Allen Dulles and his secret behind Kennedy's assassintion

[Paul Brancato]

The question is what is the difference between a top CIA guy and an author who has used multiple sources and researched for years. The answer is obvious. Your friend is reporting what his father said. Why on earth would you put more faith in that?

[Scott Kaiser]

The question is what is the difference between a top CIA guy and an author who has used multiple sources and researched for years. The answer is obvious. Your friend is reporting what his father said. Why on earth would you put more faith in that?

If you'd be so kind as to ask Mr. Talbot himself to join in this conversation, perhaps, I could get my friend, then there would be no defending one or the other, truthfully, I would love to hear from Mr. Talbot himself as to what multiple sources you yourself has pointed out he has used. We know about the MFF site, FOIA requests and internet searches. I'm more interested in the sources beyond that.

[Scott Kaiser]

I will have you know that I will always engage in a respectable debate disclosing truth, if I am ever asked any questions about my material, I will never duck and hide. I will always answer anyone with the utmost respect and courtesy, but, reader beware, if and when I am insulted, this person doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut. I will always defend the weak, provide any evidence I am asked to, and engage in any question I'm asked, this is who I am.

What you see, is what you get, I don't have to duck from the public for any length of time. Time can be our best friend, or our worst enemy, and before you know it, time is over. It is in the now when I have something to say I will, tomorrow may be too late. This is who I am.

Scott Kaiser

[Sandy Larsen]

If anything, the CIA undermined the case for Oswald's being in Mexico City. Hoover was clearly confused about Oswald's allegedly being in Mexico City.

There is an almost certain possibility that the CIA was working against itself. Those who plotted the assassination against those working for President Johnson. Certainly not the whole CIA was in on the plot.

Tom (who obviously thinks that a reasonable analysis of Dulles is impossible without reading THIS [Talbot's latest] book)

Even prior to Talbot's book, the case for the CIA's involvement had already been made. The circumstantial evidence is very strong. There are even admissions of guilt. (Though I wouldn't have believe the admissions without the all the other evidence.)

It surprises me that there are people still on the fence about CIA involvement.

The value of Talbot's book is in pinpointing the ringleader, as Tom points out.

[Ron Ecker]

It surprises me that there are people still on the fence about CIA involvement.

I saw Richard Helms several years ago on an afternoon talk show (I guess it was with Phil Donahue or Mike Douglas, I don't remember). He called JFK "a womanizer." And they weren't even talking about JFK. (They may have been talking about Bill Clinton, I think this was back in the Monica days.) I thought right then that what he was saying was, "That's one of the reasons we killed him."

Edited January 27, 2016 by Ron Ecker

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

As Jim DiEugenio has pointed out, some believe the alleged Mexico City trip was the seed to the cover-up.

Regardless, I think it's difficult to plan for everything in advance when you're not certain what the outcome of the shots will be.

[Jon G. Tidd]

It's the summer of 1963. Certain individuals who believe JFK needs to be removed forcibly from office come together on a plan that has been simmering for over two years. These individuals believe JFK is dangerous because of what they hold dear. They hold different things dear; some of those things are political, some are financial.

JFK is going to Dallas. This is the opportunity for which they have been waiting. Dallas is perfect. A hard-core conservative city having powerful citizens who have reason to hate JFK; having a low-life ex-marine who defected to the Soviet Union who is an incredibly perfect patsy; having a good crime syndicate and a corrupt police force.

Who could want more? But there was more. The certain individuals in question are aware the CIA has been monitoring the low-life; the FBI too. All's that is necessary is to finger the low-life; to rely on the American people and press to grasp a simple solution; and to back the CIA and FBI into a corner.

Fiction? Yes.

Speculation? Yes.

Are you a better plotter or plot detector?

[Brian Schmidt]

It surprises me that there are people still on the fence about CIA involvement.

I saw Richard Helms several years ago on an afternoon talk show (I guess it was with Phil Donahue or Mike Douglas, I don't remember). He called JFK "a womanizer." And they weren't even talking about JFK. (They may have been talking about Bill Clinton, I think this was back in the Monica days.) I thought right then that what he was saying was, "That's one of the reasons we killed him."

One of my favorite videos of Helms denying the CIA was responsible for Kennedy's death. One of the least believable interviews out there.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Brian,

One can read anything into Helms's remarks in the video.

I am not a fan of the CIA. I believe it has failed in its mission to protect the U.S. From Korea to 9-11 to today.

I am not a fan of Richard Helms. I'm a conservative who believes Richard Nixon did the best job possible; and who believes Helms wanted to take Nixon down. Just my opinions.

So, I have no brief for Helms. None.

But I believe your vid clip shows Helms standing up without hesitation to adverse questioning.

Sure, the questioner was an amateur, and Helms was a professional. I'd like to have seen Mark Lane examining Helms.

The questioner in this clip is incompetent.

[Scott Kaiser]

It surprises me that there are people still on the fence about CIA involvement.

I saw Richard Helms several years ago on an afternoon talk show (I guess it was with Phil Donahue or Mike Douglas, I don't remember). He called JFK "a womanizer." And they weren't even talking about JFK. (They may have been talking about Bill Clinton, I think this was back in the Monica days.) I thought right then that what he was saying was, "That's one of the reasons we killed him."

One of my favorite videos of Helms denying the CIA was responsible for Kennedy's death. One of the least believable interviews out there.

Great post Brian! Emphatically! Now, where did I hear that word before coming out of 1963 in the DPD? " How would you expect me to prove it? Can those people making the allegations prove it" Ahem, yes....

Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

"I'm sorry I didn't give him a pistol it would have made the whole thing a lot simpler and less exotic."

Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[James DiEugenio]

Brian:

That clip of Helms at the forty second mark is priceless.

He gets asked a totally logical and simple question-- and he starts hemming, hawing and stuttering.

Anything but Tidd's standing up without hesitation. Whew.

[James DiEugenio]

SK: David, Paul, and the rest of the Dulles haters of this world.

​Why would you have to say something like that, that is "Dulles haters"?

​Its very simple why JFK had to fire Dulles. Its made clear in Talbot's book.

​In just four months, Dulles defied Kennedy on three fronts. And those are not minor issues, e.g. budgetary matters, or recruitment allotments. The fate of nations was involved, both in Europe and the Third World. Millions of lives would be impacted.

And Dulles did not just fail to carry out orders, he actually contravened what Kennedy wanted done and actually lied to him--in Congo with Lumumba, in France with the revolt of the generals, and with Operation Zapata.

Now if you think that a CIA Director--or for that matter the Chair of the JCS, or FBI Director--can go ahead and actually undermine his own president, then you should say that. Because that could explain your Dulles apologia view.

I do not think that should be allowed. And if I had been president I would have done the same thing. We live in a Constitutional system. The president is the chief executive officer and is responsible to the people. So he should be allowed to implement his own foreign policy without someone trying to harpoon it. Which Dulles was doing.

​But Dulles was not used to doing that under Eisenhower and he was supposing Nixon would win the 1960 election. And he then would have his invasion of Cuba with Tricky DIck backing him all the way with the Navy and Marines. And Nixon would have obviously been for the assassination of Lumumba since he was angry at Kennedy for making his anti France in Algeria speech in 1957. And Nixon would have gone along with the coup in France, that as a favor to Dulles.

​But Kennedy was president, not Nixon. And so when Dulles tried to run his own foreign policy, as he did under Ike, JFK didn't like it. Which is why Allen exploded in rage when he was writing his response to Sorenson and Schlesinger on the Bay of Pigs: "That little Kennedy, he thought he was a God!"

No Allen, he just thought he was president.

​See Scott, that attitude is what this case is all about.

Edited January 28, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Roger DeLaria]

Nice video Brian.

...we checked up on it at the time.

In November 1963? Why did you do that? Did someone accuse the CIA?

Uh,......uh........

His reaction says a lot.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Roger DeLaria

[Scott Kaiser]

See Scott, that attitude is what this case is all about.

See Jim, this has got to be the reason you're beginning to grow on me, never, in my wildest dreams would I be able to do what you just did. We should all take a moment and ponder this. Let us petition this forum to change it's name from the "Education Forum" to "Jim's Got Talent." I mean, I never in my wildest dreams believed for a minute that Jim could also be equal to my childhood past time show host Johnny Carson, heck! We now have Jim telling me that I should just say what's on my mind.

In-fact folks, we even have Jim telling us what Nixon would have done had he become president, now that's impressive! But, I think the single most important piece of Jim's overview should not be ignored, that is the fact he actually thinks that with all his magical powers, that if he were president, he would have done the same thing. I won't disappoint you there Jim.