Jump to content

Blame it on the Bobby


Guest Gary Loughran
 Share

Recommended Posts

... I've learned to accept the idea that for some the protest really is about progressive politics (liberalism, or being "of the Left") having been co-opted and diluted and neutered by the bourgeois Establishment "liberalism" (foundations and so on). To the extent that there is no "Left" in the US any more, and the only political perspectives that are socially permissible start at right-of-Center and head right from there. It's the same with all Americans being thoroughly indoctrinated into the idea that each one of us are "middle class," which makes what passes for political discussion so meaningful; politicians and politicos ("experts" and other talking heads) make a TV appearance, talk about this and that "for the middle class," and highly overpaid "news personalities" kill more airtime breathlessly talking about whether this or that proposal will "really benefit" the middle class. So as usual, what we need to do is overthrow the bourgeoisie.

...

Take care,

Dan

Dan, it seems the bourgeoisie has already been overthrown by global finance capitalism - of which today's Republican nominee is an experienced denizen. It's almost funny that the "middle class" today is sometimes defined as the unionized working class, and sometimes referred to as "small business" (petite-bourgeoisie) because they are merely millionaires in a world of billionaires and trillion dollar deficits. Globalism -- the original goal of the obsolete Left -- may yet be achieved, ironically, by the Right. Yet if the Republicans win this one, Willard won't be the first rich son in the White House -- that was JFK.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...The Kennedys were rabid in their “get Castro" vendetta, putting on constant and exorbitant pressure all the way down the line, but some paper-pushers were holding things up.....

None of this of course has anything to do with CIA men covering their butts, or with their various associates of a certain ideological bent wanting to get some (more?) revenge -- by laying blame on men in no position to argue otherwise (since they were dead). Is there documentation to prove it? Well, these aren't the sorts of things that get written down -- the orders came from the president or his brother verbally...

Dan, I agree with the notion of the Kennedy brothers holding a secret vendetta against Fidel, and I think it explains much about the politics of the day. JFK expected more loyalty from the Pentagon, in lieu of their understanding his game plan -- he wasn't letting Cuba go, he just wanted the war against Cuba to remain covert and this is what the Pentagaon (and rightists like General Walker) failed to understand.

Ex-General Edwin Walker (and his JBS leaders) saw only Communist Conspiracy, where JFK simply wanted to portray a smiling, friendly face to Europe and the USSR outwardly as he conducted the Cuban war secretly. (That was what the CIA was for -- originally.) By demanding U.S. air cover for the Bay of Pigs, without a formal declaration of war, the CIA showed their naivete and silliness. This was supposed to be a covert war. The CIA really was to blame for this one -- they let their Commander in Chief down. (For example, if the Cuban Air Force had been properly decimated before the BOP invasion, and if air cover from offshore bases would have been ready, flying, say, Honduran planes, the BOP might have succeeded. JFK had barely set up his coffee machine before the CIA flew off on this embarrassing saga.)

Again -- Walker and the JCS evidently saw nothing but Communist Conspiracy, because JFK got less loyalty than any other President I can recall. Only with the mythology of a Communist JFK was the Dallas plot even remotely possible.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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...

Pat, we have the phone conversation showing RFK calling LBJ and accusing him of a coup d'etat. LBJ was cool and calm and simply told RFK that this was "an error" on RFK's part.

But RFK himself had much to hide with his deep involvement in Operation Mongoose. RFK could see that his own team killed his own brother. This alone can explain why RFK set Walter Sheridan loose on Jim Garrison.

For the extreme rightists who planned this tragedy it was poetic justice. Ex-General Edwin Walker would crow about it to the Deutsche Nationalzeitung the very next morning, saying, "If Oswald had been properly jailed after shooting at me, he would not have been free to kill JFK".

Dr. Gerhard Frey, editor of the Deutsche Nationalzeitung (Fri29Nov63) added his two cents -- "It was RFK that set Oswald free in April, to kill his own brother in November." The irony was too delicious for Walker to resist, and Walker repeated this mythology for the rest of his life.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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...

Pat, we have the phone conversation showing RFK calling LBJ and accusing him of a coup d'etat. LBJ was cool and calm and simply told RFK that this was "an error" on RFK's part.

We do? If you can point me to a recording or official transcript of such a phone call I'd be grateful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul:

What do you mean by the phrase "his own team" re Mongoose?

How do we know that RFK was literally in charge of all actions undertaken by Mongoose, as opposed to just nominally? After all we know that the CIA was later doing unauthorized Cuba actions in 1963.

Do you think that had RFK not been part of Mongoose that the CIA would have stopped CIA operations against Castro?

Who are the sources who claim that RFK was the most aggressive component of Mongoose?

What does RFK's actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis re CIA hit team proposals tell us about RFK's real role with Mongoose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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...

Pat, we have the phone conversation showing RFK calling LBJ and accusing him of a coup d'etat. LBJ was cool and calm and simply told RFK that this was "an error" on RFK's part.

We do? If you can point me to a recording or official transcript of such a phone call I'd be grateful.

Anway, that's how some of us interpret this tape recording...

--Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul:

What do you mean by the phrase "his own team" re Mongoose?

How do we know that RFK was literally in charge of all actions undertaken by Mongoose, as opposed to just nominally? After all we know that the CIA was later doing unauthorized Cuba actions in 1963.

Do you think that had RFK not been part of Mongoose that the CIA would have stopped CIA operations against Castro?

Who are the sources who claim that RFK was the most aggressive component of Mongoose?

What does RFK's actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis re CIA hit team proposals tell us about RFK's real role with Mongoose?

Nathaniel, my primary source for information on RFK's involvement with Operation Mongoose must be Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann in their 2005 tome, Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers)

Another interesting and IMHO believable source is the 2006 video by Matthew White: The Murder of JFK: A Revisionist History.

These sources, among others, portray RFK as guiding the events (or believing that he guided the events) at 544 Camp Street. Matthew White suggests that RFK coined the name, Operation Mongoose, himself. He portrays RFK as harping on his staff on a dailiy basis to make faster progress with this program. Sergio Arcacha-Smith portrays RFK as calling 544 Camp Street personally.

We tend to have a perception (as late as the 1990's) that JFK and RFK were intent on closing down all Cuban Exile training camps, and that they were "unaware" that the CIA was still funding them. Waldron suggests, on the contrary, that JFK and RFK wanted the world to believe that the USA was against such savage methods, but secretly were pushing them ever harder, and spending more and more money on them.

If Waldron is correct, then it is idyllic to imagine that JFK and RFK would have "stopped" doing them (whether or not the CIA would have followed their lead). No doubt JFK had many disloyal officials in his Government, and the CIA probably topped the list (given Wiliam Harvey, Cord Meyer, David Morales, David Atlee Phillips and anyone who worked closely with the Cuban Exiles and lost friends at the Bay of Pigs). Still, toppling Red Cuba would have guaranteed JFK's victory in 1964.

The period of the Cuban Missile Crisis is a special case -- this was the time when JFK was attempting to defend the USA on the one hand, and yet portray the USA as the 'good guy' on the other hand. News of covert battles would have ruined everything. The key was secrecy. But the Cuban Exiles didn't give a damn for secrecy, or Kennedy's need for it -- not at that time.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, I agree with the notion of the Kennedy brothers holding a secret vendetta against Fidel, and I think it explains much about the politics of the day....

Paul, do you think the Kennedy brothers also held a secret vendetta against the CIA? I mean, the whole notion of a "Kennedy Vendetta" hinges upon President Kennedy having been embarrassed by Castro at the Bay of Pigs, right? So the Kennedys were out to get even for 2 whole years and 10 months, looking to murder the troublesome b*st*rd. And yet, part of the responsibility for President Kennedy being embarrassed at the Bay of Pigs is shared by the CIA, who misled the president at various points, and to all appearances seemed to try to push him into a fait accompli of having to support the invasion. Ergo, the Kennedys -- and especially the little SOB Bobby, an early prototype of Wolverine without the adamantium -- must have spent a great deal of time trying to organize the murder of the CIA. To quote Tim Gratz to the best of my recollection: "My logic is invincible!"

But seriously, Paul, I have to get back to other things.

Take care,

Dan

Dan, I think that the full Vendetta that JFK held against the CIA was fulfilled the day he fired the historical giant, Allen Dulles. That was a major blow to the CIA, and it really showed who was boss.

After that, JFK hired John McCone, and controlled the CIA with far more assurance. No further vengeance was needed for the Bay of Pigs than that. Also, notice the funding for the CIA after Allen Dulles was fired -- it actually rose. JFK used the CIA his way, i.e. covertly, secretly, as secret agents should work. Not like 007, a movie star getting all the fast cars and all the girls.

I would say that the embarrassment at the Bay of Pigs was 99% the fault of the CIA, and JFK stood tall when he took all of the blame. JFK's error was in believing the CIA reports that the Bay of Pigs invasion was carefully planned and would be easy as pie.

As for forcing the President to support the invasion -- that could not have been planned -- the President cannot declare a war -- only Congress can do that. The CIA was being pulled violently by the Cuban Exiles. The need for air cover was a CIA blunder. But it was impossible to tell the Cubans that since they were too emotionally involved (and besides, leadership in Cuba was always autocratic, and that was what they expected).

So, no, I don't believe JFK and RFK wanted to destroy the CIA -- they did enough by firing a giant like Dulles. In actuality they funded the CIA more than ever and they used the CIA more fully. However, their public face was that of choir boys.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...It's unusual for someone (assuming you're serious) to state that "the bourgeoisie has already been overthrown by global finance capitalism"; my understanding is that the two are sort of the same thing, at least in the classical sense: Capitalism = the bourgeoisie, the Owners of the Means of Production (in the economic system of industrial capitalism). My point about the obscurantism revolving around "middle class" was simply that whether one is in the working classes,* lucky to make $24,000 a year, or is "a small businessman" making $100,000 a year or more, the "political dialogue" is that "we are all middle class (all Americans)" and thus all such discussion is all but completely meaningless. I also doubt that the vast, vast majority of people can relate to the idea of "merely" being attached to "millionaires," including most members of the petit bourgeois. And I would add that "globalism" in the form of international capitalism has long since been "achieved" by "the Right," and extremely durably so, whatever you may have in mind regarding "the original goal of the obsolete Left."

*I note that you specify "unionized," whereas the utter defeat of the whole concept of and rationale for Trade Unionism in the United States is part of the overall death of the Left per se. Our companies and our bosses are who we look to for our best interests, not to any of this corrupt Union business, un-American as all that organizing and thinking about things surely is.

But all this is seriously off-topic, so my apologies for introducing off-topicism into the thread.

Dan, it might not be too off-topic if we consider that the entire purpose of the JFK assassination was the clash between the extreme Right and Left.

In my view, when Marx first condemned the bourgeoisie in 1848, they were large factory owners. Their capital was almost always a national affair, and they seriously resented foreign capital. Trade wars were the traditional cause of border wars. Industry protectionism was the number one cause of war.

A traditional capitalist is one who 'Owns of the Means of Production,' and would generally own a factory (like Ford, or GM) and would hate the idea that the Japanese are undercutting the national market.

That is, not all capitalism is global finance capitalism, which doesn't give a damn who owns the means of production, because all it really wants to do is buy it, strip it for parts and re-sell it to some other vulture firm for a quick billion or so.

British Imperialism, even with its monarchal baggage, epitomized the rule of the bourgeoisie (Brittania rules the waves!) while the French and Americans gave the bourgeoisie its familiar character. The original bourgeoisie was nationalistic to a fault. Global finance capitalism is beyond Imperialism -- it is no longer fiercely nationalistic.

So, they are not the same thing (in the classical sense) although they are kissing cousins.

As for the chamelon definitions of "middle class," I did get your nuances. We in the USA do tend to label the homeless as poor, and everybody else, from apartment dwellers in slums working at McDonalds, to home owners on the Upper West side (with a few rental properties on the East Side) and owning a shop in the local mall, as "middle class."

I also agree that this diversity in definition of the "middle class" tends to make meaningful discussion a muddle.

The notion of 'merely millionaires' was meant to incite, but ironically it has real meaning in a world where wealth is now counted in the billions and USA deficits are counted in the trillions.

As for the petit bourgeois, they used to include only the owners of teeny tiny businesses -- family operations at home, cottage industries, or craftsman who could afford a couple of employees. But in modern times, a business with 100 employees, earning $900,000 annually is regarded as a "small business". So even the definition of the petit bourgeois has morphed.

Regarding the Globalism that was "original goal of the obsolete Left," I had in mind Marx' old argument in his Manifesto that the working class should be International, and oppose nationalism itself as a principal. One of the paradoxes of 19th century capitalism is that it promoted business in foreign markets, but if the foreign market came knocking on home shores, the banners of war were sent up and armies were assembled.

One of the outstanding features of 21st century Globalism (so far) is its vast experiment to dispense with Protectionism, and to drop the costs of Production generally by allowing each country to produce whatever it produces, and then watch to see which country produces it the cheapest, and then allow them to have that market. That is new.

As for International Capital, it has not been durable for as long as you imply. World War Two was fought partly over the right of International Capital to operate freely. Thus, 1945 was barely more than 65 years ago.

I realize that the specific clash of politics centers around capital versus labor. This is classical -- it wasn't Marx who first noted this, it was Adam Smith (viz. "The interest of the dealers...is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public," Wealth of Nations, Bk. 1, Ch. 11).

As for the 'unionized' label, that was also meant to incite. When i was a boy, 2/3 of American workers were unionized. Today, only 1/3 are unionized, so the retreat of the Left is obvious to the casual observer. My point was that I wouldn't call just any old worker "middle class," i.e. day workers, or part-time workers, or workers who worry about being laid off next month. (Some would; I wouldn't.) Only workers with some reasonable modicum of security and health benefits, and a pension, have any right -- even in the USA -- to be called "middle class," as these can often afford to own their own houses in comfortable neighborhoods, drive new cars and send their kids to college.

Finally, we might not agree about the nature of collective bargaining in the USA (unless you were writing tongue in cheek). I'd remind you that the Supreme Court admitted that collective bargaining is an American right.

The nuances are complex -- but they will become more complex when we begin discussing Lee Harvey Oswald's peculiar position in politics -- was he Left or Right? Was he nuanced and complex, or merely confused?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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...

Pat, we have the phone conversation showing RFK calling LBJ and accusing him of a coup d'etat. LBJ was cool and calm and simply told RFK that this was "an error" on RFK's part.

We do? If you can point me to a recording or official transcript of such a phone call I'd be grateful.

Anway, that's how some of us interpret this tape recording...

--Paul

I listened to the recording. RFK makes no such accusation of LBJ. There's no reason to believe, moreover, that this phone call has anything to do with the JFK assassination. From what I could gather, Bobby was under the impression someone had been saying HE'D planned an overthrow of the government (it's not even clear that the government in question is the U.S. Government), and asked Johnson about it. Johnson then replied that no one had been saying that.

A citation as to the day of this phone call, so that the full context could be better evaluated, would prove helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

...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...

Pat, we have the phone conversation showing RFK calling LBJ and accusing him of a coup d'etat. LBJ was cool and calm and simply told RFK that this was "an error" on RFK's part.

We do? If you can point me to a recording or official transcript of such a phone call I'd be grateful.

Anway, that's how some of us interpret this tape recording...

--Paul

This is Robert Kennedy calling Lyndon Johnson to basically say to him I've heard people say that you (LBJ) were spreading rumors that I (RFK) might lead an attempt to overthrow the US government and remove you from power.

I have no doubt Lyndon Johnson was spreading those rumors. It's called "projection" - the condition were one projects traits, values, motives, behavior onto another person that the subject has himself. It is basically Lyndon Johnson worrying that RFK has figured out that he LBJ killed his brother and stressing out whether Robert Kennedy would lead a coup against himself in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good discussion here. I maintain that the whole "Cuban" connection to the assassination is another smokescreen, like the mafia. There has been a concerted effort for many years to insinuate that RFK, and even JFK himself, were responsible for the assassination. Virtually every source accusing RFK of being behind, or even supportive, of the efforts to kill Castro are connected to the CIA. Combined with all the hit pieces on the Kennedys by "leftists" like Alexander Cockburn and Seymour Hersh, it should be obvious to all that the establishment still feels threatened by them.

Thanks, Daniel, for quoting from Jim DiEugenio's superb piece on the "posthumous assassination" of JFK. If you bring these things up, you're accused of being a Kennedy fanboy. The more I study history since the JFK assassination, the more I become a Kennedy fanboy. the Kennedys were doing something to really shake the powers that be, and they appear to still resent that. Their attempts to slander JFK's and RFK's memores are laughably transparent. Hopefully, some of us still know better.

If JFK was killed because of "Cuba," whether you look at it as a group of angered "anti-Castro" forces fired up over the Bay of Pigs, or Castro himself annoyed at the Kennedys attempting to kill him, nothing changed with the assassination of JFK. Cuba effectively died as an American political issue after November 22, 1963. Where was the next invasion? The future attempts on Castro's life? Castro not only stayed in power, but still lives on, nearly fifty years later. if "Cuba" was the motive behind the assassination, the conspirators couldn't have been happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Pat, I also have never heard any phone call from RFK accusing LBJ of being behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to respond to Bill Kelly's request regarding what the Family Jewels documents had to say about RFK in relation to the Castro-Assassination plots.......

Unfortunately, virtually nothing in terms of what the situation was in mid/late 1963. If you go to the Operation Valkyrie thread and see page 1, my entry on post #9, I believe you can see what is reprinted below.

In one document, a memo to William E Colby on page 22, there is a passage that reads......

5. During the period when Des Fitzgerald was in charge of the Cuban Task Force, DCI McCone's office learned, quite by accident, that Fitgerald had secured the cooperation of several prominent U.S. business firms in denying economic items to Cuba. There was no question but that the businessmen were glad to cooperate, but knowledge of this operation had to be rather widespread.

6.

7.

8. There are three examples of using Agency funds which I know to be controversial. One was the expenditure of money under Project MOSES in securing the release of Cuban Brigade prisoners. Details of this operation are best known to Larry Houston, Mike Miskovsky, __________, and James Smith. Second', as you well know, when Lou Conein received his summons to report to the Joint General Staff Headquarters on 1 November 1963, a large sum of cash went with him. My impression is that the accounting for this and its use has never been very frank or complete. Third, at one of the early Special Group meetings attended by McCone he took strong exception to proposals to spend Agency funds to improve the economic viability of West Berlin, and for an investment program in Mali, his general position was that such expenditures were not within the Agency's charter, and that he would allow such spending only on the direct personal request of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense, or sic tote [the] White House.

END

another part of The Family Jewels which is extremely pertinent to the subject matter, at least as far as JMWAVE, Shackley and the "who knew what about whacking the beard, ie AMTHUG" is a portion that goes back timeline wise to the period when RFK learned that the CIA was using members of organized crime in a Castro Assassination plot see Momo Salvatore Giancana and Santos Trafficante and linkages to Johnny Rosselli and a key facilitator Juan Orta.

This is roughly August September 1960.

In Family Jewels document 104-10303-10010 probably changed to 1998.09.27.08:02:11:920115, what is probably in the ARRB 1995 or 1996 releases.

A document on Johnny Rosselli has a passage that reads.....

DEC 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR Director of Central Intelligence

SUBJECT ROSELLI Johnny

This memorandum is for information only

1. In August 1960, Mr. Richard M. Bissell approached Colonel Sheffield Edwards to determine if the Office of Security had assets that may assist in a sensitive mission requiring gangster-type action. The mission target was Fidel Castro. Because of its extreme sensitivity, only a small group was made privy to the project. The DCI was briefed and gave his approval. Colonel J. C. King, Chief, WH Division, was briefed, but all details were deliberately concealed from any of the JMWAVE officials. Certain TSD and Communications personnel participated in the initial planning stages, but were not witting of the purpose of the mission.

Even though these documents have been declassified for years, it is very obvious that the next step as far as the JFK research community is concerned i.e., the remaining pertinent documents are either still classified, or dare I say were shredded. I say that because when you research the JFK Assassination and get the real story, you reach a point where nothing surprises you.

Lastly, Bill Kelly, in an earlier post on this thread, mentioned that the anti-Cuban exiles in Miami would have been incensed had they known of the JFK administration's back-channel diplomatic efforts through Lisa Harker, Carlos Lechuga to name just a couple, to reach an accomodation with the Castro regime. Never mind the fact that there would have been a great possibility that JFK could have obtained concessions such as [the ones we have been trying to reach for the last 48 years, anyway] renunciation of Communism, desisting in exporting the Castro revolution to member states of the Organization of American States, et cetera.

In fact, that is exactly what did happen, see cancellation of JFK motorcade in Miami and use of helicopter instead. We now know there was an assassination attempt planned for the Orange Bowl when JFK made his promise to see the Cuban exile flag flying over a free Havana.

I might add that when the Miami intrigues with JFK were going on Lee Harvey Oswald was not present. A hint to the great unwashed that when an assassination of a President occurs, it is on the record that another Miami party, Joseph Milteer, was quoted as saying ......someone will be arrested just to throw the public off.....

Final Thought Regarding RFK.....

The only high quality audio recording made at the Ambassador hotel on the night of June 4, 1968 has been poured over using state of the art audio/computer technology not available in 1968 and the revelation is offered that more than eight shots were fired; [s. B. Sirhan's Iver Johnson revolver could only hold eight bullets] and also that there are portions of the audio tape that show two shots occurring so rapidly that it is impossible to have been fired from the same gun, unless you are one of the "Sirhan acted alone crowd"

see Conspiracy Test: The RFK Assassination

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...If JFK was killed because of "Cuba," whether you look at it as a group of angered "anti-Castro" forces fired up over the Bay of Pigs, or Castro himself annoyed at the Kennedys attempting to kill him, nothing changed with the assassination of JFK. Cuba effectively died as an American political issue after November 22, 1963. Where was the next invasion? The future attempts on Castro's life? Castro not only stayed in power, but still lives on, nearly fifty years later. if "Cuba" was the motive behind the assassination, the conspirators couldn't have been happy.

I completely agree with this, Don, and this is why I refuse to call the JFK assassination a coup d'etat.

IMHO, the people who plotted and carried out the JFK assassination were extreme rightists (far to the right of the Pentagon and far to the right of J. Edgar Hoover) who had one major obsession -- to take Cuba back from the Communists.

If we look at the news of the previous fourteen months leading up to the JFK assassination, we hear the rhetoric of liquidating Castro increasing. Take ex-General Edwin A. Walker, and his bitter "Open Letter" to JFK that he wrote on 26 September 1962, just days before he went to Mississippi to incite a riot there against JFK's support of a black student registering at Ole Miss, a historically all-white college.

http://www.pet880.co...Open_Letter.JPG

You will notice in that letter that Walker, instead of harping on the racial issue, harps on the Cuban issue.

Later, after Walker was acquitted by a Mississippi Grand Jury for his role in the riots (in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed) Walker announced to his wide following -- "We are now going to concentrate all our efforts on the Problem of Cuba."

Extreme rightists were behind the JFK plot, as I see it -- but the extreme rightists did not take over the US Government.

They utterly failed to do that. The stability provided by the US Constitution saw the country through a very dark period.

Therefore, I conclude, there was no genuine coup d'etat on 22 November 1963. The perpetrators had completely misread the North American Zeitgeist. Now they had to concentrate on covering their tracks.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...