No JFK conspiracy, new analysis shows
October 28, 2003
The United States' ABC television network said today it conducted an exhaustive investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, complete with a computer-generated reconstruction, which irrefutably confirms that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
A two-hour special on the event is scheduled to air on ABC News in the United States on November 20, two days before the 40th anniversary Kennedy's killing.
"It leaves no room for doubt," said Tom Yellin, executive producer of the special, narrated by Peter Jennings.
He called the results of ABC's study "enormously powerful. It's irrefutable". The conclusion that Oswald alone shot Kennedy during a motorcade in Dallas mirrors that of the Warren Commission, the official government inquiry into the assassination.
Even today, public opinion surveys find that less than half of Americans don't agree with that conclusion, said Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas.
But that reservoir of doubt, largely fed by government secrecy and Oliver Stone's movie on the assassination, is important to address, Yellin said.
ABC News worked with an expert who created a computer-generated reconstruction of the shooting based on maps, blueprints, physical measurements, more than 500 photographs, films and autopsy reports, ABC said.
It enables a person to view the scene from any number of perspectives, including what Oswald saw from the sixth floor of the former Texas school book depository, Yellin said.
"When you do that, it's chillingly clear what happened," Yellin said.
He dismisses theories that there was another gunman.
Through interviews and other documentation, ABC News also concludes that Jack Ruby, who later killed Oswald, acted simply out of his love for Kennedy.
The computer-generated technology, only available for the past few years, is now frequently used in criminal investigations, Yellin said.
While Stone's movie raised doubt in many people's minds about the Warren Commission, it also led to the release of many government documents that had previously been kept hidden and fueled conspiracy theorists, Yellin said.
None of the documents offer significant evidence refuting the conclusion that Oswald acted alone, Yellin said.
Still, much of Americans' cynicism about their government can be traced to November 22, 1963, making further investigation important even 40 years later, he said.
"I think it's very hard for people to accept the fact that the most powerful man in the world can be murdered by a disaffected person whose life had been a series of failures up to that point," Yellin said.
Both Yellin and Mack admit that no matter what evidence ABC News lays out, it's not likely to quiet people who believe otherwise.
"The history of this subject is pretty clear," Mack said.
"No matter what information comes out, people are going to believe what they want."
This book is not about assassinations, at least not solely about assassinations. It is not just another book about who murdered President Kennedy or how or why. It is a book about power, about who really controls the United States policies, especially foreign policies. It is a book about the process of control through the manipulation of the American presidency and the presidential election process. The objective of the book is to expose the clandestine, secret, tricky methods and weapons used for this manipulation, and to reveal the degree to which these have been hidden from the American public.
Assassinations are only one of many techniques used in this control process. They have been important only in the sense that they are the ultimate method used in the control of the election process. Viewed in this way, an understanding of what happened to John or Robert Kennedy becomes more important because it leads to a total understanding of what has happened to our country, and to us, since 1960. But the important thing to understand is the control and the power and all of the clandestine methods put together.
Now, the most important thing initially that happened in finding the photos was discovering a number of photographs- -films and still photos--that showed the sixth floor window empty with nobody in it. This is what originally convinced me that we had a different sort of conspiracy going than one involving Lee Harvey Oswald, because if he wasn't in the window--and nobody was in the window--then what happened?
Who fired the shots? And where from?
Confirming that the films and photographs I was looking at were taken at the critical time the shots were fired, or immediately before or after that, involved a lot of work: work with plat maps, other photos, and other materials. I got hold of a map made by the surveyor for Dealey Plaza (I believe his name was Clarence West) which was drawn to scale, and Bob Cutler helped me draw onto it all of the various things that happened including all the vehicles that were moving through. And I managed to lay a set of films end-to-end starting with one rounding the turn onto Houston Street all the way through Dealey Plaza so I could track any vehicle that was in view eighteenth- of-a-second by eighteenth-of-a-second (Zapruder film speed) all the way through Dealey Plaza. This enabled me to determine where Kennedy was at all times and where anybody else was that showed up in any of the photos-- particularly moving pictures--at times Kennedy was at spot so-and-so or spot such-and-such.
By doing this, with some triangulation, I was able to pin down the exact timing of two particular sets of photos: a film--the Hughes film--the last frame of which shows the sixth floor window empty and ends 5.7 seconds ahead of the first shot--the first shot being fired/tied down at frame 189 of the Zapruder film; and two photos taken after the shots were fired by Dillard and, believe it or not, an intelligence man from Navy intelligence named Powell. Powell's and Dillard's photos were taken almost at the same time, 3.5 seconds after the fatal and last shot (Z-313).
So that total time span is less than 17 seconds--if you add up the 5.7 seconds after the end of the Hughes film, plus the 6-plus seconds while the shots were being fired, plus the 3.5 seconds before Dillard and Powell's photos were taken--of blank, non-coverage of that window and there's no way Oswald could have gotten into the window, aimed, fired three shots, and gotten out of the window so you that couldn't see him in 17 seconds.
But anyway there was another film taken by Beverly Oliver otherwise known as the Babushka lady that was confiscated by News Orleans FBI agent Regis Kennedy, and a still photograph taken by Norman Similas, confiscated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from "Liberty" magazine (which was going to publish the photo), who then turned the photo and its negative over to the FBI. I interviewed Similas and the "Liberty" magazine editor both of whom told me they had carefully examined the photograph and had seen no one in the photograph appearing in the eastern-most sixth floor window, which I calculated had been taken about half-way into the 17-second interval.
I made two attempts soon after the Freedom of Information Act "viewing room" in the FBI office in Washington, D.C. was created, to request to see the Similas photograph and Beverly Oliver film, but each time the FBI person assigned to me was not able to find these photographs. But the testimony of the people involved was good enough for me to conclude that there was nobody in that window ever. Once I got to that point I started looking for other evidence that would show where the shots did come from and I started finding all kinds of evidence of shots from the grassy knoll, and from the Dal Tex building, and from the roof or the seventh floor of the western end of the depository building--both photographs as well as witness testimony--and that lead me to decide that this was a powerful conspiracy which had involved at least four gunmen firing shots. This then lead me to decide that I should pursue the whole pattern of conspiracy including, eventually, the Martin Luther King assassination, the Bobby Kennedy assassination and the George Wallace attempt. And that led to the book.
Through all of this, I just know I never would have concluded that it was a powerful and well-planned conspiracy if I had not determined that Oswald wasn't in that window-- nobody was in that window. That was the first key.
There's one other thing I'd like to point out. The title of the book has more than just simple significance and it shows up in all the chapters that link all these assassinations and their cover-ups. Namely, our country has been taken from us. Us being the citizens of the United States as of 1963, and any time after that, by robbing us of our capability of electing a president we wanted for at least three, and more likely four, elections. One way of taking the country away, is to control the elections and that's really, at least part of the essence of the book. It's close to what Henry Gonzalez proposed in his original bill. He wanted the Congress to look into all four of the major assassinations--the fourth being the attempted assassination of George Wallace--and find the links between and among them, and the cover-ups, and particularly the links between the intelligence agencies and the cover-ups that he was sure were involved in all of them. And if we had had a committee which had done that, well then, we'd have been a lot further along than we are 13 years later. -- phone interview with the author, June 3, 1992
INGREDIENT 1. A PATRIOTIC ISSUE. A fundamental issue permeating nearly all conditions of life in the U.S. is needed, around which the rest of the fooling can be constructed. The perfect issue since 1947 has been "The Red Menace," or "Communism" or "The Radical Communist Left Conspiracy." No one is more adept at using this issue than Richard Nixon.
The people, to be fooled, have to really believe in the issue, from the heart, from the gut. In a democracy this is the most essential ingredient. In the U.S. many, many people believe it. Some believe it because they have never heard or read anything other than "The Communists are going to take over." Others believe it because they or their parents or relatives came from Europe and "know what it's like to live under Naziism or Communism." (They don't distinguish.)
Some believe because they are religious, and somehow religion is always linked to anti-communism. Others aren't sure, but they think "radical" groups might be Communist controlled. The flag waving, the national anthem, the American Legion, our prisoners of war, the draft of the past--all of these symbols are linked to the one big issue of "Communism." [...]
INGREDIENT 2. REACHING THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE. To fool a majority of the people all of the time it is necessary to reach into their minds over a relatively long period of time.
[...] Go back in time to 1935, if you are over 50, or go back to 1945, if you are over 40, or back to 1955, if you are over 30. Examine your general overall attitudes, beliefs and prejudices as developed over that period of time between then and now. You will discover that your political beliefs about the U.S., the Presidency, foreign policy, wage and price controls, and your own economic conditions, etc., have been strongly influenced by the various news media.
INGREDIENT 3. CONTROLLING THE NEWS MEDIA. In Chapter 9, the author proves that it has been possible for a very small group of people in power to control or fool nearly all of the major news media in the U.S. about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and subsequent investigations conducted by groups other than the sources of power (Warren Commission, FBI, Secret Service, CIA, Justice Department, the President).
According to polls taken between 1963 and 1970, 50% to 80% of the public at one time or another during this period believed there was a conspiracy. Nevertheless, the major news media took the opposite position. A poll conducted today would, no doubt, show about one-half of the people believing there was no conspiracy. How did this happen? Is it conceivable that the power sources of two succeeding administrations (Johnson and Nixon) fooled or controlled the news media to that extent?
The problem is not so difficult as it seems. Only sixteen media organizations are involved. These sixteen provide each of us with nearly all of the news we either read, see or hear. It is only necessary to control the sixteen men at the very top and that is exactly what happened. The proof contained in Chapter 9 contains specific facts about what happened inside of eleven of the sixteen organizations.
INGREDIENT 4. CONTROLLING THE LEGAL SYSTEM. Perhaps the most important long-range ingredient in fooling the people of America is the control and influence over the legal system. The U.S. in the post-war era has reached the stage where, in case of doubt on a major issue, the people will wait to see how it is resolved by the courts. The American people in general have always had tremendous faith in their own legal system.
With the exception of the South taking issue with the Warren court over black rights, the American people tend to believe that the Supreme Court will eventually right any wrongs. The faith goes much further than adjudication of crimes or disputes. People have come to rely on the legal system to tell them where the truth lies on a major issue when two sides differ completely on the facts. They believe that the adversary procedure and the perjury penalty system will ferret out the truth.
Thus, to fool the people, and make them believe lies, it is essential to control the legal system. The Nixon and Johnson administrations and the Invisible Government lying underneath or off to one side of both administrations became very adept at controlling the legal system. It can be done, and has been done in several ways. Nixon, of course, loaded the Supreme Court. That is important. The complete control of the Justice Department and the FBI is also obvious. Not so obvious is the need to control Federal judges throughout the land. Truth might leak out in a trial at a local level, so U.S. courts in each area must be controlled.
The Federal grand jury scheme worked out by Nixon, Mitchell and Robert Mardian is a beautiful way to guide, direct and control the legal system. It more than proved its worth in fooling the people in cases involving classified documents, the Black Panthers and other situations where the truth had to be obscured. [...]
INGREDIENT 5. PAID COLUMNISTS OR LACKEYS. Control of the news media includes controlling or hiring selected columnists, newsmen, commentators, and lackeys. Sometimes these people are called "spokesmen for the administration." Many of them are supposedly independent. Their importance in the process of fooling the people has increased as the number of independent news media organizations has decreased and the number of organizations relying on syndicated, national columnists or commentators has increased.
One of the favorite tricks of the media throughout the years has been to couple the words "conspiracy" and "theory" together; never once did the major media mention any of the hard evidence pointing to conspiracy in any of the four major cases.
The evidence for the Power Control Group's and Ford/Nixon's strategy is as follows:
1. Nixon was White House action officer on Cuban invasion plans in 1960.
2. Nixon was in contact with Hunt and others during the Bay of Pigs planning.
3. Nixon lied to the American people by his own admission about the Bay of Pigs during his TV debates with Kennedy in 1960.
4. Nixon was financially linked to the Mafia and to Cuban casino operations before Castro took over.
5. Nixon was acquainted with Hunt, Baker, Martinez, Sturgis, Carlos Prio Socarras, and other Watergate people and anti-Castro people in Florida, and he was financially linked to Baker, Martinez and Socarras.
6. Hunt, Baker, Sturgis and Socarras were connected with the assassination group in the murder of JFK.
7. Nixon was in Dallas for three days, including the morning of the JFK assassination. He was trying to stir up trouble for Kennedy.
8. Nixon went to Dallas under false pretenses. There was no board meeting of the Pepsi Cola Company as he announced his law firm had had to attend.
9. Nixon did not admit being in Dallas on the day Kennedy was shot and did not reveal the true reason for his trip. He held two press conferences on the two days before the assassination, attacking both Kennedy and Johnson and emphasizing the Democratic political problems in Texas.
10. Research indicates that Nixon either knew in advance about assassination plans, or learned about them soon after the assassination.
11. Nixon proposed to Lyndon Johnson that Gerald Ford serve on the Warren Commission.
12. Ford led the Commission cover-up by controlling the questioning of key witnesses and by several other means.
13. Ford helped firmly plant the idea that Oswald was the only assassin and that there was no conspiracy by publishing his own book, "Lee Harvey Oswald: Portrait of the Assassin."
14. Ford purposefully covered up the conspiracy of the PCG in the JFK assassination and also covered up the fact that Oswald was a paid informer for the FBI. He did this by dismissing the subject in his book as worthless rumor and by keeping the executive sessions of the Commission (where Oswald's FBI informer status was discussed) classified Top Secret.
15. Ford continued the cover-up when he was questioned before being confirmed by the Senate as Vice President. He lied under oath twice to the Senate Committee. He stated that he had written his book about Oswald with no access to classified documents. He lied about this because his book used classified documents about Oswald's FBI informer status. He lied when he said that the book was entitled, "Lee Harvey Oswald: Portrait of *an* Assassin." This was significant in 1973 because the public by then had become very skeptical about a lone assassin. By changing one word in the title, Ford made the book seem a little less like what it actually was--an effort to make Oswald the assassin.
16. Jaworski aided in the JFK cover-up by sitting on evidence of conspiracy accumulated by Waggoner Carr, Texas Attorney General, who he represented in liaison with the Warren Commission. He also stopped the critical testimony of Jack Ruby when he testified before the Warren Commission, and diverted attention away from Ruby's intent to reveal the conspiracy to kill both Kennedy and Oswald.
17. Nixon became president in 1968 only because Robert Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Nixon was well aware of the conspiracy whether or not he approved of it in advance.
18. John Mitchell and J. Edgar Hoover joined Nixon and the lower level members of the PCG in covering up the RFK murder conspiracy. They classified the evidence "Top Secret" and murdered several witnesses, controlled the judge in the Sirhan trial and the district attorney and the chief of police in Los Angeles during and after the trial. They still control these people and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Clarence Kelly also became involved.
19. The plumbers group ordered the assassination of George Wallace in 1972 to insure Nixon's election by picking up Wallace's vote (about 18%, according to polls).
20. J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Helms were aware of who killed John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. They helped cover-up both conspiracies.
21. John Mitchell controlled the trial of Clay Shaw and the Garrison investigation and discredited Garrison by framing him in a New Orleans gambling case.
22. Nixon and Haldeman discussed the assassination of John Kennedy, the conspiracy, Hunt's involvement, the possibility that Hunt might talk, the cover-up, the Bay of Pigs relationship between Nixon, Hunt and the other PCG members, and the briefing Nixon might have had to give anyone running against him in 1972, on matters of "national security".
23. Nixon and Mitchell discussed the assassinations and the attempt to assassinate George Wallace. Mitchell executed orders to suppress the truth about these events.
24. Gerald Ford had possession of the most critical tapes on which assassinations and cover-ups were discussed.
25. Jaworski could be counted on to keep the assassination material under wraps even after his resignation. He was aware of the conspiracy evidence and cover-up in all three cases (JFK, RFK, George Wallace).
26. Hunt was taken care of and will keep silent. He had been out of jail and living on a beautiful $100,000 estate in Florida with plenty of money, across the street from his Bay of Pigs friend, Manuel Artime.
27. Clay Shaw was murdered by the PCG, undoubtedly to keep him from talking once the truth about his CIA position was revealed by Victor Marchetti. He was embalmed before the coroner could determine the cause of death. Evidence indicates he was killed somewhere and then brought back to his apartment.
28. Hale Boggs, a Warren, Commission member, was possibly killed by the PCG. Bogg's airplane disappeared in Alaska. No trace of it was ever found and no explanation of how the plane could have crashed has ever been given. Mrs. Boggs has expressed doubts about it being an accident.
29. Four of the seven Warren Commission members are dead: Warren, Dulles, Russell and Boggs. Of the remaining members, Ford was President, John McCloy is retired and living in Connecticut, and John Sherman Cooper was made ambassador to East Germany.
30. Richard Russell, Hale Boggs and Cooper believed there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Russell and Boggs both said so publicly.
31. Haldeman erased 18 1/2 minutes of a taped discussion with Nixon. This tape undoubtedly contained "national security" matters. The fact that Haldeman did the erasing can easily be determined by tracing the trail of possession of the tape from the day it was taken out of the vault to the day the gap was discovered. Haldeman had the tape with the recorder alone for nearly 48 hours. No one else had the tape alone long enough to do the erasing.
32. Ford and the PCG contemplated pardons for Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman and possibly others who know the number one secret.
33. Ford's statements to the sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee concerning his pardon of Nixon dodged the real issue. Only Elizabeth Holtzman asked questions coming close to the number one secret. When she asked about a prior agreement, Ford said, "I have made no deal, there was no deal, *since I became Vice President*." Those last few words were not reported by the press, but a large number of Americans watched and heard him say them. Of course he spoke truthfully because the "deal" was made *before* he became Vice President.
Ford jottings offer something new for JFK conspiracy theorists
By MIKE FEINSILBER
The Associated Press
07-02-1997
WASHINGTON (July 2) - Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas.
The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.
A small change, said Ford on Wednesday when it came to light, one intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.
"My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory," he said in a telephone interview from Beaver Creek, Colo. "My changes were only an attempt to be more precise."
But still, his editing was seized upon by members of the conspiracy community, which rejects the commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone.
"This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission report," said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and written an Internet book about it.
The effect of Ford's editing, Morningstar said, was to suggest that a bullet struck Kennedy in the neck, "raising the wound two or three inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the public as to the true number of assassins."
If the bullet had hit Kennedy in the back, it could not have struck Connolly in the way the commission said it did, he said.
The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that a single bullet - fired by a "discontented" Oswald - passed through Kennedy's body and wounded his fellow motorcade passenger, Connally, and that a second, fatal bullet, fired from the same place, tore through Kennedy's head.
The assassination of the president occurred Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas; Oswald was arrested that day but was shot and killed two days later as he was being transferred from the city jail to the county jail.
Conspiracy theorists reject the idea that a single bullet could have hit both Kennedy and Connally and done such damage. Thus they argue that a second gunman must have been involved.
Ford's changes tend to support the single-bullet theory by making a specific point that the bullet entered Kennedy's body "at the back of his neck" rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission staff originally wrote.
Ford's handwritten notes were contained in 40,000 pages of records kept by J. Lee Rankin, chief counsel of the Warren Commission.
They were made public Wednesday by the Assassination Record Review Board, an agency created by Congress to amass all relevant evidence in the case. The documents will be available to the public in the National Archives.
The staff of the commission had written: "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine."
Ford suggested changing that to read: "A bullet had entered the back of his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine."
The final report said: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."
Ford, then House Republican leader and later elevated to the presidency with the 1974 resignation of Richard Nixon, is the sole surviving member of the seven-member commission chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
CBS edited out one other important piece of TV film. In November 1969, Walter Cronkite conducted a three-part interview with Lyndon B. Johnson at his ranch in Texas. The series was broadcast in the spring of 1970 and on the first program an announcement was made that portions of the taped interview had been deleted at Lyndon Johnson's request, "for reasons of national security."
What actually happened and what Johnson had said six months earlier was made public due to a leak at CBS. The story appeared in newspapers all over the U.S. several days before the broadcast.
Johnson told Cronkite that there had been a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy, that Oswald was not a lone madman assassin, and that he, Johnson, had known it all along. Johnson reviewed the tapes a week or so before the program was to go on the air and then called up the CBS management, asking that his remarks be deleted.
Someone at CBS who was very disturbed by this called a member of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations and told him what had been deleted. This led to the story being printed in the newspapers.
George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography
CHAPTER VIII-b - THE BAY OF PIGS AND THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION
by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin
[...] According to George Bush's official biography, he was during 1963 a well-to-do businessman residing in Houston, the busy president of Zapata Offshore and the chairman of the Harris County Republican Organization, supporting Barry Goldwater as the GOP's likely 1964 presidential candidate, while at the same time actively preparing his own 1964 bid for the US Senate. But during that same period of time, Bush may have shared some common acquaintances with Lee Harvey Oswald.
Between October, 1962 and April, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian wife Marina were in frequent contact with a Russian emigré couple living in Dallas: these were George de Mohrenschildt and his wife Jeanne.
During the Warren Commission investigation of the Kennedy assassination, de Mohrenschildt was interviewed at length about his contacts with Oswald.
When, in the spring of 1977, the discrediting of the Warren Commission report as a blatant coverup had made public pressure for a new investigation of the Kennedy assassination irresistible, the House Assassinations Committee planned to interview de Mohrenschildt once again. But in March, 1977, just before de Mohrenschildt was scheduled to be interviewed by Gaeton Fonzi of the House committee's staff, he was found dead in Palm Beach, Florida.
His death was quickly ruled a suicide. One of the last people to see him alive was Edward Jay Epstein, who was also interviewing de Mohrenschildt about the Kennedy assassination for an upcoming book. Epstein is one of the writers on the Kennedy assassination who enjoyed excellent relations with the late James Angleton of the CIA. If de Mohrenschildt were alive today, he might be able to enlighten us about his relations with George Bush, and perhaps afford us some insight into Bush's activities during this epoch.
Jeanne de Mohrenschildt rejected the finding of suicide in her husband's death. "He was eliminated before he got to that committee," the widow told a journalist in 1978, "because someone did not want him to get to it." She also maintained that George de Mohrenschildt had been surreptitiously injected with mind-altering drugs.
After de Mohrenschildt's death, his personal address book was located, and it contained this entry: "Bush, George H.W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum Midland." There is of course the problem of dating this reference. George Bush had moved his office and home from Midland to Houston in 1959, when Zapata Offshore was constituted, so perhaps this reference goes back to some time before 1959. There is also the number: "4-6355." There are, of course, numerous other entries, including one W.F. Buckley of the Buckley brothers of New York City, William S. Paley of CBS, plus many oil men, stock brokers, and the like. [...]
It is established that between October, 1962 and late April, 1963, de Mohrenschildt was a very important figure in the life of Oswald and his Russian wife. Despite Oswald's lack of social graces, de Mohrenschildt introduced him into Dallas society, took him to parties, assisted him in finding employment, and much more.
It was through de Mohrenschildt that Oswald met a certain Volkmar Schmidt, a young German geologist who had studied with Professor Wilhelm Kuetemeyer, an expert in psychosomatic medicine and religious philosophy at the University of Heidelberg, who compiled a detailed psychological profile of Oswald.
Jeanne and George helped Marina move her belongings during one of her many estrangements from Oswald. According to some accounts, de Mohrenschildt's influence on Oswald was so great during this period that he could virtually dictate important decisions to the young ex-marine simply by making suggestions. Oswald was in awe of de Mohrenschildt, according to some.
[...] According to Mark Lane, "there is evidence that de Mohrenschildt served as a CIA control officer who directed Oswald's actions."
Much of the extensive published literature on de Mohrenschildt converges on the idea that he was a baby sitter, handler, case officer, or control agent for Oswald on behalf of some intelligence agency.
De Mohrenschildt's pedigree evokes haunting parallels to the typical figures of the PERMINDEX networks of Georges Mandel, Ferenc Nagy, Max Hagerman, Max Seligman, Carlo d'Amelio, Lewis Mortimer Bloomfield, and Clay Shaw, to which public attention was called during the investigations of New Orleans district attorney James Garrison.
It is therefore highly interesting that George Bush's name turned up in the personal address book of George de Mohrenschildt.
The Warren Commission went to absurd lengths to cover up the fact that George de Mohrenschildt was a denizen of the world of the intelligence agencies. This included ignoring the well-developed paper trial on de Mohrenschildt as Nazi and communist sympathizer, and later as a US asset abroad. The Warren Commission concluded:
The Commission's investigation has developed no signs of subversive or disloyal conduct on the part of either of the de Mohrenschildts. Neither the FBI, CIA, nor any witnesses contacted by the Commission has provided any information linking the de Mohrenschildts to subversive or extremist organizations. Nor has there been any evidence linking them in any way with the assassination of President Kennedy.
On the day of the Kennedy assassination, FBI records show George Bush as reporting a right-wing member of the Houston Young Republicans for making threatening comments about President Kennedy. According to FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act,
On November 22, 1963 Mr. GEORGE H.W. BUSH, 5525 Briar, Houston, Texas, telephonically advised that he wanted to relate some hearsay that he had heard in recent weeks, date and source unknown. He advised that one JAMES PARROTT had been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.
PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in politics in the Houston area.
According to related FBI documentation, "a check with Secret Service at Houston, Texas revealed that agency had a report that PARROTT stated in 1961 he would kill President Kennedy if he got near him."
Here Bush is described as "a reputable businessman." FBI agents were sent to interrogate Parrott's mother, and later James Milton Parrott himself.
Parrott had been discharged from the US Air Force for psychiatric reasons in 1959. Parrott had an alibi for the time of the Dallas shootings; he had been in the company of another Republican activist. According to press accounts, Parrott was a member of the right-wing faction of the Houston GOP which was oriented towards the John Birch Society and which opposed Bush's chairmanship.
According to the San Francisco Examiner, Bush's press office in August, 1988 first said that Bush had not made any such call, and challenged the authenticity of the FBI documents. Several days later Bush's spokesman said that the candidate "does not recall" placing the call.
One day later after he reported Parrott to the FBI, Bush received a highly sensitive, high-level briefing from the Bureau:
Date: November 29, 1963
To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State
From: John Edgar Hoover, Director
Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY NOVEMBER 22, 1963
Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963 advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in US policy, which is not true.
Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the US but to all Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.
An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that those individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.
The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W.T. Forsyth of this Bureau.
William T. Forsyth, since deceased, was an official of the FBI's Washington headquarters; during the time he was attached to the Bureau's subversive control section, he ran the investigation of Rev. Martin Luther King. Was he also a part of the FBI's harassment of Dr. King? The efforts of journalists to locate Captain Edwards have not been successful.
This FBI document identifying George Bush as a CIA agent in November, 1963 was first published by Joseph McBride in The Nation in July, 1988, just before Bush received the Republican nomination for president. McBride's source observed: "I know [Bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination. There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA."
When pressed for confirmation or denial, Bush's spokesman Stephen Hart commented: "Must be another George Bush."
Within a short time the CIA itself would peddle the same damage control line. On July 19, 1988 in the wake of wide public attention to the report published in The Nation, CIA spokeswoman Sharron Basso departed from the normal CIA policy of refusing to confirm or deny reports that any person is or was a CIA employee. CIA spokeswoman Basso told the Associated press that the CIA believed that "the record should be clarified." She said that the FBI document "apparently" referred to a George William Bush who had worked in 1963 on the night shift at CIA headquarters, and that "would have been the appropriate place to have received such an FBI report." According to her account, the George William Bush in question had left the CIA to join the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1964.
For the CIA to volunteer the name of one of its former employees to the press was a shocking violation of traditional methods, which are supposedly designed to keep such names a closely guarded secret. This revelation may have constituted a violation of federal law. But no exertions were too great when it came to damage control for George Bush.
George William Bush had indeed worked for the CIA, the DIA, and the Alexandria, Virginia Department of Public Welfare before joining the Social Security Administration, in whose Arlington, Virginia office he was employed as a claims representative in 1988. George William Bush told The Nation that while at the CIA he was "just a lowly researcher and analyst" who worked with documents and photos and never received interagency briefings. He had never met Forsyth of the FBI or Captain Edwards of the DIA. "So it wasn't me," said George William Bush.
Later, George William Bush formalized his denial in a sworn statement to a federal court in Washington, DC. The affidavit acknowledges that while working at CIA headquarters between September 1963 and February 1964, George William Bush was the junior person on a three to four man watch shift which was on duty when Kennedy was shot. But, as George William Bush goes on to say,
I have carefully reviewed the FBI memorandum to the Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State dated November 29, 1963 which mentions a Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency....I do not recognize the contents of the memorandum as information furnished to me orally or otherwise during the time I was at the CIA. In fact, during my time at the CIA. I did not receive any oral communications from any government agency of any nature whatsoever. I did not receive any information relating to the Kennedy assassination during my time at the CIA from the FBI.
Based on the above, it is my conclusion that I am not the Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency referred to in the memorandum.
So we are left with the strong suspicion that the "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" referred to by the FBI is our own George Herbert Walker Bush, who, in addition to his possible contact with Lee Harvey Oswald's controller, may thus also join the ranks of the Kennedy assassination cover-up.
It makes perfect sense for George Bush to be called in on a matter involving the Cuban community in Miami, since that is a place where George has traditionally had a constituency. George inherited it from his father, Prescott Bush of Jupiter Island, and later passed it on to his own son, Jeb.
It will be seen that at the beginning of Bush's tenure at the CIA, the Congressional committees were on the offensive against the intelligence agencies. By the time that Bush departed Langley, the tables were turned, and it was the Congress which was the focus of scandals, including Koreagate. Soon thereafter, the Congress would undergo the assault of Abscam.
Preparation for what was to become the Halloween massacre began in the Ford White House during the summer of 1975. The Ford Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan preserves a memo from Donald Rumsfeld to Ford dated July 10, 1975, which deals with an array of possible choices for CIA Director. Rumsfeld had polled a number of White House and administration officials and asked them to express preferences among "outsiders to the CIA."
Among the officials polled by Cheney was Henry Kissinger, who suggested C. Douglas Dillon, Howard Baker, Galvin, and Robert Roosa. Dick Cheney of the White House staff proposed Robert Bork, followed by Bush and Lee Iacocca. Nelson Rockefeller was also for C. Douglas Dillon, followed by Howard Baker, Conner, and James R. Schlesinger. Rumsfeld himself listed Bork, Dillon, Iacoca, Stanley Resor, and Walter Wriston, but not Bush. The only officials putting Bush on their "possible" lists other than Cheney were Jack O. Marsh, a White House counselor to Ford, and David Packard. When it came time for Rumsfeld to sum up the aggregate number of times each person was mentioned, minus one point for each time a person had been recommended against, the list was as follows:
Robert Bork [rejected in 1987 for the Supreme Court] White McGee Foster [John S. Foster of PFIAB, formerly of the Department of Defense] Dillon Resor Roosa Hauge
It will be seen that Bush was not among the leading candidates, perhaps because his networks were convinced that he was going to make another attempt for the vice-presidency and that therefore the Commerce Department or some similar post would be more suitable. The summary profile of Bush sent to Ford by Rumsfeld found that Bush had "experience in government and diplomacy" and was "generally familiar with components of the intelligence community and their missions" while having management experience." Under "Cons" Rumsfeld noted: "RNC post lends undesirable political cast."
As we have seen, the CIA post was finally offered by Ford to Edward Bennett Williams, perhaps with an eye on building a bipartisan bridge towards a powerful faction of the intelligence community. But Williams did not want the job. Bush, originally slated for the Department of Commerce, was given the CIA appointment.
Postscript
On April 27, 1976 "The New York Times" published a story on the Senate Intelligence Committee revelation that the CIA would be keeping twenty-five journalist agents within the news media.
The Committee disclosed that George Bush planned to keep these people in the media positions that they had occupied for a long time.
The significant point about the story was a statement by a Committee staff member that many of the individuals were in executive positions at American news organizations. Bush had directed that the CIA stop hiring correspondents "accredited" by American publications and other news organizations. The "Times" recognized that the pivotal word in Bush's directive was "accredited." "Executives who do not work as correspondents are apparently not covered by Mr. Bush's directive, nor are freelance writers who are not affiliated with a specific employer." The article also said that in most cases the media organization was not aware of the individual's CIA connection.
This was yet the best confirmation that the CIA had its Secret Team members planted at the top of the media. Only one executive is required at the top of a media organization to control it when needed. Since the CIA had twenty-five executives planted, that figure is more than enough to control the fifteen media organizations mentioned in this chapter.
On Christmas Day, we received a message from a reader pointing us to a remark made by Donald Rumsfeld during his surprise visit to Iraq to show the troops that he wasn't such a bad guy after all. Rummy had been coming up for criticism for his remarks to US soldiers on their lack of armour, his famous "you go to war with the army you have", and Bill Kristol, an important propagandist for the neocons, had been demanding Rummy's removal, though for other reasons. So off the US Secretary of Defence went to Baghdad on a PR tour to save his job. According to the following CCN transcript, while he was addressing the troops, Rummy made the following remark:
Rummy's statement is rich because for once he is telling us the truth. He tells us that Flight 93, erected in myth as the flight where the passengers struck back to prevent another "attack", was shot down. This version of events does not mesh with the official story, enshrined in The 9/11 Commission Report. Rummy's new take on events is the version recounted by those so-called "conspiracy theorists" who do not buy the official version, who have seen the holes, inconsistencies, and lies woven together to justify America's Imperial plunder, and who want something better -- the truth. But Rummy's admission is not all. Rumsfeld is telling us that all the events he mentions were done by the same forces, those who "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania". There is only one authority who could have shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 -- members of the US military. And if elements in the US military were responsible for shooting down Flight 93.... Well, someone doesn't want us going there. However, we agree with Rumsfeld that the purpose of the people behind these events is to "intimidate, to frighten...to alter behavior, to make people be something than that which they want to be". It sums up the Bush Administration to a "t". Such a slip could not be left to stand. Too many people who had seen the holes in the official story were waiting to fall upon Rumsfeld's words and use them to buttress their campaign to know the truth. You know, the "conspiracy theorists". But Rummy's words were "out there". How to do damage control? Call upon your friends at CNN. CNN would have to do because the good folks at Fox News had not reported this particular remark by Rummy. No need to disturb the great Fox-washed.
And the answer is?! "Rumsfeld simply misspoke." Really. He "has not changed his opinion". Honest. He knows how important the image of "Let's roll" is to the whole 9/11, "let's make America safer", mythology. The war against terrorism started on that flight; you can't change the story now, no matter the truth. Poor Don. He was probably confused, suffering from jet lag. It is so hard to keep the official story straight when the body is reacting to a change of so many time zones. Maybe he forgot to take his melatonin. What is curious is that this is not the first time that Donald Rumsfeld has "misspoken" on the subject of 9/11, that is, in the sense of telling the truth, of recounting details that go against the official version. The official story tells us that it was AA Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon and disappeared leaving no traces after passing through three rings of reinforced steel and concrete, disappeared leaving nothing but the bodies of the victims on the plane. Somehow the heat, fireball, and explosion that made the vaporized the plane didn't have the same effect upon the bodies of the victims. Readers of this page will have seen our Pentagon Strike flash presentation on the subject, as well as Laura Knight-Jadczyk's Comments on the Pentagon Strike. On the DoD's own website, we find an interview with the Secretary of Defence where he explains what happened on that day. The interview with Parade Magazine was conducted on October 12, 2001. Therein we find the following comment from Rumsfeld:
Oops. "A missile"? That isn't in the Commission's report. Did Rumsfeld "misspeak"? Then again, there is this statement from the questioning of Rumsfeld by 9/11 Commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick during the commission hearings:
Oops. Was the good commissioner also "misspeaking"? It does get difficult to maintain a cover story if high-ranking officials charged with spreading disinformation go around telling the truth! So what is "misspeak" -- if you permit us to make a noun out of this overused verb. A quick Google search on "Rumsfeld" & "misspoke" comes up with 5,210 items. Do the same for Bush, and it goes to 20,900! As one blogger, Dusty Rhoades, wrote on the subject of "misspeaking" (the entire article is below):
Rhoades sums up his point saying:
The word no one dares speak -- or is that "misspeak"? Lying. So we come to the real issue. In our 1984 world of newspeak, words take on new meanings. Politicians no longer "lie"; they "misspeak". Civilians are no longer killed in war; they are "collateral damage". There is a whole raft of terms that contain hidden meanings for Bush's fundamentalist Christian base that mean something else entirely to other Americans. These terms come forward to join the ranks of the famous "terrorist/freedom fighter" distinction that was so prevalent under the Reagan Administration. You all remember the "freedom fighters", don't you? Those were the Islamic fundamentalists who were fighting for democracy and freedom in Afghanistan. One small group was led by a Saudi by the name of...what was his name again...the guy with the beard...oh, right: Osama bin Laden, from a family with close business ties to the US Vice President at the time...what was his name...George something or other. And you remember the Reagan Administration. That was the one that was friendly to a Middle Eastern leader by the name of Saddam Hussein, selling him chemical weapons through salesman Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld. Weren't we talking about Rumsfeld? Let's return to September 11, 2001 and look at Rumsfeld's actions on that day.
This Rumsfeld is certainly a very well informed guy for having to deal with such inept US intelligence agencies. First he predicts there will be "another event", and then, when his words prove prophetic a mere two minutes later, he tells his guests that "it isn't over yet" and that the next target "could be us". One wonders what sort of crystal ball Rumsfeld had on his desk that morning. Notice, too, that it was Rummy who decided that the attack had been done by a plane. Perhaps he knew it was a plane because his crystal ball informed him the attacks were "Ariel" in nature. For more detailed info on Madame Rummy, super clairvoyant, let's return to his Parade interview of the following month, the one where the plane has been transformed into a missile.
As a side note to this interview, Lyric Wallwork Winik has written an article for Parade about 9/11 "Conspiracy theories". In a box on that page, it states:
There they go again, those pesky "conspiracy theorists". Taking poorly transcribed interviews out of context! So here it isn't a question of "misspeaking", but of a "transcription error". Good to have friends covering your backside. The close relations between Winik and Rumsfeld are to be seen in this final exchange in the interview:
Unfortunately, more garbled transcriptions do not allow us to piece together the precise nature of the connections between Winik, the President, and Cheney, but you get the picture. The other interesting bit of data here is the reference to Colin Powell's being out of the country. While we have no love for Powell, the man whose career lust permits him to stand up before the UN and declare that he has proof of Saddam's WMDs, it is well-known that he had differences with Rumsfeld. And he was out of the country on September 11. Imagine that! Must just be another of those strange coincidences. You know the ones: the plane hitting the one area of the Pentagon that had been reinforced rather than hitting the roof where the damage would have been greater. Perhaps Hani Hanjour, the incompetent pilot accused of being in the cockpit of Flight 77, was aiming for the roof and missed! Or the fact that a military jet was seen near the site of the crash of Flight 93, the one that Rumsfeld said was shot out of the sky and whose pieces were strewn over an area of many miles -- typical of dozens, er, several, er, the occasional plane, er, this crash. Let us continue our look at Rumsfeld's actions on that morning. He is in his office, not only aware that they were being attacked, but with precognitive abilities that allowed him to foresee the attack. When the Pentagon is attacked, he runs outside where everyone can see him at the same time that Cheney is being sequestered in the White House bunker and the President is being hopped around the country in Air Force One and told not to return to Washington because it wasn't safe. Curious, no? Did someone forget to tell Rumsfeld that he was in danger? Given that two planes had hit the WTC, and that a fourth plane, Flight 93 was still in the air, supposedly heading for Washington, how could Rumsfeld be so certain it wouldn't come down on the Pentagon? How did Rumsfeld know that there would be no more attacks on the building? Must have been the same intuition that told him "we could be next". Just prior to 10:00, the Pentagon sent out a press release:
In this first announcement, no mention is made of the nature of the attack, no mention of a plane hitting the building. Curious, no? Also curious is the fact that this release has been removed from the DoD server and is now only available at the site indicated above. The early reports from the Pentagon spoke of a "helicopter explosion" or the explosion of a truck. It was only many hours later that the announcement was made that it had been Flight 77. So during the period when there were still mixed reports on the nature of the attack, Rumsfeld was out and about as if there was no danger of another attempt. After helping to give aid to some of the victims, he comes back in and says that he has been told by "someone who'd seen it" that it was a plane that struck the building. Still, no one was talking about AA Flight 77. That only came later in the day. Questions. So many questions. It is clear to us that 9/11 was carried off with the foreknowledge of highly placed officials in Washington. In trying to piece the clues together, even small things can be important. Was Rumsfeld's behavior on that morning significant? Does it imply Rumsfeld had foreknowledge? We'll end this round-up with a transcript of a press conference held by Donald Rumsfeld with leaders, both Republican and Democratic, of the Senate Armed Forces Commission. In front of the international press, Rumsfeld addressed Senator Carl Levin (D - Michigan):
Think of this in the light of the current attack on the Social Security program in the US Congress, led by the Bush Administration. |
Source of spam |
|
Country |
Share of spam (percent) |
United States | 42.11 |
South Korea | 13.43 |
China | 8.44 |
Canada | 5.71 |
Brazil | 3.34 |
Japan | 2.57 |
France | 1.37 |
Spain | 1.18 |
United Kingdom | 1.13 |
Germany | 1.03 |
Taiwan | 1 |
Mexico | 0.89 |
Source: Sophos |
I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as
a war criminal. Fortunately, we were on the winning side.
US General Curtis LeMay, commander of the 1945 Tokyo fire bombing operation.[1]
"Asked whether he wants to apologize for the suffering he caused, he looks genuinely confused, has the interpreter repeat the question, and answers 'No'. ... 'I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country.'"
Journalist Nate Thayer interviewing a dying Pol Pot, 1997 [12]
"I tell you how I feel. I would like to be remembered as a man who served his country, who served Chile throughout his entire life on this earth. And what he did was always done thinking about the welfare of Chile."
General Augusto Pinochet, under house arrest in England, 1998 [13]
Unfortunately, as you know, many doubts have already been raised about the impartiality of your Tribunal. In the early days of the conflict, after a formal and, in our view, justified complaint against NATO leaders had been laid before it by members of the Faculty of Law of Belgrade University, you appeared at a press conference with one of the accused, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who made a great show of handing you a dossier of Serbian war crimes. In early May, you appeared at another press conference with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, by that time herself the subject of two formal complaints of war crimes over the targeting of civilians in Yugoslavia. Albright publicly announced at that time that the US was the major provider of funds for the Tribunal and that it had pledged even more money to it.[15]
I am obviously not commenting on any allegations of violations of international humanitarian law supposedly perpetrated by nationals of NATO countries. I accept the assurances given by NATO leaders that they intend to conduct their operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in full compliance with international humanitarian law. I have reminded many of them, when the occasion presented itself, of their obligation to conduct fair and open-minded investigations of any possible deviance from that policy, and of the obligation of commanders to prevent and punish, if required.[16]
Question: Does NATO recognize Judge Arbour's jurisdiction over their activities?
Jamie Shea: I think we have to distinguish between the theoretical and the practical. I believe that when Justice Arbour starts her investigation [of the Serbs], she will because we will allow her to. ... NATO countries are those that have provided the finance to set up the Tribunal, we are amongst the majority financiers.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
-George W., August 2004
"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
George W., August, 2002.
"Democracies die behind closed doors."
-- Appeals court judge Damon Keith, ruling in a 2002 case that the Bushites cannot hold deportation hearings in secret
"Halliburton is a unique kind of company."
-- Dick Cheney, September 2003
"Since leaving Halliburton to become George Bush's vice-president, I've severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."
Former CEO Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, September 2003
You're free. And freedom is beautiful. And, uhh, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos, and order, but we -- but we will. -- There's nothing quite like restoring chaos, George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Apr. 13, 2003
Americans are serving and sacrificing to keep this country safe and to bring freedom to others. After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, this nation resolved to fight terrorists where they dwell. We resolved to arm the terrorist enemy. -- The White House website quietly changed "arm" to "disarm", but forgot to take down the video of the event. Charleston, George W. Bush, West Virginia, Jul. 4, 2004
You know, let me let me talk about al Qaeda just for a second. I -- I made the statement that we're dismantling senior management, and we are. Our people have done a really good job of hauling in a lot of the key operators: Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi ahh -- Ramzi al Shibh, or whatever the guy's name was. -- Eventually he got around to saying "Binalshibh", George W. Bush, White House, Jul. 30, 2003
The goals for this country are peace in the world. And the goals for this country are a compassionate American for every single citizen. -- Having more trouble with making sense, George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2002
The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American and to threats who are friends of America. -- George W. Bush, Fort Hood, Texas, Jan. 3, 2003
You said we're headed to war in Iraq -- I don't know why you say that. I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you. -- Discounting the roles of Congress and an inquisitive press in order to look tough in front of a reporter (and avoid answering the question), George W. Bush, Crawford, Texas, Dec. 31, 2002
REPORTER: What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments?
DUBYA: Yeah -- tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. It's -- you're a -- you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're -- viewed as a sovereign entity. [Laughter emanates from the audience]
REPORTER: Okay.
DUBYA: And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between -- sovereign entities. -- Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004
The fact is, regardless of all studies and new therapies, psychopaths are "hard-wired" for life-long bad behaviour.
Leland M. Heller, M.D., writes that people who have this disorder have symptoms which include lying, cheating, cruelty, criminal behaviour, irresponsibility, lack of remorse, poor relationships, exploitation, manipulation, destructiveness, irritability, aggressiveness, and job failures.
Many do not exhibit criminal behaviour, but act antisocially in socially acceptable professions.
Alcohol makes the disorder worse, and psychopaths are very prone to substance abuse. The causes are often "poor parental discipline, association with "bad" kids, and poor bonding with parents..." [Heller, 75]. But the causes can also be mostly biological.
Another characteristic is their unusual word usage, because they can't distinguish between neutral and emotional words. One psychopathic individual told me that he was "deftly afraid of needles" once, but the word deftly implies "skill." Instead of saying "deathly afraid," he said "deftly," and never noticed it was wrong. (See Hare's book for more interesting examples of this).
Strangely enough, many find the psychopath's verbal deftness quite charming, and psychopaths do tend to talk a lot, especially when they're pouring on the charm. [Psychopathy]
People were nervous during the recession. Then we got attacked, and I'm going to talk a little bit about making America safer. But we got attacked on September 11th. It hurt our economy. In other words, you're in a recession, then we have an attack. -- Well, that makes sense (especially the shift from "we" to "you" and back to "we"), Smoketown, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004
You know, I was campaigning in Chicago and somebody asked me, is there ever any time where the budget might have to go into deficit? I said only if we were at war or had a national emergency or were in recession. Little did I realize we'd get the trifecta. -- Charlotte, North Carolina, Feb. 27, 2002
The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production. -- At the signing of the September 11th Commission Bill, Washington, D.C., Nov. 27, 2002
REPORTER: In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
DUBYA: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet. -- I guess we can forget about introspection, too, Prime Time Press Conference #3, White House, Apr. 13, 2004
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator. -- During his first trip to Washington as President-Elect, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000
Mr. Specter: In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Gov. Connally: The second one.
Mr. Specter: And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Gov. Connally: Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot ... and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything. It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet.
* Deputy Constable Weitzman told the Warren Commission he encountered "other officers, Secret Service as well" on the grassy knoll. In 1975, he told reporter Michael Canfield the man he saw produced credentials and told him everything was under control. He said the man had dark hair, was of medium height, and was wearing a light windbreaker. When shown photos of Frank Sturgis and Bernard Barker, Weitzman immediately pointed at Barker, saying, "Yes that's him." Just to make sure, Canfield asked, "Was this the man who produced the Secret Service credentials?" Weitzman responded, "Yes, that's the same man."
* Dallas patrolman J. M. Smith also ran up the grassy knoll. At the top, he smelled gunpowder. Encountering a man, he pulled his pistol from his holster. "Just as I did, he showed me he was a Secret Service agent ... he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was."
* In the mid-70s, Dallas police sergeant David Harkness told a House committee, "There were some Secret Service agents there - on the grassy knoll - but I did not get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service."
* According to a Secret Service report in the National Archives, "All the Secret Service agents assigned to the motorcade stayed with the motorcade all the way to the hospital, none remained at the scene of the shooting."