Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK assassination: From Dallas to Watergate


Dawn Meredith

Recommended Posts

Why did Robert Kennedy help to cover-up the assassination of JFK. This included denying access to JFK’s brain and the autopsy photos.

Why did the Robert and Edward Kennedy respond to the death of Grant Stockdale in the way that they did?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKstockdale.htm

Soon after the assassination RFK told other members of the Kennedy family that he believed that senior members of the CIA organized his brother’s assassination. However, he was not willing to disclose this at that stage because he was being blackmailed. The information that the CIA had would destroy the reputation of JFK. His plan was to go along with the cover-up. The “Camelot Myth” would enable him to be elected in 1968. He would then appoint Ted Sorenson as head of the CIA. Sorenson would carry out an investigation into the assassination. In this way, the CIA would be exposed and the reputation of JFK and RFK would be protected.

This was why the CIA leaked the story in 1967 that JFK and RFK were involved in assassination plots against Fidel Castro. When this did not work the same men who assassinated JFK had no option to take out RFK.

It has to be remembered that when JFK was elected in 1960 he was judged to be more right-wing that Richard Nixon on foreign policy issues. For example, John Foster Dulles and Richard Bissell both provided JFK information about the proposed invasion of Cuba during the election campaign. As a result, JFK was able to attack Nixon for being soft on communism as the Eisenhower administration had done nothing to get rid of Castro. Nixon was of course unable to reveal what was really going on behind the scenes.

Nixon believed that the CIA leadership played a vital role in his defeat in 1960. He never forgave the CIA for this treachery and this is why he attempted to sort out the agency when he became president in 1968. The CIA fought back and set up Nixon over Watergate. When Richard Helms, refused to help him cover-up Watergate, he threatened Helms with exposing him for the role he played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination.

Richard Helms was in overall control of the CIA investigation into Oswald and replaced John Whitten as chief investigator with James Jesus Angleton when he got too close to the truth.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwhitten.htm

William Sullivan, the man who carried out the FBI investigation into Oswald, worked for the Nixon administration and had told him the full story of the Warren Commission cover-up. Sullivan was murdered before he could appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations but his heavily censored autobiography, that were published after his death, makes clear that in his opinion Oswald was not a lone gunman.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsullivan.htm

When Helms refused to help, Nixon sacked him and replaced him with James Schlesinger. On 9th May, 1973, Schlesinger issued a directive to all CIA employees: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about activities outside the CIA’s charter.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKschlesingerJ.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhelms.htm

This was dynamite and the CIA now had to destroy Nixon before he destroyed them. This is why the CIA, in the form of Richard Ober (Deep Throat), provided information on Watergate to Bob Woodward at the Washington Post.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKober.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwoodward.htm

This is why the CIA felt so betrayed by JFK over the Bay of Pigs. Before his election he had assured Dulles he would fully support the plan. Not only did he not do this, he punished the CIA by sacking Dulles and Bissell for trying to carry out a plan he approved.

An important ingredient of the Bay of Pigs plan was the assassination of Fidel Castro. In fact, without the death of Castro, the plan stood no chance of success. JFK allowed these assassination plots to go ahead. In fact, he put RFK in charge of them. As CIA officers testified later, RFK put them under a great deal of pressure to carry out this assassination. However, this was called off by JFK after the Cuban Missile Crisis. One of the reasons that JFK was assassinated was because in 1963 he was carrying out secret negotiations with Castro via Lisa Howard. She was murdered in 1965 but the documents about these secret talks have now been released:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhowardL2.htm

This was one of the stories that RFK was being blackmailed with. The original plan was to blame Castro for the assassination (motivation – retaliation against JFK for the attempts on his life) in order to trigger an invasion of Cuba. This would have got rid of Castro and blackened the reputation of the Kennedys.

The other thing RFK was being blackmailed over was the death of Marilyn Monroe. Of course, he had nothing to do with it, but they had collected a great deal of evidence to suggest that RFK had organized the killing. For example, see Dorothy Kilgallen’s report in the New York Journal American the day before Monroe died. Kilgallen was murdered in 1965.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkilgallen.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Very interesting post, John, in which I see various streams of data beginning to merge into a far more cohesive channel flowing together instead of dispersing all over the landscape.

Still, I have to comment on a few bits of flotsam and jetsam that I feel continue to attempt to float upstream:

Nixon believed that the CIA leadership played a vital role in his defeat in 1960. He never forgave the CIA for this treachery and this is why he attempted to sort out the agency when he became president in 1968.

What actions do you see as an attempt by Nixon "to sort out the agency" while leaving Richard Helms in place as DCI?

The CIA fought back and set up Nixon over Watergate. When Richard Helms, refused to help him cover-up Watergate, he threatened Helms with exposing him for the role he played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination.

Cite? I have a vague feeling that you are referring here to the 23 June 1972 "whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment made by Nixon.

Now, personally, I don't mind, ever, seeing anyone interpret that statement by Nixon just as broadly as they like, not only to include the Kennedy assassination, but even to include the alleged Big Bang (or the alleged Tree of Life, if you prefer), by their own lights.

However: the thing that does just curdle the cream while still in the cows whenever I see such reference made is the almost predictable omission of the following statements made by Richard M. Nixon—who had been central to the planning of the Bay of Pigs—just moments before he made the "whole Bay of Pigs thing" statement. And it is this (my emphasis added):

  • RICHARD NIXON ...we protected Helms from one hell of a lot of things. ...Of course, this is a— this is a— Hunt: you will- that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves.

Now, I do make an effort to reconcile such things with statements such as your earlier one that Nixon had tried "to sort out the agency" on taking office. I just can't. That's all.

And if you are, indeed, referring to the "whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment as your foundation for stating that Nixon "threatened Helms with exposing him for the role he played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination," please, please—if on no other basis than kindness and mercy—provide this pilgrim with some kind of rationale in response to the following pregnant questions:

1) If Nixon had some specific knowledge of "the role [Helms] played in the cover-up of the JFK assassination," then why didn't Nixon play this trump card publically right then, and sack Helms and put the CIA on trial for the murder of a president? It would have made Watergate look exactly like the "two bit burglary" that it was, and Nixon would have become the hero of the world instead of the most loathesome president in history.

2) The comment by Nixon was made on 23 June 1972 in a private meeting with Haldeman, so why was Helms allowed by Nixon to sit in the DCI seat for seven more months, not only past the Watergate indictments pointing to the White House; not only past the 1 October 1972 secret CIA Remote Viewing contract Helms and Gottlieb engineered; not only past Hunt purportedly "blackmailing Nixon"—of all the people Hunt could blackmail (please note that I'm refraining from laughing out loud right there); not only past Helms and Gottlieb destroying a still-unknown number of truckloads of damning CIA documents; not only past CIA's handing over of the Hunt-Liddy-Fielding photos that would spring Ellsberg and drive the final nails into Nixon's coffin; but even until after Hunt and "the Cuban contingent" had pleaded guilty? What possible "motive" could Nixon have had for sitting passively in his chair for seven months allowing Helms and the CIA cruds to bleed him from every artery, if Nixon had the goods on these same people in relation to the JFK assassination? How can anybody be that stupid and feed himself?

3) Why were payments purportedly of "White House funds" from LaRue given to Hunt's lawyer, Bittman, after Hunt had pleaded guilty to all counts?

None of it adds up. None of it.

When Helms refused to help, Nixon sacked him and replaced him with James Schlesinger. On 9th May, 1973, Schlesinger issued a directive to all CIA employees: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about activities outside the CIA’s charter."

...This was dynamite and the CIA now had to destroy Nixon before he destroyed them.

<Head in hands> John, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this scenario. I mean that sincerely. But please, please consider the following incontrovertible facts, and please, please provide some rationale in response for the questions:

1) William Colby, not James Schlesinger, wrote the directive. Schlesinger signed as he was picking up his hat and coat and walking out the door as DCI, being replaced by Colby. And the entire idea had come from Colby.

2) Schlesinger hadn't been in the DCI chair long enough even to get it warm: three months. He was nothing but a placeholder, since Colby himself had been (hear me, now, please) CIA Director for Covert Operation throughout the CIA's Watergate hoax, and throughout the simultaneous set-up by Helms and Gottlieb of the super-covert Remote Viewing program.

So please, please help this poor pilgrim better understand this scenario by providing some kind of rationale and substantive fact in response to these other pregnant questions:

1) From whence comes the idea that Schlesinger was some kind of loyalist Nixon puppet instead of the die-hard CIA veteran slimebag he was? This reads almost like Mother Goose to me. What is the foundation? What do you feel is the invisible and mysterious thrall that Nixon had Schlesinger in?

2) What benefit did Nixon ever derive from the CIA's "Family Jewels"?

3) Do you have any record at all of Nixon ever even seeing the "Family Jewels"?

While I'm very heartened indeed to see new evaluations of data going in new and interesting directions, I am loath indeed to see old and tiresome myths—many of them written and disseminated by the very Operation Mockingbird that you rightly expose and decry—continue to be perpetuated in the public consciousness when they have no foundation in material fact, and so I cannot do otherwise than call them to attention with an invitation for close and sober analysis and inspection.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...