Blame it on the Bobby

[James Richards]

Gary,

For some strange reason, Nestor 'Tony' Izquierdo is someone who has slipped through the net regarding his importance to the anti-Castro cause. He was respected, even idolized and seen as someone of great character and courage.

The incongruity here is that if you Google his name, apart from what has been posted here at the Education Forum, there is virtually nothing on him. This is quite amazing given that a statue was erected in Little Havana in his honor. (see below)

If Izquierdo's plan was rejected then you are correct in assuming that the general feeling amongst the anti-Castro crowd, and those who pulled their strings, was one of great rancor and the Kennedy brothers wore the brunt of that.

James

[Charles Drago]

To carry this line of thought forward:

The highest placed facilitators of the plot -- specifically, those charged with priming the false sponsor pump -- decide that one of the most efficient ways to maximize hatred of JFK and RFK among leaders of the anti-Castro community is to have the latter bring to the Kennedys what the Cubans view as a viable whack-the-Beards operation, but which the facilitators understand in advance to be absolutely unacceptable to the president and attorney general.

Charles

[William Kelly]

To carry this line of thought forward:

The highest placed facilitators of the plot -- specifically, those charged with priming the false sponsor pump -- decide that one of the most efficient ways to maximize hatred of JFK and RFK among leaders of the anti-Castro community is to have the latter bring to the Kennedys what the Cubans view as a viable whack-the-Beards operation, but which the facilitators understand in advance to be absolutely unacceptable to the president and attorney general.

Charles

Merely informing the anti-Castro Cubans of the Kennedy-Attwood-Howard-Lechuga backchannel negotiations would have set them off in a rage.

BK

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Gary,

For some strange reason, Nestor 'Tony' Izquierdo is someone who has slipped through the net regarding his importance to the anti-Castro cause. He was respected, even idolized and seen as someone of great character and courage.

The incongruity here is that if you Google his name, apart from what has been posted here at the Education Forum, there is virtually nothing on him. This is quite amazing given that a statue was erected in Little Havana in his honor. (see below)

If Izquierdo's plan was rejected then you are correct in assuming that the general feeling amongst the anti-Castro crowd, and those who pulled their strings, was one of great rancor and the Kennedy brothers wore the brunt of that.

James

Hmmm, it does seem a mite strange for this statue to be erected for someone whose exploits remain so unhighlighted.

Perhaps the folk in Little Havana knew something we think we know, if that makes sense.

PS - Have you or anyone else any idea as to what became of the Bolex camera Hall picked up the same day as the Johnson - It seems like a pretty decent type of camera, not for holiday stuff?

Gary

[Stephen Miller]

It does make sense about the Attwood-Howard-Lechuga backchannel intiative being the spark lighting the fuse for the assasination and that's one thing you never see or hear the Lone Nutters mention. Also, it also explains why the Miami Cubans became Republicans and now have the Bush crime family in their pockets.

[James Richards]

Gary, No idea regarding the camera but I think there was some loose plans about getting film from inside Cuba and selling it on.

Stephen, I believe Felipe Vidal Santiago was one who brought the news back to the exile community regarding the Kennedy administration's olive branch. I'm sure he passed on the news to Col. Bishop which in turn would have quickly filtered back to those at JM/WAVE.

James

Edited June 28, 2007 by James Richards

[William Kelly]

I may take some flak for this, but...

Much as I don't want to believe it, there seems to be a lot of evidence that Jack and Bobby really wanted the CIA to "do something" about Castro, or even "get rid of" him, and that both may have been aware of plots to harm him.

It seems that a large number of knowledgable CIA people indicate that at least Bobby was aware of at least some of the plots and gave some measure of approval. This dates as far back as the CIA IG report of 1967. CIA people suggest that, while there is no existing paper approval, it was understood by CIA that this was what Bobby wanted.The CIA people say that they are loathe be the one to go on record as saying Bobby approved it. Even LBJ said the Kennedys were trying to get Castro.

It sems to me that, in the face of all these recollections, it would be hard to be certain that Bobby did not give some sort of consent to what went on. I wish it were not true, but I wouldn't blame Bobby, given the tenor of the times.

Stephen,

In 1968 I thought RFK was a mean spirited son of a bitch and bastard who was pandering to the poor and political opportunist for taking up the anti-Vietnam war cause so late in the game, all of which went against my candidate Gene McCarthy. Victor Lansky, of It Didn't Start With Watergate fame, also wrote a scathing book about RFK, which I totally believed at the time. (I was 17).

Now, in retrospect, it's easier to see him in a better light, but he was still a mean spirited son of a bitch and bastard, who was called upon to take on special tasks by his brother, the President.

One of those tasks was to keep track of what the CIA was up to, especially in regards to anti-Castro Cuban operations, which put him in with the Special Group, that became the Special Group Augumented, responsible for all US sponsored covert operations against Cuba.

In looking over the 634 listed, known and detailed plots to kill Castro [ per Executive Action - 634 Ways To Kill Castro - The Secret War by Fabian Escalante], I've tried to determine which ones were the ones that RFK would have known about and approved, and can't seem to put a finger on one of them.

Then I looked for the known plots to kill Castro that were tied to the assassination of JFK, and say the AMLASH plot was approved by RFK, which is doubtfull, and they say that RFK approved some of the maritme missions that included assassins, but there's no written record of it.

Now the plots to kill Castro that we know were approved by the CIA before JFK, and were kept from both JFK and his CIA director John McCone, both of whom were quite clear and on the record as being against political assassination, not only because they were Catholics, but because they knew it was bad politics.

It is more believeable that Bastard Bobby was in on some of the plots, and kept his brother in the dark to protect his back, but who are the sources for this? Lansdale, Helms, Rosseli, Ramsey Clark and Kissinger, three suspects in the crime, one who covered it up and the other the primary leak on other subjects as well.

If we can narrow down the exact plot(s) RFK had approved, we can go backstage at JM/WAVE and see how RFK and William Harvey interacted - with rage against each other - and how RFK got along with Shackley and Company.

If RFK approved any covert operations, they were the Mongoose ops that were run past the Special Group Augmented and the National Security Council, which are well documented as economic sabatoge actions and not assassination. d

In looking closely at those maritime operations that are connected directly to Dealey Plaza - the Bayo/Pawley/TILT and Rex missions, we have the exact senario laid out by Rosseli to Morgan and Jack Anderson - missions which sent in commandos who didn't come back out and were either killed or captured.

For some reason, Fabian Escalante, of Cuba G2, doesn't even mention those plots or the others from JM/WAVE that we have connected to the JFK assassination, via Bradley Ayers and others. While TG says Escalante lies, I think it is more than just a lie and is properly called disinformation, as its known source is a foreign intelligence service.

If you can point to a particular plot (other than AMLASH) and show how it is connected to RFK in less than six degrees of separation, or a plot that does not include the usual suspects as the source, then perhaps a convincing argument could be made that RFK plotted to kill Castro.

And I'm still waiting for someone to show me the "Family Costume Jewels" that has Helms telling Kissinger that RFK was behind a Castro hit, and when it comes out the blood will flow.

But we're not really trying to find out who killed Castro, but who killed JFK, and it is my postulation that one of the plots to kill Castro was redirected to JFK. I just dont' know which one, yet.

And when I find it, I won't be surprised if it does include RFK, as I suspect that was part of the plan we are now seeing unravel.

Am I making sense or am I so far off base I don't even know it?

BK

[Stephen Roy]

To Bill Kelly:

I'm not sure where to begin. I'm not saying that we have unequivocal evidence that RFK was aware of or approved any particular Castro plot. I'm saying that the record as it stands doesn't rule out that possibility. We have to be reasonably realistic about this.

The record is pretty clear that both JFK and RFK were pretty annoyed with Castro both pre-and post-BoP, and indicated that they wanted something done about him, and are alleged to have said they wanted somebody to "get rid of " Castro.

The group who was charged with this sort of task was the CIA.

After the BoP, RFK "rode herd" on the CIA, and apparently became very involved in anti-Castro operations.

RFK was aware of at least one plot, after the fact(?), and while he was opposed to the use of crime figures, he didn't seem to object to the concept of an assassination. But this is based only on CIA documents and recollections. JFK was apparently aware that such things were being considered, according to Goodwin, Smathers and Szulc.

Castro assassination plotting did take place during this period. So either it was done with Kennedy approval or without it.

The whole concept of deniability was in use, and even discussed at this time (in other contexts), and there appears to be no document indicating Kennedy approval for the assassination plots. This could be because there WAS NO approval or because there was, but it was done in a way so as to leave no record.

A number of CIA people have indicate that they knew firsthand or heard secondhand that at least some of the plotting had been authorized. Several of them have indicated that the plots were verbally approved but that they would not so state on the record. One said (and I paraphrase) Of course they approved it, but I'M not going to be the one to break that confidence. We may consider CIA sources unreliable on this, but they are really all we have.

In addition, we have such people as LBJ stating that the Kennedys were trying to get Castro.

The record does not resolve the issue, but it does raise possibilities, one of which is that RFK and/or JFK did authorize or tacitly accept CIA plots to kill Castro. From a scholarly viewpoint, given the record and recollections, one cannot rule out the possibility.

If the Kennedys did not approve in any way, it means the CIA acted unilaterally, and possibly against administration wishes.

I don't consider the failure to tell McCone about the plans as absolutely ruling out the possibility that RFK, in contact with line-level officers may have somehow indicated either consent or tacit acceptance. In any case, I think that blithe declarations that the Kennedys absolutely did not approve of the plots, and that the CIA absolutely did it without authorization do not objectively reflect the ambiguity of the evidence.

I don't want to believe that either brother would have approved such idiotic ideas, but given the tenor of the times, I could understand if they did.

I know this is an unpopular analysis, but in a scholarly forum, it is the kind of thing that needs to be considered.

[William Kelly]

To Bill Kelly:

HELLO STEPHEN,

I'm not sure where to begin. I'm not saying that we have unequivocal evidence that RFK was aware of or approved any particular Castro plot. I'm saying that the record as it stands doesn't rule out that possibility. We have to be reasonably realistic about this.

AGREED.

The record is pretty clear that both JFK and RFK were pretty annoyed with Castro both pre-and post-BoP, and indicated that they wanted something done about him, and are alleged to have said they wanted somebody to "get rid of " Castro.

The group who was charged with this sort of task was the CIA.

After the BoP, RFK "rode herd" on the CIA, and apparently became very involved in anti-Castro operations.

AGREED. WE HAVE RFK AT JM/WAVE ON AT LEAST THREE OCCASSIONS, ONCE WITH HARVEY, ONCE AT A COCKTAIL PARTY AND ONCE AT THE EVERGLADES MEETING. THERE MAY BE MORE.

RFK was aware of at least one plot, after the fact(?), and while he was opposed to the use of crime figures, he didn't seem to object to the concept of an assassination. But this is based only on CIA documents and recollections.

RFK MUST HAVE ALSO BEEN AWARE, AFTER THE FACT, OF DOZENS OF OTHER ANTI-CASTRO CUBAN ATTEMPTS ON THE LIFE OF CASTRO, AS REPORTED IN THE NEWS, INCLUDING THE NOVEMBER 1, 1963 REX MISSION.

JFK was apparently aware that such things were being considered, according to Goodwin, Smathers and Szulc.

AND HE TOLD THEM ALL THAT HE WAS AGAINST ASSASSINATION AND DIDN'T AND WOULDN'T APPROVE IT.

Castro assassination plotting did take place during this period. So either it was done with Kennedy approval or without it.

NOW THERE'S A THIN LINE BETWEEN APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND PLOTING AND APPROVAL OF SENDING OFF ASSASSINS ON MISSIONS TO KILL. JFK ALSO ORDERED AND APPROVED PLANS FOR MILITARY INVASION OF CUBA, AND WAS ANNOYED THAT THE JCS SAID IT WOULD TAKE A WEEK TO TWO WEEKS TO PREPARE FOR SUCH AN INVASION AND EXPECTED AN EVENT OR SPARK TO SET OFF SUCH PREPERATIONS. JFK ORDERED THAT THE TIME TO PREPARE FOR INVASTION OF CUBA TO BE SHORTENED TO A FEW DAYS. BUT HE DIDN'T ORDER THE PLAN TO BE PUT INTO EFFECT. THE SAME GOES FOR PLOTING ASSASSINATION. IF HE APPROVED SUCH PLANNING, HE WOULD MOST CERTAINLY ALSO REQUIRE THE AUTHORITY TO GO OR NO GO. THAT'S WHY HARVEY WAS FIRED FROM JM/WAVE, FOR SENDING OFF MISSIONS DURING THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS WHEN ORDERS WERE TO HOLD BACK ON SUCH MISSIONS.

The whole concept of deniability was in use, and even discussed at this time (in other contexts), and there appears to be no document indicating Kennedy approval for the assassination plots. This could be because there WAS NO approval or because there was, but it was done in a way so as to leave no record.

HARVEY LEFT HIS NOTES - OR HIS ASSISTANTS NOTES DISCOVERED BY HSCA.

A number of CIA people have indicate that they knew firsthand or heard secondhand that at least some of the plotting had been authorized. Several of them have indicated that the plots were verbally approved but that they would not so state on the record. One said (and I paraphrase) Of course they approved it, but I'M not going to be the one to break that confidence. We may consider CIA sources unreliable on this, but they are really all we have.

AGREED. THEY MAY HAVE VERBALLY APPROVED PLANNING FOR THE ELEMINATION OF CASTRO BY ANY MEANS, BUT THE ONLY SOURCE FOR THIS ARE THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF SUCH ACCOUNTABILITY EXISTED.

In addition, we have such people as LBJ stating that the Kennedys were trying to get Castro.

OF COURSE CASTRO WASN'T THE ONE WHO WAS GOT AND LBJ WAS THE ONE WHO BENEFITED, QUE BONO? LBJ WAS ALSO KEPT OFF THE PRESIDENTIAL DAILY BRIEFINGS AND WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWLEGE OF THE SPECIAL GROUP AUGUMENTED ACTIVITIES, UNLESS HE HAD HIS OWN BACKCHANNEL.

The record does not resolve the issue, but it does raise possibilities, one of which is that RFK and/or JFK did authorize or tacitly accept CIA plots to kill Castro. From a scholarly viewpoint, given the record and recollections, one cannot rule out the possibility.

I'M WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS PLOTTING, BUT I ALSO WANT TO KNOW WHICH ONES OF THE 636 KNOWN PLOTS, WHICH ONES WERE THE ONES THAT RFK WOULD HAVE APPROVED IF HE DID SO?

If the Kennedys did not approve in any way, it means the CIA acted unilaterally, and possibly against administration wishes.

THEY CERTAINLY SENT OFF MISSIONS FROM FLORIDA AGAINST ADMINISTRATION WISHES.

I don't consider the failure to tell McCone about the plans as absolutely ruling out the possibility that RFK, in contact with line-level officers may have somehow indicated either consent or tacit acceptance.

IF THE REASON MCCONE WAS NOT TOLD WAS BECAUSE HE WAS CATHOLIC AND WOULD NOT APPROVE THEM, THE KENNEDYS WERE CATHOLIC TOO.

In any case, I think that blithe declarations that the Kennedys absolutely did not approve of the plots, and that the CIA absolutely did it without authorization do not objectively reflect the ambiguity of the evidence.

I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT, BUT I WANT TO KNOW, IF THEY DID APPROVE SUCH PLOTTING, WHICH PLOTS THE KENNEDYS APPROVED? THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T APPROVE ALL 636 PLOTS.

I don't want to believe that either brother would have approved such idiotic ideas, but given the tenor of the times, I could understand if they did.

I know this is an unpopular analysis, but in a scholarly forum, it is the kind of thing that needs to be considered.

CONSIDER IT CONSIDERED, BUT MUST BE REFINED TO MORE SPECIFICS. WHAT PLOTS WOULD THEY HAVE APPROVED IF THEY APPROVED ANY?

BK

[Stephen Roy]

To Bill Kelly:

HELLO STEPHEN,

I'm not sure where to begin. I'm not saying that we have unequivocal evidence that RFK was aware of or approved any particular Castro plot. I'm saying that the record as it stands doesn't rule out that possibility. We have to be reasonably realistic about this.

AGREED.

(We may not be too far apart on this.)

The record is pretty clear that both JFK and RFK were pretty annoyed with Castro both pre-and post-BoP, and indicated that they wanted something done about him, and are alleged to have said they wanted somebody to "get rid of " Castro.

The group who was charged with this sort of task was the CIA.

After the BoP, RFK "rode herd" on the CIA, and apparently became very involved in anti-Castro operations.

AGREED. WE HAVE RFK AT JM/WAVE ON AT LEAST THREE OCCASSIONS, ONCE WITH HARVEY, ONCE AT A COCKTAIL PARTY AND ONCE AT THE EVERGLADES MEETING. THERE MAY BE MORE.

RFK was aware of at least one plot, after the fact(?), and while he was opposed to the use of crime figures, he didn't seem to object to the concept of an assassination. But this is based only on CIA documents and recollections.

RFK MUST HAVE ALSO BEEN AWARE, AFTER THE FACT, OF DOZENS OF OTHER ANTI-CASTRO CUBAN ATTEMPTS ON THE LIFE OF CASTRO, AS REPORTED IN THE NEWS, INCLUDING THE NOVEMBER 1, 1963 REX MISSION.

JFK was apparently aware that such things were being considered, according to Goodwin, Smathers and Szulc.

AND HE TOLD THEM ALL THAT HE WAS AGAINST ASSASSINATION AND DIDN'T AND WOULDN'T APPROVE IT.

(Correct, but this does not preclude the possibility that he may have been testing their opinions, and when they reacted negatively, he indicated disapproval to maintain deniability. No evidence for this, but not impossible.)

Castro assassination plotting did take place during this period. So either it was done with Kennedy approval or without it.

NOW THERE'S A THIN LINE BETWEEN APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND PLOTING AND APPROVAL OF SENDING OFF ASSASSINS ON MISSIONS TO KILL. JFK ALSO ORDERED AND APPROVED PLANS FOR MILITARY INVASION OF CUBA, AND WAS ANNOYED THAT THE JCS SAID IT WOULD TAKE A WEEK TO TWO WEEKS TO PREPARE FOR SUCH AN INVASION AND EXPECTED AN EVENT OR SPARK TO SET OFF SUCH PREPERATIONS. JFK ORDERED THAT THE TIME TO PREPARE FOR INVASTION OF CUBA TO BE SHORTENED TO A FEW DAYS. BUT HE DIDN'T ORDER THE PLAN TO BE PUT INTO EFFECT. THE SAME GOES FOR PLOTING ASSASSINATION. IF HE APPROVED SUCH PLANNING, HE WOULD MOST CERTAINLY ALSO REQUIRE THE AUTHORITY TO GO OR NO GO. THAT'S WHY HARVEY WAS FIRED FROM JM/WAVE, FOR SENDING OFF MISSIONS DURING THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS WHEN ORDERS WERE TO HOLD BACK ON SUCH MISSIONS.

(As I recall Stockton's book, at least one team was underway before the stand-down order came.)

The whole concept of deniability was in use, and even discussed at this time (in other contexts), and there appears to be no document indicating Kennedy approval for the assassination plots. This could be because there WAS NO approval or because there was, but it was done in a way so as to leave no record.

HARVEY LEFT HIS NOTES - OR HIS ASSISTANTS NOTES DISCOVERED BY HSCA.

(Yep, but again, Harvey is suspect by many. To me, he comes off as a brusque and blunt cold warrior.)

A number of CIA people have indicate that they knew firsthand or heard secondhand that at least some of the plotting had been authorized. Several of them have indicated that the plots were verbally approved but that they would not so state on the record. One said (and I paraphrase) Of course they approved it, but I'M not going to be the one to break that confidence. We may consider CIA sources unreliable on this, but they are really all we have.

AGREED. THEY MAY HAVE VERBALLY APPROVED PLANNING FOR THE ELEMINATION OF CASTRO BY ANY MEANS, BUT THE ONLY SOURCE FOR THIS ARE THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF SUCH ACCOUNTABILITY EXISTED.

(The dilemma is that they are really the only possible sources. If an order was given, it was given to CIA. And if so, it was probably verbal.)

In addition, we have such people as LBJ stating that the Kennedys were trying to get Castro.

OF COURSE CASTRO WASN'T THE ONE WHO WAS GOT AND LBJ WAS THE ONE WHO BENEFITED, QUE BONO? LBJ WAS ALSO KEPT OFF THE PRESIDENTIAL DAILY BRIEFINGS AND WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWLEGE OF THE SPECIAL GROUP AUGUMENTED ACTIVITIES, UNLESS HE HAD HIS OWN BACKCHANNEL.

But after he became president, he presumably had access to all the keys in the castle. There must be a reason why LBJ thought this, and the Breckinridge report doesn't seem to be the answer.)

The record does not resolve the issue, but it does raise possibilities, one of which is that RFK and/or JFK did authorize or tacitly accept CIA plots to kill Castro. From a scholarly viewpoint, given the record and recollections, one cannot rule out the possibility.

I'M WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS PLOTTING, BUT I ALSO WANT TO KNOW WHICH ONES OF THE 636 KNOWN PLOTS, WHICH ONES WERE THE ONES THAT RFK WOULD HAVE APPROVED IF HE DID SO?

(Just theorizing, but I wouldn't be surprised if ONE moment of consent was taken by CIA to be blanket consent. If so, it would probably be impossible to know which plot. My personal guess is that any order would have been given to Bissell, who left early and is now dead.)

If the Kennedys did not approve in any way, it means the CIA acted unilaterally, and possibly against administration wishes.

THEY CERTAINLY SENT OFF MISSIONS FROM FLORIDA AGAINST ADMINISTRATION WISHES.

(In the Harvey/Missile Crisis matter, yes, in one case. Are there others? I get the impression that a lot of this stuff was approved at the highest levels.)

I don't consider the failure to tell McCone about the plans as absolutely ruling out the possibility that RFK, in contact with line-level officers may have somehow indicated either consent or tacit acceptance.

IF THE REASON MCCONE WAS NOT TOLD WAS BECAUSE HE WAS CATHOLIC AND WOULD NOT APPROVE THEM, THE KENNEDYS WERE CATHOLIC TOO.

(What if McCone radiated resistance to such a thing, but other Catholics did not?)

In any case, I think that blithe declarations that the Kennedys absolutely did not approve of the plots, and that the CIA absolutely did it without authorization do not objectively reflect the ambiguity of the evidence.

I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT, BUT I WANT TO KNOW, IF THEY DID APPROVE SUCH PLOTTING, WHICH PLOTS THE KENNEDYS APPROVED? THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T APPROVE ALL 636 PLOTS.

(See above. I can see a single approval being considered a blanket approval.)

I don't want to believe that either brother would have approved such idiotic ideas, but given the tenor of the times, I could understand if they did.

I know this is an unpopular analysis, but in a scholarly forum, it is the kind of thing that needs to be considered.

CONSIDER IT CONSIDERED, BUT MUST BE REFINED TO MORE SPECIFICS. WHAT PLOTS WOULD THEY HAVE APPROVED IF THEY APPROVED ANY?

(Who is left from that era? Dulles, Bissell, Helms, FitzGerald, Lansdale and others, all dead.)

BK

[William Kelly]

To Bill Kelly:

In any case, I think that blithe declarations that the Kennedys absolutely did not approve of the plots, and that the CIA absolutely did it without authorization do not objectively reflect the ambiguity of the evidence.

I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT, BUT I WANT TO KNOW, IF THEY DID APPROVE SUCH PLOTTING, WHICH PLOTS THE KENNEDYS APPROVED? THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T APPROVE ALL 636 PLOTS.

SR: I can see a single approval being considered a blanket approval.

I don't want to believe that either brother would have approved such idiotic ideas, but given the tenor of the times, I could understand if they did.

I know this is an unpopular analysis, but in a scholarly forum, it is the kind of thing that needs to be considered.

CONSIDER IT CONSIDERED, BUT MUST BE REFINED TO MORE SPECIFICS. WHAT PLOTS WOULD THEY HAVE APPROVED IF THEY APPROVED ANY?

SR: (Who is left from that era? Dulles, Bissell, Helms, FitzGerald, Lansdale and others, all dead.)

BK: Well, directly from where the Castro aimed assassination plots were sent off - JM/WAVE, we have Bradley E. Ayers, and according to Shackley, there were 30 similar US Army trainers, some of whom should be alive, as well as the secretaries to Shackley and Campbell, and some of the Cubans.

The intended victim, Castro, is also still kicking.

The reason why the Congressional restriciton on release of Congressional records is set at 50 years is that is the time it is estimated that those mentioned in the documents would be dead. If that is the case, then there is still a five year window of opportunity that some witnesses would still be alive.

Each identified living witness should also lead to other living witnesses.

BK

[William Kelly]

Here's an interesting article.

Bobby Kennedy's war on Castro - CIA plot to kill Castro - Evan Thomas

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m131...i_17828366/pg_1

And another on the same idea. Will the Real Bobby Kennedy Please Stand UP?

http://www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back/issue8/grossman.htm

BK

Edited July 17, 2007 by William Kelly

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Daniel, Very important points made on a very important thread. I just want to add my myopia: Who would be most "outraged" by this standard account of RFK ALLEGEDLY (thank you Sam Halperin) "riding shotgun" over the poor MONGOOSE campers? Why not ask Dizzy's daughter on The Nation's editorial board.

It is no accident that the image of RFK as more zealous than the CIA to Kill Castro, an image which comes from CIA mouths, is most frequently mimeographed in Foundation Funded """Left""" publications [read 'for rightist ends']

Isolated fabrications like these might whittle down the audience for strange doings at TIME-LIFE re the LAPD in July of 1968, and even stranger doings at KTLA re the LAPD in January of 1969! Bleeding audience by a thousand cuts. So when Someone Talks, who is there to hear it? Only the one's who will pick up the football and run.. in the wrong direction > Alex Jones.

[Paul Trejo]

Even if it was only one Kill Fidel operation, namely, Operation Mongoose, we have a trophy. Operation Mongoose is tied to Lee Harvey Oswald through the 544 Camp Street address.

Sergio Arcacha-Smith, Cuban Exile leader, claimed that he got instructions from (and gave status reports to) RFK on a daily basis, regarding Operation Mongoose at 544 Camp Street.

Isn't that evidence worth following up?

Also, what an opportunity for some anti-RFK insider (like Edwin Walker) to hijack Oswald and rub RFK's nose in his own foiled operation.

Jim Garrison was plagued by Walter Sheridan on NBC, but Jim didn't realize that Sheridan worked for RFK. Jim Garrison thought he was on RFK's side, so he didn't know he was rubbing RFK's nose in his own foiled Operation Mongoose.

That's a possible connection worth looking into.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 12, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Pat Speer]

The blame it on Bobby campaign actually started long before the CIA was investigated in the 70's. It started, as near as I can tell, as a Johnson Administration response to the critics of the Warren Commission.

From patspeer.com, chapter 1:

Should one have doubts so many men--not only those working for the commission, but those working for the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA--would agree to give Johnson a free pass, in the name of national security, etc, one should consider that some of these same men defended the conclusions of the Warren Commission for these very same reasons...and left a "smoking gun" document in the National Archives as proof of their activities.

Here is a link to this document. The Smoking Gun Document

This document, released in 1993 as a result of the 1992 JFK Records Act, which was passed in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's movie JFK, was written on January 4, 1967, at a time when questions surrounding the assassination were beginning to be taken seriously, and appear in mainstream publications like Life Magazine, the New York Times, and The Saturday Evening Post. It is a CIA document, and it proposes that the CIA chiefs around the world to whom it was directed "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories."

Note that it says "Destroy when no longer needed" across the bottom. We were never supposed to know about this. Note also that January 1967 marks the precise time the so-called mainstream media pulled back from its criticisms of the Warren Commission, and started focusing its criticism on the critics. CBS News, most pointedly, had started an investigation of the Warren Commission months before, but had changed its direction around this same time, after former Warren Commissioner John McCloy was invited to participate as a top secret adviser.

But note, primarily, the stated purpose of this propaganda push. It says nothing about the danger Americans might think a foreign power killed Kennedy. It says nothing about preventing World War III. Instead, it says, in so many words, that all this talk of conspiracy is starting to circle in on President Johnson and the CIA, and that would be bad for business. Here are the relevant paragraphs:

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

Now note that, according to this last paragraph, this trend towards accusing Johnson was, in the eyes of the writer of this dispatch (undoubtedly one of the CIA's top officials), "a matter of concern to the U.S. government," including the CIA. This more than suggests that this order to "employ" the CIA's propaganda assets to help clear Johnson's name did not originate within the CIA itself... but from elsewhere in the executive branch.

Quite possibly Johnson himself... In October 2007, the Johnson Presidential Library released a batch of previously withheld recordings of President Johnson's phone calls while President. Most interesting of these was a January 11, 1967 phone call between Johnson and his most trusted adviser, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. This call built upon similar calls with Fortas on October 1 and October 6, 1966; it was made, moreover, just one week after the "smoking gun" document was written. In this call, amazingly, Johnson drops his guard completely, and tells Fortas that he believes Robert Kennedy and his supporters are behind the recent spurt of books and articles on the assassination. He claims, moreover, that: "They've started all this stuff...they've created all this doubt...And if we'd had anybody less than the attorney general--ah, the chief justice--I would've already been indicted."

And should one think Johnson exaggerating here, and stating something that he didn't really believe, one should consider that he said similar thingseven after Robert Kennedy was dead and buried. As reported by Robert Caro, in his 2012 epic The Passage of Power, Johnson dropped his mask during the August 19, 1969 recording of an oral history for the Johnson Library.He declared: "I shudder to think what churches I would have burned and what little babies I would have eaten if I hadn't appointed the Warren Commission." He also offered a slightly different and no doubt more honest version of how he got Warren to chair his commission. Leaving off the bit about the Russians launching nukes should they think we blamed them for killing Kennedy, he admitted he'd actually pressured Warren through a call for domestic tranquility. He said he told Warren: "When this country is threatened with division, and the President of the United States says you are the only man who can save it, you won't say no, will you?" And that Warren responded, "No, sir!"

So there you have it, straight from the horse's--ah, President's--mouth. Johnson felt that his having left-wing icon Earl Warren chair the commission investigating President Kennedy's murder not only stopped Kennedy's brother Robert Kennedy from having him (Johnson) investigated as a suspect, but stopped him (Johnson) from actually being indicted for Kennedy's murder.

Which leads us back to the "smoking gun" document... Note that one of the arguments the CIA plans on using to assure the world Johnson is above reproach is "Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy." Well, this is grossly unfair. Robert Kennedy did not participate in the investigation of his brother's murder. He never even read the report of Earl Warren's commission.

This argument is also familiar. On November 24 1966, just when critics of the Warren Commission started gaining traction, President Johnson made a similar argument at a press conference. He offered: "The late, beloved President's brother was Attorney General during the period the Warren Commission was studying this thing. I certainly would think he would have a very thorough interest in seeing that the truth was made evident." (Note that this was well after Johnson first started musing that the "beloved President's brother," Robert Kennedy, was behind all these critics...)

This argument was then repeated by those closest to Johnson. A January 1968 letter to the New York Times by John Roche (subsequently quoted in its January 5 edition), offered: "Any fair analysis of Sen. Robert Kennedy's abilities, his character and of the resources at his disposal as Attorney General would indicate that if there were a conspiracy, he would have pursued its protagonists to the ends of the earth." Roche was a "Special Consultant" to Johnson, his so-called "intellectual in residence." Roche had written Johnson a memo on 11-23-66--the day before Johnson used Robert Kennedy's silence on the assassination to suggest he'd investigated the case and agreed with the conclusions of the Warren Commission--urging Johnson to make countering the critics of the Warren Commission a "top priority" of his administration.

And the residue of this sticky business stuck to Johnson for the remainder of his days. In 1971, Johnson published his memoir The Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency 1963-1969. On page 25, he relates: "One of the most urgent tasks facing me after I assumed office was to assure the country that everything possible was being done to uncover the truth surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. John Kennedy had been murdered, and a troubled, puzzled, and outraged nation wanted to know the facts. Led by the Attorney General who wanted no stone unturned, the FBI was working on the case 24 hours a day and Director J. Edgar Hoover was in constant communication with me."

Well, this was nonsense of a presidential magnitude. Johnson knew full well that Robert Kennedy barely followed the FBI's investigation, and most certainly never "led" it. Kennedy even put this on the record, signing a statement to the Warren Commission declaring "As you know, I am personally not aware of the detailed results of the extensive investigation in this matter which has been conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation." What's worse, Kennedy's statement was an understatement...a gross understatement. The June 4, 1964 memo of Warren Commission counsel Howard Willens, in which Kennedy's signing such a statement was proposed, admits "The proposed response by the Attorney General has, of course, not been approved by him, or on his behalf by the Deputy Attorney General. It represents a revision of an earlier letter which I did show to them during my conference with them earlier today. At that time the Attorney General informed me that he had not received any reports from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding the investigation of the assassination."

So...gulp...President Johnson was not only so paranoid he thought Robert Kennedy was behind the rumors he'd killed President Kennedy, and so concerned about these rumors he thought that only his appointing Chief Justice Earl Warren to chair the commission investigating President Kennedy's murder had saved him from an indictment for murder, and a reputation as one of the world's most evil men, but so ruthless he was willing to use Robert Kennedy's deep remorse over his brother's murder, and resultant failure to promptly investigate his brother's murder, to suggest what he (Johnson) undoubtedly KNEW was untrue--that Robert Kennedy, President Kennedy's brother, ("Bobby"), had led the FBI's investigation into President Kennedy's murder, and cleared Johnson of all wrong-doing.

Well...would an innocent man behave in such a manner? Perhaps...

Edited July 13, 2012 by Pat Speer