Kennedy vs Dulles; Dulles won, USA lost

[George Sawtelle]

Cliff

Please edit the box where there is some obvious problems with the wording you attribute to me. Thanks in advance.

I agree. There could have been more than one patsy. Sounds like something Phillips would organize.

I don´t understand your logic. Here we have Phillips, who was involved in the coup in Guatemala, involved in the coup in Chile, and who may have played a minor roll in the coups in Iran and the Congo, and yet you say he couldn´t have been involved in the coup against Kennedy. How can you ignore all that smoke?

Edited April 12, 2017 by George Sawtelle

[Cliff Varnell]

21 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Cliff

Please edit the box where there is some obvious problems with the wording you attribute to me. Thanks in advance.

Yikes!,,,Got it, sorry...

 

21 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

I agree. There could have been more than one patsy. Sounds like something Phillips would organize.

I don´t understand your logic. Here we have Phillips, who was involved in the coup in Guatemala, involved in the coup in Chile, and who may have played a minor roll in the coups in Iran and the Congo, and yet you say he couldn´t have been involved in the coup against Kennedy. How can you ignore all that smoke?

He had a different assignment -- frame Fidel.

Phillips was a psy-ops guy.

[James DiEugenio]

Allen Dulles was a patsy?

Ruth Paine was a patsy?

 

LOL

[Cliff Varnell]

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Allen Dulles was a patsy?

Ruth Paine was a patsy?

 

LOL

Back up patsies.

Like his fellow back-up patsy Lyndon Johnson, Dulles had personal survival riding on the successful framing of the dead lone nut.

Allen Dulles took the fall for the Bay of Pigs -- once the patsy jacket goes on, it's not taken off.

Harrelson and Hunt were career patsies...

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

To any objective person who examines the inner workings of the Warren Commission, that is the actual questioning and the executive sessions, and the backdoor stuff that we know about today, plus the fact that he was the only person who actually lobbied to be on the WC, plus his indefatigable defense of that report when it was falling into disrepute, Allen Dulles was the most active commissioner on the cover up  and did the most to frame LHO.  Those are simple facts and statistics. I refer anyone interested to Walt Brown's valuable book, The Warren Omission as a starting point.

In fact, if it were not for Dulles's lobbying for that key spot, who knows what would have happened.  Because the Southern Wing--Russell, Boggs, and Cooper--were not really enamored with what Hoover had done.

And let us not forget that Ruth Paine, according to Walt, was the single most questioned witness of anyone before the commission.  It was her, her hubby, and George and Jeanne DeM along with Marina who did the most to tar LHO, what with Oswald taking his rifle out to the park with his kid in a cradle and shooting at leaves.

To the point that in their rush to make him look bad, they sometimes tripped each other up.

Edited April 14, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[George Sawtelle]

Cliff

Evidence trumps ¨patsy¨.

There is evidence that Dulles hated Kennedy. There is evidence that he had a motive to kill Kennedy. Same goes for Johnson. OTOH, with Oswald no such evidence.

Jim

With regard to Paine, she was eager to help the case against Oswald fearing that if she didn´t she may get locked up as an accessory. Similar is Buell Frazier. He knew Oswald had been railroaded but he was afraid that he and his sister would be locked up like Oswald if he didn´t cooperate.

[Michael Clark]

Worthy of note Is that when Dulles got word that Harry Truman was preparing his 12-22-63 statement, in which he laments his creation of the monster that the CIA had become, he (Dulles) scrambled to Truman's home, begging that the statement offer him a reprieve from criticism; Truman Acquiesced.

 

Limit CIA Role To Intelligence by Harry S Truman

The Washington Post
December 22, 1963 - page A11

Harry Truman Writes:
Limit CIA Role 
To Intelligence

By Harry S Truman
Copyright, 1963, by Harry S Truman

---

    INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
    I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.
    Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.
    But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
    Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations.
    I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.
    Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."
    For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
    I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
    With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.
    I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
    But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
    We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

To any objective person who examines the inner workings of the Warren Commission, that is the actual questioning and the executive sessions, and the backdoor stuff that we know about today, plus the fact that he was the only person who actually lobbied to be on the WC, plus his indefatigable defense of that report when it was falling into disrepute, Allen Dulles was the most active commissioner on the cover up  and did the most to frame LHO.  Those are simple facts and statistics. I refer anyone interested to Walt Brown's valuable book, The Warren Omission as a starting point.

Agreed.

Along with Johnson, Dulles and the CIA guys/gal who handled Oswald had the most to lose if the lone nut frame unraveled.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

In fact, if it were not for Dulles's lobbying for that key spot, who knows what would have happened.  Because the Southern Wing--Russell, Boggs, and Cooper--were not really enamored with what Hoover had done.

And let us not forget that Ruth Paine, according to Walt, was the single most questioned witness of anyone before the commission.  It was her, her hubby, and George and Jeanne DeM along with Marina who did the most to tar LHO, what with Oswald taking his rifle out to he park with his kid in a cradle and shooting at leaves.

To the point that in their rush to make him look bad, they sometimes tripped each other up.

Out to save their own necks, for sure.

What kind of spot would Quaker Ruth been in if Oswald was whacked immediately and the Red Agent frame held?

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, George Sawtelle said:

Cliff

Evidence trumps ¨patsy¨.

There is evidence that Dulles hated Kennedy. There is evidence that he had a motive to kill Kennedy. Same goes for Johnson. OTOH, with Oswald no such evidence.

Lots of powerful folks had a motive to kill Kennedy.

1 hour ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jim

With regard to Paine, she was eager to help the case against Oswald fearing that if she didn´t she may get locked up as an accessory. Similar is Buell Frazier. He knew Oswald had been railroaded but he was afraid that he and his sister would be locked up like Oswald if he didn´t cooperate.

Exactly.  What kind of light would shine on Dulles if a family friend of his mistress was locked up as an Oswald accessory?

[George Sawtelle]

Cliff

What happened when it was made known that Dulles possibly knew Paine who was helping Oswald and his family? Isn´t that bad enough?

Helping and accessory, same same. 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by George Sawtelle

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Cliff

What happened when it was made known that Dulles possibly knew Paine who was helping Oswald and his family? Isn´t that bad enough?

Helping and accessory, same same. 

 

George, I don't think it was ever commonly known that Dulles had a connection to the Paines.

I doubt if there are any mainstream news accounts linking them.

[George Sawtelle]

Cliff

The point I was trying to make in the recent posts was there were folks who knew Oswald or knew his family who were afraid they may get caught up in the assassination as accomplices or accessories who gladly, especially after Oswald was killed, gave up info against Oswald. It´s very possible some of the evidence they gave up was tainted or may have been fabricated. Paine and Frazier come to mind.

Reading carefully the entire ¨curtain rods¨ issue it could easily be construed that Oswald was railroaded on the issue. Only two witnesses saw him with a brown paper package that was thought to contain the disassembled rifle. Only one TSBD employee saw him enter the building that morning and he thought Oswald did not have a brown paper bag with him. Oswald denied the curtain rod story and said he had his lunch sack with him.

It was Frazier and his sister who nailed him on the brown bag. And the night of the assassination Frazier was under pressure from the DPD during interrogation. He knew Oswald had been railroaded and he knew he and sis could be railroaded as well.

And prayer man, who I believe was Oswald, was standing next to Frazier on the front steps of the TSBD. Frazier has never acknowledged Oswald on the steps.

Frazier still insists Oswald couldn´t have killed Kennedy. I think it´s out of guilt. If Frazier ever comes clean the WC report will fall apart and the HSCA will not be the last investigation.

[George Sawtelle]

Frazier was forced to lie. Oswald never brought the rifle to work that day.

The MC was taken up to the sixth floor by one of two fake policemen filmed on the fire escape on 22 Nov 1963 by Mentesana. He left the MC where it was found on the sixth floor and after the shooting walked down the fire escape with the rifle used to shoot Connally. 

Two fake policemen walked up the fire escape before the motorcade arrived supposedly to provide security. They both carried rifles. One was a shot gun and the other was the MC.

The rifle that was used in the assassination by the sixth floor shooter must have been hidden in the building probably on the sixth floor.

The above is the likely scenario of how the MC was planted and the rifle used in the shooting was taken out. The Oswald look-alike then left the building using the elevator waiting on the fifth floor, got off on the first floor and hid in the annex. With the help of spotters he walked out of the annex to a rambler that picked him up on Elm.

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

 

As per Dulles and Truman, Harry Truman did not actually go along with what Dulles wanted him to do.  Dulles wanted Truman to actually renounce what he wrote in the Washington Post about the CIA.  He did not.  That meeting took place while Dulles was on the WC--just like McCloy is taking part in the Brazil coup in the same month, April of 1964, which JFK turned down in October of 1963. Talk about a couple of vipers.

As I noted in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, Ray Marcus found the original notes of the article at the Truman Library.  Harry Truman started writing the article just nine days after Kennedy's murder.  What makes that doubly interesting today is the fact that after Dag Hammarskjold died in a plane crash, Truman made the famous quote that, Dag was getting things done when they killed him. He was with some reporters, and he repeated the line, by saying, "Yep, I said when they killed him."

And then there is the rather startling last exchange between the two men as Dulles left. As he departed, with both men on their feet and Dulles about to leave the house with his escorts, the former CIA Director and present Warren Commissioner "mentioned the false attacks on CIA in relation to Vietnam and how Kennedy repudiated those attacks." (Destiny Betrayed, p. 380)

I stated that these have to be references to the Arthur Krock and RIchard Starnes pieces published in October of 1963. But I know of no writer that says Kennedy tried to repudiate these.  In fact, I have found references that suggest he may have been the source for them.  The truly remarkable thing about this exchange is this: recall, its April of 1964.  Who in the heck related Vietnam to Kennedy's death at that time!  The fact that Dulles brought this issue up in this context suggests that:

"Dulles was trying to dupe Truman into issuing a retraction.  But his actions are even more suggestive if he was referring to those columns, especially when one adds in the fact that he specifically mentioned Kennedy to Truman in regards to them.  Dulles' comments imply that he thought Truman wrote the column due to his suspicions about the CIA, Kennedy's murder, and the Vietnam War.....What makes this even more fascinating is that if one looks at the very first wave of Kennedy assassination books and essays, no one connected those dots--Vietnam, those columns, JFK's death--that early.  By getting Truman to retract, was Dulles trying to prevent anyone from doing so in the near future?  If so, as prosecutors say, it reveals "consciousness of guilt." (p. 381)

 

I should add, this was part of the real battle between the two men, that is what role the USA would play in the Third World.  As far back as 1953, Kennedy was in conflict with Foster Dulles over Vietnam.  And we all know how the battle was really joined in 1957 over Kennedy's great Algeria speech. 

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[George Sawtelle]

Jim

Very astute observation.

It sure does appear to be consciousness of guilt. Just like ... that little Kennedy, he thought he was a god. He despised JFK but JFK never suspected it.

Kennedy thought he had nothing to worry about with Dulles because he thought Dulles to be a bumbling idiot. Just like Kennedy´s thoughts on the joint-chiefs-of-staff with all their fruit salad on their shirt. Dulles played the fool in front of Kennedy and it threw off Kennedy. It cost him.

Even RFK was fooled by Dulles. I was surprised to hear of their meetings where Dulles briefed RFK on the findings of the WC.