Here we link to an abridged version of John Armstrong’s theory of two Oswald’s as written by researcher John Kelin.
Armstrong discussed his theory at great lenght in his book ‘Harvey and Lee‘. John Kelin spoke at last years Dallas conference and John Armstrong will be present this Novemer in Dallas.
Here is the article in question, which was first publshed in probe magazine in 1997.
http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_issues/25th_Issue/armstrong.html
http://minnesotaindependent.com/47464/morley-tunheim-joannides-kennedy-oswald-cia
U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim says the Central Intelligence Agency “probably misled” a panel he led in the 1990s seeking documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. That’s because the CIA didn’t tell Tunheim that its liaison to a panel that preceded his Assassination Records Review Board had been involved with anti-Castro Cubans in Miami who tangled with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963.
The New York Times reported Tunheim’s remarks in a front-page story Saturday on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by Minneapolis-born journalist Jefferson Morley, formerly an editor at the Washington Post and past national editorial director for the Center for Independent Media, the Minnesota Independent’s nonprofit parent.
After years of pressing the CIA to release its records, Morley got an appeals court earlier this year to force the agency to ‘fess up to George Joannides’ role as case officer in Miami at the time of Kennedy assassination. But the CIA still has nearly 300 documents about Joannides it won’t reveal, citing “grave” national security concerns.
Tunheim told the Times he may ask the CIA for redacted versions of the documents even if Morley is ultimately stymied by the Washington, D.C., federal court.
Jefferson Morley’s blog on the subject.
The following is quoted from an op-ed piece in the New York Times written by Gordon M. Goldstein, author of ‘Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam’.
The piece discusses comparisons and diversions in Kennedy’s policy towards Vietnam and Obama’s policy towards Afghanistan.
The emerging picture is of a commander in chief trying to chart a middle way through one of the most complex challenges of his young presidency. If so, instructive lessons can be found in the contrasting ways two of his predecessors, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, navigated a perilous way ahead in Vietnam.
Kennedy’s Vietnam strategy was informed by a pair of harrowing foreign policy crises in 1961 that sobered him to his responsibilities as commander in chief. The botched Bay of Pigs invasion was a humiliation that Kennedy believed would have driven him from office if he had been a British prime minister. He vowed never again to be “overawed by professional military advice.”
That same year, Kennedy was shocked by the half-baked recommendation of his generals to use tactical nuclear weapons against the Communist Pathet Lao movement in Laos, a proposal he decisively dismissed.
In this context, Kennedy was deeply skeptical when his most senior advisers argued in the fall of 1961 that only substantial numbers of American forces could prevent the government of South Vietnam from collapsing. Kennedy nonetheless rejected the deployment of combat troops. But he also rejected the notion of abandoning Saigon. Instead, he chose to chart a middle course.
Kennedy favored a strategy of arming and reinforcing the South Vietnamese Army, and of teaching them new counterinsurgency tactics. He increased the number of military advisers assigned to Saigon but maintained a ceiling of about 16,000 men.
By October 1963, operations were deemed sufficiently successful for the White House to announce the withdrawal of 1,000 advisers and its expectation that the advisory mission would be concluded by the end of 1965. At the time of Kennedy’s assassination the following month, the Pentagon had recorded only 108 American military personnel killed.
Lyndon Johnson maintained Kennedy’s middle way until after his huge presidential victory in 1964, which gave him new latitude. He was also confronted in January 1965 with the most dire assessment yet of America’s prospects in Vietnam, delivered by two of his most influential counselors, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and his national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy. In what came to be known as the “fork in the road” memo, they insisted that the United States was on a “disastrous” losing course in Vietnam.
Combat forces soon poured in, approved and progressively enlarged with staggering speed. An initial deployment in March of 3,500 Marines grew to 33,500 and then to a force of 82,000, approved by late April. On June 7, the top American general in Vietnam, William Westmoreland, asked for an immediate increase of 41,000 combat troops, to be followed by 52,000 later. In all, he wanted a combined command of 175,000 soldiers, equivalent to 44 battalions “to give us a substantial and hard-hitting offensive capability on the ground to convince” the Vietnamese insurgent forces “they cannot win.”
From the NY review of books
Volume 56, Number 15 · October 8, 2009
Entangled Giant
By Garry Wills
George W. Bush left the White House unpopular and disgraced. His successor promised change, and it was clear where change was needed. Illegal acts should cease—torture and indefinite detention, denial of habeas corpus and legal representation, unilateral canceling of treaties, defiance of Congress and the Constitution, nullification of laws by signing statements. Powers attributed to the president by the theory of the unitary executive should not be exercised. Judges who are willing to give the president any power he asks for should not be confirmed.
But the momentum of accumulating powers in the executive is not easily reversed, checked, or even slowed. It was not created by the Bush administration. The whole history of America since World War II caused an inertial transfer of power toward the executive branch. The monopoly on use of nuclear weaponry, the cult of the commander in chief, the worldwide network of military bases to maintain nuclear alert and supremacy, the secret intelligence agencies, the entire national security state, the classification and clearance systems, the expansion of state secrets, the withholding of evidence and information, the permanent emergency that has melded World War II with the cold war and the cold war with the “war on terror”—all these make a vast and intricate structure that may not yield to effort at dismantling it. Sixty-eight straight years of war emergency powers (1941–2009) have made the abnormal normal, and constitutional diminishment the settled order.
Little Bookroom / Sonoma
The truth of this was borne out in the early days of Barack Obama’s presidency. At his confirmation hearing to be head of the CIA, Leon Panetta said that “extraordinary rendition”—the practice of sending prisoners to foreign countries—was a tool he meant to retain.[1] Obama’s nominee for solicitor general, Elena Kagan, told Congress that she agreed with John Yoo’s claim that a terrorist captured anywhere should be subject to “battlefield law.”[2] On the first opportunity to abort trial proceedings by invoking “state secrets”—the policy based on the faulty Reynolds case—Obama’s attorney gen- eral, Eric Holder, did so.[3] Obama refused to release photographs of “enhanced interrogation.” The CIA had earlier (illegally) destroyed ninety-two videotapes of such interrogations—and Obama refused to release documents describing the tapes.[4]
The President said that past official crimes would not be investigated—certainly not for prosecution, and not even by an impartial “truth commission” just trying to establish a record. He said, on the contrary, that detainees might be tried in “military tribunals.” When the British government, trying a terrorist suspect, decided to use some American documents shared with the British government, Obama’s attorney general pressured it not to do so. Most important, perhaps, was the new president’s desire to end the nation-building in Iraq while substituting a long-term nation-building effort in Afghanistan, run by a government corrupted by drug trafficking and not susceptible to our remolding.
Even in areas outside national security, the Obama administration quickly came to resemble Bush’s. Gay military personnel, including those with valuable Arabic-language skills, were being dismissed at the same rate as before. Even more egregiously, the Obama administration continued the defiance of the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, which requires states to recognize laws passed by other states, when it defended the Defense of Marriage Act, which lets states refuse to recognize gay marriages legally obtained in another state. Many objected when Dick Cheney would not name energy executives who came to the White House in 2002, though Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, had been forced to reveal which health advisers had visited her. Yet the Obama team, in June 2009, refused to release logs of those who come to the White House. (It later reversed itself, but only in response to a lawsuit.)
Some were dismayed to see how quickly the Obama people grabbed at the powers, the secrecy, the unaccountability that had led Bush into such opprobrium. Leon Panetta at the CIA especially puzzled those who had known him during the Clinton years. A former CIA official told The Washington Post, “Leon Panetta has been captured by the people who were the ideological drivers for the interrogation program in the first place.” A White House official told Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, “It’s like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that turning around the huge secret empire built by the National Security State is a hard, perhaps impossible, task. After most of the wars in US history there was a return to the constitutional condition of the pre-war world. But after those wars there was no lasting institutional security apparatus of the sort that was laboriously assembled in the 1940s and 1950s. After World War I, for instance, there was no CIA, no NSA, no mountain of secret documents to be guarded from unauthorized readers, no atomic bomb to guard, develop, deploy, and maintain in readiness on land, in the air, and on (or in) the sea.
Now a new president quickly becomes aware of the vast empire that is largely invisible to the citizenry. The United States maintains an estimated one thousand military bases in other countries. I say “estimated” because the exact number, location, and size of the bases are either partly or entirely cloaked in secrecy, among other things to protect nuclear installations.The secrecy involved is such that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy did not even know, at first, that we still had nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey.
An example of this imperial system is the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.[5] In the 1960s, to secure a military outpost without fear of any interference from indigenous peoples, the two thousand Chagossian inhabitants were forcibly expelled, deprived of their native land, and sent a thousand miles away. (It is the same ploy we had used in removing native peoples from the Bikini and Enewetak atolls and Lib Island, so that we could conduct our sixty-eight atomic and hydrogen bomb tests there.) Though technically Diego Garcia is leased from the British, it is entirely run by the United States. It was the United States that expelled the Chagossians and confiscated their property. Diego Garcia has become a vast armory, as well as a storage and staging area and harbor and launch site, from which supplies and air strikes are fanned out over the Middle East, especially to the Persian Gulf and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. No journalists are allowed to visit it. It was funded on a vast scale by various deceptions of Congress. Even the leasing terms with Great Britain were kept secret, to avoid congressional oversight.
That is just one of the hundreds of holdings in the empire created by the National Security State. A president is greatly pressured to keep all the empire’s secrets. He feels he must avoid embarrassing the hordes of agents, military personnel, and diplomatic instruments whose loyalty he must command. Keeping up morale in this vast, shady enterprise is something impressed on him by all manner of commitments. He becomes the prisoner of his own power. As President Truman could not not use the bomb, a modern president cannot not use the huge powers at his disposal. It has all been given him as the legacy of Bomb Power, the thing that makes him not only Commander in Chief but Leader of the Free World. He is a self-entangling giant.
On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales signed a memo written by David Addington that called the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and “obsolete.” Perhaps, in the nuclear era, the Constitution has become quaint and obsolete. Few people even consider anymore Madison’s lapidary pronouncement, “In republican government the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Instead, we are all, as citizens, asked to salute our commander in chief. Any president, wanting leverage to accomplish his goals, must find it hard to give up the aura of war chief, the mystery and majesty that have accrued to him with control of the Bomb, the awesome proximity to the Football, to the Button.
Nonetheless, some of us entertain a fondness for the quaint old Constitution. It may be too late to return to its ideals, but the effort should be made. As Cyrano said, “One doesn’t fight in the hope of winning” (Mais on ne se bat pas dans l’espoir du succès).
— September 10, 2009
Notes
[1]Jane Mayer, “The Secret History,” The New Yorker, June 22, 2009.
[2]Charlie Savage, “Obama’s War on Terror May Resemble Bush’s in Some Areas,” The New York Times, February 18, 2009.
[3]John Schwartz, “Obama Backs Off a Reversal on Secrets,” The New York Times, February 10, 2009. See also my recent discussion of the Reynolds case, “Why the Government Can Legally Lie,” The New York Review, February 12, 2009.
[4]Evan Perez and Siobhan Gorman, “Obama Tilts to CIA on Memos,” The Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2009; R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, “CIA Fights Full Release of Detainee Report,” The Washington Post, June 17, 2009.
[5]See David Vine, Island of Shame: The Secret History of the US Military Base on Diego Garcia (Princeton University Press, 2009). See also the review by Jonathan Freedland, “A Black and Disgraceful Site,” The New York Review, May 28, 2009.
From the NY Times
October 17, 2009
C.I.A. Is Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON — Is the Central Intelligence Agency covering up some dark secret about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?
Probably not. But you would not know it from the C.I.A.’s behavior.
For six years, the agency has fought in federal court to keep secret hundreds of documents from 1963, when an anti-Castro Cuban group it paid clashed publicly with the soon-to-be assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. The C.I.A. says it is only protecting legitimate secrets. But because of the agency’s history of stonewalling assassination inquiries, even researchers with no use for conspiracy thinking question its stance.
The files in question, some released under direction of the court and hundreds more that are still secret, involve the curious career of George E. Joannides, the case officer who oversaw the dissident Cubans in 1963. In 1978, the agency made Mr. Joannides the liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations — but never told the committee of his earlier role.
That concealment has fueled suspicion that Mr. Joannides’s real assignment was to limit what the House committee could learn about C.I.A. activities. The agency’s deception was first reported in 2001 by Jefferson Morley, who has doggedly pursued the files ever since, represented by James H. Lesar, a Washington lawyer specializing in Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.
“The C.I.A.’s conduct is maddening,” said Mr. Morley, 51, a former Washington Post reporter and the author of a 2008 biography of a former C.I.A. station chief in Mexico.
After years of meticulous reporting on Mr. Joannides, who died at age 68 in 1990, he is convinced that there is more to learn.
“I know there’s a story here,” Mr. Morley said. “The confirmation is that the C.I.A. treats these documents as extremely sensitive.”
Mr. Morley’s quest has gained prominent supporters, including John R. Tunheim, a federal judge in Minnesota who served in 1994 and 1995 as chairman of the Assassination Records Review Board, created by Congress to unearth documents related to the case.
“I think we were probably misled by the agency,” Judge Tunheim said, referring to the Joannides records. “This material should be released.”
Gerald Posner, the author of an anti-conspiracy account of the Kennedy assassination, “Case Closed” (Random House, 1993), said the C.I.A.’s withholding such aged documents was “a perfect example of why nobody trusts the agency.”
“It feeds the conspiracy theorists who say, ‘You’re hiding something,” ’ Mr. Posner said.
After losing an appeals court decision in Mr. Morley’s lawsuit, the C.I.A. released material last year confirming Mr. Joannides’s deep involvement with the anti-Castro Cubans who confronted Oswald. But the agency is withholding 295 specific documents from the 1960s and ’70s, while refusing to confirm or deny the existence of many others, saying their release would cause “extremely grave damage” to national security.
“The methods of defeating or deterring covert action in the 1960s and 1970s can still be instructive to the United States’ current enemies,” a C.I.A. official wrote in a court filing.
An agency spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, said the C.I.A. had opened to Judge Tunheim’s board all files relevant to the assassination and denied that it was trying to avoid embarrassment. “The record doesn’t support that, any more than it supports conspiracy theories, offensive on their face, that the C.I.A. had a hand in President Kennedy’s death,” Mr. Gimigliano said.
C.I.A. secrecy has been hotly debated this year, with agency officials protesting the Obama administration’s decision to release legal opinions describing brutal interrogation methods. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, came under attack from Republicans after she accused the C.I.A. of misleading Congress about waterboarding, adding, “They mislead us all the time.”
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.
In the years since Oswald was named as the assassin, speculation about who might have been behind him has never ended, with various theories focusing on Mr. Castro, the mob, rogue government agents or myriad combinations of the above. Mr. Morley, one of many writers to become entranced by the story, insists he has no theory and is seeking only the facts.
His lawsuit has uncovered the central role in overseeing directorate activities of Mr. Joannides, the deputy director for psychological warfare at the C.I.A.’s Miami station, code-named JM/WAVE. He worked closely with directorate leaders, documents show, corresponding with them under pseudonyms, paying their travel expenses and achieving an “important degree of control” over the group, as a July 1963 agency fitness report put it.
Fifteen years later, Mr. Joannides turned up again as the agency’s representative to the House assassinations committee. Dan Hardway, then a law student working for the committee, recalled Mr. Joannides as “a cold fish,” who firmly limited access to documents. Once, Mr. Hardway remembered, “he handed me a thin file and just stood there. I blew up, and he said, ‘This is all you’re going to get.’ ”
But neither Mr. Hardway nor the committee’s staff director, G. Robert Blakey, had any idea that Mr. Joannides had played a role in the very anti-Castro activities from 1963 that the panel was scrutinizing.
When Mr. Morley first informed him about it a decade ago, Mr. Blakey was flabbergasted. “If I’d known his role in 1963, I would have put Joannides under oath — he would have been a witness, not a facilitator,” said Mr. Blakey, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. “How do we know what he didn’t give us?”
After Oliver Stone’s 1991 film “J.F.K.” fed speculation about the Kennedy assassination, Congress created the Assassination Records Review Board to release documents. But because the board, too, was not told of Mr. Joannides’s 1963 work, it did not peruse his records, said Judge Tunheim, the chairman.
“If we’d known of his role in Miami in 1963, we would have pressed for all his records,” Judge Tunheim said.
No matter what comes of Mr. Morley’s case in Federal District Court in Washington, Mr. Tunheim said he might ask the current C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, to release the records, even if the names of people who are still alive must be redacted for privacy.
What motive could C.I.A. officials have to bury the details of Mr. Joannides’s work for so long? Did C.I.A. officers or their Cuban contacts know more about Oswald than has been revealed? Or was the agency simply embarrassed by brushes with the future assassin — like the Dallas F.B.I. officials who, after the assassination, destroyed a handwritten note Oswald had previously left for an F.B.I. agent?
Or has Mr. Morley spent a decade on a wild goose chase?
Max Holland, who is writing a history of the Warren Commission, said the agency might be trying to preserve the principle of secrecy.
“If you start going through the files of every C.I.A. officer who had anything to do with anything that touched the assassination, that would have no end,” Mr. Holland said.
Mr. Posner, the anti-conspiracy author, said that if there really were something explosive involving the C.I.A. and President Kennedy, it would not be in the files — not even in the documents the C.I.A. has fought to keep secret.
“Most conspiracy theorists don’t understand this,” Mr. Posner said. “But if there really were a C.I.A. plot, no documents would exist.”
John Judge replies to this article which discusses plans to create a mural of Jack Ruby in Dallas.
TO: CBS 11, Dallas, TX
I am writing to comment on the story posted October 2 about honoring Jack Ruby with a mural in downtown Dallas written by your “award winning” reporter J.D. Miles. I don’t think Ruby should be honored, even if some of his nightclub strippers have fond memories of him. If your reporter had done some background work on who Ruby was it might have helped balance the piece, though I know it’s not done anymore. Newspapers used to keep clipping morgues for that purpose, now they throw them away and we live without historical or political context.
I would recommend local Dallas reporter Seth Kantor’s book on Ruby for a start. Born Jacob Rubenstien, Jack worked for the Capone mob in Chicago and eventually rose to second in command of the corrupted Waste Handler’s Union under his capo, Sam Giancana, a crimelord whose career spanned several presidents, including JFK. Both Giancana and Ruby had ties to covert US intelligence projects. Ruby was ONI during WWII and ran guns to Castro for the CIA prior to the fall of Batista. Giancana and other key mobsters were approached by both ONI and CIA for jobs during WWII and to set up a domestic assassination squad under the cover that they were plotting to kill Castro.
Bobby Kennedy went after both of them over the years. On the Kefauver Commission, RFK was part of the decision to subpoena Giancana for union racketeering, and when Sam refused to testify he was held in contempt of Congress. They began to move on calling Jacob Rubenstein instead when a letter from the Vice President’s office arrived, signed by Richard Nixon, telling them not to subpoena this individual since he had assisted them on the House Un-american Activities Committee. In fact, there is a picture of Ruby in the weather tunnel exhibit of Dallas history leading from Union Station to the Hyatt Regency, he is standing directly behind Dwight Eisenhower during his campaign visit in 1954, the same year Nixon shields him from testifying.
Ruby was no hero in the Kennedy assassination and there was no passion in his crime. He was still tied to both organized crime and the FBI, and was performing the time honored Mafia tradition known as Omerta, silencing Oswald before trial, and he did it with the help of the corrupted Dallas Police Department. Ruby was seen in the old Dal-Tex Building that morning, a possible source for some of the assassination shots. He was seen by one witness taking a rifle up the back of the now infamous Grassy Knoll, prior to the shooting. He met the description of gunman given by all but one witness to the shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit, who knew both Ruby and Oswald and frequented the Carousel. The shoe store employee who tipped the police to arrest Oswald at the Texas Theater lived above Ruby and knew him. Ruby was at Parkland Hospital when JFK died. He attended a press conference in the Dallas jail when Oswald was introduced as a member of the Free Cuba Committee, and Ruby corrected Captain Fritz, saying it was Fair Play for Cuba Committee. How would he know? Upon arrest, Ruby showed signs of being in a hypnotized state, which broke when he heard Oswald had died. He later tried to tell the Warren Commission about a larger conspiracy in the case and begged to be removed from the Dallas jail, where he would be killed if he spoke.
There is much more to be told about Jack Ruby if your reporter cared to check. His background and Oswald’s extensive ONI and FBI connections tell us more about who killed Kennedy than the Warren Commission ever did. A mural to Jack Ruby should not show him with his strippers but with the Mafia and intelligence assassins of JFK who really ran his life. If you want to know who did kill the president in Dallas, read Jim Douglass’ new JFK and the Unspeakable. He will speak at our COPA conference November 20-22 this year. Perhaps your reporter should come and hear some history at our events.
John Judge
Coalition on Political Assassinations
Washington, DC
www.politicalassassinations.com ter
The History Channel’s Kennedy Declassified Week starts Sunday. And for Kennedy obsessives, there will be plenty to watch. On Sunday and Monday at 9 p.m., the channel will debut its two-part series “JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America.”
The films are without narrators or experts. Instead, the documentaries let the newsreels tell the tragic story of the only presidential assassination in the television era. The footage is arranged to present a range of conspiracy theories that go far beyond Lee Harvey Oswald. But the judgment is left up to the viewer.
A number of people prominent in public life today show up on screen. There’s Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), then a young, whip-smart Warren Commission attorney. Dan Rather, a cub reporter in Dallas, also makes an appearance. Reporting on Oswald’s killing and reflecting on Kennedy’s assassination, the future “CBS Evening News” anchor nearly tears up on camera, an eerie precursor to his post-Sept. 11 response on “Late Show With David Letterman” almost four decades later.
The documentaries include not only the oft-seen video of the president and first lady (dressed in a pink dress and hat) descending the steps of Air Force One at Love Field but also rare footage of witnesses on the parade route standing on the street, dazed and in shock, hours after the shooting at 12:30 p.m.
Knowing how the story will end, the most achingly painful footage comes before the violence in Dallas. Watching the couple descend from airplane to motorcade, viewers will be tempted to yell at the screen, “Don’t go!” in the vain hope that history might turn out differently.
Laced throughout the film are questions about the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Doubts about the official story sprout up in the immediate aftermath of Oswald’s murder, two days after the Kennedy assassination, to the point that newly minted President Lyndon B. Johnson feels compelled to appoint an investigative commission, headed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren.
The conspiracy theme picks up with footage of the killings five years later of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. Those who saw Oliver Stone’s “JFK” will find much of the material familiar, particularly the documentary’s section on New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (played in the movie by Kevin Costner), who failed in his efforts to implicate a local businessman in the assassination plans.
The Warren Commission operated mostly out of public view, which fed further suspicion about its findings. The film offers a cautionary tale about what happens when government officials leave information gaps that can be too easily filled in by conspiracy theorists — a major problem 45 years ago and one magnified in the Internet age.
For those history buffs and political junkies who think they have seen all the footage out there about the Kennedy assassination, the History Channel offers fresh and insightful, if sad, material.
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/jfk_conspiracy_theories_redux.html
Al Jazeera English have screened footage of a Colombian man who claims to have been offered $25 million in 1999 by businessman Manuel Rosales. Colombian paramilitary forces were also present at the meeting.
Rosales would not be personally paying the bounty out of his own money, but was rather the one to make payment, presumably as a bag man for other co-conspirators.
The paramilitary force took up the offer. In 2004 100 Colombian paramilitaries were arrested outside Caracas.
The Colombian man is being interviewed by the Colombian attorney general, as he is held as a member of the paramilitary group.
Rosales now lives in Chile following corruption charges leveled against him in Venezuela.
The interviewee claims there are 2500 Colombian paramilitaries now inside Venezuela ‘with the objective of taking down Chavez’.
Wired is the premier technology magazine and website.
The article isn’t particularly favorable, but then again the article is only one line long and the rest of the page advertises the COPA conference.
http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2009/09/the-coalition-on-political-assassinations-presents/
“I hope god will protect Obama from the bullets that killed Kennedy”
