James DiEugenio

Those are two really good books Ron, especially Battling Wall Street. I think that is the best book on Kennedy's economic policies. The chapter there on the steel crisis is the best I ever saw. And I think this essay is in the other book of his The Kennedy Assassination Cover Up. Yes, I think its accurate to say that McCloy made that remark. At least I have seen it credited to him more than once. And I have to say he sure as heck followed through on it as anyone can tell from what he did with CBS in 1967. Which we tried to show in JFK Revisited. If you look at the line up, there were two Republicans from Congress, one from the senate and one from the House; there were two Democrats from congress, same parallel. You then had two exalted statesmen types in McCloy and Dulles, and then you had the Chief Justice who was a former prosecutor and was now such a hero to the liberal community for Brown vs Board and the Gideon case, which began the public defender standard. I think that is the cross section that LBJ was trying to effect. And I think LBJ understood that in those Ozzie and Harriet days, the media would make no objection to its superifciality.

And yes Joe B, that is correct I think. One of the objectives was to try and get an invasion of Cuba. I mean the DRE sure as heck was trying for that within 24 hours, were they not?

BTW, why would it be unusual for someone to read the IG report and come to the conclusion the CIA was in on the murder of Kennedy? I think many people who read it come to that conclusion because now a mechanism for assassination is revealed . A confederacy between the CIA, Mob and Cuban exiles. And we know, as Jim Douglass outlined so well, that after the Missile Crisis, the Cuban exiles were quite angry at the no invasion pledge Kennedy made. Plus Mongoose was disbanded and Kennedy had cut back significantly on raids into Cuba. In the entire second half of 1963 there had been only five. So what would it have taken to switch the target from Castro to JFK? And Oswald was perfect to provoke an invasion of Cuba. I am not saying that is what happened. What I am saying is that after reading the report, I can see how many could come to that conclusion.

If you have not read Gibson's milestone article, you really should. When he first submitted it to me, I was really surprised. Johnson, the master manipulator, was being royally rolled into doing something he did not want to do. If you have not read it, here it is: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-creation-of-the-warren-commission And here is a story on Hoover's memo the night before Katzenbach's. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/jfk-files-j-edgar-hoover-said-public-must-believe-lee-n814881

The Warren Commission was not Johnson's invention, that is not accurate. Johnson did not want a blue ribbon commission. He had to be convinced to do it by, first Eugene Rostow, and then Alsop. And Alsop then told him that the Washington Post was going to come out with that idea also. LBJ did not want it and Alsop's conversation with him was a masterful piece of flattery, persuasion, and massaging to get him to construct it. I mean, everyone knows what happened after. It was a mess. But what did anyone expect with Hoover running the inquiry? Hoover actually was on record as closing the case before Katzenbach was. In fact, I now think that his memo the night before might have been the model for Katzenbach's. About 80 per cent of the inquiry was done by Hoover. In second was the Secret Service, and as we all know--Elmer Moore for one--they were about as bad as the FBI was. Does anyone even want to talk about the CIA, and that stunt they pulled in Mexico CIty? Which even Hoover saw through after about six weeks. So with those three bodies doing the inquiry, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion. But then you had the MSM basically encouraging it and accepting it and then giving it a rocket boost when it came out. It is really bizarre to me how the MSM did not scream, or even object, to the WC having closed hearings. Not one peep. And the only witness who complained was Mark Lane. I mean closed hearings on the public execution of the president? As per Dulles, remember, Talbot in his biography of the man, revealed that he was the one commissioner who lobbied for the job. Therefore, it might not have been solely LBJ's decision on that one. But he clearly understand after that this was a mistake, and I think he tried to cover it up.

Roger: in your last sentence, the first part is accurate. Alsop did have a very strong part in convincing LBJ to form the Warren Commission, and that is clearly documented by Donald GIbson in his milestone essay in the book The Assassinations. The last part is in all likliehood not true. I think that after the fact LBJ realized what a joke it was to put Dulles on that Commission and he felt the need to blame someone he despised. As per your first statement there is a very clear reason to think that way about the CIA/Mafia plots and LBJ. Its in the IG Report. They admit it on pp. 132-33: no president had any knowledge of the plots. Its right there in B and W. And its so devastating that Helms only kept one copy. That is clearly not what Helms wanted to hear. But the authors of the report reluctantly came to that conclusion. The first exposure of the plots was done by Roselli to Anderson, who printed a very much distorted view of them. Johnson, like many others, saw this story. He asked Helms for an accurate report on them. And that is how we got that report. Which actually traces how the Anderson story was put together, again its right there in B and W. If you have other information about this, and if its solidly documented, I would certainly like to see it. And so would everyone else.

Here you go Sandy. Direct link to CIA IG Report. Which, IIRC, Fetter has no footnotes to. Kind of mind boggling. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9983 This was so incriminating that Helms told the guys who wrote it to destroy their notes, and he kept only one copy, the ribbon original in his safe. Which Johnson read. I think he did that because he understood that logical, informed thinkers may have thought that these plots--which featured the CIA, Mafia, and Cuban exiles--could then have been turned against JFK.

In the Washington Post of December 12, 1977, you will see a story about LBJ's chief of staff Marvin Watson telling Deloach that after reading the CIA IG report Johnson now felt the CIA was involved in the murder of President Kennedy. Unfortunately that is behind a wall.

Sandy, The CIA IG report, which is invaluable and one of the triumphs of the ARRB, is at MFF. And its completely declassified now. If you have not read it please do.

No Ron, it does not look like him, as I have seen close up pictures of Cruz back then. Trump really wanted to accent this phony story by the way, he actually mentioned it on TV. Richard, can you provide a source for him being on the route working for IBM, and then running away to Canada.?

BTW, how did Johnson eventually find out about the plots? It was the Drew Pearson story through Johnny Roselli. When that got into the papers, LBJ told Helms he wanted a report on this. That is how we got the CIA IG Report. After reading it, Johnson told his assistant he now thought the CIA was involved in JFK's murder. Although he never said that in public. The closest he got I think was when he said Oswald was likely not working alone. He had some help.

That is a pretty good short summary of what Scott has put forth Sandy. And unlike Fetter, it does fit the evidence. But I have always wondered if Johnson really believed what Hoover was telling him. Because after proffering this evidence, Hoover tells him that the picture is not Oswald and the voice on the tape is not either. I have never known what to make of this. Maybe LBJ realized he was being tricked and decided to call it off? But this is what is so odd about Fetter,: he never pursues this question!

No Stu, that is not it. He is saying that somehow RFK had knowledge of the third phase of the CIA plots to kill Castro. And therefore when the name Rolando Cubela came up in a CIA cable, this froze him in place. I replied that if one looks at the CIA IG Report, this does not work. Because they say that the plots were never given presidential approval and were kept from all three presidents, Ike, JFK and LBJ. And Helms specifically forbade that Cubela have any kind of meeting with RFK. He does not even prove that RFK saw this cable.

This Rufus Youngblood myth was taken care of by Bob Groden in his book JFK:Absolute Proof. Johnson was upright when the shooting started. ( see page 272)

This book I think is a good example of when theorizing about what happened to JFK takes precedence over data and analysis. If you read the second part of my review, what Fetter does with Mexico City is another example of making theory first and then shoving data into it. He wants to conclude that the whole Mexico City mess was about freezing RFK in place. Which is not, for instance, what John Newman thinks. Or Peter Scott as another example. And I think they have done more work on that than Fetter has. Scott, for example, has come up with the whole Phase 1 and Phase 2 idea. That Mexico CIty was done to jump start a war on Castro, but then when LBJ and Hoover put the brakes to that, the idea was to make Oswald into a sociopathic loner model. I have never seen anyone put forth what this book does. And as I pointed out, with evidence, he does not prove his idea.

And BTW, Fetter leaves that whole aspect about Rayburn out, namely that the guy was incorruptible. Yet when I was reading about him for this review, that is the aspect of his character that struck me the most. The guy was legendary in. that regard. The other things that struck me were the contradictions. If Rayburn and LBJ were scheming to get Johnson as VP in 1960, why did Rayburn advise LBJ not to take the offer? Why did LBJ run at all that year? And BTW, JFK knew that Johnson would be his toughest opponent which is why he sent RFK down to Texas in 1959 to feel him out. The whole question about that election is this: Why did Johnson not enter earlier, as Rayburn was clearly trying to get him to do? And BTW, Fetter leave that out also, Rayburn's urging of LBJ to get in the race in the spring. Rayburn even set up a shell HQ called Citizens for Johnson to push him into getting into the race. (Shesol, Mutual Contempt, p.28). Johnson not only refused to go over there, he got mad at Rayburn for doing it behind his back! This is why I used the word solipsistic in my critique. Because the stuff he leaves out, gives the reader a different picture. And I compared him to Waldron for that reason.

Welcome Steve. BTW, Fetter actually says that the plotting by Rayburn and LBJ began back in 1956. I am still trying to find his evidence for this. I should add if you read Part 2 of the review, Rayburn's major characteristic as a politician is that he was incorruptible. Go figure.

Tom Gram: That was quite possibly the worst JFK book I’ve ever read in my life That is because you have not read this one. Not only does Fetter cook up a motive for Rayburn and Johnson that is almost ludicrous, but he is obsessed with the late David Lifton. He does not even call him that, he calls him Samuel Lifton. And that is just the beginning of his crusade against the deceased. Fetter really needed an editor on this book. To protect him from his worst tendencies.

Gil: He is aware of those matters. But it does not matter. He all but ignores the differences between LBJ and JFK on Vietnam which go back to the siege of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and the use of combat troops in 1961. Then, he uses a picture of Wheeler leaning over a desk in front of LBJ during a conference to somehow articulate a conspiratorial angle to the JCS. I have rarely read a more agenda driven, solipsistic book. I think one has to go back to the heyday of Lamar Waldron with his whole C day invasion/Mob did it scheme to find any kid of comparison.

I paid 90 bucks for this two volume set that clocks in at over 1000 pages. To put it mildly, it was not worth the money or the time to read it. Because its so long, the review is in two parts. The first is about his spin on the medical side, and the second is his case against Johnson and his co-conspirator. I mean Sam Rayburn was a plotter? The guy died two years before JFK was killed! You will double over when you read the motive. Because it says it had utterly nothing to do with any of JFK's policies. Further, it did not matter who was nominated that year, they would have been knocked off also. And wait until you read what he does with his footnotes. As per the medical aspect, although the author despises David Lifton, he actually outdoes Lifton's body switching scheme. The body was switched at Parkland and Jackie knew it. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/under-cover-of-night-by-sean-fetter

Blakey I think was really chagrined about two things that he fell for as chief counsel: 1. Guinn's "junk science" about the NAA testing which has been exposed today as being completely unreliable by two separate teams. 2. How the CIA lied to him about Joannides not being involved in the JFK case in 1963. Those are two strikes against his inquiry. Ben: he sounded seriously ill to you? The last time I saw him he needed a cane to get around with.

I should have mentioned this in my review. In all fairness to the program, they did seem to have some effect on Blakey. He said a couple of things that I did not recall him saying before. First, he said that the JFK murder set up Oswald as a false flag creation. Secondly, he said that Harvey likely worked with Roselli on the hit plan. If one combines that with what he said previously about the Cuban exile Diaz Garcia, what he has come to now is a CIA/Mob/Cuban exile conspiracy. Which is a big improvement over what he thought back in 1979. So congrats to Rob for that.

That is probably correct about Meacham Sandy. But, I think he sacrificed something there. To be perfectly honest, I am not so sure that Reiner disagreed with him. When I was meeting with that group, Rob would say, "Let's not get into the weeds." But Rob, sometimes that is where the facts are.

Really interesting. Thanks Robert.

Thanks and its been corrected.