Greg Wagner

Hi Nic- I'd ask Fidel how he managed to blow President Kennedy's head off in broad daylight on the streets of Dallas in one of the most troubling and violent episodes in our nation's history, and suffer nary a consequence from the world's most powerful and militaristic nation. Heck, he splattered one of our most popular (by today's polls) president's brains all over his constituency, and he didn't even make George's "Axis of Evil" list. That's pretty good. We've certainly effected "regime change" in other sovereign nations for a lot less. OK, so I guess I took this thread there. My bad. Tim, before you start composing a long post, I'm just kidding around. I guess I'd narrow it down to E Howard Hunt, George HW Bush, and Ruth Paine. They would be my top three. Problem is, they still aren't telling what they know and they appear to be ready to take their respective secrets to the grave. The key to getting answers from people who don't wish to provide them is leverage. Of course, then you're into a dangerous game. I think the questions one would ask people like this would mostly be obvious to those in this forum. And the list of WHO would certainly be easy enough to compile. The real question is HOW you'd get them to tell you something that they have in the past declined to reveal. This is where we need some genius. Having said all that, someone who was close to Dave Morales back in those Miami days would be high on the list. I'm really looking forward to Brad Ayers' book coming out this Fall. Over and Out.

I’m reading Summers’ The Kennedy Conspiracy and I noticed a couple interesting coincidences: Pg. 144 – “In 1979 the Assassinations Committee Report referred to only two tourists involved in the Minsk photograph episode, but the record long ago revealed that there were three. The identity and precise role of the third demands further investigation. She is Mrs. Marie Hyde, an elderly American woman who struck up an acquaintance with Naman and Kramer at their Moscow hotel. As Naman remembered it, Hyde told them that she had separated from her tour group and asked to accompany them on their trip through Minsk to Poland and the West. They agreed, and thus it was that Hyde came to be with them when the Minsk pictures were taken. It appears, indeed, that the photograph session in the square was undertaken at Mrs. Hyde’s initiative. Hyde took one picture with Kramer’s camera, then got Naman to take a second shot of the same scene using Hyde’s own camera. These are the two photographs in which Oswald appeared.” Any idea who this Mrs. Hyde was? Ruth Hyde Paine’s father, William Hyde, was connected with the CIA while he lived in Columbus, Ohio. Hyde was an executive for Nationwide Insurance at the same time he was working for AID, a well known CIA front operation. The idea that AID was a CIA front operation was a widely held belief that was confirmed by Ohio Governor John Gilligan. He used to make jokes publicly about AID simply being a gang of spooks. So the mysterious Mrs. Hyde taking the Oswald photos in Russia? Just a coincidence? Which brings me to my second observation: Pg. 154 – In 1957 DeMohrenschildt spent many months in Yugoslavia on a geological field survey, and the link with American intelligence was clear-cut. It was now that he worked for the International Cooperation Administration, since identified as a CIA subsidiary of AID- the Agency for International Development.” So, it appears that good old George DeM and Ruth Hyde Paine’s father, William Hyde, both worked for AID. It’s just amazing how many crazy coincidences exist surrounding this case, isn’t it?

Hi Tim- Wouldn't the burden of proof in such a lawsuit be on you, Tim? Please correct me if I'm wrong here (and I could be- I'm no attorney), but you (the prosecution) would have to prove in a court of law that the charges against you were false, would you not? If that is the case, and you are running around threatening people with legal action (which presumably, you believe you would win), it follows that you have said proof of your innocence ready to be presented. Perhaps you could just present it here. That would serve your desired end just as well. Certainly with hard evidence proving your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, such as you would use to win your case, this matter would be closed and you would be vindicated. End of story, and we move on to the business of who murdered John Kennedy and why. But you are the attorney, so I yield to your experience and knowledge here. If you have exculpatory evidence, why not share it and end this? If not, given that you are an integral part of our work here, then this issue should certainly be fair game for discussion, as it relates to your credibility. No? I'm afraid my knowledge of the issues at hand is limited, so I have yet to draw any firm conclusions. I am currently trying to learn what I can about these events/accusations. I do however think that this whole sordid mess is very, very unfortunate.

Shanet, Given the threats leveled against you on past threads, I can guess what this is all about. Sometimes, clinging to legal threats are all that one has, I suppose. How sad. I hope you will reconsider your decision.

What?!??!?? For once, you are making even less sense than Tim. Are you off your meds?

Here is a link to Ayers' new book on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 Looks like it is scheduled for release on October 15, 2005.

Hi John- Perhaps I'm too cynical, but IMHO, a more accurate description of today's America would be a plutocracy. Plutocracy: 1. the rule of power of wealth or of the wealthy. 2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules. 3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth. Government by the rich and powerful. "A weapon in that struggle [between democracy and plutocracy] is the Court system, more often than not used to greatest effect by the plutocracy. An example is the series of injunctions taken out by European Pacific to prevent these matters being exposed [in the Media or Parliament]." [PCW p326] www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/p5encyc.htm Rule by wealth wordmentor.placementor.com/vocabulary_powerkit/02.htm a political system governed by the wealthy people wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn A plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth). Working with John's definition of democracy: A government in which the supreme power is exercised by the people directly or indirectly through a system of representation involving free elections… the absence of class distinctions or privileges; then no. If "the absence of class distinctions or privileges" is part of the definition, no reasonable person could define America as a democracy. America is a capitalist society and money buys political influence, favors, and power. This is true on both sides of the political aisle in America- left and right, democrat and republican. Though we elect our officials, they are/become subordinates of corporate wealth and desires. Money talks. Protest all you want. Vote with your head and your conscience. But have no illusions, your voice, the will of the People and the good of the population buys rhetoric and lip service. Money buys legislation. Money buys action. Money buys policy decisions. I hate to sound so cynical, but even if an elected official starts out as an idealist with higher values and a broader, more enlightened vision, he or she quickly learns who signs the checks in America. The word "democracy" has come to be nothing more than a corporate marketing buzzword employed by politicians as often as possible, preferably with the flag waving in the background and a patriotic score playing in the throughout. And the masses gobble it up like crack-flavored pringles, slapping American flag bumper stickers all over their cars and basking in their self-righteous, ethnocentric world view. Of course the alternative would be to turn off the TV for awhile, start thinking critically and independently, and face the today's realities with a more educated and open-minded world view. I frankly can't see that happening. Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Karl, meet today's entertainment industry (television, Hollywood, professional sports, consumer electronics). The greatest ally the plutocracy has had, aside from the media, is the distraction, errrr... entertainment industry. We're sheep. Sheep who have become all too comfortable and do not wish to be inconvenienced by today's political and economic realities. Of course, that's just my opinion. Sorry about the rant.

Hi Tim- I think you are hitting on something important, and believe it or not, you and I may not be in total disagreement. There is a thread I started awhile back that had some good contributions by a few members, including some by you and Pat. Perhaps John could combine these threads. If not, here's the link: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...wtopic=3838&hl=

Working with John's definition of democracy: A government in which the supreme power is exercised by the people directly or indirectly through a system of representation involving free elections… the absence of class distinctions or privileges; then no. If "the absence of class distinctions or privileges" is part of the definition, no reasonable person could define America as a democracy. America is more accurately defined as a capitalist society (for better or worse). Money buys political influence, favors, and power. This is true on both sides of the political aisle in America- left and right, democrat and republican. Though we elect our officials, they are/become subordinates of corporate wealth and desires. Money talks. Protest all you want. Vote with your head and your conscience. But have no illusions, your voice, the will of the People and the good of the population buys rhetoric and lip service. Money buys legislation. Money buys action. Money buys policy decisions. I hate to sound so cynical, but even if an elected official starts out as an idealist with higher values and a broader, more enlightened vision, he or she quickly learns who signs the checks in America.

Brake lights! If it was just the sun reflecting off of them, you'd see the same effect with the motorcycle brake light(s).

Come on guys, while Posner and McAdams et al annoy the heck out of me, I have no doubt their interest in Joannides is legitimate. After all, if Joannides' files reveal a few dirty secrets, they want to be able to say they were on the side of disclosure and openness, else they'll be discredited to the mainstream media they so covet. Let's not forget that Warren Commission attorneys like Belin and Specter became advocates for a second investigation after the CIA assassination plots and the Hosty note were uncovered in the 70's. Maybe Jeff Morley will chime in and let us know the current status of his ongoing investigation??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Pat- Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I am being too cynical here. Sounds like either way, we won't be reading Joannides' files anytime soon

Hi John- Based on his role with the CIA, Joannides is certainly interesting and would have been in a position to know things. But you raise an interesting point with regard to the cast of characters making an effort to have documents relating to Joannides released. The two most likely possibilities, IMO, are: 1) They know there's no chance in heck that these docs will be released, so they attempt to gain some degree of credibility by their efforts (which they know to be hopeless). 2) Joannides is a red herring and this is simply one more attempt at misdirection. If anything of significance is released, proceed with caution.

I'm in. Just registered and reserved my room at the hotel. I'll get my flight squared away soon. Hope to see you all in Dallas

Hi John- Good observation. The problem is that it's difficult to respond to Tim's combative approach in a civil manner, and I would feel like I was letting this student down if I allowed Tim's egregious inaccuracies and flawed cognitive processes to go unchallenged. Having said that, I'll try and keep out of the mud going forward.

Somewhere out there, Pavlov’s dog is feeling inadequate and jealous. Tim’s conditioned responses are all too predictable. Although wrong, he does raise some interesting points. I would also direct those interested in this discussion to read Peter Dale Scott’s analysis at History Matters: http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm What one must consider when evaluating Tim’s statements is that his pet theory is at risk here. You see, if Castro understood that Kennedy was reaching out in an effort to normalize relations, there is no basis for the argument that Castro murdered Kennedy to save his own life. As a result, Tim will make numerous futile attempts to divert your attention from the fact that no reasonable person, evaluating Kennedy’s foreign policy decisions of late 1962 and 1963, can realistically conclude that Kennedy was still intent on assassinating Castro or invading Cuba post 10/1962. The only agenda here is Tim’s tired old propaganda telling us that Fidel did it. Funny, that’s the same story the CIA tried to peddle in 1963. And it makes even less sense today than it did then. Tim wrote: That is NOT what Harker wrote (in an AP story that was published in papers throughout the US immediately after the event). What Castro said was a clear threat. I will tomorrow get you the exact language. In the very same speech that Harker reported Castro called Kennedy "a cretin" and "the Batista of our times". The quote Greg cites is what the Cubans claim Castro told Harker. But they only said that AFTER the assassination. Obviously Castro had agents in the US who read Harker's story. Neither he nor the Cuban government corrected the statements contemporaneously. The statements Castro made were so clearly a threat that a US inter-agency group even met to decide how seriously Castro was in his threats. Curious Greg did not tell you the truth re the September 7, 1963 Castro speech. Do I detect an agenda here? Nice try Tim, but you sidestep the point (as usual). Here is the quotation to which you refer: "U.S. leaders" that "if they are aiding U.S. terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe." This is what Harker published. The point is that, according to Fabian Escalante and Carlos Lechuga, what Harker published was NOT what Castro said. Given that there is ample evidence to support the fact that there existed an active campaign to lay the blame for JFK’s assassination at Castro’s feet (the Oswald in Mexico City fabrication will do for starters), and given the degree of control that the CIA has exercised over he media with regard to the assassination (in fact, using it outright to spread disinformation), the more credible source is Escalante/Lechuga. http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027-2.html http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm Tim wrote: The peaceful existence Kennedy was practicing included sabotage against Cuba property, clearly acts of war. Kennedy's administration was engaging in ongoing actual WAR against Cuba while he was feigning piece. There was a group of high government officials that met (mid November as I recall) that approved continued sabotage against Cuban facilities for the ffollowing week. The group included McGeorge Bundy, John McCone, Director of the CIA, and Desmond Fitzgerald, the head of the CIA's Cuban task force, who had recently returned from his meeting with Cubela in Paris. I will get you the actual language about the different targets of the sabotage, etc. tomorrow. Greg can claim that JFK and RFK did not know about the Cubela operation, but there is NO WAY he can claim JFK was ignorant of the acts of war his government was committing against Cuba in late November. You see, RFK sat in on the meeting and Kennedy as President could have clearly vetoed the sabotage actions had he so wanted. Again it is curious that Greg did not bother to mention to you that the Kennedys continued secret acts of war against Castro in the week immediately before the assassination. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there it is. The issue has now been put to rest by J. Timothy. After spending the better part of his presidency avoiding conflict with the Soviets by attempting to negotiate the U.S. out of Vietnam and negotiate the removal of the missiles from Cuba, President Kennedy decided to instigate war with the U.S.S.R. so that he might achieve “sabotage against Cuba property.” Well, I’m glad you’ve cleared that up. Except for the fact that that makes no sense, I think you’re right on. Tim wrote: Did JFK and RFK know about the Cubela assassination plot? There is some evidence they did. The same day it was communicated to the CIA that Cubela wanted to meet with RFK, RFK's phone logs reveal that he had a phone conversation with Desmond Fitzgerald (the man who communicated to Cubela that RFK approved his plan to kill Castro). RFK's phone logs were released only a few years ago. What makes the timing of the call of potential significance is that it is the only call recorded between the two in the previous six months. Curious Greg did not bother to mention this to you. Nor did Greg bother to mention the continuing AMTRUNK operation in which the US was trying to forment an internal coup against Castro by his military--very similar to the coup the Kennedys had orchestrated in Vietnam less than a month earlier (a coup that resulted in the murder of the two top Vietnamese leaders). (You see the Kennedy administration practiced "equality opportunity" in coup formentation: it organized coups against our allies as well as against our enemies!). The AMTRUNK operation was ongoing and was indeed discussed in the same meeting at which the continued sabotage was approved--the meeting that RFK attended as representative of his brother. Again, Greg did not bother to tell you about THIS. Why should he? It diffgers from the interpretation he is trying to sell you, and he clearly does not want you to have the facts to make up your own mind about what was really going on. Well, the fact that RFK spoke with Fitzgerald that day certainly proves that the Kennedys authorized the assassination plot. That’s sarcasm, in case you failed to pick it up. Peter Dale Scott does a nice job of explaining AMTRUNK: Senior officials within the CIA, notably Richard Helms and Desmond Fitzgerald, knew of the Kennedy brothers' secret moves to initiate direct communications with Castro, disapproved of them, and took steps to poison them. Their most flagrant action was to initiate a new series of secret meetings with a known assassin and suspected double agent, Rolando Cubela Secades (code-named AMLASH), at which a major topic of discussion was the assassination of Fidel Castro. Helms, without consulting the Attorney General, authorized a contact plan whereby in October 1963 (and possibly again on November 22) Fitzgerald met with Cubela, and promised him material assistance in assassinating Castro, while posing (falsely) as a "personal representative of Robert F. Kennedy." This meeting seems to have been designed to poison the informal Kennedy-Castro contacts already under way. For there was already anxiety within the Agency that Cubela, who had refused to be polygraphed in 1962, was reporting the substance of these contacts to Castro. We shall see that Fitzgerald's own Counterintelligence Chief, Harold Swenson (“Joseph Langosch”), recommended with another CIA officer that Fitzgerald not meet with Cubela. It is indeed clear that the CIA had authorization to proceed with the political initiative. But that it had authorization to involve Robert Kennedy's name and authority in an assassination plot, at a time when the Kennedys were attempting to open discussions with Castro, is virtually unimaginable. Both Fitzgerald and Helms later denied that the AMLASH operation contemplated assassination. In this case Kennedy's authorization for AMLASH would have been limited to what they described it as, an attempt to find a group to replace Castro. From this point on the AMLASH initiative had the looks of an anti-Kennedy provocation. This was Attwood's retrospective evaluation of the Fitzgerald/AMLASH meetings: "One thing was clear: Stevenson was right when he told me back in September that `the CIA is in charge of Cuba'; or anyway, acted as if it thought it was, and to hell with the president it was pledged to serve." What is even more significant is that under Fitzgerald a Kennedy-sanctioned political operation had become, by October 29 at the latest, an operation discussing a rifle with a telescopic sight. The importance of this deviation is underlined by a curious affidavit which in effect denies it. The affidavit submitted by a CIA officer, “Kent L. Pollock” (CIA pseudonym), the Executive Officer for Fitzgerald at SAS. It was transmitted to the HSCA by CIA Officer S.D. Breckinridge, in support of his claim that “The overwhelming evidence is that the relationship with AMLASH did not include any agreement to undertake an assassination during the life of President Kennedy.” In the affidavit, “Pollock” testified under oath that, “To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Fitzgerald considered the AMLASH operation to be a political action activity with the objective of organizing a group within Cuba to overthrow Castro.” “Pollock,” who almost certainly is Halpern, conceded that “The AMLASH operation could have been characterized as an assassination operation” when the lethal pen was offered to AMLASH on November 22, 1963, and rejected by him. But “Pollock” does not mention the meeting of October 29 (not authorized by RFK), when Fitzgerald, Cubela, and Halpern have all agreed that assassination was discussed (In the I.G. Report, Sam Halpern confirmed Fitzgerald’s recollection that at the October 29 meeting with Cubela, there was discussion of “a high-powered rifle with telescopic sights.”). Thus, if “Pollock” is Halpern, his affidavit is highly misleading if not perjurious. Tim wrote: I will try to demonstrate in a subsequent post more of Greg's omissions and distortions… Tim, the only thing you’ve managed to demonstrate so far is your inability to grasp the basic tenets of logic and reason. Tim wrote: …but one final thing he did not bother to tell you: when reporter Lisa Howard, who had started the peace overtures, found out what the Kennedy Administration was really doing to Cuba while talking peace, she was so furious that when RFK ran for the US Senate against republican Kenneth Keating in 1964, she jeopardized her job to form "Democrats for Keating" to try to defeat RFK. In fact, she did lose her job over her opposition to RFK. Supposedly she became so despondent over it that she committed suicide on July 4, 1965 (forty years ago this coming Monday). Ms. Howard knew the facts and reached the correct conclusion about the sincerity of the "peace initiatives". You would not have been aware of the facts of the US continued warfare against Cuba, and efforts to organize a coup against Castro, both actions approved by the Kennedys, since Greg conveniently left them out of his very eloquent statement. I have no idea why Lisa Howard committed suicide. But if she did in fact kill herself, it’s hard to image she would have done so because she thought Kennedy’s peace initiatives were insincere. Nevertheless, she was clearly bothered by this “dual track” approach to Cuba. And perhaps she became despondent when she realized that she had thrown her career away. I’m afraid I can’t tell you what went on in that poor woman’s mind, but rest assured that whatever dark thoughts led her to take her own life, it is both tasteless and ridiculous to submit them as evidence of John Kennedy's ultimate foreign policy agenda.

Hi Simone- You’ve selected a very interesting topic for your paper. My analysis, in a macro sense, is outlined below. Good luck! Prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy administration had supported a policy of eradication vis-à-vis Castro and his communist regime in Cuba. This policy was implemented by providing support, through the CIA, to groups like Alpha 66. In November of 1961, the covert actions against Cuba were placed under the direction of Attorney General Robert Kennedy. The program was labeled Operation Mongoose and RFK placed General Ed Lansdale in charge of operations. Alpha 66 and related groups of loose-knit Cuban exiles and mercenaries worked closely with members of the U.S. Intelligence apparatus, primarily based out of the CIA’s JM/WAVE facility in Miami, FL. These groups attempted to assassinate Castro, conducted industrial sabotage against Cuba, and were attempting to pave the way for a second invasion attempt. However, Mongoose struggled, and had little impact. However, as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. points out in his excellent piece in Cigar Aficionado (link below), there is no evidence that President Kennedy know of the assassination attempts against Castro and that "CIA officials testified that they had not even informed John McCone, the man Kennedy brought in to clean up the Agency after the Bay of Pigs. If they informed Kennedy, they would have had to stipulate, 'But you can't mention this to McCone.' - a bureaucratic improbability." A good place to start researching the material in this paragraph is John Simkin’s and James Richards’ info here on Spartacus: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKoperation40.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKinterpen.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmongoose.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKalpha.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjmwave.htm http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Pr...2540,17,00.html When in October of 1962, it was discovered that the Soviets were placing offensive nuclear weapons in Cuba, Kennedy had a monumental decision to make: How to remove that threat without provoking a nuclear exchange with the U.S.S.R. To that end, Kennedy’s White House and the Kremlin carried out intensive back-channel communications and negotiations during the entire crisis. And while Kennedy publicly took a firm, no-negotiations stance toward the Soviet Union, he privately pursued ways to bring the crisis to a peaceful end. President Kennedy ultimately decided, despite strenuous efforts by his Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and other advisors to convince the President that air strikes and/or an invasion must be implemented, to opt for a naval blockade of Cuba. JFK’s decision led to a gradual reduction in tensions, negotiation, and ultimately achieved the goal of effecting the removal of the threat (the offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba) without starting a war with the Soviets. The primary concession Kennedy offered in exchange for the removal of the missiles was his pledge not to invade Cuba. This, of course, incensed the Cuban exile community, particularly the exile groups who were working with the U.S. government toward Castro’s removal. If you listen to some of the Kennedy White House tapes during this period (link below), and as I will offer later in this piece, it’s clear that JFK’s JCS felt that he had made a mistake in the way he handled the CMC. Good sources for researching the material in this paragraph are Robert Kennedy’s Thirteen Days and some of the Kennedy White House audio tapes found on the Internet at: http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/ This is where the “dual track” begins. The “dual track” refers to the inconsistent actions emanating from the Kennedy White House with regard to Cuba. The case made by those who maintain that Kennedy was still intent upon eradicating Castro and invading (or lending support to an invasion force) Cuba cite Rolando Cubela’s 1963 meetings with Desmond Fitzgerald (CIA) in Paris, Castro’s alleged “threat” of retaliation for the assassination attempts against him, and the Kennedy administration’s funding of the Second Naval Guerilla. In September of 1963, Cubela had a meeting with the CIA in Sao Paulo, Brazil where it was suggested that Cubela should assassinate Fidel Castro. According to a CIA report Cubela asked for a meeting with Robert Kennedy: "for assurances of U.S. moral support for any activity Cubela under took in Cuba." While this was not possible, the Chief of the Cuban Task Force agreed to meet Cubela. Fitzgerald and Nestor Sanchez met Cubela met in Paris on 29th October 1963. Cubela requested a "high-powered, silenced rifle with an effective range of hundreds of thousands of yards" in order to kill Fidel Castro. The CIA refused and instead insisted on Cubela used poison. On 22nd November 1963, Fitzgerald handed over a pen/syringe. He was told to use Black Leaf 40 (a deadly poison) to kill Castro. As Cubela was leaving the meeting, he was informed that President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated. I believe that Cubela was assured that this assassination attempt had the blessing of Robert Kennedy, although I am not aware of any evidence supporting this. Perhaps another Forum member could add some additional insight here. Additionally, President Kennedy was providing funds to the Second Naval Guerilla force, a Cuban exile group based outside of the U.S. that was continuing preparations for another invasion attempt. Kennedy met with Manuel Artime on November 17, 1963, presumably to reassure him of U.S. support. With regard to Kennedy’s funding of this exile group, call it leverage to be used in the dialogue Kennedy was seeking, call it temporary (attempted) placation of the livid, explosive, and militant exile community and the hawks in his administration, call it a “carrot and stick” approach, or call it a combination of all of the above. But common sense and the employment of sound methodology in interpreting the facts clearly prevent one from calling it Kennedy’s true policy toward Cuba. The fact that Kennedy supplied funds to the Second Naval Guerilla tells us zero about the motivation behind such support. Finally, there is evidence to suggest that Castro’s verbal “threat” was not a threat at all. On 8 September 1963, an American journalist by the name of Daniel Harker had a brief Q & A with Fidel in which Castro stated in response to a question about CIA attempts to assassinate him, “The American leaders should be careful. This is something the government could control.” However, in his report, Harker suggested that Castro was making a threat against Kennedy. I suppose that one could potentially interpret it that way. Another interpretation would be that Castro knew the CIA (or at least the faction that was running the Cuban exiles out of JM/WAVE and causing him so many problems) was ultra right-wing and out of control and he was appealing to Kennedy to call off the dogs. Sources used in this paragraph include: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcubela.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfitzgeraldD.htm http://www.cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027.html Evidence suggesting that Kennedy was in fact supporting a new policy regarding Cuba, one of peaceful co-existence and the normalizing of relations, is supported by Kennedy’s sending French journalist Jean Daniel to meet with Castro (in fact, they were meeting at the very moment of JFK’s murder) in order to discuss the possibility of normalizing relations, the fact that Kennedy simply had too much to lose by violating his pledge not to invade (see the below excerpt from Khrushchev’s 12/11/62 letter to Kennedy). Further, the reaction of the Cuban exile community (they were furious with Kennedy and felt that they had been betrayed) proves that that they believed JFK’s olive branch to Castro was genuine, regardless of whatever Kennedy was telling Manuel Artime. At the request of President Kennedy, Jean Daniel met Fidel Castro on 19 November 1963. Daniel later described Castro as listening with "devouring and passionate interest". Castro told Daniel that Kennedy could become "the greatest president of the United States, the leader who may at last understand that there can be coexistence between capitalists and socialists, even in the Americas.” Daniel was with Castro when news arrived that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated Castro turned to Daniel and said: "This is an end to your mission of peace. Everything is changed" (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdanielJ.htm). There are many sources that can provide good information regarding the reaction of the Cuban exile community to JFK’s olive branch. Two that come to mind are Gaeton Fonzi’s The Last Investigation and the transcript of the Nassau Conference: http://www.cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027.html The weight of an argument should stand on the facts, as truth and inquiry are a process related to fact, logic, and argument. However, as I’m sure you’ve surmised by now, the facts in this case are often contradictory and ultimately inconclusive. This is largely, but not entirely, due to disinformation and governmental secrecy, the result of which renders deductive logic (the process of reaching a conclusion that is guaranteed to follow, e.g. mathematics) unavailable. Or as the Talking Heads so eloquently put it: Facts are simple and facts are straight Facts are lazy and facts are late Facts all come with points of view Facts don't do what I want them to When the nature of the evidence renders deductive reasoning impossible, we are left with abductive reasoning (reasoning based on the principle of inference to the best explanation). The key to understanding abductive reasoning lies in the “inference to the best explanation” part. It’s similar to statistical modeling using multiple regression analysis. Essentially, one uses historical information to forecast future performance. In business, such an analysis would utilize historical data on sales, cost of goods sold, expenses, and capital investment to the subject company’s future financial performance. In this case, since such hard, mathematical data does not apply to an analysis of this nature, and since the facts here are conflicting and ultimately inconclusive, we employ abductive reasoning, or abductive logic. While there are different ways to interpret evidence, I would suggest that some methodologies of interpreting evidence are inherently more reliable, and I would argue more correct, than others. For example, with regard to NSAM 263 one may ask, “…what does that necessarily have to do with whether or not Kennedy intended an invasion of Cuba? JFK could certainly have decided that America had an interest in getting rid of Communists closer to home (Cuba).” To support my premise that Kennedy’s true agenda regarding Cuba, the one that began in October 1962, was one seeking coexistence with Castro’s Cuba rather than eradication, I utilized abductive reasoning. That is, I used several other facts, matters of historical record, to establish context: NSAM 263, Kennedy’s signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, Kennedy’s decision to opt for blockade during the missile crisis, Kennedy’s intensive back-channel communications with Khrushchev while publicly taking a firm, no-negotiations stance toward the Soviet Union, Jean Daniel’s meeting with Castro, the deal Kennedy made to resolve the missile crisis, and Khrushchev’s 12/11/62 letter to Kennedy. These are matters of fact, that when viewed in relation to one another, form a very clear, logical basis for understanding Kennedy’s foreign policy. This is where understanding abductive reasoning and inference to the best explanation is valuable. The “dual track” appearance Kennedy’s Cuba policy had on the surface (going forward from 11/1962) forces historians to decide which “track” Kennedy was truly supporting, and would have supported had he lived. In my view, since the nature of the evidence precludes the use of deductive reasoning (deductive logic), abductive reasoning (abductive logic) is the correct method to employ. Given the established framework I cited, which clearly establishes Kennedy’s tendencies and over-arching philosophy with regard to conflict and foreign policy, abductive reasoning tells us that Kennedy’s ultimate “track” with regard to Cuba was one of dialogue and peaceful co-existence. This is true because it is the “track” that is most congruent with the many Kennedy foreign policy decisions which frame this issue in historical context. As opposed to abductive reasoning, the methodology some employ to interpret the evidence in this instance is interpolation. Interpolation is a message (spoken or written) that is introduced or inserted. For example, one may argue that Khrushchev’s response to the Cuban missile crisis might have convinced Kennedy that the Soviet Union would never go to war over Cuba. While certainly a possibility that one might consider, the facts as they exist today simply do not provide any contextual framework or support to that idea. In fact, Khrushchev’s 12/11/62 letter to Kennedy candidly and forcefully stated just the opposite (see an excerpt of the text of this letter later in this piece). Additionally, in another letter between the two of them during the same period (I can’t seem to locate it at the moment, but perhaps another Forum member can recall the date of this communication), there is a passage that expresses a truth that they both understood to the effect that there are forces in their respective governments that they themselves may become powerless to control should tensions escalate. So, while the idea that Kennedy might have concluded that the Soviets would not go to war over Cuba based on the outcome of the missile crisis sounds plausible on an elementary level, closer examination using sound logical reasoning methodology renders such a suggestion devoid of merit. Such are the pitfalls associated with interpolation. While it is true that in a sense Kennedy was pursuing a “dual track” with regard to Cuba, when viewed in the context of his entire foreign policy 11/62 and beyond, Kennedy's intent was clear. Consider: *NSAM 263 *Kennedy’s signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963 *Kennedy’s decision to opt for blockade during the missile crisis, despite pressure from within his administration to invade or conduct air strikes (Thirteen Days) *Kennedy’s White House and the Kremlin carried out intensive back-channel communications and negotiations during the entire crisis. And while Kennedy publicly took a firm, no-negotiations stance toward the Soviet Union, he privately pursued ways to bring the crisis to a peaceful end. *The Jean Daniel meeting, which clearly signaled his intent to open a dialogue with Castro *The deal he cut to resolve the missile crisis. Specifically, his promise not to invade Cuba along the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Turkey. With this, one must also consider the content and tone of Khrushchev’s 12/11/62 letter to Kennedy: “I will tell you frankly that we have removed our means from Cuba relying on your assurance that the United States and its allies will not invade Cuba. Those means really had the purpose of defending the sovereignty of Cuba and therefore after your assurance they lost their purpose. We hope and we would like to believe--I spoke of that publicly too, as you know--that you will adhere to the commitments which you have taken, as strictly as we do with regard to our commitments. We, Mr. President, have already fulfilled our commitments concerning the removal of our missiles and IL-28 planes from Cuba and we did it even ahead of time. It is obvious that fulfillment by you of your commitments cannot be as clearly demonstrated as it was done by us since your commitments are of a long-term nature…. Within a short period of time we and you have lived through a rather acute crisis. The acuteness of it was that we and you were already prepared to fight and this would lead to a thermonuclear war. Yes, to a thermonuclear world war with all its dreadful consequences…. We agreed to a compromise because our main purpose was to extend a helping hand to the Cuban people in order to exclude the possibility of invasion of Cuba so that Cuba could exist and develop as a free sovereign state. This is our main purpose today, it remains to be our main purpose for tomorrow and we did not and do not pursue any other purposes…. Therefore, Mr. President, everything--the stability in this area and not only in this area but in the entire world--depends on how you will now fulfill the commitments taken by you. Furthermore, it will be now a sort of litmus paper, an indicator whether it is possible to trust if similar difficulties arise in other geographical areas. I think you will agree that if our arrangement for settling the Cuban crisis fails it will undermine a possibility for maneuver which you and we would resort to for elimination of danger, a possibility for compromise in the future if similar difficulties arise in other areas of the world, and they really can arise. We attach great significance to all this, and subsequent development will depend on you as President and on the U.S. Government.” When Kennedy flatly refused Ex-Com’s invade and air strike options and ultimately settled on the naval blockade, he did it primarily because of his concerns over what the first two options could lead to- nuclear war with the USSR. He determined that that risk was simply too great. In Khrushchev’s letter to Kennedy, he clearly indicates that, in his view, the burden is now squarely on JFK’s shoulders to avoid going right back to square one, with the increased likelihood of confrontation with the Soviets. Kennedy had just spent two of the most difficult weeks of his life deftly avoiding this confrontation. It defies logic to think that he would then wish to seek such a confrontation, while the Soviets still had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed and ready to fly. Further, Khrushchev cleverly points out that U.S. credibility is at stake. With two diametrically opposed and heavily armed super-powers vying for supremacy, the possibility of future conflict elsewhere in the world seemed likely. And should the U.S. fail to honor its commitment re: Cuba, the possibility of such conflicts being peacefully resolved through negotiation would be slim. Again, given Kennedy’s clearly demonstrated preference to avoid military confrontation with the Soviets, it defies logic to think that JFK was hell bent on invading Cuba, particularly post 11/1962. So again, as clearly demonstrated throughout the missile crisis, we see Kennedy’s understanding of the political environment in the U.S. leads to this “dual track” scenario. Just as he was publicly professing a tough stance against the Soviets during the missile crisis while privately negotiating for peace, so was that same strategy being employed post missile crisis in addressing Cuba. He could not simply “flip a switch” and shut down the exiles and the hardliners in his own government. But he was clearly and carefully moving away from that agenda and toward one of peaceful co-existence. Additionally, while Kennedy was clearly attempting to open a dialogue with Castro, it would also have helped the U.S. to gain the upper hand in such a dialogue if Fidel perceived that JFK was still willing to support his demise should such dialogue prove fruitless. Also consider the recently discovered documents regarding Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Vietnam detailed in the following piece by Bryan Bender (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/06/papers_reveal_jfk_efforts_on_vietnam/?page=1): Papers reveal JFK efforts on Vietnam By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | June 6, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Newly uncovered documents from both American and Polish archives show that President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet Union secretly sought ways to find a diplomatic settlement to the war in Vietnam, starting three years before the United States sent combat troops. Kennedy, relying on his ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith, planned to reach out to the North Vietnamese in April 1962 through a senior Indian diplomat, according to a secret State Department cable that was never dispatched. Back-channel discussions also were attempted in January 1963, this time through the Polish government, which relayed the overture to Soviet leaders. New Polish records indicate Moscow was much more open than previously thought to using its influence with North Vietnam to cool a Cold War flash point. The attempts to use India and Poland as go-betweens ultimately fizzled, partly because of North Vietnamese resistance and partly because Kennedy faced pressure from advisers to expand American military involvement, according to the documents and interviews with scholars. Both India and Poland were members of the International Control Commission that monitored the 1954 agreement that divided North and South Vietnam. The documents are seen by former Kennedy aides as new evidence of his true intentions in Vietnam. The question of whether Kennedy would have escalated the war or sought some diplomatic exit has been heatedly debated by historians and officials who served under both Kennedy and his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. When Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, there were 16,000 US military advisers in Vietnam. The number of troops grew to more than 500,000, and the war raged for another decade. ''I think the issue of how JFK would have acted differently than LBJ is something that will never be settled, but intrigues biographers," said Robert Dallek, author of noted biographies of Kennedy and Johnson. ''Historians partial to Kennedy see matters differently from those partial to LBJ," Dallek added. ''Vietnam has become a point of contention in defending and criticizing JFK." But some Kennedy loyalists say the documents show he would have negotiated a settlement or withdrawn from Vietnam despite the objections of many top advisers, such as Kennedy and Johnson's defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara, who opposed Galbraith's diplomatic efforts at the time. ''The drafts are perfectly authentic," said Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who was a White House aide to Kennedy. ''They show Kennedy felt we were over-committed in Vietnam and he was very uneasy. I think he would have withdrawn by 1965 before he took steps to Americanize the war." McNamara said in an interview Wednesday that he had ''no recollection" of the Galbraith discussions, but ''I have no doubt that Kennedy would have been interested in it. He reached out to divergent views." Others, however, are highly skeptical the new information signals what action Kennedy would have ultimately taken. ''It's unknowable what he would have done," said Carl Kaysen, who was Kennedy's deputy special assistant for national security. Kaysen, who also judged the documents to be authentic, believes Kennedy was just as likely as his successors to misjudge the situation. ''The basic mistake the US made was to underestimate the determination of North Vietnam and the communist party in South Vietnam, the Viet Minh, and to overstate its own position," he said Thursday. He also doubted that North Vietnam would have been willing to negotiate a deal acceptable to the United States. ''In hindsight, it would have been another futile effort," Kaysen said, because the North Vietnamese were determined to control the fate of South Vietnam. But the documents, which came from the archives of then-Assistant Secretary of State W. Averell Harriman and the communist government in Warsaw, demonstrate that Kennedy and the Soviets were looking for common ground. They also shed new light on Galbraith's role. The Harvard economist was on friendly terms with India's prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and a close confidant of Kennedy's. Galbraith sent numerous telegrams to the president warning about the risks of greater military intervention. Galbraith told the Globe last week that he and Kennedy discussed the war in Vietnam at a farm in rural Virginia in early April 1962, where Galbraith handed the president a two-page plan to use India as an emissary for peace negotiations. Records show that McNamara and the military brass quickly criticized the proposal. An April 14 Pentagon memo to Kennedy said that ''a reversal of US policy could have disastrous effects, not only upon our relationship with South Vietnam, but with the rest of our Asian and other allies as well." Nevertheless, Kennedy later told Harriman to instruct Galbraith to pursue the channel through M. J. Desai, then India's foreign secretary. At the time, the United States had only 1,500 military advisers in South Vietnam. ''The president wants to have instructions sent to Ambassador Galbraith to talk to Desai telling him that if Hanoi takes steps to reduce guerrilla activity [in South Vietnam], we would correspond accordingly," Harriman states in an April 17, 1962, memo to his staff. ''If they stop the guerrilla activity entirely, we would withdraw to a normal basis." A draft cable dated the same day instructed Galbraith to use Desai as a ''channel discreetly communicating to responsible leaders [in the] North Vietnamese regime . . . the president's position as he indicated it." But a week later, Harriman met with Kennedy and apparently persuaded him to delay, according to other documents, and the overture was never revived. Galbraith, 97, never received the official instructions but said last week that the documents are ''wholly in line" with his discussions with Kennedy and that he had expected Kennedy to pursue the Indian channel. The draft of the unsent cable was discovered in Harriman's papers by scholar Gareth Porter and are outlined in a forthcoming book, ''Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam." Meanwhile, the Polish archives from a year later revealed another back-channel attempt to find a possible settlement. At the urging of Nehru, Galbraith met with the Polish foreign minister, Adam Rapacki, in New Delhi on Jan. 21, 1963, where Galbraith expressed Kennedy's likely interest in a Polish proposal for a cease-fire and new elections in South Vietnam. There is no evidence of further discussions between the two diplomats. Rapacki returned to Warsaw a day later. Galbraith wrote in his memoirs that it was not followed up. But the newly released Polish documents, obtained by George Washington University researcher Malgorzata Gnoinska, show that Galbraith's message was sent to Moscow, where it was taken seriously. A lengthy February memo from the Soviet politburo reported on the Galbraith-Rapacki discussions. It concluded that Kennedy and ''part of the administration . . . did not want Vietnam to turn into a second Korea" and appeared interested in a diplomatic settlement akin to one reached in 1962 about Laos, Vietnam's neighbor. ''It is apparent that Kennedy is not opposed to finding a compromise regarding South Vietnam," the memo said, according to Gnoinska's translation. ''It seems that the Americans have arrived at the conclusion that the continued intervention in Vietnam does not promise victory and have decided to somehow untangle themselves from the difficult situation they find themselves in over there." It went on to say that ''neutralizing" the crises ''could untangle the dangerous knot of international tensions in Southeast Asia." Definitive reasons both the Indian and Polish attempts were not pursued further are not known. In October 1963, the South Vietnamese government was overthrown, igniting political chaos. North Vietnam may have become more certain it would prevail. Neither the Indian or Vietnamese archives are available. The would-be Indian emissary, Desai, whom records indicate still lives in Bombay, could not be reached. Kennedy had few options. Many believe North Vietnam would have swiftly prevailed over the South if the United States pulled out; that is what happened more than a decade later. It would have been extremely difficult to risk such an outcome at the height of the Cold War, fearing communism would spread to other countries under the so-called domino theory. ''There was no open debate in the Kennedy or Johnson administration about whether the domino theory was correct," McNamara said. It was simply gospel, he said. Nonetheless, the new information sheds light on Kennedy's misgivings about getting further embroiled in the Vietnam War; up to his death he refused to do as most of his advisers urged and allow US ground troops to participate in the fighting, as Johnson did beginning in 1965. Galbraith said Kennedy ''harbored doubts, extending to measured resistance, on the Vietnam War." But it was ''countered by the fact that he had such articulate and committed warriors to contend with" in his administration, he said. ''It's another clear indication that my brother was very reluctant to accept the strong recommendations he was getting to send troops to Vietnam," Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, told the Globe on Friday after reviewing the cable to Galbraith. ''It's hard to believe that Jack would ever have allowed the tentative steps he took in those days to escalate into the huge military crisis that Vietnam became." Of the cable, Theodore Sorensen, who was a special assistant to Kennedy, said: ''It is clearly consistent with what I have always thought and said about JFK's attitude toward Vietnam." Daniel Ellsberg, a former Pentagon official and coauthor of the Pentagon Papers, the secret history of US policy toward Vietnam, added that the documents ''show a willingness to negotiate [a pullout] that LBJ didn't have in 1964-66." But, Ellsberg added, ''he might not have been able to do it." These new documents and the supporting statements made by Schlesinger, McNamara, Galbraith, Edward Kennedy, Sorenson, and Ellsberg, add yet another significant structural element to that framework which shows us, regardless of any political maneuvering in which he may have been engaged, JFK’s true beliefs with regard to confrontation, war, and communism (eradication by force vs. diplomatic/political solutions). As Dallek and Kaysen correctly point out, these latest revelations don’t prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what track Kennedy would have ultimately pursued, or been compelled to pursue, with regard to Vietnam. Some have suggested the same about Kennedy’s Cuba policy- "No proof!", they exclaim. Now perhaps these events, when viewed in isolation, can be interpreted somewhat loosely. But when these matters of fact are viewed in relation to one another, we have no less than seven matters of historical record, all of which occurred almost immediately prior to Kennedy’s bloody removal from office, that force us to draw certain conclusions about Kennedy’s true beliefs and his ultimate foreign policy track, beginning at least as early as April 1962, but most especially during and after October 1962. Even though (as clearly demonstrated over and over and over again) Kennedy was simply not willing to use the hammer, it benefited him politically, and in his appeal to Castro for dialogue, to give the appearance that he was. While some may argue that Kennedy’s post 11/62 policy re: Cuba was to support yet another attempt at an exile coup or invasion, such an argument would be short-sighted, and completely out of context.

I'm trying to work out the details this week. I should know for sure in a few days and I will post again once I have everything settled. It would indeed be great if other Forum members could also attend.

Tim, you are indeed a funny guy.

Tim- Wow. Apparently I struck a nerve. As you've clearly demonstrated time and time and time again, if there's anyone who doesn't "get it"- IT'S YOU

"The George Bush Center For Being A Jackass With A Nearly Illiterate Son Who Will One Day Be President And An Even Bigger Jackass" must have been too wordy.

How many intelligence gathering agencies does one nation need? Isn't that why Negroponte was appointed? Seems like we can't get the ones we already have to play ball. Anyway, I thought the last line of this was interesting. Updated: 1:04 p.m. ET June 29, 2005 WASHINGTON - President Bush, embracing 70 of the 74 recommendations of a blue-ribbon intelligence commission, said Wednesday he was creating a national security service within the FBI to specialize in intelligence as part of a shake-up of the nation’s disparate spy agencies. A fact sheet describing the White House’s broad acceptance of the panel’s suggestions said that three more of the recommendations would be studied and that one recommendation — which was classified — was being rejected. The decisions come after a 90-day review led by the National Security Council’s homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend. The changes being adopted include directing the Justice Department to consolidate its counterterrorism, espionage and intelligence units. Bush also will ask Congress to create a new assistant attorney general position to help centralize those operations. Along with the list of changes being heeded, Bush also issued an executive order freezing assets of individuals or groups involved in activities related to the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The Justice Department and the FBI "have made substantial progress toward strengthening their national security capabilities and coordinating effectively with other elements of the government with related responsibilities, but further prompt action is necessary to meet challenges to the security of the United States," Bush wrote in a memo to intelligence community leaders. In March, a nine-member commission led by Republican Judge Laurence Silberman and former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb put forward a scathing 600-page report on the intelligence community and its ability to understand and protect against the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Bush asked for the Robb-Silberman review in early 2004 after it became clear that prewar intelligence on Iraq was flawed. After a 13-month investigation, the commission concluded the intelligence community was “dead wrong” in almost all of its prewar findings on Iraq’s arsenal. Bush also asked the commission to study the sweeping intelligence reform law that Congress passed in December, which created a new national intelligence director to oversee the 15 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community. Some accepted advice Among the 70 changes being accepted by the administration were: Forming a new National Counter Proliferation Center — with a staff of less than 100 — to coordinate the U.S. government’s collection and analysis of intelligence on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The task is now performed by many national security agencies. Asking Congress to reform its oversight of the intelligence community, a controversial proposal that could provoke turf wars and other difficulties on Capitol Hill. Putting CIA Director Porter Goss in charge of all overseas human intelligence, or traditional spy work, done by government operatives. Proposing legislation that would extend the duration of electronic surveillance in cases involving foreign agents. Implementing new procedures for dissenting intelligence analysis to be allowed to float up to senior officials. Giving the intelligence director a staff of "mission managers" who will develop strategies for specific intelligence areas. As an example, the commission said the director could have a mission manager focused on a specific country, such as China. The commission’s findings — and the White House’s acceptance of them — follow numerous reforms already ordered by Congress, the White House and within government agencies themselves since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the botched Iraq intelligence estimates. They also follow a number of bruising critiques of the CIA, FBI, Defense Department and other elements of the intelligence community. The Robb-Silberman commission’s March report was the most recent from an independent panel. The panel put forward numerous organizational changes, but it said Bush could implement many without action by Congress. For instance, the commissioners asked Bush to free National Intelligence Director John Negroponte from handling the president’s morning intelligence briefing, giving the director more time to focus on the intelligence community’s long-term priorities. It also emphasized that the White House needed to put its full support behind Negroponte as he takes on the intelligence agencies’ “almost perfect record of resisting external recommendations.”

I'm certain many of the Americans that voted him into office will continue to support him, although polls show that support for his policies, specifically Iraq and social security reform, is declining. Personally, I think he's a complete fraud. He lost all credibility with many Americans long ago. Last night's speech didn't change that. I'm hopeful that eight years of total incompetence, misjudgments, lies, and lives lost will be enough to wake-up the voters in this country. Having said that, there are more moderate, intelligent republicans that I'd consider voting for. Some people are blinded by a single-mindedness in politics that would be comical if it weren't so dangerous. It should be fun to watch the 2008 race unfold.

Good work, Carol. What about the speculation that Oswald was part of a Fake Defector program, presumably run by ONI. This would explain his defection and subsequent counter-defection, his training in the Russian language while in the Marines, and perhaps would account for the source of the funds to pay back this debt. Perhaps they used this method specifically to create the very paper trail we are discussing, giving him a little cash at a time to pay the loan, but desiring the existence of such documentation to prove that Oswald had at one time defected (establishing him as a communist). Is there any evidence that a Fake Defector program existed? Or is this pure speculation? Just a thought.

I read somewhere that Lawrence was a marksman in the US Air Force. Is this accurate? If Lawrence was being set-up as a potential patsy, there certainly wasn't the same level of effort and detail put forth in the frame-up as there was with Oswald. Other than placing him at the scene, what else was there? Seems like a pretty lame frame-up compared to how they manipulated LHO.

Has anyone ever asked William Seymour about Novel?