Cliff Varnell

Friday, 26 April 1963:

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

Train, Cabot and Associates.

The Train was John Train, CIA-connected descendant of the Enoch Train

opium operation in the 19th century.

And the Cabot family was a leading Boston Brahmin opium smuggling outfit

in the 19th Century.

Makes one wonder whether Train, Cabot was a CIA front -- or was the CIA

a front for the likes of Train, Cabot?

That's a thwacking good question. Whoever was fronting for whom, there's so much more to the George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles show that it royally deserves its own thread.

This is absolutely on topic. The black ops behind the Castro-did-it black op.

I'm of the view that an understanding of the "DeMoh & Charles Show" unlocks a

deeper understanding of the Kennedy assassination.

...Not in Kansas anymore, Dorothe. Seems to me heroin was their game.

I believe that was Dorothy to Toto, and I find your cobbled-together timeline of great and absorbing interest—but I really do believe it must be taken out of this thread, which specifically is concerned with propaganda, and the de Mohrenschildt/Charles show was the antithesis of propaganda, having been largely a covert operation.

I'm going to stay put in this thread, since it all ties together.

What work did deM do in Haiti?

He developed maps, part of a geological survey of Haiti's oil potential, or so the

legend goes.

HSCA:

De Mohrenschildt stated to the Warren Commission that the undertaking in Haiti was a purely commercial and geological interest, with no other "purpose or intent."(107) De Mohrenschildt explained that the office he used in Port-au-Prince was in fact the office of the Inter-American Geodetic Survey, but that the maps he developed were not to be used by any nation or group for any type of work other than his own geological interests.

I submit deM was more interested in identifying the best embarkation points on

the Haitian coast for smuggling operations.

Bill,

I'll argue going forward that the "deMoh & Charles" show is not a side-track

at all, but fundamental to understanding both the "who" and especially the

"why" of the Kennedy assassination.

Friday, 26 April 1963:

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

Train, Cabot and Associates.

The Train was John Train, CIA-connected descendant of the Enoch Train

opium operation in the 19th century.

And the Cabot family was a leading Boston Brahmin opium smuggling outfit

in the 19th Century.

Makes one wonder whether Train, Cabot was a CIA front -- or was the CIA

a front for the likes of Train, Cabot?

That's a thwacking good question. Whoever was fronting for whom, there's so much more to the George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles show that it royally deserves its own thread. With apologies to Bill Kelly, I'll just say briefly here that it seems clear to me now that Operation Red Cross was actually a CIA op to deliver a gaggle of Cubans for something connected with those two, of course having nothing whatsoever to do with picking up any Soviets. (And, naturally, a gaggle of Cubans with arms disappeared, and no Soviets came back.)

Ashton

Ashton,

No apologies necessary. Wondering if the DeMohrenschilt/CJCharles Haiti op was connected in any way with the Bayo-Pawley guys who were coming off an anti-Papa Doc operation?

Ya think?

From Henrik Kruger's The Great Heroin Coup, pg. 146:

Loran Hall, another former Trafficante casino employee, claimed that

both his boss and Sam Giancana had helped plan the [bayo-Pawley] raid.

From the WUBRINY memo:

"Referring to de Mohrenschildt, Mrs. [Dorothe] Matlack said, "'I knew the Texan wasn't

there to sell hemp.'"

Not in Kansas anymore, Dorothe. Seems to me heroin was their game.

[/quote

PLEASE point me toward this WUBRINY memo. I spent long periods of time wit Prouty discussing things and one point he made EVERY time was 'look into Dorothe Mattlack!...and there is precious little on her. She met De Mohrenshschild once when he came to DC to testify, in order to [prep] him I know.....

My mistake, Peter -- it wasn't from the WUBRINY memo, but from the HSCA Staff

interview of Dorothe Matlack, Sept. 4, 1978, (JFK Document No. 015042).

More here under deM's activities in Haiti:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/j.../hscademo.htm#V

Friday, 26 April 1963:

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

Train, Cabot and Associates.

The Train was John Train, CIA-connected descendant of the Enoch Train

opium operation in the 19th century.

And the Cabot family was a leading Boston Brahmin opium smuggling outfit

in the 19th Century.

Makes one wonder whether Train, Cabot was a CIA front -- or was the CIA

a front for the likes of Train, Cabot?

That's a thwacking good question. Whoever was fronting for whom, there's so much more to the George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles show that it royally deserves its own thread.

This is absolutely on topic. The black ops behind the Castro-did-it black op.

I'm of the view that an understanding of the "DeMoh & Charles Show" unlocks a

deeper understanding of the Kennedy assassination.

Here's the cast of main characters:

George de Mohrenschildt

Thomas J. Devine (WUBRINY1)

Clemard Joseph Charles

Train, Cabot and Associates

DeM's Texas financier(s)

Herve Boyer, Haitian Minister of Finance

Joesph F Dryer

The un-named French business partner

Ashton, I've stripped your timeline down to deM business -- thanks for putting

this together.

Emphases mine...

Friday, 19 April 1963

George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt leave Dallas, Texas for Washington, D.C. [NOTE: See entry for 20 April 1963 putting De Mohrenschildt in Washington. From there, the couple will travel also to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—where the wife of James McCord recently has traveled via Dallas—and to New York City.]

Saturday, 20 April 1963

According to a CIA memo, George De Mohrenschildt meets with someone in Washington, D.C. on this date, but the name of the person he met with is blacked out in the memo.

Thursday, 25 April 1963

On or about this date, evidence indicates that Clemard Joseph Charles arrives in Washington, D.C., and is in touch with Army Intelligence's Dorthe Matlack. Charles has been recommended by Joseph Dryer of West Palm Beach, Florida (close to CIA's JM/WAVE) as "a man of great interest to the U.S. Government." [NOTE: It cannot be determined if George De Mohrenschildt is still in Washington, D.C. at the time or not, but the following day he will meet in New York City with Clemard Joseph Charles and others.]

Friday, 26 April 1963

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

1. WUBRINY/1 [Thomas James Devine] telephoned on the sterile line at approximately 17000 hours to report on a meeting held this afternoon, as described below.

2. WUBRINY/1 said that M. Clemard Joseph CHARLES, subject of earlier contact Reports, brought to the WUSALINE office [New York office of Wall Street investment firm Train, Cabot and Associates]:

3. Mr. DeMohrenschildt (deM) is the son of a Swedish father who was in Baku on a Nobel Enterprise at the time deM was born, left Baku at age 2. He has had two wives, the present one having been born in Peiking of Russian-French parents. In 1960 deM spent a year in Mexico with his wife and child and a donkey and is publishing a book on this titled something like 'Trois et le Mule.'

4. WUBRINY/1 says that deM is a geologist who is presently involved in exploring the mineral resources of Haiti and in established [sic] a seisel [sic—sisal] plantation. This has been written up in Le Montour [or Le Monteur] of March 13, 1963, the official issuance of the Haitian Government. WUBRINY/1 has a copy of this in the event it is not available in Kubark.

According to this article, a $280,000 survey has been awarded to deM plus a ten year option of a concession on seisel [sic—sisal].

5. deM claims that he has done geological work for the Meek (?) Company in offshore oil, the Arabian Peninsula, and mentioning this WUBRINY/1 says

deM looked around the room and over his shoulder and said, "My connection with this is, of course, confidential."

6. WUBRINY/1 reports that deM claims to be an important person in Port-au-Prince and said that he did not go to the President to gain the concession, but, instead, worked through the Minister of Finance, Herve Boyer [or Boyar]. deM claims to be very close to this Minister, considers him a splendid person and says that he is likely to survive any change in the regime.

7. WUBRINY/1 characterized deM as being a typical international financier and wheeler and dealer who

apparently shared with M. CHARLES various business interests including a bank and seisel [sic—sisal] business.

8. Regarding financial developments in Haiti, WUBRINY/1 said that M. CHARLES and deM said that they were anxious to develop a number of business interests in the country, including an office in deM's bank [sic—should this be Charles's bank?] which would enter into car financing and would buy some of the bank's commercial paper. WUBRINY/1 said that M. CHARLES made an unusual statement in this connection and announced that the third partner (in addition to M. CHARLES and deM) a Frenchman is arriving in New York n Sunday and a meeting has been set up for WUBRINY/1 to meet him on Monday.

In this connection, M. CHARLES amazing statement was, "It is not appropriate for a banker to ask for money, " and he then deferred further discussion until the arrival of the French partner.

9. WUBRINY/1 said that M CHARLES and deM in listing the various investment possibilities in Haiti mentioned an insurance company, a banking company, a telephone company, a hotel (buy an existing one), a hydro-electric system, a wharf (interesting because of the availability of lumber in Cuba for this and the need to get it out).

10. WUBRINY/1 said that

both men showed an element of bluff in their presentations

and they spoke depreciatingly of the President, but spoke glowingly of the investment possibilities in Haiti.

11. WUBRINY/1 reported that deM was "a paper grabber" stating that every available handout in the office of WUBRINY/1 was sought by deM such as prospecti, lists of Directors, stockholders, etc., etc.

12. I congratulated WUBRINY/1 on eliciting such a tremendous amount of information in one short meeting and asked him to keep it up when the meeting schedule for Monday comes off.

C. FRANK STONE, III

Chief

DO/COEO

DO/COEO/EFS:jj(29 Apr 63)

Distribution:

Orig - EO subject

1 - EO chromo

1 - WUBRINY Ops

[ NARA 1993:07.31.11:47:55:210047]

• On the same day, CIA's Gale Allen, a case officer of the Domestic Operations Division (DOD), initiates a request for an expedite check of George De Mohrenschildt, "exact reasons unknown."

Monday, 29 April 1963

CIA Office of Security finds that it has "no objection" to George De Mohrenschildt's acceptance of a contract with the Duvalier regime of Haiti in the field of "natural resource development." The Office of Security furnishes CIA's Domestic Operations Division (DOD) with a copy of a 1958 summary of the case of George De Mohrenschildt (#775).

[NOTE: There is no known reason why DeMohrenschildt had been "of interest" to the CIA in 1958. This April 1963 event is indicative of one of the oddest anomalies of the many surrounding De Mohrenschildt: his entire raison d'etre, purportedly laid over years or decades, regarding working in Haiti was related to his geological credentials, experience, and research. Later, there even are maps he supplies for possible oil resources around Haiti. Yet this "natural resource development" that he's about to embark on in Haiti with Clemard Joseph Charles is primarily for starting a hemp farm.]

Thursday, 2 May 1963

• [T]here is a meeting between CIA and Clemard Joseph Charles in New York City: "Charles expressed hope that President Kennedy and other high U.S. Government officials will give him an opportunity to present his plan to save Haiti from 'Duvalier and Communism.' He plans to visit his friend and American business partner, Joseph F. Dryer, in Tampa and hopes that an audience with high U.S. Government officials could be arranged after the weekend 'most discreetly.' Utmost caution imperative in this regard since "Papa Doc" Duvalier would kill his family if he learned about Charles' cooperation with U.S. After the four hour interview Charles insisted that we meet his good friend and business partner, DeMohrenschildt. He told us that he has absolute confidence in the honesty and ability of Charles whom he considers a potential leader in a Democratic Haiti. Charles' great advantage is that he has never been tied up with any political party." [NARA 1993.07.31.11:51:57:280047]

Let us add further from another timeline Ashton presented in another thread:

The 10 May 1963 memo from State Department's Haitian Desk characterizing

Clemard Joseph Charles as someone close to the Duvalier government and an

"undesirable character."

And this from the WUBRINY contact report of May 21, 1963:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=9

1. WUBRINY1 telephoned on the sterile line at approximately 1630 hours to pass the

following information:

2. Mr. deMOHRENSCHILDT dropped into the SALINE offices this afternoon. He

said that M. Clemard Joseph CHARLES has returned to Haiti and is being seriously

considered as the next President. Subject said that M. CHARLES is receiving

considerable support and in subject's opinion would make an excellent President

of Haiti as soon as Duvalier can be gotten out.

3. deMOHRENSCHILDT said that he has obtained some Texas financial backing

and that he has visited interested people in Washington regarding M. CHARLES

candidacy. He did not identify these contacts to WUBRINY.

Conspicuously missing from this time-line is any report on the Monday, April 29, '63

meeting between Devine, deM, Charles and the un-named "French business partner."

In light of the above, let's review our cast of characters.

George de Mohrenschildt

According to the official story, deM was in Haiti from 1963 to 1967 on

oil business.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdemohrenschildt.htm

If that's the case, "the Baron" spent four years in Haiti finding not one drop of oil.

He also spent four years not growing any hemp. According to Gaeton Fonzi, the sisal

plantation was "derelict" and never visited.

DeM, suspected of aiding a CIA plot to overthrow Duvalier, also spent four years not

affecting the overthrow of the Haitian tyrant.

According to the official story, deM also looked after the Haitian interests of his long-time

employer, Clint Murchison, Jr. This appears to be the singular success of deM's career

in Haiti.

Clint Murchison, Jr. was in business with Vito Genovese, Meyer Lansky, and Carlos

Marcello, major mafia figures whose principal business was narcotics.

Was it Murchison who was supplying the "Texas financing" deM mentions?

From the memo: "WUBRINY/1 says deM looked around the room and over his shoulder

and said, 'My connection with this is, of course, confidential.'"

Of course, George. Knowledge of guilt so noticed. The ultra-discreet Thomas Devine would

keep anything illegal most confidential.

Thomas J. Devine (WUBRINY1)

George H. W. Bush formed Zapata Offshore with Thomas J. Devine of the CIA

in 1953.

http://www.realnews.org/stories/2007-06-01_bushcia.html

The new revelation about George H.W. Bush's CIA friend and fellow Zapata Offshore board member will surely fuel further speculation that Bush himself had his own associations with the agency.

Indeed, Zapata's annual reports portray a bewildering range of global activities, in the Mideast, Asia and the Caribbean (including off Cuba) that seem outsized for the company's modest bottom line.

Zapata Offshore's annual reports showed a modest bottom line which must account for

George H. W. Bush's accumulated wealth during that period, as well as the "outsized"

operations of his company.

According to Tarpley & Chaitkin, Zapata Offshore provided services for oil drilling

platforms, as well as operating several mobile drilling platforms themselves.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8.htm

Zapata Offshore could send helicopters on "maintenence runs" out to the platforms

and back to the U.S. mainland without rigorous custom's checks, or none at all.

Given Bush's connections with the contra-cocaine smuggling scandal of the

80's, it's fair to speculate that Zapata Offshore was a narcotics smuggling

enterprise.

http://www.fair.org/extra/8910/north-banned.html

"Poppy," indeed.

Clemard Joseph Charles

Question: When is it "not appropriate" for a banker to ask for money,

or otherwise broadcast his services?

Answer: When the banker launders drug money. In such a case, the

client approaches the banker, not the other way around, or else the

banker loses considerable leverage in the negotiation.

Let's get an overview of Clemard Joseph Charles career and those of

some of his later associates...

From Pete Brewton's The CIA, the Mafia, & George Bush, in the

"Cast of Principal Characters" section:

CLEMARD JOSEPH CHARLES, Haitian exile who laundered money for Mario Renda

to bribe union officials; CIA asset; mob money launderer; associate of Miami lawyer

who represented Lawrence Freeman.

LAWRENCE FREEMAN, disbarred Miami attorney and convicted money launderer for

cocaine smuggler Jack DeVoe;...former law partner of CIA super-operative Paul Helliwell

and alleged money launderer for Mafia boss Santo Trafficante.

MARIO RENDA, Long Island money broker...convicted felon and Mafia associate with

a number of CIA buddies.

JACK DEVOE, convicted cocaine trafficker and CIA-connected arms smuggler...

Charles operated at the nexus of the CIA/drug-smuggling/arms-smuggling/money

laundering. He was regarded as an "undesirable character" even before he

hooked up with the CIA!

Train, Cabot and Associates

Would descendants of opium smugglers ever be tempted to pick up the old

family trade?

Did these families ever fully divest of their interest in international narcotics

distribution?

DeM's Texas financier(s)

Was deM acting as an agent for the mobbed-up Murchison?

Herve Boyer, Haitian Minister of Finance

Here's a great article about Mohamed Al Fayed and the corrupt nature of

the Haitian government in the pertinent time period, and the activities of

Boyer, Charles, and deM post-JFK.

http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%206/page35.html

By 1962 the US had cut off aid and President Kennedy had sworn to destroy the dictator even though Haiti - 80 kilometres off the south-eastern tip of Cuba - was seen as an essential bulwark in the fight against communism creeping throughout the Caribbean and Central America. Most foreign investors had already abandoned the country along with the educated local elite and the expat community of writers, artists and adventurers. As a result, by 1964 anyone who landed in Haiti with the air of prosperity and the right connections got a royal welcome.

Did deMo do anything other than socialize, and sweat the JFK investigations?

Joesph F Dryer

Charles' U.S. contact testified before the HSCA.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscademo.htm

Emphasis mine...

Dryer said he met George de Mohrenschildt through Charles. Dryer said that

de Mohrenschildt claimed he came to Haiti to scout for oil, but Dryer stated that "I

could never figure out what he did." Dryer expressed the belief that de Mohrenschildt

had "some intelligence connection," but Dryer did not know with which country.

The un-named French business partner

In this scenario the Frenchman belongs to the Corsican Mafia, which controlled

the production of heroin in the late-40's, 50's and 60's. The deal set up in the offices

of Train, Cabot involved the Frenchman bringing the heroin to Haiti under the auspices

of Boyer and Charles, with deMohenschildt sheparding its delivery to Zapata Offshore

facilities (their own drilling platforms or other platforms they "serviced") where it would

be transported to the mainland and turned over to Sicilian/American syndicate

distributors Stateside.

From the Staff interview of Dorothe Matlack, Sept. 4, 1978, House Select committee on

Assassinations (JFK Document No. 015042)

"Referring to de Mohrenschildt, Mrs. [Dorothe] Matlack said, "'I knew the Texan wasn't

there to sell hemp.'"

Not in Kansas anymore, Dorothe. Seems to me heroin was their game.

Friday, 26 April 1963:

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

Train, Cabot and Associates.

The Train was John Train, CIA-connected descendant of the Enoch Train

opium operation in the 19th century.

And the Cabot family was a leading Boston Brahmin opium smuggling outfit

in the 19th Century.

Makes one wonder whether Train, Cabot was a CIA front -- or was the CIA

a front for the likes of Train, Cabot?

If your favorite indoor sport is trying to figure out or "prove" whether the purported bullet wound that "everybody knows" was in John F. Kennedy's throat was an inny or an outty, this article is useless to you, so please pass on by and find something else to do.

It doesn't work that way around here.

But out of respect for you, Brother Ashton, I will simply note

a far more compelling counter-argument and withdraw.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

In re Silence:

I am sincerely flattered.

Keeping up? I do not believe Cheney ever contemplated running for the presidency. If he had, I think that hunting accident did him in!

You fail to catch my drift...Cheney was de facto C-in-C prior to the 2006

election.

Cliff, that did not, however, answer my question.

And to say Baker is running THIS Bush WH is to laugh! Look at how the POTUS treated the recommendations of the panel upon which Baker served.

You're not keeping up.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-infor...12112006-1.html

The 2006 election cost Cheney the presidency.

[cue Silence of the Lambs]

Lecter: I've read the case file -- have you? Everything you need

to find him is right there in those pages.

Starling: Then tell me how.

Lecter: First principles, Clarice! Simplicity! Read Marcus Aurelius -- of

each particular thing ask, What is it in itself? What is it's nature? What does

he do -- this man you seek?

Starling: He kills women.

Lecter: That's inciden-tull. What is the first and principal thing he does?

What needs does he serve by killing?

Starling: Anger...um...social acceptance...and, uh...sexual frustration--

Lecter: --No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet,

Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.

Starling: No, we just...

Lecter: No, we begin by coveting what we see every day.

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_226-250/doc0234-66A.html

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmurchison.htm

And why pray tell would Harriman want a contingency plan to kill the President whose election he had supported?

I think you're under two mis-impressions.

1) You think the President of the United States is in charge. (And right

now it isn't Cheney, either. It's James Baker.)

2) You think that the D/R dichotomy is real at the elite levels. (The Bush family

embodies the legacy of W. Averell Harriman -- the Clintons embody the legacy of

Pamela Harriman.)

Cliff wrote:

Their ultimate goal was the re-establishment of the

Havana-to-Florida smuggling routes that flourished pre-Castro. When Oswald

was captured the plan was foiled (the plot required "irrevocable proof of Castro

involvement," not a live patsy) and Harriman cut his losses by scotching the

Castro-did-it scenario.

Of course there is no more evidence that Harriman did it than that Dillon did it. There, I defended a Democrat!

Actually, I'm leaning toward the view that Harriman tried to abort the

assassination of JFK, an operation he sponsored with others but could

not call off. Nor did he want the operation exposed, as he intended it

to remain as a contingency.

I suspect Tosh Plumlee was telling the truth about an abort mission.

After the overthrow of Diem as per his desire, Harriman was in charge

of U.S. foreign policy. He had his own back door channel to Castro going,

and, I'll argue going forward, Harriman "felt adventuresome enough" to try

and land an exclusive smuggling arrangement between Castro's people

and the Harriman-Bush Crime family entity -- Zapata Off-Shore.

Remember this fact: in 1989 several men who worked directly under

George H. W. Bush were barred from entry into Costa Rica because,

according to the Costa Rican parliament, these "contra supply" people

had set up a drug-smuggling operation on Costa Rican soil.

http://www.fair.org/extra/8910/north-banned.html

At the head of the American "contra supply" network was George H. W. Bush.

They don't call him "Poppy" because of his kids.

5. Harriman and other transportation tycoons and criminal

syndicate chiefs conspired to kill Kennedy in such a way as to establish a pre-text

for the invasion of Cuba. Their ultimate goal was the re-establishment of the

Havana-to-Florida smuggling routes that flourished pre-Castro. When Oswald

was captured the plan was foiled (the plot required "irrevocable proof of Castro

involvement," not a live patsy) and Harriman cut his losses by scotching the

Castro-did-it scenario.

My Dear Cliff,

Yet again I must reluctantly take you to task for clinging to that absurdly literal appreciation of the ultimate purpose of the Cuba ruse.

I do so not out of any personal animus; truth be told, I find much to admire and agree with in the majority of your unrelated analyses.

Thank you, Charles. I regard you as a Brother-in-Arms, and our

disagreements are minor in comparison to that upon which we agree.

My purpose here is once again to direct inquiring minds to the earlier, lengthy exchanges between myself and Robert Charles-Dunne on this matter. Therein the truth doth reside.

At the sponsorship level, the assassins NEVER intended for the death of JFK to prompt an invasion of Cuba. If such had NOT been the case, there was absolutely NOTHING about the capture of LHO that would have necessitated a pull-back from a real invasion plan.

Repeat: There was absolutely NOTHING about the capture of LHO that would have necessitated a pull-back from a real invasion plan.

This is where we diverge. The capture of Oswald rendered inoperable major

parts of the Castro-did-it "black op."

How could Hoover claim as a fact that LHO had been to Cuba, or Phillips/CIA claim

as a fact that LHO had met with Kostikov -- and make it stick -- with the patsy

alive and declaring his innocence?

Again, I cite the Pentagon's own evidentiary standards for a false flag attack on Cuba:

From James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS (pg 84)

(quote on, emphasis added)

On February 20, 1962, [John] Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida,

on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues

of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But [Chairman

of the JCS] Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to

[Operation Mongoose chief] Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn,

"the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the

Communists et al Cuba [sic]." This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued,

"by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference

on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into

space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as

a pre-text to launch a war.

(quote off)

The objective in the Kennedy assassination was the same as in Operation Dirty Tricks

(the exploding Glenn scenario): to provide irrevocable proof of Castro sponsorship

of the assassination. This absolutely required either a patsy shot dead or a patsy who

"disappeared."

The worst possible outcome for the perps, short of JFK surviving, actually occurred:

a patsy captured alive who needed to be silenced in a very messy, very public manner.

The false linkage of LHO to Cuba was developed to scare off would-be investigators who otherwise could not be bought off.

Period.

The false evidence for the linkage had to be good enough to withstand honest, intelligent, superficial scrutiny.

The ruse worked. Earl Warren soiled his robes worrying about World War III being unleashed should the Castro-did-it leads prove real.

By the time of the assassination, Cuba was no longer in play in terms of drug trafficking. Alternatives -- more profitable alternatives -- long had been identified and put into play.

After he was kicked out of Havana in 1959, Lanksy needed

several years to re-constitute his casino/narcotics operations in the Bahamas.

From Life magazine, 2/3/67, "Scandal In The Bahamas":

[The member of Bahamas' elite] who held more power and

influence than anyone else in the colony--more than either the royal governor or the

premier--was the Minister of Finance and Tourism...Sir Stafford Sands, 53,

multimillionaire lawyer, gourmet, collector of antique paperweights and of Yankee

dollars. In the halcyon pre-election days, nothing involving any substantial exchange

of money was likely to take place in the Bahamas without the consent and support of

Sir Stafford, who also often expected a whopping legal fee.

Bigtime gambling was conveyed to the islands in 1964 by Sir Stafford, and it

has proved to be a bigger tourist attraction than all the sun and sea and French

perfume and duty-free liquor put together...

Sir Stafford's name is not listed on the board of directors of Bahamas Amusements,

Ltd., which controls the islands' big casinos, but neither are the names of Meyer

Lansky and his confederates in the Mafia...

Sir Stafford admits he has met Lansky, long-time associate of the late Bugsy Siegal

and Lucky Luciano. As Sir Stafford recalls it, the mobster, a specialist in casinos,

came to call on him in his Bay Street offices in 1960 and offered him $1 million to his

credit in a secret Swiss bank account in exchange for exclusive gambling rights on the

islands. Sir Stafford says he indignantly turned the offer down. Yet, when bigtime

gambling finally did come four years later, Lansky's henchmen were dealing the cards.

This indicates to me that Lansky didn't find it a piece of cake to re-establish

his operations in the Bahamas. As of November 1963, I'll argue, the return

of the easy days of 1950's Havana remained at the top of Lansky's wish list.

We are, after all, talking about the ultimate capitalists when we reference drug traffickers; to think that they would have maintained a dependency on Cuba or endured a significant disruption of their operations when superior options were on the table makes no sense whatsoever.

I'll argue that none of the options on the table were

superior to the Havana-to-Florida smuggling funnel of the '50's. The

governments of Haiti and the Dominican Republic were highly unstable;

the Bahamas was more expensive.

Further, Castro was then, as he is now, of ultimate value as a bogey man. In other words, he's more valuable alive than dead.

At the facilitator level of the assassination there were, of course, individuals who believed that their actions inevitably would lead to the liberation of Cuba. After the fact they were either bought off or put down.

And spare me the "JCS wanted to invade" argument. The anti-Communist crusade in Southeast Asia had become their number one priority. Cuba was contained. Cuba could be used to justify immense defense expenditures in its region.

Cuba and Fidel would be protected at all costs.

The real fight -- for the military and the drug traffickers (distinction without a difference?) -- was to be fought in and around the Golden Triangle.

Charles Drago

Then why take out Kennedy? He was AWOL in the decision-making over the Diem

coup -- his Secretary of the Treasury, one C. Douglas Dillon, verbally bitch-slapped

Kennedy for his indecisiveness over Diem.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/vn07.pdf

What did Harriman/Bundy and the other dedicated cold warriors in his

Administration fear from JFK? They over-ruled Bobby on Diem, after all.

And Charles, if the sole purpose of the assassination was to remove Kennedy,

why not whack him in his sleep, which was well within their capability?

I have to point out an obvious inconsistency in Cliff's analysis.

He says that the CIA "worked for Harriman".

He claims that it was Harriman who effectively scotched the CIA "black op" to blame the assassination on Castro.

But if Harriman's "control" of the CIA was as effective as Cliff asserts why would the CIA have started the "black op" without Harriman's consent?

Why would we assume they did?

Or does Cliff believe that Harriman was in fact the "big fish" in the assassination since he controlled the CIA?

One of the "big fish," yes. But not the only one.

If Harriman controlled the CIA and IF the CIA killed John (which it did not but never mind that for purposes of this argument) then obviously Harriman sanctioned the assassination.

Let's say he was "feeling adventuresome enough."

If he did not so sanction it, that fact clearly establishes that Harriman did not in fact "control" the CIA.

So only one of these propositions can be true:

1. The CIA killed John but Harriman did not control the CIA.

2. The CIA killed John and Harriman approved it.

3. The CIA did not kill John and Harriman controlled the CIA

4. The CIA did not kill John and Harriman did not control the CIA.

5. Harriman and other transportation tycoons and criminal

syndicate chiefs conspired to kill Kennedy in such a way as to establish a pre-text

for the invasion of Cuba. Their ultimate goal was the re-establishment of the

Havana-to-Florida smuggling routes that flourished pre-Castro. When Oswald

was captured the plan was foiled (the plot required "irrevocable proof of Castro

involvement," not a live patsy) and Harriman cut his losses by scotching the

Castro-did-it scenario.

What Cliff presumably asserts is: 1. Harriman controlled the CIA. 2. The CIA killed JFK. AND 3. Harriman was not "the big fish". But those three items don't fit together.

See above.

Cliff, if as you say the CIA worked for Harriman, then either Harriman was the ultimate sponsor of the assassination, or the CIA did not do it. Those are your only choices.

One of the ultimate sponsors. Other than the Kennedys, of course,

the big loser on Eleven Twenty Two was Averell Harriman.

Cliff, well I agree completely with your last declaration. Although it is clear that the "Kremlinologists" were rendering a judgment about what the Soviet hierarchy might do.

Re the Kostikov meeting, if you believe it probably occured (as I take it you do) you can hardly believe it was a "black op" unless you believe the CIA sent LHO to meet with Kostikov.

You wrote:

The CIA worked for Harriman.

All I can say is "Huh?" Where the heck do you get that from?

In light of the fact I cited my source and a relevant passage therein, and

you are pretending that I didn't, I'd have to say that this discussion has

ground to an end.

Cliff, you still have not answered MY question.

Did Oswald meet with Kostikov from KGB Dept 13 or didn't he?

All I know is what I read in SWHT, and other books.

Since I was an 8 year old in Petaluma, CA, I wouldn't have

been in a position to know that for a fact or not, now, would I?

And you believe LBJ would have gone to war merely because Hoover reached a conclusion without any evidence for it?

No, I don't agree with your characterization of my argument. But thanks

for asking.

With respect, I think your bio is wrong. You must be living in Disneyland.

Sure sign yer stuck when ya gotta bend over backwards for lame insults.

Your argument is that the CIA was running a "black op" but it was single-handedly derailed by Harriman? Apparently Angleton thought Harriman was a Commie agent. Regardless of that, why would the CIA suspend its "Black op" merely because Harriman said there was no conspiracy?

The CIA worked for Harriman.

From George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Webster Tarpley

and Anton Chaitkin:

http://www.tarpley.net/bush4.htm

A central focus of the Harriman security regime in Washington (1950-53) was the

organization of covert operations, and `` psychological warfare. '' Harriman, together

with his lawyers and business partners, Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles, wanted

the government's secret services to conduct extensive propaganda campaigns and

mass-psychology experiments within the U.S.A., and paramilitary campaigns abroad.

This would supposedly ensure a stable world-wide environment favorable to

Anglo-American financial and political interests.

Your allegation of a Harriman/Bush "crime family" is so wacko it is unworthy of a reply.

So debunk Tarpley and Chaitkin. And isn't it funny that if I called

Joe Kennedy for what he was -- a Hitler supporting, bootlegging

gangster -- you wouldn't have a problem with that construct, would

you, Tim?

No wonder the mainstream media wants to avoid discussion of a possible conspiracy. You can believe what you want when your beliefs need not be anchored in reality.

And yet there it is, this discrepancy you can't answer and can't face:

Max Holland's The Kennedy Assassination tapes, pg 57:

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten-minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright (D-Arkansas) and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year Soviet sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during World War II, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. governments top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets had a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

No way this determination of Soviet innocence could have legitimately

taken place in less than six hours, and you know it, Tim.

Bill, I appreciate your "admission" that you cannot explain why the CIA could not produce photos of LHO at the Communist embassies in MC. It just seems to me that had there been a "black op" in progress the men running the op would have had all their ducks in a row prior to November 22nd.

And I await your answer to why if there was a "black op" it did not include things such as money deposited into an "Oswald" bank account; a faked transcript of a LHO meeting with a Communist in either of the embassies, and on and on ad infinitum. I mean, if you or I were running it don't you think we could have planted absolutely damning evidence either at LHO's rooming house or in Mrs. Paine's garage?

So far, no one has even tried to respond to this rather obvious question.

So far, Tim has a perfect record of ignoring the answers given him.

Your reply makes no sense whatsoever.

J. Edgar Hoover occupied a near-mythical position in American life in 1963,

such that his word on the guilt of Castro would have been sufficient to establish

a pre-text for war, given the amount of ginned up "evidence" already prepared

in the CIA "black op."

Seems abundantly clear to me, so I'd have to put it down as your problem

alone.

Have you even read the transcript of the Hoover telephone call to LBJ on the morning of the 23rd? It sure does not appear that you have.

The transcript only covers about half of the time of the phone call.

In the transcript Hoover expresses his "confusion" over the reports

coming out of Mexico City, and doesn't seem happy with his assignment

to frame one man for the job.

Why do you ask?

Why do you continue to ignore my citation of 7PM 11/22/63 as the moment

the Official Scenario was laid down by Harriman?

You refuse to even say whether you believe Oswald actually met Kostikov.

As Michael pointed out, no way did LBJ say at 4:15 p.m. that there was a Communist conspiracy.

LBJ was on Air Force One at that time. Earlier, he said he didn't want to

leave Dallas until he found out "if it was a communist conspiracy."

(See Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked).

LBJ didn't leave Dallas until after Oswald was arrested.

According to Vincent Salandria, McGeorge Bundy from the White House

Situation Room informed Johnson on AF1 that a lone nut was the killer.

See, the Yale boys called the shots.

Anything different these days?

He was careful not even to label Oswald as a Communist.

It must be sad and difficult to defend a pet theory unsupported by the facts.

American foriegn policy has been hijacked by a criminal enterprise called the

Harriman-Bush Crime Family for over 80 years.

I've so argued and you haven't offered a single rebuttal.

And again no answer why there was no REAL smoking gun and why the CIA could not even produce photos of LHO in Mexico City, Some black op!

They weren't allowed to bring out all the ginned up intel.

Harriman said no.

It's right there in the record, in a book by a LNer no less.

Harriman called the shots, and the "black op" continued to twitch

even in death.

Cliff: Oswald's talk with Kostikov was not a smoking gun; although probably it could be considered at least a "non-smoking gun".

Would have been if Hoover said it was.

Do you believe that LHO indeed met Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy?

This isn't about what anybody believes. The fact is Hoover was ready

to link Oswald to Cuba at 4:15pm and Averell Harriman scotched that

play at 7pm.

It's all right there in the record.

If so, do you then believe that the Soviets were indeed behind the assassination? (Since YOU consider it a smoking gun".)

Yeah, you better draw me a diagram. Your scenario eludes me.

I don't have the energy. If you don't understand Hoover's status in

America in 1963 no diagram will help you.

Do you believe that LHO was in Mexico City and met Kostikov? If so, do you believe the CIA somehow set up that meeting?

If LHO actually met Kostikov, it certainly does raise disturbing possibilities.

Then why do you have difficulty processing the fact that all Hoover had to do

was exploit this "disturbing possibility" along the lines of the "black op"?

He didn't have the chance.

It is interesting that we share a disdain for Harriman. As I said in a previos thread, Harriman's advise to JFK on Diem led JFK into the biggest mistake in his presidency.

But I fail to see why LBJ would have to follow the "Harriman line".

Who do you think runs this country? Hint: the robber baron families of yore,

well, they never stopped rob'n...

All right, Cliff, since neither Bill nor Robert nor Ashton can answer my question, let me put it to you since unless it can be answered it demolishes the rather ridiculous "black op" theory:

If it was a "black op" why was the perpetrator not smart enough to plant a "smoking gun" conclusively establishing Cuban complicity.

They only needed Hoover to declare Oswald an agent of Fidel.

All Hoover had to do was trot out the Kostikov-Oswald connection,

but the CIA never got the chance to produce that.

Hoover/Phillips et al were cut off at the pass by Harriman around 7pm 11/22/63.

What part of this eludes your understanding?

Do you need me to draw a diagram, Tim?

As I suggested before, a substantial deposit of money into an Oswald or Hidell bank account shortly after LHO returned from Mexico City is just one possibility. The CIA certainly had at its disposal the resources to create such a "smoking gun".

And Cliff, perhaps you kind be kind enough to quote a single source where Hoover or McCone (or any other CIA officer at Langley) attempted to push a foreign conspiracy scenario on LBJ? Take all the time you want.

Take all the time you want to process the fact that the "Official Scenario"

was enforced by W. Averell Harriman around 7pm on 11/22/63.

From that point forward all employees of the US gov't -- especially Johnson

and Hoover -- had to promote the "lone nut" scenario.

Regarding the Harriman direction, obviously there was no way to exclude Soviet complicity in just a few hours.

Correct!

And yet that was the official position of the US gov't at 7pm 11/22/83.

Why?

Because Harriman said so.

Why did the US overthrow Diem?

Because Harriman said so.

Who was in control of American foreign policy on 11/22/63?

I think the answer is obvious.

Although I am not going to push the idea here, I will note that there were those who thought Harriman himself was working for the Soviets.

Since the guy had at one time financed the Soviets and the Nazis simultaneously,

I'd say he was working for the Harriman Crime Family, or more accurately, the

Harriman-Bush Crime Family.

I thank Michael as well.

I knew that Talbot's citation was to "Breach of Trust" but unfortunately I do not have that book as yet.

Michael is correct that the source cited by Talbot does not support his generalization.

It supports my frankly obvious observation that Hoover and the CIA were both

pushing the same "black op" scenario -- Oswald tied to Cuba and thus Castro.

Michael's point is well-taken. Although Hoover had many of his facts wrong, he did not even claim that LHO was a Communist. Rather, he carefully put it that he had "Communist leanings".

And he said that Oswald had been to Cuba, which is a lie along the lines of

the other lies of the "CIA black op."

Your bending over backwards to ignore the obvious seems painful.

You can look through all of Hoover's calls to LBJ in the "Assassination Tapes" and you will NOT see Hoover pushing any idea of a foreign conspiracy upon LBJ.

I cite the fact -- as established in The Assassination Tapes -- that Averell Harriman

barely allowed LBJ to take his coat off at the White House before informing him the

that the Soviets were in no way involved.

The crime hadn't been 6 hours old and already Harriman's "Kremlinologists" had

investigated the USSR-defecting Oswald and concluded the Soviets weren't involved.

Isn't it facinating that the FBI and the CIA had one narrative for Oswald on 11/22/63

and Harriman already had the case wrapped up with an entirely different narrative?

And as we all know, by the end of the week when he was assembling the WC, LBJ made remarks about the importance of dispelling the rumours of a Communist conspiracy.

The record is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR: neither the FBI nor the CIA was pushing a foreign conspiracy POV on EITHER LBJ or the members of the WC.

The record is abundantly clear that Harriman visited the White House and

laid down the law before 7pm on Eleven Twenty Two. Johnson and Hoover

and all the rest followed their orders, Tim.

Simple as that.

Also I don't see where Hoover claimed it was a Castro conspiracy during that particular phone call to

Robert Kennedy.

Thanks for pulling that out for us, Michael.

The fact stands: Hoover did claim to have evidence that Oswald had been

to Cuba, very much along the lines of the so-called "CIA black op."

My point stands: all the false flag attempt needed was the word from

Hoover that Oswald connected to Cuba.

There is evidence that Hoover was prepared to press the claim.

There is evidence that the word of Harriman, however, carried the day.

Cliff, Cliff, Cliff,

I will check that quote.

There is a FBI memo that records the fact that that Hoover

made the call to Bobby. Talbot reconstructed the contents of the call by talking

to Bobby's people.

It is my recollection Talbot does not offer a good cite for the alleged Hoover statement and I do not recall it being in the taped LBJ phone conversations with Hoover. I assume you recall that the WH called the Dallas DA on the night of the assassination to order him not to include any claim in the LHO indictment that it was a foreign conspiracy.

I suggest you go to Max Holland's book and look up what happened

a few minutes after LBJ walked in the door of the WH -- W Averell Harriman informed

the new President that the Soviets were not involved.

Harriman: Employer.

Johnson: Employee.

Get it?

But, with respect but amazement, your apparent ignorance of the bureacracy amazes me.

Hoover was FBI not CIA. Hoover hated the CIA.

It may further amaze you (will your heart stand it, Tim?) that the

cover-up of the Kennedy assassination was given to J. Edgar Hoover, of the FBI.

The killing and the cover-up were not necessarily done by the same folks (is that

thud the sound of Tim hitting the floor?)

Phillips would have been at the intersection of the crime and the cover-up.

We have now seen that CIA officers in Mexico City were debunking the Alvardo story at the same time the JM WAVE was trying to get control of DRE to stop DRE from making "dramatic" statements linking LHO to the government of Cuba.

Whatever Hoover did or did not tell LBJ

Bobby Kennedy. What Hoover told Bobby.

What Hoover told Bobby was the very same "CIA black op" scenario -- Castro

did it. Hoover was also working that same scenario, the institutional hostilities

aside.

Hoover had the main responsibility for the cover-up no matter how it was

going to be presented -- lone nut, Castro-did-it, or right-wing-nuts.

has absolutely nothing to do with the premise of this thread that it was a CIA "black op".

I believe that premise has now been refuted beyond any reasonable doubt.

What you believe is of little consequence given your intentional

blind spots.

I cited what Hoover told Kennedy -- the same story as the "black op."

Hoover and Phillips ran into Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy.

The Yalies prevailed.

But don't let me stop you from pretending that the CIA "black op"

and Hoover's claims to Bobby -- which were identical -- were just a

co-incidence. or it never happened.

If the assassination was, as you and BK assert, a CIA "black op" to tie Castro to the assassination and thus smear him (maybe even initiate an invasion) don't you suppose someone at the CIA would have had the intelligence and wherewithal to create a real "smoking gun"? The absence of such a smoking gun, I suggest, invalidates your premise.

Gentle reader,

It doesn't matter how many times this question has been answered, Tim

dismisses it as something he just doesn't believe.

In Talbot's Brothers pg 10 we find that Hoover called Bobby

and claimed it was a Castro conspiracy. Bobby didn't buy it, and more

importantly, W. Averell Harriman put a stop to any notion of Soviet

involvement (see Holland's The Assassination Tapes 6:50pm

11/22/63).

I don't have the energy to dig out the quote.

All the Castro-did-it false flag needed was Hoover making a definitive

statement that Castro put the Commie Oswald up to it, and the US

military would have, in the words of Richard Helms, "bombed Cuba back

into the middle ages."

Tim will continue to pretend Talbot got it wrong.

And I stated I am going to write to Ayers to see if he can substantiate a word he wrote about that story.

But again, dear readers, don't hold your breath waiting for his reply.

I met a homeless guy in the laundromat who said he once worked for

the CIA in Afghanistan.

How does my relating that story, from a source who may or may not

be credible, reflect negatively on my credibility?

Similarly, isn't Ayers just relating something someone told him?

Strange game of "gotcha" ya got go'n here, Tim...