Cliff Varnell

Charles Drago

Will do, Charles, will do... As to the Harriman-Johnson meeting, which occurred minutes after LBJ's arrival at the White House the evening of 11/22/63, isn't it amazing that "the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists" cracked the case in a matter of hours, at least to the extent they could categorically exclude Soviet involvement? That's BS, of course. It was Harriman's way of ordering LBJ to back off the "Commie conspiracy" angle. Salandria's speculation regarding Bonesman Bundy in the Situation Room is consistent with Bonesman Harriman at the WH making his case for non-Communist involvement. With whom did Johnson first speak when he got to the White House? Bundy, ten minutes before Harriman showed up. With whom did Johnson meet first thing the following morning? Bundy. The die was cast when Oswald was captured alive: the dream of a US invasion of Cuba in retaliation was as dead as Kennedy himself. Bamford's Body Of Secrets, pg 84: (quote on) 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) Same line of thinking went into the JFK assassination, which was plotted by the some of the same people (Lansdale), imo. "The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba." The capture of Oswald deprived the plotters of their ultimate objective, the "irrevocable proof" standard which would have allowed them to make the case for Castro complicity. The powers-that-be pulled the plug on the Cuba-invasion plans not so much out of fear of World War III, but out of the conviction that they couldn't make the case against Castro stick. The plotters continued to try to make that case, to no avail. As I noted in my previous post, I don't think this was a case of "cooler heads" so much as "cold feet" on the part of Harriman.

It was Salandria who wrote that, actually.

Robert Charles-Dunne: You write that acceptance of this scenario " ... pre-supposes that those in charge of making the invasion plans were witting of the assassination in advance, waited only for their pretext to be executed, and that despite having their finger on the trigger aimed at Havana, they balked when the time came to fire." Charles Drago: I suspect that plans for the invasion of Cuba were extant long before 11/22/63 and were constantly upgraded via gaming and other means, and that planners were awaiting some sort of precipitating event. To my knowledge, no one has suggested that a retaliatory landing would have followed on the heels (within days) of JFK's murder, so I can't accept that fingers were on hair triggers. *** I can. Richard Helms has been quoted (by an LNer, no less) as saying that had Castro been proven to have killed Kennedy, “We would have bombed Cuba back into the middle ages.” http://hnn.us/articles/20369.html From Body Of Secrets, James Bamford, pg 87, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer wrote in a memorandum to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, April 10, 1962: (quote on, emphasis added) The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military intervention in Cuba without risk of general war. They also believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action. (quote off) From Someone Would Have Talked, by Larry Hancock, ppg 401-2: (quote on) At 1:15 PM on November 22, when the President was known to be dead, [assistant press secretary] 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... ...Before Johnson's departure from Dallas, Lee Oswald had been taken into custody and a frantic background search was underway for information about him as Air Force One was flying back to Washington. We now know that as Hoover was making telephone calls and sending memoranda on Lee Oswald, his own file on Oswald contained detailed information on his recent contacts with the KGB head of assassination and sabotage for the Americas. (quote off) From Brothers, David Talbot, pg 10: (quote on) ...(I)t's important to note that [bobby] Kennedy apparently never jumped to the conclusion that afternoon that Fidel Castro -- the target of so much U.S. intrigue -- was behind his brother's killing. It was the anti-Castro camp where Bobby's suspicions immediately flew, not pro-Castro agents. ...Bobby came to this conclusion despite the energetic efforts of the CIA and the FBI, which almost immediately after the assassination began trying to pin the blame on Castro's government. Hoover himself phoned Kennedy again around four that afternoon to inform him that Oswald had shuttled in and out of Cuba, which was untrue...[T]he FBI chief failed to convince Bobby that the alleged assassin was a Castro agent. (quote off) Although Hoover and Johnson appear to have been pre-disposed to a "Communist conspiracy," cooler heads did, indeed, prevail -- although I think it was a case of "cooler feet" prevailing. The capture of the innocence-proclaiming Oswald deprived the plotters of "irrevocable proof" that Castro was behind the assassination, and thus control of the cover-up was lost. Vincent Salandria has written: (quote on) The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the lone assassin...McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth. (quote off) From The Assassination Tapes, Max Holland, pg. 57: (quote on) At 6:55 p.m. [11/22/63] Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association. (quote off) After Oswald was captured, Johnson spoke no more of a "communist conspiracy": the Yale Boys Harriman and Bundy took control of the direction of the cover-up, dictating the "lone nut" scenario to Johnson and Hoover, who reluctantly followed orders.

Charles, The Mob's Cuban businesses like gambling, prostitution, infrastructure control were small potatoes compared to the amount of heroin that was flowing from Havana to Florida under Batista. Alfred W. McCoy, THE POLITICS OF HEROIN, pgs 40-41: (quote on, emphasis added) [Mafia capo di tutti capi Lucky] Luciano's 1947 visit to Cuba laid the groundwork for Havana's subsequent role in international narcotics smuggling traffic. Arriving in January, Luciano summoned the leaders of American organized crime, including Meyer Lansky, to Havana for a meeting and began paying extravagant bribes to prominent Cuban officals as well..."Cuba was to be made the center of all international narcotics operations." Harry J. Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics... ...By the early 1950s...[santo Trafficante Jr.]'s official position in Havana was that of manager of the Sans Souci Casino, but he was far more important than his title indicates. As his father's financial representative, and ultimately Meyer Lansky's, Santo controlled much of Havana's tourist industry and became quite close to the pre-Castro dictator Fulgencio Batista. Moreover, it was reportedly his responsibility to receive the bulk shipments of heroin from Europe and forward them through Florida to New York and other major urban centers where their distribution was assisted by local Mafia leaders. (quote off) The GREAT HEROIN COUP, Kruger, pg 89: (quote on) The tight control over the U.S. heroin market by the Cotronis of Montreal and Trafficante of Tampa was a legacy of Meyer Lanksy and Lucky Luciano's reorganization of the U.S. heroin market. Lanksy built himself a fantastic empire headquartered in Havana, and literally governed Cuba over the head of dictator Fulgencio Batista. Lansky became the world's uncrowned narcotics king. His decisions affected everyone, including the bigwigs in France and Italy. He invested in the Marseilles labs and had the Corsicans reorganize themselves more efficiently. When Castro drove him from Cuba, Lansky created a similar gambling paradise in Nassau. (quote off) The Havana-to-Florida smuggling funnel was at least as prized as the Golden Triangle, and its loss caused major dislocations in the heroin trade. From THE GREAT HEROIN COUP, pg 89: (quote on) [by 1970] [t]here were five main heroin export routes to the U.S.A., two by air and three by sea. The shipping lanes emanated from Barcelona, Lisbon, and Antwerp and either ended in Brazil/Paraguay, Haiti and the French West Indies, or went directly to the east coast of the United States. Heroin smuggled into the U.S. from the French Antilles and Haiti, like that from Paraguay, went via Florida or Mexico... Heroin leaving Haiti, the Antilles, Nassau, and the Paraguay-based Ricord Mob wound up in Florida, where Santo Trafficante, Jr. and the Cuban Mafia controlled the drug business in an axis that became the U.S.A.'s most powerful narcotics organization. (quote off) After Castro took power, Lanksy had to go to Nassau, Trafficante at one point set-up shop in the Dominican Republic, and Haiti appears to have been a free-for-all among corrupt government officials in business for themselves. In 1963 the Corsican Mafia controlled the production of heroin from the poppy fields in Turkey to the heroin labs in Marseilles. The Sicilian-American Outfit controlled the distribution of heroin in the United States. The Corsicans sought to develop their own American distribution, but failed. The US Mob sought to develop their own sources of supply, and eventually succeeded in eliminating the Corsicans in the early 70's. But that value was surely a door prize compared to the advantage of having the international hub of heroin trafficking 90 miles from its biggest market.

As a dedicated anti-Harrimanite, Cliff, have you read this? Anti-Harrimanite! Love it...with the caveat that I think Averell was a big loser on 11/22/63, and had had strong second-thoughts about a plot he'd previously approved. A Skull & Bones thang, no doubt...

Highly unlikely given Susan Atkins sensational LA Times piece of December 14, 1969. http://books.google.com/books?id=vIrB5r5Bu...CiogHpZ5p4ng67Q Atkins' tale appeared 8 days after the Hells Angels rioted at Altamont during the infamous Rolling Stones concert tragedy, and many "establishment types" were eager to inventory "counter-culture" bogeymen at the end of the 60's. Bugliosi turned Atkins' version of the murders into the prosecutors brief on Manson. imo, Atkins was the master-mind of the Tate-LaBianca murders.

dupe dupe

Cliff, Again, many thanks for the apposite links. On the matter of Harriman’s attitude to Diem’s government. I would be more persuaded by a detailed account, preferably buttressed by contemporaneous sources, explaining the alleged transformation of Harriman’s view in the course of the summer of 1963. As matters stand, we find utterly conflicting evidence and, to the best of my limited knowledge, no remotely adequate account of why the man who negotiated peace for Laos suddenly turned hawk over Vietnam. Moreover, it is only on Vietnam, and Vietnam alone, we are invited to believe, that Harriman found himself allied to the CIA, an organisation that loathed his long-since modified views on Russia, his work on the test ban treaty, and his support for an opening to mainland China; and, let us not forget, had actively sought to sabotage the Geneva settlement on Laos. You see the full oddity of what we are routinely invited to believe. Paul, Lots of employees don't like their bosses. Allen Dulles was a Harriman hired hand. http://www.enter.net/~torve/trogholm/secre...ots/dulles.html Around the Harriman household in the autumn of 1963, I'd speculate, toilet paper was called "NSAM 263."

http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/cli...nam_memoir.html

Cliff, OK, let's assume for the moment - I'm every bit as sceptical of the audio record of the period as I am of the film versions of the assassination, but I'll let that pass for the sake of discussion - that Harriman was in favour of the coup. Two objections arise immediately: Was Harriman intent on Diem's removal for the same reasons as the CIA? I'd speculate that there was little American support for the secret Diem-Ho talks, and none of the U.S. players were interested in a Commie-favored rapprochement between North and South Vietnam. I'd imagine W. Averell Harriman could muster support within CIA any old time he pleased. As the head of the Harriman-Bush Crime Family, W. Averell Harriman was never "merely one name on a list." JFK used the phrase "led by Harriman." You think Harriman and Hilsman were equals? As per my sig line, the competing conspiracies at play in November 1963 were: The Harriman-Bush Crime Family. The Murchison Crime Family. The Sicilian-American Outfit crime families. The Corsican Mafia. The business at hand (I would speculate): heroin, it's production and distribution. The four entities above co-operated and competed and always sought a bigger role in the production and international distribution of heroin. In 1963 the poppy fields of the Golden Triangle were prized, but perhaps not so nearly prized as the Havana-to-Florida smuggling funnel lost when Castro took power in Cuba. Commies were bad for the heroin trade. Harriman et al didn't want to face a situation where 10 years down the road they'd would have to push for "the proposed opening to Vietnam." Such an eventuality occurred 3-4 decades later, instead. I think they feared Ho's hegemonic control of the Golden Triangle, most of all. After all, Castro deprived them of the Havana-to-Florida smuggling enterprises, why would they expect a smuggling-friendly disposition from Ho? Carnegie Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

I disagree with the first half; couldn't agree more that "why" is hugely important. JFK fingered Harriman. I see no reason to dispute his recorded assessment of the power behind the coup.

Here's JFK describing the dynamics behind the coup in a tape he recorded on 11/4/63, 3 days after Diem's demise. (quote on) President Kennedy: Opposed to the coup was General [Maxwell] Taylor, the Attorney General [Robert Kennedy], Secretary [Robert] McNamara to a somewhat lesser degree, John McCone, partly based on an old hostility to [Henry Cabot] Lodge [Jr.] which causes him to lack confidence in Lodge's judgement, partly as a result of a new hostility because Lodge shifted his [CIA] station chief; in favor of the coup was State, led by Averell Harriman, George Ball, Roger Hilsman, supported by Mike Forrestal at the White House. (quote off) Doesn't this seem strangely passive of JFK? It's as if he was just keeping score instead of calling the plays.

And there's the view of Madame Nhu, as reported by one of the best journalists of the period. She was a source both well-placed and without obvious motivation to lie or guild the lily on the question of who destroyed her family: I think it's understandable that my friend Kim and her family were not so well tuned to the nuances of American foreign policy that they could draw a distinction between the agendas of JFK and W. Averell Harriman. As a consequence of the overthrow of Diem, Kim's family was cast into poverty. They were not allowed to "escape to Rome." The male members of her family were blacklisted, denied any formal employment. Her father ran cockfights to make ends meet, and Kim became an operator on the black market. At the age of 13, she started selling toothpaste to GIs on the street, eventually making a fortune in black market currency transactions before she was out of her teens. The important point to this is not who was responsible for the overthrow of Diem, but why. That Diem was overthrown because he was pursuing peace talks with Ho is not something commonly acknowledged.

Unconvinced, Cliff - you mean all those CIA guys masquerading as journos and cameramen at the storming of the Presidential palace were...Kennedy loyalists? I'm trying hard to convince myself, but, no, it just isn't working! You think W. Averell Harriman was a Kennedy loyalist? I don't. I think Harriman's loyalties resided with the Harriman-Bush Crime Family.

Paul, thanks for digging this out! My friend Kim told me it was an article of faith in her family that Kennedy ordered the overthrow of Diem in order to prevent reconciliation talks between Diem and Ho. They were right about everything but the perp: WA Harriman.

I can't imagine anything more wrong-headed. We do not advance the truth by repeating provable lies. As a line of attack, it needs to be stressed that the autopsy report was a political document fixed to conform to a political decision to blame the crime on a lone shooter and 3 shots. Repeating the talking points of the cover-up is counter-productive, to put it politely.

But Charles...it is NOT simple. EVERY point of the Bug must be refuted...and then NEW evidence presented showing his research is stuck in the sixties. You and I know that you are correct. But if you keep it too simple the general public won't care...the basic simple stuff has been there more than 40 years, and has not sunk in yet with the average person. Shock treatment is required. Jack The basic simple stuff has been there for 40+ years and many, many CTs ignore it -- just as Bugliosi does. The holes in the clothes are 2" to 3" too low for the SBT. Period. Fonzi gets it. Marrs gets it. Groden gets it. Twyman gets it. Why argue the fact of conspiracy on anything else? The burden of proof is on LNers to show how a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt could ride up 2+" when it only has a fraction of an inch of slack. 3/4" does not equal 2+". What the hell more do we need to argue? That is why Bugliosi refuses to mention the location of the clothing holes vis a vis the SBT. Let's not fight him on what he says, let's fight him on what he disingenuously ignores. Jim Marrs vs. Vincent Bugliosi would be a one-punch knock-out.

Nothing more outer space than the LN. Fonzi's my main guy, absolutely. The "debate" wouldn't last any longer than Ali-Liston II. JFK's T3 back wound is a fact, folks, and nobody demonstrates that better than Fonzi.

Gaeton Fonzi or Jim Marrs. Or my best friend's 6 year old, who could point out the location of the holes in JFK's clothes. There's a reason Bugliosi spent 20 years and 1600 pages ignoring the only extant, direct physical evidence of the nature of JFK's wounds. The clothing evidence is the Achilles Heel of the LN.

Thompson = Bush Yeah, four more years of Republican treason. Great. btw, I got to see an Impeach Cheney banner fly over Willie Mays Field (Telephone Park) today. Great day for the "I" words -- Impeach! Ichiro!

Myra, Haven't read it, but sounds interesting, fwiw... http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/mormon...hecia_ub047.htm

You're all right, Mark. What's a little bruising rhetoric between Bush haters?

Well, if you were reading carefully, Mark, you'd notice that I mentioned the book. In direct response to what I wrote about the book, you condemned Haldeman as a xxxx and a man "in service of arch conservatism and Richard Nixon." Since the book, The Ends of Power, was the context at hand -- and since you've read the book -- please point out where in TEOP Haldeman was "in service to arch conservatism and Richard Nixon." If you cannot, your point is moot. Post-incarceration Haldeman possibly had a different agenda than pre-incarceration Haldeman, ya think? You seem to have a hard time digesting what I wrote.Let's try another view of TEOP... The Ends of Power reads like a guy getting even. Is Haldeman a xxxx? Of course! But he wrote TEOP right after he got out of prison, and the possibility he wrote TEOP to "come to Jesus" and set the record straight cannot be categorically dismissed. What's interesting about Haldeman is that years after the publication of TEOP Chris Matthews asked him about "the Bay of Pigs thing". Haldeman insisted his ghost writer Joe DiMona wrote it! Haldeman denied the entire JFK-assassination subtext of the book, which is a substantial running thread throughout! DiMona doused that claim, saying he was writing down what Haldeman told him. Apparently, Haldeman felt he'd told too much.. When Haldeman's Diaries were published, TEOP and everything in it was noticably absent. This is hysterical. Literally. I gave up my powers of interpersonal discernment years ago.Traded 'em for a bleacher seat at Pac Bell Park for game 5 of the 2002 World Series. It was almost worth it. No, I was sincerely applauding your hyper-self-righteousness. I think that hyper-self-righteousness is the only proper response to the Karl Roves and Richard Nixons, those lying sacks of puke-maggot scum who have done so much damage to our country and to the world. I have nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who equate lying about a blow job to lying about a national security breach. I have nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who say the president has a right to obstruct justice. IHNBCAR for those who say the Holocaust never happened. IHNBCAR for those who deny the fact that the JFK autopsy report was fixed to conform to the pre-determined "3-shot" scenario. IHNBCAR for those who say JFK's shirt collar isn't visible in these two photo images taken at roughly the same time on Elm St.

Haldeman was a lifelong xxxx in the service of arch-conservatism and Richard Nixon. Nice condemnation of a book you've never read. If The Ends of Power was written "in the service of arch-conservatism and Richard Nixon" -- Mark Valenti is a golfer. Your hyper-self-righteousness is admirable, no doubt.