Greg Burnham

Scott,

First off, Eisenhower's approval of "operations" (note the plural) against Castro was in no way related to what eventually became Operation Zapata, aka: The Bay of Pigs Fiasco. Eisenhower never authorized anything that even remotely resembled Operation Zapata. Eisenhower was an experienced combat General who was Commander of the allied forces that invaded Normandy in WWII by water, an amphibious assault. He oversaw the largest amphibious assault ever launched in history to this day, successfully. He knew what it took for victory in such an effort. Operation Zapata wasn't even close to an Eisenhower plan. However, that perception may have contributed to JFK going along with the CIA on it. It was presented to him as The Eisenhower Plan--and who would know better than Ike about amphibious assaults? No one. But, Operation Zapata changed Eisenhower's "harassment" strategy's scope immediately following the election during the lame duck period. Ike was on his way out and JFK was not yet in. "When the cat's away...the treasonous mice will play." And play they did. What once consisted of a few hundred anti Castro Cubans morphed into a Brigade of over 3,000. What had been a "softening of the turf" approach became a full blown INVASION practically over night.

I would like to see documentation supporting what you indicated above, namely: "...the Cubans would not back down from moving forward by pressuring Kennedy into what they thought would be a victory over Castro having the American military backing (promised by Eisenhower's administration which included Nixon and Bush)." I don't believe you will be able to substantiate the claim that Eisenhower promised military support, in violation of International Law, for an invasion plan that did not yet exist.

Again, this is revisionist history, albeit of a nature I have yet to encounter. When you claimed that [paraphrased]: JFK chose to go forward with the [Eisenhower] plan MINUS US military support, you lost me. JFK was not so stupid as to second guess Eisenhower on a military operation, particularly an amphibious assault! And Eisenhower was no idiot either! He never would have approved an operation that violated International Law. That was his legacy. He had been the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces during WWII, but he kept us OUT OF WAR when he was president--for 8 years during the Cold War--no small feat.

You've really kinda botched another part, too. You said:

Scott Kaiser said: "JFK knew that Castro only had four or five planes left after the first strike of planes that were sent into Cuba and was (told that), The CIA and those in the BOP's awaited orders from Kennedy to finish this and destroy the remaining planes, but Kennedy called off the second air strike fearing the retaliation from USSR."

Wrong! JFK had ordered a PRE-dawn airstrike from Puerta Cabezas, Nicaragua using retired B-26 bombers that were modified by Colonel Prouty and flown by anti-Castro Cuban pilots. Each plane was basically stripped and then fitted with eight 50 caliber machine guns in their noses. Those planes were NOT cancelled by JFK! In fact, his last standing order was that Castro's remaining T-33 jets must be destroyed by those B-26's while the T-33's are still on the ground or the mission was to be scrubbed!

The fictitious "airstrike" was not cancelled--IT DID NOT EXIST. It was a last ditch effort to compromise the presidency and it didn't work.

You don't appear to have read very much in this thread before posting. The topic is questioning why JFK failed to fire McGeorge Bundy after the Bay of Pigs because Bundy is the one who cancelled the PRE-dawn (not the fictitious last ditch effort) airstrikes. He fired those at CIA for their complicity, but not McGeorge Bundy.

If you read the Taylor report, and also the important interview with McNamara by Noel Twyman, McNamara says that the last air raid was not a part of the original plan. BTW, this becomes an interesting aspect of the Kirkpatrick Report also. JFK was not going to add anymore air power until the Cubans had secured a beachhead, which they did not do.

Moreover, if you read Prouty's account of this plan, a plan with which he was personally and intimately involved, he asserts that "Everyone in the loop was fully aware that JFK had unequivocally rejected even the idea of such direct involvement of U.S. air support." The Commanding Officer at the CIA's Peurta Cabezas Nicaragua air field from which the B-26's were to be launched called Prouty in the wee hours of the morning asking him what to do because the PRE-DAWN air strikes had been cancelled by Bundy through Cabell (actually postponed until AFTER the rebels had secured the beachhead and established an airstrip). They all knew that without the destruction of Castro's remaining planes the plan would be fundamentally flawed before it had a chance. Prouty said he could literally hear the planes' engines ready to take off in the background. Prouty told the Commander that he would try to reach someone who could help, but he was unable to contact Dulles who was out of the country to give a speech the next day, among others, who could have countermanded the aberrant order. I have a memo here (somewhere) that is dated one week before D-day in which this exact thing is discussed, namely, it was CONFIRMED that Higher Authority reiterated that NO DIRECT U.S. involvement would be employed in the operation under ANY circumstances. The thrust of the memo was to remove all doubt about that issue BEFORE the fact. The memo solicited confirmation that the Operation would succeed WITHOUT such direct U.S. air support. The President required a reply from Colonel Jack Hawkins in which the Colonel CONFIRMED receipt of the directive and in which he assured the President that the mission was well planned and NOT dependent on U.S. support for success AND that "everyone involved is aware of the restrictions on U.S. support" and agrees it is unnecessary for success. [paraphrased] Additionally, once Castro's remaining T-33's were destroyed on the ground, the secondary role of the modified, anti-Castro Cuban B-26's was to return to the beach and provide air support for the Brigade as it landed on the beach, as well as protect the supply ships. Granted, this role was not expected to last for a protracted period of time, just long enough for the rebels to declare their status and receive recognition. So, the air support that Kennedy was blamed for not delivering should NOT even have been needed had his orders been followed according to plan.

This raises another issue here, as well. The rebels didn't need to secure a beachhead just "for the sake of it" in order to receive air support-- Rather, the rebels needed to be able to CREDIBLY declare themselves to be a "government in exile" in order for them to be recognized by the U.S. Government (Department of State). Once a beachhead was established as being in their control, then we could have plausibly recognized them as a Government in Exile and offered them assistance without being in violation of International Law and without causing excessive alarm to other members of the Organization of American States (OAS) whose fears of being dominated by American (United States) imperialism was being fostered by Soviet propaganda. The fear being peddled was similar to the propaganda tactics we used in South East Asia, known as "The Domino Effect", in subsequent years.

This is a very interesting and controversial point. Because JFK's critics have always said that it was his "cancellation" of the last air raid that blew the operation. And some have blamed this on Bundy. But with these new declassified reports, plus the McNamara interview, plus an interview i myself did with Marchetti, its beginning to look like Kennedy never really agreed to that last air raid in the first place. Therefore, the CIA has been lying about this in order to shift the blame onto JFK.

That's a little behind the curve, Jim. It is no longer controversial, it is in BLACK & WHITE. It's like saying the Magic Bullet Theory is controversial. No it is not. The MBT is a lie. Plain and simple. The "last air raid" was never in the plan and it was, in fact, unequivocally REJECTED in writing--and such rejection was confirmed in writing--all the way up to and including the last week of preparation. To characterize this as controversial or that it is just now "beginning to look like" JFK never approved the air strikes is a bit misleading. This information has been available for at least a decade to researchers--even to those who didn't know Prouty. That we now have a more complete record due to the declassification of BOP documents is definitely a plus, but it does little to expand on this subject farther than what was already available to those who researched it thoroughly.

But beyond that, as Kirkpatirck says in the report, even if the last air raid had flown, the brigade was doomed. They were just simply outnumbered by a factor of over ten to one. Plus Castro was able to call up his reserves very quickly since he was tipped off quickly. And further, for some reason, the bridges to the beach were not blown in advance. Which meant that Castro could get his tanks and heavy mortars there also. So in reality, the whole thing about the final air raid was actually irrelevant.

A couple of points: First off, there was no such thing as a "last air raid" -- that is part of revisionist history. Secondly, the reason that Castro was tipped off at all was because he had good intelligence along his coast, including the BOP landing site. Once Castro was alerted that Brigade 2506 had landed on the beach, which was before the B-26's had taken out his remaining Air Force, he was able to launch the T-33's, who then proceeded to shoot them out of the sky. They were sitting ducks. **The reason the bridges were not blown in advance was due to the downing of those B-26's.

[edit] ** Correction: The downing of those B-26's removed the redundancy from that part of the operation. IOW: In the event that the bridges had NOT been blown according to plan the B-26's could have provided resistance to the approach of Castro's ground forces in support of the Brigade's landing party.

Also, IMO, I would add the words "by then" to one of your sentences (Kirkpatrick's) above. IOW: "...even if the last air raid had flown the brigade was doomed...by then". However, had the original JFK plan been followed and Castro's remaining planes been destroyed BEFORE the brigade landed on the beach in the PRE-dawn B-26 air strikes, the brigade very possibly could have secured the beachhead, retained their supply ships, and declared an interim government in exile. This could have allowed a window, albeit brief, for the U.S. to recognize the new government and provide support. As for the relevance...the "last airstrike" was only irrelevant to the outcome of the invasion, but highly relevant to the dynamics of treason against the United States.

In my view, the CIA wished to compromise JFK's authority early on in his administration; wanted him to compromise his Constitutional obligations; and wanted him to remove Castro for them or be embarrassed by failing in that effort.

But it was then used as a red herring to disguise the really key fact that Jim Douglass elucidates so well in his book through Allen Dulles' own coffee stained notes: Dulles knew that the Bay of Pigs could not possibly succeed under any circumstances. Not with that small of an invasion force. He knew it would collapse early, and he was relying on JFK not wanting to embarrass himself. He would then call in the Navy and Marines to save the day. As Nixon would have. He did not. Instead he fired Dulles, Cabell and Bissell, since he understood they had tried to trick him.

I think the key here is this: The CIA wanted Castro gone. They knew we could get that job done, but they wanted it done on their terms, which included compromising JFK in the clutch. The easiest or perhaps most accessible means to that end was insuring that the only way to salvage the operation was by breaking international law and offering direct U.S. military intervention BEFORE or in lieu of there being an Interim Government in exile to recognize. Had the pre-dawn airstrikes been successful and there had been a declaration by the rebels, Kennedy would have been able to launch whatever force was necessary to assist once we had recognized the new government. By dooming the success of the pre-dawn airstrikes through postponing them, the prospect of an interim government being declared and then recognized by the U.S. was sabotaged. This, the CIA hoped, would force Kennedy to still do what they wanted, i.e., remove Castro, but do it by compromising himself, and therefore the Presidency, as well.

As for the firing of Dulles, Bissell, and Cabell... JFK surely understood that Bundy also tried to "trick him" as Bundy was the one who gave the cancellation order to Cabell. So, the question remains, why did he keep Bundy?

BTW, Kennedy was not in any secret societies at Harvard. So the fact that Bundy was a Bonesman was irrelevant.

I tend to stay away from implying too much about secret societies. However, I don't dismiss their relevance either. I simply don't know.

The federal government of the United States has declared war on Medical Cannabis dispensaries for unknown reasons. The excuses they have cited to date lack foundation. Indeed, there is no justification for their behavior besides political motivations or ignorance based fear.

The proper authority to cite when contacting Washington regarding this issue is

the TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. This is

significant because the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are part of the

Bill of Rights and therefore cannot themselves be amended (changed or modified).

The items in the Bill of Rights were considered sacrosanct by the Founding

Fathers and were therefore written in stone.

THE TEXT of the TENTH AMENDMENT STATES:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor

prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to

the people.

-------

Since the power to regulate, prohibit, or control cannabis usage was 1) never

addressed directly or peripherally by the constitution; 2) was never delegated

to the federal government by the constitution; 3) nor was it prohibited from

the state by the constitution... --then and therefore the power to determine

the legal disposition of medical cannabis usage is CONSTITUTIONALLY reserved to

the STATES or to the PEOPLE. It is therefore UNconstitutional for the Federal

Government to disregard the wishes of the people, which was determined by a

VOTE, properly conducted, by the State of California, among others.

No matter whether or not one agrees with cannabis usage for medical reasons, the fact remains that the STATES are Constitutionally authorized to decide for themselves. The fact that the Federal Government is ignoring the Constitution on such a minor matter in the big scheme of things to the detriment of patients for whom it is NOT minor--OR FOR ANY REASON--is indicative of how far we have NOT come in reigning in their tentacles and chopping them off. Can you imagine the look of horror and outrage on the face, and in the words, of Thomas Paine or James Madison if they were alive today?

We all need to be vigilant on this. It is an outrage. It is an abuse of power. It is against our Constitution.

or the upkeep of Uncle Frederick’s goats?

Or is THIS POST the real hack job in order to trick me out of my inheritance?

Hmmm....

You're getting nothing...NOTHING...I say! It's all mine, all mine...

I'm not sure where to put this thread, so I placed it in the forum in which I most often post.

Please ignore any unsolicited email that appears to come from my address. If you receive any it will be obvious that it was a hack job and not an authentic message from me.

Thanks--

Now, if everyone would excuse me? I have to go back to covering up the assassination on behalf of Lord Bertrand Russell and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Bye

Thanks for the kind words, Mike. I can't imagine a "JFK Research World" without Jack in it. This is the longest time he hasn't posted in over 13 years! I miss him. Hopefully he'll be back soon.

Regarding attached PDF:

Interesting to note that the FBI interviewed employees of the William B Reily Company, New Orleans, to inquire about the RIFLE SLING, no??? Why them? Even the vice president of the company, William B Reily, III, was interviewed about the RIFLE SLING? Imagine that! Wow. Either the FBI was comprised of a bunch of incompetent bumbling fools or there is much more to this story beneath the surface... or both.

And why was N. I. Rains, Chief Warrant Officer, U.S. Marine Corps interviewed? If he was an unqualified witness then the bureau made another blunder. If not, did his job description suggest he should have a working knowledge of such things as a rifle sling? If so, his testimony [paraphrased] is that he "never saw anything like it and was at a loss to offer suggestion pertaining to its possible use."

Hope this is declassified...

Hey David,

All is good here. Thanks for asking.

The FBI report I have is mildly interesting, perhaps entertaining is a better word for it. It refers to a "sling" used on the gun (not a strap). Here is a brief excerpt from one part of it, dated December 24, 1963:

"On December 18, 1963, Mr. ADRIAN T. ALBA was contacted at his place of business, Crescent City Garage, Inc., 618 Magazine, New orleans. At this time he was shown photographs of the device utilized as a sling on the rifle of LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Mr. ALBA said he had never seen OSWALD with the likes of the contraption shown and expressed the opinion that it definitely had never been intended at the time of manufacture to be used as a rifle sling. He reiterated, as on previous occasions, that he and OSWALD had never discussed rifle slings or like devices for use in the firing of a rifle."

FWIW

Excellent... can you lead me to this report? Purvis seems to believe that he helped create this sling yet I find nothing top support that statement....

and if indeed it is the opposite... Tom has some 'splaining to do...

DJ

I have an iMAC computer. My scanner software isn't compatible with same. I was an IBM PC dude for 20 years--until last year. I love my MAC, but there are compatibility issues. I will probably use a PDF conversion to upload it, but in the meantime:

It is FBI file number: NO 100-16601 by Special Agent Robert M. Whomsley /dc

I think it is declassified.

Hey David,

All is good here. Thanks for asking.

The FBI report I have is mildly interesting, perhaps entertaining is a better word for it. It refers to a "sling" used on the gun (not a strap). Here is a brief excerpt from one part of it, dated December 24, 1963:

"On December 18, 1963, Mr. ADRIAN T. ALBA was contacted at his place of business, Crescent City Garage, Inc., 618 Magazine, New orleans. At this time he was shown photographs of the device utilized as a sling on the rifle of LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Mr. ALBA said he had never seen OSWALD with the likes of the contraption shown and expressed the opinion that it definitely had never been intended at the time of manufacture to be used as a rifle sling. He reiterated, as on previous occasions, that he and OSWALD had never discussed rifle slings or like devices for use in the firing of a rifle."

FWIW

Good to be on the same path with you BK.... maybe we can get some comments from the LNers??

Maybe you could post the link to your earlier attempts - or were they met with silence from the DVP crowd?

The one in the backyard photo looks homemade from some rope.... even looks tied in a knot at the barrel end.

I assume you've determined that Oswald never bought a strap or owned an Air Force pistol holder?

Is this HUGE??? Jim?

DJ

David,

Why do you have to bring the Lone Nutters and DVP into it?

I mean, the strap is what it is, and if indeed it is a USAF pistol holster strap, what does that mean?

I no longer think or care what Lone Nutters think and care about unless they interfere with my research.

The strap is important to me because I think that if the rifle was used in the assassination, then perhaps the ammo came from the same source as the strap,

and if we can identify the source of the strap, we can possibly identify the source of the ammo.

BK

Bill,

If you're referring to the spent shells found on the 6th floor...the source of the ammo was Western Cartridge Company. It was purchased from them by the US Marine Corps in a batch of 400 THOUSAND in 1954.

As for the strap, the FBI did an extensive search for its source to no avail. In fact, in their report (which I have here somewhere) they concluded that (get this) it might have actually been a guitar strap! I jest you not, that's what it says. I'll see if I can scan it and upload it later.

I have always found the so-called "shirt fibers evidence" very dodgy, to be sure. I place it up there with the palm print that was allegedly discovered after the rifle was returned from the FBI to the DPD. Great catch, Gil.

I just got off the phone with Jack a few minutes ago. Here's the update:

1) Heart

Very strong. Surgery was complete success. All things related to heart are very good, such as: pulse rate, blood pressure, etc.

2) Complications

a) bad reaction to a drug which caused loss of appetite.

DISPOSITION: resolved

b ) bladder infection

DISPOSITION: being treated for the past 6 weeks, resulting in catheter, limiting his ability to get around and negatively impacting appetite

c) weight (initially 36 lb. loss)

DISPOSITION: between the high temperatures in Texas this season and his inability to be more active, appetite remains suppressed, so he has been unable to re-gain the lost weight, but he is maintaining current body weight well

3) Spirit & Mind

Strong and active. Positive that once his infection is cleared he will be able to regain appetite, weight, strength, and resume his normal activities.

To all those who have written, please know:

Since Jack has been more or less bed ridden for an extended period (and continues to be for the time being) he asks that all understand that his condition limits (if not prevents) his ability to even check his email. If you have sent him an email that has not been answered it is not personal. He only spends a few minutes a week online for now and has not been able to answer almost any of his email--and it is piling up. But, he says "thank you" for the kind wishes.

Newman's book is very good. Prouty's is even better, IMO. It's the difference between reading the work of a very good author who was actually there and reading the work of a very good author who studied the people who were actually there. The former brings first hand experience to their book, whereas the latter brings more objectivity to theirs. I recommend both.

It was all of 18 weeks ago the U.S. economic recovery looked at least semi-solid -- but with reports trickling in that hinted of a backslide.

That would be way back in late April, with the Dow Jones industrial average closing at 12,810 points. This week, having spent January through July ahead for the year, the DJIA skidded off September's high above 11,500 to a low of 10,733, triggering renewed talk of a second global recession.

Back in May, manufacturing reports kicked it off. In New York and Philadelphia, there were signs of manufacturing gains flat-lining. The housing market, an economic cornerstone, was not helping. The trade gap indicated the United States was more broke at the end of each month than at the start, to the tune of $50 billion or so per month. Then job gains, promising for four months, hovering just above a break-even point, started to flat-line as well. Trouble was on the way.

How quickly did that trade deficit number enter one ear and exit the other?

Even under debate in jaded Washington, $50 billion would turn a few heads. It happens to be five Environmental Protection Agencies paid for in one month with a little left over -- a Congressional Budget Office, perhaps.

It is almost the size of the Department of Transportation's annual budget, which hovers between $70 billion and $75 billion.

What could New Jersey do with $50 billion -- or California? Here's something funny: $50 billion in North Dakota? Funny, right?

What would Miami do with $50 billion? How about Minneapolis? How about handing it to Montpelier, Vt.? How absurd is that?

How about giving it to another country? Each month, the United States hands the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries roughly $12 billion. The trade deficit with China lately hovers between $25 billion and $30 billion.

How many jobs is that?

Currently, it would seem out of place to revisit President Barack Obama's pledge to double the size of U.S. exports within the next five years given the problems everywhere else.

On the other hand, as overly simplistic as this sounds, isn't $50 billion each month at least the start of a solid jobs program? And one that is tax-free, to boot?

In international markets Friday, sharp losses from the past two trading sessions moderated in most markets. The Nikkei 225 index in Japan lost 2.07 percent and the Shanghai composite index in China fell 0.41 percent. The Hang Seng index in Hong Kong lost 1.36 percent and the Sensex in India dropped 1.22 percent.

In Australia, the SP/ASX 200 index lost 1.56 percent.

In midday trading in Europe, the FTSE 100 index in Britain gave up 0.32 percent,while the DAX 30 in Germany shed 1.92 percent. The CAC 40 in France lost 1.69 percent and the Stoxx Europe 600 index lost 1.18 percent.

ANTHONY HALL || United Press International

(Source: UPI )

(Source: Quotemedia)

The "oxymoron" here is that many believe that the FBI as well as the CIA were firmlly involved in the assassination of JFK.

Yet, to have done so would mean that they were so efficient that no one to date could tie (absolutelyl) either to the event.

Many? I don't know anybody that believes the FBI was involved in the assassination. Nor have I ever spoken to anyone who believes the CIA as an agency was involved.

Does anyone here believe the FBI or CIA were involved in the assassination?

I believe the FBI was involved before the fact only in so much as they failed to alert the Secret Service to credible threats on the president's life several times--a serious failure no matter the cause. This indicates possible foreknowledge, negligence, or complicity. However, it is unclear which of these is most appropriate. I do not believe they or the agency were "operationally" involved in Dallas. In 2011 there should remain no doubt as to the extensive cover-up (obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct) that was practiced by both the FBI and the CIA after the fact. However, this last item begs us to ask, "why?" In American jurisprudence, destruction of evidence in order to obstruct justice is considered tantamount to commission of the original crime itself, else why bother with obstruction. The signature of a coup`de tat is that the perpetrators' plan (assassination) must succeed and those responsible must never be brought to justice.

Had their been more time available during production, I would have liked to have implicated McGeorge Bundy in The Guilty Men segment. As it was, I had only enough time to speak about Kennedy's new Vietnam withdrawal policy, which would have prevented the Vietnam War (had JFK lived), and his rather caustic relationship with the CIA, including NSAM's 55, 56 & 57 that would have brought CIA's reign to an end, (again, had JFK lived). The "official knee jerk reaction" that caused The Guilty Men to be banned almost immediately is quite telling as to the sensitivity of the nerve that was struck, the fear of those threatened by the truth, and the unhealthiness of the cozy relationship between the Power Elite (governmental or private or both) and the so-called "free" press. The failure is with historians as much as it is with the DOJ and with the media.

My wife and I spent a great deal of time last November speaking with Jim Tague. He was a very cordial, if not delightful, man. He recounted, almost anecdotally, the circumstances leading up to his having been there at that particular moment. He also conveyed his initial indifference toward the president's visit to Dallas, his frustration with the traffic jam caused by the motorcade, which then evolved into shock/dismay upon learning what had actually happened. We have his book. I liked it, but it did not shed any light into areas that have not yet been explored, in my opinion. However, if some folks who have never been exposed to the details of what happened that day are inspired to read the book because of it having been written by another "victim" of the assassins that day--then it will serve a good purpose.

I met Dixie twice when I was presenting at JFK conferences, once in Dallas at a Lancer conference and once in San Diego (Encinitas) for another JFK Conference. She was a dear friend and will be missed. RIP.

Those who reject the Warren Commission's Report not only believe that Garrison was HUMAN and therefore imperfect, they also believe that the same holds true of Kennedy himself! However, many LN's claim that those who believe JFK was the victim of a conspiracy also believe that the man was perfect. I have heard this countless times from the "Oswald done it all by his lonesome" crowd. Yet, I know of not a single conspiracy researcher who would agree that JFK was perfect. JFK was a man...a human being, and he was therefore imperfect just like the rest of us. He was imperfect as a human being just like Garrison was. These claims by LN's are a version of the straw man argument and are therefore fallacious.

Hey, Bill, everyone knows that Dublin, Belfast and Boston are non-equidistant triangulated coordinates for the Andromeda Wormhole Transport system.

The most memorable line in the film is when Lancaster says there will be one shooter "on the grassy knoll." (I don't recall who first actually called it that, after the assassination.)

It was Bill Newman.

I own a LASER DISC of the film -- Yes, that's right, I said: LASER DISC. I have no way of playing it, but still it's a great souvenir! If anyone has a LD player and is interested I might consider parting with it. Excellent condition. As for the film itself, I think it is a must see for several of the reasons already mentioned. Is it the last word on the assassination? Of course not. However, it is an important one.

Perhaps CDR Monk Burnham would so kind as to tell us which "operational details" should not have been divulged.

Ex-CIA Officer: Leak of bin Laden Op Details 'Abhorrent'

By Henry J. Reske and Fred Fleitz

19 Aug 2011

"The sheer amount of leaked classified information about the operations and methods used by the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden is shocking and “abhorrent,” retired CIA officer Frederick Rustman told Newsmax.TV.

Rustman expressed shock over recent reports that the Obama administration may have shared classified information with a movie company making a film about the bin Laden mission.

“Frankly, I find it abhorrent, he said. “The number one job of a case officer or intelligence officer is to protect sources and methods. When we don’t do that we jeopardize all future operations. I read an article in the New Yorker recently which outlined the operation from start to finish. It did everything but name names.

“I can’t believe that people would do that for political purposes. I think it’s horrible,” Rustman said. “When I joined the agency quite a long time ago Richard Helms was the director. Under Mr. Helms there was no public relations department, no public affairs department. Whenever the press would call for a comment from the agency, the agency would say no comment. It’s a secret organization, they do secret work. It’s covert. Everything we say to the press goes out to our enemies. It’s a very, very bad thing to do.”

The SEALs who took out bin Laden probably weren’t operating under direct orders to kill the al-Qaida leader but had an understanding that it was best not to bring him back alive, Rustmann also told Newsmax.TV.

Rustmann, the founder of the private intelligence agency CTC International Group, said the situation might have been different if the operation occurred four years earlier.

“Well, I think there was a wink and a nod that yes we will shoot to kill,” he said. “I think four years ago that wouldn’t have been the case. Four years ago we probably would have wanted to capture him, to bring him back to Guantanamo, to interrogate him using enhanced or other interrogation techniques and get intelligence that would really bring down al-Qaida.

“Today, in this atmosphere, I think that would have been a very bad thing to do. First of all we would have been trying him in New York. Secondly, it would have brought all kinds of enthusiasms from other al-Qaida members to spring him out; he would use it as a grandstand for his views. I think he is better off dead.”

Rustmann retired from the CIA's Clandestine Service in 1990 as a member of the Senior Intelligence Service after more than 24 years with the agency. He served in posts in eight different countries in in Asia, Europe and Africa during the Cold War.

Nonetheless, he said that tried and true methods keep the bin Laden operation secret. He said sources were thoroughly vetted and polygraphed and the intelligence officers did painstaking work collecting information through interrogations and observations over months and perhaps years.

“So what they did was develop a name, they developed an accent, where is he probably from,” he said. “From there we learned who the courier was, we learned where he was living, we set up an observation post, we observed, we did a lot of really boring, boring intelligence work until we found that’s where bin Laden probably was.”

However, the threat from al-Qaida and other terrorists did not end with the killing of bin Laden. He said the United States has a two-prong strategy to fight attacks. The tip of the spear is the intelligence side, the FBI and the CIA, that work to prevent attacks and law enforcement whose goal is to arrest suspects and get them off the streets.

“The threats are out there,” Rustmann said. “They’re out there from homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and they’re out there from al-Qaida, the whole dynamic, the whole spectrum. … It’s not going to get any easier. They can pick the time, they can pick the place and we have to be there 100 percent of the time to thwart this stuff and it’s not going to happen.

“We’re going to get hit again; we’re going to get hit again hard. They are thinking up all kinds of crazy ways to do this, biological, chemical warfare, nuclear warfare that would be the worst. But they’re out there and they’re going to come after us.”

.