Spartacus Blog: John Simkin on The Death of John F. Kennedy

[Douglas Caddy]

Spartacus Blog: John Simkin on The Death of John F. Kennedy

November 23, 2013

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/spartacus-blog.html

[Paul Brancato]

Douglas - interesting post. When I wrote and produced the Iran - Contra trading cards I had the Information that Daniel Sheehan and the Christic Institute had dug up through Wheaton about Chi Chi Quintero and the rest of the gang, and in fact a small percentage of sales of the cards went to the Institute. I think there may he something to the story that the shooter team was made up of guys like Quintero. I finally read Oswald and the CiA, and Newman's theory makes sense - that only Angleton could have put Oswald together in such a way that any investigation after the fact was doomed due to the deliberate tie in with Kostikov. I also think that the various authors who lay the blame on LBJ make a good case. Of all the people with motive, LBJ stands out. Now I am reading Brothers. I no longer feel there is much of a mystery what happened. All my friends who say you can't have a large number of people involved in a conspiracy and keep it secret just don't get it. For me its kind of case closed. It was a large conspiracy, and because of that extraordinary measures were used before and after the assassination to protect the conspirators. LBJ, Hoover, top level CIA including Dulles, Helms, Angleton, Phillips, Sanchez, Harvey, several Joint Chiefs, Secret Service, Dallas Cops, Military Intelligence, ex military like Walker and Crichton, key mafiosi like Roselli, and perhaps some civilian fixers like Irving Davidson, HL Hunt, all were involved. It was massive, and to me its the only thing that makes sense. There was safety in numbers in this case, because the operation was bold and unprecedented.

[Chris Newton]

Paul,

I haven't read Oswald and the CIA yet but I've believed that Angleton was the ringleader for years. He was simultaneously brilliant, morally bankrupt, and crazy - a psychopath. He constructed counter intelligence ops that took decades to come to fruition. To suggest he took his firing and that of Dulles in stride and "retired" is naive. I guess I'm going to have to read that book.

[Blair Dobson]

old spooks don't retire. period. they become consultants or writers . Ian Fleming is a prime example of that.

[Douglas Caddy]

I once asked Howard Hunt what he thought of Angleton. This was, of course, before Watergate. We were close friends and had hundreds of conversations. In response to my question about Angleton, Howard's eyes turned away and he focused on something in the distance. He had never done that before, so I assumed that he was pondering how to answer the question. He then said slowly, "Angleton was.......unusual." That was it.

Howard frequently spoke of the Bay of Pigs invasion. He was embittered by its failure. He gave me a copy of "Give Us This Day," which was his book about what had happened. He never once spoke of John Kennedy. His criticism was aimed at the leaders of the CIA whom he blamed for the disaster.

Once when he, Gordon Liddy and I were having lunch at a club in the Georgetown section of Washington that had a high percentage of CIA personnel as its customers, Howard spotted Cord Meyer at another table and said something to the effect that "there's that son of a bitch." He had spoken before about Meyer and always was critical of the man.

[Douglas Caddy]

Maybe this article by Steven Hager explains why Howard Hunt was slow to respond to my question as to what he thought about Angleton:

http://stevenhager420.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/the-umbrella-man/

[Ken Davies]

Thank you for the interesting posts Mr. Caddy.

[Chris Newton]

Howard frequently spoke of the Bay of Pigs invasion. He was embittered by its failure.

Mr Caddy,

Hagar, in his article, surmises Angleton "set up" Hunt, which on it's face wouldn't surprise me. Hunt though doesn't seem like the kind of man that would would lie on his deathbed to set up his son, St. John with some kind of marketable story. In Hunt's confession he fingers Cord Meyer and Harvey and describes them unflatteringly as "a men of that ilk". What do you make of his confession and it's subsequent dismissal by the both camps of assassination theorists?

I also agree wholeheartedly about the Bay of Pigs. It was a shamefully executed by the CIA and the blame rests squarely on their shoulders. They knew Rusk had denied the air cover hours before the landing ships debarked. Rusk's claim that he "didn't know it was important" (speaking to the air cover) is a woefully inadequate excuse. A tragic waste of lives.

[Douglas Caddy]

Howard frequently spoke of the Bay of Pigs invasion. He was embittered by its failure.

Mr Caddy,

Hagar, in his article, surmises Angleton "set up" Hunt, which on it's face wouldn't surprise me. Hunt though doesn't seem like the kind of man that would would lie on his deathbed to set up his son, St. John with some kind of marketable story. In Hunt's confession he fingers Cord Meyer and Harvey and describes them unflatteringly as "a men of that ilk". What do you make of his confession and it's subsequent dismissal by the both camps of assassination theorists?

I also agree wholeheartedly about the Bay of Pigs. It was a shamefully executed by the CIA and the blame rests squarely on their shoulders. They knew Rusk had denied the air cover hours before the landing ships debarked. Rusk's claim that he "didn't know it was important" (speaking to the air cover) is a woefully inadequate excuse. A tragic waste of lives.

Chris:

The best book on Howard's confession is that written by his son, Saint John Hunt. It's titled, "Bond of Secrecy: My Life with CIA Spy and Watergate Conspirator E. Howard Hunt." It was published last year. After reading this book I became convinced that Howard in his own way tried through his confession to relate for history what really happened in the JFK assassination.

Doug