Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Book: JFK and the Unspeakable


Recommended Posts

I don't think the assassination has anything to do with Kennedy being Catholic -

Other than the fact that the Mafia, via Skinny D'Amato ensured the West Virginia primary would go to JFK in an election dedicated to his religion, and that South American priests and bishops were forced to object to dictators and were assassinated, and a Benedictine priest advocated assassination to anti-deGaul Algerian assassins, and another Benedictine advised the deMenils on art, and Father Walter McChann advised the Cuban refugee community of Dallas and was friends with John Martino and Sylvia Odio, and that Oswald's New Orleans relatives were Catholics, and the CIA financially supported the Catholic Cuban Refugee medical center in Miami through the Catherwood Fund, which also financed the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, and that James Douglas, has now called attention to the assassination as a major milestone that must be revisted to understand what is happening today.

The Catholic Church has an intelligence network that is older than the CIA, British Intelligence and the KGB combined.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.americamagazine.org/entry.cfm?b...143299025225647

A Surprise Catholic Bestseller

Posted at: 2009-07-29 20:08:22.0

Author: James Martin, S.J.

It's always pleasant business to report good news from the Catholic publishing scene. Actually, good news from a surprising source.

Last year Orbis Books (full disclosure: Robert Ellsberg, the publisher, is a friend, and Orbis published one of my books) published a book by Jim Douglass, a veteran Catholic peace activist and theologian, called JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.

It was reviewed very favorably in America here by George Anderson, SJ. Just when you might have thought everything that could be said about the death of JFK had been said, Douglass offered a new examination of the assassination. His own contribution was to attempt to establish the motive for Kennedy's killing, tracing the process of conversion that led him, over the course of three years, from his attitude as an ardent Cold Warrior to his commitment to lead the world away from the edge of apocalypse. A series of political steps caused him to be viewed as a virtual traitor by elements of the CIA and military establishment.

The book was published by Orbis, the publishing arm of Maryknoll. Explaining why a Catholic house would publish a book on this topic, Ellsberg wrote in an email to me today, "Douglass views this history from a contemplative perspective, particularly attuned to the grave moral and even spiritual matters at stake. In fact, he draws on the writings of Thomas Merton to define this perspective.

President Kennedy, it turns out, saw his mission in similar terms. In some ways, the book is a meditation on the cost of peacemaking, and it is a challenge to readers to assume the vision that was cut short by Kennedy's assasins."

The book received coverage in the religious press and won a book award from the Catholic Press Association. Sales (for Orbis) were what Ellsberg called "modestly impressive."

But thus far the book had not received any attention by the secular media.

Until....

Oliver Stone, the director of the controversial movie "JFK," appeared on the Bill Maher show on HBO and brought along a copy of Douglass's book. At one point during his interview he waved the book around and said it was something everyone should read. The next day the book shot up to #31 on Amazon and remained on the Top-100 bestseller list for a week. (Note to authors: Send Oliver Stone your book.) Orbis immediately sold 4,000 copies of the $30 hardcover edition. Stone then posted a blog on the Huffington Post. Within days his post was viewed by over 95,000 people. (Note to our bloggers: Send your link to Oliver Stone.) Suddenly Orbis was unable keep up with demand. As of today they have asked for 15,000 more copies to be printed in anticipation of continued demand, Ellsberg said.

The death knell for small presses, especially small religious presses, especially small Catholic presses, seems to be reported every day. Not so fast. Places like Orbis--to say nothing of the marvelous houses of Loyola, Liguori, Ave Maria, Paulist, LTP, Liturgical Press, New City Press, St. Anthony Messenger, St. Mary's Press, Ignatius Press, OSV Books, Pauline Books, Word Among Us and other places with dedicated staff--work very hard to provide not only fodder for prayer and meditation but books on topics that other presses may balk at. Each has its niche; each is a great gift to the church and the world.

Let's pray that, even if Oliver Stone never mentions another Catholic book on television, that all those presses, and the rest of the Catholic presses, which surprise, delight and inspire us, are around for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

Review of James Douglass' Book

by Edward Curtin

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16273

Despite a treasure-trove of new information having emerged over the last forty-six years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. There are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission. Both groups agree, however, that whatever the truth, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred almost a half-century ago, so let’s move on.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as James Douglass shows in his extraordinary book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis Books, 2008). It is clearly one of the best books ever written on the Kennedy assassination and deserves a vast readership. It is bound to roil the waters of complacency that have submerged the truth of this key event in modern American history.

It’s not often that the intersection of history and contemporary events pose such a startling and chilling lesson as does the contemplation of the murder of JFK on November 22, 1963 juxtaposed with the situations faced by President Obama today. So far, at least, Obama’s behavior has mirrored Johnson’s, not Kennedy’s, as he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by 34,000. One can’t but help think that the thought of JFK’s fate might not be far from his mind as he contemplates his next move in Afghanistan.

Douglass presents a very compelling argument that Kennedy was killed by “unspeakable” (the Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s term) forces within the U.S. national security state because of his conversion from a cold warrior into a man of peace. He argues, using a wealth of newly uncovered information, that JFK had become a major threat to the burgeoning military-industrial complex and had to be eliminated through a conspiracy planned by the CIA – “the CIA’s fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it” - not by a crazed individual, the Mafia, or disgruntled anti-Castro Cubans, though some of these may have been used in the execution of the plot.

Why and by whom? These are the key questions. If it can be shown that Kennedy did, in fact, turn emphatically away from war as a solution to political conflict; did, in fact, as he was being urged by his military and intelligence advisers to up the ante and use violence, rejected such advice and turned toward peaceful solutions, then, a motive for his elimination is established. If, furthermore, it can be clearly shown that Oswald was a dupe in a deadly game and that forces within the military/intelligence apparatus were involved with him from start to finish, then the crime is solved, not by fingering an individual who may have given the order for the murder or pulled the trigger, but by showing that the coordination of the assassination had to involve U.S. intelligence agencies, most notably the CIA . Douglass does both, providing highly detailed and intricately linked evidence based on his own research and a vast array of the best scholarship.

We are then faced with the contemporary relevance, and since we know that every president since JFK has refused to confront the growth of the national security state and its call for violence, one can logically assume a message was sent and heeded. In this regard, it is not incidental that former twenty-seven year CIA analyst Raymond McGovern, in a recent interview, warned of the “two CIAs,” one the analytic arm providing straight scoop to presidents, the other the covert action arm which operates according to its own rules. “Let me leave you with this thought,” he told his interviewer, “and that is that I think Panetta (current CIA Director), and to a degree Obama, are afraid – I never thought I’d hear myself saying this – I think they are afraid of the CIA.” He then recommended Douglass’ book, “It’s very well-researched and his conclusion is very alarming.”

Let’s look at the history marshaled by Douglass to support his thesis.

First, Kennedy, who took office in January 1961 as somewhat of a Cold Warrior, was quickly set up by the CIA to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. The CIA and generals wanted to oust Castro, and in pursuit of that goal, trained a force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. Kennedy refused to go along and the invasion was roundly defeated. The CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy. But it was all a sham.

Though Douglass doesn’t mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but – and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end - never told the President. The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway. Why? So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.

This treachery set the stage for events to come. For his part, sensing but not knowing the full extent of the set-up, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (as in a bad joke, later to be named to the Warren Commission) and his assistant General Charles Cabell (whose brother Earle Cabell, to make a bad joke absurd, was the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy was killed) and said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Not the sentiments to endear him to a secretive government within a government whose power was growing exponentially.

The stage was now set for events to follow as JFK, in opposition to nearly all his advisers, consistently opposed the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.

In 1961, despite the Joint Chief’s demand to put troops into Laos, Kennedy bluntly insisted otherwise as he ordered Averell Harriman, his representative at the Geneva Conference, “Did you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”

Also in 1961, he refused to concede to the insistence of his top generals to give them permission to use nuclear weapons in Berlin and Southeast Asia. Walking out of a meeting with top military advisors, Kennedy threw his hands in the air and said, “These people are crazy.”

He refused to bomb and invade Cuba as the military wished during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Afterwards he told his friend John Kenneth Galbraith that “I never had the slightest intention of doing so.”

Then in June 1963 he gave an incredible speech at American University in which he called for the total abolishment of nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and the “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” and movement toward “general and complete disarmament.”

A few months later he signed a Limited Test Ban Treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.

In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.

All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, “I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.” Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals.

These clear refusals to go to war and his decision to engage in private, back-channel communications with Cold War enemies marked Kennedy as an enemy of the national security state. They were on a collision course. As Douglass and others have pointed out, every move Kennedy made was anti-war. This, Douglass argues, was because JFK, a war hero, had been deeply affected by the horror of war and was severely shaken by how close the world had come to destruction during the Cuban missile crisis. Throughout his life he had been touched by death and had come to appreciate the fragility of life. Once in the Presidency, Kennedy underwent a deep metanoia, a spiritual transformation, from Cold Warrior to peace maker. He came to see the generals who advised him as devoid of the tragic sense of life and as hell-bent on war. And he was well aware that his growing resistance to war had put him on a dangerous collision course with those generals and the CIA. On numerous occasions he spoke of the possibility of a military coup d’etat against him. On the night before his trip to Dallas, he told his wife, “But, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it.” And we know that nobody did try to stop it because they had planned it.

But who killed him?

Douglass presents a formidable amount of evidence, some old and some new, against the CIA and covert action agencies within the national security state, and does so in such a logical and persuasive way that any fair-minded reader cannot help but be taken aback; stunned, really. And he links this evidence directly to JFK’s actions on behalf of peace.

He knows, however, that to truly convince he must break a “conspiracy of silence that would envelop our government, our media, our academic institutions, and virtually our entire society from November 22, 1963, to the present.” This “unspeakable,” this hypnotic “collective denial of the obvious,” is sustained by a mass-media whose repeated message is that the truth about such significant events is beyond our grasp, that we will have to drink the waters of uncertainty forever. As for those who don’t, they are relegated to the status of conspiracy nuts.

Fear and uncertainty block a true appraisal of the assassination - that plus the thought that it no longer matters.

It matters. For we know that no president since JFK has dared to buck the military-intelligence-industrial complex. We know a Pax Americana has spread its tentacles across the globe with U.S. military in over 130 countries on 750 plus bases. We know that the amount of blood and money spent on wars and war preparations has risen astronomically.

There is a great deal we know and even more that we don’t want to know, or at the very least, investigate.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin. Douglass marshals a wealth of evidence to show how from the very start Oswald was moved around the globe like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters.

As he begins to trace Oswald’s path, Douglass asks this question: “Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?”

After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane operating base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret but a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission), Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union. After denouncing the U.S., working at a Soviet factory in Minsk , and taking a Russian wife - during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane is shot down over the Soviet Union - he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey by a man, Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-communist with extensive intelligence connections, recommended by the State Department.

He passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where , at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a graphic arts company that worked on maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba.

Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt who, in 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assasinations’ Gaeton Fonzi, allegedly committed suicide.

Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April 1963 where got a job at the Reilly Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reilly. The Reilly Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI,CIA, Secret Service, and Office of Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Bannister, a former FBI agent, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplying and training anti-Castro paramilitaries meant to ensnare Kennedy. Oswald then went to work with Bannister and the CIA paramilitaries.

During this time up until the assassination Oswald was on the FBI payroll, receiving $200 per month. This startling fact was covered up by the Warren Commission even though it was stated by the Commission’s own general counsel J. Lee Rankin at a closed door meeting on January 27, 1964. The meeting had been declared “top secret” and its content only uncovered ten years later after a lengthy legal battle by researcher Harold Weisberg. Douglass claims Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”

When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April 1963, de Mohrenschildt exited the picture, having asked the CIA for and been indirectly given a $285,000 contract to do a geological survey for Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which he never did , but for which he was paid. Ruth and Michael Paine then entered the picture on cue. Douglass illuminatingly traces in their intelligence connections. Ruth later was the Warren Commission’s chief witness. She had been introduced to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. In September 1963 Ruth Paine drove from her sister’s house in Virginia to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald and bring her to her house in Dallas to live with her. Thirty years after the assassination a document was declassified showing Paine’s sister Sylvia worked for the CIA. Her father traveled throughout Latin America on an Agency for International Development (notorious for CIA front activities) contract and filed reports that went to the CIA. Her husband Michael’s step-father, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell helicopter and Michael’s job there gave him a security clearance. Her mother was related to the Forbes family of Boston and her lifelong friend, Mary Bancroft, worked as a WW II spy with Allen Dulles and was his mistress. Afterwards, Dulles questioned the Paines in front of the Warren Commission, studiously avoiding any revealing questions. Back in Dallas, Ruth Paine conveniently got Oswald a job in the Texas Book Depository where he began work on October 16, 1963.

From late September until November 22, various Oswalds are later reported to have simultaneously been seen from Dallas to Mexico City. Two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theatre, the real one taken out the front door and an impostor out the back. As Douglas says, “There were more Oswalds providing evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald than the Warren Report could use or even explain.” Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that Oswald impostors were used, as he told LBJ concerning Oswald’s alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He later called this CIA ploy, “the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico…their ( CIA’s) double-dealing,” something that he couldn’t forget. It was apparent that a very intricate and deadly game was being played out at high levels in the shadows.

We know Oswald was blamed for the President’s murder. But if one fairly follows the trail of the crime it becomes blatantly obvious that government forces were at work. Douglass adds layer upon layer of evidence to show how this had to be so. Oswald, the mafia, anti-Castro Cubans could not have withdrawn most of the security that day. The Sheriff Bill Decker withdrew all police protection. The Secret Service withdrew the police motorcycle escorts from beside the president’s car where they had been the day before in Houston; took agents off the back of the car where they were normally stationed to obstruct gunfire. They approved the fateful, dogleg turn (on a dry run on November 18) where the car came, almost to a halt, a clear security violation. The House Select Committee on Assasinations concluded this, not some conspiracy nut.

Who could have squelched the testimony of all the doctors and medical personnel who claimed the president had been shot from the front in his neck and head, testimony contradicting the official story? Who could have prosecuted and imprisoned Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent personally brought on to the White House detail by JFK, who warned that he feared the president was going to be assassinated? (Douglass interviewed Bolden seven times and his evidence on the aborted plot to kill JFK in Chicago on November 2 – a story little known but extraordinary in its implications – is riveting.) The list of all the people who turned up dead, the evidence and events manipulated, the inquiry squelched, distorted, and twisted in an ex post facto cover-up - clearly point to forces within the government, not rogue actors without institutional support.

The evidence for a conspiracy organized at the deepest levels of the intelligence apparatus is overwhelming. James Douglass presents it in such depth and so logically that only one hardened to the truth would not be deeply moved and affected by his book.

He says it best: “The extent to which our national security state was systematically marshaled for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains incomprehensible to us. When we live in a system, we absorb and think in a system. We lack the independence needed to judge the system around us. Yet the evidence we have seen points toward our national security state, the systemic bubble in which we all live, as the source of Kennedy’s murder and immediate cover-up.”

Speaking to his friends Dave Powers and Ken O’Donnell about those who planned the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, JFK said, “They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”

Let’s hope for another president like that, but one that meets a different end.

Global Research Articles by Edward Curtin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

Review of James Douglass' Book

by Edward Curtin

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16273

Despite a treasure-trove of new information having emerged over the last forty-six years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. There are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission. Both groups agree, however, that whatever the truth, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred almost a half-century ago, so let’s move on.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as James Douglass shows in his extraordinary book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis Books, 2008). It is clearly one of the best books ever written on the Kennedy assassination and deserves a vast readership. It is bound to roil the waters of complacency that have submerged the truth of this key event in modern American history.

It’s not often that the intersection of history and contemporary events pose such a startling and chilling lesson as does the contemplation of the murder of JFK on November 22, 1963 juxtaposed with the situations faced by President Obama today. So far, at least, Obama’s behavior has mirrored Johnson’s, not Kennedy’s, as he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by 34,000. One can’t but help think that the thought of JFK’s fate might not be far from his mind as he contemplates his next move in Afghanistan.

Douglass presents a very compelling argument that Kennedy was killed by “unspeakable” (the Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s term) forces within the U.S. national security state because of his conversion from a cold warrior into a man of peace. He argues, using a wealth of newly uncovered information, that JFK had become a major threat to the burgeoning military-industrial complex and had to be eliminated through a conspiracy planned by the CIA – “the CIA’s fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it” - not by a crazed individual, the Mafia, or disgruntled anti-Castro Cubans, though some of these may have been used in the execution of the plot.

Why and by whom? These are the key questions. If it can be shown that Kennedy did, in fact, turn emphatically away from war as a solution to political conflict; did, in fact, as he was being urged by his military and intelligence advisers to up the ante and use violence, rejected such advice and turned toward peaceful solutions, then, a motive for his elimination is established. If, furthermore, it can be clearly shown that Oswald was a dupe in a deadly game and that forces within the military/intelligence apparatus were involved with him from start to finish, then the crime is solved, not by fingering an individual who may have given the order for the murder or pulled the trigger, but by showing that the coordination of the assassination had to involve U.S. intelligence agencies, most notably the CIA . Douglass does both, providing highly detailed and intricately linked evidence based on his own research and a vast array of the best scholarship.

We are then faced with the contemporary relevance, and since we know that every president since JFK has refused to confront the growth of the national security state and its call for violence, one can logically assume a message was sent and heeded. In this regard, it is not incidental that former twenty-seven year CIA analyst Raymond McGovern, in a recent interview, warned of the “two CIAs,” one the analytic arm providing straight scoop to presidents, the other the covert action arm which operates according to its own rules. “Let me leave you with this thought,” he told his interviewer, “and that is that I think Panetta (current CIA Director), and to a degree Obama, are afraid – I never thought I’d hear myself saying this – I think they are afraid of the CIA.” He then recommended Douglass’ book, “It’s very well-researched and his conclusion is very alarming.”

Let’s look at the history marshaled by Douglass to support his thesis.

First, Kennedy, who took office in January 1961 as somewhat of a Cold Warrior, was quickly set up by the CIA to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. The CIA and generals wanted to oust Castro, and in pursuit of that goal, trained a force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. Kennedy refused to go along and the invasion was roundly defeated. The CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy. But it was all a sham.

Though Douglass doesn’t mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but – and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end - never told the President. The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway. Why? So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.

This treachery set the stage for events to come. For his part, sensing but not knowing the full extent of the set-up, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (as in a bad joke, later to be named to the Warren Commission) and his assistant General Charles Cabell (whose brother Earle Cabell, to make a bad joke absurd, was the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy was killed) and said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Not the sentiments to endear him to a secretive government within a government whose power was growing exponentially.

The stage was now set for events to follow as JFK, in opposition to nearly all his advisers, consistently opposed the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.

In 1961, despite the Joint Chief’s demand to put troops into Laos, Kennedy bluntly insisted otherwise as he ordered Averell Harriman, his representative at the Geneva Conference, “Did you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”

Also in 1961, he refused to concede to the insistence of his top generals to give them permission to use nuclear weapons in Berlin and Southeast Asia. Walking out of a meeting with top military advisors, Kennedy threw his hands in the air and said, “These people are crazy.”

He refused to bomb and invade Cuba as the military wished during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Afterwards he told his friend John Kenneth Galbraith that “I never had the slightest intention of doing so.”

Then in June 1963 he gave an incredible speech at American University in which he called for the total abolishment of nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and the “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” and movement toward “general and complete disarmament.”

A few months later he signed a Limited Test Ban Treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.

In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.

All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, “I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.” Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals.

These clear refusals to go to war and his decision to engage in private, back-channel communications with Cold War enemies marked Kennedy as an enemy of the national security state. They were on a collision course. As Douglass and others have pointed out, every move Kennedy made was anti-war. This, Douglass argues, was because JFK, a war hero, had been deeply affected by the horror of war and was severely shaken by how close the world had come to destruction during the Cuban missile crisis. Throughout his life he had been touched by death and had come to appreciate the fragility of life. Once in the Presidency, Kennedy underwent a deep metanoia, a spiritual transformation, from Cold Warrior to peace maker. He came to see the generals who advised him as devoid of the tragic sense of life and as hell-bent on war. And he was well aware that his growing resistance to war had put him on a dangerous collision course with those generals and the CIA. On numerous occasions he spoke of the possibility of a military coup d’etat against him. On the night before his trip to Dallas, he told his wife, “But, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it.” And we know that nobody did try to stop it because they had planned it.

But who killed him?

Douglass presents a formidable amount of evidence, some old and some new, against the CIA and covert action agencies within the national security state, and does so in such a logical and persuasive way that any fair-minded reader cannot help but be taken aback; stunned, really. And he links this evidence directly to JFK’s actions on behalf of peace.

He knows, however, that to truly convince he must break a “conspiracy of silence that would envelop our government, our media, our academic institutions, and virtually our entire society from November 22, 1963, to the present.” This “unspeakable,” this hypnotic “collective denial of the obvious,” is sustained by a mass-media whose repeated message is that the truth about such significant events is beyond our grasp, that we will have to drink the waters of uncertainty forever. As for those who don’t, they are relegated to the status of conspiracy nuts.

Fear and uncertainty block a true appraisal of the assassination - that plus the thought that it no longer matters.

It matters. For we know that no president since JFK has dared to buck the military-intelligence-industrial complex. We know a Pax Americana has spread its tentacles across the globe with U.S. military in over 130 countries on 750 plus bases. We know that the amount of blood and money spent on wars and war preparations has risen astronomically.

There is a great deal we know and even more that we don’t want to know, or at the very least, investigate.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin. Douglass marshals a wealth of evidence to show how from the very start Oswald was moved around the globe like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters.

As he begins to trace Oswald’s path, Douglass asks this question: “Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?”

After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane operating base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret but a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission), Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union. After denouncing the U.S., working at a Soviet factory in Minsk , and taking a Russian wife - during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane is shot down over the Soviet Union - he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey by a man, Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-communist with extensive intelligence connections, recommended by the State Department.

He passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where , at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a graphic arts company that worked on maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba.

Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt who, in 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assasinations’ Gaeton Fonzi, allegedly committed suicide.

Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April 1963 where got a job at the Reilly Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reilly. The Reilly Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI,CIA, Secret Service, and Office of Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Bannister, a former FBI agent, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplying and training anti-Castro paramilitaries meant to ensnare Kennedy. Oswald then went to work with Bannister and the CIA paramilitaries.

During this time up until the assassination Oswald was on the FBI payroll, receiving $200 per month. This startling fact was covered up by the Warren Commission even though it was stated by the Commission’s own general counsel J. Lee Rankin at a closed door meeting on January 27, 1964. The meeting had been declared “top secret” and its content only uncovered ten years later after a lengthy legal battle by researcher Harold Weisberg. Douglass claims Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”

When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April 1963, de Mohrenschildt exited the picture, having asked the CIA for and been indirectly given a $285,000 contract to do a geological survey for Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which he never did , but for which he was paid. Ruth and Michael Paine then entered the picture on cue. Douglass illuminatingly traces in their intelligence connections. Ruth later was the Warren Commission’s chief witness. She had been introduced to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. In September 1963 Ruth Paine drove from her sister’s house in Virginia to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald and bring her to her house in Dallas to live with her. Thirty years after the assassination a document was declassified showing Paine’s sister Sylvia worked for the CIA. Her father traveled throughout Latin America on an Agency for International Development (notorious for CIA front activities) contract and filed reports that went to the CIA. Her husband Michael’s step-father, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell helicopter and Michael’s job there gave him a security clearance. Her mother was related to the Forbes family of Boston and her lifelong friend, Mary Bancroft, worked as a WW II spy with Allen Dulles and was his mistress. Afterwards, Dulles questioned the Paines in front of the Warren Commission, studiously avoiding any revealing questions. Back in Dallas, Ruth Paine conveniently got Oswald a job in the Texas Book Depository where he began work on October 16, 1963.

From late September until November 22, various Oswalds are later reported to have simultaneously been seen from Dallas to Mexico City. Two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theatre, the real one taken out the front door and an impostor out the back. As Douglas says, “There were more Oswalds providing evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald than the Warren Report could use or even explain.” Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that Oswald impostors were used, as he told LBJ concerning Oswald’s alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He later called this CIA ploy, “the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico…their ( CIA’s) double-dealing,” something that he couldn’t forget. It was apparent that a very intricate and deadly game was being played out at high levels in the shadows.

We know Oswald was blamed for the President’s murder. But if one fairly follows the trail of the crime it becomes blatantly obvious that government forces were at work. Douglass adds layer upon layer of evidence to show how this had to be so. Oswald, the mafia, anti-Castro Cubans could not have withdrawn most of the security that day. The Sheriff Bill Decker withdrew all police protection. The Secret Service withdrew the police motorcycle escorts from beside the president’s car where they had been the day before in Houston; took agents off the back of the car where they were normally stationed to obstruct gunfire. They approved the fateful, dogleg turn (on a dry run on November 18) where the car came, almost to a halt, a clear security violation. The House Select Committee on Assasinations concluded this, not some conspiracy nut.

Who could have squelched the testimony of all the doctors and medical personnel who claimed the president had been shot from the front in his neck and head, testimony contradicting the official story? Who could have prosecuted and imprisoned Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent personally brought on to the White House detail by JFK, who warned that he feared the president was going to be assassinated? (Douglass interviewed Bolden seven times and his evidence on the aborted plot to kill JFK in Chicago on November 2 – a story little known but extraordinary in its implications – is riveting.) The list of all the people who turned up dead, the evidence and events manipulated, the inquiry squelched, distorted, and twisted in an ex post facto cover-up - clearly point to forces within the government, not rogue actors without institutional support.

The evidence for a conspiracy organized at the deepest levels of the intelligence apparatus is overwhelming. James Douglass presents it in such depth and so logically that only one hardened to the truth would not be deeply moved and affected by his book.

He says it best: “The extent to which our national security state was systematically marshaled for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains incomprehensible to us. When we live in a system, we absorb and think in a system. We lack the independence needed to judge the system around us. Yet the evidence we have seen points toward our national security state, the systemic bubble in which we all live, as the source of Kennedy’s murder and immediate cover-up.”

Speaking to his friends Dave Powers and Ken O’Donnell about those who planned the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, JFK said, “They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”

Let’s hope for another president like that, but one that meets a different end.

Global Research Articles by Edward Curtin

Douglass has nailed the coonskin to the wall, as LBJ might have said....

Certain aspects of his research regarding the JCOS and it's interfacing with JFK are much more than "interesting."

NSC First Net Evaluation Subcommittee was held in July 1961

The Second Evaluation Subcommittee was held in Sept. 1963

Unless I am mistaken, according to Jim Douglass the Second Evaluation Subcommittee documents are either missing or destroyed.....

It has been kind of hard to prove conspiracy over the last 45 years, when you consider the patently consistent amount of documents missing and/or destroyed.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Douglas on Black Op Radio with Len Osanic

JFK & The Unspeakable is the number one best selling “Kennedy” book at Amazon.com.

A Story of Hope and Inspiration to Seek JFK's Vision of Peace and the Truth about his Death.

Jim Douglas:

I believe the idea Oswald was a lone assassin has government support and instigation..., since we’ve known, in terms of available information for decades, that the United States government was involved in killing the President.

The idea that Lee Harvey Oswald did it, or for that matter Castro or the mob, is irresponsible. That’s not to say they weren’t involved, there was a larger plot and they were involved, but to say that either Lee Harvey Oswald or the mob, or that Fidel Castro, was the instigator,…that they were the primary actors in the Kennedy assassination, is totally irresponsible.” (and disinformation)

I think the more one gets into the Kennedy assassination, the more the dots get connected…The Assassinations Records Review Board and in particular members of the staff, made significant steps in the 1990s that will become more available as the people who worked on it bring out their own studies. (ie. Doug Horne).

The Kennedy story is important - why he was assassinated, that’s why I wrote the book. There’s a lot of information about the assassination in the book, but the reason I included that was to connect the dots and to underline His story – John F. Kennedy’s story... Many people are inspired by that story.

When I was engaged in the research, friends would suggest that was a totally dark story that I was getting into. In some ways that’s true, but in other ways it’s not true at all.

Here’s a person who gave his life in terms of the risk he took to turn the world towards peace instead of war, and he got the consequences of that - he was killed for that reason.

But that is a story of hope, if somebody is willing to take those risks, and as a result we have a world to live in instead of a nuclear wasteland - that is a story of hope and of change and of inspiration, if you understand it.

The reason I wrote that story wasn’t to empower the government, because if you say well, the government succeeded because intelligence agencies killed the President and he wasn’t able to carry out his vision. There’s truth in that, but the primary truth is that if Kennedy was willing to work with his enemies, he reached out to Khrushchev at the height of the worst crisis of that war, the Cuban Missile Crisis, because of that we have a world today, and we might even have a president who might carry out Kennedy’s vision.

Kennedy overcame those powers himself in the sense he resisted the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA and went to his death in that resistance. But this is a story of hope, it is not about those powers winning, it’s a story of hope, about a president reaching the point to where he was taken out, but to the point where we still have a world in which we can continue to work towards peace.

Well, it is a hopefull moment, but only if we understand it in the context of Kennedy, and his story.

It’s become possible for Obama to do something hopefull, say carry out the American University vision, only if there is a movement that’s pushing very, very hard to bring about that kind of realization.

And if we are aware, and I’m talking more about more than just we in the research community – it must go Way Way beyond the research community, it must go into the movement that brought about Obama’s election victory.

Unless we have an understanding of the Kennedy story, IT WILL BE REPEATED, and be repeated in the worst consequences of Obama being assassinated or being pushed by advisors into war or into decisions he will have to either resist at the risk of his life, or has to carry it out at the risk of everybody’s else’s life.

If we can understand Kennedy’s story, and raise the kind of support for bringing about Kennedy’s vision under Obama, that’s one possibility.

But if we walk around with some kind of idea thinking Barrack Obama will save the world, that’s nonsense, that’s not going to happen. An understanding of our redemption of us from the powers of war, from oppression, manipulation, and lying, as the CIA has been doing and our propaganda forces have been doing for decades, if we are going to be liberated from those forces, it is up to us.

And Obama can’t do it as President of the United States.

It has to be a movement, an international movement, especially a movement of consciousness of the past, an education as to what happened to John F. Kennedy, so it won’t be repeated. And I believe it WILL be repeated unless we understand and educate ourselves about the past. And we are way short with that right now with disinformation books getting far much more attention than we will get from this program.

I don’t think it’s about getting new information on the Kennedy assassination, it’s telling the story of what we already know. That’s the task and it’s a task that’s very urgent at this moment in history…

Get with the Program.

Inspired?

Inspired to do what?

March 14-20 - Sunshine Week

Help Make the JFK Assassination Records and Congressional Oversight of the JFK Act the most important open government issue and the focus of Sunshine Week - March 14 - 20, 2010.

7 Days in May, 2010, meeting with and urging Congressmen to hold the mandated JFK Act oversight hearings (If they haven't held them yet) and to petition the Judiciary for the convening of a Special Federal Grand Jury investigation of the crimes related to the assassination of President Kennedy.

June 10 - American University

Join us on Thursday, June 10, 2010 at the JFK Monument at American University for the annual COPA memorial to JFK and his Peace Speech, remembering his life, policies and achievements instead of his death.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

From the capecodtoday blog

Mary Wentworth

February 16, 2010

Who Killed JFK and Why

Part I

In viewing Abraham Zapruder's home movie of President Kennedy's assassination an observer can't help wondering why Jackie Kennedy was crawling out onto the trunk of the presidential limousine after her husband had been hit. What was she trying to do? Was she in fear for her own life? Was she simply reaching out to the Secret Service agent who dashed toward her, scrambling up onto the car's rear?

In a recent book, JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass pulls together the evidence and testimony that has emerged in recent decades from various sources: the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations, interviews with people who overcame fear in order to share their knowledge of some facet of the fateful event, the work of other writers, declassification of the Kennedy presidential papers, access to the files of the former Soviet Union, and information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

All told, it has taken nearly forty years to ascertain the exact words the president's widow used in her description of the assassination. In 1975, Harold Weisberg obtained through FOIA what he believed to be her complete Warren Commission testimony. Nevertheless, in 2001, filmmaker Mark Sobel through his FOIA request obtained the stenographer's original tape that revealed her statement in its entirety.....

Full article: http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.ph...nd-why?blog=226

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

JFK and the Unspeakable

by James W. Douglass

Reviewed by James DiEugenio

....But the design of the book goes further. As mentioned above, in his first introduction of Oswald Douglass mentions the Nags Head, North Carolina military program which launched American soldiers into Russia as infiltrators. Near the end of the book (p. 365), with Oswald in jail about to be killed by Jack Ruby, Douglass returns to that military program with Oswald's famous thwarted phone call to Raleigh, North Carolina: the spy left out in the cold attempting to contact his handlers for information as how to proceed. But not realizing that his attempted call will now guarantee his execution...

Would someone be kind enough to post the relevant excerpt from page 365 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

JFK and the Unspeakable

by James W. Douglass

Reviewed by James DiEugenio

....But the design of the book goes further. As mentioned above, in his first introduction of Oswald Douglass mentions the Nags Head, North Carolina military program which launched American soldiers into Russia as infiltrators. Near the end of the book (p. 365), with Oswald in jail about to be killed by Jack Ruby, Douglass returns to that military program with Oswald's famous thwarted phone call to Raleigh, North Carolina: the spy left out in the cold attempting to contact his handlers for information as how to proceed. But not realizing that his attempted call will now guarantee his execution...

Would someone be kind enough to post the relevant excerpt from page 365 ?

Tom,

Lee Farley notes:

The reference for the phone call to Raleigh is:

Pat Smith, "Oswald May Have Tried to Call Raleigh Man from Dallas Jail," Raleigh News and Observer (July 17, 1980), p. 11. Grover B. Proctor, Jr., "The Phone Call That Never Was," Raleigh Spectator (July 17, 1980), p. 6.

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

The CTKA site now has a review by Jim DiEugenio of JFK and the Unspeakable.

http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Ron W

I went right to the author's research on the Secret Service's involvement. Then I decided to buy the book because the author understands - and is not afraid to point out, why the assassination of John F. Kennedy could not have been accomplished without the United States Secret Service's action in so far as their lack of preparation regarding the route and other matters, and inactions when the shots rang out.

The Secret Service involvement is easy to see and is the smoking gun in the case.

It doesn't matter who fired the shots or where they fired them from since the shooters could have not accomplished what they accomplished without the help of the very agency in charge of the president's protection.

The only thing left to determine in this case is who ordered the Secret Service to "Stand Down" in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CTKA site now has a review by Jim DiEugenio of JFK and the Unspeakable.

http://www.ctka.net/...nspeakable.html

Ron W

I went right to the author's research on the Secret Service's involvement. Then I decided to buy the book because the author understands - and is not afraid to point out, why the assassination of John F. Kennedy could not have been accomplished without the United States Secret Service's action in so far as their lack of preparation regarding the route and other matters, and inactions when the shots rang out.

The Secret Service involvement is easy to see and is the smoking gun in the case.

It doesn't matter who fired the shots or where they fired them from since the shooters could have not accomplished what they accomplished without the help of the very agency in charge of the president's protection.

The only thing left to determine in this case is who ordered the Secret Service to "Stand Down" in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Peter,

Apparently LBJ came to the same conclusion, as reflected in the oral history of Cartha DeLoach at the LBJ library in which he says that after the assassination LBJ was distrustful of the Secret Service and requestsed Hover assign an FBI agent to him at all times, including while aboard AF1, and personally requested Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, the former liason agent between the FBI and SS who found the bullet fragment in the back of the limo and interviewed Adele Edisen with SS SAIC NO John W. Rice.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CTKA site now has a review by Jim DiEugenio of JFK and the Unspeakable.

http://www.ctka.net/...nspeakable.html

Ron W

I went right to the author's research on the Secret Service's involvement. Then I decided to buy the book because the author understands - and is not afraid to point out, why the assassination of John F. Kennedy could not have been accomplished without the United States Secret Service's action in so far as their lack of preparation regarding the route and other matters, and inactions when the shots rang out.

The Secret Service involvement is easy to see and is the smoking gun in the case.

It doesn't matter who fired the shots or where they fired them from since the shooters could have not accomplished what they accomplished without the help of the very agency in charge of the president's protection.

The only thing left to determine in this case is who ordered the Secret Service to "Stand Down" in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Peter,

Apparently LBJ came to the same conclusion, as reflected in the oral history of Cartha DeLoach at the LBJ library in which he says that after the assassination LBJ was distrustful of the Secret Service and requestsed Hover assign an FBI agent to him at all times, including while aboard AF1, and personally requested Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, the former liason agent between the FBI and SS who found the bullet fragment in the back of the limo and interviewed Adele Edisen with SS SAIC NO John W. Rice.

BK

Bill, once again, your research confirms "what we have a feeling for."

Thank you,

Peter

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

We know JFK came out for Algerian independence when he was a junior Senator but now I read in this book that Kennedy diplomatically resolved the Indonesian-Netherlands conflict and countered CIA plots to assassinate Indonesian president Sukarno by issuing a NSA memorandum on August 16th, 1962.

JFK writes:

"With a peaceful settlement of the West Irian dispute now in prospect, I would like to see us capitalize on the US role in promoting this settlement to move toward a new and better relationship with Indonesia. I gather that with this issue resolved the Indonesians too would like to move in this direction, and will be presenting us with numerous requests.

To seize this opportunity, will all agencies concerned please review their programs for Indonesia and assess what further measures might be useful. *I have in mind the possibility of expanded civic action, military aid, and economic stabilization and development programs, as well as diplomatic initiatives. The Department of State is requested to pull together all relevant agency proposals in a plan of action and submit it to me no later than September 15th."

It seems Kennedy was moving toward peace with this nation that is now against the United States, some would say, as a Muslim state with terrorist activities."

page 258-259 JFK The Unspeakable

*Isn't this what USAID is supposed to do?

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 2 years later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...