Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Douglas Caddy

The National Security State and JFK

Recommended Posts

I watched several of these videos. The one that really interested me is Doug Horne's. The Northwoods document outlining the suggested Joint   Chiefs of Staff pretexts for war with Cuba is scary. I could not help imagining the obvious unlisted pretext that may have been implemented.

 I would like to know what views people have on this idea ( That the assassination was planned as a pretext for war) Specifically I want to know what stopped it working? I have never read a plausible answer to that. Could Oswald have inadvertently stopped war, by sounding sane/ calm\believable in the brief TV appearances, and thus spooking the conspirators. Or, was the problem a mess- up in the Mexico City cover story, again spooking the conspirators. What spooked the conspirators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I watched several of these videos. The one that really interested me is Doug Horne's. The Northwoods document outlining the suggested Joint   Chiefs of Staff pretexts for war with Cuba is scary. I could not help imagining the obvious unlisted pretext that may have been implemented.

 I would like to know what views people have on this idea ( That the assassination was planned as a pretext for war) Specifically I want to know what stopped it working? I have never read a plausible answer to that. Could Oswald have inadvertently stopped war, by sounding sane/ calm\believable in the brief TV appearances, and thus spooking the conspirators. Or, was the problem a mess- up in the Mexico City cover story, again spooking the conspirators. What spooked the conspirators?

One of the first articles to come out on the assassination was in a paper within the anti Castro community in Florida accusing him of being behind it.  It was written by someone who was a member of or had connections to one of the anti Castro revolutionary groups.  I don't think it was DRE or Alpha 66 but there was something about CIA funding.  These people were still hoping for and basically promoting a war with Cuba.  Maybe this was pushed by a "rouge" agent and those in upper levels had other ideas.  Who knows for sure?  Personally I think attacking Cuba was the one thing Johnson might have squashed before it could ever get off the ground.  He didn't want his Presidency to start off with a possible nuclear war involving Russia.  Now if Oswald had been killed escaping and pegged as Russian defector that was pro Castro, all bets are off... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2017 at 5:18 PM, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I would like to know what views people have on this idea ( That the assassination was planned as a pretext for war) Specifically I want to know what stopped it working? 

Well Eddy, I believe you have heard this from me before on another thread, but I don't post it frequently because I don't want to sound like a broken record ( it's funny how out-of-date that idiom is), but here is my take on that.

My working theory is that the assassination was set-up to be a pre-text for a Cuban invasion, but that invasion plan was undermined by a far-right industrial faction.

It is often said that the invasion was aborted for fear of WW3; I am not buying that because that possibility would have been present prior to the planning of, and the act of assassination. So that problem didn't pop-up after the DP hit.

I am thinking that Texas industrialists and right-wingers double-crossed an Anti-Castro / Mafia element, (who actually did the shooting), by eliminating the evidence of conspiracy, and mixed that with a little bit of blackmail. They foiled the conspiracy angle. They did this, hypothetically, by making evidence disappear and making other evidence appear. I suspect a shooter or operative was killed in the Plaza, who was supposed to be ID'd as a Pro-Castro Cuban. They made this body, or person, and other evidence, disappear. 

They, The Texas industrial and right wing faction, were able to do this because their original responsibility was passive; they were supposed to do nothing, therefore there would be no evidence implicating them locally. Perhaps they were supposed to create a lot of noise, static and background noise so the hit would not come as much of a surprise as well as causing resources to be stretched thin, but that was it. There was noise and static about a hit all over the country.

The reason for Double crossing the Pro-invasion faction is that they (the industrial-far right) were not interested in giving Cuba back to Mafia interests and free, independent and prosperous, Spanish-speaking black and Hispanic Catholics. They wanted the war in Vietnam. I also believe that the continued American control of Guantanamo bay was in jeopardy; indeed Guantanamo has never become an issue in all of the intervening years.

This also explains why these same anti-Castro elements showed up at Watergate in 1972 and caused Nixon to soil his shorts. They wanted follow-through on the Cuban invasion.

 

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my  opinion, the fact that Johnson and Hoover put a stop to all of the Phase 1 stories is evidence they were not in on the actual assassination planning.

It took Hoover about six weeks to figure out once and for all that the whole Oswald in Mexico City plotting with Castro and the KGB--which Bob Baer is still trying to sell on HC-- was  a big whipped cream ice cream sundae fashioned by the CIA. But he did.  When asked later in private if LHO killed Kennedy he said, "If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to the country.  Our whole political system would be disrupted." (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 246) Doesn't should like he thought Oswald did it.

LBJ managed to put the kabosh on the Phase one stories by telling Warren that it would be atomic cafe time if he really investigated them.  This is why the Mexico City inquiry by the WC was something of a joke, just like everything else they did. They were essentially escorted around by the FBI and CIA.  And they were shown what those bodies wanted them to see.  Slawson and Coleman were essentially being lullabied to sleep.  I mean all you have to do is compare the Lopez Report with the Slawson/Coleman report to see how big a cover up Warren was running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

...... The Northwoods document outlining the suggested Joint   Chiefs of Staff pretexts for war with Cuba is scary. I could not help imagining the obvious unlisted pretext that may have been implemented.

Eddy, I have the following quote posted in my Double-cross CT thread, here...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23710-did-a-far-rightindustrial-faction-double-cross-a-mobanti-castro-faction/

"Gil Jesus wrote

The subject of assassination as a tool of state (in regard to Cuba) was discussed by JFK and Smathers. Smathers could not remember whether he brought it up or JFK did, but Smathers suggested, according to Warren Hinkle and William Turner (Deadly Secrets-The CIA/Mafia War against Castro and the Assassination of JFK, pg. 73) , that any assassination attempt be coupled with a staged incident at the Guantanamo Naval Base that would provide a pretext for intervention by American Forces.

Smathers' suggestion about using Guantanamo as an excuse to invade Cuba was similar to the plan suggested by Richard Nixon in his post-invasion visit to the White House when he suggested finding "legal cover" such as "defending our base at Guantanamo" as an excuse for "going in ".

Shortly thereafter, Kennedy learned enough of Smathers' right-wing associations to make him wary."

 

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In my  opinion, the fact that Johnson and Hoover put a stop to all of the Phase 1 stories is evidence they were not in on the actual assassination planning.

It took Hoover about six weeks to figure out once and for all that the whole Oswald in Mexico City plotting with Castro and the KGB--which Bob Baer is still trying to sell on HC-- was  a big whipped cream ice cream sundae fashioned by the CIA. But he did.  When asked later in private if LHO killed Kennedy he said, "If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to the country.  Our whole political system would be disrupted." (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 246) Doesn't should like he thought Oswald did it.

LBJ managed to put the kabosh on the Phase one stories by telling Warren that it would be atomic cafe time if he really investigated them.  This is why the Mexico City inquiry by the WC was something of a joke, just like everything else they did. They were essentially escorted around by the FBI and CIA.  And they were shown what those bodies wanted them to see.  Slawson and Coleman were essentially being lullabied to sleep.  I mean all you have to do is compare the Lopez Report with the Slawson/Coleman report to see how big a cover up Warren was running.

Thank you for responding. Can you give your opinion on why LBJ's response wasn't anticipated by the plotters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could you know such a thing for certain unless you asked him about it?  And even if you asked him about it, it would still be a hypothetical situation.  

Quite different than the one he was confronted with later that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If LBJ was a plotter for war then something made him change tack, what was it?

If Kennedy was killed , LBJ would come to power. If he was not in on the plot what level of confidence would the plotters have that he would go to war with Cuba? Did the plotters completely misjudge LBJ's response?

I am willing to be persuaded there was a plot to provide a pretext for war, but only if I can understand why it failed. Otherwise a plot with the sole goal of killing Kennedy is just as likely in my view, and that then opens up more potential culprits again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×