Cliff Varnell

[snip grandstand play to the obvious] All plans of mice and men... Really? Because JFK's murder was filmed...that fact precludes a reasonable conclusion that top CIA coup-masters killed Kennedy in order to establish a pretext to invade Cuba? I can't begin to see a shred of logic in that formulation, Ashton. Wanna try again?

It was well within the power of Rockefeller/Morgan to turn just one of Kennedy's doctors -- and JFK could have died in his sleep, or been incapacitated and forced to step down for health reasons. Instead they had his brains blown out right into the face of Eastern Establishment high society Queen Jackie Bouvier with flecks of skull and brain and blood and cranial fluid all over. Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly? The manner of JFK's execution strongly suggests that ending his life was not the primary motive, but rather as a means to the primary motive, which eventually failed: establishing a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba.

I wrote: In the interest of intellectual honesty I must confess this line to be a tad disingenuous of me. But just a tad!

Say 'Ello to my l'il fren... http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...40/ai_115078662

The Ivy League WASP blue-bloods at the CIA wanted Kennedy in 1960, clearly.So did the Catholic faction at the CIA. The Mormon faction of the CIA -- based in the Howard Hughes empire -- wanted Nixon, I'd speculate. The covert operators working abroad for the CIA Department of Plans wanted Nixon, I'd speculate, since he was the anti-Castro Action Officer with the Eisenhower Adm. To speak of "the CIA" as a monolithic entity -- which so many so sloppily do on this Forum -- is to betray a fundamental mis-understanding of that organization's nature. From Kennedy speech-writer Richard Goodwin's REMEMBERING AMERICA, pg 125: That was Allen Dulles giving Kennedy a heads up, which Kennedy used to great effect in the campaign against Nixon. Richard Goodwin penned the campaign press memo that put Nixon on the defensive: Since Nixon was working on just such a project, held in top secret, he had to actually attack the idea in the campaign to maintain his cover as anti-Castro Action Officer. This allowed Kennedy to move to the right of Nixon on foreign policy, the subject of their last -- and decisive -- debate. April of 1961 Dulles sorely regreted this gambit.

Bollocks. There is NO unseen hand. There are only unreported handS -- stress the plural. These bastards learned from the Kennedy assassination that they can get away with murder in broad day light and get away with it every time because the nature of their crimes with never be REPORTED. Is there an "unseen hand" behind the Iraq War? Hell NO. You can see these blood stained hands behind the Iraq War in a movie called IRAQ FOR SALE. Halliburton, Blackwater, CACI... Was there an "unseen hand" behind the Kennedy assassination? We couldn't see the hands in 1963 but we can see them today.

I agree to an extent. Allen Dulles and George Bush, for instance, did not fit. These two geographically based power centers -- North-Eastern race-liberal Yankees and Sunbelt conservative Cowboys -- have always worked together more than in opposition. Of course. The most important application of the model is in viewing "the CIA" not as a monolithic entity but as a collection of factions, and these factions served varying masters, as well as serving themselves (Edwin Wilson comes to mind). The Ivy League blue-bloods jockeying desks at Langley often didn't work for the same business interests as the covert agents abroad, and sometimes those interests were in conflict. THAT is the crucial point to the Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy, imo. Have you even so much as cracked the spine on THE YANKEE AND THE COWBOY WAR? A public show of the machinations of the American ruling class that lead to two coup d'etat in America '63 & '74? Wow! What time does that come one? Cheap shot. I doubt that Oglesby has made all that much off the sales of his book. Nothing so suspends the latitude of thought more than formulaic thinking . The Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy does not apply in a general way, but instead to specific historical events and the specific actions of specific individuals. (Rockefeller v. Hughes over TWA, for instance). It would make no more sense to "subscribe" to this dichotomy than to dismiss it out of hand -- both are the result of formulaic thinking. [snip] ...Irony isn't your strong suit, is it, Ashton?btw, I'm just warming up... The reason I can look in the mirror at all is because of the pride I take in my intellectual honesty. I don't wrap quotes around my words and attribute them to others. I don't gut people's argument and then claim they didn't make one. And I don't violently rip people's words out of context as you did with the following: You took the answer out.That's right, Ashton, in order to cheap shot me with that mirror bit you had to remove THE ANSWER. This answer is not original to me. I have been touting those who arrived at this answer in many posts on this thread. This is the paragraph you took out to set up your little dig: Occam's Razor -- Who's the likeliest to regard assassination as a means to resolve conflict? An assassin. Who is the likeliest to regard coup d'etat as a means to resolve conflict? Coup masters like Lansdale, Phillips, and Morales. Parlor Gamers hate it when you tell them the Game they're playing was over some time ago. [snip bombast] P.S. at 1:31 That bit about "'ol Ed Lansdale" was pure snark. The irony went over your head. Lansdale was both "The Ugly American" and "The Quiet American." His stature was ENORMOUS

Ashton Gray continues in his inimitable way: (quote on) You go on about how we all need to look up the definition of "initially," your escape hatch for your "rogue" characterization of CIA involvement in the assassination plot, so we can all be more accepting and compliant and just admit that the JFK murder has been "solved" through such acceptance of the "rogue" origins of the premeditated murder. (quote off) Or so hiss the judges on the Heretic Court. Dare ye suggest L/P/M had shown any kind of initiative toward the common goal of overthrowing Castro -- and ye shall be deemed infidel and cast into the nether fires of Ashton Gray's brimestone quarry! Ashton thusly instructs: (quote on) Well, how about we all look up the relevant definition of "rogue": ROGUE: No longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: (quote off) Bingo! Let's cue the tape. Ashton Gray at the top of this thread wrote (let's put it BOLD) (quote on) If the CIA was involved at all, in any way, in the Kennedy murder, it was not taking orders from, or acting in the exclusive interests of, or beholden to, or doing the bidding of, or reduced to a parity with, or in any way junior to: (quote off) Or obedient to... Or belonging to... Or answerable to... Gee, it looks like we agree on something. The CIA (the Old Boy Network headed by Dulles) wanted to take out Castro, even if it meant killing Kennedy. Other powerful folks shared this interest in killing Kennedy, many with agendas incidental to overthrowing Castro. Tough concept for some to get their minds around, but to do so requires shelving pet theories and I doubt if that would ever happen in this case. Ashton comes in for the kill: (quote on) a rogue cop; a rogue union local You are the one who has asserted, repeatedly, this inobediant, uncontrollable, deviant, renegade exogenous origin for any and all subsequent CIA involvement in the premeditated murder of John F. Kennedy. (quote off) Whoa, Ashton! You shouldn't have skipped over getting the definition to the word "initially." You now have twisted the word "initially" to mean "any and all subsequent." Is that what "initially" means? "Any and all subsequent"?? I don't think so. In fact, I think the word "initially" means the opposite of "any and all subsequent." But then, who am I to correct Ashton Gray's "innocent" portrayal of my meaning? I asked for a case against McCone -- I haven't seen one yet -- and you find that tantamount to "exoneration"? I don't accuse people of murder and treason lightly, Ashton. Bullxxxx! You think the CIA Old Boy Network just up and gave the family jewelsto John McCone? The former head of the goddamn ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION? Sorry, Ashton, this comment of yours leads me to suspect you know far less about the CIA than you let on. Allen Dulles went from being the CIA's Don (Helms/Angleton took over) to being its "unofficial" Consiglieri. The idea that Dulles give up his seat at the CIA table to some outsider like John McCone -- DCI title or no DCI title -- certainly runs contrary to anything I'd argue. Dickie Helms bailiwick for more than a decade. You think Helms gave up any actual operational control to an outsider Kennedy appointee? I don't know what you're sip'n, Ashton, but it sure don't look like bourbon. Lansdale may have reported to McCone but the General was answerable to the Joint Chiefs. Operation Mongoose was a Pentagon operation that involved CIA agents and assets. Yeah, I think the top guys of the Old Boy Network left were Helms and Angleton, although I'm open to any compelling argument that involved McCone or anyone else. If that's the way you want to describe Standard Operating Procedure, fine. Pure straw. Allen Dulles remained the head of the CIA Old Boy Network (but not the CIA itself, of course) until Helms took over as DCI in 1966 -- or so I'll argue. Correct. McCone was kept out of the loop for no other reason than to provide "plausible deniability." Naw. Read Fonzi's THE LAST INVESTIGATION, Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, McKnight's BREACH OF TRUST, and Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED and I'll bet there's a good chance you'll agree with me that the case is solved to a 95% degree of certainty. And the screaming in the back ground, gentle reader? Ashton Gray's pet theories to the slaughter.

Cliff Varnell: I never said "JFK was killed by rogue elements of the CIA". I said the plot INITIALLY started with Lansdale/Phillips/Morales acting on their own, but eventually they garned significant support and the operation cannot be described as "rogue." No. I used the R-word to describe the origins of the plot to kill Kennedy. I used this oh-so-potent R-word in a very limited context. A reasonable conclusion can be drawn that these three guys, L/P/M, whose careers were based on the installation or removal of heads of state, would be the first to consider the violent removal of yet another head of state. Is it that big a deal who thought of killing Kennedy first? Maybe others can weigh in on this question -- is it a fundamental point that the origin of the plot to kill Kennedy had to be in the mind of someone with more stature than little ol' Ed Lansdale? Ashton, I guess this chicken-egg thang is all you've got, now. Eh? You can't argue from the witness testimony -- no witness testimony has ever been deemed reliable by you, that I can tell. You can't argue from any photographic evidence -- it's all suspect, right? You can't argue from government documents -- every bit of it is mis-direction, even documents that were suppressed for decades finally emerge to spread even more mis-direction...isn't that what you're implying about Northwoods? [An aside to the gentle reader: notice the use of the "?" at the end of the last sentence. Instead of imputing this idea directly to Ashton, I pose it in the form of a question which Ashton can answer in any way he pleases. Contrast this with Ashton's tactic of imputing to me notions never I expressed, and putting phrases of his own creation in quotation marks and attributing them to me...I'm just say'n...] Apparantly the R-word comes with a whole cabin load of baggage, so much so that to even utter the word in a very specific, limited context is to call the Heretics Court into session. Yep, guys whose jobs were to effect Coup d'Etat were the first to think of Coup d'Etat. What an absurd notion! (?) And the Heretics Court opens with a stern denunciation of an argumentI certainly never made. Why would L/P/M brainstorming about killing Kennedy mean they had "nothing" to do with the other CIA guys? I don't follow that logic at all. The desire to create a pre-text to invade Cuba was not a "personal aberration" with anyone. Lots of people in the military and intel communities were racking their brains to come up with ways to fight Castro. From James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, pgs 84-5 (quote on) Among the actions recommended was "a series of well coordinated incidents to take place in and around" the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations." The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a similar plan. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." There seemed no limit to their fanaticism: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," they wrote. "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). . . . We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized." Bombings were proposed, false arrests, hijackings: *"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government." *"Advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican [Republic] Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. 'Cuban' B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with 'Cuban' messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and 'Cuban' shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach. Use of MiG type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation." *"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba." (quote off) Obviously, lots of people had lots of ideas. It was Lansdale's idea that became operational on a "need to know" basis. If one needed to know about the plot, one was in on the plot. What is so hard to grasp about that? This is an egregious absurdity. I never said this "rogue" idea was divorced from the clearly well documented intent of the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba. I have asserted quite the opposite. I gather, gentle reader, from reading the opinions of the judges on this forum's Heretic Court that the following scenario (which I don't discount but regard as a long long shot) would be *acceptable* to present: Nelson Rockefeller says to Gen. Edward Lansdale: "Goddamn Kennedy is diddling with the Federal Reserve. He's left the ranch and my brothers and I want him taken out. Can you help?" Lansdale replies: "Sure thing, Rocky. How do you want it done?" Rockfeller furrows his brow: "So that her hubby's blood and brains get splattered all across that Bouvier bitch's pretty little face!" Lansdale's lips curl into an evil grin: "Those wide-set eyes...I hate her!" Here is the scenario I posit (95%), which has incurred the wrath of the Heretics Court: Edward Lansdale to H. L. Hunt: "Kennedy sold out to Castro. We've got a plan to kill Kennedy and pin it so hard on Castro even those Eastern Establishment pinkos will agree to an invasion of Cuba. Can we count on your help?" Hunt's eyes light up: "If we can't vote the Communists out -- we'll shoot 'em out!" So even though H.L. Hunt is actually quoted as saying those very words, do we chance to hear the plea, "Do not look at that man behind the curtain!" In earlier posts on this thread, a roster of Eastern Establishment types were listed as potential perps. Let's list them again with a notation of their politics. Now, this ain't a list of "good guys" -- the "liberal" Eastern Establishment financed the Nazis, after all. But is this the group that killed Kennedy? Nelson Rockefeller -- liberal Republican. Henry Cabot Lodge -- liberal republican W. Averell Harriman -- liberal Republican disguised as a Democrat Dean Acheson -- moderate Democrat Walt Rostow -- non-partisan anti-communist hawk Bundy Bros. -- liberal anti-communist hawks Or is it more reasonable that this group killed Kennedy? Gen. Curtis LeMay -- rabid anti-Communist/Goldwater Republican H. L. Hunt -- rabid anti-Communist/Goldwater Republican J. Edgar Hoover -- rabid anti-Communist/Goldwater Republican James Jesus Angleton -- rabid anti-Communist Gen. Edward Lansdale -- rabid anti-Communist David Atlee Phillips -- rabid anti-Communist who claimed to be a liberal Democrat I think Oglesby's Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy rightly identifies the two wings of the American ruling elite -- the "liberal" Eastern Establishment and the "conservative" Sunbelt Cowboys. To pin the murder of Yankee John Kennedy -- in the absense of any compelling evidence -- on the Eastern Establishment Yankees smacks of neo-cons pinning the blame for 911 on Bill Clinton. Your use of the word "only" implies that Lansdale's idea was not popular in some quarters, which is an argument I never made. I'm saying that the 3 top coup-makers huddled together before they pitched the idea to anyone else. They *were* working together on Mongoose related projects, after all. And for proposing what seems a perfectly reasonable scenario I am now branded some lamebrained Langley whore out to poison the minds of all whose eyes strike such misfortune as to glance across my words. The "liberal" wing of the American ruling elite killed Kennedy...Ah, savor the smell of Neo-Con in the morning...it smells like...bullxxxx... To be continued...

Ashton Gray continues: (quote on) I next asked for whose benefit would a "military invasion of Cuba" be manufactured. As is demonstrated in the record, you didn't supply an answer. (quote off) Of course, as the record shows, I answered thusly: (quote on) Depends on their proximity to pre-Castro business interests. I think J Edgar Hoover's or Gen. LeMay's interests in a Cuban takeover were more ideological, whereas Bush and Giancana may have found the ideological component incidental. (quote off) Seems pretty clear to me I was refering to the variety of motivations involved. I cited a couple of guys with ideological motivations, and I cited a couple of guys with financial motivations. To say that some of the perps had financial motivations does not preclude others from having more ideological motivations. Pardon me if this answer doesn't suffice, but to claim I didn't give you an answer isn't right, is it? Ashton Gray wrote without a trace of irony: (quote on) Instead you took offense at something I said, paraphrasing you in innocence, lamentably using quotation marks for something I though was an accurate restatement of your own claims. (quote off) Ashton, the next time I need someone to innocently paraphrase me -- you're not hired. Ashton Gray continues: (quote on) I had said: ASHTON GRAY: ...[H]ere's why I'm asking the questions to begin with: you've got some pretty bombastic assertions afloat all over the forum about how "the whole Kennedy assassination is totally solved" You replied in pertinent part: CLIFF VARNELL: That's it! You're Speering me and I don 't dig it. I truly enjoy discussing this case with you, Aston, but when you put quotation marks around sentences YOU wrote and attribute the statement to me -- it pisses me off. ...PLEASE quote me directly and accurately when characterizing my position, and I will show you the same respect. Okay? ...Now, I never said the case was "totally solved." I never used those words. I feel the case is solved to 95%. Okay. There was no intention to misrepresent you or your position. Therefore, I'll merely quote below (in color) three statements you have made that are of record in this forum, and will provide the post numbers so any members who care to verify the accuracy and context of these quotes can do so, and I'll allow others to determine for themselves whether or not I mischaracterized your own statements: (quote off) Great idea, Ashton! Let's endeavor to restore the original context to the following remarks. CLIFF VARNELL: "The case of John F. Kennedy's murder was solved in 2001 with the publication of James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, with its evelations about Operation Northwoods." —18 August 2006, Post #72511 I will paraphrase my own remarks that preceded that comment, if I remember correctly. I may have this wrong, so please correct me if so, but as I recall I wrote: (quote on) Let me step up to the plate in the Great JFK Parlor Game:"The case of John F. Kennedy's murder was solved in 2001 with the publication of James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, with its revelations about Operation Northwoods." (quote off) Ever notice how I use the phrase "Parlor Game," Ashton? Slightly derisive. Actually, more than slightly derisive. So any one who claims 100% knowledge of the plot is a Parlor Gamer. I think my 95% rule of thumb is an accurate expression of a "reasonable conclusion." CLIFF VARNELL: "This case is solved to my satisfaction and I don't need the NY Times to ratify my conclusion." —17 November 2006, Post #81458 And what part of "to my satisfaction" don't you grasp? IMO = To my satisfaction. CLIFF VARNELL: "The JFK research community has hypnotized itself into thinking that the case hasn't already been solved." —1 December 2006, Post #83351 This riposte was in response to Ashton Gray's condescending suggestion that I have been hypnotized and duped along with so so many others...I fired back too effectively, perhaps. AG: You'll have to state for yourself whether you stand by those statements, or have fallen back from them. CV: You didn't have to take them out of context, but you did. Yes, I did, as already noted. Parlor Gamers as always so dead certain of their little pet theories. I went slumming with you, Ashton. Ashton Gray continues: (quote on) Although the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, certainly was "gunned down soon after the deed," I understand that your position is that it wasn't "soon enough." Nor do you state who was supposed to do the timely gunning down. (quote off) Jack Ruby would be the likeliest suspect. Ya t'ink? AG: (quote on) The net effect is that the cast of purported conspirators has not changed. I have to pause again, though, this time merely to reflect upon the apparent absence of any Cuban co-conspirators in this drama as you have laid it out. I'm hoping one or two will appear on the stage in a late act. (quote off) Because, unlike you, I'm reluctant to accuse people of murder. The 13 people I have named -- 14 counting Ruby -- I have no problem accusing of murder and treason. If your taste runs expansively in this direction, go for it. AG: (quote on) I then had asked you by whom the military invasion of Cuba would be carried out—hypothetically given the success of this purported plot. I'll only mention here the date of the sudden "revelations" about Operation Northwoods: 18 November 1997. I don't have any further comment at this time.The last question I asked you, you didn't answer at all. Perhaps you felt it had been answered by your having included Lyndon Baines Johnson as successor to Kennedy. That question that remains unanswered was, and is, on whose authority would any such "military invasion of Cuba" be carried out. I can only surmise, unless you wish to correct this impression, that you believe Lydon Baines Johnson could have pulled off such a drastic military invasion, in the Zeitgeist of late 1963-1964, without the slightest intervention by or involvement of Congress, and without any political or nuclear fallout. The slightest intervention by Congress? What a sick joke that is! How fast did the Gulf of Tonkin resolution get through? 3 days. How fast would a resolution pass in the face of "irrevocable proof" of Fidel's hand in the murder of the President of the United States? You think for a second that if the FBI and CIA came through with what they had ginned up on the dead-Friday-Oswald that Congress wouldn't go along with anything Johnson wanted? Ashton with a little appropriate editing help writes: (quote on) And I can only presume that you believe that all these men shared a belief in just such an immediate wielding of new-found power vested in Johnson by the explosion of John F. Kennedy's skull: • Director of FBI J. Edgar HooverTEXAS OIL MEN: • H.L. Hunt • George W. Bush MAFIA FIGURES • Sam Giancana SENIOR MILITARY OFFICERS • General Curtis LeMay • General Lyman L. Lemnitzer • General Edward Lansdale (also a CIA —see below) CIA OFFICERS • Former Director of CIA Allen Dulles • Richard Helms • James Jesus Angleton • David Atlee Phillips, and • David Sanchez Morales Yes, Ashton, all these guys believed that if they could present "irrevocable proof" of Oswald's tie to Castro, the US would have, in words attributed to Dickie Helms, "bombed Cuba back into the middle ages." No, no. This is clearly not my position. I agree with you that these CIA guys weren't working at the behest of anything but their own agenda, which was to establish a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba. Other people shared this agenda. They also had their own agendas. One guys agenda doesn't preclude other guys from having personal agendas -- does it? Unless you think I said Lansdale was in concert with himself, I never said anything about "rogue military generals." You invented that piece of fiction and I'm taking heat. Ironic given your sig line, innit, Ashton? I'll leave it for the Parlor Gamers. Except to say that any Cubaninvolved was a potential pasty. Yes. There is that. I'll give you that. Your industry at spreading such as is condensed and summarized in this post cannot be denied or gainsayed in any way. You may single-handedly hold the record, but I don't know. What I do know, or at least strongly believe, is that if I said what I actually think about it, I would be permanently banned from this forum within the hour. Ashton Gray Weak arguments always betray tropism toward ad hominem.

It's interesting how ONE WORD creats a Pavlov's dog response. I never said "JFK was killed by rogue elements of the CIA". I said the plot INITIALLY started with Lansdale/Phillips/Morales acting on their own, but eventually they garned significant support and the operation cannot be described as "rogue." Why do I detect the screaming of pet theories in distress?

[snip Ashton's disfigurement of my argument] Aston wrote: Why do you assume I've precluded lower level players?Is there anything I've written that would lead you to assume such? Cliff Varnell wrote: The guy who eventually did the deed was responsible for Oswald's death,or so I would speculate. AG: I didn't say "nothing." Each had their own agendas that might very well have been fulfilled by JFK's death. But the organizing goal was left unfullfilled, obviously. CV: AG: And, pray tell, why did they perform a trach unless they had some reason to believe he couldn't breathe? If there were no throat wound they wouldn't have performed a trach, would they? No, I'm careful to cite witness testrimony, photographic evidence, documentary evidence. Because you push pet theories that are contradicted by the witnesses and the photographs, you must operate totally on faith, Ashton. It doesn't fit your pet theories, so it couldn't be. That's the problem with developing a pet theory first and then trying to jigger the evidence to fit the theory. Someone sees something that doesn't fit -- that person is delusional, a dupe, a xxxx, an incompetant, a villain? To be continued...

Ashton Gray wrote: (quote on) Before taking up your individual answers below, I'm going to summate here, first, what I understand to be your answer to the seminal question of this topic: "So was the CIA involved or not?" You correct me if I'm wrong (in as few unnecessary words as you can manage), but my understanding is that you assert that the entire plan for the Kennedy assassination was, indeed, the origination of a CIA founding veteran, General Edward Lansdale—but only as a CIA (and military) "rogue." (quote off) No, Ashton, I said that he set out INITIALLY on his own (w/Phillips & Morales). I am not describing the assassination of JFK as a "rogue" operation, and although it could be argued that any operation that didn't involve JFK committing suicide might be considered "rogue," I do not wish to characterize it as such beyond of its point of origin. Ashton Gray continues: (quote on) You then posit further crucial CIA involvement, naming such CIA superstars and long-time CIA veterans as: • Richard Helms • James Jesus Angleton • David Atlee Phillips, and • David Sanchez Morales. Unless my count is off, we have, in your scenario, no fewer than five central CIA figures all conspiring together to effect the murder of John F. Kennedy—but only as CIA "rogues" keeping this dark secret from the rest of the CIA. (quote off) Your research hasn't indicated to you that these people operate on a "need to know" basis? Those in the CIA who "needed to know" were in on it; those who didn't need to know, weren't. Why would McCone need to know?If you can make an argument for McCone's involvement, I'm all ears. I would like to correct your false impression that I have restricted the possible involvement of other CIA operatives below the level of Deputy Director of Plans, Richard Helms. I cited Helms and Angleton as the top-level CIA perps -- how did you conclude that that precludes the involvement of others in the CIA? Sigh. For those who have been paying attention, I have cited Oswald's sheep dipping in Mexico City as a key event. That I didn't name the CIA girl who made coffee for Phillips while he was running anti-Castro operations in MEXI doesn't mean she didn't play an operational role -- I just don't know, and, unlike others, maybe I'm not all that anxious to drag every name thru the mud. Not that that's a bad thing when discussing the CIA... Your repeated mis-use of the word "rogue" creates a false impression as to my argument. Perhaps we need to visit dictionary.com and a review of the definition of the word -- INITIALLY Ashton Gray wrote: (quote on) To recap your proffered motive, you say that these CIA "rogues" were sympathetic to and cooperative in the Lansdale plan for the following purpose: "To establish a pre-text [sic] for a military invasion of Cuba." Sincerely hoping that I am not taking too many liberties in attempting to paraphrase my best understanding of your position, (quote off) Yes, Ashton, you are taking too many liberties. You have not properly processed my use of the word "rogue." I despair that I cannot explain it any clearer than this: Lansdale was not ordered to assassinate JFK. He and the CIA guys came up with it on their own (that's the "rogue" part) and received the blessing for the operation from Helms, Johnson, Hoover, Dulles et al (the "non-rogue" part.) That last bit I have NOT argued, obviously. And it's coming to a point where I findrepeating myself is not productive. And what does the historical record show about that post-Missile-Crisis thinking in the Pentagon and Defense Dept. in 1963? James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, pg. 89: (quote on) Even after Lemnitzer lost his job, the Joint Chiefs kept planning "pretext" operations at least into 1963. Among their proposals was a plan to deliberately create a war between Cuba and any of a number of its Latin American neighbors... ...The report even suggested secretly paying someone in the Castro government to attack the United States [which Bamford notes is an act of treason]... ...In May 1963, Asssistant Secretary of the Defense Paul H. Nitze sent a plan to the White House proposing "a possible scenario whereby an attack on a United States reconnaissance plane could be exploited toward the end of effecting removal of the Castro regime." (quote off) The historical record indicates that the "pretext" strategy was alive and well in super-hawk circles in 1963. You don't have to take my word for anything. Read the material. Read: THE LAST INVESTIGATION,by Gaeton Fonzi; BODY OF SECRETS, by James Bamford (esp pgs 82-91 re Northwoods); BREACH OF TRUST, by Gerald McKnight; and SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED by Larry Hancock -- and then come back and tell me why I'm wrong. To the extent the case can be solved, yes, to a certainty of 95%, imo. As I stated in other threads -- the case is solved to my satisfaction. I am here to so argue. Does that mean I claim it to be 100%? No. How could I? Doesn't mean that this answers all the little mysteries the Parlor Gamers love, it won't tell us the name of the shooters, but this conclusion that JFK was murdered in order to provide a pretext for the invasion of Cuba is consistent with the vast bulk of the evidence, I will argue. If'n I hadda dolla for everytime I went over this -- I could buy the first TWO rounds, Ashton. The patsy was captured alive. A live patsy proclaiming his innocence queered the "irrevocable proof of Castro complicity" standard Lemnitzer set for a successful false flag operation. Phillips and Hoover had extensive, irrevocable files proving the case. But they couldn't use 'em. No, let's not. You're trying to re-frame my point in such a way as to to be advantageous to your rhetorical approach, I suspect, but I haven't read the rest of the post yet so I guess I should give you the benefit of the doubt? I do not regard "blessing" the plan the same as "participating" in the plan. I think it possible (although not highly likely) that Richard Helms' sole involvement was to sit stoically while being briefed on the progress of the plot, giving his "silent assent." There may have been much such "silent assent" in many corridors of power in America and around the world in the Fall of '63. But such speculation leads to dragging more and more people's names through the mud, an exercise I'd prefer to leave to others. Ashton: Purported Participants in the Plot to Murder John F. Kennedy in Order to Provide a Pretext for a Military Invasion of Cuba, According to Cliff Varnell, et al. This is boring. Ashton, you have seized on the word "rogue" and like a rib-show'n dawg you won't let yer jaws off that piece of meat for anything -- anything! I never refered to anyone other than Lansdale, Phillips and Morales as "rogue" and that was ONLY in the initial steps of the plot to kill Kennedy. Those quotation marks around the word "rogue" in the context of anyone other than the aforementioned Terrible Trio is a product of one Ashton Gray, not one Cliff Varnell. I'll end for now with a passage from Larry Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED, pg 90: (quote on) The road to Dallas was not a straight one. There were branches that lead to Washington, D.C., Chicago, Florida and even Mexico City. There were threats and possibly even preparations for attacks in other cities before Dallas. One constant does emerge in all the leads, the names, and the gossip -- the Cuba factor. In that respect all roads pass by and through the war against the Communist regime in Cuba, the war against Castro that continued to be waged in 1963. Not a cold war, rather a covert one. A war of shadows -- and shadow warriors. (quote off)

duplicate post

"Ashton, you're asking me who has authority over the military? And my answer is the President. And you're asking me who are the top people in the military? And my answer is the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Kinda hostile, ain't ya? Spare me the lectures on Pentagon or CIA perfidy, I think I've spelled them out quite well. Launching a massive invasion of another country is -- if you haven't noticed -- a bit more than a "little foray into other nation's affairs." In order for the US to have launched a full-scale military invasion of Cuba it would have to be ordered by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I'm not arguing that LBJ was actually calling the shots -- but he had to sign off on it if such an invasion were to take place. Aside to the gentle reader: I love this -- I have Ashton Gray accusing me of saying that Lansdale could order an invasion of Cuba, and Terry Mauro taking me to task for saying that it would take a Presidential order to launch an invasion of Cuba. I know they're both are keen to take a whack at my argument, but it looks to me like they're tripping over each others toes. Terry, Ashton, I think you two should huddle and get on the same page. Hello, back. If you think the Eastern Establishment killed one of their own, fine. You're entitled to shrill non-arguments that make no sense. You don't appear to be aware of the existence of the oil industry, the illegal drug trade, the black market in guns, and all the other black business of the Texas-based operators. I cited Dulles' involvement, just as I cited Johnson's involvement. Something about the language I use that makes it difficult for you to process, Terry? Do you need a map to the Dal-Tex Building -- co-owned by Clint Muchison and H.L. Hunt? Do you need a map to New Orleans where Oswald was linked to Guy Banister and the CIA's anti-Castro activities? Do you need a map to the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City where Oswald was sheep dipped as an agent of Fidel? I love it when people blame all the evils of the world on the "liberal Eastern Establishment" while the state of Texas pumps out geo-political criminality on a staggering scale. Do you need a map to Texas, Terry?

CLIFF VARNELL: The primary goal of the JFK assassination was to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba ASHTON: ...you still haven't answered the question: For whom? CLIFF VARNELL: Those with a vested interest in a US military take-over of Cuba. Mostly Cowboys, if I may use Carl Oglesby's Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy.. Yes you have. For some reason you don't want to acknowledge it as such. I cited Johnson's blessing of Lansdale's kill-JFK plotting. You know, Vice-President Johnson. I didn't realize you wanted to present me a grade school civics quiz. Ashton, you're asking me who has authority over the military? And my answer is the President. And you're asking me who are the top people in the military? And my answer is the Joint Chiefs of Staff. How'd I do? Do I get an "A"? May we resume the discussion of the case? Or...Did you think I was refering to another Johnson when I cited the blessings of "LeMay, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, Johnson"?? And, of course, I cited THIS in my original response, lo so many days ago, but I apologize for not under-lining the key points. I'll put the important stuff in caps nice and bold: From James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, pg 87, 4/10/62 CJCS Lemnitzer memo to Sec Def McNamara, emphasis added: (quote on) 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) Although Kennedy sacked Lemnitzer as CJCS and replaced him with Gen. Maxwell Taylor, General Curtis LeMay stayed on as Air Force Chief. That's the main name in the military on Eleven Twenty Two -- LeMay. According to Paul O'Connor LeMay attended the autopsy, smoking his big cigar... One more time. With feeling.(quote on) 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) I haven't been naming names? Top military super-hawks -- Lansdale, LeMay, Lemnitzer. Top CIA involvement -- Helms and Angleton. Top Evil Rich Perp -- H.L. Hunt The Unholy Trio who put the plot together -- Lansdale, Phillips, Morales. Players primed to play ball: Hoover, Johnson, Dulles, Bush, Giancana. What did all these ball players have in common? They wanted to play ball again in Cuba -- each with their own agenda. Why didn't that happen? The patsy wasn't rubbed out on Eleven Twenty Two as planned. This is the conclusion I've drawn, and I cite the following works: Gaeton Fonzi's THE LAST INVESTIGATION James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS (chapter on Operation Northwoods) Larry Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED Anything by Rex Bradford esp. his work on Hoover's Oswald-the-Fidelista file. I'll also argue that the nature of the throat wound and Kennedy's response to it suggests that the weapon that fired the round was most likely created by Mitchell WerBell III. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwerbell.htm I'll argue that WerBell adapted the blood-soluble paralytic originally developed for the CIA and military by Charles Senseney. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf I'll argue that this scenario matches the credible witness statements (in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland, at Bethesda), the Dealey Plaza photo evidence, and the historical record. ASHTON: For whose benefit? CLIFF VARNELL: Depends on their proximity to pre-Castro business interests. Contentless dismissal is not argument, much less a rebuttal. That's it! You're Speering me and I don 't dig it. I truly enjoy discussing this case with you, Aston, but when you put quotation marks around sentences YOU wrote and attribute the statement to me -- it pisses me off. The last time you did it, I let it slide. No more, please. I'd like to keep this collegial. PLEASE quote me directly and accurately when characterizing my position, and I will show you the same respect. Okay? Now, I never said the case was "totally solved." I never used those words. I feel the case is solved to 95%. In fact, I like to invoke what I call... The Cliff Varnell 95% -- JFK Assassination Rules of Thumb: Rule #1: 95% of the first day witness statements are credible. Rule #2: 95% of the photographic evidence is genuine. (There are cases where the witness statements and the photo evidence are at odds). Rule #3: There's a 95% chance that elements within the American National Security state -- Pentagon/CIA operatives -- killed Kennedy with the intent to establish a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba. Rule #4: 95% of what is said and written about this case is bullxxxx, including the 2 million plus words from the usenet postings of one nksy@sfo.com (me). No, Ashton, we just finished the top of the ninth and according to the rules of baseballI don't have to take my last at bats so I'm kicking it in the locker room knocking down a couple of my favorite intoxicants... Please re-read my statement. I'll re-state it with a key word in bold... I think Lansdale put it together INITIALLY on a "rogue" basis IOW, Lansdale was putting it together while still talking to the generals about taking advantage of a possible explosion of the John Glenn launch, winter '62. I'll cite the relevant passage again: James 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) I think that Lansdale had other ideas, something a bit more pro-active than waiting around for a rocket to explode. In this sense Lansdale (plotting with Phillips and Morales) were acting on their own, INITIALLY. Before long they received the material support of H.L. Hunt and Sam Giancana, and the blessings of Dickie Helms, Jay Jay Angleton, Miss Hoover, Poppy Bush, Allen "the Man" Dulles, and the Vice President of the United State Lyndon Baines Johnson. What you could do is address the points I make and not the ones I don't make. I have never argued that Lansdale could order the military invasion of Cuba. Where do you come up with stuff, Ashton? You habitually remove most of what I write and replace it with straw. What Lansdale did, with the help of Phillips and Morales, was arrange for the President of the United States to be assassinated and his death blamed on Fidel-lover L.H. Oswald. The plan -- which was vetted with the sitting Vice President -- was to produce "irrevocable proof" that Oswald was an agent of Fidel. The plotters didn't particularly care if the conspiratorial nature of the crime was revealed as long as the patsy was gunned down soon after the deed. This did not happen, of course, which is why Mickey and Minnie ain't knocking back virgin Cuba Libres at the Havana Disneyland, not yet anyway. (And, yes, I know that you answered a different question than the one I asked, but then, that's just another form of no-answer to what I did ask, so we're at strike three.) I've answered your questions. As you noted, this is not an original position I'm laying out here. I'm summing up what many regard as the bulk of the evidence. It's disappointing to Parlor Gamers to hear that the game has been over for years. ASHTON: Run by whom? CLIFF VARNELL: Ed Lansdale, David Phillips, David Morales. <Sigh> Cliff, you've gone over a cliff. Every one of my questions with "whom" in it was precisely and exclusively and only pursuant to, and relevant to, and directed to your assertion of motive for the assassination, that being, according to you, "to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba." I didn't ask you who you think the assassination was "run by." I asked you who would run a military invasion of Cuba. And what part of the phrase "PENTAGON documents" don't you understand? What part of Operation Northwoods don't you get? What part of the phrase "THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF" confuses you? Or the phrase "MILITARY INTERVENTION"? "WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL WAR"? To whom do you think I was refering when I cited the "blessings" of this Operation Northwoods-type JFK assassination plot coming from "LeMay, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, Johnson"...??? Tell it to the Marines, pal. Ashton Tell it to tourists, Ashton. Your little first grade civics quiz is silly.

For whom "to invade Cuba?" I should have phrased that with more precision: The primary goal of the JFK assassination was to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba. You accomplished more precision; you still haven't answered the question: All my posts on this thread count for nothing? Those with a vested interest in a US military take-over of Cuba. Mostly Cowboys, if I may use Carl Oglesby's Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy, which, as I have noted elsewhere, didn't apply to guys like Allen Dulles and Mr. George Bush of the CIA who straddled both camps. Depends on their proximity to pre-Castro business interests. I think J Edgar Hoover's or Gen. LeMay's interests in a Cuban takeover were more ideological, whereas Bush and Giancana may have found the ideological component incidental. I think Lansdale put it together initially on a "rogue" basis -- first stop, Mr. HL Hunt -- but by game-time he had the blessing of LeMay, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, Johnson. Ed Lansdale, David Phillips, David Morales. [cue Treasure of the Sierra Madre] "Badges? We don' need no steenkeen badges!!"

Oswald was sheep-dipped two ways to Sunday as an agent of Fidel -- which indicates to me a very narrow purpose. We'll never know the elaborate file on Oswald that David Phillips possessed in Mexico City, but Hoover's Oswald-the-Fidelista file sure was impressive. I just can't buy the idea that JFK's death was arranged in that manner if the sole idea was to kill him. Can you imagine how pissed off Aristotle Onassis was when he found out that THEY blew JFK's brains out right in the face of HIS, Ari O's, GIRLFRIEND?? Ari let it slide because [cue Al Pacino] it was business, Sonny.

Cliff, Do you know which building HL Hunt owned in Dealey Plaza? Do the Hunts still own it? Thanks. My understanding is that Hunt co-owned the Dal-Tex Building with Clint Murchison. Should Jack White weigh in on this, that's the answer.

I salute Gaeton Fonzi, Vincent Salandria, Jim Marrs, James Bamford, Larry Hancock and Rex Bradford. Many others are more than worthy, but these guys cracked the case, imo.

Bingo! And let's not forget another little name that fits in there -- Joe Kennedy.Joe Kennedy and W. Averell Harriman were pillars of the Eastern Establishment. This is where the Carl Oglesby Yankee-Cowboy dichotomy applies, imo. John Kennedy was a product of the Eastern Establishment. W. Averell Harriman was the architect of State Dept policy in Southeast Asia -- got his way in Laos, and he got his way in the overthrow of Diem in Vietnam. W. Averell Harriman was a man used to getting his way. As long as he continued to get his way I doubt that he'd want JFK murdered. But, Terry, I'm open minded. If you can make a case for John Kennedy getting into hot water with Harriman in 1963, I'd like to see it. Steel. I don't buy it. After his dust up with the steel companies JFK worked very hard to curry favor with the business community. http://www.whitehousetapes.org/news/shreve_taxcut_2001.pdf Note the names of the "prominent businessmen" who supported JFK's 1962 tax cut policy: Tom Watson of IBM, Frederick Kappel of AT&T, and Henry Ford II of Ford Motor Co. If those guys were on board with JFK economic policy, then JFK didn't get whacked by a consortium of mainstream US businessmen, imo. Whenever there is a moderate-liberal President and a Democratic Congress the business community publicly frets over policy. It's SOP. PR. Part of the job. JFK advocted a tax cut for business at the risk of budget deficits, for cry'n out loud... I think you can argue that Robert Blough, Chairman of US Steel, had a motive to murder JFK because of the humiliating way he made Blough back-down on steel prices in spring 1962. Can you argue that Robert Blough had the means and opportunity to murder JFK? I'd argue HL Hunt as the top Evil-Rich-Perp, since he owned a building in Dealey Plaza, and could wield influence with Dallas law enforcement. But if you can tie Robert Blough to the events of Eleven Twenty Two -- I'm all ears. &btw, David L. Lawrence was a Democrat.

...I love it when people pooh-pooh my argument without ever addressing a single point I raise. Cliff, easy there, son. If I'd a'thunk at all that the "LLL Generals and Cuban Kennedy Killers Killed Kennedy for to Get Cuba Invaded" model was your own private personal thing, I would have swept me hat off and bowed low before issuing a single pooh-pooh. I did not think that; I was of the opinion that the notion is as popular as Cracker Jacks, and you were merely sharing a handful with your friends. Ashton, I cannot tell you how happy I am with this appraisal. You are exactly correct. I certainly hope this notion is that popular. I arrived at it a bit differently: I came to it through the throat wound. The throat wound made the case so that I could join those who came before me, upon whose shoulders I stand. I really am not one to *share* my Cracker Jacks, however. I'm more like the kid who shows you that he has Cracker Jacks and he's going to eat them by himself.

Cliff, I addressed your claim about Vietnam being incidental and you didn't even mention it. I only had so much time this morning, Michael. Thank you for your response, as always. I went to see my Oakland Raiders play the St. Louis Rams...painful beyond belief...anyway, I've been responding to posts every since I got back. And yet they were plenty concerned with Castro, no? The Northwoods documents indicatesa high level of interest in establishing a pretext to invade Cuba and lo and behold up pops Lee Oswald recently from Mexico City and his dance with the Commies... I'm not a Co-Incidentalist. The "nuke China" agenda wasn't necessarily shared with the rest of the perps. Each had their own agenda -- with the super hawks they wanted a freer hand under LBJ -- but the one goal all shared was the immediate POLICY toward Cuba. I value your input, and I'll try harder, Michael.

You bet. And what about Mr. George Bush of the CIA? Lots of people. Not just Eastern Establishment types. Dulles and the Bushestranscend the Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy, straddling both camps. Better believe it. And the name of that man...H. L. Hunt. Of course. What, the only rich evil scumbags in the world come out of the "Eastern Establishment"? Gimme a break. It's like blaming the all evils of the world on Bill and Hillary Clinton. Same folks as Mr. George Bush of the CIA. Pretty much. Lots of fingers in lots of pies. And what was John Kennedy taking away from the ruling eastern establishment?Certainly not anything to do with Southeast Asian policy -- Harriman called the shots on the Diem overthrow, with Lodge his man in Saigon 11/63. The "Eastern Establishment" just scored a foreign policy victory -- the overthrow of the Diem regime in 'Nam -- and then they turned right around and killed their own "Yankee" commander-in-chief? Whom among the Eastern Establishment did JFK get into dutch? Over what? They blew his brains out right in his wife's face. That is hate, baby. Hate for Jackie. I mean, just think about it. You have a hundred ways to kill the guy -- if that is the sole motivation, to simply end JFK's life -- and the way you pick to do it involves blowing his brains out with blood all over her pretty pink dress? What does a corpse care if it was slaughtered in public or put to death in its sleep? It had to be Jackie. They must have really hated her, these "Eastern Establishment" perps. Gee, except that the Bouvier's were Eastern Establishment, as well, weren't they? Mean to each other, these "liberal Eastern Establishment" types... You left out: W. Averell Harriman, Prescott Bush and his son George, and a guy named Joe Kennedy. I'd like to hear your argument that JFK had crossed any of the above in some manner so grave that they'd facilitate his murder. The only name above I see interested in Kennedy's death is Mr. George Bush of the CIA. And that's because of CUBA.

And when you're done thinking real hard about all that please note that I based my case on PENTAGON documents. I hope no one here is denying the super aggressive posture toward Cuba betrayed by Generals Lansdale, Lemnitzer, and LeMay. I love it when people pooh-pooh my argument without ever addressing a single point I raise. Operation Northwoods connected to the CIA through Lansdale. I'm looking forward to hearing an actual argument -- as opposed to righteously repeated conclusions -- as to why the Eastern Establishment wanted to kill one of their own.