Frank Sturgis and E Howard Hunt were there, They were the bums on the grassy knoll. Hunt said that LBJ ordered the assassination.

Supervisors do not place themselves on the scene of wetwork. You think he was in the book depository kibbitzing?

Bush was CIA. This was a CIA operation.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/print

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thenixonbushconnectiontothekennedyassassination.htm

http://tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4330031689287456187

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm

http://www.joanmellen.net/truth.html

Oswald was a CIA and so was Bush and there is the picture of Bush at the book depository.

Dick Cheney had his own Vice Presidential Assassination team, which may still be in operation. Who stood to gain from the assassination, Oswald or Johnson?

Who stood to gain from the Reagan assassination attempt, Hinkley, son of Bush's Colorado Campaign organizers and nephew of the Attorney General of the United States, or Bush, who ran the presidency after Reagan was shot?

Hinkley has it pretty easy, not guilty by reason of insanity.

I know of one other Manchurian Candidate, but that one didn't kill the President, or even try. He was not cut out for wetwork.

It did cost one B-1 bomber, but the Presidency remained intact.

Pelosi claimed she WAS briefed about waterboarding, mumble-mumble about objecting to it, but she was NOT briefed that it had already commenced. Notes showing she was "briefed" are irrelevant to her claims.

It had already been acknowledged months earlier that the C.I.A. had been seeking permission to commence interrogation techniques it had in fact been using for months, and that the entire Yoo/Gonzales/Cheney axis memos were after the fact.

So in fact there have been no contradictions even in the record, there is only manufactured outrage in the spin.

It has always been the C.I.A.s policy to conceal sensitive activity from congress, and they have never stopped at lying to accomplish this (though they have a weird sensitivity to lying under oath, they have many tricks to work around this, like lying to Panetta and letting him tell the truth-he-knows under oath).

Yes, Pelosi was briefed on many unconstitutional activities which she should have objected and didn't because she's useless.

BUT, Panetta knows what those things are and Panetta knows that neither she nor he was briefed on the specific program which he is discussing.

The Health Care reform would have to pass first, and include funding for spinal transplants, before Harry Ried would do anything that might make Republicans upset with him.

Former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden angrily struck back Saturday at assertions the Bush administration's post-9/11 surveillance program was more far-reaching than imagined and was largely concealed from congressional overseers.

Since the CIA has demonstrated a willingness to hide things from its current Director, how does the former Director know he was fully informed, and why do his statements matter? He's either fully informed about activities and complicit in hiding some from Panetta and congress, or not fully informed and irrelevant.

The teaser headline for this entry reads: "Secret Bush CIA Progam: Will Dems Investigate?"

The answer is: are you kidding?

You say:

Uncle Fester, I'm with you on Ashcroft. His wife stood up to the bullying, too. How horrific and illegal were the Bush-Cheney maneuvers when a career Christian conservative and law and order guy like Ashcroft (and his deputies) risk their jobs to block them? And why doesn't Obama want to know?

In case you hadn't noticed, in general, unless it makes for a good photo op or for improved popularity ratings, it's off Obama's radar.

Also:

Or maybe he knows, and he's decided the rest of us can't handle the truth...

Isn't this carrying the Dad In Chief bit just a bit too far? I thought Obama's chiefest obligation was to protect and defend the Constitution, not hide it in a closet.

This was kept from the Director for *months*. How does that happen? How did he finally find out?

Joan's incisive article points out the obvious. Since 1947, the CIA's covert operations have contributed to the destabilization of the world and supported massive military operations that have turned the U.S. economy upside down. Why?

Obama's supplemental $106 is going to fund CIA's operations in AFghanistan/Pakistan. But it was the CIA that fostered and gave birth to the Taliban and alQaeda in AFghanistan by funding madrassas in Pakistan together with BinLaden and the Saudi money.

Read Chalmers Johnson's excellent trilogy "Blowback", "Sorrows of Empire and his newest classic"Nemesis: The last days of the Empire" together with the best CIA book ever written:

"LEGACY IN ASHES" by Tim Weiner.

President (former WWII decorated General) Eisenhower knew that the CIA was duplicitous and dangerously incompetent. That's why he called in CIA chief John Dulles and angrily told him that, given the CIA's huge expenditures and many blunders since its inception in l947, he was leaving new president John F. Kennedy...."a legacy of ashes".

President Eisenhower's words should be screaming at Obama's conscience and "intuitive" understanding of what is fast becoming Obama's own 'legacy of ashes'. His timidity and deference to the Bushian CIA-military-industrial complex of the Wall Street titans should not blind him to what President Eisenhower called in 1960 "the dangers of a growing military-industrial complex" that should keep us awake at night.

Better still, Obama should ask his "brand recognition" teamsters Emmanuel Rahm and David Axelrod to go out and get him a copy of the wondrously educational "Why We Fight" vid. He may even see and hear John McCain sounding more 'democratic' than Barack Himself on vital issues that he's been ignoring lately. And they should most definitely get Obama a copy of former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson's Evil Empire* talk at a recent Democratic gathering as well.

*A timid little hint for BHO: No, it ain't the Soviet Empire!..

Where is the return to law that Obama promised? Where is the "Change" I voted for? Why is Obama continuing the same actions that earned the Bush administration justifiable scorn for their reckless and lawbreaking actions?