Jump to content


Spartacus

Rockefeller Commission and the JFK Assassination


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,099 posts

Posted 06 December 2006 - 09:46 PM

As a result of the Watergate Scandal, on 9th August, 1974, Richard M. Nixon became the first president of the United States to resign from office. The new president, Gerald Ford, nominated Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. During his confirmation hearings it was revealed that over the years he had made large gifts of money to government officials such as Henry Kissinger.

Later that year, Seymour Hersh of the New York Times, published a series of articles claiming that the Central Intelligence Agency had been guilty of illegal activities. In 1975 Ford appointed Rockefeller to head an investigation into these allegations.

Other members of the Rockefeller Commission included C. Douglas Dillon, Ronald Reagan, John T. Connor, Edgar F. Shannon, Lyman L. Lemmitzer, and Erwin N. Griswold. Executive Director of the task-force was David W. Berlin, the former counsel to the Warren Commission and leading supporter of the magic bullet theory. In 1973 Berlin had published his book, November 22, 1963: You are the Jury, in which he defended the Warren Report as an historic, "unshakeable" document.

Rockefeller's report was published in 1975. It included information on some CIA abuses. As David Corn pointed out in Blond Ghost: "the President's panel revealed that the CIA had tested LSD on unsuspecting subjects, spied on American dissidents, physically abused a defector, burgled and bugged without court orders, intercepted mail illegally, and engaged in plainly unlawful conduct". The report also produced details about MKULTRA, a CIA mind control project.

Rockefeller also included an 18-page section on the assassination of John F. Kennedy (Allegations Concerning the Assassination of John F. Kennedy). A large part of the report was taken up with examining the cases of E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis. This was as a result of both men being involved in the Watergate Scandal. The report argued that a search of agency records showed that Sturgis had never been a CIA agent, informant or operative. The commission also accepted the word of both men that they were not in Dallas on the day of the assassination.

The Rockefeller Commission also looked at the possibility that John F. Kennedy had been fired at by more than one gunman. After a brief summary of the Warren Commission (1964) and the Ramsay Clark Panel (1968) investigations, Rockefeller concluded: "On the basis of the investigation conducted by its staff, the Commission believes that there is no evidence to support the claim that President Kennedy was struck by a bullet fired from either the grassy knoll or any other position to his front, right front or right side, and that the motions of the President's head and body, following the shot that struck him in the head, are fully consistent with that shot having come from a point to his rear, above him and slightly to his right."

Rockefeller also looked at the possible connections between E. Howard Hunt, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby and the CIA. He claimed that there was no "credible evidence" that Oswald or Ruby were CIA agents or informants. Nor did Hunt ever have contact with Oswald. The report argues: "Hunt's employment record with the CIA indicated that he had no duties involving contacts with Cuban exile elements or organizations inside or outside the United States after the early months of 1961... Hunt and Sturgis categorically denied that they had ever met or known Oswald or Ruby. They further denied that they ever had any connections whatever with either Oswald or Ruby."

This section of the report reached the following conclusions: "Numerous allegations have been made that the CIA participated in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The Commission staff investigated these allegations. On the basis of the staff's investigation, the Commission concluded there was no credible evidence of any CIA involvement."

The report was condemned as a cover-up. Dr. Cyril H. Wecht accused the Rockefeller Commission of "deliberately distorting and suppressing" part of his testimony as to the nature of Kennedy's head and neck wounds. Wecht demanded that a full transcript of his testimony be released. Rockefeller refused on the grounds that the commission proceedings were confidential.

#2 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,099 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 10:36 AM

This is what Angus Mackenzie has to say about the Rockefeller Commission in his great book, The CIA's War at Home. I wonder if the CIA was involved in Mackenzie's death?

The CIA would spend the next two decades fighting the release of documents to citizens who requested them under the FOIA. For CIA officials, whose lives were dedicated to secrecy, the logic behind the checks and balances of the three-branch system of government may have been incomprehensible. The idea that federal judges not trained in espionage could inspect CIA files and even order their release was enough to curdle the blood of secret operatives like Richard Ober. CIA officers felt that neither Congress nor the courts could comprehend the perils that faced secret agents. Their instinctive reaction, therefore, was to find any avenue by which they could avoid judicial or journalistic scrutiny.

A month after Congress enacted the new FOIA amendments, someone at the CIA leaked the news of MHCHAOS to Seymour Hersh at the New York limes. Hersh's article appeared on the front page of the December 22, r974, issue under the headline "Huge C.I.A. Operation Reported in U.S. against Antiwar Forces, Other Dissidents in Nixon Years." Although sparse in detail, the article revealed that the CIA had spied on U.S. citizens in a massive domestic operation, keeping 10,000 dossiers on individuals and groups and violating the 1947 National Security Act. Hersh reported that intelligence officials were claiming the domestic operations began as legitimate spying to investigate overseas connections to dissenters.

Gerald Ford, who only four and a half months earlier had assumed the presidency in the wake of Nixon's resignation, took the public position that the CIA would be ordered to cease and desist. William Colby, who had replaced James Schlesinger as CIA director, was told to issue a report on MHCHAOS to Henry Kissinger.

Apparently Ford was not informed that Kissinger was well aware of the operation. A few days later, after Helms categorically denied that the CIA had conducted "illegal" spying, Ford named Vice President Nelson Rockefeller to head a commission that would be charged with making a more comprehensive report. Ford's choice of Rockefeller to head the probe was most fortunate for Ober. Rockefeller was closely allied with Kissinger, who had been a central figure in the former New York governor's 1968 presidential primary campaign. Although Rockefeller was well regarded in media and political circles for his streak of independence, it was all but certain from the beginning that his report would amount to a cover-up.

In fact, Colby ran into trouble because he was willing to be more forthcoming about MHCHAOS than Rockefeller and Kissinger desired. After Colby's second or third appearance before the commission investigators, Rockefeller drew Colby aside and said, "Bill, do you really have to present all this material to us? We realize there are secrets that you fellows need to keep, and so nobody here is going to take it amiss if you feel there are some questions you can't answer quite as fully as you seem to feel you have to."

Because of MHCHAOS and Watergate, Congress began to investigate the CIA. On September 16, 1975, Senators Frank Church and John Tower called Colby to testify at a hearing about CIA assassinations. Colby showed up carrying a CIA poison-dart gun, and Church waved the gun before the television cameras. It looked like an automatic pistol with a telescopic sight mounted on the barrel. Producers of the evening newscasts recognized this as sensational footage, and just as surely Colby recognized that his days as director were numbered. He had not guarded the CIA secrets well enough.

Colby was fired on November 2, 1975. His successor was George Herbert Walker Bush, who had been serving as chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in Beijing. Bush's job would be delicate, perhaps impossible, and probably thankless; but as the former chairman of the Republican Party, he had already been in a similar position, guiding the party through the worst days of the Watergate scandal. He had supported Nixon as long as it was politically feasible, then finally had joined those who insisted on Nixon's departure.


#3 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,099 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 12:03 PM

At a meeting with some senior figures at the New York Times, including Arthur O. Sulzberger and A. M. Rosenthal, President Gerald Ford let slip the information that the CIA had been involved in conspiracies to assassinate political leaders. He immediately told them that this information was off the record. This story was leaked to the journalist Daniel Schorr who reported the story on CBS News. As Schorr pointed out his autobiography, Staying Tuned: "President Ford moved swiftly to head off a searching congressional investigation by extending the term of the Rockefeller commission and adding the assassination issue to its agenda."

#4 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,099 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 12:47 PM

I thought you might be interested in the relevant passage in Daniel Schorr's book, Staying Tuned: A Life in Journalism (2001)

The disclosure that the CIA, in its domestic surveillance program code-named Operation Chaos, tapped wires and conducted break-ins caused a public stir that intervention in far-off Chile had not. Over the Christmas holiday in Vail, Colorado, President Ford, it would later emerge, had finally gotten to read the CIA inspector general's report, informally dubbed the Family Jewels.

It detailed a stunning list of 693 items of CIA malfeasance ranging from behavior-altering drug experiments on unsuspecting subjects, one of whom plunged to his death from a hotel window; to assassination plots against leftist third world leaders.

Anxious to keep congressional committees, already gearing up for investigations, from laying bare the worst of these, President Ford, on January 5, 1975, announced the appointment of a "blue-ribbon" commission to inquire into improper domestic operations. The panel was headed by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and included such stalwarts as Gov. Ronald Reagan of California, retired general Lyman Lemnitzer, and former treasury secretary Douglas Dillon.

A few days later President Ford held a long-scheduled luncheon for New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger and several of his editors. Toward the end the subject of the newly named Rockefeller commission came up. Executive Editor A. M. Rosenthal observed that, dominated by establishment figures, the panel might not have much credibility with critics of the CIA. Ford nodded and explained that he had to he cautious in his choices because, with complete access to files, the commission might learn of matters, under presidents dating back to Truman, far more serious than the domestic surveillance they had been instructed to look into.

The ensuing hush was broken by Rosenthal. "Like what?"

"Like assassinations," the president shot back.

Prompted by an alarmed news secretary Ron Nessen, the president asked that his remark about assassinations be kept off the record.

The Times group returned to their bureau for a spirited argument about whether they could pass up a story potentially so explosive. Managing Editor E. C. Daniel called the White House in the hope of getting Nessen to ease the restriction from "off-the-record" to "deep background." Nessen was more adamant than ever that the national interest dictated that the president's unfortunate slip be forgotten. Finally, Sulzberger cut short the debate, saying that, as the publisher, he would decide, and he had decided against the use of the incendiary information.

This left several of the editors feeling quite frustrated, with the inevitable result that word of the episode began to get around, eventually reaching me. Under no off-the-record restriction myself, I enlisted CBS colleagues in figuring out how to pursue the story. Since Ford had used the word assassinations, we assumed we were looking for persons who had been murdered - possibly persons who had died under suspicious circumstances. We developed a hypothesis, but no facts.

On February 27, 1975, my long-standing request for another meeting with Director Colby came through. Over coffee we discussed Watergate and Operation Chaos, the domestic surveillance operation.

As casually as I could, I then asked, "Are you people involved in assassinations?"

"Not any more," Colby said. He explained that all planning for assassinations had been banned since the 1973 inspector general's report on the subject.

I asked, without expecting an answer, who had been the targets before 1973.

"I can't talk about it," Colby replied.

"Hammarskjold?" I ventured. (The UN. secretary-general killed in an airplane crash in Africa.)

"Of course not."

"Lumumba?" (The left-wing leader in the Belgian Congo who had been killed in 1961, supposedly by his Katanga rivals.)

"I can't go down a list with you. Sorry."

I returned to my office, my head swimming with names of dead foreign leaders who may have offended the American government. It was frustrating to be this close to one of the major stories of my career and not be able to get my hands on it. After a few days I decided I knew enough to go on the air even without the identity of corpses.

Because of President Ford's imprecision, I didn't realize that he was not referring to actual assassinations, but assassination conspiracies. All I knew was that assassination had been a weapon in the CIA arsenal until banned in a post-Watergate cleanup and that the president feared that investigation might expose the dark secret. l sat down at my typewriter and wrote, "President Ford has reportedly warned associates that if current investigations go too far they could uncover several assassinations of foreign officials involving the CIA..."

The two-minute "tell" story ran on the Evening News on February 28. While I had been mistaken in suggesting actual murders, my report opened up one of the darkest secrets in the CIA's history.

President Ford moved swiftly to head off a searching congressional investigation by extending the term of the Rockefeller commission and adding the assassination issue to its agenda. The commission hastily scheduled a new series of secret hearings in the vice president's suite in the White House annex. Richard Helms, who had already testified once, was called home again from his ambassador's post in Tehran for two days of questioning by the commission's staff and four hours before the commission on April 28.

I waited with colleagues and staked-out cameras outside the hearing room, the practice being to ask witnesses to make remarks on leaving. As Helms emerged, I extended my hand in greeting, with a jocular "Welcome back'." I was forgetting that I was the proximate reason for his being back.

His face ashen from fatigue and strain, he turned livid.

"You son of a bitch," he raged. "You killer, you cocksucker Killer Schorr - that's what they ought to call you!"

He then strode before the cameras and gave a toned-down version of his tirade. "I must say, Mr. Schorr, I didn't like what you had to say in some of your broadcasts on this subject. As far as I know, the CIA was never responsible for assassinating any foreign leader."

"Were there discussions of possible assassinations?" I asked.

Helms began losing his temper again. "I don't know when I stopped beating my wife, or you stopped beating your wife. Talk about discussions in government? There are always discussions about practically everything under the sun!"

I pursued Helms down the corridor and explained to him the presidential indiscretion that had led me to report "assassinations."

Calmer now, he apologized for his outburst and we shook hands. But because other reporters had been present, the story of his tirade was in the papers the next day.


#5 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,099 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 01:28 PM

You can find the Rockefeller Commission report here:

http://history-matte...mm/contents.htm

My biography is here:

http://www.spartacus...rockefeller.htm

#6 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,099 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 04:01 PM

I highly recommend Kathryn S. Olmsted's book, Challenging the Secret Government: The Post-Watergate Investigations of the CIA and FBI (1996). She teaches at the University of California and is currently writing a book called Governing Conspiracies: Conspiracy Theories about the U.S. Government from World War I to the present. I think I will ask her to join the forum. This is what she has to say about Ford and the Rockefeller Commission.

Beyond his ideological reasons for opposing a CIA investigation, Ford was also influenced by partisan and institutional considerations. Hersh's initial stories had accused Richard Nixon's CIA of domestic spying - not Lyndon Johnson's CIA or John Kennedy's CIA. If, indeed, the improprieties took place on the Republicans' watch, then too much attention to these charges could hasten the GOP's post-Watergate slide and boost the careers of crusading Democrats. Ford also opposed wide-ranging investigations because he felt responsible for protecting the presidency. "I was absolutely dedicated to doing whatever I could to restore the rightful prerogatives of the presidency under the constitutional system," he recalls. His aides list Ford's renewal of presidential power after Watergate as one of the greatest achievements of his administration. This lifelong conservative believed that he had a duty to control the congressional investigators and restore the honor of his new office.

Within days of Hersh's first story, Ford's aides recommended that he set up an executive branch investigative commission to avoid "finding ourselves whipsawed by prolonged Congressional hearings." In a draft memo to the president written on 27 December, Deputy Chief of Staff Richard Cheney explained that the president had several reasons to establish such a commission: to avoid being put on the defensive, to minimize "damage" to the CIA, to head off "Congressional efforts to further encroach on the executive branch," to demonstrate presidential leadership, and to reestablish Americans' faith in their government.

Ford's aides cautioned that this commission, formally called the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States, must not appear to be "a 'kept' body designed to whitewash the problem." But Ford apparently did not follow this advice. His choice for chairman, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, had served as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which monitored the CIA. Members Erwin Griswold, Lane Kirkland, Douglas Dillon, and Ronald Reagan had all been privy to CIA secrets in the past or noted for their strong support of governmental secrecy.

In a revealing move, the president also appointed General Lyman Lemnitzer, the same chairman of the Joint Chiefs whose office in 1962 had been charged by Congressman Jerry Ford with a "totalitarian" attempt to suppress information. In short, Ford's commissioners did not seem likely to conduct an aggressive investigation. Of the "true-blue ribbon" panel's eight members, only John Connor, a commerce secretary under Lyndon Johnson, and Edgar Shannon, a former president of the University of Virginia, brought open minds to the inquiry, according to critics.

Many congressmen, including GOP senators Howard Baker and Lowell Weicker, found the commission inadequate. Some supporters of the CIA, such as columnist Joseph Kraft, worried that many Americans would view the commission as part of a White House cover-up. Although Kraft personally admired the commissioners, he feared that their findings would not be credible and therefore would not reduce "the terrible doubts which continue to eat away at the nation." A public opinion poll confirmed these reservations. Forty-nine percent of the people surveyed by Louis Harris believed that an executive commission would be too influenced by the White House, compared with 35 percent who supported Ford's action. A clear plurality - 43 percent - believed that the commission would turn into "another cover-up," while 33 percent had confidence in the commission and 24 percent were unsure. The New York Times editorial board, also suspicious of the panel, urged congressmen not to allow the commission to "become a pretext to delay or circumscribe their own independent investigation." A week later, the Times again reminded Congress of its duty to conduct a "long, detailed" examination of the intelligence community: "Three decades is too long for any public institution to function without a fundamental reappraisal
of its role."


#7 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,378 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 December 2006 - 10:38 PM

One of the many ironies surrounding the Rocky Commission is that its chief counsel was David Belin, one of the Warren Commission's investigating attorneys and a close ally of Gerald Ford's. (He accompanied Ford during Ford's HSCA testimony.) The irony is that CIA director Colby was forthcoming about the assassination plots proposed on foreign leaders, and Rockefeller told him to cool it, and Belin wrote about the assassination attempts on foreign leaders in the Commission's report, but was told to cut it out. Neither man understood that the Rocky Commission was an attempt at curtailing the upcoming congressional investigations, with only a tangential interest in getting at the truth.


As far as smelliness involving the medical testimony, besides the deliberate distortion of Wecht's testimony, there is a problem with the report of Fred Hodges. Hodges said the Kennedy photographs and x-rays supported the findings of the autopsy report, apparently oblivious that the Clark Panel determined that the entrance wound was four inches higher. Where things get smelly is that no one seems to have noticed what Hodges actually said. It has been reported ad nauseum that the Rockefeller Commission medical panel confirmed the higher entry of the Clark Panel. When I brought these findings to a radiology forum a few months back, and asked the forum members who was right--radiologist Fred Hodges of the Rockefeller Commission or Russell Morgan of the Clark Panel, I couldn't find ONE radiologist willing to offer an opinion. Not one. The medical evidence is undoubtedly the key to breaking this whole thing wide open but the problem is that we first must get some doctors willing to talk about these things. And they don't exist.

#8 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,099 posts

Posted 08 December 2006 - 12:49 PM

Namebase entry:

http://www.namebase....ockefeller.html

Allen,M.P. The Founding Fortunes. 1989 (38, 40-1, 97, 283-4)
Ashman,C. The CIA-Mafia Link. 1975 (36-9)
Bamford,J. Body of Secrets. 2001 (435)
Bill,J. The Eagle and the Lion. 1988 (251, 319-22, 328-9, 333)
Bird,K. The Chairman. 1992 (458, 464-5, 642-3)
Black,J.K. United States Penetration of Brazil. 1977 (146-7)
Blumenthal,S. Yazijian,H. Government by Gunplay. 1976 (245)
Borjesson,K. Into the Buzzsaw. 2002 (29)
Broad,W. Teller's War. 1992 (56-7)
Burnham,D. Above the Law. 1996 (274)
Chester,E. Covert Network. 1995 (125)
Chomsky,N. Herman,E. The Washington Connection. 1979 (254)
Colby,G. Dennett,C. Thy Will Be Done. 1995
Cooney,J. The American Pope. 1984 (312-3, 318-9)
Corson,W. The Armies of Ignorance. 1977 (343-4, 372)
CounterSpy 1975-W (28)
Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#35 (35)
Dickson,P. Think Tanks. 1972 (72)
Dinges,J. The Condor Years. 2004 (203)
Domhoff,G.W. Who Rules America? 1967 (71)
Drosnin,M. Citizen Hughes. 1985 (313)
Fensterwald,B. Coincidence or Conspiracy? 1977 (136-8)
Finder,J. Red Carpet. 1983 (116, 173, 175, 179, 181-2, 238-9, 243-4)
Fonzi,G. The Last Investigation. 1993 (75-6)
Forbes 400 Richest Americans. 1985
Green,M. Selling Out. 2002 (49)
Guardian (New York) 1974-11-06 (8)
Heidenry,J. Theirs Was the Kingdom. 1993 (155-6, 529)
Hersh,B. The Old Boys. 1992 (84, 411)
Higham,C. Trading with the Enemy. 1984 (60-1)
Hitchens,C. The Trial of Henry Kissinger. 2001 (11, 14, 20)
Jeffreys-Jones,R. The CIA and American Democracy. 1989 (92, 199-200)
Kaplan,F. The Wizards of Armageddon. 1983 (127, 307)
Klare,M. War Without End. 1972 (270-1)
Lasky,V. It Didn't Start With Watergate. 1978 (10, 23)
Lernoux,P. Cry of the People. 1982 (206)
Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (77, 164-71, 314, 371)
Loftus,J. The Belarus Secret. 1982 (68, 132, 140-1)
Lundberg,F. The Rich and the Super-Rich. 1969 (161, 202-3, 206, 343, 702-3, 740-1, 757-8, 782-3, 809)
MacEoin,G. Revolution Next Door. 1971 (105, 149-53)
Mackenzie,A. Secrets: The CIA's War at Home. 1997 (62)
Marchetti,V. Marks,J. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. 1974 (315)
Melanson,P. Spy Saga. 1990 (77)
Messick,H. Lansky. 1973 (245-6)
NARMIC. Police on the Homefront. 1971 (104)
NameBase NewsLine 1996-10 (13)
Newsweek 1974-09-02 (21-2)
Olmsted,K. Challenging the Secret Government. 1996 (49, 55, 92)
Parakal,P. Secret Wars of CIA. 1984 (53)
Pepper,W. Orders to Kill. 1995 (114)
Perloff,J. The Shadows of Power. 1988 (22, 25, 104, 142-6, 148-9)
Persico,J. Casey. 1991 (96)
Pisani,S. The CIA and the Marshall Plan. 1991 (27)
Playboy 1975-10 (76, 78, 82, 92, 180, 182-7)
Prados,J. Keepers of the Keys. 1991 (275)
Pyadyshev,B. The Military-Industrial Complex of the USA. 1977 (59)
Quigley,C. Tragedy and Hope. 1966 (939, 941)
Quirk,J. Central Intelligence Agency: A Photographic History. 1986 (62, 89)
Resource Center. AIFLD in Central America. 1986 (3-4)
Resource Center. Workers of the World Undermined. 1991 (4)
Richelson,J. The Wizards of Langley. 2001 (172)
Sale,K. Power Shift. 1976 (297-8, 303-4)
Sampson,A. The Money Lenders. 1982 (77, 239)
Saunders,F. The Cultural Cold War. 2000 (144-5, 152, 234, 257-8, 260-2)
Scott,P.D... The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond. 1976 (495)
Shoup,L. Minter,W. Imperial Brain Trust. 1977 (61, 106, 248)
Simpson,C. Science of Coercion. 1996 (61, 75, 80-1)
Sklar,H. Trilateralism. 1980 (53)
Smith,B. The Shadow Warriors. 1983 (68, 71-2, 117)
Smith,R.H. OSS. 1981 (16)
Taheri,A. Nest of Spies. 1988 (68, 96)
Thomas,E. The Man to See. 1991 (334)
Turner,W. Christian,J. The Assassination of RFK. 1993 (203-4)
Van der Pijl,K. The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class. 1997 (80, 114, 202)
Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (214-5)
Weiner,T. Blank Check. 1991 (135-6)
Weissman,S. Trojan Horse. 1975 (73-5)
Wise,D. Ross,T. The Invisible Government. 1974 (187)
Wise,D. The American Police State. 1978 (76, 193)
Yakovlev,N. Washington Silhouettes. 1985 (161)

#9 Nathaniel Heidenheimer

Nathaniel Heidenheimer

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,323 posts
  • Location:nyc
  • Interests:Truth, St. Louis Cardinals.

Posted 27 July 2011 - 04:42 PM

Re: Nelson Rockefeller's role at the the Chapultepec Conference of 1945

"Nelson seized the moment offered by the Pentagon to confront the State Department 's misgivings about creating a military pact that considered an attack against any American state an attack against all. Such a pact would violate the recent agreement
at Dumbarton Oaks to refer all international disputes first to the proposed United Nations organization.... Rockefeller's regional military pact might inspire the Soviets to do likewise, undermining the effectiveness of the United Nations; worse it might destroy the U.N. founding conference itself, set for April in San Francisco" (Thy Will Be Done, p. 169.)

Old Nelson Rockefeller hands from his CIAA days during WWII have long been of interest to me re: the JFK assassination. Perhaps related to that is a distinction some writers have made between two branches of the post WWII US ruling class; one that was more multi-latteral, Eurocentric in their political and trade orientations, and more willing to work within the framework of the UN. The other being more unilateral, and focussed on US direct investment in Latin American and also more on trade with Asia as opposed to Europe.

Do we see -- in Nelson Rockefeller's attempt to create a separate US-Latin America relationship that could survive the new framework of the United Nations -- the beginnings of a split within US elites that would later culminate in the JFK assassination?

#10 Robert Morrow

Robert Morrow

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, TX
  • Interests:I welcome phone calls and emails relating to the JFK assassination. My phone is 512-306-1510 in Austin, TX and my email is Morrow321@aol.com. If you would like my "LBJ and CIA murdered JFK" file, please email me. It has LOTS of super info and web links.

    ALSO ===>

    I would bet my house, my car, and my bank account that the Clintons & Buddy Young sent 3 Arkansas state trooper goons to beat the living hell out of and nearly murder Gary Johnson (the lawyer for Larry Nichols & neighbor of Gennifer Flowers) on June 26, 1992. They did this because Gary Johnson had security camera videotapes of Bill Clinton often entering Gennifer's condo. The Clintons were denying the Bill/Gennifer affair at that time. The Clinton thugs then stole the tapes. Watch the "New Clinton Chronicles" and go to minute 48 for the Gary Johnson interview.

Posted 29 July 2011 - 03:57 AM

No, I don't see that supposed split among the elites as a reason for the JFK assassination.

What I do see are the close connnections between Democrat Lyndon Johnson and CIA Republican Nelson Rockefeller. Most JFK researchers have no idea that in spring, 1968, the President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, was secretly supporting REPUBLICAN and very close friend Nelson Rockefeller for president.

Why? In my opinion, both Lyndon Johnson and CIA Republican Nelson Rockefeller were deeply involved in the JFK assassination, and Johnson's #1 goal at that point was to find a president who would continue the cover up of the JFK assassination after he, LBJ, left office in January, 1969.


The CLOSE ties of Lyndon Johnson and Nelson Rockefeller
– Yes, I do think they planned the JFK assassination together with Allen Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover and George Herbert Walker Bush – these were the CIA Republicans that Lyndon Johnson made a dirty deal with to murder JFK.

The book Thy Will be Done: the Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil is about Nelson Rockefeller. It talks about how CLOSE Lyndon Johnson and Nelson Rockefeller were. In spring of 1968, after LBJ withdrew, he was actually trying to talk Nelson Rockefeller into running for president! (p. 588). Then in Johnson's retirement, Nelson and Happy Rockefeller often visited LBJ on his ranch in Texas (p. 711). Lyndon Johnson and Nelson Rockefeller were close personal friends.

Almost all the key players under Lyndon Johnson were Council on Foreign Relations, a tool of the Rockefeller family. http://www.politico....0310/34945.html Lyndon Johnson’s so-called “wise men” on Vietnam: “Present at the White House meeting were Dean Acheson, George Ball, McGeorge Bundy, Clark Clifford, Arthur Dean, Douglas Dillon, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Robert Murphy, Cyrus Vance and Gens. Omar Bradley, Matthew Ridgway and Maxwell Taylor”

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz0tIjaNCiz

NOW LOOK AT WHAT JOHN KENNEDY WAS NOT - tied into the Rockefellers, he was a RIVAL to Nelson Rockefeller ... Very key quote below by Schlesinger. In particular note how much the NY Times and CFR have lied about and covered up the Kennedy assassination for 50 years. Henry Kissinger was Nelson Rockefeller’s closest foreign policy aide for many years.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the "New York establishment":
"In particular, he was little acquainted with the New York financial and legal community-- that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady supply of always orthodox and often able people to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the American Establishment. Its household deities were Henry Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs."[14]
http://en.wikipedia....reign_Relations

Now read this link about Lyndon Johnson, Birch Bayh putting in the 25th Amendment specifically for NELSON ROCKEFELLER! http://www.reformati...-president.html

Astoundingly, Republican Nelson Rockefeller was the TOP (behind the scenes) choice of
Democrat Lyndon Johnson in 1968!
From Robert Dallek’s book Flawed Giant, pp. 544-545]
Lyndon Johnson’s deep alliance with CIA and Eastern Establishment

“Johnson’s choice as his successor was New York’s Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller. The two men had a high regard for each other. Johnson saw Rockefeller as a sensible moderate who, in Lady Bird’s words, “was a good human being, a person who was for the disadvantaged, who was a man of compassion, with a capable and effective mind, and capable of being effective, getting things done.” He also believed that Rockefeller was the one man who could beat Bobby Kennedy, no small asset in Johnson’s mind.
Rockefeller reciprocated Johnson’s feelings. He saw the President as “a great statesman and great American patriot.” Rockefeller said later: “He was a tremendous guy.” They and their wives enjoyed a warm personal relationship. Nelson recalled how frank his wife Happy could be with Lyndon, telling him at the ranch not to drive so fast or drink too much. “She was successful in getting him to slow down, which I don’t think most people were.”
Toward the end of April [1968], Johnson invited the Rockefellers to the White House for dinner, where he urged the governor to declare for the Republican nomination. “He was very friendly about ’68, and very supportive of me for ’68,” Rockefeller said. Johnson also told him he would never campaign against him. Happy Rockefeller remembered how during that evening Johnson urged Rockefeller to run. “He did want Nelson to be President,” she said. Johnson encouraged others to back Rockefeller as well. On April 7, after Irwin Miller, a prominent member of “Republicans for Johnson” in 1964 had asked whether the president would object to his chairing a Draft Rockefeller Committee, LBJ have Miller “a full speed go-ahead.”
Rockefeller did not need much prodding. On April 10, following a brief conversation with Johnson at New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral, where they attended Archbishop Terence Cooke’s installation, Rockefeller announced his “availability” for the Republican nomination. On April 30, after the White House evening, Rockefeller declared himself a candidate for the presidency.” [p. 545, A Flawed Giant, Robert Dallek]

From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

“The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, JOHNSON of Texas, GEORGE BUSH, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?"

I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped. Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, p. 638-639]:

Nelson Rockefeller tells JFK to use TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
against North Vietnam in 1961!

[James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 321-322]

“John Kennedy was turning. The key to understanding Kennedy's presidency, his assassination, and our survival as a species through the Cuban Missile Crisis is that Kennedy was turning towards peace. The signs of his turning are the seeds of his assassination.
Marcus Ruskin worked in the Kennedy Administration as an assistant to National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy. Not long after the Bay of Pigs, Raskin witnessed an incident in the Oval Office that tipped him off to Kennedy's deep aversion to the use of nuclear weapons.
During the president's meeting with a delegation of governors, New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, expressing his irritation at the guerilla tactics of the Viet Cong, said "Why don't we use tactical nuclear weapons against them?"
Raskin, watching Kennedy closely, was in a position to see what happened next. The president's hand began to shake uncontrollably.
JFK said simply, "You know we're not going to do that."
But it was the sudden shaking hand that alerted Raskin to Kennedy's profound uneasiness with nuclear weapons, a mark of conscience that would later turn into a commitment to disarmament"

[James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 321-322]

Edited by Robert Morrow, 29 July 2011 - 03:58 AM.


#11 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 July 2011 - 05:00 AM

Re: Nelson Rockefeller's role at the the Chapultepec Conference of 1945

"Nelson seized the moment offered by the Pentagon to confront the State Department 's misgivings about creating a military pact that considered an attack against any American state an attack against all. Such a pact would violate the recent agreement
at Dumbarton Oaks to refer all international disputes first to the proposed United Nations organization.... Rockefeller's regional military pact might inspire the Soviets to do likewise, undermining the effectiveness of the United Nations; worse it might destroy the U.N. founding conference itself, set for April in San Francisco" (Thy Will Be Done, p. 169.)

Old Nelson Rockefeller hands from his CIAA days during WWII have long been of interest to me re: the JFK assassination. Perhaps related to that is a distinction some writers have made between two branches of the post WWII US ruling class; one that was more multi-latteral, Eurocentric in their political and trade orientations, and more willing to work within the framework of the UN. The other being more unilateral, and focussed on US direct investment in Latin American and also more on trade with Asia as opposed to Europe.

Do we see -- in Nelson Rockefeller's attempt to create a separate US-Latin America relationship that could survive the new framework of the United Nations -- the beginnings of a split within US elites that would later culminate in the JFK assassination?



I also believe there was a strong connection between Rocky and the British Security Coordination in NYC beginning with Sir Wiseman and Sir William Stephenson.

Dumbarton Oaks is now the Harvard Research Center in DC that is/was run by Ed L. Kenan, who was present in the room at the US Embassy in USSR when Oswald turned in his passport and defected.

What a beautiful place Dumbarton Oaks, donated to Harvard by a rich widow. Wouldn't it be nice to have an Assassination Research Center in DC of the same attributes?

BK




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users