Allen Dulles and his secret behind Kennedy's assassintion

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tom,

Tell me this: The author portrays Allen Dulles as a scumbag, right?

The author says Allen Dulles wanted JFK dead, right?

[Brian Schmidt]

Jon, why do you so ferociously believe Dulles has nothing to do with it, besides it's too obvious?

[Terry Martin]

Personally, I think (another opinion, of course) that had the CIA and Dulles been involved in the assassination, the cover story would have been in place already, We would not have seen the stumbling and bumbling by the DPD and FBI racing around like head with their chickens chopped off.

The complete story was not in place for several months.

Dulles and company would not have been so sloppy IMO. But maybe others who place so much faith in the CIA's abilities could explain the clusterf**k that was Dallas.

[Paul Brancato]

Jim. - I have the feeling no one else has read either Talbot or Newman.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim. - I have the feeling no one else has read either Talbot or Newman.

I've read Brothers and all but the second quarter of DCB. DCB, I'd highly recommend it. Talbot is very convincing but I've tended to lean in that direction for awhile but no one book is going to absolutely convince me that Allen Dulles was the man behind the assassination. But even if he was, he was still answering to others.

[Tom Neal]

Tom,

Tell me this: The author portrays Allen Dulles as a scumbag, right?

The author says Allen Dulles wanted JFK dead, right?

Presumably, you are going to state that if these are the only qualifications for designation as the master of the assassination, then the line of candidates is long indeed...

If not, then I don't see the relevance to my post.

Tom

Edited January 26, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

Jim. - I have the feeling no one else has read either Talbot or Newman.

Paul,

I have read Brothers and The Devil's Chessboard, as well as all of Newman's books.

Tom

[James DiEugenio]

Well, that makes all three of us.

[Tom Neal]

Jim. - I have the feeling no one else has read either Talbot or Newman.

I've read Brothers and all but the second quarter of DCB. DCB, I'd highly recommend it. Talbot is very convincing but I've tended to lean in that direction for awhile but no one book is going to absolutely convince me that Allen Dulles was the man behind the assassination.

Kirk,

My take on "The Devil's Chessboard" is that Talbot believes that Dulles is the most likely candidate, but not the ONLY candidate as "Mastermind" or whatever term is appropriate.

But even if he was, he was still answering to others.

Agreed. And Talbot makes it clear that throughout Dulles career, he never acted without the assurance from his peers that he was doing the right thing. I doubt the genesis of the assassination plot could be placed at the feet of any individual. IMO it was a solution that simultaneously coalesced in the minds of a LARGE group, and Dulles was most likely their first choice to 'make it happen.'

BTW, what did you think of the way the Footnotes were designated only by page rather the precise sentence or phrase that they referred to? I wish they had stuck to the traditional method, but this seems to be the way of the future.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

Well, that makes all three of us.

Presumably I am one of these "three" and as honored as I am by membership in this elite group, I can't comprehend the lack of interest in this book. Even those who believe that Talbot has tried and convicted Dulles as the Mastermind without proving so, would appreciate the formerly unknown facts regarding AWD that are in abundant supply. Should someone choose to separate AWD from the DeGaulle assassination attempts, this account alone is worth the price of the book.

Jim DiEugenio - I tried to PM you with a question and received a response that you are "unable to receive messages at this time." If you have checked the box to block PM, considering some of the responses on this and other recent threads - I understand!

Tom

[James DiEugenio]

Tom, I just cleaned up my box so go ahead now.

[Gene Kelly]

Tom:

I too read DCB and Talbot was not suggesting that Dulles alone engineered the event. The book opened my eyes to several important observations. First, the de Gaulle action has the same earmarks of what happened to JFK ... clearly a CIA-assisted event. It is telling how active Dulles remained after his retirement from CIA, meeting with his faithful acolytes, and no doubt setting something in play. Being at the Farm (Camp Peary) during the weekend is conspicuous to say the least. Angleton's strange allegiance, and how he got his position and was possibly holding damaging information over Dulles is also interesting.

The fact that Dulles manipulated the Unitarian/Quakers, and his use of liberal religious organizations as "an ideological mask over his operatives" is insightful, making a logic tie to the Paines (besides the mary Bancroft connection). So was his sponsorship of Richard Nixon, who became his "mouthpiece in Congress" after Truman was elected. For me, the Nixon relationship is the most chilling revelation as far as implicating others in the assassination is concerned. It suggests all manner of implications.

Gene

[Tom Neal]

Tom:

I too read DCB and Talbot was not suggesting that Dulles alone engineered the event. The book opened my eyes to several important observations. First, the de Gaulle action has the same earmarks of what happened to JFK ... clearly a CIA-assisted event. It is telling how active Dulles remained after his retirement from CIA, meeting with his faithful acolytes, and no doubt setting something in play. Being at the Farm (Camp Peary) during the weekend is conspicuous to say the least. Angleton's strange allegiance, and how he got his position and was possibly holding damaging information over Dulles is also interesting.

The fact that Dulles manipulated the Unitarian/Quakers, and his use of liberal religious organizations as "an ideological mask over his operatives" is insightful, making a logic tie to the Paines (besides the mary Bancroft connection). So was his sponsorship of Richard Nixon, who became his "mouthpiece in Congress" after Truman was elected. For me, the Nixon relationship is the most chilling revelation as far as implicating others in the assassination is concerned. It suggests all manner of implications.

Gene

Hello There Gene,

You've hit every one of what are to me the high points in this book, and your take is identical to mine.

The deGaulle section was intriguing - especially the failure of the US media to report the question of CIA involvement and deGaulle's statements regarding the JFK assassination. I don't want to give away TOO many details...

That brings the total that read the book up to four. Are you as surprised as I am at how few members have read this book?

Tom

[Scott Kaiser]

Jon, why do you so ferociously believe Dulles has nothing to do with it, besides it's too obvious?

Although observations may be good they are not proof. I could give you coincidences and observations of my father all day long but neither of them prove anything other than generating more conspiracies.

[Brian Schmidt]

Well, that makes all three of us.

Four of us.