HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE LETTERS SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Forty
Years of Lies
by
John Chuckman
Dissident
Voice
November 13, 2003
"If, as we are told, Oswald was the
lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?"
-- Bertrand
Russell
Bertrand
Russell's penetrating question, one of sixteen he asked at the time of the
Warren Commission Report, remains unanswered after forty years. That should
trouble Americans, but then again there are many things around national secrecy
today that should trouble Americans.
The
most timely lesson to be taken from the fortieth anniversary of President
Kennedy's assassination concerns secrecy and the meaning of democracy in the
world's most powerful nation. Perhaps no event better demonstrates the
existence of two governments in the United States, the one people elect and
another, often far more influential, as capable of imposing false history about
large events as the fabled Ministry of Truth.
Since
the time of the Warren Commission we have had the investigation of the House
Select Committee and, in the last decade, the release of truckloads of
previously-secret documents.
These
documents were suppressed originally in the name of national security, but the
fact is, despite their release, much of their content is heavily blacked out,
and dedicated researchers know many documents remain unreleased, particularly
documents from the CIA and military intelligence. Would any reasonable person
conclude anything other than that those documents are likely the most
informative and sensational?
Was
it ever reasonable to believe that material of that nature would be included in
document releases? Just a few years ago, records of some of the CIA's early
Cold War activities, due for mandated release, were suddenly said to have
"disappeared," and that declaration was pretty much the end of the
story for a press regularly puffing itself as the fourth estate of American
society. You do not have to believe in wild plots to recognize here the key to
the Warren Commission's shabby job of investigation. As it was, several members
of the Commission expressed private doubts about the main finding of Oswald as
lone assassin.
There
is a sense in these matters of being treated as a child sent to his or her room
for not eating the spinach served. This is not so different to the way the
American government treats its citizens about Cuba: it restricts them from
spending money there so they cannot freely go and judge for themselves what is
and isn't.
As
it happens, the two things, Cuba and the assassination, are intimately related.
Almost no one who studies the assassination critically can help but conclude it
had a great deal to do with Cuba. No, I don't mean the pathetic story about
Castro being somehow responsible. That idea is an insult to intelligence.
No
matter what opinions you may hold of Castro, he is too clever and was in those
days certainly too dedicated to the purpose of helping his people, according to
his lights, ever to take such a chance. Even the slightest evidence pointing to
Castro would have given the American establishment, fuming over communism like
Puritan Fathers confronting what they regarded as demon possession, the excuse
for an invasion.
There
never has been credible evidence in that direction. Yet, there has been a
number of fraudulent pieces of evidence, particularly the testimony of unsavory
characters, claims so threadbare they have come and gone after failing to catch
any hold, remaining as forgotten as last year's fizzled advertising campaign
for some laundry detergent.
The
notion that Castro had anything to do with the assassination is like an old
corpse that's been floating around, slowly decomposing, periodically releasing
gases for decades. And it is still doing so, Gus Russo's Live by the Sword of
not many years ago being one of the most detailed efforts to tart-up the corpse
and make it presentable for showing.
Any
superficial plausibility to the notion of Castro as assassin derives from the
poisonous atmosphere maintained towards him as official American policy.
Researchers in science know that bias on a researcher's part, not scrupulously
checked by an experiment's protocols, can seriously influence the outcome of an
otherwise rigorous statistical study. How much more so in studies of history on
subjects loaded with ideology and politics?
When
you consider with what flimsy, and even utterly false, evidence the United
States has invaded Iraq, it is remarkable that an invasion of Cuba did not
proceed forty years ago. But in some ways the U.S. was less certain of itself
then, it had a formidable opponent in the Soviet Union, and there was an
agreement with the Soviets concerning Cuba's integrity negotiated to end the
Cuban missile crisis, an agreement which deeply offended the small army of
Cuban exiles, CIA men, and low-life hangers-on who enjoyed steady employment,
lots of perquisites, and violent fun terrorizing Cuba.
Considering
America's current crusade over the evils of terrorism, you'd have to conclude
from the existence of that well-financed, murderous mob in the early 1960s that
there was a rather different view of terror then. Perhaps there is good terror
and bad terror, depending on just who does the wrecking and killing?
If
you were a serious, aspiring assassin, associated with Castro and living in the
United States during the early 1960s, you would not advertise your sympathies
months in advance as Oswald did. You would not call any attention to yourself.
It is hard for many today to have an adequate feel for the period, a time when
declaring yourself sympathetic to Castro or communism could earn you a beating
in the street, quite apart from making you the target of intense FBI interest.
Oswald was physically assaulted for his (stagy) pro-Castro efforts in New
Orleans, and he did receive a lengthy visit from the FBI while held briefly in
jail, but this was not new interest from the agency since he was already well
known to them.
Whatever
else you may think of Castro, he is one of the cleverest and most able
politicians of the second half of the twentieth century. He survived invasion,
endless acts of terror and sabotage from the CIA and Cuban exiles, and numerous
attempts at assassination, and he still retains a good deal of loyal support in
Cuba. A man of this extraordinary talent does not use someone like Oswald to
assassinate an American president. And if Castro had made such a mistake, he
quickly would have corrected the error when Oswald made a (deliberate) fool of
himself, over and over, in New Orleans well before the assassination, his
actions there looking remarkably like the kind of provocateur-stuff a security
service might use to elicit responses and identify the sympathies of others.
Oswald's
(purported) visit to Mexico and clownish behavior in New Orleans laid the
groundwork for the myth of Castro's involvement, and that almost certainly was
one of the purposes of the activity, laying the groundwork for an invasion of
Cuba. The motive for the assassination is likely found there. It is just silly
to believe Castro risked handing the U.S. government a new "Remember the
Maine."
In
recent years, we've had Patrick Kennedy say he believes Castro was responsible,
but his views on this matter are more like built-in reflexes than informed
judgment. Besides broadcasting a tone agreeable to America's political
establishment, his statement comes steeped in de' Medici-like conviction that
Castro's success stained the honor of his ferociously ambitious family. Cross
that family's path, and you earn a lifetime grudge. That's the way the family
fortune's founder always behaved.
Robert
Kennedy hated Castro (just as he hated other powerful competitors including Lyndon
Johnson), and he took personal oversight of efforts to assassinate him. Robert
also hated certain elements of the Mafia, who, after supporting his brother
with money and influence in the election, felt betrayed by Robert's legal
actions against them. The killing of Castro would have made all these people
much happier, Havana having been one of the Mafia's gold mines before Castro.
Interestingly enough, it appears that the FBI, under pressure from Robert, was
at the same time making efforts to crackdown on the excesses of the Cuban
refugees. Their excesses , including insane acts like shooting up Russian ships
and killing Russian sailors in Cuban ports, threatened relations with the
Soviet Union.
One
of the centers of the FBI's crackdown effort was New Orleans, and that is where
it appears clearest that Oswald worked for them. His defector background made
him a logical candidate for provocative activities like handing out leaflets
about Castro. At the same time he was offering his services as an ex-Marine to
at least one of the refugee groups.
Oswald
almost certainly had a minor role in American intelligence, an assumption that
explains many mysterious episodes in his life. We know the Warren Commission
discussed this in closed session. We also know Texas authorities believed they
had discovered such a connection. And we know the FBI in Dallas destroyed
important evidence.
If
you're looking for Cuban assassins, why not some of those nasty refugee militia
groups, armed to the teeth by the CIA and trained to terrorize Castro's
government? They also terrorized their critics in Florida. The extensive
preparations necessary for assassinating the President might have raised little
suspicion from the CIA or FBI at a time when these groups, subsidized and protected
by the CIA, were carrying out all kinds of violent, lunatic acts. There are
strong parallels here with the suicide-bombers of 9/11, who undoubtedly eluded
suspicion because the CIA had been regularly bringing into the country many
shady characters from the Middle East to train for its dark purposes in places
like Afghanistan and Iraq.
The
Cuban extremists in Florida were furious over the Bay of Pigs and felt betrayed
by Kennedy's terms for settling the missile crisis. You couldn't find a better
explanation for the CIA's unhelpful behavior over the years since. Imagine the
impact on the CIA, already badly damaged by the Bay of Pigs and Kennedy's great
anger over it, of news that some of its subsidized anti-Castro thugs had killed
the President?
I
don't say that is what happened, only that there is at least one conjecture
with far more force and substance than the official one.
Assassination-theorizing is not one of my hobbies, but I have contempt for the
official explanation, and it seems rather naive to believe that the American
security establishment would have been satisfied with the insipid conclusions
of the Warren Commission.
Furthermore,
it is difficult to believe that the vast resources of American security and
justice employed at the time - that is, those not concerned with kicking up
dust into the public's eyes - were not able to identify the assassins and their
purpose. Documents covering a surreptitious, parallel investigation almost
certainly exist because what we know includes suggestions of two investigations
intersecting at times. Perhaps, the best example of this is around the autopsy
(discussed below).
Kicking-up
dust around the assassination is an activity that continues intermittently to
this day. In a piece a few years ago in the Washington Post about new Moscow
documents on the assassination, a reporter wrote, "Oswald...defected to
the Soviet Union in 1959 and renounced his American citizenship."
Oswald
never renounced his citizenship, although he made a public show of wanting to
do so. This was one of many theater-of-the-absurd scenes in the Oswald saga. We
now know that on one of his visits to the American embassy in Moscow, Oswald
was taken to an area reserved for sensitive matters, not the kind of business
he was there to conduct.
The
Soviets let him stay, never granting him citizenship, always treating him as an
extraordinary outsider under constant scrutiny.
The
Washington Post reporter also wrote, "Historians have expressed hope that
the documents could shed light on whether Oswald schemed to kill Kennedy when
he lived in the Soviet Union...." That begs the genuine question of
whether Oswald killed Kennedy and kicks-up more dust. No historian of critical
ability could think that way. The Soviets went out of their way at the time of
the assassination to reassure the U.S. government that they had no connection
with it. Any credible evidence they could produce, we may be absolutely sure,
was produced. The stakes were immensely high.
The
testimony of many Soviet citizens who knew Oswald agreed that he was a man
temperamentally incapable of killing anyone. An exception was his (estranged)
wife, Marina, who found herself, after the assassination, a Soviet citizen in a
hostile country, able to speak little English, the mother of two young children
with absolutely no resources, and hostage to American agents who could
determine her destiny.
Even
so accomplished and discerning a journalist as Daniel Schorr has assisted in
kicking-up dust, writing some years ago at the release of more than a thousand
boxes of memos and investigative reports from the national archives that there
wasn't much there. Somehow, Schorr had managed to digest and summarize that
monstrous amount of information in a very short time. Then again, in view of
all the blacked-out information, maybe Schorr's assertion owed less to
incredible skills at reading and digesting information than to serene
confidence in the methods of the establishment.
Schorr
went from the merely silly to the ridiculous with his assertion, "There
remains no serious reason to question the Warren Commission's conclusion that
the death of the president was the work of Oswald alone." How re-assuring,
but, if you think about that for a moment, it is the equivalent of saying what
never was proved has not now been disproved, so we'll regard it as proved -
absurd, yet characteristic of so many things written about the assassination.
Schorr
went on to praise Gerald Posner's new book, Case Closed, as "remov[ing]
any lingering doubt." We'll come back to Posner's book, but Schorr also
saw fit to trot out the then obligatory disparaging reference to Oliver Stone's
movie JFK. Why would a piece of popular entertainment be mentioned in the same
context as genuine historical documents? Only to associate the movie with
Schorr's claim that the documents had little to say.
Every
handsomely-paid columnist and pop news-celebrity in America stretched to find
new words of contempt for the Stone movie, miraculously, many of them well
before its release. The wide-scale, simultaneous attack was astonishing. You
had to wonder whether they had a source sending them film scraps from the
editing room or purloined pages from the script. When Stone's movie did appear
- proving highly unsatisfactory, almost silly, in its explanation of the
assassination - you had to wonder what all the fuss had been about.
I
was never an admirer of President Kennedy - still, the most important, unsolved
murder of the 20th century, apart from the lessons it offers, is a fascinating
mystery for those who've studied it.
The
President's head movement at the impact of the fatal shot, clearly backward on
the Zapruder film, a fact lamely rationalized by the Warren Commission, is not
the only evidence for shots from the front. In the famous picture of Mrs.
Kennedy reaching over the back of the car, she was, by her own testimony,
reaching for a piece of the President's skull. Equally striking is the
testimony of a police outrider, to the rear of the President's car, that he was
struck forcefully with blood and brain tissue.
The
doctors who worked to save the President at Parkland Hospital in Dallas said
that the major visible damage to the President was a gaping wound near the rear
of the skull, the kind of wound that typically reflects the exit of a bullet
with the shock wave generated by its passing through layers of human tissue.
We've all seen a plate glass window struck by a B-B where a tiny entrance
puncture results in a large funnel-shaped chunk of cracked or missing glass on
the opposite side.
The
President's head wound, as described in Dallas, is not present in published
autopsy photographs. Instead, there is a pencil-thin entrance-type wound in an
unknown scalp. Although the Secret Service agent, Clint Hill, who climbed
aboard the President's car after the shots, testified to seeing a large chunk
of skull in the car and looking into the right rear of the President's head,
seeing part of his brain gone, the autopsy photos show no such thing.
The
wound at the front of the President's neck, just above his necktie, which was
nicked by the bullet, was regarded by those first treating him in Dallas as an
entrance wound since it had the form of a small puncture before a tracheotomy
was done. But the throat wound in the published autopsy photos is large and
messy.
The
nature of the pathologists forcefully raises Russell's question. Why would you
need military pathologists, people who must follow orders? Ones especially that
were not very experienced in gunshot wounds, far less so than hospital
pathologists in any large, violent American city? Why conduct the autopsy at a
military hospital in Washington rather than a civilian one in Dallas? Why have
the pathologists work with a room full of Pentagon brass looking on? The
President's body was seized at gunpoint by federal agents at the hospital in
Dallas where the law required autopsy of a murder victim. Why these suspicious
actions and so many more, if the assassination, as the Warren Commission and its
defenders hold, reduces to murder by one man for unknown motives?
The
autopsy, as published, was neither complete nor careful, rendering its findings
of little forensic value. There is some evidence, including testimony of a
morgue worker and references contained in an FBI memo, pointing to autopsy
work, particularly work to the President's head, done elsewhere before receipt
of the body for the official autopsy, but no new documents expand on this. We
do learn the relatively trivial fact that the expensive bronze casket, known to
have been damaged at some point in bringing it to Bethesda, was disposed of by
sinking in the ocean, but the morgue worker said the bronze casket arriving
with Mrs. Kennedy was empty and that the body, separately delivered in a
shipping casket, displayed obvious signs of work done to it. The FBI memo,
written by two agents at the "earlier stages" of the official
autopsy, states that the unwrapped body displayed "surgery of the head
area." The same FBI agents also signed a receipt for a mysterious
"missile removed" by one pathologist.
The
official autopsy avoided some standard procedures. For example, the path of the
so-called magic bullet through the President's neck was not sectioned. A
mysterious back wound, whose placement varies dramatically from the hole in the
President's jacket (a fact officially explained by an improbable bunching-up of
the jacket), was probed but no entrance into the body cavity found. The
preserved brain - what there was of it, and with its telltale scattering of
metal fragments - later went missing. One of the pathologists admitted to
burning his original draft before writing the report we now see.
The
Warren Commission did no independent investigation (it did not even examine the
autopsy photos and x-rays), adopting instead the FBI as its investigative arm
at a time when the FBI had many serious matters to explain. The FBI had failed
to have Oswald's name on its Watch List even though they were completely
familiar with him, seeing him at intervals for unexplained reasons. His name
even had appeared earlier in an odd internal FBI advisory memo signed by
Director Hoover. The FBI also had failed to act appropriately on an explicit
threat from a known source recorded well before Kennedy went to Dallas. And the
agency destroyed crucial evidence.
With
a lack of independent investigation and the absence of all proper court
procedures including the cross-examination of witnesses, the Warren Report is
nothing more than a prosecutor's brief, and a sloppy one at that, with a
finding of guilt in the absence of any judge or jury. The only time the skimpy
evidence against Oswald was considered in a proper court setting, a mock trial
by the American Bar Association in 1992, the jury was hung, 7 to 5.
Oswald's
background is extraordinary. By the standards of the 1950s and early 1960s,
aspects of his life simply make no sense if viewed from the official
perspective. Here was a Marine, enlisted at 17, who mysteriously started
learning Russian, receiving communist literature through the mail, and speaking
openly to other Marines about communism - none of which in the least affected
his posting or standing.
He
became a defector to the Soviet Union, one who reportedly threatened to give
the Soviets information about operations of the then top-secret U-2 spy plane.
Some even assert he did provide such information, making it possible for a
Soviet missile to down Gary Power's U-2 plane just before the
Eisenhower-Khrushchev summit. Unlikely as that is, for Oswald would certainly
have been treated harshly on his return to the United States were it true, he
did know some important facts about the U-2's capabilities, because this
Russian-studying, communist literature-reading Marine was posted at a secret
U-2 base in Japan as a radar operator before his defection.
At
a time when witch-hunting for communists was a fresh memory and still a career
path for some American politicians, Oswald returned to the U.S. with a Russian
wife, one whose uncle was a lieutenant colonel in the MVD, the Ministry of the
Interior, but the CIA and other security agencies supposedly took little
interest in him. Oswald's source of income in the U.S. at critical times
remains a mystery. A mystery, too, surrounds the connections of this young man
of humble means to some well-heeled, anti-Soviet Russian speakers in Dallas
after his return from the Soviet Union. His later ability to get a passport for
travel to Mexico in just 24 hours - with a personal history that must have
ranked as one of the most bizarre in the United States - is attributed to
"clerical error."
Oswald,
so far as we know, was a patriotic individual when he joined the Marines. There
is no evidence that he was ever actually a communist or member of any extremist
organization. In fact, there is striking evidence suggesting he did work
supporting the opposite interest after his return to the United States. Thus
the address on some of the "Fair Play for Cuba" pamphlets he
distributed in New Orleans was the office of Guy Bannister, a former senior FBI
agent and violent anti-communist, still well-connected to the agency.
Oswald's
connections with the FBI have never been satisfactorily examined. There are
many circumstances suggesting his being a paid informant for the FBI,
especially during his time in New Orleans. A letter Oswald wrote to a Dallas
agent just before the assassination was deliberately and recklessly destroyed
by order of the office's senior agent immediately after the assassination with
no reasonable explanation.
One
way or another, all the major police or intelligence agencies were compromised
during the assassination or its investigation. The Secret Service performed
abysmally, in both planning the motorcade and responding to gun fire. Some of
the agents on duty had actually been out late drinking the night before, as it
happens at a bar belonging to an associate of Jack Ruby, Oswald's own assassin.
The performance of the Dallas police suggests terrible corruption. The FBI
failed in vital respects before and after the assassination. The CIA failed to
cooperate on many, many details of the investigation. These facts
understandably encourage the more farfetched assassination theories.
The
CIA has never released its most important information on Oswald, importantly
including documentation of his supposed activities in Mexico City at the Cuban
and Russian embassies where every visitor was routinely photographed and
identified by the CIA. We may speculate what a thorough vetting of CIA files
would show: likely that Oswald was a low-grade intelligence agent during his
stint in the Soviet Union, perhaps working for military intelligence to collect
information on day-to-day living conditions and attitudes there, one of several
men sent for the purpose at that time; that he was trained at an American
military school in basic Russian and encouraged to build a quickie communist
identity by subscribing to literature and talking foolishly before defecting.
We would also likely find that he was serving American security, probably the
FBI, during the months before Dallas in the murky world of CIA/FBI/Cuban
refugee/Mafia anti-Castro activities; and that in the course of that
anti-Castro work, he was sucked without realizing it into an elaborate
assassination plot, offering the plotters, with his odd background, a
tailor-made patsy. The CIA assessment of Oswald would likely show, just as
testimony from his time in the Soviet Union shows, that Oswald was not capable
psychologically of acting as an assassin, lone or otherwise.
The
case against Oswald is a flimsy tissue. It includes a poor autopsy of the
victim offering no reliable evidence; a rifle whose ownership is not
established; a rifle never definitively proved to have actually killed the
President; a claim that jacketed bullets were used, a type of ammunition that
could not possibly cause the kind of wounds to which many testify; the
accused's record of mediocre marksmanship in the Marines; a parafin test which
showed no residue on his cheek despite his supposedly firing three shots from a
bolt-action rifle; a single palm print claimed to have been obtained from the
rifle after earlier failed attempts; gimmicky, suggestive photographs of Oswald
with a rifle declared montages by several experts; a completely unacceptable
evidence chain for the shell casings from the site of Officer Tippit's
shooting, those submitted as evidence being almost certainly not those found at
the scene; a bizarre history for the bullets supposed to have killed Tippet; an
illogical weighting of witnesses who told different stories about Tippit's
shooting; plus many other strange and contradictory details.
Moreover,
Oswald had no motive, having expressed admiration for Kennedy. And Oswald was
promptly assassinated himself by Jack Ruby, a man associated with the murky
world of anti-Castro violence, someone whose past included gun-running to Cuba
and enforcer-violence in Chicago.
There
is a kind of cheap industry in publishing assassination books, most of which
are superficial or silly. This fact makes it easy to attack credible efforts to
question the official story, but in this respect the subject is no different
from others. Just look at the shelves of superficial or trashy books on
psychology, business management, or self-help available in bookstores.
Russell's
question echoes again and again down the decades as adjustments are made to the
official story. Employing techniques one expects to be used for covering up
long-term intelligence interests, various points raised by early independent
researchers like Joachim Joesten or Mark Lane, have been conceded here or there
along the way without altering the central finding. This is an effective
method: concede details and appear open to new facts while always forcefully
returning to the main point.
A
significant writer along these lines is Jacob Epstein, an author whose other
writing suggests intelligence connections. His first book on the assassination,
Inquest, conceded numerous flaws in the Warren Report. Epstein went on in
subsequent books, Counterplot and Legend to attack at length -
and for the critical reader, quite unconvincingly - ideas of conspiracy, Oswald's
intelligence connections, and his innocence.
The
Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, 1979, was the grandest
effort of this type. The Committee was used for selective leaks and plants, as
for example the publication of some bootlegged autopsy photos, which ended by
raising only more questions. Leads often were not followed-up, greatly
frustrating some of the able investigators employed. The Committee squandered
the last opportunity to pursue an independent, well-financed investigation -
last, in the sense of never again being able to overcome the inertia against
assembling the needed resources and authorities and in the sense that with
passing time evidence deteriorates, memories fade, and witnesses die. Despite
the Committee's attention-getting conclusion from technical analysis of an old
Dictabelt recording that a shot probably was fired from the front, it also
concluded that the shot missed, a truly bizarre finding that welds hints of
conspiracy to yet another assertion that Oswald was the only killer.
Gerald
Posner's Case Closed, 1993, was another of these. You couldn't help
noticing this lamentable book being widely reviewed and praised. Why would that
be? Because, without producing any new evidence and despite a number of errors,
it freshly re-packaged the main speculations of the Warren Report, but no
repackaging of the Report's jumble of partial facts, guesses, and accusations
can strengthen its conclusions. You can't build a sound house with large
sections of the foundation missing.
Priscilla
Johnson's Marina and Lee, 1980 , was another kind of book, one of
several resembling the kind of quickie books churned out to discredit Anita
Hill in the Judge Clarence Thomas confirmation. Ms. Johnson managed to
interview Oswald in Russia - I wonder what connections might have made that
possible? - and later used that fact to gain access to Oswald's widow, Marina.
Impressing many who had heard her as a distracted and confused person, Marina
was a woman who had been subjected to immense, frightening pressure from the
FBI and other security services after the assassination. The book is an almost
unreadable hatchet-job on Oswald's character, effectively diminishing the image
that comes through many photographs and anecdotes of a rather naïve, brash,
sometimes rude but not unlikable young man caught up in events he incompletely
understood.
The
official story of the assassination remains pretty much unchanged from just a
few days after events of forty years ago: one man with an almost broken-down
rifle, no expertise, no resources, and no motive killed the President, and he
was himself killed by a man with the darkest background simply out of sympathy
for the President's wife. Those with no vested interest and critical faculties
intact can never accept such a fable explaining the brutal work of a
well-planned conspiracy.
Now,
the really horrifying possibility is that the security agencies never
discovered the assassins despite vast efforts. That means officials hold
tenaciously to the Oswald story to cover national nakedness. The FBI has a long
and shabby record of blunders and going after the wrong people, and when you
think of the CIA's many failures assessing the capabilities and approaching
demise of the Soviet Union, the many failures in Vietnam, and its miserable
failure around 9/11, that is not a farfetched possibility. The answer to
Russell's question then becomes that national security indeed applies, if only
in the unexpected form of hiding miserable failure.
But
if you can write false history of an event so large as a Presidential
assassination, what truly are the limits?
John
Chuckman lives in Canada and is former chief economist for a large
Canadian oil company. He writes frequently for Yellow Times.org and other
publications.
* Banging
Your Head Into Walls
* Several
Steps Closer to Armageddon
* Hope Against
Hope: Supporting Wesley Clark is a Wasted Opportunity
* The
First Two Years of Insanity
* The
Perfumed Prince and Other Political Tales
* A
George Will Follies Review
* The
Painful Horrors of Political Autism
* Enron-Style
Management in a Dangerously Complex World
* The Real
Clash of Civilizations: Liberals Versus the Crypto-Nazis
* Banality,
Bombast, and Blood
* Through A
Glass Darkly: An Interpretation of Bush's Character
* Of
Blair, Hussein, and Genocide