Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

[Michael Dell]

Bob wrote:Just choose your words carefully and be respectful.WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM. Well said, sir. And that's the point I've been trying to make from the start...

[ThomZajac]

From my perspective, this mostly boils down to a matter of delivery.Certainly there will never be complete agreement regarding every key point.The real issue becomes how we choose to discuss and disagree and make our points.As Bob has said many times, we can be passionate without being disrespectful.Coogan's hit piece on Hankey was disrespectful- and there was no need for it to be. I've been publishing a newspaper for 25 years and I couldn't imagine writing a critical story about someone or some business without contacting them for comment before publishing. Hankey is accessible. For Coogan to write such a mean-spirited piece without the professional courtesy of contacting him so that he might address some of the criticisms is simply unforgivable. Add to that the policy of not allowing equal time or even a rebuttal, and you've got the lowest kind of 'journalism' that there could ever possibly be- no matter how valid the article's points.I'd like to think that we demand more of ourselves than that.Let's follow the fine examples set by Bob, and Michael Dell.

[Michael Dell]

ThomZajac wrote:I'd like to think that we demand more of ourselves than that.Let's follow the fine examples set by Bob, and Michael Dell.Thank you, sir. And Thom brings up an important point. Perhaps it's merely a question of background and perspective. Thom has a journalism background. Bob is a journalist. I'm a sportswriter and a fiction writer. We're seeing the review from that perspective. Mr. Coogan and Mr. DiEugenio are no doubt ace researchers, but perhaps they don't understand or appreciate concerns expressed about the delivery of the facts they present. I'm guessing Mr. Coogan and Mr. DiEugenio are rather focused in their pursuits, and maybe they don't pay as much attention to the use of words and language as they should. By the same token, perhaps Mr. Hankey doesn't know as much about their respective strengths in researching and sourcing. But to bury Mr. Hankey for his flaws and then take no responsibility for your own is, in my opinion, reckless. And it doesn't advance our shared cause.Which brings me back to my original point. I simply don't understand why CTKA wouldn't reach out to Mr. Hankey and work together. It would seem to be a natural pairing. Mr. Coogan and Mr. DiEugenio have the expert knowledge of obscure source material and researching skills. Mr. Hankey knows how to present things in an easily accessible, entertaining way. Why not work together and help each other out? And I'm sorry, but the decisions to not reach out to Mr. Hankey, to not contact him about the review, and to not even alert him the review was published, to me, all betray an agenda. Like Thom said, that's not how journalism works. And if you conduct yourself in such a way, you must be willing to accept criticism for it. I just hope everyone, myself included, can learn from this entire exchange. And remember, we're in this together. Be the change you want to see in the world. If you want people to treat you and your colleagues with more respect, extend that same respect to others, even those who disagree with you. Namaste.

[Bob]

This will be the final post on this thread. It's the last reply from Jim D. After this...I am done with this subject. We have had our chances to voice our opinions in this thread. They are here for all to see. I would like to say more as well...trust me...but decorum prevents me from doing so. It's time to move on. Jimmy Files would appreciate this...this isn't Joliet...but we now have a lockdown here at our forum...Mr. Dell, I really do not see how anyone can take seriously your resistance to being called a henchman for John Hankey in this affair. Especially when you state that “a wrong was committed” against him. In my view, after editing Seamus’ long essay, and checking his sources thoroughly, the wrong was by Mr. Hankey and the victim was the historical record. Which is clearly something you did not check before you had him on your show. But, now you attack Seamus because he did check the record. Hmm.And what is the reason you are so outraged against Seamus and CTKA? Because you met Mr. Hankey and “I found him to be a fine fellow. He has been nothing but kind and respectful in our dealings…He’s a good man trying to do what’s right at great sacrifice. He deserves more respect than Mr. Coogan or CTKA afforded him”Mr. Dell, what is deserving of respect is not a man’s charm, or niceness, or his job. What deserves respect in CTKA’s eyes is the quality of a man’s work. That is, the thoroughness of his scholarship, the rigor of his logic, the quality of his perceptions, the number of important interviews he does, and the important documents he uncovers. In that regard, Hankey’s film is so mistake riddled, so illogical, so full of deductive errors of reasoning, that what is shocking is that no one had skewered it sooner. Certainly, you were not going to. Hankey is just too nice.How do you deal with the sorry string of errors in JFK 2? With this: “If there are mistakes in Mr. Hankey’s work, its right and necessary to point them out.” So you want to have it both ways. You say “If there are…” Which in light of Seamus’ essay is a ridiculous statement. There are literally dozens of errors of every kind in the pseudo documentary. So many that it is actually shocking. Just consider:1. Mossadegh and Arbenz were not killed in CIA overthrows.2. Ganges was not a doctor in 19633. Who believes that 13 bullets were fired in Dealey Plaza, and what is the evidence for that ballistically or acoustically?4. Roy Kellerman was not looking in the back seat at the time of the shooting.5. What is the evidence for Connally seeing Kennedy choking on a bullet and being shot in the head?6. It is not true that there was no evidence against Oswald by the evening of the murder.7. The mystery of who shot JFK is not “easier to answer than you think”.8. The CIA memo about supplying an alibi for Hunt on 11/22/63 was not written by Helms.9. Operation Zapata was not named after Bush’s oil company.10. There is no evidence that either the ships Barbara or the Houston were named by Bush Sr.11. Nixon did not bring Hunt into the White House.12. There is no credible evidence that Nixon was in on the JFK plot, so why picture him with a rifle pointed at Kennedy in the limo?13. The Rubenstein document is very likely a forgery. And it was not “recently discovered”.14. There is no evidence, let alone proof, that LBJ blackmailed Nixon about his role in the JFK case on a phone call.15. There is no evidence, let alone proof, that Nixon hired Connally because they worked on the JFK hit together.16. Hoover was not a crack investigator or heroic anti-Fascist. Just look at what he did in the Palmer Raids. Or the McCarthy years.17. Hunt was not found guilty of murder at the Liberty Lobby trial.18. There is no evidence, let alone proof, that Prescott Bush picked Nixon out of crowd and decided to be the prime backer of his early political career.19. There is no evidence, let alone proof, of any sinister connection between Nixon and Hunt in 1963 on the JFK plot.20. There is no evidence, let alone proof, that Prescott Bush was the real power behind DCI Allen Dulles at CIA.Let me digress on this last point. Because it reveals Hankey’s methods in the use of evidence. As Seamus showed in his essay, there is no mention of this Bush for Dulles substitution in either of the two standard reference books on the CIA. So what does Hankey now do? He says that Prescott Bush was on a committee of inquiry in the Chou En Lai assassination affair. Dulles asked him for the status of the inquiry and Prescott declined to tell him. Therefore Prescott was really the power behind Dulles at CIA. Which is a totally illogical deduction. Every so often there is an internal inquiry at CIA. During the Dulles years there were, for example, the Bruce-Lovett report and the Lyman Kirkpatrick report on the Bay of Pigs. If Dulles has asked David Bruce, Robert Lovett or Kirkpatrick to divulge anything from their reports before it was done, and they had refused, would that mean that these three men were really in charge at CIA and not Allen Dulles? Of course not. The very question seems ridiculous. But these are the illogical lengths that Hankey will go to in twisting evidence to buttress his baseless theory.Now I stopped at 20 serious errors. Yet I only got halfway through the show. I would have gotten to about forty in an 88 minute presentation. And I should note, I edited Seamus’ essay down from 54 pages to 34 pages. Simply because I thought it was overkill. So unedited, it would have come to at lest 50 errors. Which is simply unacceptable and intolerable for an 88 minute documentary. And that is the key word. This is supposed to be a documentary. Which is what makes the error rate shocking. So for Dell to use the phrase, “If there are mistakes in Mr. Hankey’s work”, this is simply an attempt to whitewash the truth. There are so many errors that they should offend any serious person’s sensibilities. Yet they are not offensive at all to Mr. Dell. After all Hankey is a “fine fellow” who has been “kind and respectful in or dealings”. And that excuses an academic debacle like JFK 2.I don’t know what he means about Horne’s work. CTKA has not published any part of the upcoming five-part review of Inside the ARRB. And I have said very little about it on Black Op Radio. To read a book(s) that long takes weeks, maybe a month. And then to compose one’s thoughts and write it out, that takes almost as long. But having read much of it, and having followed the controversy about Lifton’s book for many years, it’s not correct to say that somehow Horne’s book “proves” Best Evidence. Only someone with sub standard scholarly standards would say so. And only someone who has not consulted with the best medical people in the field. And, although I like him and Crossfire is a good overview book, Marrs is not a medical authority. (Ever hear of “The Signal and the Noise”?)I love how you tried to score us on not reviewing Dark Legacy with JFK 2. Seamus explained this upfront. If you read his essay—which you are trying to ignore the contents of, he said many, many more people have seen JFK 2 than Dark Legacy. Because it has been around much longer and since it is online. So I told Seamus that I would buy Dark Legacy later and review it with Baker’s Family of Secrets. Since the whole Parrot episode that Hankey uses there is dealt with at length in the Baker book. So CTKA will have reviewed the whole Bush trio at length and in depth. Who else has done so? (By the way, you broke your own rule here. You did not ask me beforehand if I planned on reviewing Dark Legacy before you attacked me. Strange double standard you have.)This last point relates to you rather odd view of critical procedure. You take me to task for not consulting with Hankey or “reaching out ‘ to him before publishing Seamus’ article. Or giving him a copy of the review beforehand. I don’t know where you learned this strange procedure. There have been about 13 reviews published of my two JFK books. In not one instance has anyone ever consulted with me beforehand, reached out to me, or even sent me a review. Never. This is why publishers have clipping services.I love the point you make about the Bush threatening Hoover scene with a poison dart gun being excusable since it only “could happen”. Mr. Dell, almost anything “could happen”. I mean Roscoe White could have been firing at Kennedy from the roof of the TSBD with a uranium bullet in a sabot. He could have then jumped down into a rubber blanket held by three accomplices on the Dallas police force in civilian clothes. That “could have happened”. Do you think it did happen? Would you like to see it in a documentary on the JFK case? It is the job of the documentary filmmaker to show us what DID happen, or if not, the closest approximation of what happened with the best and most reliable evidence available. What evidence is there for this preposterous product of a fevered imagination? Is it in any book on Hoover? Are there witnesses who saw it? Are there witnesses who heard about it? Was it in Hoover’s appointments book to meet with George Bush after the assassination? Did his longtime secretary Helen Gandy ever tell anyone about it? Did Tolson? Did DeLoach? So why use such a wild and fantastic scene at all? Especially in a documentary film? And why would you defend it, and then say that its CTKA that has no standards? Wow.Finally, I will pass on the podcast. I don’t think we are “on the same team here.” Not by a longshot. Just wait until you see my review of Dark Legacy.Over and out. No more posts by me on Mr. Dell or Hankey.JAMES DIEUGENIO

[John Hankey]

There isn’t now, nor has there ever been any issue raised by DiEugenio or Coogan that is worth discussing except one:Does the evidence support the finding that George HW Bush was involved in the assassination. All else is obfuscation.DiEugenio and Coogan concede that the Bush of the memo is our very own George HW. McBride (all praise and glory to him; blessed be his name) located another George Bush at CIA and got a statement from him that he wasn’t the Bush of the memo. That, says, DiEugenio, settles the question and “proves” it was our George. Fine and dandy. I felt it wasn’t sufficient, and tried to gather the circumstantial evidence to prove the point more definitively. But fine. It was him.DiEugenio and Coogan (henceforth D&C) say that’s all it means. It doesn’t connect Bush to the assassination or to the “misguided anti-Castro Cubans”. So let me ask you, Jim, or Seamus, and any one else, to take up these following points, which are relevant to the issue; and to skip the bullshit:1) The title of the memo in question is, “Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy”. The title is NOT “Misguided anti-Castro Cubans”; or “Response to State Dept. Inquiry”; or any of dozens of other possible titles. Hoover thought it was relevant to the assassination, obviously. D&C don’t think so; they don’t want you to think so; and they attack me for drawing what seems to me a starkly obvious conclusion: that a memo, titled “Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy”, that named Bush as a member of the CIA, ties him to the assassination. I mean, are these not ludicrous points for me to have to make? Why the Bleep do you, D&C, think Mark Lane saw fit to include the memo in his book??? Why The Bleep did he feel it was relevant to a book about Hunt, Lorenz, and the assassination??? I may have holes in my socks. My underwear may need changing. I haven’t vacuumed my carpet in a couple of weeks. Attack me for that. But good grief!! For me to suggest that this memo links Bush to the assassination is not something that deserves to be attacked with the air of disregard both of you have brought to this debate. I think the entire discussion group should be offended. And say so. For an important number of researchers, the minute Hunt told the Washington Post “I’m a CIA assassin,” their immediate reaction was “OMG. He killed JFK!” I was a teenager when I attended a speech by Donald Freed entitled, “From Dallas to Watergate.” He connected Hunt to the misguided anti-Castro Cubans and then to the assassination; and he did it without the benefit of the Hoover Bush memo. 2) The Hoover Bush memo says that the FBI requested that the CIA send representatives to receive this report. If the report had been presented telephonically, Hoover’s memo would have said so. Bush received the report in person. No reasonable doubt. The report was given by a man in the FBI’s upper echelon. I presume, therefore, that it was given at FBI headquarters in Washington. That would be standard. If it was given somewhere else, I think we might assume that Hoover would have mentioned it. But it’s not an important point. The critical point is that if the FBI calls you up and says they want to give you a report, you don’t send the teenager who walks your dog. Jim is a school teacher. If the FBI calls the principal and says that they have a report that the English teachers are using bootleg copies of some textbook, and they want the principal to send someone to receive their report of the results of their investigation, who is the principal going to send? The janitor? A PE teacher? Or the English Department chair? Duh! Again, it is an obvious point. Not quite so obvious as the first. But it is an extremely reasonable extrapolation to say that the memo powerfully suggests that Bush was supervising these Cubans. So why the attack upon me for doing so?3) “So!” say D&C, “what is the evidence that they are the same as those in Lorenz’s group? He produces none.” (That is an exact quote, by the way) Well, if I had provided no other evidence than the implications of the memo itself, I think the points 1&2 above are sufficiently powerful so as to suggest that the allegation of Bush’s connection to the assassins is worth considering. Don Freed figured that if you were in the CIA in ‘63, you were suspect. D&C characterize the following as “none”.a) Bush and Hunt came to the White House within a few months of each other, to work for Nixon. Bush insisted on a White House office, very unusual for a UN ambassador. Again, regardless of D&C’s objections and obfuscations, Haldeman says that no one could figure out how Hunt got an office in the White House. OK. They both worked in the White House at the same time. DiEugenio would not dispute that Watergate was a CIA operation. He probably would dispute that Bush was a high ranking CIA officer at this time. But it’s obvious that he was. I’m sure DiEugenio would say, that doesn’t connect him to Hunt! He would have you believe that Bush had nothing to do with Watergate. Or if he did, that doesn’t connect him to Hunt. Or if it did, that doesn’t connect him to Hunt in Dallas in 1963. We’ll get to that in a minute. D&C both continue to ignore Haldeman’s statement that when Nixon told the FBI not to investigate Hunt, because “you’ll uncover the whole Bay of Pigs thing”, that Nixon was talking about the Kennedy assassination. Come on Jim. Take this up. It links Nixon to the assassination. It shows that he knew Hunt was involved! But DiEugenio tries desperately to make the point that Colson, not Nixon, hired Hunt. The implication is that Nixon knew nothing about Hunt, because Colson hired him. Well who the Bleep told Nixon that Hunt was connected to the Kennedy assassination? Jim? Can you help us out? Do you want to suggest that Colson told him? Based upon what? Colson had no connection to CIA operations. But, as I point out in the movie, Bush was involved in the same operation, the Bay of Pigs, at the same time, in the same location, that Hunt was. DiEugenio, on Black Op radio 463, raises the strawman, that I said Nixon hired Hunt; and that means, according to DiEugenio, that I say that Hunt was serving Nixon’s interest. Of course I never said any such thing. If I were asked, I’d say that Hunt was working for Bush during Watergate, as he was at the Bay of Pigs, and in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Well, there can scarcely be any doubt whatsoever about two of those. In the context of the Hoover memo, its title, and its naming of Bush, there can scarcely be any doubt about any of them. How can anyone honestly characterize this as “no evidence”. They can’t. DiEugenio is not who he pretends to be; he is not who I, until a little over a week ago, I thought he was. At very least, he’s vastly dishonest in the defense of Bush.b) I linked Connally to the assassination. Well, you buy that or you don’t. The day of the assassination, Connally said he saw the president slump before he was shot. That was a lie. The film shows he did not see Kennedy before he was shot. He said it, I supposed, to counter the numerous witnesses who said JFK was thrown violently backwards by a bullet from the knoll. And then months later, on cue, Connally changed his story to accord with the single bullet theory. In addition, Connally says the recognized the first shot as an assassin’s rifle shot; but the Zapruder film shows him sitting there calmly, holding his Stetson. You make of that what you will. D&C thinks it means nothing. I think it links Connally to the assassination. And Haldeman says Connally said, “You can’t bring me to the White House until you find something for Bush.” Ok. Pretty weak. I’ve actually cut it out of the latest version. But it’s not nothing. It’s clutching at straws. And it’s a straw. But it’s not nothing. It’s worthy of discussion. It reveals an otherwise invisible, that is secret, connection between Bush and (to me) a clear assassination participant.c) Bush’s co-founder in Zapata Oil, Bill Liedtke, provided the hush money that was paid to Hunt. It’s another connection between Hunt and Bush. No doubt. Well, no doubt in anyone’s mind but D&C. They can’t even see it. To them, it’s not weak evidence. To them, it doesn’t exist.d) When CIA agent Felix Rodriguez went to Ramon Rodriguez, the cocaine money launderer, to ask for money, he said, “Bush sent me.” Ramon had written the checks for Hunt, with the money from Liedtke. Felix didn’t know Ramon. But obviously Bush did. How? I suggest that Bush knew Ramon because he was in charge of getting the hush money for Hunt from Liedtke, and to Hunt through Ramon Rodriguez. If it weren’t for all the other stuff, this would be pretty slim. Taken altogether, I think this wraps up Bush pretty tightly with Hunt, before, during, and after Dallas ‘63. The Kennedy assassination is the most tightly held CIA operation in all of history. Given that, we should expect to find nothing. In that context, this is a load of evidence. But forget all that.e) The FBI memo, recording Bush’s phone call the day of the assassination, claiming he was in Tyler Texas, but explaining that he would be in Dallas that night. Russ Baker in Family of Secrets, reveals that the Dallas Morning News carried an ad saying Bush was speaking in Dallas the night before. DiEugenio called this truly wonderful book “vaporous”, whatever that means. But it’s not a nice word. I raised this book and the evidence in it in my first response. And what is DiEugenio’s response? Read for yourself:“He (Hankey) talks about a call to the FBI by Bush that is related to the James Parrot matter. He then says that Seamus concedes the point with his silence. John: Take a look at your film JFK 2 again. The Parrot matter is not in it. That is why Seamus is silent about it. You didn’t mention it there.”No Jim? I suppose. I needed Wim Daankbar to hook me up with this FBI memo (thanks Wim!). And in every rehash, of the four or five I’ve done the last six years, it’s been there. But, OK, Seamus didn’t see it. He’s off the hook on that one. But you’re not. Where’s your response to this memo, putting Bush in Dallas, on duty, the day of the assassination??? Your response is to call this powerful list of connections between Bush and Hunt “none”. What are we to make of this? What are we to think about a person capable of such lies, and in such a dubious cause. I have, until this episode, been a huge fan of Jim’s. When it comes to dismantling the Warren report and it’s defenders, he is incomparable. No? Or that was my opinion. What the hell happened? Why is he defending Bush in this insanely dishonest fashion? Mike Ruppert was my hero before he persuaded me he was an evil prick. DiEugenio actually makes a favorable mention of Ruppert on Black Op radio 463. I thought I was going to be physically ill when I heard this. So on Black Op he promotes Ruppert. But in his rebuttal in this forum, he doesn’t make any mention of Ruppert, or my charges against him and Lisa Pease for their role in denying Gary Webb an autopsy. How about that, Jim? Care to weigh in on a Bush critic who shoots himself in the head twice, with a .38, and doesn‘t get an autopsy? No. You’re right to shut the bleep up on that score.In his rebuttal on this forum DiEugenio makes this stunning remark: “So Lane made an error with Lorenz.” This remark is stunning on a number of counts.1) It is stunning, for a person of Diegueno’s (now-apparently ill-deserved) status to be so evasive and deceptive. The issue is not really Lorenz credibility. It is Mark Lane’s. It is Lane who says Hunt is guilty; and Lane cites Lorenz, as part of a vast array of evidence in support of that finding. I said this in my original remarks, that it is Lane who said Hunt was guilty. DiEugenio misdirects your attention away from the primary “Lane says Hunt is guilty” thesis towards the “Lane believes Lorenz” thesis. Lorenz is a distraction. And DiEugenio, for good reason, avoids confrontingm Lane’s central thesis in order to harp on a single piece of evidence for that thesis: Lorenz.2) DiEugenio gives us “So Lane made an error with Lorenz;” and what does he offer in support? Zip. We are to discard Lane in favor of DiEugenio based upon what? DiEugenio’s incomparable credibility? Not anymore, I hope. Destroying DiEugenio’s credibility is my central goal at the moment. Have I accomplished it yet?3) DiEugenio was on Black Op radio to promote Coogan’s attack on me on Feb. 28 (463), But a week later, Lane was on, minutes before DiEugenio came on (this is 464). They shared the same show (though not simultaneously). During his portion of the show, Lane pointed out that Lorenz had cited Sturgis and Hemmings as being in the cars that drove to Dallas for the assassination. And Lane, on the show, says that both Sturgis and Hemmings have corroborated that story, saying that they were there and involved in the assassination. So Jim, Mark Lane has the statements of two of the killers to back up his belief in Lorenz’s story. And you have what? Finally, during his time on Black Op Radio #463, Jim also attacks somebody’s website for not allowing rebuttals. He laughs about it. It’s ridiculous to him. And then he writes in his rebuttal to me “And no we do not run rebuttals.” Well, I won’t dispute the wisdom of that policy when applied to Warren Commission defenders. However, I’m not a Warren Commission defender. But I’m interested in much more than attacking the Warren Commission. I’m interested in getting beyond the obvious point that Oswald didn‘t act alone, getting at who was behind the killing, and going after them. How can you possibly fail to distinguish between the two? I think that is an essential question for us, your former fans, in trying to divine your motives. Everything you have said on the subject of Bush’s guilt is fundamentally dishonest, in that even when you are right on some minor point, you utterly misrepresent the significance as being somehow fundamental. The good thing is we have learned something important about who you really are. The terrible thing is that you have been a spokesman for the assassination community on important other matters, and you have utterly undermined our faith in your honesty.******************That’s a rousing close; and I hate to bring this up, instead of ending there. But in divining who Jim DiEugenio is, and what is going on, I think it’s worth noting: The person representing themselves as Seamus has gotten his hands on a disk that doesn’t contain the Hoover memo, and does contain all this other stuff about Oswald and ice darts and whatnot. That’s interesting. There probably never were more than a dozen such disks on the planet. Maybe fewer. I sent one to Kris Millegan; who offered some suggestions for corrections, which I incorporated; and he referred me to Wim; and I sent him one. And he made some additional suggestions, including getting rid of the Bush-with-the-ice-dart story; and incorporating the Ruby Nixon memo, and the Bush FBI memo from the day of the assassination. And I immediately incorporated those changes, before offering the disk to the public at large, ever. So I would guess that absolutely no one who actually dragged themselves all the way through to the end of Seamus’s hatchet job recognized what he was talking about. Now I know Seamus didn’t get this early early version from Wim. Or from Kris. He’s in bleeding New Zealand for Krike’s sake; or so the story goes. But I smell a big fat rat. And I call on Seamus to explain himself. Where’d you get it Seamus? From the FBI? It reminds me of Bush’s phone call the day of the assassination. I love it when smart asses screw themselves up, being so damn clever. By the way, I’d be happy to sell a copy of the latest version. Wait! He knows the latest version exists. He knows it’s “slick”. So why the hell is he using a six-year old version? To what purpose? And where’d he get it?***************************************Anyone who cares to can take up for themselves the myriad irrelevant details that DiEugenio raises in objecting to my work, and decide for themselves if they have any merit. But he raises four as being major, and they’re easily dispensed with, so let me take them up, after pointing out that they indict him more than me, for suggesting that they in any way relate to the case against Bush.He says 1.) “Jim, didn’t Kennedy know the Bay of Pigs was going to be launched in advance?” This is an utterly irrelevant distraction from the question at hand; but it is a vitally important point, I think, in terms of understanding History, and current affairs. And for that reason, it seems appropriate to me that DiEugenio should rail about it, from the wrong side. That is, I see him as a key disinformer, so if he portrays this as key, it might be - just not in the way he suggests. I understand that the vast majority of expert opinion is that Kennedy approved the invasion and then refused to provide air cover. This includes experts like Fletcher Prouty, who had a very inside view from which to judge. But I don't find the story that Kennedy approved the invasion plausible on a number of scores. But my opinion is beside the point, in the face of cold hard evidence: Days after the assassination, Kennedy called Maxwell Taylor out of retirement and assigned him and Bobby to conduct an investigation into what happened at the Bay of Pigs. They conducted a series of depositions with leading players, including frontline CIA officers on board the Houston and the Barbara J, and Cubans, and cabinet officers. The transcripts of these depositions was published under the title Operation Zapata, about 20 years ago. I think I encountered a reference to it in Fabian Escalante's book, or in ZR Rifles. In any case, I found the actual US Gov. publication in the local library. The transcripts reveal that when the CIA proposed the invasion, Kennedy turned it down flat. He said he didn't want any "D-day sort of invasion" (his exact words), but that if the agency wanted to sneak some guerillas into the mountains at night, that would be acceptable. One of the cabinet officials tried to claim that the large invasion had been approved at one particular meeting, and Bobby interrupted him to let him know that he (Bobby) was there and there was no such discussion. One of the CIA officers in command of one of the ships explained that he had been instructed to tell the Cubans, after they were all loaded up and on their way, that the invasion had been called off; and to make sure that they mutinied and went ahead with it anyway. There is real drama in all this. Dulles is sitting there. His underling is ordered, by Maxwell Taylor, the highest rank in the military, to rat Dulles out. The underling looks at Dulles, then at Taylor, and then tells this detailed story of how Dulles planned to get around Kennedy's rejection of the invasion by pretending to call it off at the last minute, and then blaming it on a Cuban "mutiny". The officer explained how he had been instructed not to wear side arms, and to be sure to encourage the Cubans to mutiny. But, he said, the Cubans weren't having any part of a mutiny, and he had to explain the entire scenario to them and assure them that it wasn't really a mutiny, that they had the complete backing of the US, and that had to proceed. Which they reluctantly did, now unnerved by this attempted charade. You could argue that this document is somehow dishonest. But I don't find this plausible on a number of counts. First, why would create this false document, and then tell absolutely no one. I have never encountered anyone who has heard of it. Second, I find the story more than plausible. The Pentagon had approved the CIA's plan, stupid as it was. But none of the generals got fired. If Dulles, Bissell, and Cabell got fired, it could not have been for offering a bad opinion, could it? You see, if the President agreed to the invasion, it was his opinion too. That's just not how things work. You don’t fire knowledgeable people because you and your advisors all decided to take their advice. But if Dulles etc. went ahead with an invasion plan that Kennedy had explicitly rejected, that's quite another matter, isn't it? The notion that Kennedy would approve the invasion in the first place is also implausible. Kennedy believed in the right of people to choose their own form of government, and he was sympathetic with Castro's populism. Bobby, in particular, would have been hugely sympathetic to what Castro did to the Mafia. This first is a critical point. Kennedy was not willing to fight a popular movement in Vietnam, even if it was communist; because it was popular. Kennedy was genuinely pro-democracy. He was also against murdering foreign leaders, whether it was Diem or Castro or Khruchev. And finally, Kennedy objected to the notion that the giant power of the US should be brought to bear upon this tiny little island. He said so, in so many words. This is not a small deal. It is thoroughly revealing about the extent to which we watch a shadow show, and the extent to which 99.99999999999% of the population may be left in the dark about really large and critical issues (like whether Kennedy approved the initial invasion or not). I think it relates to a number of issues. Clinton says he knew nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. Romeo Dillaire and many others attacked Clinton bitterly for his failure to take low-cost zero-threat actions to scare the killers (like jamming their radio station, threatening the leaders by name over their own radio, and buzzing the treetops of the capital with jets). Clinton’s National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake, a Kissinger protégé, apparently didn’t tell Clinton, though Lake had complete information on events in the first minutes that they began. I believe the Fort Hood shooting was an op. But I think the evidence shows powerfully that Obama wasn‘t involved in it. Obama has been attacked by the PNAC crowd for refusing to call this Islamic Terrorism; and he ordered the FBI to investigate itself about how they could have failed to open a file on the shooter, Malik Hasan. And the day Obama received their report, he took one sniff and called William Webster out of retirement (see Maxwell Taylor above) to conduct a new investigation, and ordered everyone involved to stop leaking the manufactured background of Hasan-as-Islamic-terrorist. I think this shows that Obama, like JFK at the Bay of Pigs, was not in on the plot. DiEugenio’s ignorance on this point would be excusable if I hadn’t shown the title of the book, Operation Zapata, and the actual pages with the quotes, in my video. As I’ve said, I held him in the highest regard, but he’s just half-assed on this point.(There is a point I have to make parenthetically. JFKMURDERSOLVED fans will appreciate it. James Files describes how Nicoletti told him that the CIA had called off the assassination at the last minute, but that he and Nicoletti decided to mutiny and go ahead with it anyway. Ring a bell? This is totally Dulles’ modus operandi.)More from Jim2.) “Did Delphine Roberts know Oswald was at the Lake Ponchatrain training camp?” I said she knew and that she said so. I spent 20 minutes online and can’t find the source for Delphine Roberts saying this. I spent another 20 going through my books. Garrison didn’t say it, Lane didn’t say it, Marrs didn’t say it. I didn’t just make it up. Perhaps Sutton or Hinkle. But it’s the most very minor point. Peter Dale Scott says Oswald was there at the camps. (www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr10.html - Deep Politics - 251) Scott may have gotten the information from Robert Tanenbaum, the original Deputy Chief of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, who resigned saying the HSCA wasn’t interested in the truth. He says he saw a film of Pontchartrain showing Bannister and Oswald. http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr10.html Explain to us, Jim: If Oswald was there, if such rock solid sources say he was, why are you even raising this point, much less making a huge issue out of it? (D&C: “I said, ‘Are you serious?’ He said, ‘Yes, I am. Its that bad.’) That’s pretty bad. I said the secretary said. Maybe she did. Maybe she didn’t. Maybe she lied. Maybe she didn’t. But Tanenbaum is vastly more credible, and says he saw incontrovertible evidence. I should have used Tanenbaum instead of Robets. OK. Score a big point for D&C for misdirection.More from Jim3.) “Who hired Hunt at the White House?” I said Nixon. DiEugenio says Colson. Colson worked for Nixon. There can be no dispute about that. Did Colson hire Hunt on behalf of Nixon? Of course. So were dealing with misdirection here, as usual. And now check this from Haldeman’s The Ends of Power:p. 12 Erlichman to Haldeman the morning after the break-in “He (Colson) doesn’t know anything (sic) about Watergate, and he hasn’t seen Hunt in months.”Colson to Haldeman: “he (Hunt) was off my payroll. You gotta believe me, Bob. It wasn’t me. Tell the President that. …Hunt left my office months ago, like I said.” So to say that Colson hired Hunt, as DiEugenio does, is useless. In what sense did Colson hire him, if he didn’t pay him? and Hunt didn’t work for him? And more to the point, MUCH MORE to the point, who was Hunt working for? Who was he answering to? Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that Hunt was answering to the CIA? And what CIA officer was closest to him, with a White House office? Bush. No possible question. Now D&C want to insist that somehow this doesn’t constitute a connection between Hunt and Bush. And in order to distract you from this obvious connection, they raise silliness like “Nixon didn’t hire Hunt. Colson did.” Which is not only silly; and not only a dark misinformative piece of misdirection; but it’s essentially wrong.and finally from Jim 4.) “Have you ever heard anything about Prescott Bush actually running the CIA while Dulles was DCI?” And if Prescott ran the CIA from the shadows, you’d expect to have heard of it? I answered this in my first rebuttal, to Coogan. Briefly, then, Joseph Trento tells how, when Dulles inquired about Prescott’s activities investigating an assassination attempt by the agency against Chou En Lai, Dulles was told he didn’t have sufficient security clearance. But how is this an important question? First of all, I never said Prescott was Dulles’ boss, though I suggested that it was possible. So saying I did is more misdirection and straw man-obfuscation. But if I had said it, so what? It’s not essential. There’s evidence to support it. But the real question is, which of these men, Dulles or Prescott, is highest rank in the Rockefellers’ army? Because that’s all the CIA is or ever was, the publicly funded, officially sanctioned, covert army of the Rockefellers. So does Dulles or Prescott Bush rank higher? Answer that and you will have answered the question, “who was the boss of whom?” But who the hell cares?I thought I’d include that, reviewing Haldeman’s book, I encountered an incident where Connally calls Nixon and says “burn the tapes.” Bush Jr. did burn the Nixon tapes, in case you missed it. When experts suggested new technology might be able to recover the erased segments, little George ordered the 18 minute segment removed and destroyed. Go ahead, Jim. Explain how that one doesn’t connect George Sr. to Hunt or to the “whole Bay of Pigs thing.”