Terry Mauro

Junior interviews Richard M. Scaife one of the money bags financing the "Get Clinton" operation.

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/JFK.html

That was a rather soft interview and almost seemed intended to put the man in as positive a light as possible. If it was representative of Kennedy and George's journalism neither were a threat to anybody (except perhaps the investors).

Bill Clinton posed the threat not Junior. The crash forced Clinton to fish his young friend out of the ocean. Another message to President Clinton.

I'm amazed Junior was able to get Richard Scaife to agree to an interview.

This black man, standing alone on Houston Street, strangely has a pink toy dog

under his left arm. Why? Anything conspiratorial here? Does the dog hide a

hidden gun? Today, the Secret Service would likely throw him to the ground.

Just one for the HUH? File.

Jack

It's odd but Jackie was given a little toy dog at Love Field and when they were on Houston, Jackie is showing President Kennedy the toy.

Kathy C

Kathy, I think thats an urban legend. I may be wrong but I think the only thing Jackie was agiven at Love Field was a bunch of Red roses.

Not true. Jackie Kennedy did have a lamb chop type stuffed toy with her when she drove away from Love Field. I've seen the footage.

Junior interviews Richard M. Scaife one of the money bags financing the "Get Clinton" operation.

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/JFK.html

Lyndon LaRouche issued a warning that the financial crisis erupting around Banco Santander is but a reflection of the inevitable collapse of the British Imperial system.

Quote:

Any countries or individuals on the international scene who think they have a deal with the Brazilians and the London-run Eurozone to replace the dollar-based international financial system, Lyndon LaRouche stated today, are fools who are walking right into a British trap. They are engaging in stupid, wishful thinking, because the British are not capable of surviving the financial debacle whichthey themselves are unleashing. They are sitting on top of the

bomb that they have just ignited, LaRouche said.

This bout of unreality might well be called the "Santander Syndrome," since the British gambit revolves around Spain's Banco Santander, the number one bank in the Eurozone which is controlled and deployed by British financial interests such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, and old Venetian fondi such as Assicurazioni Generali of Venice.

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/13489

In another location LaRouche placed the Banco Santander crisis in historical context. Showing it to be a self inflicted fatal wound.

Quote:

To bring the presently immediate strategic assessment into

consideration, this past week's British financial crisis,

featuring a keystone role of Britain's nominally Spanish puppet,

Banco Santander, brings the world as a whole to the brink of

crucial strategic choices, choices on which the fate of all

humanity now depends for even the immediate future ahead.

Thus, my concern is for the safety of that necessary system

of cooperation among the respectively sovereign United States,

Russia, China, and India, now, before the otherwise inevitable

general breakdown-crisis of the planet already in progress takes

over the planet as a whole. Without that specific form of

cooperation which I have specific for action among a group of

nations led by those four, there is not a proverbial "chance in

Hell" that civilization as whole will not be plunged into a

prolonged, planet-wide new dark age, worse than that which struck

Europe during the medieval Fourteenth Century, if the present

policies of the United States and the British empire are

permitted to continue along their presently disastrous course.

It is to London's credit, if only in a certain manner of

speaking, that the British Empire appears not to have forgotten

the lesson of its victory at Paris in the February 1763 Peace,

the lesson subsequently spelled out by Gibbon's advice to Lord

Shelburne, in remarks accompanying the delivery of Gibbon's

{{Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire}}. Only the truly worst,

or most damned of politically illiterate fools of the world, will

insist, still today, that the British system is not that of a

fully witting world empire.

Presently, Britain's own, likely imperial misfortune, lies

in what it chooses to overlook; it overlooks the fact that, in

the inevitable, actual end-game built into Gibbon's scheme,

despite Gibbon's prayers to the wasted soul of Julian the

Apostate, the British system was, itself, ultimately doomed by

the very same means it has achieved what it has considered its

successes. By defining what was in fact, a period of empire with

finite beginnings and conclusions, it has written, with nothing

other than its own hand, a prophecy of its own doom. They wished

a Julian, and they received one, the British imperial monarchy of

today. One could take the pathetic case of that Nero-like British

puppet, the pathetic U.S. President Barack Obama, as a most

relevant case in point.

For example.

The British empire's most crucial victory of recent decades,

has been the result of the successful assassination of U.S.

President John F. Kennedy.

On that occasion, no one who should have acted, and was

capable of having done so, at the point of that assassination,

was willing to move. The moral stuffing had been largely taken

out of us during the nearly two corrosive decades since the

accession of President Harry S Truman. Thus, the British

interests and their assets within the U.S. government, adopted

the prolonged U.S. land-war in Asia which President Kennedy, so

advised by General of the U.S. Armies Douglas MacArthur, had

stoutly, and rightly resisted, and it has been all the way, down,

down, down, for the U.S.A. ever since.

France's King Louis XI, the inspiration for England's Henry

VII, knew that lesson from European history far better than

President Kennedy's fear-struck successor.

Such are some lessons from the past. Now consider the

present, and its possible future outcome in the light of the

past. Turn next, to the rather important, but otherwise

coincidental matter of the British puppet-institution known as

Banco Santander.

President Clinton's real crime was that his enemies never trusted him. They feared that in times of crisis he might just do what "FDR" did to them during the 1930's. That Clinton would act to protect the nation and not the "slime mold" that make up the current bankrupt financial system. Namely the City of London and their off shoot Wall Street.

Golden ADA

Gore's tenure as Vice President was marked by two actions, both emblematic of his loyalty to an anti-American foreign oligarchy. First, he teamed up with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) in August and September of 1998, to attempt a coup d'état against President Bill Clinton. While the ostensible basis for the effort to convince President Clinton to resign from office was the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the real reason for the ambush was that the Anglo-Dutch financial circles who pull Gore's chain feared that Clinton, and his Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, were about to implement a "new global financial architecture," in the face of a global financial meltdown that started in Asia in 1997, and had spread, by August 1998, to Russia, with Moscow's default on its short-term, high-interest government bonds (GKOs).

Since January 1997, even before the outbreak of the Asia crisis, Lyndon LaRouche had launched a campaign to get President Clinton to convene a New Bretton Woods conference, to put the global financial system through an orderly bankruptcy reorganization and restore Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates.

Gore demonstrated where he stood on the issue on Aug. 17, 1998, when—behind President Clinton's back—he convened a White House meeting with a veritable "Who's Who" of Wall Street speculators, many of whom had already ponied up big bucks to Friends of Albert Gore, Jr., Inc. The speculators schemed with Gore to bail out the international financiers, who stood to lose their shirts in the looming Russian default (the Russians had just frozen payments on the GKOs); they included George Soros, John Tisch, Steven Rattner, Lionel Pincus, Maurice Greenberg, Orin Kraemer, and David Shaw.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lar...izn4MP-6uoYpUsA

Bill Clinton gave a speech at the CFR on September 14, 1998. He called for a New Financial Architecture, in the face of the collapse of Asia and the hedge fund LTCM. Now that took some courage to make this announcement, right in front of all these nasty bankers who's system he was threatening to shut down.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9349/global_economy.html

But it was in the back drop of this ongoing politcal fight between President Clinton and the British, that the JFK Jr., plane crash took place.

JFK, Jr. through his George magazine was supporting then President Bill Clinton in his on going battle with the British. Evans Ambrose Pritchard was the British poison pen that had helped to popularize every Clinton scandal from Whitewater to Paul Jones on to Monica Lewinsky. I believe Junior ran a piece on Pritchard in his George magazine titled "Cheerio old Chump".

I remember reading Pritchard on Clinton. I take it from what you say that nothing this "poison pen" wrote was found to be false, JFK Jr. and others simply wanted Pritchard to go back to England and cease his truth mongering about that human scum from Arkansas.

The last thing by Pritchard that I remember reading was his lament that he had tried to warn everyone about Clinton but it didn't do any good. At least he tried. And I have less respect now for JFK Jr.

So you approve of foreign attacks against our Presidents and our constitutional form of government? Especially coming from the same crowd that murdered JFK? Hmmm...

Interesting viewpoint you express. Do you at least support the American Revolution or was that a mistake too?

During his time in Washington, his stories often attracted the ire of the Clinton administration, and on Evans-Pritchard's departure from Washington in 1997 a White House aide was quoted in George saying "That's another British invasion we're glad is over. The guy was nothing but a pain in the ass". The pain was felt most acutely in the Foster case, in which Evans-Pritchard was almost as much a player as he was a reporter[citation needed]. His efforts in ferreting out the witness, Patrick Knowlton, whose last name had been spelled "Nolton" in the Park Police report on Foster's death, resulted eventually in a lawsuit by Knowlton against the FBI and the inclusion of Knowlton's lawyer's letter as an appendix to Kenneth Starr's report on Foster's death. [4] In his book, Evans-Pritchard responded vigorously to White House charges against him [5].

The witches of Whitewater

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/witches.htm

JFK, Jr. through his George magazine was supporting then President Bill Clinton in his on going battle with the British. Evans Ambrose Pritchard was the British poison pen that had helped to popularize every Clinton scandal from Whitewater to Paul Jones on to Monica Lewinsky. I believe Junior ran a piece on Pritchard in his George magazine titled "Cheerio old Chump".

President Clinton had to in a sense pull the wreckage of JFK Jr's. plane out of the ocean. Another message to President Clinton from the British.

British Empire media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his NY Post newspaper ran a dirty editorial piece on the death of JFK Jr. that was so outrageous it had to be pulled from circulation.

The Telegraph's reporter quotes JFK, Jr.'s George magazine as citing a White House source commenting on the departure of Evans-Pritchard: "That's another British invasion we're glad is over." This "British invasion," like the last, burned Washington but in a different way than did General Ross in 1814. Mr. Evans-Pritchard explained how even he was taken in by the Clinton charm when he first arrived and before he became entangled in what he calls a "spitting match with President Clinton."

http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/gover...rd-1-04-98.html

GEITHNER †OBAMA, THE EX-BRATS: CHILDREN OF THE IMPERIAL HITMEN

Jan. 31 (LPAC)--President Obama and his Treasury Secretary both

grew up in Asia, the sons of the imperial "hit-men" such as John

Perkins described in his 2004 book, {Confessions of an Economic

Hit-Man}.

Tim Geithner's father oversaw the Ford Foundation's

microfinance program that paid for Barack Obama's mother to do

her fascist PhD thesis promoting primitive slave industries for

Indonesian villagers instead of industrialization.

Timothy Geithner was born in New York in 1961, but grew up

almost entirely overseas, including in Rhodesia (present-day

Zimbabwe), Zambia, India, and Thailand, where he finished high

school. Geithner graduated from Dartmouth College in 1983, but he

had been at Peking University in 1981 and at Beijing Normal

University in 1982.

His father, Peter F. Geithner, in the early 1980s, ran the

Ford Foundation's microfinance programs in Indonesia being

developed by Ann Dunham, President Barack Obama's mother, and

they met in person at least once. Peter Geithner later ran the

Ford Foundation's entire Asia program.

Tim Geithner's career has been entirely in the international

hit-men division of the empire. He worked for Kissinger

Associates in Washington for three years. He went into the

International Affairs Division of the U.S. Treasury Department in

1988. He was an attachÈ at the Embassy in Tokyo. Then he came

into the international economics side of the U.S.Treasury as a

protege of Larry Summers in the late 1990s. He was director of

the Policy Development and Review Department (2001-2003) at the

International Monetary Fund, before coming in to chair the New

York Fed. [ahc]

There are SO many good and great books on the events and sequellae of 11/22/63 still in print and widely available on the side of clear conspiracy (before, during, after, still) if [iF] the 6th Floor Mausoleum wanted to sell them...but they don't. For starters, the five volume devastating Horne tome . They'd do well also to have an area telling who Byrd was, and his connections to various highly suspect conspirators [himself included], as well as his convenient safari timing.....but...hey....they have a job to do....'snow job' in Dallas all year 'round....apparently for the Dallas City 'Fathers' (.....some of whom in '63 knew which side the bullets were buttered upon [and MULTIPLE directions coming from, IMO])....who want to keep the 'standard' myth alive and the alternate views and truth suppressed. Someone Would Have Talked would also be good, as would the e-book version of Bloody Treason, Groden's books, Marrs' books, TMWKTM, Newman, Douglass, Kelin, McKnight, Fonzi, Fetzer's and on and on and on.....Sure are a lot of good ones on Amazon now alone - and in print!

Balance?

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

"Someone Would Have Talked would also be good, as would the e-book version of Bloody Treason, Groden's books, Marrs' books, TMWKTM, Newman, Douglass, Kelin, McKnight, Fonzi, Fetzer's..."

And, never forget the mainstays of the pioneer researchers, which I also noted as missing among the Mausoleum's paltry list: Harold Weisberg's series,

Lifton's Best Evidence, Prouty's Secret Team, Garrison's On The Trail, Lane's Rush To Judgment and Plausible Denial.

What's up with that? And, saying that they're out of print won't cut it because if the Mausoleum is all it's cracked up to be, then the promotion of those authors' works would have given them enough exposure to, perhaps, warrant the publishers keeping them in print. JMHO

- A CRUCIAL SLANT ON THE DAVID KELLY CASE -

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Jan. 28 (EIRNS)--So far, the British parties involved in the

somewhat celebrated affair of suspected links between both the

deaths of Dr. David Kelly and what has been fraudulently

represented as the alleged non-suicide of Jeremiah Duggan, have

failed to disclose crucially relevant facts respecting the

subject's, Jeremiah Duggan's, relevant mental health history

since childhood until his suicide in the vicinity of Wiesbaden,

Germany.

The British circles have curiously failed to take into

account statements reportedly made by Jeremiah himself shortly

before his suicide, to the effect that he was having difficulty

in securing some medication essential to his mental stability.

Even without such information, the facts of the manner of

Duggan's death, strongly indicate a mental health problem. Where

is the relevant British investigation of the matter of the

suicide of Jeremiah Duggan? What of such relevant facts as his

reported statements regarding past emotional disturbances dating

from his childhood, and indicating a role of the London Tavistock

Clinic at some point in this case? Are there not additional

areas of investigation of Jeremiah's mental health status

absolutely required for judgment in a case in which relevant

eyewitnesses have presented reported facts confirming three

separate acts of attempted suicide, in quickly repeated

succession?

Since the core of the utterances from British sources have

stubbornly asserted falsified facts on relevant matters in the

case, facts repeatedly shown to have been false to established

facts, is there not a clear and strong suggestion that there is a

connection between the dubious finding of suicide in the case of

Dr. David Kelly, and the fraudulent denial of well-documented

eyewitness evidence of the actual suicide of Jeremiah? Is not

my appearance twice on the BBC broadcasts in the matter of Prime

Minister Tony Blair's lying pretext for launching war against

Iraq, as this fact of the matter was emphasized by Dr. Kelly, the

primary area of fact bearing on Erica Duggan's launching what has

been a largely fraudulent campaign against me, launched by

important associates of Blair in the setting of the death of Dr.

Kelly, and of the highest relevance in the behavior of certain

British circles in the strange role of Erica Duggan?

If that evidence respecting such highly relevant matters as

the strongly implied mental health problems of Jeremiah Duggan,

is not supplied by the relevant British sources, then, in light

of already clearly established facts, is it not clear that the

political motives of those British interests pushing the denial

of Jeremiah's suicide, must be called into question in this

matter, especially in any case, such as the case of the Duggan

suicide, in which the issue of the lying by former Prime Minister

Tony Blair, on the subject of launching a war against Iraq, is

the crucial setting of the crafting of what has already been

shown to have been a politically motivated, fraudulent

allegation?

JFK HAD THE GUTS OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE ON WALL STREET

Jan. 24 (LPAC)--Liberal columnist Frank Rich warns, in the New York Times, Jan. 24, that Obama does not have the guts or the brains of John F. Kennedy, and because of that, there will be many more ``Massachusetts,'' if the White House ``fails to reboot,'' and does not rid itself of Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. ``The White House clearly knows this duo is a political albatross,'' Rich says, and nobody will find this ``Harvard-trained lawyer [Obama] credible when slinging populist rhetoric at fat-cat bankers.''

Frank Rich doesn't have a clue about the mass strike phenomenon and the Massachusetts election, but he does know how to twist the knife in comparing Obama to JFK and FDR.

Summers is a symbol of the "deregulatory orgy that helped fuel the bubble," says Rich, and things are so bad that in Massachusetts, the Republican Senate Campaign Committee successfully pinned the "bailout" label on the Democrats.

Rich blows a massive hole in the White House fairy tale that they had been planning a "Volcker rule" attack on the big banks since October, saying that only after Massachusetts did the White House call Volcker "out of exile" to put on a new face.

They have to do much, much more. For one, he should study the JFK of April, 1962, and emulate JFK's attack on US Steel, as he {did not} emulate JFK's stand on Vietnam (when JFK did not send Marines into Southeast Asia).

"Kennedy was no radical...," writes Rich, "yet he, like that other Harvard patrician, F.D.R., had no hang-ups about battling his own class...."

"Kennedy didn't settle for the generic populist rhetoric of Obama's latest threats to fight unspecified bankers some indeterminate day," Rich concludes, and US Steel collapsed in about two days, after JFK threatened to turn his brother's Justice Department on them.

"Can anyone picture Obama exerting such take-no-prisoners leadership to challenge those who threaten our own economic recovery and stability at a time of deep recession and war? That we can't is a powerful indicator of why what happened in Massachusetts will not stay in Massachusetts...."

Never underestimate the average American's desire for personal contact with their President. Abraham Lincoln used to meet voters every week in the White House during a Civil War! This constitutional relationship between American citizens and their President is unparalleled in the world.

News Story: (UPI) October 23, 1960

Crestwood, Missouri: "Shake, or you'll lose my vote."

"read a homemade sign held aloft by Bill Kuerz as Sen. John Kennedy's motorcade moved through this St. Louis suburban community Saturday.

Kennedy's convertible stopped and the Democratic presidential candidate shook hands with voter Kuerz."

(Now compare that story to the elitest and narcisscist Barack Nero Bama, "Forget the truck; Any one can buy a truck". )

Further note: London banker disinformation agents in Great Britain circulated the rumor during the 1960 campaign that Kennedy would devalue the dollar. The following story appeared late October, 1960.

Kennedy denies He'd Devalue Dollar. (AP)

Sen. Kennedy's press secretary denied as "categorically untrue" London newspaper reports saying Kennedy had hinted privately that as President of the United States he might change the dollar/gold ratio.

"I believe that reasonable stability in the price level is a vital goal of economic policy. By pursuing this goal we keep faith with those who save; we must protect those who live on fixed income; and we must build world confidence in the soundness and integrity of the dollar."

"I do not minimize the importance of the outflow of gold especially in the short run, and I would never want us in a position of being forced to tinker with the dollar in order to maintain our competitive position in the world export market."

The British Empire finally managed to liquidate the Kennedy threat in 1963, and then manipulated Nixon in 1971 to end the post war Bretton Woods monetary system by delinking the dollar and gold, and setting up an international banking casino system from 1987 to 2008.

A Moment of Great Opportunity Has Arrived

January 21, 2010 (LPAC)— In his statement "Will Nero Now Murder Seneca?: The Charade is Ending", issued in the wake of the smashing defeat for Obama's Nazi health care atrocity in Massachusetts, Lyndon LaRouche locates that development as providing a moment of great opportunity, like to that which was wasted at the time of FDR's death. The health care bills are as good as dead—but the British enemy is still in charge of the White House, and our modern-day Nero is at large.

"Don't let our guard down," said LaRouche. "We must be absolutely ruthless. Obama is going to try to jam the healthcare bill through. He's simply acting as a poisonous snake would, trying to quiet down the opposition so he can catch them unawares."

In fact, there will be no true victory until we have succeeded in creating the conditions under which American patriots take back control of our government, and ram through the emergency measures which LaRouche has prescribed, from bankruptcy reorganization to joining into a Four Power alliance for world reconstruction.

Creating those conditions must be our all-consuming passion, while building for the January 30th webcast, and a break-out for the LaRouche Plan

"Once former prosecutor Richard Sprague, who had convicted the United Mine Workers president for the murder of a union rival, was removed as chief counsel to the HSCA because he was conducting a real investigation, he was replaced by G. Robert Blakey, who said that his job was to produce a report. That he did, and then wrote a book blaming the assassination on the mob, which after Castro and the Lone-Nut, is the third layer of the cover-story that is still be propagated by Thom Hartmann, Modlea, Blakey and others."

G. Robert Blakey

http://www.randomhouse.com/author/results.pperl?authorid=34303&view=full_sptlght

Thom Hartmann & the contingency plans for a coup in Cuba.

Although the original Castro-did-it cover story was shown to be false, that doesn't stop Gus Russo from writing books and false documentary film scripts that continue this back propaganda. I'll let Gus speak for himself:

Gus Russo

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo.htm

During many of my years of research, I was convinced that all the truths surrounding the Kennedy assassination would never be known-that a complete story could never be told.

It was while in New Orleans for Frontline that I had my first Inkling of the "ultimate truth," the one explanation that resolved everything for me: Oswald's apparent lack of a motive; the Kennedy family's reluctance to say anything about Jack's death; Robert Kennedy's unrelenting grief-, the secrecy surrounding the two key cities in Oswald's life (New Orleans and Mexico City).

More important by far was the release of the JFK documents required by the JFK Act. Measured in man-hours, I spent practically a full year combing the files. They enabled me to see that the big question wasn't WHO done it, but WHY.

Aided by the decision of RFK intimates to tell me their stories, and the Review Board's release of over three million pages of previously classified documents, I am able, for the first time, to speak the unspeakable. My research has convinced me that John and Robert Kennedy's secret war against Cuba backfired on them-that it precipitated both President Kennedy's assassination and its cover-up.

Conspiracy books usually treat John and Robert Kennedy as innocent babes who would not have thought about dirty tricks -- much less assassination plots -- against Castro. But the reality is very different.

Indeed, reality is very different.

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

G. Robert Blakey

And, let's not forget who Blakey put in charge of the "hen house" during the HSCA investigations, Georges Johannides [of JM/Wave and DRE associations].

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

Investigators, Researchers and Journalists

George Robert Blakey was born in Burlington, North Carolina on 1st July, 1936. He studied at Notre Dame Law School (1957-60). Admitted to the bar of the District of Columbia, he worked as a Special Attorney at the Department of Justice in the Organized Crime & Racketeering Section from 1960 to 1964. He also served as a professor of law and director of the Cornell Institute on Organized Crime at Cornell Law School.

In the 1960s Blakey campaigned for and helped write much of the anti-racketeering legislation that helped undermine the activities of the Mafia. This included the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (1970).

Blakey took a keen interest in the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King and served as chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1977 to 1979. In this role he led the investigation into the assassination, reexamining the evidence with a new forensics panel.

Blakey is also the co-author with Richard Billings of The Plot to Kill the President (1981). In the book Blakey and Billings argue that there was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy. He believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved but believes that there was at least one gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll. Blakey came to the conclusion that the Mafia boss, Carlos Marcello, organized the assassination. The book was reissued in paperback in 1993 as Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime.

Richard Billings and G. Robert Blakey (1978)

Carl Oglesby summarized Blakey and Billings theory as follows:

a. Oswald alone did shoot and kill J.F.K., as the Warren Commission deduced.

b. An unknown confederate of Oswald's, however, also shot at the President, firing from the celebrated "grassy knoll." This shot missed.

c. Apart from the question of the number of assailants in the attack, Oswald acted as the tool of a much larger conspiracy.

d. The conspiracy behind Oswald was rooted in organized crime and was specifically provoked by J.F.K. s anti-crime program. Singly or in some combination, prime suspects are Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, godfathers respectively of the New Orleans and Tampa Mafias. Each one had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill J.F.K.

Robert Blakey is currently professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. He also helped draft the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.

George Joannides died in Houston in March 1990. It was only after his death that it was revealed that Joannides was in contact with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963.

G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, was furious when he discovered this information. He issued a statement where he said: "I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee.... I was not told of Joannides' background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE. That the Agency would put a 'material witness' in as a 'filter' between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation."

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

George Joannides

George Joannides, the son of a journalist, was born in Athens, Greece, on 5th July, 1922. His family arrived in New York in 1923. After graduating from the City College he received a law degree from St. John's University. He worked for the Greek language National Herald before moving to Washington in 1949 to work for the Greek Embassy Information Service.

He joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1951 and later became chief of the Psychological Warfare branch of the CIA's JM/WAVE station in Miami. In this role he worked closely with the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE), a militant right-wing, anti-Communist, anti-Castro, anti-Kennedy, group. This was a group that Lee Harvey Oswald was in contact with in New Orleans in August 1963. Journalist Jefferson Morley says he knows of no evidence that Joannides was in contact with Oswald during this period.

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Richard Helms appointed John M. Whitten to undertake the agency's in-house investigation. After talking to Winston Scott, the CIA station chief in Mexico City, Whitten discovered that Lee Harvey Oswald had been photographed at the Cuban consulate in early October, 1963. Nor had Scott told Whitten, his boss, that Oswald had also visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico. In fact, Whitten had not been informed of the existence of Oswald, even though there was a 201 pre-assassination file on him that had been maintained by the Counterintelligence/Special Investigative Group.

John M. Whitten and his staff of 30 officers, were sent a large amount of information from the FBI. According to Gerald D. McKnight "the FBI deluged his branch with thousands of reports containing bits and fragments of witness testimony that required laborious and time-consuming name checks." Whitten later described most of this FBI material as "weirdo stuff". As a result of this initial investigation, Whitten told Richard Helms that he believed that Oswald had acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

On 6th December, Nicholas Katzenbach invited Whitten and Birch O'Neal, Angleton's trusted deputy and senior Special Investigative Group (SIG) officer to read Commission Document 1 (CD1), the report that the FBI had written on Lee Harvey Oswald. Whitten now realized that the FBI had been withholding important information on Oswald from him. He also discovered that Richard Helms had not been providing him all of the agency's available files on Oswald. This included Oswald's political activities in the months preceding the assassination and the relationship Joannides had with the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil.

John M. Whitten had a meeting where he argued that Oswald's pro-Castro political activities needed closer examination, especially his attempt to shoot the right-wing General Edwin Walker, his relationship with anti-Castro exiles in New Orleans, and his public support for the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Whitten added that has he had been denied this information, his initial conclusions on the assassination were "completely irrelevant."

Richard Helms responded by taking Whitten off the case. James Jesus Angleton, chief of the CIA's Counterintelligence Branch, was now put in charge of the investigation. According to Gerald D. McKnight (Breach of Trust) Angleton "wrested the CIA's in-house investigation away from John Whitten because he either was convinced or pretended to believe that the purpose of Oswald's trip to Mexico City had been to meet with his KGB handlers to finalize plans to assassinate Kennedy."

Is this an interesting statement from a man whose name, if, not the person himself, would, 16 years later, be associated with the assassin of Joe Kennedy's son?

Jim Root

Jim: Since we all want to end this inquiry and get on with our lives, please tell us who was "the assassin of Joe Kennedy's son"?

In 1938, Roosevelt appointed Kennedy as the United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James (the United Kingdom) in London, England. Kennedy's Irish and Catholic status did not bother very many of the British. Indeed, Kennedy hugely enjoyed his leadership position in London high society, which stood in stark contrast to his relative outsider status in Boston. His daughter Kathleen married the heir to the Duke of Devonshire, the head of one of England's grandest aristocratic families. Kennedy rejected the warnings of the Member of Parliament Winston S. Churchill that any compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible. Instead, Kennedy supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's apparent policy of appeasement in order to stave off a second World War that would be a more horrible "armageddon" than the first. Throughout 1938, while the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany and Austria intensified, Kennedy attempted to arrange a meeting with Adolf Hitler.[12] Shortly before the Nazi aerial bombing of British cities began in September 1940, Kennedy once again sought a personal meeting with Hitler, again without the approval of the Department of State, "to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany."[13]

I was watching The History Detectives when an interesting fact was voiced by one of the investigators regarding a dagger which was supposedly to have belonged to Mussolini. During the research being carried out, it was brought to light that the symbol of the eagle incorporated into the design of the dagger, was noted to have been an acknowledged historical symbol of "fascism" as it has been passed down through the ages. Which, of course, brought to mind the symbol of the Great Seal Of The United States, and the use of the eagle in all things "military" and "gov." associated with the U.S.

In pursuing the matter further, I came across many links until this one caught my eye, which I believe delves into the matter concisely and appropriately.

FWIW.

The Puzzle of Fascism: Could Fascism Arise in America Or Could It Already Be A Fascist State...

by Eric D. Williams - 2006 - Political Science - 416 pages

Among many conspiracy theorists, the eagle was adopted as the symbol of the US as a Masonic symbol. Nine of the fifty five men who signed the Declaration of ...

books.google.com/books?isbn=1419632558... -

Hi kathy ...so very sorry to read your health news.......please take care and only do what you should.....i wish you all the very best and a full recovery....you are in my prayers......sincerely bernice..

Thanks to everyone. It was especially nice hearing from you, Bernice. It means a lot to me. I'm sure your prayers for me will reach Heaven faster than anyones'.

Yours Truly,

Kathy

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

Kath, if there's anything special in the way of books you might have been wanting to get, let me know and I'll have them sent off to you from Amazon.com like I did before. Get back to me via my personal e-mail: tmauro@pacbell.net.

Keep your chin up, and don't allow this to get you down. It's important to remain focused and vigilant at this time.

Best always,

Ter

Thank you, Terri. You probably know about this stuff. They did a full body Cat scan on me today and marked me for the radiation. The physicist has to examine it so they know what angle to put the radiation on me, so as not to get my lungs or heart. Radiation starts Monday or Tuesday. I have to have 33 sessions. The place is real nice and the employees very nice. It's only 5 minutes away from me. So I will be driving myself. My sister-in-law doesn't think I'll be able to do it. I'll be in touch.

Kathy C

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

Kath,

I'll be looking into what I can find on Amazon.com, and hopefully get something off to you by Christmas. I've been getting notices from Chase Bank, who took over a couple of my credit cards, like my gas card, and my Washington Mutual Bank Mastercard, then went and hiked the interest rates up to 29.9% in the last two weeks. Plus, subjecting my checking account to a variable APR rate, should it suffer an overdraft charge. Ain't it typical of the Rockefeller/Morgan financiers to twist the knife a little deeper.

So, I'm waiting to pay down on the gas card and MC before purchasing anything for the next two weeks. But, keep the faith, and hopefully you'll have what you need to read, at least halfway through your Rad therapy sessions.

Isn't it ironic how all this banking crap has been thrown right back in our faces, to coincide with the holidays, and the mid winter bluest days since The Great Depression of 1930's? What recession? Maybe a "recession" for the robber baron bankers we were forced to bail out to the tune of trillions of dollars. But for us bottom feeders, with double digit unemployment and millions of jobs down the toilet, it still looks like The Great Depression of The 21st Century, to me.

Well, never you mind about those thieving Wall Street vipers. It can't go on forever.

Your new job is to concentrate on getting all the help the system has to offer, and accept those rides to and from your sessions. You don't need to be stressing out your immune system at this crucial point in your recovery.

I'll let you know when your books are on the way, and e-mail the tracking numbers. I'll be in touch in the next couple of weeks via our e-mail addresses.

Warmest regards,

Ter

Hi kathy ...so very sorry to read your health news.......please take care and only do what you should.....i wish you all the very best and a full recovery....you are in my prayers......sincerely bernice..

Thanks to everyone. It was especially nice hearing from you, Bernice. It means a lot to me. I'm sure your prayers for me will reach Heaven faster than anyones'.

Yours Truly,

Kathy

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

Kath, if there's anything special in the way of books you might have been wanting to get, let me know and I'll have them sent off to you from Amazon.com like I did before. Get back to me via my personal e-mail: tmauro@pacbell.net.

Keep your chin up, and don't allow this to get you down. It's important to remain focused and vigilant at this time.

Best always,

Ter

I have "bolded" the statements of interest, and how I believe this 94 minute video connects the dots with respect to how the elites and their own "shadow" government actually run this country for their own "interests." All the while avoiding conflict of interest issues through the various "loopholes" they've lobbied and interjected within the U.S. Constitution via manipulation of the various amendments and semantically restructuring the wording of said amendments to reflect their own personal interests.

Please read Prouty's letters, and most especially the "bolded" text in the second one to Greg Burnham. Then view the video I've sent.

Thanks go to Len Osanic of prouty.org, researcher Gregory Burnham, and Tree Frog for compiling Prouty's letters in his e-mails.

Ter

Letter number one to former D.A. of New Orleans, Jim Garrison.

http://www.prouty.org/

Prouty letter to Jim Garrison

March 6, 1990

Dear Jim,

It is amazing how things work, I am at home recuperating from a major back operation (to regain my ability to walk); so I was tossing around in bed last night...not too comfortable...and I began to think of Garrison. I thought, "I have got to write Jim a letter detailing how I believe the whole job was done."

By another coincidence I had received a fine set of twenty photos from the Sprague collection in Springfield, Mass. As the odds would have it, he is now living just around the corner here in Alexandria. Why not? Lansdale lived here, Fensterwald lives here, Ford used to live here. Quite a community.

I was studying those photos. One of them is the "Tramps" picture that appears in your book. It is glossy and clear. Lansdale is so clearly identifiable. Why, Lansdale in Dallas? The others don't matter, they are nothing but actors and not gunmen but they are interesting. Others who knew Lansdale as well as I did, have said the same thing, "That's him and what's he doing there?"

As I was reading the paper the Federal Express man came with a book from Jim [Currey's book. My emphasis. TM], that unusual "Lansdale" book. A terrible biography. There could be a great biography about Lansdale. He's no angel; but he is worth a good biography. Currey, a paid hack, did the job. His employers ought to have let him do it right.

I had known Ed since 1952 in the Philippines. I used to fly there regularly with my MATS Heavy Transport Squadron. As a matter of fact, in those days we used to fly wounded men, who were recuperating, from hospitals in Japan to Saigon for R&R on the beaches of Cap St Jacque. That was 1952-1953. Saigon was the Paris of the Orient. And Lansdale was "King Maker" of the Philippines. We always went by way of Manila. I met his team.

He had arrived in Manila in Sept 1945, after the war was over, for a while. He had been sent back there in 1950 by the CIA(OPC) to create a new leader of the Philippines and to get rid of Querino. Sort of like the Marcos deal, or the Noriega operation. Lansdale did it better. I have overthrown a government but I didn't splash it all around like Reagan and Bush have done. Now, who sent him there?

Who sent him there in 1950 (Truman era) to do a job that was not done until 1953 (Ike era)? From 1950 to Feb. 1953 the Director of Central Intelligence was Eisenhower's old Chief of Staff, Gen Walter Bedell Smith. Smith had been Ambassador to Moscow from 1946 to 1949. The lesser guys in the CIA at the time were Allen Dulles, who was Deputy Director Central Intelligence from Aug. 1951 to Feb. 1953. Frank Wisner became the Deputy Director, Plans (Clandestine Activities) when Dulles became DDCI. Lansdale had to have received his orders from among these four men: Truman, Smith, Dulles, and Wisner. Of course the Sec State could have had some input...i.e. Acheson. Who wanted Querino out, that badly? Who wanted HUKS there?

In Jan 1953 Eisenhower arrived. John Foster Dulles was at State and Gen Smith his Deputy. Allen Dulles was the DCI and General Cabel his deputy. None of them changed Lansdale's prior orders to "get" Querino. Lansdale operated with abandon in the Philippines. The Ambassador and the CIA Station Chief, George Aurell, did not know what he was doing. They believed he was some sort of kook Air Force Officer there...a role Lansdale played to the hilt. Magsaysay became President, Dec 30, 1953.

With all of this on the record, and a lot more, this guy Currey comes out of the blue with this purported "Biography". I knew Ed well enough and long enough to know that he was a classic chameleon. He would tell the truth sparingly and he would fabricate a lot. Still, I can not believe that he told Currey the things Currey writes. Why would Lansdale want Currey to perpetuate such out and out bullxxxx about him? Can't be. This is a terribly fabricated book. It's not even true about me. I believe that this book was ordered and delineated by the CIA.

At least I know the truth about myself and about Gen. Krulak. Currey libels us terribly. In fact it may be Krulak who caused the book to be taken off the shelves. Krulak and his Copley Press cohorts have the power to get that done, and I encouraged them to do just that when it first came out. Krulak was mad!

Ed told me many a time how he operated in the Philippines. He said, "All I had was a blank checkbook signed by the U.S. government". He made friends with many influential Filipinos. I have met Johnny Orendain and Col Valeriano, among others, in Manila with Lansdale. He became acquainted with the wealthiest Filipino of them all, Soriano. Currey never even mentions him. Soriano set up Philippine Airlines and owned the big San Miguel beer company, among other things. Key man in Asia.

Lansdale's greatest strategy was to create the "HUKS" as the enemy and to make Magsaysay the "Huk Killer." He would take Magsaysay's battalion out into a "Huk" infested area. He would use movies and "battlefield" sound systems, i.e. fireworks to scare the poor natives. Then one-half of Magsaysay's battalion, dressed as natives, would "attack" the village at night. They'd fire into the air and burn some shacks. In the morning the other half, in uniform, would attack and "capture" the "Huks". They would bind them up in front of the natives who crept back from the forests, and even have a "firing" squad "kill" some of them. Then they would have Magsaysay make a big speech to the people and the whole battalion would roll down the road to have breakfast together somewhere...ready for the next "show".

Ed would always see that someone had arranged to have newsmen and camera men there and Magsaysay soon became a national hero. This was a tough game and Ed bragged that a lot of people were killed; but in the end Magsaysay became the "elected" President and Querino was ousted "legally."

This formula endeared Ed to Allen Dulles. In 1954 Dulles established the Saigon Military Mission in Vietnam...counter to Eisenhower's orders. He had the French accept Lansdale as its chief. This mission was not in Saigon. It was not military, and its job was subversion in Vietnam. Its biggest job was that it got more than 1,100,000 northern Vietnamese to move south. 660,000 by U.S.Navy ships and the rest by CIA airline planes. These 1,100,000 north Vietnamese became the "subversive" element in South Vietnam and the principal cause of the warmaking. Lansdale and his cronies (Bohanon, Arundel, Phillips, Hand, Conein and many others) did all that using the same check book. I was with them many times during 1954. All Malthuseanism.

I have heard him brag about capturing random Vietnamese and putting them in a Helicopter. Then they would work on them to make them "confess" to being Viet Minh. When they would not, they would toss them out of the chopper, one after the other, until the last ones talked. This was Ed's idea of fun...as related to me many times. Then Dulles, Adm. Radford and Cardinal Spellman set up Ngo Dinh Diem. He and his brother, Nhu, became Lansdale proteges.

At about 1957 Lansdale was brought back to Washington and assigned to Air Force Headquarters in a Plans office near mine. He was a fish out of water. He didn't know Air Force people and Air Force ways. After about six months of that, Dulles got the Office of Special Operations under General Erskine to ask for Lansdale to work for the Secretary of Defense. Erskine was man enough to control him.

By 1960 Erskine had me head the Air Force shop there. He had an Army shop and a Navy shop and we were responsible for all CIA relationships as well as for the National Security Agency. Ed was still out of his element because he did not know the services; but the CIA sent work his way.

Then in the Fall of 1960 something happened that fired him up. Kennedy was elected over Nixon. Right away Lansdale figured out what he was going to do with the new President. Overnight he left for Saigon to see Diem and to set up a deal that would make him, Lansdale, Ambassador to Vietnam. He had me buy a "Father of his Country" gift for Diem...$700.00.

I can't repeat all of this but you should get a copy of the Gravel edition, 5 Vol.'s, of the Pentagon Papers and read it. The Lansdale accounts are quite good and reasonably accurate.

Ed came back just before the Inauguration and was brought into the White House for a long presentation to Kennedy about Vietnam. Kennedy was taken by it and promised he would have Lansdale back in Vietnam "in a high office". Ed told us in OSO he had the Ambassadorship sewed up. He lived for that job.

He had not reckoned with some of JFK's inner staff, George Ball, etc. Finally the whole thing turned around and month by month Lansdale's star sank over the horizon. Erskine retired and his whole shop was scattered. The Navy men went back to the navy as did the Army folks. Gen Wheeler in the JCS asked to have me assigned to the Joint Staff. This wiped out the whole Erskine (Office of Special Operations) office. It was comical. There was Lansdale up there all by himself with no office and no one else. He boiled and he blamed it on Kennedy for not giving him the "promised" Ambassadorship to let him "save" Vietnam.

Then with the failure of the Bay of Pigs, caused by that phone call to cancel the air strikes by McGeorge Bundy, the military was given the job of reconstituting some sort of Anti-Castro operation. It was headed by an Army Colonel; but somehow Lansdale (most likely CIA influence) got put into the plans for Operation Mongoose...to get Castro...ostensibly.

The U.S. Army has a think-tank at American University. It was called "Operation Camelot". This is where the "Camelot" concept came from. It was anti-JFK's Vietnam strategy. The men running it were Lansdale types, Special Forces background. "Camelot" was King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table: not JFK...then.

Through 1962 and 1963 Mongoose and "Camelot" became strong and silent organizations dedicated to countering JFK. Mongoose had access to the CIA's best "hit men" in the business and a lot of "strike" capability. Lansdale had many old friends in the media business such as Joe Alsop, Henry Luce among others. With this background and with his poisoned motivation I am positive that he got collateral orders to manage the Dallas event under the guise of "getting" Castro. It is so simple at that level. A nod from the right place, source immaterial, and the job's done.

The "hit" is the easy part. The "escape" must be quick and professional. The cover-up and the scenario are the big jobs. They more than anything else prove the Lansdale mastery.

Lansdale was a master writer and planner. He was a great "scenario" guy. It still have a lot of his personally typed material in my files. I am certain that he was behind the elaborate plan and mostly the intricate and enduring cover-up. Given a little help from friends at PEPSICO he could easily have gotten Nixon into Dallas, for "orientation': and LBJ in the cavalcade at the same time, contrary to Secret Service policy.

He knew the "Protection" units and the "Secret Service", who was needed and who wasn't. Those were routine calls for him, and they would have believed him. Cabell could handle the police.

The "hit men" were from CIA overseas sources, for instance, from the "Camp near Athena, Greece. They are trained, stateless, and ready to go at any time. They ask no questions: speak to no one. They are simply told what to do, when and where. Then they are told how they will be removed and protected. After all, they work for the U.S. Government. The "Tramps" were actors doing the job of cover-up. The hit men are just pros. They do the job for the CIA anywhere. They are impersonal. They get paid. They get protected, and they have enough experience to "blackmail" anyone, if anyone ever turns on them...just like Drug agents. The job was clean, quick and neat. No ripples.

The whole story of the POWER of the Cover-up comes down to a few points. There has never been a Grand Jury and trial in Texas. Without a trial there can be nothing. Without a trial it does no good for researchers to dig up data. It has no place to go and what the researchers reveal just helps make the cover-up tighter, or they eliminate that evidence and the researcher.

The first man LBJ met with on Nov 29th, after he had cleared the foreign dignitaries out of Washington was Waggoner Carr, Atty Gen'l, Texas to tell him, "No trial in Texas...ever."

The next man he met, also on Nov 29th, was J. Edgar Hoover. The first question LBJ asked his old "19 year" neighbor in DC was "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ thought that THEY had been shooting at him also as they shot at his friend John Connally. Note that he asked, "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ knew there were several hitmen. That's the ultimate clue...THEY.

The Connallys said the same thing...THEY. Not Oswald.

Then came the heavily loaded press releases about Oswald all written before the deal and released actually before LHO had ever been charged with the crime. I bought the first newspaper EXTRA on the streets of Christchurch, New Zealand with the whole LHO story in that first news...photos and columns of it before the police in Dallas had yet to charge him with that crime. All this canned material about LHO was flashed around the world.

Lansdale and his Time-Life and other media friends, with Valenti in Hollywood, have been doing that cover-up since Nov 1963. Even the deMorenschildt story enhances all of this. In deM's personal telephone/address notebook he had the name of an Air Force Colonel friend of mine, Howard Burrus. Burrus was always deep in intelligence. He had been in one of the most sensitive Attache spots in Europe...Switzerland. He was a close friend of another Air Force Colonel and Attache, Godfrey McHugh, who used to date Jackie Bouvier. DeM had Burrus listed under a DC telephone number and on that same telephone number he had "L.B.Johnson, Congressman." Quite a connection. Why...from the Fifties yet.?

Godfrey McHugh was the Air Force Attache in Paris. Another most important job. I knew him well, and I transferred his former Ass't Attache to my office in the Pentagon. This gave me access to a lot of information I wanted in the Fifties. This is how I learned that McHugh's long-time special "date" was the fair Jacqueline...yes, the same Jackie Bouvier. Sen. Kennedy met Jackie in Paris when he was on a trip. At that time JFK was dating a beautiful SAS Airline Stewardess who was the date of that Ass't Attache who came to my office. JFK dumped her and stole Jackie away from McHugh. Leaves McHugh happy????

At the JFK Inaugural Ball who should be there but the SAS stewardess, Jackie--of course, and Col Godfrey McHugh. JFK made McHugh a General and made him his "Military Advisor" in the White House where he was near Jackie while JFK was doing all that official travelling connected with his office AND other special interests. Who recommended McHugh for the job?

General McHugh was in Dallas and was on Air Force One, with Jackie, on the flight back to Washington..as was Jack Valenti. Why was LBJ's old cohort there at that time and why was he on Air Force One? He is now the Movie Czar. Why in Dallas?

See how carefully all of this is interwoven. Burrus is now a very wealthy man in Washington. I have lost track of McHugh. And Jackie is doing well. All in the Lansdale--deM shadows.

One of Lansdale's special "black" intelligence associates in the Pentagon was Dorothy Matlack of U.S. Army Intelligence. How does it happen that when deM. flew from Haiti to testify, he was met at the National Airport by Dorothy?

The Lansdale story is endless. What people do not do, is study the entire environment of his strange career. For example: the most important part of my book, "The Secret Team", is not something that I wrote. It is Appendix III under the title, "Training Under The Mutual Security Program". This is a most important bit of material. It tells more about the period 1963 to 1990 than anything. I fought to have it included verbatim in the book. This material was the work of Lansdale and his crony General Dick Stillwell. Anyone interested in the "JFK Coup d'Etat" ought to know it by heart.

I believe this document tells why the Coup took place. It was to reverse the sudden JFK re-orientation of the U.S. Government from Asia to Europe, in keeping with plans made in 1943 at Cairo and Teheran by T.V. Soong and his Asian masterminds. Lansdale and Stillwell were long-time "Asia hands" as were Gen Erskine, Adm Radford, Cardinal Spellman, Henry Luce, [Time-Life media. My emphasis. TM] and so many others.

In October 1963, JFK had just signalled this reversal, to Europe, when he published National Security Action Memorandum #263 saying...among other things...that he was taking 1000 troops home from Vietnam by Christmas 1963 and ALL AMERICANS out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That cost him his life.

JFK came to that "Pro-Europe" conclusion in the Summer of 1963 and sent Gen Krulak to Vietnam for advance work. Kurlak and I (with others) wrote that long "Taylor-McNamara" Report of their "Visit to Vietnam" (obviously they did not write, illustrate and bind it as they traveled). Krulak got his information daily in the White House. We simply wrote it. That led to NSAM #263. This same Trip Report is Document #142 and appears on page 751 to 766 of Vol. II of the Gravel Edition of the Pentagon Papers. NSAM #263 appears on pages 769-770 (It makes the Report official). This major Report and NSAM indicated an enormous shift in the orientation of U.S. Foreign Policy from Asia back to Europe. JFK was much more Europe- oriented, as was his father, than pro-Asia. This position was anathema to the Asia-born Luces, etc. [Henry Luce of Time-Life media mentioned above. My emphasis. T. Mauro]

There is the story from an insider. I sat in the same office with Lansdale, (OSO of OSD) for years. I listened to him in Manila and read his flurry of notes from 1952 to 1964. I know all this stuff, and much more. I could write ten books. I send this to you because I believe you are one of the most sincere of the "true researchers". You may do with it as you please. I know you will do it right. I may give copies of this to certain other people of our persuasion. (Years ago I told this to Mae Brussell on the promise she would hold it. She did.)

Now you can see why I have always said that identification of the "Tramps" was unnecessary, i.e. they are actors. The first time I saw that picture I saw the man I knew and I realized why he was there. He caused the political world to spin on its axis. Now, back to recuperating.

L. Fletcher Prouty

Letter number two to Greg Burnham.

An interesting reply from Col. Prouty

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 reconnaissance 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 form 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 [Joint Chiefs of Staff. My emphasis. TM] 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

Please view the video below. TM

--- On Mon, 10/19/09, Newsletter@StrawberryFields.net <Newsletter@StrawberryFields.net> wrote:

From: Newsletter@StrawberryFields.net <Newsletter@StrawberryFields.net>

Subject: The New American Century

To: tmauro@pacbell.net

Date: Monday, October 19, 2009, 5:18 AM

The New American Century (94 minutes)

Exposes how every major US war since 1898 was based on fraud.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...merican+century

Donald Gibson covers Chomsky and Bertrand Russell in his book "The Kennedy Assassination Cover Up"

http://books.google.com/books?id=7n_sF3PSv...;q=&f=false

This has been a very interesting thread. I find myself in the unaccustomed position of strongly agreeing with Andy Walker and disagreeing with Terry Mauro.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of the British health system, but it simply couldn't be as bad as ours. I just don't think it would be possible for anyone to devise a poorer one. I worked directly for a huge health care system for decades, and I could tell you countless horror stories about what I personally saw (and I had no real direct contact with patients). The fact is, for more than a decade now, the cost of health insurance has been rising far more rapidly than the average cost of living raise for the majority of American workers. To make matters worse, there has been a simultaneous cutting of benefits- higher co-pays, with fewer procedures covered.

In this country, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, health care administrators and doctors profit enormously from the present system. There is obviously a strong incentive for them to keep the present plan. Our politicians also have one of the best medical programs in the country. They, too, have little reason to push for change. Obama's attempts at reform are tiny and only baby steps in the right direction. We have to have a single payer, government run health care system, like England and Canada. There is no other option, because those who have been getting rich from the present system are not going to willingly give up their profits, and without them doing that costs can never be cut. Without drastic cost cuts, the present system simply cannot endure.

Either we go entirely in the other direction- ala Craig Lamson- and promote the idea that health care is a "privilege" and not a fundemantal right, or we scrap the unworkable present system. Everyone should have access to medical care- I don't know how that can even be up for debate.

Don,

You must have trouble reading. I never made any comparison of British vs US health care system.

I exposed the Euthanasia policy coming out of Britian, approved and implemented by the NHS.

I also believe that the FBI/CIA have played a similar role in the USA. That is that they were involved in the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King and the overthrow of Richard Nixon.

Problems:

1. The FBI/CIA is too limited an option, even just among intelligence agencies. For instance, there is a National Security Agency, and military intelligence agencies (Office of Naval Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence) whose files, operations, etc are by their nature not open to review; that is, they are more secret and more easily and plausibly hidden under the rubric of "national security concerns."

2. This tendency to focus almost exclusively on the CIA (the FBI really is not focused on nearly so much, or about as much as military intelligence) is all too characteristic of "conspiracy theory" and also seems to be a preoccupation of the Far Right's ideology. So this is not just a "tunnel vision approach" and a limited perspective; it invites research and theory to be influenced and determined by extremists whose own actions and involvements in certain matters might bear more scrutiny.

And that's the problem in a nutshell: people have a healthy skepticism about "official lines" when a government is the source, but very little skepticism when it comes to "private agencies" and "fellow conspiracy theorists"; people focus on the CIA without recognizing (or acknowledging) how much of this pointing-to-the-CIA originates from Far Right sources. And this applies to the past as well as to today: how much of "what-is-known-to-be-true" in various conspiracy theories originated from extremely dubious sources, sources who might have had reason to divert attention away from themselves (and others who shared their ideas and attitudes and motivations)? and how much of what is put out today is promoted, sourced and/or funded by Far Right agencies?

3. Conspiracy theory often limits its focus (exclusively to the CIA), but also often fails to differentiate between a crime and its cover-up. This lends itself to belief in unrealistic mega-conspiracies. And a narrow focus in one area combined with a broad generalization in another area serves as evidence that conspiracy theory advocates can be highly selective, and sometimes dishonest instead of just a bit touched in the head.

4. I have a problem with the inclusion of "the overthrow of Richard Nixon" with "the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King [Jr.]," as I do with including George Wallace at the end of a line of "John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr.": one of these doesn't fit with the others, and its not because one of those men was black. This is typical, though, in that much conspiracy thinking only seems to see "larger conspiracy concerns" and fails to notice that Richard Nixon let alone George Wallace don't exactly belong in a list of "martyrs." (Including them there, though, encourages the belief that they were "mere victims" in a "wider conspiracy.")

5. There is more reason to suspect/believe that Far Right racists were involved in the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. than that the FBI/CIA were. There is much more reason to suspect/believe that Far Right people and bizarre occult thrill-seekers were involved in the murder of Robert Kennedy than that the FBI/CIA were. But once you throw all these together and are convinced by various often dubious sources that it's all of a piece in a "wider conspiracy," then the actual details don't matter and it's the belief in the wider conspiracy that becomes an Article of Faith. (And that's how you wind up including George Wallace with JFK/RFK/MLK, and how you wind up perceiving that "the overthrow of Richard Nixon" was much the same as the murders of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy -- all you have to do is overlook the fact that Wallace and Nixon were sort of opposed to what King and the Kennedys seemed to be fighting for. It's not the politics and realities that matter, in other words; what matters is a Big Conspiracy.)

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

"4. I have a problem with the inclusion of "the overthrow of Richard Nixon" with "the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King [Jr.]," as I do with including George Wallace at the end of a line of "John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr.": one of these doesn't fit with the others, and its not because one of those men was black. This is typical, though, in that much conspiracy thinking only seems to see "larger conspiracy concerns" and fails to notice that Richard Nixon let alone George Wallace don't exactly belong in a list of "martyrs." (Including them there, though, encourages the belief that they were "mere victims" in a "wider conspiracy.")"

Nixon was a Quaker, and looked upon by the Establishment Elite, as a country bumpkin, just as Wallace and LBJ were thought of, in kind. They were mere puppets to be manipulated by the masters behind the scenes, Wall Street Banking-Financial houses, Oil, and Industrio-Corporate interests. Another couple of examples I can think of are Carter and Reagan. As far as I've been able to "deduce," none of the above mentioned elected officials were born of affluent blue-blooded lines, with 18K gold spoons in their mouths. That was their first mistake. This only served to relegate them to a common status, and of no great consequence nor significant threat to the status quo. Just as long as they went along with the program and didn't try to actually run the country, or attempt to exercise their "presidential power."

The problem with a great deal of this is that many of the 'conspiracies' listed (some of which John doesn't believe in and some he does) are so weak that a 5 year really ought to be able to see through them without too much cerebal activity.

Controversially we could probably place conspiracy theories on a spectrum from the outright psychotic (Diana, 9/11, Hilda Murrell, NHS doctors are government assassins etc.) drifting away to something more sane which might just pass as historical research. However there are a number of important common denominators in conspiracy thinking which makes me initially sceptical of them all.

1. Methodology - the desire to believe a conspiracy always seems to override a commitment to recognised standards of academic research - (I could cite lots of examples but it’s not really fair to keep picking on Jack).

2. The historian’s fallacy - conspiracists always judge actors in historical events in the light of known outcomes and thereby miss all nuances and details which might have led historical actors in different directions.

3. Conspiracy theory is not just victimless amusement. Think for a moment of conspiracy theories of the Right - McCarthyism for instance. Think what damage and mayhem the 'stab in the back' conspiracy did for 20th century Germany? How must the Duke of Edinburgh feel knowing that 2/5 citizens believe he bumped off his daughter in law? Why do so many conspiracy theories drift back to anti-Semitism or some other foul prejudice against an out group as Peter Lemkin has been discovering in discussion with the Australian Nazi et al on the Deep Politics Forum?

4. Conspiracy sells well - books on Diana, Marilyn or JFK sell in their millions - where there is money there is always ingenuity and invention.

5. Conspiracy diverts intelligent people from genuine political action which might reduce corruption and the abuse of power in our democratic systems.

6. Conspiracy theory uses intuition rather than evidence to establish causation - the 'this must be' approach

7. Conspiracy theory has an extraordinary way of establishing motive - 'cui bono?' Let us imagine a victim of a fatal road traffic accident for a moment. We shall call him 'Charles' for we are in that kind of mood. 'Charles' dies horribly and painfully in the tangled wreckage of his car because he has been driving too fast and was drunk. 'Charles' was well insured and leaves his wife and family considerably better off for his passing. Cui bono? Who do we arrest on a murder charge?

8. Believing in things that are not true is not good for your mental health and well being - My advice to anyone who has a friend who might start talking about the 'communists' who are after him or the lizard people who are ruling the planet or the Illuminati, or the Zionists, or the CIA or whatever the particular expression might be is to tell him or her gently but firmly not to be so bloody daft for once full blown psychosis takes hold it is a very long and difficult road back.

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

"6. Conspiracy theory uses intuition rather than evidence to establish causation - the 'this must be' approach"

Are you attempting to equate "intuition," with deductive analysis?

So Andy, why not put your DENIAL away for a moment and tell us all exactly what is "unsustained and unsustainable" in the above?

As I hope you are intelligent to grasp it is wild conjecture and speculation you are offering us without a smidgeon of evidence to back it up. You are doing it to sustain an extreme right free market position and it is so transparent as to be highly amusing. This is why people here are taking the p**s out of you .

Why do you continue to censor my postings? There is plenty of proof to back the euthanasia charges against the NHS.

Free Market! That's a British game going back centuries.

We promote the American System against the Adam Smith garbage.

Who said??

"How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men"

Your clue is that though it may sound like something Peter, Jack or even the appalling Drago might have said - they didn't, although they do share a number of important psychological traits with the actual author – good luck

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

******

Back to Modern History SourceBook

Modern History Sourcebook:

Senator Josephy McCarthy:

The History of George Catlett Marshall, 1951

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speech delivered by Senator Joseph McCarthy before the Senate on June 14, 1951

[]

How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this Government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.

Who constitutes the highest circles of this conspiracy? About that we cannot be sure. We are convinced that Dean Acheson, who steadfastly serves the interests of nations other than his own, the friend of Alger Hiss, who supported him in his hour of retribution, who contributed to his defense fund, must be high on the roster. The President? He is their captive. I have wondered, as have you, why he did not dispense with so great a liability as Acheson to his own and his party's interests. It is now clear to me. In the relationship of master and man, did you ever hear of man firing master? Truman is a satisfactory front. He is only dimly aware of what is going on.

I do not believe that Mr. Truman is a conscious party to the great conspiracy, although it is being conducted in his name. I believe that if Mr. Truman bad the ability to associate good Americans around him, be would have behaved as a good American in this most dire of all our crises.

It is when we return to an examination of General Marshall's record since the spring of 1942 that we approach an explanation of the carefully planned retreat from victory, Let us again review the Marshall record, as I have disclosed it from all the sources available and all of them friendly. This grim and solitary man it was who, early in World War II, determined to put his impress upon our global strategy, political and military.

It was Marshall, who, amid the din for a "second front now" from every voice of Soviet inspiration, sought to compel the British to invade across the Channel in the fall of 1942 upon penalty of our quitting the war in Europe.

It was Marshall who, after North Africa had been secured, took the strategic direction of the war out of Roosevelt's hands and - who fought the British desire, shared by Mark Clark, to advance from Italy into the eastern plains of Europe ahead of the Russians.

It was a Marshall-sponsored memorandum, advising appeasement of Russia In Europe and the enticement of Russia into the far-eastern war, circulated at Quebec, which foreshadowed our whole course at Tehran, at Yalta, and until now in the Far East.

It was Marshall who, at Tehran, made common cause with Stalin on the strategy of the war in Europe and marched side by side with him thereafter.

It was Marshall who enjoined his chief of military mission in Moscow under no circumstances to "irritate" the Russians by asking them questions about their forces, their weapons, and their plans, while at the same time opening our schools, factories, and gradually our secrets to them in this count.

It was Marshall who, as Hanson Baldwin asserts, himself referring only to the "military authorities," prevented us having a corridor to Berlin. So it was with the capture and occupation of Berlin and Prague ahead of the Russians.

It was Marshall who sent Deane to Moscow to collaborate with Harriman in drafting the terms of the wholly unnecessary bribe paid to Stalin at Yalta. It was Marshall, with Hiss at his elbow and doing the physical drafting of agreements at Yalta, who ignored the contrary advice of his senior, Admiral Leahy, and of MacArtbur and Nimitz in regard to the folly of a major land invasion of Japan; who submitted intelligence reports which suppressed more truthful estimates in order to support his argument, and who finally induced Roosevelt to bring Russia into the Japanese war with a bribe that reinstated Russia in its pre-1904 imperialistic position in Manchuria-an act which, in effect, signed the death warrant of the Republic of China.

It was Marshall, with Acheson and Vincent eagerly assisting, who created the China policy which, destroying China, robbed us of a great and friendly ally, a buffer against the Soviet imperialism with which we are now at war.

It was Marshall who, after long conferences with Acheson and Vincent, went to China to execute the criminal folly of the disastrous Marshall mission.

It was Marshall who, upon returning from a diplomatic defeat for the United States at Moscow, besought the reinstatement of forty millions in lend-lease for Russia.

It was Marshall who, for 2 years suppressed General Wedemeyer's report, which is a direct and comprehensive repudiation of the Marshall policy.

It was Marshall who, disregarding Wedemeyer's advices on the urgent need for military supplies, the likelihood of China's defeat without ammunition and equipment, and our "moral obligation" to furnish them, proposed instead a relief bill bare of military support.

It was the State Department under Marshall, with the wholehearted support of Michael Lee and Remington in the Commerce Department, that sabotaged the $125,000,000 military-aid bill to China in 194S.

It was Marshall who fixed the dividing line for Korea along the thirty-eighth parallel, a line historically chosen by Russia to mark its sphere of interest in Korea.

It is Marshall's strategy for Korea which has turned that war into a pointless slaughter, reversing the dictum of Von Clausewitz and every military theorist since him that the object of a war is not merely to kill but to impose your will on the enemy.

It is Marshall-Acheson strategy for Europe to build the defense of Europe solely around the Atlantic Pact nations, excluding the two great wells of anti-Communist manpower in Western Germany and Spain and spurning the organized armies of Greece and Turkey-another case of following the Lattimore advice of "let them fall but don't let it appear that we pushed them."

It is Marshall who, advocating timidity as a policy so as not to annoy the forces of Soviet imperialism in Asia, had admittedly put a brake on the preparations to fight, rationalizing his reluctance on the ground that the people are fickle and if war does not come, will hold him to account for excessive zeal.

What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence. If Marshall were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve this country's interest. If Marshall is innocent of guilty intention, how could he be trusted to guide the defense of this country further? We have declined so precipitously in relation to the Soviet Union in the last 6 years. How much swifter may be our fall into disaster with Marshall at the helm? Where Will all this stop? That is not a rhetorical question: Ours is not a rhetorical danger. Where next will Marshall carry us? It is useless to suppose that his nominal superior will ask him to resign. He cannot even dispense with Acheson.

What is the objective of the great conspiracy? I think it is clear from what has occurred and is now occurring: to diminish the United States in world affairs, to weaken us militarily, to confuse our spirit with talk of surrender in the Far East and to impair our will to resist evil. To what end? To the end that we shall be contained, frustrated and finally: fall victim to Soviet intrigue from within and Russian military might from without. Is that farfetched? There have been many examples in history of rich and powerful states which have been corrupted from within, enfeebled and deceived until they were unable to resist aggression. . . .

It is the great crime of the Truman administration that it has refused to undertake the job of ferreting the enemy from its ranks. I once puzzled over that refusal. The President, I said, is a loyal American; why does he not lead in this enterprise? I think that I know why he does not. The President is not master in his own house. Those who are master there not only have a desire to protect the sappers and miners - they could not do otherwise. They themselves are not free. They belong to a larger conspiracy, the world-wide web of which has been spun from Moscow. It was Moscow, for example, which decreed that the United States should execute its loyal friend, the Republic of China. The executioners were that well-identified group headed by Acheson and George Catlett Marshall.

How, if they would, can they, break these ties, how return to simple allegiance to their native land? Can men sullied by their long and dreadful record afford us leadership in the world struggle with the enemy? How can a man whose every important act for years had contributed to the prosperity of the enemy reverse himself? The reasons for his past actions are immaterial. Regardless of why he has done what be did, be has done it and the momentum of that course bears him onward. . . .

The time has come to halt this tepid, milk-and-water acquiescence which a discredited administration, ruled by disloyalty, sends down to us. The American may belong to an old culture, he may be beset by enemies here and abroad, he may be distracted by the many words of counsel that assail him by day and night, but he is nobody's fool. The time has come for us to realize that the people who sent us here expect more than time-serving from us. The American who has never known defeat in war, does not expect to be again sold down the river in Asia. He does not want that kind of betrayal. He has had betrayal enough. He has never failed to fight for his liberties since George Washington rode to Boston in 1775 to put himself at the head of a band of rebels unversed in war. He is fighting tonight, fighting gloriously in a war on a distant American frontier made inglorious by the men he can no longer trust at the head of our affairs.

The America that I know, and that other Senators know, this vast and teeming and beautiful land, this hopeful society where the poor share the table of the rich as never before in history, where men of all colors, of all faiths, are brothers as never before in history, where great deeds have been done and great deeds are yet to do, that America deserves to be led not to humiliation or defeat, but to victory.

The Congress of the United States is the people's last hope, a free and open forum of the people's representatives. We felt the pulse of the people's response to the return of MacArthur. We know what it meant. The people, no longer trusting their executive, turn to us, asking that we reassert the constitutional prerogative of the Congress to declare the policy for the United States.

The time has come to reassert that prerogative, to oversee the conduct of this war, to declare that this body must have the final word on the disposition of Formosa and Korea. They fell from the grasp of the Japanese empire through our military endeavors, pursuant to a declaration of war made by the Congress of the United States on December 8, 1941. If the Senate speaks, as is its right, the disposal of Korea and Formosa can be made only by a treaty which must be ratified by this body. Should the administration dare to defy such a declaration, the Congress has abundant recourses which I need not spell out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source:

from The Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 82nd Congress, First Session, Volume 97, Part 5 (May 28, 1951-June 27, 1951), pp. 6556-6603.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.

© Paul Halsall, July 1998

halsall@murray.fordham.edu

So what?