Castro killed JFK...Follow

every one keeps skipping right over the fact he was trained as a sharpshooter by OUR military.

OUR government provided Russian weapons to the freedom fighters in afganistan to kick the ruskys out.

yet, this person having a russian weapon proves foreign involvement? personally, i think it only proves that mabe the russians are the only people we can safely rule out.

Who's everyone? I thought it was common knowledge that Oswald was an ex-marine. It's not like that fact was ever hidden.

Damn you Johnson, this would have meant war a nice little war with cuba and the soviets would had stood aside. That also meant we would not have wanted to get into Vietnam so quick as we would have just had a war.
I could have had easy acess to cuban cigars all these years!

Seriously though, the more I think about this, the more pissed off I get. This guy is still in power. I think we kick his *** finally.

Edited, Thu Jan 5 13:15:03 2006 by fhrugby

i guess you did not read the artical, you did not listen in history class, and you dont know jack that everyone else knows he was an ex-marine.

what that has to do with LHO shooting someone is like the price of peas in China has to do with the cost of oil in the US. nothing, you got NOTHING...

I say BS. Everyone LOVES to be the wronged innocent. Americans especially. American politicians even more so.

If they had assertable information that Cuba was behind JFK's death, Castro would have been history in short order and Cuba would be a territory.

Perfect example: a certain dictator was known to want a US President killed. When this information came to light, another President who just happened to be the son of the first mentioned President invaded the country of the dictator and put his *** to hiding in a hole in the ground.

It is a perfect example. If this is what happens when you can't manage to get the contract pulled off, do you really think the penalty for success would be lighter?

That's folly when dealing with the cowboy nation of the world.

Haig may be or may have been lying, but he was fu[/i]cking THERE, so I doubt he's assuming sh[i]it. In particular there's no reason to assume he was incapable of assessing the political tenor of the times. Since, you know. Unlike you or I, he was there.

Hehe. And he has no political motivation to make these statements now?

I'm probably going to lose my secret Republican decoder ring for this, but let's be honest. He's using arguments and ideas that play incredibly well *today*. Coincidence? I think not. Given that one of the arguing points by Republicans (which I've used myself in fact) is that the Dems would rather bury their heads in the sand and ignore attacks against the US in favor of maintaining a "status quo" on the foreign policy front, it seems beyond coincidence that Haig ascribes political motivations to covering up Cuba's involvement in the JFK assassination that are identical to those being leveled at Dems right now.


Doesn't take a genius to connect the dots. Replace "Cubans assassinate JFK" with "Evil Arabs topple WTC towers" and then compare the reactions. If you can imply that the Dems covered up the Castro connection back in 1963, then it lends weight to the theory that the Dems would politically prefer not to take action in the Middle East against terrorism, not because of any altruistic motives, but because they are afraid of losing power. This translates directly to the idea that Dems are dragging their feet *today* on the whole "war on terror", again, not out of altruistic values, but because they see it as giving in to Republican politics and therefore losing power. It also provides greater weight to the theories that Clinton deliberately ignored the threat of Al-queda in the 90s because of the same reason. Adopting a stonger and more agressive foreign policy would "give power to the Republicans", so he'd rather cover up the threat then deal with it because dealing with it would cost his party power.


I don't happen to ascribe to the ideology that Dems are inherently more or less strong on foreign policy. That happens to be the case *today*, but there's nothing inherent to the political partys to say it must always be that way. However, if you can create the impression that it's that way and always has been, then it becomes much easier to present negative reasons for various actions. You saw the response to the suggestion Haig made in this very thread, right? Now. Apply that to "Clinton downplayed the threat of Al-queda because he didn't want the Democrat party to lose power". It's the exact same statement, made via the same assumptions.


It's a very clever bit of media manipulation. I'm non-partisan enough to point out when my own side does it, and this is *clearly* one of those times.