Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: October 2011

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

The Globe’s piece on the interview with Judyth Baker is so condensed, I’m sure it has lost much meaning.

I cannot at all assess her words treated poorly, as they are, by the Globe, although when she mentions things like the Reily Coffee Company, I know exactly to what she is referring.

The cancer labs ring bells too since a significant figure in the conspiracy was a highly eccentric pilot and gifted amateur researcher in New Orleans named David Ferrie, a man who was later murdered in an extremely violent fashion.

Her connection of the lab work like that with the CIA is likely something she surmised but did not actually know. If the CIA sets up such operations, the people who work there never know for whom they are actually working, much like the employees of the fake Apple Stores in China who believed they worked for Apple.

Her talk about Oswald in intelligence also rings true. Oswald, when he went to Russia from the Marines, was undoubtedly a low-level spy set up to find out about the realities of Soviet life by one or another of America’s numerous intelligence agencies. We know for a fact that there were a few other servicemen who did much the same thing in the 1950s.

Her talk about Oswald’s loyalties rings true. He was, in fact, a fairly patriotic young man who joined the Marines when underage, and because of his above-average intelligence, he was trained for secret radar operations with the new U-2 ultra-high flying spy planes in Asia.

The young Marine suddenly had a series of still unexplained incidents in his life abroad, started taking an interest in Russian matters, and someone trained him in a condensed course in the Russian language, a difficult language to learn. The course almost had to be the kind developed by and commonly used by the American military and intelligence.

Then he showily defected to Russia, with a lot of silly, deliberately public statements about his approval of the Soviet Union – something which totally goes against every factual thing we know about Oswald.

When he eventually returned, he was peacefully integrated back into American life…with, of all things, a Russian bride – this, at a time when there was such intense red-baiting that you could get in trouble in the United States for subscribing to the wrong magazine. It really was that dark and hostile, and what happened with Oswald’s return just could not ever have happened without hidden explanations.

(Oswald’s reintroduction to American life included his mysterious introduction to a group of Russian-speakers living in the Dallas area, an event whose probability of chance happening must be virtually zero.)

We also know Oswald worked at least part time in the period of his work at the Reily Coffee Company as an FBI informant. The Warren Commission itself was knocked off its pins when it learned something of this, but managed to sweep it under the carpet.

Next door to Reily’s was the Crescent City Garage, which just happened to provide parking for various government agencies. Two blocks away was the Newman Building, where ex-senior FBI Agent Guy Bannister had an office and where Oswald was not only seen but some of the pro-Castro leaflets Oswald sometimes showily distributed were actually stamped with its address.

There is sound testimony that a known FBI agent was seen once handing Oswald an envelope around the Reily location. Money? And of course, Oswald’s last note to the FBI in the Dallas office was literally destroyed by the Agent in Charge immediately after the assassination. We have nothing but lies about what it said from the very people who should have gone to prison for destroying evidence and obstructing justice.

As someone who, years ago, spent a good deal of time studying the assassination, I remain convinced Oswald was sucked into something he did not fully understand, but he didn’t shoot the president, and indeed, both temperamentally and by poor shooting skill, he simply couldn’t have.

The only genuine candidates for carrying out the elaborate scheme – and it was elaborate – were a few well-equipped candidate groups who had genuine motives and plenty of resources. For any one of whom to be identified in 1963, would have meant a major loss of confidence in America’s security organizations and perhaps a major blow to American policies. Also, there is the distinct possibility that the authorities never learned who was responsible – a fact itself which have been highly damaging to the sense of national security and well worth covering up.

While I have many questions about the statements thrown together in the Globe piece, I know Ms Baker is an intelligent woman who did indeed work in research. That is no guarantee of truth or of detailed knowledge but it is reason to read what she says. I look forward to reading her book

Readers may enjoy:

http://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/1544/

http://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/lincoln-was-wrong-the-ease-of-fooling-most-of-the-people-most-of-the-time/

___________________________

“Oh, God… Spare us the JFK conspiracy nonsense.

“I’ve been to Dealey Plaza and the ‘grassy knoll’ several times. The physical space is much smaller than it appears on the Zapruder film.

“Any decent Marine markman could’ve laid down several accurate shots from the Texas School Book Depository window.

“End of story. Unless you’re Michael Moore.”

Just the kind of comment one gets from someone who has read or studied virtually nothing serious on the subject but yet feels qualified to speak.

The Zapruder film – long suppressed early on – shows Kennedy’s body responding, according to the laws of physics, to a shot from the front, full stop.

Interestingly, several notable press descriptions of the unseen film at the time – most notably Dan Rather’s on CBS – proved absolutely inaccurate later.

Interesting also is the fact that in the Warren Commission’s hastily assembled jumble of evidence, some key frames from the film were printed out of order, blurring the evidence of response to a projectile from the front.

The Luce family who originally purchased the film – of Life Magazine and Time fame – were well known for cooperation with the CIA. Luce publications are known to have been used as covers for phony foreign correspondents.

The autopsy photos, poor as they are, show massive damage to the rear of the head, half the scalp hangs down – always evidence of an exit wound with bullets as they mushroom through flesh.

The doctor in charge of the autopsy wrote one report and then destroyed it – actually a criminal act.  The one we have is his re-write, the re-write of a military man under great pressure.

All those attending the president at the hospital in Dallas attest to massive damage at the rear of the head.

Bullet entrance wounds – unless dum-dum bullets are used – always resemble what you’d see from the stab of an ice-pick. Often they are almost undetectable, as witnesses to the killing of a young man at a Toronto school realized.

The Warren Commission said hard-jacketed bullets were used, so the case for the back of the head being an entrance wound is zero.

Oswald was not a decent “Marine marksman.” He was a terrible shot, getting his badge finally as a mercy with a low score.

Those who knew him in Russia confirm his utter lack of facility with a rifle.

Finally, no expert marksman has repeated the feat attributed to Oswald. Indeed, a few years ago, tests in Italy – it was an Italian rifle supposedly used – confirmed its impossibility.

The overwhelming majority of witnesses in the Plaza turned towards and pointed towards and ran towards the grassy knoll immediately after the shots.

Last, the second investigation of the assassination – the Congressional one – accepted that there was a shooter from the front on the basis of expert analysis of inadvertent recordings of a policeman’s motorcycle radio left open.

Advertisements

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY DOUG SAUNDERS IN THE TORONTO GLOBE AND MAIL

“Mr. Putin’s Potemkin-village politics…”

Sorry, there’s almost no thought or analysis in this column.

Just how, in any way, do Putin’s photo-ops differ from what we experience?

Virtually every headline in our major news sources is synthetic.

And our leaders turn virtually one-hundred-and-eighty degrees once they’re in office after an election, often doing precisely what they condemned.

The truth is that Putin is exceptionally intelligent and energetic, and that alone marks him out from many of our leaders.

He has flaws, but are you telling me that our PM, who was held in contempt of Parliament and has lied to us countless times about large or small things and is known for a furious private temper, does not?

And if you want photo-ops even more faked up than Putin’s look to Harper in a parka up north.

He puts on periodic shows to earn nationalist credentials even while he’s busy negotiating away a great deal of Canada’s sovereignty to Americans, the only people who are a serious threat to both northern sovereignty and the Great Lakes.

And the stuff about revolutions is utter nonsense.

Genuine revolutions, like the French or the Russian, virtually never succeed over time. The French had the monarchy back in no time, as did the Russians under a different name.

Revolutions like that in America are often successful, but then they aren’t correctly called revolutions at all. The so-called American Revolution was only a revolt of the locals against foreign lordship and indeed a very conservative event, leaving such godawful institutions as slavery a thriving concern. It basically saw a small group of petty American aristocrats – Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, slaveholders all – replace a group of foreign aristocrats.

And it is a fact that America wasn’t anything like a democracy after its “revolution.” The Senate was appointed until 1913. The President was not elected by the popular vote, but by the propertied aristocrats admitted to the Electoral College. The Supreme made no effort at all to enforce the Bill of Rights – for a very long time, it was only a high-sounding and empty statement of principles, what you might call green-wash.

Blacks, of course, could not vote (effectively not until the 1960s). Women could not vote (not until 1921). Most white males could not vote because they did not own enough property to qualify.

America took about two centuries to become something vaguely resembling a democracy, and even now it has a government within the government – the military, intelligence, security establishment serving giant corporate interests.

Look at America’s recent experience to understand the role of the government within a government.

Bush was likely the most ill-informed and bad-intentioned person ever to be president, and he wasn’t even cleanly elected. Then the people elected a man who sometimes wore sandals, didn’t immediately wear an American-flag pin on his lapel, and taught Constitutional law. After less than three years, you would not know in almost any important detail that Bush was not still president.
___________________________________

All genuine democracies develop slowly – that is a salient fact of European and North American history.

Always, we first have aristocrats or lords or family compacts – always.

Then through the gradual growth of the middle class under steady economic growth, a large class with substantial resources emerges who do not see their interests being represented by the aristocrats or family compact members.

Then we see a gradual change in political institutions to accommodate the new sizable and growing middle class. The process takes different forms in different countries, owing to cultural and historical circumstances, but it always takes this general pattern.

The same is underway in Russia. At least Putin represents a rather enlightened aristocrat to guide the nation through some of its most tender years. Yeltsin, who blubbered about democracy, was a helpless buffoon and a constant drunk.

 

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

A truly uninformative and self-serving article, as it was intended to be – that is, after all the nature of propaganda. It deals with none of the genuine issues, only with Israel’s demands.

You can never make progress with any problem by pretending its reality is only what exists in your mind, and that is precisely what this ridiculous article does. The reality includes the perceptions and feelings of all the parties affected.

Negotiations are about different views compromising, but Israel compromises on nothing. It just makes demands and preconditions, endlessly while it continues to take what it wants to take.

The article begs a gigantic question: how does one – anyone – recognize a “Jewish state”?

Apart from the fact that such an entity is no different in concept to a Muslim state or a Hindu state or a Christian state – all of which are formulations Western minds reject as backward and unhelpful to progress.

Israel – in addition to the more than four million who live under seemingly endless occupation and abuse in East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank – has about a million non-Jews who technically are citizens, Israeli passport holders.

It wasn’t that Israel wanted them, far from it: they were the Palestinians who refused to run from the waves of terror in 1948 when Irgun, the Stern Gang, the Lehi, and the rag-tag Israeli army of that day worked to terrorize and kill Arabs, chasing them off the land their families owned for centuries.

What happens to that million – who already under Israeli law are treated in many ways as second-class citizens – if Israel is formally recognized as “the Jewish state”?

I think we can all guess, something pretty unpleasant. Just listen to the words of Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, a nasty piece of work who indeed is rather moderate compared to the extremists who burn down homes, destroy orchards, and deface mosques.

And what are the borders of “the Jewish state”? Israel has changed its borders continuously since 1948. How do you recognize a state with no borders? Isn’t that one of the main points of negotiation, to settle borders?

Indeed, while Israel’s leaders never openly talk to the Western press about the matter, Israel has pursued a constant policy of expansion and ethnic-cleansing, its only mercy being that it is done in slow motion so that there is never too much trouble at any one time.

Israel’s aims come hidden under the obscure references to Eretz Israel and Judea and Samaria – terms not ten percent of Western readers understand. They are the words which cover Israel’s expectation of eventually seizing all the land of the Palestinians and even other bits like Southern Lebanon, and they are the words which ipso facto mean endless hostilities.

The entire 1967 war was engineered by Israel to achieve the occupation – and gradual theft of property and expulsion of people – we see now.

Since 1948 and especially since 1967, Israel has broken every international law and convention we have, including those of the UN and Geneva Conventions.

If you have no respect for the laws and rights of others, how can you ever expect others to respect your laws and rights? It’s simply insane to believe otherwise. We have here a lawless state, lawless in all its external relations, demanding that others respect not just its laws, but its every wish.

Israel steals whatever it desires and it pretty much kills any opponent it doesn’t like.

Israel has utter contempt for all of its neighbors, as it has shown on countless occasions.

Israel attacks everyone who does not accept its self-proclaimed truths.

Yet it is somehow Palestinians who prevent their own statehood by denying “the Jewish state”? If ever there was a case of an illogical vicious circle this is it.

The poor Palestinians are told they must achieve statehood only by dealing with their oppressors – not by negotiating, although that word is used as a euphemism, because Israel in fact never negotiates, it only makes preconditions and demands.

Imagine blacks in apartheid South African being told they must deal only with their the apartheid government? Imagine Ukrainians or Byelorussians being told they must only deal with the Soviet Union?

It is itself a laughable demand, laughable because it is so completely irrational and arbitrary.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A TORONTO GLOBE AND MAIL EDITORIAL

Exactly what genuine information do voters get from the Globe’s fawning political endorsements?

Only a single important fact emerges from all of them: if the Globe endorses a candidate, you know he/she/it is about as poor for the job as it gets.

The criteria for these endorsements reside in the dark shadows of the editorial offices, in a place where what is good for the Globe in its day-to-day business and government contacts determines the nominee.

Consider the egregious example of that dark bulk, Harper.

Does anyone who doesn’t work for the tar sands or belong to Christian Right or is both blind and deaf believe he was a quality candidate?

Now we have Dalton the Magnificent joining the line-up of usual suspects:

http://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/dalton-the-magnificent/

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NtgXlrcvXZA/TOVYXM0ywwI/AAAAAAAApJA/C4mOoDa8zAI/s1600/CHUCKMAN%2B-%2BMCGUINTY%2B-%2BMARIE%2BANTOINE

_________________________________

Well, we really do not have much of a choice, do we?

There’s Hudak who has utterly made a fool of himself with chain-gangs, publishing former sex-offender addresses, and now miming Harper’s idiocy about coalitions, something that any good high school student knows is legal and proper in parliamentary government.

There’s Dalton the Magnificent who has made a fool of himself more times than you can count but, more importantly, has put Ontario’s future energy competitiveness and consumers’ household budgets in serious danger with inefficient and costly and ugly windmills.

He lacks even the courage to build the gas-fired base-load plants, needed to back-up the inefficient windmills, in the jurisdictions where they are needed.

Then there’s Andrea Horwath, an intelligent woman, who unfortunately belongs to a party that will see every teacher and civil servant getting record pay settlements.

What’s the big deal about democracy with this kind of choice?

______________________________

Our choice is precisely between two bad jokes and a union ideologue.

_____________________________

“Time for a change” is a mighty ill-considered slogan.

It was Richard Nixon’s campaign slogan.

______________________________

“Well, there’s that steady hand at the tiller reasoning again.

 “Stevey and now Dalty.”

I do love those immortal cliches of which editorial writers are so fond.

Remember, Chairman Mao was called the Great Helmsman.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Not too many targets left, in other words.

What a bloody world-class stupidity this operation has been.

America kills and destroys for “anti-Gaddafi” in Libya while it also kills and destroys anti-tyrants themselves in Yemen and Bahrain.

(I wonder how many readers know that the government of Bahrain is actually charging doctors for treating patients because the patients were rebels? Some friend of democracy and human rights that is.)

The only thing which matters in deciding which side to bomb is whether the tyrants toe the American line or not.

And, oh, having substantial oil reserves helps.
_________________________

“Again, Congratulations to the Canadian Airforce and Navy. Their contribution was outstanding in imposing an embargo by sea and air as this conflict took place.”

Oh boy, let’s hear it for a useless contribution to American blood-drenched global imperialism.

I’d say the boys and girls deserve medals.

American medals, that is.
__________________________

“…you ignore the obvious fact that Libyans liberated themselves in this conflict.

“It is all about who has the most ground forces.”

Why do you insist on advertising your ignorance?

The bombardment has been horrific.

At one point Britain actually was running short of Tomahawk cruise missiles.

America used fleets of cruise missiles, B-52s, fighter-jets, and B-2 stealth bombers sent from the United States.

America has destroyed gigantic amounts of infrastructure from airfields to roads to portions of cities.

America has killed thousands of civilians with the bombardment.

Every concentration of the government’s troops was subject to fierce assault plus any civilians nearby.

America has also surreptitiously supplied the rebels with substantial weaponry, and significant special forces – hundreds of murderous thugs – were secreted in to do as many dirty deeds as they could.

The rebels – whatever it is they represent, about which we literally know nothing – basically followed a wall of fire and destruction to claim their prizes.

Even then, the rebels clearly are such a minority they have often failed and close to failed.

I simply cannot conceive how any thinking person can describe the whole ugly effort as the work of the rebels.

Indeed, it is precisely the pattern adopted in Afghanistan where America blew the crap out of anything in doubt while the Northern Alliance advanced on the ground.

Does any sane person doubt that America conquered Afghanistan, or much of it, in this fashion? Or that the existing government figures in Afghanistan serve at America’s pleasure?

What you mistake for arrogance is in fact despair over the lying and cheating and ugliness which dominate world affairs, always pasted over with cheap slogans about freedom and democracy.

Neither of which exists in dozens of places the United States supports and embraces – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain, and occupied Palestine just for starters.

 

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

This is just sick.

And the BBC coverage of this story says that Obama personally approved this South American military junta style killing.

Some enlightened president.

None of us can possibly know just what this man actually did – beyond speaking against the unjust practices of America – but it does seem to me that the greater the threat an individual is understood to be, the greater the need for all conventional forces of law and intelligence to obtain his arrest through legal channels.

This behavior of America’s – and Israel’s, since American tactics were copied from Israel’s dirty practices – is a one way trip to nowhere: it is a giant step backward for human rights and democratic practices.

Very possibly we are looking at the dawn of a dark new age in which America plays God with the entire planet.

You either have a society – and that includes international society – which is ruled by laws or you do not.

This is as far as you can go from the rule of law.