Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!


may also include historical analysis and perspective

More Proof of War Crimes

Unread postby socrates » Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:04 pm

Weapons left by US troops 'used as bait to kill Iraqis'
The Independent
By Kim Sengupta in Baghdad
Published: 25 September 2007

{excerpt- educational purposes}
US soldiers are luring Iraqis to their deaths by scattering military equipment on the ground as "bait", and then shooting those who pick them up, it has been alleged at a court martial. The highly controversial tactic, which has hitherto been kept secret, is believed to have been responsible for the deaths of a number of Iraqis who were subsequently classified as enemy combatants and used in statistics to show the "success" of the "surge" in US forces.

The revelation came in court documents, obtained by The Washington Post, related to murder charges against three US soldiers who are alleged to have planted incriminating evidence on civilians they had killed. In a sworn statement, Captain Matthew Didier, the officer in charge of a sniper platoon, said: "Basically we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against the US forces." ....
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby Don Smith » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:19 am

The infowars continue, I see. Looking about the site I am struck by the amount of space given to identifying the trolls, D&D types, etc. Good on you.
Off the main topic,(again, I will post something of substance on CT's when I am lucky enough to find more than Atlantis and flying saucers, honest!)
An unspoken assumption seems to be central to a great deal of the outrage which is being expressed here by the lead dogs on this sled; the assumption that a sense of justice is something which can be appealed to, that ethics are universal among honest people. For the most part, I agree with these ideas, I have always had the suspicion that if more people had an inkling of what the hell was really going on, the earth would be a paradise in a single generation.
History suggests otherwise. This nation was founded as an aristocracy for property holders, the fine ideas of liberty expressed by Tom Paine and others were useful for wartime propaganda, however, when the founding fathers designed the government, they made sure that real power would remain in the hands of a very few. The elections were a sop, to make the mob feel needed, while the aim of the leaders was to acquire more power and control over the future.
Hamilton's friends used the Treasury to enrich themselves by stealing the bonuses which had been handed out by the congress to the veterans of the Revolution.
Adams blessed this country with the Alien and Sedition Act.
Jefferson stole the Presidency from Burr.
Jackson ignored the congress and he and his gang made fortunes selling the native lands of the South to the aristocracy of "King Cotton".
The constitution of Mexico outlawed slavery, so a few slavers like Jim Bowie went and drove Mexico out to add Texas to the slave states.
President Harrison was murdered by the slave interests as he saw that the expansion of slavery would lead to the weakening of the economy and the eventual collapse of the Union.
Hayes bribed and stole the election from Tilden.
McKinley, yielding to the "will of the people", gave the U.S. an Empire, thereby destroying the last vestiges of a free republic, guaranteeing that policy would be made with an eye to profit, never to morality.
The presidents of the 20th century have all been publicly for the "American Way", and privately working for the entrenchment of corporate, rather than commonwealth interests.(F.D.R. did the least he could to stop the potential for social revolt getting out of hand.)
We just passed through a century in which MILLIONS of people have died for the various social systems which "represent" them, few stop to ask, "What's wrong with this picture?"
This century is starting on the same sorry note, millions dead in Africa, a million dead Iraquis, environmental poisoning on a collossal scale, radiation poisoning used as casually as any other sort of arms, and on and on...
The thing is, one cannot appeal to those whose lives are so shallow that they identify with the "leaders" or the "nation". It is simply too painful for them to see that they are dupes, and most of them will kill you rather than question their particular reality.
So it is done in small steps, a bit here, a question there, wearing away at the fantasyland which engrosses the people of this powerful society.
When enough weight gathers, the whole thing will shift.
Don Smith

Baby Steps

Unread postby socrates » Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:54 am

[quote="Don Smith"]The infowars continue, I see. Looking about the site I am struck by the amount of space given to identifying the trolls, D&D types, etc. Good on you.

Thanks. D&D? dungeons and dragons?

I will be presenting a lecture on troll bashing101 on 10/25 at the Springfield Community Center. On 11/02, I will be at the Martha's Vineyard Tea House debriefing assorted celebrities on the chemtrails.

Feeling Irish, got that blarney stone thing going today.

Off the main topic,(again, I will post something of substance on CT's when I am lucky enough to find more than Atlantis and flying saucers, honest!)

What else can be said about chemtrails? Never take anything I say at face value. When I wrote that this is primarily a chemtrails website, I was just sticking up for all of us who know they are real and deliberate. But it's like with "aerosol reports" at the chemtrail boards. How many times can we describe the same friggin thing? Personally, I am at the point where I feel like I did my part, and now this is just another goofy forum, the good kind of goofy, mind you.

An unspoken assumption seems to be central to a great deal of the outrage which is being expressed here by the lead dogs on this sled; the assumption that a sense of justice is something which can be appealed to, that ethics are universal among honest people. For the most part, I agree with these ideas, I have always had the suspicion that if more people had an inkling of what the hell was really going on, the earth would be a paradise in a single generation.

Remember South Africa? No one here could even find it on a map until Kennedy and Biden went on their much publicized visit in the 80's. Yeah, I am very idealistic. Same as may41970 and NatureisMad. My friend ma basher and myself have had some interesting debates, but no matter what, we have always remained friends. Maybe we progressive peacenik types think we can astroturf too. But unlike the phoneys, we feel we are on the right side of history. I just don't want my basic idealism taken away. I don't mind being naive. I was watching those election fraud videos last night from the Hertzberg thread. Bev Harris seems to be legit. People are piling on her. Now, yeah, there are some things about her that make me shake my head, but the woman, from ur neck of the Pacific Northwest woods, she friggin hacked and exposed diebold. She went through garbage cans and found evidence before it got sent to the shredder companies. The other video on Cynthia McKinney was good too. I didn't realize how bad the msm twisted her words, made her appear as a kooky conspiracy theorist, they cut out her words, took things out of context, didn't mention how she questioned the airline stock activity, warnings from Putin and others. I honestly don't understand why there is so much divide and conquer with the election reform activists. It reeks of cointelpro thrown into the mix. Black box voting is real. Suppression of the black vote is real. And I think exit polls are real. No need to make exposing the truth into a contest. As Bill Belichick would say, election fraud is what it is. Like with chemtrails or the anti-war stuff we have gotten into a bit, this isn't a competition. The truth is what matters. Getting these truths out are the first steps towards making breakthroughs. I do believe that the ptb's are scared. I do believe that this internet thing is not working out the way they thought. People now know how to figure out what is good and what is ****. They may have the power of fake #'s, but there are simply too many honest people left who refuse to sell-out.

Just saying, if people knew the truth about that, they wouldn't be so quick to jump down her throat and call her a kook. Those same citizens who fall for crap like that, in a way, they were just being used, the useful idiots shall we say.

History suggests otherwise. This nation was founded as an aristocracy for property holders, the fine ideas of liberty expressed by Tom Paine and others were useful for wartime propaganda...

Yeah, there's a fine line between idealism and naivete.

We just passed through a century in which MILLIONS of people have died for the various social systems which "represent" them, few stop to ask, "What's wrong with this picture?"
This century is starting on the same sorry note, millions dead in Africa, a million dead Iraquis, environmental poisoning on a collossal scale, radiation poisoning used as casually as any other sort of arms, and on and on...
The thing is, one cannot appeal to those whose lives are so shallow that they identify with the "leaders" or the "nation". It is simply too painful for them to see that they are dupes, and most of them will kill you rather than question their particular reality.

If you take a look at the poem at the start of the American Blackout video, it kind of crystalizes your point here.

So it is done in small steps, a bit here, a question there, wearing away at the fantasyland which engrosses the people of this powerful society.
When enough weight gathers, the whole thing will shift.

There's a movie you must see when you get the chance, What About Bob. It talks about baby steps.
But Don Smith, for some reason I always think Don Adams from Get Smart, you're getting idealistic too. I think those in power are trying to break our resolve, make us think there is no hope. But grassroots mean something. Word does spread around. The 100th Monkey is an actual scientific truth, from my limited look into the origin of that phrase. Critical Mass. That's another one. Many a time May41970 has told me to bottle my rage, to be like Biko. On a personal level, I do go back and forth from Biko to Sam Kinnison. I wish I was old enough in the 60's and 70's to really appreciate the sappy, goofy, idealistic love which seemed to be emerging. But yikes, then came Reagan, and ketchup became a vegetable.

Just saying we did what we could with the chemtrails for newbies and those on the fence. We have the anti-war stuff here too, some decent links here and there. Now there is some material concerning election fraud. Trying to keep it short and simple. Really appreciate your thoughtful essays.

User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby Don Smith » Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:59 pm

I think the case that stuck in my craw the worst was the defeat of Max Cleland.
No other election showed the depths of lying, hysteria, and Brown Shirt methods so clearly as this one.
The MSM passed it off as a voter reaction to Cleland being "weak on terror", the party line, and for the most part went back to business as usual.
Once again, Hitlers' dictum that politics are about emotion, that facts have nothing to do with the opinions of the masses, was shown to have substance.
Most people are not activists, this culture encourages passivity. The whole of our mainstream culture is about consumption. Want a way to avoid those pangs of conscience about the poor, the victims of greed? Easy. Blame them. They should be responsible for their own well being, like adults, right? Not lining up for food stamps and free medical care which YOU have paid for with your hard earned tax dollars!
Want a way to avoid any doubts about the uses being made of the military in the world? Join those who have no doubts about spreading liberty and freedom to the great unwashed tribes of the heathen. Put Jesus in the army, in the schools, in the government. Know that you are among the Elect, those that will be swept up to heaven on that Day of Glory when the world and all its' evil will be swept away. God owes you , right?
This sort of con game has always been part of the poison which flows through the society to which we belong. The few real Christians, like the Friends, set up hospitals, aid the victims and needy, all without trumpeting their goodness to others.
As to the 60's, I was there. I was active in Viet Nam Vets Against the War, part of the initial suits over Agent Orange, I am so old that I voted for Shirley Chisholm. The ""Silent Majority" was every bit as intransigent then as now. The CIA set up the "hardhats" against the "hippies" and used all sorts of disinfo to muddy the issues. Nothing new there.
Of course, there is always that 10% that doesn't get the word, and the image of Charles Manson became the popular image of the counterculture. The beginnings of environmental activism, the demands for corporate accountability, the liberation of women and gays, all these were dumped together by the MSM to marginalise and weaken their impact upon the social fabric. Fear was, and is the tool of first choice by those manipulating public opinion.
Fear stops thoughtful analysis. Fear encourages a herd reaction. Fear works, and even those who should know better are swept away by the emotions of the mob.
Remember the popular reaction to 911? Very few asked questions of substance that day, the few that did were shouted down by the censors of the Empire. This division continues now, with a fracturing of society which, I believe, is more fundamental than any since the Civil War.
Quo Vadis?
Don Smith

Unread postby Don Smith » Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:17 am

I am reminded that the term "democracy" is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution .A democracy would have every eligible citizen gathered to vote upon all legislation turned out by legislatures at all levels.
While this would certainly be a boon to the vendors of beer, sausages and portable toilets, it makes for a most unwieldy system of government.
So the framers settled upon that classical form of pre-Caesarian government, a republic.
The ideal was that the informed citizen would give up a portion of time in service to the Republic, returning to his business, craft or farm after a period of duty to the commonwealth.
Government service was not to be seen as a vocation, it was a duty of citizenship, an office of transitory nature which passed to others so that diversity and a variety of skills and outlooks might benefit the nation.
Some financial recompense should be provided, so that the service might not lead to financial hardship, though the pay was not enough to enrich the office holder. Strict rules were in place to prevent financial chicanery,(a rule against any member of Congress accepting a gift of more than fifty dollars still exists, it has been ignored since the initial gavel of the First Congress of the United States).
A superficial study of the Continental Congress might have raised a more skeptical attitude among the founding fathers, General Washington complained bitterly in messages to the Congress of solons and contractors selling supplies authorized for his freezing troops at Valley Forge.
There were some inquiries made, and a few persons of no merit were pilloried by the patriotic press, though the practice continued, with more sophisticated book keeping, until the end of the war.
With the formation of the new Federal Government, Washington's trusted aide, Alexander Hamilton, became Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton had the very modern perception that debt, properly managed, could generate economic growth. His great bequest to the future was the role of controlled monies, and a national debt, which was to be watched carefully, so as to not artificially influence the general welfare.
Another bequest, which Hamilton did not invent, was the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the taxpayers. Hamilton advocated the federal treasury paying the costs of the late war which the various states had accumulated during the long war with Britain.
This policy was a great source of debate in the new Congress, in the end, it was decided that national existence had been the burden of the entire nation, therefore, the treasury would make good these funds , at par.
Those persons holding Continental notes and bonds were not informed of the settlement by federal law in time to prevent insiders from purchasing these monies at a fraction of their true worth. The citizens had a saying, "not worth a Continental!" The value of the monies printed by the various state and national entities during the revolution was solely based upon a promise of payment after the war was won, a prospect not so sure at the time as it seems to us now.
The usual rate was ten percent in good silver to the dollar, as gold and silver would not lose value, to the average person, it seemed a good deal, with the risk falling upon the purchaser.
In this way, many thousands of veterans of the war were cheated of their money and lands,(land was another bonus promised by the Continental Congress).
In Hamilton's defense, I must say that my studies have found no instance in which he personally gained from this criminality, I think he was sincere in his belief that a strong government must rest upon an educated elite, holding the mob at bay.
Don Smith

State of the Union

Unread postby Don Smith » Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 pm


A Post-Impeachment Vision of the Future

17 Aug 2007

by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.; National Commander, The Patriots


I am going to ask you to pretend that I am speaking to you as President of the United States and giving my State of the Union Address shortly after inauguration. Your role is as Members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Cabinet, and various dignitaries. Your task, as is always the case in these events, is to cheer and clap like crazy when you hear something you agree with . and to sit on your hands when you don't. The purpose of this is, of course, to let the people watching on television know what they're supposed to think. Seated behind me are the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate (the Vice President of the United States ).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Madam Speaker, Madam President, distinguished Members of the Congress, honored guests, and my fellow Americans: The United States is unquestionably number one in the industrialized world: number one in our use of the world's resources, number one in the production of pollution, number one in the gap between the rich and the poor, number one in deaths by gunfire, number one in teen pregnancy, number one in poverty among the elderly, number one in citizens without health coverage, number one in child poverty, number one in homeless veterans, and number one in citizens behind bars. We are the world's #1 debtor nation, #1 in the creation of new billionaires, #1 in school dropouts, #1 in poverty, homelessness, hunger, divorce, suicide, and (oh yes) #1 in military force, nuclear weapons, and military spending -- as much as all the other nations in the world combined. We also lead the world in the number of hours worked per family, since it now takes two wage-earners and three jobs to provide the income earned with one 40 hour per week job in the 1950s. Despite soaring productivity, real wages are now a third of what they were in the 1950s. If it wasn't for corporate control of our government and the resulting trickle-down economics, ordinary workers could support their families with one job . working two days a week! Would you like to have a five-day weekend every week? If worker pay had kept pace with executive pay, the average worker would now be making a million dollars a year!! and the minimum wage would be $171 an hour!

What do you call a country in which the gap between the rich and the poor is growing beyond bounds, whose principal exports are wood pulp and scrap metal, whose principal imports are manufactured goods, and whose fastest-growing industry is the construction and operation of private prisons? A third world country. That is the state of the union we have inherited.

In our government's drive to protect the far-flung financial interests of multinational corporations, we have abandoned our principles and fought wars of aggression against small countries. We have overthrown popularly-elected leaders and installed puppet dictators who sell out their own people to our corporations. In our drive toward a corporate New World Order, we have sold out our workers, our families, our environment, our children's futures, and the American dream. This too is the state of the union we have inherited.

We have had the opportunity to create a land without want. What went wrong? Why are our workers paid such a tiny percentage of their true worth? Why are we the only major nation without a national health program? Why are our high school graduates two years behind their counterparts in other countries? Why are we hated by so many around the world? Why do we have hundreds of thousands of troops patrolling foreign lands and supporting foreign dictators? What is going on?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that we have lost our republic. Legislators no longer represent the people who elect them, but the corporations who finance them. They answer not to their constituents, but to the lobbyists who line their pockets and fill their campaign coffers.

For years now, through both major political parties, the world's billionaires have directed U.S. policy for their own personal profit. This has included agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the World Trade Organization falsely portrayed as supporting free trade, but in reality promoting free investment , overturning U.S. laws, and putting American workers in competition with those in the Third World . NAFTA, for example, has destroyed the standard of living and quality of life on BOTH sides of the Rio Grande , and by driving Mexican farmers off the land, has been largely responsible for the flood of illegal immigrants into our country.

Corporate control of our government has also resulted in a series of wars, from Iraq to Bosnia to Kosovo to Afghanistan to Iraq again -- wars which are never in the interest of those fighting them, or of the families left behind . wars which only serve the insatiable greed of the global investor class.

Those of us who dedicate our lives to peace, economic justice, and environmental preservation can make little progress in our struggles so long as ultimate power is in the hands of those who profit from war, poverty, and pollution.

Well, I didn't get here tonight by taking corporate millions. I didn't get here by selling myself to the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies . . To be quite honest, I'm not sure how I got here! But here I am, and as long as I am President of the United States , this government will serve the needs of the people, not the greeds of the wealthy elite.

Turning things around won't be easy. What our Constitution empowers me to change, I shall. But for much of what needs doing, I will need the cooperation of you in Congress, and I ask for it tonight. The Constitution does not make me "the decider," only the proposer and the implementer. You, the people's representatives, are the deciders. I am therefore vacating all the over 800 signing statements imposed by my predecessor. I'm revoking Presidential Directives 20 and 51, which give me dictatorial powers. I ask for repeal of the misnamed Patriot Act and all the martial law and special and dictatorial powers acts passed in the last seven years. This is not a monarchy!

But I warn you members of Congress. If you continue to violate your Constitutional responsibility to serve your constituents, and instead serve only yourselves and the big money interests you are indebted to, if you ignore the Constitution and attempt to protect the crooked corporate-dominated status quo, I will go over your heads to the American people and ask them to retire all of you, regardless of party.

We must sever the connection between big money and political power. This means electoral reform and media reform. The latter can be done now. I have ordered the Federal Communications Commission to reinstate the equal time rules and to reimplement the ban on multiple ownership. A free press is incompatible with corporate monopoly domination of the media.

Electoral reform is a little more complicated. The immediate need is for paper ballots. We also need Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation, the elimination of burdensome petition requirements for qualifying third party and independent candidates, making Election Day a federal holiday so working people can actually vote, and true campaign finance reform.

Once we succeed in separating big money and political power, everything becomes possible. In this richest of nations, we can and we will guarantee every American access to a good education, a decent job at a living wage, and health care. As a conservative, I believe that the only fiscally responsible way to provide universal health care is to kick the insurance companies out of health care completely with a doctor-run single-payer national health program.

We will also guarantee every American the undiluted protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Fear of terrorism is not going to make this nation a police state.

As a step toward the living wage, I propose that the Minimum Wage be indexed for inflation and, over a ten year period, be raised to what it would have been had it been so indexed at its creation (currently over $14 an hour).

As you know, the previous administration resigned under threat of impeachment over their exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy to deceive this nation into unnecessary and illegal wars of aggression. They still face court-martial proceedings over abuse of power as Commander in Chief. The evidence of their guilt was overwhelming. This evidence is in the PNAC document calling for the permanent occupation of Iraq justified by a "new Pearl Harbor ." It is in Richard Clarke's book in which he notes an immediate attempt by the Bush administration to tie Iraq to 9/11 - regardless of the facts. It is in videotaped statements of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld themselves using 9/11 to justify the Iraq War. It is in CIA documents showing that Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Feith, and others "cherry picked" intelligence for use by Cheney and their other bosses. It is in the Downing Street memo which says that the intelligence was being tailored to fit the policy. And it is in speeches by me and others prior to the invasion of Iraq , in which we laid out the truth, predicted the inevitable results, and noted that such an invasion would be an impeachable offense and an act of treason.

There is also evidence of a massive cover-up with respect to 9/11 itself. T he official 9/11 Report, tightly controlled by the White House, amounts to little but a whitewash. When combined with the confiscation of videotapes, audio tapes, black boxes, and other evidence by the FBI, it is clear that regardless of who was responsible for 9/11, the subsequent cover-up was itself a conspiracy involving elements of the White House and the intelligence establishment.

This is important because, remember, Richard Nixon wasn't undone by the two-bit break-in at the Watergate, but for the cover-up. Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for his sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky, but for stretching the truth when asked about it. Scooter Libby wasn't convicted for leaking Valerie Plame's identity, but for lying about when he learned about it. Martha Stewart didn't serve time for insider trading, but for not telling the truth. Is there ANYONE who believes the Bush administration always told the TRUTH about 9/11?

This raises the question, "If the Bush Administration had nothing to hide, why did they hide everything?" Were they covering up guilt or incompetence? If it was incompetence, why was no one demoted or fired or court-martialed or even reprimanded? If they were protecting guilty parties, are they Saudis? Pakistanis? Israelis? Americans? All the above? And why on earth aren't the people's representatives in Congress asking these questions . and demanding answers?

The American people have still not been told who was really responsible for 9/11. Dedicated researchers [like Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Kevin Barrett , and Dr. Steven Jones] have proven that it could not have happened the way the Bush administration said it did. Hijacked airliners do not fly around for an hour and 40 minutes without being intercepted . unless our air defense system was deliberately sabotaged. Indestructible "black boxes" are not vaporized by the same fire from which undamaged passports float to the street below. Steel skyscrapers do not implode and collapse at free-fall speed because of a kerosene fire. Steel buildings do not collapse at all because of a kerosene fire (never have and never will). And building seven wasn't even struck by an airplane. {3 minute video of WTC 7} Millions of 9/11 Truthers consider this the "smoking gun" that "proves" 9/11 was an inside job. But even if they're wrong, even if the Bush administration's official conspiracy theory was essentially correct, [you know, the one about 19 Arabs with box-cutters and an old man on a dialysis machine in a cave. Even if that official conspiracy theory was essentially correct,] the American people would still need to know (for example) why our multi-trillion dollar defense establishment failed to protect even their own headquarters from an unarmed aircraft. The truth about 9/11 is that after six years we still don't know the truth about 9/11 . and we should. I am therefore appointing a commission to conduct a new and truly-independent investigation of 9/11. It will have oversight by a few of you in Congress, by Senator Max Cleland, by Dr. David Ray Griffin, theologian, of the 9/11 Truth movement, by Karen Breitweiser and Mindy Kleinberg, Jersey girls, representing the families of victims, and by Sibel Edmonds and other whistle-blowers in the FBI. They will have full subpoena power, able to require sworn public testimony from anyone up to including me and the former president and vice president. I think we've had enough so-called testimony behind closed doors with no oaths and no transcripts. This time, we want the truth! The new commission will examine all the evidence, even that which seems to contradict the official story (and there's a mountain of it), and it will have no predetermined conclusions about who the conspirators were. (They won't even assume Cheney is guilty.) There have been all too many Pearl Harbors , Gulfs of Tonkin, 9/11s, and Reichstag Fires. We must make it clear that the truth will out. Never again must we allow this nation to be stampeded into war under false pretenses.

Speaking of war, the new Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I have redefined two basic missions for our armed forces: (1) deterring anyone from attacking the United States with weapons of mass destruction, and (2) defending our shores and borders from foreign invasion. Period. This redefinition of mission will, after a few years of transition, result in a peace dividend of $400 Billion per year . with no one joining the ranks of the jobless. Until new contracts come out for renewable energy, non-polluting transportation, and the rebuilding of our infrastructure, there are to be no layoffs. If we can pay farmers not to grow crops, we can pay engineers and machinists not to build weapons.

Among the new weapons they will NOT build are new nuclear weapons and "Star Wars" weapons in space.

The part of the defense budget which is absolutely inviolable is that part which takes care of our veterans. The VA must be fully funded. The cost of caring for the disabled combat veterans from the Iraq War alone will be in the trillions of dollars over their lifetimes. But it is a cost we must bear. The signature wound of this war is brain trauma. Yet the Bush Administration slashed the budget for the Brain Trauma Center by 50%. To create so many thousands of disabled veterans in their wars of aggression and then refuse to take proper care of them was perhaps the worst sin of the Bush administration. The care of those wounded in action, wracked by PTSD, and poisoned by Depleted Uranium is NOT a discretionary expenditure to be avoided by delay, denial, and bureaucratic red tape. It is a solemn obligation of this government, and it will be met.

In the last half a century, the United States has gone from savior of the civilized world to the number one rogue nation on earth. As a result, despite spending a billion and a half dollars a day on military power, the American people are less secure today than at any time since the end of the Civil War. The expenditure of fourteen trillion dollars since World War II has brought our people only more insecurity, massive debt, and the loss of many of the cherished rights enshrined in our Constitution.

It's time for the cycle to end. It's time to end the belligerence, bring home our troops, and rejoin the family of nations. And that's what we're going to do.

To set the stage for discussing our plans for Iraq , I would like to give you a little historical background. First, I'd like to read a few excerpts from a speech I gave to an anti-war rally on February 15, 2003 , a month before the Iraq War started.

"Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. He's a bad guy now. He was a bad guy in 1990 when April Glaspie of the State Department gave him the green light to invade Kuwait . He was a bad guy in the 1980s when Donald Rumsfeld sat down with him for a chat while Saddam was supposedly gassing the Kurds. He was a bad guy in 1977 when Zbigniew Brzezinski met with him and proposed the invasion of Iran . And he was a bad guy in the 1960s when the CIA hired him to assassinate Iraqi leader Abdel Karim Qassim and then helped Saddam take over Iraq . He's always been a bad guy. But he was always our bad guy. Right up to 1990, official DoD documents praised Saddam for vastly improving the education, medical care, and standard of living of his people, along with women's rights and religious freedom. His regime was called one of the most enlightened, progressive governments in the region . and it was.

"But there was a problem. The Berlin wall had come down and the Soviet Union had collapsed. The first Bush White House had to find another bad guy - fast, to justify the defense budget. And they did -- Saddam Hussein. They suckered him into attacking Kuwait , and the first Gulf War was on.

"Now the second President Bush wants his Gulf War too. But starting a preemptive war against Iraq : (1) would be immoral. (2) would be costly, in terms of American lives and in dollars. (3) would require us to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. (4) would come between us and our allies. (5) would incense the Arab world. (6) would provide Osama bin Laden with thousands of new recruits, and (7) would therefore greatly increase the terrorist threat.

"As a combat veteran, I will not stand idly by and watch our security destroyed by a president who went AWOL rather than fight in Vietnam .

"When I joined the Air Force, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies -- foreign and domestic. That includes a renegade president. If they go ahead with this war, I will call for the impeachment of George W. Bush, **** Cheney, and the whole oil mafia. This war would be treason! God bless America ! And God save us from George W. Bush!"

That was Feb 15, 2003 . A month later, troops were massed in Kuwait , but "Shock and awe" hadn't yet started. This is a little of what I said on Mar 15, 2003 , on the eve of the war.

"I've been severely criticized for speaking out in opposition to this coming war. We're told that we're aiding and abetting the enemy. We're told that we should support the president no matter what. Well I say, "Hogwash!"

"I feel an affinity for the troops deployed in Kuwait . They are my comrades in arms. But the truth is, they are not over there protecting our freedoms. Our freedoms are not under attack by Saddam Hussein. Our freedoms are under attack by John Ashcroft. They are threatened by John Poindexter. They are trampled by Donald Rumsfeld. They are disdained by **** Cheney. And they are not even understood by George W. Bush.

"The troops surrounding Iraq are not protecting us. We are protecting them . and their honor . and their freedoms . by speaking truth to power.

"Here is the truth that we proclaim. This coming war has nothing to do with national security or freedom or democracy or human rights or protecting our allies or weapons of mass destruction or defeating terrorism or disarming Iraq . It has to do with money. It has to do with oil. And it has to do with raw imperial power. And it is wrong.

"A preemptive war would be immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, a war crime against the people of Iraq , and treason against the United States of America ."

That was Mar 15, 2003 , on the eve of the Iraq War. Now the point of this bit of history is that we in the peace movement knew better. We weren't taken in by the doctored and manipulated intelligence and the outright untruths we were told to justify this war.

One more little bit of history. I would like to quote briefly from the memoirs of the first President Bush, written before his son got the job.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. . there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

My sisters and brothers, it's just too darn bad his son doesn't read!

Now here we are four years and 3,700 American lives later. This misguided war has cost more American lives than 9/11 and has dragged on longer than World War II. Yet we still have no accountability for how this war started. We know that most of you lily-livered members of Congress from both parties abdicated your Constitutional responsibility to declare war . or not, and gave a blank check to the imperial presidency. We also know that you were lied to by George W. Bush and his people. What I can't figure out is how you believed those lies. I sure didn't. Are the members of Congress that much more stupid than we in the peace movement? Or did you really know better, but were just being lap-dogs for the fat-cats as usual?

Well, in 2006 the Democrats took control of Congress. Months went by . and more months went by, and you still failed to hold President Bush accountable for his lies. What on earth was wrong with you?

It's a hackneyed expression, and you've heard it many times, but it's true: " Clinton lied, no one died." If it was OK to impeach Bill Clinton for fibbing about an event which only embarrassed his family and soiled a blue dress, what took you so long to impeach Cheney and Bush for deceiving us into a war costing so many thousands of lives? Where's the accountability?

If it was right for Richard Nixon to have to resign under threat of impeachment for covering up an attempt to peek at the other party's plans, why was it not right for you to immediately get rid of those responsible not only for two deadly wars of aggression, but also for the loss of habeas corpus, spying on American citizens, torturing suspects in the phony war on terror, saddling our grandchildren with more trillions in debt, giving away our sovereignty with the North American Union, and subverting the Constitution itself? Where is the accountability?

Much changed while George W. Bush was in office. Nearly 3,000 died on 9/11. Many more than that died in his wars and occupations. There are more than 27,000 wounded soldiers whose lives will never be the same. There are tens of thousands of young men and women with serious psychological problems because of what they have seen and what they have done. There are hundreds of thousands poisoned by Depleted Uranium who will suffer lives of pain and disability, and who will father thousands of children with severe birth defects. Our military services are depleted and demoralized. The VA system is overwhelmed. The National Guard and Reserves have been subjected to tour after tour, disrupting lives for even the lucky ones who return unscathed. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been destroyed, homes have been foreclosed, children have been estranged, and natural disasters like Katrina have been undealt with. And still, there was no accountability.

That was just in this country. In Iraq , things were even worse. Religious liberty was lost, mosques, churches, and synagogues which thrived under Saddam were destroyed, women lost their rights and freedoms, essential services were disrupted, people were tortured, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed, cities like Fallujah lie in ruins, and in spite of heroic efforts by the vast majority of our young men and women in uniform, most of the remaining people of Iraq are much worse off than they were before we "liberated" them.

More than four years of war have destroyed Iraq , destroyed our standing in the world, destroyed our national security, destroyed our civil liberties, destroyed precious lives, and brought our nation to the brink of financial disaster. And it was all predictable, because we in fact predicted it! The hundreds of billions of dollars already spent on this war have not just vanished. They have gone to Condoleezza Rice's Chevron-Texaco and **** Cheney's Halliburton and George Bush's Carlisle Group, and through their lobbyists into the pockets of you Congressional incumbents. Perhaps that's why there has been no accountability.

Well no longer. The American people finally got together and demanded a government which (1) follows the Constitution, (2) honors the truth, and (3) serves the people. And that's exactly what we intend to give them.

I am asking the UN to send peacekeepers to Iraq to do a job we can't do as an occupying army. But whether or not they do, we will leave completely within three months. We are going to support what's left of our troops by bringing them home while they are still alive.

Terrorism is a real threat. In the short term we must protect the American people from the terrorists our misguided policies have already created. This means enhancing port security and strengthening the border patrol and Coast Guard. These we will do.

But in the long term, we must stop making more terrorists. That means stopping policies and actions which make people fear and hate us. It means listening to the legitimate grievances of peoples we have wronged, and then changing our ways. Only one thing has ever ended a campaign of terror (anywhere in the world) -- separating the handful of terrorists from the larger community upon which they depend. This is done by ending the feelings of desperation, hopelessness, and powerlessness afflicting the people. It is done by listening to them and then actually making their lives better. It is not done by revenge and retaliation, which only create more terrorists.

We have at times (including, I think, the last few years) had a government with bad policies. But we are a good people. What we have long needed is a government which reflects the values and goodness of the American people.

Our values and goodness are not reflected by a government which violates international law in its conflicts and denies its own citizens their Constitutional rights. I have therefore ordered the release of all those being detained without charge, the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay (we'll find somewhere else for Bush and Cheney), and the end of the "rendition" program in which suspects are kidnapped and taken to secret foreign prisons to be tortured. All contracts for mercenaries, including those with Blackwater, are being cancelled. This includes contracts with DoD, CIA, and the Department of Homeland Security (which, by the way, is being abolished). There will be no more Blackwater goons terrorizing the poor people of New Orleans .

I have also pardoned a host of political prisoners, including Border Patrol agents jailed for 12 years for doing their job against a Mexican drug smuggler bringing 700 pounds of cocaine across the border. Agents Campean and Ramos are now free. I have also pardoned Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu Jamal, and I've given a blanket pardon to all those convicted of the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana.

(I must admit to you, however, that I have NOT pardoned Scooter Libby. He will at least have to pay his fine.)

Our values and goodness are not reflected by a government which promotes a globalization which depresses living standards at home and allows corporations to destroy the quality of life in banana republics and client states all over the world. The WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank have caused untold suffering. If we can't reform them, we will abolish them.

With respect to our relationship with the government of Mexico, I have ordered (1) the cancellation of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" or "North American Union", (2) abandonment of plans for a NAFTA Super Highway which would have put nearly all American longshoremen and truckers out of work, and (3) suspension of NAFTA completely until Mexico gives its workers union rights, protections for safety, health, and the environment, and wages at least matching the US federal Minimum Wage.

From now on, globalization will mean raising living standards in developing nations to match ours - not the other way around.

Our values and goodness are not reflected by a system in which all our personal income taxes go to pay interest on a staggering national debt created out of thin air. The Constitution authorizes Congress to print our money, not a private cartel. I ask Congress to pass legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve.

Our values and goodness are not reflected by a government which uses our money to train death squads in the techniques of torture, intimidation, and assassination. The School of the Americas (by whatever name they choose to call it) will be closed. [As Commander-in-Chief, I have ordered that the students presently attending the School be shown the movies "Romero" and "Panama Deception" and then sent home.]

Our values and goodness are not reflected by a government which gives Most Favored Nation status to the butchers of Tienanmen Square and places an illegal secondary embargo on the impoverished people of Cuba . The embargo of Cuba must end! And it just did.

I recognize that we need advance information on the activities of Al Qaeda and those who wish to do us harm. But our values and goodness are not reflected by, and our security is not enhanced by, an organization which promotes instability, insurrection, tyranny, torture, terrorism, murder, and war around the world in our name and with our money. If the CIA won't stick to gathering intelligence, I will abolish it.

Our values and goodness are not reflected by a government which sends its working-class youth around the world to kill the sons and daughters of working people in other countries. Our values and goodness are not reflected by sending our children to the Middle East to kill Arabs so the oil companies can profit from selling the oil under other people's sand, making us the target of terrorists.

No more Iraqs . No more Kosovos. No more El Salvadors. These are not isolated incidents of stupidity. They are part of a long, bloody history of foreign policy being conducted for the financial interests of the wealthy few. It is a new form of colonialism. It violates our Constitution. It endangers our national security. It mortgages our future. It sacrifices our children. It must stop . and it just did.

As president, I will use the men and women in our Armed Forces to protect our borders and our people, not the financial interests of Folgers, Chiquita Banana, Exxon, and Halliburton. Needless to say, there will be NO nuclear attack on Iran . My special envoy to the Middle East , Jimmy Carter, will be meeting with them to solve our differences. Once he has finished there, he will straighten out the Israelis and Palestinians.

With over sixty years having passed since World War II, and with the Cold War long since over, I see no reason why we should still be occupying Germany and Japan . Our global military presence will end within two years. This is not isolationism. It is common sense. It is in the security interest of our people. And it is obeying our Constitution for a change.

Instead of a worldwide military presence, we are going to have a humanitarian presence. Along with the other wealthy nations of the world, we shall initiate a new Marshall Plan, providing funds to rebuild the Middle East as we rebuilt Europe after World War II. We will also have a Domestic Marshall Plan, fulfilling the unkept Bush promises to rebuild New Orleans and the surrounding area. In addition, we will take the lead in complete debt forgiveness for the poorest countries, starting with those in Africa . If we are once again to be a great nation, we must first be a good nation.

Finally, I'd like to speak directly to the American people. I understand that I am but an interim president. I could never have been elected under the present system. I know. I tried in 2000. And I am unlikely to even finish out this term -- partly because I have terminal cancer from Agent Orange, and partly because there are powerful interests with hundreds of billions of reasons for wanting me assassinated. (By the way, if you hear that I have suddenly committed suicide . by shooting myself in the back . with a shotgun . three times, you might be just a little suspicious. They'll call you a conspiracy theorist, but be suspicious anyway.) But, you know, it won't matter. They can kill me, but they can't kill what we have started. It's too late for that. My words, heard tonight by a few, will tomorrow reach many. Through the internet, the vision of The Patriots will spread across the land and around the globe. You, the American people, will not let it die.

I am unlikely to get there with you, but like Brother Martin, I have been to the mountain top, and I have seen the Promised Land.

What I have seen is an America in which every person (regardless of their race, creed, color, age, or sexual orientation) is valued and lives in dignity, every person is cared for, and every person is free to reach his or her full potential.

It is an America in which every family can be supported by one wage-earner with one job paying a living wage. It is an America in which single parents can freely choose to stay home to care for their children or to work outside the home knowing that their children are taken care of in a safe and nurturing environment. It is an America in which health care is provided to all as a right. It is an America in which our youth spend two years in the American World Service Corps, perhaps serving in the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps or Habitat for Humanity or some other worthy organization, in exchange for their higher education, including whatever advanced education the person can successfully handle. It is an America in which educators and teachers are highly valued and financially compensated accordingly. It is an America in which policemen, nurses, poets, firefighters, teachers, and garbage collectors can afford a good house in a nice neighborhood and live in comfort, not just scientists, brain surgeons, CEOs, rock stars, lawyers, and basketball players. It is an America whose borders are secure, immigrants are legal, and workers are amply rewarded. It is an America in which faith is respected, culture is preserved, the arts are supported, and the Constitution is followed.

It is an America that seeks not to be king of the hill nor subservient to the World Trade Organization, but to be a responsible

sovereign member of the family of nations (nothing more, and nothing less) . an America that is free of the threat of terrorism because it is no longer feared and hated . an America that leads the world -- not just with military might, but with its vision, its compassion, its democracy, its productivity, its freedom, its standard of living, its care for the global environment, its treatment of its own people, and its goodness. Above all, it is an America at peace with the world and with its own people. That's the America I have seen, the America our people deserve, and the America you can build . and you don't need me to do it.

Spread the word. Keep the dream alive. Drop your own pebbles in the pond and make some waves. Never vote for any politician who takes money from corporations or lobbyists, and never elect a president who raises a hundred million dollars from special interests or is the darling of the corporate media. If you can't find anyone worth voting for, run for office yourself. Cleave to your sisters and brothers all across the political spectrum in demanding the basic reforms I've outlined tonight, and never settle for anything less than government of the people, by the people, and especially for the people.

I know it wasn't original to him, but my old friend, William Sloane Coffin, used to say, "He who makes peaceful change impossible makes violent revolution inevitable." Let us be thankful for our many blessings, bringing us this far on our journey; and let us pray that this, our inevitable second American revolution, will continue to be a nonviolent one.

It matters not if my presidency is real or fanciful. My part is done. It is finished. The rest is in your hands. The future and the dream itself depend on you. May God sustain you in your struggles and bless America through your actions. Thank you, and good night.

Don Smith

Hey Don

Unread postby may41970 » Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:37 am

A couple posts up, you wrote:

"An unspoken assumption seems to be central to a great deal of the outrage which is being expressed here by the lead dogs on this sled; the assumption that a sense of justice is something which can be appealed to, that ethics are universal among honest people. For the most part, I agree with these ideas, I have always had the suspicion that if more people had an inkling of what the hell was really going on, the earth would be a paradise in a single generation."

I agree.

I've recently noticed you saying more stuff that could get you on the same shitlist that me and soc are on. Hey, I'd love to have you join us!

I've been going back and re-reading your posts. You're a great writer, Don. I'm glad you are here. Please post more often and don't feel worried about pissing us off. Just say whatever you want. Disagree with me or soc on Holocaust issues or anything else you want. And if you aren't 100% sure about whether chemtrails are for real - that's fine too. Just come out and say it. A good opportunity for real discussion with a real person.

peace, from your co-deputy


ps - may I flatter myself and admit that I'm a musician too? Ever heard of Sonny Boy Williamson 2 or Albert Collins? It's my hobby to destroy their music.

Unread postby Don Smith » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:00 pm

Lightnin' Hopkins, Mississippi Fred McDowell, Big Bill Broonzy, John Lee hooker, Muddy Waters, Mississippi John Hurt, Lightnin' Slim, Memphis Slim, all these and more have their music interpreted by my guitar and vocal stylings.
"Deputy Don"
Don Smith

Conspiracy Phobia On The Left

Unread postby Don Smith » Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:23 pm

The following essay by Michael Parenti was penned in the wake of the furor over Oliver Stone's JFK, but it contains many points about prevailing mindsets that are perfectly relevant to the current refusal of some otherwise activist and politically-minded people to allow honest and open consideration of the growing evidence for official prior knowledge of 9/11 and covert planning and manipulation behind the so-called "War on Terror." It was emailed to me out of the blue by a visitor to questionsquesitons.net, and much to my delight follows much of the same line of reasoning that I have been pursuing in past articles such as And Now... Will the Real Skeptic Please Stand Up? — albeit much more expertly, of course, and with more historical depth.

As a preface and for background, this article may be of interest as well:

JFK Conspiracy: The Intellectual Dishonesty and Cowardice of Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky, by Michael Worsham
As reported in the Washington Post, a top-notch scientific study of audio recordings from the JFK assasination recently presented its findings: it is more than 99% certain that shots were fired by at least one additional gunman from the notorious "grassy knoll." So how does it look now, seeing that Chomsky and Cockburn have stood behind the Warren Commission's findings of a lone gunman and "magic bullet" and, as you will read below, have simply refused to become acquainted with the mountains of evidence to the contrary? Does "America's leading dissident" have anything to say?

In any case, Parenti's writing affirms for me a disturbing conclusion at which I had already arrived some time ago: that the adamant, knee-jerk critics of "conspiracy theory" on the old ideological Left are, under the sly rubric of guarding against "extremism" and "captivating populist myths," waging war on real truthseeking. I have personally seen, over and over, what Parenti laments here: those who most loudly disparage "conspiracy theory" are most often the ones with the least knowledge of the actual evidence being presented. A second issue which Parenti deals with here is the tired canard of a simplistic "conspiracy theory vs. structural / institutional analysis" dichotomy which is constantly hammered out by the Left foes of conspiracy investigation, who then turn around and offer little of their preferred "institutional analysis" at all, instead usually engaging in typical headline-chasing. Truly, the Emperor wears no clothes.

The situation would almost be funny if it weren't so pathetic. And dangerous.
From Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti
(1996, City Lights Books) (Pages 172 - 191)

Almost as an article of faith, some individuals believe that conspiracies are either kooky fantasies or unimportant aberrations. To be sure, wacko conspiracy theories do exist. There are people who believe that the United States has been invaded by a secret United Nations army equipped with black helicopters, or that the country is secretly controlled by Jews or gays or feminists or black nationalists or communists or extraterrestrial aliens. But it does not logically follow that all conspiracies are imaginary.

Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial acts. Conspiracies are a matter of public record, and some are of real political significance. The Watergate break-in was a conspiracy, as was the Watergate cover-up, which led to Nixon's downfall. Iran-contra was a conspiracy of immense scope, much of it still uncovered. The savings and loan scandal was described by the Justice Department as "a thousand conspiracies of fraud, theft, and bribery," the greatest financial crime in history.

Conspiracy or Coincidence?

Often the term "conspiracy" is applied dismissively whenever one suggests that people who occupy positions of political and economic power are consciously dedicated to advancing their elite interests. Even when they openly profess their designs, there are those who deny that intent is involved. In 1994, the officers of the Federal Reserve announced they would pursue monetary policies designed to maintain a high level of unemployment in order to safeguard against "overheating" the economy. Like any creditor class, they preferred a deflationary course. When an acquaintance of mine mentioned this to friends, he was greeted skeptically, "Do you think the Fed bankers are deliberately trying to keep people unemployed?" In fact, not only did he think it, it was announced on the financial pages of the press. Still, his friends assumed he was imagining a conspiracy because he ascribed self-interested collusion to powerful people.

At a World Affairs Council meeting in San Francisco, I remarked to a participant that U.S. leaders were pushing hard for the reinstatement of capitalism in the former communist countries. He said, "Do you really think they carry it to that level of conscious intent?" I pointed out it was not a conjecture on my part. They have repeatedly announced their commitment to seeing that "free-market reforms" are introduced in Eastern Europe. Their economic aid is channeled almost exclusively into the private sector. The same policy holds for the monies intended for other countries. Thus, as of the end of 1995, "more than $4.5 million U.S. aid to Haiti has been put on hold because the Aristide government has failed to make progress on a program to privatize state-owned companies" (New York Times 11/25/95).

Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: "Do you actually think there's a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?" For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot - though they call it "planning" and "strategizing" - and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.

Yet there are individuals who ask with patronizing, incredulous smiles, do you really think that the people at the top have secret agendas, are aware of their larger interests, and talk to each other about them? To which I respond, why would they not? This is not to say that every corporate and political elite is actively dedicated to working for the higher circles of power and property. Nor are they infallible or always correct in their assessments and tactics or always immediately aware of how their interests are being affected by new situations. But they are more attuned and more capable of advancing their vast interests than most other social groups.

The alternative is to believe that the powerful and the privileged are somnambulists, who move about oblivious to questions of power and privilege; that they always tell us the truth and have nothing to hide even when they hide so much; that although most of us ordinary people might consciously try to pursue our own interests, wealthy elites do not; that when those at the top employ force and violence around the world it is only for the laudable reasons they profess; that when they arm, train, and finance covert actions in numerous countries, and then fail to acknowledge their role in such deeds, it is because of oversight or forgetfulness or perhaps modesty; and that it is merely a coincidence how the policies of the national security state so consistently serve the interests of the transnational corporations and the capital-accumulation system throughout the world.

Kennedy and the Left Critics

In the winter of 1991-92 Oliver Stone's film JFK revived popular interest in the question of President John Kennedy's assassination. As noted in part I of this article, the mainstream media launched a protracted barrage of invective against the movie. Conservatives and liberals closed ranks to tell the public there was no conspiracy to murder the president for such things do not happen in the United States.

Unfortunately, some writers normally identified as on the Left have rejected any suggestion that conspiracy occurred. While the rightists and centrists were concerned about preserving the legitimacy of existing institutions and keeping people from seeing the gangster nature of the state, the leftists had different concerns, though it was not always clear what these were.

Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others challenge the notion that Kennedy was assassinated for intending to withdraw from Vietnam or for threatening to undo the CIA or end the cold war. Such things could not have led to his downfall, they argue, because Kennedy was a cold warrior, pro-CIA, and wanted a military withdrawal from Vietnam only with victory. Chomsky claims that the change of administration that came with JFK's assassination had no appreciable effect on policy. In fact, the massive ground war ordered by Johnson and the saturation bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos ordered by Nixon represented a dramatic departure from Kennedy's policy. On some occasions, Chomsky says he refuses to speculate: "As for what JFK might have done [had he lived], I have nothing to say." Other times he goes on to speculate that Kennedy would not have "reacted differently to changing situations than his close advisers" and "would have persisted in his commitment to strengthen and enhance the status of the CIA" (Z Magazine, 10/92 and 1/93).

The evidence we have indicates that Kennedy observed Cambodian neutrality and negotiated a cease-fire and a coalition government in Laos, which the CIA refused to honor. We also know that the surviving Kennedy, Robert, broke with the Johnson administration over Vietnam and publicly stated that his brother's administration had committed serious mistakes. Robert moved with the tide of opinion, evolving into a Senate dove and then a peace candidate for the presidency, before he too was murdered. The two brothers worked closely together and were usually of like mind. While this does not provide reason enough to conclude that John Kennedy would have undergone a transition comparable to Robert's, it still might give us pause before asserting that JFK was destined to follow in the direction taken by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

In the midst of this controversy, Chomsky wrote a whole book arguing that JFK had no intention of withdrawing from Vietnam without victory. Actually, Kennedy said different things at different times, sometimes maintaining that we could not simply abandon Vietnam, other times that it ultimately would be up to the Vietnamese to fight their own war.1

One of Kennedy's closest aides, Kenneth O'Donnell, wrote that the president planned to withdraw from Vietnam after the 1964 elections. According to Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who headed military support for the clandestine operations of the CIA, Kennedy dictated "the rich parts" of NSAM 263, calling for the withdrawal not only of all U.S. troops but all Americans, meaning CIA officers and agents too. Prouty reflects that the president thereby signed "his own death warrant." The Army newspaper Stars and Stripes ran a headline: "President Says - All Americans Out by 1965." According to Prouty: "The Pentagon was outraged. JFK was a curse word in the corridors."

Concentrating on the question of withdrawal, Chomsky says nothing about the president's unwillingness to escalate into a ground war. On that crucial point all Chomsky offers is a speculation ascribed to Roger Hilsman that Kennedy might well have introduced U.S. ground troops in South Vietnam. In fact, the same Hilsman, who served as Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, the officer responsible for Vietnam, noted in a long letter to the New York Times (1/20/92) that in 1963 "President Kennedy was determined not to let Vietnam become an American war - that is, he was determined not to send U.S. combat troops (as opposed to advisers) to fight in Vietnam nor to bomb North Vietnam." Other Kennedy aides such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and General Maxwell Taylor made the same point. Taylor said, "The last thing he [Kennedy] wanted was to put in our ground forces . . . I don't recall anyone who was strongly against [the recommendation], except one man and that was the President." Kennedy opposed the kind of escalation embarked upon soon after his death by Lyndon Johnson, who increased U.S. troops in Vietnam from 17,000 to approximately 250,000 and committed them to an all-out ground war.

Kennedy and the CIA

Chomsky argues that the CIA would have had no grounds for wanting to kill JFK, because he was a dedicated counterinsurgent cold warrior. Chomsky arrives at this conclusion by assuming that the CIA had the same reading of events in 1963 that he has today. But entrenched power elites are notorious for not seeing the world the way left analysts do. To accept Chomsky's assumptions we would need a different body of data from that which he and others offer, data that focuses not on the Kennedy administration's interventionist pronouncements and policies but on the more private sentiments that festered in intelligence circles and related places in 1963.

To offer a parallel: We might be of the opinion that the New Deal did relatively little for working people and that Franklin Roosevelt actually was a tool of the very interests he publicly denounced as "economic royalists." From this we might conclude that the plutocrats had much reason to support FDR's attempts to save big business from itself. But most plutocrats dammed "that man in the White House" as a class traitor. To determine why, you would have to look at how they perceived the New Deal in those days, not at how we think it should be evaluated today.

In fact, President Kennedy was not someone the CIA could tolerate, and the feeling was mutual. JFK told one of his top officials that he wanted "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" (New York Times, 4/25/66). He closed the armed CIA camps that were readying for a second Bay of Pigs invasion and took a number of other steps designed to bring the Agency under control. He fired its most powerful and insubordinate leaders, Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell. He tried to reduce its powers and jurisdiction and set strict limits as to its future actions, and he appointed a high-level committee to investigate the CIA's past misdeeds.

In 1963, CIA officials, Pentagon brass, anti-Castro Cuban émigrés, and assorted other right-wingers, including FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, hated JFK and did not believe he could be trusted with the nation's future. They referred to him as "that delinquent in the White House." Roger Craig records the comments of numerous Dallas police officers who wanted to see Kennedy done away with. Several years ago, on a San Francisco talk show on station KGO, I heard a listener call in as follows: "this is the first time I'm saying this. I worked for Army intelligence. In 1963 I was in Japan, and the accepted word around then was that Kennedy would be killed because he was messing with the intelligence community. When word came of his death, all I could hear was delighted comments like 'We got the *******'."

In his book First Hand Knowledge, CIA operative Robert Morrow noted the hatred felt by CIA officers regarding Kennedy's "betrayal" in not sending the U.S. military into the Bay of Pigs fiasco. One high-level CIA Cuban émigré, Eladio del Valle, told Morrow less than two weeks before the assassination: "I found out about it last night. Kennedy's going to get it in Dallas."2 Morrow also notes that CIA director Richard Helms, "knew that someone in the Agency was involved" in the Kennedy assassination, "either directly or indirectly, in the act itself - someone who would be in a high and sensitive position . . . Helms did cover up any CIA involvement in the presidential assassination."

Several years after JFK's murder, President Johnson told White House aide Marvin Watson that he "was convinced that there was a plot in connection with the assassination" and that the CIA had something to do with it (Washington Post, 12/13/77). And Robert Kennedy repeatedly made known his suspicions that the CIA had a hand in the murder of his brother.

JFK's enemies in the CIA, the Pentagon, and elsewhere fixed on his refusal to provide air coverage for the Bay of Pigs, his unwillingness to go into Indochina with massive ground forces, his no-invasion guarantee to Krushchev on Cuba, his overtures for a rapprochement with Castro and professed willingness to tolerate countries with different economic systems in the Western hemisphere, his atmospheric-test-ban treaty with Moscow, his American University speech calling for reexamination of U.S. cold war attitudes toward the Soviet Union, his antitrust suit against General Electric, his curtailing of the oil-depletion allowance, his fight with U.S. Steel over price increases, his challenge to the Federal Reserve Board's multibillion-dollar monopoly control of the nation's currency,3 his warm reception at labor conventions, and his call for racial equality. These things may not have been enough for some on the Left but they were far too much for many on the Right.

Left Confusions and the Warren Commission

Erwin Knoll, erstwhile editor of the Progressive, was anther left critic who expressed hostility toward the conspiracy thesis and Oliver Stone's movie in particular. Knoll admitted he had no idea who killed Kennedy, but this did not keep him from asserting that Stone's JFK was "manipulative" and provided false answers. If Knoll had no idea who killed Kennedy, how could he conclude that the film was false?

Knoll said Stone's movie was "a melange of fact and fiction" (Progressive, 3/92). To be sure, some of the dramatization was fictionalized - but regarding the core events relating to Clay Shaw's perjury, eyewitness reports at Dealey Plaza, the behavior of U.S. law officers, and other suspicious happenings, the movie remained faithful to the facts unearthed by serious investigators.

In a show of flexibility, Knoll allows that "the Warren Commission did a hasty, slipshod job" of investigation. Here too he only reveals his ignorance. In fact, the Commission sat for fifty-one long sessions over a period of several months, much longer than most major investigations. It compiled twenty-six volumes of testimony and evidence. It had the investigative resources of the FBI and CIA at its disposal, along with its own professional team. Far from being hasty and slipshod, it painstakingly crafted theories that moved toward a foreordained conclusion. From the beginning, it asked only a limited set of questions that seemed to assume Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin.

The Warren Commission set up six investigative panels to look into such things as Oswald's background, his activities in past years and on the day of the assassination, Jack Ruby's background, and his activities on the day he killed Oswald. As Mark Lane notes, there was a crying need for a seventh panel, one that would try to discover who killed President Kennedy. The commission never saw the need for that undertaking, having already made up its mind.

While supposedly dedicated to bringing the truth to light, the Warren Commission operated in secrecy. The minutes of its meetings were classified top secret, and hundred of thousands of documents and other evidence were sealed for seventy-five years. The Commission failed to call witnesses who heard and saw people shooting from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. It falsely recorded the testimony of certain witnesses, as they were to complain later on, and reinterpreted the testimony of others. All this took careful effort. A "hasty and slipshod" investigation would show some randomness in its errors. But the Commission's distortions consistently moved in the same direction in pursuit of a prefigured hypothesis.

Erwin Knoll talks disparagingly of the gullible U.S. public and says he "despises" Oliver Stone for playing on that gullibility. In fact, the U.S. public has been anything but gullible. It has not swallowed the official explanation the way some of the left critics have. Surveys show that 78 percent of the public say they believe there was a conspiracy. Both Cockburn in the Nation and Chomsky in Z Magazine dismiss this finding by noting that over 70 percent of the people also believe in miracles. But the fact that people might be wrong about one thing does not mean they are wrong about everything. Chomsky and Cockburn are themselves evidence of that.

In any case, the comparison is between two opposite things. Chomsky and Cockburn are comparing the public's gullibility about miracles with its unwillingness to be gullible about the official line that has been fed to them for thirty years. If anyone is gullible it is Alexander Cockburn who devoted extra column space in the Nation to support the Warren Commission's tattered theory about a magic bullet that could hit both Kennedy and Connolley while changing direction in mid-air and remaining in pristine condition.

Chomsky says that it is a "curious fact that no trace of the wide-ranging conspiracy appears in the internal record, and nothing has leaked" and "credible direct evidence is lacking" (Z Magazine, 1/93, and letter to me, 12/15/92). But why would participants in a conspiracy of this magnitude risk everything by maintaining an "internal record" (whatever that is) about the actual murder? Why would they risk their lives by going public? Many of the participants would know only a small part of the picture. But all of them would have a keen sense of the immensely powerful and sinister forces they would be up against were they to become too talkative. In fact, a good number of those who agreed to cooperate with investigators met untimely deaths. Finally, what credible direct evidence was ever offered to prove that Oswald was the assassin?

Chomsky is able to maintain his criticism that no credible evidence has come to light only by remaining determinedly unacquainted with the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered. There has even been a decision in a U.S. court of law, Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, in which a jury found that President Kennedy had indeed been murdered by a conspiracy involving, in part, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, and FBI informant Jack Ruby.4

Nixon advisor H.R. Haldeman admits in his memoir: "After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic coverup." And "In a chilling parallel to their coverup at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA."

Indeed, if there was no conspiracy, why so much secrecy and so much cover-up? If Oswald did it, what is there to hide and why do the CIA and FBI still resist a full undoctored disclosure of the hundreds of thousands of pertinent documents? Would they not be eager to reveal everything and thereby put to rest doubts about Oswald's guilt and suspicions about their own culpability?

The remarkable thing about Erwin Knoll, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others on the Left who attack the Kennedy conspiracy findings is they remain invincibly ignorant of the critical investigations that have been carried out. I have repeatedly pointed this out in exchanges with them and they never deny it. They have not read any of the many studies by independent researchers who implicate the CIA in a conspiracy to kill the president and in the even more protracted and extensive conspiracy to cover up the murder. But this does not prevent them from dismissing the conspiracy charge in the most general and unsubstantiated terms.

Let's Hear It for Structuralism

When pressed on the matter, left critics like Cockburn and Chomsky allow that some conspiracies do exist but they usually are of minor importance, a distraction from the real problems of institutional and structural power. A structural analysis, as I understand it, maintains that events are determined by the larger configurations of power and interest and not by the whims of happenstance or the connivance of a few incidental political actors. There is no denying that larger structural trends impose limits on policy and exert strong pressures on leaders. But this does not mean that all important policy is predetermined. Short of betraying fundamental class interests, different leaders can pursue different courses, the effects of which are not inconsequential to the lives of millions of people. Thus, it was not foreordained that the B-52 carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos conducted by Nixon would have happened if Kennedy, or even Johnson or Humphrey, had been president. If left critics think these things make no difference in the long run, they better not tell that to the millions of Indochinese who grieve for their lost ones and for their own shattered lives.

It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a "conspiracist" who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces. As Chomsky notes: "However unpleasant and difficult it may be, there is no escape from the need to confront the reality of institutions and the policies and actions they largely shape." (Z Magazine, 10/92).

I trust that one of the institutions he has in mind is the CIA. In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.

As I pointed out in published exchanges with Cockburn and Chomsky (neither of whom responded to the argument), conspiracy and structure are not mutually exclusive dynamics. A structural analysis that a priori rules out conspiracy runs the risk of not looking at the whole picture. Conspiracies are a component of the national security political system, not deviations from it. Ruling elites use both conspiratorial covert actions and overtly legitimating procedures at home and abroad. They finance everything from electoral campaigns and publishing houses to mobsters and death squads. They utilize every conceivable stratagem, including killing one of their own if they perceive him to be a barrier to their larger agenda of making the world safe for those who own it.

The conspiracy findings in regard to the JFK assassination, which the movie JFK brought before a mass audience, made many people realize what kind of a gangster state we have in this country and what it does around the world. In investigating the JFK conspiracy, researchers are not looking for an "escape" from something "unpleasant and difficult," as Chomsky would have it, rather they are raising grave questions about the nature of state power in what is supposed to be a democracy.

A structuralist position should not discount the role of human agency in history. Institutions are not self-generating reified forces. The "great continuities of corporate and class interest" (Cockburn's phrase) are not disembodied things that just happen of their own accord. Neither empires nor national security institutions come into existence in a fit of absent-mindedness. They are actualized not only by broad conditional causes but by the conscious efforts of live people. Evidence for this can be found in the very existence of a national security state whose conscious function is to recreate the conditions of politico-economic hegemony.

Having spent much of my life writing books that utilize a structuralist approach, I find it ironic to hear about the importance of structuralism from those who themselves do little or no structural analysis of the U.S. political system and show little theoretical grasp of the structural approach. Aside from a few Marxist journals, one finds little systemic or structural analysis in left periodicals including ones that carry Chomsky and Cockburn. Most of these publications focus on particular issues and events - most of which usually are of far lesser magnitude than the Kennedy assassination.

Left publications have given much attention to conspiracies such as Watergate, the FBI Cointelpro, Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, CIA drugs-for-guns trade, BCCI, and savings-and-loans scandals. It is never explained why these conspiracies are important while the FJK assassination is not. Chip Berlet repeatedly denounces conspiracy investigations while himself spending a good deal of time investigating Lyndon LaRouche's fraudulent financial dealings, conspiracies for which LaRouche went to prison. Berlet never explains why the LaRouche conspiracy is a subject worthy of investigation but not the JFK conspiracy.

G. William Domhoff points out: "If 'conspiracy' means that these [ruling class] men are aware of their interests, know each other personally, meet together privately and off the record, and try to hammer out a consensus on how to anticipate and react to events and issues, then there is some conspiring that goes on in CFR [the Council for Foreign Relations], not to mention the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Council, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency." After providing this useful description of institutional conspiracy, Domhoff then conjures up a caricature that often clouds the issue: "We all have a tremendous tendency to want to get caught up in believing that there's some secret evil cause for all of the obvious ills of the world." Conspiracy theories "encourage a belief that if we get rid of a few bad people, everything will be well in the world."

To this simplistic notion Peter Dale Scott responds: "I believe that a true understanding of the Kennedy assassination will lead not to a few bad people but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the way we are systematically governed." In sum, national security state conspiracies are components of our political structure, not deviations from it.

Why Care About JFK?

The left critics argue that people who are concerned about the JFK assassination are romanticizing Kennedy and squandering valuable energy. Chomsky claims that the Nazi-like appeals of rightist propagandists have a counterpart on the Left: "It's the conspiracy business. Hang around California, for example, and the left has just been torn to shreds because they see CIA conspiracies . . . secret governments [behind] the Kennedy assassination. This kind of stuff has just wiped out a large part of the left" (Against the Current 56, 1993). Chomsky offers no evidence to support this bizarre statement.

The left critics fear that people will be distracted or misled into thinking well of Kennedy. Cockburn argues that Kennedy was nothing more than a servant of the corporate class, so who cares how he was killed (Nation 3/9/92 and 5/18/92). The left critics' hatred of Kennedy clouds their judgment about the politcal significance of his murder. They mistake the low political value of the victim with the high political importance of the assassination, its implications for democracy, and the way it exposes the gangster nature of the state.

In 1894 Captain Alfred Dreyfus was a conservative militarist. Clemenceau once conjectured that if the man's name had not been Dreyfus, he would have been an anti-Dreyfusard. Does that mean that the political struggle waged around l'affaire Dreyfus was a waste of time? The issue quickly became larger than Dreyfus, drawn between Right and Left, between those who stood with the army and the anti-Semites and those who stood with the republic and justice.

Likewise Benigno Aquino, a member of the privileged class in the Philippines, promised no great structural changes, being even more conservative than Kennedy. Does this mean the Filipino people should have dismissed the conspiracy that led to his assassination as an event of no great moment, an internal ruling-class affair? Instead, they used it as ammunition to expose the hated Marcos regime.

Archbishop Romero of El Salvador was a member of the Salvadoran aristocracy. He could not have risen to the top of the church hierarchy otherwise. But after he began voicing critical remarks about the war and concerned comments about the poor, he was assassinated. If he had not been murdered, I doubt that Salvadoran history would have been much different. Does this mean that solidarity groups in this country and El Salvador should not have tried to make his murder an issue that revealed the homicidal gangster nature of the Salvadoran state? (I posed these questions to Chomsky in an exchange in Z Magazine, but in his response, he did not address them.)

Instead of seizing the opportunity, some left writers condescendingly ascribe a host of emotional needs to those who are concerned about the assassination cover-up. According to Max Holland, a scribe who seems to be on special assignment to repudiate the JFK conspiracy: "The nation is gripped by a myth . . . divorced from reality," and "Americans refuse to accept their own history." In Z Magazine (10/92) Chomsky argued that "at times of general malaise and social breakdown, it is not uncommon for millenarian movements to arise." He saw two such movements in 1992: the response to Ross Perot and what he called the "Kennedy revival" or "Camelot revival." Though recognizing that the audiences differ, he lumps them together as "the JFK-Perot enthusiasms." Public interest in the JFK assassination, he says, stems from a "Camelot yearning" and the "yearning for a lost Messiah."

I, for one, witnessed evidence of a Perot movement involving millions of people but I saw no evidence of a Kennedy revival, certainly no millenarian longing for Camelot or a "lost Messiah." However, there has been a revived interest in the Kennedy assassination, which is something else. Throughout the debate, Chomsky repeatedly assumes that those who have been troubled about the assassination must be admirers of Kennedy. In fact, some are, but many are not. Kennedy was killed in 1963; people who today are in their teens, twenties, thirties, and forties - most Americans - were not old enough to have developed a political attachment to him.

The left critics psychologize about our illusions, our false dreams, our longings for Messiahs and father figures, or inability to face unpleasant realities the way they can. They deliver patronizing admonitions about our "conspiracy captivation" and "Camelot yearnings." They urge us not to escape into fantasy. They are the cognoscenti who guide us and out-left us on the JFK assassination, a subject about which they know next to nothing and whose significance they have been unable to grasp. Having never read the investigative literature, they dismiss the investigators as irrelevant or irrational. To cloak their own position with intellectual respectability, they fall back on an unpracticed structuralism.

It is neither "Kennedy worship" nor "Camelot yearnings" that motivates our inquiry, but a desire to fight back against manipulative and malignant institutions so that we might begin to develop a system of accountable rule worthy of the name democracy.

1 Kennedy's intent to withdraw is documented in the Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers ("Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," vol. 2, pp. 160-200). It refers to "the Accelerated Model Plan . . .. for a rapid phase out of the bulk of U.S. military personnel" and notes that the administration was "serious about limiting the U.S. commitment and throwing the burden onto the South Vietnamese themselves." But "all the planning for phase-out . . . was either ignored or caught up in the new thinking of January to March 1964" (p. 163) - the new thinking that came after JFK was killed and Johnson became president.

2 Del Valle's name came up the day after JFK's assassination when Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade announced at a press conference that Oswald was a member of del Valle's anti-communist "Free Cuba Committee." Wade was quickly contradicted from the audience by Jack Ruby, who claimed that Oswald was a member of the leftish Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Del Valle, who was one of several people that New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison sought out in connection with the JFK assassination, was killed the same day that Dave Ferrie, another suspect met a suspicious death. When found in Miami, del Valle's body showed evidence of having been tortured, bludgeoned, and shot.

3 The bankers of the Federal Reserve System print paper money, then lend it to the government at an interest. Kennedy signed an executive order issuing over $4 billion in currency notes through the U.S. Treasury, thus bypassing the Fed's bankers and the hundreds of millions of dollars in interest that would normally be paid out to them. These "United States Notes" were quickly withdrawn after JFK's assassination.

4 See Mark Lane, Plausible Denial; Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991). For testimony of another participant see Robert Morrow: First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1992).

this page last updated 3/7/03
Don Smith

Unread postby socrates » Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:22 pm

Hiya Don, hope all is well.

The first research paper I ever wrote was at the age of 17 on the JFK assassination. What many don't know is that our own government even admitted that there was in all likelihood a conspiracy to kill the President.

Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

As a kid, my conclusion was that it was either the CIA or the mafia that was behind it. I never thought Castro or Cuba were involved. Now I think that reactionary Cuban-Americans might have been in on it.

I don't understand why Chomsky and others feel the need to discredit certain conspiracy theories like this one. I appreciate the article you have put up. It seems plausible to me that while on the surface JFK might not have been the most progressive politician, that in fact he was becoming an annoyance to those in power behind the scenes.

IMHO, the biggest weapon used by the disinformation agents on the internet is to present everything as an enigma, be it the grassy knoll or WTC #7. Whenever the details get looked at in a close fashion, the disinfo pimps either ignore such facts, ratchet up the noise and ad hominems, or invent sock puppets to make it seem that their explanations have some kind of widescale support.
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts


Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests