Myra Bronstein

Lyndon! Lyndon! Leave them alone!

If it bothers you that much,

I'll leave the bubble top off!

Duke! Bad Duke, bad!

Sure would like to get a better copy.

Don't see one at the LBJ "presidential" library or the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.

Anyone know where a good version is?

__________________________________

Great cropping, by whomever, of the original great photo because anyone looking at it could/would naturally assume that LBJ is giving the heckler "the finger!" Gotta love it...

FWIW, Thomas

__________________________________

That's true. Very true. Gotta give 'em kudos for that.

Here you go, Myra.

James

JAMES! Thank you thank you thank you! That is fantastic.

Oh boy oh boy.

It sure looks genuine to me. More genuine than the "picture" of Oswald standing in the back yard holding a gun and a leftest magazine.

According to Robert Caro, and other, JFK was blackmailed into selecting LBJ as his VP. Why would he not want to get rid of him?

According to Connally, JFK's primary goal in heading to Texas was raising MONEY. The BIG money funding elections came from the eastern establishment (Rockefellers, etc.), Texas, and California. The California money was earmarked for the Republicans, thanks to people like Nixon and Reagan. Only the Texas money was up for grabs. It could very well be that Kennedy wanted to get to Texas and grab that money before LBJ took a fall, a fall he knew was coming.

As I've mentioned on other threads, the November 22 Life Magazine had an article on the Baker scandal that made clear that Baker was Johnson's protege.

...

Good tip, thank you Pat.

I went to http://www.2neatmagazines.com/life/1963.html and glanced at summaries of Life magazine contents for a few weeks. That Baker scandal sure was heating up and then poof. Gone.

Life Magazine November 8, 1963 : Cover - Bobby Baker at a Washington masquerade party. Bobby Baker bombshell - capital buzzes over stories of misconduct in high places. Morocco and Algeria fight. Sir Alec Douglas-Home renounces his title of Lord Home and seeks a seat in Britain's House of Commons. Grand Jury investigates wild party that wrecked Southampton mansion, Fernanda Wetherill (See also September 20, 1963). Giants bounce back, football. School prayer continues as North Brookfield, Massachusetts ignores the Supreme Court. Fashions for bowling. Human body series, part 5 - chemical balances. New retirement towns. Biggest radio telescope, Puerto Rico. Jill St. John, actress with a 160 IQ. Soccer playing brothers Gogolaks.

G - $17

Life Magazine November 15, 1963 : Cover - Vietnam. Vietnam - the coup in pictures. 100 years later, the real story of the Gettysburg address, Lincoln's “Failure.” US slows down Taiwan publishing racket. Disaster at Indianapolis, explosion kills 60, Fairgrounds Coliseum. Miss Teenage America, Judy Doll. Wedding of the Cosmonauts. Physicist Maria Mayer wins the Nobel Prize. Peewee Football grows and so do the pressures. Rare white thoroughbred horse. Agnes de Mille, dancer. Yale's new rare book skyscraper inside library. Eastern Europe in photos. St. Louis ladies dress up.

VG - $20

G - $12

Life Magazine November 22, 1963 : Cover - Elizabeth Ashley, Broadway. Sheriff Tarr and convict Donald Carpenter in gunfight, both die. Babby Baker scandal grows. Northern Illinois' George Bork is best college football passer. Russia arrests Yale professor as spy, Frederick Barghoorn. Donald Hornig, new Science adviser. Masks. Negroes and whites head for a collision in the North, Part 1. The Horse Kelso, Iron Duckling. Cute full page color Black Label beer ad with Christmas theme.

VG - $20

G - $12

Life Magazine November 29, 1963 : Cover - President John F. Kennedy. 1917-1963. Assassination of J.F.K. Tarzan's paperback comeback. Fire fighters' tepee - portable emergency shelter for wildland firefighters. Record Stamp price - 3 cent Hawaiian. Anthony Newley. Lyndon Johnson - 36th president. Negro in the North Part 2.

G - $35

Life Magazine December 6, 1963 : Cover - JFK funeral - Jackie with children. Terror in a jetliner by Carol Miller. Schippers handsome maestro. Return of the Dinosaurs. Mink-lined bathrobe. Surgeon's dream operating room at National Institutes of health at Bethesda Maryland - electronic monitors and more. James Edward Roos writes from behind bars - convicted murderer writes novel. Ossie and Ruby Davis. Brenda Frazier's ordeal.

VG - $40

G - $30

F (Generally VG, but cover loose from staples) - $14

F (Generally G, but has some water marking on front cover in black and on back cover) - $7

Life Magazine December 13, 1963 : Cover - Lyndon Johnson in the White House. Lyndon Johnson photo gallery. Johnson gathers his cabinet by John L. Steele. Iceland island of Heimay formed by a volcano. Anti-sub rocket fired from a submarine. In Aden - the Arabian Oryx makes a comeback. The crown of Toledo Cathedral - photos by Dmitri Kessel. Remebering the Diligentis - quintuplets grow up. Oppenheimer and Teller and the Fermi award. George Abbott and lots of stars collect for his 50th anniversary photos.

VG - $20

G - $12

Life Magazine December 14, 1963 : JFK Special Issue - 1963 : John F. Kennedy Memorial edition. Including his biography and his most enduring words. Lots of photos.

Out of Stock - Life magazines wish list

Myra,

Nice photo. I haven't seen that one before. Is it from the 1963 Texas trip?

Whoops I should have said Mark. It's (supposedly) from the 1960 campaign. I got it from this site:

http://www.mackwhite.com/lbj.html

It would be nice to know if it's authentic. Anyone know?

Sure would like to get a better copy.

Don't see one at the LBJ "presidential" library or the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.

Anyone know where a good version is?

I agree with John, at this point I don't think that the Malcolm X assassination or his life would draw a crowd that merits another section.

Peoples biggest concern when reading this forum is the amount of time they have to read and creating another section would needlessly create another barrier to checking the forum thoroughly.

Threads on Malcolm X have been few and far between, however if there were to be an upsurge in interest I'm sure the situation would be different.

I would like to take a closer look at his life and death as I have always found him to be fascinating.

All the best,

John Geraghty

Well, I can't take on two John's at once.... Sorry.

As you know Malcolm X is one of the big four murdered in the 60's. And shortly before the FBI killed him he'd announced that he was working with Dr. King, the FBI's other victim. He was immensely charismatic and had a compelling personal story, and--like the other great men--was clearly capable of evolving.

I think I have kind of the opposite logic; if not that many people are interested then perhaps not that many people are aware of what a force, and a promise, he was. What with this being an education forum I think people could be made aware. He's a dot that should not be left out of the connections.

Ok, so back to Eisenhower, I feel that he may not have been above taking a few favors, like those John described (and needless to say Johnson was a lying thug), and letting the spooks go way too far. But he didn't grasp the true scope and depths of the evil he was dealing with in terms of Nixon, Dulles brothers, CIA, Prescott Bush, etc. And the U-2 episode was the eye-opener, but it was too late.

Anyone agree, disagree?

**********************************************************

"But he didn't grasp the true scope and depths of the evil he was dealing with in terms of Nixon, Dulles brothers, CIA, Prescott Bush, etc. And the U-2 episode was the eye-opener, but it was too

late."

But, he apparently did in his final State Of The Union Address, where he warned America and the in-coming Kennedy administration of the Military Industrial Complex. His presidential veto had largely been ignored and overruled by the Chiefs of Staff, and after turning the keys of the White House over to Kennedy, in so many words, advised him to watch his back with regard to the Bay of Pigs operation. This is from the book of William Manchester's, "One Brief Shining Moment."

Eisenhower was a West Point career military man, like MacArthur, and the American people trusted him and needed him to be their leader in the decade following WW II. The 50's have often been touted as the most prosperous for the U.S. industrially, with that proverbial "chicken in every pot" everyone longed for during the Great Depression years of the 1930's. Well, that almost became a reality for everyone. FDR's New Deal no doubt helped pave the path for the stability and certainly for the burgeoning middle-class that blossomed during the halcyon days of the 50's and early 60's.

Thanks Terry. Well that FDR sure was another tough one to figure. One the one hand he's robbing Japanese Americans of their possesions and locking them up and letting Pearl Harbor happen. On the other hand he's creating super progressive domestic New Deal programs.

I don't quite get him. I'm starting to wonder if he was seriously adversely influenced by Churchill. I haven't read a lot about Churchill but I get the strong impression that he never met a war he didn't like, would not rest until he dragged Roosevelt into the war (of course that may have been necessary to save Britian), and was very manipulative.

*************************************************************

"Well that FDR sure was another tough one to figure. One the one hand he's robbing Japanese Americans of their possesions and locking them up and letting Pearl Harbor happen. On the other hand he's creating super progressive domestic New Deal programs."

I think he was made to bend to the pressures being put on him by a basically W.A.S.P.-ish constituency, which is what the majority rule was back in those days. Remember, if you could have someone like William Randolf Hearst create the Spanish-American War, with banner headlines claiming "REMEMBER THE MAINE," just to sell newspapers, or influence half of the East Coast into believing they were being invaded from outer space by Martians with the "War Of The Worlds" broadcast, look at what you could convince the entire citizenry of the U.S. into doing, especially after what happened at Pearl Harbor.

"I don't quite get him. I'm starting to wonder if he was seriously adversely influenced by Churchill. I haven't read a lot about Churchill but I get the strong impression that he never met a war he didn't like, would not rest until he dragged Roosevelt into the war (of course that may have been necessary to save Britian), and was very manipulative."

Spot on, as they say in the U.K.

"THE END OF THE INNOCENCE" words and music by Don Henley

Remember when the days were long

And rolled beneath a deep blue sky

Didn't have a care in the world

With mommy and daddy standing by

When happily ever after fails

And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales

The lawyers dwell on small details

Since daddy had to fly

But I know a place where we can go

That's still untouched by man

We'll sit and watch the clouds roll by

And the tall grass wave in the wind

[chorus]

You can lay your head back on the ground

And let your hair fall all around me

Offer up your best defense

But this is the end

This is the end...of the innocence

Oh beautiful, for spacious skies

But now those skies are threatening

They're beating plowshares into swords

For this tired old man that we elected king

Armchair warriors often fail

And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales

The lawyers clean up all details

Since daddy had to lie

But I know a place where we can go

And wash away this sin

We'll sit and watch the clouds roll by

And the tall grass waves in the wind

[chorus]

Just lay your head back on the ground

And let your hair spill all around me

Offer up your best defense

But this is the end

This is the end...of the innocence

Who knows how long this will last

Now we've come so far, so fast

But, somewhere back there in the dust

That same small town in each of us

I need to remember this

So baby give me just one kiss

And let me take a long last look

Before we say good bye

[chorus]

So, just lay your head back on the ground

And let your hair fall all around me

Offer up your best defense

But this is the end

This is the end...of the innocence

Wonderful lyrics.

Then there's "Simple Song of Freedom" from the great Bob Darin:

"...

Brother Solzhenitsyn, are you busy?

If not, won't you drop this friend a line

Tell me if the man who is plowin' up your land

Has got the war machine upon his mind?

Seven hundred million are ya list'nin’?

Most of what you read is made of lies

But, speakin’ one to one ain't it everybody's sun

To wake to in the mornin’ when we rise?

..."

I thought it might be worth posting Gaeton Fonzi's account of the Morales confession that appeared in The Last Investigation (1993) (pages 388-396). Note that Bob Walton does not mention the Robert Kennedy assassination in this account.

It was while sitting in the El Molino one night, that Ruben Carbajal told Bob Dorff and me about the times he and Bob Walton had gone to Washington to meet Morales and about the trip on which they met other high-ranking CIA officials. To obtain more details about those meetings, I suggested we talk to Walton. The next morning, a Saturday, Carbajal called him and Walton agreed to drive down from his home in Scottsdale to meet the three of us at the Holiday Inn.

Walton is in his mid-fifties, a pleasant, ruddy-faced fellow with Irish good looks and an easy, straightforward manner. He remembers their first trip to Washington as being in the spring of 1973. "I had had a coronary in November of 1972 and Rocky and I started talking about getting into business shortly after that. When you're from a dry climate like Arizona and you go back there in the summer you're just sweating like a pig. But I don't remember being uncomfortable, so I think it was early in the spring of 1973."

Walton corroborates the reason for the trip and the meeting with Morales: "We felt, or at least Rocky felt, that he could give us an inside track on who were the people who were for real and who were not. That was a big concern of mine because I had already been on one wild goose chase, spent an expensive week in Nassau waiting for a transaction to close and it never did."

Their evening with Morales, Walton remembers, was both very pleasant and, in more than one way, especially memorable. "We all went out for dinner, which was very nice. It was Rocky and his wife, me and my wife and Rocky's mother and father."

Morales, not someone who trusted strangers or even associates easily, obviously was impressed by Walton's character and, although their commodities business never took hold, he later called on Walton to represent him on a few matters back in Phoenix. It was something Morales said at one of those subsequent encounters in Phoenix that makes Walton put what had happened in Washington in a very special perspective.

"Morales was building a big, new house out near Willcox," Walton says. "Actually, it was in a little town called El Frita, which is about half-way between Willcox and the Mexican border. It's a remote area, I've only driven that road once in my life. It's an agricultural area, they grow the famous jalapenos peppers there. I never got to see the house, but he had just finished it and was describing it to me when he mentioned that he put in it the best security system in the United States. And I remember asking him, thinking he was worried about burglars or being robbed, 'What do you need so much security for? You're still thirty miles from the Mexican border.' And he said, 'I'm not worried about those people, I'm worried about my own.' "

That struck Walton as curious. "What do you mean?" he asked.

"I know too much," Morales said, then quickly dropped it.

Remembering that now, Walton views his first meeting with Morales in Washington as being far more significant than he realized. After dinner, the whole party went back to the Dupont Plaza Hotel. It was late and Carbajal's parents and his wife returned to their rooms and Ruben and Morales returned to the Waltons' room with them. "Didi ended up staying all night," Walton recalls. "My wife went to sleep somewhere around two in the morning and Rocky and I and Didi drank and talked from when we got back from dinner - maybe that was about eleven o'clock at night - until about six in the morning. "

The drinking got heavy. "We had consumed quite a bit of alcohol," remembers Walton. "At one point, between the three of us we had gone through a fifth of Scotch and we had to re-order. It was a real contest." He pauses and smiles. "Ah, my younger days, my misspent youth!" And as the night and the drinking go on, defenses come down and candid truths emerge. "You know," says Walton, "you get in a kind of position where you say, 'All right, I told you everything about me, what are you all about?' "

Morales began with his war stories. Walton remembers him talking about the killing in Vietnam and Laos, about being involved in the capture of Che Guevara in Bolivia, of hits in Paraguay and Uruguay and Venezuela. ("He said his wife was [in the country] with him and they had real trouble getting him out of town. They almost bought the farm on that one.")

The drinking and the talking continued. At one point, Morales began probing Walton for a bit of his own background. Walton had gone to Amherst College in Massachusetts and, as part of his developing interest in political science and politics, he had done some volunteer work for Jack Kennedy's Senatorial campaign. Later, at Harvard Law, Walton was head of a student group which invited then Senator Kennedy to speak at Cambridge.

Walton never got to explain the details of that association. At the first mention of Kennedy's name, he recalls, Morales literally almost hit the ceiling.

"He flew off the bed on that one," says Walton. "I remember he was lying down and he jumped up screaming, 'That no good son of a bitch motherf*****!' He started yelling about what a wimp Kennedy was and talking about how he had worked on the Bay of Pigs and how he had to watch all the men he had recruited and trained get wiped out because of Kennedy."

Walton says Morales's tirade about Kennedy, fueled by righteous anger and high-proof booze, went on for minutes while he stomped around the room. Suddenly he stopped, sat back down on the bed and remained silent for a moment. Then, as if saying it only to himself, he added:

"Well, we took care of that son of a bitch, didn't we?"

I looked at Ruben Carbajal, who had remained silent while Walton was telling me this. Carbajal looked at me and nodded his head. Yes, he was there, it was true. But, in all the long hours we had spent together and all the candid revelations he had provided, it was a remembrance he couldn't bring himself to tell me about his friend Didi.

Well they sure took care of that son of a bitch Morales, to keep him from testifying at the HSCA, eh?

We need to post this on various US sites. Right now 20 and 30 somethings are offered a fictional RFK movie and have been trained to lump these political assassinaitons with kooky martian stories a la X-files.

...

Exactly! And the murder of Bobby Kennedy is particularly difficult because the facts support (IMO) the conclusion that Sirhan was a Manchurian candidate MKULTRA victim. That is so incredible that I think many people would immediately smirk and recoil and reject it.

I don't know how to convincingly present my conclusion, the widespread conclusion, that RFK's supposed assassin was a programmed patsy and mainly provided a distraction.

Wouldn't it be interesting to have a list of HSCA witnesses who died shortly before their scheduled testimony?

You will find details on this thread: Deaths of Key Witnesses

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=603

Also, take a look at my page on the subject:

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

Oh fantastic. Thank you John. You save us so much time with the work you've already done.

...

"Shane O’Sullivan: Well, we know that Morales died in 1978 just weeks before he was due to be called before the House Select Committee on Assassinations."

...

Wouldn't it be interesting to have a list of HSCA witnesses who died shortly before their scheduled testimony?

Joseph Backes has made a transcript of the program. Jeremy Paxman is the presenter who has a reputation for giving politicians a hard time. This is my corrected version of Joe's work.

Wow, you are fast.

Thank you John.

Er, guess I said it all in the topic fields.

Maybe this is a quibble, but Dr. King broadened his scope to encompass human rights. He wasn't just a spokesman for one segment of society. In fact I believe his expanded focus in his later year(s)--to include opposition to the Vietnam war, much like JFK...--is what cost him his life. Along with his outspoken support of the unsightly poor.

I'd like to see this forum title changed to reflect his true focus on all disenfranchised people. I really think he earned it. And the corporate powers that be would prefer that we see him in the more limited capacity of a civil rights hero. He was that but he was more.

Thank you.

Myra, I think you are exactly right.

Thank you Michael.

]

Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section.

What's "SDS"?

Myra:

SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. Carl was its first national president. It was the student anti Viet Nam group. When they turned violent and became the Weathermen Carl, to his everlasting credit, left.

Dawn

Thanks very much Dawn. Wonder if the SDS was Operation CHAOSed. Wasn't that Johnson's baby? Friggen thug.

Ya they were definately inflitrated, in fact Carl believes that the violence was a result of this infiltration. Works all the time. The scum.

BTW, I checked on the seminars page and Tim Carroll's paper is still there. You just have to page thru to get it. I advanced it for you a couple of days ago.

Dawn

I saw the Carroll material you kicked up Dawn, thank you.

Hey, interesting that you mention SDS. I just read this:

"The voices the Kennedys symbolized are now squelched. Collier and Horowitz are intent on never letting the ghost of the sixties reappear. The poor, the weak, minorities, and the left’s intelligentsia must not be unsheathed again. (As Todd Gitlin notes in his book The Sixties, on occasion, the Kennedy administration actually had SDS members in the White House to discuss foreign policy issues.)"

http://www.copi.com/articles/probe/pr1197_jfk.html

Amazing. We could have had great leaders. 'Cept the CIA didn't want us to.

Has this been mentioned here previously? I hope our friends in the UK will be watching it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1952393,00.html

Thank you Ron.

John, Stephen, any idea if a transcript of the program is available?

On my page on Gordon Campbell I said:

Bradley E. Ayers was interviewed by Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board in May, 1995. According to Gunn: “Ayers claims to have found in the course of his private investigative work, a credible witness who can put David Morales inside the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on the night of June 5, 1968 (RFK’s assassination)." Another source suggests that Gordon Campbell was with David Morales at the Ambassador Hotel on the night that Robert Kennedy was murdered.

My source was in fact Shane O'Sullivan but I was asked not to reveal this until the film was shown.

Just another example of how this forum is helping to solve the assassinations of JFK and RFK.

There are countless examples John. Thank you. This forum and Spartacus are invaluable.

Hey all, anybody want a copy made?

YES! Yes thank you. Yes please and thank you.

Um...now what?

Is there a still of Morales at the Ambassador? I'd really like one of him too.

He's so recognizable, esp 'cause of his size.

And there's this picture of, probably, him in Dealey Plaza on Nov 22, '63.

http://www.jfkresearch.com/eaglesham/page5.jpg

So there are pictures placing (probably) him at both Kennedy murder scenes...

But... that hatchet job on President Kennedy--what's up with that?

Here is a link to an interesting piece on Hersh by Jim Di Eugenio:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspir...pr1197-jfk.html

Holy cow! That is the best article I've ever read. The best. Well, along with part one, they're the best. Thank you *so* much...J? Raymond? Ah, the Probe articles. I didn't know they were online. Wow, now I can't wait to read The Assassinations book.

These articles got right to the heart of everything, specifically how it's essential for the assassins to assassinate the victim's reputation after the murder. That's the whole point (along with the cover-up of course) of the decades of smears. And the author says so perfectly:

“This blurring of tabloid and journalistic standards inevitably leads to a blurring of history. With people like Kelley, Rivera, and Exner commenting, the Kennedys get inserted into a giant Torbitt Document of modern history. With people like Davis translating for them, RFK does not pursue Giancana, they are actually pals in MONGOOSE. The Kennedys agree with the Joint Chiefs: we should invade Cuba. And then escalate in Vietnam. Disinformation feeds on disinformation, and whatever the record shows is shunted aside as the tabloid version becomes “accepted history,” to use Davis’ phrase (p. 290). The point of this blurring of sources is that the Kennedys, in these hands, become no different than the Dulles brothers, or Nixon, or Eisenhower. In fact, Davis says this explicitly in his book( pp. 298-99). As I noted in the last issue, with Demaris and Exner, the Kennedys are no different than Giancana. And once this is pounded home, then anything is possible. Maybe Oswald did work for Giancana. And if RFK was working with Sam, then maybe Bobby unwittingly had his brother killed. Tragic, but hey, if you play with fire you get burned. Tsk. Tsk.

But beyond this, there is an even larger gestalt. If the Kennedys were just Sorenson-wrapped mobsters or CIA officers, then what difference does it make in history if they were assassinated? The only people who should care are sentimental Camelot sops like O’Donnell and Powers who were in it for a buck anyway. Why waste the time and effort of a new investigation on that. For the CIA, this is as good as a rerun of the Warren Commission, since the net results are quite similar. So its no surprise to me that the focus of Hersh’s book has shifted between Oswald did it for the Mob, and an all out trashing of the Kennedys.”

Other interesting blurbs:

Noam Chomsky:

“In the talk to date, I've dealt primarily with the attacks on Kennedy from the left by Noam Chomsky and his henchman Alexander Cockburn which occurred at the time of the release of Oliver Stone's JFK.”

(I knew that guy couldn't be trusted!)

McGeorge Bundy (Not surprising eh Ashton?):

“Even McGeorge Bundy, about whom many have had suspicions, denied that Kennedy had ever approved them or been informed of any plots (Ibid. p. 156).”

Federal Reserve:

“In 1963, Kennedy crossed the Rubicon and actually printed money out of the Treasury, bypassing that crowning jewel of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Board.”

Secret Service:

Hated Kennedy (which is obvious from the fact that they conspicuously helped murder him), supposedly ‘cause of his unwillingness to pretend that commies are the devil’s right hand.

The Rockefellers:

"Consider some of the things the Rockefellers accomplished in the seventies: they were part of the effort to quadruple gasoline prices through their oil companies; David Rockefeller took part in the effort to get the American government to intervene in Chile in 1973; the Trilateral Commission, which the Rockefellers sponsored, funneled many of its members into the Carter administration; in 1979, Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller convinced Carter to let the Shah of Iran into the country for medical treatment. The reaction in Iran helped give us Reagan-Bush. The rest, as they say, is history."

The Kennedy’s:

"Andy Harland called up Steve Jones after reading his article in The Humanist (Probe Vol. 4 #3 p. 8). He was an acquaintance of Peter Lawford’s who talked to him a few times about the (JFK) assassination. Jones’ notes from that phone call includes the following: Lawford told him that Jackie knew right away that shots came from the front as did Powers and O’Donnell. He said shortly after the funeral the family got together.... Bobby told the family that it was a high level military/CIA plot and that he felt powerless to do anything about it.... the family always felt that JFK’s refusal to commit to Vietnam was one of the reasons for the assassination....Lawford told him that the kids were all told the truth as they grew up but it was Teddy who insisted that the family put the thing to rest."

Waldron and Hartman:

"As the declassified record now shows (Probe Vol. 4 #6 “Gerald Ford: Accessory after the Fact”) this is just plain wrong. Davis then tries to insinuate any cover-up was brought on by either a backfiring of the Castro plots (Davis p. 454) or JFK’s dalliance with Exner (p. 498). As wrongheaded and against the declassified record as this seems, this argument still has adherents, e. g. Martin Waldron and Tom Hartman. They refine it into meaning that the Kennedys had some kind of secret plan to invade Cuba in the offing at the time of the assassination. This ignores the Church Committee report, which shows that by 1963, Kennedy had lost faith in aggression and was working toward accommodation with Castro. It also ignores the facts that JFK would not invade Cuba under the tremendous pressures of either the Bay of Pigs debacle, or the Cuban Missile Crisis in which Bobby backed him on both occasions. Reportedly, like Davis, Waldron likes to use CIA sources like Bill Colby (Mr. Phoenix Operation) on JFK’s ideas about assassination. Just as Newman corrected the Vietnam record in 1992, his long-awaited book Kennedy and Cuba will do much to correct these dubious assertions."

(Well...this certainly reinforces my mistrust of that book.)

Sy Hersh:

Hersh is a longtime CIA mouthpiece. No shock there. But it also mentions him blubbering and sobbing about the great Jack Kennedy (as he smears him for money).

As an editorial aside, when I saw Sy talking a couple of years ago on torture at Abu Ghirab, it was the most bizarre speech I ever witnessed. He spoke seemingly extemporaneously about tapes of children being violated, in a very low weak mumble, and then he’d seem to lose his place and repeat things. He seemed to be on the verge of tears; he was just in another place. Granted the subject matter was awful. But he rambled on so long that Anthony Romero walked out and physically pulled him offstage (quite rude actually, but that’s Romero). He seemed tortured himself. Well, whatever. If he feels conflicted that’s his problem. He's the one who sold his soul. I just know now not to trust the little hack.

Book:

Guns of the Regressive Right

Parts 1 and 2 of the article:

http://tinyurl.com/vhayd

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspir...pr1197-jfk.html

The Probe magazine vault:

http://www.ctka.net/home.html

And:

“The power elite realizes that, in a very real and pragmatic sense, assassination isn't enough. You have to cover it up afterwards, and then be ready to smother any legacy that might linger. The latter is quite important since assassination is futile if a man's ideas live on through others…. The smothering effect afterward must hold, since the assassinated leader cannot be allowed to become a martyr or legend.”

I'm looking for a book. It's reference here:

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

"In fact, Prescot Bush is credited with creating the winning ticket of Eisenhower-Nixon in 1952.(Source: George Bush, F. Green, Hipocrene, 1988)."

I can't find it at my library or Amazon...

Is this it?

http://www.amazon.com/George-Bush-Intimate...TF8&s=books

Can anyone point me to the book?

Is there another source for the information that Prescot Bush created the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket?

Thanks.

On my page on George Bush I quote a passage from Paul Kangas (The Realist, 1990). He is the one who mentions the George Bush book. I have done a search for the book at Abebooks and discovered that the book was written by Fitzhugh Green (ISBN: 0870529420). In fact, I have just purchased a copy. You will find it avaliable here:

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchRe...39&sortby=3

Thank you John! I'm really looking for evidence that Prescott assembled the Nixon-Eisenhower ticket.

I've ordered the book at my library.

If this is true this would make the Bush crime family quite powerful long before we knew it.

Dawn

Sure would...

And if we could find evidence that Prescott was a member and/or funder of the American Liberty League in 1933, when they tried to overthrow FDR's gov't, it would show them to be powerful even earlier.

The best I've come up with so far is John Buchanan's reporting. And I believe him but he has some vulnerabilities. So I'd want a second source at least. It does appear though that they did a good job scrubbing the evidence, in particular the ALL membership lists provided by Smedley Butler.

The two areas: the 1933 coup attempt and the assembly of the Nixon-Eisenhower ticket, are high priorities to investigate and find Prescott's fingerprints.

I'm looking for a book. It's reference here:

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

"In fact, Prescot Bush is credited with creating the winning ticket of Eisenhower-Nixon in 1952.(Source: George Bush, F. Green, Hipocrene, 1988)."

I can't find it at my library or Amazon...

Is this it?

http://www.amazon.com/George-Bush-Intimate...TF8&s=books

Can anyone point me to the book?

Is there another source for the information that Prescot Bush created the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket?

Thanks.

On my page on George Bush I quote a passage from Paul Kangas (The Realist, 1990). He is the one who mentions the George Bush book. I have done a search for the book at Abebooks and discovered that the book was written by Fitzhugh Green (ISBN: 0870529420). In fact, I have just purchased a copy. You will find it avaliable here:

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchRe...39&sortby=3

Thank you John! I'm really looking for evidence that Prescott assembled the Nixon-Eisenhower ticket.

I've ordered the book at my library.

I'm experiencing that sensation of confusion that is preceeded by my reading of a book. It says that in 1954 the NSC initiated rules that precluded known armed services from assisting in covert CIA operations in peacetime. This meant that President Kennedy could not have ordered airstrikes to bail out the failed Bay of Pigs in 1961 even if he wanted to. Given that this was the law of the land the President was following, it was understood at the time that he had that restriction, so there actually was not the hostile blame of him that we've been led to believe in subsequent years.

Does anyone know any more about this? Is it true? I believe that NSC rule did exist, so it seems feasible.

Has the supposed hatred of Kennedy by the Bay of Pigs survivors been exagerated--or fabricated? Possibly to boost the scenario that some bitter cuban exiles killed him (without the CIA of course...)?

With uncanny precision, Myra, you've managed to open the exact can of worms (and there are so many cans of worms) I was referring to when I said this in the Watergate forum to you:

I for one think "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" goes much, much deeper than thee or we currently know, and by "Bay of Pigs," I mean as the Bay of Pigs, of the Bay of Pigs, and for the Bay of Pigs. Amen.

I can't answer your question, but I know it's a damned good question that shines a good frog-giggin' light on a lot of ugly. I, too, believe the NSC mandates were generally as you describe them, and hoping to get more specifics on that, I want at least to mention the following:

1) Carlos Bringuire had left Cuba in May of 1960 and gone to Guatamala for some undetermined period of time, then was in Argentina for some period, then came to the United States, arriving in Miami, Florida (among other things, home of E. Howard Hunt's little "Cuban regime in exile" as Hunt characterized it) on 8 February 1961.

2) Bringuire stayed in Miami for 10 days, then left there traveling to New Orleans on 18 February 1961. (Very soon after arriving in the Big Easy, Bringuire established his newsletter called Crusada.) On the same day of Bringuire's arrival in New Orleans, MacGeorge Bundy handed JFK two memos: one from Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Thomas Mann counseling a non-invasion course for dealing with Cuba, the other from CIA's Bissell urging CIA invasion. Kennedy put it on hold.

3) Three weeks later, on 11 March 1961—over a month before the debacle—Kennedy was again pressured by CIA to approve a CIA-run invasion of Cuba. He was briefed by Bissell and Dulles (the, you know, good patriot) that "the Cuban force had to leave Guatemala in the near future," and that a "CIA-run air strike from planes based in Guatemala could then be attributed to defectors from the Cuban air force." If Kai Bird has it right about this, I don't know how this could be overstressed: the entire plan being presented to Kennedy completely addressed the exact NSC rules you've raised, and precluded even a possibility of the "reasons" we have now for Kennedy having ostensibly called off an air strike. The entire thing, including the air cover, purportedly was going to be run by CIA (the air cover somehow "attributed to defectors from the Cuban air force"). According to "George Bush, the Unauthorized Biography," Kennedy had established as a precondition for any such plan that "under no circumstances whatsoever would there be direct intervention by U.S. military forces against Cuba." (And this is entirely consistent with the issue of the NSC rules that you've raised—innit?)

4) On 15 March 1961, "Bundy told Kennedy that he thought the CIA had done 'a remarkable job of reframing the landing plan so as to make it unspectacular and quiet, and plausibly Cuban in its essentials.'" (Sparing here all the gory details leading up to what was by this time essentially a done deal.)

5) (Sharp curve ahead) We move up to about a month later, sometime up around mid-April 1961, not long before the catastrophe in the making, and lo! and behold!, who do you think should arrive—having walked, no less, at least the way he tells it—in Guatemala City? I won't keep you in suspense: George de Mohrenshildt. On a "walking tour of Mexico," doncha' know. Just a little vacation. And he just happened to wind up in Guatamala City just when the biggest U.S. international disaster conceivable is about to take place with Cuban troops that have been based in Guatemala. (My motto: God and the CIA work in mysterious ways.)

6) And now the big climax, quoted the way I've got it here, again from Kai Bird regarding the night of 16 April 1961 (my emphasis): "Only hours before [the Bay of Pigs invasion of 17 April 1961], on Sunday evening, Mac Bundy had phoned Bissell and the CIA's deputy director, General Charles P. Cabell, to say that Kennedy had decided to cancel the D-day air strikes, which would have been flown by American pilots."

Wait. Okay. Where to start? Kennedy didn't call—Bundy called? And who did he purportedly call? Well... CIA cruds who had architected the whole thing, which was supposed to have air cover from... the damned CIA!

And suddenly we come slam up against some of the finest slicing and dicing of language I can recall, and I only can admire it's ambiguity: "which would have been flown by American pilots." Now, please note that doesn't say "of the United States Air Force"—it just sounds like it does. And we are to believe that this little wrinkle comes up at the eleventh hour, when over a month before CIA had said that the air cover would be handled by CIA itself, and would be "attributed to defectors from the Cuban air force."

And with these random, jumbled irreconcilable contradictions, miraculous flukes of relocating anti-Castro Cuban nationals, and the vacationing serendipity of de Mohrenschildts in beautiful, tropical Guatemala, I must leave you. Because I can't make a damned particle of sense out of any of it.

And if I linger even a single moment, I might mention that on the very day the Bay of Pigs invasion started, for some reason Martin Ebon was in Washington, D.C. briefing "a top intelligence agency" on the subject of telepathy. And none of us wants to deal with that right now.

Ashton

Well, this is a really confusing subject for me, so I wont even pretend that I understood everything you're saying. But this could tie in with the info in "The Invisible Government." I haven't finished the book, but I've read the sections on the Bay of Pigs. Some interesting details:

-"Under Eisenhower, there had never been any plan to use United States armed forces in the Cuban operation. Kennedy reached the same decision, even though the operation had changed in scope and size." Of course the CIA could use any planes, ships, etc they had.

(I don't think any prior CIA coup had called for use of traditional US armed forces.)

-"Few of the Cubans claim that there was any clear promise that US Air Force or Navy planes would provide this control or protection. Rather, this was the conclusion many of the exiles drew. Possibly, some of the CIA advisers wanted to leave this impression." "Under the plan...the exile air force...was to provide control of the air."

-Kennedy had stated at an April 12 press conferene that no US armed forces would invade Cuba.

-"Bundy had been a student of Bissell's at Yale. He had also worked for Bissell in the Marshall Plan from April-September, 1948." (I don't know much about Bundy, but I have a vague distrust of him because of some buzz about him writing a draft of a memo (NSAM #273?) reversing a Kennedy policy a day *before* the assassination.)

-Bundy told JFK that the landing would be "unspectacular and quiet" eh? Well the initial problem, according to the book, was that the air raids that preceeded the landing at the Bay of Pigs, intended to destroy Castros air force for the invaders, was spectacular and loud. On April 15, '61 Cuban pilots took off from the training base in Guatamala, bombed air force planes in Cuba, then landed at various points in Florida with the cover story that they were defectors from Castro's air force. The media saw through the cover story in no time, and covered the landings and coincidental bombing of Cuba by raising questions and showing picture of the "defector's" planes (which had quirks that undercut the story). Castro saw thru the stories immediately and talked to the media.

Kennedy was furious about all the press coverage after he was assured it would be stealthy, so by the time the real invasion came about he couldn't risk any more mistakes.

-After the third day of air strikes the CIA had lost ten of their original force of sixteen planes. Something like 10 of sixteen pilots had been killed without achieving their goal.

-Also on day 3--April 18--Kennedy got a note from Khrushchev accusing the US of training the exiles and threatening to give Castro "all necessary assistance" if the invasion wasn't stopped. But Bissell told Kennedy the invasion "could be saved if the President would authorize the use of Navy jets from a carrier then stationed offshore." Finally Kennedy authorized unmarked Navy jets from an aircraft carrier to fly over the Bay of Pigs for one our after dawn on a restricted mission to protect the Cuban's planes, but could only fire if fired upon.

Now it gets really hazy and versions contradict. Bissell was supposed to notify the exile air force of the Navy cover. "Bissell did not write the order out himself. He repeated it verbally to the coloniel on duty." (Plausible deniability?) The colonel at the CIA office transmitted it to the exiles, who took off believing they'd have cover. Then there was no cover and we know how the rest went.

Now some genuine weirdness:

-"The evidence pointed directly to the incredible conclusion that the mix-up had occurred because of confusion over time zones....The Navy pilots reported they never made contact with the CIA bombers. They said they saw no bombers and no Castro planes. After the hour had elapsed, they returned to the carrier."

-The Cubans were asked by the CIA to fly again over the beaches due to the lack of air cover from the Navy, "but since another trip meant almost certain death they demanded to know why there were being sent out. "We must hold twenty-four hours more," the CIA chief said. "...something is going to happen." It was the sort of vague promise that the Cubans, by this time, were fed up with. Now they rebelled...."I think we've had enough losses" one said, "I believe this operation is a failure, I don't see any reason to continue the flights." That was it. Failure.

If this is true I don't see how it was possible for President Kennedy to do anything further. He'd already stretched things significantly by providing an hour of cover from unmarked Navy planes. But someone down the line screwed up the order accidently or on purpose. It smells real bad... Time zones???

I hope I didn't mangle the points in the book. And those weren't the only points made. If anyone else read it then feel free to give input.

I don't even know what to say about the Mohrenshildt stuff.

http://empireburlesquenow.blogspot.com/200...h-foresees.html

Ah those wacky fascists.

"Did he think he was bulletproof?"

I think you had some very strong language and hatred prior to the assassination, actually changed later by folks who appeared to absolve Kennedy of the blame - after he was successfully eliminated - which would be different then your scenario. Plus you had the campaign afterwards to place the blame not on exiles, but on Castro.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...ayofpigs20.html

I don't know who you're quoting Lee; I sure never said that.

Ok, so back to Eisenhower, I feel that he may not have been above taking a few favors, like those John described (and needless to say Johnson was a lying thug), and letting the spooks go way too far. But he didn't grasp the true scope and depths of the evil he was dealing with in terms of Nixon, Dulles brothers, CIA, Prescott Bush, etc. And the U-2 episode was the eye-opener, but it was too late.

Anyone agree, disagree?

**********************************************************

"But he didn't grasp the true scope and depths of the evil he was dealing with in terms of Nixon, Dulles brothers, CIA, Prescott Bush, etc. And the U-2 episode was the eye-opener, but it was too late."

But, he apparently did in his final State Of The Union Address, where he warned America and the in-coming Kennedy administration of the Military Industrial Complex. His presidential veto had largely been ignored and overruled by the Chiefs of Staff, and after turning the keys of the White House over to Kennedy, in so many words, advised him to watch his back with regard to the Bay of Pigs operation. This is from the book of William Manchester's, "One Brief Shining Moment."

Eisenhower was a West Point career military man, like MacArthur, and the American people trusted him and needed him to be their leader in the decade following WW II. The 50's have often been touted as the most prosperous for the U.S. industrially, with that proverbial "chicken in every pot" everyone longed for during the Great Depression years of the 1930's. Well, that almost became a reality for everyone. FDR's New Deal no doubt helped pave the path for the stability and certainly for the burgeoning middle-class that blossomed during the halcyon days of the 50's and early 60's.

Thanks Terry. Well that FDR sure was another tough one to figure. One the one hand he's robbing Japanese Americans of their possesions and locking them up and letting Pearl Harbor happen. On the other hand he's creating super progressive domestic New Deal programs.

I don't quite get him. I'm starting to wonder if he was seriously adversely influenced by Churchill. I haven't read a lot about Churchill but I get the strong impression that he never met a war he didn't like, would not rest until he dragged Roosevelt into the war (of course that may have been necessary to save Britian), and was very manipulative.

Also, if true , the President's father having a dedicated telephone line to the White House was not right , either.

Even if it were true, this must be a candidate for the title of Most Absurd Motive Ever Offered for the Assassination, considering that it was a well-known fact that Joseph Kennedy suffered a serious stroke in early 1962, and was ever after unable to communicate by telephone with anyone.

Credit Seymour M Hersh in the Dark Side of Camelot.

Yeah...about that.

I'm trying to decide what's up with Sy. Did he do the hatchet job on President Kennedy for the obvious, CIAesque, reason?

He's released some truly good info over the years, thanks to his, uh, access to certain kinds of whistle-blowers. And I've seen him give a speech where he talked about Abu Ghraib torture of kids, which he reported to the embarassment of the regime, and he was damn near crying. I'm having some trouble believing he's a total hack.

[qoute]But... that hatchet job on President Kennedy--what's up with that?[/qoute]

Exactly, it seemed that trashing Kennedy was , for the most part , off limits. Killing him was good enough, there was no need to do any more damage. Good question , why did they feel , in 1997 , that they had to spread this dirt?

*******************************************************************

Well I'm not puzzled about that Peter. There are three steps to an assassination:

1) Murder the person

2) Cover up the crime

3) Assassinate their reputation and legacy so they won't become a beloved martyr

The CIA follows that formula consistently. (And they have most definitely spent decades trying to trash President Kenendy so we won't realize that a man standing up for the people was executed for doing so.)

I'm wondering, given that my world view is a simplistic "good guys" vs "bad guys," if Sy Hersh is a good guy or a bad guy. He's a tough one to figure out since there is such extreme evidence supporting both scenarios.

I'm looking for a book. It's reference here:

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

"In fact, Prescot Bush is credited with creating the winning ticket of Eisenhower-Nixon in 1952.(Source: George Bush, F. Green, Hipocrene, 1988)."

I can't find it at my library or Amazon...

Is this it?

http://www.amazon.com/George-Bush-Intimate...TF8&s=books

Can anyone point me to the book?

Is there another source for the information that Prescot Bush created the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket?

Thanks.