Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet

---

• From: Willie.Mookie@xxxxxxxxx
• Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:25:38 -0700 (PDT)

---

On Aug 15, 4:57 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 14, 11:24 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Aug 14, 3:34 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 14, 12:24 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:> On Aug 11, 4:52 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
WilleMookwrote:

[...]

Clearly, the CIA has the capacity if it wishes to ensnare and
discredit a President.

Or support a boob like the current one.

Does it seem reasonable that the CIA would operate to protect the USA
*from* a President that it had determined was proposing a course
detrimental to the USA if it had to?  from a candidate that might
become such a President? what about political activists in the USA?

Who are they to make that decision? I question decsion-makers that are
unelected officials.

When the Congress decides to go to war, they put Generals, Admirals,
and so forth in charge of the war, and leave it to the experts.  Who
are these Generals?   They are un-elected officials - yet they have
the authority in the context of the war to execute the war
efficiently.   Its impossible to carry out a war with every decision
by the field commanders second guessed by an elected official.
Obviously, field commanders must have the authority to run their
battles and their war without such oversight.  To this end you have a
specialist class of experts to carry on the war without such
oversight.

That is the way wars are supposed to work,

That's the way it does work in the modern age.

however most are like the
Spanish-American
War

This was before the United States emerged as a global leader, and
before the advent of nuclear weapons. In the modern age the United
States is a super-power, drawn into any major conflict around the
world, and the world has nuclear weapons which threaten the continued
existence of the United States. So, your analysis is flawed on this
bassi.

which are created by industrialists to make money. In the case of
SAW, it was William Randolph Hearst.

In the modern age, according to Noam Chomsky, there is an imperial
grand strategy to keep others down so they cannot and will not develop
industrially, so as to have the power and poitical will to challenge
US control, and ultimately develop nuclear weapons with which to
destroy the US.

To this end the United States has segmented its economy - realizing
that retail and finance functions historically have commanded the
greatest profit, manufacturing the middle profit, and extraction and
food production, the lest profit. So, we allocate retail to
ourselves, manufacturing to our allies - after carefully removing
their ability to wage war - and food and raw materials to our
friends. Our enemies we isolate, or attack.

If foreign powers challenge US control, or agitate for higher prices,
as Chile did with its copper, or Nicraragua did with its fruit
exports, the US uses its intelligence community to penetrate and
destroy such agit-props to maintain low commodity and food prices for
itself.

This system fails on several fronts. First, it generates a universal
hatred toward the United States by others. Those with little to lose,
openly challenge US control. Those with much to lose, covertly do
so. Second, no matter how much you penetrate and control the national
politics of foreign nations, you cannot change markets. So, as
certain commodities run short, prices rise, giving those who control
those commodities more power and more money. Our present situation
with fundamentalists Muslims is one such failure of our attempt to
control this situation un-creatively. There will be others as other
shortages arise. A creative solution would do something smart, for
example, realize that ultra-low commodity prices reduce the rate of
innovation and investment in development of alternatives, which make
us over-dependent and ultimately vulnerable. Third, the segmenting of
our economy may bring huge benefits as long as our economy does not
evolve, but any change in the relative value of these three processes,
or any change in the processes themselves,,makes us especially
vulnerable to change. The development of the internet for example
changes the relative ease manufacturers can retail their own products
and cut out middle men. Development of secure communications and
sophisticated computing platforms, means financial functions become a
low cost commodity in certain venues. Fourth, segmenting our economy
may bring sociological benefits in creating a unified class within the
United States - we all work at the mall or the bank - and farmers and
tinkers are a rareity. However, it also makes us shallow and unable
to deal with real world problems in creative ways, so as other nations
make progress in these areas, we lag behind. Fifth, segmenting the
economic activities among our allies and friends in the manner
indicated, isolates the United States from these other activities that
change the relative value and the competitiveness of the retailer and
banking functions. That is, when cars are made in Tokyo or Stuttgart,
rather than Detroit, car retail and finance will be found in those
cities. Why? Well, take the example of a mining town in the old
West. It may very well be that the bar owner, brothel, and outfitter,
made the most money in the town (retailer) while the miners did all
the work. However, a bar or outfitter in Philadelphia, wouldn't
benefit from actvity in the town. Planners under-estimated the power
that would be lost to US based retailers and financiers when moving
manufacturing and extraction overseas, and over-estimated the impact
of telecom and transport in maintaining control, while under-
sttimating again the changes those technologies would bring to retail
and finance as indicated above.

You tend to focus on specific issues that relate to 'fairness' - I am
pointing out that the over-riding interests of the United States has
been consistently pursued - despite the obvious fact that certain
parties have exploited those interests for personal gain - and the
most important thing we can say is that we should not be motivated by
some narrow sense of fairness based on this or that shortcoming - we
sholld be motivated by our long term highest interest - which is our
survival and prosperity. In this light we can see that for the vfery
fundamental reasons above, and likely others we cannot see at this
juncture, we are being led to our doom by or steadfast adherence to an
outdated ideology of what works in the nuclear age.

In the nuclear age, we entered a 'Cold War' period - where the
exigencies of war applied, but the war would never be allowed to go
'hot' - that is, a global thermonuclear war would be equivalent to a
defeated USA in this view, and so, there was a moral imperative on the
level of warfare to AVOID conflict by any means necessary.

So we fought proxy wars where some middlemen supplied both sides and
hoped the conflicts would never end.

You are blinded by your own ideology. Fact is, regardless of who made
money from foreign nations at war - as long at commoidity prices were
low, and the nations were in disarray and wouldn't in a million years
develop nuclear weapons with which to challenge the USA - then our
goals were being met.

The problem is, we also engaged the Soviet Union by totally isolating
it, and penetrating it with agents from within, to disrupt and
discredit the leadership, and its functioning. We were successful and
the USSR imploded economically which was our aim. We did not desire,
or make any effort to implement a 'soft landing' and mutual
development of this nuclear power. As a result of the 'hard landing'
of this former enemy, it is likely that a few dozen loose nukes, and
perhaps more, are in the hands of terrorists today. This is a failure
of our goals - due to common mode failure.

Meanwhile, in order to beat back the growing financial and retail
muscle of Japan in the 70s - and divide what we considered a
monolithic Communist superpower in Asia, we engaged China in detente -
and began treating them as an ally on par with Japan, forgetting that
the only reason we supported Japan and the Asian tigers in the first
place was to contain China in Asia and keep it out of the Pacific
Ocean. China is emerging as an economic powerhouse exceeding that of
the USA, and shows every indication that it is supporting covertly
terror cells within the USA (gangs armed with Chinese weapons, and
supplied with drugs from the golden triangle - which equals money and
power, and muslim extremists in their Western frontier which operate
unopposed) not only does China support terror cells, but they also
are accumulating significant economic leverage over the United States
by accepting our paper for real products purchased at very low labor
rates, while all the technical skills to manufacture products are
transferred to them and removed from the USA, they are poised to
execute a transition of power from New York to Beijing - following the
first terror attacks iin the US involving the release of terror
nukes. This is very similar to the way New York gains dominance in
the 19th century when war in Europe caused the closing of the European
stock exchanges.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

This is ludicrous. The CIA works for the folks who print the money.
Furthermore, those wealthy and powerful business types could afford to
wait. What could JFK do that would hurt them enough to warrant them
taking the extreme action of killing him? His death had to be at the
hands of malcontents who are not prone to wait or plan. Or his death
was at the hands of those who organized a coup - and the CIA is the
only agency that would do that in the modern age. They wouldn't do it
for narrow purpose - but because the USA would be benfitted
immediately by avoiding a clear and present danger. What would that
danger be? It has nothing to do with shifting money from one persons
pocket to antoher. It had to do with a fundamental difference in
outlook regarding how to proceedin the present age.

Eisenhower, Hoover, Truman even, were older men of an earlier
generation. They created the CIA's marching orders based on a certain
outlook of the world. Their generation created nuclear weaopns, bt
didn't give a whole lot of thought to what that means, beyond the
strategic analysis I've repeated elsewhere - which informed the CIA in
the modern age.

Now, Kennedy, a younger man, a thoughtful man, an intelligent man, and
after 1960, a powerful man, didn't buy into the organizing paradigm of
the intelligence community. He said it clearest at his speech he gave
to the United Nations where he said in part - we must end weapons in
the modern age or weapons will end us! This preceded the change of
conciousness that swept across the world with the release of blue
marble photos of Earth from the moon, and stood in stark contrast to
the collective wisdom of all those who came before.

THIS was the problem.

As I said, the CIA felt challenged in a way that caused it to evaluate
JFK as a threat to the nation - a threat it could act upon - and there
must have been SOMETHING in JFKs background that was misread in a way
that caused the complex mechanism that got triggered to actually go
off.

JFK wanted to create a new frontier beyond Earth as a measure of the
best in all men, wanted to create a challenge that was the moral
equivalent of war, that tested and grew our technologies, without the
destruction and hatred, the developed a frontier in a way that united
the center in peace and prosperity.

The CIA - if they wree involved in the assassination - and they may
not have been - MUST have seen this as pro-Soviet and felt that the US
people were hoodwinked and that another hour another day another week
another month of JFK would irreversibly harm the US' ability to carry
out the difficult tasks it must in the coming age.

Their ability to question their fundamental precepts was either non-
existent or limited, while their ability to question whether or not
they should assassinate a sitting President - was similarly limited.

I see that JFK was a fundamental challenge to the CIA and the entire
plan for US security in the nuclear age, and the CIA was unable to
deal with an effective challenge except to eliminate it as a bona-fide
threat. The growing economic and political weakness of the USA over
the past 50 years is a direct result of this failure and a continuing
string of failures which if they are permitted to continue, will ead
to the abject destruction of the USA as nation at the hands of all
other nations throughout the world..

This
required the CREATION of a specialist class to carry on the cold war
without political oversight - for the very same reason you can't have
politicians telling field commander what sort of tactics to carry
out.

Now, in both cases, you CAN have 'rules of engagement' that
theoretically protects everyone - but such rules themselves can get
mangled in the heat of battle.

The OSS was the intelligence arm of the Army in WW2 - and it was in a
natural position to carry out this role in the nuclear age - to carry
out a cold war.

Who benefitted from the Cold War?

The USA! The goal was to make damn sure that no nation or group of
nations would develop nuclear weapons and use them against the USA.
To that end we instituted a series of steps that assure a large
disparity of income. We determined that there was no way to avoid
another global war except to so distrupt and distort economic and
political development that war beyond their backyard with non-nuclear
weaopns was the only outcome.

Sure, there were those criminal elements that were drawn into the fray
and enriched themselves while others suffered. The CIA used them for
its own ends when possible, allowed them to prosper as a dead weight
on development when possible, and eliminated them when it suite
them. To paint a picture that the tin pot dictators and their
buddies in the US import companies were in charge of US policy is
idiotic. First off, look at how much money is spent on say fruit in
the US - and compare that to say, how much is paid on bank card
overdrafts. There's no comparison. I overdraw my checking account
and bounce three checks, i could buy a lifetime's supply of banannas!
lol.

Sure it makes a nice dramatic story to say United Fruit did thus and
so in Nicaragua - but that's a side effect - the primary goal is to
keep everyone down relative to the USA - by any means necessary so
that they can't develop nuclear weapons with which to challenge and
destroy the USA.

what about political activists outside the USA?  On this spectrum,
where would the CIA limit itself?  If it does not limit itself then it
MUST evaluate and plan to use its authority responsibly (by its light)
all the time.

Congress and the Supreme Court oversee what the Executive Branch does,
which includes the CIA.

and the Army - but when a decision is made to go to war, we cannot let
the politicians tell the field commanders how to prosecute the war.
Same here.   There was a decision to engage in a cold war - the
purpose of which is to keep the world secure from a global
thermonuclear conflagration.  This benefits primarily the USA - but it
also benefits all of us.

So the Cold War is over

The Cold War is not over - it is a misnomer to say that. The Cold War
wasn't against Russia or the Soviets. The Cold War is a war the US
wages against everyone as long as nuclear weapons exist. The goal is
to maintain US dominance in a world that if left to its own devices
would develop, engage in one or two or three more global wars, and in
those wars use nuclear weaopns generally - which would wipe out the
USA as it now exists. This is to be avoided. So, the same urgency
of war occurs for the USA - NOW! - NOW! - and we use ANY MEANS
NECESSARY to make damn sure we stay far far away from the spread of
nuclear weapons, their use, the development of political programs that
cause people to project power beyond their own backyards. all that.

and we still have nukes and it appears that we
have an irrational
enemy

That is more for US consumption than world consumption. The rest of
the world knows the score. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, and
trade with China, Japand and Europe know they're no longer needed.
This makes them very compliant. China is doing all it can to assuage
the USA - providing they gain increasing leverage over US banking and
gain ever increasing manufacturing prowess.

that would use nukes if they ever got them. So what benefit was
the Cold War again?

From 1900 to 1950 there were two global wars that advanced the art of
warfare tremendously, and engaged nearly every nation on Earth. The
USA entered these wars and was decisive in deciding the victory of
Each. From 1950 to 2000 there were no global wars, and despite the
development of nuclear weapons, no release of nuclear weapons in
warfare after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was a success by any
measure. Furthermore, we allied (by our standards) with China and
defeated the Soviet Union.

The threats now appear to come from a United Europe and a rising
Muslim power. Asians have maintaine a subservient role, and will not
directly challenge the USA dominance unless the USA seeks to take
control of manufacturing again. The USA does not see the need to do
this, and so this will not be an issue. Mastricht has created a
united Europe, USA intelligence helped create a divided Yuigoslavia -
and helps maintain it - a divided Korea keeps Asia divided. Israel
keeps the old Ottoman Empire in tatters. Fundamentalist Muslims whom
we helped train and organize to contain the Soviets, and also hoped
would not seek worldly gain - have emerged as a threat seeing the USA
as immoral. This message is well received in places like Somalia.
The USA has shaped these elements into a new bogey man with real
teeth, while doing nothing to address the common mode failures that we
are facing.

Hindu and Muslim differences in the Indian sub-continent are likely
the method whereby the USA will challenge Chinese dominance. This is
why I think the USA is at grave risk - with major conflict months or
only a year or two off.

As China and India grow economically, they will naturally vie with the
USA and Europe and JApan for raw materials. Commodity prices will
rise. As they do so, they will go through the same sociological
changes that gave rise to ultra-nationalism and war-mongering in the
USA and Europe when they industrialized. The CIA will attempt to
shape this emerging conflict in a way to create a limited nuclear war
between Pakistan and India. This will decimate everyone in Asia, and
radioactive fall out will destroy crops, and introduce new diseases.
This provides the perfect cover to introduce new crop diseases and new
human diseases from laboratories. and a perfect reason to isolate
Asia from the rest of the world. This will put the USA firmly in
charge, and the human population will drop from 6.8 billion today to
something in the 3 billion range - depending whether or not the 'new'
diseases spread to Africa - and possibly Europe.

From this scenario - the USA will maintain it global hegemony, and
develop South America and possibly Africa, to maintain high living
standards in the USA that then spreads throughout South America over
time - only after teh USA uses the horrific aftermath of this war as
an excuse to maintain absolute military control over the survivors.

The only response China has to this sort of thing is to move NOW to
undermine the USA ecoomically following the release of terror nukes by
muslim extremists in the USA - by liquidating US debt and undermining
its currency - and then nationalizing foreign assets in China - and
doing its best to ease tensions between Muslims and Hindus in the
Indian subcontinent. China also is perfectly capable (on a technical
level) to develop new disease and release them in the wake of a
nuclear terror attack in the USA. - reversing the role of USA and
China - from those roles in the American plan -

Of course I have no sure knowledge, but these seem most reasonable
given what little I know of world affairs and US policy in the nuclear
age.

One thing is sure, there is an end game, and the end game cannot be a
world democracy with each nation having a vote based on population.
The USA consumes 30% of everything and is only 4% of everyone. The
game plan I've outlined for the USA provides a means that the USA
dominates world trade and military - and banking - and continues to do
so for the foreseeable future.

JFK had a different idea. He felt that the USA would be leader to the
world, and as leader gain the respect admiration and trust of the
world. This would give us the power we needed in the nuclear age.
JFK also believed with Fuller, that technology was the source of
wealth and creativity - and by that measure, in the 1950s and 60s -
the USA excelled, producing 90% of the world's patents, and 95% of the
world's industrial innovations that created new wealth. By this
measure, we well deserved to control 30% of the world's wealth - and
in fact, since we create 95% of the world's wealth thorugh new
technology, our benefit to the world would be appreciated by all. Our
continued advance to the moon, to mars and across the solar system,
our continued improvements in robotics, asteroid mining and all that -
would be proof to the world of the rightness of our dominant role.

This was greeted as science fiction then - and now - and not the
subject of rresponsible sober men who have real responsibility to
maintain US dominance in the world.

You may think the President a boob or not.  The CIA - if it has the
responsibility of protecting the USA from a popular politician it
thinks is a mole for a foreign power - evaluates THAT risk -
regardless of what else is going on.

Again, I question unelected decision-makers.

The elected decision makers made a decision following WW2 to maintain
a war footing so that the USA could engage in a cold war - that is, do
everything needed to avoid a global hot war from breaking out in the
nuclear age.  They were given their rules of engagement and marching
orders, and the equivalent of generals and admirals in the
intelligence community, carried out the battles after reviewing them
with the President and the various Congressional intelligence
committees.

What exactly was Vietnam then?

A means to focus Chinese attention on land threats at a time when it
could have spent money on a navy. China with a powerful army is
bottled up in Asia. China with a powerful navy challenges US
control It was essential that China NOT develop a Navy. What better
way to sway their decision making process toward army than to have a
battle waged on their border? We didn't care which way the battle
went. As soon as China got rid of their Admirals that were canvassing
the leadership to build up their navy, we left. That's why JFK didn't
mind killing Diem, and that's why he said we don't need to send our
boys to die there. JFK bought into the control paradigm that was in
place. But he sought to replace it with a more visionary appraoch.

The real difference between JFK and the old guard was that old guard
worried about the baby boomers - beatniks and those types - that
NEEDED TO HAVE THEIR EPISTIMOLOGY SHAPED BY WAR! - Army psychologists
had this all scoped out in the 1950s - you needed controllable wars
where each new generation of US citizens were brought to manhood
during a war. If we didn't have a certain percentage of our young men
actually have the experience of seeing their bddies die, and actually
killing people - we would suffer from what the psychologists called a
late sensate culture. One that focused inward - and abandoned its
empire. this is what happened to Rome - and so, the old guard said
we need to send lots and lots of troops to Vietnam - sure some got
rich doing that - but that wasn't the reason. The reaason was to
shape the nature of American men having the experience of war. JFK
resisted that. Resisted it whole heartedly. He felt that space
exploration offered what he called 'the moral equivalent of war' -
that a man could face death on a journey to the moon, could build the
same courage and moral fiber building a city on Mars - and do so
without conflict - this he felt was the challenge and the proper
response to nuclear weapons. This whole thesis is not only under-
reported today - and swept under the rug - it is also marginalize by
showing up in fiction - like Star Trek - what is Gene Roddenberry's
background anyway? Does he have ties to the CIA like Ian Flemming?
lol. I think he does.

[...]

Are you claiming the Cuban exile community mostly in Miami liked JFK?

I don't know - the JFK library is saying that.

What about everywhere else?

<shrug>   the cubans seemed to be happy in the photos!  - what people
say of JFK after he died really doesn't matter does it?

I'm pretty sure JFK and MLK pictures don't hang in many living rooms
of Cubans as they tend to in the homes of African Americans.

haha.. my dad used to have a picture of FDR in his office, and my mom
had a meorial plate of JFK in our kitchen at home.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/JFK+and...

What you fail to mention in your commentary is that these three NSAMs
were written on June 28, 1961 - two months AFTER the invasion!!  

That is not a failure! It is a point that states that JFK as a lesson
learned from the BOP that he no longer trusted the CIA.
He wanted all paramilitary operations handed over to the Joint Cheifs
of Staff (the Military!).

I thought you meant those NSAMs *caused* the BOP failure.

No, no! These NSAMs were written as a RESULT of the BOP failure!

Right - I got it, I thought you said something different before -
so,we seem to be in agreement about that.

 I see now I misread what you wrote.  So, yeah, all I'm saying is that the NSAMs
didn't have any impact on the BOP since they were written after.  That
they got a few noses out of joint - that's absolutely true.  Was that
enough for them to organize an assasination of the President of the
United States?  NO.

It was another straw of many. The last? Probably not, but certainly it
added to the weight on the Camel's back, so to speak.

I think the CIA - if it were involved in the assasination - would have
handled the decision professionally.  That is, JFK would have had to
merit it according to the rules of engagements and the operating plans
in force at the time.  To my mind that suggests there was some
evidence pre-existing that suggested he might be a mole on the order
of Alger Hiss or Armand Hammer.  This was rejected at the time of his
election, but then re-interpreted in light of the decisions he made in
his last 12 months in office - reflecting the probability that there
was a larger conspiracy.  Then, there was probably a study - assuming
again the CIA was involved - showing the outcomes of various courses
of action - with a formal decision being made - following all the
rules - that JFK was out.  The likely involved LBJ and Congressional
leaders. Also, they likely killed the CIA operatives who organized the
whole thing - again following the double blind procedures set up at
the outset.   I'm assuming againthat the CIA was involved which is may
not have been.

The CIA has many types of involvement. You imply that they all look
the same.

No I don't. I'm saying that if CIA was involved it would decide to be
involved based on procedures in principles already in place. It
wouldn't be because somebody needed to make a buck today - haha - the
simplest thing would be to give them a loan until a more compliant
candidate was in office. No, JFK challenged the CIA and the whole
post war nuclear age paradigm - like I said, his talk at the UN said
it all - we must do away with weapons or weapons will do away with us
- this was more than money,more than politics - it struck at our very
survival strategy for the nuclear age, and seeme highly risky and
unworkable to many - while being highly popular and supported. The
CIA had to decide - assuming they were involved - which they may not
be - had to decide to the point of scientific certainty that this man
had to die for the good of the nation that his continuation in the
office of the President posed a clear and present danger to the USA in
the nuclear age.

If this is indeed the case, then I judge it a failure of the CIA to
act in the USA's best interest. If this is not the case, if JFK was
kille by malcontents - either alone or in combination - i also judge
that a failure of the agency.

You seem to suggest that people get pissed off and then decide to kill
someone .  If it were that easy, and that poorly thought out - there
would be leaks and there would be a lot more killings.

Haven't you seen the death list surrounding the JFK assassination?!

Yes. But I can construct a death list of my college graduating
class. Of itself it might be suggestive, but it proves nothing
without further information.

The list is so long that if any one DID try and leak they'd be dead!

This is consistent with a conspiracy - it may suggest a conspiracy -
it is not proof of a conspiracy - that's the point.

Look up
Penn Jones.

 No, there has
to be a pre-existing set of conditions in the rules that let the CIA
to take out a candidate, a president, a congressman and so forth - and
those rules have to be followed - and the pre-conditions must be
met.

You mean like the plans to kill Castro by the CIA with the help of the
mafia?

I mean that if the CIA did kill JFK - which it may not have done -
then it followed procedures to determine if this was in the interest
of the USA. That's why they existed. If some malcontent because they
want to make a buck can trigger this sort of thing - then we're
doomed. lol. No, this cannot have happened that way. What must
have happened, is that malcontents got lucky OR the CIA at some point
felt JFK was a clear and present danger to the USA in the nuclear age.

JFK and the whole Kennedy clan with their checkquered
background - and liberal ties - may have something in it that suggests
there was a connection back to Russia - for him to have been elected,
means that the CIA didn't think much of that evidence.  However,
following a series of decisions that challenged the agency to reinvent
itself, it had to have chosen not to, and reinterpreted the evidence
it earlier discarded in a different light.  It then followed
professionally laid out plans - which likely involved people getting
killed who carried out those plans.  i.e. Ruby and Oswald and
unfortunate witnesses,along with RFK weren't the only ones to bite the
dust on this - gray men in gray offices died too - they had to - if
the CIA was involved - which it may not be.  So, anyone filing FOIA -
should look for patterns of deaths mental breakdowns, reassignments,
accidents, WITHIN the CIA - following the asassination.

Read the list of deaths that Penn Jones maintained over the years.

Do I have to? You look at suggestive details and ignore reality.
The reality is if someone killed JFK for money, if they had that power
- they certainly had the credit line to borrow money until JFK left
office. No, the only way the CIA would have been involved, if it
could have been involved at all - is if someone somewhere convinced
the agency that JFK was a clear and present danger to the USA and that
the USA was better off with LBJ in charge - TODAY. If it went down
this way - and it may not have - then it HAD to be the result of a pre-
existing process being triggered that no one ha the balls or the
authority to stop.

Did it cause some in power to revisit the theory
that the Kennedy's were moles like Alger Hiss and Armand Hammer?  That
would be the response.  They wouldn't even admit to themselves that
they were doing it for selfish reasons.  They would develop the
information they needed to honestly say the President needed to be
killed - if that's indeed what happened.

Who makes that decision?

If the agency has the authority to take out a president under certain
conditions, they have an entire staff of people organized to test
those conditions constantly.  Once the decision is made, then there is
a procedure already on the books to involve others in the process, the
VP, specific leaders in the Senate and House are likely contacts -
then there are people to carry it out - already in place that get
called up and so forth.

Secret Government created after WWII. How come guys like *** Cheney
get
to be in both governments?

Its not a secret - its out in the open, but if its not reported on the
nightly news people don't pay attention. Go to the library of
congress and read your history - lol. - At the end of world war 2 the
US was faced iwth nuclear annihilation if it decided to isolate itself
from the rest of the world. So, it had to organize itself on a
constant war footing and engage in a cold war that had the same moral
imperative of war (which is where JFK got his moral imperative angle)
but was waged by a secret US army (formed from the OSS) to AVOID
conflict. There was a chapter in one of the analysis documents that
said if we had identified,penetrated and discredite Hitler at the
appropriate time, imagine the millions of lives and billions of
dollars we would save. This is the model for penetrating and setting
up tin pot dictators throughout the world -

Right-wingers

Are subject to this analysis as well

in industry that honestly
thought the Russians were crazier than our own crazies?!

I am assuming if the CIA were involved that the organizing documents
of the CIA permit such action and spell out the conditions such action
will be required.  This presupposes that they must take any means
necessary to avoid a global thermonuclear war in the coming period
creating the conditions for a cold war that could not be allowed to go
hot - but requires a professional class of experts in intelligence and
covert operations that maintained

Look at the Mexico City documents surrounding Oswald's (supposed)
movements around the end of Sept.and beginning of Oct. of 1963.

These are details that are immaterial - I'd rather spendmy time doing
things that interest me. lol.

Hell man, Linus Pauling was called a "Red" by many including Hoover.

Yes, and these folks figured the OSS leadership were perfectly suited
to be the generals in the coming Cold War.

Of which Reagan wone when he told Gorbachev to tear down that wall!

What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? haha - you're
not getting it. Wall or no wall, the USA engaged in a secret war
against all other nations at the end of world war 2. Its goal was to
contain and collapse or make dependent all nations that had nuclear
weaopns - and bankrupt and distort the politics of all those nations
that did not have nuclear weapons - so they would never get them. In
this way the US could avoid being involved in a global thermonuclear
war.

Pauling had the double helix down way before Watson and Crick and was
barrded from leaving the country because the State Dept., thanks to
Hoover, called him a Red. That same sort of lunacy, dubbed
McCarthyism, is what leads to thinking that JFK was supporting them
and not us.

You are making moral judgments over details that don't matter based on
an outdated morality.   The big picture is that

a) the bulk of the world's people were poised to develop industrially;
b) all societies who developed industrially engaged in major warfare
and projected power globally
c) warfare in the coming period would be nuclear
d) the USA would get involved or be a target of any major war

therefore,

We are in a period NOW where we must take ALL MEANS NECESSARY to

a) keep development slow to non-existent so that
b) all societies are too part to even think of warfare and those that
wish to project power are focused on their own backyards;
c) keep technology secret and contained so nuclear capabilities do not
spread
d) keep USA isolated from conflicts and world affairs so they do not
get involved or become a target

This is the cold war - we're still in it.  9/11 changed things -
because 9/11 was a failure of (d) and possibly (b) - and us enriching
the Middle East - following Nixon's going off the gold standard, and
letting the oil companies set energy policy for the USA - was a
failure of (a)..  and Nixon's detente with China has led to a failure
of (c) with the Chinese helping Korea and Pakistan get the bomb.

The oil companies won a huge court case in 1953. It was deemed that
oil was vital for national security and that is when oil barons
became
intertwined with spooks...to this very day.

Yes, its a common mode failure of the type I spoke of before.
Basically, we have very low priced commodity, and lackof innovation in
replacing that commodity - and the rise of special interests that
attempt to paint their personal gain as important to the security of
the nation - where in reality - the nation is less secure.

The US could not expect gold to be fixed at $35 an ounce when
krugarands
were selling for more and marijuana was the same price as gold by
weight!

Right - but why did th edollar slip in value? Because we no longer
produced our own raw materials, our own food, or our own manufactured
goods. WE had become a paper tiger - and the world was calling us on
it. Did that cause us to re-address our assumptions about segmenting
our economy? No. It caused us to make narrow strategic choices that
delayed crisis by enlarging the later crisis.

We may yet prevail - with Asia and Europe in tatters and Africa and
South America dependent on US largess. Its a sad sort of world - and
we run graver risks than JFK would have faced - but those in charge
don't see it that way.

[...]

That wouldn't have been enough for the CIA to organize a coup.  There
had to have been information already circulating that the Kennedy's
were on Stalin's payroll or something like that.  

Or, that the MIC, of whick Ike warned the contry about on his way out,
decided that JFK was going to cost them too much money by making the
DOD basically go dormant during the Cold War.

The CIA wouldn't have been involved for something not directly
impacting their marching orders, and if they weren't involved they
would have destroyed any attempt on JFKs life.  No, there had to have
been specific order of battle so to speak based on pre-existing rules
of engagement - and JFK had to have something that existed in his
background that triggered the pre-existing panel to begin looking at
doing him in after he made his series of decisions that adversely
impacted the ability of the CIA to carry out its mission.  Understand,
that in the Cold War- the CIA is more important than the Army or Navy
or Air Force - it is the primary instrument of national policy - and
must remain flexible enough and capable enough to meet ANY threat
cooked up by a scientifically advanced adversary in the nuclear age.

It wasn't a single group.

Yes it was -

And it wasn't a govt. decison,

It was an agency decision triggered by an unfortunate pattern of
information about the President - if it occurred at all - which it may
not have.

only the
coverup was.

The coverup - if it happened - involved a different group - which had
a need to know after the first group acted. A third group naturally
had to deflect RFK and Teddy - according to this thesis. Not because
they supported the same type of ideology as JFK, but because they
would likely have unmasked the plot.

Although, if they could have turned Teddy, and he had gotten elected,
and they would have thrown a few of their own to the wolves - the
agency would have emerged far stronger and all this talk would have
been put behind us. Either Teddy could not have been turned (RFK
definitely was a very strong character, Teddy was not as strong) or
none of this happened. To me, this is a strong argument against the
agency being involved. Because working with Teddy from 63 through 72
- and getting him to accept the scape goats - would have been the way
to put this all behind us.

To really understand the assassination you must view the assassination
and
the coverup afterward as two separate events, though related.

We don't have enough information to make definitive statements. All
we can do is look at general patterns. You tend to be distracted from
larger truths by minutiae - minutiae put out by the very people who
may have been involved. Who cares how many bullets were fired?
There was no security in Dallas relative to say Ft. Worth, and RFK was
killed and Teddy was discredited. Meanwhile space exploration became
a moon program became a shuttle program - and the PEace corps was
gutted and the idea of ending weapons was replaced with MIRVs and the
idea that power would be too cheap to meter by 1970 was replaced with
oil embargoes - and the idea that space would be the moral equivalent
of war was replaced with vietnam. and all was well with the world.

Even if it were
unlikely, if there was any scintilla of evidence, they would have
analyzed that in light of his recent actions and stated goals, applied
a Bayesian analysis to it and generated a paper saying that the
President was not acting on behalf of the best interests of the USA
and had violated his oath of office -and was part of a Communist
conspiracy - yadayadayada..  before they organized a coup - if that's
what they did.  LBJ had to have been a part of it - it would be
interesting to see whom he met with in the days and weeks preceding
the assasination of Diem.

Wealthy Texans within the oil and defense industries?

No, it wouldn't have been that shallow.   If it were that easy to
trigger CIA involvement, we'd be a bannana republic already where the
winner arrests and murders his opponent after each election.  The CIA
is more professional than that - if it were involved at all.  It may
very well be that it is forbidden for the CIA to murder a sitting
president no matter what the provocation.  However, I cannot imagine
folks like Hoover and Dulles allowing a Manchurian Candidate free
reign.  At the same time, I cannot imagine these same folks letting
the US sink to using the CIA as a lever to become the world's richest
bananna republic.  That is a failure mode that's easy to see and
avoid.  The trouble is - rules of engagement and so forth - have their
own less obvious failure modes.

For one moment we were the world's richest banana republic.

no, you believe that, I understand,but if that were true, then we
would still be. No, the cold war is still ongoing, and the end game
is still to be played - and the CIA is still out there fighting a war
against the development of the world to secure the survival of the USA
in the nuclear age - even while they create the situation that will
bring about the demise of the USA through common mode failure..

Sure it
doesn't
happen all the time, just once.

No, The CIA and FBI either failed to identify a malcontent or gruop
of malcontents and save the PResident, or the CIA was triggered to act
because there was evidence developed that JFK posed a clear and
present danger to the USA. - if the CIA is even capable of such
things.

[...]

I think you're missing a huge point regarding the "follow the money"
angle about all this.

If the CIA was involved, it wasn't about money - it was about the
security of the USA.

Excuse me?! And their running drugs?

Has to do with the security of the USA. You are so brainwashed by
the media that you can only think of drugs a certain way. The way the
meia portrays them. Drugs give a secret agency power that it
otherwise wouldn't have. Certainly you can see that can't you?
Beyond the money.

Oh, that is just a few thugs that
use secrecy
for their own ends. Murder can't work that way either?

There are those that circulate around the agency's operations for
personal gain - sure. These are used by the agency in a great variety
of ways - so they're tolerated. That doesn't change the 'sacred
trust' as JFK said - that the agency has with the American people -
namely to secure the USA in the nuclear age by making damned sure no
one anywhere puts their head up and challenges the US or gathers
enough wealth or know-how to build nuclear weaopns.

Clearly, JFK wasn't killed over pure idealogy
related to Communism vs. Capitalism. He was killed because a powerful
group was being hit in their pocketbooks due to his policies.

No - not at all.  If it were that easy to subvert the agency, we'd
already be more controlled than Marcos' spain!  lol.  No, no. no.  The
money serves the CIA - not the other way round.

The CIA hires contractor to do their dirty work.

Sometimes.

What makes you think
others can't
hire CIA contractors

Because any attempt to do do would result in their death if doing so
harmed the interests of the USA..

for the same thing.

You are claiming the agency was involved in the assasination - I am
saying the only way that makes sense is if events triggered a pre-
existing action plan that resulted in the assassination.

 If the CIA were
involved, then they had to be convinced - to the point of scientific
certainty - that the USA would be better of as a nation by the
assasination.   Period.

Wrong! Again,

Why? You are totally incapable of thinking creatively on this
subject. You have your own ideological views of what went on, and you
shape whatever evidence you can develop to meet that ideology and
ignore everything else. You say people did it for money - ignoring
the fact that rich people can arrange to borrow money until things
change. ignoring the fact that bank interest or grants or forgiven
interest is alot cheaper than being in debt to murderes. Now, I
accept that the CIA may have had a role - if it did it must have been
due to a series of unfortunate events triggering a pre-existing plan.
It couldn't have happene any other way.

the agency is not monothitic.

It is professional however. That's the point. You can't hire a US
Army general to kill someone for you, and you can't hire the secret
service to steal cutlery from the White house, and you can't hire the
CIA to do your dirty work - attempting to do so will get you arrested
or killed.

Now, there may have been a coup. We cannot know. We can however be
sure of one thing- that if there was a coup - it was done for
professional reasons - a pre-exisitng plan triggered by events.

This is a failure of the agency - a malfunction - a common mode
failure.

It is comparmentalized to
the umth
degree

Yes - its like a computer program with various subroutines set into
play - and people who would give their life for the United States -
operating in the agency to execute those programs. If the CIA was
involved it was one of those subroutines being triggered by an
unfortunate pattern of data - and which no one was in place to make
the high-risk decision to stop it. Maybe LBJ might have been able to
stop it - maybe not. haha - we don't know enough to say for sure if
the first supposition is right. WE sure as hell don't know enough to
talk on and on about other possibilities.

based upon need-to-know to force this non-monolithic policy.

Correct. Which is why anyone coming into that tight knit machine
asking for a hit on the President would have a bad day - regardless of
who they are.

Hell probably
the vast majority performing the coverup in govt. had no clue why this
paper went

That's right. Which means that if the CIA was involved it was one of
these compartmentalized subroutines got activated and couldn't be shut
down.

here or there, why this action was done when it was done, etc. Simply
follow orders

Correct - with apropriate safeguards - safeguards that often times
don't work as expecte - common modef failure.

and don't question anything.

No, you question what your program tells you to question -

THAT's how govt. works.

You've never worked for the CIA have you?

You don't need
"policy" where
everyone knows everything that is going on, just your little niche.

Nonsense. Everyone who works for the agency doubltess knows the
importance of what they do. They're today's modern soldiers on the
front line maintaining security in the nuclear age. Hell, I know
this and I just read the stuff that's in the Library of Congress.

 Now, these NSAMs reign in the power of the
CIA.  Perhaps there are others still classified, that did more damage
- perhaps the firings were viewed as a concerted effort to undermine
the agency - with clear evidence - still classified - that JFK was
doing this to harm the USA - at the behest of Russia.  If such a story
could be scientifically validated - and if the agency has the
authority from the outset to murder a sitting President under these
conditions - i.e. the USA is better off after - THEN and only then -
would such action have taken place.

I am not saying the CIA made a policy decision to off JFK.

I know, but if you think about it a little bit - that's the only way
the agency could kill a president - if there was a pre-existing
subroutine deep down in the agency somewhere - that got triggered.

I am saying
agency
involvement at some level is nearly certain based upon evidence.

None of the avialable evidence is conclusive - suggestive yes -
conclusive no. What we can say for sure is that if the CIA was
involved it was due to the triggering of a subroutine set up at the
outset to secure the USA and an unfortunate series of events occurred
to make it seem JFK was a clear and present danger ito the USA as
president. That's the only way it could have worked - if it could
have worked at all. It may very well be that this subroutine we're
talking about doesn't exist. and can never exist.

You
still see the CIA as
a monolitic organization

No I don't. I ido see it as a professional organization.

and humans as mostly rational, especially
when dealing
in secrecy.

You are projecting a lot of emotoin on to folks whose primary reason
for being selected is there ability to carry out their mission.
These people are dedicated professionals - and they're closely watched
by others - one way to get killed is to be unprofessional and use the
agency for personal gain and get caught.

Those
same felt and got what they wanted out of LBJ. Who does that leave?

Once you have the rules in place, and the process in place to execute
those rules - then all that has to happen is that the process
conditions are met and the action takes place - if no one has the gots
to stand up and say no.

Look up Irving Janis's concept of "groupthink".

no.- because you've read it and cannot see your own limitations. I'm
saying something quite simple - if the CIA was involved, it was
involved at a professional level - and as such it was an example of
common mode failure.

Look at the case of Colonel Stanislav Petrov.  In 1983 Petrov deviated
from standard Soviet doctrine by positively identifying a missile
attack warning as a false alarm.  This decision, according to several
sources, was a major factor in preventing an accidental retaliatory
nuclear attack on the United States.  This was a high risk decision by
Petrov - and cost him his career.  But, we are all alive today to
thank him for it.  IF the CIA was involved in the assasination of JFK,
it had to be a similar malfunction of a pre-existing process - which
no one was able, or willing, to make a high risk decision to stop.

Again, you can't fathom how the DEA and the CIA are at odds,

I don't know what you mean by that. If the CIA is not acting at the
highest professional level, then we are already doomed - but I don't
see that happening in the USA - what I see is the sorts of stories you
repeat here being used to explain things in ways that keep the relaity
of our present situation far from the minds of most Americans.

as they

MUST
be on the same page legally.

The CIA is staffed by professionals of the highest caliber. Sure
there are selfish people and unfortunate events - but the agency is
professionally run - and i can't see it killing a sitting President
for narrow selfish reasons or at the behest of some powerful person.
No, the only way it could be done - if it were done at all - is that
some president killin subroutine was alsready programmed into the
agency, and that subroutine was triggere by jFK through some
unfortunate series of events.

Why do you have trouble with this idea?

But guess what? The DEA has said on many
occasions
that it has caught CIA personnel in drug trafficking.

So?

Is it CIA policy
to deal drugs?

If it secures the safety of the USA in the nuclear age - sure. What
better way to keep a nation or group of nations down than to corrupt
its leaders, businesses, and youth with illegal drugs.

Hell no!

Nonsense. Drug dealing is a perfect way to destroy a person, a
political party, or a nation.

So how does the DEA catch CIA personnel dealing drugs if it
isn't CIA
policy to do so?

I idon't understand your question. Do you? I think you don't want
to understand what I'm saying because you'd rather believe in the
stories that make you happy rather than think creatively about things
in a way that's consistent with actual documents about the agency.

You have fallen into a sort of self-limiting belief system that has
you denying
certain possibilities which are actually more probable than you
realize.

You are accusing me of the very behavior you are exhibiting. I am
saying something simple, and you keep obscuring it with irrelevant
bull***. the 1% of any agency that gets fired or killed because
they're not doing their job doesn't matter. What matters is the
agency was set up to oppose the natural development of the world in
order to avoid another global war involivng nuclear weapons. The
agency has the authority to do ANYTHING to achieve its ends in the
present age, because failure to achieve its ends means everything else
is moot. Got it? Its really rather simple.

Now, you come along and say the CIA killed JFK. WE cannot know for
sure. But lets say they did. What is the most likiely scenario?
That a prexisting action plan - think subroutine - was written and
given to an arcane group somewhere - and that a series of unfortunate
events triggered that action plan against JFK. period.

Nothing else makes sense. Money is more easily borrowed or stolen
than killing a presdent to make money in a war. See? I mean look at
the S&L fiasco. More money was stolen there than ispent in ALL the
Vietnam conflict. There are nuclear weapons - $5 trillion - that
wouldn't have been spent had JFK successfully abandoned weapons as he
wanted. But still, that money wouldn't have vaporized, and the same
companies that bulit nukes also would have built nuclear rockets, or
that built warheads would build moonships. No, JFK was making sure

a) that the control paradigm was in place during the trnasition, and
that
b) that the usual suspects were lining their pockets

Now, what could have happened for the CIA to be involved? Something
about the direction JFK was taking the nation, and the way he did it,
combined with some unfortuante detail in his past, created the
impression - with scientific certainty - that JFK was a clear and
present danger to the USA. in 1963.

That's the only way it could have happened with CIA involvement.

You think the CIA is hired by business interests.

No. I believe that certain elements within the CIA can and are often
bought.

You would be wrong.- because you assume the ability of the agency to
police its own members is limited. Remember, they're not beholden to
anyone. If they can kill a President, they can kill each other - and
I amcertain that if there is a program to kill sitting rogue
presidents, there are certainly programs that operate to kill rogue
agents and those who hire them.

No, the CIA uses
business interests to carry out its mission.  The only failing is
common mode failure not being able to question or make high risk
decisions within the organization.

That's all this is.   Any effort to paint it as anything more is
ludicrous - any effort to say it had any impact on April's operations
- is also ludicrous and impossible.

Okay, so these memos get written AND Dulles, Cabell and Bissell, the
top 3 men in the CIA get replaced a few months later

Yes - but I doubt that given the nature of these men's commitment to
the USA - that their sacking alone would have resulted in a CIA backed
coup to kill JFK.

No, but they sure as hell could be counted on when the operation came
down, no?

No, the way the CIA has to work for it to actually carry out its
mission - is that there had to be scientific quality proof that JFK
dead left the USA stronger than JFK alive.  The CIA would never be
involved in internecine rivalry that in the end would weaken the USA.

That is the way the agency is suppose to work. In fact it could be
said for
all government

No it cannot because all of government relies on openess - the CIA is
a secret agency organized to do the most important job in the modern
age - it cannot fail along the lines you suggest. There has to be
self corrective elements within the agency to maintain its
professionalism.

and citizens to boot. Was the HUAC more helpful or
hurtful
to the US?

The CIA is organized to maintain US security in the world by
disrupting the normal economica nd political growth of the rest of the
world and do so secretly - using any means necessary. IT cannot be a
loose cannon it has to have th ehighest degree of professionalism.
That's why the OSS was chosen fo rthis monumental task - they had
proven themselves - and had people in place in russia.

Jury is still out on that one.

HUAC was organized to raise questions about the UN originally given
Alger hiss' supposed background.

Or it was more hurtful and
that is the
end of it. It sure as hell wasn't helpful despite its intentions.

You are getting lost in the details again. You are saying that rogue
elements in the CIA killed JFK because someone paid themor asked them
to? That doesn't make any sense really. Far more likely Oswald did
it.

In fact, any claim of controlling political discourse within the
country must stem from the fact that a Civil War would so weaken the
USA that it would be at risk - so, political discourse leading to such
a situation would be managed to avoid it.  See?

Yet, we had one from 1861-65. Do you know how it ended? Most say
that Lee surrendered to Grant in VA. Yeah, that is true. But what
really happened
is that the South stopped borrowing money from the same Rothschilds in
Europe
that was funding the North! And could no longer fund their army. THAT
is how it
ended. Banhers love war because it cost money to fund them. And when
your'e
loaning money to both sides, what's not to like?

Your commitment to narrow ideologies and total lack of sophistication
about finance have caused you to interpret events in ways that are
counterfactual.

If the CIA is as
involved as some fear - it HAS to be this way - for it to be otherwise
would mean that we would already be living in such a capricious and
repressive regime - we wouldn't be having this conversation!  lol.

Perhaps you meant to add without being eavesdropped upon?

No. We would find it impossible to have this conversation.

Bissell, the plans guy, what kind of plans did he do? Coup de etat and
that sort of thing. Assassinations!

Of course - if the CIA has responsibility for dealing with a sitting
President that is a Soviet mole - with a pre-existing authority to
take him out - then those plans are ALREADY worked out in detail.  It
is merely developing the conditions so that the process in place is
triggered.

Like the malfunctioning soviet satellite that Petrov refused to
believe - it may be an unfortunate set of conditions that JFK created
that set off the process - and there was no Petrov like character
willing to risk his career or even his life - making high risk
decisions.

Right, something that was vital like someone's investments.

Why would someone kill JFK for money - i fthey were that powerful they
could wreck the economy of a third world couuntry and trade the
curency to earn as much money as they liked - the way Soros did in
Indonesia and Mexico. No wars were fought - no US involvement - just
exercise contacts and power - to take all the wealth out of a country
and put it in your own pocket. You are fond of quoting stories that
the muckraking journalistic exceses of the 19th century produced - as
if they were true. Less fond of discussing how the CIA realy works,
or how modern fianciers make money without firing a shot. Fact is,
Soros' destabilization of Mexico and Indonesia - fit with US strategic
interest in disrupting the development of the world so as to avoid
rising political influence that leads to powerful armies and
eventually nuclear weapons. So, Soros is allowed to circulate around
as long as he's useful. He doesn't control the agency, the agency
lets him operate unmolested.

Note, in the modern age of currency trading you don't need a war to
make lots of money. In fact, you make more money letting nations grow
and work very hard, and hten, rip themall off at the level of their
central banks. China has taken precautions to avoid this - which
makes them a special threat down the roadl.

Cabell, sacred cow of Intell since WWII. His brother just happens to
be the mayor of Dallas in 1963!

You can see all sorts of shadows - but if the CIA was involved in the
asassination of JFK - something we cannot establish with certainty -
then the CIA operated according to procedures in principles in place
at the time - and no one stood up and said no.  It was an unfortunate
malfunction, or the evidence developed against JFK was
incontrovertible.

So you see something that HAD to be benevolent and not corrupt?

If the CIA was involved in the assasinatino of JFK - it was a failure
of the agency - a mis-application of power - and forever detrimental
to the security and longevity of the USA. It was in short a
malfunction of agency processes and procedures - if it occured at all.

Once the decision was made - if it was made - then it would be carried
out professionally - and such correlations would be expected.   Such
correlations are not proof of the original thesis however.   When the
evidence is released - along with other records - we'll see.

If you mean...

No reality is never threatened by lies. Lies are the only thing at
risk.

Dulles, sits on the Warren Commission after being sacked by JFK all
they while investigating the assassination itself! More like making
sure the CIA doesn't get implicated actually. You don't smell a rat in
these three?!

Sure.   But this is all weirdness.  Lets break it down to something
obvious.   JFK gets killed, then RFK in June 1968 - a few months
earlier MLK, Malcolm X in 1965, Medgar Evers in 1963 - ever since Sun
Tzu wrote the Art of War - assasination has been an important means to
carry out an effective war effort.  Now, behind closed doors at the
end of world war two - we have a group of people who worry about;

1) the propensity of societies to engage in warfare as they
industrialize
2) the bulk of humanity on the verge of industrializing
3) the fact that the USA gets involved in every single world conflict
because of its leading position
4) the fact that any future conflict will likely involve nuclear
weapons
5) the fact that the USA will not survive a surprise nuclear attack if
unprepeared..

this creates the conditions necessary to create a new sort of
professional soldier - that operates in secret - to carry out a cold
war - to maintain conditions in the  world that keep the world from
slipping into a global thermonuclear conflict - this is beyond
communism, beyond selfish interest - the USA will cease to exist if
such a war is allowed to occur - so we must take steps to make sure it
does not.

I agree.

That is the organizing principle behind the CIA - and we are at war -
right now - and if this cadre of experts decides that the USA is safer
with someone dead than with someone alive - then they will organize to
make sure that someone is dead - no matter who they are or how
deserving they are - or what the rules outside the agency say should
happen - to do any less makes the rules moot since the USA would cease
to exist if left in an unsafe condition.

Or someone or someones are powerful enough to subvert the process

Ever go into a small town of well-to-do folks and ask for something
after throwing your weight around? The CIA is a small town! And
they jealously watch one another - and they're selected to BE in that
small town on the basis of their commitment to certain principles -
scientifically proven to be so - and those watching them have the
authority to KILL them and not have to answer to anyone but those
within the agency.

I don't see it happening that way. The only way it could have
happened is if a pre existing action plan was already in place and a
series of unfortunate events triggered it in 1963.

and
based upon
"national security" pull of a crime so heinous that we end up with a
dead president due
to greed.

Why would anyone who was that powerful trouble themselves to kill JFK
when they could with far less effort rob all th emoney out of a small
nation's central bank - or a large nation's central bank?

Not taken into consideration is the danger of what I have called here
common mode failure - and the inability of the agency to effectively
take high risk decisions that would avoid such failure.

Now ask yourself that if the same three had been Soviets in the KGB
and the same thing happened over there with their Premier; you'd be
fine with LHO lone nut as the killer?

Who knows?   You can argue until you're blue in the face and it gets
you nowhere since you don't have any knowledge.  You are accepting
things as articles of faith. I prefer to look at things rather
simply.  JFK was killed, RFK was killed Teddy was discredited - at
interesting times in their careers. If the CIA was involved - it was
involved at a professional level - not a selfish or narrow level.

Do you know how compromises work?

The CIA is set up not to have to make compromises to anyone. That's
why they are powerful.

Did you know that Oswald
while in Mexico City supposedly (I am not certain the real Oswald was
in MC in 1963 - the Warren Commission said he was, but someone
claiming to be Oswald sure was) spoke
with a KGB official that was the head of assassinations in the West?
Coincidence?

There you go spouting off again as if these details change anything
I've said. If the CIA was involve it was due to a pre-existing action
plan being triggered.

Maybe? Sure as hell makes for an interesting conspiracy blaming the
USSR if
it reall WAS a domestic coup, as I believe.

WE cannot know what the hell is going on. for all you know the CIA
became involved AFTER the assasination because the public was about to
go nuts - and they put all this bull*** out there to defuse THAT.
lol. All that evidence you are fond of quoting came from the CIA did
it not?:

You act like the agency is above being compromised.

Yes.

Think again!

Why? Why not admit that it makes far more sense that if the agency
was involved it was involved as part of its ongoing mission and that a
pre-existing action plan was triggered. This is less likely thatn a
successful assasination by a malcontent or malcontents - had to be
defused of its ability to destabilize the USA - and so they fabricated
all the stuff after. But none of this can we know for sure - and so
its a waste of time.

The only thing I'm trying to put out there - even if the agency is
working perfectly as it was intended - it could still cause toubles
for the USA through common mode failure.

That is not to say that if it was involved, it wasn't a failure or
malfunction of the rules of engagement.  It was.  or it seems so - but
even that is a guess about a guess about a guess - haha..

1) if the CIA was involved and
2) if there was evidence of JFK malfeasance
3) I am assuming the evidence should have lead to a high risk decision
to ignore it.

see?   You can fabricate all sorts of things in your head - but
without accurate sure knowledge - you are only going to see what you
want to see.  You see conservatives and money interests killing a
liberal candidate. That's more a reflection of your internal thought
process than fact.  I see the CIA being setup for deadly serious
purpose - and so, I see that.

Yes, without being compromised.

That's the point - you don't need all this conpsiracy for the agency
to harm the usa.

I'm telling you they were!

I know, but you have no reason to do so, except the way it makes you
feel to say it.

Do you know
how
LBJ convinced Warren to head his commission? Warren stated he would
not do it.
LBJ begged, Warren said no. In the end LBJ told Warren about the
Oswald visit
to Mexico City and who Oswald went to see, both in the Cuban
councilate and
in the Russian councilate. It was in the latter that LBJ confided in
Warren that
he wanted to avoid a possible nuclear war based upon people believing
that JFK
was killed as part of a foriegn assassination involing either the
Cubans, Russians or both.
Warren caved in at the thought of 40 million people losing their lives
in a nuclear war
based upon the belief that JFK was killed via a communist conspiracy.

So? That is consistent with CIA involvement - it doesn't prove the
agency acted in anything other than a professional manner. It is far
more likely the agency if it were involved at all - operated on a
preexisting plan rather than was hijacked by a group of wealthy
interlopers who were too stupid to see if they wanted to make money -
they could do so faster and more certain robbing overseas banks.

Who has the type of connections to create that sort of malestrom
within the intelligence
community other than spooks or former spooks?

You are getting lost in the details again and avoiding fundamental
issues as a result.

Read John Newman's book 'LHO and the CIA', especially the chapter on
Mexico City.

No.

Somehow we are supposed to
simply be above that sort of thing because were are we!

No the CIA is above all that because its primary goal is to maintain
the safety and security of the USA in the nuclear age against a very
specific range of threats.

Yep, and LBJ convinces Warren to head the commission based upon
warding off
a nuclear threat! Wake up, man!

For the sake of argument I am supposing your thesis that the CIA was
involved in the asssination is true. Given that, there is nothing in
what LBJ said that says it wasn't the triggering of a pre-existing
action plan due to events - i have said throughout that LBJ had to
have been brought in - before it happened.

You seem to have a need to see someone personally culpable for
personal gain to have done this. That's not a scary thing - a
monumentally unlikely thing - the scary thing is that everything
worked as expected and planned and this happened. That's the scary
thing. Think of the movie Fail Safe - its like that.

If the CIA has authority to take out a
sitting president under certain conditions, those conditions will be
very well spelled out.  Furthermore, those conditions will be
scientifically proven.  Finally, there will be rules of engagement.

You're a broken record that appears to be closed minded on the issue.

Not at all. You are closed minded and projecting it on to me. If you
keep talking about a flat Earth and I say no the Earth is a sphere -
in response - it has nothing to do with my closed mind, but yours on
the subject. When I talk about shadows on the moon, during an eclipse
and how ships sailing over the horizon appear to sink - and so forth -
you interrupt me with details about ountain ranges and so forth.
haha..

I say the same thing to the same error because you don't seem to get
my p;oint. Now niether of us knows what the hell went on - so this
is a rather useless exercise. But my point is as valid as yours, and
more believable.

This will be proof against misuse of this power in the minds of those
who set it up.  They under-estimate the potential of complex systems
to malfunction - as in the case of the Soviet satellite - and the need
for folks in the decision making process - to be authorized to make
high risk decisions - to avoid common mode failure.

What
Bull***!!!

If the CIA was as compliant as you suggest, we would already look
longingly at the freedoms of Marcos' Spain!  lol.  Fact is, you are
attempting to paint the assasination of JFK in terms of class -
conservative vs. liberal, rich vs. poor, ignoring that Kennedy was one
of the richest families on Earth at the time.  This is your agenda.
Its obvious.

What, Eastern Establishment and Texas Oil Barons, both being rich,
MUST be friends?! Truly you are not this naive?

Wait a minute, you vaguely suggested that somone wouldn't have gotten
rich had JFK not gone into Vietnam. He said he'd send weapons and
advisors - he just didn't want to sen dtroops. JFK didn't want to
build lots of atomic bombs and missiles - instead he wante to build
spaceships. The same people would have gotten the same money - so
what was their motivation? You draw these vague parallels, but JFK
had all that covered. There are only two groups that he ran afoul -
1) people in the south didn't like his position on civli rights. 2)
people in the CIA didn't like his vision of America as leader of a
world growing scientifically and industrially. So it was either a
racist malcontent, or it was the CIA trying to secure the USA against
a clear and present danger.

I look at the same situation and say - the CIA is not compliant.  It
cannot be and still function.  If the CIA was involved - then I view
that as a failure of the agency to detect common mode failure and take
high risk decisions to avoid such malfunctions of the processes put in
place.

Yes, there was a huge shake up in the agency after JFK's death.
Clearly
they were caught with their pants down. RFK asked Dulles if his
agency, or former
agency had killed his brother.

Do you have a poniter to that? What was Dulles' response?

So, clearly the thought of the CIA
doing the deed
wasn't some random thought with randon folk.

Correct - it was a natural consequence given the power of the agency
and the role it had in assassinations around the world. I mean Diem
was killed by JFK on November 3.

Like I said, there was something triggered within the agency to put an
action plan in place. Maybe Dulles knowing what that had to look
like, engineered it. I don't know. That certainly would be a failure
of the agency.

Of course, the CIA might not have been involved.  It might have been
the mob, or some other special interest

You are aware of the agency and mafia ties, right?

Yeah, they use the mob to keep people down around the world - money
going into the mob's pockets impoverish a nation - and that keeps them
focused in their own backyard, keeps them from building up an army and
keeps them from gettin gnuclear weapons.

Don't tell me this
is new news to you.

What's news to you is that the CIA runs the mob, not the other way
round. Mobsters get killed routinely when they no longer serve a
useful function.

Jack Anderson wrote about it first in the Washington Post back in
1967!!!

So?

Operation Mongoose. You know that, right?

You focus on details and ignore the logic of the big picture.

- in that case, yeah, sure.
But who knows?  Its only an agency like the CIA that has the staying
power to make sure that RFK and Teddy don't become avenues of their
undoing.   So this is suggestive but by no means conclusive.

Nothing is conclusive other than Oswald acting alone is a myth.

WE cannot know for certain - it has a low probability. Fewer than 30%
of the American people believe that even today. It was far lower
after the assassination - as I said that alone is enough to cause the
CIA to act to maintain US stability.

 I *do* think if there was any stain on the private
life of ANY of the Kennedy's that suggested there might be a
connection back to Stalin, the Communists, and so forth - THAT would
have been re-evaluated in light of THESE decisions - and blown into a
rationalization to implement a pre-existing SIOP that involved a coup
of a harmful President.  That is, if these men or others like them,
did organize to kill JFK, they convinced themselves it was the right
thing to do given the best available evidence at the time..

Or they were driven by greed.

Who?   Then all they have to do is wait for the next election.

Of which JFK, being popular, would have won easily. He'd have beaten
Goldwater
worse than LBJ did.

I agree.

sheez.  Look, you have to ask yourself - are these wealthy powerful
folks so poor that they can't wait and buy the next election?  haha..

Perhaps 1968 was too long. You yourself stated that RFK was next, and
he got it and then Teddy.
Heck, perhaps the perps saw JFK from 61-68, RFK from 69-76, Ted from
77-84, and 20 years was just too long!!!

It was something more definite than that. There are a lot of ways to
derail an election - as Chappiqui*** shows. No fo rthe agency to be
involved - if it was - then there had to be a clear and present
danger. JFK was simultaneously creating a policy that would have
ended the run up in nuclear weapons and that money and talent would
have flowe into building spaceships - We would have supported Vietnam
until the Admirals in China were discredited, and then abandoned them
- without a big runup of American troops- and what would have all
those millions of American soldiers have done? Why they would have
gone to the moon, mars and volunteered in the PEace Corps, or worked
for new companies building new things - developing robots, - flying
cars, and all the rest of the science fiction dream that JFK was
spawning - and the paradigm of the 1940s would be dead dead dead - and
it would have died in 1964.

What was the very first thing LBJ did when he got into the White
House?

He cut back the nuclear rocket program to go to mars.

That tels you everything.

Of course they can.   That by far is the easiest path for them.   So
that shoots in the head the idea that a bunch of rich bastards
organized this.

Not just a bunch of righ bastards but the ones that funded the
operation.

The CIA cannot be easily bought - and people that powerful can make
more money easier without killing JFK, and JFK was lining their
pockets anyway!!! The money he wasn't spending in Vietnam ($100
billion) and the money he wasn't spending on missile and
weaponsdevelopment ($5,000 billion) was to be spent on the vast new
ocean of space. Those fat cats would have gotten just as rich just
as fast building spaceships and nuclear rockets and helicopters in
every garage - as they did building missiles, bombs and helicopters in
Vietnam. So what did the death of JFK accomplish?

IT CHANGED THE FOCUS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FROM ONE OF GROWTH AND
POSSIBILITY FOR THE WORLD TO ONE OF THE USA AT ODDS WITH A DANGEROUS
WORLD.

That leaves two possibilities - a band of
malcontents with no real power - mob guys, Castro, whatever...  - or
the CIA executing some process that already pre-existed and got
triggered somehow and couldn't be stopped once it was triggered.

No.

YEs.

The mob

Works for the CIA until they get kille by the CIA.

and the CIA

Would not get involved unless there was a pre-existing action plan

with the help of the FBI and the new president
to
cover it up.

The FBI follows CIA direction - LBJ was involved before it happened -
as part of the 'due diligence' against the triggering events. If the
CIa was involved yse - this is what happened.

Wealthy Texas oil

Did not get rich selling helicopters in Vietnam,

funds it

Why?

and there you are.

No you aren't - you are blinded by minutiae and can't see the big
picture. Big oil doesn't sell weapons systems - and a helicopter in
every garage builds demand for oil faster than 4,500 helicopters in
Vietnam. *** -

I think you project your emotions onto
them.

You're the one talking about emotions - I'm not!  lol.   Why do you
need to see this as a class warfare thing?  Hell, LBJ said that he
thought JFK would have died of Addison's disease before the end of his
second term.  There's nothing the President could have done while in
office that very rich very powerful families and businesses could not
have undone after he left office.   So, he didn't go into Vietnam and
Bell helicopter would have to carry a few more years' losses on the
textron division before they became profitable.  This isn't a reason
to kill a sitting president.  

More people wanted Vietnam then Bell.

Who? JFK said in an interview in Sepember 1963 that he was fully
committed to supporting Diem or whoever led the Vietnamese people -
giving them whatever they needed - but would not send troops. Sounds
like an open check to me to fund whatever hell they wanted to sell.
At the UN Kennedy said he wanted to end weapons before weapons ended
us - and hastened to paint a picture of America crossing the vast new
ocean of space creating the moral equivalent of war and so forth..
the same people would have gotten just as rich just as fast. So,
that was not the motivation for th ekilling of JFK. Racists
malcontents or a CIA plot because these events were interpreted in
such a way as to trigger a pre-existing action plan - because JFK was
a clear and present danger to the operation of the agency and its
ability to carry out its role in the world.

No, the only two things that make sense
is - some malcontents (either alone or as a group) do it, or the CIA
has proven to itself that the president is a clear and present danger
to the USA in the nuclear age and must execute the plans it has in
place already in that eventuality.

Middle ground. Defense and oil are cousins.

So, oil people are going to kill a sitting president because their
cousin MIGHT sell 4,500 helicopters in Vietnam someday? Do you see
how ludicrous that sounds?

haha.. Why do you think Bell was having trouble? Becauswe they
couldn't arrange a freaking loan from the investment banks that were
largely controlled by oil. Now, you are saying - the same poeople who
didn't want to loan helicopter makers a few dollars to see them
through to when Kennedy uts a helicopter in every garage - or sells
helicopters to Diem's regime, or his succssor regime - is oging to
have JFK killed in the hopes that LBJ might use more helicopters?

The number of helicopters was the same - JFK would have them manned by
Vietnamiesetoops - LBJ would have them manned by American troops.
Why? WE needed a war for this generation - its written up in the
literature man. JFK was against that - that was likely one thing
that triggere concern. There are likely others. The NSAMS - and
others. THe UN speech. and others.. The commitment to the barren
desert of space - and others. The stirring up of race relations
weakening us.. and others.. a Catholic beholden to the principles of
the Catholic church over his commitment to the office of president of
the United States - that's gotta be a biggie. Sounds crazy today -
but then, it dind't.

JFK wasn't helping them

Yes he was. He said Diem wnd his successor would be given every aid
possible - short of troops. He told misile manufacturers that they
would build spaceships that cost more than missiles. he told weapons
manufacturers they would build large nuclear powered spacecraft bigger
than aiercraft carriers - he told oil companies that Americans would
own helicopters and airlines woudl fly suepersonic jets - doubling the
consumption of fuel -

he also promoted the development of high temperature nuclear reactors
and looked forwards to the day energy would be too cheap to meter -
but also saw that energy consumption would be such that total evenues
for energy producers woould rise faster than they actually did -

No it wasn't for economic reasons that he was killed. Any money man
worth his salt could have predicted the downtrun in economic activity
following the assasination - no one would have done that.

and LBJ sure as hell did.

If the CIA was involved, events triggere a pre-existing action plant,
whichlikely included notfying the VP and geetting his go ahead. LBJ
would have done it - I am certain of it - he wanted to be president
and didn't like JFK.

There is your money trail.

No thre isn't. KIenndy's ability to get money for space and Vietnam
exceeded LBJs ability to get money for Vietnam. The first thing LBJ
did was CUT BACK SPENDING - and he spent it in Vietnam- but JFK was
planning to do BOTH! LBJ cut back one because he wasn't as popular
and well liked as Kennedy on the hiill - and that ability to persuade
people was further limite by distrust of him following the
assassination. again anyone worth their salt as a power broker would
have seen this. No, if you were selling *** to ship to vietnam,
would you care whether a vvietnameses or american was flying it? hell
no. You'd stick with JFK because he could sweet talk Congress out of
far more money for far more stuff than LBJ ever could.

Nope - JFK covered his bases - he just ran afoul o fsomeone who didn't
care abou tmoney - it was either a racist who didn't like what he was
doing in the south with civli rights - or it was an ideologue within
the CIA that concluded his action plan had to be carried out.

Ex-intel and Hoover with LBJ is all you
need in govt. to cover it up

a pre-existing action plan would have it worked out too.

and convince the public a lone nut did it.

a plan to stabilize the public in the wake of the assasination is
enough to explain that.without CIA involvement in the assasination -
still on the hook for RFK and Teddy though.

 Of course
once this happened - if it happened - the requirement to maintain the
secret and so forth - would take precedence following the killing.

Clearly all the CIA did during the Cold War years under Ike made them
more emboldened.

Hubris.

Gezundheit. Seriously, they ran amok for 8 years with Ike playing
golf.

No they didn't they were carrying out their tasks as define by Ike.
Ike was happy with the results. JFK had a different vision that's
all. His vision involved America leading the world into space and
using new technology creating vast new wealth and sharing it with th
eworld to maintain our position - while carefully extracting ourselves
from the difficulties posed by nuclear weapons - ending the NEED for a
CIA and a Cold War altogether - this got interpreted by someone within
the agency - if the agency was involved - as a trigger to a pre
existin gaction plant.

Does that make it right?

You are trying to inject morality into a process who's only measure of
performance is the answer to the following question; Is the USA safer
and stronger in the nuclear age as a result of this action?

Your question really is more relevant to the coverup rather than the
assassination.

Nonsense. If how the assasination is viewed destabilizes the USA -
then obviously, that is taken into account by anyuone thinking about
carrying an assasination out. They would have had to convince
themselves the USA was better off without JFK for some reason.

Jesus i've been typing for hours and i'm ony half way through? lol.
I gotta life dude - see ya
1
[snip]

.

---

• References:
  • Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
    • From: Willie . Mookie
  • Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
    • From: Eric Chomko
  • Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
    • From: Willie . Mookie
  • Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
    • From: Eric Chomko
  • Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
    • From: Willie . Mookie
  • Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
    • From: Eric Chomko
  • Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
    • From: Willie . Mookie
  • Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
    • From: Eric Chomko

• Prev by Date: Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
• Next by Date: SOMEONE NEEDS TO SORT ALL THE BS OUT!
• Previous by thread: Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
• Next by thread: Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

• Windows
• Science
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint

sci.tech-archive.net  > Archive  > sci.space.policy  > 2008-08