Can we possibly AGREE....

[Sandy Larsen]

Hi, Cliff,

Every few years, we seem to go around this question a few times, and so here’s my addition to this year's installment.

There is little doubt that JFK was ticking off a whole lot of military people for his decisions about S.E. Asia as well as Cuba. And Jim DiEugenio has shown that the President's policies in other parts of the world were also out of step with MIC goals. But, at least in my opinion, for more than half a century, the evidence has been pretty clear that the set-up of "Lee Harvey Oswald" for the assassination of JFK was designed to provoke an invasion of Cuba.

* The Fair Play for Cuba Committee pantomime around Clay Shaw's Trade Mart in New Orleans was an obvious attempt to associate the future alleged assassin with Castro.

* In a June 1964 interview with FBI undercover agent Jack Childs, Fidel Castro indicated that he thought the assassination was designed to implicate Cuba and provoke an invasion of his island nation. [FBI Airtel from SAC New York to FBi Director, 6/12/64; FBI HQ File 100-428091-3911]

* Around Labor Day prior to the assassination, a man identifying himself as “Lee Oswald” repeatedly tried to purchase four .300 Savage rifles from Robert McKeown, Castro’s personal friend and long-time munitions supplier. McKeown smelled a rat and refused to consider even the ridiculously high price “Oswald” finally offered. Any doubt one of these guns would have appeared on the TSBD sixth floor had Castro’s personal gun supplier made the sale to “Lee Oswald?”

* Let’s not forget that fine story of CIA officer David Atlee Phillips’ snitch Gilberta Alvarado Ugarte that a “negro with red hair” offered Oswald $6500 in cash inside the Cuban Consulate to kill President Kennedy. Just to sell the story a bit harder, Alvarado also claimed Oswald appeared to be “completely at home” in the Cuban Consulate.

* Less than three hours after President Kennedy’s murder, before LBJ quashed the whole “Cuba thing,” Hoover told the President that ”Oswald” had visited Cuba on several occasions after returning from the Soviet Union.

* Why do you suppose none other than Jack Ruby had to correct Dallas D.A. Henry Wade at that famous press conference, pointing out that “Oswald” belonged to a pro-Castro organization, rather than an anti-Castro one?

There are many more indications that the immediate goal of the assassination was to provoke an invasion of Cuba, though, as you point out, the evidence is pretty clear that important elements of the U.S. military were also royally ticked off about Mr. Kennedy’s refusal to go full scale war in Vietnam—and worse yet, to schedule its end. My philosophy has always been to follow the clear evidence that we have, and see what else comes to light.

Good luck with your continuing research!

Jim,

Thanks for writing and posting that summary. I found it very helpful.

What do you think about the Oswald impersonator who allegedly spoke with KGB assassin Valery Kostikov in Mexico City? And the letter Oswald allegedly wrote and was actually sent to the Russian embassy (in NYC?) where "Oswald" acts so chummy. (This was the letter copied by Ruth Paine, right? My memory is so poor.) These things steer the blame to Russia it seems. Do you think they are an extension to the items in your list, meant to implicate Russia?

I've wondered if this Russia "connection" was an "add-on" to the plot, not meant to be there by the original plotters. Because they distract from the (fake) Cuban connection. Regardless, a few months ago Jim DiEugenio opined that this part of the story was meant by the plotters to frighten LBJ into covering up the assassination plot. Because if Russian was involved in the assassination, it might lead to world war III.

What's your take on this.

I welcome any others' opinions as well.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy and Ron,

Here is the animated GIF I made a while back showing the guy people think of as Landsale (and now Taylor) wore glasses in Dealey Plaza.

Oh yeah, now I remember... it's in the shadow!

Nice catch, Mike!

[Jim Hargrove]

Jim,

Thanks for writing and posting that summary. I found it very helpful.

What do you think about the Oswald impersonator who allegedly spoke with KGB assassin Valery Kostikov in Mexico City? And the letter Oswald allegedly wrote and was actually sent to the Russian embassy (in NYC?) where "Oswald" acts so chummy. (This was the letter copied by Ruth Paine, right? My memory is so poor.) These things steer the blame to Russia it seems. Do you think they are an extension to the items in your list, meant to implicate Russia?

I've wondered if this Russia "connection" was an "add-on" to the plot, not meant to be there by the original plotters. Because they distract from the (fake) Cuban connection. Regardless, a few months ago Jim DiEugenio opined that this part of the story was meant by the plotters to frighten LBJ into covering up the assassination plot. Because if Russian was involved in the assassination, it might lead to world war III.

What's your take on this.

I welcome any others' opinions as well.

Sandy,

Yeah, CIA officials have been lying about the Mexico City charade for more than fifty years, and they’ve been lying about Kostikov with special vigor. Not only did CIA people lie about “Oswald” meeting Kostikov, but after withholding the information for nearly two months, they also claimed—the day after the assassination of JFK--that Kostikov was a KGB assassin—and then they retracted that claim! Ah, what tangled lives…. Jim Di’s analysis sounds right on to me. From Harvey and Lee, p. 671:

Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton was one of the officers at CIA head­

quarters who received the Mexico City station cable of October 8, advising that Oswald

met with Kostikov. The other CIA officer to receive the October 8 cable was Tennent

Bagley, who waited until the day after the assassination (November 23) to identify

Kostikov as a KGB officer working in KGB Department 13 (sabotage and assassination).

The fact that Bagley withheld this explosive information until the day after the assassination

appears to be intentional. The fact that Kostikov was later found to be merely a consulate

officer, and not a member of Division 13, appears to have been an intentional act of provoca­

tion in an attempt to link Oswald to the Soviets. The one missing piece of information

is who told Bagley to identify Kostikov as a KGB assassin. It may have been the Chief of

Counterintelligence, James Angleton, his deputy Ray Rocca, or their boss, Richard Helms.

Remarkably, the Warren Commission and, in some cases, even the FBI concluded that a number of letters allegedly written by “Lee Harvey Oswald” were, in fact, forgeries, although both agencies failed to notice that these bogus letters always seemed to link Oswald with Cuba or Russia. The Soviets thought the 1963 typed letter from “Oswald” to their embassy in D.C. was bogus, and we wouldn’t even have known about it had they not given it to us. Show me who created that letter, and I’ll show you a conspirator in JFK's assassination.

A couple of more basic things about Mexico City for those who might be interested….

On the evening of September 26, 1963, when the Warren Commission had “Lee Harvey Oswald” aboard a Flecha Roja bus bound for Mexico City, another “Lee Harvey Oswald” was famously visiting Sylvia Odio and her sister at her Dallas apartment, among other activities around Dallas. If ANY of the Mexico City saga was true, then there were two people sharing Oswald’s identity during the period in question.

Second, the number of pulse cameras and backup cameras the CIA had trained on the entrances of the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City is almost laughable, and yet the evidence we have indicates not a single one of them captured a photo of anyone resembling Oswald--any Oswald-- entering or leaving either facility. David Atlee Phillips lied repeatedly about these cameras.

Third, the CIA had all kinds of phone taps working at both offices. Here’s what J. Edgar Hoover told LBJ about the day after the assassination (from a 1963 transcription of a phone conversation):

LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?

HOOVER: No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there.

A brief but clear YouTube discussion of of this evidence IS HERE.

From this simple starting point, the Mexico City bs just piles up to Olympian proportions. A number of CIA people lied and lied and lied about it—for decades. It has become fashionable of late for some researchers to claim that all this lying was merely to hide the fact that the CIA was conducting a mole hunt—and therefore lied to U.S. investigators and everyone else for more than half a century. That strikes me as more epic bs.

David Josephs has written a long, multi-part series on Mexico City over at CTKA.NET, in which he questions the validity of virtually all the MC evidence, but it is tough reading. Set aside at least several hours to get through it. In the meantime, here’s John’s summary of Mexico City from Harvey and Lee:

Summary of Oswald's alleged visit to Mexico City

In summation of Oswald's alleged visit to Mexico City we have learned that a CIA

agent named William Gaudet, who officed in the New Orleans Trade Mart, obtained

visa No. 24084 from the Mexican Consulate in New Orleans. The next visa, No. 24085

was issued to a man who identified himself as "Lee Harvey Oswald."

A man who identified himself as "Lee Harvey Oswald" was aboard a bus to

Mexico City and sat next to John Howard Bowen, aka Albert Osborne, a man with a

strange and unexplained background. Bowen/Osborne entered Mexico with Oswald, departed

Mexico one day before Oswald, and was out of the country when President Kennedy was

assassinated. During the bus ride Lee Oswald showed a 1959 passport to Pamela Mumford and

Patricia Winston that contained his photograph and Soviet immigration stamps.

According to Winston Scott "Lee Harvey Oswald" was under constant surveil­-

lance during his visit to Mexico City and the CIA had as many as 13 photographs of his

visits to the Cuban and Soviet Embassies ("mystery man photos").

A short man with blond hair showed up at the Cuban Consulate and identified

himself as Oswald, yet there are no CIA photographs or tape recordings that identify this man.

None of the Consulate employees or the two CIA assets inside the Cuban compound

identified the man as Lee Harvey Oswald.

A man posing as "Lee Harvey Oswald" allegedly visited the Soviet Embassy, yet

there are no CIA photographs or tape recordings to identify this man. "Oswald's" brief visit was

so uneventful the Soviets had no reason to record the event, yet the INS (Immigration &

Naturalization Service) reported Oswald's visit to the FBI (probably from erroneous informa­-

tion received by the CIA).

The Cuban government cooperated with the Warren Commission and HSCA

by providing documentation to investigators that allowed them to question members

of the Cuban Consulate. Fidel Castro personally met with HSCA staff members and as­-

sured them Cuba had no involvement in the assassination, and told them he thought

Oswald's visit was a provocation. The CIA refused to provide information to both the Commis­-

sion and HSCA, CIA officers lied, and we now know they fabricated documents and

photographs in an attempt to create the illusion that Oswald was in Mexico City.

In November 1963 Soviet Ambassador Anastas Mikoyan arrived for President

Kennedy's funeral and provided photostats of their file on Oswald to the US govern­-

ment. The file contained no telegrams regarding Oswald's alleged contact with the So-­

viet Embassy in Washington, no correspondence between the Soviet Embassy in

Mexico City and Moscow regarding Oswald or his alleged visit, and nothing that indi­-

cated Oswald had any contact the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City on September 27 or

28, or on October 1 or 3, 1963. As previously noted, Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy,

if it ever occurred, attracted little attention.

The Warren Commission had very little documentation that placed Oswald in

Mexico City, but had reports from credible eye witnesses that placed him in Dallas at

the same time. The Commission knew that photographs and a tape recording showed

that someone impersonated Oswald in Mexico City, but kept that information from the

public because it strongly suggested a conspiracy. The FBI and Warren Commission investi­-

gated Oswald's possible connections with Cuba and received information from anony­-

mous sources, CIA-paid informants, fictitious letters, and researched dozens of alleged

contacts between Oswald and agents of the Cuban Government, but found nothing that

connected him to Cuba.

The Commission undoubtedly knew that someone was trying to link Oswald

to Cuba, but appeared unconcerned and disinterested. Had they conducted a proper inves­-

tigation they might have learned about the phony CIA transcripts, and might have learned

who fabricated them. They might have learned that David Phillips sent Gilberta Alvarado

to the US Embassy with a story that linked Oswald with Silvia Duran and a communist

conspiracy, which proved to be false. They may also have learned that CIA assets were be­-

hind many of the post assassination attempts to link Oswald to Cuba. But if the Commis­-

sion had conducted a thorough investigation, they would have discovered who was really

behind the assassination.

The man who identified himself as "Lee Harvey Oswald" on October 1, 1963

left footprints in Mexico City that investigators could follow, but not too closely. When the

Warren Commission and HSCA tried to examine these footprints in detail, their efforts

were blocked by CIA officers in the Mexico City station and CIA Headquarters, who

didn't want anyone to discover the truth. The individual at the center of the controversy,

"Lee Harvey Oswald," knew the truth. He told Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz he had

never been in Mexico City, but few people listened. ¹³⁵

After retiring from the CIA David Phillips spoke to a group of CIA Intelligence

Officers. JFK researcher Mark Lane attended the meeting and heard Phillips brag to

fellow officers, "We may come to learn that Lee Harvey Oswald was never in Mexico City. "¹³⁶

--From Harvey and Lee, pp. 660-661

Copyright © 2003 by John Armstrong

Reproduced with permission of the author

[Ray Mitcham]

Ron, This is what Tom Wilson said about the guy, in "A Deeper Darker Truth" by Donald T Phillips.

"While [the tramps], being escorted to the police station, a civilian in a business suit was observed to have a wire from an electronic device connected to his eyeglasses and extending down, along the bottom of his hairline and into his shirt collar just below the right ear. This individual could have been part of the assassination team"

I assume that must have been based on a Wilson photo analysis. If he used the photo posted here, I don't see how he found any wire as described.

Apparently the system he invented (but which died with him apparently) enabled him to see detail which is not normal seen on an original photo.

If you haven't read Phillips' book, Ron, I recommend it.

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim,

Thanks for writing and posting that summary. I found it very helpful.

What do you think about the Oswald impersonator who allegedly spoke with KGB assassin Valery Kostikov in Mexico City? And the letter Oswald allegedly wrote and was actually sent to the Russian embassy (in NYC?) where "Oswald" acts so chummy. (This was the letter copied by Ruth Paine, right? My memory is so poor.) These things steer the blame to Russia it seems. Do you think they are an extension to the items in your list, meant to implicate Russia?

I've wondered if this Russia "connection" was an "add-on" to the plot, not meant to be there by the original plotters. Because they distract from the (fake) Cuban connection. Regardless, a few months ago Jim DiEugenio opined that this part of the story was meant by the plotters to frighten LBJ into covering up the assassination plot. Because if Russian was involved in the assassination, it might lead to world war III.

What's your take on this.

I welcome any others' opinions as well.

Sandy,

Yeah, CIA officials have been lying about the Mexico City charade for more than fifty years, and they’ve been lying about Kostikov with special vigor. Not only did CIA people lie about “Oswald” meeting Kostikov, but after withholding the information for nearly two months, they also claimed—the day after the assassination of JFK--that Kostikov was a KGB assassin—and then they retracted that claim! Ah, what tangled lives…. Jim Di’s analysis sounds right on to me. From Harvey and Lee, p. 671:

Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton was one of the officers at CIA head­

quarters who received the Mexico City station cable of October 8, advising that Oswald

met with Kostikov. The other CIA officer to receive the October 8 cable was Tennent

Bagley, who waited until the day after the assassination (November 23) to identify

Kostikov as a KGB officer working in KGB Department 13 (sabotage and assassination).

The fact that Bagley withheld this explosive information until the day after the assassination

appears to be intentional. The fact that Kostikov was later found to be merely a consulate

officer, and not a member of Division 13, appears to have been an intentional act of provoca­

tion in an attempt to link Oswald to the Soviets. The one missing piece of information

is who told Bagley to identify Kostikov as a KGB assassin. It may have been the Chief of

Counterintelligence, James Angleton, his deputy Ray Rocca, or their boss, Richard Helms.

Remarkably, the Warren Commission and, in some cases, even the FBI concluded that a number of letters allegedly written by “Lee Harvey Oswald” were, in fact, forgeries, although both agencies failed to notice that these bogus letters always seemed to link Oswald with Cuba or Russia. The Soviets thought the 1963 typed letter from “Oswald” to their embassy in D.C. was bogus, and we wouldn’t even have known about it had they not given it to us. Show me who created that letter, and I’ll show you a conspirator in JFK's assassination.

Jim,

John Armstrong wrote the Valery Kostikov wasn't really a member of Department 13. Do you know what his source for this was? I ask because I have never seen it reported that Kostikov wasn't a member of Department 13.

[Jim Hargrove]

Jim,

John Armstrong wrote the Valery Kostikov wasn't really a member of Department 13. Do you know what his source for this was? I ask because I have never seen it reported that Kostikov wasn't a member of Department 13.

I'll try to remember to ask him, but that paragraph may have come mostly from a Peter Dale Scott article called "CIA FILES AND THE PRE-ASSASSINATION FRAMING OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD," adapted from Deep Politics II. A copy of the article is in the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor.

You can read it online by CLICKING HERE. (Easiest way to deal with those large pdf files from the Baylor site is to click the "Download" button toward the upper right and read it on your desktop. You can then search through the doc for Kostikov references, of which there are plenty. Cut to the chase around pp. 8 and 9. Also see....

From the conclusion of State Secret, by Bill Simpich:

One thing the Mexico City officers would tell us is that Kostikov was not a big deal to anyone before JFK was killed. Before November 22, no one came forward with any proof that he was an assassin or sabotage artist. Again, Angleton thought that Kostikov had nothing to do with the supposed assassination bureau at Department 13. That story was made up by Golitsyn, and it only sprang into play in the hours after the assassination.

In his recent book Spy Wars, Pete Bagley makes it clear that he still claims that Kostikov was a member of Department 13, responsible for sabotage and assassination.[ 3 ] He does not address the Kostikov evidence presented here. It’s hard to imagine, but maybe this evidence will change his mind?

[Michael Walton]

Tom Fairlie - I believe that JFK knew exactly what he was doing and was fatalistic about it. However, I don't think he realized the extent to which the Cold War was essentially a scam. He knew it was a right-wing ploy that was designed to oppress leftist regimes, but I don't think he guessed at exactly how deep and how venal this plot was. The Cold War was created explicitly to demonize leftists (including Democrats, unions, liberals, etc.), create a Christian wedge in world religions, and foment the kind of tensions that demand military spending (similar to what the British used in the 1800s/early 1900s). I don't believe that the Establishment ever wanted to invade Cuba. The military certainly did, but the Establishment saw a communist/militant Cuba as a Hegelian wet dream right off our coast.

Tom, just wanted to compliment you on your post. I think the establishment was banking on Nixon winning the election in 1960. As I'm sure you know, Nixon was part of that establishment so who knows what would have happened during the BOP when it was time to send in air support. Kennedy's American University speech probably caused a lot of vein bulging that day among that hidden hierarchy you mention. It completely went against the hierarchy's status quo of keeping the heat on with the Cold War, thus, keeping the mega dollars flowing in defense and intel.

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't believe that the Establishment ever wanted to invade Cuba. The military certainly did, but the Establishment saw a communist/militant Cuba as a Hegelian wet dream right off our coast.

I don't buy it.

We're supposed to believe that the "deep state elites" in the US wanted to shred the Monroe Doctrine, give up their favorite gambling/sex playground, and disrupt Havana's role as the central base for international narcotics trafficking?

"Strategy of Tension"?

If they wanted a Western Hemisphere boogyman they would have left Arbenz & Che in power in Guatemala and kept the Jewel of the Caribbean with its easy sex, drugs & gambling.

All of that meant a lot more to the "deep state elites" than any strategy of tension.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Tom Fairlie]

Cliff,

With all due respect, I think the Establishment has avoided failure for more than a century. I can't think of a major activity that wasn't created or steered to help them achieve their ends. There may have been spontaneous events that were mostly out of their control (e.g., scientific inventions), and there have been many small events that they couldn't completely control (e.g., the election of Jesse Ventura), but their track record is pretty damn good.

The strategy of tension, BTW, has been used for hundreds of years, most successfully by the British, who fomented revolutionary/radical thought around the world for 200 years in order to create chaos and distract the colonies and justify defense spending and controlling laws. Most recently, they (along with America) spent decades funding radical Muslim imams across Europe and Asia so that we'd have a boogeyman to deal with in the 21st

Regarding Cuba, I realize that my theory isn't a slam dunk (e.g., why would the CIA spend so much time on assassination plots if the plan was to allow communism all along), but the facts don't fit the history books either. Cuba was always our poor little stepchild, and yes, we've exploited their resources and location heavily, but there are other places to launder money and gamble (Do you think the rise of Las Vegas at the same time was coincidental? It may have been.). I just don't see the Establishment losing if victory was so important.

Cuba's communist transition accelerated the Cold War at a crucial time, when defense spending needed a boost and people were finally starting to reap the rewards of the post-WWII economy. Keeping us in fear allowed greater spending in Vietnam a few years later (Do you think it's a coincidence that JFK was killed after trying to amend relations with Cuba and the USSR?). For me, the bottom line is that taking out Castro and reverting Cuba to a capitalist playground would have been great for the sugar and gambling industries, but keeping the Cold War going was more critical for the big picture.

Extra credit: The assassination training was far more useful to the Establishment than the simple, Cuba-focused operation that is widely portrayed--and which was, in fact, a limited hangout in the Church Committee.

[Cliff Varnell]

Tom, thanks for the thoughtful & collegial reply. My response in Golden State Warrior blue with some GSW gold when I'm digressing.

Cliff,

With all due respect, I think the Establishment has avoided failure for more than a century.

When I see the word "Establishment" I think of the Globalist Oligarchy which always seeks to make the world safe for bankers.

The "They" who used to be referred to as the "liberal Eastern Establishment"-- ethnically identified as White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

While international banking had long been dominated by Jews, after WW2 it was WASP outfits like Chase Manhattan Bank and Brown Brothers Harriman which formed the foundation of The Establishment.

In 1959 the Globalist Oligarchy was hegemonic in the USA -- but not monolithic.

There was a foreign policy rift reflected in the Bruce/Lovett report which reached all the way through the US government and even through Brown Brothers Harriman itself.

http://cryptome.org/0001/bruce-lovett.htm

Brown Bros. Harriman banker Robert Lovett (Sec of Defense under Truman who oversaw the greatest military build-up in history) wanted Allen Dulles fired, even though Dulles enjoyed the protection of W. Averell Harriman himself.

More recent examples of intra-mural Establishment spats would be the rift in the Bush family over the '03 Iraq War, with old GHW Bush hands like Brent Scowcroft disapproving of the Dick Cheney-led war crime. (What else to call the US invasion of Iraq but a war crime?)

And then there's Edward Snowden. Fast rising CIA operative quits a sweet Italian post to go to work for a company owned by former heads of the CIA GHW Bush & Frank Carlucci and voila a few months later releases tons of NSA "secrets" and at the time I'm saying to myself == "Wonder if this is CIA vs. NSA thang is drug related?" == and sure enough its revealed that the NSA works closely with the DEA in that agency compiling a file on every American.

That little NSA thought it was a god.

But I digress.

I can't think of a major activity that wasn't created or steered to help them achieve their ends.

The Globalists couldn't stop the rise of an often competing elite -- the made-in-USA Dominionist Oligarchy (who seek to make the world safe for the return of the Messiah Jesus Christ).

Dominionists are a pain in the ass to the Globalists and as much or more of a terror to those of us opposed to all forms of Oligarchy.

In 2016 the Globalists want immigration reform (I agree with the bastids on that one) -- the racist Dominionists are opposed.

I think the best example of thwarting the Globalists is "net neutrality." The people rose up and forced the FCC to make the internet a utility.

And according to my reading of the Globalist War Plan circa 2010 they wanted a Shia-Sunni civil war raging a lot hotter than it it is now.

"They" wanted regime change in Ukraine, Libya & Syria, and a war with Iran.

Obama gave them Libya and the Ukraine -- but he departed from the Strategy of Tension by working with Putin to remove chemical weapons from Syria and nuke capability from Iran.

That's why the USA enjoys 2 buck a gallon gas -- not a top Globalist priority.

There may have been spontaneous events that were mostly out of their control (e.g., scientific inventions), and there have been many small events that they couldn't completely control (e.g., the election of Jesse Ventura), but their track record is pretty damn good.

Good enough to make a Globalist like Hillary Clinton preferable to ANY REPUBLICAN.

The Dems answer to both the Globalists, and to their base -- which is anti-Oligarchy.

Republicans answer to both the Globalists, and to their Dominionist base.

The left can force Hillary to do good things, just like Obama was forced on net neutrality and same-sex marriage.

With ANY REPUBLICAN there is no pressure at all on US policy except the interests of one Oligarchy or another.

The strategy of tension, BTW, has been used for hundreds of years, most successfully by the British, who fomented revolutionary/radical thought around the world for 200 years in order to create chaos and distract the colonies and justify defense spending and controlling laws. Most recently, they (along with America) spent decades funding radical Muslim imams across Europe and Asia so that we'd have a boogeyman to deal with in the 21st

How did the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Syria and Iran help the Strategy of Tension?

Regarding Cuba, I realize that my theory isn't a slam dunk (e.g., why would the CIA spend so much time on assassination plots if the plan was to allow communism all along), but the facts don't fit the history books either.

I don't think the Globalist plan was to let Cuba go communist.

I think the Globalist plan was to eliminate all those corrupt Cuban gov't officials who were taking too much of the drug trafficking pie.

The ever-shifting dynamic of the global narcotics market is the never-ending effort to eliminate middle-men.

Batista and his guys had to go but Castro double crossed his American backers, looks like to me.

Then on 11/22/63 Castro woke up with Kennedy's head in his bed and he decided right then and there to run his boutique drug smuggling operation thru Globalist channels.

Cuba was always our poor little stepchild, and yes, we've exploited their resources and location heavily, but there are other places to launder money and gamble (Do you think the rise of Las Vegas at the same time was coincidental? It may have been.)

I should emphasize the role of narcotics trafficking in Havana as far more important than the gambling/money laundering/prostitution biz.

I just don't see the Establishment losing if victory was so important.

I don't think "They" lost.

After JFK Castro got in line and started moving dope thru Zapata Offshore -- or so I speculate.

Cuba's communist transition accelerated the Cold War at a crucial time, when defense spending needed a boost and people were finally starting to reap the rewards of the post-WWII economy. Keeping us in fear allowed greater spending in Vietnam a few years later (Do you think it's a coincidence that JFK was killed after trying to amend relations with Cuba and the USSR?). For me, the bottom line is that taking out Castro and reverting Cuba to a capitalist playground would have been great for the sugar and gambling industries, but keeping the Cold War going was more critical for the big picture.

The Cold War was going along just fine without Cuba.

Extra credit: The assassination training was far more useful to the Establishment than the simple, Cuba-focused operation that is widely portrayed--and which was, in fact, a limited hangout in the Church Committee.

Not sure I follow, with all due respect.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I see Charles Drago on the Greg Burnham False Mystery Forum is making a fuss over Tom Fairlie's posts #30 and #39.

Charles craves acknowledgement as the author of the Castro-as-Puppet-Boogyman scenario, starting with Tom Fairlie's bow to the master, apparently,

http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/2042-whats-old-is-new-again-again/

I've discussed this issue of Castro-as-Puppet-Boogyman with Charles a couple of times in the past and he couldn't muster bluster beyond insisting on the infallibility of his own theories.

He refers to my views as "madness."

Oh, Mr. Drago?

What of this:

<quote on>

The Lansky Connection:

Meyer Lansky initiated, developed, and supported Organized Crime’s drug operations from their inception and beyond the death of JFK. Lansky was in continuous contact with U.S. intelligence agencies, primarily because of a shared anti-Communist orientation, including Naval Intelligence, the CIA, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Lansky and U.S. intelligence initially conspired to assassinate Fidel Castro, and both Lansky’s associates and U.S. intelligence profited from the world-wide drug trade. When the anti-Castro hits were called off, this shared interest in preserving heroin profits led, on the facilitators’ level, to the death of John F. Kennedy.

The Catalyst of the Crime:

The Sicilian drug traffic was run through Meyer Lansky’s Cuban casinos through 1959. Castro closed down the Mob’s Cuban operations, and JFK refused to sanction an invasion of Cuba after the Bay of Pigs to topple Castro, which, had it been successful, would have restored the Mob’s casinos and drug business. Further, from JFK’s inauguration in 1961 through November 22^nd, 1963, the Kennedy administration dramatically developed a major transformation in U.S. anti-narcotics policy: the Kennedy administration moved to radically reform U.S. anti-narcotics programs and policies. Through two major Congressional investigative hearings, three major reports to the president, a major Washington conference, and a blue-ribbon presidential commission—all of them organized and directed by Attorney General Robert Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy—the Kennedy administration supported a revolutionary approach to drug addiction and U.S. drug laws. If successful, the JFK program would have put the heroin cartel out of business. For the Mafia, the Lansky Group, Hoffa and his corrupt Teamsters locals, the CIA, the anti-Castro Cubans and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the permanent loss of huge narcotics profits therefore constituted a major motive for assassinating the president.

Had the Kennedy drug program been fully implemented, the international drug trade—financing scores of black operations around the world and directed by the U.S. power structure—would have collapsed. John F. Kennedy was assassinated before his anti-narcotics program could be put into operation. JFK was murdered by the National Security State and their intelligence, criminal, and Dallas area assets on November 22, 1963.

<quote off>

This is George Michael Evica, the conclusion of his essay "Perfect Cover".

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Evica/Perfect_cover.html

I find this a solid analysis with one exception:

When the anti-Castro hits were called off, this shared interest in preserving heroin profits led, on the facilitators’ level, to the death of John F. Kennedy.

This is where that whole Evica-Drago false mysterioso "Sponsors/Facilitators/Mechanics" Model gets in the way of achieving clarity on the issue.

First of all, there is no such thing as "shared interest in preserving heroin profits."

Heroin profits are not "preserved" they are expanded. There is a shared interest in expanding heroin profits from the top to the bottom, not just "the facilitator level.."

The Harrimans, Rockefellers & Bushes were big-time eugenicists. All about culling the human herd, minorities first.

During the 50's the heroin trade was confined mostly to black and hispanic neighborhoods.

A Holocaust by another means.

But the nature of the market brought expansion, &the ever necessary elimination of middlemen.

The Corsican Mafia drug kingpins, for instance, were viewed as unnecessary middlemen by the American ruling elites and were eliminated by the early 70's.

Is it madness to posit a Laos-Vietnam-Havana heroin pipeline as the apple in the eye of the top perps of Kennedy's murder?

Charles Drago may have book smarts galore, but street smarts not too much.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Tom Fairlie]

First of all, thanks for sharing the link to Mr. Drago's accusations. I don't know why I should travel over to his forum to respond to baseless accusations, so I'll just ignore them. Honestly, I think it's laughable that my penny-ante postings count as plagiarism. However, to be fair, I cannot claim to be original. My library has over 500 books, most of them written by people who know more than me. I'm just a knowledge integrator, which reminds me of a Twain quote:

"When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men — but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly smail portion of it is his. But not enough to signify."

I will say, though, that my library has nothing from Mr. Drago. I have no idea who he is or what he believes. If the above citation from Cliff is accurate, however, I have to chuckle a bit to think that JFK was a drug hit.

I want to use this statement to pivot to some of Cliff's statements regarding the Cuban drug trade. You are wise to bring up this angle, and I agree that Castro's redirection was annoying. Some back of the napkin analysis reveals (to me) that the Cold War was still more valuable. I realize that I'm stretching a bit, but without the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam conflict doesn't quite seem as immediate (it's like the War on Terror without 9/11).

For example, I see the bump in military spending to escalate Vietnam under LBJ/Nixon to be worth about $625 billion, while the loss of organized crime in Cuba was $60-200 billion at most (both in 2009 dollars). Both are very big figures, but war trumps almost everything. Plus, as you point out, it's not clear that the Mob lost that money, since Vegas came online and other drug routes came online quickly.

To be honest, Cliff, you bring up a lot of good points, but far too many to provide a point-by-point analysis. I agree that there is an amount of randomness to the Establishment, since they are human after all. Also, you are right, there are factions within the powerbase that regularly vie for power/attention. The bottom line (to me, at least) is that the Establishment isn't a monolithic entity and much of their infrastructure grew organically rather than purposefully (for example, many rich people are simply taking advantage of their market position, family knowledge, etc.). However, it doesn't matter whether their system was intentional or accidental; it still has the same effect on humankind.

...and Snowden was a hangout, not a dangle :-)

[Jim Root]

Maxwell Taylor, at the time of the Assassination, was alone in his pentagon office. He had just taken a break from meeting with a group of NATO Brass and asked that he not be disturbed while in his office. After the assassination Taylor, who had been distrurbed with the information, returned to his meeting and as I understand it did not put the US Military on highest alert (please correct me if I am wrong about the alert part).

Taylor's actions remind me of the actions of George Marshall. Dispite the fact that the US Government/military knew we were about to be attacked somewhere on Dec. 7, 1941 and we had a pretty good idea of exactly when the attack would occur (from Japanese intercepts translated by John Hurt) George Marshall chose to be alone and away from his desk (horseback riding alone) as we entered the "fog of war." Max Taylor was George Marshall's secretary at that time (one of I believe six secretaries).

Jim Root

Edited May 3, 2016 by Jim Root

[Ron Ecker]

Maxwell Taylor, at the time of the Assassination, was alone in his pentagon office. He had just taken a break from meeting with a group of NATO Brass and asked that he not be disturbed while in his office. After the assassination Taylor, who had been distrurbed with the information, returned to his meeting and as I understand it did not put the US Military on highest alert (please correct me if I am wrong about the alert part).

That's the story. But is there any documented evidence that such a meeting with NATO brass took place that day? If there was such a meeting, Curtis LeMay skipped it. I would love to see the evidence, or to see an interview with someone still living who was at the Pentagon that day with respect to who was there.

[Ron Ecker]

FWIW on the website of the Defense Technical Information Center, Dept. of Defense, there is a 395-page document entitled History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: The Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Policy, 1961-1964. There is a 28-page section on NATO. There is no mention of a meeting with West German or other NATO officials in November 1963.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/history/jcs_nationalp8.pdf

I remember looking in the book David M. Shoup: A Warrior Against War, Shoup being the JCS Marine Commandant at the time of the assassination. There was no mention at all in the book of 11/22/63.

I've been able to find nothing on Army Chief of Staff Earle G. Wheeler with respect to 11/22/63.

I'll keep looking to see if there is anything at all about any other member of the JCS on 11/22/63.