Why would Ann Coulter Lie About Lee Harvey Oswald and then slander MoveOn.org?

[Octafish]

The author and tee vee personality was on CNN's Joy Behar show
and, of course, she used the occassion to slander Liberals,
saying Liberals were always behind political assassinations.
She proclaimed Lee Harvey Oswald guilty of being a "Lefty,"
working on behalf of Fidel Castro and, by extension, the Soviet Union.



SOURCE: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ann-coulter-claims-all-presidential-assass

Coulter also said if anything happens to Obama, it'll be the work of MoveOn.org.

Coulter: Lee Harvey Osward tried to move to the Soviet Union. He was on his way to Cuba. He was a communist. You have one after another of all these guys. So it isn’t…it isn’t because Obama is liberal…if something happens to him it’s going to be MoveOn.org.

People who lie about Liberals, peace and history sure seem to get a lot of airtime. Remember Phil Donohue?

[sakabatou]

1. Why?

Because she's a conservative who gets money on lies.

[Octafish]

7. Don't understand why, but her books are best sellers and she's always on the tee vee hawking them.

But, yeah, sakabatou: There's always money for liars in the service of greedheads.

[DefenseLawyer]

16. Bulk sales.

Richard Mellon Scaife has warehouses full of Ann Coulter "best sellers".

[Octafish]

31. LOLOL!They seem to be among the "prizes" for signing up Young Republicans at the U.

Speaking of Scaife:

Origins of the Overclass from ScarletWoman's "'CIA also stands for "Capitalism's Invisible Army."' One of my fave old pieces is by Steve Kangas."

[Ghost in the Machine]

48. Is this how Best Selling Authors sign Best Selling books at a book signing?

:hi:

[Octafish]

65. Just lost the last soda in the house...

...through my nose.

Thank you very much, Ghost in the Machine.

Your photograph was worth it.

The image depicts an ideal I never thought possible to exist in the real world.

It shows a perfectly crappy place for a completely crappy book.

I will treasure it.

[Bitwit1234]

40. Yah why

do they continue to call coulter a she? I do believe if this person really is a she coulter is the worst looking stick person out there.

[damntexdem]

2. yeah, I can't figure it out, either -- why didn't she do it in the reverse order.

Surely it must be more-important to lie about MoveOn.org than lying about Oswald.

[Octafish]

10. There were so many things wrong with what she said, it's difficult choosing where to start.

Slandering MoveOn.org now may make it easier for the "public mind" to absorb the idea of blaming the left should, Heaven forbid, anything happen to the President.

One thing I do know: It's easier to put a one-ounce lie into someone's head and make it stick than it is to remove it with 10-pounds of truth. Coulter and her ilk also know that.

[hedgehog]

3. Because she can.

[Octafish]

14. Excellent point you bring up.

Why do (does) ABCNNBCBSFauxNoiseNutwork give her so much airtime?

Do they WANT America to be misinformed?

Is CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD still in effect?

She'd be among the last I'd invite to discuss anything on-air.

[polichick]

4. She's a LYING LIAR. (Thanks, Senator Franken.) nt

[Octafish]

23. Now that's the truth!

Remember how mad O'Really? got at the awards ceremony when Franken pointed him out as a liar who never received an Emmy?

LOL!

[paulsby]

5. you are aware that oswald WAS a lefty?

coulter is a putz, and is wrong about a lot, but she is right about oswald

oswald

1) applied for citizenship in the USSR (defected then returned
2) claimed to be a marxist
3) wrote to the socialist league of america, stated he was a marxist, and asked for literature


oswald was seriously #$9$#( in the head, etc. but there is pretty substantial pointers to his politics as being far to the left.

here's an excerpt from wikipedia entry about his time in the USSR...

When Oswald showed up unexpectedly at the United States embassy in Moscow on October 31, he said he wanted to renounce his U.S. citizenship.<35><36> He told Soviet officials "...that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps and that he ... would make known to them such information concerning the Marine Corps and his speciality as he possessed. He intimated that he might know something of special interest."<37> When the Navy Department learned of this, it changed Oswald's Marine Corps discharge from "hardship/honorable" to "undesirable".<38>

John McVickar, one of the American consular officials at the Moscow embassy who was in contact with Oswald, said he felt that Oswald, "...was following a pattern of behavior in which he had been tutored by person or persons unknown ... seemed to be using words which he had learned but did not fully understand ... in short, it seemed to me that there was a possibility that he had been in contact with others before or during his Marine Corps tour who had guided him and encouraged him in his actions."<39>


Marina Prusakova, Minsk 1959Although Oswald had wanted to remain in Moscow and attend Moscow University, he was sent to Minsk, then the capital of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and now the capital of Belarus. He was given a job as a metal lathe operator at the Gorizont (Horizon) Electronics Factory in Minsk, a huge facility that produced radios and televisions along with military and space electronic components. He was given a rent-subsidized, fully furnished studio apartment in a prestigious building under Gorizont's administration and in addition to his factory pay received monetary subsidies from the Russian Red Cross Society. This represented an idyllic existence by Soviet-era working-class standards.<40> Oswald was under constant surveillance by the KGB during his thirty-month stay in Minsk.<41>

Oswald gradually grew bored with the limited recreation available in Minsk.<42> He wrote in his diary in January 1961: "I am starting to reconsider my desire about staying. The work is drab, the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No nightclubs or bowling alleys, no places of recreation except the trade union dances. I have had enough."<43> Shortly afterwards, Oswald opened negotiations with the U.S. Embassy in Moscow over his proposed return to the United States.<44>

[EOTE]

11. So if LHO actually killed JFK, she might have a leg to stand on.

As it is, she's just trying to use any excuse she can to slam liberals.

[slackmaster]

12. Even if he didn't actually shoot JFK, he certainly tried to

Not related to the topic, just a great video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE

[EOTE]

25. I don't know if that's the case either.

I believe that LHO was in the book depository, but I don't know why he was there. Whether he intended to shoot JFK or not, he was definitely a patsy. Family Guy once had a brief clip where they show LHO looking out the depository window and seeing an assassin hiding in the grassy knoll. Right before the clip ends, he says something to the effect that now is his time to shine as he prepares to take out the assassin. I don't believe things happened anything like that, but it goes to show you how he could have been motivated by multiple factors and assassinating the president didn't have to be one of them. I honestly don't know.

As far the video, seems rather cool, but I'm not sure I get it.

[slackmaster]

37. He was in the suppository building, his rifle was in the suppository building

And he was as red as a ripe strawberry in May.

[EOTE]

43. I could understand why he would have been red.

What do you think he was doing with all those suppositories?

[eppur_se_muova]

44. They have buildings for those thing? nt

:shrug:

[EOTE]

46. I wouldn't shake anyone's hand at that place. NT.

[paulsby]

55. lol the suppository building

i heard that finding your way around that building is a pain in the ass!

(rimshot)

[Marr]

59. Haha-

Yeah, that got me, too. :P

[cognoscere]

81. There's a lot of innuendo here...

is that Italian for Preparation H?

[TankLV]

94. Texas State School Book DEPOSITORY Building

[cbdo2007]

68. "I believe LHO was in the book depository, but I don't know why he was there..." - He worked there.

It seems you're so caught up in the conspiracy that you don't even recognize absolute facts.

[EOTE]

73. Well, I was kind of referring to why he was there with his rifle.

I don't think anyone would have questioned why he was there if he simply wanted to get a better view of the parade. And if you're so reluctant to see a conspiracy, why is it that you assign such a benign motive to the person accused of killing JFK?

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. So now a CARTOON clip is historically relevent to a political assassination. Mmmmmkay.

Family Guy once had a brief clip that goes to show where he could have been motivated by multiple factors...

I'm not quite sure I know how to take that information.

[EOTE]

85. Ummm, did you read before replying?

If you had, you might have noticed this "I don't believe things happened anything like that". Which is me stating that it wasn't historically relevant. I brought it up because it was silly, but shows that things can very easily be taken in the wrong context. I'd strongly suggest reading posts in their entirety before going on the attack. It really reflects more poorly on you than me.

[TicketyBoo]

102. Let me see if I understand this?

You are taking something out of a cartoon plot line as an indication that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot President Kennedy?

[paulsby]

13. i'm not even going to go there

with the jfk who killed him stuff.

i am just saying that there is ample evidence that oswald was well to the left of center politically, and that the OP was incorrect in questioning that.

carry on

[EOTE]

27. I wouldn't disagree with that at all. NT.

[JonQ]

15. Bingo

some people seem to be in denial on this.

A proclaimed socialist/marxist who loved the USSR.

But the fact that he's evil trumps all that so he becomes a rightwinger.

[paulsby]

18. exactly

i had always just assumed he was a rightwinger, cause he killed JFK

it never crossed my mind, till i heard somebody say he was a leftwinger.

then, i researched it and realized he was.

he was also somehwat of a nutcase imo

[JonQ]

24. And that illustrates a major difference in thinking

between rational people and the majority.

You had a belief, heard contrary views, researched it, found it to be untrue so you revised that belief.

Many people around here seem to look at it this way: I have a belief, I am right, anyone who says anything that goes against my belief (including presenting empirical evidence) is not only wrong but evil and the enemy (probably a bigot too) and should be attacked on a personal level. "Assaults" on your belief system only prove that you are right and should dig in even more.

[paulsby]

26. that is SO true

and it is so tiring.

and it's amazing how many times these same people talk about TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH and they can't admit uncomfortable truths that stare them straight in the face.

i'm glad i'm not alone in seeing this here (and elsewhere).

[Johonny]

19. As KO pointed out last night

tried to move to Russia... HE MOVED TO RUSSIA!!!!!!
On his way to Cuba... He lived in Dallas stacking books!!!!!

[Octafish]

29. I am aware Oswald has been PAINTED OUT to be a lefty by the media and Warren Commission.

Now, I don't know the truth about Oswald. That's why I ask these questions.

The evidence that IS there shows he was a very complicated fellow. The record also shows a case can be made to say he was a patriotic fellow, a guy who was assigned to defect to the Soviets in order to spy on them and then, after his un-defection and expedited return, asked to spy on right-wing kooks in this country.

Cuba and the Kennedy Assassination

Is there a connection between Cuba and the Kennedy assassination? Many researchers think so. A few point the finger at Fidel Castro, but many more point to the dangerous milieu of militant Cuban exiles, organized crime figures, and hardliners in the CIA frustrated over Kennedy's failure to get rid of Castro. These three groups were all involved together in plots to kill Fidel Castro. Did they turn their guns on Kennedy?

Much has been written on the climate of distrust created by Kennedy's vacillating policy on Cuba. Kennedy was bitterly blamed by many for failing to provide crucial support when the Bay of Pigs invasion turned sour. Less well known is that not everyone shared the modern-day notion that the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis was successful. Air Force chief Curtis LeMay told Kennedy to his face that this was "worse than the appeasement at Munich," a special dig given that JFK's father had opposed entry into World War II. The military had earlier in 1962 proposed creating pretexts for an invasion of Cuba (Operation Northwoods). The missiles provided Kennedy with an actual reason to invade, and he chose not to.

There is much more to the context of bitterness over JFK's Cuba policy, and the milieu in which CIA hardliners such as William Harvey and David Morales worked with organized crime figures including Johnny Roselli and Santos Trafficante, and with embittered and violent Cuban exile groups. But did this bitterness actually turn to plotting the murder of the President? Several books explore some of the individuals and stories which point in that direction, among them The Last Investigation, Someone Would Have Talked, and Deep Politics II.

Of interest here is the apparently false information connecting Oswald and Castro held in government files prior to November 22, 1963. On the afternoon of the assassination, FBI Director Hoover told Robert Kennedy that Oswald "made several trips to Cuba," something not supported by the record. Army Intelligence cabled the US Strike Command in Florida later the same day, providing two apparently false facts: that Oswald had defected to Cuba in 1959, and was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. And it is unknown what caused RFK himself to call Cuban exile Harry Ruiz Williams on the same day and say "one of your boys did this."

Perhaps related to these stories is Oswald's trip to Mexico City and his probable impersonation there. Accounts of Oswald's being a hired gun of Castro's flooded from that city after the assassination, most provably false. Were these stories coordinated? Information about the trip seems to have been controlled pre-assassination by the Special Affairs Staff, CIA's special Cuba unit, even though supposedly the CIA had no notion that Oswald had visited the Cuban embassy. And Staff D, the secretive group which manned the listening posts which caught Oswald or an imposter on tape, happened to be the same group in which CIA's assassination plotting was housed. Is it possible there was a plan to pin false information on a framed and dead Oswald, and use it to launch an invasion of Cuba? And did then Oswald's capture put a freeze on such plans?

This is clearly speculation. However, there has unquestionably been CIA covering up related to the Mexico City trip and to other aspects of the assassination. It has been recently revealed that George Joannides, the man the CIA pulled out of retirement to serve as liason to the HSCA for document requests, had in fact been operational in 1963, in charge of a Cuban exile group called the DRE. It was the DRE which was in contact with Oswald in the summer of 1963 - Oswald and DRE member Carlos Bringuier were involved in a famous "scuffle" in August. When former HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey learned that Joannides was not who he had been represented to be, Blakey wrote a scathing letter about it. A lawsuit against the CIA demanding further records is pending.

SOURCE w LINKS:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Cuba_and_the_Kennedy_Assassination

More:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Kennedy_and_Cuba

http://www.jfklancer.com/Investigations.html

PS: Here's a bit on the WC you may not be aware of:

A fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission

[paulsby]

51. for pete's sake`

1) he claimed to be a marxist and he claimed to be a socialist (on various dates) as documented at wikipedia etc.
2) he defected to the frigging soviet union for pete's sake

you can put your cognitive dissonance engine in overdrive to try to explain away the evidence that is in front of you, but the historical record is clear. he was a leftist.

only an ideologue would fail to grasp this.

[Gabi Hayes]

52. you mean an ideologue like you?

mr. law and order, who swallows the authoritarian line like Linda Lovelace?

you cite wikipedia as your source

that's hilarious

thanks for the laugh

if you're such an evenhanded 'researcher,' why don't you look up John Newman, and see what he's written about JFK/Vietnam/Oswald/CIA. perhaps your doctrinaire views might be subject to some second thoughts, if you're as ideologically disinterested as you claim, all the while spreading contumely upon those who are much better informed on this subject than you clearly are

wikipeeeedia???

harrrrrr

[paulsby]

53. i can cite dozens of sources

wikipedia is just one of them

nobody with a brain denies that oswald was a leftist.

for pete's sake, HE DEFECTED TO THE USSR . how much more LEFTIST can you get?

why would anybody defect to a socialist (a REAL socialist country, not a social democracy) regime like the USSR if they did not believe in that ideology.

again, arguing with conspiracy nuts is like arguing evolution with a creationist. you are so detached from the reality based community, it's a complete waste of time.

for pete's sake, there are plenty of right wing assassins. but oswald was about as clearly left wing as they come.

how much more cred could he have than defecting to the USSR?

did he need to get caught masturbating at stalin's tomb too to convince you?

[dogfacedboy]

72. I've always tended to believe Oswald was a patsy.

Sure, he wanted to be a communist. He defected to the USSR. These are all documented.
My question is: If he was a former US Marine who had defected to the USSR, and renounced his US citizenship, why was it so easy for him to come back here to live, find work, etc?
In 1963, many people in the US still believed "evil commies" were hiding around every corner, waiting to pounce. Who better to provide cover for the far-right group, who I believe planned and carried out JFK's murder, than a documented "evil commie"? I believe that said right-wing cabal got their hands on him, and made Oswald "an offer he couldn't refuse". I'm not so sure that the murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby was a part of the original plan, but it worked out awfully good for said right-wing cabal, if, in fact my theory is even close to correct.

[paulsby]

86. right that's my point

i am not getting into the "did he kill kennedy" thang.

i believe he did, but i'm hardly an expert on the subject, and i know there is at least some things thatsuggest otherwise.

i'm just saying there is just NO way you can look at the evidence, and not believe this guy was a leftie, if you are honest about it.

there is an overwhelming urge to believe that a right winger killed kennedy. it is just too mentally painful for many people to accept that a leftwinger did it.

it throws their understanding of the world into turmoil

[dogfacedboy]

97. It's not mentally painful for me to believe a Leftie could have killed JFK,

I just don't happen to believe that it was some "leftie plot", and I certainly don't believe that Oswald, in any way, acted alone. JFK was hated by the right the same way President Obama is hated by today's tea-bag trash. It was different time, though. The far right was not as populated by un-ruly apes as it is today (except for the Southern and Western white supremacist scum). I will always believe, until my theory is proven wrong, that the righties who arranged the treasonous, cold-blooded murder of President JFK, were highly placed, e.g., righties in government and/or the intelligence community and/or the military-industrial complex. Oswald was used to provide cover because, as I stated, at this time in US history, "commies" were the most feared bogey-man of many Americans. Oswald cannot, in any intelligent way, be compared to waht is commonly known in today's US political spectrum as a "Leftie". The ONLY people who consider today's Left-wing as some sort of Soviet-style communist, are the completely whacked out, narrow minded, far-fringe right. Oswald was a f'cking traitor to the US, not a modern US Progressive trying to lead the US out of being the shit hole that far-right ideology has tried to make Our Nation and Great Society into.

[Hubert Flottz]

125. "a REAL socialist country"

At the time Oswald was in the USSR, the USSR was about as "socialist" as the US was a "democracy" under the election stealing neocons.

Ann would tell you that the NAZIS were left wing too. The Devil was a lefty too, that's why he was red in all those pictures of him that you see. You believe your own eyes don't you.

Do you believe that the population of the USSR wanted to be starved to death by the millions like they were under Stalin? Socialist in name only, IMHO. Some people in the USSR lived like kings...but the population there were lucky to survive.

The fact that Ann didn't even know that Oswald had lived in the USSR, indicates her ignorance on the subject.

Ann is so high on the Kool-Aid that she believes her own propaganda.

[Octafish]

54. Three names to remember: Philip H. Melanson, John M. Newman and Joan Mellen

... The 'wikipedia etc' info reveals writers who are uninformed or misinformed or worse. Those who have read more on the subject -- meaning outside the "Oswald-did-it" frame -- have found much evidence for Oswald working with U.S. intelligence agencies. Several academics with sterling credentials immediately spring to mind, including Philip H. Melanson, John M. Newman and Joan Mellen.

Here's a bit from each:

Philip Melanson, testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board (24th March, 1995)

The first point I would urge is that your definition of assassination-related records include all U.S. Government files on Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination.

As the board is aware, I'm sure, and much of the public, the enduring controversy of who Oswald really was, what he was, is an inherent part of the historical truth of this case. It's also been an area that's been subject to governmental secrecy over the decades and to deception. So, it's crucial that these be released as part of the record.

Oswald, as you know, is the most complex alleged or real political assassin in American history. Let me refresh our memories about that.

This is a young man who studied the Russian language in the Marine Corps, subscribed to Pravda, had proximity to a U-2 spy plane, defected, or fake defected, to Russia, came back, and had involvements with groups that looked both pro- and anti-Castro, and corresponded with or joined some of the most heavily-targeted domestic political groups of the era.

So, the files pre-assassination on Oswald are very rich, and just as the Warren Commission created assassination records out of Oswald's school transcripts, psychiatrist reports, Marine Corps disciplinary records, those of us who have a different view of Oswald want the full record of what our government agencies knew about him to be released.

And those agencies, let me say, a list of agencies that definitely have or should have had, given their mission, pre-assassination files on Oswald, would include the Marine Corps, the State Department, selective service, FBI, CIA, probably National Security Agency, and Army and Navy intelligence.

And I would also urge that as part of this outreach in pre-assassination Oswald, that the files of the groups that he joined or corresponded with be looked at carefully, as well, because these were groups, as I said, that were heavily targeted by U.S. intelligence, and the key to how they treated or thought of Oswald may lie in those files -- the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, and the infamous American Civil Liberties Union.

I also urge the board to focus its disclosure spotlight on some of those agencies that have remained relatively in the shadows.

We're all aware of FBI and CIA and Secret Service, but many of us in the research community would like to see special attention paid to the National Security Agency and to Army intelligence, which has a very poor history of responsiveness, to be charitable, in this case, which indications are has material presently on Oswald, claimed that it destroyed routinely a file on Oswald.

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is another agency.

So, these are things that need to be looked at and will shed light on who Oswald was.

Let me get to the part of my suggestions that relate to implementation, and if I am already reinforcing what the board is already thinking, so be it, because some of Chairman Tunheim's comments this morning parallel my suggestions.

I emphasize that the board should develop its own expertise about the files, and I can't stress that enough.

I think it's commendable that you're talking with assassination researchers who understand the case, many of whom are also expert on the files, but I also point out that there are experts who know very little or nothing about the Kennedy assassination who are exceedingly expert on the convoluted filing indices of FBI and CIA, and I hope you will draw upon these people at every stage.

Let me give you my own parallel example from another case.

As the director of the Robert Kennedy assassination archives at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, when we began to pursue the FBI files on the Robert Kennedy case, the Freedom of Information Act request was drafted in concert with authors who had written on the FBI, ex-agents, scholars knowledgeable in the field, and it was a six-page letter that I was the signatory to, much of the jargon of which I couldn't understand, but it produced 32,000 pages of records where previously similar requests not so detailed, not so expert, had produced one-tenth of that volume, and I think that's proof that, if you are able to tell the agencies where to look, what to look for, you're going to increase the yield tremendously.

I also urge - and I think the chairman spoke to the fact that this is occurring. There is no replacement for the expertise of those who worked on the files contemporaneously, the people who generated them, who use them, who knew what they are about.

Present records custodians may not have that knowledge, and this is important not only in broadening the search but also, frankly, in overcoming the hide-and-seek games, as I call them, that some intelligence agencies play some of the time.

And I would refer to the examples that -- in the Robert Kennedy case, for example, if it hadn't been for the affidavit of a Los Angeles police officer, retired, we would not have known about the super-secret department file on the case that was stuck out at L.A. airport and not in the downtown files.

And similar things have happened in other cases, agents who work, know the convoluted filing system and where things might be hidden, as well as where they might be found. Your experts, outside experts, and your own expertise and staff, I don't mean to discount staff expertise clearly.

The other payoff here is tracing documents from documents and files from files, a very important activity that really requires a detailed knowledge of cryptographs and notations and filing numbers, and also what I call the mirror-image principle, that you will find some state and local agencies who have mandates that cause them to be in touch with Federal agencies and who will have Federal paper in their files that will lead to Federal agency files.

The example I would talk about here is the Dallas police criminal intelligence unit.

Both pre- and post-assassination, that unit within the police department definitely should have or would have had contact with the Central Intelligence Agency, with Army intelligence, with other agencies, and therefore, their files provide a good clue, in mirror-image fashion, to what the Federal agencies might hold.

I was very pleased to hear Chairman Tunheim talk this morning about the search for private records and the broadening of the search.

I applaud that tremendously, and I won't belabor it except to say that the history of disclosure in all three of the assassination cases - Dr. King, Senator Kennedy, President Kennedy - shows us time and time again that some of the most important materials, for varieties of reasons, are held in private hands or are held in public venues beyond the record custodian's purview, and need I remind us that, for example, the acoustical tape so crucial to the House Assassinations Committee work was brought to them from the home of a retired Dallas intelligence officer.

My favorite example in this venue is, when we were getting the District Attorney's files released in the Robert Kennedy case, in a branch office distant from downtown Los Angeles, an employee found a box in a storage closet marked "Sirhan Sirhan case" and sent it downtown, because he had heard on television that we were getting the files disclosed, and that's one of the things that I think is so valuable about your public hearings, your media contacts, and your taking this on the road, so to speak, because it alerts people to what's going on.

In that box happened to be the official filmed re-enactments of Robert Kennedy's murder done by the officials in 1968, an incredible trove of audiotapes of witness interviews, and so, it's very important to keep up that notion of outreach to not only private individuals and collections but things that may be sort of lost in the closets.

I also urge the board -- I know it's not an investigative body, I know it's got limited or scarce resources, but when you're talking to the agencies who hold these files, ask them the questions not only about what they can give you now but about what they should have been giving over the decades and what they should have preserved that they didn't preserve.

We're all about public disclosure, but also, in a certain sense, even though it's not your mission, you're holding these agencies accountable just by the questions you ask them and by your asking them to release files, and over the decades there has been an inexcusable refusal of the public right to know, an unaccountability of certain materials, and I urge you to ask.

Ask the CIA, when you're talking to them, about that mysterious photo of Oswald that everybody has been chasing that's so crucial.

If it's really Oswald in Mexico City, it makes the Warren Commission supporters very happy. If it's an Oswald imposter, it's a window onto conspiracy. Where did it go when it left the private safe of the Mexico City station chief?

And please ask all these Federal agencies, just to please me if you would, cathartically, does anybody have any snippet of an audiotape recording of the 48 hours of interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald when he was in custody and was talked to by revolving-door interviewers from state, local, Federal agencies too numerous to mention, and yet, we have no preserved record of that moment at which the alleged assassin of our President, who had ties to Cuba and ties to Russia, was being interrogated at the time of our peak national crisis.

So, I know you can't chase everything that's missing, but I urge you to select a few items and try to hold these agencies responsible.

My last point is to encourage you to reverse what has been the trend in disclosure in the last several decades for whatever disclosure we have had.

Agencies have taken the position, largely, that assassination-related records should be withheld if they relate to other secrets, ongoing operations, or intelligence sources and methods.

I am asking the board to disentangle these things, that when there are records held by the CIA or the FBI that are clearly assassination-related, do not accept the response that current operations preclude their release. They can and should be disentangled, and let me give you my example of that.

I and other researchers have focused on this anti-Castro Cuban group in Dallas, ALPHA-66, and without going into theory, which I know is not the Commission's bailiwick, let me just say about this group that it's a terrorist group created by the CIA.

It detested President Kennedy, by its own statements. It was in Dallas. It was illegally well-armed. CIA case officers were meeting with the meetings there. The CIA failed to report this group to the Secret Service, as protective procedure required.

The head of this group was mistaken for Lee Harvey Oswald in two incidents that we reported, one by the FBI, one by the Dallas police.

The point is that - I don't need to go further to say that this is the subject of suspicion, if not intrigue.

The Rockefeller Commission asked the agency to respond about this, and their response was, in part, that they couldn't find such a book in the 1963 Dallas telephone book.

Their second response was that the street on which the group held its meetings could not be found in a Dallas street map, but that's sort of like saying that Beacon Street outside, you know, can't be found in Boston.

My point is that the agency has been terribly unresponsive to previous official investigations and that this is an area of suspicion.

So, ALPHA-66 files in Dallas should be released. The problem that we all face is as follows.

ALPHA-66 is still active, attempted an assassination of Castro, by their own admission, in 1983, and still exists in Miami, perhaps with agency sponsorship.

The fact that they are current and that their operations are current should not preclude the 1963 records from being released.

And finally, I think there is an extraordinary opportunity here that I know the board is aware of.

Not only is it your daunting task to help repair 30 years of distrust and governmental secrecy that have so eroded our democratic culture, but also, it's an extraordinary opportunity for the public right to know.

The idea that, for the first time, citizens will be the judge of the balance between governmental secrecy and what we know, rather than the agencies themselves or the courts, I think is extraordinary, and I just urge you that, at every step along the way -- and I think you're doing this -- consult with those rational, responsible, sober experts in all fields who can help you do your job better and do it in a more timely fashion, because you're aware and I'm aware the clock is running, and the work has to be done, and I thank you very much for allowing me to comment this morning.

SOURCE: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmelanson.htm

From Newman:

Oswald, the CIA and Mexico City

By John Newman, Ph.D.
Copyright ©1999 by John Newman.
All Rights Reserved.

I. The Rosetta Stone

The Assassination Records Review Board finished its search more than a year ago—a search for records relating to the murder of a president thirty-six years ago. Surprisingly, the passage of time has not managed to erode or cover over all of the important evidence. On the contrary, the work of the Review Board has uncovered important new leads in the case. I will leave medical and ballistic forensics to others. I will confine myself to document forensics, an area for which the work of the board had been nothing less than spectacular. More specifically, I will confine myself to the documentary record concerning Lee Harvey Oswald’s 1963 visit to Mexico City.

In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) completed its work, including a report on Oswald’s activities in Mexico written by Eddie Lopez and Dan Hardway. Our first glimpses of their report began shortly after the 1993 passage of the JFK Records Act. Not even all the redactions of those early versions could hide the seminal discoveries in that work. While Lopez couched his words in careful language, he suggested that Oswald might have been impersonated while he was in Mexico City just weeks before the assassination. Lopez was more forthright when I interviewed him about this in 1995. Armed with more CIA documents and the first Russian commentary (Nechiporenko’s book, Passport to Assassination), I went further in my own Oswald and the CIA (Carroll & Graf: 1995) in advancing the argument that Oswald was impersonated in the Mexican capitol. Specifically, someone pretending to be Oswald made a series of telephone calls between 28 September and 1 October, allegedly to and from the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City.

I concluded then, that, based on the content of the CIA Mexico City telephone transcripts alone, the speaker purporting to be Oswald was probably an impostor. I will not repeat my lengthy discussion here, other than to summarize it in this way: the speaker’s words were incongruous with the experiences we can be reasonably certain Oswald underwent. For reasons still obscure, the CIA has lied consistently for these past several decades about the tapes from which those transcripts were made. The Agency concocted the story that the tapes were routinely destroyed before the assassination. It is perhaps true that some tapes were destroyed before the assassination. But Lopez uncovered FBI documents containing detailed accounts of how two of the tapes were listened to after the assassination by FBI agents familiar with Oswald’s voice.

More evidence would come in time. Shortly after the passage of the JFK Records Act, the public gained access to a telephone transcript the day after the assassination in which FBI Director Hoover informs President Johnson that it is not Oswald’s voice on the tapes. The Review Board diligently followed these leads and settled the matter when they found CIA documents in which the Agency itself explicitly states that some of the tapes were reviewed after the assassination. The CIA’s continued silence on the matter of the tapes stands, like a giant beacon, pointing the way forward to the investigator. The impersonation of Oswald in Mexico by someone who drew attention to an Oswald connection to a KGB assassination officer may prove to be the Rosetta stone of this case.

Before going further, I once again pay tribute to Peter Dale Scott, who wrote of these matters as early as 1995, advancing his "Phase I-Phase II hypothesis" on largely deaf ears. I will not repeat his lengthy discussion here, other than to summarize it in this way: In Phase I, immediately after the assassination, previously planted evidence of a Cuban/Kremlin plot surfaced in Oswald’s files; this, in turn, precipitated Phase II, in which a lone-nut cover-up was erected to prevent a nuclear war.

In Oswald and the CIA, I deliberately steered clear of the conspiracy-anti-conspiracy vortex in order to set out some of the facts concerning Oswald’s pre-assassination files. Since then, the cumulative weight of the evidence uncovered by the Review Board has led me to the conclusion that the Oswald impersonation can best be explained in terms of a plot to murder the president. I remain open to other interpretations and fresh analyses by fellow researchers, and I understand that new evidence could corroborate or undermine this hypothesis. What follows is a first stab at explaining, in a short and simple way, how those plotting the president’s murder may have left their fingerprints in the files.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/pr999-osciamex.html

From Mellen:

WHO WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

THE WECHT INSTITUTE, DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY, PITTSBURGH, PA.
OCTOBER 5, 2008
By Joan Mellen
Updated December 16, 2008

I’ve devoted my writing life since the early 1970’s to the subject of this conference, “Making Sense of the Sixties.” My first book was about the 1962 Algerian war of independence from France. So I am especially grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about where we are in assessing the events of the sixties. For me, we’re far beyond searching for one more “smoking gun.” The Kennedy assassination at this moment in our history is about linking the events of the sixties with the crises facing the Republic today. I’ll begin with an anecdote about the detective story writer Dashiell Hammett, the subject of one of my biographies.

Hammett was editor of the base newspaper in the Aleutian Islands during World War Two. One of his writers, a soldier named Eliot Asinof, later to write a book called “Eight Men Out” about the Chicago Black Sox, wrote an article for the paper exposing the corruption of officers smuggling booze. Expecting Hammett’s approval, Asinof instead received this advice, advice for this field of research no less than for any writer: “Lieutenant, everyone knows ‘what.’ Why don’t you try to find out ‘why.’” That, in my view, is where we go from here.

My particular subject this morning is Lee Harvey Oswald, that figure whose identity seems ever to recede beyond the reach of conventional historical research. The Warren Commission decided, with breathtaking defiance of the reality, that he was a sociopath, a person who “does not appear to have been able to establish meaningful relationships with other people…a man whose view of the world has been twisted… troubled American citizen.. unstable character whose actions are highly unpredictable.” Moreover, this man murdered President Kennedy without the assistance of confederates, clearly in contrast to reality.Oswald as we examine his life was, for one thing, never alone.

At the other extreme is the view that Oswald was a “legend” created within U.S. Intelligence, a composite of two people, one born in the USA with that name, and another, of Eastern European origin, trained from an early age as an agent. That there happens to be a CIA CCD (Central Cover Division) fuels this scenario, along with inconsistencies, such as that Oswald boasted two report cards for the fall term of 1954, one from the Bronx, the other from Louisiana.

Drawing on what we know as certain, the Oswald who is recognizable to us was born in New Orleans, and seems rarely to have been deprived of the company of others. Certainly, he was not a loner in Dallas where he was offered the friendship of CIA asset and so-called oil geologist (he had no degree in the subject) George de Mohrenschildt. De Mohrenschildt reported to the Domestic Contact Service (00) in Dallas on Haitian matters, the existing record shows. The quintessential unreliable narrator, a year before his death, de Mohrenschildt targeted Haroldson Lafayette Hunt as the sponsor of the Kennedy assassination. Coincidentally, H. L. Hunt was unique among Texas oil men in being a lifelong antagonist of the CIA, as has been his son, Nelson Bunker Hunt. It was, perhaps, de Mohrenschildt’s final Agency assignment.

Nor was Oswald particularly solitary in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 where his presence was noted at anti-Castro training camps north of Lake Pontchartrain.

Almost from the moment of his arrival in New Orleans from Texas in April 1963, Oswald sought the acquaintance of CIA and FBI assets. He attempted to infiltrate anti-Castro groups. By the time he was arrested on Canal Street in August, he was so well acquainted with the FBI field office that he told the officer interviewing him, Lieutenant Francis Martello of New Orleans police intelligence, “Call the FBI. Tell them you have Lee Oswald in custody.” It was a moment that Martello neglected to describe to the Warren Commission which he held in utter contempt until the end of his life, as former police intelligence officer Robert Buras, working for the House Select Committee, and a long-time Martello acquaintance, told me.

CONTINUED...

http://www.joanmellen.com/oswald.html

So, yeah, paulsby. Go on and say what you want. Call me a "conspiracy theorist" or a "kook" all day and all night long. I don't care and it won't change the fact: Oswald was tied to U.S. intelligence.

[Marr]

62. He *was* a lefty. Oswald was a communist.

You're doing exactly the same thing so many Conservatives do in rejecting any connection to abortion bombings, or that Hitler was a liberal, etc., etc. There's a bit of information (ie, Oswald was a lefty) that doesn't fit into the picture you want to see, and so you reassemble the facts in such a way as to make him a member of the other team.

Oswald was a Communist. Possibly a nut as well, but almost certainly a Communist.

[Octafish]

67. I'm not painting anything. Oswald was painted a communist by the government.

According to several authors I respect, individuals and apparently elements in CIA wanted to make it look like Oswald and the international Communist conspiracy killed President Kennedy. The hope of the real conspirators was to associate the assassination in the public mind with the commies in order to trigger a final nuclear war.

Who knows if it's connected, but Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs and CIA director Allen Dulles had actually proposed to JFK a similar nuclear first strike -- an all-out sneak attack on the Soviet Union and Red China to take place in "late 1963," but Kennedy had ordered it forgotten. The conspirators must've been mighty disappointed when LBJ got the news out that Oswald was the lone gunman.

But that's all speculation based on what we know. There's a lot we need to know before I believe anything.

[TicketyBoo]

103. Says who?

On the afternoon of the assassination, FBI Director Hoover told Robert Kennedy that Oswald "made several trips to Cuba,"

Who said this?

it is unknown what caused RFK himself to call Cuban exile Harry Ruiz Williams on the same day and say "one of your boys did this."

Again, who said this happened?

People just make things up about what could have happened when Kennedy was assassinated. They are usually much different from what actually happened.

[robertpaulsen]

120. Haynes Johnson

Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. NOt exactly the kind of person to "just make things up about what could have happened when Kennedy was assassinated."

[nolabear]

63. It's a specious argument, though. Oswald was a lefty and an assasin therefore

all, or even most, assassins are lefties? I imagine, though I have no proof, that Oswald was a sick individual whom the anti-Kennedy left, if you believe the theory, made use of, just the way Fox "News" makes use of the teabaggers or the GOP fundies make use of Glenn Beck. And Ann Coulter. Unfortunately people like her believe they matter to the machine that will eventually eat them. Just my opinion.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

71. Oh, it gets better...

she went on to claim that since Oswald was a Lefty that it's clear that any attack on Obama's life with come from a Leftist. What a nut.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

70. True

You're right about Oswald being a Leftist. However, her broader claim was that all Presidential assassins have been Leftists, which isn't really true. McKinley was killed by an anarchist (plenty of people would place anarchists on the Right) and Lincoln was certainly not killed by a Leftist.

[ieoeja]

76. You do know that the CIA released his PERSONNEL file a year or two ago.

You do know the CIA issued a press release a year or two ago stating that they sent Oswald to "defect" to the USSR?

You do know the CIA pulled him because he was stressing out and then dumped him as being unstable?



The secret history on Oswald was made public a year or two ago. It lead all the evening news broadcasts for one night. You must have missed it.


So, no, Oswald did not defect. No, he did not get bored in Minsk and open negotiations with the embassy. He simply reported to his handler at the embassy. It ultimately wasn't even his decision to return, but his handler's.

[Octafish]

99. CIA 201 File -- ''Personality'' -- available online...

According to experts in such things, the file seems stitched together from other CIA sources for, em, effect.

From Mary Ferrell.org:

CIA Oswald 201 File Online

The Mary Ferrell Foundation has completed putting online the CIA's "201" (Personality) file on Lee Henry (sic) Oswald. This collection of roughly 50,000 pages of documents includes a small pre-assassination Oswald file, followed by a huge collection of post-assassination documents related to the Warren Commission and other investigations.

These pages were scanned from a copy made available by the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC), which has also provided other voluminous CIA and FBI files to the Mary Ferrell Foundation.

The 201 file was opened by CounterIntelligence officer Elizabeth "Ann" Egerter in December 1960, with an incorrect middle name for Oswald. There are many questions surrounding the CIA's pre-assassination knowledge of Oswald and possible post-assassination falsification of the 201 file to hide knowledge of Oswald's contact with the Cuban Embassy in late September 1963. For more on the 201 file and these issues, see Peter Dale Scott's CIA Files and the Pre-Assassination Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The 201 file is divided into about 80 volumes, ordered roughly chronologically. These pages come from partial sets obtained by the AARC at different times, so the documents in some volumes feature "RIF" header sheets, and documents in volumes obtained earlier do not. Some of the those documents feature redactions (blacked-out text) which may have since been lifted. Thus, this collection is not an identical match of the set held at the National Archives, though it is substantially the same.

SOURCE w LINKS: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Featured_CIA_Oswald_201_File_Online

Thank you for getting what it's all about, ieoeja. We live in treasonous times.

[emulatorloo]

6. Histrionic Personality Disorder

Well here is my armchair diagnosis:

http://www.edubook.com/types-of-personality-disorders/6921/#at

Histrionic Personality Disorder: This disorder is characterized by pervasive attention-seeking behavior that may include inappropriate sexual seductiveness, and shallow or exaggerated emotions. Those with histrionic personality disorder behave melodramatically and can often be manipulative. They would rather have negative attention than no attention at all.

Or she just says this crap thinking it will get her a paying gig. Cash Desiring PErsonality Disorder.

[Octafish]

36. Fascinating. HPD...

...negative attention as a motivator, too.

It explains a lot, like when she blamed single-mothers for rape and called John Edwards a sexist epithet.



The Splendid Blond Beast

PS: My doctor did a complete cashectomy on my wallet. Once. And I'm still fat and ugly.

[AndyA]

8. Seriously? Really? This is something you're legitimately wondering about Coulter?

Really???

:shrug:

Nothing that comes out of that alien's mouth surprises me. I'm surprised she gets away with most of what she says, as a brief fact check shows 99.9% of it is lies.

[Octafish]

49. Agree that Ann's a most unreliable and maddening source.

Maybe she's a comedi-ann?

When I hear Ann Coulter, I get mixed emotions. I'd laugh at what she says if it weren't so untrue.

The thing is, people who don't know the truth about her utternings will often get confused and start to believe she's some sort of resource.



And, once on of her false ideas has been put into someone's head, it becomes a very difficult and time-consuming process to extract.

[Divine Discontent]

9. Annie, do you KNOW something???? trying to lay blame? she & the rest of Fox News

need tapped with surveillance. They're a bunch of gross freaks. I cannot even, nor want to know what it's like there after dark...

[Octafish]

56. She's threatened the lives of liberals, so she must be a...lib--libe-liber--oh, no!

...Libertarian!

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97

SOURCE: The 'Wisdom' of Ann Coulter

[glitch]

17. Very interesting that they are bringing up the old spin. Perhaps Russ Baker's book cut close? :) nt

[Octafish]

21. Bingo!

In Information Warfare, the battleground is between the ears.

[Octafish]

34. The book by James Douglass, too.

JFK and the Unspeakable - Why He Died and Why It Matters

[glitch]

47. And aren't we approaching the date when a lot more information gets released?

I bet there are lots of nervous creeps thinking they hadn't expected to live this long.

[Better Today]

20. More importantly WHO GIVES A SHIT. Seems she's learned that saying anything outrageous gives her

media time (and forum space.) Unfortunately, we haven't learned to not let her have what she wants.

[LuvNewcastle]

22. I don't believe Oswald was really a leftist.

Oswald himself probably did not know what he was. Oswald's ties in New Orleans, like David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, were anything but leftists. I think Oswald was a CIA operative and was recruited while in the Marines. That's why he was able to slip back and forth between the U.S. and USSR so easily, along with his Russian wife. I think he was involved in the assassination, but I'm not so sure he actually killed JFK.

[MajorChode]

35. Oswald was a leftist

and more accurately a communist. He thought of himself as a communist, he acted like a communist, and he presented himself as a communist. He immigrated to Russia to live as a communist. When he was interrogated by the police he asked to be represented by a lawyer for the US Communist Party. I'm not really sure what more evidence one would need to be convinced Oswald was a communist.

[LuvNewcastle]

38. He could have been a leftist.

But then again, he could have been playing a role. If he was CIA, and I think he might have been, then anything he did which showed any political persuasion should be looked at critically.

[MajorChode]

39. Oswald was a moron

So I don't think he was capable of pulling something like that off, and if he was acting, he was a better actor than anyone I've ever seen in Hollywood before or since. Anyone who thinks that even the CIA was capable of pulling something like that off, completely undetected mind you, gives the CIA a shitload more credit than they deserve. They couldn't even make a decent attempt at a coup in Cuba after a year of planning and US Navy support.

[JonQ]

41. I don't get the clinging to conspiracy theories

some people feel the need for.

[ieoeja]

77. CIA admitted that Oswald was working for them.

And that they pulled him from the USSR because he couldn't handle the stress.

A year or two ago they issued a press release to this affect. It was on all the evening news broadcasts. While on DU I recall reading, "I never thought this day would come true," and "there are tears in my eyes."


But then the conspiracy theorists were shocked to discover that the non-theorists viewed the press release as further evidence of Oswald's guilt in killing JFK! It makes a lot more sense that Oswald killed Kennedy because Oswald was a Rightist than because he was a Leftist.

So the admission actually hurt the theorists. While boring the non-theorists as most of us assumed he was a Rightist in the first place. Which may explain why the "story of the century" was such a non-story that you missed it.


Was Oswald that good of an actor, or a moron who couldn't pull it off? Given that he FAILED to pull it off, I suppose we have to go with the latter.

[ieoeja]

78. What did Oswald pull off?

The Soviets never believed he was a true defector for a second. Which is why the CIA ultimately pulled him (a year or two ago the CIA admitted he was working for them while in the USSR).

So you are right in that he was too much of a moron to pull it off. But you are mistaken in your belief that he did pull it off.

[MajorChode]

87. Right

Good luck convincing anyone who doesn't wear a tin-foil hat of that nonsense.

What I like about you foil hatters is that most of you can't even sync up your bullshit theories.

[ieoeja]

101. Tin-foil hat because I believe the official CIA story?

The CIA issued a press release a year or two ago claiming that Oswald worked for them in the Soviet Union. It was on all the national news broadcasts that evening. As I have written elsewhere, it pretty much fell off the radar because (1) Oswald being a Rightist actually HURTS the conspiracy theorists since it is far more believable that a Rightist killed Kennedy than a Leftist, and (2) even most of us who never bought into the conspiracy theories assumed Oswald was never a true defector, so learning we were correct was no big whoop.

I am curious though, what is your conspiracy theory as to why the CIA is making that claim? Because I can't think of any reason they would make that claim.

That tin-foil hat *you* are now wearing really brings out the color of your eyes!

[MajorChode]

106. Show me the press release, then we'll talk

Fair enough?

Normally I make it a point NOT to argue with foil hatters. I liken it to polishing a turd. It does no good and you only wind up with shit all over. However, your last post offers a golden opportunity to put up or shut up (foil hatters generally do neither).

If you can't find evidence of this alleged press release, then you might as well not bother replying as I'm going to dismiss your allegations as pure unadulterated bullshit which is already my strongest suspicion now. And no, I'm not going to accept some link to a foil hatter website. The official source is easy enough for you to find. Remember it's your assertion and you can either support it or you can't.

To help you out (so you don't have an excuse), here's the link to every press release issued by the CIA since 1994. As they have only issued about 50 press releases in the last "year or two", you should have no trouble finding it, yes?
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/index.html

Good luck!

[ieoeja]

108. Here you (don't) go.

Press release from June 2007 announcing release of two historical documents.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/press-release-archive-2007/cia-releases-two-collections-of-historical-documents.html


The "Family Jewels" document is here (http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp). But with over 900 scanned pages, you can not do a text search (scanned pages consisting, not of text that can be searched, but rather a picture of text that can not be searched).

However, the media has had two years to review this document. So I searched the news agencies hoping they would point us to the exact page(s) in the CIA source document.

Turns out there was no such CIA admission in the documents!

The initial headlines that the document included Oswald's personnel files were based, not on a reading of the document, but on claims by a "former CIA employee" about the documents. More to the point, once reporters finally did dig through the documents, they found no such files.

[JonQ]

111. So in other words your statement

that the CIA admitted to using oswald, is not true.

[ieoeja]

112. Correct! (nt)

[JonQ]

113. So what are you getting at?

[ieoeja]

114. He asked for the press release.

I found it. But since the document in question was 900+ pages long with no search capability, I thought I'd be nice and see if I could locate the specific detail about Oswald. In doing so, I learned that the initial media reports were speculative and ultimately proven wrong.

So I told him the media reports I was referencing earlier had been found to be incorrect. A fact I did not know until I did this.

I'm not "getting at" anything.

[JonQ]

116. So when you made a similiar retort to my post upstream

that was likewise incorrect?

[ieoeja]

117. No. When I say it to you it is correct. Is it only incorrect when I say it to MajorChode.

Apparently you and MajorChode exist in parallel universes that intersect on this thread. If you posted the same link, and I followed it, I would be directed to the CIA website in your universe where the CIA released all their files on Oswald.

Weird, huh?

[JonQ]

118. I see, so you had no intention of correcting yourself in your comment to me

and it was up to me to search out that you were wrong.

Generally when I say something blatantly untrue I attempt to correct myself where ever I have made such a statement, rather than letting it stand and assuming everyone else will figure it out on their own.

[ieoeja]

119. Really? Because you kind of strike me as the kind of guy who would never admit being wrong.

Guess I misread you.

[JonQ]

126. Well that's your opinion

which as we've seen, can be wrong from time to time.

[ieoeja]

127. Good one!

:toast:

[Sinti]

28. You know, this brings up kind of the elephant in the room

Why on earth would LHO shoot the president, when President Kennedy had been having conversations with the Russians? We were getting along better, after the missile crisis, of course. Kennedy brought Khrushchev over to look at farm land, and ranches out west and stuff. Khrushchev loved it, and his family moved here after. His kids live here, supposedly.

Listen to Kennedy's speeches, he wanted done with this war business. Why in hell would a communist-sympathizer be angry about that? This defies the 2+2=4 rule for me. Apparently, LHO secretly desired MORE WAR and hated Kennedy for wanting to end the hostility - or did he just hate him for his money and his freedom?

[Octafish]

89. JFK and the Unspeakable -- Why He Died and Why It Matters

DUers who include august researchers Deborah Conway and John Simkin are with us, Sinti. 2 + 2 IS 4. Making Oswald out to be a commie -- cough, Saddam was behind 9-11, cough -- seems to have been intended to act like a catalyst for invading Cuba and going to war with the Soviets.

James Douglass in his remakable book discuss what you have brought up. Behind the scenes, through letters and unofficial intermediaries, JFK worked toward ending the Cold War with Krushchev.

JFK and the Unspeakable

by James W. Douglass

Reviewed by James DiEugenio

EXCERPT...

In addition to his elucidation of the Castro/Kennedy back channel, Douglass also deals with Kennedy's back channel to Khrushchev. Kennedy had gotten off to a rocky start with the Russians because of the Bay of Pigs debacle and the roughness of the 1961 Vienna summit. But toward the end of 1961, he and the Russian premier had established a secret correspondence. The first letter was delivered by Georgi Bolshakov to Pierre Salinger wrapped in a newspaper. (p. 23) Khrushchev seemed to be trying to tell Kennedy that although he may have seemed unreasonable in Vienna, he was dead set against going down a path to war that would lead to the death of millions. The letter was 26 pages long, and Khrushchev mentioned hot spots on the globe like Laos and Berlin. Kennedy dutifully responded. And the correspondence went on for a year. It was then supplemented by two unlikely cohorts: Pope John XXIII, and Saturday Review editor Norman Cousins. Cousins had been the intermediary between John and the premier. When Kennedy heard of this, he decided to have Cousins carry messages to Khrushchev for him also. In fact, it seems that it was actually Cousins who provided the impetus for Kennedy to make his remarkable American University speech of June 10, 1963. (p. 346)

This speech is one of the centerpieces of the book. Douglass prints it in its entirety as an appendix. (pgs. 382-388) He also analyzes it at length in the text. (pgs. 41-45) Khrushchev was ecstatic about the speech. He called it, "the greatest speech by any American president since Roosevelt." (p. 45) So inspired was he that he countered the speech and the renewed correspondence in multiple terms: 1.) A limited test ban treaty 2.) A non-aggression treaty between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and 3.) He encouraged Castro in his back channel with Kennedy. Douglass places much importance on the last and he uses Russian sources, including Khrushchev's son, to bolster it. (pgs 68-69)

There was another person at the time tiring of the Cold War and his role in it. Except he had a much lower profile than the four luminaries depicted above. His name was Lee Harvey Oswald. As Marina once said, Oswald "liked and approved of the President and he believed that for the United States in 1963, John F. Kennedy was the best president the country could hope to have." (p. 331) At the New Orleans Public Library, he checked out William Manchester's profile of JFK, Portrait of a President, Kennedy's own Profiles in Courage, and a book called The White Nile. The last he read only because Manchester noted that Kennedy had read it recently. (Ibid) When Kennedy spoke on the radio about the test ban treaty, Lee listened intently and told Marina that he was making an appeal for disarmament. Curiously, he also informed his wife that Kennedy would actually like to pursue a more gentle policy with Cuba. But unfortunately he was not free to do so at the time. Doesn't sound like the Krazy Kid planning on murdering JFK does it?

The night after Kennedy's test ban speech, Oswald gave a speech of his own at Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama. His cousin, Eugene Murret was a seminarian there and he invited him to talk about his experiences in the Russian system. Douglass uses Oswald's notes on the speech to inform us what he was thinking at the time. And, for the man depicted by the Warren Commission, its extraordinary. Away from New Orleans, away from his handlers, away from scripted situations arranged by others, Oswald said some surprising things. He first chided his audience. Sounding like JFK, the man he admired, he warned them that military coups are not a far away thing in some banana republic in South America. It could happen here, in the USA, their own country. (Ibid) Which organization could do such a thing? He said it could not come from the army, because of its many conscripts, its large and cumbersome structure, its huge network of bases. Amazingly, he specifically mentioned Kennedy relieving Edwin Walker of his command as evidence it would not come from there. Walker, the man he derisively dismisses here, is the man he was already supposed to have tried to shoot!

He then said that from his experience in both Russia and America, "Capitalism doesn't work, communism doesn't work. In the middle is socialism and that doesn't work either." (p. 473) He concluded that by returning to the USA, he was choosing the lesser of two evils. This does not remotely suggest the ideological zealot debating Ed Butler about the merits of Marxism, who was passing out flyers begging for fair treatment for Cuba, who got into street fights with anti-Castro Cubans who perceived him as a defender of Fidel. Here, in a secluded place, many miles away from Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister, he sounds like a spy ready to come in from the cold. Ready to retire to a desk job under the president he admired.

But his handlers weren't ready to retire him just yet. As Ruth Paine left her stay in Falls Church to head south to pick up Marina, Oswald allegedly embarked on what Philip Melanson called his Magical Mystery Tour to Mexico. The object of this final charade of course was to depict Oswald as trying to obtain visas for Cuba and the Soviet Union. As Douglass describes it, this utterly intriguing journey is multi-layered. What Oswald seems to think he is doing is the final act of what he did in New Orleans: discrediting the FPCC. Which had been an operation the CIA had that was ongoing. As John Newman has pointed out, David Phillips and James McCord were in on it. But there was also something else going on here. After the fact, the CIA seems to have tried to create a questionable trail, one that would suggest Oswald was trying to get into contact with Valery Kostikov. Kostikov worked at the Soviet consulate but was also a KGB agent who the FBI had discovered was involved in assassination plots. (p. 76) But as the author demonstrates here, the record of this trip is so fraught with inconsistencies, improbabilities, conflicting testimony and outright deception that it "inadvertently revealed more about the CIA" than about Oswald. (p. 75)

The author notes the witnesses at the Cuban embassy who could not identify the man they saw as Oswald. Using the fine work of Newman, Douglass shows that at least some of the calls attributed to Oswald are dubious. (p. 76) He also adroitly notes that, prior to the assassination, the CIA held this alleged Kostikov/Oswald association close to its vest. If they had not, then it is highly probable that Oswald would not have been on the president's motorcade route on 11/22. Which, shortly after his return, was insured by the Paines not telling Oswald about the other job offer. Douglass astutely relates the final way his presence there was ultimately clinched. A man at the Bureau, Marvin Gheesling, deactivated Oswald's FLASH warning on 10/9/63. This meant that Oswald was not placed on the Security Index in Dallas. Again, if he would have been on this list, it is very likely the Secret Service would have had him under surveillance prior to November 22nd. Hoover was furious when he found out what Gheesling had done. He had him censured and placed on probation. On the documents censuring him he wrote, "Yes, send this guy to Siberia!" (p. 178) Later, on the marginalia of another document, he wrote that the Bureau should not trust the CIA again because of the phony story the Agency had given them about Oswald in Mexico City. (Ibid)

As others have noted, the combination of Oswald moving around so much plus the late-breaking, dubious, but explosive details of the Mexico City trip, all caused the system to overload in the wake of the JFK assassination. On November 23rd, after talking to Hoover by phone and John McCone in person, Johnson was quite clear about his fear of nuclear war. He told his friend Richard Russell that the question of Kennedy's murder had to be removed from the Mexico City arena. Why? Because "they're testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill forty million Americans in an hour." (p. 231) The manufactured trail in Mexico helped freeze any real attempt to search for the actual facts of this case. It was too dangerous. And there was a second built-in element that curtailed any real investigation. The fact that the FBI was short changed on information about Oswald -- by the files not getting from New Orleans to Dallas quickly enough, and by the CIA withholding crucial information about Oswald in Mexico City -- this helped pitch the Bureau into a CYA mode. For clearly, their surveillance of Oswald had been faulty. His activities in New Orleans, his alleged attempts to contact Kostikov in Mexico, his threatening message left at the Dallas FBI office, all of these should have put him on the Security Index.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

If you get a chance, please read James Douglass' book, "JFK and the Unspeakable." It documents how JFK was working for peace, even though most in his government counseled war. That also explains a lot of how we've got, as a nation, to the point we're in today.

[TicketyBoo]

104. One can read all the conspiracy theories in the hundreds of books.

There is no single conspiracy, and all of them can be picked apart.

I tend to look toward the news media for information.

From Time magazine, 2007:

After 44 years of investigation by thousands of researchers, not one speck of credible evidence has ever surfaced that groups such as the CIA, organized crime or the military-industrial complex were behind the assassination, only that they each had a motive. And when there is no evidence of guilt, that fact, by itself, is very strong evidence of innocence.

(There are) 53 pieces of evidence that point irresistibly to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. For example, the murder weapon was Oswald's; he was the only employee who fled the Texas School Book Depository after the shooting in Dealey Plaza; 45 min. later, he killed Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit; 30 min. after that, he resisted arrest and pulled his gun on the arresting officer. What's more, during his interrogation, Oswald's efforts to construct a defense—which included denying that he owned the rifle in question (or any rifle at all)—turned out to be a string of provable lies, all of which show an unmistakable consciousness of guilt. Only in a fantasy world can you have 53 pieces of evidence against you and still be innocent. Conspiracy theorists are stuck with this reality.

Even assuming that the CIA or Mob or military-industrial complex decided "Let's murder President Kennedy," Oswald would be among the last people in the world those organizations would choose for the job. Oswald was not an expert shot and owned only a $12 mail-order rifle—both of which automatically disqualify him as a hit man. He was also a notoriously unreliable and emotionally unstable misfit who tried to commit suicide by slashing his wrists when the Soviets denied him the citizenship he sought.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634964-2,00.html#at

[Octafish]

110. TIME? The Luce's LIFE did all it could to make it out that Oswald was the lone nut assassin.

If you'd like to learn more, here're details:

Life Magazine and the Assassination of JFK

EXCERPT...

Much of that "doubt" was caused by LIFE's own foolishness and sleight of hand.

* This would be the same LIFE that airbrushed the backyard photo that ran on its cover, in order to enhance the speculation that Oswald was holding the murder weapons in those pix.

* This was the same LIFE that transposed critical Z-film frames, in precisely the same fashion as did the WC, in order to falsely corrupt any critical analysis of their pictorial contents.

* This was the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to ensure that a Z-film copy pilfered by its own contractee, Josiah Thompson, wouldn't appear in his book, nor would allow him to use illustrations of those Z-film frames. Why not ask Tink his opinion on how sincere LIFE was about revealing the truth about the assassination? He had a front-row seat for LIFE's struggle against the truth ever being revealed.

* This is the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to prevent Jim Garrison being granted access to what was thought to be the most vital piece of evidence in the assassination.

* This is the same LIFE magazine that attempted to rationalize two contrary facts - Parkland assertions of a throat wound being one of entry, though sustained after JFK had passed the shooter - by falsely declaring as fact that the President had turned around to wave to well-wishers, thereby giving an assassin to his rear the chance to hit him in the front.

* This is the same LIFE that financially subsidized CIA-backed anti-Castro exiles and sponsored CIA-backed raids upon that country.

CONTINUED...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5046

TIME and the rest of Corporate McPravda are the same crew that pronounced George W Bush the legitimate president after Scalia, Rehnquist and their toadies voted to make him so 5-4. TIME and the rest also said Iraq had WMDs; that Valerie Plame worked a desk at CIA; that ENRON's Kenny Boy Lay had no ties of significance to Bushco; that Bush never heard of Osama bin Laden before September 11, 2001; and a whole lot more lies passed along as news.

BTW: From your TIME article:

The Kennedy Assassination: Was There a Conspiracy?

By David Talbot & Vincent Bugliosi
Tuesday, Jun. 19, 2007

Yes (there was a conspiracy)

EXCERPT...

The President's brother quickly concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin, had not acted alone. And Bobby immediately suspected the CIA's secret war on Fidel Castro as the source of the plot. At his home that Friday afternoon, Bobby confronted CIA Director John McCone, asking him point-blank whether the agency had killed J.F.K. (McCone denied it.) Later, R.F.K. ordered aides to explore a possible Mafia connection to the crime. And in a revealing phone conversation with Harry Ruiz-Williams, a trusted friend in the anti-Castro movement, Kennedy said bluntly, "One of your guys did it." Though the CIA and the FBI were already working strenuously to portray Oswald as a communist agent, Bobby Kennedy rejected this view. Instead, he concluded Oswald was a member of the shadowy operation that was seeking to overthrow Castro.

Bobby knew that a dark alliance—the CIA, the Mafia and militant Cuban exiles—had formed to assassinate Castro and force a regime change in Havana. That's because President Kennedy had given his brother the Cuban portfolio after the CIA's Bay of Pigs fiasco. But Bobby, who would begin some days by dropping by the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Va., on his way to the Justice Department, never managed to get fully in control of the agency's sprawling, covert war on Castro. Now, he suspected, this underground world—where J.F.K. was despised for betraying the anti-Castro cause—had spawned his brother's assassination.

As Kennedy slowly emerged from his torment over Dallas and resumed an active role in public life—running for U.S. Senator from New York in 1964 and then President in 1968—he secretly investigated his brother's assassination. He traveled to Mexico City, where he gathered information about Oswald's mysterious trip there before Dallas. He met with conspiracy researcher Penn Jones Jr., a crusading Texas newspaperman, in his Senate office. He returned to the Justice Department with his ace investigator Walter Sheridan to paw through old files. He dispatched trusted associates to New Orleans to report to him on prosecutor Jim Garrison's controversial reopening of the case. Kennedy told confidants that he himself would reopen the investigation into the assassination if he won the presidency, believing it would take the full powers of the office to do so. As Kennedy adviser Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once observed, no one of his era knew more than Bobby about "the underground streams through which so much of the actuality of American power darkly coursed: the FBI, CIA, the racketeering unions and the Mob." But when it came to his brother's murder, Bobby never got a chance to prove his case.

SOURCE: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634964-2,00.html#at

So. Yeah. Some stories, even TIME must admit, have more than one side.

[TicketyBoo]

121. But you said

that Time was not to be trusted???

Time is all part of the conspiracy, too, remember?

The plain and simple truth is that Oswald shot Kennedy.

I don't want it to be that way and Bobby didn't want it to be that way, but that's the way it is.

It's like not wanting to believe that Elvis died in August of 1977 at Graceland (no, he's working in a car wash somewhere), and not wanting to believe that Marilyn Monroe died of a simple overdose of sleeping pills and booze, and not wanting to believe that Princess Diana died in a mundane (albeit horrible) car accident.

It doesn't take a grand conspiracy to kill an icon. It just takes what it takes to kill any of the rest of us, whether it's a bullet or a heart attack or a car crash.

[Octafish]

122. TIME appears to have acted on behalf of the conspiracy.

They parroted what the FBI and CIA told them.

Have you ever heard of Operation MOCKINGBIRD?

Luce and his media empire didn't just do as he was told, he was one of those who understood why it was to his advantage to tell it. In a democracy, a controlled press is exactly what the nation's founders didn't want.

How about WMDs in Iraq? Ever hear of them?

[TicketyBoo]

123. Hear of them?

I believed they were there. I think most people did. I was watching MSNBC, even back then, watching David Bloom bounce across the desert in the BloomMobile. Most people I know expected them to find WMD at any moment.

Not many people believed that there were no WMD. Most people had confidence in our intelligence at that point, including most of the news media and reporters.

As far as Kennedy is concerned, I believe that there was no conspiracy. I've watched lots of documentaries on the History Channel (and elsewhere) on the subject, and that is my conclusion. I kind of pity people who hang onto those tired conspiracy theories about the Cubans, the CIA, the Mafia, or aliens from outer space having killed President Kennedy. The fact that so many theories exist points to the fact that none existed, and President Kennedy was killed by a left-wing loon looking for attention, which he has certainly received.

[marmar]

30. Why does a psychotic asshole do anything a psychotic asshole does?

[Octafish]

32. She hangs out Mickey D.

"Moof moooo mighe fwyfe fwiff fwaff?



From the Bartcop collection

[theblasmo]

33. Thank You

Leftist or rightist, Oswald was mighty fucked up. I don't think any side could "claim" him, even if they wanted to (but why would they?) I assume when Coulter talks about those people who've shot up churches and clinics, she makes sure to give their political ideology.

[Me.]

42. Is This A Rhetorical Question?

[Octafish]

90. New Title: Ann Coulter Lies About Lee Harvey Oswald and Libels MoveOn.org

Thanks, Me. Sometimes it seems like it'd be a heckuva lot easier if there was a dictator. Just as long as you or any good DUer were the dictator.

[beac]

45. I'll take 'Clinically Insane and Utterly Irrelevant' for $200 please, Alex.

The better question is: WHY is anyone giving her airtime?

[Octafish]

91. DU Jeopardy - ANSWER: Those who PROFIT from It.

$500 Double Jeopardy Question: What kind of people would ALLOW a recession to happen, let alone ALLOW a recession to turn into a depression?

Regarding giving her airtime:

Who are the crypto-fascistic tryannical owners of America's news media, Alex?

[mitchum]

50. She is stupid; her family $$$ bought her way into both Cornell and University of Michigan

[Octafish]

92. Most Michigan grads I know these days are liberal, to a degree.

But back in Ann's day, they almost all were.

She weaseled her way into Washington working for the weasel Sen. Spencer "Never Did a Damn Thing Ever" Abraham, (R-Mich.).

If you ever have nothing to do:

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrity/biography/ann-coulter.htm

[bridgit]

57. Well that's just absurd; Hitler & Goering both wanted to move to Moscow...

And for that matter Goering had an art collection...but I really don't see them as "Left Wing Loons"


Coulter certainly has a natural, internal appreciation for the character of 'the maddest hatter' cause she does such a good job at playing it. There are reasons people such as RW freaks spin webs before anyone sees a spider. Aside from what is clear: they don't want anybody coming back around and defiling the memories of dead RW cold war spooks: but there's a bit of conditioning involved too

Day in day out 'the maddest hatter' keeps getting madder & madder and there's a kind of apathy generated in response to it being absolved by Bill Maher. Right when you find yourself walking past the web one day, maybe the first day the hairs on your arms *didn't* tingle BAM! Release the fresh sack of ignorant, violent RW zombie spiders:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6869358

It includes Coulter but RW hate-media is all saying it in different ways,

- They intend to ferment violence as a way to eliminate Democracy ~ even such as it is, and in spite of their efforts to do so they will deny it refusing to bear any responsibility for it even though they are

- They intend to shit on every living-room floor in America but their own then deny that it stinks to high heaven

They're telling people what they're going to do, they just don't want people to understand it. I am able to recognize their angst and why they're so intent w/projecting however; I wouldn't much care for dragging that violent RW image around either

[Octafish]

95. Think Terror First!

Thank you for so concisely and thoroughly analyzing their technique and its purpose, my Friend. They work to bring their mad dreams of world domination to life. Unfortunately for humanity, that means war war war for Chimpire. Meanwhile, democracy disappears. What percentage of We the People want out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW? What percentage want universal health insurance? What percentage want to battle climate change? Better public schools? Better and more jobs? Fairer economic system? A green economy?...



Have you read Borges' Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius? It's an encyclopedia in under 10 pages on how to make a new world. It'd be perfect, were it yours, bridgit.

[Marr]

58. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe almost all violent domestic terrorism is

committed by right wingers, and always has been.

[Octafish]

100. Most every mobster I've ever met is a right-winger.

And, in my past working life, I met more than a few.

Their politics is my bet why Nixon and Dulles hired them to hit Castro...

CIA tried to get Mafia to kill Castro documents Dallas

Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:39pm EDT
By Steve Holland and Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA worked with three American mobsters in a botched "gangster-type" attempt to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro in the early 1960s, according to documents released by the CIA on Tuesday.

The CIA hauled the skeletons out of its closet by declassifying hundreds of pages of long-secret records that detail some of the agency's worst illegal abuses during about 25 years of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying and kidnapping.

CIA Director Michael Hayden released the documents to lift the veil of secrecy on the agency's past, even as the Bush administration faces criticism of being too secretive now.

Hayden told agency employees in a statement the trove included "reminders of some things the CIA should not have done" and a glimpse "of a very different era and a very different agency." The documents had been requested 15 years ago by a watchdog group.

Much of the information had been released in various congressional investigations in past years, but the pages provide detailed accounts of CIA activities, much of it against the backdrop of the Cold War.

Some of the CIA's "Family Jewels" describe the agency's initial efforts to get rid of Castro, whose 1959 revolution ushered in communism to the island. Despite the U.S. campaign against him, Castro remains Cuban leader at age 80, although he handed over temporary power to his brother Raul after surgery last July.

The agency's leaders determined "a sensitive mission requiring gangster-type action" was needed. "The mission target was Fidel Castro," the document said.

CONTINUED...

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2636255220070626

...Very conservative, to whom they're like "family."

[Atticus]

60. Better question:---

Why would anyone give a big brown rat's ass what this anorexic Nazi slut says?

[SalmonChantedEvening]

61. Because saying incredibly stupid things gets her attention. n/t

[BolivarianHero]

64. When has Mann KKKoulter ever told the truth?

Disgusting woman.

[debbierlus]

66. She is psychotic and a complete waste of skin

[cbdo2007]

69. Oswald was a patsy, he said so himself.

and we all know that people who have just been arrested for murder never lie.

[LatteLibertine]

74. Ann's just like Rush

Say whatever you believe will get your name out there and turn a buck among your fans.

[Postman]

75. John Wilkes Booth was a liberal?

[Octafish]

96. Like Joseph Milteer, he's from the Rush Limbaugh wing of the kkkonservative party.

Joseph Milteer



Supposedly not



Moon knows about a story that is so pertinent to how things got so messed up in the present...

Thirteen days before Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, a man named Joseph Milteer was tape recorded telling Miami police informant William Somersett that the murder of Kennedy was "in the working," that the best means of killing Kennedy was "from an office building with a high-powered rifle," and that "they will pick up somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off."

SOURCE: Predictions of Joseph Milteer

[lpbk2713]

79. Off Topic: Coultergeist looks like a sick puppy in that pic.

(Now who would have ever thought Coultergeist is a sick puppy?) :eyes:

[Octafish]

98. It's at the moment when she's doing what she loves...

...slandering progressives and inventing false history.

Blogger Ephphatha has her pegged.

I mean, Ann, come on. The economy is in the toilet, folks are getting laid off, two wars are raging, the ecology makes you wanna holler--and this is all you've got to write about? Clearly, Ann Coulter is threatened by Michelle. Mrs. Obama has poise, grace, and intelligence. She's raising two remarkable daughters. And she has a man who loves her last week's drawers. She's got it all.

And Ann has...nothing. Nothing but the ears and eyes of people as sad, bitter, lonely and dysfunctional as she is. Ann goes on to praise Cindy McCain, saying she "dressed well without freakishly imitating famous First Ladies in history." That's your role model? A woman who committed adultery with McCain; lied about her age; stole drugs she was addicted to; and looks like a Stepford wife?

Most importantly: Thanks, lpbk2713! Your clip from FauxNoiseNutwork is most revealing.

[Stevenmarc]

80. Asking why Coulter lies is like asking why a dog licks his balls

Because she can. It's the medias job to hold her accountable, a job that they have failed miserably in doing.

[LeftinOH]

83. Oswald was so obviously, incontrovertibly, unmistakably "leftist" that the intent to

blame the crime on "the left" and on him in particular is (was) curiously obvious; maybe he really *was* a patsy.

[fascisthunter]

84. actually, it was people like her who wanted Kennedy to be assasinated

just as she hopes the crap she spews about the left and Obama will get us all assisanted.

She is a very warped low-life...

[11 Bravo]

88. Ummm ... because she's Ann Fucking Coulter?

[boston bean]

93. why does ann coulter breathe?? same reason she lies!

[libodem]

105. She'd lie

because she's an attention whore with a hateful mind. Uh, Ann, you are what you hate.

[redqueen]

107. I thought Oswald was a mole.

That his communist schtick was an act, and he worked for the CIA.

[Octafish]

124. CIA records seem to indicate Oswald was recruited to spy on the Soviet Union.

From the great DUer and researcher John Simkin:

Oswald’s 201 CIA File

According to the CIA’s Clandestine Services Handbook, a 201 file was opened on “subjects of extensive reporting and CI (counterintelligence) investigation, prospective agents and sources, and members of groups and organizations of continuing interest.”

When interviewed by the HSCA Richard Helms admitted that anyone who defected to the Soviet Union had a 201 file opened on them. At the request of the HSCA the CIA carried out a search for Oswald’s 201 file. Its discovery raised some serious questions.

Oswald’s 201 file had been created in December 1960 by Ann Egerter. She controlled that file for the next three years. In other words, nothing could go in or out of this file without her permission.

When the HSCA asked Ann Egerter for an interview she refused. When Dan Hardaway of the HSCA threatened to subpoena her, she changed her mind. However, the verbatim record of her testimony is still classified.

There are many unanswered questions about Oswald’s 201 file. The first concerns the date it was opened. Why did it take over a year for the CIA to open his file? He defected in October 1959. Egerter was unable to answer this question. She said she created the file when she saw Oswald’s name on a list of defectors to the Soviet Union in December 1960. Richard Helms was also unable to answer this question. He told the HSCA: “I can’t imagine why it would have taken an entire year. I am amazed.”

The 201 opening form filled out by Egerter is also very strange. It includes the terms “defected to the USSR” and “radar operator” but does not include Oswald’s threat to pass official secrets corning his work to the Soviets.

Helms could however explain why the documents inside the file were missing. He argued that “none of these documents were classified higher than confidential” and that “because document dissemination records of a relatively low national security interest are retained for only a 5-year period, they were no longer in existence for the years 1959 to 63.” We now know that all these documents were destroyed. Some of them have emerged since the passing of the JFK Act. This includes three documents dated before the 201 file was opened in December 1960. This includes a cable from Richard Snyder on 31st October, 1959, informing the CIA that Oswald was threatening to reveal radar secrets. However, this did not trigger a 201 file.

How can these events be explained? The obvious answer is that a 201 file was not created because the CIA knew Oswald was not really a defector.

CONTINUED...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8038

Several more have done outstanding work in getting to the truth about Oswald, including Peter Dale Scott, Philip H. Melanson, John M. Newman, and Joan Mellen.

Thanks for understanding who and what we're up against, Redqueen. Thanks also for caring, my Friend!

[Occam Bandage]

109. Because now you're talking about her. nt

[Zoeisright]

115. Because she's a pathological liar and a cruel jerk?

That's pretty evident.