official story of incident in Gulf unraveling

[mhgaffney]

Check out this audio report aired by DEMOCRACY NOW. It now appears that we were lied to, again.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19043.htm

[cutthemdown]

Gareth Porter huh? He's the one that said there would be no communist bloodbath in south asia if we pulled out of Vietnam. That is same guy right?

I wonder what he thinks of that theory after Pol Pot killed millions in Cambodia. Not exactly the peacfully region he envisioned after and American pullout.

I do agree though our warships were never in any real danger. Also I heard the same night this story broke the Navy wasn't sure if the transmission came from shore or the boats, nothing new there. Of course the media is blowing it out of porportion thats what they do. It makes people interested. Of course the Pentagon uses that fact to their advantage. Still though I believe the Iranians were trying to antogonize our ships and next time should pay a price for their little game.

The fact you read Porter explains a lot. He is a very smart man with a PHD in history I believe but he is a left wing liberal nut just like you!!!

[W*GS]

gaffney is a dangerous sort - he licks up propaganda when it suits his political prejudices. He doesn't even realize he's being manipulated, which is ironic considering he thinks the rest of us are.

[Bronco Bob]

Gareth Porter huh? He's the one that said there would be no communist bloodbath in south asia if we pulled out of Vietnam. That is same guy right?

I wonder what he thinks of that theory after Pol Pot killed millions in Cambodia. Not exactly the peacfully region he envisioned after and American pullout.


Pol Pot was on the road to starting the bloodbath in Cambodia before the
US ever pulled out of Vietnam. Pol Pot began organizing the rebellion that
led to the takeover of Cambodia in 1970 and by 1972 Pol Pot had already
began enforcing strict new levels of discipline and conformity.
By 1973 Pol Pot controlled most of Cambodia. During this time the US
was still in Vietnam.
And ironically it was the Vietnamese who finally stepped in and
put a stop to Pol Pot in 1979. It is very possible that if the US had stayed
in and fought Vietnam that there would have been nothing to stop Pol Pot.
Certainly the US would have done nothing about Pol Pot, because the US
would have been tied down fighting the Vietnamese.

[Rigs11]

Pol Pot was on the road to starting the bloodbath in Cambodia before the
US ever pulled out of Vietnam. Pol Pot began organizing the rebellion that
led to the takeover of Cambodia in 1970 and by 1972 Pol Pot had already
began enforcing strict new levels of discipline and conformity.
By 1973 Pol Pot controlled most of Cambodia. During this time the US
was still in Vietnam.
And ironically it was the Vietnamese who finally stepped in and
put a stop to Pol Pot in 1979. It is very possible that if the US had stayed
in and fought Vietnam that there would have been nothing to stop Pol Pot.
Certainly the US would have done nothing about Pol Pot, because the US
would have been tied down fighting the Vietnamese.

Dude quit confusing them with facts.

[orinjkrush]

driving one of those go fast boats up to the hull and detonating it can sink a big a** boat. remember somalia? don't know if we can take out one of those fast boats with our phalanx guns or not.

[Bronco Bob]

driving one of those go fast boats up to the hull and detonating it can sink a big a** boat. remember somalia? don't know if we can take out one of those fast boats with our phalanx guns or not.

What about Somalia?

[defenseman]

driving one of those go fast boats up to the hull and detonating it can sink a big a** boat. remember somalia? don't know if we can take out one of those fast boats with our phalanx guns or not.

yes, it'll shred it within a second at about 3600 rounds / second if I recall..dman

[orinjkrush]

we had a destroyer tied up taking on fuel in Somalia, i believe, and a go fast boat came up and detonated it. almost sunk the destroyer, but we got it towed and repaired. can't remember the name of the ship

[orinjkrush]

sorry, boat was USS Cole in Yemen.

http://www.jinsa.org/documents/images/cole/cole_damage_true.jpg

[Bronco Bob]

I know about that one.

[baja]

Pol Pot was on the road to starting the bloodbath in Cambodia before the
US ever pulled out of Vietnam. Pol Pot began organizing the rebellion that
led to the takeover of Cambodia in 1970 and by 1972 Pol Pot had already
began enforcing strict new levels of discipline and conformity.
By 1973 Pol Pot controlled most of Cambodia. During this time the US
was still in Vietnam.
And ironically it was the Vietnamese who finally stepped in and
put a stop to Pol Pot in 1979. It is very possible that if the US had stayed
in and fought Vietnam that there would have been nothing to stop Pol Pot.
Certainly the US would have done nothing about Pol Pot, because the US
would have been tied down fighting the Vietnamese.

I just spent several weeks in Cambodia and since I am a Nam era vet I was very interested in how the people of Cambodia viewed this time in history. My driver / guide, a collage graduate (That's right he is an educated man and a history buff) whom became my friend over the time we were together explained to me in horrific detail the horror of that time. He emphatically states he (as well as most of the people of Cambodia) do not blame the US pull out for the massacre.

[mhgaffney]

Right. The Cole in Yemen. That was Al Qaeda, btw, not Iran.

And since we are now also talking about SE Asia, I would like to recommend Col Fletcher Prouty's 1992 book JFK: THE CIA, VIET NAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASASSINATE JOHN F KENNEDY.

This is the book that inspired the movie JFK by Oliver Stone.

What is surprising is that it hasn't received a lot more attention. Prouty has one hell of a story to tell. In fact, his story contradicts everything we thought we knew about the Viet Nam War -- and if true is a shocking piece of work.

Prouty was a USAF Col and was in SE Asia after WW II -- and was well connected with the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House. He says the Viet Nam War was planned from the last days of WW II. It was a planned war -- and staged by the CIA

When you understand that the CIA was created NOT to serve the White House -- but Wall Street and the military industrial complex -- at this point the last half century begins to come into focus.

WW II was a gold mine for the bankers and industrialists. War for them is heaven on earth. Why? Because making weapons is so very very profitable. And when these bastards saw the end of WW II coming -=- they faced the end of their gravy train. The answer was the Cold War.

Prouty did not put this book together from pieces he culled from other books and writers. No, he lived the experience. He was there. He gives names, dates, places. He knew all the players.

And of course JFK was a strong president who stood up to these powerful interests -- which is why they snuffed him.

Read the book.

[mhgaffney]

Just think -- if D-Man had had his way (shoot first and talk later) we would already be at war with Iran -- and thousands of US sailors and Iranians would by now be dead.

Here is a question for D-Man: Why is peace for you such a dirty word?

[Bronco Bob]

Right. The Cole in Yemen. That was Al Qaeda, btw, not Iran.

And since we are now also talking about SE Asia, I would like to recommend Col Fletcher Prouty's 1992 book JFK: THE CIA, VIET NAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASASSINATE JOHN F KENNEDY.

This is the book that inspired the movie JFK by Oliver Stone.

What is surprising is that it hasn't received a lot more attention. Prouty has one hell of a story to tell. In fact, his story contradicts everything we thought we knew about the Viet Nam War -- and if true is a shocking piece of work.

Prouty was a USAF Col and was in SE Asia after WW II -- and was well connected with the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House. He says the Viet Nam War was planned from the last days of WW II. It was a planned war -- and staged by the CIA

When you understand that the CIA was created NOT to serve the White House -- but Wall Street and the military industrial complex -- at this point the last half century begins to come into focus.

WW II was a gold mine for the bankers and industrialists. War for them is heaven on earth. Why? Because making weapons is so very very profitable. And when these bastards saw the end of WW II coming -=- they faced the end of their gravy train. The answer was the Cold War.

Prouty did not put this book together from pieces he culled from other books and writers. No, he lived the experience. He was there. He gives names, dates, places. He knew all the players.

And of course JFK was a strong president who stood up to these powerful interests -- which is why they snuffed him.

Read the book.

Basically the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about.

Regarding Kennedy, even though lots of people may have wanted him
out of the way, the overwhelming evidence proves that Lee Harvey
Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone.

[Taco John]

Where's Dman... I'd like to get his take on Paul's answer after seeing this video...

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N6UO731mEoc&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N6UO731mEoc&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

[baja]

yes, it'll shred it within a second at about 3600 rounds / second if I recall..dman

You take such relish in US military fire power and are so ready to use it I sometimes wonder if you are not at heart a weak, cowardly person Dman.

I mean it has been my observation that the hawkish big time tough guy talkers are covering up these fore mentioned emotions. they seem to be always forcing back those feelings and always seem to be in fear that they will be found out.

There is only one person that knows the answer to that.



I don't really believe that about you though.

[mhgaffney]

Ray McGovern (former CIA agent) just posted this analysis of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It is especially important in light of what's been happening in the P Gulf.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/011108a.html

I hope everyone will have a look. This analysis confirms my assertion above that the REAL purpose of the CIA from the beginning was NOT to provide intel to the US president -- but rather, to serve the interests of the military industrial complex.

McGovern explains that in 1964 a senior CIA official falsified the intel report given to LBJ about what was happening in the Gulf of Tonkin. Why? Because earlier that day LBJ had already made a decision to escalate the war based on the previous CIA report -- which was wrong. The latest report -- corrected the earlier one -- by concluding there had been no attack by N Viet Nam on US forces. CIA decided against giving LBJ this correct intel -=- because LBJ might then have reversed his decision to escalate.

The bottom line is that the CIA wanted the war. This analysis by McGovern is solid confirmation.

In 1963 JFK was preparing to pull US troops out of SE Asia. He had also defied the Federal Reserve Bank by printing his own money -- US notes. According to Fletcher Prouty JFK was also planning to de construct the CIA after his re election. Any one of these alone equals a strong motive for the JFK assassination -- taken together they add up to a very powerful case.

[baja]

In 1963 JFK was preparing to pull US troops out of SE Asia.<b> He had also defied the Federal Reserve Bank by printing his own money -- US notes.</b> According to Fletcher Prouty JFK was also planning to de construct the CIA after his re election. Any one of these alone equals a strong motive for the JFK assassination -- taken together they add up to a very powerful case.

THAT is something I did not know.

That could get you killed... Wait a minute,,

[SoCalBronco]

This endless Kennedy swallowing is making me nauseous. Can't you guys suck off someone halfway decent for once and stay away from the embarassments/failures/thugs/media creations?

[baja]

Gee nice to see you too.

Did you take the W*GS pill?

[SoCalBronco]

Gee nice to see you too.

Did you take the W*GS pill?

W*GS pill? I don't get it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Can't you guys suck off someone halfway decent for once and stay away from the embarassments/failures/thugs/media creations?

Like the one who currently squats in the oval office?

[Bronco Bob]

This endless Kennedy swallowing is making me nauseous. Can't you guys suck off someone halfway decent for once and stay away from the embarassments/failures/thugs/media creations?

Ironically Kennedy was in Dallas to try to build up his popularity. There
was a good chance Kennedy would have lost re-election. So instead
of being a martyr he would have just been a failed one term president
and there would have been a Republican president elected, which
probably would have been more in line with the supposed powers
in the government that killed Kennedy. Yet we are supposed to
believe they were too stupid to realize this and acted rashly
by killing Kennedy.

[SoCalBronco]

I'm not sure if I agree with your assumption that Kennedy would have lost, Mr. Bronco Bob. It is true, as you suggest, that he was rather weak in the South, but his overall approval rating was I think in the high 50s/low 60s and Kennedy was planning to replace VP Johnson, then embroiled in the Bobby Baker scandal (incidentally, on the very day Kennedy was assassinated, a Senate Select Cmte. headed by Everett Jordan was in (closed to the public) session taking evidence and weighing the impeachment of Johnson....ofcourse, after Johnson ascended to the presidency, he was able to shut the investigation down) with another Southerner, in North Carolina Gov. Terry Sanford to help with the whole Southern issue...........I don't think he would have lost though....especially if nothing changed (i.e. Goldwater nominated), after all Goldwater ended up doing pretty well in the South, carrying LA,MS,AL,GA and SC, yet he still got trounced in rather historic fashion overall. Granted, the whole mirage of Kennedy as a martyr probably helped the Democrats get some sympathy votes, and African Americans probably voted in greater numbers for the Democrats in 1964 than in 1960 due to Johnson using his outstanding legislative skill to push through the Civil Rights Act (where Kennedy had failed), but the result would have probably been the same anyway (although maybe not by the margins Johnson won with), since Goldwater was rather polarizing and appealed only to a very small crosssection of the electorate....in addition, Kennedy had successfully created the false impression with the public that he had dealt with the Missile Crisis effectively and commendably and could sell the idea that he was proven to be a "strong leader" and other hogwash etc, which would have been very useful as a PR tool in the campaign, especially with Goldwater making it worse by often making bombastic sabre-rattling statements. I also don't think Kennedy's death would have had anything to do with who won the GOP nomination either....Rockefeller, a much more moderate candidate, was hated by social conservatives not only for his stances but also for adultery and home wrecking (the latter of which may have cost him the California primary) and Nixon had correctly calculated in 1964 that the Democrats would win, so he declined to run instead focusing on working as hard as he could for Goldwater's doomed campaign, knowing full well he couldnt win, but that his efforts to help Goldwater in 1964 would later help him extract favors/endorsements from the Senator and his supporters in 1968 (a strategy he emulated in the 1966 congressional elections, where he barnstormed around the country tirelessly for candidates, building up even more IOUs that would come due in 1968 when he had to outflank Reagan, George Romney and Rockefeller for the nomination), so Goldwater was going to be the nominee either way, IMO.

[Spider]

aggggggggggg you mean to tell me my government lied to me ?
I will not have none of this tomfoolery , everyone knows the guberment doesnt lie ........

[Rohirrim]

Where's Dman... I'd like to get his take on Paul's answer after seeing this video...

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N6UO731mEoc&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N6UO731mEoc&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

Brit Hume is a Murdoch tool.

[Bronco Bob]

Gulf prankster possible message source

CAIRO, Egypt - A threatening radio message at the end of a video showing
Iranian patrol boats swarming near U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf may have
come from a prankster rather than from the Iranian vessels, the Navy Times
newspaper has reported.

A video and audio of the Jan. 6 incident in the Strait of Hormuz featured a
man in accented English saying "I am coming to you. ... You will explode after
... minutes."

Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, spokeswoman for the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, said the
Navy was still trying to determine the source of the transmission but believed
it was related to the Iranian actions.

"The Iranian boats were coming close to the ships, making aggressive
maneuvers and objects were being dropped into the water," she told The
Associated Press.

However, the Navy Times, a weekly newspaper published by the Gannett
company, quoted several veteran sailors as speculating the transmission
could have come from a radio heckler, widely known among mariners by the
ethnically insulting term "the Filipino Monkey."

The newspaper, which serves the Navy community, said U.S. sailors in the
Persian Gulf have heard the prankster — possibly more than one person —
transmitting "insults and jabbering vile epithets" on unencrypted frequencies.

"Navy women — a helicopter pilot hailing a tanker, for example — who are
overheard on the radio are said to suffer particularly degrading treatment,"
the newspaper said Sunday. "Several Navy ship drivers interviewed by Navy
Times are raising the possibility that the Monkey, or an imitator, was indeed
featured in that video."

Filipino Monkey is a name used by mariners around the globe for someone
who uses his radio for unnecessary or inappropriate transmissions.

It also is sometimes used by the prankster himself. Two Navy officers said
they have personally been aboard ships elsewhere in the world when all of
a sudden they've heard someone from another vessel come on the radio and
say, "Filipino Monkey, Filipino Monkey" over and over again in a singsong voice.
U.S. Navy officials at Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain could not
immediately be reached for comment. However, Navy officials have said
they were unsure where the transmission came from.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_navy

[mhgaffney]

Ironically Kennedy was in Dallas to try to build up his popularity. There
was a good chance Kennedy would have lost re-election. So instead
of being a martyr he would have just been a failed one term president
and there would have been a Republican president elected, which
probably would have been more in line with the supposed powers
in the government that killed Kennedy. Yet we are supposed to
believe they were too stupid to realize this and acted rashly
by killing Kennedy.

No way, Bob.

It's true that JFK's margin of victory against Nixon was razor thin. But as time passed JFK became a very popular president -- and his relection was almost a shoe in.

Here is what JFK was planning after the 64 relection.

1. remove US troops from S Vietnam (btw, the US troops in Viet Nam were under the control of the CIA at this time -- not the DoD. DoD did not assume control until 1965 -- when LBJ escalated the war.

2. abolish the CIA. JFK had grown very unhappy with this rogue agency -- partly as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco -- but no doubt also because of the CIA's activities in SE Asia.

3. Dump LBJ: In fact, JFK was not only going to drop LBJ from the ticket. LBJ was on the verge of being indicted for corruption -- and was on his way to a long prison term. Ever heard of Billie Sol Eestes?

4. Kennedy also was planning a reproachment with Nikita Khruschev, in other words, JFK was going to scale down the Cold War and prepare the American people for peaceful coexistence.

5. JFK also had economic plans to grow the economy to benefit EVERYONE, not just the elite few, and I suspect that in his second term he may even have tried to reverse the Fed Reserve Act of 1913, the law that was finagled into existence which granted a private bank the special power to create $$$$ -- at the expense of every US tax payer, since. The law was a gravy train for the banking elite -- and JFK clearly opposed it.

No wonder they offed Kennedy! It was a collaborative assassination, with support from Wall Street, big oil tycoons, CIA, Mob, and even LBJ.

[mhgaffney]

BTW, Bob,

there is powerful video evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK. There were many amateur videos made at Dealey Plaza on Nov 22, 1963. Dozens of them.

I recently watched a 2003 documentary by Robert Groden, who was the photograpic specialist for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

One of the videos was firmed from across the plaza - a few minutes before the arrival of the presidential motor cade -- and shows the Texas Book Depository. Analysis of this footage shows movement in at least two of the windows on the 7th floor where L Harvey Oswald supposedly hid -- his sniper's nest. You can clearly see movement in at least two of the windows. Which means there had to be at least two and maybe three people up there. This rules out Oswald as the lone gunman - -and strongly suggests that conspirators were moving boxes around and preparing the snipers nest -- hiding the rifle etc -- in order to frame Oswald for the crime of the decade.

Have you seen this importanty evidence?

The title of the dcumentary video is: JFK ASSASSINATION FILMS; THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY by R J Groden

Some of these videos have never before been available on dvd. You might be able to get it at amazon. Good luck.

[Rohirrim]

No way, Bob.

It's true that JFK's margin of victory against Nixon was razor thin. But as time passed JFK became a very popular president -- and his relection was almost a shoe in.

Here is what JFK was planning after the 64 relection.

1. remove US troops from S Vietnam (btw, the US troops in Viet Nam were under the control of the CIA at this time -- not the DoD. DoD did not assume control until 1965 -- when LBJ escalated the war.

2. abolish the CIA. JFK had grown very unhappy with this rogue agency -- partly as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco -- but no doubt also because of the CIA's activities in SE Asia.

3. Dump LBJ: In fact, JFK was not only going to drop LBJ from the ticket. LBJ was on the verge of being indicted for corruption -- and was on his way to a long prison term. Ever heard of Billie Sol Eestes?

4. Kennedy also was planning a reproachment with Nikita Khruschev, in other words, JFK was going to scale down the Cold War and prepare the American people for peaceful coexistence.

5. JFK also had economic plans to grow the economy to benefit EVERYONE, not just the elite few, and I suspect that in his second term he may even have tried to reverse the Fed Reserve Act of 1913, the law that was finagled into existence which granted a private bank the special power to create $$$$ -- at the expense of every US tax payer, since. The law was a gravy train for the banking elite -- and JFK clearly opposed it.

No wonder they offed Kennedy! It was a collaborative assassination, with support from Wall Street, big oil tycoons, CIA, Mob, and even LBJ.

Odd that LBJ was in on it but didn't accept the Warren Report. You'd think, if he was in on it, he would have had a stake in selling the Warren Report. He didn't. He went to his grave convinced that Castro was behind it. RFK was convinced that it was Giancana and Marcellus.

[Spider]

BTW, Bob,

there is powerful video evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK. There were many amateur videos made at Dealey Plaza on Nov 22, 1963. Dozens of them.

I recently watched a 2003 documentary by Robert Groden, who was the photograpic specialist for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

One of the videos was firmed from across the plaza - a few minutes before the arrival of the presidential motor cade -- and shows the Texas Book Depository. Analysis of this footage shows movement in at least two of the windows on the 7th floor where L Harvey Oswald supposedly hid -- his sniper's nest. You can clearly see movement in at least two of the windows. Which means there had to be at least two and maybe three people up there. This rules out Oswald as the lone gunman - -and strongly suggests that conspirators were moving boxes around and preparing the snipers nest -- hiding the rifle etc -- in order to frame Oswald for the crime of the decade.

Have you seen this importanty evidence?

The title of the dcumentary video is: JFK ASSASSINATION FILMS; THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY by R J Groden

Some of these videos have never before been available on dvd. You might be able to get it at amazon. Good luck.

ya know Ghaff, I believe about 50% of everything you say is total bull**** , the other 50% is pure fantasy ..... I just have figure out what half is bull**** ......

[Bronco Bob]

BTW, Bob,

there is powerful video evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK. There were many amateur videos made at Dealey Plaza on Nov 22, 1963. Dozens of them.

I recently watched a 2003 documentary by Robert Groden, who was the photograpic specialist for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

One of the videos was firmed from across the plaza - a few minutes before the arrival of the presidential motor cade -- and shows the Texas Book Depository. Analysis of this footage shows movement in at least two of the windows on the 7th floor where L Harvey Oswald supposedly hid -- his sniper's nest. You can clearly see movement in at least two of the windows. Which means there had to be at least two and maybe three people up there. This rules out Oswald as the lone gunman - -and strongly suggests that conspirators were moving boxes around and preparing the snipers nest -- hiding the rifle etc -- in order to frame Oswald for the crime of the decade.

Have you seen this importanty evidence?

The title of the dcumentary video is: JFK ASSASSINATION FILMS; THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY by R J Groden

Some of these videos have never before been available on dvd. You might be able to get it at amazon. Good luck.

What would be so odd about people being seen inside the book depository
through some windows? It was a workday. There were lots of people
working inside that building that day. Not everyone in Dallas was outside
watching Kennedy drive by. In fact one of the bits of evidence cited
that pointed to Oswald's guilt as the gunman was that Oswald was the
only one who left the building when the police arrived. All of the other employees
stayed inside the building when the police arrived. So obviously if there
were employees in there for the police to question, some of them would
have been visible through the windows prior to the shooting as they went
about their business and were doing their job.
In fact other employees even testified that they saw Oswald on the
6th floor prior to the shooting, so obviously there were other employees
on the 6th floor that probably could be seen from the windows.
(It was the 6th floor not the 7th where Oswald fired from. Trust Gaffney
to get even that fact wrong.)
And if there were other conspirators inside the building, why didn't they
leave too, rather than risk being caught by the police? Why was
Oswald smart enough to leave the building but these supposed
other conspirators were so stupid they just stood around waiting
for the police to show up and possibly catch them.
That's why conspiracies like Watergate fall apart. You get too many
people in on it, someone is bound to screw up and get caught and
blow the whole thing.

[Rohirrim]

If the JFK conspiracists spent as much time studying Oswald as they do all the rest of the JFK arcania, they'd see their theories evaporate.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No way, Bob.

It's true that JFK's margin of victory against Nixon was razor thin. But as time passed JFK became a very popular president -- and his relection was almost a shoe in.

Here is what JFK was planning after the 64 relection.

1. remove US troops from S Vietnam (btw, the US troops in Viet Nam were under the control of the CIA at this time -- not the DoD. DoD did not assume control until 1965 -- when LBJ escalated the war.

2. abolish the CIA. JFK had grown very unhappy with this rogue agency -- partly as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco -- but no doubt also because of the CIA's activities in SE Asia.

3. Dump LBJ: In fact, JFK was not only going to drop LBJ from the ticket. LBJ was on the verge of being indicted for corruption -- and was on his way to a long prison term. Ever heard of Billie Sol Eestes?

4. Kennedy also was planning a reproachment with Nikita Khruschev, in other words, JFK was going to scale down the Cold War and prepare the American people for peaceful coexistence.

5. JFK also had economic plans to grow the economy to benefit EVERYONE, not just the elite few, and I suspect that in his second term he may even have tried to reverse the Fed Reserve Act of 1913, the law that was finagled into existence which granted a private bank the special power to create $$$$ -- at the expense of every US tax payer, since. The law was a gravy train for the banking elite -- and JFK clearly opposed it.

No wonder they offed Kennedy! It was a collaborative assassination, with support from Wall Street, big oil tycoons, CIA, Mob, and even LBJ.

All of this is a sad reminder of how JFK's assassination was a dark turning point in American history when we lost our country (perhaps forever) to the military industrial complex, the international baking cartels, etc.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

aggggggggggg you mean to tell me my government lied to me ?
I will not have none of this tomfoolery , everyone knows the guberment doesnt lie ........

http://www.bartcop.com/persian-tonkin.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/economy-safe.gif

[mhgaffney]

ya know Ghaff, I believe about 50% of everything you say is total bull**** , the other 50% is pure fantasy ..... I just have figure out what half is bull**** ......

Spider,

How many hours a week do you spend sitting on your ---s?

[mhgaffney]

Odd that LBJ was in on it but didn't accept the Warren Report. You'd think, if he was in on it, he would have had a stake in selling the Warren Report. He didn't. He went to his grave convinced that Castro was behind it. RFK was convinced that it was Giancana and Marcellus.

Whoa there.....

You are so right -- yet so wrong.

You obviously have not thought it through. Who do you think convinced Earl Warren to chair the Warren Commission? Of course LBJ.

And what was the hook that convinced the former Chief Justice to do it?
Simple. LBJ told EW that the Cubans had done the deed -- but that we "can't go there" -- because if we do the American people will demand retaliation aganst Cuba -- and this will lead to a nuclear confrontation with the USSR -- and this time the Ruskies won't back down...ergo: nuclear war == scary stuff

Do you get it, now?

EW was persuaded to accept the lone gunman conclusion ahead of time -- to stave off a nuclear showdown with USSR.

He was the unimpeachable individual that everyone in the USA admired -- so everyone swallowed the cover up.

If you think LBJ really believed this cock and bull story -- then I have some delightful tropical real estate I'll like to sell you -- on the Bering Sea.

[mhgaffney]

What would be so odd about people being seen inside the book depository
through some windows? It was a workday. There were lots of people
working inside that building that day. Not everyone in Dallas was outside
watching Kennedy drive by. In fact one of the bits of evidence cited
that pointed to Oswald's guilt as the gunman was that Oswald was the
only one who left the building when the police arrived. All of the other employees
stayed inside the building when the police arrived. So obviously if there
were employees in there for the police to question, some of them would
have been visible through the windows prior to the shooting as they went
about their business and were doing their job.
In fact other employees even testified that they saw Oswald on the
6th floor prior to the shooting, so obviously there were other employees
on the 6th floor that probably could be seen from the windows.
(It was the 6th floor not the 7th where Oswald fired from. Trust Gaffney
to get even that fact wrong.)
And if there were other conspirators inside the building, why didn't they
leave too, rather than risk being caught by the police? Why was
Oswald smart enough to leave the building but these supposed
other conspirators were so stupid they just stood around waiting
for the police to show up and possibly catch them.
That's why conspiracies like Watergate fall apart. You get too many
people in on it, someone is bound to screw up and get caught and
blow the whole thing.


6th floor? OK whatever.

The point is that people were moving around in there -- where the shots were supposedly fired -- just minutes before the murder.

Are you incapable of evaluating new evidence -- without bias? Purchase the damn video and study it -- BEFORE you decide.