W. Niederhut

In reviewing the history of NSAM 273, I was reminded today that the original Honolulu NSAM 273 draft was dated 11/21/63, and signed by JFK's National Security advisor, McGeorge Bundy. Has anything been written about Bundy's possible involvement in the plot to kill JFK? Bundy was a Yale Skull and Bones man who had worked with Allen Dulles at the CFR after his work for U.S. military intelligence in WWII. He was a Republican from Groton and a family of blue bloods, (including Boston Brahmins like the Lowells) and one of the main architects of the escalation of the Vietnam War after 11/22/63. Seems like a prime suspect, especially in light of his relationship with Allen Dulles, and his strong support for maintaining (and escalating) the global Cold War.

Jim, Your link (above) is the Prouty text about NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 that I was thinking of, and here is the Peter Dale Scott analysis that I mentioned. https://www.history-matters.com/essays/vietnam/KennedyVietnam1971/KennedyVietnam1971.htm

Joe, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I used to tutor undergraduates in physics when I was in college. Anyone with a basic grasp of Newtonian physics can easily deduce that JFK was killed by a fatal bullet fired from the front (and right) of the limo. The Lone Nut in the TSBD Warren Commission "theory" isn't the least bit "scientific," as you know. Among its many fatal flaws, the Warren Commission Lone Nut "theory" violates Newton's Laws of Motion-- which is why CIA asset C.D. Jackson bought the Zapruder film and locked it up for years.

I'll take your word for it on this NSAM 273 issue. I recall reading some sort of analysis (by Peter Dale Scott?) describing a slight change in the 273 wording, to emphasize the over-arching objective of stopping communism in Vietnam. (Whereas, JFK had said something along the lines of the war, ultimately, being "South Vietnam's war to win or lose," as I recall.) I was surprised to read about Hilsman's optimism in 1963 about the "strategic hamlet" program, because Col. Fletcher Prouty described it as a grossly immoral, operational disaster (in his 1992 book about JFK and Vietnam.)

So, in this Paul Rigby interview, Hilsman doesn't mention anything about LBJ signing NSAM 273 on 11/25/63-- which, if I understand the analyses of Peter Dale Scott and Prouty correctly, essentially reversed JFK's NSAM 263, by emphasizing the military objective of defeating communism in Vietnam, at any cost. Apparently, the Honolulu conference draft of NSAM 273 was dated 11/21/63 as I recall. Doesn't this hint that LBJ was involved in some sort of pre-assassination plan with the "hawks" to reverse NSAM 263? And, if not, why did LBJ and the "hawks" go to such great lengths to conceal their NSAM 273 Vietnam policy reversal?

Hilsman's account of JFK's position on Vietnam in this interview also dovetails with L. Fletcher Prouty's firsthand narrative about the history of NSAM 263 and NSAM 273, in Prouty's 1992 book on The CIA, Vietnam, and the JFK Assassination. It appears that several LBJ administration staffers must have colluded in suppressing the true history of LBJ's reversal of JFK's NSAM 263 Vietnam policy-- including Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara, Maxwell Taylor, Walter Rostow, and even Bill Moyers(?)

Michael, The problem, as I see it, is that the use of the pejorative term, "conspiracy theory," tends to throw all theories that differ from mainstream paradigms into the same waste basket. Yet, in reality, "conspiracy theories" exist on a broad spectrum of accuracy and validity. For example, Jim Garrison accurately theorized that Clay Shaw was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Conversely, Donald Trump "theorized" that climate change is a Chinese hoax. So, what are we supposed to make of a neuroscientist claiming in a peer reviewed journal that "Creationists are more likely to believe in 'conspiracy theories?'" What "conspiracy theories" is he referring to-- Jim Garrison's Clay Shaw conspiracy theory? Donald Trump's Chinese hoax conspiracy theory about climate change?

Is there are more misleading, misused term in the modern English language than the CIA's pejorative term, "conspiracy theory?" I think it was the Swiss historian, Daniele Ganser, (who has written about the CIA/NATO Operation Gladio during the Cold War) who said a few years ago that, "All theories about 9/11 are 'conspiracy theories,'" including the official U.S. government narrative about the 19 alleged Muslim "Al Qaeda" hijackers whose names were found on a suspiciously convenient list in a rental car at Logan Airport on 9/11. Modern journalists (and scientists, like this neuroscientist* from the University of Fribourg) are doing a disservice to the public, IMO, by continually using the term "conspiracy theory" to describe any and all theories about historical events that diverge from mainstream media narratives. It's a shame that journalists and commentators don't simply use the term "theory" to describe theories about historical events-- without the pejorative adjective, "conspiracy." As an example, Charles Beard's landmark "economic" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution was never denigrated as a "conspiracy" theory. * Scientists Identify a Key Cognitive Error that Could Explain Why People Believe in Creationism and Conspiracy Theories https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/scientists-identify-key-cognitive-error-could-explain-why-people-believe

Interesting stuff. I read Don DeLillo's novel, Libra, many years before I ever began to study some of the serious research about the JFK assassination. At the time, I still simply assumed that Lee Harvey Oswald had been JFK's nutty, lone assassin. DeLillo is a great literati but I'll have to re-read the novel to assess his merit as a historian.

Natural Born Killers is quite a disturbing piece of work by Oliver Stone, as is Talk Radio, (based loosely on the murder of our local talk radio host, Alan Berg, here in Denver in the 1980s.) But, I wonder if we will ever hear the real story about what Charles Harrelson was doing in Dallas on 11/22/63-- if he was, in fact, there. I read somewhere (?) that Harrelson told someone that he was in Houston on 11/22/63. I was hoping that some of the experts on this forum might have the straight story.

I recently watched Woody Harrelson in the movie, Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri, and I recalled reading that Woody's father, Charles V. Harrelson, was a professional hit man who may have been one of the "Three Tramps" photographed in Dealey Plaza after JFK's assassination-- after being found by the police in a box car behind the Grassy Knoll. There seem to be conflicting accounts on-line about whether Harrelson was the "Tramp" in the middle of the Dealey Plaza "Three Tramps" photo. Incredibly, none of the "Three Tramps" were finger-printed or arrested on 11/22/63. At the time of his 1980 arrest in El Paso for the murder of U.S. Judge John Wood, (in San Antonio) Harrelson reportedly claimed that he had killed JFK, then, later, changed his story. He also, allegedly, said, later, that he would not have accepted a contract to kill JFK, because "the Mafia would have killed (him) the way they killed Oswald." Harrelson, reportedly, died at the Federal Supermax prison here in Florence, Colorado in 2007. My question. Was Harrelson, in fact, one of the "Three Tramps" in the Dealey Plaza photograph? Secondly, if he was, wouldn't he, logically, be considered a major suspect in the JFK assassination, since he was, obviously, a hit man?

Remarkable... Oswald read Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Gogol, and Turgenev in Russian? How do we explain that one?

David, I have been a Board Certified American psychiatrist for the past 30 years. Although I have not studied much about Oswald, and have not read his actual writings, I find it hard to believe that he suffered from a major mental illness-- including any serious cognitive or executive function deficits. Why? Mainly because of his "successful" service in the Marine Corps, and his apparent, long-term work for U.S. intelligence-- including a protracted stint as a false defector to the USSR. Such work would require fairly high ego functioning and commitment over time-- moving to a foreign country, maintaining a "legend," working, getting married, etc. Emigrating to a foreign country is extremely stressful for most people, in general, especially for those who don't speak or understand the language well. As for his alleged language disability, the diagnosis seems questionable for someone who, reportedly, learned Russian at the U.S. military school in Monterey, California during his Marine Corps service. On the other hand, I can see why the Warren Commission would have been interested in portraying Oswald as mentally impaired. A "Lone Nut" is, by definition, a "nut." I wonder if there has been much written (by George De Mohrenschildt or Marina) about Oswald's fluency in Russian.

The growth rate of the U.S. national debt fell dramatically during the Clinton years, partly as a result of the Democrats increasing the top income tax rate in 1993-- by a 51-50 Senate vote, with Vice President Al Gore casting the tie breaking vote. In the 2000 Bush-Gore Presidential debates, the subject of what to do with the Clinton budgetary surplus (of 2000) was raised. Gore said that he would use the money to stabilize Social Security. Dubya said that he would "give the money back to the taxpayers." And we all know how that story ended-- a doubling of the national debt by 2009, and two expensive, unfunded wars, along with the worst recession since the Great Depression. As for the bank bailouts, as I recall, the first $800 billion dollar bank bailout was enacted by Bush and Paulson in late 2008.

No dispute with me, at all, about Dubya's many policy disasters, Jim. I have always been the very opposite of a Dubya Bush apologist. In my view, the man's White House tenure was an unmitigated disaster for this country. In January of 2001, Bill Clinton left Bush and Cheney with very realistic prospects of paying off the $5 trillion dollar national debt-- as even Alan Greenspan said in his memoir, A Time of Turbulence. Instead, Bush and Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney pushed through their misguided Reaganomic tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and amassed multi-trillion dollar Afghanistan and Iraq war debts on carefully crafted, false pretexts. As Paul O'Neill described in The Price of Loyalty, Rumsfeld talked about the PNAC Iraq War agenda in the very first Bush-Cheney cabinet meeting in 2001. No doubt, Bush and Cheney contributed bigly to the misanthropic libertarian "Starve the Beast" strategy for the destruction of the U.S. welfare state. They simply passed the buck, and their $10 trillion dollar debt, to Obama.

No need to apologize, Denis. But, now that I understand the subject of your 1976 News Journal article, it seems like a variation on the Warren Commission's age old "Lone Nut" narrative.

My bad. I, mistakenly, assumed that Denis's link was related to the topic of this thread. As for the Wilmington News Journal, it was still owned by Prescott Bush's close friends, the DuPont family, in 1976. The DuPont family always had very good chemistry with Prescott Bush-- during the 1934 coup attempt against FDR, and during Prescott's stint in the Senate.

Denis, I'm shocked, shocked to see that a semi-reputable U.S. newspaper published this (admittedly vague) article in 1976 claiming that the alleged 11/29/63 Hoover memo about a meeting with "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" didn't actually exist! Who'd have thunk?! This article, obviously, sets the historical record straight. CIA Director George H.W. Bush was telling the truth all along, (as was the bewildered former CIA accountant George William Bush.) Those members of Congress, and Joseph McBride, must have been hallucinating when they thought they read an alleged 11/29/63 Hoover memo that had somehow miraculously escaped the shredder! Fortunately, we Americans can always rely on our newspapers to keep us properly informed about such silly "Deep State" conspiracy theories. Thanks for sharing, and for kindly endeavoring to keep us all so well-informed, once again.

Yes, there has always been something very oily about GHWB and Dubya-- beyond their founding roles in Zapata Offshore and Arbusto. (BTW, I was astonished to read, in Family of Secrets, that Osama Bin Laden's brother had been a major investor in Dubya's Arbusto Oil company.) As for 11/22/63, we know that GHWB was at the Dallas Sheraton on 11/21/63 and, thanks to Mr. McBride, we know that GHWB represented the CIA in an 11/29/63 meeting with J. Edgar Hoover about the investigation of JFK's assassination. Who was the wiseacre who once said, "The FBI guards the bank, and the CIA robs the bank?"

Endlessly fascinating old Education Forum thread here, which I have been perusing today in relation to recent discussions about GHWB and Dubya Bush on 1/22/63. My recent forum questions on these subjects are, obviously, about a decade behind those in the research community discussions here. Better late than never. The only reference to Dubya Bush and JFK on this thread was about Lee Harvey Oswald's Marine Corps friend Bill Lord's letter to President Jimmy Carter in (?)1977. Bill Lord mentioned to Carter that two men-- apparently, Edward Epstein and George W. Bush -- were pressuring him to find out what he knew about Oswald!

Didn't Alex Jones recently threaten to kill Robert Mueller?

Agreed. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" shtick was always bunk. On the flip side, Barbara Bush publicly criticized the Tea Party House's adamant refusal to accept Obama's July 2011 "Mother of all no brainers" debt-reduction deal, by saying, "Compromise is not a dirty word." A person standing slightly left of the Koch's Tea Party "libertarians" would still be playing squarely in right field.

Thanks for sharing. I intend to read your book. U.S. media censorship of Bush family history is a curious subject.

Speaking for myself, I certainly wouldn't "reduce" this philosophical Koch/Buchanan movement to Bush, by any stretch. If anything, I view the Bush family as being somewhat to the left of the Koch-funded Tea Party "misanthropic libertarians" on the current political spectrum. I was merely pointing out that Prescott Bush, in particular, spent his political career trying to protect the financial interests of his immensely wealthy Wall Street peers, (as did the Dulles brothers) from the progressive, utilitarian reforms of the New Deal. And, surely, Prescott Bush and his family despised the Kennedy brothers.

From what I have heard and read, ( e.g., American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips, Family of Secrets, etc.) Prescott Bush greatly admired the British aristocracy and caste system. The family was very conscious of their status as wealthy, well-connected, New England blue bloods. As an example, Barbara Bush (nee Pierce) was a direct descendant of U.S. President Franklin Pierce, (from New Hampshire.) The Bush family has been an integral part of the old W.A.S.P. aristocracy of New England, New York , (New Haven, etc.) So, IMO, the Bush family's anti-utilitarian, "misanthropic libertarianism" has not been a result of any deep philosophical or economic theorizing in the Gothic lecture halls of Yale, but is inherent in the culture of their family and exalted Yankee social class. And, like most wealthy old Yankee families, the Bushes have always downplayed their high socio-economic status-- even adopting the dress and vernacular of west Texas cowboys, Spanish-speaking Floridians, and what-have-you. In that sense, the Bush family's New England WASP social class and culture was a notch or two above the successful Irish immigrant Kennedy clan, and two or three notches above the gauche, nouveau riche Taj Mahal Casino culture of Donald Trump. Unlike Trump, people from those old, wealthy, Yankee families in New England never brag about their immense wealth. Both George Bush's were very skilled at concealing their political advocacy on behalf of their own class interests, while promoting their policies through subtle appeals to the commoners. (As was Winston Churchill.) GHWB used to say, "I want to be the "Education President," while doing photo ops at inner city black schools. Then he would quietly slash public education funding. At heart, the Bushes always seemed secretly cynical -- almost amused-- about the necessary pretense of populism. With the Kennedy family, it was no pretense. IMO, they sincerely cared about the fate of humanity.