Moot Court

[Bob]

A lot of discussion here since I last joined in. Some of it pretty heated. Again, I will agree that JFK had his vices. He had issues. He was NOT a saint. But I also believe he was a good President. Did he possibly compromise his office with some of his sexual activity? Possibly. But still, he was trying to change things that in hindsight we know now were the right things to change. The CIA should have been broken into pieces. Look at the damage that this intelligence agency has done to the U.S. over the last 40+ years. Just look at the last 5 years with 9/11 and Iraq. JFK wanted us out of Vietnam. 58,000 lives later, we figured that out. But the Cuban Missile Crisis is still the biggest event of his Presidency. We were staring at Nuclear war. The neocons didn't care. JFK and RFK made the right decision and averted that war. Millions of lives were saved. The neocons made them both pay for that decision by having them both assassinated with the help of the CIA, other key people in the U.S. government, the mob, the Cubans and the oil boys. Again, JFK wasn't a saint, but he thought things out before he took action. And compared to the mental midget that now lives in the White House, he was Albert Einstein. And his foreign policy decisions reflected that compared to the blunders that keep happening under Dumbya Bu$h.

[Jim Thompson]

Dawn Meredith wrote:Tim Carroll wrote:Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:JFK is a degenerate Who is this guy Brychek and why do we care that he thinks JFK is a degenerate? Tim you're expending a lot of good fight here and I admire your effort, but this guy hardly seems WORTH your effort. Is his opinion so "relevant" because he's pals with "Jimmy"? His words certainly lower the level of discussion, imho.Dawn

Dawn, I agree. Brychek is supposed to be advancing anti-JFK arguments as a devil's advocate in order to promote an interesting debate here on the forum. Unfortunately, this moot court has become mud slinging wherein in Tim is wasting his time & dignity. But it's Wim's call to ax the tread or not. Bob's posts are probably saving the tread from deletion.

But my point is different. Brychek is not on task. Brychek knows that Trine Day ( http://www.expendableelite.com/lawsuit1/index.html ) & Dangerous Dan Marvin are really in dire need of financial assistance. The best way to help Trine Day & Dan is for Brychek to finish his book manuscripts & get them to Trine Day for publication. Is he doing that? It unfortunately looks like Brychek is instead wasting Tim's time with this stupid thread.

The best way to arouse public awareness & interest in the JFK/9-11/Bush calamity is to get these books about Jimmy out in the market. This forum with useless mud slinging is just what the Oswald-did-it hackers are glad to see.

This is why the forum hasn't been hacked & brought down so far. The hackers are glad to see the forum look bad in the public eye. Conspiracy Theorists are idiots, right? So let's hope Brychek gets a move on with the books. That would help Wim, Jimmy, Dawn, Tim, Bob & everyone else!

Jim aka Miles

[BOBC]

Tim,
In the past, you and I have locked horns. But this time I have to take my ha6t off to you and say "well done" I realize that this Bruce guy is a personal friend of Wim's, but he would be much better off to start deleting some of his posts rather than yours. If a novice was to read some of this stuff, it would seem that we are doing our best to discredit and sling mud at one of the greatest Presidents that ever lived. I take it that this Bruce fells never lived during the Missle Crisis in 62. And as far as reading things in books, well.........
I think once and for all, we need to geyt all this stuff on Files verifeid beyond question and go on. At the least this man is a common criminal. At most, the cold blooded murderer of my President.

bobc

[Jim Thompson]

Bob wrote:A lot of discussion here since I last joined in. Some of it pretty heated. Again, I will agree that JFK had his vices. He had issues. He was NOT a saint. But I also believe he was a good President. Did he possibly compromise his office with some of his sexual activity? Possibly. But still, he was trying to change things that in hindsight we know now were the right things to change. The CIA should have been broken into pieces. Look at the damage that this intelligence agency has done to the U.S. over the last 40+ years. Just look at the last 5 years with 9/11 and Iraq. JFK wanted us out of Vietnam. 58,000 lives later, we figured that out. But the Cuban Missile Crisis is still the biggest event of his Presidency. We were staring at Nuclear war. The neocons didn't care. JFK and RFK made the right decision and averted that war. Millions of lives were saved. The neocons made them both pay for that decision by having them both assassinated with the help of the CIA, other key people in the U.S. government, the mob, the Cubans and the oil boys. Again, JFK wasn't a saint. But compared to the mental midget that now lives in the White House, he was Albert Einstein. And his forein policy decisions reflected that compared to the blunders that keep happening under Dumbya Bu$h.Bob & BOBCSpeaking of books & Kennedy good works, check out the Boston Globe today: Kennedy book blasts Bush, 'preventive war'By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | April 5, 2006WASHINGTON -- In a forthcoming book, Senator Edward M. Kennedy invokes the leadership of his brothers during the Cuban missile crisis to launch a sharp new attack on President Bush, declaring that Bush should have followed the example of President John F. Kennedy and his attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy, in forging a diplomatic resolution to the standoff with Saddam Hussein.| Breaking News Alerts The Massachusetts Democrat writes that his brothers were right to resist advice urging them to launch a preemptive strike on Fidel Castro when missiles aimed at the United States were discovered in Cuba in 1962. They correctly argued that ''a first strike was inconsistent with American values," and would be a ''Pearl Harbor in reverse," he writes.Kennedy writes that preemptive war may be justified to prevent ''an imminent attack on our country." But he puts the Iraq war in a different category that he calls ''preventive war," which he condemns.''The premeditated nature of preventive attacks and preventive wars makes them anathema to well-established international principles against aggression," Kennedy writes in ''America Back on Track," which is scheduled to be released April 18.Bush's decision to invade Iraq, Kennedy says, was an example of ''preventive war" -- attacking a nation to prevent it from developing the ability to threaten the United States. A similar manner of thinking led the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941, he writes, since Japan was seeking to block the US military buildup in the Pacific.''Preventive war is consistent with neither our values nor our national security," he writes. ''It gives other nations an excuse to violate fundamental principles of civilized international behavior, and the downward spiral we initiate could well engulf the whole planet."In 2002, shortly before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration issued a ''National Security Strategy" that called for preemptive war in some cases, citing the need to root out terrorist threats before they fully materialize. Last month, the administration reaffirmed that policy ''under longstanding principles of self defense," despite the mistaken assumptions about Iraq's weapons capabilities that contributed to the decision to invade.Kennedy, who voted against the Iraq war and remains one of its harshest critics, said Bush's National Security Strategy is ''too extreme" in its reaction to Sept. 11, 2001, he writes, since it ''legitimizes a first strike, and elevates it to a core security doctrine."''War should always be our last resort. Instead, the Bush administration made preventive war an option of first resort," Kennedy writes.''America Back on Track," Kennedy's first book since 1982, is being published in a year that Democrats have high hopes for regaining control of Congress. It offers a vision for the nation that draws heavily on lessons from Kennedy's 43 years in the Senate, in addition to his role in one of the most prominent political families in the nation's history.The book incorporates a broad indictment of the Bush administration and its policies. He accuses the president of engaging in an ''unprecedented level of secrecy" about government operations, bemoans the Republican ''culture of corruption" in Washington, and criticizes policies that he says harm the environment, the economy, and the education system.Kennedy's policy proposals will surprise few who follow liberal politics. He calls for a higher minimum wage, billions of dollars in new education spending, higher taxes on the wealthy, equal rights for gays and lesbians, and universal healthcare run through the federal government. Most of the policies, he writes, will ''pay for themselves" by boosting the nation's productivity.In an antidote to the Republican Party's demands for smaller government, Kennedy offers a full-throated defense of a vigorous federal government that can fight for equal rights, lessen economic inequalities, and contribute to a robust and stable society.''The blunderbuss demands of the right wing that we downsize all areas of government ignore two hundred years of history -- two hundred years of partnerships between business and government that made America the largest and most productive economy in the world," he writes.Kennedy, 74, rarely references his famous family members in public statements, but the book is peppered with anecdotes and lessons learned from his siblings, parents, and grandparents.He recalls his grandfather, John F. ''Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald -- a former congressman and mayor of Boston -- imparting stories of American history and tips about political campaigning. Kennedy fondly recounts the story of his ''brother Jack" taking him on a tour of Washington as a 14-year-old that he said inspired him to enter public service.''It's good that you're interested in seeing those buildings, Teddy," Kennedy recounts the future president telling him after he was first elected to Congress in 1946. ''But I hope you also take an interest in what goes on inside them."© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Tim Carroll]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:1. Marilyn Monroe's murder was ordered by JFK, through RFK.How does Bruce know who ordered this? How would Files know? If Wim wants to take responsibility for this assertion and censor me, then he should answer. I say that unless someone heard the order come from JFK's mouth, they don't know anything more than gossip.Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:2. Numerous attempts on Castro ordered by JFK, and RFK.The Church Committee looked into this extensively and found no evidence of a presidential order to assassinate Castro.Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:3. Patrice Lumumba, of the Congo, murdered.This one is really a doozy! Lumumba was killed on January 19, 1961, the day before JFK was inaugurated. How can there be a historical debate when such obvious nonsense is employed?Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:4. Rafael Trujillo, of the Dominican Republic, murdered.The order to kill Trujillo was given during the Eisenhower administration. The CIA delivered the weapons to the rebels in the Dominican Republic under the existing order. When Kennedy came into office, he directly ordered that all U.S. participation be terminated. When he was informed that doing nothing more would leave the assassination to go forward, he specifically ordered the State Department to get involved in contacting the rebels and putting a stop to the hit. The corroborating cables are a matter of record.Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:5. Ngo Dinh Diem, of South Viet Nam, murdered.
Right up to his last hours of life, Diem was being offered safe passage by Henry Cabot Lodge. The word-for-word transcripts of those conversations are available. Diem chose to fight the coup that was taking place, and when captured, he was killed in the back of a troop carrier by Vietnamese military forces loyal to the coup leaders. The more interesting part of this story is why E. Howard Hunt, in his office in the Nixon White House almost ten years later, was ordered to fabricate a State Department cable implicating Kennedy in Diem's murder.

Is that just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to falsifying history to slander Kennedy's place in the hearts of Americans?

When Bruce produces his next three books, which Jim Thompson considers so vital to the future welfare of the world, he might consider applying standards of scholarship that hold up beyond impulse purchases of the National Enquirer variety. If he can cite a figure of 2,000 deaths resulting from the Bay of Pigs when the actual, and readily available figure is 114, are we to think that we can trim his other exaggerations down to 1/20 (one twentieth), 5% (five percent) of what he claims. Perhaps JFK was only 5% of the "slut" Bruce articulates. That is a horrendous level of accuracy. Since he clearly didn't get his information from reading books, he should admit where he got his figures, and whether or not it was from Files.

Tim

[dankbaar]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:
3. Patrice Lumumba, of the Congo, murdered.

This one is really a doozy! Lumumba was killed on January 19, 1961, the day before JFK was inaugurated. How can there be a historical debate when such obvious nonsense is employed?

----------------------------

Bruce did not claim that JFK ordered Lumumba killed, did he?

Wim

[dankbaar]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:
1. Marilyn Monroe's murder was ordered by JFK, through RFK.

How does Bruce know who ordered this? How would Files know? If Wim wants to take responsibility for this assertion and censor me, then he should answer. I say that unless someone heard the order come from JFK's mouth, they don't know anything more than gossip.

----------------------------------------

I'll take responsibility for the claim. The answer is in the book, in the letters you never saw. The book you don't want to read because you don't want to spend the money.

I did not censor you, I deleted a post where you called a forum member a prostitute.

Wim

[dankbaar]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:
2. Numerous attempts on Castro ordered by JFK, and RFK.

The Church Committee looked into this extensively and found no evidence of a presidential order to assassinate Castro.


------------------------------------------

The Warren Commission looked extensively into the JFK assassination and found no evidence of conspiracy.

Do you really want to maintain that RFK was not aware of Operation Mongoose?

Wim

[Tim Carroll]

Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Tim Carroll wrote:Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:My thesis will support why people wanted this degenerate removed, by "Executive Action," as JFK had others assassinated.For starters, who did JFK have assassinated?1. Marilyn Monroe's murder was ordered by JFK, through RFK.2. Numerous attempts on Castro ordered by JFK, and RFK.3. Patrice Lumumba, of the Congo, murdered.4. Rafael Trujillo, of the Dominican Republic, murdered.5. Ngo Dinh Diem, of South Viet Nam, murdered.Tim Carroll wrote:Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:1. Marilyn Monroe's murder was ordered by JFK, through RFK.How does Bruce know who ordered this? How would Files know? If Wim wants to take responsibility for this assertion and censor me, then he should answer. I say that unless someone heard the order come from JFK's mouth, they don't know anything more than gossip.dankbaar wrote:I'll take responsibility for the claim. The answer is in the book, in the letters you never saw. The book you don't want to read because you don't want to spend the money. I did not censor you, I deleted a post where you called a forum member a prostitute.Wim's idea of taking responsibility for an assertion made on the forum is to publicly attack the book purchases of a member. Bookstore and library records are currently a civil rights and liberties issue in the U.S. Apparently, Barnes & Noble has higher standards than Wim in this regard. Nevertheless, since the deleted post can't be seen, the context in which I used the phrase "like a prostitute" (not name-calling) is demonstrated here. Rather than account for a forum-based assertion, someone is accused of ignorance if they don't send in their money. Why not just explain how one can know JFK ordered the hit if they didn't hear it from his mouth, rather than resorting to issues of commerce?The other term I used that was deemed offensive and therefore censored, when discussing Bruce's gleeful assertions about the "slut," JFK, having his "brains blown out all over the street," was "treason" (although my use of the word was in classic dictionary form: "the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign." That word is precisely accurate regarding Files' claims. Tim Carroll wrote:Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:2. Numerous attempts on Castro ordered by JFK, and RFK.The Church Committee looked into this extensively and found no evidence of a presidential order to assassinate Castro.dankbaar wrote:The Warren Commission looked extensively into the JFK assassination and found no evidence of conspiracy. Do you really want to maintain that RFK was not aware of Operation Mongoose?First of all, the Warren Commission is not the model for all commissions in the history of mankind. Secondly, RFK was not the person being discussed. The assumption that RFK didn't do anything without JFK's approval or knowledge is an entirely different discussion. Thirdly, Mongoose didn't overtly condone assassination. If there's a particular piece of evidence that has relevance here, it should be cited.Tim Carroll wrote:Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:3. Patrice Lumumba, of the Congo, murdered.This one is really a doozy! Lumumba was killed on January 19, 1961, the day before JFK was inaugurated. How can there be a historical debate when such obvious nonsense is employed?dankbaar wrote:Bruce did not claim that JFK ordered Lumumba killed, did he?
Huh?

Tim

[Jim Thompson]

Tim Carroll wrote:When Bruce produces his next three books, which Jim Thompson considers so vital to the future welfare of the world, he might consider applying standards of scholarship that hold up beyond impulse purchases of the National Enquirer variety. If he can cite a figure of 2,000 deaths resulting from the Bay of Pigs when the actual, and readily available figure is 114, are we to think that we can trim his other exaggerations down to 1/20 (one twentieth), 5% (five percent) of what he claims. Perhaps JFK was only 5% of the "slut" Bruce articulates. That is a horrendous level of accuracy. Since he clearly didn't get his information from reading books, he should admit where he got his figures, and whether or not it was from Files.TimI think once and for all, we need to get all this stuff on Files verified beyond question and go on. -- BOBC

Right, the idea is to verify & expand the Files information in order to raise public awareness. The longer the Brychek books are unpublished, the longer the regime tightens its grip & the longer the Files' Story remains an useless obscurity.... OK sure, Tim, there may be problems with Files, but let's see first before condemning Bruce. Give him a chance to make good. Let the chips fall where they may, then... Brychek says he's got the goods. Great! Let the public see. (& get Trine Day & Dan out of hock!)

Jim