Homage to Mr. Jon G.

[Steven Gaal]

history that never was....but could have been......

========================================================================================================
http://educationforu...=21126&p=287009
According to Neuville, « There are no coincidences in the suspicion business—just cover-ups. The case of communist infiltration of the French secret service was an appropriate cover-up to justify the presence of Colonel deLannurien at Langley, Virginia. » (653)
LHO was to die at Tippit or theater Lower level conspirators know LHO is to die (and dont like it ) and kept LHO alive hoping he would spew pro-Castro-Communist rhetoric, creating overthrow Castro. Plot never brought to the stage has SDECE agent Phillipe de Vosjoli kill SDECE agent Michel Victor Mertz . James Jesus Angleton's man Phillipe de Vosjoli finds made up "evidence" linking Oswald-Mertz and Moscow communist penetrated SDECE. Additionally evidence of communist penetrated SDECE is "found' linking the SDECE to De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS is exonerated in De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS gains more prominence. SDECE is taken down a peg. False hero Phillipe de Vosjoli is moved upward in SDECE hierarchy conducting a communist purge under the direction of James Jesus Angleton.
###########################################################################################################################################################
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1

=
(James Jesus Angleton is meeting with high ranking official of SDECE on 11/22/63 , Colonel deLannurien , at Langley, Virginia . JJA ready to blame "Communist Infiltrator" in SDECE if necessary. FOREKNOWLEDGE ,GAAL)

=
To understand the role of the "French Connection" one should read Henrik Kruger's excellent book The Great Heroin Coup where he unravels Nixon's plan to develop a new drug superagency to control world heroin trade. Nixon's public declaration in June 1971 of his war on heroin promptly led to his assemblage of White House Plumbers, Cubans, and even "hit squads" with the avowed purpose of combating the international narcotics traffic. The "great heroin coup" – the "remarkable shift" from Marseilles (Corsican) to Southeast Asian and Mexican (Mafia) heroin in the United States – was a deliberate move to reconstruct and redirect the heroin trade, rather than to eliminate it. And that Cuban exiles, Santo Trafficante, the CIA, and the Nixon White House were all involved. The major points from Kruger's book are:
⦁ Edward Lansdale and Lucien Conein began the war against the Corsican mafia in southeast Asia and paved the way for the CIA and Trafficante in that area.
⦁ Lansky and Trafficante made all the necessary arrangements in southeast Asia to assume control of the opium production with the help of CIA.
⦁ In 1971 the great heroin coup was underway. Cuban exiles were involved in the White House drug operation with E.H.Hunt and Lucien Conein. The US drug enforcement agencies waged an all out war against the Corsican/Marseilles/Turkey/USA drug network, i.e. against the French Connection. The French connection network was run by CIA's arch-enemies, the French intelligence SDECE who were loyal to DeGaulle, and were competing with CIA over the control of the world heroin trade. The CIA achieved two things with the heroin coup. To take over the heroin trade from the French and second with the help of their ally, Pompidou the new French President, to crush the old Gaullist intelligence network.
⦁ The CIA faction associated with the heroin coup was the China/SE Asia/Cuba lobby, and E. H. Hunt was the main representative of that lobby.
⦁ When the French network was defeated, heroin began flowing into the USA from SE Asia and Mexico. And the man Hunt named as a shooter behind the picket fence, Lucien Sarti was one of the victims of this war when he was killed in Mexico on April 1972.
From the above, one could conclude that the CIA, in their effort to crush this Corsican and SDECE network, blamed them for the assassination of JFK, labeling them as false sponsors of the plot. This is evident in Steve Rivele's original false theory, the one that ran on the first installment of The Men Who Killed Kennedy. It may be echoed in E. H. Hunt's deathbed confession that Lucien Sarti was the shooter behind the picket fence. Lamar Waldron names Michel Victor Mertz as one of the assassins, a man who was a member of SDECE and an enemy of OAS, the organization that tried to murder Charles DeGaulle, the same man that saved DeGaulle's life. Which makes Corsi's reliance on Waldron and this idea that the Diem heroin dynasty, the American and Marseille mafia were responsible for the assassination look kind of silly.
Corsi discusses the French Connection and a CIA released document confirming that a French assassin was apprehended in Dallas on November 1963. The memo names this assassin as Jean Souetre, a.k.a. Michel Roux, a.k.a Michel Mertz. Now Corsi makes the mistake of repeatedly calling him a Corsican hit man. In reality neither of these men were Corsican, but Frenchmen from the mainland. The OAS hated JFK for supporting Algerian independence. Eugene Dinkin a US army code breaker referred to in Dick Russell's, The Man who Knew too Much, discovered a message that JFK was to be assassinated in November. Dinkin was stationed in Metz, France and one of his duties was to decipher cable traffic originating with the OAS.
Souetre gave an interview later which confused things even more. He claimed that he was in Spain that day, not Dallas, and that he could prove it. He said that a man named Michel Victor Mertz, a narcotics smuggler and SDECE agent, was actually impersonating him in order to leave a trail that could lead, not back to Mertz, but to his enemy Souetre. Of course it could have been the other way round: it was Souetre who was impersonating Mertz. Michel Victor Mertz was an agent of SDECE, the agency that was competing with the CIA for the control of drug supplies. James Jesus Angleton was in contact with SDECE and especially a man named Phillipe de Vosjoli, who many believe was spying against his country for Angleton.
A third alternative is that neither Mertz nor Souetre were involved in the assassination. And this dual confusion of two men using each other's name was deliberately designed to confuse researchers and again create a cognitive dissonance were everything is possible but nothing is certain. We recognize again the so familiar wilderness of mirrors strategy of "CIA's Magicians" at work.
+++++++++++
+++++++++++
FROM DEEP POLITICS FORUM
###################
Jan Klimkowski
01-12-2012, 07:15 PM
===============
The Angleton Connection

In regard to the second question, leads to the CIA's notorious chief of counter-intelligence, James Jesus Angleton, had emanated from the Rosal case. Specifically, inside Ambassador Rosal's pocket at the time of his arrest was the address of Stig Wennerstrom, a former Swedish military attaché to the United States, and a close friend of Philippe de Vosjoli. De Vosjoli at the time was the French intelligence service's liaison to Angleton. But more importantly, de Vosjoli was also a double-agent working for Angleton against his own country.

By de Vosjoli's account, Wennerstrom was "an associate" of several French intelligence officers stationed in Washington. De Vosjoli's charge led Angleton to believe that the Soviet intelligence service, the KGB, had penetrated the French intelligence service, SDECE. In Angleton's mind, this belief was confirmed in December 1961 by the famous KGB defector, Anatoly Golitsyn. And for this reason, Angleton, who had long been associated with Irving Brown, apparently decided to penetrate the French drug-smuggling milieu, as a way of uncovering further evidence that SDECE, which had long been involved in smuggling narcotics out of Indochina, was penetrated by the KGB. And Angleton's use of drug smugglers as counter-intelligence agents brings us back to the first question: who were Irving Brown and Carmel Offie?

Briefly, Irving Brown was a disciple of Jay Lovestone, who in the 1920s was the leader of America's Communist Party. But after a dispute with Stalin in 1929, Lovestone defected, and with Brown's help, began rooting Communists out of American labor unions. In return for his counter-espionage work, Brown was assigned as the AFL's representative to the War Production Board during World War II, and afterwards began to work for the CIA under AFL cover in Europe and Africa.
================================
Christer Forslund
01-12-2012, 08:09 PM

The Angleton Connection

=

In regard to the second question, leads to the CIA's notorious chief of counter-intelligence, James Jesus Angleton, had emanated from the Rosal case. Specifically, inside Ambassador Rosal's pocket at the time of his arrest was the address of Stig Wennerstrom, a former Swedish military attaché to the United States, and a close friend of Philippe de Vosjoli. De Vosjoli at the time was the French intelligence service's liaison to Angleton. But more importantly, de Vosjoli was also a double-agent working for Angleton against his own country.

By de Vosjoli's account, Wennerstrom was "an associate" of several French intelligence officers stationed in Washington. De Vosjoli's charge led Angleton to believe that the Soviet intelligence service, the KGB, had penetrated the French intelligence service, SDECE. In Angleton's mind, this belief was confirmed in December 1961 by the famous KGB defector, Anatoly Golitsyn.

A further note on Wennerström, (from Wikipedia):

Stig Erik Constans Wennerström (August 22, 1906 – March 22, 2006) was a colonel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel) in the Swedish Air Force (http://en.wikipedia....edish_Air_Force) who was convicted of espionage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage) in 1964.

During the 1950s, he leaked the Swedish air defence plans and the entire Saab Draken (http://en.wikipedia....iki/Saab_Draken) fighter jet project to the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia....ki/Soviet_Union). He also worked as a military attaché (http://en.wikipedia....litary_attaché) in Washington, DC (http://en.wikipedia..../Washington,_DC), where he was very useful to the Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU). He also served in the same role in Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow).
====
Vasilios Vazakas
01-24-2012, 11:49 AM
We all know about the CIA ducument saying that Jean Souetre was in Fort Worth on the morning of Nov.22 1963 and in Dallas the afternoon of the same day.
There is a dispute a to wether the man in question was Jean Souetre or Michel Victor Mertz.

1. Jean Souetre
Member of the French OAS, assassination attempts against DeGaulle. The OAS hated JFK for supporting the Algeria independence.
Souetre was in conduct with Banister and E.H.Hunt, perhaps for operations against Fidel Castro, not necessarily to murder JFK, but it could be possible tha he was.
Eugene Dinkin a US army code breaker (the man who knew too much) discovered a messsage that JFK was to be assassinated in November.
Dinkin was staged in Metz France and one of his duties was to decipher cable trafficking originating with the OAS.
Souetre gave an interview later and claimed that he was in Spain and not in Dallas and that he could prove it.
He said that a man named Michel Victor Mertz, a narcotics smuggler and SDECE agent was impersonating him in order
to leave a trail that could lead not back to Mertz but to his enemy Souetre. Of course it could have been the other way round and it was Souetre
who was impersonating Mertz.

2. Michel Victor Mertz was an agent of SDECE. James Jesus Angleton was in contact with SDECE and especially a man
named Phillipe de Vosjoli that many believe that he was spying against his country for Angeton. Now most of us accept that Angleton
was one of the main facilitators of the plot specially in framing Oswald. If he was also the facilitator that organized the shooters he
might have asked Vosjoli's help to recruit shooters from the French underworld connected to either the OAS or the SDECE.

3. A third alternative is that neither Mertz or Souetre were involved in the assassination and this dual confussion of two men using its other's
name was deliberately designed to confuse researchers and again create a cognitive dissonance were everything is possible but nothing is certain.
Similar to two Z films, two autopsies two everything.

It is more likely that the shooters came from the ranks of CIA special ops soldiers staged in Laos or Vietnam with no loose ends and connections that can be
traced back to their origins, like French terrorists, heroin smugglers or French agents could be traced.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Ron Ecker]

Me too.

And no one in the CIA had nothing to do with the setting up of Oswald to be the patsy, you know, before the assassination...

OK.

--Tommy

I don't agree with that at all. What I agreed with was Cliff's statement that they went with the LN scenario only because Oswald got caught. Otherwise there would have been an invasion of Cuba to get Bin Laden. I mean Castro.

[Thomas Graves]

Me too.

And no one in the CIA had nothing to do with the setting up of Oswald to be the patsy, you know, before the assassination...

OK.

--Tommy

I don't agree with that at all. What I agreed with was Cliff's statement that they went with the LN scenario only because Oswald got caught. Otherwise there would have been an invasion of Cuba to get Bin Laden. I mean Castro.

You had me worried for a minute there, Ronnie. I was afraid you'd gone over to the other side. The side that believes that Oswald was just an Odd Duck who stupidly and inadvertently set himself up to be "the patsy" for the crime of the century. But I should be grateful. At least they aren't preaching that Oswald framed himself after the assassination, too.

At least not yet.

--Tommy

PS Oh yes, and at least you aren't claiming that neither the CIA as an institution, nor any of it's employees "gone rogue," could possibly have had anything to do with the pre-assassination "set up" of Oswald as the patsy. That's what I was really concerned about, Ronnie. I was really worried about you, but now I can breathe a little easier...

Edited May 11, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Steven Gaal]

(Gaal)

Plot never brought to the stage has SDECE agent Phillipe de Vosjoli kill SDECE agent Michel Victor Mertz . James Jesus Angleton's man Phillipe de Vosjoli finds made up "evidence" linking Oswald-Mertz and Moscow communist penetrated SDECE. Additionally evidence of communist penetrated SDECE is "found' linking the SDECE to De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS is exonerated in De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS gains more prominence. SDECE is taken down a peg. False hero Phillipe de Vosjoli is moved upward in SDECE hierarchy conducting a communist purge under the direction of James Jesus Angleton. (SEE POST # 16 above)

===================================================================================================

• James Jesus Angleton, former CIA chief of counterintelligence 1954-1975
• James Jesus Angleton had made many enemies at the CIA
• Mary Ferrell through FOIA suit 1977 obtained CIA document #632-796 dated April 1, 1964
• MEMO RELEASED TO STICK IT TO Angleton (why it was released)
• =====================================================

The memo, stamped “SECRET” and dated April 1, 1964, reads as follows:

Jean SOUETRE aka Michel Roux aka Michel Mertz – On March 5, Dr. Papich advised that the French had hit the Legal Attaché in Paris and also the SDECE man had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. He was in Fort Worth on the morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon. The French believe that he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada. In January he received mail from a dentist named Alderman living at 5803 Birmingham, Houston, Texas. Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French Army and an activist in the OAS. The French are concerned because of de Gaulle’s planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the U.S. and his destination. Bureau files are negative and they are checking in Texas and with the INS [u.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service]. They would like a check of our files with indications of what may be passed on to the French. Mr. Papich was given a copy of CSCI-3/776,742 previously furnished the Bureau and CSDB-3/655,207 together with a photograph of Captain SOUETRE.
=========================================================

• James Angleton to Seymour Hersh:

Angleton is implying that the CIA murdered John Kennedy

"In December 1974, pursued by the dogged Seymour Hersh, who was then investigating the CIA’s illegal domestic operations for the New York Times, Angleton suddenly blurted to the reporter, “A mansion has many rooms … I’m not privy to who struck John.” What did the cryptic remark mean? I would be absolutely misleading you if I thought I had any xxxxing idea,” says Hersh today. “But my instinct about it is he basically was laying off [blame] on somebody else inside the CIA, and the whole purpose of the conversation was to convince me to go after somebody else and not him. And also that he was a completely crazy f__king old fart.”" [David Talbot, Brothers, p. 274]

Edited May 11, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Thomas Graves]

(Gaal)

Plot never brought to the stage has SDECE agent Phillipe de Vosjoli kill SDECE agent Michel Victor Mertz . James Jesus Angleton's man Phillipe de Vosjoli finds made up "evidence" linking Oswald-Mertz and Moscow communist penetrated SDECE. Additionally evidence of communist penetrated SDECE is "found' linking the SDECE to De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS is exonerated in De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS gains more prominence. SDECE is taken down a peg. False hero Phillipe de Vosjoli is moved upward in SDECE hierarchy conducting a communist purge under the direction of James Jesus Angleton. (SEE POST # 16 above)

===================================================================================================

• James Jesus Angleton, former CIA chief of counterintelligence 1954-1975
• James Jesus Angleton had made many enemies at the CIA
• Mary Ferrell through FOIA suit 1977 obtained CIA document #632-796 dated April 1, 1964
• MEMO RELEASED TO STICK IT TO Angleton (why it was released)
• =====================================================

The memo, stamped “SECRET” and dated April 1, 1964, reads as follows:

Jean SOUETRE aka Michel Roux aka Michel Mertz – On March 5, Dr. Papich advised that the French had hit the Legal Attaché in Paris and also the SDECE man had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. He was in Fort Worth on the morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon. The French believe that he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada. In January he received mail from a dentist named Alderman living at 5803 Birmingham, Houston, Texas. Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French Army and an activist in the OAS. The French are concerned because of de Gaulle’s planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the U.S. and his destination. Bureau files are negative and they are checking in Texas and with the INS [u.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service]. They would like a check of our files with indications of what may be passed on to the French. Mr. Papich was given a copy of CSCI-3/776,742 previously furnished the Bureau and CSDB-3/655,207 together with a photograph of Captain SOUETRE.

=========================================================

• James Angleton to Seymour Hersh:

Angleton is implying that the CIA murdered John Kennedy

"In December 1974, pursued by the dogged Seymour Hersh, who was then investigating the CIA’s illegal domestic operations for the New York Times, Angleton suddenly blurted to the reporter, “A mansion has many rooms … I’m not privy to who struck John.” What did the cryptic remark mean? I would be absolutely misleading you if I thought I had any xxxxing idea,” says Hersh today. “But my instinct about it is he basically was laying off [blame] on somebody else inside the CIA, and the whole purpose of the conversation was to convince me to go after somebody else and not him. And also that he was a completely crazy f__king old fart.”" [David Talbot, Brothers, p. 274]

Steven,

You wrote:

• James Angleton to Seymour Hersh:

Angleton is implying that the CIA murdered John Kennedy

"In December 1974, pursued by the dogged Seymour Hersh, who was then investigating the CIA’s illegal domestic operations for the New York Times, Angleton suddenly blurted to the reporter, “A mansion has many rooms … I’m not privy to who struck John.” What did the cryptic remark mean? I would be absolutely misleading you if I thought I had any xxxxing idea,” says Hersh today. “But my instinct about it is he basically was laying off [blame] on somebody else inside the CIA, and the whole purpose of the conversation was to convince me to go after somebody else and not him. And also that he was a completely crazy f__king old fart.”" [David Talbot, Brothers, p. 274]

Question:

Did you put the word "blame" there, or is in Talbot's book Brothers on page 274? I'm trying to understand that sentence.

Thank you,

--Tommy

Edited May 12, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Steven Gaal]

Question:

Did you put the word "blame" there, or is in Talbot's book Brothers on page 274? I'm trying to understand that sentence.

Thank you,

--Tommy

=====

Robert Morrow , was my source via ED Forum and Morrow stated same at JFK facts.and Amazon Book comment. The statement is in the book. Seymour Hersh:is saying that he (Hersh) believes JJA is lying to him and that Angleton really killed JFK.......whats to understand ??

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3375&p=216217

https://books.google.com/books?id=wZHBjw2YRrcC&pg=PT263&lpg=PT263&dq=%22In+December+1974,+pursued+by+the+dogged+Seymour+Hersh&source=bl&ots=qiV3zaaaAL&sig=tIzCRtTbuciKivKZJSN8rvAWXgU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KmpRVfSKBYT8oAT354GIAQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20December%201974%2C%20pursued%20by%20the%20dogged%20Seymour%20Hersh&f=false

Edited May 12, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Thomas Graves]

Question:

Did you put the word "blame" there, or is in Talbot's book Brothers on page 274? I'm trying to understand that sentence.

Thank you,

--Tommy

=====

Robert Morrow , Yes he was my source. He stated same at JFK facts.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3375&p=216217

Thank you, Steven.

But let me rephrase my question because I'm still a bit confused: Did Morrow/Talbot write the words in red exactly as they appear in your post, above? In other words, did Morrow/Talbot write "laying off [blame] on somebody else" , exactly like that, or did you slip the [blame] into it?

Thank you,

--Tommy

Edited May 12, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Steven Gaal]

Thank you, Steven.

But let me rephrase my question because I'm still a bit confused: Did Morrow/Talbot write the words in red exactly as they appear in your post, above? In other words, did Morrow/Talbot write "laying off [blame] on somebody else" , exactly like that, or did you slip the [blame] into it?

Thank you,

--Tommy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(GAAL)

The statement is in the book. Seymour Hersh:is saying that he (Hersh) believes JJA is lying to him and that Angleton really killed JFK.......whats to understand ??

HERSH instinct = CIA via JJA did it

HERSH establishment self = crazy idea (JJA crazy) ITS HERSH vs HERSH he cant accept CIA did Elm St.

THE LINK TO THE BOOK PROVIDED IN POST # 21 ALREADY >>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=wZHBjw2YRrcC&pg=PT263&lpg=PT263&dq=%22In+December+1974,+pursued+by+the+dogged+Seymour+Hersh&source=bl&ots=qiV3zaaaAL&sig=tIzCRtTbuciKivKZJSN8rvAWXgU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KmpRVfSKBYT8oAT354GIAQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20December%201974%2C%20pursued%20by%20the%20dogged%20Seymour%20Hersh&f=false

Edited May 12, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Thomas Graves]

Thank you, Steven.

But let me rephrase my question because I'm still a bit confused: Did Morrow/Talbot write the words in red exactly as they appear in your post, above? In other words, did Morrow/Talbot write "laying off [blame] on somebody else" , exactly like that, or did you slip the [blame] into it?

Thank you,

--Tommy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(GAAL)

The statement is in the book. Seymour Hersh:is saying that he (Hersh) believes JJA is lying to him and that Angleton really killed JFK.......whats to understand ??

HERSH instinct = CIA via JJA did it

HERSH establishment self = crazy idea (JJA crazy) ITS HERSH vs HERSH he cant accept CIA did Elm St.

THE LINK TO THE BOOK PROVIDED IN POST # 21 ALREADY >>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=wZHBjw2YRrcC&pg=PT263&lpg=PT263&dq=%22In+December+1974,+pursued+by+the+dogged+Seymour+Hersh&source=bl&ots=qiV3zaaaAL&sig=tIzCRtTbuciKivKZJSN8rvAWXgU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KmpRVfSKBYT8oAT354GIAQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20December%201974%2C%20pursued%20by%20the%20dogged%20Seymour%20Hersh&f=false

Dear Steven,

Thank you for finally clarifying where that link was and what it was for. I was beginning to wonder why you had posted that other link.

The reason I was asking about that sentence was because I'm not familiar with "laying off on somebody", and the [blame] bit got me wondering whether [blame] was in the original, or if you had just kinda "edited" it in.

BTW, I agree with you that Angleton was probably "mobbed up." It is Interesting that he may have alluded to the possibility that he knew exactly who in The Agency was responsible for what went down on 11/22/63.

Your buddy,

--Tommy

Edited May 12, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

Me too.

And no one in the CIA had nothing to do with the setting up of Oswald to be the patsy, you know, before the assassination...

OK.

--Tommy

I don't agree with that at all. What I agreed with was Cliff's statement that they went with the LN scenario only because Oswald got caught. Otherwise there would have been an invasion of Cuba to get Bin Laden. I mean Castro.

Hey there Ron...

Afraid I have to disagree with that one... there is no benefit to anyone if Cuba is attacked. none. You have Russia waiting in the wings for any excuse to show off what they've been building the last 10 years.

They turned the ships around because the US did not attack Cuba and promised to remove missles in Turkey.. Cuba was a pawn in a much larger chess game... In 1965 it still remained a communist foothold not 90 miles for the USA...

Seems to me the collective reactions was... So what?

Bundy is doing the Lone Nut thing for AF-1 within hours. You don't attack Cuba over a Lone Nut with no conspiratorial associations - regardless if he is dead or not - he was going to be a Lone Nut since, haven't you heard, conspiracies do not kill politicians in the grand ole US of A.

I happen to believe that dead or not, Oswald had served his purpose and JFK would be dead. Cuba, in my opinion, was never of any significant consequence until Russia gets there. and then magically, literally that week, the focus shifts to VietNam. Without JFK in the way what/who stops the invasion of Cuba and the flexing of US muscle?

the Joint Chiefs? McNamara? Harriman? LBJ?

Or did they simply see a more advantageous outlet for a show of military might?

On 24 November 1963, Johnson said, "the battle against communism… must be joined… with strength and determination."[174]

[174] Karnow 1997, p. 339.

Before a small group, including Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the new president also said, "We should stop playing cops and robbers [a reference to Diệm's failed leadership] and get back to… winning the war… tell the generals in Saigon that Lyndon Johnson intends to stand by our word…[to] win the contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy."

Edited May 12, 2015 by David Josephs

[Steven Gaal]

On 24 November 1963, Johnson said, "the battle against communism… must be joined… with strength and determination."[174]

[174] Karnow 1997, p. 339.

Before a small group, including Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the new president also said, "We should stop playing cops and robbers [a reference to Diệm's failed leadership] and get back to… winning the war… tell the generals in Saigon that Lyndon Johnson intends to stand by our word…[to] win the contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy."

(Gaal)

CONSPIRACY ?? YUP but it wasn't a commie one................he was pushed the commie way......

Long ago I saw on TV an interview with Ho's two OSS handlers ...HO loved the US Constitution. He could have been Tito-ized very easily. But they knew there was oil there pre 1958 ...so they wanted a compliant approved of USA dictatorship. So many millions died for war profits and big oil hopes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did the U.S. ‘Lose’ Ho Chi Minh to Communism?

=

By Mark McDonald
August 28, 2012 12:14 am

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HONG KONG — The principal architect of Vietnam’s military victories over France and the United States turned 102 the other day, and the old general, Vo Nguyen Giap, while frail, is said to be holding his own.

He had a firm handshake and a ready smile when I interviewed him 10 years ago in Hanoi, and he talked easily about the “American War,” about his legendary battles at Dien Bien Phu and Khe Sanh, and about Ho Chi Minh.

It was hard for foreign journalists to get an audience with General Giap, but he agreed when I said I brought greetings from Maj. Allison Kent Thomas — the American major who had parachuted into General Giap’s jungle camp in 1945 to help train his fledgling Viet Minh guerrilla army. The major’s younger son and I were friends from university, and I had been allowed to read his father’s diaries and personal wartime letters.

All three men — Thomas, Giap and Ho — receive detailed and scholarly attention in a new account (published last week) of the beginnings of the Vietnam War, “Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam,” by the Cornell University professor and historian Frederik Logevall.

“Both in Indochina — the French and the Americans — and now in Afghanistan, we were supporting governments that did not have broad popular support, that were riven by infighting, by intrigue, were corrupt in many respects. And it’s very, very difficult, Indochina teaches us, to succeed in that kind of environment.”

— Frederik Logevall

A review by Lawrence D. Freedman in Foreign Affairs calls the book “magisterial.”

Mr. Logevall addresses the nagging historical question: Was Ho Chi Minh a resolute communist from his very beginnings, or was he a nationalist and freedom fighter who eventually moved toward socialism? The subtext to the question, of course, is whether the United States, with some more prescient diplomacy, might have struck an alliance with Ho and avoided the horrific quagmire of the Vietnam War.

Mr. Logevall, in a recent interview with Jeff Glor of CBS, said that Ho “saw communism as the best path of development for his country, but it was always his country.” Independence from Japanese invaders and French colonialists was his original intent, highest priority and enduring goal.

“Ho emerges as an unexpected hero in this balanced book, first seen trying to buttonhole Woodrow Wilson at the Paris peace conference of 1919,” says a new review in The Economist.

“But gradually he and his fellow North Vietnamese were viewed as agents of international communism, not admirable rebels against colonialism. Mr. Logevall bemoans the fact that Ho’s admiration for American political ideals and French culture did not lead to a life-sparing compromise.”

Ho was clearly admiring of the Americans in 1945, and he actively sought their help. As a sweetener, he had allowed some of the men under General Giap to rescue downed American pilots.

Major Thomas, then working for the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the C.I.A., was the leader of a unit called the Deer Team, which helped General Giap to organize his “army” of 200 peasant recruits at their Tan Trao redoubt in northern Vietnam.

The major (who was later promoted to lieutenant colonel) got hung up in a banyan tree while parachuting into the camp, but he was quickly freed and greeted with a banner that said “Welcome to Our American Friends.” The date was July 16, 1945 — the same day that the United States tested the first atomic bomb, in New Mexico. World War II was nearly over.

Major Thomas’s private journal says he arrived to find Ho very weak and suffering from chills and fever. (The major refers to him as “Mr. Hoo” in his earliest entries. So much for that bit of intel.) A medic with the American team treated Ho for dysentery and malaria, and he quickly improved.

General Giap’s account was different. He said a local herbalist, an ethnic Tay man, had dug up a root in the forest, burned it and sprinkled the ashes into a bowl of rice soup. After Ho ate the soup, General Giap said, “the miracle occurred” and “the president emerged from his coma.”

Major Thomas, who died in 2005 after a long career as an attorney in Lansing, Michigan, radioed his O.S.S. superiors based in Kunming, in southwestern China, that they needn’t worry about Ho’s political leanings.

“Forget the Communist Bogy,” he wrote. “Viet Minh League is not Communist. Stands for freedom and reforms from French harshness.”

Mr. Logevall’s appraisal, in his book, said Major Thomas got it “wrong, or at least incomplete.”

“If the Viet Minh stood for independence and against French repression, its core leadership that summer also remained staunchly Communist. But Ho in particular among top strategists wore the ideology lightly, so much so that even Soviet officials questioned his Communist credentials. In Mao Zedong’s Chinese Communist Party, too, analysts wondered where the Viet Minh, should it win the right to rule a free Vietnam, would take the country.”

While offering the proviso that “history by analogy is a treacherous business,” Mr. Logevall also draws a political parallel between the Indochina wars of yesteryear and the current conflict in Afghanistan. From his interview with Mr. Glor:

“Both in Indochina — the French and the Americans — and now in Afghanistan, we were supporting governments that did not have broad popular support, that were riven by infighting, by intrigue, were corrupt in many respects. And it’s very, very difficult, Indochina teaches us, to succeed in that kind of environment.”

General Giap has sometimes been criticized for losing huge numbers of troops in any number of battles, including at Khe Sanh, even though the victories he directed were crucial to Vietnam’s eventual independence. Here is Mr. Logevall on the defeat of the French in 1954:

“The Battle of Dien Bien Phu was over. The Viet Minh had won. Vo Nguyen Giap had overturned history, had accomplished the unprecedented, had beaten the West at its own game. For the first time in the annals of colonial warfare, Asian troops had defeated a European army in fixed battle.”

Edited May 12, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Cliff Varnell]

Without JFK in the way what/who stops the invasion of Cuba and the flexing of US muscle?

the Joint Chiefs? McNamara? Harriman? LBJ?

Harriman.

A "liberated" Havana was planned to resume its place as the hub for international narcotics trafficking.

Or so I'd speculate

The US wielded overwhelming nuclear superiority in 1963. The Operation Northwoods strategy had already been hashed out,

James Bamford's Body of Secrets pg 87: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer wrote in a memorandum to Secretary of

Defense Robert McNamara, April 10, 1962:

(quote on, emphasis added)

The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved

in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in

overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal

uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures.

Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States

will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...The Joint

Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military

intervention in Cuba without risk of general war. They also believe

that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize

communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action.

(quote off)

[Ron Ecker]

there is no benefit to anyone if Cuba is attacked. none.

Then what was Operation Northwoods all about? Or what was the benefit of trying to assassinate Castro?

[Steven Gaal]

Then what was Operation Northwoods all about? Or what was the benefit of trying to assassinate Castro? // ECKER

=================================

No one ever said there wasn't an argument in the MIC/State/POTUS but the AngloAmerican view won out. I posted a video in Trejo threads showing the British PM say he approved of sale to arms to Castro to prevent Castro getting too close to Russian orbit.

• Operation Northwoods never happened
• 620 plus assassination attempts CASTRO (golly who is tipping him off ??? .....NSA .....NSAs very very British very !!!!!)
• ANGLOAMERICAN ELITE WANTED A COMMUNIST CUBA

• JFK: The Ruby Connection, Gary Mack's Follies Continued
  Part Two
  By James DiEugenio
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  As I proved in Part One, the title to this documentary is a misnomer. Since it deliberately shears off all the possible connections Jack Ruby could have to the Kennedy assassination i.e., to the Cosa Nostra, to the CIA, to Oswald, and finally to the Dallas Police. In Part One, I presented only a précis of the multitude of connections Jack Ruby had to those three entities and to Oswald. Other authors, like Jim Marrs and John Armstrong, have done longer and fuller examinations of what those ties were. For instance, Armstrong traces Ruby's gun-running activities with the CIA back to the late fifties. But how could that be if Castro was not in power at the time? Because, as it often does, the CIA was playing both sides in the Batista/Castro struggle. So they were actually sending some aid to Castro at the time. And Ruby appears to have been part of it. (See John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pgs. 177, 586)
  ====================================================================
  In other words -- why would Alan Dulles back the Cuban Exiles to murder JFK, but then support the Lone Nut theory that Oswald acted alone -- knowing that this depoliticized Oswald and the JFK murder itself? It seems like a mismatch
  Best regards,
  --Paul Trejo
  =====================
  (GAAL)
  "Alan Dulles back the Cuban Exiles to murder JFK, but then support the Lone Nut theory that Oswald acted alone" ///// TREJO = Dulles dosent care who he motivates to kill JFK. If you read the material I presented you understand that DULLES family represented ,at times, British interests who wanted the survival of a Communist Cuba. The existence of Cuba is like the sand and the oyster, it's a creative irritant,creating a militant interventionist globalist USA. If at one time Dulles wanted Cuba gone he changed his mind as his Anglo betters directed. (see above thread post - # 51 http://www.history-m...vietnam1963.htmand http://www.thenation...not-speculation

Edited May 13, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Ron Ecker]

Then what was Operation Northwoods all about? Or what was the benefit of trying to assassinate Castro? // ECKER

=================================

No one ever said there wasn't an argument in the MIC/State/POTUS

Well David made the blanket statement that there was no benefit in attacking Cuba. Maybe he didn't mean such a big blanket.

• Operation Northwoods never happened

That's not the point. The U.S. military wanted it, and not getting it may have been one more nail in JFK's coffin.