Ultimate Sacrifice by Thom Hartmann & Lamar Waldron

[Tim Gratz]

John I am not yet endorsing the proposition that there was an invasion planned for December of 1963 but it strikes me that one should review the book and the documents it includes before rejecting its premise.

(A review of the book appears below):

The latest book to join the Kennedy assassination canon is due out November 18 from Carroll & Graf. Ultimate Sacrifice asserts that a planned Cuban coup is the major reason the conspiracy to kill the president has been covered up so well for so long. Salon will be running a 5,000 word excerpt on November 22.

Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK

Lamar Waldron With Thom Hartmann. Carroll & Graf, $33. (904p.) ISBN 0-7867-1441-7

There has been a long hiatus in significant books on the JFK assassination since Gerald Posner's Case Closed argued in 1993 that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Posner took the CIA’s lack of involvement for granted, and that, according to this mammoth and painstakingly researched account, was a big mistake. It is Waldron and Hartmann's (The Edison Game) contention—bolstered by access to many previously unavailable files, and interviews with little-known as well as prominent figures—that the CIA knew a great deal about the assassination. But the agency couldn't admit what it knew because that could uncover the existence of a U.S. plan for a coup in Cuba, run by JFK's brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. The assassination, say the authors, was carried out by hired gunmen on the orders of three noted Mafia dons whose lives were being made miserable byRFK's ruthless pursuit—and these Mafia men knew about the planned invasion because they had worked with the CIA on previous efforts to topple Castro. Oswald, long a hidden CIA agent, was set up as the patsy, and it had always been Jack Ruby's job to eliminate him if he wasn't killed at the scene of Kennedy’s shooting.How well do the authors make their case? With a relentless accumulation of detail, a very thorough knowledge of every political and forensic detail and the broad perspective of historians rather than assassination theorists. They spend perhaps too much time with people they admire, like the late Enrique Ruiz Williams (who was to replace Castro in the planned coup). They also cannot resist chasing stories of only marginal relevance to their principal one, like what really happened to Che Guevara in Cuba. But no future historian of that tormented period in American history will be able to ignore their very convincing presentation, even if a lay reader may feel overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the evidence. B&w photos. (Nov. 18)

This article originally appeared in the November 10, 2005 issue of PW Daily.

Edited November 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Tim, according to Anthony Summers, both Kennedy brothers were aware of the AMLASH (Cubela plot):

Manuel Artime, a Cuban exile leader much favored by the Kennedy's, told a congressional investigator that the president personally was behind the Cubela plot. "Artime stated he had direct contact with J.F.K. and R.F.K.," the investigator noted. "They in turn contacted the C.I.A….AM/LASH (the C.I.A. cryptonym for the Cubela operation) was proposed by J.F.K."

Source: Summers and Swann, "The Ghosts of November", Vanity Fair Magazine, December 2001.

********************************

Apparently Messrs. Hartmann and Waldron have been working for fifteen years plus on their scenario of an invasion planned for December of 1963.

Here is a quote from Summers and Swann, "The Ghosts of November", Vanity Fair Magazine, December 2001.

On the morning of Kennedy's death, FitzGerald attended a meeting to put the finishing touches to another murderous scheme, one promoted by Robert Kennedy. Those present allegedly included future Watergate villains E. Howard Hunt and James McCord – although Hunt, whose movements that day have long been a contentious issue, claims he attended no such meeting and was not handling Cuban matters at the time. (McCord did not respond when we attempted to reach him.) On the other hand, Harry Ruiz-Williams, a Cuban exile whom the president's brother had taken into his confidence, admitted having been present. Robert Kennedy had made favorites of a handful of exiles, invited then to his home, and plotted mayhem with them. One of these Cubans, while insisting on anonymity, told how in 1963 another senior Castro official, not Cubela, agreed that – for a large cash payment – he would organize the violent overthrow of Castro and key colleagues. Robert Kennedy arranged for a deposit to be paid into a foreign bank, and by November 22 the operation was imminent. Had the president's assassination not intervened, the exile go-between would have set off on a secret mission to Havana. The coup, to be followed by American support, was expected to occur within 10 days.

Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann, two Atlanta researchers, have obtained corroboration of its existence from U.S. military and government sources. Former secretary of state Dean Rusk said he learned of the coup operation after the president's death.

Edited November 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Gerry Hemming]

Tim, according to Anthony Summers, both Kennedy brothers were aware of the AMLASH (Cubela plot):

Manuel Artime, a Cuban exile leader much favored by the Kennedy's, told a congressional investigator that the president personally was behind the Cubela plot. "Artime stated he had direct contact with J.F.K. and R.F.K.," the investigator noted. "They in turn contacted the C.I.A….AM/LASH (the C.I.A. cryptonym for the Cubela operation) was proposed by J.F.K."

Source: Summers and Swann, "The Ghosts of November", Vanity Fair Magazine, December 2001.

********************************

Apparently Messrs. Hartmann and Waldron have been working for fifteen years plus on their scenario of an invasion planned for December of 1963.

Here is a quote from Summers and Swann, "The Ghosts of November", Vanity Fair Magazine, December 2001.

On the morning of Kennedy's death, FitzGerald attended a meeting to put the finishing touches to another murderous scheme, one promoted by Robert Kennedy. Those present allegedly included future Watergate villains E. Howard Hunt and James McCord – although Hunt, whose movements that day have long been a contentious issue, claims he attended no such meeting and was not handling Cuban matters at the time. (McCord did not respond when we attempted to reach him.) On the other hand, Harry Ruiz-Williams, a Cuban exile whom the president's brother had taken into his confidence, admitted having been present. Robert Kennedy had made favorites of a handful of exiles, invited then to his home, and plotted mayhem with them. One of these Cubans, while insisting on anonymity, told how in 1963 another senior Castro official, not Cubela, agreed that – for a large cash payment – he would organize the violent overthrow of Castro and key colleagues. Robert Kennedy arranged for a deposit to be paid into a foreign bank, and by November 22 the operation was imminent. Had the president's assassination not intervened, the exile go-between would have set off on a secret mission to Havana. The coup, to be followed by American support, was expected to occur within 10 days.

Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann, two Atlanta researchers, have obtained corroboration of its existence from U.S. military and government sources. Former secretary of state Dean Rusk said he learned of the coup operation after the president's death.

----------------------------

I was thoroughly dismayed to read that not only had Don Bohning gotten the "Colonel Frank" I.D. wrong, but to swallow the crap that "Chi-Chi" Quintero was Artime's "right-hand man" -- GIVE-ME-A-BREAK !!

"Chi-Chi", the very few times he was in Nicaragua, he spent kissing Somoza's ass at the Montelimar "Bunker" in Managua. And moreover, he was either whoreing or trying to get in on the automobile import deals with one of Anastasio's sycophants. He went to Tortuguero only once, and bitched about the mosquitos and fears of "Yellow Fever"-- and bugged-outa-Dodge "most-riky-tik"!!

When I went to the Italy website -- looking for information to cite as to the dude who had been given the privilege of naming the Op as "2nd Naval Guerrilla" [the guy's old Italian WWII outfit] -- I started getting online blockage !!

Big brother is pissed -- and watching !!

GPH

________________________

[Pat Speer]

Tim Carroll wrote:

Arthur Schlesinger remembers the wording of the Miami speech differently:

"A search of the JFK Papers shows that Goodwin, Ralph Dungan, Bundy, Gordon Chase of Bundy's staff and I were involved in discussions about the speech. No evidence was uncovered of any contribution from FitzGerald and the CIA."

Tim, this is Schlesinger revisionist history at its most egregious. Moreover, it defies logic. I respect you as a logician. Do you suspect if the IAPA sppech contained a secret message to a Castro assassin-to-be records of that secret insert would be retained in the official White House records? Somewhat defeats the concept of plausible deniability, I should say.

Contemporaneously, the speech was seen as decidely anti-Castro. The speech described the Castro government as a "small band of conspirators" which formed a "barrier" which "once removed" would ensure United States support for progressive goals in Cuba.

The president, according to his aide McGeorge Bundy, sought to "encourage anti-Castro elements within Cuba to revolt". Bundy, "Meeting With the President," Dec. 19, 1963 (FRUS, #388, 908).

The Associated Press called the speech "an appeal to the Cuban people to overthrow the Castro regime." The Ithaca Journal ran the story under the front-page banner headline, "KENNEDY URGES OVERTHROW OF CASTRO."

And by the way the report that Kennedy used the IAPA speech to signal Cubela origniated not with Russo but with Seymour Hersh. A Church Committee lawyer, James Johnston, told Hersh that Seymour Bolton, who served as a CIA liaison to the Church Committee, “`went into orbit over the implication that the CIA was a rogue elephant.’ Bolton told Johnston that in 1963 Bolton had `carried a paragraph…to be inserted into Kennedy’s November 18 speech”…

Tim, you are revealing your bias. Helms and Schlesinger are liars but some obscure source a dozen years after the fact is a great truth-teller with a pristine memory. You clearly have a NEED to believe the Kennedys were murderers. Apparently, your world would cave-in if you had to accept the fact that they were nicer people and BETTER CHRISTIANS than the current regime.

You are so drunk on your Kennedy hate that you will even stoop to distorting their statements.

Here is the paragraph in question in Kennedy's speech, per your favorite book, pre-Russo, Red Friday, by that great Cuban-American truth-teller, and DRE minister of propaganda, Carlos Bringuier.

"it is a fact that a small band of conspirators has stripped the Cuban people of their freedom and handed over the independence and sovereignty of the Cuban nation to forces beyond the hemisphere. They have made Cuba a victim of foreign imperialism, an instrument of the policy of others, 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 true nothing is possible.

"Without it everything is possible.

"Once this barrier is removed we will be ready and anxious to work with the Cuban people in pursuit of those progressive goals which, a few short years ago, stirred their hopes and the sympathy of many people throughout the entire hemispohere."

So, Tim, the barrier was Castro's ties to the Soviets and his exportation of revolution, and not , as you implied, Castro himself. Furthermore, in the "ready and anxious" comment, Kennedy was not only sending a message to Castro that we'd provide him with economic support if he dumped the Reds, but that under no circumstances would we allow Batistiano forces to regain control of Cuba.

This speech was far more threatening to the right-wing Cubans than it was to Castro. If you can't see this, you are truly blind.

As far as the book, Larry pointed out to me that the plans were for a coup, and not a second invasion. This makes a little more sense. I certainly don't believe the Kennedys would have been automatically opposed to one of their exile friends over-throwing Castro, as long as America's hands were kept clean.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Carroll]

Tim Carroll wrote: Arthur Schlesinger remembers the wording of the Miami speech differently: "A search of the JFK Papers shows that Goodwin, Ralph Dungan, Bundy, Gordon Chase of Bundy's staff and I were involved in discussions about the speech. No evidence was uncovered of any contribution from FitzGerald and the CIA." Tim, this is Schlesinger revisionist history at its most egregious. Moreover, it defies logic. I respect you as a logician. Do you suspect if the IAPA sppech contained a secret message to a Castro assassin-to-be records of that secret insert would be retained in the official White House records? Somewhat defeats the concept of plausible deniability, I should say.

Tim [Gratz], you are revealing your bias. Helms and Schlesinger are liars but some obscure source a dozen years after the fact is a great truth-teller with a pristine memory.

There is no basis, logical or historical, for writing Schlesinger off as a "revisionist." Many historians made that same mistake for years on the basis of Schlesinger's closeness to the Kennedys, and the mistake came back to bite them. Researching the Secret Deal to settle the Missile Crisis, Barton Bernstein particularly complained that his own "efforts to gain access to the major segments on the Missile Crisis have been unsuccessful despite various requests from 1979-1991."* Historians who had dismissed the revelations about the Secret Deal by Schlesinger in his 1978 book Robert Kennedy And His Times were embarrassed as late as the 1990s to learn that Schlesinger's disclosure had been accurate.

*Bernstein, Barton. 1992. “Reconsidering the Missile Crisis.” The Cuban Missile Crisis Revisited. James Nathan, ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Tim Carroll

Edited November 13, 2005 by Tim Carroll

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

This speech was far more threatening to the right-wing Cubans than it was to Castro. If you can't see this, you are truly blind.

Pat you seem to have simply ignored the substance of my previous post, to-wit:

Contemporaneously, the speech was seen as decidely anti-Castro. The speech described the Castro government as a "small band of conspirators" which formed a "barrier" which "once removed" would ensure United States support for progressive goals in Cuba.

The president, according to his aide McGeorge Bundy, sought to "encourage anti-Castro elements within Cuba to revolt". Bundy, "Meeting With the President," Dec. 19, 1963 (FRUS, #388, 908).

The Associated Press called the speech "an appeal to the Cuban people to overthrow the Castro regime." The Ithaca Journal ran the story under the front-page banner headline, "KENNEDY URGES OVERTHROW OF CASTRO."

When you recite a few sentences from the speech you conveniently omitted the references I cited to JFK's labeling Castro and his cronies "a small band of conspirators" that should be "removed". Obviously if Castro was "removed" Cuba's ties to the Soviet Union would disappear and the Kennedy Administration would be ready and willing to give aid to the Cuban people, as he indicated in the portuons you cite. Thus, the portions that I cite make the entire speech consistent, which as I am sure you know is a key element in the interpretation of any ambiguous speech or document.

My version (that the speech was calling for the overthrow of Castro) was the version accorded the speech by the contemporary news media. The media did not, as you do, see the speech as extending the proverbial olive branch to Castro. Equally if not even more significantly, MY version of the speech was the version accorded it by McGeorge Bundy, one of Kennedy's closest aides.

An objective reader can determine which of us is bringing his bias to the interpretation of the speech. Perhaps I will reconsider my position if you can cite contemporary commentators who saw the speech as conciliatory to Castro. Do you know how the Cuban press viewed the speech?

Your argument that the CIA did not insert language in the speech to signal Cubela is apparently based on your assertion that Helms was a xxxx. That he may have been (and he was of course convicted of sissembling to Congress), but the fact that the CIA delivered language to the WH came from Seymour Bolton, an aide to Desmond Fitzgerald (the man who had met with Cubela, of course). Do you have any basis for labeling Bolton a xxxx? So why did you even insert Helms' name into this interchange?

You claim my interpretation of the speech is affected by my hatred of the Kennedys. Well, I do NOT hate the Kennedys. I believe the Kennedys were fervent anti-Communists who were doing their best to get rid of Castro. I will admit that the jury is still out, and may forever remain out, on whether the Kennedys were aware of and encouraged any attempts to assassinate Castro. It is worth observing, however, that most historians who have examined the issue have concluded that the Kennedys were probably aware of some of the plots. Of course, one will remember that the CIA operatives who came away from the May 7, 1962 meeting with RFK were impressed that RFK forbid any further CIA involvement with the Mafia (at least without his prior consent) but he did NOT forbid any further assassination plotting.

Moreover, my analysis that Castro may have acted against JFK to once and for all stop US efforts to kill him (including the on-going Cubela plot) does not depend on whether the Kennedys had actual knowledge of the Cubela plot. The CIA, rightly or wrongly, had persuaded Cubela that the Kennedys approved the plot.

My purpose is not to demonstrate whether or not the Kennedys were aware of specific assassination plots but rather that Castro had very understandable reasons to want Kennedy removed from office.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

I have been told that in the book Dean Rusk is the main named source for the story about the JFK plot against Castro. However, this information came from officials within the LBJ administration. Rusk was outside the loop. This does not surprise me. RFK points out in the oral history project that JFK was very disillusioned with Rusk. LBJ was also outside the loop but he tried to portray JFK as an ardent Cold War Warrior after his death.

In 1963 JFK’s main concern was to be elected in 1964. Cuba had the potential to cause him problems and would have liked to have seen Castro ousted by an internal coup. The CIA no doubt tried to convince him that a popular uprising was possible (as they did in 1961 before the Bay of Pigs operation). However, there is no evidence that this was the case. That is why Castro is still in power.

What JFK would not have done is anything that linked him to a failed attempt to overthrow Castro. This would have damaged him with both the left and right.

It is interesting that JFK did not fear Barry Goldwater as the possible 1964 Republican candidate. He rightly saw him as an idiot who could easily be beaten. His main concern was that George Romney would be nominated. He feared a candidate who appeared to be coming from the left, not the right.

[Pat Speer]

Pat wrote:

This speech was far more threatening to the right-wing Cubans than it was to Castro. If you can't see this, you are truly blind.

Pat you seem to have simply ignored the substance of my previous post, to-wit:

Contemporaneously, the speech was seen as decidely anti-Castro. The speech described the Castro government as a "small band of conspirators" which formed a "barrier" which "once removed" would ensure United States support for progressive goals in Cuba.

The president, according to his aide McGeorge Bundy, sought to "encourage anti-Castro elements within Cuba to revolt". Bundy, "Meeting With the President," Dec. 19, 1963 (FRUS, #388, 908).

The Associated Press called the speech "an appeal to the Cuban people to overthrow the Castro regime." The Ithaca Journal ran the story under the front-page banner headline, "KENNEDY URGES OVERTHROW OF CASTRO."

When you recite a few sentences from the speech you conveniently omitted the references I cited to JFK's labeling Castro and his cronies "a small band of conspirators" that should be "removed". Obviously if Castro was "removed" Cuba's ties to the Soviet Union would disappear and the Kennedy Administration would be ready and willing to give aid to the Cuban people, as he indicated in the portuons you cite. Thus, the portions that I cite make the entire speech consistent, which as I am sure you know is a key element in the interpretation of any ambiguous speech or document.

My version (that the speech was calling for the overthrow of Castro) was the version accorded the speech by the contemporary news media. The media did not, as you do, see the speech as extending the proverbial olive branch to Castro. Equally if not even more significantly, MY version of the speech was the version accorded it by McGeorge Bundy, one of Kennedy's closest aides.

An objective reader can determine which of us is bringing his bias to the interpretation of the speech. Perhaps I will reconsider my position if you can cite contemporary commentators who saw the speech as conciliatory to Castro. Do you know how the Cuban press viewed the speech?

Your argument that the CIA did not insert language in the speech to signal Cubela is apparently based on your assertion that Helms was a xxxx. That he may have been (and he was of course convicted of sissembling to Congress), but the fact that the CIA delivered language to the WH came from Seymour Bolton, an aide to Desmond Fitzgerald (the man who had met with Cubela, of course). Do you have any basis for labeling Bolton a xxxx? So why did you even insert Helms' name into this interchange?

Tim, I'll try again. Look at the actual speech. It is you and/or your sources that are taking JFK's words out of context. The barrier that needed to be removed was NOT Castro, but his dealings with the Soviets. As for Bundy's interpretation, it doesn't matter. His job was to spin Kennedy's policies to appease the right.

"it is a fact that a small band of conspirators has stripped the Cuban people of their freedom and handed over the independence and sovereignty of the Cuban nation to forces beyond the hemisphere. They have made Cuba a victim of foreign imperialism, an instrument of the policy of others, 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 true nothing is possible.

"Without it everything is possible.

"Once this barrier is removed we will be ready and anxious to work with the Cuban people in pursuit of those progressive goals which, a few short years ago, stirred their hopes and the sympathy of many people throughout the entire hemispohere."

And I'm not the one who called Helms a xxxx, you did. He testified that he and Des decided to keep RFK out of the loop on Cubela. Of course, he was a convicted perjurer. But why would he lie to protect a dead RFK at the expense of his own reputation? And don't give me that falling on his sword crap... it would have served no purpose. If you read my post clearly, I believe I said it's possible something was inserted into the speech. As Cubela was thought a possible contact in Castro's inner circle, they may have been sending him a sign that they were aware of him. But as to the speech giving a formal go-ahead to kill Castro? Really doubtful. It was more likely the formal go-ahead to the right-wing Cubans to kill Kennedy.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Gerry Hemming]

Pat wrote:

This speech was far more threatening to the right-wing Cubans than it was to Castro. If you can't see this, you are truly blind.

Pat you seem to have simply ignored the substance of my previous post, to-wit:

Contemporaneously, the speech was seen as decidely anti-Castro. The speech described the Castro government as a "small band of conspirators" which formed a "barrier" which "once removed" would ensure United States support for progressive goals in Cuba.

The president, according to his aide McGeorge Bundy, sought to "encourage anti-Castro elements within Cuba to revolt". Bundy, "Meeting With the President," Dec. 19, 1963 (FRUS, #388, 908).

The Associated Press called the speech "an appeal to the Cuban people to overthrow the Castro regime." The Ithaca Journal ran the story under the front-page banner headline, "KENNEDY URGES OVERTHROW OF CASTRO."

When you recite a few sentences from the speech you conveniently omitted the references I cited to JFK's labeling Castro and his cronies "a small band of conspirators" that should be "removed". Obviously if Castro was "removed" Cuba's ties to the Soviet Union would disappear and the Kennedy Administration would be ready and willing to give aid to the Cuban people, as he indicated in the portuons you cite. Thus, the portions that I cite make the entire speech consistent, which as I am sure you know is a key element in the interpretation of any ambiguous speech or document.

My version (that the speech was calling for the overthrow of Castro) was the version accorded the speech by the contemporary news media. The media did not, as you do, see the speech as extending the proverbial olive branch to Castro. Equally if not even more significantly, MY version of the speech was the version accorded it by McGeorge Bundy, one of Kennedy's closest aides.

An objective reader can determine which of us is bringing his bias to the interpretation of the speech. Perhaps I will reconsider my position if you can cite contemporary commentators who saw the speech as conciliatory to Castro. Do you know how the Cuban press viewed the speech?

Your argument that the CIA did not insert language in the speech to signal Cubela is apparently based on your assertion that Helms was a xxxx. That he may have been (and he was of course convicted of sissembling to Congress), but the fact that the CIA delivered language to the WH came from Seymour Bolton, an aide to Desmond Fitzgerald (the man who had met with Cubela, of course). Do you have any basis for labeling Bolton a xxxx? So why did you even insert Helms' name into this interchange?

Tim, I'll try again. Look at the actual speech. It is you and/or your sources that are taking JFK's words out of context. The barrier that needed to be removed was NOT Castro, but his dealings with the Soviets. As for Bundy's interpretation, it doesn't matter. His job was to spin Kennedy's policies to appease the right.

"it is a fact that a small band of conspirators has stripped the Cuban people of their freedom and handed over the independence and sovereignty of the Cuban nation to forces beyond the hemisphere. They have made Cuba a victim of foreign imperialism, an instrument of the policy of others, 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 true nothing is possible.

"Without it everything is possible.

"Once this barrier is removed we will be ready and anxious to work with the Cuban people in pursuit of those progressive goals which, a few short years ago, stirred their hopes and the sympathy of many people throughout the entire hemispohere."

And I'm not the one who called Helms a xxxx, you did. He testified that he and Des decided to keep RFK out of the loop on Cubela. Of course, he was a convicted perjurer. But why would he lie to protect a dead RFK at the expense of his own reputation? And don't give me that falling on his sword crap... it would have served no purpose. If you read my post clearly, I believe I said it's possible something was inserted into the speech. As Cubela was thought a possible contact in Castro's inner circle, they may have been sending him a sign that they were aware of him. But as to the speech giving a formal go-ahead to kill Castro? Really doubtful. It was more likely the formal go-ahead to the right-wing Cubans to kill Kennedy.

---------------------------------

Sorry Pat:

And despite the fact that Gratz is operating behind the power curve on these matters, let me "inadvertently" "blurt out", and "cough up" sufficient hints to win my "Donut" or at least a "Dollar"!! [silver Dollar if you please -- I don't trust those Federal Reserve Notes since scanning some member's websites, links thereto, or cites therefrom.]

[Ms. Public "Equal Opportunity" Offender: If you have ANY difficulty with the following sentences; xxxxx me...er...throw me a specific interrogatory, and I will swear to "Testi-lie" in response thereto, and forthwith -- in a posthaste manner, and avoiding most Obiter Dictum in my prolix !!]

The "Code Word" [palabra en codigo] insisted upon by AM/LASH-7 was "Barrier" -- [barricada]; and it had to follow a reference to the small "band" [grupito] of "conspirators" [gente que se metio adentro un conspiracion] who had "betrayed the revolution" [los que han traicionada los ideales de nuestra revolucion original] !!

[Cubela was fond of books about the French Revolution, and could even say those famous words in French:

"..Let us take to the Barricades...and storm the Bastille...!!" Cubela was in France on Bastille Day (14th July) and opted for the word "Barricadas" (Barricades) which was transilterated to "Barrier" by Des F.]

And if Ibarra's progeny take Cubela's punk-student ass out to the "Wall" [El Paredon] tomorrow and shoot him (maybe next week ?) -- I could give a rat's ass, even despite his being a close friend to some of my close friends, both here and abroad !!

After Cubela's arrest during 1966, and during his courtmartial some time later: A document was produced by the prosecuting officer, which made clear reference to his agreement -- and that the "Verlain Poems" type (WWII pre-D-Day BBC broadcast-in-the-blind) message was indeed his traitorous call-to-arms !!

Helms lied to save his own ass. He was still with the federal statutes of limitation for an ongoing criminal conspiracy and/or its cover-up. [see: U.S. vs: James, overruling U.S. vs: Apollo]

He knew that getting anywhere into the RFK matter, would lead to evidence of his having gleefully ignored JJA's repeated warnings about these specific "moles" -- who delivered the goods against Rolando in Havana !!

Moreover, he was liable for prosecution, not as an aider/abbetter or "co-cunt-spirator"; but as a "principal" in Capital felonies [no statutes of limitation]; involving murder, and several violations of sections within the Espionage Act.

Also, one of the cruxi of this matter was recently ignored by a well known scrivener, to wit: RFK told Artime and Manolo Reboso all about having informed, and thereafter received the OK from his brother to go ahead with "a plan" involving Artime's old buddy and both the AM/TRUNK & AM/TRUCK sub-projects.

RFK's lying in advance ??!! But, why would Artime & Reboso make every attempt to cover this up later. Even to the extent of Artime's lying to his "Bud" Hunt, who later became his neighbor in El Portal (Dade County Florida) ??!! [Which later became very small part of Hunt's search for the "BOP Thingy"]

Now let me see, this speech was going to piss-off the "right-wing Cubans"; most of whom were already inside (or in transit) to the 2nd Naval Guerrilla camps -- and after their families had been given the initial per-diem stipends by the New Orleans based CIA/DIA proprietary.

Later, and CHAIRS,

GPH

___________________

[Dawn Meredith]

Received this morning from Lisa Pease. Reprinted here with Lisa's permission.

Dawn

From Liz Smith's column in Variety today:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117932908?categoryid=2062

<http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117932908?categoryid=2062&cs=1&s=h&p=

0> &cs=1&s=h&p=0

MYSTERIES surrounding JFK's death are explained in the hefty new book

"Ultimate Sacrifice" which tells in excruciating detail how John and

Robert Kennedy, along with the CIA, planned a coup in Cuba which then

led to Jack's death. The authors of this Carroll & Graf tome are Lamar

Waldron and Thom Hartmann. They have worked on this book, reading the

most important of 4 million documents and it has taken them 17 years to

write it. A never-revealed CIA-Kennedy plan to stage a coup against

Fidel Castro and actually to invade Cuba had a name. The CIA code for

this unrealized action, which they hoped to launch on Dec. 1, 1963, was

AMWORLD. The authors of the book, however, refer to plan in their work

as "C-Day" because the AMWORLD name was classified until last summer.

... According to Waldron/Hartmann, the Mafia had people inside

Washington who knew of the C-plan. Angry at the attorney general Bobby

Kennedy's serious battle against them, the Mafia set up three

assassination attempts on President Kennedy: the first in Chicago, the

second in Tampa and the third, fatally, in Dallas. The authors name the

three Mafia bosses -- Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante and Johnny

Rosselli as the men who organized the killing of the 35th president. ...

There is new information on the roles played in all this drama by Judith

Campbell Exner and by Marilyn Monroe. (Neither lady comes out looking

too good.). And it explains why the Mafia effort to kill JFK in Tampa

was withheld from the Warren Commission and other investigators for

years. Most importantly it shows why Bobby Kennedy never followed up his

brother's death by revealing the Mafia as JFK's killers (although he

told many intimates what he believed) -- because the secrecy of the coup

plan had to continue to be protected.

----

I'll be very interested to see the raw evidence for myself, as I

strongly suspect it will show that the CIA had such a plan, but that

Bobby and Jack were NOT the drivers of it.

I'll also be curious to see how the Mafia convinced the CIA to lie about

Oswald to other agencies of the government less than a month before the

assassination. Whatever power they had over the CIA must have been

pretty flimsy, as it failed to protect Rosselli and Sam Giancana, who is

strangely absent from the above list. And Jim DiEugenio has done a great

job popping the balloons re Judith "the government wants me to talk

again" Exner and the equally flimsy links to Marilyn Monroe.

I've distrusted Waldron for a long time, ever since he first surfaced

this thesis, as the documents he cited did not make the case he claimed

at THAT time. I'd be very surprised if he's suddenly found documents to

finally support that thesis. But I'm saddened immensely by Thom

Hartmann's participation. I can only imagine Hartmann is a better

activist than researcher.

It's clear there were some in the CIA pushing for an excuse to invade

Cuba. In fact, Richard Helms visited JFK just three days before his

assassination trying to convince him that an arms cache that had

magically appeared in Venezuela came from Cuba, which would be a

violation of Castro's promise not to export his revolution, and which

would have provided the U.S. a "legit" reason to invade. I can only

imagine that Kennedy's skepticism re Helms' story, questioning where the

arms really came from, showed Kennedy to be more interested in the truth

than invading Cuba. If he was all for it, he would have asked no

questions, thanked Helms, and I think we all know JFK would probably be

alive today. I think his reluctance to use that as an excuse to invade

was one of the reasons why he was killed. If that's true, that leaves

the Waldron/Hartmann thesis stranded.

Does anyone know if Lamar Waldron is the son of Martin Waldron? If so,

that would be very interesting. Martin Waldron was the NYT reporter who

covered the MLK case and the Clay Shaw trial for the New York Times. I

can't remember offhand if he wrote about the RFK case too, but that

would seem likely, given the timing.

I think RFK's guilt came from his "ruthless" behavior towards CIA

officers with whom he was literally at war. When he found out that Bill

Harvey had sent ten separate teams into Cuba during the Missile Crisis,

presumably with the goal of killing Castro, RFK was outraged. He called

Harvey in and asked him to explain. Harvey said the Pentagon made him do

it, but the Pentagon denied having anything to do with that, and Bobby

believed the Pentagon. He asked the CIA to fire Harvery. In DIRECT

CONTRAVENTION to his order, which was made on behalf of his brother, the

President, Harvey was retained by the CIA. They just sent him to Italy

where Bobby wasn't likely to stumble across him. So please forgive me if

I rant whenever I hear anyone tell me how the Kennedys and the CIA were

working together to kill Castro. And have you ever noticed that nearly

all sources of the accusation that the Kennedy's wanted Castro dead

track back to Sam Halpern, Richard Helms' trusted aide?

JFK and Bobby wanted Castro REPLACED, not killed, and they kept telling

the CIA change couldn't come from without, that change had to come from

within Cuba. They asked the CIA to find potential leaders and offered

support for a native uprising, but they never wanted to invade, they

never wanted an external war, and they never actually had any plan to

kill Castro, as the CIA's OWN IG REPORT STATES. The last pages of the

report ask and answer the question as directly as it has ever been

stated.

<BEGIN QUOTE>

Can CIA state or imply that it was merely an instrument of policy?

Not in this case. While it is true that Phase Two was carried out in an

atmosphere of intense Kennedy administration pressure to do something

about Castro, such is not true of the earlier phase. Phase One was

initiated in August 1960 under the Eisenhower administration. Phase Two

is associated in Harvey's mind with the Executive Action Capability,

which reportedly was developed in response to White House urgings.

Again, Phase One had been started and abandoned months before the

Executive Action Capability appeared

-132-

on the scene.

When Robert Kennedy was briefed on Phase One in May 1962, he strongly

admonished Houston and Edwards to check with the Attorney General in

advance of any future intended use of U.S. criminal elements. This was

not done with respect to Phase Two, which was already well under way at

the time Kennedy was briefed.

<END QUOTE>

Despite the guarded language, what this says is that RFK was briefed

only on the Phase One plots, which had ended. The CIA did NOT tell RFK

about the Phase Two plots, so Bobby had no chance to say STOP, which is

why the CIA says they cannot "in this case" claim to have been an

instrument of policy. Yes, there was pressure to "do something about

Castro" but JFK and Bobby were clear to all around them that "doing

something" DID NOT include KILLING Castro.

I hope the bccs will join with me in protecting the truth and not adding

to the lies and distortions in this case. It's hard enough to find the

truth. When we see a glimpse of it, as we did in the IG report, we

should not give it up just because some author interprets documents

differently. Hey - if someone can PROVE to me, show me the signature or

quote me someone really trusted by the Kennedys who claims first hand

knowledge of the Kennedy's involvement in the Castro assassination

plots, I'm all eyes and ears. But short of that, I will hold to the best

evidence I've seen, which is that this was NOT their wish. Bobby, in

particular, was incensed that people accused him of trying to kill

Castro, and lamented to Dick Goodwin that he (Bobby) was the one trying

to save Castro's life. Goodwin, whom both JFK and RFK trusted, reports

that firsthand in his book "Remembering America."

Lastly, if I and many other researchers are correct in our belief that

the CIA was directly involved in killing Kennedy, then it follows that

the CIA would push on anyone who would listen the disinfo that JFK

wanted to kill Castro, as it detracts from their strongest motive for

offing him. It seems to have had the desired effect, if Liz Smith's

summary is correct. Waldron and Hartmann fell for that, and now excuse

the CIA from involvement, blaming that old standby patsy, the Mob.

I refuse to believe anything like this until I see cold, hard documented

proof. And even then, I'd question the chain re that/those documents.

False documents have already been "found" in the archives.

[Pat Speer]

It's clear there were some in the CIA pushing for an excuse to invade

Cuba. In fact, Richard Helms visited JFK just three days before his

assassination trying to convince him that an arms cache that had

magically appeared in Venezuela came from Cuba, which would be a

violation of Castro's promise not to export his revolution, and which

would have provided the U.S. a "legit" reason to invade. I can only

imagine that Kennedy's skepticism re Helms' story, questioning where the

arms really came from, showed Kennedy to be more interested in the truth

than invading Cuba. If he was all for it, he would have asked no

questions, thanked Helms, and I think we all know JFK would probably be

alive today. I think his reluctance to use that as an excuse to invade

was one of the reasons why he was killed. If that's true, that leaves

the Waldron/Hartmann thesis stranded.

This little blurb sounded familiar until I realized I was thinking of Guatemala! I believe one of the CIA's documented plans to discredit Arbenz was to place a cache of Russian weapons ashore and then claim Arbenz was receiving weapons from Russia. Supposedly he played into our hands by purchasing a whole shipload of weapons instead. When one reads between the lines, however, the amount of rifles etc on this ship were far more than his army would ever need. I've suspected that instead WE purchased the arms through a middle man and had them shipped into Guat to give us a reason to support his overthrow. Did Arbenz ever do any interviews or write on this subject? Do we have any confirmation that it was Arbenz buying the weapons? Did Ydigoras Fuentes write about this in his book, which I've read was not exactly complimentary to the U.S.?

In any case, the "discovery" of a cache of weapons smells like a CIA plot. They'd done it before.

[Gerry Hemming]

It's clear there were some in the CIA pushing for an excuse to invade

Cuba. In fact, Richard Helms visited JFK just three days before his

assassination trying to convince him that an arms cache that had

magically appeared in Venezuela came from Cuba, which would be a

violation of Castro's promise not to export his revolution, and which

would have provided the U.S. a "legit" reason to invade. I can only

imagine that Kennedy's skepticism re Helms' story, questioning where the

arms really came from, showed Kennedy to be more interested in the truth

than invading Cuba. If he was all for it, he would have asked no

questions, thanked Helms, and I think we all know JFK would probably be

alive today. I think his reluctance to use that as an excuse to invade

was one of the reasons why he was killed. If that's true, that leaves

the Waldron/Hartmann thesis stranded.

This little blurb sounded familiar until I realized I was thinking of Guatemala! I believe one of the CIA's documented plans to discredit Arbenz was to place a cache of Russian weapons ashore and then claim Arbenz was receiving weapons from Russia. Supposedly he played into our hands by purchasing a whole shipload of weapons instead. When one reads between the lines, however, the amount of rifles etc on this ship were far more than his army would ever need. I've suspected that instead WE purchased the arms through a middle man and had them shipped into Guat to give us a reason to support his overthrow. Did Arbenz ever do any interviews or write on this subject? Do we have any confirmation that it was Arbenz buying the weapons? Did Ydigoras Fuentes write about this in his book, which I've read was not exactly complimentary to the U.S.?

In any case, the "discovery" of a cache of weapons smells like a CIA plot. They'd done it before.

_______________________

The Government of Venezuela launched an invstigation into those alleged "Cuban" weapons. The majority of the weapons were F.A.L.s, [Fusil Automatique Liviengne] manufactured by the Belgium Arms manufacturer ["FN"]

"Fabrique National des arms d'guerre" and were chambered for the 7.62 mm NATO cartridge.

These were "ALMOST" the exact same model that Fidel had off loaded from the "M/S Le Coubre" before it was blown up in Habana Harbor during March, 1960. FN later sent a second load to Cuba -- to replace those lost in the explosion. Photos of Fidel's troops at the Bay of Pigs allows one to distinguish between the regular Rebel Army soldiers and the militia men & women.

Other than the berets and blue shirts, the "Milicianos" carry the Czech "R-2" Carbine or the "Cheka" machine pistol. Whilst the regulars, including Fidel, Cmdte. Fernandez Mell, et al. carry the F.A.L. !!

When I say "ALMOST", I mean that the CIA REMF pogues screwed up !! Venezuela was told by FN in Belgium that: The serial numbers traced back to a "arms lot" sold to an arms dealer with what turned out to be a forged "End-User Certificate"!! Moreover, FN [and the Belgian Foreign Ministry & Armed Forces Staff] stated in sworn documents that: This particular model had NEVER been sold to ANY government or NGO in the Western Hemisphere !!

Just one more Ted Shackley screw-up that Helms had to lie about [under oath] later on !!

Chairs,

GPH

_______________________

[John Simkin]

You can get extracts of the book here:

http://www.ultimatesacrificebook.com

Lamar has agreed to discuss his book on the Forum. I will set this up when I get back to the UK.

[John Simkin]

John wrote (about Lamar Waldron):

I think he has got it about 95% right. I suspect that his theory will upset some members because he argues that JFK was serious about his plan to overthrow Castro in December, 1963.

John has seen the light!!!

You clearly have not read the book Tim. Lamar makes it very clear that Castro or the Soviets had nothing to do with the assassination.

I have been convinced by Lamar Waldron, David Kaiser and Larry Hancock that mobsters were involved in the assassination. I was given evidence of this over a year ago by my best source but thought he had been lied to about this issue. It is now clear that his information was correct.

Lamar shows from recently released documents that JFK was following two strategies for dealing with Castro. Both were highly secret and were known to only a small number of people. If either of these "policies" were exposed, JFK faced the possibility of impeachment. It was an amazingly dangerous strategy and was full of risks.

This is not just a theory. Both David Kaiser (Professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the Naval War College) and Larry Hancock, have used these documents to come to the same conclusion.

The two strategies were:

(1) Secret negotiations with Castro via Lisa Howard, William Attwood, Jean Daniel, etc.

(2) A secret plot to overthrow Castro on 1st December, 1963.

JFK prefered the first option but Castro was playing hard to get. For example, in November, Castro was keeping Jean Daniel waiting for a meeting. In fact, he only agreed to see him on the day of the assassination. They were together when news came through that JFK had been killed. Who knows what would have come out of this meeting? The main sticking point involved United Nations inspections of Cuba. Documents have just been released that show that JFK's pledge not to invade Cuba was linked to UN inspections.

Given these documents the issue is: "would JFK have chosen option 1 or 2". If he went for 1 he would have betrayed the anti-Castro Cubans again. The leaders of this group were already angry with JFK for insisting on a broad coalition after the overthrow of Castro. Some of these proposed leaders like Ray and Artime were considered by people the right as dangerous left-wingers.

JFK was of course right that only a broad coalition had any chance of success in a post Castro Cuba. The far right Cubans realised that even if JFK went for plan 2, they would not gain power themselves. Both plans were therefore unacceptable to them. Therefore it was members of this group that betrayed JFK's operation to the Mafia. Oswald and the Cubans were therefore set up to appear to be responsible for killing JFK. It was thought that this would have triggered an invasion that would have resulted in another right-wing military dictatorship that would allow the Mafia back into Cuba.

My disagreement with Lamar concerns LBJ. I think it is true that RFK would have been forced to go along with the cover-up. However, it was difficult to predict how LBJ would have reacted. For example, once president, he had enough information to realize that Marcello, etc., was involved in the plot. He could have used this information to destroy the Mafia. How did Marcello know he would not do this? I believe that LBJ was part of this Marcello plot. The timing of JFK's death is vitally important. Don't forget Don Reynolds' secret testimony to the Senate Rules Committee on the day of the assassination. If JFK did not die in November, LBJ would have been impeached. That is why the conspirators did not wait until 1st December to see if the coup took place.

My view is that JFK would have done a deal with Castro. The coup idea was too risky. Even if JFK could have put together a coalition that was acceptable to most Cubans, a significant number would have continued to resist. It is possible that JFK could have found himself in another Vietnam or Iraq. This was the very reason why JFK was unwilling to send troops to Vietnam. JFK was no George Bush (or Tim Gratz).

Lamar has not released details of who the coup leader was going to be. Reading between the lines, David Kaiser and myself have come to the same conclusion. Will be interested to know what other readers think the man's name is.

Both Lamar Waldron and David Kaiser have agreed to join the Forum. The debate should be very interesting.

[Ron Ecker]

I plan to ask Santa Claus to bring me Ultimate Sacrifice for Christmas. I also look forward to Waldron and Kaiser joining the forum. In the meantime, am I correct in assuming, based on all I've read so far, that this book shifts all blame for the assassination away from the CIA? Hmm. We're back to the Mafia did it, and the government has been covering up ever since for the Cosa Nostra? (Was the sham autopsy actually performed by three Italian Americans named Humesiano, Boswelluchi, and Finckelini?)

Where does this Mafia hit leave poor old David Morales, who was fast becoming my favorite arch villain, not to mention Rip and friends at the corner of Main and Houston? To quote an old pop hit from the late 50s, were they just "standing on the corner watching all the girls go by?" And coincidentally here came JFK?

Edited November 21, 2005 by Ron Ecker