The Betrayal of America (Part 3)

[H2O Man]

I've had trouble posting on DU for the past couple days, so "best of luck," as the old saying goes. I wrote this little essay on my blog tonight, in small part in response to a recent acrimonious thread on the "magic bullet" from Dallas; in larger part in response to a thread I had responded to that disappeared from view today; and entirely in the spirit of promoting thoughts on "how to think," and not "what to think." My goal is not to have a debate on 11-22 or 9-11 or any other one topic; but rather, to have people add tips on critical thinking.

Thank you for your consideration, and let's make 2006 a great year in American history.


The Betrayal of America: Part Three

"That people form opinions without any thinking that led up to them ....and that their opinions can be exposed as being flawed in a matter of seconds, was also shown to be apparent in a different context. I am writing two volumes on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. My conclusion is that I believe beyond all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all reasonable doubt that he acted alone. The latter position, of course, is one that is at odds with the vast majority of Americans, who, because of their lack of knowledge about all the facts of the case, and the massive amount of misinformation that they have been fed by conspiracy theorists ... are in no position to form an intelligent opinion about it.

"In any event, back in early 1992, a few months after the factually impoverished and absurd pro-conspiracy movie JFK by Oliver Stone .... I was speaking to about 600 lawyers at a trial lawyer's convention. ..... I proceeded to ask for a show of hands as to how many did not accept the findings of the Warren Commission. A forest of hands went up, easilt 85-90 percent of the audience. So I said to them, ' What if I could prove to you in one minute or less that although you are all intelligent people, you're not thinking intelligently about the Kennedy case?' .....A voice from my right shouted out, ' We don't think you can do it.' ' Okay,' I responded, 'start looking at your watches.' With the clock ticking, I asked for another show of hands as to those who had seen the recent movie, JFK, or at any time in the past had ever read any book or magazine article propounding the conspiracy theory or otherwise rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission. Again, a great number of hands went up .... I then told the group that I didn't need a show of hands for my next point. 'I'm sure you will all agree,' I said, 'that before you form an intelligent opinion on any matter in dispute, you should hear from both sides .... With that in mind, how many of you have read the Warren Report?' It was embarrassing. Only a few people raised their hands. In less than a minute .... I had proved my point. The overwhelming majority in the audience had formed an opinion rejecting the findings of the Warren Commission without bothering to read the commission's report. And I hadn't even asked them how many had read the twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission, just the single volume Warren Report."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; The Betrayal of America; Nation Books; 2001; pages 32-33.

"I was never one of those people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission's report on the president's death. But five years after Jack died, I was having lunch with Kenny O'Donnell and a few other people ... and we got to talking about the assassination. I was surprised to hear O'Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence. 'That's not what you told the Warren Commission,' I said. 'You're right,' he replied. 'I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.'

" 'I can't believe it,' I said. 'I wouldn't have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth.' 'Tip, you have to understand. The family -- everyone wanted this thing behind them.' Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O'Donnell's. Kenny O'Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story.

"And so there will always be some skepticism in my mind about the cause of Jack's death. I used to think that the only people who doubted the conclusions of the Warren Commission were crackpots. Now, however, I'm not so sure."
-- Tip O'Neill; Man of the House; St. Martin's Press; 1987; page 211.

A few years ago, my oldest son's high school social studies teacher told his class that there was no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John Kennedy, and that he acted alone. The teacher said the Warren Commission had come to a conclusion based entirely upon fact, and he dismissed any of the points that students made. The teacher was so confident that he was right, that he challenged the class to find anything that raised a "serious question" about the Warren Report.

The following day, my son brought in Tip O'Neill's book, and attempted to read page 211 to the class. The teacher took the book from him, and said that he would not allow such "trash" in his classroom.

I admire Vincent Bugliosi. I think he ranks as one of the most talented prosecutors in our country's history. I think that he is ethical and honest. I think it is good that he is writing a two-volume set of books on the Warren Report.

Yet, in one minute or less, by simply reading page 211 of Tip O'Neill's book, one can only conclude that the Warren Report is flawed. It seems a safe bet that Bugliosi and the 600 attorneys he spoke to would agree that a quest for truth cannot be built upon a foundation created with investigators pressuring eye witnesses to lie. As a prosecutor, I cannot believe that Bugliosi would have wanted police investigators to pressure witnesses to lie, because the victim's family wanted to get the crime behind them.

Recently, on the forum the Democratic Underground, there have been discussions about topics including "the magic bullet" from Dallas; 9-11; the Iraqi war; the tensions between the US and Iran; the Abramoff scandal; Plame and the neocon/AIPAC spy scandals; and a host of other very important issues. In many cases, I disagree with people's opinions, yet I admire their frankness, much in the manner that I respect Vincent Bugliosi.

I respect their frankness for the same reasons that I believe a ship's captain has the moral obligation to his passengers to avoid a shipwreck. Indeed, all civilized people share this same responsibility -- this same moral obligation -- not only to themselves, but to everyone else on board, to be skeptical and to demand the proof of any and all statements that claim to be one of fact. Because in the final analysis, all tyranny rests in fraud and deceit, and in convincing people to accept false assumptions (lies) on face-value, and any person who for one moment suspends or abandons that questioning spirit has -- at that very moment -- actually betrayed all of humanity.

[punpirate]

1. At the root of all conspiracy theory...

... is a mistrust of authority. At the root of all questionable evidence is a desire to maintain secrecy--about the intentions of the powerful, or their actions, the structure of government, or even something as simple as the incompetence or haste of those in authority. One need only look at the number of people who have recently been acquitted of crimes for which they were previously imprisoned to see that evidence can be a fungible thing, and that only by the existence of irrefutable supererogatory evidence such as DNA testing has the original evidentiary process been called into question. Even then, in many of those cases, the police and prosecutors have defended their methods as sound, although, in the ultimate estimation, their methods came to manifestly wrong conclusions.

Secrecy and all its tools--obfuscation, denial, diversion and outright lying--cannot, by definition, serve the truth.

In the case of 9/11, there have been people all too willing to let their imaginations run wild and have probably impaired the search for the truth, although they may have certainly done so unwillingly. People say the WTC towers were intentionally taken down. That's a hypothesis that may well deserve investigation--but, it's not the truth. Simply stopping at saying so accomplishes little. If the buildings were taken down, for whatever reason, someone had to plant the charges. No one making the assertion, to my knowledge, is actively trying to find the persons who did that work. As well, in practical legal terms, the WTC wreckage was evidence at a crime scene. By removing that wreckage quickly, the chain of custody of evidence was broken, and for that reason, no forensic examination of the evidence was possible--which only fuels conspiratorial notions. That means that someone in the NYPD authorized that removal, and yet, I don't know of anyone who is trying to determine the how and why of that authorization. Those seem to me to be questions deserving of answers.

The same sort of questions surround the authenticity of the evidence supplied in the Kennedy assassination.

[Catrina]

4. I think Rudolph Giuliani was responsible for allowing the steel to be

removed. I'm not absolutely certain that this has been established, but the question was on the minds of the 9/11 families, and they submitted it to the Commission ~ you can find that here:

Statement and Questions Regarding the 9/11 Commission Interview
of Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Members of his Administration

revised May 11, 2004

1. A few short weeks after 9/11, tons of metal from the collapsed twin towers was sold to scrap yards in New Jersey. Thereafter, the steel was re-sold to other recyclers in the United States and overseas. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the “scrap” has ended up in India, Japan, South Korea, China and Malaysia.

It is the FSC’s position that the thousands of pounds of debris was crime-scene evidence. It should have been examined, catalogued, and stored in a secure location.

Why were the steel beams sold and shipped overseas and not retained as evidence? Was the material examined before it was sent overseas? If examined, then by whom? Were any diagnostic studies/tests performed? If not, then why? Whose responsibility was this?

Former FBI Acting Director Thomas Pickard said that the FBI wanted to take over Ground Zero and make it a crime scene as was done at the Pentagon. If that had occurred all materials from the scene would have been protected until an investigation was complete. Pickard also stated that you, Mayor Giuliani, would not allow the FBI access to the pit area. Is this accurate? If so, then what was your reason for keeping the nation’s chief investigatory team—the FBI, out of Ground Zero?

http://911independentcommission.org/giuliani31804.html

I'm not sure how we are supposed to think critically, as H20 Man suggests, about all these events, starting with the Kennedy assassination and so far, ending with 9/11 which is now used as an excuse for everything illegal this administration does.

If there were logical answers, and less attempts by those in authority to cover up and keep secret, evidence, or what they tell us is evidence, I think most people would accept the findings as probably reasonable.

But in the case of JFK, the single bullet theory simply is not logical to most people. The killing of Oswald and then Ruby added to suspicions that someone wanted to silence people.

And in the case of 9/11, the two passports, surviving the crash (the hijackers were incinerated, but not their passports which presumable they had on them) certainly raises questions. That seems to me as though 'they' (assuming you've accepted that this was orchestrated) wanted so badly for us to buy the official 'Al Queda' story, they went a bit too far in planting evidence.

I noticed in the questions the families submitted, that this bothered them also. They asked 'who found them? What condition they were in?' I have to admit, I had not asked 'who found them' before. I assumed we knew. We assume a lot, even when we are asking questions. I thought there was a common knowledge as to who found them, although I had never heard who it was. That made me realize, when I read that question now, that even those of us who question, are not asking enough questions ~

The problem is that when you question the official stories of all these events, you are called a conspiracy theorist sometimes ~ yet, the vast majority of people, despite Bugliosi's little test, do not believe the official JFK story.

I think that sometimes it's just instinct, a feeling that something is wrong, without any real evidence to back it up, that starts someone asking questions, and even if they don't get answers, they know instinctively, that they are right. That's how I feel about 9/11 and about the JFK assassination. And there are some facts to corroborate the instinct now.

[punpirate]

5. Did the final report include any answers...

... from Giuliani as submitted by interested parties? (Don't know, m'self--I haven't read the whole report--it's on another computer which isn't running right now.)

The question asked may not be, in fact, what happened, since it refers back to something Pickard asserted, and as I recall, Pickard's actions and testimony were also called into question by the 9/11 families. :shrug:

Still, as you suggest, healthy skepticism is preferred to blind acceptance, and anything that involves the government deserves an additional dose of skepticism until all the evidence is tested.

Cheers.

[Catrina]

13. I remember watching part of Giuliani's testimony ~ he wasted time

by reminiscing over what a great mayor he was on 9/11. Each Senator only had a certain amount of time for questions, and Giuliani was using up the time patting himself on the back, a practice he is quite experienced at. The families objected to this as I recall, and there were loud demands for him to get on with answering the questions.

I didn't see all of his testimony, so I do not know if he was either asked those questions, or answered them. Many of the questions submitted by the families, were never asked.

However, I know that early on, right after 9/11 when it was reported in the news that the steel was being removed, the reports claimed that Giuliani had arranged for that to be done. At the time, I thought nothing of it. Again demonstrating that we do not always think critically. I just thought they were trying to clear the site as quickly as possible.

The Fire Dept. did object strenuously to the fact that for the first time ever, they were not allowed to conduct the usual investigation of a fire.

[Catrina]

2. Very, very interesting, H20 man. I was not aware that there were

witnesses who confessed to telling lies to the Warren Commission. Interesting point about Bugliosi. Has anyone ever sent him that information, I wonder?

I'm not sure when I began to doubt the official story of 9/11 ~ but I know that even when I did, I was afraid to speak about the doubts I had.

Thinking back, I expected an immediate call for a thorough investigation by the POTUS and by Congress ~ at first, because of the shock of it all, I didn't think about it much. We were finding out about people who had died that day, people some of us knew (in my case a neighbor). There were so many human stories, for days and weeks afterwards that kept all of us emotionally distraught.

I think I began to notice that there was something missing ~ that I had not heard any serious calls for an investigation from the President, several weeks afterwards. I was sure I must have missed it.

Then, several months later, I heard that Bush had asked Daschle not to hold hearings to try to find answers to what happened that day. That's when I realized that there was something really wrong and that it was more than likely we were lied to.

The first person who mentioned their own doubts to me, was someone I met on another board. He said 'much as I hate these b*&^*&@s, even I can't believe they could be this evil'. And I realized that I too felt as he did, but didn't want to ~

After that, I began to think about what we had been told. I wondered about passports having survived the inferno, only the hijackers'. About Building 7, imploding just like the other two, but without being hit by a plane. I read about John O'Neill, and Coleen Rowley and others who had tried to warn about an attack, and realized that there was a pattern of 'blocking' anyone who tried to get information out that might have stopped 9/11. And then I asked 'why, what benefit would there be to this, and for whom?'

Then the talk of war with Iraq, after Afghanistan, and more questions arose ~ and I was online by then and finding out how many others no longer believed the official story.

So, we are asking questions. The 9/11 families submitted many questions to the Commission ~ many of the ones we were all asking ~ you can find them here.

http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html

So many great questions. I don't know if all of them were answered. I did see the hearings and found them to be very frustrating, as did the families.

Recommended ~

[H2O Man]

7. I think Tip O'Neill

made an interesting point when he said he was sharing a meal with this group in 1968. One suspects that it would most likely have been in June, after the assassinations of MKL and RFK, and that these were being discussed in the context of two more of those darned crazy "lone gunmen." Tip was saying something very important there.

[Me.]

3. Saw The Stone Movie Again, Not Long Ago

Powerful! The entire situation is a stain, and what is happening now is the culmination of what was put in play then. A friend told me that on the West Coast. that night, and in Houston, there were parties that night. A revolting thought.

[bleever]

6. "...all tyranny rests in fraud and deceit, and in convincing people

to accept false assumptions (lies) on face-value."

We can respect reasonable, intelligent people, even when they miss, or disregard, or fail to appreciate the significance of, key elements of a story.

We all want understanding. Resolution. Closure.

But truth is often uncomfortable. Sometimes it is excruciating.

Truth is always the higher calling.

[Disturbed]

8. "The killing of Oswald and then Ruby."

Jack Ruby died of cancer in prison, which he already had when he assasinated LH Oswald.

[Catrina]

12. Thanks, I had forgotten that ~ guess I was thinking of all the

theories that his death might have been hastened along before he talked.

[Me.]

9. Kick! n/t

10. Many people aren't really that good at

pouring through documents patiently and methodically. Generally people react from a general intuition or view on a situation based on their own world-view or experience. And their own experience may be limited. I don't know how some who make history their livelihood, live with themselves, other than they want to ride the great wave of the status quo they were born into. You need a particular talent for history or science for that matter.

[Me.]

11. Generally Speaking People Aren't Good At It

Pouring over documents... most of the American haven't the patience. if they had the country wouldn't be in such a mess and the blivet wouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the WH.

[leftchick]

14. excellent H2O Man

I am proud of your son's attempt and... He has a Great Father.

:)

[zippy890]

15. 'tyranny rests in fraud and deceit,'

and it IS that lack of questioning spirit that leads to tyrannical rule.

very good essay, and I'm with you, working toward making 2006 a great year in American history

[H2O Man]

16. A question:

(or two) Of Dave Powers, Kenny O'Donnell, and Tip O'Neill .... which one's voice would carry the most weight in telling the story about Powers and O'Donnell hearing two shots coming from the grassy knoll, and having the FBI pressure them to lie to the Warren Commission? Why?

Perhaps even take this a step further: is it possible to break this down into segments of citizens, and decide {1} those who would put the most weight on Powers and/or O'Donnell; {2} on Tip O'Neill; {3} the FBI; or {4} Vince Bugliosi? What group would each appeal to? Why?

[H2O Man]

17. PS: The reason

that I would ask DUers to participate in this little exercise has to do with how we, at the grass-roots level of the democratic party, will approach the election season in 2006. That may sound a bit odd, but consider the source, and as people begin to answer these questions some interesting patterns may emerge.

[annabanana]

18. I think this gets to the heart of it..

If most people aren't willing (or able) to pour over large quantities of documentation, they will make their determinations based on "who do you trust?".... with a dose of "what seems most likely?" at which point one's personal idiosyncrasies hold sway.

[H2O Man]

19. If we were to ask

1,000 Americans to identify Powers, O'Donnell, and O'Neill, what might the numbers be?

[Catrina]

20. I think most people won't recognize the names of Powers and O'Donnell

at first so that might effect how they feel about their credibility.

2)Tip O'Neill would probably be credible to Democrats, and maybe to Independents and/or to people who are apolitical.

3)I think the FBI has lost a lot of credibility for many people. I personally wouldn't just take their word for anything, without some corroboration from another source. Of the four, I think they would have the least credibility, especially in this case.

4)I remember that Bugliosi wrote a lot about the Bush V Gore decision, and probably lost credibility among rightwingers. However to most other people, I think he can be very convincing and even to rightwingers, in this case, since he's supporting the Warren Commission's theory, they would probably be willing to believe him on this. Otoh, he might change his own mind if he learned that witnesses had been pressured to lie, and in that case, imo, he would be honest about it. Should that happen, I think he would have a lot of credibility with many people.

For the majority of people, though, since a majority of them now doubt the findings of the Warren Commission I think they would give more credibility to Powers and O'Donnell in the end, since their story confirms what they already suspect.