TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law - Big Trouble For The White House Staff.

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

by Citizen Spook

please repost

Why, it's like sending soldiers into the field to fight without body armor (when it's readily available).

Why, it's like sending soldiers into the field to fight based on lies.

Why, it's like making our soldiers and CIA officers perform torture despite that being illegal.

Why, it's like illegally kidnapping people and flying them off to "who knows where" to be tortured in a far-flung gulag of prisons around the world.

Why, it's like saying "no new taxes" and then raising them anyway.

Why, it's like treason.

Like father, like son.

At least GHWB had proper etiquette and style.

#2: Mark.... you are correct... but let's remember that at least Bush Sr. had the brains to give Karl Rove the boot in 1992 when he tried to integrate his dirty tricks into Bush's re-election campaign.

I only wish it were "Like father, like son."

I keep saying, get out the video to expose these HYPOCRITES!

Is there a video of Bush the elder, saying that occupying Iraq would be like Vietnam? It would be unwinnable? I read a speech he made, something to that effect, when asked why he didn't occupy Iraq during the Persian Gulf War...

GET OUT THE VIDEO, I keep saying!

HYPOCRITES...HYPOCRITES...HYPOCRITES

Remember this. The Bushes value loyalty over all other character traits. Loyalty trumps patriotism, dedication to duty, honor and decency. And blood is thicker than any water.

Expect something like this from Bush, Sr. any day now. "Barbara and I were doing the dishes together in the kitchen the other day, and we agreed that it's terrible how people who hate America are casting doubt on the dedication of our wonderful government in combating terrorism."

Does Karl Rove read left-wing blogs? The MSM has told us that GWB is not "curious" (translation: he's not real smart). He doesn't read stuff. But Karl Rove must be curious and he is kinda smart. I know that if groups of people were discussing my integrity, I would have to check it out. I might even be tempted to add comments (with an assumed name of course). What does the 6 or 7 think? What about you Karl-a? Do any of the WH whackos troll the blogs?

Let Karl the Rover spin this and he might say that Senior Bush was only speaking about democrats and independents.

The new neocon doctrine is that neocons cannot be criminals because they are the law. Whatever they say defines what law is.

There is a word for that.

Jerry,

Let me put it this way. The significance of this blog is about the same as that of a bunch of folks in a bar in say, Roundup, Montana, watching tv, drinking, & saying "They're all a bunch of crooks".

Come election time, you can break it down like this: About 35 to 38% won't vote. About 30% will vote Republican. About 30% will vote Democrat. About 3 to 5% will vote 3rd party.

A lot will run their mouths about how they are "independent", but it doesn't matter what they SAY, it only matters what they do on election day.

As you saw in the ironic responses in other posts, these "progressives" don't consider themselves to be Democrats, but they still vote Democrat. No amount of rational thought or dialogue will change their behavior. Come election time, virtually everyone who blathers on this blog will either:

Not vote, or vote for the Dem candidate. A handful who live in solid blue states might really STEP OUT ON A LIMB and go green party, but as the one stated, that's only because they knew Bush wasn't going to carry the state. If it is close, they will vote Dem.

We don't elect a president so much as we vote against a candidate. The process has evolved this way, unfortunately, and it keeps us locked in with either one bad choice or another. And virtually every participant of this blog is contributing to that bad process.

Still a dead story. Can't wait until we find out who really leaked it. If it is no Rove, you guys will have egg on your face.

Karla,

Thanks for the response. I agree with a lot of what you have said. However, I believe most of the people on this blog are intelligent people who read and compare the party lines. I have followed political campaigns and voted in every election since 1968. I have always kept an open mind about candidates and thought that there might be a Republican I would vote for someday. It hasn't happened but I have voted for Independents and Greens. The current admin is scary. They don't care about me or the common folk. They cater to the big money. I am here on this blog and several others every day because the MSM is not reporting all of the news. Specifically, they do not report the important issues about voter fraud, national security and political lies. I believe that politicians should tell the truth to their constituents. I don't lie to anyone and I don't have to worry about what I said before. I have worked with people who have different stories for different audiences. Their allegiance is for sale to the highest bidder. They always get caught in lies and eventually they fall. GWB and company may be on top now but their lies will be their legacy. You should think about where your place in eternity will be. Will you be celebrated as an honest person or dismissed as a selfish opportunist?

Hi Karla,

I'm interested to know about your motives in posting here, and your take on BradBloggers.

I know you don't like to answer complicated questions, but these are pretty easy ones to answer.

I remember you saying that you had not voted for a winning candidate since... (can't remember that part). Does that mean that a) you didn't actually vote during those elections or b) you voted for candidates who were neither Dem nor Repub? or c) you are not accurately reporting who you voted for?

VG,

Answering your second question first, that would be (b).

My take on bradbloggers? If I were to lump everyone into one group, I would make the following predictions about a bradblogger.

1) Votes for the Democratic candidate, unless his state is solidly Dem, in which case he/she may vote 3rd party.
2) Feels he/she can contribute to the betterment of the world by sitting on the computer and typing.
3) Wants taxes raised on the upper middle class & rich folks.
4) has an IQ of between 85 and 95.
5) Is in poor physical shape, and watches tv while on computer.
6) Has a desk job, probably in front of a computer screen.
7) Doesn't really know much about American history, except what is being discussed on the lefty blogs.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks for the answer to the a/b/c part, Karla.

Are you willing to say if your votes aligned with a particular third "party", you do write-ins, or?

As for your additional points, I think you are doing BBers an injustice, and I don't know where you are coming from in the points that you list. They don't quite compute to explain your viewpoint. So, I do wonder why you read BB and post here. Maybe you are an "anarchist"? That's okay, too.

If you would like to champion a system that is more inclusive that the current lock that the Reps/Dems have on things, then I suggest that you post your views in a more informative way, and argue for what you really believe in, in a positive way. The posts and links that I've read on the BB have given me the means to educate myself in ways that the MSCM does not provide. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. But, as much as anything, the BB allows readers to find interesting information that isn't available elsewhere. If you have a definite alternative view, then I hope you will start posting comments and links that will allow us to examine that alternative. Meanwhile, insults aren't going to help you much, in what ever your cause may be.

Best, VG

Wowie Zowie Karla!!!! You're so waaaay off. It's obvious you haven't read this blog. Why would anybody waste any more time yapping with you?

Later traitor.

Hi Kira!!! VG

Hi VG!!!

Wish I had time to write more limericks! What fun, eh? RLM & Joan are definitely on a roll. Love it!

See ya on the thread tomorrow night.

Don't feed the traitors. Unless they enlist,

Good one, Colleen

I think Karla is worth saving but certainly wrong on 4., 5. and 7.

You are funny, Karla!

#12 --- 1.) I vote Green in most races. I voted Green in the last presidential election in California. I would have voted for Kerry if I thought it would have help unseat the usurper. We are facing an acute threat to our society, system of government, and representative democracy. We are not talking in the abstract. It is not the height of intelligence to ignore acute threats on the basis of what ought to be.

2.) Yes, I believe blogs and the progressive internet community will prove to be a major factor in bringing down a corrupt and criminal administration.

3.) I'm not sure income should be taxed at all. It would be more logical to tax wealth. I believe that it is impossible to sustain a democracy when 1% of the people own 40%+ of the wealth, 10% own 70%, and a democracy cannot exist under those conditions. This is not a radical view and is shared by Kevin Phillips, Paul Krugman and many others. It is also shared by most economic historians, I believe.

4.) We really shouldn't get into IQs as they are limited in their usefulness - as compared to types of intelligences. For your information, my IQ has been tested much higher than 90 and I once passed with flying colors a test to get into MENSA - Big deal. I did it as a lark and believed, even at that time, that IQs just don't say as much as they are supposed to and are socially-derived in many ways. (I'm sure, however, that you are quite aware that the average intelligence on this blog is very high. You're just pulling our legs, right?)

5.) I'm in great shape for 55. I spend a number of hours a day working at my ranch. I suspect I am in much better shape than you are. I limit my computer time - It's difficult because at the computer we are in the heart of a revolution, if we use it right. But gotta work. I don't watch tv at all.

6.) See above. I do make some extra bucks doing simple computer repairs. By the way, I also spend much of my time working at green issues locally and in my position in the Green Party.

7.) My higher education is in history. I have an extensive knowledge of U.S. history and have studied it closely for 35 years, including the role of third parties and citizen movements.

You sound like an ignoramus like Buckshot? No relation, right? In any event, you're way out of your league, Karla.

(Sorry, guys...Karla sure sidled up to the bar, didn't she? It seems it would have been more congenial to her senses to sit in a dark corner sipping Dos Equis and brooding on the meaninglessness of life, but I guess she likes our company. I know, Colleen, we should follow your advice.)

By the way, #12 is very Buckshotish. I wonder...

Arry,

Thanks for the bio info. I'm new and really don't know much about Brad's group. I'm also 50+ with two degrees and good health. I have probably read more history books than Karla has ever seen.

Arry #21

Sociopath?

#23 Kira - No doubt. I was thinking of BS's obsession with taxes and health. Karla also used the term "silliness" in regard to another of my posts - just as BS did. The use of the Montana bar image. Other than that, it just feels like it.

Maybe it runs in the species.

Arry,

Valley Girl asked me an honest question. I gave her my honest opinion.

Perhaps your genius level IQ would raise the average here on bradblog by 2 or 3 points. Let's say there are 20 regular participants with an average IQ of 95.

Now we mix in your mensa level of what 165? I still get an average of about 98. Does your mensa level allow you to understand that profound depth of math?

Yup, Arry. Definitely Buckshottish!

Two other parallels - When I first encountered Buckshot, it was "arguing" that it didn't really matter what we did. Things will always be the same. And it also kept assuming that we were all youngsters here and Kira had to set it straight. (Some people never learn anything - so this could still be BS.)

I think Karla=Buckshot (or a first cousin.)

#22 - Hey, Jerry. Good to have you here. Brad Blog is my favorite place on the Internet. The posters are intelligent, committed, good people and Brad holds it all together with a sure hand. Be sure to listen to Brad's show tonight, if you can. Nothing like it on radio, and you will be further hooked, I think.

Karla's comments in ital.:

A. 2) Feels he/she can contribute to the betterment of the world by sitting on the computer and typing. I offer only 1 (but excellent) example --- Stephen Hawking

B. 3) Wants taxes raised on the upper middle class & rich folks. This is shallow, canned neo-repub. rhetoric. Take a look at the facts in the graphs/charts on this page --- are you are happy with this Corporate Welfare? I'm NOT.

Where Your Income Money Really Goes

A good study site:
In Depth Analysis of American Income and Taxation

Over the past 20 years the salaries of corporate executives have grown by a factor of more than 10. In 1982 the average corporate executive was paid about 42 times the salary of the average employee. In 2002 that figure had increased to 500 times the compensation of the average employee.

C. 4) has an IQ of between 85 and 95.
As if someone with a lower IQ somehow doesn't count, or deserve the same inalienable rights as the geniuses in our country.

D. 5) Is in poor physical shape, and watches tv while on computer. As per the 1st part of this sentence, see [A.], above. 2nd part of this sentence --- it seems to me that being able to multitask is a sign of higher intelligence.

6) Has a desk job, probably in front of a computer screen. I don't understand the value of this to our quest.

7) Doesn't really know much about American history, except what is being discussed on the lefty blogs. "Lefty" blogs are more apt to be discussing REAL American History (and providing excellent links for study --- for which we are grateful and actually use for self-edification) than the "righty" blogs. Study up on the propaganda that has brainwashed American people going back to the inception of this country. The neoCon followers have been brainwashed; that's why they march in lock-step.

Oh, and by the way --- I study beyond the blogs --- so do most commenters here, but you have to read months of comments to understand this is true.

Also --- I guess you, (karla) must fit into your own generalization of Brad Blog commenters, since you're pretty much a regular now --- eh?

To me, bradbloggers are the most accepting intelligent bloggers period. Have noticed lots of snarks here. At least, they let you know they are snarking. Kos's snarkers pretend to be liberal.

IQ is merely a measurement to see where you fit into the bell curve. Interestingly, you can find high-IQ blogs (Vox Day's, for one) where the average is around 120 or 130, and there is a world of difference in the banter.]

Funny thing, you almost never hear (or read) of a person claiming to have an IQ of 100 or lower. In fact, I have never heard such a claim in my life. Instead, you hear something like this - "IQ isn't really an accurate test of intelligence". I've already seen something similar to that on bradblog several times.

It's tough to see people who have taken IQ tests and score 85 or 90. They cannot believe they are below average. It just doesn't compute with them, in spite of the obvious fact that half of any given population is below average. (right?) Do you people understand that?

If it were athletic ability, the results are pretty clear and undeniable, but with IQ, folks just can't accept their place in the rankings. Consequently, you have not-very-bright people blathering on about all manner of subject matter. Case in point. One not-very-successful author points out the obvious (to him) "fact" that shooting a person (JFK) in the back of the head cannot possibly knock brains out of the side of his head. Really?

So all those tests done by the experts are bogus? Where they shoot melons, water balloons, fake heads, animal heads, etc? And the liquid/jello/brains blows out the sides? It's all a conspiracy? It's not real?

And Kira thinks low IQ folks have just as much right as anyone else to run their mouth about any subject. Well of course they do. It just isn't worth much. When folks are talking about firing Karl Rove, for instance, it helps if they understand who he is.

Slow runners have just as much right to run on a public trail/bikepath as fast runners. They just don't get much attention for their times, as 12 minute miles just aren't very impressive.

When folks are giving advice on foreign policy, it's nice if they know the difference between the Palestinians & the Pakistanis. Or Iraq & Iran. Or socialism & communism. Or national debt vs. national deficit.

When people are lecturing about percentages & poll numbers, it's nice if they understand decimals & fractions.

That way, when you report that 46% believe Rove is a crook (or whatever) and I ask 46% of whom?, you can comprehend what I'm asking. It could be 46% of Americans. It could be 46% of voting aged Americans. It could be 46% of the people who just came out of the mall in the inner city. It could be 46% of people who were home at 2 o'clock in the afternoon (instead of at work). It could be 46% of voters. It could be 46% of people who voluntarily wrote in and offered their opinion. It could be 46% of people who don't want to admit they don't know who Rove is.

I can tell you right now, only about 25% of voting aged Americans have any idea who Karl Rove is.

Even those below averaged IQ folks cannot appreciate the lack of knowledge out there in the heartland, & especially in the inner city.

Pollsters can pretty much create their own numbers. If they are calling only residential numbers, during the week, for instance, during working hours, well they aren't reaching many employed people, are they? Stay at home moms have opinions, and that is fine. But are they the same as their husbands at work? (or vice versa?)

Anyway, blather on. Just remember, you might learn more by reading the opinions of intelligent people than by running your mouths about subjects that you just learned about when you stumbled onto this blog.

Showing your true colors there Karl-a. That's ok, I know you'll find your group somewhere.

This blog is about how to get America back on track, not about discussing who has a higher IQ --- however, since you keep harping on the subject, I want to share something with you, because you seem to be extremely arrogant, short-sighted and interested in drumming up enthusiasm for exclusionism.

Articles --- Intelligence

"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." –Albert Einstein

Einstein did not speak until he was four, and did not read until seven.

Mozart cried spontaneously as often as five times each day. He was noted as saying the world was painfully beautiful.

Caruso was advised not to continue singing.

Pasteur was rated as a mediocre chemist.

Churchill failed the 6th grade.

Lincoln had five nervous breakdowns.

Byrd was retired from the navy as unfit for service.

Disney was fired by a newspaper editor because he did not have any good ideas.

Lewis Carroll could not remember faces or dates.

Poincare (a French mathematician, theoretical astronomer, and philosopher of science who influenced cosmogony, relativity, and topology and was a gifted interpreter of science to a wide public) took the Binet IQ test and made such a disgraceful showing that his score labeled him an imbecile.

Edison had difficulty in school with rote learning, spelling, grammar, syntax, arithmetic and overall classroom performance. He traced his success to his ability to reason through analogy.

Tolstoy flunked out of college.

The Wright Brothers never finished high school

=============================
Creativity and IQ Tests

INTELLIGENCE and IQ

"Capacity to act purposefully, thinking rationally and deal effectively with the environment."

David Wechsler
The preceding quote is the definition of intelligence by the man who created the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. This is the closest definition I could find that I agreed with. Hence, intelligence isn’t really a measure of intellectual capacity, but a gauge of the ability to deal effectively with life.

Most IQ tests measure intellectual aptitude, i.e. the ability to handle linear, verbal, mathematical functions or sort out artificially designed spatial relationships. Educational background can be a strong determiner of these abilities. Yet history has had many geniuses who did not fare well on IQ tests, Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman, to name a few. Who would argue that these men were not brilliant in their chosen fields.

PS - one of the things we do here is to share where we get our information. You haven't joined in on that, so what you say is just your opinion. Thanks for giving us links to where you get your information about the 25% of voting age Americans who know who Rove is. Ok?

IQ has been pretty much a clunky Model T since Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Mismeasurement of Man". Howard Gardner and others developed the theory of multiple intelligences and have essentially demonstrated that creativity and many kinds of understanding are not closely related to IQ. IQ kind of hangs around in a superannuated state.

Nevertheless, this is all academic, of course. Because Buckshot/Karla thinks Bradbloggers are low IQ doesn't mean they are, and they probably aren't. It was wrong on almost all counts about me (which was my only reason for posting a reply to #12 - and I'm probably not an entirely atypical Bradblogger) and is certainly wrong about most of the others. Essentially, Buckshot's/Karla's is a prejudicial mind making reactive (not logical, not explorative) judgements based on whether or not certain folks have "forced the issue" and asked embarrassing questions. It is one of the things that set the very intelligent Bradbloggers apart from Buckshot/Karla.

Hey Arry --- join us on the new Open Thread for the BradShow!

Be right there! Just got home and was checking out a couple of things. Your link to "emotional intelligence" is very interesting. It is really a step toward a holistic (hence edging toward complete) view of intelligence. The subject fascinates me.

It's kind of like genetic theory. That is, you cannot really isolate a gene (in fact it is destructive) because of the web of life it is a part of.

Or isolate a person (like a commodity) because that person is part of a community.

And so on. This is probably not the place for philosophy, and the Brad Show is live! Be right there.

I expected a long list of reasons why IQ doesn't matter, or cannot be measured. I was not disappointed.

Blather on, kids. Back in the 70's, the CB radio craze caught on. Truckers all had them, but the general population soon joined in, about the time the song "Convoy" came out, in about 72.

Soon the airwaves were abuzz with all kind of blather, 24 hours a day. The truckers hated it. Every looney- tune Cro-Magnon man & woman soon had a "base station" and a CB in each vehicle. They talked non-stop, never saying anything.

In about 2 years, the fad died out. It was brutal for those of us who worked in close proximity to a CB.

In the following years came Jerry Springer, Rikki Lake, Montel, & Maury shows on the tube.

Then came the computers & blogs such as this. No one is really saying anything. They're logging on just to say hi to other bloggers. It's just a continuation of a series of hobbies of the lower IQ portion of the population.

I see where Hillary is laying out her vision of what the Democratic Party should strive towards. How come no one is talking about that? You know you're all going to vote for her. Why not discuss something besides "GWB & Rove are idiots" ?

The two of them are each 30 to 40 IQ points higher than anyone on this blog, btw. Yet to listen to the blather, they're a couple of drooling idiots.

The outing of intelligence agents is not an intelligent activity.

Nor is it intelligent to keep those who leak such intelligence identities on board after vowing to fire them.

No matter what the IQ of the "the most insidious of traitors" happens to be.

Arry #20

I think you're onto something here. karl-a/buckshot

(From Arry's #24) "BS's obsession with taxes and health. Karla also used the term "silliness" in regard to another of my posts - just as BS did. The use of the Montana bar image. Other than that, it just feels like it.

Maybe it runs in the species."

**Maybe it's the same guy ???!!! Aha!
buckshot m.o.

"RMills, I'd love to place a sizeable bet with you. In six months, I doubt if two percent of Americans will be able to tell you who Karl Rove is. But you keep up the vigil. As you take your dying breath, ask yourself, 'Did I spend my time wisely?'"

I'm convinced.

Oh, 1 more thing I forgot to mention ... karl-a drifted here from Think Progress (former stomping grounds of our pal bucksnot!)

We have:

-- the "sizeable bet" m.o. element
-- came from Think Progress
-- thinks we are "kids" (mentioned again in Karla #36)
-- from Karla #12 - Bradbloggers want "Wants taxes raised on the upper middle class & rich folks."
-- from Karla #12 - A typical Bradblogger "
"Is in poor physical shape, and watches tv while on computer." Remember the Buckshot's junk food comments?
-- It's bleak view of anyone's ability to effect change.
-- A narrow and exclusive view of race that will show up soon if we continue to talk about IQ, the bell curve, etc.
-- An egregious and absurd ignoring of all relevant questions and facts regarding its prejudices and the issue at hand
-- Use of the term "silliness" in lieu of discussing the aspects of an argument or view that counters unalterable prejudices
-- the Montana bar image. Not much in itself but small piece of circumstantial evidence

It's our old pal, I'm sure, Kira.

Montana bar image is in #8 this thread.

Yup. (Remember buckshot grew up in a mining town in Montana ...)

Also, s/he masqueraded as "Shirley" on TalkLeft after getting in trouble over there!

TalkLeft archives

Posted by talkleft at February 15, 2005 11:10 AM

Shirley is Buckshot and has been limited to four comments a day under either name. S/he's a chatterer..

You people need to get a life.

I have a life, Penny. See #20.

Karla can not answer a question directly because it would expose her/him on the question of what she/he is doing on Bradblog every day if he/she thinks it is such a waste of time dealing with a bunch of entrenched democrats who accomplish nothing by coming here for a mutual admiration society....

The bigger question is what does she/he get out of blogging here every day????

Answer:
Needs attention, thinks she/he has something to gift us all with through her/his "superior intellect"....lonely and even bad attention is welcome (or maybe just a masochist and really revels in a dressing down....a good as kicking is all she/he is here for (?)).

I have a life, too, Penny! Ouch! I'm still pulling out rose thorns after my transplanting and yard detail project yesterday. All that plus studying early American History and following the propaganda trail from this country's inception to now and, of course keeping up with current political and personal affairs.

Thanks for your concern!

Funny and spot-on, Shannon!

As for Ms. "genious" Karla and her statement regarding somebody's comment on the JFK assassination, here's my two cents: If the "official" story is true then how is it possible that Oswald fired three aimed shots including two hits, one a head shot (at a target in a moving car) in 5 seconds on a bolt-action rifle?? Hey Karla, ever tried to do that? I have and many, many others have too (of course not shooting at a person!). It is IMPOSSIBLE to do. In case Karla doesn't realize, a bolt-action rifle requires physically turning and racking the bolt open to eject a spent cartridge and jamming it back forward again to send the next round in, then re-aiming. This process repeated three times in five seconds on supposedly a Carcano rifle, probably the worst and least-accurate bolt-action rifle ever made? Get real! Also consider, if there was one shooter only (L.H. Oswald) then why in the hell didn't he take the MUCH easier shot at Kennedy when his car was slowly approaching him on Houston Street instead of waiting until he was travelling diagonally away from him at a faster rate, an infinitely more difficult shot and needlessly so? He wouldn't have; instead he'd have fired when the car was slowing down to turn from Houston Street onto Dealey Plaza, a much easier shot. If Karla wants a good laugh she should actually read the Warren Commission report and she should be able to see some good reasons why most people doubt the "official" story about the JFK assassination.

As for Ms. "genious" Karla and her statement regarding somebody's comment on the JFK assassination, here's my two cents: If the "official" story is true then how is it possible that Oswald fired three aimed shots including two hits, one a head shot (at a target in a moving car) in 5 seconds on a bolt-action rifle?? Hey Karla, ever tried to do that? I have and many, many others have too (of course not shooting at a person!). It is IMPOSSIBLE to do. In case Karla doesn't realize, a bolt-action rifle requires physically turning and racking the bolt open to eject a spent cartridge and jamming it back forward again to send the next round in, then re-aiming. This process repeated three times in five seconds on supposedly a Carcano rifle, probably the worst and least-accurate bolt-action rifle ever made? Get real! Also consider, if there was one shooter only (L.H. Oswald) then why in the hell didn't he take the MUCH easier shot at Kennedy when his car was slowly approaching him on Houston Street instead of waiting until he was travelling diagonally away from him at a faster rate, an infinitely more difficult shot and needlessly so? He wouldn't have; instead he'd have fired when the car was slowing down to turn from Houston Street onto Dealey Plaza, a much easier shot. If Karla wants a good laugh she should actually read the Warren Commission report and she should be able to see some good reasons why most people doubt the "official" story about the JFK assassination.