- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Politico Opposes Public Access to Information, Says JFK Document Dump Could Be a Fiasco
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:04 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:04 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Phil Shenon and Larry Sabado apparently feel this information is dangerous.
Sounds like one of CNN's statements - we will tell you what you need to know.
0
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:12 am to NC_Tigah
You should check Larry Sabato's twitter
quote:
Larry Sabato @LarrySabato 1 hour ago
Larry Sabato Retweeted Donald J. Trump
Thank you. This is the correct decision. Please do not allow exceptions for any agency of government. JFK files have been hidden too long.
Larry Sabato added, Donald J. Trump Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened.
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:20 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
The American public deserved to see these documents 5 decades ago.
On a general level I agree with this.
quote:
Now you're defending two men who think government transparency is dangerous.
I think you misread the piece.
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:32 am to NC_Tigah
Trump will let them be released. He wants to ensure the truth about Lion Ted's father comes out. 
In all seriousness, people are concerned because anyone who reads them will need to understand the context (1963 geopolitics). There is probably a lot of speculation from CIA analysts contained therein that people will construe as absolute fact and irrefutable evidence of a "conspiracy."
I've never believed it was a conspiracy. I think Oswald was just a commie with a gun. He had a history of Soviet sympathy and was a radical according to everyone who knew him. I find it plausible that Oswald had Soviet contacts who might have known of the plot, but I think it's clear Oswald fired the gun.
The conspiracy theorists that believe the CIA killed JFK never provide a cogent reason the CIA would want that done. What did they gain by having Kennedy replaced with Johnson?
In all seriousness, people are concerned because anyone who reads them will need to understand the context (1963 geopolitics). There is probably a lot of speculation from CIA analysts contained therein that people will construe as absolute fact and irrefutable evidence of a "conspiracy."
I've never believed it was a conspiracy. I think Oswald was just a commie with a gun. He had a history of Soviet sympathy and was a radical according to everyone who knew him. I find it plausible that Oswald had Soviet contacts who might have known of the plot, but I think it's clear Oswald fired the gun.
The conspiracy theorists that believe the CIA killed JFK never provide a cogent reason the CIA would want that done. What did they gain by having Kennedy replaced with Johnson?
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:42 am to NC_Tigah
I don’t think they are worried about any new bombshells.
I think some of the intelligence agency are worried about their methods, maybe some deep cover agents and systems that are in place, being compromised.
I believe there was some documentation and possibly frivolous accusations levied against other states that proved to be inaccurate that may hurt America’s credibility globally.
And I don’t think Donald Trump will release all of that information based on those reasonings
I think some of the intelligence agency are worried about their methods, maybe some deep cover agents and systems that are in place, being compromised.
I believe there was some documentation and possibly frivolous accusations levied against other states that proved to be inaccurate that may hurt America’s credibility globally.
And I don’t think Donald Trump will release all of that information based on those reasonings
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:45 am to EthanL
quote:%0years is a long time to be deep cover agents.
I think some of the intelligence agency are worried about their methods, maybe some deep cover agents and systems that are in place, being compromised.
quote:Again fifty year old news, it would seem to me said countries would prefer the truth to be out, thus clearing their sullied reputations.
I believe there was some documentation and possibly frivolous accusations levied against other states that proved to be inaccurate that may hurt America’s credibility globally.
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:52 am to NC_Tigah
This article reeks of everything the public absolutely despises about the MSM and why Trump maintains the popularity he does today.
So in that light these people have proven their utmost ignorance and why they will continue to fail and lose with America.
As far as I am concerned they can keep their heads shoved up their own asses for as long as possible.
So in that light these people have proven their utmost ignorance and why they will continue to fail and lose with America.
As far as I am concerned they can keep their heads shoved up their own asses for as long as possible.
Posted on 10/21/17 at 10:14 am to Jbird
Just because it's old news doesn't mean there weren't sensitive operations we were conducting during that time that we want to keep secret. Releasing it, even today, will give foreign nations a peek inside our intelligence apparatus even if most of the people involved are long dead.
For instance, what if it's discovered that a high ranking Soviet was on the CIAs payroll? What if this guy did things that had a major effect on Soviet/American relations during the period? What if he has family still living there? You can see how they might be in danger.
That said, I am in favor of the release just because I am an open source type of guy who feels the free flow of information is always more beneficial than secrecy.
For instance, what if it's discovered that a high ranking Soviet was on the CIAs payroll? What if this guy did things that had a major effect on Soviet/American relations during the period? What if he has family still living there? You can see how they might be in danger.
That said, I am in favor of the release just because I am an open source type of guy who feels the free flow of information is always more beneficial than secrecy.
Posted on 10/21/17 at 10:17 am to AUstar
quote:Naw I get that, I was just busting EthanL a little.
For instance, what if it's discovered that a high ranking Soviet was on the CIAs payroll? What if this guy did things that had a major effect on Soviet/American relations during the period? What if he has family still living there? You can see how they might be in danger.
Posted on 10/21/17 at 10:17 am to NC_Tigah
Obama did it
Posted on 10/21/17 at 12:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:No telling what's in that pile. Maybe Jim Garrison wasn't so crazy after all?
JFK Document Dump
Posted on 10/21/17 at 1:07 pm to NC_Tigah
2 pages and no mention of Ruby? That’s always been the interesting thing for me. A strip club owner killed the assassin because he didn’t want to subject Jackie to a trial? Give me a break.
Posted on 10/21/17 at 1:36 pm to AUstar
quote:
The conspiracy theorists that believe the CIA killed JFK never provide a cogent reason the CIA would want that done. What did they gain by having Kennedy replaced with Johnson?
Marcello is a more likely suspect.
Oswald's shot selection makes sense only if he knew he had a partner on the grassy knoll.
Posted on 10/21/17 at 2:33 pm to Bestbank Tiger
If they truly believe that Kennedy wasn’t fully committed to halting communism then I can see how some elements would be motivated to act.
The ironic thing to me has always been that Oswald was a commie yet killed JFK who was much more tolerant towards the Soviet Union than LBJ was gonna be.
In all seriousness, the government created the conspiracy theories by making the Warren Commission a complete sham designed to find a preconceived conclusion that Oswald acted alone.
Even if you think Oswald acted alone, you have to admit that the Warren Commision report has done more to fuel the fire than anything else.
The ironic thing to me has always been that Oswald was a commie yet killed JFK who was much more tolerant towards the Soviet Union than LBJ was gonna be.
In all seriousness, the government created the conspiracy theories by making the Warren Commission a complete sham designed to find a preconceived conclusion that Oswald acted alone.
Even if you think Oswald acted alone, you have to admit that the Warren Commision report has done more to fuel the fire than anything else.
This post was edited on 10/21/17 at 2:35 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News