Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,520 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
But at the same time, LBJ called a meeting of the Wise Men, Lovett, Acheson, etc. And tried to make that argument.
Lovett wasn’t there.
The heavy was W. Averell Harriman, the quintessential arsonist-fireman who lead the charge to whack Diem and then spent the Johnson Administration trying to negotiate peace.
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/johnson-meets-with-the-wise-men-march-25-1968-034945
Johnson meets with ‘The Wise Men,’ March 25, 1968
On this day in 1968, as pessimism over U.S. prospects in Vietnam deepened, President Lyndon B. Johnson met with 14 informal advisers. In 1945, some of them had forged a bipartisan foreign policy based on containing the Soviet Union. They went on to craft key institutions like NATO, the World Bank and the Marshall Plan. They were known, collectively, as “The Wise Men.”
They met with LBJ after being briefed by officials at the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. They had been informed of a request from Gen. William Westmoreland, the top U.S. commander in Vietnam, for additional troops in the wake of perceived U.S. setbacks in the Tet Offensive.
Present at the White House meeting were Dean Acheson, George Ball, McGeorge Bundy, Clark Clifford, Arthur Dean, Douglas Dillon, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Robert Murphy, Cyrus Vance and Gens. Omar Bradley, Matthew Ridgway and Maxwell Taylor.
In the words of Acheson, who summed up the recommendations from 11 of the men, “we can no longer do the job we set out to do in the time we have left, and we must begin to take steps to disengage.” Murphy, Taylor and Fortas dissented.
That was a change from Johnson’s first series of such meetings, on Nov. 1-2, 1967. Then, the Wise Men had unanimously opposed leaving Vietnam. “Public discontent with the war is now wide and deep,” Bundy had said, but he told Johnson to “stay the course.”
<quote off>
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:This more or less caused LBJ to do two things 1.) Withdraw from the race, 2.) Realizing the war was lost, to push for a peace plan.
Well, Nixon heard about this meeting. And he told his advisors at the time that he thought the war was lost also. And this was before the inauguration. But he also said they could not admit that. And he did not want LBJ to get a peace so he secretly torpedoed that.
“That” happened to be the peace deal with North Vietnam hammered out by Harriman and Vance on the eve of the ‘68 election. If Humphrey had won, Harriman stood to realize his fondest dream — Secretary of State. Nixon killed that dream.
It’s been argued that George H. W. Bush helped hang Watergate on Tricky Dick. Bush was a Harriman protege.
-
On 10/14/2023 at 5:55 PM, Roger Odisio said:
Kennedy once said, when asked what he wanted on his tombstone, "he kept the peace""
He overthrew Diem, the Inciting Incident of the Vietnam War. The Buddhist/Catholic conflict, which the CIA ginned up in ‘63, had calmed down by the time JFK green lit the coup.
Speeches are nice but action talks.
-
On 10/11/2023 at 4:37 PM, Jean Ceulemans said:
And the one entering on top would exit the throat ?
If this were the case why did JFK raise his fists in front of his throat 6 seconds earlier?
Is that what people do when they’re shot in the back— raise their fists in front of their throat to prevent getting shot in the back again?
On 10/11/2023 at 4:37 PM, Jean Ceulemans said:I´m trying to time this but have been avoiding the medical stuff so far, not my cup of tea frankly
The subject of head wound(s) is one of the biggest go-nowhere rabbit holes in the case. Don’t walk away from it — run.
-
1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:
Lol, Jim you could not be more wrong on this. Maybe Cliff is right?
I don’t have a dog in this fight.
I have a problem with “historians” spending copious amounts of time examining admittedly fake physical evidence (CE399) while completely ignoring the physical evidence recovered from the victim (bullet holes in the clothes). It’s not just Jim.
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Cliff--
I am shocked---shocked!---we are on different pages on this particular issue.
If we posit Landis' memory is correct and earnest...where did the CE399 lookalike slug on the rear seat of the limo come from?
I don’t see how the 60-year old memory of a guy selling a book counterfeits the extant corroborated evidence.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:(For the sake of discussion, I am positing Landis is earnest and correct, although is is probably an unknowable).
More False Mystery. It never ends...
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
There are varying witness accounts of the JFKA.
So what? The more corroboration the testimony has the stronger it is.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:In any event, if the first and undercharged bullet struck JFK in the back, then an internal shock wave from the second bullet might have dislodged it.
But it didn’t. Bennett’s account aside, we can see with our own eyes JFK react to the throat shot.
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:I am positing what I think is a plausible scenario.
Sure, as long as you disregard the physical evidence, the contemporaneous written account of a half-dozen witnesses in position of authority, the properly prepared medical evidence, the Dealey Plaza photographs, and the consensus statements of 16 witnesses.
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
It's really not that difficult, Cliff. I compared Bennett's statements against what lone-nutters claim his statements support, not what you claim. Millions believe Bennett supports a first shot at 160, an SBT shot at 224 and a head shot at 313. We agree that this is nonsense.
So where are there inconsistencies and problems with Bennett’s well corroborated contemporaneous account?
-
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
. There’s also the problem that the Willis photo at Z-202 shows Bennett still staring to his right.
Consistent with his statement.
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:If there’d been a shot at Z-160 and had Bennett immediately turned to his left, as pushed by those claiming Bennett's statement the Rosetta Stone, he should already be looking at Kennedy in the Willis photo.
Where in his statement did he mention a firecracker st Z160? Out of which orifice do you pull this stuff, Pat?
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:This suggests instead that Bennett heard a shot at 190, not 160.
Willis 5 shows him looking to the right, as per his statement.
Altgens 6 shows Bennett with blurred features, consistent with turning face forward as per his statement.
The “problems” and “inconsistencies” are products of your invention.
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
I have spent more time than probably any human on Earth dismantling the SBT. Bennett's placement of the back wound is a problem for the SBT. The same people who rally around his suggestion of a first shot miss avoid like the plague he placed the wound too low to support the SBT.
He didn’t say the first shot was a miss. He wasn’t looking at Kennedy at the first report which reminded him of a firecracker.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:And yes, I agree, the films and photos suggest he would not have seen an impact on the back at 190, or 224.
So the question for us--you and I, who agree on the above points--is whether or not Bennett saw a bullet impact just before 313, or saw a bloody mark on the jacket at this time. His early statements are unclear, and his latter statements suggest the latter. But you can believe whatever you want.
By all means cite the later statements. His contemporaneous account is unequivocal:. He saw “the Boss” get hit.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:Just don't pretend a singular and possibly confused statement from a quite possibly hungover witness is the Rosetta Stone upon which all other evidence should be interpreted.
Bingo! Here comes the smears, the bashing of witnesses in favor of pet theories.
The physical evidence corroborates his account, as do the contemporaneous written reports of a half dozen witnesses in position of authority, as does the properly prepared medical evidence, and the consensus statements of 15 other witnesses.
-
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:
Neither Bennett nor any other person who witnessed the assassination as it was happening in real time in Dealey Plaza could have possibly known the precise location of the entry hole in JFK's back.
“[A]bout 4 inches down from the right shoulder.” The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collar, to the right of midline..
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:It's beyond silly to think that any human being, in those "as it was happening" circumstances, could have discerned such a microscopic detail about the precise location of a tiny bullet hole.
You struggle with the meaning of the word “about”?
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
Yes, of course, it is "witness bashing" to point out problems and inconsistencies with a witness' statements.
But you didn’t point out any problems. You just make stuff up.
You cited the demolishment of the SBT as a problem. It isn’t.
The problem with Bennett’s use of the phrase “very sparse” is mysterious.
If Bennett wasn’t counting the first firecracker sound as a firearm report then there was very little time between the first and second shot.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:It's clearly much much smurter to cherry-pick one line from one statement and interpret it in a manner that feeds into one's pet theory.
Which is exactly what you’re doing. And no, I don’t think it very smurt.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:Bennett is not a problem for my theories, Cliff. He was consistent on a few points we can take to the bank, namely, that the bullet creating the back wound impacted before the bullet creating the head wound, and impacted at a location too low to support the single-bullet theory. As to the number and spacing of the shots, he was not so reliable.
His movements are photographically corroborated. He couldn’t have faced full front until after Z255, with the shots after circa Z285. There is nothing inconsistent in his account.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:But if you insist on believing the back wound was inflicted a spilt second before head wound, as it appears, then how do you explain JFK's reaction circa Z-224.
He was shot in the throat before he went behind the sign.
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:Oh, I remember...an ice bullet. I get it.
So the autopsists speculated prior to the full blown cover-up.
So you think JFK raised his fists in front of his throat due to a back shot?
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:Much as Lifton with his response to "surgery to the head" you had an aha moment when you read Bennett's statement suggesting the possibility the back wound was inflicted after JFK first reacted. Except he didn't say that, did he?
Bennett said he saw the back shot “immediately” before the head shot.
Your position is pure spin.
-
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
Bennett, ahh yes, Bennett. From Chapter 5b:
Ahh yes, witness bashing follows bad pet theories like B follows A.
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:Glen Bennett sat on the right side of the rear seat of the back-up car. (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy." (11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President’s head. I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shoots.” (Signed statement in the 5-5-64Secret Service report on the behavior of the presidential detail on the night before the shooting, 18H682) "I arrived at the Press Club about 12:30 A.M. and joined agents at a table...I had two beers, thanked the hostess for the club's hospitality and departed about 1:30 A.M....I arrived at The Cellar about 1:40 A.M. and had two grape fruit drinks. I departed The Cellar at approximately 3:00 A.M. and went directly to the hotel." (Note: Bennett reported for duty at 7:20 A.M.) (1-30-78 interview with HSCA investigator, file # 180-10082-10452)
I couldn’t link this file, and found nothing on Mary Ferrell. What HSCA investigator, Pat? One clearly trying to spin Bennett’s inconvenient contemporaneous account.
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:“He remembers hearing what he hoped was a firecracker. He then heard another noise and saw what appeared to be a nick in the back of President Kennedy’s coat below the shoulder. He thought the President had been hit in the back
He didn’t write what he “thought” he saw, or what he “hoped” he heard; he described a bullet strike in the same location as the bullet holes in the clothes.
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:…he believes the first and second shots were close together and then a longer pause before the third shot…he does not recall any agents reacting before the third shot. He believes he called out to no one in particular, after the third shot, 'he's been hit'.… he believes he saw the nick in the President’s coat after the second shot.”
“Doesn’t recall”
“believes...believes...believes.”
Spin, spin, spin...
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:Analysis: due to Bennett's suggestion, in his 11-23 report, that the President was hit in the back by the second shot, Bennett is a star witness for LPM theorists. He is not deserving of this star status, however.
So the guy who accurately described his movements (as per Willis 5 and Altgens 6) and the location of the bullet defects four inches below the bottom of the collars is not credible because...?
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:One problem is that he said the bullet struck Kennedy 4 inches below his shoulder—too low to support the single-bullet theory.
How is that a problem, Pat??
It’s a problem for your silly theories, true.
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:He also said the limo was heading down a grade when the first shot rang out, and that the crowd was very sparse--a description far more in line with a shot at 190-224 than at 160.
Compared with earlier crowds Dealey Plaza was sparse.
Cite Bennett's statement that there was more time between the second and third shot than the first and second. Was he counting the firecracker sound as a shot?
Pat, your smear of Glen Bennett is egregious.
-
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
. We can extrapolate from this, then, that one might need to lead Kennedy by 4 inches or so at 53 yards.
SSA Glen Bennett’s contemporaneous written account destroys this scenario.
JFK was shot in the back “immediately” before the head shot(s).
Bennett’s account is corroborated by the location of the bullet holes in the clothes, Willis 5, and Altgens 6.
-
7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Perhaps a shock wave from the second bullet to strike JFK ejected the first bullet.
From Secret Service SA Glenn Bennett's contemporaneous notes written on AFI on the flight back to DC.:
<quote on>
...The Presidents auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded of a firecracker. Immediately upon hearing the so called firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head.
<quote off>
Bennett accurately described the location of the back shot. Willis 5 shows Bennett looking to his right at Z202. Altgens 6 (Z255) shows Bennett in the back seat of the follow-up car with blurred facial features, consistent with head movement.
Did JFK raise his fists in front of his throat to protect against another back shot? Maybe in some parallel universe.
Was the soft tissue no-exit wound in the throat also under-charged? Both rounds removed prior to the autopsy?
I find it amusing that some would posit a military-style ambush featuring defective Italian ammo.
-
On 10/6/2023 at 12:27 AM, Benjamin Cole said:
This information is from CIA mouthpiece Max Holland. Hold your nose and read:
"That Oswald was not the instrument of a foreign power was an intelligence coup of the first order and of incalculable interest to an unsettled public. Late on Saturday, November 23, the State Department issued a public statement declaring that there was no evidence of a conspiracy involving a foreign country. Yet revealing the intelligence sources and methods that had helped form this determination was out of the question. Cold War-era communications intercepts were as prized as World War II feats of decryption, and the NSA’s capabilities were—and are—the most highly guarded of secrets. And because content reveals methodology, certain specifics of what had been learned were equally protected.
There were no sources or methods that helped determine the LN conclusion. Harriman laid down the law — no Soviet involvement — and that was the end of it.
Someone Would Have Talked, Larry Hancock, pg 402:
<quote on >
When [Johnson] arrived at Air Force One, his first activities were to watch the national news and to begin making calls regarding taking the oath of office...There is not a single record of Johnson’s attempting to contact the National Command Center, the White House Situation Room, the Joint Chiefs, or the Secretary of Defense. Nothing shows him asking about the location of the officer with the missile launch codes. Despite his initial remark, Johnson did not make a single call or contact that would indicate he was worried about a Communist conspiracy or national security. </q>
From the Warren Commission testimony of LlewelynThompson, Ambassador At Large for Soviet Affairs:
<quote on, emphasis added>
Mr. DULLES: Did you have any conversations at any time while you were Ambassador or after you returned to the United States with any Soviet official with regard to the Oswald case?
Ambassador THOMPSON: I discussed with the Soviet Ambassador the desire of the [Warren] Commission to receive any documentation that they might have available, but I did not in any way discuss the case itself, nor did the Soviet official with whom I talked.
Mr. DULLES: You probably would, would you not, if that had taken place-of any importance?
Ambassador THOMPSON: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DULLES: Your testimony is you have no knowledge of any other conversations other than that of the Secretary of State [Dean Rusk], in connection with communications to and from the Soviet Government on this case?
Ambassador THOMPSON: That is correct. I know of no other cases where it was discussed with Soviet officials. </q>
No one at the State Department called any Soviet official regarding the murder in Dallas. LBJ only brought up WWIII to browbeat Warren.
-
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
By "co-conspirator" you are referring to Harriman, right?
I can see why LBJ wouldn't mind JFK being killed. But why would Harriman be okay with that?
He wanted to maintain American military presence in SE Asia. Same reason he had Diem whacked. We’ve discussed this before.
-
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:
What wise counsel was that, Cliff?
Scratch the Commie Conspiracy angle.
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:By whom?
McGeorge Bundy in the Situation Room; Averell Harriman within minutes of LBJ’s arrival at the White House. Harriman let Johnson know Foggy Bottom backed the LN.
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:Before the first shot, Johnson knew what he had to do.
Yeah, sit tight at Parkland and wait to see if the sheep-dipped pasty gets whacked —according to plan.
Someone Would Have Talked, Larry Hancock, pg 401-2:
<quote on>
May 1:15 PM on November 22, when the President was known to be dead, Malcolm Kilduff approached Johnson about making a statement. Johnson’s response was, “No. Wait. We don’t know whether it’s a Communist conspiracy or not. Are they prepared to get me out of here?” Johnson’s first concern after the shooting appears to be conspiracy. While still at Parkland both S.A. Youngblood and S. A. Roberts approached Johnson with similar concerns and strongly advised him to get out of Dallas and get airborne as quickly as possible...
Despite his own remark and those of the Secret Service, Johnson appeared reluctant to leave Parkland. </q>
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:Sure he took advice around the edges about how best to do it.
You should read Salandria.
Vincent Salandria: "Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012"
<quote on, emphasis added>
I explained [to Specter] that the day after the Kennedy assassination I met with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman. We decided that if Oswald was the killer, and if the U.S. government were innocent of any complicity in the assassination, Oswald would live through the weekend. But if he was killed, then we would know that the assassination was a consequence of a high level U.S. government plot.
Harold Feldman and I also concluded that if Oswald was killed by a Jew, it would indicate a high level WASP plot. We further decided that the killing of Oswald would signal that no government investigation could upturn the truth. In that event we as private citizens would have to investigate the assassination to arrive at the historical truth. </q>Harriman and Bundy were the top Eastern Establishment WASPs in the Kennedy Administration.
-
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:
I doubt Johnson needed a lot of advice about convincing the public, but, yeah, he listened to others' ideas about that (including Alsop). Convincing the public, however, was mainly the job of the sycophantic media, which is still at it 60 years later.
And as we have seen over the years whether the public is on board with what happens in Washington often matters little.
The more important job for the planners was getting the rest of Washington to go along and Johnson was a master at that. The message to AF1 was the first salvo in that effort.
And LBJ’s meeting with Harriman was the second salvo. Salandria suspected a “high level WASP plot” — Harriman and Bundy fit the bill.
-
2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:.With one exception. There would be no attack on Cuba or a preemptive strike at the Soviet Union as the generals wanted. He had lusted after the presidency for decades. He wasn't about to allow his chance to go up in smoke with a nuclear war.
What makes you think Khrushchev would initiate a war the USSR couldn’t win just because the Americans were bombing Cuba?
-
2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:I'm not buying the assertions that various Washington denizens--like Harriman, Joe Alsop, and certainly not Katzenbach--were making decisions or even importantly influencing what LBJ did after the murder. As if LBJ, the master manipulator, was a wet behind the ears newbie to Washington power.
How would that preclude LBJ taking the wise counsel of a high level co-conspirator?
-
LBJ following orders.
Harriman shows up at 18:36.
-
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
You missed Ralph Kramden incredulously asking about Max Holland.
Max Holland lives rent free in Ralph Kramden’s head. Who knew?
-
6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
These other guys---Acheson, Alsop, Rostow, Harriman---they are just side characters. You think LBJ did not call his own shots?
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/johnson-meets-with-the-wise-men-march-25-1968-034945
Johnson meets with ‘The Wise Men,’ March 25, 1968
<quote on>
On this day in 1968, as pessimism over U.S. prospects in Vietnam deepened, President Lyndon B. Johnson met with 14 informal advisers. In 1945, some of them had forged a bipartisan foreign policy based on containing the Soviet Union. They went on to craft key institutions like NATO, the World Bank and the Marshall Plan. They were known, collectively, as “The Wise Men.”
They met with LBJ after being briefed by officials at the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. They had been informed of a request from Gen. William Westmoreland, the top U.S. commander in Vietnam, for additional troops in the wake of perceived U.S. setbacks in the Tet Offensive.
Present at the White House meeting were Dean Acheson, George Ball, McGeorge Bundy, Clark Clifford, Arthur Dean, Douglas Dillon, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Robert Murphy, Cyrus Vance and Gens. Omar Bradley, Matthew Ridgway and Maxwell Taylor.
In the words of Acheson, who summed up the recommendations from 11 of the men, “we can no longer do the job we set out to do in the time we have left, and we must begin to take steps to disengage.” Murphy, Taylor and Fortas dissented.
That was a change from Johnson’s first series of such meetings, on Nov. 1-2, 1967. Then, the Wise Men had unanimously opposed leaving Vietnam. “Public discontent with the war is now wide and deep,” Bundy had said, but he told Johnson to “stay the course.” </q>
In early November, 1967 the Wise Men told LBJ to “stay the course.” He followed their orders. On March 25, ‘68 they told him he needed to find a way out of Vietnam. 6 days later he announced he wasn’t running for re-election. On May 10 the US began negotiations with No. Vietnam.
Who led these talks? Cy Vance and Averell Harriman.
https://www.nytimes.com/1968/11/15/archives/paris-harriman-vance-and-the-peace-talks.html
Jeffrey Sachs on what JFK tried to do that led to his assassination.
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
The US military dropped more bombs on Laos ‘64 - ‘75 than any country endured in the history of the world.
All driven by a “regime change” foreign policy.