Chuck Schwartz Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 When JFK fired A. Dulles for the Bay of Pigs, he also fired C. Cabell ( a General) for the Bay of Pigs. C. Cabell's brother, Earle Cabell was the Mayor of Dallas in 11/63. C. Cabell worked for A. Dulles for 9 yrs. in the CIA and they were tied at the hip on many topics. So, when JFK announced he was going to Dallas, C. Cabell had direct linkage to the Dallas Police (the chief of police reported to the Mayor). The fix was in. But, there was obvious reasons for keeping the plot within as close a loop as possible. I am not sure that McCloy was in that loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) Chuck: Let us not forget, in addition to the Cabell connection, Dulles was in Dallas about a month before the assassination. And he joked about this, plus the fact of his relationship with Mary Bancroft, which put him about two degrees away from Ruth and Michael Paine. You know those two sweet, innocent Good Samaritan types who went into overdrive to try and convict Oswald within hours after the murder. I forgot one more point: Dulles' special visit to Truman--while sitting on the Warren Commission--trying to get him to retract his editorial in the Post about how the CIA had seemed to have gone rogue of late. Truman started writing that editorial about a week after the assassination. In the materials given to me by Ray Marcus from the Truman Library, it is apparent that Dulles thought the article was written owing to Truman's suspicions that somehow the CIA was involved in Kennedy's murder. And one step beyond that, he also thought that Truman suspected Vietnam was a big motive in the assassination. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pgs. 378-81) I am really surprised that more people have not picked up on this point. I mean how incriminating is incriminating. Edited August 22, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) When JFK fired A. Dulles for the Bay of Pigs, he also fired C. Cabell ( a General) for the Bay of Pigs. C. Cabell's brother, Earle Cabell was the Mayor of Dallas in 11/63. C. Cabell worked for A. Dulles for 9 yrs. in the CIA and they were tied at the hip on many topics. So, when JFK announced he was going to Dallas, C. Cabell had direct linkage to the Dallas Police (the chief of police reported to the Mayor). The fix was in. But, there was obvious reasons for keeping the plot within as close a loop as possible. I am not sure that McCloy was in that loop. Three guys went down in the Bay of Pigs fiasco -- Dulles, Cabell, and Richard Bissell. . Bissell was out as Deputy Director for Plans (clandestine operations) and was replaced by Richard Helms. Helms' views on clandestine operations were aligned with Robert Lovett's. When JFK was newly elected his father advised him to hire Lovett for the Cabinet. Lovett demurred, but advised Kennedy to hire Dean Rusk at the State Dept, Robert McNamara at Defense, C. Douglas Dillon at Treasury, and McGeorge Bundy as National Security Adviser. On the second day of the Bay of Pigs operation it was Rusk and Bundy who pulled the plug on the second bombing run which was required to take out the last of Castro's planes, ensuring the failure of the operation. Rusk started putting restrictions on the operation as soon as he took office. Rusk discussed @ 4:30 on At 11:40 Burnham cites the memo ruling out any overt US intervention. It sure appears as if the operation was designed for failure. Many speculate it was designed to trap Kennedy into giving overt US military support. But as Greg has shown in his video series -- there was never any plans on the table for overt US military action. It could never have happened, there was no mechanism for such a policy. So why did Rusk and Bundy sabotage the operation? Why do we assume that the primary outcome of any intel operation wasn't intended? The primary outcome of the Bay of Pigs was the removal of Dulles et al and the promotion of Richard Helms. I see no reason to assume that that wasn't the intended outcome all along. Edited August 22, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 David, as per The Wise Men, I would never take someone like Isaacson as the last word on something like that since he himself is the MSM ultimate insider. Not a matter of taking his word but the positions and effect these men had on the world. I read the book knowing he'd color the events, doesn't change the events themselves though. Without Keenan's writings finally getting thru and convincing the US leaders that the USSR (under Stalin or whoever) would never stop trying to expand. Of course there are many other areas of the world... I simply feel that the chained attack dog that was the CIA was still fenced in even when the collar was removed. Military Intel and even the FBI were light years ahead regarding intelligence - which is why we don't so much see the CIA as an INTEL agency rather the attack dogs and first line of defense for activities sanctioned by, financed by, and supported by the Military. Bottom Line Jim is as Greg posted a split second before I concurred... Allen, IMO mostly took orders related to policy and implemented them as if the CIA originated them so they could protect the true sponsors of these operations - the MICC. He, like Bundy were IMO Sponsor/Facilitators... connected to both groups but more facilitator than sponsor. You think he'd have been as effective without a Secretary of State brother whose main purpose was to ask the nations of the world if they were with them or against them related to Communism? Even the group of "Wise Men" had others appoint them to their positions... The six "wise men" of the title are Dean Acheson, Secretary of State under President Harry TrumanIn 1944, Acheson attended the Bretton Woods Conference as the head delegate from the State department. At this conference the post-war international economic structure was designed. The conference was the birthplace of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the last of which would evolve into the World Trade Organization. (DJ: In terms of control of the world's population and nations, these entities, imo, represent the pinnacle of strong arm banking expansion and control tactics.) Charles E. Bohlen, U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, the Philippines, and France W. Averell Harriman, special envoy for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt George F. Kennan, ambassador to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia Robert A. Lovett, Truman's Secretary of Defense John J. McCloy, a War Department official and later U.S. High Commissioner for Germany. I truly can't wait until I can get into this subject deeply within a book format... Ever since reading about the Evica-Drago "Sponsors" concept I have been trying to create a narrative that can identify and authenticate the people who qualify - and what they did. I'll probably need all of Scully's work and links and ability to know and show who was with who and why. So a thankful shoutout to the work he's done over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 David, as per The Wise Men, I would never take someone like Isaacson as the last word on something like that since he himself is the MSM ultimate insider. Not a matter of taking his word but the positions and effect these men had on the world. I read the book knowing he'd color the events, doesn't change the events themselves though. Without Keenan's writings finally getting thru and convincing the US leaders that the USSR (under Stalin or whoever) would never stop trying to expand. Of course there are many other areas of the world... I simply feel that the chained attack dog that was the CIA was still fenced in even when the collar was removed. Military Intel and even the FBI were light years ahead regarding intelligence - which is why we don't so much see the CIA as an INTEL agency rather the attack dogs and first line of defense for activities sanctioned by, financed by, and supported by the Military. Bottom Line Jim is as Greg posted a split second before I concurred... Allen, IMO mostly took orders related to policy and implemented them as if the CIA originated them so they could protect the true sponsors of these operations - the MICC. He, like Bundy were IMO Sponsor/Facilitators... connected to both groups but more facilitator than sponsor. You think he'd have been as effective without a Secretary of State brother whose main purpose was to ask the nations of the world if they were with them or against them related to Communism? Even the group of "Wise Men" had others appoint them to their positions... The six "wise men" of the title are Dean Acheson, Secretary of State under President Harry TrumanIn 1944, Acheson attended the Bretton Woods Conference as the head delegate from the State department. At this conference the post-war international economic structure was designed. The conference was the birthplace of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the last of which would evolve into the World Trade Organization. (DJ: In terms of control of the world's population and nations, these entities, imo, represent the pinnacle of strong arm banking expansion and control tactics.) Charles E. Bohlen, U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, the Philippines, and France W. Averell Harriman, special envoy for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt George F. Kennan, ambassador to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia Robert A. Lovett, Truman's Secretary of Defense John J. McCloy, a War Department official and later U.S. High Commissioner for Germany. I truly can't wait until I can get into this subject deeply within a book format... Ever since reading about the Evica-Drago "Sponsors" concept I have been trying to create a narrative that can identify and authenticate the people who qualify - and what they did. I'll probably need all of Scully's work and links and ability to know and show who was with who and why. So a thankful shoutout to the work he's done over the years. Harriman was the first among equals. Who did Robert Lovett work for? Brown Brothers Harriman. Who handled a huge chunk of Hitler's banking? Brown Brothers Harriman. Who was the leading hawk for going to war with Germany in Roosevelt's administration? W. Averell Harriman. Who was put in charge of implementing the Marshall Plan after WW2? Averell Harriman. Who negotiated the partition of Laos so that the Reds had the Ho Chi Mihn Trail and the CIA allies had the northwest poppy fields? Averell Harriman. Who along with George Ball pushed thru Cable 243 on 8/24/63 giving Lodge the green-light to organize a coup against Diem? Ave Harriman. Who were the top civilian government employees on the job in DC the afternoon of 11/22/63? Averell Harriman and George Ball. Dots, lots and lots o' dots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 "Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter," by Vincent Salandria.http://politicalassassinations.com/2012/11/1560/<quote on>I explained [to Specter] that the day after the Kennedy assassination I met with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman.We decided that if Oswald was the killer, and if the U.S. government were innocent of any complicity in theassassination, Oswald would live through the weekend. But if he was killed, then we would know that theassassination was a consequence of a high level U.S. government plot.Harold Feldman and I also concluded that if Oswald was killed by a Jew, it would indicate a high level WASP plot.We further decided that the killing of Oswald would signal that no government investigation could upturn the truth.In that event we as private citizens would have to investigate the assassination to arrive at the historical truth.<quote off> That's one helluva call! "If Oswald was killed by a Jew...high level WASP plot."Who were the highest level US Government blue blood White Anglo-Saxon Protestants on 11/22/63?Averell Harriman -- Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (#3 man at State) -- Skull & Bones 1913.Mentored Prescott Bush (Skull & Bones'17) in the banking biz.McGeorge Bundy -- National Security Advisor -- Skull & Bones 1940.Richard McGarrah Helms - Deputy Director for Plans Central Intelligence Agency -- grandson of hotshot Rockefeller banker. Forget Evica/Drago. Salandria/Feldman is the real deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Fine. They all were in on the kill. Harriman, Allen Dulles, take your pick. Don't forget DAP and Angleton. Certainly don't forget the anti-Castro Cubans. Or the Mob. Or Hoffa. Who did I forget. It's whack-a-mole. Think about this: JFK was killed, not wounded. Jackie suffered no strikes. Nor did Greer or Kellerman. Connolly took one for the team. Tague was a mistake. The SS agents on the Queen Mary were confused but not hit. This was a professional hit. It went as best as it could. DVP says Oswald would have had easy shots. Fine. Let him believe that. The shots were orchestrated carefully. Professionals know their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Fine. They all were in on the kill. Who said that? Not me. Please refrain from making such attributions. Harriman, Allen Dulles, take your pick. Utter a-historical nonsense. Dulles was an employee. Harriman was an employer. Don't forget DAP and Angleton. Back up patsies. Certainly don't forget the anti-Castro Cubans. Back up patsies. Or the Mob. See above. Or Hoffa. &etc. Who did I forget. The folks who likely did it. It's whack-a-mole. Only in the confusion of your own imagination. Think about this: JFK was killed, not wounded. Jackie suffered no strikes. Nor did Greer or Kellerman. Connolly took one for the team. Tague was a mistake. The SS agents on the Queen Mary were confused but not hit. This was a professional hit. It went as best as it could. DVP says Oswald would have had easy shots. Fine. Let him believe that. The shots were orchestrated carefully. Professionals know their business. And they don't leave anything to chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) I don't agree that the plug was pulled on the air raid at the Bay of Pigs and I do not agree that Bundy and Rusk therefore were culpable. I disagree with Prouty on this. I devoted an entire chapter in Destiny Betrayed to this event entitled "Bay of Pigs: Kennedy vs. Dulles" and its about 23 pages long. Rex Bradford liked it so much he excerpted it at MFF. The D-Day air strikes were never a part of the operation plans. These air strikes were contingent upon attaining a beachhead and launching them from the Cuban mainland. This is why, when JFK rejected the first plan, the CIA came back with a new site that did have a natural air field. In fact, as the CIA memo reads, "The beachhead area contains one and possibly two airstrips...." (p. 37) And they admit that the proviso is that D Day air strikes could only be launched from inside Cuba. (p. 45) Both Bissell and Cabell knew this. In fact, in the Taylor Report, it is revealed that Bundy had told Bissell about this the day before, so there could be no misunderstanding. (ibid, p. 46) This is why, as Larry Hancock describes the scene, when Rusk gave the two CIA managers the opportunity to talk to JFK about it, they knew that their pleas would fall on deaf ears; since Kennedy made it clear that unless a beachhead was maintained there would be no air strikes. He also said in public, about nine days before, there would be no direct US intervention in Cuba. In the notes of his confessional aborted Harper's magazine article, Dulles admits he did not buy into this ban. Found at Princeton, the notes reveal that Dulles thought that, once Kennedy saw the mission as failing, he would adapt and order direct American intervention. Which, as Nixon said, he would have done. But even in Hunt's book on the matter, Give Us this Day, he admits that Cabell balked at sending in a D Day air strike since he knew Kennedy had banned them unless a beachhead was attained. But on the second day, according to both Lyman Kirkpatrick and Peter Kornbluh, someone at CIA did authorize air strikes. They did not do the job since there was a fog that came in. Today, its pretty obvious through Dulles' notes, and a 1960 CIA memo to Bissell, that the designers knew the invasion was hopeless. (ibid, pgs. 44 and 47) But they were planning that Kennedy's youth and inexperience would cause him to cave and take back his pledge. He did not. Just as he never wavered in his commitment not to send combat troops into Vietnam. Just as he refused to give in during the Missile Crisis when almost everyone was telling him to bomb the missile silos. Kennedy realized he had been lied to. Since, contrary to what the CIA said, there were no Cuban nationals who defected and there were no guerrilla groups to link up with. As one witness told the Taylor Commission, if you were not expecting massive defections, then what were the 30,000 extra rifles for? (ibid, p. 42) RFK was stupefied by the answers Allen Dulles gave during the Taylor hearings. (ibid) They were such utter BS that the Kennedy brothers concluded shortly thereafter that the CIA had tried to dupe him into using Arleigh Burke's naval convoy, about 90 miles away, to bail out the mission. After both investigations were completed--Taylor's and Kirkpatrick's--on the advice of Joe Kennedy, RFK got in contact with Lovett. (ibid, pgs. 48-49) The father had served on a CIA oversight committee with Lovett and David Bruce in the fifties Lovett told JFK that they had tried to get Allen Dulles fired more than once during Eisenhower's administration. They could not since his bother protected him. That was not the case now, and JFK should make a clean sweep since he had the goods on them. He did. But what I think what Talbot is going to say is Dulles won out in the end. Edited August 23, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Former CIA Director Allen W. Dulles was appointed by President Johnson as a member of the Warren Commission. At the commission's first executive session Dulles gave each member a copy of a book which claimed that assassinations of all US Presi- dents were carried out by lone, crazed gunmen. Dulles then urged fellow Commission members to limit their work to a review of the FBI's investigation. There is little doubt that Dulles was familiar with the "Oswald" project and knew the extent of the CIA's in- volvement in the assassination. Of the 7 member Commission it was Dulles who attended the most meetings, it was Dulles who decided which CIA intelligence data was seen by Commis- sion members, and it was Dulles who kept the Commission from looking into CIA activities. Thanks to Allen Dulles neither the "Central Intelligence Agency" nor the "CIA" ap- pear in the Warren Commission's index in Volume XV. In the authors opinion Allen Dulles was almost certainly one of the high-level conspirators in the assassination of President Kennedy, and was also instrumental in the cover-up.'' --from Harvey and Lee, by John Armstrong, p. 974 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) It always breaks me up when I read that about Dulles passing out the Donovan book on American assassinations. When someone objected and said, but the Lincoln murder was a conspiracy, Dulles even tried to make out that it was a small one. LOL, ROTF Something like 16 people were rounded up, several were executed and one of the conspirators, the one who chopped up Seward with a knife, said before dying that "They didn't get but half of us." Which, today, appears to be the case. Just that strophe should have indicated that something was up with Dulles on the WC. Edited August 23, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Schwartz Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Jim, Cliff, the firing of A. Dulles and C. Cabell actually gave them the time and space to plan the assassination of JFK in minute detail. So, maybe it was a mistake to fire them- JFK perhaps should have kept them closer to him to keep tabs on them. What is that line in the "Godfather" -- keep your enemies close to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Not only that Chuck, but I am pretty sure that Dulles was the only Warren Commissioner who did not have an official job. Therefore, he could spend so much time in his cover up efforts on the Commission. BTW, if you want to see what Dulles really thought of the JFK assassination, take a look in Best Evidence where the author describes an appearance that Dulles made at UCLA. LIfton brought some interesting exhibits with him, like stills from the Z film, check out how Dulles reacted to them. That shows right there that the WC was rigged. Edited August 23, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 GB: Dulles didn't give orders. He took them. JD: Not trying to pick a fight with you, but I would not put Allen Dulles as a second stringer to anyone except the very top level of power. The level above presidents. Precisely. By way of analogy: That Susan Atlkins, Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie Van Houten took and executed the orders received from Charlie Manson, does not absolve them of the crimes they committed nor does it minimize the severity of those crimes. However, confusing the roles played by Van Houten, et al with the operational command alone possessed by Charlie Manson, fails to penetrate the surface appearance. Dulles, Harriman, McCloy, Bundy and many others are similarly members of the "Invisible Power" (Sponsor Level, High Cabal) structure, just as Charlie's deadly minions were members of his Spawn Ranch Family. No doubt there existed a hierarchy in both groups. But at no time was anyone "on that level" in command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) GB: Dulles didn't give orders. He took them. JD: Not trying to pick a fight with you, but I would not put Allen Dulles as a second stringer to anyone except the very top level of power. The level above presidents. Precisely. By way of analogy: That Susan Atlkins, Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie Van Houten took and executed the orders received from Charlie Manson, does not absolve them of the crimes they committed nor does it minimize the severity of those crimes. However, confusing the roles played by Van Houten, et al with the operational command alone possessed by Charlie Manson, fails to penetrate the surface appearance. Dulles, Harriman, McCloy, Bundy and many others are similarly members of the "Invisible Power" (Sponsor Level, High Cabal) structure, just as Charlie's deadly minions were members of his Spawn Ranch Family. No doubt there existed a hierarchy in both groups. But at no time was anyone "on that level" in command. I totally reject the Charlie Manson comparison. This narrative about Manson came straight out of Susan Atkins' skin-saving account published in the LA Times five days after she was charged in the crimes. If anyone was a "master-mind" of these truly mindless crimes it was Susan Atkins. The only name that belongs in the same sentence with Harriman is Rockefeller. Johnny D 3 and Ave Harriman were at the top of the Eastern Elite heap. Rockefeller and Harriman were employers. Dulles and McCloy were employees. Edited August 23, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now