Dartmouth scientist says Oswald photo real

November 7, 2009 - Leave a Response

Article follows after commentary

During interrogation by the Dallas police, Oswald was shown the photo, which allegedly had been found in the Payne’s garage where Marina was staying, and he said, “That’s my head on someone else’s body.” None of the evidence “discovered” there has proper chain of custody, since Marina Oswald and Ruth Payne left the house when the police arrived to search and Ruth Payne signed for what was found much later in the day at the police office. Marina suggested that the Oswald’s hid weapons from Payne since she was a Quaker. Michael Payne reportedly came home during the police search and was upset to find them going through his personal belongings, and he led them to the garage to see Oswald’s materials instead. The blanket that the gun was supposedly wrapped in showed no oil or stretch marks from the rifle and the rifle had no hairs from the blanket.

Marinia Oswald at a research conference in Cambridge, MA said that Oswald had asked her to take pictures of him holding a rifle and a pistol behind the house in Irving, TX where they shared a room, but she said she stood in the alleyway and Oswald stood in the back yard, the opposite orientation from the released pictures.

Photo experts have pointed not only to the shadow discrepancies between his body and nose but also to cut lines across his chin and a differently shaped lower face and jaw than in other photos of Oswald. FBI photographer Lynne Chaney staged a picture to support the authenticity of the photo and recreate the shadows, and it appears in the Warren Commission volumes. However, the FBI man holding a rifle and a pistol at a somewhat similar angle to Oswald and with a body shadow at a similar angle from the sun, inexplicably also has a paper bag over his head, totally obscuring facial shadows.

Different prints and negatives of the “backyard photo” were found over the years, all of which have discrepancies that led researchers to question their authenticity. The angle at which the body is leaning over seems unusual as well, almost to the point of being off balance.

There is an additional issue, which is that the person in the picture is holding at the same time a copy of the Communist Party Daily Worker and the Socialist Worker’s Party newspaper, a Trotskyist journal, with conflicting views about communism, socialism and history. Few leftists would have been subscribing to both publications, based on their ideological views.

The rifle and pistol depicted seem to match the Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly the JFK murder weapon found at the Texas School Book Depository building after the shooting, and the pistol that Oswald allegedly used to shoot Dallas police officer Tippit. Both these guns were ordered from a post office box in Dallas that could not be linked to Oswald, in fact a letter addressed to Oswald’s name at that box ended up in the dead letter as a bad address for him. The signatures on the order forms for both guns do not match Oswald’s handwriting. Thus it is unlikely that Oswald would have had his picture taken with these guns that clearly were not owned or ordered by him, but which were used to incriminate him in the murder of JFK.

Even if the photo were legitimate, it proves nothing about whether Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy, though it might in fact have proven that he was being railroaded and framed instead as the “patsy” he referred to himself as. Oswald was clearly not a shooter at either the Dealey Plaza assassination of JFK nor at the Irving, TX shooting of Officer Tippit.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZUZI3bvhZ6iPwjcKIKp_zPaUzFgD9BPJO681
Dartmouth scientist says Oswald rifle photo real

By HOLLY RAMER (AP) – 1 day ago

CONCORD, N.H. — The infamous photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his backyard would have been nearly impossible to fake, according to a new analysis by a Dartmouth College professor.

Oswald, who was shot to death days after being charged with the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, claimed the photo of him holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other had been doctored. Over the years, many others have pointed out what appear to be inconsistent lighting and shadows.

But Hany Farid, director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth, said the shadows are exactly where they should be.

“You can never really prove an image is real, but the evidence that people have pointed to that the photo is fake is incorrect,” Farid said Thursday. “As an academic and a scientist, I don’t like to say it’s absolutely authentic … but it’s extremely unlikely to have been a fake.”

Farid, whose work using digital forensic tools to analyze images often has been used by law enforcement, said he has been getting requests from conspiracy theorists to analyze the photo for years. He said he held off until he had the appropriate software to create three-dimensional models of Oswald’s head and surroundings.

With the modeling software, he was able to show that a single light source could create both a shadow falling behind Oswald and to his right and one directly under his nose. Farid admits even he was skeptical before starting his research.

“When I looked at the photo, I didn’t understand it. I didn’t understand the shadows, and I do this for a living,” he said.

But Farid’s latest finding, which will be published in the journal Perception, is in keeping with his earlier research that showed the human visual system does a poor job at judging whether cast shadows are correct, he said.

“It turns out we’re really bad at it. Even though our visual system is very, very good … we are really bad at judging shadows,” he said. “I’m bad at it and this is what I do for a living.”

He spent about two months off and on analyzing the Oswald photo.

“I felt because it’s the Kennedy assassination and because there’s so much history about this, you really want to answer this correctly,” he said. “You don’t want to make a mistake on something of this magnitude.”

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

New tapes of JFK discussing Diem coup released

November 3, 2009 - Leave a Response

Full details found here, http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+and+Museum/News+and+Press/White+House+Recordings+of+President+Kennedy+Debating+Vietnam+Coup+Released+by+JFK+Presidential+Libra.htm

BOSTON–The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum announced today that it has declassified and made available for research presidential recordings of four meetings between President Kennedy and his highest level Vietnam advisors during the days after the highly controversial “Cable 243” was sent. The cable, which was dispatched on August 24, 1963 when President Kennedy and three of his top officials were away from Washington, set a course for the eventual coup in Vietnam on November 1, 1963, leading to the overthrow of President Ngo Dinh Diem and his assassination the following day on November 2, 1963 – 46 years ago this week.

The tapes offer unprecedented insight into President Kennedy’s thoughts on the unfolding conflict in Vietnam and reveal his reservations about U.S. support for a military coup in South Vietnam. During a meeting on August 28, President Kennedy states:

“I don’t think we’re in that deep. I am not sure the [Vietnamese] Generals are – they’ve been probably bellyaching for months. So I don’t know whether they’re – how many of them are really up to here. I don’t see any reason to go ahead unless we think we have a good chance of success.”

“These recordings provide a fascinating snapshot of a key event in the history of Vietnam,” said Kennedy Library Archivist Maura Porter. “The August meetings highlight the uncertainty that existed in the White House over what steps to take toward the government of South Vietnam. Of particular interest are the numerous conflicting views presented from the President’s top Vietnam advisors.”

These meetings are the first ones to take place after the sending of Cable 243, which has been described by historian John W. Newman as the “single most controversial cable of the Vietnam War.” The telegram was drafted on Saturday August 24, 1963 when President Kennedy, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, and CIA Director John McCone were all out of town. Without direct approval from President Kennedy’s senior advisors and despite mixed feelings in the administration over the effectiveness of Diem’s regime, the cable called for Diem to remove his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu from a position of power and threatened U.S. support of a military coup in South Vietnam if he refused.

After the cable was sent and during the course of four days of meetings, President Kennedy met with his advisors to discuss the evolving situation in Vietnam and what steps should be taken in the wake of the cable’s policy-changing message. There was considerable disagreement between the State Department advisors who had drafted Cable 243 and the President’s military and intelligence advisors on whether the coup was advisable and what support it would have in Vietnam with the Vietnamese military. In his book Robert Kennedy and His Times, White House Historian Arthur Schlesinger quoted Robert Kennedy’s recollections of the cable: “[President Kennedy] always said that it was a major mistake on his part. The result is we started down a road that we never really recovered from.”

The President asked several times for straight assessments from his two top advisors in Vietnam, Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and General Paul Harkins. At the August 27, 1963 meeting the President inquired about whether General Harkins agreed with the present plan:

President Kennedy: What about – in the wire that went Saturday, what’s the degree of — My impression was that based on the wire that went out Saturday, asked General Harkins and Ambassador Lodge recommending a course of action unless they disagreed. (General Taylor then states that Harkins concurred). That’s right, so I think we ought to find out whether Harkins doesn’t agree with this – then I think we ought to get off this pretty quick.

During the on-going discussions, State Department officials claimed that they felt it was too late to step back from the coup support, an opinion not accepted by the President. The President comments:

President Kennedy: I don’t think we ought to take the view here that this has gone beyond our control ‘cause I think that would be the worst reason to do it. …

Well I don’t think we ought to just do it because we feel we have to now do it. I think we want to make it our best (sitting) judgment (is to date) because I don’t think we do have to do it. At least I’d be prepared to take up the argument with lawyers, well let’s not do it. So I think we ought to try to make it without feeling that it’s forced on us.

The President goes on to state:

President Kennedy: I don’t think we ought to let the coup…maybe they know about it, maybe the Generals are going to have to run out of the country, maybe we’re going to have to help them get out. But still it’s not a good enough reason to go ahead if we don’t think the prospects are good enough. I don’t think we’re in that deep. I am not sure the Generals are – they’ve been probably bellyaching for months. So I don’t know whether they’re – how many of them are really up to here. I don’t see any reason to go ahead unless we think we have a good chance of success.

Ambassador Nolting, who had been recently relieved of his duties in Saigon and replaced by Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, was asked by the President to be present at these meetings. Nolting’s advice and opinions were pointed, candid and very often at odds with State Department officials in the room, especially Roger Hilsman and Averell Harriman. At the August 28th meeting, Ambassador Nolting and the President began a discussion on a post-coup Vietnam:

President Kennedy: What about Diem – Diem and Nhu would be ( unclear )? Exile them, is that it? That’s what we would favor of course, but.

Roger Hilsman: We know, we know no information.

President Kennedy: But I think it would be important that nothing happen to them if we, if we have any voice in it. Is that your view Ambassador?

Frederick Nolting: With all the humility again, Mr. President, my view is that there is no one that I know of who can – who has a reasonably good prospect of holding this fragmented, divided country together except Diem.

Further information provided in link

Sirhan moved to new prison

November 3, 2009 - Leave a Response


LOS ANGELES (Nov. 2) – An attorney for the man who assassinated Robert F. Kennedy said Monday his client was transferred from a prison that houses high-risk offenders to a new facility where his life could be in danger.
Attorney William F. Pepper said Sirhan Sirhan opposed the move from the state prison in Corcoran, which houses high-risk prisoners such as Charles Manson, to Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga.
“Our main concern is for his safety,” said Laurie Dusek, an associate of Pepper. “We are not sure that Pleasant Valley has the ability to protect him. He is a target.”

Pepper said he has new evidence and wants to reopen Sirhan’s case.
Oscar Hidalgo, a spokesman for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said Sirhan had requested the transfer and wants to stay in Pleasant Valley.
“After discussing his hesitation with prison officials at Pleasant Valley, Sirhan Sirhan indicated he wanted to stay at the new facility after all,” Hidalgo said. “He can indicate if he feels unsafe at any point and the department will respond appropriately.”
Sirhan is serving a life sentence for the 1968 killing of Kennedy. He had been housed for years in the protective unit at Corcoran, one of the most isolated units in the state prison system.
Pepper said neither he nor Sirhan had requested the move and neither had received notice until Sirhan was actually moved last Thursday.
Hidalgo countered in a written statement that the move followed numerous requests by Sirhan to be transferred from Corcoran.
“His movements there have been extremely controlled and his exposure to others extremely limited,” Hidalgo said.
Hidalgo said Sirhan’s lawyers were notified of the move, but both Pepper and Dusek said in telephone interviews they were not told of the transfer.
Dusek said she had contacted prison officials, checking on a report from Sirhan’s brother that he might be moved. Authorities denied any knowledge of such a change, she said.
Munir Sirhan confirmed in a phone interview that he had notified the lawyer about the transfer.

Pepper said he wrote to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger protesting the move. The governor’s office said it had not received any communication on the matter.

A summary of Jim Douglass’ book

November 2, 2009 - Leave a Response

Candace Talmage in the North Star National gives an excellent summary and account of Jim Douglass’ work, ‘JFK and the unspeakable’
http://www.northstarnational.com/2009/11/02/challenging-empire-part-1-book-explores-cia-conspiracy-kill-jfk/

Challenging Empire, Part 1: Book Explores CIA Conspiracy to Kill JFK
November 2nd, 2009
Candace Talmadge

Candace Talmadge

There is no scorn like that heaped upon those who dare suggest that the official explanation for the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy is worthless.

For decades now, the mainstream media have derided as a tinfoil-hat nut anyone who questions the 1964 Warren Report’s “lone gunman” thesis, despite the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives 15 years later determined that Kennedy most likely was the victim of a deadly conspiracy.JFK_Unspeakable

Congress reached this disturbing conclusion three decades ago, yet pursued it no further, a reticence echoed in the Barack Obama administration’s utter lack of enthusiasm for investigating, let alone prosecuting, the previous administration’s wholesale trampling of the U.S. Constitution.

There’s a good reason for this hesitation, according to James W. Douglass, who penned JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters (Orbis Books, 2008). Backed by extensive research, Douglass argues eloquently that Kennedy was slain as a warning to future presidents and members of Congress not to challenge what President Dwight Eisenhower labeled the “military-industrial complex.”

Think of it as a murderous melding of vested mutual interests between those on the warrior right who favor might-makes-right foreign policies and their business underwriters who profit handsomely from providing the hardware and outsourced support services to implement and sustain these policies.

Kennedy’s so-called crimes in the eyes of this longstanding cabal, Douglass contends, were thwarting top military officers who urged a first nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and opposing the CIA’s expansion of conflict in Vietnam. There were also the president’s transgressions of not backing up the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, of withdrawing defense contracts in 1962 from U.S. steel companies that reneged on their promises not to raise prices, and of the 1963 treaty with the Soviet Union to ban atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.

Kennedy’s worst sin? Secretly reaching out to Russian leader Nikita Kruschev to explore ways to make peace between the post World War II superpowers. Douglass shows how a series of letters between the men humanized the “enemy” for each side, a highly subversive act for those who peddle and exploit hate and fear, both in this country and abroad. The cold warriors who ordered (and still run) the U.S. intelligence community and their corporate allies would not stand for a president actually using the power of his office to reign in their war-making activities and curb their profits. Peace? Absolutely out of the question!

“Those who designed the plot to kill Kennedy were familiar the inner sanctum of our national security state,” Douglass writes. “Their attempt to scapegoat the Soviets for the president’s murder reflected one side of a secret struggle between JFK and his military leaders over a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union. The assassins’ purpose seems to have encompassed not only killing a president determined to make peace with the enemy but also using his murder as the impetus for a possible nuclear first strike against that same enemy.”

There’s a familiar ring to exploiting a national tragedy to propel pre-emptive strikes against an enemy that had nothing to with the calamity. Its contemporary counterpart was the Bush administration’s post Sept. 11, 2001 modus operandi. The bloody debacle in Iraq is one of the reasons that Douglass’s take on the Kennedy murder is essential reading. This book helps us recognize and understand the darker side of our nation’s past, present, and likely future course. The pointless loss of life, enormous tax-payer burden, and pitting of American against American are all the poisonous effects of the endless-war profit cycle.

Douglass calls this “the unspeakable,” and argues compellingly that it corrodes this nation’s very soul. He does not hesitate to pose difficult questions that our national dialogue since the end of World War II has avoided even asking, let alone answering. One of the toughest: Can the United States be a military and financial empire and still be a representative democracy?

Speer, Haslam and Valentine to speak at COPA

November 2, 2009 - Leave a Response

COPA has a revised list of speakers for the conference in Dallas this year.

Medical researcher Pat Speer, http://www.patspeer.com

Edward Haslam, http://doctormarysmonkey.com/

Doug Valentine, http://www.douglasvalentine.com/

Dallas conference promotional video

November 1, 2009 - Leave a Response

Please send this video to friends.

Oliver Stone plans secret history of America documentary

November 1, 2009 - Leave a Response

From the press release,

 

SHOWTIME AND OLIVER STONE UNCOVER
AMERICA’S SECRET HISTORY

New 10-Episode Documentary Series From Academy Award®-Winning Director Oliver Stone Entitled
OLIVER STONE’S SECRET HISTORY OF AMERICA
To Debut On SHOWTIME in 2010

LOS ANGELES, CA – (August 18, 2009) – As Americans, do we really know and understand our shared and complicated history? How do we recall the small details and forgotten players that influenced some of the biggest events from America’s past? Will our children actually get the “real” or whole story from reading history books? And how will it affect the future of our country?

Academy Award®-winning director Oliver Stone is creating and executive producing a new, ten episode documentary series entitled OLIVER STONE’S SECRET HISTORY OF AMERICA, which will premiere on SHOWTIME in 2010. The announcement was made today by Robert Greenblatt, President of Entertainment, Showtime Networks Inc.

“We are very happy that Oliver Stone has chosen SHOWTIME as the home for his provocative series about key unknown moments of American history,” said Greenblatt. “Not only has his name become synonymous with visionary filmmaker, but Oliver is also a fascinating storyteller always striving to shed new light on the human experience. His continuing curiosity about real events of the 20th Century has now led him to a documentary series unlike any other, which is why it’s perfect for our premium audience.”

Narrated by Stone, the new one-hour series will feature episodes that focus on human events, that at the time went under-reported, but crucially shaped America’s unique and complex history over the last 60 years. Stone and a small group of historians and archivists have meticulously combed through the national archives of the U.S., Russia, South Africa, England, and Japan in search of papers, letters, memoranda, film, and photographs to assist in their documentation of unknown historical figures and events that have rarely, if ever, been revealed. Topics range from President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to the origins and reasons for the Cold War with the Soviet Union, to the fierce struggle between war and peace in America’s national security complex. Newly discovered facts and accounts from the Kennedy administration, the Vietnam War, and the great changes in America’s role in the world since the fall of Communism in the 1980s will be presented.

Oliver Stone, who has worked on the series for almost 2 years, said today, “Through this epic 10-hour series, which I feel is the deepest contribution I could ever make in film to my children and the next generation, I can only hope a change in our thinking will result.”

Castro’s sister spied for C.I.A.

October 27, 2009 - Leave a Response

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8327163.stm

 

Castro’s sister ’spied for CIA’

A sister of Cuba’s former long-time leader, Fidel Castro, has admitted spying for the CIA in the 1960s.

Juanita Castro, who now lives in Miami, said she had gathered sensitive information for the US for three years.

In her memoirs, she said she had fallen out with Fidel and her other brother Raul – Cuba’s current president – over the killing of their opponents.

Ms Castro, 76, said she had helped to warn and hide Cuban dissidents before finally fleeing the island in 1964.

There has been no immediate reaction from the US or Cuban governments.

‘Donna’

In her memoirs – Fidel and Raul, My Brothers, the Secret History – Ms Castro says she was recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency in Havana two years after the 1959 revolution brought Fidel Castro to power.

 

I didn’t betray him. He betrayed me
Juanita Castro

She agreed to help because she had become disenchanted when Fidel abandoned the nationalist democratic revolution he promised and instead imposed a one-party Marxist state “simply out of the need to hold power”, she said.

“Did I feel remorse about betraying Fidel by agreeing to meet with his enemies? No, for one simple reason: I didn’t betray him. He betrayed me,” she wrote.

“He betrayed the thousands of us who suffered and fought for the revolution that he had offered, one that was generous and just and would bring peace and democracy to Cuba, and which, as he himself had promised, would be as ‘Cuban as palm trees’,” she wrote.

Ms Castro said that at a meeting with a CIA officer called “Enrique” at a hotel in Mexico City in 1961, she was given the codename “Donna” and codebooks so she could receive instructions.

She agreed on the condition that she received no money and was not asked to participate in any violent acts against the Cuban government.

She would help people persecuted by the Cuban secret police escape capture, imprisonment and possible execution, often by sheltering them at the home of her mother, Lina Ruz Gonzalez, she added.

Ms Castro fled Cuba a year after her mother died, believing she would no longer be protected from the attention of the secret police, and settled in Miami, where she ran a pharmacy until 2007. Raul helped her get a visa to leave.

Fidel relinquished power to Raul in February 2008. He has not been seen in public since falling ill in July 2006.

 

Obama threats strain secret service

October 25, 2009 - Leave a Response

http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-threats-strain-secret-service.html?col=1186032325324

Obama Threats Strain Secret Service
October 22, 2009
United Press International

WASHINGTON — Rising death threats against President Barack Obama are prompting a debate about the Secret Service’s resources and duties, officials say.

Some within the Secret Service are advocating the agency be relieved of its duties to investigate financial crimes and concentrate instead on protection of government leaders in the wake of growing anti-government sentiment, The Boston Globe reported Sunday.

“If there were an evaluation of the service’s two missions, it might be determined that it is ineffective … to conduct its protection mission and investigate financial crimes,” an internal report issued in August by the Congressional Research Service and obtained by the newspaper said.

A government official whose named was not reported told the newspaper Secret Service leaders are discussing making changes.

“This is a discussion going on not only in some quarters in Congress, but inside the Secret Service,” the official said. “Should there be a re-look at the mission?”

Secret Service spokesman Special Agent Edwin Donovan told the Globe that though “there is no doubt the protection mission has grown” the agency can fulfill its missions.

Peter Dale Scott on NY Times and JFK assassination

October 24, 2009 - Leave a Response

First published on Global research

The New York Times, on October 17, published a page-one story by Scott Shane about the CIA’s defiance of a court order to release documents pertaining to the John F. Kennedy assassination, in its so-called Joannides file. George Joannides was the CIA case officer for a Cuban exile group that made headlines in 1963 by its public engagements with Lee Harvey Oswald, just a few weeks before Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy. For over six years a former Washington Post reporter, Jefferson Morley, has been suing the CIA for the release of these documents. [1]

Sometimes the way that a news item is reported can be more newsworthy than the item itself. A notorious example was the 1971 publication of the Pentagon Papers (documents far too detailed for most people to read) on the front page of the New York Times.

The October 17 Times story was another such example. It revealed, perhaps for the first time in any major U.S. newspaper, that the CIA has been deceiving the public about its own relationship to the JFK assassination.

On the Kennedy assassination, the deceptions began in 1964 with the Warren Commission. The C.I.A. hid its schemes to kill Fidel Castro and its ties to the anti-Castro Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil, or Cuban Student Directorate, which received $50,000 a month in C.I.A. support during 1963.

In August 1963, Oswald visited a New Orleans shop owned by a directorate official, feigning sympathy with the group’s goal of ousting Mr. Castro. A few days later, directorate members found Oswald handing out pro-Castro pamphlets and got into a brawl with him. Later that month, he debated the anti-Castro Cubans on a local radio station.

That the October 17 story was published at all is astonishing. According to Lexis Nexis, there have only been two earlier references to the CIA Joannides documents controversy in any major U.S. newspaper: a brief squib in the New York Daily News in 2003 announcing the launching of the case, and a letter to the New York Times in 2007 (of which the lead author was Jeff Morley) complaining about the Times’ rave review of a book claiming that Oswald was a lone assassin.

(The review had said inter alia that “”Conspiracy theorists” should be ”ridiculed, even shunned… marginalized the way we’ve marginalized smokers.” The letter pointed out in response that those suspecting conspiracy included Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Robert Kennedy, and J. Edgar Hoover.)

The New York Times has systematically regulated the release of any facts about the Kennedy assassination, ever since November 25, 1963, when it first declared Oswald, the day after his death, to have been the “assassin” of JFK. A notorious example was the deletion, between the early and the final edition of a Times issue, of a paragraph in a review of a book about the JFK assassination, making the obvious point that “MYSTERIES PERSIST.” [2]

Apparently there was similar jockeying over the positioning of the Scott Shane story. In some east coast editions it ran on page eleven, with a trivializing introductory squib, “Food for Conspiracy Theorists.” In the California edition, headlined “C.I.A. Is Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery,” it was on page one above the fold.

One can assume that the Times decision to run the story was a momentous one not made casually. The same can probably be said of another recent remarkable editorial decision, to publish Tom Friedman’s op-ed on September 29 about the “very dangerous” climate now in America, “the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.”

Friedman did not mention JFK at all, and his most specific reference was to a recent poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Obama be killed?” [3] Four days later the Wall Street Journal expressed similar concern, adding to the “poll on Facebook asking whether the president should be assassinated, a column on a conservative Web site suggesting a military coup is in the works.” [4]

Friedman’s column broke a code of silence about the threats to Obama that had been in place ever since two redneck white supremacists (Shawn Adolf and Tharin Gartrell) were arrested in August 2008 for a plot to assassinate Obama with scoped bolt-action rifles. Andrew Gumbel’s story about them ran in the London Independent on November 16, 2008; of the fifteen related news stories in Lexis Nexis, only one, a brief one, is from a U.S. paper.

It is possible to take at face value the concern expressed by Friedman in his column. The Boston Globe, a New York Times affiliate, reported on October 18 that “The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US Secret Service.” [5]

But there may have been a higher level of concern in the normally pro-war Wall Street Journal’s reference to a military coup. Such talk on a conservative web site is hardly newsworthy. More alarming is the report by Robert Dreyfuss in the October 29 Rolling Stone that Obama is currently facing an ultimatum from the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs: either provide General McChrystal with the 40,000 additional troops he has publicly demanded, or “face a full-scale mutiny by his generals…The president, it seems, is battling two insurgencies: one in Afghanistan and one cooked up by his own generals.” [6]

One can only guess at what led the New York Times to publish a story about CIA obstinacy over documents about the JFK assassination. One explanation would be the similarities between the painful choices that Obama now faces in Afghanistan – to escalate, maintain a losing status quo, or begin to withdraw – and the same equally painful choices that Kennedy in 1963 faced in Vietnam. [7] More and more books in recent years have asked if some disgruntled hawks in the CIA and Pentagon did not participate in the assassination which led to a wider Vietnam War. [8]

Six weeks before Kennedy’s murder, the Washington News published an extraordinary attack on the CIA’s “bureaucratic arrogance” and

obstinate disregard of orders… “If the United States ever experiences a `Seven Days in May’ it will come from the CIA…” one U.S. official commented caustically. (“Seven Days in May” is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.) [9]

The story was actually a misleading one, but it was a symptom of the high-level rifts and infighting that were becoming explosive over Vietnam inside the Kennedy administration. The New York Times story about the CIA on October 17 can also be seen as a symptom of rifts and infighting. One must hope that the country has matured enough since 1963 to avoid a similarly bloody denouement.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher. He was born in Montreal in 1929, the only son of the poet F.R. Scott and the painter Marian Scott. His prose books include The War Conspiracy (1972), The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (in collaboration, 1976), Crime and Cover-Up: The CIA, the Mafia, and the Dallas-Watergate Connection (1977), The Iran-Contra Connection (in collaboration, 1987), Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (in collaboration, 1991, 1998), Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993, 1996), Deep Politics Two (1994, 1995, 2006), Drugs Oil and War (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, March 2003), The Road to 9/11 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2008).

Notes

1. “C.I.A. Is Cagey About ‘63 Files Tied to Oswald,” New York Times, October 17, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17inquire.html.

2. Jerry Policoff, The Media and the Murder of John Kennedy,” in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch, and Russell Stetler, The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (New York: Random House/Vintage, 1976), 268.

3. Friedman, in decrying attacks on presidential legitimacy, recalled that “The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” It is worth recalling also that the public outcry about Whitewater was encouraged initially by a series of stories by Jeff Gerth, since largely discredited, in the New York Times. See Gene Lyons, “Fool for Scandal: How the New York Times Got Whitewater Wrong,” Harper’s, October 1994.

4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125452861657560895.html.

5. Bryan Bender, “Secret Service strained as leaders face more threats Report questions its role in financial investigations,” Boston Globe, October 18, 2009,

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/10/18/secret_service_under_strain_as_leaders_face_more_threats/.

6. Robert Dreyfuss, “The Generals’ Revolt: As Obama rethinks America’s failed strategy in Afghanistan, he faces two insurgencies: the Taliban and the Pentagon.” Rolling Stone, October 29, 41. Several other articles entitled “The Generals’ Revolt” have been published since 2003, including at least two earlier this year and a number in 2006, when retired generals’ pushed successfully for the removal of Rumsfeld over his handling of the Iraq War.

7. Gareth Porter, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005), 266.

8. See for example James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008).

9. Washington Daily News, October 2, 1963; discussed in Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2008),

Peter Dale Scott is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Peter Dale Scott