‘The Brothers’ by Stephen Kinzer - anyone read it?

[Cliff Varnell]

22 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

you know what i mean, Cliff. i mean any non-Lone nut theorist.

you were born to argue, weren't you Cliff.

i'm not the one, sir.

You're the one who brought it up.  If you don't want an argument don't get argumentative,

I'm not any kind of "non-lone nut theorist."

"Theory" has nothing to do with the salient facts of the JFK conspiracy.

[Glenn Nall]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You're the one who brought it up.  If you don't want an argument don't get argumentative,

I'm not any kind of "non-lone nut theorist."

"Theory" has nothing to do with the salient facts of the JFK conspiracy.

read it more slowly, Cliff: "I'm not the one."

damn.

[Cliff Varnell]

Just now, Glenn Nall said:

read it more slowly, Cliff: "I'm not the one."

damn.

You've given me reason to conclude otherwise.

[Glenn Nall]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You're the one who brought it up.  If you don't want an argument don't get argumentative,

I'm not any kind of "non-lone nut theorist."

"Theory" has nothing to do with the salient facts of the JFK conspiracy.

"In legal proceedings/investigations, something becomes a “fact” when “found” by the fact-finder. Judges or juries “find” facts after all the evidence is in and attorneys have given closing statements."

UNTIL SUCH TIME, it is still 'theory.'

"In the case of juries, they give answers (mostly “yes” or “no” but sometimes a dollar amount) to a series of written questions proposed by the lawyers (theorists) and approved by the judge. For example: is the defendant guilty of aggravated assault? Yes ___ No ___"

UNTIL SUCH TIME, it is still 'theory.'

"In the case of judges, they will write documents called “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which will probably be in the form of numbered paragraphs describing the facts which the judge finds credible and supported by the evidence."

UNTIL SUCH TIME, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU OR I AM CONVINCED OF THE TRUTH'S SALIENCE, it is still 'theory,' Cliff. 

Live with it.

and please go find someone else to argue with. I'm sure you have a list.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Glenn Nall
proper quotes

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Glenn Nall said:

"In legal proceedings/investigations, something becomes a “fact” when “found” by the fact-finder. Judges or juries “find” facts after all the evidence is in and attorneys have given closing statements."

UNTIL SUCH TIME, it is still 'theory.'

There was no legal proceeding in the JFK murder.

But that doesn't change the salient fact of the case: at 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are too low to account for the wound in the throat.

It's  a matter of empirical observation along with "the sun rises in the east" and "2 + 2 + 4."

1 hour ago, Glenn Nall said:

"In the case of juries, they give answers (mostly “yes” or “no” but sometimes a dollar amount) to a series of written questions proposed by the lawyers (theorists) and approved by the judge. For example: is the defendant guilty of aggravated assault? Yes ___ No ___"

UNTIL SUCH TIME, it is still 'theory.'

There are no defendants, thus no jury could ever make a determination.

1 hour ago, Glenn Nall said:

"In the case of judges, they will write documents called “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which will probably be in the form of numbered paragraphs describing the facts which the judge finds credible and supported by the evidence."

UNTIL SUCH TIME, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU OR I AM CONVINCED OF THE TRUTH'S SALIENCE, it is still 'theory,' Cliff. 

The sun rises in the east -- that's a theory because no jury has ruled on the matter?

1 hour ago, Glenn Nall said:

Live with it.

and please go find someone else to argue with. I'm sure you have a list.

I knew you'd never stop arguing over nothing when you couldn't defend your "feign" nonsense.

[James DiEugenio]

Glenn, this is a typical Varnell move.

He gets so obnoxious that he just wears on you.  When you walk away in disgust at his tactics, he then declares victory.

BTW, this point is so silly that its funny.

The idea that Dulles did not know he was about to be decapitated for all the lies he told JFK is risible. And they did send in Cabell and Bissell to try and get US intervention, and so did Burke.  Kennedy was not buying it.  And the idea that Dulles would have made a difference is just silly.  Because Kennedy would have exploded at him with:

1.  You said no one would be at that beach!

2.  You said Castro's population would defect in droves!

3. You said it would take 48 hours for him to get his armor to the front!

4.  You said the brigade could go guerrilla as a last resort!

5.  You said resistance movements on the island would come to the invading force's aid!

Think Dulles wanted to hear about this stuff in the wake of his being exposed as a first class prevaricator?  Recall, this is after Kennedy suspects the CIA duped him on Lumumba, And its a week before Dulles is backing the overthrow of DeGaulle over Algeria, an issue very close to JFK from his great 1957 speech.

So where did Dulles go when he got back?  He had a drink with Nixon.  What might have been eh?

All of the above is not  my opinion.  It is all backed up by the hearings of the Taylor Commission and Lyman Kirkpatrick's report. Dulles and Bissell lied their heads off to Kennedy.  And he was furious about it.  And that was it for Dulles.  And he knew it within 24 hours.

Edited April 12, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Glenn, this is a typical Varnell move.

He gets so obnoxious that he just wears on you.  When you walk away in disgust at his tactics, he then declares victory.

BTW, this point is so silly that its funny.

The idea that Dulles did not know he was about to be decapitated for all the lies he told JFK is risible. And they did send in Cabell and Bissell to try and get US intervention, and so did Burke.

Bissell didn't communicate with Kennedy on D-Day-1 or on D-Day.

It was Cabell who finally got thru to Kennedy at 4 in the morning on D-Day to ask for a change in policy that had been signed off on a month earlier.

Burke didn't approach Kennedy until the evening of D-Day +2 at a party.

That's not how foreign policy consensus was reached -- these attempts by Cabell and Burke were weak face-saving measures at best.

There was no attempt to force Kennedy into changing a policy signed off by all the principals a month earlier.

Here's how the non-intervention policy was reached (emphasis added):

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v10/d66

<quote on>

On March 16, 1961, CIA officials outlined for President Kennedy the revisions to the Zapata plan that the President had called for on the previous day. The Presidentʼs appointment book indicates that the meeting took place in the White House from 4:15 to 5:23 p.m. The meeting was attended by Vice President Johnson, McNamara, Rusk, Mann, Berle, Dulles, Bissell, McGeorge Bundy, William Bundy, and Gray. (Kennedy Library, Presidentʼs Appointment Book) Although not listed in the appointment book, it is clear from his subsequent debriefing on the meeting that Admiral Burke also attended. According to Grayʼs notes on the meeting:

“At meeting with the President, CIA presented revised concepts for the landing at Zapata wherein there would be air drops at first light with [Page 160]the landing at night and all of the ships away from the objective area by dawn. The President decided to go ahead with the Zapata planning; to see what we could do about increasing support to the guerrillas inside the country; to interrogate one member of the force to determine what he knows; and he reserved the right to call off the plan even up to 24 hours prior to the landing.” (Summary notes prepared on May 9, 1961, by General Gray; Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, Subjects, Taylor Report)

On March 17 Admiral Burke provided the JCS with additional details about the discussion of the revised Zapata plan. According to Burke, the President wanted to know what the consequences would be if the operation failed. He asked Burke how he viewed the operationʼs chance of success. Burke indicated that he had given the President a probability figure of about 50 percent. President Kennedy also inquired what would happen if it developed after the invasion that the Cuban exile force were pinned down and being slaughtered on the beach. If they were to be re-embarked, the President wanted to know where they could be taken. According to Burkeʼs account of the meeting: “It was decided they would not be re-embarked because there was no place to go. Once they were landed they were there.” In the course of the discussion, it was emphasized that the plan was dependent on a general uprising in Cuba, and that the entire operation would fail without such an uprising. (Review of Record of Proceedings Related to Cuban Situation, May 5; Naval Historical Center, Area Files, Bumpy Road Materials)

<quote off>

"It was decided" -- a group consensus, a decision reached by the principals.

The idea that Kennedy would change this consensus policy because of a call in the middle of the night -- or a request made at a party -- is absurd.

Quote

Kennedy was not buying it.  And the idea that Dulles would have made a difference is just silly.

But the idea that Cabell calling at 4 in the morning to change established US policy wasn't silly?

Or Admiral Burke approaching Kennedy at a party requesting a change in established US policy wasn't silly?

Quote

Because Kennedy would have exploded at him with:

So Dulles went to Puerto Rico because he didn't want to get yelled at?

Quote

1.  You said no one would be at that beach!

2.  You said Castro's population would defect in droves!

3. You said it would take 48 hours for him to get his armor to the front!

4.  You said the brigade could go guerrilla as a last resort!

5.  You said resistance movements on the island would come to the invading force's aid!

And even with all that Burke advised Kennedy that the chance of success was 50-50.

When the D-Day-2 false flag attacks on Castro's airfields failed to take out the Cuban air force the mission stood zero chance of success.

Rusk should have advised Kennedy to pull the plug on the operation, but he didn't.

Quote

Think Dulles wanted to hear about this stuff in the wake of his being exposed as a first class prevaricator?

But he went down to Puerto Rico on D-Day-1, before the invasion.

Why, Jim?

Quote

Recall, this is after Kennedy suspects the CIA duped him on Lumumba, And its a week before Dulles is backing the overthrow of DeGaulle over Algeria, an issue very close to JFK from his great 1957 speech.

So where did Dulles go when he got back?  He had a drink with Nixon.  What might have been eh?

All of the above is not  my opinion.  It is all backed up by the hearings of the Taylor Commission and Lyman Kirkpatrick's report. Dulles and Bissell lied their heads off to Kennedy.  And he was furious about it.  And that was it for Dulles.  And he knew it within 24 hours.

He knew it before he went down to Puerto Rico.

It was Bundy's bright idea for a false flag strike on D-Day-2.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v10/d64

It was Dean Rusk who cut the false flag attack from 16 planes to just 8, which guaranteed the failure of the mission.

Nothing more "obnoxious" that facing facts you can't refute, eh Jim?

Edited April 12, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Brian Schmidt]

One other note about this talk of Allen Dulles' senility around the time of the Warren Commission.  Philip Shenon in "A Cruel and Shocking Act" also advocates the position that Dulles was in the early stages of dementia in 1964 and goes into it fairly explicitly and extensively.  Shenon claims a staffer on the Commission told him everyone was excited to work with the legendary spymaster only to find he was a 'nit.'  Reading it, though, I get the impression that Dulles was playing dumb, or naive, in order to intentionally create surface-level analysis where he wouldn't be expected to dig into past CIA programs.  

Juxtapose this portrayal of Dulles with the rigorous personal calendar he maintained, virtually until the month he died.  I've mentioned this on here before, but you can go and look at his daily appointments, etc. and you will find he was meeting with or at least having phone conversations with the likes of Cord Meyer, Tracy Barnes, Richard Helms, etc. on a weekly basis.  He even talked with William Harvey as late as 1967...after the 1967 “Plots to Assassinate Fidel Castro” CIA Inspector General's report came out (!!).  

[Glenn Nall]

11 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There was no legal proceeding in the JFK murder.

But that doesn't change the salient fact of the case: at 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are too low to account for the wound in the throat.

It's  a matter of empirical observation along with "the sun rises in the east" and "2 + 2 + 4."

There are no defendants, thus no jury could ever make a determination.

The sun rises in the east -- that's a theory because no jury has ruled on the matter?

I knew you'd never stop arguing over nothing when you couldn't defend your "feign" nonsense.

UNTIL SUCH TIME, it is still 'theory.' .

THAT is the point, Cliff. UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THERE IS A LEGAL PROCEEDING, all of this is JUST THEORY. 

SALIENCE does not in any way equate to findings (in this case, legal ones).

PERIOD. LIVE WITH IT.

 

the sun's and mathematical behaviors are not legal - they are scientific, which is different, and which is why i referred to legal/investigatory theory. Cliff.

empirical observation does not equal official findings by fact-finders (jurors and jurists).

Edited April 12, 2017 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Glenn, this is a typical Varnell move.

He gets so obnoxious that he just wears on you.  When you walk away in disgust at his tactics, he then declares victory.

BTW, this point is so silly that its funny.

The idea that Dulles did not know he was about to be decapitated for all the lies he told JFK is risible. And they did send in Cabell and Bissell to try and get US intervention, and so did Burke.  Kennedy was not buying it.  And the idea that Dulles would have made a difference is just silly.  Because Kennedy would have exploded at him with:

1.  You said no one would be at that beach!

2.  You said Castro's population would defect in droves!

3. You said it would take 48 hours for him to get his armor to the front!

4.  You said the brigade could go guerrilla as a last resort!

5.  You said resistance movements on the island would come to the invading force's aid!

Think Dulles wanted to hear about this stuff in the wake of his being exposed as a first class prevaricator?  Recall, this is after Kennedy suspects the CIA duped him on Lumumba, And its a week before Dulles is backing the overthrow of DeGaulle over Algeria, an issue very close to JFK from his great 1957 speech.

So where did Dulles go when he got back?  He had a drink with Nixon.  What might have been eh?

All of the above is not  my opinion.  It is all backed up by the hearings of the Taylor Commission and Lyman Kirkpatrick's report. Dulles and Bissell lied their heads off to Kennedy.  And he was furious about it.  And that was it for Dulles.  And he knew it within 24 hours.

Cliff Varnell has become just another DVP - (the only person i've blocked in this forum - until now) in our otherwise admirable attempts here to discuss, reasonably, JFK's assassination.

he exists here to argue. as he is about to see, I'm not the one.

 

 

 

[Glenn Nall]

15 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

"Theory" has nothing to do with the salient facts of the JFK conspiracy.

yes, it does, Cliff.

Theory based on salience is ONLY THEORY until formally decided upon be recognized officials. You can argue semantics until your cow comes home, but you will still be wrong.

Salient facts, though plentiful and largely inarguable, cannot move us beyond theory until a decision is made on the theory - which WAS done, in part, in 1979, but not to all of these salient truths.

The point i also made was that, although we are mostly all on the same side of the field, it's odd that a small number of persons like yourself would still rather argue with his teammates (and defend Allen Dulles...?) than solidify the common cause. or rather than, say breathing and eating, it seems.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

and Cliff, please don't let your ego convince you that I'm blocking you because of your debate skills and unsurpassed knowledge of salient evidence.

this is not the case. 

[Glenn Nall]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Glenn, this is a typical Varnell move.

He gets so obnoxious that he just wears on you.  When you walk away in disgust at his tactics, he then declares victory.

BTW, this point is so silly that its funny.

The idea that Dulles did not know he was about to be decapitated for all the lies he told JFK is risible. And they did send in Cabell and Bissell to try and get US intervention, and so did Burke.  Kennedy was not buying it.  And the idea that Dulles would have made a difference is just silly.  Because Kennedy would have exploded at him with:

1.  You said no one would be at that beach!

2.  You said Castro's population would defect in droves!

3. You said it would take 48 hours for him to get his armor to the front!

4.  You said the brigade could go guerrilla as a last resort!

5.  You said resistance movements on the island would come to the invading force's aid!

Think Dulles wanted to hear about this stuff in the wake of his being exposed as a first class prevaricator?  Recall, this is after Kennedy suspects the CIA duped him on Lumumba, And its a week before Dulles is backing the overthrow of DeGaulle over Algeria, an issue very close to JFK from his great 1957 speech.

So where did Dulles go when he got back?  He had a drink with Nixon.  What might have been eh?

All of the above is not  my opinion.  It is all backed up by the hearings of the Taylor Commission and Lyman Kirkpatrick's report. Dulles and Bissell lied their heads off to Kennedy.  And he was furious about it.  And that was it for Dulles.  And he knew it within 24 hours.

wait - it was Nixon who picked him up at the airport? and had a drink with him? and offered "candid" testimony regarding Dulles?

Richard Nixon?

and Varnell calls what Richard Nixon says "salient?"

egads.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Glenn Nall

[James DiEugenio]

No, that is not who picked him up.  That happened on the 19th.

BTW, in that pretentious list Varnell assembles above, he leaves out the call from Bundy to Cabell saying there would be no D day air strikes.

That happened the night before! 

But this is all beside the point.  If you read Kirkpatrick, the air strikes are irrelevant for the simple reason that Castro had armor, infantry, mortar and cannon at the front within ten hours.  The brigade was outnumbered and outgunned and they had lost two supply ships on the reef.  They could not go guerrilla since the mountains were far away with swamp between, and they were heavily outnumbered at Playa GIron.  Kirkpatrick very pointedly addresses this issue in his report.  The only way to have saved the mission at that point was to insert American combat troops.

And Kennedy was not going to do that.  Dulles really misjudged who Kennedy was.  That is why he was more comfortable with Tricky DIck to commiserate over his huge mistake.

Edited April 12, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

2 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

Theory based on salience is ONLY THEORY until formally decided upon be recognized officials.

Glenn,

I don't want to be nit-picky, but the fact that I woke up and got out of bed this morning is not a theory. And no recognized officials have to formally decide that that's what I did.

Now you can argue that none of us can really prove that we're here. But to that I say, "I think, therefore I am."