CIA ARTICLE SAYS MCCONE DECEIVED WC

[burgundy]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

[Bud]

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 4:13:27 PM UTC-4, burgundy wrote:
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

Can you quote the part of the article that has relevance to anything? I
skimmed it and couldn`t find anything.

[claviger]

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 3:13:27 PM UTC-5, burgundy wrote:
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

Nothing new in any of this information. We know LHO traveled to Mexico
City and met with both the Soviet and Cuban embassies. Reportedly he made
threats to President Kennedy after being asked to leave the Cuban embassy.
LHO came home and wrote an angry letter to the Soviet embassy in
Washington. He acted like a petulant child and out of spite decided to
assassinate the President to embarrass both embassies and his wife. LHO
didn't handle rejection like a adult. In effect, he went "postal" against
the whole international diplomatic system. When he fired on the motorcade
he cut through all the red tape that so infuriated him in MC.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 10/9/15 4:13 PM, burgundy wrote:
>
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197
>
>

We've essentially known this since the Church Committee in 1975.

[burgundy]

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 3:13:27 PM UTC-5, burgundy wrote:
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

<
<

Wait. We've known McCone basically perjured himself? To protect the
possible secret machinations of the CIA in the murder of the President of
the United States? So explain to me why this is no big deal.

Burgundy

[Ralph Cinque]

Oswald did NOT go to Mexico City. He said he didn't, and he didn't. And
there is no image of Oswald in Mexico City. There are only images of
Oswald impostors in Mexico City. That, in itself, tells you that he didn't
go to Mexico City.

[mainframetech]

A shame your theory is full of holes. Like the theories used by the
WCR.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Now, wait a damn minute there. You are not allowed to admit anything. You
have to claim that there is never any need for any investigation because
the WC has all the absolute truth. What the Hell's wrong with you? Didn't
you lobby against the Church Committee?

[Anthony Marsh]

Is THAT your conspiracy theory? Do you have a book deal yet?
Then why didn't he shoot the KGB when he had the chance?

[Anthony Marsh]

Nothing new there. We know you can't read English.
How about the headline of the article?

Yes, the CIA Director Was Part of the JFK Assassination Cover-Up

John McCone was long suspected of withholding information from the
Warren Commission. Now even the CIA says he did.

By Philip Shenon

October 06, 2015

Can you figure that out?

How about this part?

The report offers no conclusion about McCone?s motivations, including why
he would go to lengths to cover-up CIA activities that mostly predated his
time at the agency. But it suggests that the Johnson White House might
have directed McCone to hide the information. McCone ?shared the
administration?s interest in avoiding disclosures about covert actions
that would circumstantially implicate [the] CIA in conspiracy theories and
possibly lead to calls for a tough US response against the perpetrators of
the assassination,? the article reads. ?If the commission did not know to
ask about covert operations about Cuba, he was not going to give them any
suggestions about where to look.?

In an interview, David Slawson, who was the Warren Commission?s chief
staff investigator in searching for evidence of a foreign conspiracy, said
he was not surprised to learn that McCone had personally withheld so much
information from the investigation in 1964, especially about the Castro
plots.

Can you figure that out?
Didn't think so.

BTW I like the fact that the CIA interpreted NOFORN as meaning the
Warren Commission.

Again, do you understand the simple fact that there is a subtle difference
between the crime and the cover-up? Apparently not. Richard Nixon did not
know how to pick the lock to break into the Watergate so he hired
professionals to do it. He was not one of the burglars, he was just the
mastermind.

Finally, do you know what a rogue operation is?

[Sandy McCroskey]

Highlighting McCone's personal role just puts a fresh coat of paint on
an old story.

Since 1975 we have known that the CIA was less than forthcoming, to say
the least, about its assassination plots against Castro. Yes, indeed,
the agency stonewalled the Warren Commission concerning this probably
very significant aspect of Oswald's motivation.

There is no indication that this was because the CIA had any role in
Kennedy's assassination. Nothing in this article makes any such
connection implicit.

I think you might be able to imagine why the CIA did not want the
assassination attempts to become public knowledge.

[black...@aol.com]

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 4:13:27 PM UTC-4, burgundy wrote:
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

My opinion: I think that the thought that John McCone, of all people,
deliberately took actions that tended to cover-up the assassination is
tinfoil hat paranoid stupidity. He was a Catholic and a close friend and
associate of RFK and JFK. I can see him, as CIA director, not volunteering
things that he thought had nothing to do with the assassination, but NOT
covering up a crime. No way, not McCone.

[Bud]

Nothing there about McCone withholding information about the JFK
assassination.

> In an interview, David Slawson, who was the Warren Commission?s chief
> staff investigator in searching for evidence of a foreign conspiracy, said
> he was not surprised to learn that McCone had personally withheld so much
> information from the investigation in 1964, especially about the Castro
> plots.
>
> Can you figure that out?

Nothing there about McCone withholding information about the JFK
assassination.

Thats why I asked, I was hoping you could show me something specifically
about the JFK assassination that McCone withheld. Another fail on your
part.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

There is no evidence whatsoever that Nixon "hired professionals" to break
into Watergate.

There is no evidence at all that he knew about the break ins BEFORE the
actual break ins (plural, there were two).

There is no evidence that he was the "mastermind" behind the break ins.

In fact, all of the available evidence is that he didn't know anything
about the plans to bug the offices. In fact, he asked his chief of staff
shortly after the story broke about who ordered the operation.

[John McAdams]

Watergate gave rise to the saying "it's not the crime, it's the
cover-up."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/9/2015 4:13 PM, burgundy wrote:
>
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197
>
>

Seems me to me I heard about that somewhere before. BTW, do you realize
that Politico is an extreme rightwinger news organization. Some of the
most extreme rightwingers are convinced that Oswald was a Communist agent.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

You're correct, black, not unlike Kenny O'Donnell. Camo-ing Camelot,
Lance-a-lot..... what is not ?

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. But the Nazis here conflate the two to set up a straw man
argument to claim that conspiracy believers think that millions of
people were part of the plot. To call us paranoid.
Reductio ad Absurdum.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong tact. Instead of just admitting a simple fact and agreeing with me
as .John McAdams was smart enough to do, you choose to attack me and
call me a liar to puff up your status with the Nazis.

[Anthony Marsh]

The Castro plots. Can't you read?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

You think the weather report is a rightwing plot.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/10/2015 11:17 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 4:13:27 PM UTC-4, burgundy wrote:
>> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197
>
> My opinion: I think that the thought that John McCone, of all people,
> deliberately took actions that tended to cover-up the assassination is
> tinfoil hat paranoid stupidity. He was a Catholic and a close friend and

I think that YOU are a tinfoil hat trying to prevent conspiracies being
discovered. One of your tricks is to call dissenters paranoid.

> associate of RFK and JFK. I can see him, as CIA director, not volunteering
> things that he thought had nothing to do with the assassination, but NOT
> covering up a crime. No way, not McCone.
>

It's not up to him to decide what's relevant and what's not.

[Anthony Marsh]

Even though it was already public knowledge with Castro holding up the
newspaper which said the US was trying to kill him.

So what kind of cover-up is this when you try to cover up what everyone
already knows? Are you now going to claim that Watergate never happened?

[Anthony Marsh]

You will never admit ANY fact. You won't even admit that Lee Harvey
Oswald even existed.

[Anthony Marsh]

Perjury? What the Hell are you babbling about now?
Lying to the WC is not perjury.
It was not a court.
McCone was not covering up the CIA's role in the JFK assassination. He
was just covering up the CIA's role in the Castro assassination plots.
Plausible Deniability.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Sandy:

"Yes, indeed, the agency stonewalled the Warren Commission concerning this
probably very significant aspect of Oswald's motivation. "

Why do you think they did that, i.e., skirting around his motivation? Do
you think they knew/thought that Oswald was aware of the plots? From where
did he get this?

The Politico piece suggests that the Johnson White House had a role in
McCone's silence on this.

This is the question I have about MC and Oswald. Shenon argues, with some
good evidence, that they never really nailed down what happened in MC.
That is, who Oswald may have met outside of the embassy meetings.

Did the CIA/Administration find out that Oswald had learned about the
plots? And that indeed was part of his motivation? And they didn't want
that door opened?

[Mark Florio]

I'm not a Nixon defender. But I wonder what would have happened if,
fairly soon after learning about the break-in, he had gone on tv to say he
had found out that people in his administration where involved, that he
had done an investigation into who was responsible, and that he had fired
them all.

Done something along those lines, anyway. A badly damaged presidency,
yes. A destroyed presidency, maybe not. But that wasn't Nixon. Always
his own worst enemy. Mark

[burgundy]

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 3:13:27 PM UTC-5, burgundy wrote:
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

Let's try this again. The head of the CIA does not tell the WC that they
have been opening the mail and monitoring a known defector working in the
TSBD but didn't feel it was terribly important to let that fact be known?
That they should not admit what has been "known for years" that a guy like
Oswald worked in a building they slowly drove JFK by, that this is just a
gee-whiz, Jeb Bush-esque "stuff happens" kind of thing? If the CIA knew
and now openly admits the following...

"The report identifies other tantalizing information that McCone did not
reveal to the commission, including evidence that the CIA might somehow
have been in communication with Oswald before 1963 and that the spy agency
had secretly monitored Oswald's mail after he attempted to defect to the
Soviet Union in 1959."

...and people on this site shrug, yawn, and say, give us something
concrete, I say BS.

Burgundy

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

If the storm's coming from the east, why, yes....

[Bud]

Can you? I asked you to show something specifically about the JFK
assassination that McCone withheld.

[black...@aol.com]

On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 4:28:37 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/10/2015 11:17 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 4:13:27 PM UTC-4, burgundy wrote:
> >> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197
> >
> > My opinion: I think that the thought that John McCone, of all people,
> > deliberately took actions that tended to cover-up the assassination is
> > tinfoil hat paranoid stupidity. He was a Catholic and a close friend and
>
> I think that YOU are a tinfoil hat trying to prevent conspiracies being
> discovered. One of your tricks is to call dissenters paranoid.

Some of them are. You are an example.

>
> > associate of RFK and JFK. I can see him, as CIA director, not volunteering
> > things that he thought had nothing to do with the assassination, but NOT
> > covering up a crime. No way, not McCone.
> >
>
> It's not up to him to decide what's relevant and what's not.

Bullcrap! The DCI always has and always will be the person who decides
what secrets CIA has to keep. Somebody has to do it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Only on Fox.
Didn't Billo start out as a weatherman?

[Anthony Marsh]

Jeez, you guys are so childish.
Why do you think they assigned the codename Lancer to JFK?
What do you think the codename of the next President will be? Wig?

[Bud]

On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 4:34:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/10/2015 1:11 PM, burgundy wrote:
> > On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 3:13:27 PM UTC-5, burgundy wrote:
> >> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197
> >
> > <
> > <
> >
> > Wait. We've known McCone basically perjured himself? To protect the
> > possible secret machinations of the CIA in the murder of the President of
> > the United States? So explain to me why this is no big deal.
> >
> > Burgundy
> >
>
>
> Perjury? What the Hell are you babbling about now?
> Lying to the WC is not perjury.

Wrong. Read section (e), at the end.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-77/pdf/STATUTE-77-Pg362.pdf

(Thanks to stevemg for posting this link over on the nuthouse.)

[tom...@cox.net]

Mark Florio <norto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 10:26:05 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> > On 10 Oct 2015 23:24:41 -0400, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >=20

> > >On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 3:22:22 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh
> > >wrote:
> > >> On 10/9/2015 8:13 PM, Bud wrote:
> > >> > On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 4:13:27 PM UTC-4, burgundy wrote:
> > >> >> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-

> > >> >> jo=

> hn-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197
> > >> >
> > >> > Can you quote the part of the article that has relevance to

> > >> > anyth=

> ing? I
> > >> > skimmed it and couldn`t find anything.
> > >> >

> > >>=20
> > >>=20

> > >> Nothing new there. We know you can't read English.
> > >> How about the headline of the article?

> > >>=20

> > >> Yes, the CIA Director Was Part of the JFK Assassination Cover-Up

> > >>=20

> > >> John McCone was long suspected of withholding information from

> > >> the=20 Warren Commission. Now even the CIA says he did.
> > >>=20
> > >> By Philip Shenon
> > >>=20
> > >> October 06, 2015
> > >>=20

> > >> Can you figure that out?

> > >>=20
> > >> How about this part?
> > >>=20

> > >> The report offers no conclusion about McCone?s motivations,

> > >> including =
> why=20

> > >> he would go to lengths to cover-up CIA activities that mostly

> > >> predated=
> his=20

> > >> time at the agency. But it suggests that the Johnson White House

> > >> might=
> =20
> > >> have directed McCone to hide the information. McCone ?shared the=20

> > >> administration?s interest in avoiding disclosures about covert

> > >> actions=
> =20

> > >> that would circumstantially implicate [the] CIA in conspiracy

> > >> theories=
> and=20

> > >> possibly lead to calls for a tough US response against the

> > >> perpetrator=
> s of=20

> > >> the assassination,? the article reads. ?If the commission did not

> > >> know=
> to=20

> > >> ask about covert operations about Cuba, he was not going to give

> > >> them =
> any=20

> > >> suggestions about where to look.?

> > >>=20

> > >> In an interview, David Slawson, who was the Warren Commission?s

> > >> chief=
> =20

> > >> staff investigator in searching for evidence of a foreign

> > >> conspiracy, =
> said=20

> > >> he was not surprised to learn that McCone had personally withheld so

> > >> m=
> uch=20

> > >> information from the investigation in 1964, especially about the

> > >> Castr=
> o=20
> > >> plots.
> > >>=20

> > >> Can you figure that out?
> > >> Didn't think so.

> > >>=20

> > >> BTW I like the fact that the CIA interpreted NOFORN as meaning

> > >> the=20 Warren Commission.
> > >>=20

> > >> Again, do you understand the simple fact that there is a subtle

> > >> differ=
> ence=20

> > >> between the crime and the cover-up? Apparently not. Richard Nixon

> > >> did =
> not=20
> > >> know how to pick the lock to break into the Watergate so he hired=20

> > >> professionals to do it. He was not one of the burglars, he was just

> > >> th=
> e=20
> > >> mastermind.
> > >>=20

> > >> Finally, do you know what a rogue operation is?
> > >

> > ><Richard Nixon did not know how to pick the lock to break into the=20
> > >Watergate so he hired professionals to do it. He was not one of the=20

> > >burglars, he was just the mastermind. >
> > >
> > >There is no evidence whatsoever that Nixon "hired professionals" to

> > >brea=
> k=20

> > >into Watergate.
> > >
> > >There is no evidence at all that he knew about the break ins BEFORE

> > >the=
> =20

> > >actual break ins (plural, there were two).
> > >
> > >There is no evidence that he was the "mastermind" behind the break
> > >ins.
> > >
> > >In fact, all of the available evidence is that he didn't know

> > >anything=
> =20

> > >about the plans to bug the offices. In fact, he asked his chief of

> > >staff=
> =20

> > >shortly after the story broke about who ordered the operation.

> >=20

> > Watergate gave rise to the saying "it's not the crime, it's the
> > cover-up."

> >=20

> > .John
> > -----------------------
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> I'm not a Nixon defender. But I wonder what would have happened if,
> fairly soon after learning about the break-in, he had gone on tv to say
> he had found out that people in his administration where involved, that
> he had done an investigation into who was responsible, and that he had
> fired them all.
>
> Done something along those lines, anyway. A badly damaged presidency,
> yes. A destroyed presidency, maybe not. But that wasn't Nixon. Always
> his own worst enemy. Mark

===========================================================================
==== just another "phsycho" ! ! ! !
===========================================================================

[Sandy McCroskey]

I think that the CIA/Administration, like we, can only speculate about
Oswald's motivation (the internal forces working on him and what he told
himself about his justification being two different matters). I think
revenge for the plots quite probably was the meaning of Oswald's act in
his own eyes.

It seems that word of the CIA plots had been bruited in the communist
newspapers that Oswald read. So it is quite possible that the
CIA/Administration knew this. And of course they did not want the
assassination plots to become more public knowledge.

[Sandy McCroskey]

CYA by the intelligence agencies is old news.
Didja know, the FBI lost track of Oswald for a while after he moved to
New Orleans.

And of course the CIA had been monitoring a former attempted defector
(reading his mail! Imagine!), but the fact that it didn't do such a
great job of it was what the bit it really didn't want to get out.

By the way, this is pretty vague, and probably deliberately so:

"the CIA might somehow have been in communication with Oswald before 1963."
"Somehow"? "In communication"? What does that mean?
If we had more details, we might just... shrug, yawn.
Yeah, give me something concrete.

[hrtshpdbox]

On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 1:39:58 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
.... do you realize

> that Politico is an extreme rightwinger news organization. Some of the
> most extreme rightwingers are convinced that Oswald was a Communist agent.

Someone needs to tell their readers, who seem to be a bunch of lefties.
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-269844d9acd41e67df6f3473472cdbe1?convert_to_webp=true

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/12/2015 9:38 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 4:28:37 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/10/2015 11:17 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 4:13:27 PM UTC-4, burgundy wrote:
>>>> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197
>>>
>>> My opinion: I think that the thought that John McCone, of all people,
>>> deliberately took actions that tended to cover-up the assassination is
>>> tinfoil hat paranoid stupidity. He was a Catholic and a close friend and
>>
>> I think that YOU are a tinfoil hat trying to prevent conspiracies being
>> discovered. One of your tricks is to call dissenters paranoid.
>
> Some of them are. You are an example.
>

So because I don't accept the WC I must be paranoid.
Brilliant. So you think 90% of the public is paranoid and you are the
only sane person in the world. There's a name for that.

>
>
>>
>>> associate of RFK and JFK. I can see him, as CIA director, not volunteering
>>> things that he thought had nothing to do with the assassination, but NOT
>>> covering up a crime. No way, not McCone.
>>>
>>
>> It's not up to him to decide what's relevant and what's not.
>
> Bullcrap! The DCI always has and always will be the person who decides
> what secrets CIA has to keep. Somebody has to do it.
>

Silly. Sometimes the DCI is the last to know. Sometimes the DCI never knows.
Grow up.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

He tried that, but it was too little, too late.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you saying that Oswald didn't know how to read the newspaper?
You seem to be forgetting about the hoaxes designed to link Oswald to
Castro. Like that "little incident down in Mexico."

[Anthony Marsh]

FYI, lefties also read rightwing magazines. Where did I find the article
about Dr. Chapman's Carcano research? From a John Birch Society magazine.
I have a whole collection of Soldiers of Fortune magazine.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/13/2015 3:07 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 10/12/15 8:59 PM, burgundy wrote:
>> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 3:13:27 PM UTC-5, burgundy wrote:
>>> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197
>>>
>>
>>
>> Let's try this again. The head of the CIA does not tell the WC that they
>> have been opening the mail and monitoring a known defector working in the
>> TSBD but didn't feel it was terribly important to let that fact be known?
>> That they should not admit what has been "known for years" that a guy
>> like
>> Oswald worked in a building they slowly drove JFK by, that this is just a
>> gee-whiz, Jeb Bush-esque "stuff happens" kind of thing? If the CIA knew
>> and now openly admits the following...
>>
>> "The report identifies other tantalizing information that McCone did not
>> reveal to the commission, including evidence that the CIA might somehow
>> have been in communication with Oswald before 1963 and that the spy
>> agency
>> had secretly monitored Oswald's mail after he attempted to defect to the
>> Soviet Union in 1959."
>>
>> ...and people on this site shrug, yawn, and say, give us something
>> concrete, I say BS.
>>
>> Burgundy
>>
>>
>
> CYA by the intelligence agencies is old news.

I don't know how to explain this delicately to you, but I can forgive
even the CIA for some of their CYA cover-ups. But not in all cases and
some cases just go too far.
I don't believe they are EVER justified in killing their own people just
to cover up a bureaucratic mistake.
Nor do I believe that they are EVER justified in killing anyone just to
cover up their crimes.

> Didja know, the FBI lost track of Oswald for a while after he moved to
> New Orleans.
>
> And of course the CIA had been monitoring a former attempted defector
> (reading his mail! Imagine!), but the fact that it didn't do such a
> great job of it was what the bit it really didn't want to get out.
>

So now you're covering up for the cover-up.
Why not call it a benign cover-up as Hosty did?

> By the way, this is pretty vague, and probably deliberately so:
>
> "the CIA might somehow have been in communication with Oswald before 1963."
> "Somehow"? "In communication"? What does that mean?

Radio? Telephone? Coded messages? Secret signals? Mark on a mailbox?
Fake newspaper ads?

> If we had more details, we might just... shrug, yawn.
> Yeah, give me something concrete.

I got your concrete for ya, pal, right here.

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

More than that, they can make up and lie about Oswald's motivation to
try to spark a war. They way they did about 9/11.

> It seems that word of the CIA plots had been bruited in the communist
> newspapers that Oswald read. So it is quite possible that the

Oh, you mean like The New York Times? Or maybe in The Nation.

> CIA/Administration knew this. And of course they did not want the
> assassination plots to become more public knowledge.
>

And guys like you still deny them.

>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

But in your quaint theory, the administration lied, or was less than
forthcoming, about Oswald's motivation so as *not* to start a war.

>> It seems that word of the CIA plots had been bruited in the communist
>> newspapers that Oswald read. So it is quite possible that the
>
> Oh, you mean like The New York Times? Or maybe in The Nation.
>

If you have documentation of any stories about the CIA plots against
Castro in the mainstream media, or even The Nation, in 1963 or 1964 (or
any time before Jack Anderson began writing about such things in 1971),
please pass it along.

>> CIA/Administration knew this. And of course they did not want the
>> assassination plots to become more public knowledge.
>>
>
> And guys like you still deny them.
>

No, obviously, I do not. I've been talking about them in this thread.
I do not know what "guys like you" is supposed to mean.

I suppose you've heard about the new revelations regarding the murder of
former foreign minister of Chile Orlando Letelier.
From TheNation.com, Oct. 13, 2015, Peter Kornbluh:
"Why the State Department Finally Confirmed Augusto Pinochet?s Role in
International Terrorism
"It?s a great way of using US documents to advance the cause of human
rights and redress Washington?s dark, interventionist past."
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-state-department-finally-confirmed-augusto-pinochets-role-in-international-terrorism//?nc=1

But The Nation has published extensively about that assassination over
the years...

" Just a month before he was killed, Letelier?then a fellow at the
Institute for Policy Studies?published a remarkably prescient article in
The Nation titled ?Economic ?Freedom?s? Awful Toll: The Chicago Boys in
Chile,? which described the interlocking political and economic
tendencies of what we now know as neoliberalism as it was propagated in
his home country, after the General Augusto Pinochet?s 1973 coup, by
American economists and ?technical advisers.?"
http://www.thenation.com/article/september-21-1976-chilean-exile-orlando-letelier-is-assassinated-in-washington-d-c/?nc=1

[Sandy McCroskey]

Good for you, Marsh.

>> Didja know, the FBI lost track of Oswald for a while after he moved to
>> New Orleans.
>>
>> And of course the CIA had been monitoring a former attempted defector
>> (reading his mail! Imagine!), but the fact that it didn't do such a
>> great job of it was what the bit it really didn't want to get out.
>>
>
> So now you're covering up for the cover-up.
> Why not call it a benign cover-up as Hosty did?
>

"A benign cover-up" is *your* line.
I think the only thing deliberately covered up were indications of
incompetence.

>> By the way, this is pretty vague, and probably deliberately so:
>>
>> "the CIA might somehow have been in communication with Oswald before
>> 1963."
>> "Somehow"? "In communication"? What does that mean?
>
> Radio? Telephone? Coded messages? Secret signals? Mark on a mailbox?
> Fake newspaper ads?
>
>> If we had more details, we might just... shrug, yawn.
>> Yeah, give me something concrete.
>
> I got your concrete for ya, pal, right here.
>

The concrete between your ears?

[Anthony Marsh]

No. I never said it was a benign cover-up. That's what Hosty called it.

> I think the only thing deliberately covered up were indications of
> incompetence.
>

OK, fine then call it a typical CYA.
How about the French theory that the CIA covered up the fact that they
had recorded Oswald threatening to kill President Kennedy and kept it to
themselves in hopes that he would succeed?

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't quite have it yet. That's not my theory.
Read the articles on my Web page.

>
>>> It seems that word of the CIA plots had been bruited in the communist
>>> newspapers that Oswald read. So it is quite possible that the
>>
>> Oh, you mean like The New York Times? Or maybe in The Nation.
>>
>
> If you have documentation of any stories about the CIA plots against
> Castro in the mainstream media, or even The Nation, in 1963 or 1964 (or
> any time before Jack Anderson began writing about such things in 1971),
> please pass it along.
>

Oh please, don't try to pretend innocence.

>>> CIA/Administration knew this. And of course they did not want the
>>> assassination plots to become more public knowledge.
>>>
>>
>> And guys like you still deny them.
>>
>
> No, obviously, I do not. I've been talking about them in this thread.
> I do not know what "guys like you" is supposed to mean.
>

Yes, you do. Right here in this thread.
You can't figure out what "guys like you" means?
Ned Dolan for example.

> I suppose you've heard about the new revelations regarding the murder of
> former foreign minister of Chile Orlando Letelier.
> From TheNation.com, Oct. 13, 2015, Peter Kornbluh:
> "Why the State Department Finally Confirmed Augusto Pinochet?s Role in
> International Terrorism
> "It?s a great way of using US documents to advance the cause of human
> rights and redress Washington?s dark, interventionist past."
> https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-state-department-finally-confirmed-augusto-pinochets-role-in-international-terrorism//?nc=1
>
>
> But The Nation has published extensively about that assassination over
> the years...
>

Wow. So let's see your article about the JFK assassination.

[Sandy McCroskey]

But this is what you say: "You have to remember that the cover-up was
invented only to prevent WWIII."
Ha ha.

>> I think the only thing deliberately covered up were indications of
>> incompetence.
>>
>
> OK, fine then call it a typical CYA.
> How about the French theory that the CIA covered up the fact that they
> had recorded Oswald threatening to kill President Kennedy and kept it to
> themselves in hopes that he would succeed?
>

What about it? The French have had lots of theories.
Got anything concrete?

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 10/17/15 11:00 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

I'm not "denying" something if there is no evidence for that thing.

> You can't figure out what "guys like you" means?
> Ned Dolan for example.
>

You really don't want to know know what I would mean if I said "guys
like you" to your face.

>> I suppose you've heard about the new revelations regarding the murder of
>> former foreign minister of Chile Orlando Letelier.
>> From TheNation.com, Oct. 13, 2015, Peter Kornbluh:
>> "Why the State Department Finally Confirmed Augusto Pinochet?s Role in
>> International Terrorism
>> "It?s a great way of using US documents to advance the cause of human
>> rights and redress Washington?s dark, interventionist past."
>> https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-state-department-finally-confirmed-augusto-pinochets-role-in-international-terrorism//?nc=1
>>
>>
>>
>> But The Nation has published extensively about that assassination over
>> the years...
>>
>
> Wow. So let's see your article about the JFK assassination.

Back to square one, eh, Marsh, Instead of admitting that you were wrong?
You will not find another magazine of comparable circulation or prestige
that has historically been more critical and suspicious of the CIA than
The Nation.

But you're not even trying.

The Nation ran some of the first articles questioning the Warren
Commission, a series by Fred Cook.

A reader's review on Amazon of Cook's book MAVERICK says, "There is a
chapter in here that details his experiences with getting the Nation
magazine to publish that and how he got double crossed by editor Carey
McWilliams."

You could have thrown that back at me instead of another empty rejoinder.
Then I could have said that I think Fred Cook thinks like a tinfoil-hat
conspiracy theorist.
Like you guys.

[Anthony Marsh]

You will deny things even when there is evidence for it.
You are a professional denier.

>> You can't figure out what "guys like you" means?
>> Ned Dolan for example.
>>
>
> You really don't want to know know what I would mean if I said "guys
> like you" to your face.
>

You got that reversed. Guys like you is what I was saying about someone,
not what you were saying to me.

>
>>> I suppose you've heard about the new revelations regarding the murder of
>>> former foreign minister of Chile Orlando Letelier.
>>> From TheNation.com, Oct. 13, 2015, Peter Kornbluh:
>>> "Why the State Department Finally Confirmed Augusto Pinochet?s Role in
>>> International Terrorism
>>> "It?s a great way of using US documents to advance the cause of human
>>> rights and redress Washington?s dark, interventionist past."
>>> https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-state-department-finally-confirmed-augusto-pinochets-role-in-international-terrorism//?nc=1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But The Nation has published extensively about that assassination over
>>> the years...
>>>
>>
>> Wow. So let's see your article about the JFK assassination.
>
> Back to square one, eh, Marsh, Instead of admitting that you were wrong?

Never wrong about that.

> You will not find another magazine of comparable circulation or prestige
> that has historically been more critical and suspicious of the CIA than
> The Nation.
>

I didn't ask about other operations. Only the JFK assassination.
You can't even list all the articles the Nation has run which are
critical of the CIA.
If I mention any other magazines you will say that they don't qualify as
real magazines. You've probably never even heard of Covert Action magazine.
You know where you can shove your prestige. The CIA controls all
magazines of prestige.

> But you're not even trying.
>
> The Nation ran some of the first articles questioning the Warren
> Commission, a series by Fred Cook.
>

1966? First?
And I QUOTE:

With this much established, the official description of one suspect,
three shells, three shots begins to collide with fact. Seated on the
jump seat of the Presidential limousine directly in front of the
President was John Bowden Connally, Jr., Governor of Texas. The Warren
Commission was to conclude that the first shot to hit the President
pierced the middle of his back on a line straight in from the shoulder
joint, exited at a high velocity from his throat slightly below the
Adam’s apple, plunged into Governor Connally’s back on the right side,
exited below his right nipple, fractured his wrist and ploughed a furrow
in his thigh. The Zapruder film clearly disputes this reconstruction of
events.

So you think Connally was seated DIRECTLY in front of JFK? Isn't that
the kind of loose language that McAdams and company is always
complaining about? And Cook claims to have seen the Zapruder film in
1996? What, at a special showing by the CIA?

> A reader's review on Amazon of Cook's book MAVERICK says, "There is a
> chapter in here that details his experiences with getting the Nation
> magazine to publish that and how he got double crossed by editor Carey
> McWilliams."
>

Funny how it's always the editor who betrays the honest reporter.
The CIA does not have to control every reporter as long as it controls
the editor who will then betray the reporters.

> You could have thrown that back at me instead of another empty rejoinder.
> Then I could have said that I think Fred Cook thinks like a tinfoil-hat
> conspiracy theorist.
> Like you guys.
>

That's your only purpose in being here, to be a McWilliams.
BTW, did you notice the tinfoil hat reference Stephen King made in the
interview? Anyone using that meme makes it clear which side he is on.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's a fact.

>>> I think the only thing deliberately covered up were indications of
>>> incompetence.
>>>
>>
>> OK, fine then call it a typical CYA.
>> How about the French theory that the CIA covered up the fact that they
>> had recorded Oswald threatening to kill President Kennedy and kept it to
>> themselves in hopes that he would succeed?
>>
>
> What about it? The French have had lots of theories.
> Got anything concrete?
>

What about it? You don't even know about it.
Got anything concrete?
I didn't say concrete.
I said theory.
You know, like your Single Bullet Theory.
It's not called the Single Bullet Concrete.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Wow. Like I said, definitions ain't your thing.

>>>> I think the only thing deliberately covered up were indications of
>>>> incompetence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, fine then call it a typical CYA.
>>> How about the French theory that the CIA covered up the fact that they
>>> had recorded Oswald threatening to kill President Kennedy and kept it to
>>> themselves in hopes that he would succeed?
>>>
>>
>> What about it? The French have had lots of theories.
>> Got anything concrete?
>>
>
> What about it? You don't even know about it.
> Got anything concrete?
> I didn't say concrete.
> I said theory.

That's right, and I said, "So what? Got anything concrete?"
Do you have anything new to say?

[Sandy McCroskey]

You just like to call names like a 5-year-old.

>>> You can't figure out what "guys like you" means?
>>> Ned Dolan for example.
>>>
>>
>> You really don't want to know know what I would mean if I said "guys
>> like you" to your face.
>>
>
> You got that reversed. Guys like you is what I was saying about someone,
> not what you were saying to me.
>

I turned it around. Do you really have any idea what I must think of you
by this point?

>>
>>>> I suppose you've heard about the new revelations regarding the
>>>> murder of
>>>> former foreign minister of Chile Orlando Letelier.
>>>> From TheNation.com, Oct. 13, 2015, Peter Kornbluh:
>>>> "Why the State Department Finally Confirmed Augusto Pinochet?s
>>>> Role in
>>>> International Terrorism
>>>> "It?s a great way of using US documents to advance the cause of human
>>>> rights and redress Washington?s dark, interventionist past."
>>>> https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-state-department-finally-confirmed-augusto-pinochets-role-in-international-terrorism//?nc=1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But The Nation has published extensively about that assassination over
>>>> the years...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow. So let's see your article about the JFK assassination.
>>
>> Back to square one, eh, Marsh, Instead of admitting that you were wrong?
>
> Never wrong about that.
>

You were entirely wrong about denying CIA plots, plural, see above. I
said: And of course [the CIA/Administration] did not want the
assassination plots to become more public knowledge. And you said: And

guys like you still deny them.

>> You will not find another magazine of comparable circulation or prestige
>> that has historically been more critical and suspicious of the CIA than
>> The Nation.
>>
>
> I didn't ask about other operations. Only the JFK assassination.
> You can't even list all the articles the Nation has run which are
> critical of the CIA.

Right. That would take too much time.

> If I mention any other magazines you will say that they don't qualify as
> real magazines. You've probably never even heard of Covert Action magazine.

Ha ha. What difference would it make, Marsh, if I were really bluffing
about The Nation's record in criticizing the CIA, if other magazines have
devoted themselves to that? Seems you are implicitly admitting that I
spoke truth.

> You know where you can shove your prestige. The CIA controls all
> magazines of prestige.

With voodoo dolls, maybe?

>
>> But you're not even trying.
>>
>> The Nation ran some of the first articles questioning the Warren
>> Commission, a series by Fred Cook.
>>
>
> 1966? First?

"Some of the first."
We know, of course, that some people started criticizing the report
before it was even out!

> And I QUOTE:
>
> With this much established, the official description of one suspect,
> three shells, three shots begins to collide with fact. Seated on the
> jump seat of the Presidential limousine directly in front of the
> President was John Bowden Connally, Jr., Governor of Texas. The Warren
> Commission was to conclude that the first shot to hit the President
> pierced the middle of his back on a line straight in from the shoulder
> joint, exited at a high velocity from his throat slightly below the

> Adam?s apple, plunged into Governor Connally?s back on the right side,

> exited below his right nipple, fractured his wrist and ploughed a furrow
> in his thigh. The Zapruder film clearly disputes this reconstruction of
> events.
>
> So you think Connally was seated DIRECTLY in front of JFK? Isn't that
> the kind of loose language that McAdams and company is always
> complaining about? And Cook claims to have seen the Zapruder film in
> 1996? What, at a special showing by the CIA?
>

I would be the last person to defend anything in Kook... excuse me,
Cook's article.

>> A reader's review on Amazon of Cook's book MAVERICK says, "There is a
>> chapter in here that details his experiences with getting the Nation
>> magazine to publish that and how he got double crossed by editor Carey
>> McWilliams."
>>
>
> Funny how it's always the editor who betrays the honest reporter.
> The CIA does not have to control every reporter as long as it controls
> the editor who will then betray the reporters.
>

The editor didn't "betray" or "double cross" the reporter. The editor
attached disclaimers saying that Cook's views were his own and not the
magazine's official position on the WCR's conclusions.

And Cook got his panties in a wad about it.

>> You could have thrown that back at me instead of another empty rejoinder.
>> Then I could have said that I think Fred Cook thinks like a tinfoil-hat
>> conspiracy theorist.
>> Like you guys.
>>
>
> That's your only purpose in being here, to be a McWilliams.
> BTW, did you notice the tinfoil hat reference Stephen King made in the
> interview? Anyone using that meme makes it clear which side he is on.
>

It sure makes clear what he thinks of people pushing nutty theories.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, just the same things I've been saying millions of times and you keep
ignoring.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 10/20/15 8:21 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What about it? The French have had lots of theories.
>>>> Got anything concrete?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about it? You don't even know about it.
>>> Got anything concrete?
>>> I didn't say concrete.
>>> I said theory.
>>
>> That's right, and I said, "So what? Got anything concrete?"
>> Do you have anything new to say?
>>
>
> No, just the same things I've been saying millions of times and you keep
> ignoring.

Yeah, that's what I thought.