Blame it on the Bobby

[Paul Trejo]

...Sam Halpern had much to say in his 1987 interview with Ralph Weber; the first part relevant to this discussion begins as Halpern is talking about his testimony to the Church Committee.

(p. 81)

MR. HALPERIN: ...I started to open up on MONGOOSE, on Ed Lansdales' connection, and the fact that this was not a CIA operation, regardless of what anybody might want to tell them, that it was a government-wide operation and it was run right out of Robert Kennedy's office, by Robert Kennedy, and even Landsdale [sic] was not in charge. He was the chief of staff to Kennedy, Robert Kennedy. It was run out of Kennedy's office and Robert and Jack Kennedy were one practically, and that McCone, McNamara and Rusk had each refused to go along with one of Landsdale's ideas that even Kennedy couldn't force on them.

... McCone was the first to have said..."We'll work with you and we'll help you and we'll be part of your team kind of thing. But I can't relinquish control over men, money, and material as appropriated to me."

And McNamara said the same thing and Rusk said the same thing so that they didn't achieve creating a brand new Agency in effect. And this was all brand new to the guys sitting around that table [at Committee hearings].

...And they didn't like the idea that, as far as I was concerned, the Kennedy boys were in charge. And they were running the war. And we were fighting a war against Cuba, undeclared or otherwise, but we were fighting a war. I said if we were sending people in to create sabotage activities inside Cuba, we were blowing things up, people got killed on both sides, on their side and our side.

INTERVIEWER: And did they push the issue whether John F. Kennedy knew about all these activities?

MR. HALPERIN: Yeah, with me as far as I was concerned. Yeah, I said I assume that the Attorney General reported to the President and Landsdale reported and Landsdale did not leave his office....He stayed there physically and in that office but he directed activities from there in the name of the President and the Attorney General. That was MONGOOSE, I said. And it is all written up now in the Church Report. They finally got all the stuff straight, pretty much straight...

Dan, thanks for this excerpt of testimony from Sam Halpern. If we accept his testimony, then the data show basically what Lamar Waldron printed in his book, Ultimate Sacrifice in 2006. That is, RFK started a project that he ultimately could not control -- it was centered at 544 Camp Street, and it involved Guy Banister and many Cuban Exile groups like Alpha-66, DRE, INCA and others who played a role in portraying Lee Harvey Oswald as an officer of the FPCC.

If it is true that RFK was deeply involved in Mongoose, then this opens the possibility that RFK played an unwitting role in sheep-dipping Lee Harvey Oswald, and so played right into the hands of the JBS and General Walker in Dallas, who bought Oswald for a price.

If all this is true, then we now know why RFK would send Walter Sheridan to tear Jim Garrison apart -- RFK didn't want any hint of this scandalous connection to be made public.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 17, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Well, you're very welcome, but it's not really "testimony," is it? except in the broadest sense that anybody who says anything gives their "testimony" about something. I think it's important that we not mischaracterize things, on the odd chance that what we write might actually be read by someone and at least occasionally taken seriously. The general point of what I'm doing here, and of what Bill Kelly, Robert Howard and others discovered in the first place, is to show that what Charles Donald Ford had to say in his Memorandum for the Record (an official report by a CIA Officer, to his superiors and for the official record) is actually much closer to being testimony (in the legal sense), in that one of the first things he says is that what he says in the Memorandum is what he swore to under oath to Senate Select investigators. So that is hardly the same thing as the "testimony" of Sam Halpern in various interviews in which the interviewers were noticeably unobjective, biased, and sympathetic to the interviewee; in other words, Halpern was expressing his opinions and beliefs on various subjects, without being under oath and so not subject to any constraint to tell the truth. That should not be called "testimony" any more than what Tom Cruise might "testify" to in an interview in People magazine.

Actually, Sam Halpern was referring to his actual sworn testimony to the Church Committee. Now, his remarks about his testimony are not, technically speaking, testimony, although they might be considered Zusatz to the testimony -- but that is to split hairs.

A nice summary of the "Let's Blame Bobby" campaign writ large: if what has been written and said is taken at face-value; if it is not subjected to any kind of critical analysis; if it is assumed to be factual and authoritative because certain sources and authors are authorities, then history stands as it has been written and preferred by certain parties. But as I'm sure you know by now, this must all be overthrown. The bourgeoisie and the bourgeois alike must be overthrown. The obscurantism which would seek to distinguish between industrial capitalism and global finance capitalism must be overthrown. The paternalistic mind-set which encourages acceptance of official scenarios and the statements of authorities must be overthrown. We should always be skeptical of authorities because authorities have a vested interest in the status quo -- that milieu/environment/social system in which they get to be regarded as authorities. This must all be overthrown.

Daniel, of course you're free to criticize Halpern's remarks which happen to coincide so closely with Lamar Waldron's opinions. If you believe you can overthow those opinions with more accurate opinions, then by all means, give it a whirl.

In the meantime, the substance of Halpern's remarks on his testimony, as well as the opinions of Lamar Waldron, are amply rticulated -- beyond generalizations and bromides -- and beyond anything to do with any putative authority.

If RFK knew intimately about Operaion Mongoose, then he would probably never want that known. Just an opinion.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 17, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Pat Speer]

I'm confused about some of these posts. Is there actually any doubt that RFK ran Mongoose? I thought this was an established fact. The question to my understanding is whether or not RFK was witting of the CIA's assassination plots involving the mafia prior to his being told about them in 1962. And the answer to this is NO. Bill Harvey hated RFK with a passion and was actually pals with Rosselli. If he'd have told RFK about the assassination plots during their meetings on Mongoose he most certainly would have said so later. But he denied doing so. Read his Church Committee testimony if you don't believe me.

As far as Halpern and others who've tried to pin the tail on the Bobby, they are most obviously CIA defenders, who can't ever see the CIA as the bad-guy in a situation. To their way of thinking, if Bobby told them "Let's get Castro" and didn't realize that they would interpret this as his giving permission to plan Castro's assassination, well, that was his problem. As established by the Church Committee, however, it wasn't his problem, it was OUR problem. We had a bunch of cowboys plotting the deaths of foreign leaders without any real oversight. Most of them thought they'd been given the authority to do so, but it was all smoke. They had no such authority. They had this cowardly spooky code in which they thought of themselves as first, a political agency, and second, a national security agency. They thought "plausible deniability" was more important than accountability. But they were wrong.

[Paul Trejo]

I'm confused about some of these posts. Is there actually any doubt that RFK ran Mongoose? I thought this was an established fact. The question to my understanding is whether or not RFK was witting of the CIA's assassination plots involving the mafia prior to his being told about them in 1962. And the answer to this is NO. Bill Harvey hated RFK with a passion and was actually pals with Rosselli. If he'd have told RFK about the assassination plots during their meetings on Mongoose he most certainly would have said so later. But he denied doing so. Read his Church Committee testimony if you don't believe me.

As far as Halpern and others who've tried to pin the tail on the Bobby, they are most obviously CIA defenders, who can't ever see the CIA as the bad-guy in a situation. To their way of thinking, if Bobby told them "Let's get Castro" and didn't realize that they would interpret this as his giving permission to plan Castro's assassination, well, that was his problem. As established by the Church Committee, however, it wasn't his problem, it was OUR problem. We had a bunch of cowboys plotting the deaths of foreign leaders without any real oversight. Most of them thought they'd been given the authority to do so, but it was all smoke. They had no such authority. They had this cowardly spooky code in which they thought of themselves as first, a political agency, and second, a national security agency. They thought "plausible deniability" was more important than accountability. But they were wrong.

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Pat. Are you saying that RFK ran Operation Mongoose, knowing full well that this operation planned to kill Fidel Castro, yet RFK was totally ignorant about the Mafia's participation?

Yet it seems to me that if RFK was intent to get JFK re-elected on the blue ribbon of taking Cuba back from the USSR, it would have meant little or nothing to him how that was accomplished -- excepting only that the operation remain absolutely clandestine. (Like the Bay of Pigs, it had to look entirely like a home-grown operation, with the USA uttlerly uninvolved -- with plausible deniability.)

There is a really good video with a segment on this, called, The Murder of JFK: A Revisionist History (1999). In this account, RFK rode his Operation Mongoose team very hard, day after day, demanding faster progress. IMHO, in such a scenario RFK might not wish to know about any Mafia participation, but even if he did know about it, he would have only insisted on guarantees that it remain top secret forever.

IMHO, the value of plausible deniability was not originally meant to protect the CIA, but was originally meant to protect the White House.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 17, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[David S. Brownlee]

The problem is (IMO) is that there were so many motives to kill JFK....but I generally trace things back to money. Who had a monetary reason to take him out?

MIC, Oil Conglomerates, CIA, Organized crime syndicates, and probably a few more.

As far as the motive to knock off Bobby - that's easy - everybody involved in the JFK assasination.

Nigga please...we all know who killed Bobby Kennedy...it was (CIA connected) Thane Ceasar...a "security guard" that came up behind hin and put a contact bullet behind his ear while Sirhan was spraying bullets everywhere. T.C. had been a security dude for Lockheed Martin (security guards are excellent places to hide assasins - see John Lennon). They just keep them there and pay them extra cash on the side.

Last I heard RFK's murderer is living in the Phillipines...if he hasn't passed away by now...this isn't difficult stuff...it's just that the American people don't care...and why should they?...they are getting their goodies.

Honestly - at this point - you could put all the true facts out on the table - undeniable facts - and 90% of the American people wouldn't give a rat's ass.

It's old news...like reading about the guy who killed the real Ceasar. Nobody really cares that much anymore. It's easy for them to blame Oswald/Sirhan and to move on with their lives - like raising their kids and going to the lake on weekends.

Edited August 19, 2012 by David S. Brownlee

[Paul Trejo]

The problem is (IMO) is that there were so many motives to kill JFK....but I generally trace things back to money. Who had a monetary reason to take him out?

...

As far as the motive to knock off Bobby - that's easy - everybody involved in the JFK assasination.

...

Honestly - at this point - you could put all the true facts out on the table - undeniable facts - and 90% of the American people wouldn't give a rat's ass.

...

Well, David, a few of us (like yourself) still care.

My issue with your cynicism is that you seem confident that the main motive to kill RFK was that he knew the truth about the JFK assassination. Did I get that right?

But if (and only if) you're correct, then the ones who would hope to silence RFK would be those JFK killers who didn't want to be caught.

Your logic is fairly transparent: the CIA killed RFK because he knew too much about the JFK assassination -- which practically "proves" that the CIA killed JFK. Otherwise, why would they care so much?

Yet your scenario seems hasty to me. (Also, the apathy that perhaps most Americans feel about the JFK conspiracy theories is more likely due to the overflow of off-the-cuff accusations.)

Ultimately, if the evidence shows that RFK knew who killed JFK simply because the killers were RFK's own men who spun out of control, surely RFK would have no incentive to tell the truth, but the contrary. He would forever want to keep that a secret. (Thus he hired his friend Walker Sheridan to silence Jim Garrison.)

You said you place the monetary motive first, David. But if RFK was killed by people with monetary motives, we should point to the Military-industrial complex that (as Fletcher Prouty reported) refused to let Vietnam go Communist, because the Vietnam war represented an investment of billions.

However -- if it is actually true that RFK's position against the Vietnam war was the ultimate reason that RFK was assassinated, then I think I have a stronger theory -- the money could not have been the main, the political motive -- the main motive would have been the ultra-rightist fear that Communism was taking over the world.

Like JFK who had ordered USA troops home from Vietnam in 1963, RFK promised voters in 1968 that he would end the Vietnam war. For the ultra-right, that was Treason. And the paramilitary penalty for Treason is always the firing squad.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 24, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Had RFK not been in Mongoose, would the CIA have just stopped all their Cuba operations? No. So what should the Kennedy's have done? Just gone along and not allowed any Administration ears in these Cuba ops, knowing that they would go on anyway. That fact--grounded in the earlier history of CIA Cuba ops before JFK entered the White House and also in the continued CIA Cuba ops that were not authorized by JFK-- must be recognized before we evaluate Halperin's words. It's kind of similar with the bugging of King. Would Hoover have done it anyway? YES and RFK knew it. Yet somehow, on this wiretapping case, we so often get a picture of Hoover under RFK , the way he was on paper, and nowhere else in reality, at any time, and under any other Attorney General. Isn't it great how these journalists are so vigilant... when it comes to listening to CIA sources on the Kennedys?

[Paul Trejo]

Had RFK not been in Mongoose, would the CIA have just stopped all their Cuba operations? No. So what should the Kennedy's have done? Just gone along and not allowed any Administration ears in these Cuba ops, knowing that they would go on anyway. That fact--grounded in the earlier history of CIA Cuba ops before JFK entered the White House and also in the continued CIA Cuba ops that were not authorized by JFK-- must be recognized before we evaluate Halperin's words. It's kind of similar with the bugging of King. Would Hoover have done it anyway? YES and RFK knew it. Yet somehow, on this wiretapping case, we so often get a picture of Hoover under RFK , the way he was on paper, and nowhere else in reality, at any time, and under any other Attorney General. Isn't it great how these journalists are so vigilant... when it comes to listening to CIA sources on the Kennedys?

Two portraits are on offer here. In the first portrait, the Kennedys are portrayed as innocent lambs with regard to Cuba, and the mean old CIA with their Cold War cronies are doing whatever they want despite the noble orders of the President of the USA.

In the second potrait, the Kennedys are portrayed as consummate politicians, who present to the Domestic and Foreign public a benign face of nobility, while at the same time pursuing clandestine struggles with global politics regarding Cuba.

I prefer to remember JFK as a consummate politician, and not as a wimp who was regularly by-passed by his Cabinet. JFK was brilliant, and to imagine that any USA activities were going on in Cuba without his knowledge portrays JFK as an imbecile.

McClone was faithful to JFK, even though some rogue or ex-CIA contractors were not. The CIA did not kill Kennedy, I say. The forces that killed JFK were entirely underground -- probably the Minutemen -- and they were an effective secret sociey.

If the CIA or FBI had spies in the Minutemen (for example) there was clearly bureaucratic resistence to prevent all the facts from reaching the top of the organization. That's precisely how the underground works.

JFK and RFK were consummate politicians. They knew that the fall of Castro would guarantee a Kennedy re-election. They knew how to smile in the cameras and get dirty work done nevertheless. They weren't imbeciles.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 26, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On the theory that the forces that killed JFK were entirely underground -- probably the Minutemen secret society -- I will raise the specter of Guy Banister here.

Guy Banister was a key player in the Bay of Pigs -- I believe that is granted by all. After the failure of the Bay of Pigs, however, he became a bit-player in US politics. He would still show his face here and there, but his personal political preference seems to be the trend of Race Segregation.

We often disregard Race Segregation politics today, but in 1962-1963 the politcs of Race Segregation were big news. White Citizen's Councils flourished all over the USA. In late 1962 there were millions who believed that JFK would back down from his bid to admit the Black student, James Meredith, in to the all-white Ole Miss University.

There were official State departments in Mississippi and other States that financed Race Segregation politics with large budgets. The White Citizens' Councils, under their arm of the Citizens' Council Forum, would produce a 15-minute film almost every week, extolling what they called, "Racial Integrity". Guy Banister was a member.

The slogan of this group was, "Race Mixing is Communist". This was an advance over the old-fashioned KKK slogan, "Race Mixing is Satanic". The same people in the South joined - but now they could include Northerners by the thousands.

Of course, RFK would have nothing to do with this -- but when RFK needed Guy Banister's help at 544 Camp Street in organizing a ground-crew for Alpha-66, or Operation Mongoose, the old guard including Guy Banister were close at hand and ready to help.

However, by this time, Guy Banister's loyalties were beginning to divide. The more extreme right-wing would begin to show disloyalty to the Supreme Court and the White House over the Race Segregation issue.

Here's how Guy Banister's mind worked, IMHO: If Race Mixing is Communist, and if the JFK/RFK White House supported Race Mixing in our public schools, then it is logical that JFK/RFK are actually Communists, just as the John Birch Society had printed.

Therefore, it was a lucky thing that Guy Banister had such a close access to RFK for Operation Mongoose and 544 Camp Street. Guy Banister -- and selected other rightists who were also men of action -- would find some way to get even with Fidel Castro.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

The claim by Walker regarding LHO being arrested on 4/10/63, is something Walker and (I suspect Robert Morris) made up as a way to get back at RFK for the Generals humiliation after his Ole Miss. imprisonment. Walker also included the fact that his source for this story came from someone in authority who would know (paraphrasing). He later intimated it was from someone in the DPD. I believe this was a dig at the DPD for his perception that they were dragging thier feet, in regards to informing him what their investigation had turned up. There are many documents in the record from Looney ,Looney and Watts (Walkers lawyers) demanding full discloser for their clients welfare. The incident never took place, it grew and changed along the way, to include Jack Ruby as well! This is why there was no record of it, it was all a ruse and a way for Ted to CLAIM that the actions of RFK (to his ultimate shame) had backfired and resulted in his own brothers death.

Edwin Walker was man scorned and never let that vendetta go.... he milked it till his dying day.

-Bill

[Paul Trejo]

The claim by Walker regarding LHO being arrested on 4/10/63, is something Walker and (I suspect Robert Morris) made up as a way to get back at RFK for the Generals humiliation after his Ole Miss. imprisonment. Walker also included the fact that his source for this story came from someone in authority who would know (paraphrasing). He later intimated it was from someone in the DPD. I believe this was a dig at the DPD for his perception that they were dragging thier feet, in regards to informing him what their investigation had turned up. There are many documents in the record from Looney ,Looney and Watts (Walkers lawyers) demanding full discloser for their clients welfare. The incident never took place, it grew and changed along the way, to include Jack Ruby as well! This is why there was no record of it, it was all a ruse and a way for Ted to CLAIM that the actions of RFK (to his ultimate shame) had backfired and resulted in his own brothers death. Edwin Walker was man scorned and never let that vendetta go.... he milked it till his dying day.

-Bill

Bill, everything you say fits well -- except one doubt remains in my mind.

Dick Russell (TMWKTM) wrote that George De Mohrenschildt, on Easter Sunday, 1963, told Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin about his suspicion of Lee Harvey Oswald's shooting at Walker. Mrs. Voshinin told Russell that she called the FBI immediately.

Now -- I agree that Walker would refuse to tell the story the same way twice -- but if Dick Russell reported correctly, we seem to have the original source for Walker's confusion. I mean, isn't it FBI policy to warn the victim if they have a suspect in their files?

If not -- there's another benign explanation. Because Walker had a loyal following in Dallas in 1963, somebody close to the FBI (or somebody close to Mr. and Mrs. Voshinin) called Walker that very same day and filled Walker in on the details.

If that was the case, then we have Walker's original source. It was probably an insider close to the FBI -- that is why Walker would never identify the person, and thus the person's identity became hazier every year.

In Walker's mind, IMHO, the story would have sounded like this: "The FBI got information that this Russia-defector Oswald was the man who shot at me four days ago! Did they arrest him? No! They let him walk the streets! Why? No doubt it's because RFK wants him to try to kill me again! Well, we'll just see about that!"

Psychiatrists did find signs of paranoia and self-inflation in Walker's profile (as they told the Mississippi Grand Jury). That sort of thinking probably played a role in Walker's conclusions. Yet although Walker would change the identity of the "source" of his story year after year, the details of the story remained fairly intact for 30 years -- for the rest of his life.

Do you have an opinion about Dick Russell's report on Mrs. Voshinin, Bill?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 9, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

Paul, There is no evidence that I know, of Walker ever mentioning Oswald in public before assassination, and in my mind there is a good reason why. He didn't want to have Oswald arrested or under suspicion, or taken out of circulation. There were still plans for him. This was why he was never charged with distributing communist literature in NO's It was "hands off" this guy....for now.

-Bill

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, There is no evidence that I know, of Walker ever mentioning Oswald in public before assassination, and in my mind there is a good reason why. He didn't want to have Oswald arrested or under suspicion, or taken out of circulation. There were still plans for him. This was why he was never charged with distributing communist literature in NO's It was "hands off" this guy....for now.

-Bill

I find that very interesting, Bill. One other thing about Dick Russell in this regard -- H.L. Hunt's butler told Dick Russell that he overheard Hunt and Walker discuss Lee Harvey Oswald privately -- before the JFK assassination. They appear to have been super-secret about it.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 12, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

Yep, In fact I have come to believe the attempt on Walker was a staged event, which had little to do with the plans for 11-22. I doubt they would have risked Oswald to arrest and conviction of attempted murder at that time. The DPD and the FBI are noticeably quiet about looking into Os as a suspect before December 2-3, when Marina officially spilled the beans. Nor can I find, any record of the FBI getting a report from Voshinin, or informing Walker that they may have a suspect in Oswald. (Doesn't mean it didn't happen) As I say, I recall that Walker bitterly complained about the lack of follow-up with regards to his case. Why would he do that if they were keeping him informed? To Cover himself.... posssibly!?

I'll have to refresh my mind on this regarding time frames, by looking at my files.

Yes Hunt is a prime suspect, whom Walker tries to distance himself from after 11-22.

A main puppet master in the Walker arena is Robert Morris.... who was the brains of the 'outfit'

-Bill

[David Boylan]

Paul, There is no evidence that I know, of Walker ever mentioning Oswald in public before assassination, and in my mind there is a good reason why. He didn't want to have Oswald arrested or under suspicion, or taken out of circulation. There were still plans for him. This was why he was never charged with distributing communist literature in NO's It was "hands off" this guy....for now.

-Bill

I find that very interesting, Bill. One other thing about Dick Russell in this regard -- H.L. Hunt's butler told Dick Russell that he overheard Hunt and Walker discuss Lee Harvey Oswald privately -- before the JFK assassination. They appear to have been super-secret about it.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

An educated guess would be that George De Mohrenschildt told his friend Lester Logue about LHO.