
Oh, I wonder he devotes all that space to Oswald having sex with a Cuban
embassy official in Mexico City and why he includes all kinds of stuff about
cash payments to Oswald from official Cuban sources.
Sure sounds like the author is dealing in Cuban conspiracy to me
Andy
> Russo never goes into
> > how this would make Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton
> > the biggest wimps of all time for letting Castro get away with it. Saddam
> > Hussein is a piker in comparison.
>
> Gus makes the point that investigations were cut off. Therefore, we have
> suspicions
> only and no proof that there was a Cuban involvement.
>
> I believe the evidence is that there was not; however, had an
> investigation been diligently pursued, there may have been something
> uncovered.
>
> I'm talking about investigating leads originating in Mexico City.
> >
> > Many critics have suggested over the years that one desire of the real JFK
> > assassination plotters was to invade Cuba right after. Russo seems to
either
> > be sucked in by their spin or fronting for them.
>
> There was an OPLAN 380-63 that RFK was working on that would have
> resulted in a second invasion of Cuba and Castro's removal before the
> election of '64, or even in the late autumn of '63.
>
> Jerry
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
freed...@my-dejanews.com
atlas...@aol.com (Atlasrecrd) wrote:
> Live By the Sword is marred by it's thesis that government coverups
> regarding the assassination are to protect Bobby Kennedy. That's right,
> the obstruction of justice and witness tampering seen in the Garrison and
> HSCA investigations by the CIA was simply to protect the name of
> Bobby Kennedy. Wanna buy a bridge?
High Crimes and Misdemeanours
What are high crimes and misdemeanours? Is it too much to assume that
rational people would rise up in protest if the President defendant had
indeed committed high crimes and misdemeaners? Does anybody who is
reasonable and seeks to uphold the rule of law, actually believe that the
public would tolerate a President who is in fact guilty of perjury, of
obstruction of justice and of abuse of power? The standards of the vast
majority are clearly too high to dismiss the sort of abuse that is alleged.
Moreover, most of the charges have proved to be so utterly preposterous
that they collapsed on their own transparent frivolity. The only thing that
remains is the McCarthyite charge that crimes were committed but details
cannot be exposed. It's the old, perpetual, pending investigation gimmick
-keep the target under investigation, claim phony secrecy privileges and he
or she is always a suspect. And that is the sort of suspended animation
that produced the desperate charge that President Clinton committed perjury
-but who says?
That is the question and it not entirely facetious because it goes to the
heart of "specific intent". In particular, perjury is a specific intent
crime that relies upon the mindset of the defendant. When, for example,
Monica Lewinsky said that she hadn't had a sexual relationship with Bill
Clinton, she was telling the truth because Monica Lewinsky made a clear
distinction between what she called "fooling around" and sexual
intercourse. It is Linda Tripp who ultimately insists that Monica committed
perjury because she is the one who persistently quarrelled with Monica, in
effort to plant in her mind, the necessary elements that are required by
law, to expose a target to the charge of perjury. It all sounds absurd and
difficult to imagine but it's all on tape and the charge cannot simply be
dismissed. Blinded by the mentality that the end justifies the means,
criminal perpetrators do not appreciate the scope of self-incrimination. On
tape, Linda Tripp is heard clearly insisting that Lewinsky and Clinton had
sex, and she aggressively disputes the "fooling around" characterization
that Lewinsky firmly believed. Indeed, she pushed and pushed and pushed to
the point where Linda Tripp claimed that if you have an orgasm, it's sex.
Can you imagine a grown woman, any grown woman, arguing with a young girl,
any young girl, about the definition of sex? Can you imagine a grown woman,
any grown woman, insisting that orgasm equals sex? Is masturbation also
sex? If they are willing to re-write the dictionary to expose the President
of the United States to the charge that he committed perjury, is there
anything that they are not willing to do?
Like Linda Tripp, attorneys for Paula Jones were preoccupied by the bizarre
obsession to define sex. In the end, the tortured definition they produced
provided Bill Clinton a cover to deny a sexual relationship -and the trap
was sprung. But it was a trap with an illusory bite. Perjury is not the
failure or the reluctance to expose a sexual play by play. It was a nice
try, but it was a trap that lacked substance and demanded the sort of zeal
that reasonable prosecutors reject. Moreover, if collusion between Linda
Tripp, the Jones camp and the Office of the Independent Council is
responsible for the parsimonious definition about sex, the astounding scope
of the behind-the-scenes set-up reflects unethical, clever lawyering, to
say the very least. Having deliberately limited their questions to
encourage Clinton to mislead, it certainly takes extraordinary contempt for
the law to turn around and call that perjury. There is indeed no limit to
the stretch of reason that Clinton's accusers claim. They even have the
unbridled arrogance to call Jones versus Clinton a Federal civil rights
action. Frivolous on merit, bogus on substance, Jones versus Clinton was
about abusing the court system to procure a perjury charge about a
non-criminal matter. Lawyers for Paula Jones essentially betrayed the fact
that they were more anti-Clinton crusaders than advocates for Paula Jones
when they claimed that Clinton was guilty of perjury, obstruction of
justice and abuse of power. Having oblitherated the distinction between the
Jones camp and Starr's Office, it is essentially naive to deny the evident
collusion. Indeed, the assault was essentially treasonous, because Monica
Lewinsky and the Jones case were used in a manner which was tantamount to
manufacturing justification to criminally indict the President of the
United States.
And when the Jones case was thrown out of court, even the inconsistent Dick
Morris, the very man whose rhetoric is selectively used to demonize
Clinton, claimed that Paula Jones owed the entire country an apology. Isn't
it ironic that Paula Jones owes Bill Clinton what she in fact demanded from
him? Indeed, isn't everything about a witch hunt ironic, when the rule of
law comes to bear? Isn't the effort to turn Dick Morris into the John Dean
of the Whitewater scandal, a laughable, transparent fraud? Black is not
white and white is not black. Service justice my friend. Service justice
well because if you do not, anybody can call you a murderer, and instead of
substantiating the charge, they will simply compare you to other murderers
and demand a confession. Confess and die fast, defy and die slow. Guilty
today, or guilty tomorrow. You will be confined and the switch will be
pulled. Your body will convulse and your eyes will pop. Justice for one,
justice for all.
Resist the temptation to label and destroy. To borrow Mary Bono's repeated
boast, this is not the work of lawyers. This is not a defense for Bill
Clinton. This is simply a reflection of every single, reasonable person who
is sick and tired of all the bullshit and you can take that poll to the
bank.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/va/nsnews/news.html
lynn mach
sword sent to them free of charge,along with a new jfk catalog.m&a books
p.o.box 2422 waco,texas 76703.
Vern Pascal
Vern Pascal
hey if somebody is going to send me a free copy.,I wouldn't turn them
down......................Jeff
P.S. Does anybody believe Russo's thesis out there?
Bill Parker
What does this drivel have to do with the book "Live by the Sword"?
Are you illiterate or merely suffering from ADD?
Bill Parker
Stugrad98
I think he has the nature of the cover-up and the JFK-RFK effort against Castro
nicely pinned down. I disagree with him about who and how many people killed
JFK.
-Stu
lynn mach
bookdealers p.o. box 2422 waco,texas 76703
Atlasrecrd
>bookdealers p.o. box 2422 waco,texas 76703
I own the book. Nice guy. Screwy thesis.
Funny how Sergio Arcacha Smith will only talk to an
author that says Castro did it.
Funny how Sergio Arcacha Smith demanded immunity from
prosecution before testifying in front of the HSCA.
Let's see, if in our current case you demanded immunity from
prosecution, what would that lead us to believe regarding your
guilty knowledge?
Hmmm.
The way these two cases are being brought to their conclusion
share more similarities than most people have stopped to think about.
Larry Hancock
That's two of us Stu...good stuff on the points you
mentioned but way off base on much else. But then what
can you expect from somebody that is still using Pricilla
M. for reliable primary evidence on Oswald..
- Larry
Larry Hancock
Andy, if you are interested in Russo's Mexico "facts" I'd
suggest you read Peter Dale Scotts Deep Politics II...and
see how they hold up. Actually I wish Russo had, of course
if he did and ignored Scott's excellant work, then I'd
assume he had an axe to grind with the Kennedy's.
-- Larry
Stugrad98
Yeah, what do LNers see in McMillan. I did a paper on her book in college. A
bigger collection of unqualified psychobabble bullshit I have never seen in my
life. I loved the "Oswald killed JFK because he like High Noon" hypothesis.
That's a good one.
-Stu
>
></PRE></HTML>
Stugrad98
There's a better book than Scott's, with all due respect to the professor.
Newman's "Oswald and the CIA."
-Stu
Dreitzes
>From: stug...@aol.com (Stugrad98)
>Date: Sun, Dec 20, 1998 03:03 EST
>Message-id: <19981220030307...@ng113.aol.com>
>
>>
>> Andy, if you are interested in Russo's Mexico "facts" I'd
>> suggest you read Peter Dale Scotts Deep Politics II...and
>> see how they hold up. Actually I wish Russo had, of course
>> if he did and ignored Scott's excellant work, then I'd
>> assume he had an axe to grind with the Kennedy's.
>>
>> -- Larry
>>
>>
>>
>
>Newman's "Oswald and the CIA."
>
>-Stu
******************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
I would recommend either. Newman's is a lot easier to find, of course.
Dave
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * \8^)
For my series on John Armstrong's Oswald research, please see:
gopher://gopher.freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK/Only/JA/DR
AnthonyMarsh
Gee, you never know what new scientific techniques will emerge to
resolve the issue. Remember that the idea that Jefferson sire a child
with his slave Sally Hemmings was only a rumor for so many years and
most people said that it could never be resolved. But just this year a
new DNA test proved that it was true. So, maybe some future test will
find Ferrie's DNA in Oswald's body. That might prove a connection.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Larry Hancock
Well said, stupid of me to leave it out.. Larry
Larry Hancock
Stu, you would enjoy a little article in Fourth Decade
a while back....it simply presented the actual Dallas
TV schedule for the nights when Oswald was supposed
to be watching those fascinating movies about snipers and
killing Presidents. Amazingly enough they were not
listed....can you believe it, looks so good in the book..
-- Larry