Greg Burnham

John, The article that Mike Hogan posted says: "In addition to documents that point to the mob's and the CIA's involvement in the Kennedy assassination,..." (emphasis added) BTW, I agree with Cliff-- what's so implausible about the mob's being involved in the assassination, given Jack Ruby's many mob connections? --Odd Tommy I agree with John. They may have been involved in compartmentalized "house keeping" activities--i.e., offing the patsy. But, they were in no way central to the plot nor operationally involved in its execution. The killing of Oswald was part of the initial "clean up" required in order to keep the truth moribund. In my opinion, that is as far as it went because the mob was incapable of pulling off the killing of a President. So were the anti-Castro Cubans. They are both red herrings with little or nothing to do with the big picture. What do they have in common? Machismo. The Latino underworld culture, be it Italian mobster or Hispanic, does not rest easy with an image of impotence. Castro emasculated the Cuban exiles and the Kennedy brothers emasculated the mob. Both (the mob and the Cubans) had a reputation to resurrect. Neither has ever denied complicity. However, those who are in a much more plausible position to have been involved, like the CIA, FBI, and/or the military, deny it with enthusiasm. Why? I view the assassination plot as pan-organizational. The plotters were unified by a common goal, not common affiliations. The Mob didn't kill Kennedy -- although I think it's obvious that mobsters were involved. The CIA didn't kill Kennedy -- although I'm sure CIA personnel were involved. The John Birch Society didn't kill Kennedy -- although I'd speculate that rabid right-wingers were involved. The Texas oil industry didn't kill Kennedy -- although I'm pretty sure oilmen such as the Murchisons and Hunts were involved. The Eastern banking elites didn't kill Kennedy -- although I highly suspect blue-bloods like W. Averell Harriman and GHW Bush were involved. My studies up to this point have lead me to conclude that the plotters had a wide variety of backgrounds but one common goal -- the establishment of a SE Asia-to-Havana heroin pipeline and, ultimately, control of the world's narcotics supply and distribution. For eugenicist blue-bloods like Harriman it wasn't just about the piles of untraceable money generated by the heroin trade, it was as much about flooding minority neighborhoods with cheap heroin as a method of population control, a "Holocaust by another means." When the patsy Oswald was captured alive Harriman pulled the plug on the Castro-did-it scenario and ordered his minion McGeorge Bundy to notify LBJ that the lone assassin had been captured, no conspiracy. That SE Asian heroin would have to find routes into American veins other than thru Havana. That's my take on the macro of it, fwiw. Lots of (well thought out, IMO) speculation there, Cliff. I agree that there were elements from various groups who had converging interests in the assassination of JFK. Your comments about the drug routes is interesting and I think there is ample evidence to support that possibility. Indeed, various SE Asian countries, the names of which we all became familiar during the 60's and 70's (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand) each had a deep heroin industry looking to expand west. The "Harrimans" of the world needed only to tap into such a lucrative existing business, create a network over which they could gain absolute control by recruiting key elements of both the CIA and the military in the name of anti-Communist patriotism, and "seal the deal in blood" spilled in Dallas, Vietnam, and eventually, in Los Angeles (RFK).

John, The article that Mike Hogan posted says: "In addition to documents that point to the mob's and the CIA's involvement in the Kennedy assassination,..." (emphasis added) BTW, I agree with Cliff-- what's so implausible about the mob's being involved in the assassination, given Jack Ruby's many mob connections? --Odd Tommy I agree with John. They may have been involved in compartmentalized "house keeping" activities--i.e., offing the patsy. But, they were in no way central to the plot nor operationally involved in its execution. The killing of Oswald was part of the initial "clean up" required in order to keep the truth moribund. In my opinion, that is as far as it went because the mob was incapable of pulling off the killing of a President. So were the anti-Castro Cubans. They are both red herrings with little or nothing to do with the big picture. What do they have in common? Machismo. The Latino underworld culture, be it Italian mobster or Hispanic, does not rest easy with an image of impotence. Castro emasculated the Cuban exiles and the Kennedy brothers emasculated the mob. Both (the mob and the Cubans) had a reputation to resurrect. Neither has ever denied complicity. However, those who are in a much more plausible position to have been involved, like the CIA, FBI, and/or the military, deny it with enthusiasm. Why?

LOL

Scott, Harry wrote the book: CROSSTRAILS

Me thinks Bundy dost protest too loudly, indeed. Thanks for your thoughts, Karl. It's like Garrison said: "Bill, it only takes one Judas."

I have to object to the content of this post, Harry. In all due respect--and you and I have always gotten along just fine--this is difficult to accept. If the main--indeed, the only--reason I can cite to reject Romney as a candidate for the presidency is his religious affiliation, I really don't have a logical argument to support my decision. As Daniel aptly observed, JFK would not have been elected had people rejected his candidacy based solely on his religious affiliation. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Romney. It means that I will not base my decision to vote for him or against him on his religious beliefs.

Again...I wish you the best in that pursuit. It is definitely worthwhile in so many ways. It hopefully will answer a lot of your questions on a personal level. And, if it sheds light on the big picture, we will all benefit from your work.

Good luck with everything, Scott. It's good to see someone doing some actual PRIMARY research instead of just going on the research of others. That's where the real work takes place. It sounds like you're dedicated. KUTGW--

Joe, In all fairness, I didn't think Bill was attacking you either. Upon a re-read, I now see how you might interpret it that way, but I really doubt that was his intended meaning. My daughter put the petition on facebook, twitter, and all the rest. She's very politically savvy and very well versed on my work and that of others. I couldn't expect her to go to DC though. She lives in Australia. ) That said, I am appalled that I have yet to receive a single reply from any more of those to whom I sent the petition link--NOT one. Not even a "hello" reply to the email. Not a peep. Hell, when I send them a silly joke email I usually get more response.

D.C.

I have submitted the petition to several relatives who are all sympathetic to the cause and who are very active in various social networks. Hopefully the petition will go viral...

Scott, We have obviously wandered far off topic in this thread. I am not "judging" you because I don't have the time required to afford me such a luxury. I feel like I'm "Goose" talking to "Maverick" in the movie TOP GUN when he says: "I know it's tough. The Academy rejected you because you're Duke Mitchell's kid. You have to live with that reputation. But it's like you're flying against a ghost." Still, I wonder why JFK kept Bundy after his perfidy during the BOP invasion. I have yet to hear an answer to that inquiry that is adequate to the evidence from anyone. I certainly don't know what the reason was. It is perhaps unknowable at this stage, but it was the central topic under discussion at the beginning.

Well Scott, Now that we all know where you stand on JFK... I suppose "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" after all, does it? I know you don't care who "my daddy" was. Nor do I care who yours was. That said: Watergate is a sad legacy to leave to one's offspring, but we all must accept what we get.

Scott, It is a logical fallacy to dismiss the account of Colonel Prouty on the grounds that: "Colonel Prouty was there." You practically "mock" me for citing his account. Why? Your "here we go again" comment is NOT an argument. It has no substance. I am not persuaded by your posting text with voluminous cites to authority. The Warren Commission Report is rife with them. Still, it is a lie. The reason that I cite him so often is because he was in a UNIQUE position to know what actually happened from a (as you called it) "pre-operational" point. This is significant. There is no reason to dismiss that perspective. He was directly involved with the planning of the operation, the outfitting of equipment, the selection of airfields from which to launch the PRE-dawn airstrikes, among other things. He was "in the loop" far more than you may know. I am unsure what we are arguing about here? Are you suggesting that JFK actually caused the failure by not launching a last ditch effort airstrike from the USS Essex? Or are you simply saying that the rebels were under that impression. If you are saying the latter, I can't argue against that, as I indicated earlier: It would be quite understandable for the Exiles to believe what they had been told by their CIA contacts. However, if you still believe that that is true...then are you saying that JFK SHOULD have disregarded a standing National Security Directive (5412) from the Eisenhower Administration and violated International Law, alarming the members of the OAS, and inviting the Soviet Union to attack BERLIN, which is what likely would have happened?

Scott, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing here or not. While it is true that there was a failed attempt to take out Castro's remaining planes, JFK did NOT order "cancellation of further airstrikes to attempt deniability" because the PRE-dawn D-day airstrikes ORDERED by him were to be flown by anti-Castro Cuban exiles. There was NOTHING to deny! It was perfectly "legal" for the members of Brigade 2506 to "take their best shot" at overthrowing Castro. We had nothing to deny as the mission was being flown by them in aircraft that no longer belonged to the United States. That was NOT in violation of International Law, nor was it in violation of the Eisenhower Administration's NSC Directive 5412. Colonel Prouty was there. He was OPERATIONALLY involved in this mission. He worked in the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the Military Liaison in support of ALL U.S. Clandestine Operations GLOBALLY. He knows what happened. Now, Kennedy did order that airstrikes be terminated immediately after the failure you referenced because we were "caught" red handed the week before when one of the pilots landed in Miami. That caused a great deal of embarrassment to our Ambassador to the United nations, Adelai Stevenson. However, you are mixing apples with oranges, here. JFK had "reserved" his right to cancel the entire operation all the way up until April 17th when he finally approved it--with the stipulation that ALL of Castro's remaining T-33's must be destroyed on the ground.

Exactly, Karl. Dulles didn't give orders--he took them.

Jim, I actually misspoke. What I meant to say was that the role of the B-26's was to destroy Castro's remaining T-33's ON THE GROUND, provide air support to the landing party, and prevent Castro's ground forces from engaging the Brigade by providing additional air cover for them in the event that the bridges were NOT successfully blown in advance. There were 16 B-26's involved in this attack--which should have been enough to cover those objectives. So, even if the bridges had not been blown the planes would have offered ample resistance to the tanks and artillery batteries in order to afford the Brigade an opportunity to secure the beachhead. Thanks for pointing this out.

Scott, I think we're on the same page now--or at least a lot closer than we were at first. I don't doubt that they may have been told they would get full operational US military support by members of the CIA and/or military. However, that they were told that and believed that does NOT mean that it was ever in the Official Plan, nor does it mean that same originated with Kennedy. The documentation as well as Oral Histories clearly refutes the notion that Kennedy: 1) originally authorized a plan involving direct US military intervention; 2) adopted Eisenhower's Plan, but modified it to EXCLUDE the US military; or 3) originally approved last ditch airstrikes if needed by the US military, but then chickened out on delivering them. All three of those ideas are revisionist histories promulgated by the Agency. So, reality is different from perceptions in some cases. However, I understand that what one believes, even erroneously, tends to dominate reactions even if it is incorrect through no fault of their own. Many of the rebels no doubt were under some version of one or more of those erroneous conclusions because that's what they were told by those that they believed they could trust. When the sh*t hit the proverbial fan, the Agency blamed LANCER--and the rest is Revisionist History. BTW: My comment about "Pretty Pictures" was sarcastic. I couldn't tell what those pictures depicted at all. I didn't intend to be insensitive. My apologies for that.

So, getting back on topic, Scott: Why didn't JFK fire McGeorge Bundy?

I have NO idea what that means and I guess your now an expert on the Cuban committee, look at it like this, if someone too your freedom away, you political views, your family, your country and finally your life how would you feel? Uhhh, DEAD?

Pretty pictures. So what?

The Cuban Exile community, in general, rightfully tends to require respect before divulging information. The Cuban Study Group does for sure. Before you approach, DO YOUR HOMEWORK! You'll thank me in the end. A word to the wise... eom.

Scott, Please do yourself a favor. Look up National Security Directive 5412. It states that NO ACTIVE US MILITARY PERSONNEL OR EQUIPMENT can be used for COVERT OPERATIONS. Period. That was an EISENHOWER administration directive. My father worked for Truman and Eisenhower. After you have done that you can correct your post that says there was an "Eisenhower Plan" that included the use of DIRECT US MILITARY OPERATIONAL SUPPORT including airstrikes at the Bay of Pigs--which is, you claim, the part of the Eisenhower Bay of Pigs Plan that Kennedy changed. It might be what your "sources" in Miami believe, but it is false. I urge you to do the homework before commenting further. My father was my best source. Colonel Prouty, my second best. Gerry Hemming proved to be one of my best friends--my best man in abstentia for my wedding--and a great source. Before calling people out, do your homework.

Reply to Greg Burnham: This is the response to the good paper we have received from Greg Burnham on the subject of Marine Colonel Jack Hawkins, and other special operations matters TO Gregory Burnham: You ask about Col. Jack Hawkins. I certainly do remember him mostly from the Bay of Pigs days. I have looked in a 1963 Pentagon telephone book and find him listed for that year. He was the tactical man we got from the Marines to plan the landing of the Anti-Castro unit and train them. I knew that he was against the project, as many of us were for purely tactical reasons. These Cubans in the USA were not military trained and the restrictions placed upon the project were too severe. Actually Bissell's comment to Hawkins about "air support ready to strike, if needed" was accurate. We had provided the rebels with 16 B-26's that I had put through a transition project in Arizona. They had 8 50 Cal. machine guns in each nose. (With this is mind,) Castro had only 10 capable combat aircraft Kennedy ordered them all to be destroyed before the landing. On Sat., a.m., May 15th they were attacked and all of 7 were destroyed. We scoured Cuba with U-2 reconnaisance and found that three jets that Castro had left were all that he had; but these armed jets could easily shoot down the B-26's. Therefore Kennedy made it very clear on May 16th that the landing could not take place until the Rebel's B-26's had totally destroyed the last three Castro jets...ON THE GROUND. (If this had been done, as ordered by the President then the 16 bombers could have supported the invasion and the Cuban rebels would have had a more than even chance to beat Castro's ground troops and their equipment by bombardment. Bissell had not lied to JFK; but McGeorge Bundy called Gen. Cabell, then Deputy Director of the CIA and told him that the bombing must not take place until the invaders had landed at the Bay of Pigs. It was about 3:30 am then and Cabell was having trouble locating Rusk to get his opinion. Of all things, Allen Dulles was out of the country. That is the basic mistake. I won't carry it further here. All of the details are in my book "The Secret Team" and in my new CD-ROM. They will tell you the rest of the story. I can send you the CD if you want ($34.95) You have printed an interesting line: "there was a high motivation for the Agency to compromise JFK politically." The story is more than that. In late Dec. 1959, when Castro and his rebels were marching into Havana, a group of us in the Special Ops business were ordered into an office. There we were told that if Castro did take over Havana we were going to be ordered to a rebel force. Recall this was under Eisenhower and Nixon. Well no call came and after midnight when we had the office TV on and were watching the "New Years" celebrations we were told we could go home. Castro was the new ruler of Cuba. Later in the spring of 1960, Castro came to New York City to speak at the United Nations. Following that speech, he went to Washington and had a meeting with Nixon. After that meeting, Nixon commented with reporters saying, more or less, that if Castro was not a Communist he was close to it. That set the tone for the Eisenhower people to order the CIA to prepare to over-throw his Government. A little later a team from the CIA came to my office in the Pentagon (At that time I was the Special Operations officer there for the Air Force). They asked me if we had an airfield that could be used for a base to train aircrews and to get aircraft for them for a Cuban anti-Castro rebel group. This started it all. During this period summer of 1960, we were coming up on a presidential election time and JFK nominated by the Democrats. The Republicans were certain that they would win; so they began to put all the new, and huge appropriations into the next year for "President" Nixon; but in a surprise he was not elected and I never saw such emotional feelings as then. I was then working in the office of the Secretary of Defense, in the Office of Special Operations. In the halls of the Pentagon you could hear the dislike of the new President; and the realization of the fact that JFK had inherited billions of dollars of procurement money for high cost items such and the $6 or $7 billion dollar TFX aircraft buy. In one tactical move the Republicans changed the Anti-Castro plans from small over-the-beach and air drop tactics to a major invasion. In no time they had built up a 3,000 man force that had to be trained and equipped, and dumped it all in JFK's lap. They did not realize that JFK already knew the Anti-Castro leaders who had been guests of the Kennedy's at their big Florida resort home. One day I was sent to the Senate Office building to a certain room number to pick up four men and have them driven to the Pentagon and to the Secretary of Defense, Gates. The office turned out to be Senator Kennedy's office and the four men were the leaders of the Cuban Exile group: Artime, Varona, Mendonca and one more. Here it was only early summer of 1959, and JFK had yet be nominated for the Presidency by the Democrats, and he was entertaining them in his family's winter home in West Palm Beach and in his Senate office building. People did know how well JFK knew them. The most influential debate he had before the election with Nixon was the third, when they debated the Cuban Problem. Kennedy just made Nixon look ridiculous; and that debate alone perhaps won for JFK his narrow managing in the election. Shortly after the election a team of top level CIA officials came to my office and requested that I get base facilities for at least 3,000 Cuban exiles, and enough aircraft for them. They built the Cuban force immediately by those numbers and then with Kennedy's inauguration they dumped it all in his lap. By April 1961 the invasion plan had been worked out under the leadership of Jack Hawkins. It was all predicated on the fact that the Invasion Force would destroy all of Castro's aircraft BEFORE the invasion took place. This was the plan that was briefed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approved by them and taken to Kennedy. Kennedy said little about it except on Sunday, April 17th he finally approved the invasion with the strict proviso that all of Castro's jets would be destroyed; or the invasion force would not be landed on the beach. We all understood that. For some reason, at 9:30PM McGeorge Bundy called Gen. Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA and told him that the invasion was off until the men were on the beach. B-26 invasion planes that had been put on stand-by in Nicaragua were not to be released until dawn. This of course was against Kennedy's orders, because the three jets that Castro had could easily destroy them. Gen. Cabell left the office in an attempt to locate Sec. of State Rusk. He knew that order had to be changed. While he was doing that the hours passed, and I got a telephone call from the air commander in Nicaragua who was all upset. He knew if the B-26's were not there by dawn the jets would take off and down them. I could hear the B-26 engines running in the background. I made many calls around Washington to get help with this essential problem. As the clock kept running it became too late for the B-26's to arrive before dawn while the T-33 jets were on the ground. Meanwhile the troops were landing at the Bay of Pigs. The whole thing was a disaster...and it was not Kennedy's fault. The last order he had given that day was "The B-26's must destroy the jets before they take off or the invasion must be cancelled," This was the military approved plan and Kennedy's orders. You are correct also about the Power's U-2. That flight was made to fail by a shortage of the proper fuel. The engine stopped when Powers was about one half way to his goal in Norway. He did not use his parachute, because he could fly the plane to the ground. That also caused the important Paris Conference on May 1, 1960 that had been planned between Eisenhower and Khrushchev to be cancelled As you may know, the Korean War and the Vietnam War were both planned at the Teheran Conference in Oct 1943. When the Japanese surrendered on Sept 2, 1945 the enormous supply of equipment and arms -stockpiled for 500,000 men, were divided in half and one half was sent to Korea and the other half to Vietnam. In later years both were used in wars in which the U.S. was heavily involved and both Presidents were blamed for them. This created especially opposition against Kennedy in the year 1963, and led to his death. Kennedy had already issued Presidential Directives during Oct 1963 to the effect that 1000 American personnel would be out of Vietnam by Christmas 1963, and that all American personnel would be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. This was the final action that caused his assassination by the powers that wanted to continue the costly, and profitable... to them... warfare in Vietnam. You are correct about the Bay of Pigs landing disaster, except for the details that the Cuban rebels were equipped with armed B-26 's; and if used while Castro's jets were still on the ground on the morning o April 18th that would easily been destroyed. Then the landing force would have had, little or no real opposition and they would have defeated Castro. The JCS and Kennedy had both ordered that if the jets were not destroyed there would be no invasion. Kennedy had ordered that no "active duty USA aircraft would be used in that invasion". This was a firm order that we all understood. You are correct that Kennedy's NSAM #263 would have had us out of Vietnam for sure. I was one of its writers. I know how determined he was, but that was Oct 11,1963. Kennedy was dead on Nov 22, 1963. We all can see the connection. L. Fletcher Prouty

I apologize, Scott, but I have no time for this. No offense, but do your home work and then check back. In my view you need to rely upon all the available evidence, rather than only that which has come from Miami. You appear to be far behind on this subject. May I suggest the account of the late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, USAF--Chief of Special Operations (Team "B") who said: .