The Mystery Man
claviger
somewhat incredible to realize he had so many connections to such a
diverse group of people involved in this national tragedy. He was a
Russian aristocrat who socialized with Jackie Kennedy's family and knew
her as a young girl. He had connections to the OSS and CIA through his
brother. De Mohrenschildt once attended a meeting with a group of people
including Frank Sturgis. He also had met various people in the Cuban
community.
He was involved in a business project in Haiti. On the other side of the
island is the Dominican Republic once ruled by the Trujillo family. It
would not be surprising if he made contact with them on trips to the
island. He also knew prominent people in the oil business in Texas. And
last but certainly not least, he was a good friend with Lee and Marina
Oswald.
Then there is the shocking story by a Dutch reporter De Mohrenschildt
confessed to him that he was the one who influenced LHO to kill President
Kennedy. It also appears that De Mohrenschildt had mental problems and
eventually committed suicide.
In summary, De Mohrenschildt had connections to several people who were
not admirers of the Kennedy brothers. Did he act in behalf of any of these
people to convince LHO to shoot the President? Or did he and LHO both have
similar mental problems antagonistic to authority figures in the culture
they lived in? Was their friendship a mutually toxic relationship where
both felt unappreciated and ignored by the world around them?
Can it be that George De Moherenschildt was the Svengali to an
unsophisticated and unhappy Lee Harvey Oswald? If so, did these two
unlikely friends commit the crime of the century by themselves, or were
there more sinister forces at work?
John Blubaugh
Holy cow, you have just decided to become a CT. Welcome to the side the
rest of the world joined long ago. I am not sure De Moherenschildt had
mental problems. He committee suicide just before he was to be questioned.
Perhaps he was just avoiding a scandal.
JB
Peter Fokes
wrote:
George skidaddled to Haiti months before the knock off occurred.
Terrible situation there.
Hard to understand where the billions and billions of dollars that
flowed into Haiti in the past few decades have ended up ...
Haiti's richest 1% own nearly half the country's wealth. Hopefully
they will be very charitable to the suffering masses. History has not
shown that to be the case though.
Hell on earth, this tiny island.
PF
Anthony Marsh
Not hard to understand if one pays attention to the way things really work
in the real world. Even now all the rescue efforts are going to save the
rich and white while the poor and black are left to fend for themselves.
Tons of food and water sent and none of it gets to the people left
homeless on the streets.
> Haiti's richest 1% own nearly half the country's wealth. Hopefully
Not that much different from the distribution of wealth in the United
States. Unemployment at 10% while Bill Gates is sitting on 12 Billion
dollars. No universal health care while every other major country has it.
Bill Gates could totally fund health care out of his lunch money. When a
natural disaster strikes the US billions are given to the rich whites
while the poor blacks are left to fend for themselves with no food and
water.
claviger
Interesting information from the Hemming deposition:
_______________________________________________________
HEMMING DEPO - P. 3
In May or June of 1962, at Luis Rabel's house Hemming met Rabel,
Frank
Bartes, Larry Laborde, Guy Banister, Demohrenschilt, and there was an
attache case filled in $100 bills. The purpose was to pay for
assassinating Fidel Castro. Hemming declined because he thought Raul
Castro would be even worse (pp 136-141)
_______________________________________________________
I've never seen anyone mention a connection between Hemming and
George
De Mohrenschilt. This is the only time Hemming ever mentions his
name. He does not indicate there was a later connection
between George de Mohrenschildt and Lee Harvey Oswald.
bigdog
Given that Oswald himself wouldn't have known of the opportunity fate had
dealt him until Monday, 11/18/63 at the earliest, it is highly doubtful
that George De would have had time to plant any ideas in Oswald's head.
First of all, George De would have needed to know about the chance
circumstance as well, made the decision himself to convince Oswald to do
it, and then talked Oswald into carrying it out. How does he know that
unless Oswald calls him up and tells him? Then, does George De just decide
on the spur of the moment to convince Oswald to shoot JFK. And then of
course, Oswald would have had to agree to do something so insane at the
suggestion of someone else. The is intriguing but extremely far fetched.
While theoretically possible in that it would have left the same physical
evidence as if Oswald decided to do it on his own, it relies on a series
of extremely unlikely events. No one can disprove this theory but it is
entirely speculative and there isn't an ounce of evidence to suggest it
happened that way.
Grizzlie Antagonist
That is a very loose standard for a CT. Among other things, CT's
generally insist that LHO was innocent. That, in itself, makes absolutely
no sense -- and compounding the nonsense is the fact that having
superficially exonerated LHO, CT's then try to find patterns of sinister
association between LHO and others.
Oswald knew De Mohrenschildt who had a business in Haiti which is on the
other side of a portion of an island ruled by Trujillo. Oh, come on!
And if Oswald was INNOCENT (which, of course, he was not), what difference
does it make whom he associated with?
As far as claviger's observations go, he attached a question mark to them.
Unless used rhetorically -- which he clearly was not doing here -- a
question mark generally signifies an acknowledgement that something is not
known. That hardly makes him a CT, since CT's claim to have all the
answers.
Moreover, mere speculation that LHO discussed shooting JFK with others or
that others -- not necessarily in positions of high authority -- may have
influenced him doesn't qualify one as a member of the conspiracy
community, as I understand the qualifications.
Since every minute of LHO's life can't be accounted for, there is always a
possibility that the lone assassin discussed a number of things with a
number of other individuals, including assassinating the president, and
that these individuals gave some sort of encouragement or approval or
tacit assistance.
That doesn't mean that the individuals were highly placed or that their
assistance/encouragement/approval amounted to very much. Acknowledging
that such individuals may have existed doesn't make one a "conspiracy
theorist" as I understand the term.
As I understand what a JFK conspiracy theorist is, it means accepting on
pure faith (bolstered slightly by selective viewing of the facts and/or
rumors surrounding the assassination) that JFK was killed by highly-placed
dark reactionary forces.
I don't understand that to be the same thing as speculating that some
hitherto unknown person or persons might have influenced the actions of
the lone assassin.
And as for "the rest of the world", who cares what it thinks? "The rest
of the world" believes that the Americans and the Israelis bombed the WTC.
The "rest of the world" believes that killing a rat is murder because a
rat is on the same wheel of life that a human being is on.
Martinize the rest of the world and what it thinks!
"The rest of the world" used to regard Obama as a titanic leader; now it
acknowledges him as the leader of the Titanic. Sometimes, "the rest of
the world" gets around to acknowledging that its first impression was
incorrect.
yeuhd
Not only is George de Mohrenschildt cold-blooded enough that he convinces
Oswald to shoot an old friend's son-in-law, he's stupid enough to write
said old friend after the assassination, and tell her that he knew Oswald.
Anthony Marsh
What did someone just say about generalities?
What did someone just say about thou shalt not bear false witness
against they neighbor?
You seem confused about the difference between dissent and advocacy.
Reasonable doubt does not mean the jury thinks the defendant is
innocent. It means the prosecution did not prove its case.
Maybe the defendant was really guilty, but the prosecution was too
incompetent to prove it.
> no sense -- and compounding the nonsense is the fact that having
> superficially exonerated LHO, CT's then try to find patterns of sinister
> association between LHO and others.
>
> Oswald knew De Mohrenschildt who had a business in Haiti which is on the
> other side of a portion of an island ruled by Trujillo. Oh, come on!
>
> And if Oswald was INNOCENT (which, of course, he was not), what difference
> does it make whom he associated with?
>
If he was a patsy what difference does it make with whom he associated?
> As far as claviger's observations go, he attached a question mark to them.
> Unless used rhetorically -- which he clearly was not doing here -- a
> question mark generally signifies an acknowledgement that something is not
> known. That hardly makes him a CT, since CT's claim to have all the
> answers.
>
Never. Why would we keep asking for all the files to be released if we
already knew all the answers?
> Moreover, mere speculation that LHO discussed shooting JFK with others or
> that others -- not necessarily in positions of high authority -- may have
> influenced him doesn't qualify one as a member of the conspiracy
> community, as I understand the qualifications.
>
You have no right to talk about the qualifications for being a
conspiracy believer.
> Since every minute of LHO's life can't be accounted for, there is always a
> possibility that the lone assassin discussed a number of things with a
> number of other individuals, including assassinating the president, and
> that these individuals gave some sort of encouragement or approval or
> tacit assistance.
>
Or threw him out of the embassy.
> That doesn't mean that the individuals were highly placed or that their
> assistance/encouragement/approval amounted to very much. Acknowledging
> that such individuals may have existed doesn't make one a "conspiracy
> theorist" as I understand the term.
>
> As I understand what a JFK conspiracy theorist is, it means accepting on
> pure faith (bolstered slightly by selective viewing of the facts and/or
> rumors surrounding the assassination) that JFK was killed by highly-placed
> dark reactionary forces.
>
Wow, can you make it sound any more sinister?
> I don't understand that to be the same thing as speculating that some
> hitherto unknown person or persons might have influenced the actions of
> the lone assassin.
>
> And as for "the rest of the world", who cares what it thinks? "The rest
> of the world" believes that the Americans and the Israelis bombed the WTC.
Only a few kooks have that theory. 90% of the public think the JFK
assassination was a conspiracy.
> The "rest of the world" believes that killing a rat is murder because a
> rat is on the same wheel of life that a human being is on.
>
Maybe the non-Western world.
> Martinize the rest of the world and what it thinks!
>
> "The rest of the world" used to regard Obama as a titanic leader; now it
> acknowledges him as the leader of the Titanic. Sometimes, "the rest of
> the world" gets around to acknowledging that its first impression was
> incorrect.
>
Did you have to pay any money for that joke or did you find it on a
right-wing blog?
claviger
The WC took little interest in De Mohrenschildt because he was in Haiti at
the time of the assassination and had been there for awhile. So he could
not have participated in the actual assassination. However, some people
have accused him of being the CIA "handler" for LHO. It is remarkable that
prior to the assassination De Mohrenschildt had met Frank Sturgis, Guy
Bannister, Gerry Hemming, and maybe even Abraham Zapruder.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 29, 4:52=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 11:50=A0am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > The mystery X-factor in this whole case is George De Mohrenschildt. It =
>is
>> > somewhat incredible to realize he had so many connections to such a
>> > diverse group of people involved in this national tragedy. He was a
>> > Russian aristocrat who socialized with Jackie Kennedy's family and knew
>> > her as a young girl. He had connections to the OSS and CIA through his
>> > brother. De Mohrenschildt once attended a meeting with a group of peopl=
>e
>> > including Frank Sturgis. He also had met various people in the Cuban
>> > community.
>>
>> > He was involved in a business project in Haiti. On the other side of th=
>e
>> > island is the Dominican Republic once ruled by the Trujillo family. It
>> > would not be surprising if he made contact with them on trips to the
>> > island. He also knew prominent people in the oil business in Texas. And
>> > last but certainly not least, he was a good friend with Lee and Marina
>> > Oswald.
>>
>> > Then there is the shocking story by a Dutch reporter De Mohrenschildt
>> > confessed to him that he was the one who influenced LHO to kill Preside=
>nt
>> > Kennedy. It also appears that De Mohrenschildt had mental problems and
>> > eventually committed suicide.
>>
>> > In summary, De Mohrenschildt had connections to several people who were
>> > not admirers of the Kennedy brothers. Did he act in behalf of any of th=
>ese
>> > people to convince LHO to shoot the President? Or did he and LHO both h=
>ave
>> > similar mental problems antagonistic to authority figures in the cultur=
>e
>> > they lived in? Was their friendship a mutually toxic relationship where
>> > both felt unappreciated and ignored by the world around them?
>>
>> > Can it be that George De Moherenschildt was the Svengali to an
>> > unsophisticated and unhappy Lee Harvey Oswald? If so, did these two
>> > unlikely friends commit the crime of the century by themselves, or were
>> > there more sinister forces at work?
>>
>> Given that Oswald himself wouldn't have known of the opportunity fate had
>> dealt him until Monday, 11/18/63 at the earliest, it is highly doubtful
>> that George De would have had time to plant any ideas in Oswald's head.
>> First of all, George De would have needed to know about the chance
>> circumstance as well, made the decision himself to convince Oswald to do
>> it, and then talked Oswald into carrying it out. How does he know that
>> unless Oswald calls him up and tells him? Then, does George De just decid=
>e
>> on the spur of the moment to convince Oswald to shoot JFK. And then of
>> course, Oswald would have had to agree to do something so insane at the
>> suggestion of someone else. =A0The is intriguing but extremely far fetche=
>d.
>> While theoretically possible in that it would have left the same physical
>> evidence as if Oswald decided to do it on his own, it relies on a series
>> of extremely unlikely events. No one can disprove this theory but it is
>> entirely speculative and there isn't an ounce of evidence to suggest it
>> happened that way.
>
>The WC took little interest in De Mohrenschildt because he was in Haiti at
>the time of the assassination and had been there for awhile. So he could
>not have participated in the actual assassination. However, some people
>have accused him of being the CIA "handler" for LHO. It is remarkable that
>prior to the assassination De Mohrenschildt had met Frank Sturgis, Guy
>Bannister, Gerry Hemming, and maybe even Abraham Zapruder.
>
>
You're going to need to supply some evidence on that.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Blubaugh
> >The WC took little interest in De Mohrenschildt because he was in Haiti at
> >the time of the assassination and had been there for awhile. So he could
> >not have participated in the actual assassination. However, some people
> >have accused him of being the CIA "handler" for LHO. It is remarkable that
> >prior to the assassination De Mohrenschildt had met Frank Sturgis, Guy
> >Bannister, Gerry Hemming, and maybe even Abraham Zapruder.
>
> You're going to need to supply some evidence on that.
>
> .John
>
> --
Why? You post undocumented crap all of the time.
JB
John Blubaugh
> "The rest of the world" used to regard Obama as a titanic leader; now it
> acknowledges him as the leader of the Titanic. Sometimes, "the rest of
> the world" gets around to acknowledging that its first impression was
>
Oh, I think the rest of the world still considers him a great leader
especially when compared to the man he followed into the office. You see,
the rest of the world is smart enough to know that Obama did not cause all
of the problems he has been dealing with for the past year.
JB
claviger
> On 1 Feb 2010 17:29:28 -0500, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
Here is the first installment for 2 out of 4. I'll have to look the
others up.
claviger
More:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7590&pid=167636&mode=threaded&start=#entry167636
"In 1959, Mohrenschildnt married Jean LeGon, who worked at a high end
fashion store in Dallas called Nardis. The owner of this was Abraham
Zapruder. Mohrenschildnt might have met LeGon through Zapruder, as
both were members of the Dallas Council on World Affairs, one which
both were members. Others members included Clint Murchinson, H.L.
Hunt, George Bush, Sarah Hughes (who would later swear in LBJ on Air
Force One in Dallas the day of assassination), Mr. Byrds, who was the
owner of the Book Depository, and George de Mohrenschildt’s brother,
Dimitri von Mohrenschildt. Allegedly, the Dallas Council on World
Affairs was sponsored by the CIA, though I’ve yet to confirm this."
claviger
Also:
Spartacus Educational: George de Mohrenschildt and Abraham Zapruder
http://spartacus-educational.blogspot.com / 2009 / 11 / george-de-
mohrenschildt-...
claviger
Interesting website.
Political Friendster - George De Mohrenschildt - Connections
http://www.politicalfriendster.com / showPerson.php?id=5685&n...
claviger
Here is a website with several articles about George De Mohrenschildt.
According to this author he almost became Jackie Bouvier's step
father:
Sherman De Brosse - EzineArticles.com Expert Author
http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Sherman_De_Brosse
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fae55aa0-9af0-4979...@h9g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
More:
owner of the Book Depository, and George de Mohrenschildt�s brother,
Dimitri von Mohrenschildt. Allegedly, the Dallas Council on World
Affairs was sponsored by the CIA, though I�ve yet to confirm this."
John Blubaugh
> The WC took little interest in De Mohrenschildt because he was in Haiti at
> the time of the assassination and had been there for awhile. So he could
> not have participated in the actual assassination. However, some people
> have accused him of being the CIA "handler" for LHO. It is remarkable that
> prior to the assassination De Mohrenschildt had met Frank Sturgis, Guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
They took very little interest in him because they knew who he worked
for.
JB
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fae55aa0-9af0-4979...@h9g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
claviger
.John,
As for De Mohernschildt having met Frank Sturgis, I read that a long
time ago and recently searched the Inet hoping to find that info
without success. If memory serves, De Mohernschildt attended a meeting
with several other people about investment opportunities in the
Caribbean. The meeting was somewhere in Florida and I didn't snap
right away to one of the names, Frank Fiorini. Later I realized that
was one of the names Sturgis used. I believe the meeting was sponsored
by a company in which Fiorini served as corporate secretary. Of
course, the fact De Moherenschildt attended the meeting doesn't prove
he had anything more than perfunctory contact with Fioirini. It's just
interesting that De Mohrenschildt got around enough to meet so many
people connected to this case. It is possible of course the CIA asked
De Mohrenschildt to attend the meeting to find out what Fioirini was
up to.
claviger
It is better to use the following search request to bypass the home
page for Political Friendster:
Political Friendster - George De Mohrendschildt
"According to Dutch journalist Willem Oltmans, a "serious and famous
Dutch clairvoyant" called Gerard Croiset had a vision in 1967 of a
conspirator who had manipulated Oswald [1]: his description led
Oltmans to de Mohrenschildt, and the two stayed in touch."
"In 1977 Dutch journalist Willem Oltmans went to Texas and brought de
Morenschildt to Holland [3]. What happened then is disputed. Michael
Eddowes says Oltmans plied Morenschildt with pharmaceuticals, which
Oltmans denies, saying instead that he rescued Morenschildt from a
mental institution to bring him to "famous" clairvoyant Croiset (see
above). According to Oltmans, Croiset supposedly agreed Morgenschildt
was the man he saw in his vision. About this episode Lobster Magazine
subsequently commented: Between psychiatrists on one side and a
psychic on the other - and even if the CIA were not involved -
(Morgenschildt) did not have much of a chance[4]."
Political Friendster: the Warren Commission - George De Mohrenschildt
Connection
Anthony Marsh
Just to clarify for the newbies:
Frank Anthony Sturgis (December 9, 1924 ? December 4, 1993), born Frank
Angelo Fiorini, was one of the Watergate burglars.
On September 23, 1952, Frank Fiorini filed a petition in the Circuit Court
of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, to change his name to Frank Anthony
Sturgis, adopting the surname of his stepfather Ralph Sturgis, whom his
mother had married in 1937. Whether coincidence or not, his new name
resembled that of Hank Sturgis, the fictional hero of E. Howard Hunt's
1949 novel, Bimini Run, whose life parallels Frank Sturgis' life from 1942
to 1949 in certain salient respects.[1]
BTW, a legal change of name is not considered an alias.
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>>
>> "The rest of the world" used to regard Obama as a titanic leader; now it
>> acknowledges him as the leader of the Titanic. Sometimes, "the rest of
>> the world" gets around to acknowledging that its first impression was
>> incorrect.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>Oh, I think the rest of the world still considers him a great leader
Oh, I suppose they might, in a sense.
I once got fleeced by a con man who offered to make me wealthy in exchange
for a time/money arrangement, based on my experience.
He ended up getting all of my time and some of my money -- more than I
could afford to lose at the time -- and I ended up with more experience.
While I was working for him, he never failed to remind me that I was doing
a great job for him, and I imagine that he meant it.
In that sense, the "rest of the world" -- particularly the predator
nations -- probably consider Obama a great leader.
>especially when compared to the man he followed into the office.
Surely, by your own estimation, that comparison amounts to damning
with faint praise -- if, in fact, it amounts to any praise at all.
> You see,
>the rest of the world is smart enough to know that Obama did not cause all
>of the problems he has been dealing with for the past year.
>
>JB
That's one hell of a qualification for greatness! He "did not cause all
of the problems". How many of the problems did he cause? Which ones did
he cause?
Back to my original point -- "the rest of the world" thinks that the
Israelis surreptitiously contacted Jewish employees of the World Trade
Center and warned them not to report for work on the morning of 9/11.
"The rest of the world" believes that the AIDS virus is a deliberate
attempt by the West to depopulate Africa.
Why should anyone wish to "join the rest of the world" in a shared belief
about what happened to JFK?
Sandy McCroskey
wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2010 20:59:16 -0500, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
This is actually the opinion of a small minority, near as I can tell,
like the "controlled demo" and "no planes" hypotheses.
But your interlocutor may very well believe "the rest of the world"
believes it.
> "The rest of the world" believes that the AIDS virus is a deliberate
> attempt by the West to depopulate Africa.
>
Ditto.
> Why should anyone wish to "join the rest of the world" in a shared belief
> about what happened to JFK?
Amen to that!
/sm
Grizzlie Antagonist
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
In the United States, maybe. But John Blubaugh has made his feelings
clear about the United States on many occasions.
He is calling upon "the rest of the world" as his witnesses. I
understand such views to be commonplace in the Third World.
>But your interlocutor may very well believe "the rest of the world"
>believes it.
Yes, as a self-styled man of the world.
>> "The rest of the world" believes that the AIDS virus is a deliberate
>> attempt by the West to depopulate Africa.
I'm sure such talk is commonplace in Africa.
On the other hand, to confuse matters, George W. Bush is actually
regarded as a hero in much of Africa which, with a population of a
billion or so, represents a good chunk of "the rest of the world".
>> Why should anyone wish to "join the rest of the world" in a shared belief
>> about what happened to JFK?
>
>Amen to that!
>/sm
The "rest of the world" is filled with people who 1) are of a median
age that would have them born long after 1963; 2) are relatively
uneducated; 3) are relatively deprived; and 4) human nature being what
it is, are looking for scapegoats and susceptible to demagoguery.
Why indeed would one want to join "the rest of the world" in a shared
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. It's not not an accusation about the United States. It's an
accusation about Bush and Cheney. No 9/11 Truther claimed that Obama blew
up the World Trade Center.
> He is calling upon "the rest of the world" as his witnesses. I
> understand such views to be commonplace in the Third World.
>
>
>> But your interlocutor may very well believe "the rest of the world"
>> believes it.
>
>
>
> Yes, as a self-styled man of the world.
>
>
>
>>> "The rest of the world" believes that the AIDS virus is a deliberate
>>> attempt by the West to depopulate Africa.
>
>
>
> I'm sure such talk is commonplace in Africa.
>
> On the other hand, to confuse matters, George W. Bush is actually
> regarded as a hero in much of Africa which, with a population of a
> billion or so, represents a good chunk of "the rest of the world".
>
George W. Bush was not President when the AIDS epidemic began.
>
>
>>> Why should anyone wish to "join the rest of the world" in a shared belief
>>> about what happened to JFK?
>>
>> Amen to that!
>> /sm
>
>
> The "rest of the world" is filled with people who 1) are of a median
> age that would have them born long after 1963; 2) are relatively
> uneducated; 3) are relatively deprived; and 4) human nature being what
> it is, are looking for scapegoats and susceptible to demagoguery.
>
Here we go with the elitism again. Just who the Hell do you think you are
to look down on everyone else? Just because you're the Head Janitor?
Sandy McCroskey
wrote:
Certainly this is a common belief in Iran.
And in Pakistan, in particular, many take for granted that the US
bombed itself. This is easy for them to believe because their own
civilians are often killed and maimed by our drones.
> >This is actually the opinion of a small minority, near as I can tell,
> >like the "controlled demo" and "no planes" hypotheses.
>
> In the United States, maybe. But John Blubaugh has made his feelings
> clear about the United States on many occasions.
>
> He is calling upon "the rest of the world" as his witnesses. I
> understand such views to be commonplace in the Third World.
>
> >But your interlocutor may very well believe "the rest of the world"
> >believes it.
>
> Yes, as a self-styled man of the world.
>
> >> "The rest of the world" believes that the AIDS virus is a deliberate
> >> attempt by the West to depopulate Africa.
>
> I'm sure such talk is commonplace in Africa.
>
Yeah. At least it's no longer the official stance of the South African
government!
> On the other hand, to confuse matters, George W. Bush is actually
> regarded as a hero in much of Africa which, with a population of a
> billion or so, represents a good chunk of "the rest of the world".
>
Obama singled out Bush's anti-AiDS initiatives in Africa as a real
accomplishment of his administration.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Iran believes a lot of stupid things only to consolidate its hatred for
the US and Israel.
> And in Pakistan, in particular, many take for granted that the US
> bombed itself. This is easy for them to believe because their own
> civilians are often killed and maimed by our drones.
>
Poor logic.