Myra Bronstein

Well, turns out I lacked imagination when I put Cary Reich's's book "The Life of Nelson A. Rockefeller" on the back burner 'cause it stopped at 1958, pre-President Kennedy. In fact it has the exact background of both Rockefellers' CIA ties that fills in many gaps, at least for me. Pg 559: "As good as [Nelson] Rockefeller's relations were with the CIA, his brother David's were better. During the war David had served in Army intelligence in North Africa, and afterward he discreetly maintained his contacts with the intelligence community. "David kept in very close touch," recalls Tom Braden. "He was a friend and confidant of Allen Dulles, and in some instances furnished a front"--agreeing to finance a do-good foundation that was a CIA cover. "I remember briefing him, in great detail, about the work of the division that I headed in the CIA. Allen asked me to brief him, and I gave him a full briefing, so that he knew everything that I was doing. And I think he did it with the other division chiefs, too. He was close to intelligence work--much, much, much closer than Nelson was." A "do good" foundation, eh? I suppose that's the obvious one... (?) Pg 560: "[Nelson] Rockeffer was proud of his CIA connection, and had no compunction about playing it up within the inner councils of the administration. When the White House that spring circulated a guide to the agencies for which various for which various presidential aides were responsible, Rockefeller was aggrieved when the CIA was not listed under his name. At his insistence, "CIA (operations)" was added to the list. Source: Andrew Goodpaster to NAR, April 29, 1955. NAR Special Assistant Book 16, RAC." Much much more in the book. Including Nelson's lust for war... So between this and "Battling Wall Street," it's starting to appear (to a newbie) like the CIA worked closely with, or for, both Rockefeller boys.

I should add, to the thread in general, that a book I've been reading for a (too long) while: "Battling Wall Street" by Donald Gibson, is quite an indictment of the Rockefellers in regards to President Kennedy's murder.

Thank you so much Michael!

Myra, Don't know for sure if Chavez is Agency, or merely a useful, if largely unwitting, tool. Ultimately, it makes little difference. Nevertheless, some reflections on the matter: 1) If he is Agency, he'd sure as hell undertake precisely the kind of action you accurately described, just as a Special Branch officer infiltrating, let us say, the Anti-Nazi League or the Socialist Workers'Party, would be sure to declaim his hatred of the SB/MI5 - before pouching the membership secretary's or treasurer's post! 2) His attribution of responsibility for 9/11 is, in my view, entirely justified. His recent decision to promote sales of the work of Noam Chomsky, the Agency's favourite "leftist" dissident, strongly suggests, however, a certain lack of lit crit rigour, and political consistency. Chomsky, is after all, the man who gave us the following pearl of Agency-serving nonsense:""One thing I would mention is that when it's a CIA operation, that means it's a White House operation. It's not CIA. They don't do things on their own…If it's a CIA operation it's because they were ordered to do it…" (Noam Chomsky. Class Warfare (London: Pluto Press, 1996), p. 92.) Very convincing. 2) On cue - very obliging of the chap, I must say - I note in my morning paper, under the headline "Chavez lays ground to socialism" (The Guardian, 8 January 2007, p.16) - that he is moving to occupy the vacuum left by the dying Fidel. 3) The Agency may yet decide to martyr him, but only if there's a suitable replacement in the wings. 4) A relatively unified Central and Southern American left offers rich scope for a Republican come-back after 4 to 8 years of Republican-lite government by the nominal opposition. (Buggins turn dictates some safe Democrat centrist is due for a spell in the White House.) In crude summary, think a re-run of the early/mid Reagan years. 5) All the while, Venezuelan oil money will be recycled on lots of essential infra-structure projects. They will benefit the countries concerned immensely, but prepare the country for integration with the US/North American trading bloc. Sorry to seem so cynical, but this is the way it strikes me. Paul Well you did touch on the single most bothersome thing (to me) President Chavez has done--promoting pseudo-leftist CiaOmsky. Hard to believe that Chavez is naive enough to think Chomsky is for real, but a lot of people are and do. Still, it would take a lot to convince me that Chavez is a fraud. Are you saying the CIA coup attempts against Chavez, which he openly blames on the CIA, were a big show?

Why not? The Agency cares not a jot about the well-being of most Americans, so what chance some islanders ninety miles off shore? Paul Yeah the CIA is/was a bunch of sociopaths. But the prospect of Castro letting his people suffer for decades... that's a lot to overcome both logically and emotionally. Dunno.

That's all Bush ever had with Zapata -- a modest bottom line. It's interesting that the Bush interests settled out with the Liedtkes by giving the Texas boys the actual oil production company -- Zapata Petroleum, which became very successful -- while the Bush clan got Zapata Offshore, which wasn't much of a success at all unless they used it as a front for smuggling operations. I'll bet Harriman/Bush got the best end of the stick when all was said and done. That is a great quote Cliff. "Bewildering range"--right. Only bewildering for the history challenged.

I would like to read more by Ms. Pease. All I've read is... what's in this thread.

Thomas Arthur Vallee was a member of the John Birch Society Steve Thomas Thank you Steve! If you could share a source that'd be even better. The thing that I find curious is that they were scapegoating the Birch Society with the Chicago patsy. How would that have helped them to justify an invasion of Cuba--ostensibly a major goal of the murder. ...Unless Paul is correct in his theory that Castro was a CIA ally. I wonder who the pasty was for the Miami trip.

Yes. And I'm a fan of timelines because context is critical to true understanding. The more timelines the better. I look at them in the Seminars section all the time, and I work on combining them. Pieces of the puzzle.

Thank you Ashton. It seems like every time I read about a member of President Kennedy's administration, it underscores the fact that he inadvertently isolated himself in his own administration. He'd reach across aisles and appoint Republicans and assorted non-Democrats, idealistically thinking (I assume) that inclusion in his gov't would be healthy and high-minded. Of course he didn't know they were snakes. Kennedy was a smart man, brilliant even, but not being evil it was hard for him to anticipate and comprehend that depth of evil. Good lesson for our times.

Ok, hold the phone. You claim that Hugo Chavez, the man who stood on the floor of the UN and told America that the CIA was behind 911, is a CIA puppet?

I know this is a tangent, but I'm confused about Alpha 66. Sometimes it seems like it was led by the CIA, certainly funded by the CIA--at least partly. Other times it seems like it was independent of the CIA. Can anyone help de-confuse me?

Well, I'm open to the idea that Castro may have originally been a CIA puppet; he's supposedly survived too much. He's the roadrunner to the CIA's Willey Coyote. For example, I get more convinced every day that the Bay of Pigs was a trap for Kennedy--to discredit him, and to manipulate the Cubans into hating him and do the wet work on Nov 22, '63. But, when did the supposed Castro/CIA alliance dissolve, if it ever did? And why would Cuba be allowed to starve and crumble for decades if Castro was really the CIA's boy?

Isn't President Kennedy's war with the CIA, and their murder of him, a glaring and obvious exception to Prados' rule?

Well on this "national day of mourning," when the "character" of Gerald Ford is being evaluated, I thought it proper to quote Joachim Joesten, from his book "Gerald Ford: Coverup Artist Par Excellence: How he Misused his Power and Prestige." It was written in 1974, while Ford was President. "Gerald Ford - The number one accessory after the fact in the assassination of President Kennedy. No living person did more to conceal the true facts of the Kennedy assassination, to pervert and distort the evidence in the case, to shield the actual murderers by deliberately pointing the accusing finger in the wrong direction and generally to make sure that injustice prevailed than did the man who is now President of the United States, not by the people's choice but by the grace of the Establishment he had served so well - Gerald Ford. Of all the countless accessories after the fact who took part in the most infamous coverup in American history - one that makes Watergate look like innocent child's play - Ford was the most active, the most blatant and the most dishonest." Amen. Give the devil his due.

12/29/06 Ford Told Reporter Friendship With Nixon Affected Pardon Former President Ford once called himself Richard Nixon's only real friend. Now audiotapes reveal that the friendship between the two former presidents was even closer than once thought, and that friendship played a role in Ford's decision to give Nixon a blanket pardon in the Watergate scandal. These new tapes give insight into why Nixon chose Ford to be vice president and why Ford pardoned Nixon. They come on top of revelations Thursday that Ford was very much against the Iraq War even though he publicly defended it. ABC's George Stephanopoulos spoke with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, who revealed Ford's true feelings about Iraq, about the former president's private personality versus his public one. Woodward said he learned from Ford's private files and Nixon tapes that had not previously come to public attention that Ford and Nixon were extremely close friends. A phone call from Nixon to Ford reveals the depth of their relationship. Ford: Hello? Nixon: Just wanted to express my appreciation for your note. Ford: Anytime you want me to do anything under any circumstances. ... You give me a call. Ford Stood by Nixon's Side Most of the literature about Ford and Nixon suggests that when Nixon chose Ford to be his vice president, the two didn't know each other all that well -- Nixon made his choice based on the assumption that Ford was certain to get confirmed. "That's what's in the historical record. That's what I thought quite frankly," Woodward said. "But then when you listen to these tapes. ... There's one moment where Nixon is almost begging Ford to go get support from Congress during Watergate. ... He literally says to Nixon, 'We will support you morning, noon and night.'" Nixon: Tell the guys. ... To get off their ass and start fighting back. Ford: You've got a hell of a lot of friends up here, both Republican and Democrat, and don't worry about anyone being sunshine soldiers or summer patriots. Ford pardoned Nixon amid great controversy in 1974. At the time he said he did it to move the country forward, but Woodward believes friendship played a role, too. "There was a personal element in pardoning Nixon. He felt he was lifting some sort of stigma," Woodward said. In fact, that's exactly what Ford told Woodward in an interview. "I looked upon him as my personal friend, and I always treasured our relationship," Ford said. "And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon. ... I didn't want to see my real friend have the stigma." Copyright � 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures Gee, here I thought a president took an oath to uphold the constitution, not to help criminal pals avoid prison.

So this could be yet another flurry of disinformation? Total speculation here: Could be timed to distract from the Gerald Ford role in the cover-ups.

Furthermore, Lemnitzer is the guy President Kennedy apparently canned over the Operation Northwoods plans which were finally implemented on 911: "In March 1962, Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the Operation Northwoods plan to President John Kennedy and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. The plan was rejected. Lemnitzer then sought to destroy all evidence of the plan. [baltimore Sun, 4/24/2001; ABC News, 5/1/2001] Lemnitzer was replaced a few months later, but the Joint Chiefs continued to plan “pretext” operations at least through 1963. [ABC News, 5/1/2001] One suggestion in the plan was to create a remote-controlled drone duplicate of a real civilian aircraft. The real aircraft would be loaded with “selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases,” and then take off with the drone duplicate simultaneously taking off near by. The aircraft with passengers would secretly land at a US military base while the drone continues along the other plane’s flight path. The drone would then be destroyed over Cuba in a way that places the blame on Cuban fighter aircraft. [Harper's, 7/1/2001] Bamford says, “Here we are, 40 years afterward, and it’s only now coming out. You just wonder what is going to be exposed 40 years from now.” [insight, 7/30/2001] Some 9/11 skeptics will claim that the 9/11 attacks could have been orchestrated by elements of the US government, and see Northwoods as an example of how top US officials could hatch such a plot. [Oakland Tribune, 3/27/2004]" http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....an_l._lemnitzer

He was a loyal foot soldier for the regime. Maybe they'll name the next war after him or something.

And here's a little something I like to call... a little something. Song by someone who used to be my favorite artist, until he sold his anthem as a commercial... Anyways, without further ado... Christmas In Washington Lyrics by Steve Earle It's Christmastime in Washington The Democrats rehearsed Gettin' into gear for four more years Things not gettin' worse The Republicans drink whiskey neat And thanked their lucky stars They said, 'He cannot seek another term They'll be no more FDRs' I sat home in Tennessee Staring at the screen With an uneasy feeling in my chest And I'm wonderin' what it means Chorus: So come back Woody Guthrie Come back to us now Tear your eyes from paradise And rise again somehow If you run into Jesus Maybe he can help you out Come back Woody Guthrie to us now I followed in your footsteps once Back in my travelin' days Somewhere I failed to find your trail Now I'm stumblin' through the haze But there's killers on the highway now And a man can't get around So I sold my soul for wheels that roll Now I'm stuck here in this town Chorus There's foxes in the hen house Cows out in the corn The unions have been busted Their proud red banners torn To listen to the radio You'd think that all was well But you and me and Cisco know It's going straight to hell So come back, Emma Goldman Rise up, old Joe Hill The barracades are goin' up They cannot break our will Come back to us, Malcolm X And Martin Luther King We're marching into Selma As the bells of freedom ring Chorus [Amen]

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Major General in Marine Corps history, and two time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor: "War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm Also see General Butler's book "War is a Racket"-- http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Anti-War-...TF8&s=books

I'm starting to think that it's not terribly important whether or not President Kennedy bypassed the Federal Reserve bank to print US treasury notes. I mean, it's interesting, and the actual notes would be great metaphors (and evidence), but it already seems clear enough that he was at odds with the banking establishment. I'm reading "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency." http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battling-Wall-Stre...y/dp/1879823101 It's remarkable. Totally bypasses the subject of which drooling thug aimed a gun at the President, and points to the people who likely bought the bullets. Here's a passage, Pg 73 on: "During Kennedy's presidency, David Rockefeller was emerging as one of the leaders of the financial community and of the upper class in general. He was president of Chase Manhattan Bank--in line to become its chief executive--and he was vice-president of the Council on Foreign Relations. In July of 1962, Life magazine featured an exchange of letters between David Rockefeller and President Kennedy. In this public and somewhat polite airing of differences, Rockefeller offered praise for some of Kennedy's actions, but he ultimately located the source of the country's economic problems in the president's policies. Claiming to reflect the concerns of bankers in the U.S. and abroad, Rockefeller advised the president to make a "vigorous effort" to control government spending and to balance the budget. He also suggested to Kennedy that interest rates were being kept too low and too much money was being injected into the economy. In his reply, Kennedy either rejected or ignored these arguments. Rockefeller's concern for what he called "fiscal responsibility" was also expressed in a report issued around this time by another influential group with which Rockefeller was involved. This was the Committee for Economic Development, which was created in the early 1940s and largely made of of leaders from the major non-financial corporations in the U.S., including two of the directors of Time [magazine]. ... The commission wanted to make free trade and private initiative central to U.S. foreign policy. ... When David Rockefeller ventured to publicly condemn Kennedy's policies he was adding his personal prestige to the campaign run by Morgan-Rockefeller related media. These interests were also represented within the Kennedy administration, and they attempted to steer Kennedy in certain directions, with little success. As noted above, there was a clear split within the Kennedy administration over economic policy. The Kennedy group, which included Walter Heller and FDR Jr., opposed the Dillon-Federal Reserve group, which spoke for the major banks. Dillon was a close associate of David Rockefeller's and a director of the Chase Manhattan Bank. The Federal Reserve, particularly the New York regional bank, has always been tightly interconnected with Morgan and Rockefeller banking. William McChesney Martin, the Fed's chairman, would become supervisor of the Rockefeller family's trust fund. ... In these conflicts, as well as those discussed earlier, Kennedy was coming up against those people variously referred to as the East Coast Establishment, Wall Street, finance capital, the higher circles, etc. The label is not important. In the end they all refer to Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the many other wealthy and influential families allied with them (including Harriman, Cabot, Lodge, Dillon, Bundy). Kennedy's ideas about the responsibilities of the presidency, his attitude about economic progress and the role of the federal government in achieving that progress, his view of foreign aid and foreign policy, and his recommendations and actions in a variety of specific areas disrupted or threatened to disrupt established order. In that established order, in place for most of the century, major government decisions were to serve or at least not disrupt the privately organized hierarchy. Many in the upper levels of this hierarchy, most emphatically those in and around Morgan interests, were--and still are--involved in a relationship with the British establishment. Their ideas about the world are similar to, if not direct imitations of, those of that older British elite rooted in inherited wealth and titles and organized in the modern world around control of finance and raw materials. In this world view, the Anglo-American upper class should maintain its global position by suppressing progress elsewhere and by preventing or containing disruptive changes within England and the United States. Important decision-making power should be kept in private hands, or, if necessary, in government agencies under their influence. From this perspective, Kennedy must have looked like a wild man. Economic growth, scientific and technological progress, expanding opportunity, development in the Third World, and social justice were the goals for Kennedy, not preservation of the class structure. Not only were the government policies he undertook intended to further this disruptive agenda; in many specific instances those policies meant that decision-making power was being taken over by the author of that agenda. Even where Kennedy's efforts only meant changes in the rules, these changes were intended to alter investment patterns and tax burdens in a way not in tune with upper-class interests. Seen in this context, the rhetoric of the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Life and Newsweek makes sense. Also understandable is the unusual spectacle of a private establishment figure such as David Rockefeller going public to personally challenge the president. Rockefeller's Life magazine admonishment was polite; the polemics elsewhere were not. To label a popular president a cultist, a reactionary, a threat to freedom, was to engage in serious conflict with the democratically elected leader of the Republic. It suggested great anger, and it indicated a frustration produced by Kennedy's failure to heed the criticism. President Kennedy's refusal to surrender to the pressures from such powerful forces was a demonstration of courage. In discussing the meaning of courage Kennedy said: "A man does what he must--in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures--and that is the basis of all human morality." His repeated efforts on behalf of economic progress and justice demonstrated the highest form of morality." I cannot recommend this book highly enough. I would love to see those letters exchanged between Rockefeller and the President, and the Committee for Economic Development report. Anyone got a lead on them?

Ron, I have no way of knowing if Edward Flaherty is a credible expert or some guy with an agenda. He seems to be very much into discrediting critics of the Federal Reserve. If you google his name you'll see what I mean. He may be right; like you I don't have the expertise about economics to judge. But I wouldn't accept Flaherty's version without question. He could be another McAdams for all I know.

I'm pretty tired of hearing it too. I guess it's the CIA apologists' come-back when confronted with the fact that the CIA killed President Kennedy. It's getting harder and harder to deny the CIA's role, so they try to muddy the water with some murky inane claim about amok agents. Bullxxxx. The CIA killed the President on behalf of their business clients and/or their own business interests. You know, to keep the world safe for capitalism.

This is not a federal reserve note, correct? Sorry to be obtuse, I'm just sort of incredulous. This is proof that Kennedy had US treasury notes printed, right? I read somewhere that President Kennedy's executive order to print US notes was never actually reversed by subsequent white house occupants, just not utilized. Now I don't recall where I read it. But the point is, maybe not every executive order has to be reversed, they can just be ignored (?) That might partly explain the lack of subsequent paper trail.