Tim Carroll

A letter from Gary Hart to John Kerry clearly demonstrates that Tosh's revelations significantly preceded any public awareness of the goings-on in Central America. In his letter, Senator Hart personally attests that he first had contact with Tosh Plumlee over this issue as early as March of 1983, three and a half years before the Iran/Contra story broke following the crash of Hasenfus' plane. T.C.

Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing?When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right? Shut the xxxx up?... I think you owe me and the FORUM a apology! That's rich! David Healy talking about who owes the forum "a [sic] apology." T.C.

I believe there was a concerted effort reaching the highest levels of Dallas powerbrokering to keep the right-wing quiet that day. This connects to the information that had been received by H. L. Hunt and presumably others that an administration "incident" was planned for Dallas that could be blamed on the right-wing: "The Hunts learned that President Kennedy's visit to Dallas might be greeted with violence nearly three weeks before the President crossed the state line. The warning came from the family's master intelligence man, Hunt Oil security chief Paul Rothermel. In a November 4, 1963, interoffice memo headlined 'POLITICS,' Rothermel informed his boss that there had been 'unconfirmed reports of possible violence during the parade' scheduled to take place when Kennedy arrived in town on November 22. Although Rothermel did not directly identify his sources, it was clear from his memo that he was sharing information the FBI and the Dallas Police Department were getting from informants placed in General Edwin Walker's right-wing political action groups in Dallas and on the campus of North Texas State University in Denton. 'The North Texas informant is reporting information that would indicate that that group may be planning an incident,' Rothermel wrote. 'There is another report from a left-wing group that an incident will occur with the knowledge of the President whereby the left-wingers will start the incident in hopes of dragging in any of the right side groups or individuals nearby and then withdrawing. The talk is that the incident involving Adlai Stevenson made the present administration hopeful in that if they could get the same thing to happen to Kennedy it could reassure his election....' As Rothermel pointed out in his memo to Hunt, 'If an incident were to occur, the true story of who perpetrated it would never come out.' Rothermel, however, had a solution to suggest. 'I have thought about the problem,' he wrote, 'and I am wondering if a few letters to the editor might not be a good way of pre-exposing this if, in fact, there is a planned incident.'" Harry Hurt III, Texas Rich, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1981), pp. 223-224. Hunt did write an editorial, not to expose the administration's scheme, but rather to discourage any right-wing demonstrations that could be exploited. We don't know what Dallas oilmen like H. L. Hunt, Clint Murchison and Sid Richardson really did about their inside information. There can be little doubt, however, that their information was based on quality intelligence. An example would be the assertions in the new book, Ultimate Sacrifice, about a planned invasion of Cuba. On pages 237-238: "In a provocative memo dated February 6, 1964, Rothermel informed Hunt that 'Lyndon B. Johnson is mortally afraid of being assassinated and does not trust the Secret Service to protect him. He has ordered the F.B.I. to be present everywhere he goes with no less than two men and more when there is any possibility that he will be exposed. Johnson has confidentially placed a direct telephone line from his office to J. Edgar Hoover's desk.' Four days after the report on LBJ, Rothermel brought his boss some even more stunning news. 'There is information that the CIA and the State Department are currently planning a second invasion of Cuba,' Rothermel wrote. 'A very reliable source reports that the Manuel Ray group, which is extremely left-wing, has been in touch with the CIA and has agreed to a second invasion. The right-wing Cubans are being pressured to join the invasion. The second invasion is being closely scrutinized by John Martino, leader of the right-wing groups, for fear it will be a second Bay of Pigs fiasco.'" T.C. Harry Hurt III, Texas Rich, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1981), pp. 223-224.

I agree with the member who asserted that 9-11 was the historical equivalent of the Reichstag fire. It would be difficult to overstate the degree of concern that is currently warranted. For things to be worse than my most paranoid imagining is no small matter. I can't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Goebbels and Orwell had nothing on this bunch. T.C.

It strikes me as incongruous that the Watergate burglary team might have been directed to kill Jack Anderson, given the personal relationship between Anderson and Frank Sturgis. Nothing has emerged in the three decades since Watergate to invalidate the notion that this group's line-up revealed the alignments and relationships of these key players in the backlash of right-wing anti-Castro plotters against JFK. In Anderson's case, he actually provided bail for Frank Sturgis after the Watergate break-in. Tim After some Googling, I found the following written by Don Fulsom. ***************************** Of all the illegal activities undertaken by President Nixon's secret agents E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy, one stands out as particularly sordid — the planned assassination of newspaper columnist Jack Anderson, Nixon's arch foe in the media. Nixon-era stories by Anderson about mobster Johnny Roselli (the Mafia's liaison with the CIA) and various Mob/CIA plots infuriated the president and led to White House discussions about the columnist's murder. The plot against Anderson came to light in 1975 when The Washington Post reported that — "according to reliable sources" — Hunt told associates after the Watergate break-in that he was ordered to kill the columnist in December 1971 or January 1972. The plan allegedly involved the use of poison obtained from a CIA physician. The Post reported that the assassination order came from a "senior official in the Nixon White House," and that it was "canceled at the last minute . . . " In an affidavit about a key meeting on the matter with his White House boss, Hunt said Charles Colson "seemed more than usually agitated, and I formed the impression that he had just come from a meeting with President Nixon." Liddy admitted that he and Hunt had "examined all the alternatives and very quickly came to the conclusion the only way you're going to be able to stop (Anderson) is to kill him . . . And that was the recommendation."

The Patriot Act is an abomination, but we've long known that. What was surprising this past week was the timing of the NY Times' disclosure of the domestic surveillance. Bush was angered by the timing because it overshadowed the supposedly good news of the Iraqi election. What has been less noticed is that the Times had already held their story back for over a year, a period that included the 2004 presidential election. So we had Scooter Libby, et al., keeping the lid on Plamegate through the election and now we find that the NY Times concealed a domestic surveillance operation through the election. This country continues to be hijacked, electorally, just as surely as the Kennedy assassination hijacked the sitting government in 1963. T.C.

Maybe you can point me in the direction where I "mentioned" that I was "...in a safe house at the time of RFK's murder..."! I haven't been able to find it, and given Gerry's response, it's likely that I was misremembering or misunderstanding the safe house remark. I used qualified language, but I probably shouldn't have said anything without finding the quote (again, which may not exist in the appropriate context). I apologize. T.C.

The 1980 election was very tight until the last weekend, when a developing initiative for the release of the hostages held by Iran fell apart. Little did we know then that the Reagan campaign had pulled Nixon's 1968 Vietnam ploy out of the playbook, and secretly negotiated for Iran to get a better deal by waiting for Reagan's inauguration. T.C.

In 1980, Roger Mudd was the CBS reporter who conducted the interview in which Ted stumbled so badly over the question of why he was running. Wikipedia particular notes that interview here: Let me once again come to Ted Kennedy's defense: George W. Bush, for example, has never, to my knowledge, given a coherent answer to ANY question he was ever asked, yet the same T.V. & Media people who castigated Ted ensured that "W" was elected and then re-elected to the White House. Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, coherently explained why it would be supreme folly for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and the coffins and cripples that come home daily - which T.V. is not allowed to show you -- prove that he was right. What made the Roger Mudd interview response so noteworthy was the context of challenging an incumbent from one's own party, which requires some particularly compelling reason. Also, there is the fact that Ted Kennedy is generally an articulate person, and he has proven by applying his skills laudibly in the Senate for over forty years. He's a great liberal champion. As an aside, it was a strange confluence of timing that the Mudd interview was aired the same day the hostages were taken in Iran, November 4, 1979. T.C.

In 1980, Roger Mudd was the CBS reporter who conducted the interview in which Ted stumbled so badly over the question of why he was running. Wikipedia particular notes that interview here: T.C.

Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing?When it comes to alteration issues -- EXACTLY right, Tom ALL counts! You another one that can't spell a last name right? I apologize for misspelling David Healy's name; it wasn't deliberate. To do so on purpose would be rude. T.C.

Gerry: YOu sure turn up at the strangest of places. What possessed you to visit the home of Sirhan's mother? (If I may be so bold as to ask). Gerry's visit to Sirhan's mother's house is interesting. On this thread, Gerry has described being in a black & white on the way to the Ambassador Hotel when the report of the shooting came over the radio. I believe that he mentioned elsewhere being in a safe house at the time of RFK's murder. T.C.

I want to support Stephen's comments, especially that I don't see spamming as Tim Gratz's intention. He's a more energetic and prolific poster than average, and his politics are contrary to the majority here, but he does also contribute substantive comments and informational input. Mark's observation is perceptive and kindhearted. The internet is a new medium where flourishes of personality can easily be misunderstood. I don't see any mean-spiritedness in Tim Gratz's postings. If Operation Mockingbird tells us anything, it's that gaining more independence in the realm of information and communication conveyence is a vital mission, and therefore the growing pains here are worthwhile. T.C.

Have any of the people who take Ferrie's involvement in the assassination for granted, including Professor Mellen and Jim Garrison, ever tried to explain why Ferrie was suddenly so concerned that Oswald had his library card? If Ferrie had foreknowledge of a plot involving Oswald, he wouldn't have been scrambling to regain the card after the assassination.Probably because if Oswald ever had Ferrie's card in the first place (which I am not sure of), Ferrie would have forgotten about it. It is a pretty minor detail, you must admit. Jack Martin had to start circulating this story before Ferrie grew so concerned. It wasn't just something that came to his mind after he heard that Oswald had allegedly assassinated the president. I don't for a moment admit that the library card and the activities of David Ferrie to recover it are a "minor detail." The use of a public telephone at an ice skating rink is to be deemed significant but visits to people like Oswald's landlady to recover the library card aren't? So what is Owen saying? Jack Martin created Ferrie's library card anxiety? That there was an assassination planned out involving both Ferrie and Oswald, but something Martin did suddenly raised concern? Despite all the planning, Ferrie forgot about the card until just after the shooting, and then suddenly realized the significance? Or is Owen trying to claim that Ferrie didn't know of Oswald's involvement until after he "heard that Oswald had allegedly assassinated the president?" It doesn't make sense. T.C.

Have any of the people who take Ferrie's involvement in the assassination for granted, including Professor Mellen and Jim Garrison, ever tried to explain why Ferrie was suddenly so concerned that Oswald had his library card? If Ferrie had foreknowledge of a plot involving Oswald, he wouldn't have been scrambling to regain the card after the assassination. T.C.

Is David Healey calling Len Colby a douche bag? Does he really mean that no one is qualified to discuss Zapruder Film alteration without first being "up-to-speed" regarding matte painting and optical film printing? T.C.

When Kennedy's Catholicism was a campaign issue in 1960, Jackie once commented about how unfair the criticism was, when she said, "But he's such a bad Catholic." While I agree with most historians that Kennedy had a strong sense of fatalism, I don't consider it feasible that he would jeopardize his wife's safety to the extreme degree that can be inferred from Ultimate Sacrifice. T.C.

This is a very good point. I cannot imagine any husband encouraging his wife to sit in an open-topped car if he really thought he was going to be assassinated. According to the authors, JFK was a profile in courage when he stood in the limo for the Tampa motorcade on November 18. It's their premise that the Kennedys deliberately concealed the Tampa plot and the earlier one in Chicago on November 2 to protect the C-Day cover. Finally, on its own, Dallas represented a uniquely variegated security threat. If that November began with the coup in Vietnam and the assassination of Diem, followed the next day by a plot in Chicago, the final countdown meeting for C-Day on the 12th, and then the Tampa plot and Miami Airport circumstance on the 18th, the last thing in the world Kennedy would have done is have Jackie ride with him for the first time since the Inauguration in an open limo through Dallas. It's somewhat amazing that this wasn't considered by the authors. This is especially true given that they specifically argue that the Cuban Contingency Plan concerned the judgment that as C-Day drew near, "attempts at assassination of American officials" were "likely." T.C.

It has occurred to me that if the Ultimate Sacrifice analysis of the Chicago and Tampa assassination plots is correct, neither of the Kennedy brothers would have allowed Jackie to be riding in an open limo through Dallas only days later. This is especially true considering that Jackie hadn't motorcaded with the President since the Inauguration Day Parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. Of course, if these were staged attempts, developing the Operation Northwoods pretext for an invasion of Cuba, then consideration for Tosh Plumlee's assertion of an abort mission (to abort the fake attempt) comes into play. T.C.

It has occurred to me that if the Ultimate Sacrifice analysis of the Chicago and Tampa assassination plots is correct, neither of the Kennedy brothers would have allowed Jackie to be riding in an open limo through Dallas only days later. This is especially true considering that Jackie hadn't motorcaded with the President since the Inauguration Day Parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. Of course, if these were staged attempts, developing the Operation Northwoods pretext for an invasion of Cuba, then consideration for Tosh Plumlee's assertion of an abort mission (to abort the fake attempt) comes into play. T.C.

I can't imagine how anything on the show could rebut my extensive public criticisms of Professor Mellen's book. I have not been schooled in the CIA's methods for discrediting authors. I hate to think that money spent on that book diminishes the sales of more scholarly and legitimate works, most particularly right now, Ultimate Sacrifice. I had already moved off this topic, but I will provide a generic example of the book's standard of literary quality. Describing Angelo Murgado, there is this sentence: "Material possessions hold no appeal, and service, neither to the CIA nor to Robert F. Kennedy, brought him no riches." Ouch! This from a professor who teaches creative writing? You don't have to be a CIA agent to recognize a double negative. The book appears not to have even been proofread. T.C.

Some time back Terry Mauro requested that the two Tims designate themselves so that everyone can tell the difference. This would ensure that readers would know that Lynne was referring to Tim Gratz in the above quote. I responded by beginning to sign off my posts as "T.C." I would hope to encourage others to make that differentiation as well. Sharing a name with a flaming, albeit proud, right-winger can be problematic.... T.C.

Tim, I wonder if you could slightly expand on this statement, please. I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean. I don't want to get myself in trouble with this, but the Kennedys were way ahead of their time in the skills of impressions management. When JFK was looking for a way out of his predicament in Berlin, he discreetly let it be known to Khrushchev that a Wall wouldn't violate American interests. When the Wall went up, many called for Kennedy to tear it down and considered him weak not to have done so. In fact, he planted the idea of the Wall in Khrushchev's head, and the Wall subsequently acted as the greatest symbol of Soviet oppression for a quarter century. During the Sixties, many argued that Kennedy was more style than substance. Being a postmodernist, I don't consider it an either/or proposition. The Cuban Missile Crisis was settled with a deal that was not only secret, but made on the basis of a private assurance. In the aftermath of that Crisis, Kennedy came off looking like the winner when he had conceded every material bargaining issue, while Khrushchev came off looking like a loser despite the appearance of a no-invasion pledge and the secret assurance that the provocative first-strike Eisenhower-deployed missiles in Europe would be removed. In other words, while the Cuban Missile Crisis is understood to be a Soviet aggression that was repelled, actually it was Khrushchev who achieved a withdrawal of missiles. The Kennedy framework was demonstrated by the President's comment about Vietnam, that we would install a government that would then ask us to leave. Operation Northwoods would also be an example of impressions management. In the preparations for the Bay of Pigs in the very first days of the JFK administration, Kennedy complained that the operation was "too noisy" (the basis for relocating the landing from Trinidad). When the operation failed, it failed in the worst way: an American operation that didn't receive American support at the crucial moment. Kennedy would not have been one to be fooled the same way again. There are international standards of legitimacy and sovereignty which Kennedy considered binding on overt foreign policy. While the no-invasion pledge was not ratified by the requisite U.N. inspections, Kennedy had the Secret Deal to protect, and Berlin was by no means completely off the table as a bargaining chip. A Cuban revolt in 1963 or later would have to withstand scrutiny and arguably be legitimate. Hence, Larry's point about the appearance of alternative funding sources, including the Mafia (and how about Prio?). I suppose the shorter answer to what I meant by my references to sleight-of-hand and misdirection is that the Kennedys were magicians in their field of expertise (which reminds me of Siegfried and Roy winding up with a mawling by one of their own tigers). T.C.

I generally avoid "me too" posts, but I have to say that Larry is making a crucial point here. This really is looking through the glass darkly, and anyone seizing on any particular explanation must necessarily suspect that someone intended that perception as well. It was classic Kennedy modus operandi to develop as close to a legitimately indigenous uprising as possible, with the smallest U.S. footprint that could be created with sleight-of-hand and misdirection. Why else would we have to burglarize our own Armories for weapons? T.C.

Anyone who questions whether or not Kennedy was serious about withdrawing troops and if McNamara supported JFK's position should view The Fog Of War and listen to the portion of tape cited by Tim Gratz from February, 1964. It's classic overbearing LBJ. One can hear LBJ reaming McNamara a new one for his and President Kennedy's talk about withdrawal. LBJ makes it clear in no uncertain terms that it was a mistake on the part of both JFK and McNamara; everytime McNamara tries to get a word in edgewise, LBJ lays into him some more. That bit of tape is extremely telling, and has to be heard to be believed. As for McNamara's admission of deceptiveness, that was later under LBJ, when thousands were dying, both McNamara's son and wife had serious ulcers, and RFK had people calling McNamara telling him he had to resign for the sake of conscience. Kennedy's position at the end of his life, most particularly articulated in the Walter Cronkite (CBS) interview of, I believe, September 2, 1963, was that "in the final analysis" the war would be won or lost by the Vietnamese. However, he did say at that time that it would be a serious mistake to completely withdraw before a viable government could be established there. His position was not unlike that of current thoughtful persons who believe the Iraq War was a mistake but that to withdraw too precipitously would leave a dangerous power vacuum. As for the Domino Theory, at that time every poor third world country was a potential proxy war between superpowers and economic systems. The Domino Theory simply added the factor of geographical contiguousness to the power equation between capitalism and communism. However, Kennedy did clearly recognize, as with the portion of his speech about the Monroe Doctrine planned for Dallas, that certain concepts needed to be discarded when obsolescence occurred. The nature of Geography itself had changed. T.C.