Jump to content
The Education Forum

RFK papers - Operation Mongoose revived in 1963?


Recommended Posts

In an article in the Boston Globe entitled "In RFK's Cuba papers a new glimpse of power and pitfalls, which is also on my blog, Peter Kornbluh, of the National Security Archive said, "... the initial covert efforts Kennedy oversaw to remove Castro — collectively called Operation Mongoose — were halted after the missile crisis but were revived in 1963. “The Cuban exiles are in some way reporting to Robert Kennedy,” he said.

Love to get folks opinion on this.

Joe Backes

Edited by Joseph Backes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to agree with you Jim. There's a thing at the JFK Library tomorrow on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Kornbluh is there I'll ask him about this. I'm wondering which document, or documents in this release makes him think Operation Mongoose, or something like it, was going on in 1963. Apparently, it's this, The Boston Globe article mentioned "...the documents show that months after the United States vowed publicly it would not try to remove Castro, RFK presided over a secret meeting on May 14, 1963, in the White House Situation Room to discuss potential opportunities to take stronger action in Cuba. One possibility involved exposing US spy planes to enemy fire in an attempt to provoke an incident for political purposes."

It's not exactly Mongoose but something seems to have been going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Boston Globe article mentioned "...the documents show that months after the United States vowed publicly it would not try to remove Castro, RFK presided over a secret meeting on May 14, 1963, in the White House Situation Room to discuss potential opportunities to take stronger action in Cuba. One possibility involved exposing US spy planes to enemy fire in an attempt to provoke an incident for political purposes."

It's not exactly Mongoose but something seems to have been going on.

That sounds like Operation Northwoods. Or perhaps an attempt by people such as false-flag-loving Brigadier William H. Craig to incorporate Northwoods-like operations into Mongoose. Discussing such proposals (which may result in approval or rejection) is not equivalent to extending Operation Mongoose.

Edited by Andric Perez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to agree with you Jim. There's a thing at the JFK Library tomorrow on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Kornbluh is there I'll ask him about this. I'm wondering which document, or documents in this release makes him think Operation Mongoose, or something like it, was going on in 1963. Apparently, it's this, The Boston Globe article mentioned "...the documents show that months after the United States vowed publicly it would not try to remove Castro, RFK presided over a secret meeting on May 14, 1963, in the White House Situation Room to discuss potential opportunities to take stronger action in Cuba. One possibility involved exposing US spy planes to enemy fire in an attempt to provoke an incident for political purposes."

It's not exactly Mongoose but something seems to have been going on.

Well since Kornbluh has seen many of the documents but Jim hasn't the former is more likely to be correct than the latter especially since DiEugenio has very strong biases regarding these issues that color his recollection and interpretation of the evidence. That said a link to the Fitzgerald letter would be instructive, And it turns out another historian who examined the papers reached a similar conclusion.

Kennedy biographer Larry Tye said “the documents show that long after the Bay of Pigs and missile crisis Bobby continued playing CIA chief, counterinsurgency boss, and chief provocateur.”

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2012/10/11/rfk-cuba-papers-new-glimpse-power-and-pitfalls/lgKzpr56mriLewRN7fymBM/story.html

And RFK seems to have involved in attempts on Che and the Castro brothers after his brother's murder.

A CIA document outlining a Mafia-connected plan to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro for $150,000 is among thousands of Robert F. Kennedy documents made public Thursday, just days before the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis.

In the 1964 plan, the mob and "patriotic Cuban exiles" eventually settled on a payment of $100,000 for assassinating Castro, $20,000 for his brother Raúl and $20,000 for revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, plus $2,500 for expenses.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/10/12/robert-kennedy-documents-show-150000-mafia-plan-to-kill-fidel-castro/#ixzz29IKWyLIn

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Colby,

You should practive what you preach. You criticize Jim DiEugenio for referring to Fitzgerald letters without giving a link to them while seeming to heap praise upon a newspaper article which also fails to provide links to the documents it talks about.

Now there’s a whole lot of stupid things being said about the documents in these RFK CUBA papers. And a whole mess of stupid crap being said about RFK. The number one implication is that if the document is in RFK’s papers then that means the idea(s) mentioned in them are RFK’s.

An ignorant press is being spoonfed total BS.

The idea that the CIA hired the mob to try to whack Castro is a bit old. That’s at least early 1970’s Rockefeller Commission stuff. But, no mention is made of this. No effort to compare and contrast this “new” document in the RFK papers to the old story. No one questioned it in the media. No one brought up the old story in the event at the JFK Library today about the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nothing.

There’s this unspoken notion that if the idea in the document is in the RFK papers then the idea was RFK’s. That’s the implication. It’s not so. Yet, these esteemed historians and lazy, friendly media types are putting that notion out there. They are also highlighting the fact that it’s “unusual” for an Attorney General to have access and be involved in national security matters of this type, supervising covert ops, reading records about covert ops, etc., as though RFK is this power mad lose cannon when the reality of why JFK tasked RFK to do this stuff was because JFK didn’t trust the military, or the intelligence agencies after the Bay of Pigs. “Kennedy biographer Larry Tye said “the documents show that long after the Bay of Pigs and missile crisis Bobby continued playing CIA chief, counterinsurgency boss, and chief provocateur.”

Well, D’uh, new wunderkind Larry Tye. We don’t need new documents to tell us this. Actual historians knew this and know why.

Now, let’s look at this story that’s gotten a lot of play:

“A CIA document outlining a Mafia-connected plan to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro for $150,000 is among thousands of Robert F. Kennedy documents made public Thursday, just days before the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis.

“In the 1964 plan, the mob and "patriotic Cuban exiles" eventually settled on a payment of $100,000 for assassinating Castro, $20,000 for his brother Raúl and $20,000 for revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, plus $2,500 for expenses.”

Now there’s a lot to be suspicious of here. First of all, what’s going on with the price? Was the Mob having a sale on murder-for-hire hits that week? If you say ‘Pauley sent me,’ you get $50,000 off the retail price?

And the date, 1964, 1964! After JFK’s assassination RFK, I want to repeat that, RFK, not the CIA, no, RFK is promoting screwball schemes of using the Mob, actually hiring and paying them to whack Castro. And who is RFK supposed to be pitching these ideas too? LBJ? Does this make any sense at all? RFK and LBJ hated each other.

This document was not reproduced along with the article, nor is it given a hotlink on the web.

You want to guess why?

Joe

Edited by Joseph Backes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you started a thread on this, as well. No wonder you so were so defensive. That's 3 threads within a week on the same subject.

Maybe instead of replying to a current thread, we all should start new threads?

Or maybe some clever mod could just amalgamate these three?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's clear I have to add Greg Parker to my ignore list.

2,700 plus pages of RFK's CUBA papers MUST be discussed in one and only one thread because Greg Parker says so. God forbid there should be more than one discussion about 2,700 pages of materials.

Why not combine all threads and for that matter all JFK forums together? Let's have only one website about JFK too.

Parker is like those Tea Party morons who are still complaining about how many pages the "Obamacare" bill was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's clear I have to add Greg Parker to my ignore list.

2,700 plus pages of RFK's CUBA papers MUST be discussed in one and only one thread because Greg Parker says so. God forbid there should be more than one discussion about 2,700 pages of materials.

Why not combine all threads and for that matter all JFK forums together? Let's have only one website about JFK too.

Parker is like those Tea Party morons who are still complaining about how many pages the "Obamacare" bill was.

Still on that high horse I see, Joe.

No one said the discussion had to be on one thread indefinitely. But it should at least start out on one thread until there is a NEED to splinter off as new topics break out. John Simkin even started a "forum index" of topics which, when he initiated it at least, urged people to search before starting new threads.

Your bullying and insults won't work on me. And here's a clue for future insults: analogies are supposed to actually be.... analogous.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Colby,

You should practive what you preach. You criticize Jim DiEugenio for referring to Fitzgerald letters without giving a link to them while seeming to heap praise upon a newspaper article which also fails to provide links to the documents it talks about.

Huh?


  1. It is not customary for newspaper articles to include footnotes but one of this forum's rules mandates providing citations 'whenever possible'.

  2. The documents were only released last Thursday, the article came out on Friday. They will be put online I'm not sure it that process has started and presumably it will take to scan and post all 2700 pages it is unlikely the relevant pages were online by press time.

  3. The author gave no indication he saw the documents in question, rather he was quoting Kornbluh, a distinguished historian and recognized expert on the topic who saw them. Do you think he lied? That would quite a stupid move since the documents are public and will soon be put online.

  4. Kornbluh spoke a most a day and a half after seeing the documents, we have no indication when Jim last read the Fitzgerald letter.

  5. Jim unfortunately has a history of distorting the record a bit regarding the Kennedy brothers. I don't think he does so intentionally but he is very wedded to the notion they did nothing unsavory while POTUS and AG and this biases his recollection and interpretation of the facts. You seem to suffer from the same bias. I've seen no indication of such problems with Kornbluh.
    Now there’s a whole lot of stupid things being said about the documents in these RFK CUBA papers. And a whole mess of stupid crap being said about RFK. The number one implication is that if the document is in RFK’s papers then that means the idea(s) mentioned in them are RFK’s.
    An ignorant press is being spoonfed total BS.
    That's your interpretation I've not seen this implied in the articles, can you cite any examples?
    The idea that the CIA hired the mob to try to whack Castro is a bit old. That’s at least early 1970’s Rockefeller Commission stuff. But, no mention is made of this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was my impression that these plots were previously believed to have ended at the beginning of the Kennedy administration. IIRC DiEugenio denies the Kennedy brother were aware of this.

No effort to compare and contrast this “new” document in the RFK papers to the old story. No one questioned it in the media. No one brought up the old story in the event at the JFK Library today about the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nothing.

It was a relatively short newspaper article not a lengthy paper in an academic journal. But you do have a point (up to a point) it should been mentioned.


There’s this unspoken notion that if the idea in the document is in the RFK papers then the idea was RFK’s. That’s the implication.


Unspoken or imagined?


It’s not so. Yet, these esteemed historians and lazy, friendly media types are putting that notion out there.


Which “esteemed historians...are putting that notion out there”?

They are also highlighting the fact that it’s “unusual” for an Attorney General to have access and be involved in national security matters of this type, supervising covert ops, reading records about covert ops, etc., as though RFK is this power mad lose cannon when the reality of why JFK tasked RFK to do this stuff was because JFK didn’t trust the military, or the intelligence agencies after the Bay of Pigs.


I think most people, even if they aren't familiar with the history, are smart enough to figure out that RFK had such powers because they were delgated to him by the president and not presume he usurped them for himself.

“Kennedy biographer Larry Tye said “the documents show that long after the Bay of Pigs and missile crisis Bobby continued playing CIA chief, counterinsurgency boss, and chief provocateur.”

Well, D’uh, new wunderkind Larry Tye. We don’t need new documents to tell us this. Actual historians knew this and know why.

Tye is an award winning journalist conveniently based in Boston (conveniently near the archive), over a year into an RFK bio who had previously 'covered' Kennedy “first at Alabama's Anniston Star (where he wrote about RFK's involvement in the civil rights movement) and then at the Globe” but I guess you know more about the topic than he does. The key part of the sentence was “long after the Bay of Pigs and missile crisis”

“In the 1964 plan, the mob and "patriotic Cuban exiles" eventually settled on a payment of $100,000 for assassinating Castro, $20,000 for his brother Raúl and $20,000 for revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, plus $2,500 for expenses.”

Now there’s a lot to be suspicious of here. First of all, what’s going on with the price? Was the Mob having a sale on murder-for-hire hits that week? If you say ‘Pauley sent me,’ you get $50,000 off the retail price?

What's the basis for your assumption these were "sale" prices?


  1. And the date, 1964, 1964! After JFK’s assassination RFK, I want to repeat that, RFK, not the CIA, no, RFK is promoting screwball schemes of using the Mob, actually hiring and paying them to whack Castro. And who is RFK supposed to be pitching these ideas too? LBJ? Does this make any sense at all? RFK and LBJ hated each other.

Where was it said or implied that he had promoted or pitched the scheme?

This document was not reproduced along with the article, nor is it given a hotlink on the web.

You want to guess why?


See above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you started a thread on this, as well. No wonder you so were so defensive. That's 3 threads within a week on the same subject.

Maybe instead of replying to a current thread, we all should start new threads?

Or maybe some clever mod could just amalgamate these three?

I see you started a thread on this, as well. No wonder you so were so defensive. That's 3 threads within a week on the same subject.

Maybe instead of replying to a current thread, we all should start new threads?

Or maybe some clever mod could just amalgamate these three?

'I second that emotion'

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...