I believe that JFK knew about the CIA plots to kill Castro. In fact, there is evidence that suggests that JFK knew about them before he became president.

Before his election, likely not.  Before his inauguration, surely.

JFK was a long-term friend of Allen Dulles. In an interview he gave to the John F. Kennedy Library in 1964 Dulles admitted that he and JFK had “fairly continuous” contact throughout the 1950s. They two men met at JFK’s home in Palm Beach. (Dulles stayed with Charles B. Wrightsman, one of JFK’s neighbour).

Another JFK neighbour in Palm Beach was Earl Smith, the US ambassador to Cuba (1957-59). JFK had been having an affair with Earl’s wife, Florence Smith, since 1944 (it was JFK’s longest relationship and lasted until his death). Earl Smith knew about the plots against Castro. So did Dorothy Kilgallen who wrote about the Mafia/CIA plots as early as 1959 (New York Journal American – 15th September, 1959). Kilgallen was friendly with JFK (they were introduced by Florence – the two women worked together on the New York Journal American in the early 1940s).

Dulles had a meeting with JFK at Hyannis Port on 23rd July, 1960. According to released CIA files the two men talked about “Cold War hotspots”. Another meeting took place on 19th September, when Dulles gave JFK an update of recent events. Charles P. Cabell, deputy CIA director, provided JFK with a third briefing on 2nd November.

Though I cannot recall the source at present, I do remember reading an exquisitely simple solution to this issue.  While trying to determine how much to reveal to candidate Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs invasion plans, Dulles sought the counsel of President Eisenhower.  Dulles was told that he should give Kennedy the very same briefing he would give to Vice President Nixon.  On its face, this was sporting and even-handed advice.

However, as Nixon had been the White House action officer to the National Security Council - and in the process knew all about the invasion plans, including the assassination component - Nixon needed precious little data from Dulles.  Which is what I presume Dulles gave to Kennedy, precious little.  The result was much confusion, which is elaborated upon below. 

According to CIA agent Clarence B. Sprouse, he arranged for a secret meeting to take place between JFK and Richard Bissell during the summer of 1960. Sprouse recalled having to prepare material about a plot against Castro.

Can or did Sprouse know for certain whether the information he compiled was provided to candidate Kennedy?

In his book, Reflections of a Cold War (1996), Bissell claims that a meeting with JFK was arranged by Joe Alsop (a journalist who was a member of Operation Mockingbird). However, he claims he never told him anything about any secret plans because he was “still working for Eisenhower”.

So Bissell sat on the data compiled by Sprouse?  Bissell certainly wouldn't have told Kennedy anything that Dulles hadn't.  If Dulles had told Kennedy about the assassination plots, it was unnecessary for Bissell to tell him anything.

In an interview he gave to the John F. Kennedy Library in 1967, Bissell admits that he had a meeting “at a fairly early stage in the campaign.” Amazingly, JFK asked Bissell if he could help him with his campaign strategy”. Bissell said he was eager to do this but unfortunately he never “got round to supplying anything in writing”.
Grayston Lynch claimed in an interview in 1997 that Bissell told him that he had a personal relationship with JFK since well before he entered the White House. Biseel also told CIA analyst, R. Harris Smith, that he had a meeting with JFK in February, 1960. 

Of course, we do not know for certain what Dulles and Bissell told JFK. However, we have several clues. John M. Patterson was the Democratic governor of Alabama. Patterson had been friends with JFK since 1955.

In the summer of 1960 the CIA approached Patterson and asked if they could use the Alabama Air National Guard to train Cuban exile pilots in Nicaragua for an attack on Cuba. Patterson passed this information onto JFK. Patterson told this story to the John F. Kennedy Library in 1967. Patterson claimed in the interview that JFK responded as if he already knew about the planned invasion. However, when he later viewed the transcript of this interview, he discovered this section on Cuba had been removed. As he told Seymour Hersh in October, 1982, “they classified my own stuff”.

Again, Kennedy knew about the invasion plans.  Patterson couldn't vouch for whether Kennedy knew of assassination plans, because Patterson didn't know about them.

Nixon also knew that JFK had been briefed by the CIA about the plots against Castro.

If the selective briefing of Kennedy by Dulles, described above, is correct, then Nixon was wrong, though he would have had no way of knowing it.

During the campaign, Nixon struck a moderate course on the topic of Cuba, in order to preserve the security of the pending invasion.  Nixon knew all about the assassination component that was a central part of the plan.

That Kennedy didn't know is suggested by the bellicose and hawkish stand he took, outflanking Nixon by appearing to the right of him.  Sure, Nixon thought Kennedy was a rankly crass political opportunist, unable to understand how his rival could be so cavalier about so important a pending plan.  The simple answer is that Kennedy didn't know nearly so much as Nixon assumed he did.

He later accused the CIA of betrayal. JFK was able to use this information to embarrass Nixon. On 19th October, 1960, JFK issued a press release calling for the US government to provide help to Cubans fighting against Castro within and without Cuba. The following day newspapers reported that JFK was calling for the overthrow of Castro. In his memoirs (published in 1978) Nixon claims that it was clear that JFK had been briefed by Dulles.

Briefed, yes.  But to what extent? 

Although he knew about the Bay of Pigs operation, he could not admit to it. Instead he claimed that JFK was being irresponsible calling for illegal action to be taken against Castro. Nixon was much praised by the liberal press but it enabled JFK to position himself to the right of Nixon. As Nixon said in his Memoirs: “For the first time in the campaign, I got mad at Kennedy personally. I thought that Kennedy, with full knowledge of the facts, was jeopardizing the security of a United States foreign policy operation. And my rage was greater because I could do nothing about it.”

CIA assured Kennedy the Bay of Pigs invasion would be a success, even without the assassination component, even without US military intervention.  In the aftermath of its failure, the Maxwell Taylor forensic audit of the invasion's deficiencies made plain that CIA had grossly oversold the prospects for success.

But then, a cynical CIA didn't care whether it was a success.  If the invasion foundered on the beach, as it was sure to do, it was assumed inside Langley that Kennedy would be boxed into a corner, and have no option but to authorize the use of US military force, what CIA had wanted from the outset.  When JFK refused to dance to their tune, CIA personnel were furious, as were the Cuban exile invaders CIA had so casually abandoned to their fate, sure that Kennedy would come to their rescue.

So was Kennedy, railing at the Agency's duplicity in playing such brinksmanship games with a sitting President.  That is why Kennedy vowed he would smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind.  That is why Kennedy ordered that all future paramilitary adventurism abroad would be undertaken by the Pentagon, not CIA.  That is why Kennedy sought to replace many of CIA's functions by establishing the Defense Intelligence Agency.

What appears to be clear is that the CIA wanted JFK to be elected in 1960.

If Kennedy received the above-described selective briefing from Dulles, one could argue the opposite was true, with equal force.

Had JFK made them promises? If so, one can understand them being very upset with JFK over the Bay of Pigs and his refusal to sanction an invasion of Cuba.

Clearly, Kennedy did authorize the invasion of Cuba, but not before tweaking it with a couple of major changes.  First and foremost, Kennedy forbade the assassination component.  Second, he insisted that the invasion not be attributed in world opinion to the US, requiring all planes and ships to be stripped of all US identifiers, all weapons to be sterile and untraceable to US suppliers. 

Supporters of the JFK myth continue to claim that he was unaware of Executive Action.

John, with all due respect, I think it's important to eschew terms like "myth" about matters that have never been definitively proven.

There is several pieces of information to suggest that this was not the case. The CIA’s inspector general wrote in 1967 that when interviewed, William Harvey claimed that Bissell told him when he recruited him to head ZR/RIFLE that JFK had twice urged him “to create such a capability” (to kill Castro).

Since the President was dead and no longer available to rebut that assertion, and since Robert Kennedy was never asked by the Inspector General if he cared to contradict that assertion - in a report that was, after all, never intended for use outside CIA - Harvey and others no doubt felt safe in trafficking in any and all self-serving, second-hand hearsay they cared to indulge.  Who could refute something they never had the chance to read?

David Berlin, executive director of the Rockefeller Commission that investigated the illegal activities of the CIA said in an interview in 1997 that JFK knew about the CIA plot to assassinate Castro. He added: “Bobby also knew about it. The Kennedys were out to get Castro.” Berlin admitted that some witnesses did attempt to cover this information up but several admitted that JFK knew about the plot to assassinate Castro.

Belin's underwhelming performance on the Warren Commission and the Rockefeller panel is the best judge of his agenda.  Anyone incapable of gleaning that for themselves need only read the books written by Belin, which indicate what biased and shallow thinking produced them.  Belin's Agency-friendly Rockefeller incompetence did not go unnoticed, and is largely responsible for the striking of several other congressional committees, with a mandate to nail down what Belin had been tasked, but failed, to do.

McGeorge Bundy admitted before the Church Committee in July, 1975, that there had been talk of murder in the White House, and the men of the CIA had not been on their own in the assassination plotting.

Well, this is most interesting, since all official sources and persons present during such discussions - even within CIA meetings prior to Kennedy's election - refer only to euphemisms like "eliminate" or "get rid of."  If Mac Bundy ever heard the word "murder" used, he is the only member of an exclusive club of one.

Samuel Halpern, the executive officer of Task Force W, admitted in an interview with Seymour Hersh that “Kennedy asked Bissell to create a capacity for political assassination.” This, he claims, was the reason why ZR/RIFLE was set up.

John, this is really getting rather silly.  When caught trying to kill a foreign leader, CIA personnel insisted they were only following orders.  [Ah yes, the infamous Nuremburg defense.]  Are you really surprised by that, since the President who allegedly gave those orders was unavailable to refute the allegations?

Richard Helms told his congressional questioners in 1975 that: "Nobody wants to embarrass the President of the United States by discussing the assassination of foreign leaders in his presence."  Yet, one must wonder, if this is the same President who ordered that assassination of a foreign leader, how could he possibly be embarrassed by discussing it with those he tasked with making it happen?

Dulles knew.  Helms knew.  Bissell knew.  Harvey knew.  Halperin knew.  King knew.  Hunt knew.  Phillips knew.  Why is the only CIA man who didn't know the one who ran the CIA as Kennedy's appointee?

It is also significant that Robert S. McNamara, one of JFK's favorites, had openly talked about assassinating Castro in a meeting of the Special Group (Augmented).

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Dulles knew.  Helms knew.  Bissell knew.  Harvey knew.  Halperin knew.  King knew.  Hunt knew.  Phillips knew.  Why is the only CIA man who didn't know [John McCone,] . . .who ran the CIA as Kennedy's appointee?

Perhaps because everyone knew that McCone was a deeply religious Catholic who would be squeamish about things like murder.  You have argued that the fact that McCone, a JFK appointee, was not told about the assassination plans demonstrates that the CIA officers who were aware or participating in the plots were hiding them from the Kennedys.  Not necessarily so since CIA people such as Helms and Fitzgerald communicated with the Kennedys directly, without going through McCone.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:


Dulles knew.  Helms knew.  Bissell knew.  Harvey knew.  Halperin knew.  King knew.  Hunt knew.  Phillips knew.  Why is the only CIA man who didn't know [John McCone,] . . .who ran the CIA as Kennedy's appointee?




Perhaps because everyone knew that McCone was a deeply religious Catholic who would be squeamish about things like murder.  You have argued that the fact that McCone, a JFK appointee, was not told about the assassination plans demonstrates that the CIA officers who were aware or participating in the plots were hiding them from the Kennedys.  Not necessarily so since CIA people such as Helms and Fitzgerald communicated with the Kennedys directly, without going through McCone.

McCone's religosity didn't deter him from being in the loop about other things that might offend his sensibilities; only this issue.  As for Helms and FitzGerald, it is true that they enjoyed direct access to the Kennedys.  However, of what possible import is that direct access if they refrained from mentioning the assassination plots?  For this, we have Helms' own admission that he refrained from discussing assassination of foreign leaders because it might embarrass the President.  Gee, that's a whole lot of solicitude by CIA assassination-plotters toward the people to whom they were answerable.

For instance, RFK's phone logs (first revealed in 1994) indicate that on October 11, 1963 RFK had a phone conversation with Desmond Fitzgerald.  That was the same day that CIA HQ received a cable from Rolando Cubela's case officer that Cubela wanted to meet personally with RFK to obtain assurance that RFK supported his plans to kill ("eliminate") Castro.  Of course RFK was not going to personally meet a proposed assassin.  Instead, Fitzgerald himself met with Cubela and told Cubela that he was Robert Kennedy's "personal emissary".  The fact that the October 11 1963 phone call was the only call Fitzgerald made to RFK in the fall of 1963 strongly suggests that the topic of conversation was Major Cubela.

This datum could and should be added to the pile of circumstantial evidence.  It is, in and of itself, something short of smoking gun evidence, by any impartial standard.

I should add that when in 1962 Nixon published "Six Crises" in which he railed about JFK's supposed perfidy about the Cuban invasion plans, Allen Dulles, who had been "fired" by JFK over thew BOP, came to Kennedy's defense and stated that he had not in fact briefed JFK about the invasion plans.

Thank you.  That is a generous admission.

Query, however, whether JFk was aware of the assassination plans through Sam Giancana (with whom he shared a mistress) who was strongly backing JFK's candidacy.  (JFK received a higher percentage of votes in the Mafia-controlled Chicago wards than George W. Bush did in Orange County, CA!)

If the test of one's veracity is that one's story remains the same, Ms. Exner fails.  With each addition of her purported inside knowledge of events, her story went from plausible to dubious to spurious.  That is not to say there was no truth to it; only that the truth subsequently became indistinguishable from the later... um.... magnification of her own importance, as the book and movie deal discussions commenced.

Others at the 10th August 1962 meeting where the assassination of Fidel Castro was discussed included: Dean Rusk, Maxwell Taylor, McGeorge Bundy, John McCone, William Harvey, Edward Murrow, Donald Wilson, Roswell Gilpatric, Edward Lansdale, Lyman Lemnitzer, Alexis Johnson, Edwin Martin, Richard Goodwin, Robert Hurwitch and Thomas Parrot.

Interestingly, Robert Kennedy should have been at this meeting. However, he pulled out at the last minute and was represented by McGeorge Bundy. Did he know this subject was going to be coming up? He could then claim he knew nothing about the plot against Castro. But surely, if Bundy was his representative, he would have reported back to RFK about what had been said at the meeting?



John McCone did know. He was at the Special Group (Augmented) meeting at Dean Rusk's office on 10th August 1962 when this was discussed.

According to the Inspector General's report, McCone admitted the issue was disccussed at the meeting. He added that it was McNamara who first raised the issue that the "top people in the Cuban regime, including Castro, be liquidated".

McCone later claimed that he thought the meeting had taken place on 8th or 9th August. The report states that McCone's memory was at fault as all the other participants, including Thomas Parrott, who took the minutes, claim that the date was definitely 10th August.

This is where we hit the crossroads. Were there such discussions? Surely, just as there had been since 1959. Did McCone feel that a firm decision had been taken in this regard? Did somebody - whether the President or Attorney General or one of their proxies - actually order such plans to proceed? Clearly not, or all who were persent would have subsequently testified to that fact when called to do so, and McCone would have been contradicted by the likes of Bill Harvey, who instead confirmed McCone knew nothing about the plans being operational.

The CIA as a group at that time was very Ivy league and liberal on domestic issues, and very hawkish and activist regarding foreign policy.  There was no way they were for Kennedy.  Nixon was progressive enough domestically to satisfy them. 

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:


"That said, however, after being murdered in broad daylight while surrounded by those paid to protect him, Kennedy's character has repeatedly been assassinated, post-humously. In order to diminish our interest in solving this crime, the victim is made to seem something less than being worth the effort.

"To me, it seems the whole point of this exercise is to redress a crime not against Kennedy, or any other individual President, but a crime against democracy and the people's right to choose. It is immaterial to me which President is murdered, or for what policies. What matters is that the people elected that person, and cannot allow their wishes to be usurped with a few bullets."


In my opinion, you are half right and half wrong.  I wonder if you can address any item which has been written about JFK which is NOT true.  If you can, what is your proof that the allegation was propogated to diminish interest in solving the assassination?

You may recall an attempt by E. Howard Hunt to forge cables placing the blame for the murder of the Diems on Kennedy.  That took place well after Kennedy's death, as does the continuing effort to implicate him and/or his brother as responsible for the plots against Castro, which - it is frequently suggested - indirectly led to JFK's own murder.  That both efforts were a CIA contrivance should not escape the attention of those who place the Agency on the list of assassination suspects.  We should not ignore that such efforts to disparage the victim have the effect of making him seem less worthy of our efforts to identify who killed him. 

It was incredibly reckless for JFK to engage in marital infidelities with a lady who he knew was also sharing the bed of the head of the Chicago mafia.  There is evidence that this affair did interfere with RFK's attempts to prosecute Giancana.

Any President engaged in extra-marital affairs leaves himself open to blackmail by any other person or party who learns of it.  One wonders how Thomas Jefferson would have dealt with the disclosure that he had a black mistress, when miscegenation was illegal.

Again, much has been written about the deals struck between Kennedy and the Mob, by which his election was helped by Mob operatives.  In the event it is proved that Kennedy authorized the hit attempts against Castro - which included various Mob leaders and their mechanics - the suggestion is that Kennedy was not beneath consorting with the lowest of criminal lowlifes, in order to further his own career, and commit murder.  But, was it true?

What evidence I've seen certainly implicates Kennedy's father Joe in striking such a deal.  With the exception of the ever-expanding, evermore-fantastic assertions of Exner herself, one fails to find evidence for a direct connection between JFK and the Mob.  To the contrary, we find an historically unprecedented Justice Department campaign to prosecute the Mob [the existence of which was denied by the country's top law enforcement officer, JEH.]  And we find RFK railing against the CIA's use of Mobsters specifically because it played havoc with his attempts to imprison them.

Yet, despite the foregoing acknowledgement that the Kennedy did pursue Mob prosecutions relentlessly, we are asked to believe that the late President knowingly consorted with various Mobsters.  If we believe this, then Kennedy must have been a feckless, faithless, disloyal opportunist and hypocrite.  We should not ignore that such efforts to disparage the victim have the effect of making him seem less worthy of our efforts to identify who killed him.   

And what can be said about JFK having sex, in the White House, for God's sake, with a lady who was even alleged to be connected to eastern bloc intelligence?  This put JFK in risk of being subject to blackmail by the enemies of our country.  In fact, there is some reason to believe the Rometsch matter may have been a KGB affair because of its connection to what was happening in Great Britain at the same time.

Agreed.

IMO, JFK could have been impeached for either of these activities.

IMO, the Kennedy family's reluctance to require a complete investigation of the assassination was probably motivated in large part by its desire to prevent these matters from being revealed and damaging his reputation (as well as RFK's political ambitions).

JFK's affairs may very well not have any relevance to the assassination and deplore them as much as I do, I do think it is unfortunate for our history and for the reputation of President Kennedy that, just as RFK feared, the investigation into the assassination brought them to the public eye.  I prefer to remember JFK as the devoted father of his two young children and the man who brought the "vigah" of his youth into the Presidency.

Again, to me it is immaterial what people think of any individual President; what must remain paramount is their respect for the Presidency, and the process by which the people choose who is to be installed to that position.  Whenever a President is removed from office - by assassination or any other illegal or politically motivated contrivance - the will of the people is thwarted.  It is not just a crime against the individual who holds the office, but a direct assault upon the people's right to choose.  Yet, without that, the democracy is rendered non-existent.

Fact: I loathed Ronald Reagan.  Second fact: When there was an attempt to assassinate him, I was no less interested in the apprehension of those responsible simply because I despised the man and his policies.  Any person elected by the people has the right and responsibility to serve out his term, unless high crimes committed while in office force his resignation or ouster.  That's the way the system works, and it is the system which must be preserved. 


With respect to the second paragraph, IMO it is "right on".  As you know, until Kennedy's assassination, the murder of a President was not even a federal crime.  But the assassination of a president is as much a crime against our country as it is against the president.  I think Americans of all political persuasions should be interested in solving the assassination (and foreigners as well; it is heartening to see the interest on non-Americans as expressed in this Forum).  In one of his books, Harrison Livingstone wanted to exclude from assassination research people not only to the right of JFK but people to his left, e.g. Mark Lane.  IMO that is ridiculous.  We should all want to see the assassination solved, and hopefully while there is still a possibility of prosecuting any member of the conspiracy.

We seem to be in complete agreement, up to your final sentence.  Personally, I've long advocated an 'amnesty' be offered to anyone who can provide any information that leads to the crime being solved, to the extent it is still possible to do so.  While the concept of 'justice' may drive our desire to see someone punished for the crime, at this point, I'd settle for whatever degree of historical and/or legal certainty we can attain, irrespective of whether anyone is ever called to account for their part in the crime.

Again, it is important to distinguish between what was discussed and what was ordered. Any large organization or corporation will brainstorm regularly, and not all the ideas that come up are good, or acted upon. Yet, that doesn't stop them coming up at meetings, time and again. I would expect that this topic would have come up at any number of meetings.

The questions are: "Were actual orders given to kill Castro?" and, if so; "How did McCone not know what everyone else did?" Granted, McCone heard discussions [as one would rightly expect.] Did he hear orders given by the President, or even the Attorney General? Did any of them?

Without that, we're left with an ugly topic, discussed for the nth time, without either the President or Attorney General present, and, hence, unavailable to order the murder. (Robert Charles-Dunne)

But this is what J. S. Earman, CIA’s Inspector General, did discover from his 1967 investigation. The State Department meeting on the 10th August 1962, must have decided to give its approval of the assassination. Otherwise, the section of his report on the Drew Pearson story makes no sense.

Arguendo, let's assume such a decision was reached and such approval was given.  Who gave that authorization?  Was either Kennedy even present?

You seem to argue that because a decision was hypothetically reached [since there is no documentary evidence for your conclusion], the President must have known about it and authorized it.   

I would argue that if that authorization was given, it was done in the President's absence and without his knowledge.  It would not be the first time that Agency personnel arrogated unto themselves the right to pursue whatever they chose.  So, who among those present at that meeting is on the record stating unequivocably that a decision was reached [not just that the topic was discussed], and that the President [or his brother, acting as JFK's proxy] authorized that decision?  Surely, if either happened, all present must have testified uniformly to that fact, yes?

It is because of this meeting that Earman is able to say that William Harvey was the only one individual to know all the information that appears in Drew Pearson’s article in the Washington Post (7th March, 1967). It is the reason why Earman says why it is impossible to say if Robert Kennedy knew about the plot (because he did not attend the meeting on the 10th August 1962).

Well, how can we conclude that the plots were authorized by either Kennedy, when the self-same people within CIA who maintain they received that authorization cannot even state with certainty those in a position to grant the authority were aware of the plots?  I don't understand why this salient detail keeps slipping by without comment.

As Earman pointed out, it was as a result of the meeting on the 10th that resulted in Edward Lansdale writing the Project Mongoose action memorandum.