Diego Rivera - LIRING/3 - "The Glorious Victory" (1955) - Corrected

I feel it incumbent upon me to offer a correction to this post concerning Diego Garcia as LIRING/3 for the CIA in Mexico. It was not Mr. Garcia. Though I had double checked 2 separate sources, another private author and the Senate hearings, the actual LIRING/3 is an unnamed protege of Mr. Garcia's .

This is the usual "hall of mirrors" employed by the CIA to obfuscate and mislead researchers and law makers in their quest for information. Please except my apologies for the error of being blinded by the light of the reflections/deflections of the CIA. I should have triple checked this source more diligently. At best this was probably a way for them to discredit Mr. Garcia's lifelong quest for social justice.

At any rate, it is not a good reflection on my research into Mr. Garcia , of whom I am a longtime fan. The real LIRING/3 is last referenced in a CIA document from 2013, when he was still alive, still unnamed, and in his 80's. I am now trying to ascertain which Mexican artist is the real LIRING/3.

As Winston "Win" Scott, one of the most enigmatic agents of the CIA, and a "master of deceipt", said in his still unpublished memoirs, "It Came to Little", taken from a biblical passage, "He looked for much, and lo, it came to little....", I expect my search will yield just that.

The quote comes from the book of Haggai, 1:5 to 9, when  the Lord speaks to Haggai, a prophet, and says of the people, who have not yet began to build the temple, that though they live in paneled houses and harvest much to eat, they are not yet satisfied, for, "Give careful thought to your ways. You have planted much, but harvested little." Thus was, I believe a reference to the people not yet unraveling the mystery of JFK's assassination. I told you he was enigmatic.

My apologies again for the error of having been misled. I stand humbly corrected.

......................  

Most people wouldn't know it but Diego Rivera was also a link, through an unamed protege named LIRING3 in the Mexico City CIA division in the early 1960's. His story came to light in the late 1960's as the JFK assassination theories were gaining ground. But that's not the focus of this post; which concerns only Mr. River's oil on linen painting by from 1955. 

 It was inspired by the cup d'etat in 1954 in Guatemala. Rather than re-write it in my own words I'll just quote from the two best sites about the painting, which includes The CIA's Dullles brothers, Foster and Allen, center left and Eisenhower on the bomb. 

 Each year around this time I think about the assassination and it's aftermath, up through the 1979 House Committee hearings which sprang from the 1975 Church Committee hearings into the abuses of the CIA. The Guatemalan coup was one of the things covered, or should I say uncovered, in those hearings. 

 By 1979 the conclusion of those hearings was that a conspiracy of some sort, by either the Cubans, or our own Operation Mongoose, had been the operation which led to the assassination of our own President, just 7 weeks after we had killed the Diem brothers in Vietnam, which led to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and resolution in September of 1964.

 Rivera's name enters the picture with the Silvia Duran story. All of that aside, the story told by Rivera in this painting is a story unto itself. You can get into the LIRING/3 aspects on your own if you so chose. But the story of the painting, and the symbolism in it, is fascinating enough. At the end of each of the quotes I have provided the links from where these quotes can be found in a more fuller version. 

Here goes. This is the story of Diego Rivera's "The Glorious Victory." I hope you find this history of the painting as fascinating as I do. 

"The oil on linen paiting addresses the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état that the CIA backed to overthrow the democratically elected Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz. In the center stands a dumbfounded US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, striking a deal with Guatemala's newly installed right-wing president, Castillo Armas. To their left is a missile held by Foster and bearing the face of the US president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Other American officials surround them, including Allen Dulles, CIA director, and John Peurifoy, US ambassador to Guatemala. 

The group is wedged between an armed rebellion on the right and the slave labor of banana plantations on the left. These three events that seem to happen impossibly at a single moment, collapsing years of violence and corruption into one massive event."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Victory 

 And now from https://sites.psu.edu/arthistory/2017/01/30/glorious-victory/ which contains enlarged insets of the story. 

"On the left side of the mural, Rivera depicts the business of the United Fruit Company. Poorly clothed men carry bananas onto a ship destined for the United States. The onerous burden of the bananas symbolizes not only the physical baggage, but also the political baggage of the United Fruit Company’s presence in Guatemala. 

A stern looking military officer guards the proceedings, demonstrating how tightly intertwined politics and business were. While the left side of the fresco is a representation of subjugation, the right side is a representation of resistance. In this segment, a group of workers and farmers take arms to defend their elected government from the CIA coup. They brandish machetes and fight for the rights of their people, some of whom can be seen sitting in prison behind."

I Always Wondered Why.....

I always wondered why the Weekly Reader; that cool little newspaper we used to get in elementary school; was sometimes confusing to me as a kid. I mean, there was the time when the Weekly Reader was loudly lambasting South Africa for Apartheid at the same time as we were experiencing the events of Selma, Alabama here in the United States. 

But the Weekly Reader had nothing to say about that. Accordingly, I raised my hand and asked what the difference was between South Africa and Alabama. I was told to be quiet and sit down. So I’ve always wondered about that little newspaper.

Well, decades later while reading about the Bush family in Russ Baker’s “Family of Secrets” I came upon the astonishing fact that Allen Dulles; head of the CIA; was on the Board of Directors of the paper, acting as a sort of ghost editor in determining what stories got printed; or not. Kind of makes you want to rethink some of the things you’ve been told…

"Russian Roulette" by Giles Milton (2015)

When you watch films such as “The Four Feathers”, or “The Bengal Lancers” and “Gunga Din” you may be tempted to dismiss them as mere dramatizations of history, but you would be shortsighted to do so. Those films actually portray the British struggle to maintain control over India during the last days of the Raj in a fairly accurate way.

In his latest book, “Russian Roulette”, author Giles Milton takes us back to the days of the First World War and the Russian Revolution to illustrate the way in which Lenin’s Bolsheviks were prevented from exporting the Revolution to India by way of Afghanistan, Turkestan, and also how the British developed the Secret Intelligence Service; commonly referred to as MI6.

Reading this book is almost like watching one of those old movies I mentioned earlier; only better. When the Russian people finally had enough of the war; which was decimating the working class; they revolted. The Revolution is always considered to have occurred in November of 1917 when the Bolsheviks finally got to kill Tsar Nicholas and his family, but the truth is that it was brewing for some time.

Aside from the obvious problem of having Russia leave the war against Germany was the security of the large stores of ammunition stored within Russian borders. The concern was twofold; should the Germans acquire it then the tide of the war in the area would be turned. On the other hand, should the Bolsheviks get ahold of it then we risked losing Russia to internal strife. To deal with the political problems this engendered the British created an espionage network which spawned what some have termed “the Great Game”; a game which continues today in the same areas as it began, between the same powers that began it.

When the war ended the British efforts to stop the spread of Bolshevism didn’t end; if only for the fact that Lenin was actively pursuing a foothold in India to topple the British Raj. To that end, Amir Amannullah; the ruler of Afghanistan at the time; issued a jihad directing a Holy War against British India in 1919. 

But as determined as the Russians might have been to expand their reach into India, the British were equally determined to oppose that expansion. To that end they chose to use some 50,000 shells of a toxic gas known as “the M-Device.” This was a nechloroarsine, which caused instant death in some; and violent illness in others. Churchill declared it to be more humane than explosives. Of those 55,00 shells, 47,282 remained unused and were dumped in about 240 feet of water in the White Sea, where they remain until this very day. Ninety years later Britain would be chief among those nations condemning Saddam Hussein for gassing the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

The book is filled with the characters you would expect to meet in films like “The Man Who Would Be King”. Some of these men were professional adventurers; some were men with political bents; others were just “doing their bit”; but all of their stories reflect, if not surpass, the antics of all the stars in those movies I mentioned earlier. Several have left manuscripts; published and unpublished; which the author has used to create a wonderfully accurate picture of a time and place which has not changed much since the time these events occur.

The names of men such as Mansfield Cumming; Arthur Ransome; Robert Bruce Lockhart; Sidney Reilly and George Hill may be lost in the greater annals of history, the rocky plains and mountainous areas of Afghanistan are still the same. And the “Great Game” still continues on its useful; and sometimes incomprehensible; course. This book will aid you in navigating that history.

"The Great Leader and the Fighter Pilot" by Blaine Harden (2015)

On September 21, 1953 a North Korean pilot got into the seat of the MIG-15 to which he was assigned to and flew away to South Korea. The story of Lt. No Kum Sok‘s flight to freedom was a story which instantly dazzled the world. But for the weary Lieutenant No it was the culmination of a dream he had held close since he first saw Kim Il Sung speaking from the top of a pile of fertilizer 7 years earlier. He wanted to go to America.

Blaine Harden has taken one of the most fascinating events of the Korean War and placed it at the center of a unique and highly readable book not only about the man who flew the plane; but also the story of Kim Il Sung and how he got to be on top of that fertilizer pile in the first place.

World War Two was the result of the failure of the Treaty of Versailles to correctly address all of the problems which had sparked that war in the first place. Coupled with the heavy handed financial burdens placed on Germany, the treaty was actually a recipe for the next war.

So it was with the end of World War Two. Treaties and alliances were made which would ultimately shape the post war world and lead to the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Against this backdrop were the political positions and politics of countries like Vietnam and Korea in Southeast Asia. Just as with the former colonies in Africa which were abandoned soon after the war ended, the fate of these 2 nations rested upon the needs and desires of the United States and the Soviets.

Kim Il Sung was the product of the war against the Chinese in the 1930’s and then the war against Japan in the 1930’s and 1940’s. By the time the second conflict ended Korea was indiscriminately cleaved in half at the 38^th parallel; leaving families torn apart from one another in much the same way that the division of Berlin would do to the German people. The political vacuum left in the North was quickly filled by Kim, who had fashioned himself into the role of “Great Leader” much as Stalin had become “Uncle Joe” and Mao became “Chairman Mao.”

As the United States became somewhat complacent with her place in the post war world, the Russians and the Koreans were scheming to consolidate their positions in the hierarchy of worldwide Communism. There was no dispute that Uncle Joe was the head; it was more a question of how close you could be to the top. And Kim wanted to be there with all his heart.

The Soviet Union had just gotten their first atom bomb when Kim Il Sung decided he wanted to re-unify the two halves of his country. No Kum was just 17 when his father died and his country invaded the South. His family had enjoyed immense privileges under the Japanese rule while working for a Japanese firm. When the war ended so did the family’s largesse.

No Kum did well in school and made sure to spout the “party line” whenever necessary. He was granted entry to North Korea’s fledgling Air Force and trained as a pilot. At the same time Kim Il Sung was asking Uncle Joe for some of the new MIG’s which the Soviets had developed. They were not faster than the Sabre’s flown by American pilots; but they could climb higher, giving them the advantage in surprising our bombers, which were pulverizing North Korean cities. 

When Uncle Joe relented and sent the fighters and pilots to North Korea for the training of the Korean Air Force, No Kum was selected to be among the trainees. Unknown to him at this point was that the US Government had a standing $100,000 reward for anyone who could; or would; steal a combat ready MIG and fly it to the South.

When No Kum finally gets his chance he goes for it, landing in South Korea. From there the book becomes an even more remarkable story, as he learns to fend his way through Western type red tape. He was also used by the CIA and the State Department for propaganda newsreels and press conferences.

This book has a lot to give; and it does so from the very first page. The carpet bombing of North Korea; which killed on a level not seen since the fire bombings of Japan and Germany; is explored in sufficient detail for the reader to actually learn something. And the authors summary of the history of Korea in relation to the Japanese and the Chinese is spot on, and does much to help explain the insanity which came to roost in North Korea and occupies the seat of government to this very day.

No Kum Sok finally got his money, a college degree and is still alive today as Kenneth Howe. He lives in Florida.

"Kill the Messenger" with Jeremy Renner and Andy Garcia (2014)

This film; based on the true story of reporter Gary Webb; exposes the machinations which take place in our society; often by our own government; to stifle the truth even as they accelerate the decline of that society in some of the most callous and insidious ways. Such is the history of the crack epidemic which began with the Reagan Administration taking an end run around the Boland Amendment to arm the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980’s.

Though the actual events of the story took place in the 1980’s it wasn’t until the 1990’s that Gary Webb was able to piece together all of the events and publicize the story. It was the beginning of an arduous and dangerous road for the young journalist.  Although the seeds for the story had been sown in the public’s mind for several years already, he was the first one to go public with the story. And when he did, he incurred the wrath of the Intelligence Community and his own government.

The story is a very simple one, the United States; through the operations of the CIA and it’s contacts in the world of organized crime; began to import cocaine in huge amounts to fund the not so secret war against the Nicaraguan government. The money from the cocaine was to be used to fund the Contras; which was the rebel army. Actually, this was nothing new; it had been done before; but never on such a large scale. This is the operation that brought Governor Bill Clinton and Vice President George Bush together in an unholy alliance which later made it possible for Clinton to become President. The transport of the arms and drugs went through the state of Arkansas, with the full knowledge of the Governor.

As is often true with any operation of such scope, things quickly got out of hand. When someone discovered that cocaine could be “cooked” with baking soda to form what is known as “crack cocaine”, all hell broke loose on the streets of Los Angeles; most notably in the Compton area, which was decimated by the epidemic. A whole generation was destroyed, along with the economic viability of the area, bringing problems with crime and addiction that persist to this day.

The reward for Gary Webb’s efforts was that he was driven to the point of suicide by the government smear campaign launched against him. His sanity was called into question as he was called upon to defend the facts of his story; an impossible task due to the very nature of clandestine operations. They are cloaked in layer upon layer of secrecy and subject to the effects of “sheep dipping” and the use of “cutouts” to throw off chance of real detection. There can only be speculation; and no one goes to jail for “speculating”.  Just look at Wall Street.

This film delivers on several levels, beginning with the story itself. As we struggle to fight crime; much of which is caused by drug addiction; it is hard to understand the motives of a government which, on one hand, calls for an all-out war on drugs and terror; and then fuels the former with an influx of drugs; all while helping to fund the latter.

The casting of the film is also notable. Jeremy Renner plays Gary Webb, the ill-fated reporter. Veteran actors Andy Garcia, Ray Liotta and Tim Blake Nelson are also expertly casted in their roles as some of the faces behind the scenes.  

Gary Webb’s “Dark Alliance” articles sparked the book “Kill the Messenger” by Nick Shou which became this film of the same name. Directed tautly by Michael Cuesta it will both inform and infuriate you.

"Chasing Shadows" by Ken Hughes (2014)

The cover of this book is intriguing at first glance. It is a photo of President Lyndon Johnson in a White House elevator with President-Elect Richard Nixon on November 11, 1968, just days after Nixon won the Presidential election by the 2nd closest margin in the 20^th century; the first being John Kennedy’s victory over Nixon in the 1960 election. There is almost an irony to that alone.

The author mainly concerns himself with tying the Watergate Affair to the 1968 Presidential election, when Nixon basically sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks; talks which would have possibly cost him the election against Vice President Humphrey. Through back channel maneuvers with Anna Chennault; widow of the man who commanded the Flying Tigers during World War Two; Nixon was able to accomplish just that, narrowly winning the election in the bargain. That was in 1968; in 1972 he would win by a landslide.

The real surprise here is the role Lyndon Johnson played in defeating his own Vice President, whose aims and goals regarding Vietnam did not match the party position in reference to the bombing halt. Johnson wanted it pegged to the restoration of the DMZ; with which the Republicans agreed; while Humphrey and McCarthy wanted to stop the bombing without conditions in order to show “good faith” to the North Vietnamese.

Relying on thousands of hours of tape recordings at the Johnson Library and the Nixon Archives, the author paints an accurate picture of the political ambitions which got us into the war in the first place, and then kept us there far longer than was necessary. There were no “clean hands” in the bunch. The Republicans and Democrats were both focused on politics rather than what was right. These tapes prove the point.

While Johnson was advising Nixon; and Nixon was working with Chennault to delay the Peace Talks; an atmosphere of secrecy and subterfuge became the standard operating procedure in Washington. That attitude led directly to Nixon forming the celebrated “Plumbers Unit” in the White House; ostensibly to stop “leaks.” Left to their own devices they went on to embroil Nixon in the Watergate scandal; something he knew nothing about until after it happened. This was Nixon’s Bay of Pigs. He was blindsided by the same group of people in the same way in which Kennedy’s administration was blindsided by the last minute revelation of the full extent of the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

This is a very important book in that it finally ties the Watergate scandal to the things which preceded it. There are many who believe that Nixon was set up by the CIA and Howard Hunt; who were working with some Cuban exiles that were connected to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The real question is why?

Nixon was asking for the CIA files on the Bay of Pigs and even stuff related to Dallas from the moment he took office. Why? He was surrounded by people who all had ties to George Bush; either as an oil tycoon, or later as a politician and head of the CIA. Why? This book doesn't answer these questions, but they are inherently connected. The author has touched only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The name Bush doesn't even appear in the index. 

The author even blames the entire ineffectiveness of the B-52 bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail on Pentagon and Cabinet leaks while completely ignoring the Walker Spy Ring, which cost the U.S. approximately 15-20,000 more battle deaths. It is impossible to discuss the B-52 bombing raids, and their having been compromised, without at least mentioning the Walkers. But that is exactly what the author does.

This book is a very detailed and helpful account of the proposed policy to halt the bombing in Vietnam and how it was used as a campaign issue by both sides in the 1968 election. It even shows how Nixon forged a policy of secrecy and paranoia which would eventually culminate in the Watergate burglary and his eventual departure from the White House.

But the book never really answers the crucial question of how; or even why; Nixon would have allowed this to happen. For a wider scope on the issues raised in this book; particularly the “why” behind the Watergate break in; you can do no better than to read Russ Baker’s 2009 book “Family of Secrets.”

In spite of any shortcomings, this book is still an important one, if only because it goes beyond the basic assumptions of Watergate being the product of an overzealous staff and a paranoid President. Nothing as complicated as Watergate could possibly be that simple.

"A Cruel and Shocking Act" by Philip Shenon (2013)

If you believe that President Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald, then this is the book you have been waiting for. On the other hand, if you believe that President Kennedy was a victim of a conspiracy, then this is the book for you. Author Philip Shenon has gathered the memories of all the surviving staff members who assisted the Warren Commission in compiling its report, and in doing so has only bolstered the beliefs of both sides.

The Warren Commission Report was initiated by President Johnson, who later opined to Walter Cronkite that he believed there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and therefore did not believe in the findings of the commission he himself had created. It was never signed by the man who chaired it; Chief Justice Earl Warren, who suppressed evidence in order to wrap things up neatly. And, finally, it was signed reluctantly by the man who would, 11 years later become the first unelected President of the United States, Gerald Ford.

If you ever want to explain why Americans don’t really trust their government, and embrace conspiracy theories in the first place, you have only to look at the dysfunction of the Warren Commission to prove your point. The infighting between the various agencies; such as the FBI and the CIA to withhold evidence and sources from one another, as well as the commission, are perfect examples.

The book goes into detail about the connection of Oswald’s supposed Mexican visit, which produced no known photos of him at either of the embassies he supposedly visited, raising the possibility of a double agent. His relationship with Silvia Duran, of the Cuban Embassy is also explored.

Of particular interest are the deals made by Marina Oswald in the days immediately surrounding her husband’s death at the hands of Jack Ruby. She sold her husband’s diary without even telling the police that there was one. She also burned what she thought to be the only copies of the now iconic photos of her husband posing with a rifle, handgun and a Communist newspaper. The fact that there were so many other copies floating about in the days before digital scanning, etc. makes me wonder. Who else had copies of these photos and why?

Her take from the various book deals and magazine articles amounted to about $300,000 in today’s dollars. She fired her business manager, James Martin, after having a brief affair with him while living in his home. She ended the affair by calling his wife and telling her that her husband was no longer employed as her manager, or lover.

Marina Oswald wasn’t the only widow taking in some immediate cash. Jackie Kennedy began work on her book with Arthur Schlesinger before the Warren Commission was even done with their report. The commission was not even going to call upon her for her testimony; wishing to spare her the ordeal; until they got wind of the book. If she could talk about it for money, then she could appear before the Commission. Still, when it came time to depose her, they went to her home in Georgetown, where she was living at the time.

Robert Kennedy would only appear before the Commission by a series of letters; ones which he wrote himself. The first one was a request from Chief Justice Earl Warren to him; written by RFK asking him to submit a reply. The Chief Justice signed that request and sent it back to RFK. A pre-approved reply was then sent to the Chief Justice.

The portion of the investigation dealing with Jack Ruby is a true riddle. The man had the opportunity to kill Oswald on Friday night at the infamous “news conference” at the City Jail, where he was paraded before the press. Ruby even took part in that event when he corrected DA Henry Wade on the correct name of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He was that well known to the local police, yet no one noticed him entering the building on Sunday morning when he was finally able to kill Oswald.

Ruby ended up deranged before and during his trial for killing Oswald. He believed that since he had murdered Oswald the Jews of America were being tortured in retaliation. He was clearly insane; even judged to be so; yet he was still sentenced to death for his crime. He died before the sentence could be carried out. His chapter remains one of the most controversial among conspiracy theorists.

Arlen Specter, the architect of the “magic bullet” theory; which says that one pristine bullet caused 7 wounds to both Kennedy and Governor Connally before landing underneath a rubber mat on the gurney at Parkland hospital; is portrayed as an adequate investigator. His theory was doubted by just about everyone on the Commission. It has been the subject of numerous recreations using the latest technology to prove its validity. But think about this; if you intentionally set out to prove a theory correct, you must first start out by accepting that theory to be true. If you believe it to be false it is just as easy to prove that as well.

One of the most interesting events to come out of the Warren Commission’s investigation occurred when William Coleman; the lone African-American working for the Committee; went to a secret rendezvous off of Cuba to meet Castro and ask him; face to face; whether or not he, or the Russians, had anything to do with the President’s murder.

Castro had told the press in October of 1963 that the American government was targeting him for assassination; which they were under Operation Mongoose a black op being run by the CIA. He also promised to retaliate in kind; which many people think is actually what happened; Operation Mongoose got reversed by right wing factions within the United Sates, making Kennedy the target instead.

The most interesting thing about Coleman’s encounter is that he already knew Castro from the Cuban leader’s visits to New York, which had begun as early as the 1940’s. Apparently Coleman had met him in Harlem at the jazz clubs when Castro was on his honeymoon in 1948. They were both jazz fans. When they met again in 1964 aboard a Cuban navy boat, they discussed that visit and music before getting down to business. Castro denied any involvement in the murder, and Mr. Coleman took him at face value.

The investigators themselves; along with the 7 Committee members themselves, were often at odds over the direction and progress of the Commission. Some wanted to focus on the foreign conspiracy aspect of the crime more than others. As a result of the pre-determined outcome of the report; it must sate that Oswald acted alone, this was understood by all; any leads not leading back to Oswald as the sole shooter, were given short shrift.

Commission investigator Jim Liebeler was a hard working staff member. But he still found time to attempt the seduction of both Marina Oswald and Silvia Odio; the Cuban woman in Texas who claimed to have seen Oswald in the company of 2 other Latino men prior to the assassination. Silvia Odio is a possible key to the unexplored portions of Oswald’s Mexico City trip.

The other Silvia in this story is Silvia Duran, who was taken into custody within hours of the assassination by Mexican police at the request of the CIA. She was beaten and tortured in an effort to find out what she knew about Oswald and his activities there in Mexico.

All of these loose ends are what have Mr. Shenon concerned; and rightfully so; that there are still unexplored leads to the murder of President Kennedy in 1963. The latest ones involve Elena and Helena Garro, a mother daughter team who claim to have attended a party at which Oswald was present in Mexico prior to the assassination.

Whatever your beliefs about the Kennedy assassination may be, this book delivers all of the excitement you have come to expect from the crime which just won’t be solved. Mr. Shenon has done his homework well, and as a result has delivered an exciting book about the scenes behind the Warren Commission and the men who served on it.

In the end, it is also the story of the Warren Commission Report; a report which the Chief Justice for whom it was named refused to sign; and was only signed by Gerald Ford, who never believed it to be correct. And 11 years later he would become the first un-elected President of the United States.

"Act of War" by Jack Cheevers (2013)

I was just a bit over 13 years old when the Pueblo was seized by the North Koreans on January 23, 1968. Coming, as it did, in the midst of the Vietnam War I couldn’t quite understand why we just didn’t run in and bomb the hell out of them and take our ship back. As I said, I was just 13 at the time.

Six months previous to this Israel had bombed the USS Liberty in the Mediterranean as she was off the coast of Israel during the 6 day War. The United States took no action beyond a diplomatic note critical of the Israeli action. 34 American sailors were killed and over 150 wounded. How much this contributed to North Korea’s decision to seize the Pueblo will never be known; but undoubtedly it was a factor in that decision.

Author Jack Cheevers has penned a memorable book, which is also the first; to take a broad look at the Pueblo incident, as it has come to be known. This book would have you on the edge of your seat even without the extensive examination of the different scenarios which may have been at play in this story.

The main question I have always had is why the Pueblo was loaded with so much classified information and secret publications, almost none of which involved her mission, when it was headed out on a very risky patrol to probe the North Korean system of defenses? The mission was deemed risky enough to have the Pueblo maintain a 13 mile limit from shore, rather than the 3 miles usually recognized by the United States. That alone should tip you that all is not as it seems to be.

There are actually 3 different scenarios which could explain the seizure of one of our ships; it sits today as a symbol of propaganda in North Korea; and its crew, all of whom suffered for 11 months in a North Korean prison. Torture was routine and medical care non-existent. The one crewman who was operated upon for wounds received when the North Koreans attacked Pueblo, was not given any anesthesia at all for the extensive procedures he underwent. Others were returned with untreated compound fractures, and Quartermaster Bernard Law lost most of his eyesight to the effects of malnutrition.

The first and most widely accepted scenario is that Pueblo was spying on North Korea; there is no real doubt about that; and was captured. This doesn’t add up because another U.S. Navy ship, the Banner, had been doing the same thing for a few years at the time. She had some close calls when the Koreans would come out and “charge” the Banner, only turning at the last possible moment to avoid a collision. 

But this begs the question of what would have made the Koreans deviate from such limited action when it came to the Pueblo? With the ship on radio silence for the 12 days previous to the seizure we will never know, independent of the Pueblo’s own logs, whether or not she did indeed violate territorial waters.

Scenario 2 is a bit more complicated. The night before her seizure the North Koreans had slipped in a group of military commandos to South Korea. Their target was the leader of South Korea, President Park. He was to be beheaded in his palace; the intent being to trigger new hostilities with South Korea while the United States was bogged down in Vietnam. With only 50,000 American troops in South Korea at the time, it was apparent that hostilities with the North would require the diversion of troops from Vietnam, which would have been very helpful to the North Vietnamese.

At the same time there were 50,000 South Korean soldiers fighting on our side in Vietnam. An incursion by the North would most likely require that those troops be returned to Seoul in order to defend the capitol. This would have a pronounced effect on the American efforts in that war. At the time President Johnson was asking for more troops from President Park. The raid on the Blue House threatened that effort.

Still, a third and more interesting approach to the Pueblo’s seizure involves the actions of a spy ring operating in the Pacific which was compromising our “key codes” and making it almost impossible for our B-52’s to hit any targets of real value in North Vietnam. That mystery was eventually solved with the arrest and conviction of Navy Radioman John A. Walker. Along with a nephew and at least one other person, the damage done by Walker is estimated to have prolonged the Vietnam War for enough time to cost over 20,000 American battle deaths. He is still currently serving out the rest of his life in prison.

This 3^rd scenario would have the Navy making the decision to have the Pueblo become expendable. To that end it was loaded with classified information and secret publications which had nothing to do with her mission and no means of destroying it all in a timely fashion. This could only have been the result of a decision to “reset” all of the codes while making the enemy think they had captured the current ones. Then, by a comparison of the information still being leaked; or not; they would be able to uncover the source of that leak. 

                    

Even if he had not ventured into any of the politics involved in the whole affair, Mr. Cheevers has captured all of the tension and uncertainty of Commander Bucher and his crew during the tedious and sometimes trying voyage en route to North Korea; as well as the capture of the Pueblo and her crew itself. 

But the real “meat” in this book is the story of the sufferings and deprivations experienced by the crew of the Pueblo and her Captain by the North Koreans. From mock executions, beatings and show trials; as well as forcing their captives to pose for propaganda photos and even films; the North Koreans exhibited for the world their true barbarity.

The next 11 months in captivity are chronicled in stark detail, with the author making use of information culled from interviews he conducted with Commander Bucher, and some of the crew members, about their imprisonment. Commander Bucher was often separated from his men; seeing them only sporadically; yet his concern for the crew is clearly visible. After they are moved to a different location for the remainder of their interment, he is even able to establish some semblance of a chain of command.

At the same time, the author fully summarizes the careful dance between Moscow and Washington as they each try to control their separate “puppets.” To lose that control would mean a showdown between superpowers, similar to the one that had taken place less than 5 years earlier over the missiles in Cuba. In some ways, North Korea was hoping for just that scenario to develop.

The actions; or inactions; of the other branches of the Armed Forces; as well as the decisions made by top Defense officials;  including President Johnson; are all examined here. The author never really points the finger at any one individual or group; but the information is all here for the reader to draw their own conclusion as to how this seizure could have taken place unavenged. Indeed, the American public was clamoring for action. And the South Koreans were understandably enraged to the point of going to war with North Korea again. Only the promise of more military aid; including ships; was able to deter President Park from leaving the UN coalition and declaring war on North Korea.

As you review the timing of the release of the Pueblo crew, you cannot help but make some comparison to the way the Iranian hostage crisis was used to influence an election. Remember that the back door diplomacy by Ronald Reagan kept those hostages captive until after Reagan was inaugurated; just as these men were held until after the Democrats had lost the election in November 1968. Richard Nixon was about to take mantle of leadership, promising to end the War in Vietnam and recognize China in the United Nations. A full examination of the Pueblo Incident would have to take that scenario into account.

Through skillful “negotiations” and some back channel diplomacy involving a group of neutral nations, talks were begun as early as one month after the Pueblo had been seized. The North Koreans used the time at the table to cajole and rant at the American negotiators, seeming to enjoy the embarrassment that they were causing the United States. With the War in Vietnam going at full tilt, and the Tet Offensive underway, the United States was in a precarious position in relation to ever getting the crew released alive, if at all.

Mr. Cheevers also takes the time to explore the backgrounds of each of the key players as the drama unfolds, which serves to lend a wider view of the whole affair. Fully explored are questions such as who was President Park and how did he come to power in South Korea? What were the thoughts and actions of the South Korean people in the wake of the attempted assassination of their President? How did the Soviets react, and what were the American people thinking?

The book is a wonderfully crafted look at not only the Pueblo Affair, but the entire region. It also examines how North Korea; with more than a little help from China and Russia; has managed to stay afloat in the midst of her economic difficulties, which at times have kept her from being able to sustain a viable economy, or even to feed her own people. There is much to be learned from this book and its author.

Lee Harvey Oswald - Midnight News Conference 11-23-1963

There is one thing which has puzzled even many skeptics over the last 50 years concerning the assassination of President Kennedy, and the subsequent killing of the suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald. That is why he was paraded; literally; in front of reporters in a hallway, and later on in a conference room at which Jack Ruby was present? At that conference Mr. Ruby even offered a correction to a question about the Fair Play for Cuba movement.

When people are accused of a high profile crime; even back then; they were secluded for two reasons. The first is that you really don’t want the trial to begin de-facto on TV, which raises the possibility of a mistrial later due to a tainted jury pool; and the second reason is that you don’t want some nut job killing the suspect for any reason at all.

In the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, he was paraded 3 times before the news media, and even allowed to give a midnight conference with TV reporters. The full footage of that conference is not on You Tube, so I have used the hallway footage to illustrate my point. Why was this man placed in front of the public at all?

The answer is patently simple. They wanted him dead. Look at who was in charge in Dallas at the time of the President’s murder? The Mayor was Earle Cabell, the brother of Charles Cabell, the CIA director who had been fired after the disaster at the Bay of Pigs in 1961. Every-one else was subservient to this man. At stake was the fate of the Oil Depletion Allowance, which resulted in some very powerful people, all of whom had ties to the Intelligence Community, the Oil Industry and Army Intelligence to actually be involved in the President’s motorcade route when he was killed.

Deputy Police Chief George Lumpkin was driving the lead car. Lumpkin was the friend of Jack Crichton, who was a member of the Army Intelligence Reserve Unit. Lt. Colonel George Whitmeyer, who commanded all of the Reserve Units in Texas, was in the car with him. He was not on the approved list of people riding in the motorcade and basically forced his way into it by virtue of his rank.

When the pilot car passed the Book Depository he instructed Mr. Crichton to stop the vehicle so he could relay instructions to the Dallas Policemen who were handling traffic at the corner of Elm and Houston. It is not known what the nature of that conversation was; only that it was conducted by a man with ties to the military and the CIA who should not have even been there at all.

The links go on and on; but the central question will always be why was Oswald paraded before anyone at all in the less than 48 hours he would be in custody before he was murdered by a man known very well to the Dallas Police Department? Remember that when Oswald was shot, one of the detectives handling him cried out, “Jack, you son of a bitch!” That footage will be posted tomorrow.

M-E-S-S-I-N-G with the NSA

Here’s a way to have a little fun at your own expense. And, I mean that literally. After all,  you are paying the people at NSA to spy on you; even read your e-mails and listen in on your phone conversations; so why not have a bit of fun with your employees. After all, it’s your dime. And that building shown above belongs to you as well. So, let’s have a little fun with our “toys.”

Code everything; no matter how insignificant it is, no matter how innocuous it may seem; code it. If you are meeting the wife in a certain place, use map coordinates in lieu of an address and then turn off your phone until you get there. If they are concerned, they will have to wait for your phone to come back on until they can find you. And of course, you can always not really go to begin with. Then, suddenly, turn your phone back on and go somewhere, anywhere, and then back home, making sure to shut the phone down at intervals.

Take different routes each time you go out; they’ll spend an inordinate amount of time in trying to figure out a pattern to your movements. I’m retired, so I can go anywhere at any time, making me extremely dangerous, in spite of my being ill.

Just the title of this piece can give them pause to think. Does it really mean what it says, or is it an acronym for something more sinister? It could mean Multi Ethnic Socialists Sympathizers in National Groups. Man; that even sounds dangerous!

Of course I’m just being tongue in cheek here; or am I? Yes could mean no. Depends on the code we’re using today. And, also the person interpreting it. Here's a real cool idea - walk in backwards at every entrance you encounter which has a security camera. Walk up to your ATM backwards and then make your transaction. It'll either drive them nuts, or make you dizzy. Either way, it's a victory over the "norm".

There used to be whole books about this kind of stuff; like "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman, and "1,001 Ways to Avoid the Draft" by I Don't Remember Who; which were both hysterically funny. But then again, they didn't have to deal with the cameras.

_________________________________________

Word Just In - Private Manning

Just saw that the Army has acquitted PFC Manning for aiding the enemy, but convicted him on 120 other accounts of leaking classified information and disobeying orders. I wasn't aware that he had asked permission to leak the stuff in the first place, so you have to wonder what order he disobeyed. 

Most likely Article 134 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) which states that any item not prohibited by any other Order in the UCMJ is covered under Article 134. It was the charge most levied against me in the Navy for things like smoking in unauthorized areas; or smoking something un-authorized in any area.

Meantime, with the world in utter chaos from having too many secrets to cover up, this poor bastard is facing 154 years in prison, assuring that, even with parole etc., he will never see the light of day again. Maybe it's just my imagination, but when I was in the service we were only supposed to obey "lawful orders." Again, I wonder; verbatim; just what orders PFC Manning dis-obeyed which could ever justify the prospect of a prison sentence of 154 years. Let Freedom Ring!

"Zero Dark Thirty" with Jessica Chastain and Jason Clarke (2012)

This is a gripping account of the 10 year hunt for Osama Bin Laden which ended in Pakistan. All of the tedium and stress involved in hunting down the mastermind of 9/11 comes through in this film. The tension is high and the stakes astronomical as the hunt goes forward, first by water boarding and torture, until each link in the chain has been unmasked, leading to Bin Laden himself.

As a matter of fact, after all of the tension involved in a decade of locating him, it is almost anti-climactic when he is discovered and killed. The myriad of secret retention facilities located around the world for use by our CIA is staggering. The amount of money spent in fighting both the war in Iraq and later in Afghanistan is simply mind boggling.

But more than any one thing which stands out in this film is the toll the hunt for Bin Laden took upon us, his enemies, both societally and emotionally. We were forced to face ourselves as well as the enemy, and we became almost as vicious and ruthless in our pursuit of this one man. It reeks of Ahab and Moby Dick, where the question is always whether good triumphs over evil, or simply becomes a victim itself.

If you have not seen this film it will astound you. Based upon true accounts the story highlights one woman’s belief in herself and the intelligence she was analyzing in the effort to find Bin Laden. Faced with the doubt of her senior analysts at the CIA’s Langley headquarters, she pushes on, losing something of herself in the hunt to bring down the world’s most wanted man. A must see film for many reasons.

Fantastic performances by Jessica Chastain and Jason Clarke; along with tight direction and swift camera shifts; it is no wonder that this film garnered 5 Academy Award Nominations. It is simply that good. 

"Argo" with Ben Affleck and Alan Arkin (2012)

In this fast paced true life thriller, Ben Affleck plays Tony Mendez, a CIA operative who specializes in getting people out of crisis situations. In this case his assignment is to facilitate the removal of 6 American Embassy workers in Tehran during the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979.  Those 6 had been able to obtain shelter in the Canadian Embassy, but their presence was becoming known, making it only a matter of time until the Iranians would take them from that building.

At home the CIA and the White House are caught seriously off guard; and with no plans in the “works” to free the hostages it was time to get inventive. Calling upon friends in Hollywood, the CIA concocts a plan to film a phony movie in Iran at the time of the crisis, using phony Canadian passports to remove the hostages. John Goodman and Alan Arkin play the Hollywood Producer and Director who accompany Tony to Iran with the phony film crew. That part is relatively easy. But getting them out provides another, more desperate race against time.

Ben Affleck directed this film which is based on the actual events as they occurred. The beginning of the movie provides a brief background on just how the Iranian government fell, and why. This will be especially helpful to younger viewers who may not remember why the Iranians overthrew their government in the first place, as well as provide an insight into what kind of governments end up filling the vacuum created by violent revolutions.

It has been almost 35 years since the events depicted in this film took place. With last week’s election of a more moderate leader in Iran, let’s hope that the pendulum of democratic government is swinging back towards the center in that country, which has a strong influence on all of the other countries in the region. This was a very gripping and well-made film.

Edward Snowden - Patriot

By now everyone on the planet has heard of Edward Snowden, and almost everyone has an opinion of him. There is also an abundance of opinions concerning his actions in releasing the cold, hard facts about the United States covert intelligence programs he has outlined.

It seems; and this should come as no surprise to anyone; that the United States Government; the people we employ; have been spying on us. From e-mails to phone calls, your private thoughts and messages have been; and are now; being scanned by someone at NSA in Fort Meade, Maryland. 24/7 there is someone watching and reading the internet. There’s lots of talk about only using “keywords” to read the millions of messages sent daily, but I think we all know that’s a crock.

So, now Mr. Snowden is in hiding. This morning he disappeared from his hotel in Hong Kong, which has an extradition treaty with the United States. I hope he left on his own. He cannot go to China, as we have some financial issues with that nation; which make Mr. Snowden a valuable bargaining chip for both sides; yet there is virtually no country which will have him at this point. And more importantly, even if there were someplace he could go, there is no way for him to get there. Remember, too, that there is no way for him to profit from this venture.

This brings us to an interesting juncture which has been in the news lately. Is it alright to use a drone on an American citizen abroad; as we have done in the past; when that citizen has violated some law, as Mr. Snowden has done? My own belief is that there is a vast difference between targeting an American-Taliban, fighting against our own troops, and someone like Mr. Snowden.

Recall that Mr. Snowden has, in his possession, further information which he has refused to release due to the danger it would pose to both National Security, as well as our troops on the ground. He is not a zealot; he is an individual taking a principled stand. Much like the whistleblower, Mr. Snowden has probably thrown his life in the trash for you and me.

Personally, I don’t care if someone is reading my e-mails; I feel sorry for them. But the point is larger than that. Much like in George Orwell’s “1984” we have come to live in a society where truth is fiction and fiction is truth. In my book, that’s a lie. Mr. Snowden has done nothing but try to make us all aware of that fact. And in my book, that makes him a hero, as well as a Patriot.

Jim Garrison's Closing Summation -

Jim Garrison is still the only person to have ever brought to trial the conspirators in the murder of John F. Kennedy in 1963. His reputation has been tarnished for the ages by ridicule and disbelief. If you have ever seen Oliver Stone’s film “JFK” then you have heard the following closing argument made by Mr. Garrison in court on February 28, 1969. Although copies were handed out to the press at the end of the proceedings, the summation has never really garnered much attention in the mind of the public. Much of this is due to the reaction against the film by Mr. Stone. Yet, when you actually read the text of Mr. Garrison’s closing remarks, one cannot help being affected by the veracity of his words. It is an important and eloquent speech which contains much truth. Here is that argument, just as it was delivered in court in 1969.

May it please the court. Gentlemen of the jury. I know you're very tired. You've been very patient. This final day has been a long one, so I'll speak only a few minutes. In his argument, Mr. Dymond posed one final issue which raises the question of what we do when the need for justice is confronted by power. So, let me talk to you about the question of whether or not there was government fraud in this case--a question Mr. Dymond seems to want us to answer. A government is a great deal like a human being. It's not necessarily all good, and it's not necessarily all bad. We live in a good country. I love it and you do too. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we have a government which is not perfect.

There have been indications since November the 22nd of 1963--and that was not the last indication--that there is excessive power in some parts of our government. It is plain that the people have not received all of the truth about some of the things which have happened, about some of the assassinations which have occurred--and more particularly about the assassination of John Kennedy.

Going back to when we were children, I think most of us--probably all of us here in the courtroom--once thought that justice came into being of its own accord, that virtue was its own reward, that good would triumph over evil--in short, that justice occurred automatically. Later, when we found that this wasn't quite so, most of us still felt hopefully that at least justice occurred frequently of its own accord.

Today, I think that almost all of us would have to agree that there is really no machinery--not on this Earth at least--which causes justice to occur automatically. Men have to make it occur. Individual human beings have to make it occur. Otherwise, it doesn't come into existence. This is not always easy. As a matter of fact, it's always hard, because justice presents a threat to power. In order to make justice come into being, you often have to fight power.

Mr. Dymond raised the question: Why don't we say it's all a fraud and charge the government with fraud, if this is the case? Let me be explicit, then, and make myself very clear on this point.

The government's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was a fraud. It was the greatest fraud in the history of our country. It probably was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of humankind. That doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence of the kind of government which allows this to happen. We can do something about it. We're forced either to leave this country or to accept the authoritarianism that has developed--the authoritarianism which tells us that in the year 2029 we can see the evidence about what happened to John Kennedy.

Government does not consist only of secret police and domestic espionage operations and generals and admirals--government consists of people. It also consists of juries. And cases of murder--whether of the poorest individual or the most distinguished citizen in the land--should be looked at openly in a court of law, where juries can pass on them and not be hidden, not be buried like the body of the victim beneath concrete for countless years.

You men in these recent weeks have heard witnesses that no one else in the world has heard. You've seen the Zapruder film. You've seen what happened to your President. I suggest to you that you know right now that, in that area at least, a fraud has been perpetrated.

That does not mean that our government is entirely bad; and I want to emphasize that. It does mean, however, that in recent years, through the development of excessive power because of the Cold War, forces have developed in our government over which there is no control and these forces have an authoritarian approach to justice--meaning, they will let you know what justice is.

Well, my reply to them is that we already know what justice is. It is the decision of the people passing on the evidence. It is the jury system. In this issue which is posed by the government's conduct in concealing the evidence in this case--in the issue of humanity as opposed to power--I have chosen humanity, and I will do it again without any hesitation. I hope every one of you will do the same. I do this because I love my country and because I want to communicate to the government that we will not accept unexplained assassinations with the casual information that if we live seventy-five years longer, we might be given more evidence.

In this particular case, massive power was brought to bear to prevent justice from ever coming into this courtroom. The power to make authoritive pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news media by the release of false information, the power to interfere with an honest inquiry and the power to provide an endless variety of experts to testify in behalf of power, repeatedly was demonstrated in this case.

The American people have yet to see the Zapruder film. Why? The American people have yet to see and hear from the real witnesses to the assassination. Why? Because, today in America too much emphasis is given to secrecy, with regard to the assassination of our President, and not enough emphasis is given to the question of justice and to the question of humanity.

These dignified deceptions will not suffice. We have had enough of power without truth. We don't have to accept power without truth or else leave the country. I don't accept either of these two alternatives. I don't intend to leave the country and I don't intend to accept power without truth.

I intend to fight for the truth. I suggest that not only is this not un-American, but it is the most American thing we can do--because if the truth does not endure, then our country will not endure.

In our country the worst of all crimes occurs when the government murders truth. If it can murder truth, it can murder freedom. If it can murder freedom, it can murder your own sons--if they should dare to fight for freedom-- and then it can announce that they were killed in an industrial accident, or shot by the "enemy" or God knows what.

In this case, finally, it has been possible to bring the truth about the assassination into a court of law--not before a commission composed of important and powerful and politically astute men, but before a jury of citizens.

Now, I suggest to you that yours is a hard duty, because in a sense what you're passing on is equivalent to a murder case. The difficult thing about passing on a murder case is that the victim is out of your sight and buried a long distance away, and all you can see is the defendant. It's very difficult to identify with someone you can't see, and sometimes it's hard not to identify to some extent with the defendant and his problems.

In that regard, every prosecutor who is at all humane is conscious of feeling sorry for the defendant in every case he prosecutes. But he is not free to forget the victim who lies buried out of sight. I suggest to you that, if you do your duty, you also are not free to forget the victim who is buried out of sight.

You know, Tennyson once said that, "authority forgets a dying king." This was never more true than in the murder of John Kennedy. The strange and deceptive conduct of the government after his murder began while his body was warm, and has continued for five years. You have seen in this courtroom indications of the interest of part of the government power structure in keeping the truth down, in keeping the grave closed.

We presented a number of eyewitnesses as well as an expert witness as well as the Zapruder film, to show that the fatal wound of the President came from the front. A plane landed from Washington and out stepped Dr. Finck for the defense, to counter the clear and apparent evidence of a shot from the front. I don't have to go into Dr. Finck's testimony in detail for you to show that it simply did not correspond with the facts. He admitted that he did not complete the autopsy because a general told him not to complete the autopsy.

In this conflict between power and justice--to put it that way--just where do you think Dr. Finck stands? A general, who was not a pathologist, told him not to complete the autopsy, so he didn't complete it. This is not the way I want my country to be. When our President is killed he deserves the kind of autopsy that the ordinary citizen gets every day in the State of Louisiana. And the people deserve the facts about it. We can't have government power suddenly interjecting itself and preventing the truth form coming to the people.

Yet in this case, before the sun rose the next morning, power had moved into the situation and the truth was being concealed. And now, five years later in this courtroom the power of the government in concealing the truth is continuing in the same way.

We presented eyewitnesses who told you of the shots coming from the grassy knoll. A plane landed from Washington, and out came ballistics expert Frazier for the defense. Mr. Frazier's explanation of the sound of the shots coming from the front, which was heard by eyewitness after eyewitness, was that Lee Oswald created a sonic boom in his firing. Not only did Oswald break all of the world's records for marksmanship, but he broke the sound barrier as well.

I suggest to you, that if any of you have shot on a firing range--and most of you probably have in the service--you were shooting rifles in which the bullet traveled faster than the speed of sound. I ask you to recall if you ever heard a sonic boom. If you remember when you were on the firing line, and they would say, "Ready on the left; ready on the right; ready on the firing line; commence firing," you heard the shots coming from the firing line--to the left of you and to the right of you. If you had heard, as a result of Frazier's fictional sonic boom, firing coming at you from the pits, you would have had a reaction which you would still remember.

Mr. Frazier's sonic boom simply doesn't exist. It's part of the fraud-- a part of the continuing government fraud.

The best way to make this country the kind of country it's supposed to be is to communicate to the government that no matter how powerful it may be, we do not accept these frauds. We do not accept these false announcements. We do not accept the concealment of evidence with regard to the murder of President Kennedy. Who is the most believable: a Richard Randolph Carr, seated here in a wheelchair and telling you what he saw and what he heard and how he was told to shut his mouth--or Mr. Frazier with his sonic booms? Do we really have to reject Mr. Newman and Mrs. Newman and Mr. Carr and Roger Craig and the testimony of all those honest witnesses--reject all this and accept the fraudulent Warren Commission, or else leave the country?

I suggest to you that there are other alternatives. One of them has been put in practice in the last month in the State of Louisiana--and that is to bring out the truth in a proceeding where attorneys can cross-examine, where the defendant can be confronted by testimony against him, where the rules of evidence are applied and where a jury of citizens can pass on it--and where there is no government secrecy. Above all, where you do not have evidence concealed for seventy-five years in the name of "national security."

All we have in this case are the facts--facts which show that the defendant participated in the conspiracy to kill the President and that the President was subsequently killed in an ambush.

The reply of the defense has been the same as the early reply of the government in the Warren Commission. It has been authority, authority, authority. The President's seal outside of each volume of the Warren Commission Report--made necessary because there is nothing inside these volumes, only men of high position and prestige sitting on a Board, and announcing the results to you, but not telling you what the evidence is, because the evidence has to be hidden for seventy-five years.

You heard in this courtroom in recent weeks, eyewitness after eyewitness after eyewitness and, above all, you saw one eyewitness which was indifferent to power--the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera is totally indifferent to power and it tells what happened as it saw it happen--and that is one of the reasons 200 million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film. They should have seen it many times. They should know exactly what happened. They all should know what you know now. Why hasn't all of this come into being if there hasn't been government fraud? Of course there has been fraud by the government.

But I'm telling you now that I think we can do something about it. I think that there are still enough Americans left in this country to make it continue to be America. I think that we can still fight authoritarianism--the government's insistence on secrecy, government force used in counterattacks against an honest inquiry--and when we do that, we're not being un-American, we're being American. It isn't easy. You're sticking your neck out in a rather permanent way, but it has to be done because truth does not come into being automatically. Individual men, like the members of my staff here, have to work and fight to make it happen--and individual men like you have to make justice come into being because otherwise is doesn't happen.

What I'm trying to tell you is that there are forces in America today, unfortunately, which are not in favor of the truth coming out about John Kennedy's assassination. As long as our government continues to be like this, as long as such forces can get away with such actions, then this is no longer the country in which we were born.

The murder of John Kennedy was probably the most terrible moment in the history of our country. Yet, circumstances have placed you in the position where not only have you seen the hidden evidence but you are actually going to have the opportunity to bring justice into the picture for the first time.

Now, you are here sitting in judgment on Clay Shaw. Yet you, as men, represent more than jurors in an ordinary case because of the victim in this case. You represent, in a sense, the hope of humanity against government power. You represent humanity, which yet may triumph over excessive government power-- if you will cause it to be so, in the course of doing your duty in this case.

I suggest that you ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

What can you do for your country? You can cause justice to happen for the first time in this matter. You can help make our country better by showing that this is still a government of the people. And if you do that, as long as you live, nothing will ever be more important.

"The Fish That Ate the Whale" by Rich Cohen (2012)

I had never heard of Samuel Zemurray until I picked up this book. As usual, I chose the book by its cover; which is something I was told never to do, and have done since. I’m glad I did. Samuel Zemurray was arguably the banana “King”. From his first encounter with the fruit sometime around 1893 in Selma, Alabama. He was smitten with everything about the fruit; from its shape, color and size; to what was it worth? Samuel, like most immigrants from Eastern Europe at the time, looked at everything in a different light than others. This was, after all, the land of opportunity, and who knew what that first banana held in store for him? As it turned out, it was quite a lot.

Sam Zemurray is the man who popularized the banana, taking it from the small marketplaces of the southern ports of America, all the way into every grocery store in the nation. By the time Mr. Zemurray was through, bananas were celebrated in song, and had become a staple of American cuisine. In this unusual biography of both the man and the banana, author Rich Cohen has given us both an education in the history of the banana in America, as well as a chronicle of the United Fruit Company. This is a story of American capitalism; in a business started by an immigrant; and the effects his success had on those less fortunate than he in the countries from which he derived his that good fortune. In a way, it is the tale of “Raggedy Dick the Shoeshine Boy”; while in another sense it recalls “The Grapes of Wrath.”

From his most humble beginning as a fruit peddler, with one cart of bananas, Mr. Zemurray rose to become a tycoon. Along the way he wrestled with Unions, politicians, foreign governments, and even the CIA, as he built an empire which proved capable of starting wars and influencing politics.

Just as my great grandfather Max Henkin, who hailed from Russia; and is shown here next to a palm tree; Zemurray was fascinated with this healthy and exotic fruit. In his own turn, the author does everything within his power to convey this fascination to the reader.

Tracing Mr. Zemurray’s history and rise to fortune , the author has taken a life which reads like a fairy tale, and strips away a bit of the veneer, getting at the heart of what drove this man who became the “Banana King”. He also manages to let us understand how he stayed at the top of his industry for 40 years.

Also of interest is the bit of education about the industry which the author manages to squeeze into the narrative. He ably explains the difference between a “stem”, which holds one hundred “bunches” of 9 “hands”; which in turn comprise 15 “fingers”, or bananas each.  This called forth the image of stevedores in tropical ports unloading the bananas by hand; shouldering several hundred pounds at a time; with the danger of scorpions and spiders lurking within each bunch unloaded.

This book covers everything from bananas to foreign coups in “banana republics, as well as corporate and labor disputes. This is a real life tale worthy of a good screenplay; and your time will not be misspent in reading Rich Cohen’s entertaining; and educational; biography of a highly unusual individual.

"Poisioning the Press" by Mark Feldstein

During the late 1960's, and the early 1970's, a sea change occurred in America regarding the relationship between the press and the reigning politicians. It would be easy to just blame the politicians, who, of course, usually have something to hide, hence their resentment of the press. But when politics begins to motivate the reporters as well; who are supposed to be the guardians of the so-called "Fourth Estate"; the combination of these two entities in competition for control of the truth only bodes trouble for the very institutions, and people, whom both entities are supposedly protecting. The war between Jack Anderson and Richard Nixon is a perfect example of this.

Two men could not have been more alike in their origins than Jack Anderson, the future newspaper columnist, and Richard Nixon, the future President of the United States. Both were born to hard working middle class families in Southern California, and both were brought up as fundamentalist Christians; Nixon, as a Quaker; Anderson, as a Mormon. Both served in the Pacific during the Second World War, defending their country. Even after the war, their separate career paths took both to Washington, where they would spend the next 30 years battling with one another. Mostly it was a contest of words. But in the early spring of 1972, before the Watergate burglaries even took place, this rivalry was turning deadly, as the Nixon Administration, utilizing the skills of G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, plotted the death of the President's main nemesis, which had by this point, become an obsession.

Chronicling the rivalry between these two men, the author draws on an extensive bibliography of news articles and government documents to illustrate his coverage of the veritable war between America's news media and the Government, a war which continues to affect how we choose our elected officials today.

Beginning with the Alger Hiss "Pumpkin Papers" case, the author chronicles all of the negative coverage heaped upon Nixon, including the well-known "Checkers" speech in 1952, as well as Nixon's "last" press conference in 1962, when he lost the race for Governor, declaring that "the press won't have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore." Jack Anderson, along with his mentor Drew Pearson, remained steadfastly on Nixon's tail all during the McCarthy hearings and the Roy Cohn scandal, during which Anderson fired the first shot concerning the sexual orientation of both McCarthy and Cohn. He would later use this same tactic against Nixon's White House aides, H.R.Haldeman and John Ehrlichman.

Unsurprisingly, Nixon attempted to do the same thing to Jack Anderson in order to discredit him. (That was right before he decided to have him killed.) And, while all of this was going on, J. Edgar Hoover was the one verifying the sexual orientation of the White House employees, via the use of polygraph tests. One would assume he would have known the right questions to ask. Knowing what we know about Mr. Hoover and his companion Clyde Tolson at this point, makes this scenario almost laughable, were it not true.

This is a fascinating book, which takes a hard look at both the press and the government, as they each attempt to manipulate elections, secure jobs for friends, and cover up mistakes and scandals, until the public has no idea of what is really going on. It is hard to imagine, that with all of the power, and the responsibility which goes along with it, that so much time is wasted, by both parties, in witch hunts designed to bring the other side down, not with facts and reasoning; but instead with innuendo and false accusations, character assassination, and in the extreme case, actual murder plots.

Scandal has always been a part of politics, dating back to the earliest of times. But during the 3 decades in which Richard Nixon and Jack Anderson fought their protracted, personal battle in the press, something was lost. That something was the civility of political discourse, which was the foundation of our Democracy. Sadly, going down that slippery slope has proven far easier than regaining the high ground. Just look at the 24/7 news media today, and the fatally divided nation which we now inhabit. And when you do, remember, the blame for that division falls on both sides of the aisle.

This is an entertaining and informative book, which recounts an era that changed America forever, and not necessarily for the better.