Two articles on JFK's relationship with the Military

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/?single_page=true

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dallek-denial-and-jfk-assassination-story/

[William Kelly]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/?single_page=true

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dallek-denial-and-jfk-assassination-story/

Thanks for those articles DC,

I was going to say what Jeff Morley says better, so I'll leave it at that.

I call my blogs JFKCountercouip because i believe, from the information that I've acquired over the years, that JFK was not killed by a lone, deranged assassin or a group of renegade Cubans and CIA officers, or Texas Oil men or Castro, the KGB or the Mafia, but by a military coup - an inside job by those who detested JFK, and the more I learn the more my belief is reinforced by the still emerging facts.

BK

[Guest Robert Morrow]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/?single_page=true

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dallek-denial-and-jfk-assassination-story/

Thanks for those articles DC,

I was going to say what Jeff Morley says better, so I'll leave it at that.

I call my blogs JFKCountercouip because i believe, from the information that I've acquired over the years, that JFK was not killed by a lone, deranged assassin or a group of renegade Cubans and CIA officers, or Texas Oil men or Castro, the KGB or the Mafia, but by a military coup - an inside job by those who detested JFK, and the more I learn the more my belief is reinforced by the still emerging facts.

BK

Lyndon Johnson, senator (D-Pentagon) and one of the handful of early congressional overseers of the CIA, and his Dallas, TX oil men and military contractors had immaculate relations, decades long, with radicals in CIA and military who murdered John Kennedy.

It is very possible that LBJ, Allen Dulles, Gen. Curtis Lemay, Gen. Ed Lansdale, D.H. Byrd, H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison and J. Edgar Hoover were all involved in the JFK assassination.

D.H. Byrd and H.L. Hunt in particular were very close to both Lyndon Johnson and Gen. Curtis LeMay.

[Chuck Robbins]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/?single_page=true

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dallek-denial-and-jfk-assassination-story/

Jesus, the JCS were insane. Survivable nuclear war with the soviets? If they were so set on that course of action, why then, didn't they push for it after JFK was killed? If they were in control they could have done as they pleased. Am I missing something here?

[Richard Hocking]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/?single_page=true

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dallek-denial-and-jfk-assassination-story/

Jesus, the JCS were insane. Survivable nuclear war with the soviets? If they were so set on that course of action, why then, didn't they push for it after JFK was killed? If they were in control they could have done as they pleased. Am I missing something here?

Excellent question, Chuck.

If, as your question suggests, JFK were the only, or the primary impediment preventing the JCS from initiating nuclear war, why did they not pursue that path after JFK had been removed?

The post assassination course of events, in particular the failure to directly engage the Soviet Union or Cuba in hostilities, suggest that the JCS were obviously not at the top of the decision making food chain.

[David Andrews]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/?single_page=true

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dallek-denial-and-jfk-assassination-story/

Jesus, the JCS were insane. Survivable nuclear war with the soviets? If they were so set on that course of action, why then, didn't they push for it after JFK was killed? If they were in control they could have done as they pleased. Am I missing something here?

Excellent question, Chuck.

If, as your question suggests, JFK were the only, or the primary impediment preventing the JCS from initiating nuclear war, why did they not pursue that path after JFK had been removed?

The post assassination course of events, in particular the failure to directly engage the Soviet Union or Cuba in hostilities, suggest that the JCS were obviously not at the top of the decision making food chain.

So, it's what JFK's past record meant to the future, and the future for the JCS and their masters meant the defense money to be made in Vietnam, and the proprietary military cordoning off of the Laotian opium from the Chinese.

Edited October 25, 2013 by David Andrews

[Chris Newton]

Bill,

I call my blogs JFKCountercouip because i believe, from the information that I've acquired over the years, that JFK was not killed by a lone, deranged assassin or a group of renegade Cubans and CIA officers, or Texas Oil men or Castro, the KGB or the Mafia, but by a military coup - an inside job by those who detested JFK, and the more I learn the more my belief is reinforced by the still emerging facts.

Agreed. But I think rogue CIA were in on it under the direction of Angleton.

[Richard Hocking]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/?single_page=true

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dallek-denial-and-jfk-assassination-story/

Jesus, the JCS were insane. Survivable nuclear war with the soviets? If they were so set on that course of action, why then, didn't they push for it after JFK was killed? If they were in control they could have done as they pleased. Am I missing something here?

Excellent question, Chuck.

If, as your question suggests, JFK were the only, or the primary impediment preventing the JCS from initiating nuclear war, why did they not pursue that path after JFK had been removed?

The post assassination course of events, in particular the failure to directly engage the Soviet Union or Cuba in hostilities, suggest that the JCS were obviously not at the top of the decision making food chain.

So, it's what JFK's past record meant to the future, and the future for the JCS and their masters meant the defense money to be made in Vietnam, and the proprietary military cordoning off of the Laotian opium from the Chinese.

Spot on, David.

The highest level sponsors of the assassination were thinking long term. A large scale confrontation was short-sighted compared to the immense profits which could be generated by long term control of the SE Asian drug pipeline and an on-going armaments production industry running at warp speed.

The last 50 years have been a testament to, and verification of this strategy.

[Martin Blank]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/?single_page=true

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dallek-denial-and-jfk-assassination-story/

Jesus, the JCS were insane. Survivable nuclear war with the soviets? If they were so set on that course of action, why then, didn't they push for it after JFK was killed? If they were in control they could have done as they pleased. Am I missing something here?

Excellent question, Chuck.

If, as your question suggests, JFK were the only, or the primary impediment preventing the JCS from initiating nuclear war, why did they not pursue that path after JFK had been removed?

The post assassination course of events, in particular the failure to directly engage the Soviet Union or Cuba in hostilities, suggest that the JCS were obviously not at the top of the decision making food chain.

So, it's what JFK's past record meant to the future, and the future for the JCS and their masters meant the defense money to be made in Vietnam, and the proprietary military cordoning off of the Laotian opium from the Chinese.

Spot on, David.

The highest level sponsors of the assassination were thinking long term. A large scale confrontation was short-sighted compared to the immense profits which could be generated by long term control of the SE Asian drug pipeline and an on-going armaments production industry running at warp speed.

The last 50 years have been a testament to, and verification of this strategy.

not to mention all that south china sea oil awaiting big oil once we took down the viet cong and n. vietnam

[David Andrews]

It is odd, however, to consider that the masters of the JCS would have bet their money, their lives, and their futures on provoking a survivable nuclear war in which we would beat the under-producing Soviet nuclear apparatus and suffer only minor loss of cities.

Not odd that they would bet our chances on this...but their own and those of their class? How many exclusive bomb shelters were under Manhattan? Under Kykuit, on the Hudson?

The whole nuclear brinkmanship strategy should be re-examined from the very top down. Given the tempers and the technology of the era, so much could have happened prematurely, or come off without orders, in Dr. Strangelove fashion. Was the top of society underinformed of the dangers?

Edited October 26, 2013 by David Andrews

[Cliff Varnell]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/?single_page=true

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dallek-denial-and-jfk-assassination-story/

Thanks for those articles DC,

I was going to say what Jeff Morley says better, so I'll leave it at that.

I call my blogs JFKCountercouip because i believe, from the information that I've acquired over the years, that JFK was not killed by a lone, deranged assassin or a group of renegade Cubans and CIA officers, or Texas Oil men or Castro, the KGB or the Mafia, but by a military coup - an inside job by those who detested JFK, and the more I learn the more my belief is reinforced by the still emerging facts.

BK

Bill,

I agree that the murder of JFK was carried out by a military coup.

I think there was a level above the military who dictated the terms of the cover-up.

I think it was in 1934 when Gen. Smedley Butler said he was a front for Brown Brothers Harriman.

I don't think it was any different for the military in 1963.

[William Kelly]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/?single_page=true

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/dallek-denial-and-jfk-assassination-story/

Thanks for those articles DC,

I was going to say what Jeff Morley says better, so I'll leave it at that.

I call my blogs JFKCountercouip because i believe, from the information that I've acquired over the years, that JFK was not killed by a lone, deranged assassin or a group of renegade Cubans and CIA officers, or Texas Oil men or Castro, the KGB or the Mafia, but by a military coup - an inside job by those who detested JFK, and the more I learn the more my belief is reinforced by the still emerging facts.

BK

Bill,

I agree that the murder of JFK was carried out by a military coup.

I think there was a level above the military who dictated the terms of the cover-up.

I think it was in 1934 when Gen. Smedley Butler said he was a front for Brown Brothers Harriman.

I don't think it was any different for the military in 1963.

Have you read David Talbot's "Devil Dog"? It's a lavishly illustrated book about Smedley Butler and how he rejected leading a coup for big business.

If you read the book "Coup d'état - A Practical Handbook," by Edward Lutwak, it details the steps necessary to take over a country, and while it is focused on Third World Banana Republics, the basic principles could be applied anywhere, and one of the things that is absolutely necessary is the complete control over the communications and media - which leads to the Air Force One Radio communications, how the military controlled it, and why so much is missing today.

BK

BK