How did the capture of a live Lee Oswald change the plot?

[Ron Ecker]

What is that song that goes "It's a wide, wide, wonderful world that we live in"?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

First, apologies for not responding sooner. Recent time constraints have been annoyingly disruptive. [Want to hear God laugh? Tell Him your plans.] In my absence, Messrs. Varnell and Ecker have posted thoughts that largely represent what I might have contributed, and I thank them for their diligence.

Second, a direct apology to Charles Drago. It is clear to me from his prior responses that he has inferred the exasperation in my previous post was directly solely at him, which was never my intention. In my prior post, I was attempting to answer points raised by a number of posters in this thread, but failed to identify each person whom I had intended to address. This "one size fits all" posting was too haphazard, leading Mr. Drago to suspect it was all directed toward him, for which I apologize. I will attempt to be more specific in my future responses.

I suspect Charles and I have reached a point where we must simply agree to respectfully disagree, but I'd like to add a few additional more substantial thoughts.

First, Charles has insisted that evidence manufactured to identify Oswald as a Castro-sponsored assassin was never intended for viewing by a wider audience than the few incorruptible investigators to whom would fall the task of deciphering what had transpired in Dealey Plaza.

I have contended that no such investigation would have been necessary had it appeared to all and sundry that Oswald the Cuban-sponsored assassin had made his way to Havana after accomplishing his dastardly deed. To my mind, the trail of evidence leading to Castro's doorstep, in Oswald's absence, would have been not only sufficient to lead to a retaliatory military strike, but that such a military response would have been irresistible in the face of overwhelming public indignation. The Bush response to Nine-One-One is a textbook example of what I mean: Bush didn't need to prove that Bin Laden was responsible for a thing; he needed only to name him, cite his current whereabouts, and the rest is history. This is precisely what I contend would have occurred had it been said of Oswald that he was toasting Castro in Havana to celebrate his successful "mission" in Dallas. Only Oswald's absence could have allowed the employment of all the evidence manufactured in advance, including the flight from Redbird and the "Oswald" luggage "found" in Mexico City.

Charles has also insisted that there was no serious possibility of a retaliatory invasion in any event, which is contradicted by a number of historical instances in which both CIA and the Joint Chiefs militated for precisely that outcome, including the promulgation of the hare-brained Northwoods scenario. I cannot reconcile Charles' insistence with what we know now to be true, or even what we knew then.

It would prove richly ironic were it to emerge that Kennedy, the very President who rebuffed this plot for false-flag actions against Cuba, was the casualty of just such a fabricated event. While I don't insist that his death was a Northwoods scheme, it mustn't be discounted for our consideration, for it is the ultimate example of the thinking that invented Northwoods in the first instance.

Moreover, Charles' insistence that nobody in a position of power would dare to court the threat of a nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviets, and that the threat of same was used to gain the compliance of all who might have yielded to the temptation to track the evidence to the very end of its string, likewise ignores numerous historical precedents. In the interests of brevity, and due to time constraints, I won't cite chapter and verse of all the instances in which CIA disregarded Kennedy's wishes, and those of others Presidents before and after him, but it must be pointed out that such precedents are voluminous. In Viet Nam, Kennedy assigned to CIA a variety of tasks. In some instances, CIA tossed a few token, face-saving measures in the direction of the White House, in order to feign compliance with his instructions; in other instances, they simply disregarded his direct orders as though they had never been received, as seems to have been the case with the Diem assassination.

A more relevants instance, vis a vis a nuclear confrontation between the superpowers, let us recall that at the heigh of the Cuban Missile Crisis, one Maurice Bishop directed his underlings in the Cuban exile movement to directly disobey the President's wishes. Based upon the evidence provided by Antonio Veciana, we know that Bishop - whom we must assume was CIA, whether or not he reflected the Agency's wishes - not only disregarded Kennedy's admonitions against Cuban exile raids against Cuba, he did so in order to treasonously provoke precisely the nuclear confrontation that Kennedy wished to avoid. How can we reconcile Charles' insistence that nobody was nuts enough to foment a nuclear war, and that this threat was used to pressure all and sundry into compliance with the coverup, with the historical fact that General LeMay and others like Bishop were only too happy to incite actions against Cuba; not necessarily nuclear, but nuclear if deemed necessary?

We must also consider that whatever evidence had been manufactured to depict Oswald as a Cuban-sponsored assassin would have been investigated by the nation's top lawman, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Though the architects of the assassination would have no way of accurately predicting his response, surely they must have suspected that he would have both a professional responsibility and a personal motive for getting to the bottom of this mess. And we have known for years what Talbot's book is only the most recent to point out; that RFK dismissed allegations of Soviet and Cuban complicity from the get-go, suspicious instead that real culpability lay within Langley and among its Cuban exile proxies. While publicly paying lipservice to the bona fides of the Warren Report, we know now, as we did no later than 1968, that he was privately vowing to reopen the investigation and identify those truly responsible for the regicide that claimed his brother's life. I am not alone in suspecting this played a key role in RFK's own demise.

By diverging from Dr. Scott's own hypothesis, and Charles' impassioned advocacy for same here, in only the ultimate point, I wish in no way to dismiss or diminish the good Dr.'s body of work, which has been a singularly instrumental influence upon my own thinking. However, having met the man, I know that he would welcome divergence from his hypothesis if he thought such new thinking would hasten resolution of this critical unsolved crime. When I met him, he was kind enough to autograph my copies of his books, and inscribed my copy of "DP II" by saying, "Thank you for your interest and pursuit. People like you will eventually change history with this case." I wish only to eventually live up to Dr. Scott's prediction and meet the challenges it presents.

[Jack White]

Excellent, Robert, as always.

However, I did not like your use of the currently fashionable phrase "get-go".

But...as Joe E. Brown said in SOME LIKE IT HOT..."Well, nobody's perfect."

Jack:)

[Charles Drago]

Robert,

You have nothing to apologize for -- at least to me. As I have written more than once, my respect for your thinking is great indeed. And surely you'll agree that there are more similarities than conflicts in our respective appreciations of the pre-assassination patsying of LHO.

We even share the sense that there is little more to gain from additional iterations of our differences on this topic.

So where does this leave us? I'll accept your apology even as I reiterate that you've done nothing to offend me. I've thorougly enjoyed and deeply benefited from our exchanges. And in the event that I've crossed the line in any of my responses to you, then I too apologize.

Yes, we respectfully disagree.

And I must add a few more thoughts of my own.

Again you write, "Only Oswald's absence could have allowed the employment of all the evidence manufactured in advance, including the flight from Redbird and the 'Oswald' luggage 'found in Mexico City."

And again I fail to understand why an officially supported story of the intent of a murdered-by-Ruby Oswald to flee to Cuba via Mexico City would not have served the invasion justification purpose just as well.

The conspirators concoct an Oswald confession in which he acknowledges his fealty to Fidel -- a chimera to which any number of compromised DPD officals and other "witnesses" lend convincing endorsement with their "eyewitness" testimony.

You add, "Moreover, Charles' insistence that nobody in a position of power would dare to court the threat of a nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviets, and that the threat of same was used to gain the compliance of all who might have yielded to the temptation to track the evidence to the very end of its string, likewise ignores numerous historical precedents."

Now we're much closer to understanding what lies at the core of our differences. I've readily conceded that many powerful individuals of the period not only would so dare, but did all in their power to bring about a nuclear exchange that they were convinced was "winnable."

However, I am suggesting that, then as always, power is relative. These individuals, I would argue, were overpowered. And simultaneously bought off. They were given JFK on the slab, their Viet Nam adventure was greenlighted, their drug sources, partners, and networks in Southeast Asia were protected, and a neutralized (by, among other means, the threat of one day being identified as the sponsor of the assassination) Cuba was left in place to scare yesterday's hot dogs and apple pies out of Johnson's willing executioners.

And if none of that was enough to convince them to give up the invasion of Cuba business ... Well, the lesson of Dealey Plaza surely was indelible.

Writing about precedents, you argue, "In Viet Nam, Kennedy assigned to CIA a variety of tasks. In some instances, CIA tossed a few token, face-saving measures in the direction of the White House, in order to feign compliance with his instructions; in other instances, they simply disregarded his direct orders as though they had never been received, as seems to have been the case with the Diem assassination."

And I counter with my understanding of the CIA as neither monolith nor prime mover, but rather as a multi-compartmented, factionalized, hierarchical instrument of policy change. This is key: CIA is not a "what," but rather a "who".

You go on to note, quite cogently, "[For a] more relevant instance, vis a vis a nuclear confrontation between the superpowers, let us recall that at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, one Maurice Bishop directed his underlings in the Cuban exile movement to directly disobey the President's wishes. Based upon the evidence provided by Antonio Veciana, we know that Bishop - whom we must assume was CIA, whether or not he reflected the Agency's wishes - not only disregarded Kennedy's admonitions against Cuban exile raids against Cuba, he did so in order to treasonously provoke precisely the nuclear confrontation that Kennedy wished to avoid."

Then you ask the logical question: "How can we reconcile Charles' insistence that nobody was nuts enough to foment a nuclear war, and that this threat was used to pressure all and sundry into compliance with the coverup, with the historical fact that General LeMay and others like Bishop were only too happy to incite actions against Cuba; not necessarily nuclear, but nuclear if deemed necessary?"

Your history lesson as offered above is quite on the money.

But then you seem to suggest that this Bishop fellow and LeMay were acting on their own initiatives. Or were they doing the bidding of "the CIA" or "the military" respectively? Or was "the military" taking orders from "the CIA," or vice-versa?

Of course there were many nut jobs eager to go to war. I've never questioned this fact. But nuclear war was and is the last thing their masters would desire or allow to take place.

No profit motive.

And just who are these "masters" I so frequently reference?

I don't know yet. But their presence and influence and power are palpable throughout this story.

Finally, and for the record, when you note that, "I wish only to eventually live up to Dr. Scott's prediction and meet the challenges it presents," I can respond only with my informed opinion that you more than most remain quite up to the task.

Regards,

Charles Drago

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Of course there were many nut jobs eager to go to war. I've never questioned this fact. But nuclear war was and is the last thing their masters would desire or allow to take place.

No profit motive.

Charles:

I chanced upon the following yesterday and thought it might be of interest, particularly as we're just marking a pair of rather historic anniversarys:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_...c_nagasaki_.htm

If the 'masters' do not desire the use of nuclear weapons, what profit motive drove them to employ same upon an already defeated Japan?

[Charles Drago]

Robert and Peter,

I must take issue with Peter's flattering assessment of my word "weaving" insofar as I consistently fail to make my points clearly and unambiguously.

I never intended to suggest that "the masters" (oh dear; I have only myself to blame for the ongoing use of this sci-fi term) were opposed to the use of nuclear weapons in all circumstances. The N-attacks on Japan do indeed support the notion that, under controlled conditions -- which is to say, absent the threat of retaliation in kind -- the dropping of an atomic bomb remained a viable option in the closing months of WW II.

It was fear of an uncontrollably escalating nuclear exchange that the you-know-whats were hellbent on avoiding.

The maintenance of East-West tensions at the highest controllable levels was, and is, the name of the game.

Thank you for the link, Robert, from which this paragraph stands out:

Admiral William D. Leahy, President Truman's chief of staff, opposed the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. So did General Dwight D. Eisenhower. As Leahy wrote in his memoirs, "[T]he use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender….n being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

I suspect that Admiral Leahy voiced the majority opinion of his peers when he offered his professional judgment that the A-bomb was of zero help to the war effort in late summer, 1945. The counter argument, then, was no more or less than a cover story, one utlized to obscure the greater, deep political reasons for the attacks.

Whose deep agendas, then, were served by the destructions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Peter, we do indeed disagree. There was immense profit motive behind the decisions.

Who profited?

Charles Drago

[Paul Rigby]

Aside from having to arrange Oswald's murder, what difference did Oswald's capture make in the way the plot unfolded?

Thought it might be useful to revisit the immediate response of a CIA journo with undoubted connections to the upper levels of the plot. Worth noting before proceeding that Buckley's National Review did bother to blame Moscow for the CIA-directed coup attempt in Saigon in November 1960.

William F. Buckley, Jr., “The Guilt Is Personal,” St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 25 November 1963, p.10A:

“My own message, which I was called upon to make a few minutes after the President’s death, began as follows, (and thereby hangs a tale).

‘The assassination of President Kennedy was,’ I said, ‘the act presumably of a madman, heir to the madmen who killed Lincoln and McKinley and, for that matter, Christ, reminding us that the beasts are always with us, and that they continue to play decisive roles in history, and in human affairs.’

I meant in that first sentence to try to warn against an impending storm, whose electricity was hot on the air. The opinion-makers of the country, and probably large segments of the population, were getting ready to turn the President’s tragedy into an excuse for a pogrom against the American right.

Within a matter of minutes, nationally known radio and television commentators had started in, suggesting that the assassination had been the work of a right-wing extremist, and recalling that it was also in Dallas that Adlai Stevenson had recently been hit on the head by an anti-UN placard.

To the quite obvious dismay of the bloodhounds, it was only a matter of hours before the Dallas police put their finger on the probable culprit, against whom an almost undeniable case has apparently been built. And lo and behold the assassin turned out to be a member of a Communist front who only a couple of years ago tried to give up his citizenship in Russia as a means of expressing his contempt for this country.

Goodness knows what would have happened if Lee Oswald had not been apprehended, or even if he had been apprehended a day or two later.

Even as it was, the disappointment was more than some could bear, and the genocidal fury and there broke its traces. I think of one television commentator who made a statement about the right wing so fatuous that only the pomposity of the delivery, and the bitter grief of the moment, saved him from accountability for it.

And of course the Communist party’s Worker classified the assassination as the ‘ultimate depravity of the pro-Fascist, ultra-right forces.’

The point to remember, amid our grief, is that the act in question, although it was done by a far left-winger, is not an act for which the far left bears the collective guilt.

It was made by a fiend, a psychotic in all probability, and it is of no importance whatever whether his political delusions were of the left, or the right: The finger that pulled that trigger was directed by a febrile mind whose political coordinates are purely coincidental, and nothing of general nature is to be gathered from his membership in the fair play for Cuba committee, or his sympathy for Marxism.

"Pogrom"? "Genocidal"? Interesting to note how early the American elite right took up the Holocaust as a shield for its crimes.

[Tim Gratz]

Uh, Paul, it is not "undoubted" that National Review had connections to the consspirators.

I for one doubt it.

Are you too aiming for inclusion in the second edition of VB's book?

[Paul Rigby]

Uh, Paul, it is not "undoubted" that National Review had connections to the consspirators.

I for one doubt it.

Are you too aiming for inclusion in the second edition of VB's book?

William F. Buckley, Jr. - not the National Review, Tim, do keep up - was out of the loop? An outrageous proposition!

And no complaints about Buckley's ghastly invocation of the Holocaust in this context? Perhaps you've been taking lessons from the ADL.

Paul

[Mark Stapleton]

Of course there were many nut jobs eager to go to war. I've never questioned this fact. But nuclear war was and is the last thing their masters would desire or allow to take place.

No profit motive.

I agree with that, Charles.

Despite the fact that there were nutjobs in the military and agencies talking about a nuclear war, the real 'masters' never really contemplated it and quietly kept the nutjobs on a tight leash. The fact that LBJ kept waving the nuclear spectre in order to coerce Earl Warren into chairing the WC (and helping it come to the 'right' conclusion) further indicates that it was merely a useful tool for persuading recalcitrants to see things their way.

For one thing, a nuclear war, as Charles intimated, is terrible for business. There's a vast difference between dropping nuclear bombs on two cities in a defeated nation (with a war weary Europe keen for hostilities to cease looking on) and devastating major population centres during peacetime. And it only takes a few hours--there's not enough time to make the real money that long, gruelling military campaigns provide. To add insult to injury, no costly fleets of ships, planes or choppers are required. No fancy weaponry and ammunition. Hence, fat, profitable Government contracts are also not required. Why, there's barely a buck to be made!

Moreover, Wall Street would be paralysed by a peacetime nuclear strike. Fear of escalation and reprisals would probably shut it down, imo. The fallout, in every sense of the word, would have a very skinny upside for business. The Wall Street end (of the suggested finance, oil and military power alliance) would be highly unimpressed, imo.

Despite the fact that the fear of nuclear war has proved quite useful in scaring the pants off the public when necessary, the power elite would never have seriously contemplated nuclear war, imo. Too much financial downside and, unlike the conventional wars they've grown to love, in a nuclear war they themselves, and their families, could get, um........killed.

p.s. Charles, I have Evica's book on order and eagerly await its arrival.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Ron Ecker]

It has been argued that a major if not deciding factor in the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to bring a quick end to the war before the Russians had time to move in and get a piece of the pie in that part of the world. So there was definitely a profit motive, i.e. protecting future markets for American free enterprise.

[Myra Bronstein]

Of course there were many nut jobs eager to go to war. I've never questioned this fact. But nuclear war was and is the last thing their masters would desire or allow to take place.

No profit motive.

I agree with that, Charles.

Despite the fact that there were nutjobs in the military and agencies talking about a nuclear war, the real 'masters' never really contemplated it and quietly kept the nutjobs on a tight leash. The fact that LBJ kept waving the nuclear spectre in order to coerce Earl Warren into chairing the WC (and helping it come to the 'right' conclusion) further indicates that it was merely a useful tool for persuading recalcitrants to see things their way.

For one thing, a nuclear war, as Charles intimated, is terrible for business. There's a vast difference between dropping nuclear bombs on two cities in a defeated nation (with a war weary Europe keen for hostilities to cease looking on) and devastating major population centres during peacetime. And it only takes a few hours--there's not enough time to make the real money that long, gruelling military campaigns provide. To add insult to injury, no costly fleets of ships, planes or choppers are required. No fancy weaponry and ammunition. Hence, fat, profitable Government contracts are also not required. Why, there's barely a buck to be made!

Moreover, Wall Street would be paralysed by a peacetime nuclear strike. Fear of escalation and reprisals would probably shut it down, imo. The fallout, in every sense of the word, would have a very skinny upside for business. The Wall Street end (of the suggested finance, oil and military power alliance) would be highly unimpressed, imo.

Despite the fact that the fear of nuclear war has proved quite useful in scaring the pants off the public when necessary, the power elite would never have seriously contemplated nuclear war, imo. Too much financial downside and, unlike the conventional wars they've grown to love, in a nuclear war they themselves, and their families, could get, um........killed.

p.s. Charles, I have Evica's book on order and eagerly await its arrival.

Yes, nukes are terrible for their profit margin.

But they'd be great for helping depopulate the earth, which I believe is a major objective of the new world order.

("In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

--His Royal Virus Prince Philip, in his Forward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/100604_prince_philip.html

So I wonder sometimes if they're serious.

Like when the Bush regime talks about nuking Iran.

[Myra Bronstein]

It has been argued that a major if not deciding factor in the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to bring a quick end to the war before the Russians had time to move in and get a piece of the pie in that part of the world. So there was definitely a profit motive, i.e. protecting future markets for American free enterprise.

I'm convinced that what you say is true Ron.

The bombs were dropped on Japan because of Russia. They had just entered the war in Asia, and Truman did not want to share that part of the world with them. Japan was already done for and just wanting reassurance that they could keep their emperor, which they ended up doing anyway.

Hm, was heroin/the golden triangle a factor even then?

[Charles Drago]

Myra,

The problem with nukes vis a vis population control is the weapons' indiscriminate nature.

"Affirmative radioactivity" might make a pithy term of art for the purposes of this discussion.

The devastation they unleash cannot be controlled within acceptable limits, methinks. What with prevailing winds and all. Plus there's the specter of retaliation in kind.

However, I would direct your attention to stories of advanced bioweaponry designed to target specific ethnic groups.

Now we're talking.

Read, and be terrified.

Olive Skinned Charles

[Charles Drago]

And Mark,

I'd truly benefit from your review of Evica's book.

When you're ready.

CD