Cliff Varnell

[snip grandstand play to the obvious]

No invasion of Cuba occurred.

What was planned, premeditated, with malice aforethought, was carried out. That is inarguable. It is on film.

That is one very good and very rational reason why this is not the "Phantom Invasion of Cuba that Did Not Happen Debate" forum.

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?

How much more plainer can we make that for you, Mr. Snidely Whiplash [Ron]? And, don't give me that old crap about "giving you concrete evidence for tying this in with The Federal Reserve's actual perpetrative involvement in what happened in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63." All the motives were in place,

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:

And I don't violently rip people's words out of context as you did with

the following:

In the interest of intellectual honesty I must confess this line

to be a tad disingenuous of me. But just a tad!

The Ivy League WASP blue-bloods at the CIA wanted Kennedy in 1960, clearly.

So did the Catholic faction at the CIA.

Say 'Ello to my l'il fren...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...40/ai_115078662

These kingmakers imo wanted Nixon and instead got Kennedy. From the offset or shortly thereafter a decision was taken that Kennedy could/would not serve the common aims of these folk and plans were put forth for his removal, however and whatever it took to achieve this.

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:

As a presidential candidate, he (Kennedy) had received secret briefings by the CIA, some

of which revealed that we were training a force of Cuban exiles for a possible invasion of

the Cuban mainland.

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:

"We must attempt to strengthen the non-Batista, democratic, anti-Castro forces in exile,

and in Cuba itself, who offer eventual hope of overthrowing Castro."

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.

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

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.

With no disrepect to the work that has gone into decades of research by people of good faith, I personally find the "Yankees and Cowboys" dichotomy too simplistic and pat a division of "sides" ever to embrace the forces at play in the Kennedy murder, very similar to the "liberal Democrats vs. conservative Republicans" Punch 'n' Judy show that you can set your watch by in all these "analyses."

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.

I find these dichotomies, these "opposing forces," uniformly to be little more in reality than bread and circuses:

a public show

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?

that feeds the Mockingbird headlines or booksales,

and creates tempests in a teacup that mask actual alliances and motives. The invitation to subscribe to any of these supplied dichotomies at once suspends to a greater or lesser degree the latitude of thought.

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]

Your post has somewhat preempted a reply I was going to make to Cliff Varnell's latest bombastic fusillade,

btw, I'm just warming up...

and I think that I'd rather present it here, in an exchange exhibiting reason and contemplation. The single question posed by Varnell that I even was going to answer is the only one that matters, and is one he should have asked himself in the mirror first:

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:

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. ...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?

Of course there really is no other point at all. Of course it is the central, pivotal, and paramount question that ultimately has to be answered.

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:

A reasonable conclusion can be drawn that these three guys,

[Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, David Sanchez Morales],

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.

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?

You are the one who, by so postulating and asserting, have exonerated

from complicity the head of the entire agency at all relevant times, John McCone,

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.

to whose hands the blood-drenched CIA sceptre had been passed from Allen Dulles;

to 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.

who was overseeing the black secrets of MKULTRA at all relevant times;

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.

and to

whom Edward Lansdale was answering at all relevant times—through the Special Groups

and Lansdale's involvement with Operation Mongoose.

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.

You are the one who has asserted that the buck stopped at the desk of Richard Helms

for any and all CIA knowledge or involvement in the premeditated murder of John F. Kennedy

and Lee Harvey Oswald.

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.

You are the one who has invoked CIA's favorite apology, "compartmentalization,"

If that's the way you want to describe Standard Operating Procedure, fine.

the same song as the CIA puppet Patrick Gray sang: "The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing."

Ignoring, of course, the fact that not a finger on either hand moves without the knowledge and permission of the head.

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.

You are the one who by insinuation has tacitly postulated that John McCone—the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; the head of the world's most massive clandestine intelligence machine—was so incredibly stupid, so utterly blind, so hilariously incompetent, so hopelessly seized in a walking cognitive coma, that Edward Lansdale, Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales could plot right under his nose, but in complete secret from him, for over a year at least, using agency funds, lines, personnel, safe houses, facilities, and transportation in the meticulous planning and execution of what proved to be a successful assassination of the President of the United States, McCone then going on in blind, ignorant innocence to sit dutifully cheek-by-jowl with Richard Helms in the Warren Commission—in front of McCone's predecessor, Dulles; and in front of the father of the deformed, malevolent, psychotic, pathologically lying bastard child called CIA, John J. McCloy—and assure them and the world that none of his CIA Boy Scouts were involved.

Correct. McCone was kept out of the loop for no other reason than to provide

"plausible deniability."

Apparently, though, all we have to do is go look up the word "initially," and we'll all understand how the case has been "solved."

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."

You are the one who introduced into this thread the concept of a "rogue" CIA veteran, General Edward Lansdale,

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.

[Lansdale et al]being the originating source for the plot to murder John F. Kennedy

in cold blood,

Yep, guys whose jobs were to effect Coup d'Etat were the first to think of Coup d'Etat.

What an absurd notion! (?)

as though it were Lansdale's own personal aberration having nothing to do with h

is having been a founding member of CIA, keeping the frequent company of

McCone, Dulles, Helms, Hunt, et al.

I 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?

You are the one who introduced into this thread the concept that "initially" this was

merely Lansdale's own "rogue" idea, divorced from the greater purpose and agenda of

the Central Intelligence Agency itself,

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.

and that Lansdale only got the initial support and agreement of two other "rogue" CIA

veterans, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales.

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.

Maybe you didn't mean "totally solved" when you said "solved." Maybe you just meant "partially solved." You didn't add any such qualifiers, though, did you?

Parlor Gamers as always so dead certain of their little pet theories.

I went slumming with you, Ashton.

It calls to mind being "a little bit pregnant."

[/quote off]

So how long *is* the carnival in town?

Ashton Gray: Moving on...

I next asked you by whom such a military invasion of Cuba would be ordered. You have answered, consistent with your above answers:

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 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.

...I have never argued that Lansdale could order the military invasion of Cuba. ...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... .

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.

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"?

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 Hoover

TEXAS 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."

So as I see this, your position is in direct opposition to my entire primary thesis at the top of this thread and this message, your assertion, contrariwise, being that the CIA was involved—but only "rogue" elements of CIA—and that those "rogue" CIA elements were working at the behest

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?

and in the interests of not only Texas oil men and the Mafia, but

also in concert with "rogue" military generals and the Director of the FBI.

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?

But no Cubans named anywhere.

involved was a potential pasty.

And after all their efforts, after three violent and vicious murders in two days, no military invasion of Cuba occurred.

[

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).

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.

If I hear ONE more person attempt to argue that JFK was killed by "rogue elements of the CIA" I am going to f*****g scream. "Rogue elements" do not take out the Commander -in- chief. I doubt that "rogue elements" actually do much of consequence.

I wonder where this idea even originated. (Probably Langley central) But it has always brought to my mind Tony Summers, who Jim Garrison called "One of the CIA's more accommodating whores". For those lamebrains who perpetuate this assinine myth I can only agree with the DA.

Dawn

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:

I'll pause here only to mention what seems, to me, to be something of an omission: the assistant to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor was one Thomas A. Parrott, another long-time CIA veteran, who doubled as secretary for the Special Group and the Special Group Augmented at all relevant times. How and why I believe that should be mentioned in passing at this point I will defer to a later time. Suffice it to say that other members of said Special Groups included General Edward Lansdale and Director of CIA John McCone. But let us move on...

Is there anything I've written that would lead you to assume such?

Cliff Varnell wrote:

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.

All right. Allow me to update the record here to the best of my understanding: all the felonious, murderous planning and plotting by the 13 (so far) powerful men listed above to murder Kennedy and thereby launch a military invasion of Cuba was foiled by someone (who, I have no idea—it hasn't been revealed so far) dropping the ball on murdering Lee Harvey Oswald the same day.

or so I would speculate.

AG:

The fact that Oswald was murdered a little over twenty-four hours later went for nought: it wasn't good enough. So the murders of both John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald accomplished nothing that the plotters had intended to accomplish.

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:

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.

Objection. Stringent objection. There is no "throat wound" in evidence. There is a tracheotomy opening in evidence, with oral claims that a throat wound had been there in the same place prior to the tracheotomy.

And, pray tell, why did they perform a trach unless they had some reason to believe

he couldn't breathe?

It seems that always when proponents of the purported "throat wound" sally forth with a case built on it, they somehow sort of uniformly omit mention of the tracheotomy (performed on someone who had half their skull and brains missing), and the fact that the tracheotomy forever eradicated any and all possibility of ever establishing the prior presence or absence of any such alleged "throat wound."

You operate on any articles of faith-based belief you want.

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.

And by all means, peddle that to anybody who will buy it—and lots of people always line up for snake oil, wherever sold. Don't try to put it past me again, though, as any established "fact." It isn't. Period. So if you want to debate the alleged "throat wound," start a new thread and I'll meet you there. Meanwhile, I'm not wasting any more forum space on it here in this topic.

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.

I need to pause here in this summation to point out that this "CIA rogue" scenario that you (and others) have put forward completely clears then-CIA Director John McCone of any knowledge or participation at any relevant time.

If you can make an argument for McCone's involvement, I'm all ears.

Now, I am not reaching even slightly to any rhetorical devices such as hyperbole to state here what I clearly understand your answer to the seminal question above to be. I must, though, be able to orient your further answers, below, to this central and primary question, above, so unless and until you correct any false impression I've gotten from your copious writings, I am going to proceed on the basis of the above, which is my good-faith understanding of your screed.

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?

Omitting, for the moment, any real assessment of the proven participation on 10 October 1963 of CIA's Jane Roman, J. C. King (Chief of all CIA operations in the Western Hemisphere), and Tom Karamessines (Deputy to CIA covert operations chief) in sending patently false information on Lee Harvey Oswald to CIA Mexico,

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...

I'm going to turn to your answers concerning motive for the murder John F. Kennedy, which you claim to have been effected through the participation of five CIA "rogues" listed above.

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.)

your case is that a military invasion of Cuba was important enough to CIA's Edward Lansdale, Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales that they would conspire (as "rogues," outside of any other CIA knowledge or participation)

repeating myself is not productive.

to effect a daylight murder of the President of the United States, and thereby engender enough public loathing against Castro and Cuba to justify the replacement President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, with the backing of Congress, to launch an all-out military invasion of Cuba—despite the recent Bay of Pigs catastrophe and the nuclear arms stand-off with the Soviet Union over Cuba that terrified the world.

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.

Now, I know my reputation, and I fear that you, or others, may think that I am resorting to my infamous sarcasm or hyperbole here in attempting, in the best way I can, to reduce and distill your prolix pronunciamentos into something accessible, into a fair and probative summation that takes into account my most honest and sober comprehension of what you have put forward—however incomprehensible any or all of it might seem to me.

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.

And it is on the foundation of this model, if I understand you correctly, that you stand to say the assassination of John F. Kennedy has been "solved."

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.

Given that statement of my best understanding, I will attempt below to address your specific answers going to motive and other purported participants in a quest for that alleged motive: "a pre-text [sic] for a military invasion of Cuba." (while also attempting to work around the quotation quotas of the board).

I asked you for whom such a pretext (assassination of the President) for a military invasion of Cuba was being manufactured. You now have answered, in pertinent part:

Cliff Varnell: I cited Johnson's blessing of Lansdale's kill-JFK plotting. You know, Vice-President Johnson.

...Ashton, you're asking me who has authority over the military?

And my answer is the President. [ASHTON NOTE: Meaning, I can only presume, that Johnson would accede to the Presidency, and order the military invasion. He did accede to the Presidency. He did not order a military invasion of Cuba.][

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.

And you're asking me who are the top people in the military?

And my answer is the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

...I cited the blessings of "LeMay, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, Johnson"

...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 [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 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...

...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.

[AG]: Thank you. Lets now bring the cast of suspects purportedly engaged in this assassination plot up

to date:

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."

Excuse me, but if memory serves me well, it was in William Manchester's book, "One Brief, Shining Moment" where he relates to when Eisenhower, while turning over the keys of The Whitehouse to JFK, warned him of how THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, don't care about what the president has to say regarding their [TJCOS's] little forays into other nations' affairs, will continue to disregard the policies set forth in The Geneva Accords, and how they continued to OVERRIDE his [Eisenhower's] attempts to exercise THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO, if and when he happened to have disagreed, or had taken issue with, or protested the nature of, or the course by which their [TJCOS's] objectives were appearing to proceed, or were taking.

And, I am telling you, Varnell,

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.

that TJCOS take their cues, and do the bidding of those who lobby for the most lucrative corporate contracts to make the most profits from the products and services rendered and sold, which feed the markets, which in turn, fill the tills of the financial houses with the greatest stranglehold on the pockets and bank accounts of the citizenry of this country, and its allies. HELLO!

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.

Do you need a map to the NYSE, or to Allen Dulles' office at Sullivan and Cromwell on Wall Street, just to mention a couple of places? Not to mention their affiliates' houses and establishments in Europe?

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..

You can with people who accept simplistic and generalized references instead of specific answers to specific questions. You've said the Kennedy assassination was to create "a pretext for a military invasion of Cuba," and I've asked "for whom," and I have yet to see an anwer to the question I asked.

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...

United States military invasion of a country with close ties to the superpower, at the time,

of the Soviet Union, in the aftermath not only of the Bay of Pigs debacle but of the infamous

nuclear arms standoff isn't a game of cowboys and broomstick horsies.

(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)

So if you don't have an answer to "for whom," meaning a specific person or specific

persons with names and faces, then how about you just say so and we won't have to drag this out

any longer.

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.

Heh.

Look, Cliff, I enjoy a good tap-dance as much as anybody. But here'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,"

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).

and about how sort of ignorant and uninformed anyone who doesn't see it or know it is, so I'm asking for you to enlighten me. So far, we're at strike two.

I 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...

ASHTON:

Ordered by whom?

CLIFF VARNELL:

I think Lansdale put it together initially on a "rogue" basis

Oh. One of them pesky CIA "rogues" straying off the reservation.

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.

Gotcha'. That seems to have been an epidemic in the ranks of the CIA over the years, huh? I mean, they had a whole herd of "rogues." (Which sort of starts to water down the word a little, but what are you going to do?)

I hate to put a knot in this string, but I'm afraid, Cliff, that Lansdale could not order the United States military invasion of a country under even the wildest stretch of imagination—rogue or no-rogue.

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.

The primary goal of the JFK assassination was to establish a pre-text to invade Cuba.

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?

For whom?

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.

For whose benefit?

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.

Ordered by whom?

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.

Run by whom?

Ed Lansdale, David Phillips, David Morales.

On whose authority?

[cue Treasure of the Sierra Madre]

"Badges? We don' need no steenkeen badges!!"

I disagree and do believe that Cuba was a cause. A cause, but THE cause, in a very simplistic way, was JFK's overall workings towards peace, not just with Cuba, but Russia, and attempting to end the war in Viet nam. Sadly, peace is never popular in this country with the powers that be. Some claim these pro-peace changes were the result of the acid Jack allegedly took, but I am more inclined to believe it was his own horrific experience in WW2 that motivated his sincere efforts at making this planet a safer and more peaceful place to raise our children.

Dawn

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.

...

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.

...

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.

The throat wound made the case so

that I could join those who came before me, upon whose shoulders I stand.

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.

And, lest we not forget those glad-handing, back-stabbers, the Harrimans.

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.

"Bankers and the War Party."

Probably where the term "War Chest" originated. JMHO

You know, it never ceases to amaze me of the lengths people will go to in their efforts to

continually skirt the issue of naming the REAL perps, the REAL people who had the supreme

and uncontested monumental control of the financial assets SO VERY NECESSARY

that they would never be held accountable, nor a bloody trail EVER be allowed traceable

back to their financial establishments and houses of the holy.

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.

Used in rail, auto, weaponry, shipping, construction, machinery, tooling to work steel, tools to fix all those, and boxes to keep the tools in. Basically war, transport and manufacturig. It's at the heart of so much. Including the Nazi links. Including the replacement of lost tonnage. Ie. don't even have to be in the war to reap massive profits.

http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2...and-titans.html

"Businessmen . . . the President's action points inevitably to a federal dictatorship over business." - David Lawrence, US News and World Report.

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...

_________

"The American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans."

John F. Kennedy, April 11, 1962

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.

STAN: I don't believe now that it really had anything to do with Cuba.

ASHTON: Of course it didn't. Never had diddly to do with Cuba. Nor was the Bay of Pigs "invasion" for any of the reasons the CIA ever trotted out. Nor was there ever any CIA program to assassinate Castro. All long-after-the-fact dog-and-pony-show patented CIA limited hangout BS to cover what they really had been doing. If anybody thinks one syllable in this paragraph is sarcastic or facetious in the slightest, better pause and think again. Real hard.

...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.

But in any case it is still my opinion that Cubans and their friends in high and low places had as much chance of "getting Cuba invaded" by slipping and slinking around Dallas, Texas for months, lying in wait for a president to show up, as they would have had in the Aleutian Island chain peeling whale blubber.

Your mileage may vary.

Ashton

P.S. I share your opinion of the triple Ls—but in something of a different, more realistic (IMHO) context. Landsdale was very instrumental in setting up the Pentagon Papers op—but you knew that, surely. Oops: I mentioned something in connection with Ellsberg here in the JFK assassination forum, and I'm afraid I'm going to now be Speered. Of course we all know that Ellsberg had nothing at all to do with the Kennedy murder, or the nuclear arms situation surrounding it.

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.

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.

I do think you make many good points, but Cuba was a relative drop in the bucket to

these guys. They wanted to nuke the Soviets and/or Red China. If Cuba could provide a pretext

for a larger conflict with the Soviets, all well and good. The JCS was much more concerned with

Mao Tse-tung and Kruschev than they ever were with Castro.

a 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.

To claim that Vietnam was incidental without presenting a strong case weakens your overall argument, in my opinion.

I value your input, and I'll try harder, Michael.

Cliff, throw Allen Dulles in there.

You bet. And what about Mr. George Bush of the CIA?

For whom did he work, really?

transcend the Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy, straddling both camps.

And, all the names you mentioned were loyal to Dulles.

Better believe it.

I believe all it took was one conversation between one (very rich and powerful) man and Dulles and the whole thing swung into being.

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.

Again, for whom did Allen Dulles work?

Same folks as Mr. George Bush of the CIA. Pretty much. Lots of fingers in lots of pies.

Terry said it very well above. Who does the CIA really represent? Who does the U.S. military

really represent?

For the extremely wealthy there are no consequences - except, that is, between them and God.

I don't believe now that it really had anything to do with Cuba. It was a battle for control of the government - Cuba was a backdrop just like a lot of the other stuff. JFK was too smart for them, and they (the eastern established ruling class) would not allow everything they had to be taken away. Not one inch.

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?

Jack, Bobby, and then Ted? No way.

Also, I think part of this was personal. JFK was slaughtered in public. There were so many other ways they could've taken him out.

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...

He dared to take on the powers that be in a very reckless way -- very much like he lived the rest of his life.

The Rockefellers

The Morgans

The Lodges

Dean Acheson

Walt Rostow

The Bundys

Bankers and the War Party.

That's where I am today. FWIW.

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.

I don't believe now that it really had anything to do with Cuba.

Of course it didn't. Never had diddly to do with Cuba. Nor was the Bay of Pigs "invasion" for any of the reasons the CIA ever trotted out. Nor was there ever any CIA program to assassinate Castro. All long-after-the-fact dog-and-pony-show patented CIA limited hangout BS to cover what they really had been doing. If anybody thinks one syllable in this paragraph is sarcastic or facetious in the slighest, better pause and think again. Real hard.

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.