-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- from: http://www.webcom.com/ctka/index.html Click Here: <A HREF="http://www.webcom.com/ctka/index.html">CTKA/Probe Home Frames Page</A> ----- >From the September-October, 1997 issue (Vol. 4 No. 6) The Posthumous Assassination of JFK Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers By James DiEugenio Current events, most notably a past issue of Vanity Fair, and the upcoming release of Sy Hersh’s new book, extend an issue that I have dealt with in a talk I have done several times around the country in the last two years. It is entitled “The Two Assassinations of John Kennedy.” I call it that because there has been an ongoing campaign of character assassination ever since Kennedy was killed. In the talk to date, I’ve dealt primarily with the attacks on Kennedy from the left by Noam Chomsky and his henchman Alexander Cockburn which occurred at the time of the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK. But historically speaking, the attacks on the Kennedys, both Jack and Robert, have not come predominantly from the left. The attacks from the right have been much more numerous. And the attacks from that direction were always harsher and more personal in tone. As we shall see, that personal tone knows no limits. Through papers like the New York Times and Washington Post, the attacks extend into the Kennedys’ sex lives, a barrier that had not been crossed in post-war mainstream media to that time. To understand their longevity and vituperativeness, it is necessary to sketch in how they all began. In that way, the reader will be able to see that Hersh’s book, the Vanity Fair piece on Judith Exner, and an upcoming work by John Davis on Mary Meyer, are part of a continuum. The Right and the Kennedys There can be no doubt that the right hated the Kennedys and Martin Luther King. There is also little doubt that some who hated JFK had a role in covering up his death. One could use Secret Service agent Elmer Moore as an example. As revealed in Probe (Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 20-21), Moore told one Jim Gochenaur how he was in charge of the Dallas doctors testimony in the JFK case. One of his assignments as liaison for the Warren Commission seems to have been talking Dr. Malcolm Perry out of his original statement that the throat wound was one of entry, which would have indicated an assassin in front of Kennedy. But another thing Gochenaur related in his Church Committee interview was the tirade that Moore went into the longer he talked to him: how Kennedy was a pinko who was selling us out to the communists. This went on for hours. Gochenaur was actually frightened by the time Moore drove him home. But there is another more insidious strain of the rightwing in America. These are the conservatives who sometimes disguise themselves as Democrats, as liberals, as “internationalists.” This group is typified by men like Averill Harriman, Henry Stimson, John Foster Dulles and the like. The common rubric used to catalog them is the Eastern Establishment. The Kennedy brothers were constantly at odds with them. In 1962, Bobby clashed with Dean Acheson during the missile crisis. Acheson wanted a surprise attack; Bobby rejected it saying his brother would not go down in history as another Tojo. In 1961, JFK disobeyed their advice at the Bay of Pigs and refused to add air support to the invasion. He was punished for this in Fortune magazine with an article by Time-Life employee Charles Murphy that blamed Kennedy for the failure of the plan. Kennedy stripped Murphy of his Air Force reserve status but — Murphy wrote to Ed Lansdale — that didn’t matter; his loyalty was to Allen Dulles anyway. In 1963, Kennedy crossed the Rubicon and actually printed money out of the Treasury, bypassing that crowning jewel of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Board. And as Donald Gibson has written, a member of this group, Jock Whitney, was the first to put out the cover story about that Krazy Kid Oswald on 11/22/63 (Probe Vol. 4 No.1). Killing off the Legacy In 1964, author Morris Bealle, a genuine conservative and critic of the Eastern Establishment, wrote a novel called Guns of the Regressive Right, depicting how that elite group had gotten rid of Kennedy. There certainly is a lot of evidence to substantiate that claim. There were few tears shed by most rightwing groups over Kennedy’s death. Five years later, they played hardball again. King and Bobby Kennedy were shot. One would think the coup was complete. The war was over. That would be underestimating these people. They are in it for the long haul. The power elite realizes that, in a very real and pragmatic sense, assassination isn’t enough. You have to cover it up afterwards, and then be ready to smother any legacy that might linger. The latter is quite important since assassination is futile if a man’s ideas live on through others. This is why the CIA’s Bill Harvey once contemplated getting rid of not only Castro, but his brother Raul and Che Guevara as well as part of single operation. That would have made a clean sweep of it. (In America’s case, one could argue that such an operation was conducted here, over a period of five years.) The smothering effect afterward must hold, since the assassinated leader cannot be allowed to become a martyr or legend. To use a prominent example, in 1973, right after the CIA and ITT disposed of Salvador Allende and his Chilean government, the State Department announced (falsely) that the U. S. had nothing to do with the coup. Later on, one of the CIA agents involved in that operation stated that Allende had killed himself and his mistress in the presidential palace. This was another deception. But it did subliminally equate Allende’s demise with the death of Adolf Hitler. The latter tactic is quite prevalent in covert operations. The use of sex as a discrediting device is often used by the CIA and its allies. As John Newman noted in Oswald and the CIA, the Agency tried to discredit its own asset June Cobb in the wake of the Kennedy assassination. It did the same to Sylvia Duran, Cuban embassy worker in Mexico City who talked to Oswald or an impersonator in 1963. In Probe (Vol. 4 No. 4, p. 9) we have seen how journalist (and CIA-applicant) Hugh Aynesworth and the New York Herald Tribune tried to smear Mark Lane with compromising photographs. If one goes to New Orleans, one will still meet those who say that Jim Garrison indicted Clay Shaw because he was himself gay and jealous of Shaw’s position in the homosexual underworld. And we all know how the FBI tried to drive King to suicide by blackmailing him with clandestinely made “sex tapes.” The Church Committee What precipitated these posthumous and personal attacks on the Kennedys? Something happened in the seventies that necessitated the “second assassination” from the right — i.e. the use of scandal to stamp out Kennedy’s reputation and legacy. That something was the Church Committee. Belated revelations about the CIA’s role in Watergate, and later of the CIA’s illegal domestic operations created a critical firestorm demanding a full-scale investigation of the CIA. The fallout from Watergate had produced large Democratic majorities in both houses of congress via the 1974 elections. This majority, combined with some of the moderate Republicans, managed to form special congressional committees. The committee in the Senate was headed by Idaho’s Frank Church. Other leading lights on that committee were Minnesota’s Walter Mondale, Colorado’s Gary Hart, Tennessee’s Howard Baker, and Pennsylvania’s Richard Schweiker. As writers Kate Olmsted and Loch Johnson have shown, the Church Committee was obstructed by two of the CIA’s most potent allies: the major media and friendly public figures. In the latter category, Olmsted especially highlights the deadly role of Henry Kissinger. But as Victor Marchetti revealed to me, there was also something else at work behind the scenes. In an interview in his son’s office in 1993, Marchetti told me that he never really thought the Agency was in danger at that time. He stated that first, the CIA had infiltrated the staff of Church’s committee and, second, the Agency was intent on giving up documents only in certain areas. In Watergate terminology, it was a “limited-hangout” solution to the problem of controlling the damage. The Escape Route The issue that had ignited so much public interest in the hearings had been that of assassination. CIA Director Bill Colby very clearly drew the line that the CIA had never plotted such things domestically. Colby’s admission was a brilliant tactical stroke that was not appreciated until much later. First, it put the focus on the plots against foreign leaders that could be explained as excesses of anti-communist zealotry (which is precisely what the drafters of Church’s report did). Second, all probes into the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK would be off-limits. The Church Committee would now concentrate on the performance of the intelligence community in investigating the death of JFK; not complicity in the assassination itself. This distinction was crucial. As Colby must have understood, the Agency and its allies could ride out exposure of plots against Marxists and villains like Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. The exposure of domestic plots against political leaders would have been lethal. Colby’s gambit, plus the strictures put on the investigation as outlined by Marchetti above, enabled the intelligence community to ride out the storm. The path chosen for limited exposure was quite clever. The most documentation given up by the CIA was on the Castro assassination plots. Further, the Agency decided to give up many documents on both the employment of the Mafia to kill Fidel, and the AM/LASH plots, that is, the enlistment of a Cuban national close to Castro to try and kill him. Again, not enough credit has been given to the wisdom of these choices. In intelligence parlance, there is a familiar phrase: muddying the waters. This means that by confusing and confounding the listener with diverse and prolific amounts of information, the main point becomes obfuscated. Since none of the Mafia plots succeeded, one could claim they were ineffectual. The huge amount of publicity garnered by them could eventually be deflected onto the Mob’s role in them and not the Agency’s. The AM/LASH plots, exposed in even more copious documentation, could be used in a similar way. If Castro knew about these plots within his midst, couldn’t he then claim turnabout and use the same tactics by employing a Communist in the U.S. to kill Kennedy? This, or a combination of the two, has been what suspect writers like Jean Davison and Jack Anderson have been foisting on the public for years. The Establishment Takes Some Hits The political fallout from the Church Committee was quite intense. The CIA took quite a few hits, though it emerged intact. Eastern Establishment-GOP mainstay Allen Dulles was implicated in the authorization of two assassination plots (Lumumba and Castro). Even Republican icon Dwight Eisenhower was implicated: The chain of events revealed by the documents and testimony is strong enough to permit a reasonable inference that the plot to assassinate Lumumba was authorized by President Eisenhower. Nixon was shown to be obsessed with getting rid of the Allende regime in Chile. And since he had already been disgraced with Watergate, his defenders, like Bill Safire of the New York Times, felt that this was piling on. As we shall see, Safire struck back through Judith Exner. But the plots against Castro took center stage. They seemed full of sensational, fantastic revelations that seemed right out of a James Bond movie: poison pills, exploding sea shells, contaminated diving suits etc. But no matter how hard they tried, the media moguls (New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times) could not tie the Kennedys to them. This didn’t seem fair in light of all the mud heaped on Eisenhower, Dulles and the Watergated Nixon. Unfortunately, not even the CIA’s 1967 Inspector General’s report, commissioned by Richard Helms for LBJ, implicated the Kennedys. No Authorization The Inspector General’s Report (which is quite thorough and methodical), and the Church Committee’s report dealing with assassinations (entitled Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders) are both quite clear on this point. For instance, when the former report was analyzing the published details of a Drew Pearson-Jack Anderson 1967 leak about the Castro plots, it labeled the Pearson-Anderson insinuation about Robert Kennedy’s “approval” of the plots as “Not true.” It later goes on to say that the role played by Robert Kennedy in Pearson’s story is “a garbled account.” What had happened was that through the FBI’s discovery of a wiretapping favor done for Maheu’s contact in the plots (Chicago mobster Sam Giancana) Hoover had learned of the CIA-Mob link and forwarded his knowledge to Robert Kennedy. Kennedy turned it over to Courtney Evans, his FBI liaison, and asked him to get back with all the known details. He was finally briefed on it in May of 1962. There can be no doubt about his reaction. As one of Bobby’s CIA briefers stated: “If you have seen Mr. Kennedy’s eyes get steely and his jaw set and his voice get low and precise, you get a definite feeling of unhappiness.” In a memo of a meeting Hoover had with RFK after this briefing, Hoover wrote: “The Attorney General told me he wanted to advise me of a situation in the Giancana case which had considerably disturbed him” [emphasis added]. For his own part, Hoover wrote of his talk about the matter with the AG: I expressed great astonishment at this [the association] in view of the bad reputation of Maheu and the horrible judgment in using a man of Giancana’s background for such a project. The Attorney General shared the same views. Kennedy had made it clear to the CIA that if they were to have any more of these types of ideas about using these characters, they would have to go through the Justice Department first, i.e. him. But what RFK did not know is that, as the I. G. Report states: It should be noted that the briefing of Kennedy was restricted to Phase One of the operation, which had ended about a year earlier. Phase Two was already underway at the time of the briefing, but Kennedy was not told of it. In fact, on the same day that RFK was briefed, the CIA’s Sheffield Edwards (one of the briefers) along with William Harvey agreed to falsify the record by saying all future plots had to be authorized by the Director of the CIA. They weren’t. John McCone was deliberately kept out of the loop by Richard Helms and Harvey. Harvey admitted to the Church Committee that the Edwards memo was a deliberately false record, a cover story. In fact, Harvey had already taken over the plots when Edwards told Robert Kennedy they were terminated. JFK Never Authorized Them On the question of authorization, every official from Kennedy’s administration testified that JFK never knew of any plots, or authorized them. This includes Dean Rusk, Max Taylor, John McCone (Alleged Assassination Plots pp. 154-161). Even McGeorge Bundy, about whom many have had suspicions, denied that Kennedy had ever approved them or been informed of any plots (Ibid . p. 156). To conclude the matter, the two people in on them at this time (1962) said the same, i.e. Richard Helms (Ibid. pp. 148-152) and Bill Harvey (pp. 153-154). The CIA did try to coax approval from him. The Church Committee took testimony from two people who were quite compelling on this point. They were Tad Szulc, a reporter for the New York Times Washington bureau, and Sen. George Smathers of Florida. In late 1961, Szulc had been called in to speak with the president at the request of Richard Goodwin and Robert Kennedy. After a general discussion of Cuban matters, JFK asked him, “What would you think if I ordered Castro to be assassinated?” Szulc said he didn’t think it would help foster change in Cuba, and he didn’t think Americans should be associated with such matters. Kennedy replied, “I agree with you completely.” Szulc testified that: He went on for a few minutes to make the point how strongly he and his brothers felt that the United States should never be in a situation of having recourse to assassination. Szulc’s notes of the meeting state: JFK then said he was testing me, that he felt the same way — he added “I’m glad you feel the same way” — because indeed the U. S. morally must not be part (sic) to assassinations. The Church Committee also heard testimony from Smathers who stated that once when it was brought up in his presence (presumably by the CIA friendly Smathers), Kennedy got so mad he smashed a dinner plate and told him he did want to hear of such things again (Alleged Assassination Plots p. 124). Smathers furthered this portrait later when he stated that: President Kennedy seemed “horrified” at the idea of political assassination. “I remember him saying. . .that the CIA frequently did things he didn’t know about, and he was unhappy about it. He complained that the CIA was almost autonomous. He told me he believed the CIA had arranged to have Diem and Trujillo bumped off. He was pretty well shocked about that. He thought it was a stupid thing to do, and he wanted to get control of what the CIA was doing.” (The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond pp. 379-380) Such statements not only absolve Kennedy, they actually provide a motive for the CIA to get rid of him, which is probably why the media ignored them. The fact that Kennedy had clean hands was a bitter pill to swallow. The establishment organized a furious counterattack. Frank Church was accused of being a partisan. The Democrats were charged with “protecting” the Kennedys. There was an exchange of letters in the press between David Eisenhower and one of Bobby Kennedy’s sons over the issue. Finally, a solution appeared. Her name was Judith Campbell Exner. All of this essential background is usually left out of any discussion of the following. It can’t be. As we shall see, in many ways it is crucial to an understanding of some events that — without this precis — seem to take place in a vacuum: motiveless, random, out of place; yet in Exner’s case, recurring at regular intervals. As we shall see the promulgators of the following, are v ery aware of the results of the Church Committee. Exner To The Rescue The committee had found that Hoover had a meeting with President Kennedy on March 22, 1962. Through his investigation of Sam Giancana, the Director had discovered that an acquaintance of his — Campbell — had called Kennedy at the White House on numerous occasions. Once Kennedy was told of this, the calls to the White House stopped. Campbell’s name was included in the first draft of the report. But in deference to her privacy and the fact that she denied ever communicating any messages between the two, the committee — by a unanimous vote — did not name her in the final draft. She was referred to there as a “close friend.” Some staffers, perhaps the CIA plants to which Marchetti referred, leaked her name to the Washington Post. Significantly, fou r days before the final report was issued, the Post printed her name in an article about her. This did the trick. The Times and Post used this to weaken the impact of Church’s report. No less than two dozen stories were printed in those two newspapers about Exner. Altogether, those two establishment bastions kept her name in the papers for six months. William Safire of the New York Times, a former Nixon speechwriter, screamed there could be no “whitewash” of this matter and made it his personal agenda to use Exner as JFK’s connection to the plots. He himself wrote five columns on the subject. T ime magazine did a feature on her. Newsweek, the Post’s sister publication did two. Exner — via the Times and Post — became a media sensation. Riding the wave, Exner now took advantage of the publicity and decided to write a book. Big-time literary mogul Scott Meredith was her agent. Meredith reportedly sold serialization rights to the book, sight unseen, to the Nationa l Enquirer for $150,000. The book outline was prepared by Meredith’s office and was approved by Exner’s attorney. A co-author was arranged for. The co-author turned out to be Ovid Demaris. This is significant. Demaris is usually described as a veteran crime writer of such books as Captive City and The Green Felt Jungle . This is true as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Demaris Enters the Scene In his prologue, Demaris writes that he was in the midst of a multi-city tour for his previous book when he heard about Exner’s story. The previous book was an oral biography of Hoover entitled The Director. In the Hoover book, Demaris has some disparaging remarks about the Church Committee: it was politically motivated, inspired by “rehashes of old charges,” and was “flogging a dead horse.” Demaris was also unhappy with the many books on Watergate and the fall of Richard Nixon. He characterizes them with the following: “While some of their tall tales may be true, they are not unaware that truth that is stranger than fiction will sell better in a market already jaded by exotic overexposure.” Demaris’ book on Hoover can only be called sympathetic. This is immediately indicated by his choice of interviewees. They include high level FBI administrators like Robert E. Wick, John P. Mohr, and Mark Felt; former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst; Hoover publicity flack Louis Nichols who named one of his sons after his boss; and actor Efrem Zimbalist who starred in ABC’s glamorized series on the Bureau. In the entire book, there are eight pages on Hoover’s infamous COINTELPRO operations, i.e. the infiltration, disruption, and occasional destruction of domestic political movements. In Hoover’s disputes with the Kennedys, there can be no doubt where Demaris stands. Speaking of Hoover’s reputed blackmailing of presidents, he writes: “It is possible that one or two were intimidated by their own guilty conscience....” He sums up Hoover by saying, “He was, whatever his failings, an extraordinary man, truly one of a kind.” The above gives us a hint of why Demaris hooked up with Exner. But a previous work of his is more valuable in that regard. In 1968 Demaris co-authored with Gary Wills a book titled Jack Ruby. The book is, to say the least, a rather shallow portrait of Ruby based on a string of conversations with people the nightclub owner worked with. The profile that emerges is in total concordance with the Warren Commission view of Ruby as a dim, emotional, hustler who killed Oswald because he admired Jack and Jackie so much and wished to spare the widow the ordeal of a trial. Other events are also in line with the Warren Report: the shooting is from the sixth floor, Oswald killed Tippit, Ruby went straight down the Commerce street ramp on November 24th to kill Oswald. The authors’ honesty and acuity are quite suspect in that one of their chief sources is Dallas Deputy DA Bill Alexander, notorious for his close relationship with FBI-CIA journalist and cover-up artist Hugh Aynesworth. Striking also is the fact that they described one of the doctors treating Ruby as “having performed LSD experiments on an elephant” and left it at that. If they would have dug a little deeper, they would have found out that the man was longtime CIA doctor Louis J. West, who also treated Aldous Huxley. It was West’s diagnosis that Ruby was a “candidate suitable for treatment” that allowed him to be put on drugs. Demaris and Wills spend much of their time ridiculing the critics of the Warre n Report, especially Mark Lane. They also attack Nancy Perrin Rich, a witness who calls attention to Ruby’s very important gunrunning into Cuba. At the end, the book reveals that Demaris was “standing close to Jack Ruby when he shot Oswald.” In fact, he was the first person to identify Ruby. He then began interviewing witnesses and got especially close to Ruby’s lawyers. The authors are especially thankful to Elmer Gertz, the same Gertz who has been revealed in the last two issues of Probe as a lawyer for CIA agent Gordon Novel whose attorneys were “clandestinely remunerated” for their services. Gertz also wrote a book on Ruby. It is an equally gaseous whitewash that also goes out of its way to attack the critics, again singling out Mark Lane. To make the picture complete, in his prologue to the Exner book, Demaris writes about his new task at hand: Legends are not easily surrendered. The press will fight to preserve its manufactured illusions, its Camelots and Good Ships Lollipop, and God help anyone who inadvertently threatens them. God, or rather the Washington Post and a good review from the New York Times, helped them to the tune of over 145,000 books sold, including a mass market paperback sale. Demaris later adds, characterizing the book’s approach: She has a story to tell that is unique, and I would gladly topple all the Camelots, and King Arthurs, or Sir Lancelots, to give her that chance. . . . Francis Ford Coppola, who directed The Godfather, says it best: Men of power and the criminals in our society are distinguished only by their situation, not their morality. In other words, as far as Exner and he are concerned, there is little difference between the Kennedys, Sam Giancana, and Johnny Roselli. Judith Exner: My Story The book itself is more of the same. The aim is to make Exner as attractive as possible; more personally attractive than those around her, especially Kennedy, his clan, and circle. Giancana and Roselli are just your average Italian-American good guys. To Exner, they might as well have owned Domino’s Pizza. And Demaris places her frankness beyond question. She says that she will tell the truth, even about people and events she doesn’t care to. It is her vow to tell the whole story. Exner inherited a lot of money from her grandmother (in the twenty year adult span of the book, she only mentions one job of a few weeks duration). In her early years she gravitated toward the Hollywood acting colony, since her sister and first husband were thespians. She fell in with the California-Malibu jet set: Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis et. al. She says she prefers the company of men over women and her book shows it. She is flying from one to another so often that, at times it is hard to keep track of where she is: Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Miami, Chicago, Washington etc. She met JFK through Sinatra. Kennedy immediately fell for her. According to Exner, it was not just physical. Kennedy became a dopey mooner in her hands. He talked of leaving his wife for her. At times the pressures of his life got so intense he wanted to escape with her to a deserted island. Since he can’t bear to lose her, whenever there is friction in the relationship, Kennedy pours on the charm to smooth it out. Even when Hoover confronts him with the Exner-Giancana association, Kennedy insists on seeing her. At one time, he asks her to board Air Force One with him. She won’t because she wants to spare Jackie’s dignity. There is one scene in the book that caps her aforementioned personal appeal vs. JFK’s. It crystallizes the Errol Flynn/Don Juan image that Exner wishes to construct out of Kennedy. It is used by some authors of the type we will discuss, most notably CIA-FBI toady and New York Times-Washington Post veteran Ron Kessler in his book Sins of the Father. On the first day of the Democratic convention in Los Angeles in 1960, Kennedy sends for Exner. She arrives at the hotel but several people are there, including Kennedy’s sister. He assures her that they will all be leaving momentarily and that he wants to be alone with her in his moment of victory. Eventually most of the visitors leave except for two: a tall skinny secretarial type, and Kennedy’s adviser Ken O’Donnell. As JFK and Exner slip into the bedroom, the secretary type slips into the bathroom. Exner is puzzled. Kennedy/Flynn then suggests a menage a trois. Exner is outraged, “I can’t tell you how disappointed I am in you.” Kennedy is in love with her though. Sweetly, he eventually calms her down and they later resume their relationship. There was something about this hotel scene that bothered me. Something was off and I couldn’t put my finger on it until later. I then realized that Exner had left Ken O’Donnell in the suite before the fireworks began. I couldn’t understand why. Was Kenny, with the boss’ permission, going to make it a foursome? Was he there because he liked to watch and Kennedy understood? Was he going to take pictures so Kennedy/Flynn could admire his handiwork later? Or was he just there to give JFK a ride home since he would be too tired to drive? None of the above. Kennedy asks Exner to give O’Donnell a ride home. When she drops him off, Exner has Ken make an incomplete pass at her. That’s when I realized why Ken had not just called a cab while waiting around. O’Donnell had been one of those who wouldn’t ratify Exner’s visits to the White House. So Exner and Demaris have to make a lecher out of him in order to weaken his credibility and preserve theirs. Although Judith Exner: My Story is pretty thin and prosaic, it runs on for 300 pages. But evidently, Demaris didn’t ask enough tough questions. Because in 1988 Exner’s story started growing arms and legs. In the February 29, 1988 issue of People magazine, Kennedy’s picture appeared on the cover. The magazine now did what the Church Committee could not: it linked Kennedy with the plots to kill Castro. The story billed Exner as “the link between JFK and the Mob.” --[cont]-- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
