Mark Stapleton

Mark, you are such a wise guy.

Guilty. Can't help it. You're as phony as a three dollar note.

Hysterically funny, but you can't see the joke.

I am on the side of those who want to solve the assassination regardless of who did it.

For the sake of our history if nothing else.

Of course you do, Tim.

Of course.

I watched last night Wilfried Huismann’s “The Plot to Kill JFK: The Cuban Connection” The original title in German was “Rendezvous mit dem Tod: Warum John F. Kennedy sterben musste”.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498709/

The film that I saw used an English narrator, Jim Carter (coincidently, a friend’s former husband). Carter claims that the film is the result of many years research by the German director, Wilfried Huismann. However, the script is written by Gus Russo and he is credited as being a co-producer of the film.

The film starts with a FBI wire-taped recording of two Cubans joyfully talking about the assassination of JFK. The two people are never identified and could easily have been members of the anti-Castro Cuban community. Even if they were pro-Castro, as implied by the film, it is of no relevance to what follows.

We are then told very briefly that there is a LBJ memo that states that it is believed that Fabian Escalante of the Cuban G2, was in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Escalante is interviewed by Huismann in the film. He does not ask him about this claim on film (I expect he did but it was left out because he did not like the answer). He does comment about other evidence that apparently links G2 to the assassination but more of that later.

Huismann’s main source for his theory that the assassination of JFK was carried out by G2 was an unidentified former Cuban agent given the name Oscar Marino. Marino is filmed in the dark from behind. He argues that G2 recruited Oswald to kill JFK and that Escalante met him in Mexico City. Marino says that he is unsure if Castro ordered the assassination.

Escalante is asked about this claim. He finds the idea ridiculous and claims he had never visited Mexico City. Huismann provides an interview with a Cuban exile who claims he saw Escalante in Mexico.

Huismann argues that he met a KGB agent in Austria. He showed him a document that states in 1962 the KGB thought that Oswald was a suspicious character and that they asked G2 to monitor his activities in the US. It was not explained why G2 should be given this job. Escalante also dismisses this idea and says the document the KGB agent showed Huismann must be a forgery.

Huismann shows a brief clip of an interview with the American journalist Daniel Harker who claimed that Castro threatened to have JFK killed. This claim has been dealt with by Dick Russell in his article JFK and the Cuban Connection (March, 1996):

In September 1963, Rolando Cubela travelled to Brazil to meet with CIA contacts about killing Castro. Simultaneously, an American journalist, Daniel Harker, interviewed Castro at a gathering inside Havana's Brazilian Embassy. Harker's article quoted Castro saying: "United States leaders should think that if they assist in terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe." The story, widely disseminated in the US press, would be used by right-wing elements as evidence that Cuba was behind the assassination. But Escalante says the article was a distortion. He says what Castro really stated was: "American leaders should be careful because [the anti-Castro operations] were something nobody could control." He was not threatening JFK, but warning him.

Sam Halpern is also interviewed in the film. He states that the attempt to assassinate Castro was a Robert Kennedy operation. (Halpern argues that it is possible that JFK was unaware of this covert operation). Although Halpern does not say it, the narrator provides the opinion that Castro discovered details of this plot and therefore decided to get his revenge by killing JFK. He adds that this helps to explain why RFK goes along with the cover-up as he does not want to believe that his operation resulted in the death of his brother.

Huismann then looks at Oswald and points out that he was a Marxist, fled to the Soviet Union, returned to the US, formed the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans and then tried to assassinate General Edwin Walker. This, according to Huismann, made him an ideal candidate for the G2 to recruit to kill JFK. (Personally, I would have thought his profile would mean that he was the last person G2 would have employed to carry out this deed.)

Huismann claimed that the conspirators discovered the route of JFK’s motorcade through Dallas. Oswald was ordered to find a job in a company with a building on JFK’s route. After sending in several applications he was finally given a job in the Texas School Book Depository. (Remember, this script has been written by Russo who must be aware of how Oswald really got the job.)

Another major source for Huismann is Lawrence Keenan, the FBI agent who was sent by Hoover to Mexico City following the assassination. Keenan admits that he did not carry out a full investigation into Oswald activities in Mexico City. Keenan claims that the reason for this was because Hoover/LBJ wanted Oswald to be seen as the lone-gunman and not part of any larger conspiracy.

Huismann goes to Mexico City with Keenan. They ask to see the archives concerning Oswald’s stay in Mexico. Surprisingly they are given a few documents. Keenan then reads out from one document suggesting a link between Oswald and G2. Huismann then claims that the Mexican authorities decided they had made a mistake and took back these documents and tell them to leave the building.

Keenan tells Huismann that in 1963 he was told that the reason for this cover-up was that LBJ believed that Castro was behind the assassination and he feared that if this became public, it would result in a nuclear war. Surprisingly, Huismann/Russo did not use the LBJ telephone tapes where he tells his friends that he fears that a full-investigation of the assassination would trigger off a nuclear war, to back-up their theory.

Alexander Haig is also interviewed in the film. He claims that LBJ became convinced within a few days that Castro was behind the assassination of JFK. However, he gives another explanation for the cover-up. He claims that LBJ feared a right-wing uprising in America if this information became public.

The last part of the film concentrates on looking at who was running Oswald. Oscar Marino claims that the man within G2 who managed Oswald was none other than Rolando Cubela. Marino claimed that Cubela was a double agent and was only pretending to be working for the CIA.

Huismann interviews Cubela in Spain. He is accosted as he is walking along a street near his home in Madrid. Cubela talks openly about his involvement with the CIA plot to kill Castro. He is not asked why Castro allowed him to leave Cuba alive after making this confession while in captivity. Finally, Cubela is asked if he met with Oswald in Mexico City where he instructed him to assassinate JFK. Cubela admits to visited Mexico but denied he ever met Oswald or was involved in the assassination of JFK.

I think it is highly likely that Cubela was only pretending to work for the CIA in 1963. This explains the way Castro responded to the outing of Cubela by the CIA. After all, Castro is not known for his forgiving nature. However, if Cubela was playing this role, he would be the last person G2 would use to recruit Oswald. They would have known that the CIA would have been suspicious of Cubela’s true motives and he would have been kept under close surveillance.

The film ends with another clip of the Sam Halpern interview. Halpern says he met Castro a few years ago. He added that he liked the man who he considered to be extremely intelligent. Halpern smiled that after outlasting eight presidents, Castro was the clear winner of the struggle between Cuba and the United States.

Westdeutscher Rundfunk produced it. They seem to be a production company that makes mainly German movies. Without knowing who has controlling interest in that company, it's hard to know whether any sinister motives can be attributed to this effort.

Probably just a harmless diversion. If they seriously expect the public to believe Castro was behind it, it's just a nice, scary work of fiction.

Mark, now you have exhibited your ignorance about the American political process.

A big time star is unlikely to influence Congress.

Most members are influenced by those persons who can vote for them.

In order to get Congress to act, IMO, it will be necessary to first build a groundswell of public support (e.g. what led to the passage of the JFK Records Act) and a clear education of the MC re why a new investigation would not be simply a rehash of the WC and the HSCA. I think every MC ought to receive a carefully prepared brief on a few topics, e.g. (1) the importance of the NAA to the HSCA determination of a single shooter and the new challenges to the NAA analysis of Guinn; and (2) the Joannides matter.

It is possible Hollywood celebrities could assist in building public support for a new investigation but at least IMO MC are too sophisticated to be swayed by celebrity. My congresswoman is going to care more about how I assess her vote on the issue than what Bruce Willis might think about it, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Willis is a great patriot.

And by the way, Mark, "keeping hope alive" is less important than: (1) developing a plan (with counsel from many, particularly those with experience in political matters); and (2) acting on the plan.

With regard to (1) I think a review of the passage of the JFK Records Act would be important. Who were the MCs who pushed for that legislation? Are any still in Congress? I think that might be important initial research.

Gee Tim, I thought you were on our side. No, I didn't really think that.

Thanks to Myra and Bill for keeping this important thread on the board.

Just read it in full, and thanks Bill for your overview of how the committee system operates and your diligence in keeping this hope alive. Now is an important time for American members of the Forum to write to Congressmen, especially those represented by Waxman and Clay. (I don't suppose anyone has spoken to either of these guys or otherwise know if they share our special obsession with closure on JFK).

I like Peter Lemkin's suggestions, especially the suggestion that a bigtime Hollywood star could lend weight to the urgency of JFK oversight hearings. I've heard Bruce Willis, among others, has a thing about the JFK assassination, stressing this is only gossip.

But Mark, without "sifting and winnowing" by reading the most significant scholarly book on the issue, the basis of your opinion is exactly ZIP. Opinions based on reading only one side are not worth much at all.

It'd be like trying to support the intelligent design premise without first reading Darwin, wouldn't it?

But of course you are free to express your opinion. I am just hoping you have enough intellectual curiosity if nothing else but to read the entire story of the JFK administration's relationship with Israel by the noted Mideast scholar.

Do you think you know as much about the issue as Mr. Bass, who I assume is old enough to be your father? If you think you know as much as he does about the matter, let's hear you express THAT opinion!

It can also be assumed that the Bass book was subject to very rigid editorial standards by its very reputable publisher, by the way.

Tim, whenever you want to emerge from the bubble and seriously discuss JFK's death, I will be glad to engage. You don't really want to solve the case because you didn't care too much for the man or his policies. It's painfully obvious.

People who want to find out what happened in DP share a level of respect for JFK which you clearly consider is too high.

You're wasting your time here.

Well Mark the answer is that we both shut up and read both books before further pontificating.

Not quite, Tim.

You are free to express your opinions, and the basis upon which they are founded, and so am I.

I gather from your response you have NOT yet read the Bass book. Most interesting indeed that someone would claim expertise on the history of U.S.-Israeli relationship without reading what seems to be the only scholarly book on that issue! It would be like trying to post your thoughts on William Shakespeare without reading his books!

And I gather that you have not read Avner Cohen's "Israel and the bomb".

Shameful.

But what is relevant here is that the man JFK sent to the meeting was Theodore Racoosin. Racoosin was one of the founders of the State of Israel.

Do you really suppose that if JFK was anti-Israel one of his closest advisers would be Racoosin, a founder of the State of Israel? And do you really suppose the Mossad would kill Racoosin's friend JFK? Pretty darn unlikely, I'd say!

Free advise: read some history books; engage brain before opening mouth or typing!

THIS is your response to the several points I made in the previous post? The Israel lobby's disinformation campaign must be in worse shape than I thought.

As I stated above, history is clear that America's close political ties with Israel were forged during Kennedy's administration. Now those ties may, as the book suggests, come about because the Commies were making inroads with the Arab leaders at the time. But motivation is irrelevant here. The point is that Israel got a much better "deal" with JFK than it did with Ike. That is the historical record, ladies and gentlemen.

What garbage.

JFK's relationship with the Israel lobby was, for the most part, testy and mistrustful.

JFK's July 2, 1957 Senate speech in support of Algerian independence riled Israel, who were strongly opposed to the creation of a new and independant Arab state in the region.

During the 1960 campaign JFK met with Jewish financier Abe Feinberg in an effort to secure campaign funds, but was shocked to discover that in return for the financial support, the Israel lobby wanted complete control over US Middle East foreign policy. In fact, in 1962 he submitted five bills to reform campaign financing to Congress, and two more in 1963. Seymour Hersh cites Kennedy criticising the current method of campaign financing as 'highly undesirable' and 'not healthy' because it made candidates 'dependant on large financial contributions of those with special interests'. Unfortunately for JFK (and us), the bills were defeated by those same special interests, the Israel lobby prominent among them.

There was Kennedy's December 1962 meeting in Palm Beach, Florida with Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir in which Kennedy emphasised to his guest that US-Israeli relations were 'a two way street'.

Also, there was Kennedy's final White House press conference--November 14, 1963--at which Kennedy bemoaned the fact that Congress had voted to cut off aid to Egypt. The powerful pro-Israel lobby were responsible for this and one of their lobbyists, I.L. Kenan, described the scene this way, "Kennedy ruefully surveyed the debris of his Nasser policy at a press conference on November 14, 1963. He was sharply critical. The Senate amendment required him 'to make a finding which is extremely complicated' and he did not believe that this language would strengthen our hand or our flexibility in dealing with the UAR".

There was also JFK's bitter dispute with Ben-Gurion over Israel's nuclear plans--a dispute which for some strange reason the US media decided should be hidden from the public.

Israel didn't get a better deal from JFK at all. They saw JFK's attempt to establish a fair and bipartisan US foreign policy in the Middle East as a crap deal.

Of course there were many nut jobs eager to go to war. I've never questioned this fact. But nuclear war was and is the last thing their masters would desire or allow to take place.

No profit motive.

I agree with that, Charles.

Despite the fact that there were nutjobs in the military and agencies talking about a nuclear war, the real 'masters' never really contemplated it and quietly kept the nutjobs on a tight leash. The fact that LBJ kept waving the nuclear spectre in order to coerce Earl Warren into chairing the WC (and helping it come to the 'right' conclusion) further indicates that it was merely a useful tool for persuading recalcitrants to see things their way.

For one thing, a nuclear war, as Charles intimated, is terrible for business. There's a vast difference between dropping nuclear bombs on two cities in a defeated nation (with a war weary Europe keen for hostilities to cease looking on) and devastating major population centres during peacetime. And it only takes a few hours--there's not enough time to make the real money that long, gruelling military campaigns provide. To add insult to injury, no costly fleets of ships, planes or choppers are required. No fancy weaponry and ammunition. Hence, fat, profitable Government contracts are also not required. Why, there's barely a buck to be made!

Moreover, Wall Street would be paralysed by a peacetime nuclear strike. Fear of escalation and reprisals would probably shut it down, imo. The fallout, in every sense of the word, would have a very skinny upside for business. The Wall Street end (of the suggested finance, oil and military power alliance) would be highly unimpressed, imo.

Despite the fact that the fear of nuclear war has proved quite useful in scaring the pants off the public when necessary, the power elite would never have seriously contemplated nuclear war, imo. Too much financial downside and, unlike the conventional wars they've grown to love, in a nuclear war they themselves, and their families, could get, um........killed.

p.s. Charles, I have Evica's book on order and eagerly await its arrival.

The theory that the assassination of JFK and the attempts on DeGaulle were linked is also explored in Michel Collins Piper's "Final Judgment", which focuses on the Mossad connection to the assassination of JFK. It is definitely worthy of research.

Pamela,

I agree. As regular readers of the Forum would be aware, I believe Mossad was involved in the assassination. JFK was involved in a bitter dispute with Ben-Gurion over Israel's nuclear weapons at the time of his death. When LBJ moved into the White House, Israel was rewarded by increased military aid and a sham inspection regime which allowed them to become the only nuclear power in the region--something Ben-Gurion and Shimon Peres had promised to JFK would not happen.

Good points,Pamela and Mark.Both JFK and DeGaulle were enemies of Israel's interests,JFK in regards to Israel's nuclear project and DeGaulle in regards to Israel's opposition to Algeria's independence.Final Judgement is a must read,imo,when looking at theories involving the assassination of JFK and the attempted assassination of DeGaulle..It has been awhile since i read Final Judgement.I thought Piper did an outstanding job showing that,coincidently??,many of the same journalists and authors that embraced,promoted,and advertised the "Oswald lone nut Communist assassin did it theory" were also shills for other Israeli interests at later dates...Back on topic,anyone interested in the DeGaulle assassination attempt with in the context of the JFK assassination should read Final Judgement.

Yes, I'm thinking the same way Mark. I haven't looked into the DeGaulle attempts in depth but I think it's possible that the same sponsors were involved. One lesson they would have learned from the 1962 attempt on DeGaulle would have been that if you're shooting at a motor vehicle/ motorcade, then make sure you NOBBLE THE DRIVER. Bill Greer was nobbled, imo. You don't want heroic drivers threatening the whole plan.

The issue of Israel runs through the entire JFK milieu, imo. Israel had strong support within the US media, intelligence agencies and executive in 1963 (and still do now), in part because they readily identified with the anti-Communist paradigm which existed at the time. Some influential players, like JJA, who have been identified as strongly supportive of Israel or perhaps even Mossad, were rabidly anti-Communist. For me another factor is the mainstream media solidarity which has stifled a real look into Dealey Plaza. All the major media players in the US were (and still are) strong supporters of Israel. Cui bono works fine for me but sometimes you need to ignore the hecklers in order to discuss this issue rationally.

The theory that the assassination of JFK and the attempts on DeGaulle were linked is also explored in Michel Collins Piper's "Final Judgment", which focuses on the Mossad connection to the assassination of JFK. It is definitely worthy of research.

Pamela,

I agree. As regular readers of the Forum would be aware, I believe Mossad was involved in the assassination. JFK was involved in a bitter dispute with Ben-Gurion over Israel's nuclear weapons at the time of his death. When LBJ moved into the White House, Israel was rewarded by increased military aid and a sham inspection regime which allowed them to become the only nuclear power in the region--something Ben-Gurion and Shimon Peres had promised to JFK would not happen.

According to this article from Jeremy Scahill, there are now more private contractors in Iraq than soldiers. The size of the 160,000 US troop force has been more than doubled by a shadow army which operates outside military and civil scrutiny:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/59571/

p.s. (Estimated) 500 people were killed by a suicide bombing today.

Sorry, Mark, I beg to differ. There is no way that LeMay was crazy.

At the time the US nuclear arsenal far outnumbered the Soviets. LeMay was right that had we gone into Cuba there is no way the Russians would have done anything about it.

Why even your mentor John Simkin has made that very point.

JFK's negotiations and stalling over what to do gave the Soviets the opportuinity to make all the missiles in Cuba fully functional. To not take them out immediately was indeed a "hell of a gamble."

But JFK's instincts proved right and he was able to make a deal with the Soviets. So in retrospect it was a lot better that JFK followed his course than had we rained nuclear havoc on Cuba with great loss of both Cuban and American lives.

But you need to remember that almost everybody around JFK thought we ought to take the missiles out immediately. LeMay was not crazy. But in the end JFK was right.

LeMay's persistent advocacy of the nuclear option made him extremely dangerous. In 1949, as head of the newly formed strategic air command, he formulated a plan to drop America's entire nuclear stockpile on 70 cities over 30 days. He was apparently unable or unwilling to understand the global consequences of such an action, and was still arguing for a nuclear strike during Kennedy's administration. Lucky for us, more rational heads prevailed, although LeMay, cold warrior to the end, regarded Kennedy's resolution of the missile crisis as a defeat of sorts.

I maintain LeMay was unable to adjust to peacetime priorities and couldn't acknowledge the fact that the people elect civilian administrations to act in the nation's interest. He couldn't detach himself from the wartime mindset and as such, was suffering some kind of psychosis.

Maintaining a strong defence force is one thing, but advocating nuclear attacks which would cause millions of deaths is too much. He was mad, bad and dangerous.

Myra, how DARE you impugn the reputation of a man who served his country for so many years when you have not one iota of evidence to indict him? Have you no sense of decency?

So what if LeMay wanted to "nuke" Hanoi. Harry S Truman nuked two Japanese cities and look at how many American lives were saved. Was LeMay's advocacy any different than what Harry Truman did, each motivated by a desire to save American lives?

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

LeMay received recognition for his work from thirteen countries, receiving twenty-two medals and decorations. (Pictures of the medals can be seen on Wikipedia section on LerMay.)

Command pilot

Distinguished Service Cross

Distinguished Service Medal plus 2 oak leaf clusters

Silver Star

Distinguished Flying Cross plus 2 oak leaf clusters

Air Medal plus 3 oak leaf clusters

Presidential Unit Citation plus oak leaf cluster

American Defense Service Medal

American Campaign Medal

European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal plus three bronze campaign stars

Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal

World War II Victory Medal

Occupation Ribbon with Airlift Device

Medal for Humane Action

National Defense Service Medal

Air Force Longevity Service Award, 6 oak leaf clusters

Distinguished Flying Cross (United Kingdom)

Croix de Guerre with Palm (France)

Croix de Guerre, with Palm (Belgium)

Argentina – Order of Aeronautical Merit — Grades of Grand Official and Grand Cross

Brazil – Order of the Southern Cross and Order of Aeronautical Merit

Chile – Order of Merit and Medalla Militar de Primera Clase

Ecuador – Order of Aeronautical Merit (Knight Commander)

Japan – The First Class of the Order of the Rising Sun (Presented Dec. 7 1964) for his contribution to the reestablishment of the Air Force and Air Defence. The award was met with significant domestic protest due to his role in WWII. Hirohito, who led Japan when it waged war against the US, did not personally present this award.

Morocco – Oissam Alaouite

Sweden – Commander of the Grand Cross of the Royal Order of the Sword

Uruguay – Aviador Militar Honoris Causa (Piloto Commandante)

U.S.S.R – Order of Patriotic War — 1st Degree

Get a grip, Tim.

There's no doubt he was highly decorated but you left out one important fact----by 1963 LeMay was as mad as a meat axe, completely crazy, out of his mind. JFK was sure of this, that's why he disregarded LeMay's loony suggestions regarding nuclear attacks.

Thanks Tim.

My apologies, it was not Schiller that I was thinking of that was the intellectual author of the Warren Report. The person I am thinking of also has a germanic name.

I am told that Schiller was the only journalist allowed to interview the Manson family.

John

John,

As to the author of the Warren Report, are you thinking of Otto Winnaker?

James

I don't know who Otto Winnaker is, but if anyone was the intellectual father of the WC, it was Eugene Rostow, imo. Rostow was Dean of Yale Law School at the time.

Apart from being the first to suggest the establishment of the WC to LBJ, he also wrote this piece of purple prose about the Warren Report in the Washington Post on the first anniversary of JFK's death:

The Report is a masterly and convincing state paper. It has the high polish of legal writing at its best, carefully composed, terse, restrained and meticulous. In a detached and judicious tone, it deals with every feature of the case, discussing and evaluating the basis for the conclusions the Commission reached, and their rejection of the various contrary theories which had been advanced.

RFK recommended his appointment to the Commission.

And of course, LBJ dutifully complied with all RFK's recommendations, despite the personal animosity which existed between them, right?

Like when RFK 'recommended' LBJ's immediate swearing in on AF1, for example.

The question is - what changed? The big difference was that Bush persuaded other nations to follow him into the "quagmire" of Iraq (UK, Italy, Spain).

9/11.

The moral outrage following 9/11 provided the justification for a full invasion of Iraq which the neocons had been looking for and allowed the US and its allies to disregard the the more rational voices within the media--like Scott Ritter--who correctly claimed there were no WMD's in Iraq.

History might well regard 9/11 as a lethal double blow for America, with the loss of life and all the horrific imagery of that day on one hand, and the foreign policy disaster which resulted on the other.

Only the hardline holdouts continue to support the war in Iraq. The morality of this position cannot be justified, imo, and the fact that many who still support the war also proudly boast Christian ethics makes it even more perplexing.

p.s. I saw on the news tonight that Karl Rove intends to resign at the end of this month. The fattest and ugliest rats are now deserting this sinking ship.

Paul and Myra,

As one who had previously not considered Diana's death as anything more than a reckless accident, I must say you are making a strong case that there was more to this than we have been told.

And Myra, your reasons for suspecting foul play are convincing, imo. In relation to landmines, Diana was well known for her campaign to end the use of these weapons. She would have been a powerful foe of the US on this issue. According to this 2005 article about proposed changes by Ambassador Bolton to a draft document on UN Reform, the US said this (in relation to landmines):

"The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants is without justification or legitimacy but only when committed by terrorists"

Of course, further down the document, the US submits its definition of what it considers 'terrorists' to be:

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/ArticleID/2568

Diana would have been horrified at the elevation of these criminals to high office in the US. Were she alive today I suspect that a vocal campaign from her targeting the land mine issue would shame the US Government into doing the right thing in very short order, considering her enormous popularity throughout the world.

Yep, it's a fair bet we've been dudded by the media again. I'm beginning to believe that starting with the assumption that the media is lying and work back from there is the shortest route to establishing the truth.

For my first post on my VERY own thread I would refer members to the wiscom of Eccelesiates Chapter Ten, Verse Two.

"A wise man's heart leads him to do right, and a fool's heart leads him to do evil".

So which one are you, Tim?

Lyman L. Lemnitzer,

General, United States Army

b. 29 Aug 1899, d. 12 November 1988

Born in Honesdale, Pennsylvania, August 29, 1899.

Died November 12, 1988.

General Lemnitzer was an Eisenhower appointee and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy administration. A leading proponent of pre-emptive action against Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Lemnitzer believed that the United States had to destroy Cuba and the Soviet Union before it lost its strategic advantage in the missile gap that secretly was tilted heavily in favor of America, though the media was being fed the opposite message.

From released KGB documents and meetings between Robert McNamara and Castro during the 1990s, it is now known that Lemnitzer was wrong and warheads were actually in place during the crisis. A preemptive strike would have resulted in mass US casualties. Kennedy's gut instinct was correct. However, Lemnitzer secretly harbored a deep resentment of Kennedy after the crisis ended, believing the president had missed a golden opportunity to permanently rid the world of the communist-atheists.

When the CIA's Operation Mongoose was canceled due to repeated failures, The Cuba Project was created within the Pentagon to continue these types of activities. Lemnitzer relished the opportunity to show up the "company" who he believed was treading on the military's solomn black ops ground, and ineffectively at that. This led him to approve Operation Northwoods, the plans to attack US targets and blame it on Castro to create a pretext for a complete US invasion of Cuba, and potentially a definitive (at least in Lemnitzer's eyes) WWIII scenario with the Russians. Revealingly, his chairmanship was not renewed and he was sent off to command U.S. forces in Europe.

Prior to the Kennedy assassination, Lemnitzer had been implicated in an investigation into extreme right-wing and anti-communist/pro-Israel hardliner connections in the Defense Department which had already forced the resignation of several Pentagon officials, including one who'd been caught handing out John Birch Society literature while on assignment overseas. The conclusions called for further extensive investigation of Lemnitzer to determine just how far his connections ran, but these were never carried out. This has led some to suspect a DoD, rather than CIA, involvement in the death of JFK. Ironically (or not), in 1975 the retired General Lemnitzer was appointed by Gerald R. Ford to the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States. (my italics)

source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...an_L._Lemnitzer 4apr2006

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

The cover-up ain't necessarily related to the assassination.

Ridiculous.

So Mark: anyone who participated in the cover-up was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK?

So I guess you think Earl Warren was also a conspirator?

The cover-up ain't necessarily related to the assassination.

Re your second question, a line from a great movie comes to mind.

From "The Usual Suspects": "The greatest trick the devil played was convincing the world he does not exist." (Or words to that effect.)

Anyone who actively participated in the coverup was guilty, correct. By that I mean those who helped orchestrate the coverup, like LBJ, Hoover, Paley, Luce, Sarnoff etc. To suggest that I think Warren was a conspirator is not correct. Being forced to sit on LBJ's whitewash doesn't make you a conspirator--just a victim of circumstance.

You forget that the subsequent coverup was an integral part of the overall plan. Without a strategy for avoiding a murder conviction the plan would never have been carried out. The murderers weren't that brave. Those involved in the conspiracy to conceal the truth of Dealey Plaza are conspirators. Those who were coerced into going along with America's most egregious lie and fiercely protected secret are, again, victims of circumstance.

Finally, I'm still awaiting evidence to support your belief in the existence of the devil. A lame quote from a Hollywood movie is not evidence. It's solid evidence I need (4 points will do).

I still await even ONE evidentiary basis for asserting that any employees or agents of the U.S. power structure were involved in the conspiracy. I suspect the ol' devil may need to get himself a nice warm winter coat before that happens!

For God's sake, LBJ established the Warren Commission--the official coverup. He's part of the US power structure, isn't he?

btw, can you produce ONE evidentiary basis for asserting that the character you describe as the devil actually exists?