Greg Wagner

Hi Mark- If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was Kennedy's military attache, General Godfrey McHugh. I cannot immediately recall where I read this, so (anyone) please correct me if I'm misinformed here.

Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but who was the head of the NSA in the Fall of 1963 and to whom did he report?

Hi James- Thank you. It's good to banter about with you all again. I've just had too many demands on my time these last few months, so... something had to give. As for using the Hunt comment as the new slogan, I like it! Perhaps they could put it into Latin, with Veritas this and that. It would sound impressive and no one would no what it meant anyway.

While Tim and I don't seem to agree on much, I second his above comments. I'm not educated enough on the subject to opine whether he did or did not write that speech. However, I don't think it matters one bit. The great majority of public figures employ speech writers. Even more so today, with all the spin, buzz words, and carefully crafted slipperiness in political speeches, I would guess that politicians on both sides of the aisle take full advantage of wordsmiths. They would be foolish not to. And much like Ronald Reagan (in my view at least), Kennedy simply had a mammoth presence. Kennedy probably a little more so because of his youthful good looks, but they both had the ability to captivate an audience. And whether you liked the their politics or not, you wanted to hear what they had to say. Who wrote what speech had nothing to do with it. Kennedy was a rock star in front of an audience.

The top 5 new Agency slogans under consideration: 5. "Lee Harvey who? No... never heard of him." 4. "It's None of Your Damn Business" 3. "The CIA, brought to you by [ insert corporate sponsor here ]: Violating Your Civil Rights, the Laws of the United States, Our Own Charter, All Ten Commandments, and Probably Your Sister- with Absolute Impunity." 2. "I Have No Recollection of That, Senator." and the winner is... 1. "The CIA: Executing Foreign Policy (and Presidents) since 1963"

Well put, Pat. There are so many fundamental problems with that theory that it's difficult to know where to start. President Kennedy had a memorable meeting with Nikita Kruschev in Vienna in 1961 where NK bullyed the young American politician. Kruschev considered Kennedy to be a "boy" and entered into the meeting with every intent to test his mettle. Afterward, an ashen-faced and shaken Kennedy told his advisors that he had never been talked to in such a way in his entire life. Kennedy would not directly involve U.S. forces in the BOP in 1961. In October of '62, when under great pressure by the hawks in his administration to invade Cuba, or at least bomb the missile sites, Kenndy chose a less aggressive stance (and wisely so) in a naval blockade. Kennedy was also engaged in back channel communication with the Soviet leader to help ensure things did not get out of hand. He promised not to invade Cuba, removed Jupiter missiles from Turkey, he signed the nuclear test ban treaty, was initiating a withdrawal policy in Vietnam (NSM 263), and was in favor of detente and of moving toward peaceful co-existence with Castro's Cuba (the Jean Daniel meeting). Do you honestly believe that this was a man that the Soviets feared so much that they felt it was worth risking a nuclear exchange to blow his head off in broad daylight on the streets of an American city? And as Pat so clearly pointed out, then used (or set-up) a man who had been sheep-dipped as a Communist to carry out said ludicrous plot? As I stated earlier, there are several other serious problems with this theory, but this one is perhaps the most fundamental. I appreciate learning from those who educate me on other points-of-view, but at this point with this particular theory, logic simply precludes further travels down such a diversionary path.

Hi Jim- Wouldn't you think that this would put Taylor firmly at odds with the CIA in general, and more specifically with the right-wing reactionary elements of the CIA (men like E Howard Hunt and the boys down at JM/WAVE)? Unless of course, Taylor was unhappy with Kennedy's foreign policy (choosing the blockade option in Oct '62, cutting the deal he did with Kruschchev over the missiles in Cuba, back channel talks with same, the test ban treaty, NSM 263, etc.) despite the authority Kennedy granted him in NSM 55, and those same right-wing militant elements of the Agency and General Taylor found some common ground. That being the necessity- the "patriotic" obligation- to remove Kennedy from office. Their motivations being the advancement of their world view and ideology, their pursuits of Cuba and Vietnam. Not to mention a much more hard line approach with the USSR. Although they know they are technically talking about treason and murder here, they also know that they can make a somewhat legit case for incapacity to perform as POTUS based on his drug usage (recreational and medicinal), his "secret" negotations with NK, and his sleeping with women like Judith Campbell and Ellen Rometsch, all during very dangerous times (Cuba, Cold War). So they gather evidence and put together their case for incapacity and take it to LBJ as a done deal. With a faction of the CIA on board, along with Generals Taylor, Walker, & LeMay, Adm. Lemnitzer, et al., while LBJ faces being dropped from the ticket (potentially) in '64 along with serious legal jeopardy without the protection his office affords him, what else would he say... except "Go"? Jim, you seem to know quite a bit about Max Taylor. Are you aware of any possible connection he may have had with the more extreme right-wing and militant elements of the Agency? Just a thought.

...reminds me of a girl I once dated.

Hi Duncan- If S.M. Holland was standing on the triple overpass and viewing these events, wouldn't his assessment of smoke "about fifteen feet this side of that tree" tend to support the firing position you suggest? Seems like it to me. "And about that time, there was a third report that wasn't nearly as loud as the two previous reports. It came from that picket fence, and then there was a fourth report. The third and the fourth reports was almost simultaneously. But, the third report wasn't nearly as loud as the two previous reports or the fourth report. And I glanced over underneath that green tree and you see a - a little puff of smoke. It looked like a puff of steam or cigarette smoke. And the smoke was about - oh, eight or ten feet off the ground, and about fifteen feet this side of that tree."

I couldn't see it (possibile horizontal trough in adjacent bldg) in my version of MM either. Ian's image appears to be from a clearer, wider angle.

Deleted... sorry. Upload of video clip failed. If you'd like a copy, just email me and I will provide.

Here is the Muchmore frame in question... What building is this?

Hi James- As I recall, he perished in a mysterious (no wreckage/no bodies) plane crash. Those coincidences just keep piling up, eh?

Hi Wade- Interesting article. Palamara has a new book coming out (hopefully this year) in which he details interviews with over 70 agents and former agents, and addresses many of the questions/issues surrounding the actions (or lack thereof) of the Secret Service on and around 11/22/63. From what I know of it, it sounds like it may be quite revealing. I believe the title is Survivor's Guilt. The book is finished, and Vince is currently shopping it to publishers.

Ron- Impressive indeed! You are 100% correct. Thanks for catching my error. Upon re-reading it though, it still strikes me that Hoover is trying to tell LBJ that he can be "got" just as easily. Again though, gut feeling on my part. Probably not worth a bucket of warm spit without HEARING the tapes. And even then...

It just seems to me to be a VERY strange conversation. That's more of a "gut feeling" than anything else. I did not suggest that Hoover was not involved, I suugested that IF LBJ were not, Hoover might have been sending him a messgae about how LBJ should proceed, lest he end up like his former boss. Tim, the reference you make to RKF suggesting Dulles be appointed to the WC is a VERY interesting one. I read that and I thought, "Really? That seems odd." But I believe that that was just Holland's take, as the footnote (143, on pg 120) states, "According to Dulles biographer, 'there was no evidence that the younger Kennedy played any role in the composition of the commission.'" Of couse, it goes on to say that the assertion that RFK did suggest Dulles was a result of LBJ talking with Fortas, Fortas talking with Katzenbach, and Katzenbach talking to RKF. This, in my mind, makes this somewhat unlikely recommendation by RFK suspect. Or at least open for discussion. I haven't read very much on Bobby. Perhaps this is addressed in one of his bios. The only reason that I can fathom that RFK would suggest Dulles, if in fact he actually did, is that perhaps he felt like Dulles would be inclined to keep the Mongoose stuff under wraps. As far as the CIA goes, Booby clearly had his suspicions about their involvement: "Did one of your guys do it?" Maybe that's a reference to Oswald who he perhaps recognized as an Agency asset. Maybe it was a question about their larger involvement, Oswald aside.

Ahhh, thank you. I can't believe I didn't get that one.

Stan- I think this memorable statement calls for a special designation. I dub you, WABOS. You sure cut to the chase!

Tim I think Robert Charles-Dunne had a point about your flippant remarks (even on the occasions when you may present factual material) not helping your cause. You of all people should realize the amount of disinformation that has been heaped upon these events to date. History books can also be very dangerous when they do not accurately represent the facts. And this case most probably holds the world's record for the topic on which the most mis- or disinformation has been published. Admittedly though, in this case, it's often very difficult to know which books are which.

Thanks Ron- According to Mr. Palamara, there will other such "facts" exposed for the propaganda they are. He has repeatedly commented to me that the statements he makes in his book are well-supported via his interviews with these agents, documents, and photos. I suppose the proof will be in the pudding, but in my view, his research is very credible.

Hi Tim- I suppose that is a possibility. But the CIA/Kennedy attempts on Castro's life were long ago accepted as fact by virtually all historians and interested parties, were they not? So, there doesn't really appear to be a risk of "exposing" these plots. It seems to me that that boat sailed long ago. Perhaps, if your theory is correct, the U.S. government never obtained any hard evidence that Castro did it beacuse there was never a proper investigation. I'll concede that. But hard evidence or not, I believe it is beyond question (in my mind, anyway) that they know exactly who "did it." Whether it was LBJ, Castro, CIA, Pentagon, Elvis, Brittany Spears, or Krushchev- they know. I guess Tim, what you are saying in a nutshell is that since there may be no "hard" evidence, and since we'd have to dredge-up our own unsavory plans to whack The Cigar, why drag it out into the light of day? To what end? I suppose that is a plausible explanation. But when weighed against the magnitude of the act of murdering the president of the United States, I'm just not convinced it holds up. And with all due respect to president Bush, I'm not so sure that "hard" evidence has always been required before a president takes action if he believes the cause is just. For some reason, they are STILL witholding mountains of evidence, controlling what the media reports about this case, and effectively supressing the truth about these events. Why? Don't know what else to say about this one. Perhaps we will never know for sure. What is POTUS?

I've always thought that LBJ was a good candidate to be a conspirator- one of the men in the exec branch who was approached with the incapacity/security risk case against JFK. And of course, as John Simkin has so ably pointed out, he was in deep sh%t and also in danger of being dropped from the '64 ticket. So that's always made the dirty SOB, in my mind, a probable conspirator in the murder. I guess I've started taking another look at him since I'm in the middle of reading Holland's The Kennedy Assassination Tapes. It's all of Johnson's transcribed (relevant) phone conversations in the days following Dallas. If he's acting (knowing the dialogue is being recorded), he does a pretty good job. If I had to choose, I think I'd still have to say he was involved. But I'm less certain than I used to be. I do think they could have pulled it off without him. After all, with the dirt Hoover surely had on him, and after witnessing Kennedy get his head blown off, he wouldn't be fool enough to take a stand against them. So, would there have been any reason to exclude LBJ from the circle of conspirators? Johnson really seems to kiss Hoover's a$$, which seems odd. The tapes (and commentary added by Holland) really seem to suggest that LBJ is, at least initially, dead-set against a presidential commission. He states that perhaps that would infringe upon Texas law and create States' rights issues. Hoover, at one point on 11/29, states to Johnson that it would be "very, very bad to have a rash of investigations." Hoover also seems to be planting the seed in LBJ's mind about LHO's "Cuban ties"- allegedly receiving $6500 from Sylvia Duran in Mex City. Which we now know never happened, according to the CIA's own David Atlee Phillips, much to Colby’s displeasure. It's odd, because if you didn't know better, you'd swear Hoover was LBJ's boss by reading, and listening to (according to Holland), this exchange. Hoover also goes on to ask LBJ if he has a bulletproof car to ride in and mentions that "you could have a thousand Secret Service agents on guard, and still a sniper can snipe you from up in the window if you are exposed, like the president was." Hoover goes on to tell Johnson that, "You see, there was no Secret Service man standing on the back of the car. Usually the presidential car in the past has had steps on the back next to the bumpers, and there’s usually been one [agent] on either side standing on those steps at the back bumper.” Is it possible that Johnson WAS out of the loop? And, reading between the lines, was Hoover maybe trying to tell him something (Play ball- and don’t think we can’t get to you too if you refuse.)? And so Johnson orchestrated/went along with the official cover-up. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this conversation. Very possible. But when I read the transcription, this stuff jumped out at me. I’d be interested in any thoughts. Has anyone HEARD this conversation? Does anyone know if the actual audio recordings are available somewhere on the Internet? I’d love to actually HEAR this conversation.

Hi Stan- Nothing like a touch of the grape to help cut to the chase! Speaking of which, it's Saturday night and I have yet to achieve an altered state of consciousness. I believe that's my cue. "Check please!"

For what it's worth, here's an interesting except from a 9/2004 Salon.com article: Thanks to tapes of White House conversations that have been released to the public in recent years, we now know that the man who appointed the Warren Commission -- President Lyndon Johnson -- did not believe its conclusions. On Sept. 18, 1964, the last day the panel met, commission member Sen. Richard Russell phoned Johnson, his old political protégé, to tell him he did not believe the single-bullet theory, the key to the commission's finding that Oswald acted alone. "I don't either," Johnson told him. Johnson's theories about what really happened in Dallas shifted over the years. Soon after the assassination, Johnson was led to believe by the CIA that Kennedy might have been the victim of a Soviet conspiracy. Later his suspicions focused on Castro; during his long-running feud with Robert Kennedy, LBJ leaked a story to Washington columnist Drew Pearson suggesting the Kennedy brothers themselves were responsible for JFK's death by triggering a violent reaction from the Cuban leader with their "goddamned Murder Inc." plots to kill him. In 1967, according to a report in the Washington Post, Johnson's suspicious gaze came to rest on the CIA. The newspaper quoted White House aide Marvin Watson as saying that Johnson was "now convinced" Kennedy was the victim of a plot and "that the CIA had something to do with this plot." Max Holland, who has just published a study of LBJ's views on Dallas, "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes," intriguingly concludes that Johnson remained haunted by the murder throughout his tenure in the White House. "It is virtually an article of faith among historians that the war in Vietnam was the overwhelming reason the president left office in 1969, a worn, bitter, and disillusioned man," writes Holland. "Yet the assassination-related tapes paint a more nuanced portrait, one in which Johnson's view of the assassination weighed as heavily on him as did the war."

Tim Gratz _______________________ JFK's death: Who benefited? Now let's see, LBJ was about to be indicted, but became president. Just a coincidence, I guess. After LBJ we might have had Bobby Kennedy, but I guess the Castro forces killed him too, so we ended up with criminal Nixon. Then came Warren Commissioner Ford, then for a brief 4 years Cater, but Bush Sr. and his little "October surprise" ended that, giving us 16 years of Reagan and Bush. Then came Bill, and Monica gate... Then two terms of Bush Jr. Now how does Castro "benefit" from any of this???? To say that Castro was the principal befeficiary of JFk's death is hogwash, pure and simple. There is no credible evidence that LBJ really BELIEVED that JFK was killed by a "foreign conspiracy". I cannot believe this thread is even still going on. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Dawn- Didn't LBJ, after he was out of office, state (privately, though I cannot remember who he allegedly said this to) that he thought the CIA was involved? I could be mistaken, but I thought I read that somewhere.