Jump to content
The Education Forum

CIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ASSASSINATION OF


Recommended Posts

Well then...

Great stuff, indeed.

I will dig it up, the link or post the essay, ... a History of Money and the importance of maintaining a nation's central banking system which partly lead us to the men and concepts that have been presented in this thread.

Money gets you into everything. Those who control it, control all.

Yep - money...being a DJ myself I cannot argue with that....seeing as how it's right

Edited by David S. Brownlee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd suggest the progeny of robber barons own both the killers and the politicians. Even

the visible puppet masters have strings attached.

That's why I am interested in ole Arlen Specter. I think they are afraid of him. The current administration tried to get his opposition out of the race even though they know he is an old coot. Arlen has been taken care of in Penn for a long time by both the RNC and the DNC. Arlen might just be pretty smart and have a deathbed confession. Of course the press won't get anything from his dying words - but he may just have a setup.

I wouldn't be surprised.

Edited by David S. Brownlee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once asked Colonel Prouty about his reference to the "Power Elite" -- I said, "Will you name one?" He replied, "Averell Harriman"

In his book JFK; The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F Kennedy, Prouty tells the story of Lt. General Victor Krulak, who developed a strategic plan for "victory" in Vietnam. Krulak presented the plan to General Westmoreland who did not concur. Krulak returned to Honolulu and presented the plan to Admiral Sharp, who liked it and directed Krulak to present it formally to U. S. Marine Corps commandant, General Wallace M. Greene. Green approved the plan and made arrangements for Krulak to present it to Robert McNamara. Krulak and McNamara knew each other well.

Prouty writes:

....McNamara agreed with the plan but then did something that uncovers the real source of power

with respect to top-level decisions affecting activities in Southeast Asia during the sixties.

McNamara suggested, 'Why don't you talk to Governor Harriman?' Averell Harriman, formerly ambassador to

the Soviet Union, was then serving as assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern affairs.
I might add that

Harriman comes as close to a model for the power elite as I can think of---with one qualifying exception:

He lived a mostly public and ostentatious life.
(italics added) But perhaps this was a role he was chosen to play by his peers.

Harriman graciously invited General Krulak to join him for lunch at his elegant home in Georgetown. Following their luncheon,

Governor Harriman invited the general to present his strategic plan for achieving victory in Vietnam. When he got to the climax

of the plan, which recommended 'destroy the port areas, mine the ports, destroy the rail lines, destroy power fuel, and heavy industry,'

Harriman stopped him and demanded, 'Do you want a war with the Soviet Union or the Chinese?'

Krulak later wrote, 'I winced when I thought about the kind of advice he was giving President Johnson and Secretary of State Dean Rusk.'

Krulak did not give up and wound up taking his plan to President Johnson. When he got to the part about mining the ports and destroying the docks, 'Mr Johnson got to his feet, put his arm around my shoulder, and propelled me firmly to the door.' It became clear to Krulak that the Washington strategy was a losing strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then...

Great stuff, indeed.

I will dig it up, the link or post the essay, ... a History of Money and the importance of maintaining a nation's central banking system which partly lead us to the men and concepts that have been presented in this thread.

Money gets you into everything. Those who control it, control all.

Yep - money...being a DJ myself I cannot argue with that....seeing as how it's right

Here's that link I was referring to earlier... still haven't had the time to digest... Maybe on my lunch hour.

http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

I love reading your posts! Not only do they contain valuable data, but very interesting "angles" worthy of consideration, IMHO. And, very entertaining, as well!

But, I don't always agree with everything...

[snip]

When Kennedy went along with Harriman and the overthrow of Diem, and the back channel talks with Castro, the plug was pulled on the Chicago, Tampa and Miami plots.[snip]

JFK may have decided that the US would withold support from the Diem Administration if it (they) continued to refuse to enact reforms in their dealings with religious dissidents and their oppression of all non-Catholics, particularly, the Buddhists. I think it is grossly inaccurate to frame the demise of Diem and his brother in terms suggesting that JFK "went along" with the overthrow (a euphamism for assassination) of the Diem brothers. There is adequate historical records debunking such a notion. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge would be a better candidate to credit with the immediate "go" order. Upon the recall of Ambassador Frederick Nolting, who was probably too pro-Diem--given their shabby human rights record--Lodge was installed. I have no cite for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Harriman was extremely influential in the appointment of Lodge as South Vietnam's Ambassador.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only begun to look into the information on the thread and your post in particular Cliff...

I'll start with this and get your reactions... for as I say below, I agree with much of what you present and feel that Harriman was a key player in bridging Management to Operations without disclosing exactly who "management" was/is.

McGeorge Bundy didn't take orders from military officers, either.

… I must respectfully disagree, David. Neither W. Averell Harriman nor McGeorge Bundy served in the military.

That’s a pretty broad statement about Bundy, Cliff. the "either" you refer to was the Mafia, and that makes sense, but Bundy and the Joint Chiefs had to be working together on many levels... why again not here?

Do we know who else was in the WH Sitroom that might have passed him this information to convey to AF1 and the Cabinet Plane?

I can see that left to the military alone, blaming the Soviets and pushing for a BIG war might have been the tact… the less world-devastating local “Wars” remain profitable and lets everyone keep playing the Cold War game while still engaging in a Hot ones.

According to this site Bundy did serve….

McGeorge Bundy http://www.answers.com/topic/mcgeorge-bundy

Deemed unfit for military service because of nearsightedness, he memorized the eye chart in order to join the army as a private and rose to become a captain by the end of World War II. {I’d say he was a very dedicated military man who understood the chain of command, and how to circumvent it ….)

C: Glad you asked! I was hoping someone would follow through on this!

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat

W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in

light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S.

ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of

them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

I see there are some different thoughts on Mr. Harriman…: I agree with your assessment

of the man yet I feel that most in the LBJ government did not want to “publically” find Soviet fingerprints on the assassination. They wanted to fight the Soviets piece-meal, one country at a time and Vietnam was just the place to start. Can’t imagine the Soviets wanted to risk an all out nuclear war either – and given what I’ve read from Golitsyn the longer term plan was to deceive and encourage the depletion of resources of the US, not engage in assassination and mutual annihilation.

"Well, what [Lyndon] Johnson did was, he did one thing before he expanded the war [in Vietnam] and that is he got rid of one way or another all the people [in the Kennedy administration] who had opposed making it an American war. Averell Harriman, he was Under Secretary of State, he made him roving ambassador for Africa so he'd have nothing to do with Vietnam.... He found out that I'd spent part of my childhood in the Philippines, and he tried to persuade me to become ambassador to the Philippines.... Johnson was a very clever man.... He knew who were the hawks and who were the doves. He systematically rid the top layers of the American government of the doves...." --Roger Hilsman, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs under President Kennedy, interviewed on CNN.com/ColdWar, 8 June 1996

"The in-house coalition of conservatives who opposed the Nixon-Kissinger moves toward detente in 1972 was similar to the one which opposed the Kennedy-Harriman detente initiatives in 1963. It still included [counterintelligence chief] James Angleton in the CIA, who in the 1960s had suspected Harriman of being a Soviet spy, and who in the 1970s reportedly 'objectively' believed Kissinger to be a Soviet spy.'"

Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK

Harriman, W. (illiam) Averell http://www.answers.com/topic/w-averell-harriman

(1891-1986) businessman and public official, born in New York City. Harriman held a variety of positions during Democratic administrations from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson. Harriman was Roosevelt's special representative (”defense expediter”) to Britain for the government program that provided material support to U.S. allies (1941-43). As the number-two man in the Economic Cooperation Administration, he was largely responsible for division of Marshall Plan aid among the nations of western Europe (1948-50). In 1950, early in the Korean War, he served briefly as a special assistant to President Harry S. Truman. As director of the Mutual Security Administration (1951-53), Harriman supervised the rearmament of America's allies in Europe, dispensing billions in military assistance. In 1961 he joined President John F. Kennedy's administration as assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern affairs and undersecretary of state for political affairs; in 1963 he negotiated and signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty. In the role of ambassador-at-large during the Johnson administration (1965-68), Harriman began negotiations for peace in Vietnam. Between his early and later Washington assignments, Harriman served a single term as governor of New York (1955-59).

Hopefully I can get to more tonight...

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is safe to assume that the CIA were basically the "guns" of the operation. It seems to me that they are owned and dominated by the Eastern Establishment Ruling Class anyway. The CIA certainly does not seem to be the cause (per se) of the hit, but definitely the a "murdering arm" of the planners themselves and an essential component of the National Security State. This is probably too simplistic an explanation but I hope the general idea is clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is safe to assume that the CIA were basically the "guns" of the operation. It seems to me that they are owned and dominated by the Eastern Establishment Ruling Class anyway. The CIA certainly does not seem to be the cause (per se) of the hit, but definitely the a "murdering arm" of the planners themselves and an essential component of the National Security State. This is probably too simplistic an explanation but I hope the general idea is clear.

Very well put. The order most likely came from somewhere above, but it was indeed carried out by the CIA.

The forewoman of the jury in the case Hunt v. Liberty Lobby Leslie Armstrong , stated that "Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe that John Kennedy was killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA, had indeed killed President Kennedy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in burgandy...

I've only begun to look into the information on the thread and your post in particular Cliff...

I'll start with this and get your reactions... for as I say below, I agree with much of what

you present and feel that Harriman was a key player in bridging Management to Operations

without disclosing exactly who "management" was/is.

I'll argue going forward that the inter-locking Harriman/Rockefeller dynasties were/are

"the Management."

CV:

McGeorge Bundy didn't take orders from military officers, either.

… I must respectfully disagree, David. Neither W. Averell Harriman nor McGeorge Bundy served in the military.

DJ:

That’s a pretty broad statement about Bundy, Cliff. the "either" you refer to was the Mafia,

and that makes sense, but Bundy and the Joint Chiefs had to be working together on many levels...

why again not here?

Let's take a look at a couple of items, one to gauge where Bundy was coming from,

and one to illustrate the position of the US military in the soon-to-be hot War in 'Nam.

This is from Peter Dale Scott:

http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm#_ftn41

(quote on)

As early as January 4, 1963, Bundy proposed to President Kennedy that the possibility of

communicating with Castro be explored. (Memorandum, Bundy to the President, 1/4/63).

Bundy's memorandum on "Cuba Alternatives" of April 23 [sic, i.e. April 21], 1963, also listed

the "gradual development of some form of accommodation with Castro" among policy alternatives.

(Bundy memorandum, 4/21/63) At a meeting on June 3, 1963, the Special Group agreed it would

be a "useful endeavour" to explore "various possibilities of establishing channels of communication

to Castro." (Memorandum of Special Group meeting, 6/6/63).

(quote off)

If one of the major beefs the US military had with Kennedy was his alleged weakness

in the Cold War -- and if McGeorge Bundy's loyalties were with the US military above

all else -- how was it that Bundy was proposing accommodation with Castro?

Isn't there an inherent contradiction in that construction?

And what to we make of the following Richard Starnes dispatch? (emphasis added):

(quote on)

The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3

'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam

SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam

is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and

unrestrained thirst for power.

Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge,

according to a high United States source here.

In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him

from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.

This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the

huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was

bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone

were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement

by President Kennedy.

It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary

Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy.

Others Critical, Too

Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA.

"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come

from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented

caustically.

("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to

take over the U.S. Government.)

CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every

branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here

almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis.

An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily

about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means

the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military

headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.

Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think

they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't."

Few Know CIA Strength

Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA

strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known

only to a few of their fellow spooks.

Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon.

He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the

CIA in the Philippines.

A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly

trade and some make no secret of it.

"There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S.

Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here, "

one official - presumably a non-spook - said.

"They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added.

(quote off)

I don't think this jibes with an "all-powerful" US military calling the shots. The

above reference to "that man...wearing a colonel's uniform" undoubtedly referred

to Col. Lucien Conein, a notorious CIA operator who happened to be in the military.

I think these two citations illustrate the factional nature of the US power elite

in 1963, and argues against the notion of monolithic military control.

DJ:

Do we know who else was in the WH Sitroom that might have passed him this

information to convey to AF1 and the Cabinet Plane?

Good question. We do know that it was Harriman who let the Soviets off the hook mere

hours after the assassination. And Pentagon aide Col. William Corson related the view of

at least one Kennedy insider that McGeorge Bundy was more loyal to his Skull & Bones

brother Harriman than to JFK.

I can see that left to the military alone, blaming the Soviets and pushing for a BIG war

might have been the tact… the less world-devastating local “Wars” remain profitable and

lets everyone keep playing the Cold War game while still engaging in a Hot ones.

According to this site Bundy did serve….

I stand corrected.

McGeorge Bundy http://www.answers.com/topic/mcgeorge-bundy

Deemed unfit for military service because of nearsightedness, he memorized the eye

chart in order to join the army as a private and rose to become a captain by the end

of World War II. {I’d say he was a very dedicated military man who understood the

chain of command, and how to circumvent it ….)

I'd argue that, like millions of Americans who served in WW2, Bundy returned to

civilian life and resumed his primary loyalties to his family and his peers.

C: Glad you asked! I was hoping someone would follow through on this!

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat

W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in

light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S.

ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of

them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

I see there are some different thoughts on Mr. Harriman…: I agree with your assessment

of the man yet I feel that most in the LBJ government did not want to “publically” find Soviet

fingerprints on the assassination. They wanted to fight the Soviets piece-meal, one country

at a time and Vietnam was just the place to start. Can’t imagine the Soviets wanted to risk

an all out nuclear war either – and given what I’ve read from Golitsyn the longer term plan

was to deceive and encourage the depletion of resources of the US, not engage in assassination

and mutual annihilation.

"Well, what [Lyndon] Johnson did was, he did one thing before he expanded the war [in Vietnam]

and that is he got rid of one way or another all the people [in the Kennedy administration] who

had opposed making it an American war. Averell Harriman, he was Under Secretary of State,

he made him roving ambassador for Africa so he'd have nothing to do with Vietnam.... He

found out that I'd spent part of my childhood in the Philippines, and he tried to persuade me to

become ambassador to the Philippines.... Johnson was a very clever man.... He knew who

were the hawks and who were the doves. He systematically rid the top layers of the American

government of the doves...." --Roger Hilsman, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs

under President Kennedy, interviewed on CNN.com/ColdWar, 8 June 1996

By 1965 the die was cast in Vietnam and Harriman had everything he wanted: a de-militarized

Laos and a heavily militarized Vietnam. Johnson wasn't through with Harriman, of course, as

the blue-blood was brought back for the Paris peace negotiations in '68.

"The in-house coalition of conservatives who opposed the Nixon-Kissinger moves

toward detente in 1972 was similar to the one which opposed the Kennedy-Harriman

detente initiatives in 1963. It still included [counterintelligence chief] James Angleton

in the CIA, who in the 1960s had suspected Harriman of being a Soviet spy, and who

in the 1970s reportedly 'objectively' believed Kissinger to be a Soviet spy.'"

Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK

Angleton was a real piece of work. Harriman was an untouchable. As a protege of

the Rockefellers, Kissinger was also an untouchable.

Harriman, W. (illiam) Averell http://www.answers.com/topic/w-averell-harriman

(1891-1986) businessman and public official, born in New York City. Harriman held a

variety of positions during Democratic administrations from Franklin D. Roosevelt to

Lyndon B. Johnson. Harriman was Roosevelt's special representative (”defense expediter”)

to Britain for the government program that provided material support to U.S. allies (1941-43).

As the number-two man in the Economic Cooperation Administration, he was largely

responsible for division of Marshall Plan aid among the nations of western Europe (1948-50).

In 1950, early in the Korean War, he served briefly as a special assistant to President Harry S.

Truman. As director of the Mutual Security Administration (1951-53), Harriman supervised the

rearmament of America's allies in Europe, dispensing billions in military assistance. In 1961

he joined President John F. Kennedy's administration as assistant secretary of state for Far

Eastern affairs and undersecretary of state for political affairs; in 1963 he negotiated and

signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty. In the role of ambassador-at-large during the Johnson

administration (1965-68), Harriman began negotiations for peace in Vietnam. Between his

early and later Washington assignments, Harriman served a single term as governor of

New York (1955-59).

A highly sanitized bio of the man. Left out the parts wherein Harriman helped develop

the Soviet oil industry in Baku, which became one of the main targets of the German

war machine, also primarily financed by Harriman interests.

Hopefully I can get to more tonight...

DJ

A thoroughly enjoyable exchange, David! I look forward to further discussion with you

on this thread, and with Monk and Bill as well.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=110863

QUOTE (William Kelly @ Jul 21 2007, 08:39 AM) *

QUOTE (John Dolva @ Jul 21 2007, 07:37 AM) *

William: "John, Your point is well taken. From now on I will refer to ONI as the oldest military intelligence agency, as the PO, as you point out, is older, and probably more efficient."

Even that's a bit of a problem, William (IMO). Look, I know what you're getting at with regards to the ONI. They are a recognised and admitted Intelligence Agency and arguably then the oldest such.

The USPO (USPS today) and its agents in the PI department are a secretive bunch, period.

Not a scrap of an internal PO-PI document from the Kennedy years have been seen by me or been pointed out as existing. Which is ridiculous in a couple of ways. 1. Obviously they would exist. 2. One of the first things Nixon did was to bring the USPO to an end, and replace it with the more privatised USPS.

Simultaneously. the, since inception, Cabinet Position of the PMG was at last scrapped.

What happened to the centuries of USPO and USPO-PI internal docally killed any umentation? I've never found an answer to that.

The problem is that the PI department emerges from invisibility in periods of crisis, ie usually military active periods when the PI head has the discretionary powers to appoint agents as needed, so it is then that one can more clearly see evidence of its Intelligence function, during the very times when Military Intel is also active.

IE, USPO-PI as a branch, (or, as I'm suggesting. not only the glue that connects the known diverse agencies, irrespective of their relative 'secrecy' or role in USofA intel), but in fact (secret to the utmost with only its traces or shadows in events discerned!!!) positioned to be at the very epicenter of the whole shebang.

IOW a flexible multifaceted intel body, as well as the conduit that connects all the other agencies, mil or not.

Not just the oldest and most secret Intel part of the US gov's, confederate or Union, throughout US history, but also military intel, internal security, and perhaps central in parts to the coup in '63, involving ONI, Army, Air Force, Police, SS, FBI, CIA, many of them historically headquartered within or nearby the various Post Offices.

EDIT:: Dallas is the heart of Texas, and Dealey Plaza is the heart of Dallas. The first buildings were built there, and one of (maybe the first) building by the first settler served as the home, general store, and Post Office.

Wherever the railroads, the rivers, the roads, the telegraph lines, the later air routes, were built they often became designated postal routes with the attendant special provisions accorded to such routes, and often the Post office was built before the route was even finished or within a matter of days or weeks. Harriman and the Post office is replete with patronage when one studies the old Post Master lists.

But John,

I don't think the PO ran the defector program, did black bag jobs, conducted covert operations, or committed assassinations, or ran LHO, Dan Rather, Jack Revell or Frank Sturgis.

Certainly there's a lack of research on the Post Office, and that can be corrected with proper attention.

BK

Well, the PO certainly were part of the illegal mail-opening programs. That was covert.

The various cities PI's kept an eye on addresses of persons, including Oswald and passed that on.

The lack of knowledge about their involvement in shuffling weapons and papertrails is not necessarily becuse they did not.

How do you know they didn't do many other things? Harry sat many a times staring straight at the sixth floor window from the other side of DP. Who provided the addresses for the black bag jobs? At various times PI agents were licenced to kill, as well as peruse mail they 'protected' on the various routes. This Forum is about who/why/how re the Kennedy assassination. If the PO, or at least significant elements, (I'm not talking about your average neighbourhood mail deliverer, though they did show a bit of a habit of "Going Postal' at times) working closely with Helms and Dulles, participated in any aspect of planning and coverups them of course they participated in assassination.

AFAIK Bush hasn't actually killed any Iraqi's, has he? (Not personally, I mean).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...n&pid=33799

In 1937, John D. Rockefeller died, but his legacy of using oil money to grease the wheels of fascism continued. That year, as the Spanish Civil War raged, Texas Co. (later called Texaco) fueled Franco’s fascists. (In 1936, Texas Co. and Standard Oil California formed California Texas Oil (later Caltex) to combine Texas Co’s marketing network in the Middle East with Standard’s operations there.) Texas Co. also continued shipping oil to Germany during WWII. In 1938, Brown Brothers, Harriman, the Wall Street investment firm (with senior partners Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker) was involved in funding the supply of leaded gas for the Nazi Luftwaffe. Chevron and Texas Co. created Aramco in 1939, to pump Saudi oil for the Nazi war machine. In 1940, Texaco provided an office, in their Chrysler Building, for a Nazi intelligence officer, Dr. Gerhardt Westrick. Executives of Standard Oil’s German subsidiary were “Prominent figures of Himmler’s Circle of Friends of the Gestapo – its chief financiers – and close friends and colleagues of the Baron von Schroder” a leading Gesatpo officer and financier (Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy). Just before WWII, the Rockefeller’s Chase Bank collaborated with the Nazi’s Schroder Bank to raise $25 million for Germany’s war economy. They also supplied the German government with names and background information on 10,000 fascist sympathizers in America. Throughout WWII, Rockefeller’s Chase Bank stayed open in Nazi-occupied Paris, providing services for Germany’s embassy and its businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then I'll just stay in bold - and I will edit out a lot of the repeat text for space....

Back in burgandy...

I've only begun to look into the information on the thread and your post in particular Cliff...

I'll start with this and get your reactions... for as I say below, I agree with much of what

you present and feel that Harriman was a key player in bridging Management to Operations

without disclosing exactly who "management" was/is.

I'll argue going forward that the inter-locking Harriman/Rockefeller dynasties were/are

"the Management."

DJ: In 1963, Harriman was an important figure in negotiating the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty between the US and the USSR.

I have a hard time believing he does this on his own... pushing this Treaty sounds much more in line with Golitsyn's Perestroika declarations regarding LT Soviet strategy, I venture to say that anything that might jeapardize his relationship wioth the Soviets, or the US>USSR relationship was not in his best interest... but Management?

Sounds more like following orders than creating them...

CV:

McGeorge Bundy didn't take orders from military officers, either.

… I must respectfully disagree, David. Neither W. Averell Harriman nor McGeorge Bundy served in the military.

DJ:

That’s a pretty broad statement about Bundy, Cliff. the "either" you refer to was the Mafia,

and that makes sense, but Bundy and the Joint Chiefs had to be working together on many levels...

why again not here?

Let's take a look at a couple of items, one to gauge where Bundy was coming from,

and one to illustrate the position of the US military in the soon-to-be hot War in 'Nam.

This is from Peter Dale Scott:

http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm#_ftn41

(quote on)

As early as January 4, 1963, Bundy proposed to President Kennedy that the possibility of

communicating with Castro be explored. (Memorandum, Bundy to the President, 1/4/63).

Bundy's memorandum on "Cuba Alternatives" of April 23 [sic, i.e. April 21], 1963, also listed

the "gradual development of some form of accommodation with Castro" among policy alternatives.

(Bundy memorandum, 4/21/63) At a meeting on June 3, 1963, the Special Group agreed it would

be a "useful endeavour" to explore "various possibilities of establishing channels of communication

to Castro." (Memorandum of Special Group meeting, 6/6/63).

(quote off)

If one of the major beefs the US military had with Kennedy was his alleged weakness

in the Cold War -- and if McGeorge Bundy's loyalties were with the US military above

all else -- how was it that Bundy was proposing accommodation with Castro?

DJ: As the Old saying goes... keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It is no surprise that he would suggest that type of

detente with Cuba, all the while the Military, CIA, et al. are planning adn implementing raids, sabotage, etc... AGAINST Cuba.

Isn't there an inherent contradiction in that construction?

DJ: Over time Cliff, I have come to learn, esp[ecially in this area of study, that inherent contradictions is one of the cornerstones of deniability.

Espionnage is full of contradiction at the operational level and for good reason.

Why does Ms. Rice say they had never ever conceived of planes flying into buildings... because that was the story being sold at the time.

And what to we make of the following Richard Starnes dispatch? (emphasis added):

(quote on)

The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3

'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam

SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam

is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and

unrestrained thirst for power......

{edit}[/b]

(quote off)

I don't think this jibes with an "all-powerful" US military calling the shots. The

above reference to "that man...wearing a colonel's uniform" undoubtedly referred

to Col. Lucien Conein, a notorious CIA operator who happened to be in the military.

I think these two citations illustrate the factional nature of the US power elite

in 1963, and argues against the notion of monolithic military control.

DJ: From Spartacus: When the Second World War broke out in 1939 Conein returned to France and joined the French Army. After the German invasion in 1940 Conein returned to the United States. He now joined the U.S. Army but because of his knowledge of France he was transferred to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).

The revolving door between CIA and the Military never ends... the CIA may be able to alot done yet with Military assisstance (ala Prouty's experiences) you have the difference between Cuba and Vietnam. One question Cliff... Which do you have more faith in... the Military being sidetracked by the CIA in any of its endeavours or the CIA being sidetracked by the Military... who's in control?

DJ:

Do we know who else was in the WH Sitroom that might have passed him this

information to convey to AF1 and the Cabinet Plane?

Good question. We do know that it was Harriman who let the Soviets off the hook mere

hours after the assassination. And Pentagon aide Col. William Corson related the view of

at least one Kennedy insider that McGeorge Bundy was more loyal to his Skull & Bones

brother Harriman than to JFK.

I doubt that the entire administration and the Joint Chiefs just took his word for it.... and loyalty does not equate to control or Management.

I do not take anything away from the influence Harriman could exert... but pulling the strings? I'd need more evidence of that.

I can see that left to the military alone, blaming the Soviets and pushing for a BIG war

might have been the tact… the less world-devastating local “Wars” remain profitable and

lets everyone keep playing the Cold War game while still engaging in a Hot ones.

According to this site Bundy did serve…

I stand corrected.

McGeorge Bundy http://www.answers.com/topic/mcgeorge-bundy

Deemed unfit for military service because of nearsightedness, he memorized the eye

chart in order to join the army as a private and rose to become a captain by the end

of World War II. {I’d say he was a very dedicated military man who understood the

chain of command, and how to circumvent it ….)

I'd argue that, like millions of Americans who served in WW2, Bundy returned to

civilian life and resumed his primary loyalties to his family and his peers.

and I continue to argue that... once in the military, always in the military. The CIA did not tell Humes and Bowsell to lie and then keep their mouths shut

under order of court-martial... A military plane, military hospital, military personnel with the Secret Service along for every step of the way... imo.

C: Glad you asked! I was hoping someone would follow through on this!

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat

W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in

light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S.

ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of

them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

By 1965 the die was cast in Vietnam and Harriman had everything he wanted: a de-militarized

Laos and a heavily militarized Vietnam. Johnson wasn't through with Harriman, of course, as

the blue-blood was brought back for the Paris peace negotiations in '68.

{edit out}

Angleton was a real piece of work. Harriman was an untouchable. As a protege of

the Rockefellers, Kissinger was also an untouchable.

{edit out}

A highly sanitized bio of the man. Left out the parts wherein Harriman helped develop

the Soviet oil industry in Baku, which became one of the main targets of the German

war machine, also primarily financed by Harriman interests.

I am sure ALOT was left out of that bio... :blink:

Hopefully I can get to more tonight...

DJ

A thoroughly enjoyable exchange, David! I look forward to further discussion with you

on this thread, and with Monk and Bill as well.

yes indeed Cliff... quite nicely done. and yes, agreed, Harriman was extremely influential and benefitted himself and his "partners" wherever they may be.

But he does not spend Billions on Defense, Offense, Research, Manpower, etc... the MIC did and does, do you honestly believe they do not have a large portion of the seats available at the BIG table of World Affairs? just becasue they're the MIC doesn't mean they always get what they want as they want it... sometime you need to take three steps back or sideways to take the 50 steps ahead.... It used to start and end with the military... I think the change in world situation has made the seats at that table a bit harder to keep.... more players with more money in an ever shrinking world... 9/11 doesn't happen without Military "failures".

At the core I think we are saying almost the same things... Kings and Fools... one simply need to figure out which one they are.... and proceed with caution.

:ph34r:

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

I love reading your posts! Not only do they contain valuable data, but very interesting "angles" worthy of consideration, IMHO. And, very entertaining, as well!

Thank you, Monk. I've been looking forward to having a discussion with you

like this for a decade...Waiting for the right subject matter.

But, I don't always agree with everything...

Like what that black Parisian coke dealer with the patrois said to Harrison Ford

in Polanski's Frantic:

"Much better, mon...Much much better!"

[snip]

When Kennedy went along with Harriman and the overthrow of Diem, and the back channel talks with Castro, the plug was pulled on the Chicago, Tampa and Miami plots.[snip]

JFK may have decided that the US would withold support from the Diem Administration if it (they) continued to refuse to enact reforms in their dealings with religious dissidents and their oppression of all non-Catholics, particularly, the Buddhists. I think it is grossly inaccurate to frame the demise of Diem and his brother in terms suggesting that JFK "went along" with the overthrow (a euphamism for assassination) of the Diem brothers.

Let's delve into these first two sentences of yours here for a post or four.

I'm gonna take your second statement first for this post.

I think it is grossly inaccurate to frame the demise of Diem and his brother in terms

suggesting that JFK "went along" with the overthrow (a euphamism for assassination)

of the Diem brothers.

Check out Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance pgs 153 - 179.

In 1963 Kennedy sought to engrave in official policy a pull-out of 'Nam by

the end of 1965.

The military/foreign policy establishment -- alarmed by the concession of

the Ho Chi Minh Trail to N. Vietnam as part of the Geneva '62 neutralization

accords -- was pushing the domino/bandwagon fright stories of Communism

spreading throughout East Asia if a stand wasn't made in 'Nam.

Democratic Presidents can never afford to look like pussies on National Security,

not without the right-wing noise machine of the day screaming bloody murder.

Kennedy used Sec of Def Robert McNamara and the Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff Maxwell Taylor as stalking horses for a two stage withdrawal

while Kennedy appeared distant from the policy.

Looks to me as if JFK went along with the Diem coup in exchange for

the establishment hawks accepting a withdrawal plan on paper as

official policy.

In October of 1963 he issued NSAM 263 and a two stage withdrawal plan

with 1,000 troops out by the end of 1963 and all troops out by 1965.

The 1,000 troop withdrawal at the end of '63 would have given the Republicans

a campaign issue in '64 -- it was never going to happen -- but it was a bargaining

chip to set the end of '65 date in stone in exchange for Kennedy going along

with the Diem coup.

In short: Kennedy made a political trade with the State Department foreign

policy establishment so they got their damn coup and Kennedy got NSAM 263

and a withdrawal time-table as official US policy.

Harriman got his way with the over-throw of the Ngo brothers. Diem was

negotiating with the North on his own, and Harriman feared Diem would

ask the Americans out because that was something Kennedy would have

accepted, Buddhist repression be damned.

Harriman had no reason to have Kennedy shot at that time, post-Diem coup.

Harriman was okay with the end of '65 pull-out date because Gulf of Tonkins

are difficult -- but not impossible -- to produce. Two years gave Harriman plenty

of time, just like in Iran and the Shah's two year wait for Mossadegh to be

overthrown.

Around the Harriman house-hold they called for NSAM 263 every time they

ran out of toilet paper.

I'll go one of those "angles" better, Monk.

Looks to me possible that George H. W. Bush was assigned to help

abort the assassination and he screwed the pooch.

On the dust cover of Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked

is the quote from Marty Underwood, Democratic National Committee Political

Advance Man in Houston.

"We were getting all sorts of rumors that the President was going to be assassinated

in Dallas: there were no if's, and's, or but's about it."

George H. W. Bush was in a unique position to spread a heavy volume

of rumors in Houston from his position as the glad-handling head of the

local GOP.

Tosh Plumlee said his abort team got bum information.

The young George H. W. Bush of the C.I.A. was just the kind of dweeb the killers

would keep in the dark at arms length and then feed xxxx.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is safe to assume that the CIA were basically the "guns" of the operation. It seems to me that they are owned and dominated by the Eastern Establishment Ruling Class anyway. The CIA certainly does not seem to be the cause (per se) of the hit, but definitely the a "murdering arm" of the planners themselves and an essential component of the National Security State. This is probably too simplistic an explanation but I hope the general idea is clear.

Very well put. The order most likely came from somewhere above, but it was indeed carried out by the CIA.

The forewoman of the jury in the case Hunt v. Liberty Lobby Leslie Armstrong , stated that "Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe that John Kennedy was killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA, had indeed killed President Kennedy."

Thank you kindly Mr. Maguire, I am humbled and definitely consider myself and observer. Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is safe to assume that the CIA were basically the "guns" of the operation. It seems to me that they are owned and dominated by the Eastern Establishment Ruling Class anyway. The CIA certainly does not seem to be the cause (per se) of the hit, but definitely the a "murdering arm" of the planners themselves and an essential component of the National Security State. This is probably too simplistic an explanation but I hope the general idea is clear.

Vince Salandria gave a speech in Central Park in June of 1968. John Kelin writes:

President Kennedy's assassination, he (Salandria) said, was a foreign policy killing done

at the behest of the U.S. military, and carried out by operatives of the Central Intelligence Agency.

After the assassination Kennedy's announced intention of withdrawing American troops from

Vietnam was reversed. "I submit that the military fired John F Kennedy," Salandria said.

".....Upon his death, the military became the dominant force in our government."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...