If the CIA was involved at all, in any way...

[Cliff Varnell]

Ashton Gray continues in his inimitable way:

(quote on)

You go on about how we all need to look up the definition of "initially," your escape

hatch for your "rogue" characterization of CIA involvement in the assassination plot,

so we can all be more accepting and compliant and just admit that the JFK murder has

been "solved" through such acceptance of the "rogue" origins of the

premeditated murder.

(quote off)

Or so hiss the judges on the Heretic Court.

Dare ye suggest L/P/M had shown any kind of initiative toward the common goal of

overthrowing Castro -- and ye shall be deemed infidel and cast into the nether fires

of Ashton Gray's brimestone quarry!

Ashton thusly instructs:

(quote on)

Well, how about we all look up the relevant definition of "rogue":

• ROGUE:
  No longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable;
  deviating, renegade:
  (quote off)
  Bingo!
  Let's cue the tape.
  Ashton Gray at the top of this thread wrote (let's put it BOLD)
  (quote on)
  If the CIA was involved at all, in any way, in the Kennedy murder, it was not
  taking orders from, or acting in the exclusive interests of, or beholden to, or
  doing the bidding of, or reduced to a parity with, or in any way junior to:
  (quote off)
  Or obedient to...
  Or belonging to...
  Or answerable to...
  Gee, it looks like we agree on something.
  The CIA (the Old Boy Network headed by Dulles) wanted to take out Castro, even
  if it meant killing Kennedy.
  Other powerful folks shared this interest in killing Kennedy, many with agendas
  incidental to overthrowing Castro.
  Tough concept for some to get their minds around, but to do so requires
  shelving pet theories and I doubt if that would ever happen in this case.
  Ashton comes in for the kill:
  (quote on)
  a rogue cop; a rogue union local
  

You are the one who has

asserted, repeatedly, this inobediant, uncontrollable, deviant, renegade

exogenous origin for any and all subsequent CIA involvement in

the premeditated murder of John F. Kennedy.

(quote off)

Whoa, Ashton! You shouldn't have skipped over getting the definition

to the word "initially."

You now have twisted the word "initially" to mean "any and all subsequent."

Is that what "initially" means? "Any and all subsequent"??

I don't think so. In fact, I think the word "initially" means the opposite

of "any and all subsequent."

But then, who am I to correct Ashton Gray's "innocent" portrayal of

my meaning?

You are the one who, by so postulating and asserting, have exonerated

from complicity the head of the entire agency at all relevant times, John McCone,

I asked for a case against McCone -- I haven't seen one yet -- and you find

that tantamount to "exoneration"?

I don't accuse people of murder and treason lightly, Ashton.

to whose hands the blood-drenched CIA sceptre had been passed from Allen Dulles;

Bullxxxx! You think the CIA Old Boy Network just up and gave the family jewels

to John McCone? The former head of the goddamn ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION?

Sorry, Ashton, this comment of yours leads me to suspect you know far less about

the CIA than you let on.

Allen Dulles went from being the CIA's Don (Helms/Angleton took over) to being its

"unofficial" Consiglieri. The idea that Dulles give up his seat at the CIA table to some

outsider like John McCone -- DCI title or no DCI title -- certainly runs contrary to

anything I'd argue.

who was overseeing the black secrets of MKULTRA at all relevant times;

Dickie Helms bailiwick for more than a decade. You think Helms gave up any actual

operational control to an outsider Kennedy appointee?

I don't know what you're sip'n, Ashton, but it sure don't look like bourbon.

and to

whom Edward Lansdale was answering at all relevant times—through the Special Groups

and Lansdale's involvement with Operation Mongoose.

Lansdale may have reported to McCone but the General was answerable to the

Joint Chiefs.

Operation Mongoose was a Pentagon operation that involved CIA agents and assets.

You are the one who has asserted that the buck stopped at the desk of Richard Helms

for any and all CIA knowledge or involvement in the premeditated murder of John F. Kennedy

and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yeah, I think the top guys of the Old Boy Network left were Helms and Angleton,

although I'm open to any compelling argument that involved McCone or anyone

else.

You are the one who has invoked CIA's favorite apology, "compartmentalization,"

If that's the way you want to describe Standard Operating Procedure, fine.

the same song as the CIA puppet Patrick Gray sang: "The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing."

Pure straw.

Ignoring, of course, the fact that not a finger on either hand moves without the knowledge and permission of the head.

Allen Dulles remained the head of the CIA Old Boy Network (but not the CIA itself, of course)

until Helms took over as DCI in 1966 -- or so I'll argue.

You are the one who by insinuation has tacitly postulated that John McCone—the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; the head of the world's most massive clandestine intelligence machine—was so incredibly stupid, so utterly blind, so hilariously incompetent, so hopelessly seized in a walking cognitive coma, that Edward Lansdale, Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales could plot right under his nose, but in complete secret from him, for over a year at least, using agency funds, lines, personnel, safe houses, facilities, and transportation in the meticulous planning and execution of what proved to be a successful assassination of the President of the United States, McCone then going on in blind, ignorant innocence to sit dutifully cheek-by-jowl with Richard Helms in the Warren Commission—in front of McCone's predecessor, Dulles; and in front of the father of the deformed, malevolent, psychotic, pathologically lying bastard child called CIA, John J. McCloy—and assure them and the world that none of his CIA Boy Scouts were involved.

Correct. McCone was kept out of the loop for no other reason than to provide

"plausible deniability."

Apparently, though, all we have to do is go look up the word "initially," and we'll all understand how the case has been "solved."

Naw. Read Fonzi's THE LAST INVESTIGATION, Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, McKnight's

BREACH OF TRUST, and Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED and I'll bet there's

a good chance you'll agree with me that the case is solved to a 95% degree of certainty.

And the screaming in the back ground, gentle reader?

Ashton Gray's pet theories to the slaughter.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest John Gillespie]

If the CIA was involved at all, in any way, in the Kennedy murder, it was not taking orders from, or acting in the exclusive interests of, or beholden to, or doing the bidding of, or reduced to a parity with, or in any way junior to:

• Texas oil men

• Texas politicians

• The Vice President of the United States

• Pro-Castro forces

• Anti-Castro forces

• Cubans

• Castro

• The Mafia, or any part thereof

So was the CIA involved or not?

Ashton Gray

___________________________________________________

Ash,

With what is there to argue? Nonetheless, I see some of the same mouthpieces predictably responding in the usual "logical" fashion. As to motive, count me among those in the Jim Marrs camp or at least with those he reported - in "Rule By Secrecy" - as having finally settled upon Wall Street's (read: Insiders) enmity for JFK as the primary reason he had to become one of the 'departed' as we say here in Boston. Marrs wrote that many students of this topic have concluded that Kennedy's greatest threats to them had lain in plans to go back to Treasury notes and the constitutional notion, God forbid, that Congress regulate curency, monies and interest rates. Kennedy was also pushing Third World nationalism, according to Marrs. Sorry, Jack, you ain't takin' away our laboratories and ginney pigs.

This, from an anonymous review of Donald Gibson's "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency":

"In 1989 a book was published called "Crossfire", in which Texas-based journalist Jim Marrs reviewed most of the information he thought was then available concerning the JFK assassination. A large part of the book dealt with those people and groups whom he thought were the most likely to have killed Kennedy. Allen Dulles and his CIA were included in his list.

Donald Gibson has added one more suspect to this list in this book, and it would appear to this reader that someone has finally made sense of the events of November 22, 1963.

From this one book alone, one could seriously accept the idea that the eastern establishment, the Wall Street crowd, the corporate elite and all their connections had the most to lose with Kennedy as president. They had the motive and means to kill the president and then to cover it up. Gibson flatly states the establishment and the CIA's interests were intertwined. In fact, the CIA was merely the enforcer for the Council on Foreign Relations global agenda. Both Allen Dulles and John J McCloy were extremely important members of the Council, who managed to land on the Warren Commission and lead the cover-up (emphasis added). In fact, a case could be built that they organized the plot. All they needed was the green light from someone in the inner circle of the Rockefeller-dominated Council, like one of the Rockefellers."

In short, the beast from Jekyll Island put the favor out on him. I'm a believer. The how - or by what assassins pictured in very uncertain images - DOESN'T FRIGGING MATTER. We know it wasn't LHO and, yes, there were what is known as Contingency Plans to be put in operation if somehow the man made his escape, with or without Judyth.

Anyway, I'm not buying into any notions about the CIA doing anything but manipulating the entities or people on your list.

Later,

JG

Edited December 22, 2006 by John Gillespie

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Ashton,

You're having a ball on this thread...not that that wasn't your intention

Anyway, FWIW my opinion(of little meritorious value) is that Texas oil (oilmen in general), big finance/banking, Texas politicians and the VP all came from similar peerage and lineage. These incestuous friendships and 'accommodations' for and of one another, with the aim of capital gain, ensured that these folk and their chosen few enjoyed the majority of wealth they contrived and connived to create.

Forming and filling the higher echelons of both government and the CIA from this aforementioned stock gave them the vehicles through which they could manipulate events and associated 'intelligence' to their advantage 'Nam, Cuba, cold war, etc. etc.

I believe Kennedy from his election was never going to be permitted by these folk to fulfil his term(s) of presidency as he represented a divergence from the 'blood line' so to speak. A carefully constructed confluence of events BOP, missile crisis, civil rights (mis/disinfo.) Mafia hunting etc. created enough managed dissension in the rank and file to create a 'just cause' for the presidents removal.

BOP was a deliberate CIA failure to ensure that anti-Castro Cubans hated the prez, perhaps even enough to manipulate a potential assassination group.

I believe the head and spine of the CIA is and was of similar ilk, enough that one can say CIA - without caveats such as rogue, individual groups etc. though no doubt these existed - when talking of the murder of JFK.

I do believe also that Cuban elements were used, in the assassination. Manipulated and trained as a result of the deliberate BOP failure, to ensure enough venom was engendered that the life of the president was a reasonable price for their soon to be sans Castro , as promised by CIA, homeland.

This is my truth now tell me yours.

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton,

You're having a ball on this thread...not that that wasn't your intention

Hey, Gary. To be perfectly honest, I did gird my loins before posting the rather simple—not to say innocuous—question that began this topic. I knew that it went to the core issue, the only real issue: the thought behind the act, and the thinker or thinkers of the thought that precipitated the act.

I've read and appreciate your analysis, and although I can't say that I entirely agree, we do share some points of agreement. With no disrepect to the work that has gone into decades of research by people of good faith, I personally find the "Yankees and Cowboys" dichotomy too simplistic and pat a division of "sides" ever to embrace the forces at play in the Kennedy murder, very similar to the "liberal Democrats vs. conservative Republicans" Punch 'n' Judy show that you can set your watch by in all these "analyses."

I find these dichotomies, these "opposing forces," uniformly to be little more in reality than bread and circuses: a public show that feeds the Mockingbird headlines or booksales, and creates tempests in a teacup that mask actual alliances and motives. The invitation to subscribe to any of these supplied dichotomies at once suspends to a greater or lesser degree the latitude of thought.

I uniformly ignore them in wholseale lots and follow facts wherever they lead, regardless of real or imagined camp, creed, politics, religion, nature of drawl, institution of degree, or place of origin.

BOP [bay of Pigs] was a deliberate CIA failure to ensure that anti-Castro Cubans hated the prez, perhaps even enough to manipulate a potential assassination group. ...I do believe also that Cuban elements were used, in the assassination. Manipulated and trained as a result of the deliberate BOP failure, to ensure enough venom was engendered that the life of the president was a reasonable price for their soon to be sans Castro , as promised by CIA, homeland.

On that quoted part, I think it's on the right track.

This is my truth now tell me yours.

Then allow me to point back to the highly-charged original premise and question of this topic, and what I said above about it going to the core issue, the only real issue: the thought behind the act, and the thinker or thinkers of the thought that precipitated the act.

Your post has somewhat preempted a reply I was going to make to Cliff Varnell's latest bombastic fusillade, and I think that I'd rather present it here, in an exchange exhibiting reason and contemplation. The single question posed by Varnell that I even was going to answer is the only one that matters, and is one he should have asked himself in the mirror first:

I used the R-word to describe the origins of the plot to kill Kennedy. I used this oh-so-potent R-word in a very limited context. ...Is it that big a deal who thought of killing Kennedy first? Maybe others can weigh in on this question -- is it a fundamental point that the origin of the plot to kill Kennedy had to be in the mind of someone with more stature than little ol' Ed Lansdale?

Of course there really is no other point at all. Of course it is the central, pivotal, and paramount question that ultimately has to be answered.

Of course it is the entire purpose and cause of this topic that I started.

The origins of the plot go to premeditation.

The origins of the plot go to malice aforethought.

The origins of the plot go to the very soul of the law, but even beyond the letter of the law and to the very soul and spirit of mankind and civilization, as merely reflected and embodied in the law, which attempts to enforce it.

These definitions from Black's Law Dictionary answer in full the very pertinent and crucial question Mr. Varnell posed above, however rhetorical he attempted to make it seem:

• Premeditate: To think of an act beforehand; to contrive and design; to plot or lay plans for the execution of a purpose.
  Premeditated design: In homicide cases, the mental purpose, the formed intent, to take human life. Premeditated murder is murder in the first degree.
  Premeditation: The act of meditating in advance; deliberation upon a contemplated act; plotting or contriving; a design formed to do something before it is done. Decision or plan to commit a crime, such as murder, before committing it.
  Act: Denotes external manifestation of actor's will. ...Expression of will or purpose; carries idea of performance; ...exercise of power, or effect of which power exerted is cause; an effect produced in the external world by an exercise of the power of a person objectively, prompted by intention, and proximately caused by a motion of the will. It may denote something done by an individual, as a private citizen, or as an officer; or by a body of men...including not merely physical acts, but also decrees, edicts, laws, judgments, resolves, awards, and determinations.
  Criminal act: External manifestation of one's will which is prerequisite to criminal responsibility. There can be no crime without some act, affirmative or negative. An omission or failure to act may constitute an act for purpose of criminal law.
  Malice: A condition of mind which prompts a person to do a wrongful act willfully, that is, on purpose, to the injury of another, or to do intentionally a wrongful act toward another without justification or excuse. ...A condition of the mind showing a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief.
  Malitia precogitata: malice aforethought—an intent, at the time of a killing, willfully to take the life of a human being...but "malice aforethought" does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite, or hatred towards the individual killed.
  Malice in fact: Express or actual malice. It implies desire or intent to injure... .
  Malicious act: A wrongful act intentionally done without legal justification or excuse; an unlawful act done willfully or purposely to injure another.
  Malicious injury: An injury committed against a person at the prompting of malice or hatred towards him, or done spitefully or wantonly. ...Injury involving element of fraud, violence, wantonness and willfulness, or criminality.
  Actio non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea: An act does not make one guilty, unless the intention be bad.
  Acta extoria indicant interiora secreta: External acts indicate undisclosed thoughts.
  Malitilis hominum est obviandum: The wicked or malicious designs of men must be thwarted.
  

So the question stands, one that each has to answer for himself: Was the CIA involved or not?

Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment.

And there lies the still undisclosed thought.

There lies the source of evil intent.

There lies the power.

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

Edited December 21, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Peter McGuire]

[quote name=Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment.

And there lies the still undisclosed thought.

There lies the source of evil intent.

There lies the power.

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

With no disrepect to the work that has gone into decades of research by people of good faith, I personally find the "Yankees and Cowboys" dichotomy too simplistic and pat a division of "sides" ever to embrace the forces at play in the Kennedy murder, very similar to the "liberal Democrats vs. conservative Republicans" Punch 'n' Judy show that you can set your watch by in all these "analyses."

I agree to an extent. Allen Dulles and George Bush, for instance, did not fit.

These two geographically based power centers -- North-Eastern race-liberal

Yankees and Sunbelt conservative Cowboys -- have always worked together

more than in opposition. Of course.

The most important application of the model is in viewing "the CIA" not as a

monolithic entity but as a collection of factions, and these factions served varying

masters, as well as serving themselves (Edwin Wilson comes to mind).

The Ivy League blue-bloods jockeying desks at Langley often didn't work for

the same business interests as the covert agents abroad, and sometimes those

interests were in conflict.

THAT is the crucial point to the Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy, imo.

I find these dichotomies, these "opposing forces," uniformly to be little more in reality than bread and circuses:

Have you even so much as cracked the spine on THE YANKEE AND THE COWBOY WAR?

a public show

A public show of the machinations of the American ruling class that lead

to two coup d'etat in America '63 & '74?

Wow! What time does that come one?

that feeds the Mockingbird headlines or booksales,

Cheap shot. I doubt that Oglesby has made all that much off the sales of his book.

and creates tempests in a teacup that mask actual alliances and motives. The invitation to subscribe to any of these supplied dichotomies at once suspends to a greater or lesser degree the latitude of thought.

Nothing so suspends the latitude of thought more than formulaic thinking

.

The Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy does not apply in a general way, but instead to

specific historical events and the specific actions of specific individuals. (Rockefeller

v. Hughes over TWA, for instance).

It would make no more sense to "subscribe" to this dichotomy than to

dismiss it out of hand -- both are the result of formulaic thinking.

[snip]

Your post has somewhat preempted a reply I was going to make to Cliff Varnell's latest bombastic fusillade,

...Irony isn't your strong suit, is it, Ashton?

btw, I'm just warming up...

and I think that I'd rather present it here, in an exchange exhibiting reason and contemplation. The single question posed by Varnell that I even was going to answer is the only one that matters, and is one he should have asked himself in the mirror first:

The reason I can look in the mirror at all is because of the pride I

take in my intellectual honesty.

I don't wrap quotes around my words and attribute them to others.

I don't gut people's argument and then claim they didn't make one.

And I don't violently rip people's words out of context as you did with

the following:

I used the R-word to describe the origins of the plot to kill Kennedy. I used this oh-so-potent R-word in a very limited context. ...Is it that big a deal who thought of killing Kennedy first? Maybe others can weigh in on this question -- is it a fundamental point that the origin of the plot to kill Kennedy had to be in the mind of someone with more stature than little ol' Ed Lansdale?

Of course there really is no other point at all. Of course it is the central, pivotal, and paramount question that ultimately has to be answered.

You took the answer out.

That's right, Ashton, in order to cheap shot me with that mirror bit you had to

remove THE ANSWER.

This answer is not original to me. I have been touting those who arrived

at this answer in many posts on this thread.

This is the paragraph you took out to set up your little dig:

A reasonable conclusion can be drawn that these three guys,

[Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, David Sanchez Morales],

whose careers were based on the installation or removal of heads

of state, would be the first to consider the violent removal of yet

another head of state.

Occam's Razor -- Who's the likeliest to regard assassination

as a means to resolve conflict?

An assassin.

Who is the likeliest to regard coup d'etat as a means to resolve

conflict?

Coup masters like Lansdale, Phillips, and Morales.

Parlor Gamers hate it when you tell them the Game they're playing

was over some time ago.

[snip bombast]

P.S. at 1:31

That bit about "'ol Ed Lansdale" was pure snark. The irony went over your head.

Lansdale was both "The Ugly American" and "The Quiet American."

His stature was ENORMOUS

Edited December 21, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest Gary Loughran]

So the question stands, one that each has to answer for himself: Was the CIA involved or not?

Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment.

And there lies the still undisclosed thought.

There lies the source of evil intent.

There lies the power.

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

Hi Ashton,

Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post.

I do believe that the CIA was created as a vehicle for achieving the goals of this/these unseen hand(s). It seems a natural offshoot for these sources of evil intent to create a company which could protect and, also, facilitate their goals; the usual suspects power and money. The evil doers and the CIA not being mutually exclusive.

These kingmakers imo wanted Nixon and instead got Kennedy. From the offset or shortly thereafter a decision was taken that Kennedy could/would not serve the common aims of these folk and plans were put forth for his removal, however and whatever it took to achieve this.

I generally tend to agree with your appraisals of Watergate/JFK and read your posts with great anticipation. I also enjoy the debates in threads in which you participate (fawn fawn ). The overt humour techniques you use perhaps appeal to my own style and make me laugh, always a positive for me in reading a post. Robert C-D also brings the same rection.

Anywho, to my pertinent point(s).

Your belief, obviously?, is that the patriotis of the CIA do not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor do they work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

Who do they work for? Who holds this power to exercise the events on 22/11/1963?

and Why?

Thanks in anticipation

Gary

[Cliff Varnell]

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

Bollocks.

There is NO unseen hand.

There are only unreported handS -- stress the plural.

These bastards learned from the Kennedy assassination that they

can get away with murder in broad day light and get away with

it every time because the nature of their crimes with never be

REPORTED.

Is there an "unseen hand" behind the Iraq War?

Hell NO. You can see these blood stained hands behind the Iraq

War in a movie called IRAQ FOR SALE.

Halliburton, Blackwater, CACI...

Was there an "unseen hand" behind the Kennedy assassination?

We couldn't see the hands in 1963 but we can see them today.

[Cliff Varnell]

These kingmakers imo wanted Nixon and instead got Kennedy. From the offset or shortly thereafter a decision was taken that Kennedy could/would not serve the common aims of these folk and plans were put forth for his removal, however and whatever it took to achieve this.

The Ivy League WASP blue-bloods at the CIA wanted Kennedy in 1960, clearly.

So did the Catholic faction at the CIA.

The Mormon faction of the CIA -- based in the Howard Hughes empire -- wanted

Nixon, I'd speculate.

The covert operators working abroad for the CIA Department of Plans

wanted Nixon, I'd speculate, since he was the anti-Castro Action Officer

with the Eisenhower Adm.

To speak of "the CIA" as a monolithic entity -- which so many so sloppily do on

this Forum -- is to betray a fundamental mis-understanding of that organization's

nature.

From Kennedy speech-writer Richard Goodwin's REMEMBERING AMERICA, pg 125:

As a presidential candidate, he (Kennedy) had received secret briefings by the CIA, some

of which revealed that we were training a force of Cuban exiles for a possible invasion of

the Cuban mainland.

That was Allen Dulles giving Kennedy a heads up, which Kennedy used to great

effect in the campaign against Nixon.

Richard Goodwin penned the campaign press memo that put Nixon on the defensive:

"We must attempt to strengthen the non-Batista, democratic, anti-Castro forces in exile,

and in Cuba itself, who offer eventual hope of overthrowing Castro."

Since Nixon was working on just such a project, held in top secret, he had to actually

attack the idea in the campaign to maintain his cover as anti-Castro Action Officer.

This allowed Kennedy to move to the right of Nixon on foreign policy, the

subject of their last -- and decisive -- debate.

April of 1961 Dulles sorely regreted this gambit.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

The Ivy League WASP blue-bloods at the CIA wanted Kennedy in 1960, clearly.

So did the Catholic faction at the CIA.

Say 'Ello to my l'il fren...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...40/ai_115078662

Edited December 21, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I wrote:

And I don't violently rip people's words out of context as you did with

the following:

In the interest of intellectual honesty I must confess this line

to be a tad disingenuous of me. But just a tad!

Edited December 21, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Hi Cliff,

I'm not a researcher. I have read vociferously on this forum and am daring now to tepidly give my opinions where the opportunity arises. My goal is to learn and I've found active learning through Q&A works best for me. I'm still in the formative phase of my learning (in some areas) and appreciate any and all opinion on my posts. Thanks.

Thanks for the info. I was already aware of much of it. However, I did caveat my opinion with "offset/or shortly thereafter" which early 61 would be synonymous.

Don't think this argumentative, but I don't prescribe to the CIA as a monolithic org. I do feel it has been controlled and headed by generally the same folk since it's inception. But like any large - and in portions of the CIA deliberately unweildy - organisation there will be factions, even in a goup of 4 friends there may be. This does not preclude the same goals being shared.

I'm unsure of what the Angleton piece was meant to illustrate - people involved in intelligence/terrorism/anything requiring secrecy, are suspicious to near paranoia - hardly news - that this has spread to the people who have long suffered the lies, obfuscation and double dealing from successive governments, is even less news. That it comes from a source with Catholic in it?

Anyway I was disappointed that Ash hasn't been around to answer the Q's at the end of my previous post (#70). I really enjoy his repartee and insights.

I don't believe he hasn't answers because his record indicated he live by the maxim "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to".

G

Edited December 22, 2006 by Gary Loughran

[Cliff Varnell]

Gary,

Thank you very much for your collegial response.

I prefer collegial discussions, much more productive, etc.

Hi Cliff,

Don't think this argumentative, but I don't prescribe to the CIA as a monolithic org. I do feel it has been controlled and headed by generally the same folk since it's inception. But like any large - and in portions of the CIA deliberately unweildy - organisation there will be factions, even in a goup of 4 friends there may be. This does not preclude the same goals being shared.

I'm unsure of what the Angleton piece was meant to illustrate

Angleton was the key member within Kennedy's Catholic constituency

in CIA -- they shared social circles. Losing Angleton sealed his fate, I'd

speculate. After all, who would have been Oswald's ultimate boss at CIA

if not Angleton at counter-intel?

Also, we associate Angleton with an interesting word Ashton cited: mad.

The manner in which Kennedy was killed indeed reflected something unhinged.

I'll argue that the "unhinged" elements in the American ruling class in 1963

operated within the National Security state and not among the bean counters

at the Fed.

I also want to point out the sectarian fault lines within the CIA as it relates to

the Y/C dichotomy. Robert Maheu's "Mormon mafia" CIA faction controlled the

Hughes empire, and those dudes were Cowboys.

Here's a passage from the memoirs of CIA case officer Joesph B Smith,

PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR (pg 13), explaining why he quit in 1973 after

23 years with the CIA.

...[A]lthough I had gone to Harvard, it would have been better if I had gone to

Princeton and been a member of the OSS. I was not a Catholic, nor an Eastern

European ethnic. I just did not fit into the ruling cliques in the Clandestine Services.

Furthermore, I had always been in the minority of officers who sought to enlist

the efforts of the non-communist left. Perhaps my greatest shortcoming, I guessed,

was that I could not treat people as unimportant spare parts to be used up and thrown

away as administrators like Ted Shackley could. I asked for early retirement, and I

decided to stay in Mexico.

Usually when you see a phrase like "CIA memoir" ya need yer back-up bullxxxx

detector to be in as good a shape as yer main rig.

But PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR managed to get published without being

vetted by CIA -- something to do with Smith living in Mexico, if I recall correctly.

That crack about Princeton was a direct slap at WASP blue-blood Richard Helms,

key figure in CIA's covert action programs. Most CIA blue bloods went to Yale

(like Bush) but Dickie Helms was the Princeton man.

As Smith indicates, however, Clandestine Services was dominated by Catholics.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Terry Mauro]

Gary,

Thank you very much for your collegial response.

I prefer collegial discussions, much more productive, etc.

Hi Cliff,

Don't think this argumentative, but I don't prescribe to the CIA as a monolithic org. I do feel it has been controlled and headed by generally the same folk since it's inception. But like any large - and in portions of the CIA deliberately unweildy - organisation there will be factions, even in a goup of 4 friends there may be. This does not preclude the same goals being shared.

I'm unsure of what the Angleton piece was meant to illustrate

Angleton was the key member within Kennedy's Catholic constituency

in CIA -- they shared social circles. Losing Angleton sealed his fate, I'd

speculate. After all, who would have been Oswald's ultimate boss at CIA

if not Angleton at counter-intel?

Also, we associate Angleton with an interesting word Ashton cited: mad.

The manner in which Kennedy was killed indeed reflected something unhinged.

I'll argue that the "unhinged" elements in the American ruling class in 1963

operated within the National Security state and not among the bean counters

at the Fed.

I also want to point out the sectarian fault lines within the CIA as it relates to

the Y/C dichotomy. Robert Maheu's "Mormon mafia" CIA faction controlled the

Hughes empire, and those dudes were Cowboys.

Here's a passage from the memoirs of CIA case officer Joesph B Smith,

PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR (pg 13), explaining why he quit in 1973 after

23 years with the CIA.

...[A]lthough I had gone to Harvard, it would have been better if I had gone to

Princeton and been a member of the OSS. I was not a Catholic, nor an Eastern

European ethnic. I just did not fit into the ruling cliques in the Clandestine Services.

Furthermore, I had always been in the minority of officers who sought to enlist

the efforts of the non-communist left. Perhaps my greatest shortcoming, I guessed,

was that I could not treat people as unimportant spare parts to be used up and thrown

away as administrators like Ted Shackley could. I asked for early retirement, and I

decided to stay in Mexico.

Usually when you see a phrase like "CIA memoir" ya need yer back-up bullxxxx

detector to be in as good a shape as yer main rig.

But PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR managed to get published without being

vetted by CIA -- something to do with Smith living in Mexico, if I recall correctly.

That crack about Princeton was a direct slap at WASP blue-blood Richard Helms,

key figure in CIA's covert action programs. Most CIA blue bloods went to Yale

(like Bush) but Dickie Helms was the Princeton man.

As Smith indicates, however, Clandestine Services was dominated by Catholics.

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

"Gary,

Thank you very much for your collegial response.

I prefer collegial discussions, much more productive, etc."

If you could claim to be a bonafide graduate, or even an under-grad from the University of California at Berkley, I might have a modicum of respect for what you have to say. But, since you're disingenuous enough to label me a "neo-con" let alone a "shill" for the Tejas oil cartel, I have no qualms about labelling you a fascist, double-talking, double-dealing, con-artist, who gets off by baiting-switching his dialogue to suit his instigating, deceitful rhetoric.

Now, if I'm wrong about you. And, if you truly are what you claim to be, a liberal, in the true sense of the word, then by all means, my apologies are completely forthcoming and extended to you with every ounce of sincerity I can possibly wring from my body. But, as it stands right now, anyone who may pride themselves as having been practiced in the art of civil discourse, such as you are presenting yourself, would appear to be a little more adept in which use of stereotypical analogies they might choose to place upon someone they perceive to be of an oppositional P.O.V. Myself, on the other hand, do not profess to lay claim to anything other than the expression of [what my professor in my Sociology of Law class at CSUDH described to us as] your own "voice."

Edited December 24, 2006 by Terry Mauro

[Ashton Gray]

Occam's Razor -- Who's the likeliest to regard assassination as a means to resolve conflict?

I'm sorry; maybe it's the egg nog. But a call to Occam's Razor by someone positing a phantom military invasion of Cuba that never happened as a "motive" for the assassination really gave me a persistent case of the giggles.

Ho-ho-ho.

Ashton