Bad news at the ranch?

[John Dolva]

John wrote:

Tim, the reality of Kennedy's intentions appear to have been known by Castro right at the time of the assassination

John, what is your basis for this conclusion?  How does it comport with the representations Fitzgerald made to Cubela on October 29, 1963?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, my conclusion that "Kennedy's intentions appear to.." are derived from reading the contents of National Security Archive website at :http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/

::

U.S. UN Mission memorandum, Secret, Chronology of events leading up Castro invitation to receive a U.S. official for talks in Cuba, November 8, 22, 1963. This chronology was written by William Attwood and records the evolution of the initiative set in motion by Lisa Howard for a dialogue with Cuba. The document describes the party at Howard's Manhattan apartment on September 23, 1963, where Attwood met with Cuban UN Ambassador Carlos Lechuga to discuss the potential for formal talks to improve relations. In an addendum, Attwood adds information on communications, using the Howard home as a base, leading up to the day the President was shot in Dallas.

White House memorandum, Secret, November 12, 1963. McGeorge Bundy reports to William Attwood on Kennedy's opinion of the viability of a secret meeting with Havana. The president prefers that the meeting take place in New York at the UN where it will be less likely to be leaked to the press.

White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Approach to Castro," November 19, 1963. A memo from Gordon Chase to McGeorge Bundy updating him on the status of arrangements for a secret meeting with the Cubans.

approach to castro:

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, John for posting that letter. So there it is, Tim, the talks with Castro were real and were in the works. Now show us that the second invasion was anything but wishful thinking by some desperate anti-Castro Cubans. If the Pentagon left things like Northwoods lying around wouldn't they have left behind some very specific plans for a second invasion? Where are they? What ships were being prepared? What troops were being trained?

It's a myth!

This doesn't mean Kennedy was killed by the anti-Castro Cubans or the MIC. It does mean that Castro had no legitimate fear of invasion from Kennedy. And probably knew it.

[Tim Gratz]

To John,

I have read that before I believe. But the question again is not whether Kennedy's intentions were "honorable" but what Castro thought about them. I suggest that the Kennedy-endorsed plot to kill Castro "trumped" all so-called peace talks. Now was it in fact "Kennedy-endorsed"? We need not answer that. What counts is that Castro thought the Kennedys had personally endorsed a plot to murder him.

[John Dolva]

John Dalva wrote: "Tim, would it be correct to assume that it is necessary to have Kennedy as an implacable enemy of Castro in order to support a theory that Castro would respond "in kind" by killing Kennedy?"

Tim wrote: "No, like many things what counts is not the reality but rather the perception of reality, in this case Fidel's perception of it."

"John, you must remember that at the same time these peace talks were in progress the CIA was working with a member of Castro's cabinet to launch another murder plot against Castro. Many people think the Cuban, Rolando Cubela, may have been an agent provocateur for Castro.

A high-ranking CIA officer even assured Cubela that he was the "personal emissary" of RFK and that RFK personally supported his plan to kill Castro.

Castro had every reason to conclude that JFK was his implacable enemy.

It is possible both JFK and RFK were witting of the Cubela operation, but it is also possible they were not. Some have even argued that the CIA was proceeding with Cubela to sabotage the peace talks.

But the reality of Kennedys' intentions toward Castro matters not. What matters is Castro's perception of those intentions. Castro had reason to believe (rightly or not) that the Kennedys were still planning to murder him."

"Tim, the reality of Kennedy's intentions appear to have been known by Castro right at the time of the assassination."

"John, what is your basis for this conclusion?"

"Tim, my conclusion that "Kennedy's intentions appear to.." are derived from reading the contents of National Security Archive website at :http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/"

::

To John, "I have read that before I believe. But the question again is not whether Kennedy's intentions were "honorable" but what Castro thought about them. I suggest that the Kennedy-endorsed plot to kill Castro "trumped" all so-called peace talks. Now was it in fact "Kennedy-endorsed"? We need not answer that. What counts is that Castro thought the Kennedys had personally endorsed a plot to murder him."

"Tim, Castro didn't think that Kennedy was interested in dialogue, he knew so. They were in the process of lining up meeting just before the assassination. " Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in [the prospect for negotiations]." Castro, too, appeared interested. " Up to three days before in fact. Kennedy had shown a willingness to deal effectively with 'rogue' elements in the governmental structure. Why would Castro want to risk all this? I'm not privvy to Castro's thoughts. But the declassified documents indicate that his thought the following: "In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations." " By the date of the assassination he certainly knew that Kennedy endorsed rappoachment."

[Dawn Meredith]

Would he have been re-elected? I say yes because his plans were to eliminate Castro between August and October of 1964. Had that plan succeeded, he would have won big.

______________________________---

I missed your little "joke" Tim not because I lack intelligence but because if I read what you write CLOSELY it will so anger me that I will go off to court in a bad mood. I am a very HAPPY person by nature. And a very good attorney who often has to defend the nearly indefensible-(I'm a public defender).

So when I do read crap like this my blood just BOILS.

So, for the LAST TIME: JFK and Castro were about to have PEACE "after a brief trip to Dallas".

Your constant disinformation about JFK AND Castro has upset me SOOOO many times that like Shanet I have many times typed the words "I am leaving", but I know that this is what disinfo people want. Then the newcomers will perhaps start to believe the LBJ obvious lie that "JFK was trying to get Castro but Castro got him first".

People who have not ever studied this case can spout this nonsence that the CIA disinfo machine put out long ago, but you Tim have studied the case. I have said before that I do not reallly believe you actually believe this. If you do then it's your intelligence that is in question here. Because ALL of the evidence points to a US coup.

So I need to read some posts before court that don't involved your words and get my happy mood back.

Since you often don't answer questions this may be a waste of time, but I long ago noticed you have a law degree and you said to Shanet "when I USED to practice law". Just what is it that you presently do???

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

.

"Tim, Castro didn't think that Kennedy was interested in dialogue, he knew so. They were in the process of lining up meeting just before the assassination. " Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in [the prospect for negotiations]." Castro, too, appeared interested. " Up to three days before in fact. Kennedy had shown a willingness to deal effectively with 'rogue' elements in the governmental structure. Why would Castro want to risk all this? I'm not privvy to Castro's thoughts. But the declassified documents indicate that his thought the following: "In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations." " By the date of the assassination he certainly knew that Kennedy endorsed rappoachment."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_______________________________________

I responded to Tim's words before reading these great responses.

Tim, how can you TRULY argue against THIS??? This is the reality.

And if you would ever bother to take the time to read the very long speech Castro gave immediately after the assassination you would see that not only did Castro NOT have JFK killed, he knew who did and exactly why. It is reprinted in full in Dr Marty Schotz' book "History Will Not Absolve Us". (I first read the speech in 74). Perhaps your local liab. has this book, or you can get it used online.

Dawn

Edited July 20, 2005 by Dawn Meredith

[Mark Stapleton]

John wrote:

Tim, the reality of Kennedy's intentions appear to have been known by Castro right at the time of the assassination

John, what is your basis for this conclusion?  How does it comport with the representations Fitzgerald made to Cubela on October 29, 1963?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, my conclusion that "Kennedy's intentions appear to.." are derived from reading the contents of National Security Archive website at :http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/

::

U.S. UN Mission memorandum, Secret, Chronology of events leading up Castro invitation to receive a U.S. official for talks in Cuba, November 8, 22, 1963. This chronology was written by William Attwood and records the evolution of the initiative set in motion by Lisa Howard for a dialogue with Cuba. The document describes the party at Howard's Manhattan apartment on September 23, 1963, where Attwood met with Cuban UN Ambassador Carlos Lechuga to discuss the potential for formal talks to improve relations. In an addendum, Attwood adds information on communications, using the Howard home as a base, leading up to the day the President was shot in Dallas.

White House memorandum, Secret, November 12, 1963. McGeorge Bundy reports to William Attwood on Kennedy's opinion of the viability of a secret meeting with Havana. The president prefers that the meeting take place in New York at the UN where it will be less likely to be leaked to the press.

White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Approach to Castro," November 19, 1963. A memo from Gordon Chase to McGeorge Bundy updating him on the status of arrangements for a secret meeting with the Cubans.

approach to castro:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

Lovely style. I believe you've cracked Tim's argument like the proverbial walnut. John Simkin has previously stated that backchannel talks with Castro were underway, brokered with the assistance of Lisa Howard, among others. Is it possible that Tim might give Castro a rest now? (I doubt it).

The idea that JFK was planning another attack on Cuba is just so dopey that it makes me quite angry when Tim continually refers to it as if it's an established fact. I probably should exercise more restraint in my exchanges with him. The three strikes which render such a plan as folly are:

1. As outlined by Pat, why would JFK revisit the BOP after all the ill-feeling and opprobrium, especially from within the intelligence community, after the first attempt?

2. Why would JFK risk upsetting the Soviets after all the trouble he'd been through in establishing a civilised dialogue with them? For starters, they would have torn up the Nuclear Test Ban treaty. Kennedy was planning to campaign hard on this treaty in '64, IMO. Why wouldn't he, it was the world's first and it made him look like a statesman.

3. How would it look to the American public? After resisting the nuclear option in '62, signing a treaty with Russia and making speeches which included lines such as, "mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind", he then goes and invades Cuba. It would have made the public think twice about the man they thought they knew. That would be the last thing Kennedy, as a politician, would want in an election year.

Tim's assertion that JFK was in trouble electorally, and was thereby willing to consider desperate measures such as invading Cuba, in order to bolster his "waning" popularity, is not supported by the facts. This is an argument introduced by Tim in order to give his Cuban invasion theory some efficacy. It's a fallacy.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Mark Stapleton

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

Since you often don't answer questions this may be a waste of time, but I long ago noticed you have a law degree and you said to Shanet "when I USED to practice law". Just what is it that you presently do???

Full time disinformation agent for the CIA. Code name: AMFAKE.

[Tim Gratz]

Daw, the above post was a joke, just so that you know.

I work in hotels in Key West. Have since 1993.

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

And if you would ever bother to take the time to read the very long speech Castro gave immediately after the assassination you would see that not only did Castro NOT have JFK killed, he knew who did and exactly why.

Dawn, I am sure you are aware of an objection to testimony that it is self-serving. That certainly characterizes Castro's speech.

You assert Castro is innocent because he proclaimed his innocence? Get real. How many people guilty of murder or rape proclaim their innocence? Most, I would assume.

And another reason why your argument makes no sense is that whooever you think did it also presumed his (their?) innocence.

But the speech is interesting since it certainly implies Castro had pre-knowledge of the assassination. Do you concede that much? Your post certainly implies he had the pre-knowledge.

Edited July 21, 2005 by Tim Gratz