Anyone else think Thom Hartman is *still* a CIA hack?

[bobbie]

Am I the only one who mistrusts Thom Hartman 'cause of his JFK coverup?

Did anyone else read Harman's co-authored book "Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK"? I just read it and was shocked 'cause it seems like a complete coverup for the CIA. The premise is that the mob done it and if the CIA was involved it was as innocent dupes.

That's bullshit. I read this book because it has Hartman's name on it. Now that I've read this pile of dung and am aware of Hartman's association with the CIA, I'm unable to trust him.

[ShortnFiery]

1. That's the most bizarre rationale that I've ever heard ...

Thom Hartmann is not only a highly intelligent Talk Show Host but he has also done a great deal of research to help those with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

A CIA Operative: NO WAY! His positions are far to "logical" and "sound" with regard to world affairs and politics.

Please provide some links because I have no idea what you are referring to. :shrug:

This is counter of all that I know about Thom Hartmann. I do my best to listen to his show every day because he's very informative.

[bobbie]

11. Here's more detail...

Which I should have provided in the original post.

I've listened to Hartman on Air America radio. I've read his website, some of his articles and books, and thought he was a legit progressive. Because of his credibility I read a book he co-authored: "Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK."

I have to say now that I consider it a fact that the CIA had a major role in the murder of JFK. So if you don't believe that then perhaps Hartman's premise in the JFK book won't bother you. But it bothers me. I was stunned after I read it. And I don't buy it.

He contends that the mafia killed JFK, and that the CIA may have been tangentially involved but did not have play a major part in the crime. I think that's ludicrous, and the years of high level coverups, requiring FBI and CIA and LBJ and media complicity, show it to be ludicrous.

Note: Books that I think have better JFK info are "On the Trail of the Assassins," "Crossfire," and "Farewell to Justice."

And don't get me wrong, IMO the mob was involved, but:
1-The mob and the CIA are damn near the same thing, and
2-A huge number of groups were also involved.

I didn't write a review on Amazon, but I attached portions of some I agree with. Hartman's participation in this absurd book, and the *fact* that many members of the CIA are in the media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird), make me very suspicious of him.

Reviews of Ultimate Sacrifice From Amazon >----

" Don't Bite, December 2, 2005
Reviewer: Eddie Kasica (New York City) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Complete and total disinformation. 17 years spent on this book? Why, because so many CIA Department Heads changed during that time?

If you wish to remain a laughable dunce who never gets any dates -- then please stay in Posner-land. If you wish to rejoin reality, spend your next 1,000 pages of JFK reading on Joan Mellen's "Farewell to Justice" and Gerald McKnight's "Breach of Trust".

Shame on Thom Hartmann. No more of his radio show for me, the liberal geek.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0786714417/ref=cm_rev_sort/002-3139235-5012037?customer-reviews.sort_by=%2BOverallRating&x=14&y=18&s=books

--

DONT BLAME THE MOB, November 19, 2005
Reviewer: Dennis Mcbride "Dennis McBride" (stockton, ca) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
this book would try to explain that some mafia big man was so upset at bobby kennedy for being exiled from the US that he came back and prepared to kill him but had to kill JFK first.

the book fails to remember the world's number one mobster/assassin was also "exiled" from his birdsnest - in Langley. that was ALLEN DULLES. the top director of the CIA and architect of the then new CIA headquaters, which he was never to sit in as JFK fired him.

this book would have us think that DULLES took that willingly?
NO!
The mafia does not control this country. it may be used to control some of us, but it has always been the CIA, since DULLES, that has been the number one enforcer of covert operations which include assasinations and deposing of world leaders.

additionally, this book trys to explain that bobby kennedy HAD TO cover up the mafia hit because fidel castro might have found out that he was targetd for assassination by the US, and that, this book explains may have provoked WORLD WAR 3! Absurd. castro had already known about US assassination attempts. THE US SENT 1100+ INSURGENTS INTO HIS COUNTRY!! Guess what? NO WW3.

Thom Hartmann had better explain why he puts all the blame on the mafia better than what this book offers. perhaps this is why his name isnt on the book. but hartmann is claiming he collaborated to produce the book and is marketing it on his radio program. <...>

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0786714417/ref=cm_rev_sort/002-3139235-5012037?customer-reviews.sort_by=%2BOverallRating&x=14&y=18&s=books

--

Ask Thom Hartmann About Operation Mockingbird, December 3, 2005
Reviewer: R. Wilson - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Thom Hartmann is a former CIA analyst and radio broadcaster/non-fiction author who hosts a syndicated phone-in talk radio show.

"Ultimate Sacrifice" is a rigorous and nearly academic work which unveils a new trove of documentation about the role of the Mafia in the 1963 Kennedy Assassination. The new theory downplays the role of the CIA -- in fact, theorizes that the CIA was merely a minor player.

The Dallas Assassination, as well as the previous attempts in the weeks leading up to Dallas, may have had a military component that Hartmann willingly overlooks.

The scholarship on many Mafia questions here is substantial.

However, Waldron & Hartmann leave a mountain of unanswered questions about Oswald's Intelligence security clearance, the incriminating evidence of Oswald's smooth repatriation into the U.S. following his defection to the U.S.S.R., the strange network of Texas oilmen/Operation Paperclip re-pats/CIA handlers, etc.

Some unanswered questions for Waldron & Hartmann:

Did the Dulles brothers have a "patriotic motive" to eliminate Castro which "superceded" their less-than-pure but immeasurably stronger motive to eliminate Kennedy?

If the Castro-Coup was the motive for the JFK-Assassination cover-up (by RFK, according to the authors, no less!), then was it simply coincidence and convenience that LBJ's Bell Helicopter/KBR (Halliburton) buddies stood to gain so much by LBJ's reversal of (JFK's) National Security Memo #263, which would have de-escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam?

Why is National Security Memo #263 discarded in this book in favor of an elaborately-constructed Meta-Narrative that favors the "Castro-Coup-Coverup" explanation of Hartmann & Waldron?

More to the point, couldn't a "Castro-Coup-Coverup" explanation also be true, as the authors posit, yet also exist side-by-side with a parallel CIA/LBJ coup-motive?

Why do Hartmann and Waldron discount the motives of the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex? Why do Hartmann and Waldron discount the motives of LBJ, his KBR-funders, his Texas Oil buddies, and the Dulles brothers?

Hartmann, for all of his wonderful historical information-dissemination on his radio talk-show, glosses over (actually, never talks about) such chapters of U.S. history as The Church Committee, Cointelpro or Operation Mockingbird (see Carl Bernstein's October 1977 Rolling Stone article, "The CIA In The Press").

Call Thom Hartmann on his radio show and ask him about Operation Mockingbird, whether it's significant at all to the integrity of U.S. democracy since 1963, and why we should trust our U.S. media in light of the CIA's involvement in disinformation campaigns in the press (let alone paid-propogandists such as Armstrong Williams or ideologues like Judith Miller).

If Thom says that Operation Mockingbird has no bearing on American democracy, or worse yet, denies that we should ask such questions of/cast such skepticism upon our American media sources, then perhaps Waldron & Hartmann's book should be viewed as an elaborately constructed narrative to "feed the Mafia-Did-It explanation" and "misdirect away from the CIA-Wanted-It explanation."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0786714417/ref=cm_rev_next/002-3139235-5012037?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=%2BOverallRating&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=11

[EVDebs]

2. Hack, shill or just plain ignorant of the work of Joan Mellen...

Read Joan Mullen's book A Farewell To Justice. The intelligence community was behind the murder AND the coverup. Link to the author's website for the book at

http://www.joanmellen.net/

[bobbie]

15. Bingo

I fully believe that "The intelligence community was behind the murder AND the coverup." Hartman's book - Ultimate Sacrifice - claims they were not. Ergo (highfalutin word for any individual who dismisses a stance they disagree with merely because they dislike the grammar), I consider Ultimate Sacrifice to be propaganda. That makes me wonder about the author...thus this post.

Again, I'd esp love to get input from anyone who actually read Ultimate Sacrifice, or any of the related books (A Farewell To Justice, On the Trail of the Assassins, Crossfire).

Hell, if you saw the movie JFK then you're familiar with the *premise* that the CIA was heavily involved. It was based on Crossfire and On the Trail of the Assassins, and on Oliver Stone's own research.

[bookman]

3. Not me

I have not read the book you mention.

But everytime I hear Thom Hartman I'm impressed.

[Flabbergasted]

5. I listen to Thom Hartman often. I've never gotten the slightest impressio

then he was very sincere and open in his beliefs.

[MzNov]

4. I doubt you ever read this book...

It's almost 1,000 pages and Thom Hartmann and others spent over 10 years doing the research. It's not an easy read. So you must be out of your mind. "Pile of dung" indeed. Thom Hartmann is a national treasure.

:dem:

[bobbie]

12. Yup, I read it, not only do I disagree with the conclusion...

But it's one of the most poorly written books I've ever read. It's incredibly repetative. Chapter after chapter repeats the exact same information, word for word. It seriously needs to be edited.

Now Ms. November, have *you* read the book we are discussing?

[MzNov]

14. I bought it a few months ago and am reading a little at a time

I've read almost every JFK assination book that's been published.

[bobbie]

18. That's fantastic! I'd love to discuss it with you.

I've read a great number of them too. IMO this is one of the less credible ones. The research was impressive, as were the references to recently declassified memos. But I think it exonerates the CIA, which is what makes me suspicious of the authors. I also think it's one of the hardest to read, very long and very repetitive. My conclusion is that (possible spoiler?)...

...the authors are using memos of mere contingency plans for the handling of Cuba and Castro and the Cuban exiles as the basis for their conclusions.

Since you've read so many books, do you have any that you'd recommend? I think Crossfire and On the Trail of the Assassins are good and believable. I also admire Farewell to Justice, though I don't like the writing style.

I'm doing a lot of research on the RFK assassination too. I firmly believe that Sirhan is a patsy just as Oswald and James Earl Ray were. But that's a separate subject and thread I suppose.

I'm doing this research because it's becoming very clear to me that the same klans (intentional mispelling to make a point--Lefty) responsible for the Kennedy murders have retained their power to this day. And it's important for me to know what writers to trust, which goes back to the original point of my original post.

[MzNov]

21. yeah, give me about a month, also I'll dig out all my books,

and you're on.

Why are you so focused on trusting authors? You can't "trust" any author of any book.

I agree on the RFK murder.

Ms. Nov.

[bobbie]

27. I'm cheap; I check them out from the library :)

>and you're on.

Excellent. Thank you. I'm in major research mode.

>Why are you so focused on trusting authors?

I'm doing this research because it's becoming very clear to me that the same klans (intentional misspelling to make a point--Lefty) responsible for the Kennedy murders have retained their power to this day. It's important for me to know what writers to trust in order for me to know what to believe. I want to distinguish the massive propaganda from the truth.

And it's important because I firmly believe it's topical. I emphasize: those responsible for the Kennedy assassinations retain power to this day.

I think the funding, and some of the motivations, came directly from the Texas oil klan. Is it a coincidence that LBJ was from TX, that JFK was killed in TX, that Bush 1 & 2/Kellogg Brown & Root/Bell Helicoptor...are from TX/that Bush 1 was in Dallas on Nov 22/63? I contend that TX oil folks funded the 1963 JFK coup (with the help or blessing or complicity of the CIA, FBI, LBJ, international banking concerns, mass media, and others).

There's not much I can do about it, but I want to *know* the truth. JFK and RFK were *great men*. One or both planned significant changes (pulling out of vietnam, dissolving the CIA, **decreasing the oil depletion allowance**, going after organized crime, taking over printing of US money from the federal reserve,...). They were going against the "military industrial" complex Eisenhower warned us about. To put it plainly, they pissed off too many of the powers that be. They each paid the price.

I've checked Shadow Government and Crude Politics out from the library but haven't had time to read them yet. I think they're relevant though and likely will provide dots to connect. Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone connected a lot of dots...

>You can't "trust" any author of any book.

Very true, and very good reminder. That's why I'm reading so many books, dismissing some, and deciding for myself what happened and what is happening. Sounds like you may be doing the same?

>I agree on the RFK murder.

I think Sirhan was a manchurian candidate "assassin." Ref: MKUltra/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA.

Sirhan was standing feet in front of RFK fer gawd sake and the fatal shot was behind RFK's right ear, an inch or so away according to the coroner. More shots were fired than Sirhan's gun could hold... The official version makes *no* sense. (Ref: http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/kennedy/5.html)

You can see all of the footage from the ambassador hotel where RFK was assassinated on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rfk+ambassador&search=Search
It's recorded real time, before spin and cover ups. Note people clearly stating that Sirhan was in front of RFK, that more shots were fired than Sirhan's gun could hold, and so on.

Who was it that said in fascist societies you only hear the truth once?

[Lefty-Taylor]

35. I hate out to take you task again. But when you say a book is poorly

written and needed to be edited you shouldn't misspell any words in your post. It's spelled "repetitive" not the way you butchered the word.

[liberalnurse]

25. Ms. November has her pulse on the issue!

I agree that Thom is a Democratic Treasure! Is he not an MIT graduate as well?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbie]

13. Actually the exact same things would make me suspicious

So I don't blame you. Then again you can take it or leave it; I can't prove my sincerity. But I did (belatedly) post supporting material.

If anyone else here has *actually read* "Ultimate Sacrifice" I'd love to discuss it with them. It's very difficult to reconcile it with Hartman's progressive credentials.

Finally, always be aware of CIA use of the media, so even if you believe in Hartman's sincerity, don't assume every "left wing" media person is legit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

"Church Committee investigations

Further details of Operation Mockingbird were revealed as a result of the Frank Church investigations (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) in 1975. According to the Congress report published in 1976:

"The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets."

Church argued that misinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year. <20>"

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbie]

29. So do I

I would only word it differently:

If it walks, talks, and squawks like a duck.....it MAY be a duck.

BTW, the book Ultimate Sacrifice walks, talks, and squawks like CIA apologist propaganda.

[robertpaulsen]

8. Considering that he's painting Foley's pedophilia as a "distraction"...

...then yeah, take what he says with a grain of salt.

[acmejack]

9. Tell us more about Thom and the CIA

I'm simply fascinated.

[Lefty-Taylor]

10. The "mob done it." ?????? You don't exactly demonstrate any credibility or

insight with such a faulty grasp of the English language.

[bobbie]

16. It's an idiom Lefty...

Ever hear of a "who dunnit?"

[Lefty-Taylor]

23. If you want to write colloquially, you should use quotations marks.

Otherwise, you come across as ignorant of proper English. By the way, I agree with most others: You are way off on your assessment of Thom. He's anything but a shill for the CIA. But your imagination is ripe.

[Gold Metal Flake]

17. "...aware of Hartman's association with the CIA..."

Please explain "aware of Hartman's association with the CIA".

[bobbie]

22. I worded that (and in fact the subject line) poorly

But I was referring to his reputation as a CIA analyst:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1LN2NAVV41XJ0?ie=UTF8

Obviously what one person says doesn't mean that much. (So again I overstated it.) But it's kinda interesting that in Hartman's online bio he actually makes a point of saying he is not in the CIA:

"An inveterate traveler and sometimes a risk-taker, Hartmann has often found himself in the world's hot spots...a situation which causes his friends to sometimes wonder aloud if he works for the CIA (he does not and never has)."
http://www.thomhartmann.com/showbio.shtml

I'm guessing not too many writers go out of their way to say they are not in the CIA.

And I consider Ultimate Sacrifice, his book, to be CIA propaganda.

So I gotta wonder...

[Gold Metal Flake]

24. "I was referring to his reputation as a CIA analyst"

What reputation? Some guy who writes reviews on Amazon is your source for someone's reputation? Perhaps you are "R. Wilson" and you are referencing yourself. At any rate, I would like to see some more proof of any sort of professional relationship between the CIA and Thom Hartmann. Since you claim that it is Thom's "reputation" that he was involved with the CIA, it should not be a problem for you to obtain something of real substance.

You seem to have a problem with "overstating", as you point out.

But, considering there are people on the internet trying to tear down Thom Hartmann's real reputation as a Progressive and Patriot by trying to insinuate that he has some sort of nefarious connection with the CIA, I am not surprised that he would deny it.

What have you denied lately?


Edit: Spelling.

[bobbie]

30. Yeah Opposite Reaction, CIA assetts always leave a clear paper trail

And the revolution will be televised.


(I get the clear impression that you have not read Ultimate Sacrifice, the book I'm discussing that makes me suspicious of Hartman.)

[Gold Metal Flake]

32. So you admit that, beyond a book review by some person on Amazon...

...(and we know how much the right loves to post fact-deficient book reviews on Amazon), you really have no proof that Thom Hartmann has a reputation of any professional arrangement with the CIA?

[bobbie]

38. Well Opposite Reaction...

I have no proof that Thom Hartman has "any professional arrangement with the CIA." Then again, that's sort of the nature of the CIA beast. Those in the CIA don't actually advertise it and will deny it if asked. That's one reason why the outing of a certain CIA agent named Valerie Plame is a rather big deal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame

In fact "The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 is a United States federal law that makes it a federal crime to intentionally reveal the identity of an agent who one knows to be in or recently in certain covert roles with a U.S. intelligence agency."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

As an example of this secrecy, Jim Garrison was the only person to bring to trial an alleged CIA conspirator in JFK's murder-Clay Shaw. "Garrison later wrote a book about his investigation of Clay Shaw and the subsequent trial called On the Trail of the Assassins...Garrison states that Shaw had an "extensive international role as an employee of the CIA". Shaw denied that he had had any connections with the CIA.

Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath, in 1979, that Clay Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Division of the CIA,..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shaw#Clay_Shaw_and_the_CIA

So, in light of the fact that CIA agents operate covertly, and there is a federal law protecting their secrecy, you might want to ask yourself if your demand for proof makes any sense.

[Gold Metal Flake]

40. So you admit that when you wrote "Thom Hartman is *still* a CIA hack"...

...you were lying? And do you now admit that when you wrote that you are "aware of Hartman's association with the CIA" you were lying?

[bobbie]

31. "What have you denied lately?"

I deny that I am Thom Hartman.

Do you? ;)

[Gold Metal Flake]

33. I have no reason to deny that.

Since no one has made the accusation.

:shrug:

[stepnw1f]

19. OMG.... you have got be kidding...

not you are not.... enter creepy music.

[fat dad]

20. The mob?

And our government just let them get away with it? Remember the scene in the Godfather where they discussed how dangerous it was to evenkill a crooked Police captain?

[bobbie]

28. Tell that to Thom Hartman

He's the one who said """""""""""""""""""""""""""the mob dunnit"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""* basically on their own in his book Ultimate Sacrifice. That's the point I'm disputing fat dad.

Do you remember the sceneS in The Godfather when Michael said someday they'd be legit, i.e., in government? A Senator, maybe higher.


*(Quotes added for the English Grammar Patrol. Oh lordy, I think book and movie titles need quotes too! Help! EGP**, do book and movie titles need quotes?)

**(Uh oh, I think acronyms like EGP need periods between letters. HELP! EGP, do acronyms need periods between letters???)***

***(EGP, are my footnotes properly formatted???)

[Lefty-Taylor]

36. Now you're paranoid about your grammar!! LOL

[Swamp Rat]

34. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

I disagree with your assessment of Thom Hartman, but I do believe that at least a faction of the CIA was behind the assassinations, including GHWB.

[bobbie]

37. Thanks Swamp Rat, my assessment of Thom Hartman is harsh

Then again I sort of feel betrayed by him. He had some credibility as a progressive figure and writer, and that credibility is the reason I suffered through this loooooong and horribly written and illogical book. (Spoiler warning: For example, why would the mob hurry to kill JFK 10 days before he killed Castro? Didn't they want their Cuban investments and casinos back first? Why wouldn't they have waited say...11 days to kill him? He never addresses that glaring flaw in his logic.)

Hartman's good reputation is the hook that made me read this book. I concluded it was blatant pro-CIA propaganda. I think the CIA has historically been downright evil and anti-democratic--the guardian of big business. So when he defends them against a crime I feel certain they committed, I feel betrayed. And this is a crime I take very personally. When we were robbed of JFK we were robbed of a leader who actually worked to help people, not just big business. It set us on the course we now find ourselves on--with a government of, by, and for the corporation.

Since I refuse to believe that the mob dunnit all alone as Hartman contends, I have to conclude that either he's a poor researcher/author, or he's using his good reputation to mislead readers about a very important historical episode that continues to impact us to this day. I don't think he's a poor researcher/author...

[BuyingThyme]

39. I don't know about Thom, but you're right about that book.

[bobbie]

42. Thanks BuyingThyme-I think Hartman is part of the new Warren Commission

I'm not happy about hating something Thom Hartman wrote; it’s a new experience for me. I used to trust him/read him/listen to him. (Hell, Randi Rhodes seems to think highly of him and I consider her a goddess.) But I think this book is up there with the Warren Commission in terms of propaganda. In fact I think the mob dunnit scenario is the successor to the Warren Commission’s lone-gunman fairy tale.

Over the years people stopped believing the Warren Commission’s horse shit “official explanation,” in part because it’s so apparent that JFK was shot from the front and Oswald would have been behind him. (Of course nitrate tests showed Oswald hadn’t fired a rifle that day anyway, meaning he wasn’t guilty.) The house committee on assassinations concluded there were multiple shooters, and the Zapgruder film (tho’ probably tampered with), along with multiple witnesses, makes it clear that the fatal shot came from the front.

So a new hypothesis was necessary, what Jim Garrison calls the “ratification of the assassination.” And IMO that’s what the mob dunnit horse shit is. It incorporates the fact that JFK was shot from the front, but doesn’t bloody the hands of the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, or LBJ. It keeps the murder from looking like just what it was—a violent coup.

But the bad guys couldn’t sell the new hypothesis to the public without the help of the mainstream media. As Jim Garrison says in his book (“On the Trail of The Assassins”):

“The government’s cover-up and ratification of the assassination have been aided by a flood of disinformation appearing in the major media. Dissemination of disinformation is the last element necessary for a successful coup d’etat, and it also happens to be one of the specialties of the C.I.A. For many years the Agency secretly had on its payroll journalists ostensibly working for the major media but in fact disseminating propaganda for consumption by the American people. It has also subsidized the publication of more than 1,000 books.”

Garrison wrote this in 1988. I think there are now at least 1,001 books subsidized by the CIA, thanks to Thom Hartman’s “Ultimate Sacrifice.”

[nishiki]

41. Why don't you call Thom's show this afternoon

He has no problem discussing issues with people who disagree with him.

[bobbie]

43. Really good question nishiki

I've considered it. I still may do it but right now I'm of the mind that I'd gain little from his answer. In my harshest assessment I consider the book to be propaganda. So I, of course, mistrust the authors. I'm not gonna call up and confront the guy about whether or not he's *really* a CIA hack. Besides, he states on his website that he's *not* with the CIA. Ahem... Not to mention the fact that if he's CIA I don't want to chit chat with him. I'd just as soon steer clear.

In my most generous assessment he'd merely be a horrible researcher and writer who spent *17 years* (yes really) on a book that I think is a huge steaming pile. I'm not gonna call him up and say that.

However, there is one question I may pose to him if I decide to call him. I haven't decided. It would be this:

SPOILER WARNING: Why would the mob hurry to kill JFK 10 days before he killed Castro as you/Hartman contend? Wouldn't they want their Cuban assets and casinos back first? So why wouldn't they have waited longer to kill him, until capitalism could be restored? And how could you spend 17 years researching and writing a book and not address that fundamental question?

I suppose I could also request that the next time he writes a propaganda book he make it a reasonable length, so that his remaining readers waste less time. If he has to spread disinformation at least he could have the decency to be succinct. :evilgrin: