Jon G. Tidd Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing reportedly said that Gerald Ford told him the Warren Commissioners knew there was a conspiracy to kill JFK but couldn't figure out who was behind the murder. Or some such thing. At this point, I'm inclined to believe what Ford allegedly said is true. The assassination produced one clear winner and lots of potential losers. The clear winner was LBJ. The potential losers ranged from Hoover to McCone to RFK and lots of individuals in between. None of whom wanted a full-blown, wide-ranging, open-to-the public investigation of the murder; an investigation that might go down any number of roads; an investigation that might reveal all kinds of hidden information having nothing to do, strictly speaking, with the assassination. Information that would ruin careers; that would prompt cries for even deeper digging. No one who had skeletons in the closet wanted to be the subject of any such investigation. The best possible course of action for all the potential losers was to rally behind the Warren Commission, knowing for sure that the Commission would have the final say in all the venues that mattered (especially the press); would say there was no conspiracy; and would thereby obviate a real, wide-ranging, unfettered, dangerous investigation. This view is consistent with the view Washington politics is cynical and self-serving. Which has become my view. I'm inclined, therefore, to believe the cover-up fell into place naturally and was not connected to the plot to kill JFK. I'm also inclined to believe the plotters knew there would be a cover-up if they offered a straw for the cover-up masters to grasp. The straw, Oswald, was grasped firmly and immediately. It was a beautiful plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I agree with almost all of your post. The one thing I do not agree with is the idea that none of the members of the WC knew the truth. I guess I'm just more cynical. I count Ford among those in the know, as well as Dulles and McCone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I'm inclined, therefore, to believe the cover-up fell into place naturally and was not connected to the plot to kill JFK. I'm also inclined to believe the plotters knew there would be a cover-up if they offered a straw for the cover-up masters to grasp. The straw, Oswald, was grasped firmly and immediately. It was a beautiful plan. I believe that the plot and cover-up were indeed connected, because the intent of the plot was to blame the assassination on Castro (among other motives). So the plot and cover-up went hand-in-hand, framing Castro through Oswald. Oswald indeed was to be the straw offered, but as the only shooter who would be identified, providing the link to Castro. Oswald apparently messed up the plan by getting arrested, instead of getting away for liquidation (if he wasn't supposed to be liquidated on the spot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 It was so easy to see through the Oswald/Castro connection. His pro Castro bonafides were paper thin. And we never did get Castro. Ron - do you think that if Oswald had gotten away and been liquidated we would have invaded Cuba? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) It was so easy to see through the Oswald/Castro connection. His pro Castro bonafides were paper thin. And we never did get Castro. Ron - do you think that if Oswald had gotten away and been liquidated we would have invaded Cuba? I imagine if Oswald had gotten away (i.e. "headed for Cuba" through Mexico), the plotters would have had more pro-Castro evidence to pin on him. His heading for Cuba, for starters. (A plane crash on the way?) There was also a little tidbit out of Mexico City (I believe it was mentioned by Win Scott's widow to Dick Russell) that "lost luggage" belonging to Oswald was found at the airport there (before it disappeared, of course). Edited January 21, 2016 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) I'm also inclined to believe the plotters knew there would be a cover-up if they offered a straw for the cover-up masters to grasp. The straw, Oswald, was grasped firmly and immediately. It was a beautiful plan. The President Has Been Shot, Charles Roberts. (p. 141): <quote on> I remember looking at (McGeorge) Bundy because I was wondering if he had any word of what had happened in the world while we were in transit, whether this assassination was part of a plot. And he told me later that what he reported to the president during that flight back was that the whole world was stunned, but there was no evidence of a conspiracy at all. <quote off> Charles Roberts, a Newsweek reporter, was on the AF1 flight from Dallas. McGeorge Bundy was the top civilian official in the White House Situation Room 11/22/63. Giving Charles Roberts the benefit of the doubt as to the accuracy of his report -- the Oswald as lone assassin myth started with Bundy. The Assassination Tapes, Max Holland, pg 57: <quote on> 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 [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. <quote off> Giving Max Holland the benefit of the doubt as to the accuracy of his report -- Ave Harriman committed treason at that meeting. There was no meeting of the US government's top Kremlinologists on 11/22/63. Top 3 USG Soviet hands '63 -- that would be George Kennan, Charles Bohlen, and Averell Harriman himself. George Kennan was up at Princeton quietly mourning with Robert Oppenheimer. Charles Bohlen was traveling in Europe. Ave Harriman (#3 at State) helped George Ball run the country, since all the cabinet positions above Ball (#2 at State) were sidelined. Looks to me like the Oswald-as-lone nut cover story originated with Yalies -- Harriman and Bundy. Edited January 21, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I'm inclined, therefore, to believe the cover-up fell into place naturally and was not connected to the plot to kill JFK. I'm also inclined to believe the plotters knew there would be a cover-up if they offered a straw for the cover-up masters to grasp. The straw, Oswald, was grasped firmly and immediately. It was a beautiful plan. I believe that the plot and cover-up were indeed connected, because the intent of the plot was to blame the assassination on Castro (among other motives). So the plot and cover-up went hand-in-hand, framing Castro through Oswald. Oswald indeed was to be the straw offered, but as the only shooter who would be identified, providing the link to Castro. Oswald apparently messed up the plan by getting arrested, instead of getting away for liquidation (if he wasn't supposed to be liquidated on the spot). Couldn't put it better myself, Ron. Once the patsy escaped to be captured, the Ozzie the Red Agent story was shredded from on high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) I agree with almost all of your post. The one thing I do not agree with is the idea that none of the members of the WC knew the truth. I guess I'm just more cynical. I count Ford among those in the know, as well as Dulles and McCone. If the CIA designed the assassination plan, as I suspect, I'm quite certain they would have stuck with the tried and true concepts of compartmentalization and need-to-know distribution of information. I can see no reason for Ford to know anything, so I don't believe he was told anything. And since I suspect Dulles was involved, I can see no reason for McCone to know anything. And so he didn't. Whether they suspected CIA involvement is a whole other issue. Edited January 23, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Schwartz Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 I agree with you , Sandy. This (the Warren Commission) was Dulles' full time job as Dulles was fired by JFK and was officially unemployed at the time. Ford had a day job- he was an elected official from Michigan who was probably manipulated by Dulles. Dulles ran the Warren Commission- that was his full time job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 With the Cuban missile only a year passed, the public had hopes that we had traversed the last hurdle to World Nuclear War. In the days following the assassination, the immediate feed of information was to intentionally portray Oswald as leftist, pro Cuban revolution and possible agent of Castro, which was the the greatest fear in the public mind. The following day, Hoover expressing doubts to LBJ about the CIA story line ( Oswald visiting the Soviet embassy in Mexico City,) started the pretext for a cover up to disavow Oswald connections to the right or the left, and portray him as a lone, deranged nut. All the high level officials and/or possible conspirators knew, whatever may be divulged in the future, about their criminal cover up of conspiracy would be judged leniently in history as the custodians of the public good in diverting a possible WW3 scenario, or domestic unrest at home. That of course precludes the possibility, that the conspiracy was carried out at the highest levels of government and/or a cabal of the worlds power elites, which was not at the time seriously considered in the public mind. The potential losers ranged from Hoover to McCone to RFK and lots of individuals in between. None of whom wanted a full-blown, wide-ranging, open-to-the public investigation of the murder; an investigation that might go down any number of roads; an investigation that might reveal all kinds of hidden information having nothing to do, strictly speaking, with the assassination. Information that would ruin careers; that would prompt cries for even deeper digging. No one who had skeletons in the closet wanted to be the subject of any such investigation. The best possible course of action for all the potential losers was to rally behind the Warren Commission, knowing for sure that the Commission would have the final say in all the venues that mattered (especially the press); would say there was no conspiracy; and would thereby obviate a real, wide-ranging, unfettered, dangerous investigation. I'm inclined, therefore, to believe the cover-up fell into place naturally and was not connected to the plot to kill JFK. I'm also inclined to believe the plotters knew there would be a cover-up if they offered a straw for the cover-up masters to grasp. The straw, Oswald, was grasped firmly and immediately. It was a beautiful plan. Well put!, I think it was an elegant, beautiful plan that has now escaped detection for 50 years. Where I might tend to disagree is that the elegance of the cover up falling into place doesn't necessarily mean that the plotters weren't also part of the cover up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Martin Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Well put!, I think it was an elegant, beautiful plan that has now escaped detection for 50 years. Where I might tend to disagree is that the elegance of the cover up falling into place doesn't necessarily mean that the plotters weren't also part of the cover up. Yes, it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't part of the cover up but, as most researchers tend to include the same group in both phases of the case, it is the more unique stance to propose they were others who allowed natural reactions to cover up the case. Anyone in the intelligence community who knew Oswald was working for the FBI or CIA need only implicate him in the killing and allow the two agencies to muddy the waters for everyone. We saw the same thing happen in the Lincoln assassination, I believe. To distance themselves from the set up patsy, Hoover had to either create false trails or simply take those fed to him. IMO, the latter ruled the day. Anything but let the trail lead back to the Bureau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) I'm inclined, therefore, to believe the cover-up fell into place naturally and was not connected to the plot to kill JFK . Your inclination is correct, the plot to cover up the assassination was never part of the need to get rid of Kennedy. Don't forget, Dallas was not the only targeted city to eliminate the president. The question is why the cover up? Aside from blaming the entire military industrial complex and every three letter agency as some would. Their screams and yells fell on deaf ears when everyone was blaming the Russians, KBG and Fidel Castro, it was the end of the Cuban missile crisis as we knew it as the band on nuclear missiles, a treaty between the United States and the Russians was the only result. Yes, the cover-up had fall into place naturally, to prevent WWIII. Is it not better to sacrifice one man, then for a whole nation to perish? Edited January 22, 2016 by Scott Kaiser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 I've observed that intelligent, even well-educated, individuals sometimes behave as fools. I can give many high-profile examples, but the one I want to give is that of Earl Warren. Warren wasn't overly bright, but he was well-educated and, to the point, was really smart politically. He knew the PTB in the U.S. Government wanted the Commission to point the finger at Lee Harvey Oswald and no one else. He knew this was his charge. So he presided over a cover-up for the sake of national unity and domestic tranquility. Pretty smart of him. Except Warren had no sense of history. Which was a huge deficit. He couldn't see that lack of trust in the U.S. Government would replace total trust because of the cover-up. Warren bungled other things as well because he focused on the immediate situation. But that's another discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 He knew the PTB in the U.S. Government wanted the Commission to point the finger at Lee Harvey Oswald and no one else. He knew this was his charge. So he presided over a cover-up for the sake of national unity and domestic tranquility. Pretty smart of him. You make him sound heroic, a guardian of "national unity and domestic tranquility." Wasn't he a guardian of traitors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 Ron, my intent was just the opposite. I was trying to state the facts as I understand them. The interpretation of the facts, whatever that might be, is up to everyone here. Want my opinion of Warren as a Supreme Court Chief Justice? It's that he got 40-percent correct. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Warren writing for a 9-0 court said that undoing segregation in public schools must proceed with "due deliberation". Due deliberation meant the states could proceed at a pace that served reasonable needs. As a result, undoing segregation in public schools is an ongoing battle. Do I think Warren was heroic? No. He was a politically savvy fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now