Delete

Good stuff, Tim.

Those peaceful overtures JFK made toward Castro you mention I believe are paramount to what happened in Dallas. When Vidal received the word via his network that an olive branch was to be extended, assassination plans began. IMO of course.

Again, excellent piece.

James

Great article Tim. I have been looking for a lot of Dallas/Watergate material and this summed it up perfectly, I feel we need to make contact with Hunt. He may be unwilling but its worth a try

James,

Thanks for the supportive feedback; and thanks especially for the photo of Hunt with Manuel Artime. Putting this photo together with the one of Bobby Kennedy and Artime contained in the seminar piece completes the thread from Bobby to Hunt; and we already know that it was the Hunt-Nixon connection that led directly to the undoing of a second presidency in the short span of a single decade.

Click to view attachment
Manuel Artime and "Eduardo" (E. Howard Hunt)

Click to view attachment
Bobby Kennedy with Manuel Artime and Compatriots

Tim

Tim,

Good work. One minor point, and a question. Ruiz-Williams wasn't CIA, he was a Cuban exile leader who was seriously wounded and captured in the BOP invasion. What has gotten my attention about Ruiz-Williams is an interesting fib he told about where he was on 11/22/63. While it appears that he was in Washington that day, being interviewed by Haynes Johnson for his BOP book, Ruiz-Williams told Hinckle and Turner (authors of Deadly Secrets) that he was meeting that morning with Richard Helms, E. Howard Hunt, and several other CIA agents in a Washington CIA safe house. They were headed for a late lunch when they heard of the assassination.

The reason I say this is a "fib" is that it contradicts the accounts of both principles whom Ruiz-Williams claims he was meeting with. Helms in his autobiography says he was in a meeting with CIA director McCone and others that morning, and was lunching with McCone when he got the news from Dallas. And if Hunt was meeting with Helms or any other CIA agents in Washington, why in the world did Hunt go through such contortions in the Liberty Lobby trial trying to construct an alibi regarding his whereabouts on 11/22?

I suspect that Ruiz-Williams claimed he was meeting with Helms, Hunt, and other CIA agents simply for self-aggrandizement, though of course there could be other reasons.

I was struck by your Beschloss quote, ""the most likely explanation for the cause of Kennedy's death lies in his policies." Like all "presidential historians," Beschloss is a lone nutter, is he not? What is the context of his statement? Does he think Oswald was more a strong critic of administration policies than a loser out to make a name for himself? (And why then, in Beschloss's view, I wonder, didn't Oswald state his policy differences to the press instead of "I'm just a patsy!"?)

Ron

Responses to Ron Ecker's questions:

1. "Ruiz-Williams wasn't CIA, he was a Cuban exile leader who was seriously wounded and captured in the BOP invasion. What has gotten my attention about Ruiz-Williams is an interesting fib he told about where he was on 11/22/63. While it appears that he was in Washington that day, being interviewed by Haynes Johnson for his BOP book, Ruiz-Williams told Hinckle and Turner (authors of Deadly Secrets) that he was meeting that morning with Richard Helms, E. Howard Hunt, and several other CIA agents in a Washington CIA safe house. They were headed for a late lunch when they heard of the assassination.
The reason I say this is a "fib" is that it contradicts the accounts of both principles whom Ruiz-Williams claims he was meeting with. Helms in his autobiography says he was in a meeting with CIA director McCone and others that morning, and was lunching with McCone when he got the news from Dallas."

I'm not sure that we're really looking at a significant inconsistency here but, admittedly, this one issue involves the juggling of numerous personal minute-by-minute lunchtime accounts. The accounts are fairly consistent that there was a high-level meeting that morning according to the book you cite, Deadly Secrets. Ruiz-Williams called it "the most important meeting I ever had on the problem of Cuba." It is noted that "Williams and the CIA brass [including Helms and Hunt] were about to go out for a late lunch when they heard that the President had been shot in Dallas." [Deadly Secrets, pg. 251] This account doesn't specify that they were heading to lunch together. The inconsistent clause is the simple: "about to go out for a late lunch" rather than the alternative going out for a late lunch. Helms could have been having lunch with McCone while Ruiz-Williams was already meeting with Haynes Johnson at the Ebbitt Hotel. The book notes the following:

"Barely an hour after the news from Dallas broke, Bobby Kennedy was called by Haynes Johnson...who was...in Harry Williams's room at the Ebbitt Hotel.... Williams, who had just arrived from his penultimate meeting with CIA officials on 'the problem of Cuba' was Johnson's prime source among the Bay of Pigs veterans.... 'One of your guys did it,' Bobby told Johnson in a flat, unemotional voice. Apparently Bobby immediately assumed that the murder plots against Castro had boomeranged." [Deadly Secrets, pg. 273]

2. And if Hunt was meeting with Helms or any other CIA agents in Washington, why in the world did Hunt go through such contortions in the Liberty Lobby trial trying to construct an alibi regarding his whereabouts on 11/22?

Leaving aside the belief that Hunt was one of the three tramps in the Plaza, it is possible that his "contortions in the Liberty Lobby trial" revolved around his involvement rather than presence in Dallas on the 22nd. We have Marita Lorenz's assertion that he was at the Cabana Motel in Dallas on the 21st in his usual role as bagman but left that evening. It is not inconsistent that Hunt had returned to D.C. in time for the important meeting on the morning of the 22nd. His own account of the "late lunch" timing is that he had just been picked up by his wife and was in the car when he heard the news. In this scenario, his "contortions" may well have involved a busy working weekend, and thus lying about his children being witnesses to his presence at home.

3. I suspect that Ruiz-Williams claimed he was meeting with Helms, Hunt, and other CIA agents simply for self-aggrandizement, though of course there could be other reasons.

I have no basis for disagreement with your suspicion except to say that if there was no such meeting, that alone would constitute significant evidence of high-level, widespread cover-up.

4. I was struck by your Beschloss quote, "the most likely explanation for the cause of Kennedy's death lies in his policies." Like all "presidential historians," Beschloss is a lone nutter, is he not? What is the context of his statement? Does he think Oswald was more a strong critic of administration policies than a loser out to make a name for himself?

I appreciate the sensibility of Beschloss' remark that "the cause of Kennedy's death lies in his policies." I know of no basis for your question: "Like all 'presidential historians,' Beschloss is a lone nutter, is he not?" Beschloss has written the following:

"Both Oswald and Jack Ruby had close connections to organized crime figures that were not apparent to the public in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.... If the American people had learned in the last weeks of 1963 that the CIA had cooperated with the Mafia in an effort to assassinate Castro and that the scheme might have culminated in the death of the President, there would have been serious demands, as Kennedy had threatened after the Bay of Pigs, to shatter the Agency into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." [The Crisis Years, pgs. 686-687]

5. And why then, in Beschloss's view, I wonder, didn't Oswald state his policy differences to the press instead of "I'm just a patsy!"?

I believe that Oswald's claim of being a patsy is strong evidence that he did not act alone or for any personal motive. People acting on behalf of causes historically trumpet said causes. A lone nut seeking recognition or a "loser out to make a name for himself," as you put it, also would not claim to be a patsy. So as to why, in "Beschloss's view," Oswald didn't "state his policy differences to the press," I'm not sure that Beschloss has ever asserted that he considers Oswald to have had any "policy differences" with Kennedy. By most accounts, Oswald admired Kennedy.

Tim

Tim,

The meeting that Helms and McCone attended on the morning of 11/22/63 was with the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. That sounds like a different type of meeting than the one Ruiz-Williams said he attended.

On Beschloss, if you are saying that he is not a lone nutter, then I am pleasantly surprised. I have not read his books, but recall seeing him interviewed on TV, pretty much following the party line on the JFK assassination.

I don't know of any "presidential historians" (by which I mean people like Dallek who are customarily presented as such on TV, who have written books about presidents, and teach courses about them, and who comprise prestigious panels on the History Channel) who are not lone nutters, or who are at least careful not to express any credence in conspiracy theories. If Beschloss is an exception, I wish he would do more to help out the cause, but I can understand why he wouldn't want to ruin his academic reputation.

Ron

Ron,

I don't want to be understood to be saying anything about Beschloss' opinions, and I don't think that I have. I did my best to strictly adhere to quotes and sources raised by you. Having just met with Gary Mack on Friday, and the way he is represented as having sold out to lone nuttism, I am careful not to stray from a historian's printed word. I appreciate your salient questions and hope that you appreciate the precision with which I sought to answer them. By the way, I will say that Gary Mack told me directly that he has not become a lone nutter and that he still believes in the validity of Badgeman (though I do not).

As for your point that "the meeting...on the morning of 11/22/63...sounds like a different type of meeting than the one Ruiz-Williams said he attended," I would respond, again quoting the source you cited, Deadly Secrets, pg. 273, that Harry Ruiz-Williams was "Bobby's best-and-brightest choice to lead a renewed effort to get rid of Castro."

As for the careerism to which you allude regarding the way historians traditionally "grab their balls" when asked about the assassination (to borrow a euphemism from JFK), I would anticipate that Beschloss would have difficulty going along with assertions of LBJ's involvement.

Tim

Excellent work Tim, very thorough, and you have a lot of good points. I'd thought about the Dallas/Watergate connections before, but never in great detail.

Nic,

Thanks very much for your compliment; I always enjoy hearing from you, which is too infrequent.

Tim

__________________________

Excellent paper, Tim. You have picked up where Carl left off, demonstrating just how deeply Hunt ties BOP to Watergate. Why Nixon would pay any amount Hunt demanded.

As Sam Erwin used to say "what did the president know and when did he know it?" I want to ask these qustions of Chuck Colson, John Dean, Howard Hunt, James McCord and anyone else who could shed further light on these significant Bay of Pigs/Watergate connectins to the assassination of JFK, 41 years ago today.

Your paper, and the others prsented at this seminar, needs to be published in the print media. The Dalleks be dammed, they are liars.

Great job. Love the pics too. That sure resembles McCord to me!!

Dawn

ps The McCord photo and one bearing a strong resemblance to him are on another post from today, not this one, sorry.

In hunts book, he claims that he wanted the money to help him with his legal bills and believed that the money was owed to him for services rendered.

undercover, howard hunt

john

Good work, Tim.
Your analysis well presented. Have to read it a few times to pose any q's for you.

Glad you went the distance. The photo figs. are excellent.

An excellent article Tim. Thank you for those notes and references, this has given me a lot of leads I want to explore.

Like you I am convinced that Kennedy’s foreign policy holds the key to understanding his death. It is also highly significant that he tried to keep this policy secret from the CIA. I suspect the main reason for this is that he suspected that they would leak this information to his political opponents. It has to be remembered that in 1963 Kennedy owed his popularity because of his image of being a successful Cold War warrior. In reality, he was trying to bring an end to the Cold War. If this had got out, he would probably have lost to Goldwater in 1964.

Although I believe that the assassination of JFK was carried out by anti-Castro Cubans, I am not convinced that it was this group who organized it. I say this because the anti-Castro forces did not obtain their objective in killing JFK. Cuba was not invaded and Castro was not overthrown, even though all the evidence after the first couple of days suggested that it was indeed a Cuban/Soviet operation. Why? I have attempted to answer this in my seminar. (1) This is of course pure speculation on my part, as we will never be able to find out what was really going on in the head of Johnson in the days following the assassination.

One thing is certain, the anti-Castro Cubans would have felt a sense of betrayal. I think this comes out in the book, The Bay of Pigs by Hayes Johnson, Manuel Artime, Jose Perez San Roman, Erneido Oliva and Enrique Ruiz-Williams. (2) Hostility is not shown towards the Kennedys (they especially approve of the efforts made by the brothers to get their comrades released from prison in Cuba). Their hostility is towards the CIA and right-wing figures in America who they felt abandoned them after the Bay of Pigs.

There were two main groups who benefited from the death of Kennedy.

(1) Wealthy figures involved in the oil industry. The assassination of Kennedy allowed the oil depletion allowance to be kept at 27.5 per cent. It remained unchanged during the Johnson presidency. Soon after Johnson left office it dropped to 15 per cent. According to Robert Sherrill, Johnson played an important role in its introduction. (3) A close friend of Johnson was Robert Anderson, president of the Texas Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. Johnson and Sid Richardson managed to persuade Eisenhower to appoint Anderson as Secretary of Treasury (interestingly, they also tried to persuade Eisenhower to make Anderson his running mate in 1956 – however, he rejected this idea and kept Nixon). A few weeks after his appointment, Anderson was appointed to a cabinet committee to look at the oil industry. It was as a result of this committee that changes were made to the tax system to benefit certain figures in the oil industry (these measures actually hurt the small oil companies).

(2) The Military Industrial Complex was the group that really benefited from the death of Kennedy. The end of the Cold War would have been disastrous for them. Instead, they got the Vietnam War and a massive increase in military spending. In fact, it could be argued, that it suited the MIC to have Castro in power in Cuba. This was a constant reminder to the American people why they needed to spend so much of the GNP on defending the country from the menace of communism. It communism could reach an island just a few hundred miles off the coast, surely it could reach America as well.

I am sure Eisenhower became aware of what Johnson was up to during his presidency. I believe Eisenhower’s last speech as president is highly significant. (4) Did you know that it was censored at the last moment. The original speech did not use the phrase the “Military Industrial Complex”. It originally used the phrase the “Military Industrial Congress Complex”. Eisenhower’s point was that senior politicians was involved in this conspiracy. At the last moment he was persuaded to remove the word "Congress". Eisenhower would have had Johnson in mind when he said this.

For those who don’t know it, this is what Eisenhower said in his last speech:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen...

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Notes

(1) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2310

(2) Haynes Johnson, The Bay of Pigs (1964)

(3) Robert Sherrill, The Accidental President (1967) 142-147

(4) Dwight Eisenhower, speech on the Military-Industrial Complex (17th January, 1961)

[quote=Tim Carroll,Nov 22 2004, 08:02 AM]
THE "WHOLE BAY OF PIGS THING": FROM DALLAS TO WATERGATE

*I am particularly indebted to Carl Oglesby, whose historical framework has guided me through decades of solitary analysis.

[/quote]

***

Tim: I read your paper with detailed interest. This is a fine job of research and your are to be commended. The younger generation would do well to look closely as to what you have submitted. There are many parts contained therein, I am sure, which will become a major part of future historical research. The referenced material is also a tremendous aid to following the paper. Send us more of the same.

P.S. who was the covert pilot? Is there any documentation you could provide as to his Identity?

Thanks Tosh Plumlee

Tosh,
I have no primary documentation that would make me feel comfortable with identifying the pilot. Of course, the pilot himself could simply say who it was....
Tim

QUOTE (Tim Carroll @ Nov 23 2004, 05:43 PM)

QUOTE (William Plumlee @ Nov 23 2004, 06:47 AM)

P.S. who was the covert pilot? Is there any documentation you could provide as to his Identity?
Thanks  Tosh Plumlee

Tosh,
I have no primary documentation that would make me feel comfortable with identifying the pilot. Of course, the pilot himself could simply say who it was....
Tim

Tim Very Good point. I think I can help you on this, although it will perhaps create a fire storm of debate. I have said many times that I would not do this because of the crazies out there in never never land, but because of the in depth research you have done on this matter and others, I decided to make an exception and take the heat.
The pilot was a cover name "Buck' Pearson (for the record) There were a series of flights from Marathon Florida involving Lisa Howard. They started around mid 1963. A number of cover stories were planted for her protection, as to how she left the USA for Cuba. The opening of this Chanel to Castro was said not to be a good one. President Kennedy thought otherwise. The covert operational cover story, in case the information became public. was for example: she went to Mexico. She went by private charter with the State Department, and the likes. She went to France and then Cuba, it was said. If uncovered it would be said " She worked this lead alone and without approval by the administration or ABC"..
She actually left from West Palm Beach after meeting with Kennedy on the first flight and stopped at Marathon and boarded a covert flight for Havana. The flight was cleared by Customs to fly through the AIDZ outside key west. The aircraft was a D-18 Twin Beach N-6800 (if I remember right) At one time Steve Guthrie owned this aircraft and it was based at L.B. Smith Aircraft, Miami International. On another time she left from a place in Bimini, because it was thought that this operation should not be launched from United States territory. The aircraft was a Twin Cessna 310 #97-LL that had been based at Hollywood Florida and belong to Jack Ryley.

Thanks for that Tosh,
Very important information. It has already been examined that the U.N. contacts between Carlos Lechuga and William Attwood probably leaked through wiretaps, but this makes me wonder if the Lisa Howard contacts were what leaked to the anti-Castroites. So by definition, when you say the flight was "cleared by Customs to fly through the AIDZ outside Key West," you are referencing Cesar Diosdado, correct?
Tim

"Those peaceful overtures JFK made toward Castro you mention I believe are paramount to what happened in Dallas. When Vidal received the word via his network that an olive branch was to be extended, assassination plans began. IMO of course."

James,

As Alfredo Duran said, Kennedy became a "dialogueros" when the olive branch was extended to Castro. From that point, he was a marked man. It was the last straw in the 3 strike scenario.

1. Bay of Pigs, strike 1
2. Missile Crisis, strike 2
3. Backdoor diplomacy with Castro, strike 3, you're out

RJS

Indeed, Richard.

The Duran comment is most interesting. He was of course in a situation at the time to understand what was happening amongst the more militant Cuban exiles.

I think we can say that several individuals had political motivations to kill the President and there was also some serious animosity and hatred toward JFK. All in all, a potent combination to spur action.

James

Richard,

While most people focus on the no-invasion pledge to settle the Missile Crisis as the element that would provoke such animosity, which is true as it relates to the anti-Castro Cubans, I consider the second, secret part of the deal to resolve the Crisis that was dynamite with the wrong people: the Joint Chiefs of Staff. JFK's secret deal to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey was literally treasonous to the minds of the generals, who were told by Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton that if the missiles weren't removed within six months, JFK would order them shot out.

Also, as I have posted previously, there was a severe divide within the anti-Castro community. Artime, for example, was pulling in a quarter million dollars monthly for Second Naval Guerrilla. That's why researchers who explore the nuances of the myriad groups are performing such important work - people like Tim Gratz.

Tim

John

The "Military Industrial Complex" speech by Eisenhower could have referred to the election of JFK after the U-2 event spoiled the Paris Peace Summit in May 1960. Did Eisenhower ralize that the CIA and KGB had the power to influence and direct the leadership of each country? I believe he knew that they did have this ability and how that folded into a Democratic society worried him.

Eisenhower's Mutually Assured Distruction was a policy that was leading to serious talks between two super powers because responsible leaders in both countries recognized that man now had the ability to destroy the world as it was then known. The U-2 Incident ended Eisenhower's last chance to move the world toward a greater peace.

Both the Soviets and the US had ardent cold warriors that were influenced by their own "right wing" elements. The US elements vowing to never be caught off guard in a Pearl Harbor type event again and those in the Soviet Union that had lived during the Nazi invasion which had killed some 20 million Soviet citizens while the Joe Kennedy's of the world were erging passive support for Hitler.

I believe Eisenhower, who had worked with every government and every military leader of the WWII era was keenly aware of the political situation (Military Industrial Complex) that existed in both the East and the West. His later frienship with Kennedy, I believe, came about because Kennedy was realizing that even the President does not control all facits of policy.

Jim Root

“Like you I am convinced that Kennedy’s foreign policy holds the key to understanding his death. It is also highly significant that he tried to keep this policy secret from the CIA. I suspect the main reason for this is that he suspected that they would leak this information to his political opponents. It has to be remembered that in 1963 Kennedy owed his popularity because of his image of being a successful Cold War warrior. In reality, he was trying to bring an end to the Cold War. If this had got out, he would probably have lost to Goldwater in 1964.”

While examining all the aspects of communism, anti-communism, Cubans, the CIA, FBI, NSA, secret assassination groups, the military-industrial-complex, etc in the role of JFK’s assassination, one must never forget the politics of Zionism that played a huge part in his death.

JFK was trying put pressure on Israel to give up their nuclear ambitions. He died and they got the bomb.

This aspect of the overall conspiracy is hardly discussed in forum groups. For those wanting more information, one good source is Michael Collins Piper’s book

Final Judgment: the Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy

http://feralnews.com/issues/jfk/piper/piper.html

"There has been since almost the earliest days of the Israeli state and the earliest days of the CIA a secret bond, basically by which Israeli intelligence did jobs for the CIA and for the rest of American intelligence. You can't understand what's been going on with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand this secret arrangement."

When I asked if the CIA and Mossad worked together back in 1963, James Files mentioned to me there were Mossad people present in Dealey Plaza he recognized. He didn’t want to elaborate other than “they had their aerial pictures and Langley had theirs” because he wasn’t sure if that was still classified information.

If you follow this trail you will end up in the past and current White House and the wars in the Middle East-in fact all the wars in SE Asia, South and Central America, Africa - basically all the wars. Yes the drugging and terrorizing of America is part of this safari but you will find the people you are looking for to solve this case.

Many have passed on but many are still playing the game. Hard line Israel played a major role in the 1980 October Surprise scandal with none other that George H.W. Bush as one of the big league players. This led to the Iran-Contra scandal, the Clintons in power...domestic and foreign state sponsored terrorism...it does not matter the label of Democrat or Republican.

I don’t know if the people want it solved or just if it is just too much to comprehend. What do people here think about this subject?

When this area is touched upon a spiritual and Biblical thread is woven into the conspiracy. Throw in the false evangelical prophets supporting this genocide and you get the picture. Since most people are not familiar with Zionism vs. true Judaism, an important part of this complex puzzle remains a mystery, a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

Eisenhower was apparently duped into a massive and unnecessary nuclear build-up believing, as is said today, that peace can only be gained through strength - overwhelming and inequitable strength. The massive expenditures of the 1950s were known to be militarily unnecessary by Ike as a result of the top secret U-2 overflights. When Ike was caught in his lie, it not only ruined the chance for peace at the Paris Summit, but also severely damaged his own sense of self-honor in a publicly humiliating fashion. Historian Michael Beschloss described the following:

"John Eisenhower came to the Presidential cabin [at Camp David]. He loved his father and had been stung by the criticism of the past seven days. His anger focused on Allen Dulles. John rarely gave his father unsolicited advice, but now he told him that Dulles had let him down: Dulles had promised that a pilot would never be captured alive. John said, 'You ought to fire him.' This provoked a Vesuvian explosion. The President cried, 'I am not going to shift blame to my underlings!' As John later said, 'He let me know that I was a kid in short pants in no uncertain terms.' The outburst suggested to him that 'Dad was fighting a hard battle with himself internally about Dulles' and 'would like to have canned him.' This was not far from the mark. The President told Goodpaster and Gordon Gray that he never wanted to see Dulles alone again." [bolding emphasis added]*

*Michael Beschloss, Mayday: The U-2 Affair, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986) 271-272.

In a an earlier posting on this seminar, in a discussion with Ron Ecker, I failed to emphasize how much I admire and recommend Beschloss to students of history.

Tim

[quote=Tim Carroll,Nov 23 2004, 10:12 PM]
[quote=William Plumlee,Nov 23 2004, 12:55 PM]The pilot was a cover name "Buck' Pearson (for the record) There were a series of flights from Marathon Florida involving Lisa Howard. They started around mid 1963. A number of cover stories were planted for her protection, as to how she left the USA for Cuba.... The flight was cleared by Customs to fly through the AIDZ outside Key West. [/quote]
Thanks for that Tosh,
Very important information. It has already been examined that the U.N. contacts between Carlos Lechuga and William Attwood probably leaked through wiretaps, but this makes me wonder if the Lisa Howard contacts were what leaked to the anti-Castroites. So by definition, when you say the flight was "cleared by Customs to fly through the AIDZ outside Key West," you are referencing Cesar Diosdado, correct?
Tim

[/quote]

Tim; I would have no way of knowing that for sure. But if we had left United States airspace and was tracked by radar picket aircraft, boat or land base radar, coming and going out off and into the ADIZ then we would have been spotted and chase aircraft would have been dispatched from Key West NAS or Homestead AFB. It was a commond practice for Customs to have known something was in the air and it was not a 'boogy", and it was cleared by higher powers. Also note: the recordered Custom flight tracks would be erased for these authorized "overflight" aircraft.

Who would have received this information? I would have no way of knowing those names. (there would be more than one person in on the information or clearance) I know that more than one Custom official knew of our flights although they would not know what these flights were about or who was onboard and why.
I too, think leaks came from the Castro government or double agents in Miami and Cuba. I think international cables had been tapped by the CIA and this put Kennedy's secret mission in jeprody, almost before it got started.

Tim

You might enjoy reading, The Kennedys: America's Emerald Kings by Thomas Maier. In the book Maier gives an account of a visit by Allen Dulles to Joe Kennedy where Dulles assures Kennedy that his son will be the next President.

I hold to the belief that if the U-2 incident does not occur on May 1, 1960, John F. Kennedy does not become President! The fact that Oswasld was a radar operator at Astugi, Japan where the U-2's were flying out of at the time and the defection of Oswald to the Soviet Union make for a connection that I just can't get out of my mind.

The election of John F. Kennedy, perhaps, would not have occured if Oswald does not defect to the Soviet Union and Francis Gary Powers is not shot down. For me, the connection of General Edwin Walker to Maxwell Taylor and Taylor's rise to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy makes me believe that Taylor may have had advance knowledge of the U-2 incident. Walker's tavel to Europe in October of 1959 coincides with Oswald's defection. Did Walker meet Oswald in Europe? I believe there is a legitimate possibility.

Jim Root

"When I asked if the CIA and Mossad worked together back in 1963, James Files mentioned to me there were Mossad people present in Dealey Plaza he recognized. He didn’t want to elaborate other than “they had their aerial pictures and Langley had theirs” because he wasn’t sure if that was still classified information.

If you follow this trail you will end up in the past and current White House and the wars in the Middle East-in fact all the wars in SE Asia, South and Central America, Africa - basically all the wars. Yes the drugging and terrorizing of America is part of this safari but you will find the people you are looking for to solve this case.

Hard line Israel played a major role in the 1980 October Surprise scandal with none other that George H.W. Bush as one of the big league players. This led to the Iran-Contra scandal, the Clintons in power...domestic and foreign state sponsored terrorism...

When this area is touched upon a spiritual and Biblical thread is woven into the conspiracy. Throw in the false evangelical prophets supporting this genocide and you get the picture. Since most people are not familiar with Zionism vs. true Judaism, an important part of this complex puzzle remains a mystery, a riddle wrapped in an enigma."

"What do people here think about this subject?"


What do I think about your dissertation that Israel is responsible for every bad thing that's ever happened in the last 50 years? Israel was behind the assassination? In league with the mob and James Files? Iran Contra? Domestic and state sponsored terrorism??

At the risk of censure, you make me ill. You are a prime example of the lunatic fringe.

Jim

The U-2 incident is a direct tie to the agenda of the Military Industrial Complex. I would suggest that you review the evidence that the U-2 was not shot down at all - that it had bad fuel on the longest U-2 flight ever. Allen Dulles' role is indeed intriguing, as well as Eisenhower's comment about never being left alone with Dulles again.

Tim

Richard,
I've been on a long phone call with a friend right at the junction where I was going to dare to respond to the courage of your statement at length. But perhaps, my use of the word courage can suffice for now. Thank you.
Tim

What is past is prologue…dedicated to the young in whose spirit the search for the truth marches on.
JFK

Richard,

When Eisenhower gave his farewell speech I was just a tot. I’m young at heart and I’m marching towards the truth. See ya.

The more I know about Eisenhower the more I respect his resolve. He knew what he was up against and he spelled it out for his successors. He wanted plausible deniability like Kennedy but he respected the office of the commander in chief, IMO.

I heard a story at COPA of Lemay puffing a cigar at the autopsy. One of the examiners approached him and told him to respect the dead president, and stub the stogie. The source of the story (not sure who) may have fabricated it, not sure if Lemay put it out or puffed on. It's a good metaphor, true or not, to whom JFK was facing after President Eisenhower made his fears known.

Christy,

Were you and I both at COPA and didn't meet?

I don't share your level of respect for Ike in that, as I said earlier, he was duped into massive expenditures by his D-Day mentality, which left him certain that he would be able to use the massive superiority (as opposed to stable parity) and his charm with Khrushchev at Camp David, to force a peace that was so easily undone by the likes of Dulles and the U-2 sabotage. This left JFK screwed from the git-go.

Also, during the transition, he allowed the Bay of Pigs invasion to morph into something far more massive than anything he himself would have ever authorized. JFK himself noted on 1/19/61, after meeting with Ike the day before the inauguration, that he was being pushed to do what Ike himself would not in Laos. That same day, Ike's last full day in office, Lumumba was assassinated through CIA facilitation. That same January, only two weeks before leaving office, he formally severed diplomatic relations with Cuba.

He was probably a very decent man, but not up to the task of managing the special interests he could only warn about upon retirement.

Click to view attachment

I like the story about LeMay's cigar smoking autopsy attendance.

Tim

In my opinion, Eisenhower was a great president. Had he remained in office, I don't think we would have ended up involved in the imbroglio over Cuba, or ensnared in Vietnam, for that matter. The U2 incident was probably one of Eisenhower's biggest blunders.

You've probably heard the story how Eisenhower came in the office early, read the intelligence reports, made the hard decisions, etc., then went golfing. At the time the public thought all he did was golf but he was really in command of the presidency. Of course, a true expert makes the difficult look easy. And Eisenhoewer would deliberately muddle his syntax when he wanted to evade a question.

Soon we'll post the story how the joint chiefs of staff, who so strongly objected to Kennedy's refusal to invade Cuba during the missile crisis, shortly thereafter accompanied JFK on a trip to Key West to inspect the Hawk missiles and thank the soldiers.

Eisenhower had gotten away with overthrowing foreign governments so successfully in Iran and Guatemala that he had become complacent about it by the time he was leaving office as the oldest president in history. Aside from the lame duck moves in his last three weeks in office which I previously mentioned (including a tenfold increase in the Bay of Pigs invasion force and an international assassination on his last full day in office), the overwhelming imbalance of power that was bought and paid for during Ike's tenure led directly to Khrushchev's need to implement a quick fix to counter the encirclement policy of the Eisenhower years. Ike had plenty of advantages in terms of command authority which JFK did not have, yet still got bested by the Military Industrial Complex he had enabled. The Soviet deployment of missiles off our shore, mimicking Ike's long term policy, created the most dangerous moment in human history. It wasn't until 1989 that it was learned that they had even deployed tactical Luna missiles, which were totally defensive, yet still, according to McNamara, would have triggered nuclear war. I consider JFK's restraint of the momentum toward a nuclear final solution (Nazi German designed rockets and all), with a cast of inherited characters the likes of LeMay and Anderson, to be his greatest contribution.

Tim

Suffice it to say, and I'm not disagreeing with you, each Prez comes with his baggage. He inherits more with the office. There's so much imperfection and deceit. DC can be the WC of politics and by that I mean toilet.

Factions at Pentagon, the icons of wealth and their lapdogs all pulling for favors. This carries over. What a bind for any man trying to lead and push policy.

I'm not as studied as you on this topic of Eisenhower but I see him as imperfect as was JFK. Imperfection is human, all of them made big errors in judgment. JFK came and went too soon for his objectives.

IMO, RFK's aspirations after 1963, is an illustration of a man who saw it, had a role in it, cross-examined the legacy and began to change. He picked himself up and knowing grave indecency in DC, he focused on the future after losing John and Martin.

I remember seeing a tape of LBJ handing Bobby a load of pens ("here go take these to your brats") during the Civil Rights Act signing. RFK skulked away-- it was painful to watch. He knew, LBJ knew and it was DC politics after all. This environment we can observe but not truly understand as participants.

Our nation was a mess; LBJ was like Nixon after the bombing of Cambodia or Kent State, feebly talking to the "younger generation." All this and Cuba and Dallas too.

Lisa Howard is an interesting character. She was originally an actress and in 1950 appeared as a Soviet official in the anti-communist film, Guilty of Treason. She also appeared in Mr. & Mrs. North (1952), Donovan's Brain (1953) and Sabaka (1954). In the late 1950s she was a regular on CBS's Edge of Night.

In 1960 Howard became a correspondent for Mutual Radio Network. Covering the United Nations, she became the first journalist to secure an interview with Nikita Khrushchev. In 1963 she covered the Vienna summit between President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet leader. Later that year she became the anchor for ABC's noontime news broadcast, The News Hour with Lisa Howard.

In April 1963 McGeorge Bundy suggested to President John F. Kennedy that there should be a "gradual development of some form of accommodation with Castro". In an interview given in 1995, Bundy, said Kennedy needed "a target of opportunity" to talk to Fidel Castro.

In April 1963 Howard arrived in Cuba to make a documentary on the country. In an interview with Howard, Fidel Castro agreed that a rapprochement with Washington was desirable. On her return Howard was detained by the CIA. Deputy Director Richard Helms reported to John F. Kennedy on Howard's view that "Fidel Castro is looking for a way to reach a rapprochement with the United States." After detailing her observations about Castro's political power, disagreements with his colleagues and Soviet troops in Cuba, the memo concluded that "Howard definitely wants to impress the U.S. Government with two facts: Castro is ready to discuss rapprochement and she herself is ready to discuss it with him if asked to do so by the US Government."

CIA Director John McCone was strongly opposed to Howard being involved with these negotiations with Castro. He argued that it might "leak and compromise a number of CIA operations against Castro". In a memorandum to McGeorge Bundy, McCone commented that the "Lisa Howard report be handled in the most limited and sensitive manner," and "that no active steps be taken on the rapprochement matter at this time."

Howard now decided to bypass the CIA and in May, 1963, published an article in the journal, War and Peace Report, Howard wrote that in eight hours of private conversations Castro had shown that he had a strong desire for negotiations with the United States: "In our conversations he made it quite clear that he was ready to discuss: the Soviet personnel and military hardware on Cuban soil; compensation for expropriated American lands and investments; the question of Cuba as a base for Communist subversion throughout the Hemisphere." Howard went on to urge the Kennedy administration to "send an American government official on a quiet mission to Havana to hear what Castro has to say." A country as powerful as the United States, she concluded, "has nothing to lose at a bargaining table with Fidel Castro."

William Attwood, an adviser to the US mission to the United Nations, read Howard's article and on 12th September, 1963, he had a long conversation with her on the phone. This apparently set in motion a plan to initiate secret talks between the United States and Cuba. Six days later Attwood sent a memorandum to Under Secretary of State Averell Harriman and U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson. Attwood asked for permission to establish discreet, indirect contact with Fidel Castro.

On September 20, John F. Kennedy gave permission to authorize Attwood's direct contacts with Carlos Lechuga, the Cuban ambassador to the United Nations. According to Attwood: "I then told Miss Howard to set up the contact, that is to have a small reception at her house so that it could be done very casually, not as a formal approach by us." Howard met Lechuga at the UN on 23rd September 23. Howard invited Lechuga to come to a party at her Park Avenue apartment that night to meet Attwood.

The next day Attwood met with Robert Kennedy in Washington and reported on the talks with Lechuga. According to Attwood the attorney general believed that a trip to Cuba would be "rather risky." It was "bound to leak and... might result in some kind of Congressional investigation." Nevertheless, he thought the matter was "worth pursuing."

On 5th November, McGeorge Bundy recorded that "the President was more in favor of pushing towards an opening toward Cuba than was the State Department, the idea being - well, getting them out of the Soviet fold and perhaps wiping out the Bay of Pigs and maybe getting back into normal." Bundy designated his assistant, Gordon Chase, to be Attwood's direct contact at the White House.

Attwood continued to use Howard as his contact with Fidel Castro. In October 1963, Castro told Howard that he was very keen to open negotiations with Kennedy. Castro even offered to send a plane to Mexico to pick up Kennedy's representative and fly him to a private airport near Veradero where Castro would talk to him alone.

John F. Kennedy now decided to send Attwood to meet Castro. On 14th November, 1963, Lisa Howard conveyed this message to her Cuban contact. In an attempt to show his good will, Kennedy sent a coded message to Castro in a speech delivered on 19th November. The speech included the following passage: "Cuba had become a weapon in an effort dictated by external powers to subvert the other American republics. This and this alone divides us. As long as this is true, nothing is possible. Without it, everything is possible."

Kennedy also sent a message to Fidel Castro via the French journalist Jean Daniel. According to Daniel: "Kennedy expressed some empathy for Castro's anti-Americanism, acknowledging that the United States had committed a number of sins in pre-revolutionary Cuba." Kennedy told Daniel that the trade embargo against Cuba could be lifted if Castro ended his support for left-wing movements in the Americas.

Daniel delivered this message on 19th November. Castro told Daniel that Kennedy could become "the greatest president of the United States, the leader who may at last understand that there can be coexistence between capitalists and socialists, even in the Americas." Daniel was with Castro when news arrived that Kennedy had been assassinated Castro turned to Daniel and said:"This is an end to your mission of peace. Everything is changed."

President Lyndon B. Johnson was told about these negotiations in December, 1963. He refused to continue these talks and claimed that the reason for this was that he feared that Richard Nixon, the expected Republican candidate for the presidency, would accuse him of being soft on communism.

Howard refused to give up and in 1964 she resumed talks with Fidel Castro. On 12th February, 1964, she sent a message to President Lyndon B. Johnson from Fidel Castro asking for negotiations to be restarted. When Johnson did not respond to this message she contacted Adlai Stevenson at the United Nations. On 26th June 26, Stevenson sent a memo to Johnson saying that he felt that "all of our crises could be avoided if there was some way to communicate; that for want of anything better, he assumed that he could call (Lisa Howard) and she call me and I would advise you." In a memorandum marked top secret, Gordon Chase wrote that it was important "to remove Lisa from direct participation in the business of passing messages" from Cuba.

In December, 1964, Howard met with Che Guevara to the United Nations. Details of this meeting was sent to McGeorge Bundy. When Howard got no response she arranged for Eugene McCarthy to meet with Guevara in her apartment on 16th December.

This created panic in the White House and the following day Under Secretary George Ball told McCarthy that the meeting must remain a secret because there was "suspicion throughout Latin America that the U.S. might make a deal with Cuba behind the backs of the other American states."

Howard continued to try and obtain a negotiated agreement between Fidel Castro and Lyndon B. Johnson. As a result she was fired by ABC because she had "chosen to participate publicly in partisan political activity contrary to long established ABC news policy."

Lisa Howard died at East Hampton, Long Island, on 4th July, 1965. It was officially reported that she had committed suicide. Apparently, she had taken one hundred phenobarbitols. It was claimed she was depressed as a result of losing her job and suffering a miscarriage. Her death was of course very similar to that of Dorothy Kilgallen (8th November, 1965). Another female journalist working on the case.

Thanks for posting this detail, John. Howard's work lives on IMHO. Every president since has followed the accomodation plan. It may not look like Kennedy's plan but it exists today.

I asked a Cuban revolutionary once: "What happened to the revolution?" "Why do you think the promises of Castro or Washington have never been fulfilled?" His wife chimed in that Cuban people after fleeing the anarchy in 1959, thought they'd return in a few weeks to a settled place. Each year the expectation faded.

The leaders in both countries have learned to get along. Today Castro fights with the greenback, W fights with the Americans sneaking to Cuba.

Tim Carroll. Great Paper. You are a careful historian, and this story suggests as much as it tells, but we have to be careful. Forum readers know that we are "allies" with similar interests and approaches, and I have a few general comments.

The connections between Dallas 11/22/63 and Watergate are intriguing, and I agree with you that "the whole bay of pigs thng" is a euphimism or code word for the Kennedy Assassination. I had always thought so and Bob Haldeman came out and said so explicitly in his dying efforts to restore his reputation. Having Hunt in the White House (what was in his safe?) and having Hunt hire Vergilio Gonzales, Martinez and Frank Sturgis for the Watrgate burglary shows some kind of high-pressure intimidation of Nixon, because these were angry Bay of Pigs veterans and long-time Cuban penetration commandos. Helms was certainly aware of the situation. United States Senator (R/Utah) Robert Bennett plays a role in both the assassination and the Watergate burglary, his ties to Hunt and McCord are verified, he had a CIA front office in DC and employed the principles in the burglary. I am very strongly inclined to agree with Jim Root's interpretation of the role of Maxwell Taylor, in the U-2 incident, the assassination and Vietnam War escalation. As far as IKE is concerned, don't let the Military Industrial Complex speech let him off the hook - for his massive nuclear arms build-up, covert assassinations and Bay of Pigs planning, he was a figurehead for Pennsylvania oil interests and a front front for the growing intermarriage of CIA paramilitary and Defense Department programs and cover. Ike and Nixon were no heroes to our democratic republican ideal of government...

Great paper, and it stimulated a good round of "collective intelligence".

Shanet

Shanet,

Bob Bennett, with his CIA front office in DC, the Mullen Agency, including its specific employment of Hunt at the same time that Hunt had a White House office, leads me to still have the Senator from Utah at the top of my list for Deep Throat candidates.

Tim

Shanet

Eisenhowers massive nuclear buildup was done at the expense of cutting Army ground forces. That is exactly what alienated Taylor from Eisenhower and led to his book, The Uncertain Trumpet. Taylor wanted the forces that could fight "brush fire wars" and believed that the United States was moving in the wrong direction under Eisenhower.

Taylor made his point and got the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (under Kennedy) and his his full blown "brush fire war" after Kennedy's death.

Was the Presidency itself next? (Read "Seven Days in May")

Jim Root

Jim,

JFK himself certainly recognized the dangers presented by a Seven Days In May scenario. He encouraged John Frankenheimer to make the movie against Pentagon opposition. JFK offered the White House itself to be used as a movie set on a weekend when he would be away at Hyannis Port. Schlesinger noted the following JFK comment:

"'It's possible. It could happen in this country, but the conditions would have to be just right. If, for example, the country had a young President, and he had a Bay of Pigs, there would be a certain uneasiness.' If there were a second Bay of Pigs, the military would begin to feel it their patriotic obligation to preserve the nation. 'Then, if there were a third Bay of Pigs, it could happen.... But it won't happen on my watch.'"

When JFK made a secret deal to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey to resolve the Missile Crisis, by the standards of the Joint Chiefs he had committed overt treason. He had completely capitulated to the Soviets, albeit secretly. This secret part of the resolution of the Crisis was far more egregiously treasonous than the more public pledge not to invade Cuba, technically and militarily. But JFK, about whom it was said that style was more important than substance, was perceived to have prevailed despite giving away the store, while Khrushchev, who obtained his objectives completely, was perceived as having capitulated. The agreement to end the Crisis definitely created a major rift between Khrushchev and Castro, and was a major aspect in Khrushchev's downfall.

Having been filmed in the White House itself, the movie is a fascinating watch. Especially the scene shot at the indoor pool (cemented over by Nixon and turned into the current press room). Old Joe Kennedy had commissioned an artist to paint murals on the walls to create the effect of being in the middle of the harbor of, I believe, St. Tropez. Tiny glittering lights gave the effect of stars twinkling at night. This film is the only place one can see the pool room with these effects. Nixon was aware of the stories of the infamous pool parties held there and considered it an historical den of iniquity.

Tim

Paul B. Fay, Jr., The Pleasure of His Company (New York, 1966), 190

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Robert Kennedy and Hit Times (Boston, 1978), 450

Jim

You have captured the essence of the Eisenhower era debate on military readiness, the BIG GUNS (nuclear strategy) at the expense of conventional weapons, stirred up anger in the defense establishment. Taylor was into ground war and especially co-operation between covert paramilitary CIA and defense department units. (Guenther Lewy, America in Vietnam). This blurring of the lines between "civilian" intelligence ops and military ops gave us Abu Ghraib, operation phoenix, iran contra, etc. etc.With the melding of CIA and Defense both can avoid any responsibility, and both sides can point the finger at the other when things go wrong.

I am in agreement with Tim about the importance of JFK's capitulation in Turkey as the silent, secret codicil of the Missile Crisis agreement. The public only saw the USSR freighters turning away from Cuba, the whole story took years to leak out. It, along with the incriminating evidence concerning JFK's private life, gave military officials reason to hate, exclude, and ultimately kill the president, I believe.

The Mullen Company was indeed the front PR firm Hunt worked for, and Robert Bennett was so deeply ensconced in counter-counter-counter intelligence he may have exposed Nixon to serious charges (ie Deep Throat).

The more you look at Watergate, the more ties to Dallas emerge. I still have serious reservations about jumping to the conclusion that the CIA brought down Nixon via the Hunt Burglaries at the Democratic National Committee. Did they prefer McGovern? Spiro Agnew? I think not. The murky nature of Hunt's loyalties and motivation make such speculation inevitable and the events are linked, but in ways we have yet to fully understand.

Shanet

[quote=Shanet Clark,Nov 24 2004, 08:02 PM]
The Mullen Company was indeed the front PR firm Hunt worked for, and Robert Bennett was so deeply ensconced in counter-counter-counter intelligence he may have exposed Nixon to serious charges (ie Deep Throat)
The more you look at Watergate, the more ties to Dallas emerge.
I still have serious reservations about jumping to the conclusion that the CIA brought down Nixon via the Hunt Burglaries at the Democratic National Committee. Did they prefer McGovern? Spiro Agnew? I think not.
[quote=Jim Root,Nov 24 2004, 08:58 PM]
Eisenhowers massive nuclear buildup was done at the expense of cutting Army ground forces. That is exactly what alienated Taylor from Eisenhower and led to his book, The Uncertain Trumpet. Taylor wanted the forces that could fight "brush fire wars" and believed that the United States was moving in the wrong direction under Eisenhower. Taylor made his point and got the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (under Kennedy) and his his full blown "brush fire war" after Kennedy's death.
[/quote]
**********************************************************

Shanet and Jim:

The Military Intelligence/CIA had no concern about McGovern. Watergate would provide leverage over Nixon. Couple that leverage with the expectation that Connally would be Agnew's replacement and we would have again had the same elite power center that succeeded Kennedy only a heartbeat away from the presidency.

JFK had good reason to consider the Gradual Escalation Strategy of Taylor's Uncertain Trumpet preferable to the absolutist, all or nothing policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Everything about JFK's nature rebelled against such absolutes, and he was very mindful of the choicelessness that Massive Retaliation offered. JFK sought to increase the range of choices through the implementation of a policy of Flexible Response. The debate over what Kennedy would have done in Vietnam requires consideration of how he quickly negotiated a settlement in Laos, where Eisenhower had recommended sending ground troops onto the Asian mainland. JFK refused to commit U.S. forces at the Bay of Pigs, and escaped the long-standing nuclear trip wire in Berlin by suckering Khrushchev into putting up the Wall. There is no question that Taylor got his "'brush fire war' after Kennedy's death," but even as a severely unintended consequence that JFK may have avoided had he lived, the trauma of Vietnam and the policy of Flexible Response was preferable to the magnitude of destruction that would have resulted from the virtually inevitable nuclear war that Eisenhower's policies bequeathed.

Tim

Tim

I appreciate the knowledge you all have to share on this site. It is very encouraging for me to be involved with this group.

I, for one, give thanks to the cold warriors on both sides of the curtain that we made it past the 50's and 60's without a nuclear exchange. Right or wrong they were at least successful in this field.

Jim Root

Dear Jim,

I think yours is a very salient and significant point. Not only did we make it past the cold war without a nuclear exchange, but ultimately communism fell. Our society certainly paid some high costs, and we certainly face other dangers now, but your point is excellent.

Thank God, we apparently no longer face the possibility of a nuclear exchange that could annihilate most of the world. On the other hand, the terrorists are far more likely to use a nuclear weapon on one city than the Soviets ever were to lauch a nuclear war.

Interesting that you said"give thanks" given that it is now Thanksgiving.

I also suggest that, regardless of who shot Kennedy, his death was most likely the result of Cold War politics, and not the meaningless act of a lone nut. That may add just a little comfort to the tragedy.

To Tim Gratz:

In an earlier post you noted the following:

"In my opinion, Eisenhower was a great president. Had he remained in office, I don't think we would have ended up involved in the imbroglio over Cuba, or ensnared in Vietnam, for that matter."

What is your comparable analysis of the Eisenhower policies of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) coupled with the choiceless Massive Retaliation, as opposed to JFK's shift to Gradual Escalation and Flexible Response in terms of the chances of nuclear holocaust?

I grant the argument that the shift to the Taylor strategy eventually led to Vietnam, but when compared to projecting the state of affairs when Kennedy took office, and his ongoing struggles with the Joint Chiefs to mollify the absolutism he'd inherited, I believe it is JFK that deserves the lionshare of the credit for avoidance of an all-out nuclear exchange. That he even had to make a secret conscession to the Soviets to accomplish his restraint of the nuclear momentum, a secret deal that would have constituted direct treason to the Pentagon, reveals the extent to which he was willing to go to avoid an uncontrollable nuclear exhange.

While leaving office, Eisenhower was recommending ground troops in Laos. MacArthur warned JFK that the wrong generals had been promoted during the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s, and that he should avoid placing land troops into Asia at all costs. Rather than following Ike's advice, JFK rather easily negotiated a ceasefire.

Aside from Eisenhower's one-dimensional policy of Massive Retaliation (a quick resort to nuclear warfare), his protestations during the Missile Crisis that we must invade immediately, reveal that his approach (unaware that 100,000 U.S. troops would have died in a tactical nuclear defense on Cuban soil initiated by Cubans, not Soviets, creating a strategic conundrum that had not been anticipated) would have led directly, according to McNamara, to a full nuclear exchange. The presence of the Luna tactical weapons under the control of Cubans, "unbeknowst to us at the time," led McNamara to state that, "A U.S. attack [Ike's approach] would almost surely have led to a nuclear exchange with devastating consequences."

Tim

Robert Strange McNamara, In Retrospect, (New York: New York Times Books, 1995), pg. 97.

Tim: What do you think about the death of Lisa Howard? Is it possible that she had evidence that there was a link between her negotiations and the death of Kennedy?

I think it could be significant that Howard emerged as an important player when she became the first journalist to secure an interview with Nikita Khrushchev. It is possible she was working as a KGB asset? She definitely is the sort of person the KGB would have liked to use. They knew that her film star looks would have caught the attention of JFK. This might also explain how she got the exclusive interview with Castro. Howard appears to have had left-wing views (see her article in the War and Peace Report).

"What do you think about the death of Lisa Howard? Is it possible that she had evidence that there was a link between her negotiations and the death of Kennedy?

I think it could be significant that Howard emerged as an important player when she became the first journalist to secure an interview with Nikita Khrushchev. It is possible she was working as a KGB asset? She definitely is the sort of person the KGB would have liked to use. They knew that her film star looks would have caught the attention of JFK. This might also explain how she got the exclusive interview with Castro. Howard appears to have had left-wing views (see her article in the War and Peace Report)."

John,

Is it pure speculation that you would insinuate Lisa Howard was a KGB asset? Howard was a pioneer in broadcast journalism. How many female reporters and news anchors were there in the early 60's? After JFK's death, her attempts at contact with the LBJ White House were turned aside. Her tenaciousness led to her dismissal from ABC, and, according to her husband, she fell into severe depression. Your comment about Howard's "film star looks" is well taken though. Carlos Leshuga indicated in an interview that he spent time talking with her at a dinner party because "she was a pretty lady", and he liked talking to pretty ladies. More than likely, the same applied to Castro. She flirted with him, was brash and forward, and got what she wanted. She was more than just a pretty face. Wasn't her interview with Khrushchev a spur of the moment, on the spot thing? There were no previous arrangements. I recall she ran up to him, microphone in hand, gave him a kiss on the cheek, then thrust the mic into the Premier's face. Khrushchev was so surprised, so taken by this spunky lady, he stood there with that famous grin on his face, and melted into a brief interview. Could you imagine today's young female reporters using their good looks and charm to wiggle their way into an interview? We'd be shocked, and they would be fired. Lisa Howard used all of her assets, and I don't think she was used by anyone. I believe she considered herself part of a historic effort to bring peace to between the US and Cuba. After JFK's death, Johnson tossed her aside, and she was devastated.

RJS

Tim

Massive retaliation had its place in time. The First Straits of Taiwan Crisis is an excellent example of its use. China was bombarding Matsui and Quemoy (Please excuse any significant errors. I am traveling for the holidays and do not have my notes with me) two islands between mainland China and Taiwan. The US Government authorized the use of Nuclear Weapons to deal with the situation. The Soviet Union, China did not have "the bomb" at the time, was not willing to risk a nuclear exchange on its own territory by supporting China. Without Soviet support, China slowly backed down and withdrew from the island attacks.

The threat of nuclear war saved, perhaps, millions of deaths that a more humnanitarian conventional war would have led to. Eisenhowers strategy was successful.

By the way, the Armys Chief of Staff was Maxwell Taylor and the point man sent by the Army to handle this delicate situation was General Edwin Anderson Walker.

Jim Root