Otepka, the CIA and Oswald

[James DiEugenio]

In rereading this essay by Lisa Pease, its even more revelatory than when it was published. For the simple reason we know so much more about Oswald today.

If you know nothing or little about Otepka, then you must read it.

http://www.ctka.net/FromTheArchive.html

Otepka was involved in a mission to try and figure out if LHO was a genuine or fake defector. BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION!

Would that not be important to the WC? Apparently not.

Try and find his name in the index to the WR. You won't.

Incredible.

[Paul Brancato]

I agree Otepka should have been in the WC report, along with umpteen others. But there is something about the story as Otepka told it that rings untrue. As you know he personally blamed the Kennedy's, Robert in particular, for his troubles, and he claimed that it was his Oswald file that was the problem. That just doesn't make sense. Sourwine and Senators Eastland and Dodd and their Senate Internal Security Subcommittee were clearly up to no good and were enemies of the Kennedy administration. That should hardly be surprising given the awful history of that committee. So when they stood up for Otepka that, to me, was a mark against Otto and regardless of his protestations puts him in their extreme anti communist camp. If memory serves, they were up to their eyeballs with Pawley and the failed Operation Red Cross or Tilt or the Bayo Pawley affair. So that means they were illegally trying to go operational in their opposition to the Kennedy clan. Wasn't it they that came up with the idea that the Soviets still had military advisors in Cuba in 1963, a few of whom wanted to defect and tell their story to the U.S.? Well, at least they bought that lie hook line and sinker in their zeal to deal a death blow to JFK. So these are the people who tried to protect Otto Otepka? Doesn't that indicate that old Otto was supplying them with info against the Kennedys? If so its no wonder that RFK and Sheridan went after him. He was a far easier target than the senators and their attorney. In my opinion he was a self serving xxxx and got what he deserved. Unfortunately John and Bobby, true patriots, received far harsher punishment. I have read as much as I could find on the SISS over the years, yet find too much of what those racist rabid dogs did wrapped in secrecy.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Brancato]

Of course it is possible that the Oswald file got Otepka in trouble, but if it did then it's far more likely that his secret enemy was someone like Angleton, who may have been running Oswald.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Paul Brancato

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

I agree with your second thesis. As does Lisa.

It was his interest in the Oswald file that got him in trouble. I mean look what they did to him.

Its true that many other should have been called as witnesses. But the whole Otepka episode took place in Washington, not New Orleans, or Dallas. And it did not end until about 17 days before JFK was killed.

I don't know what is worse, if the WC did not know about this, or if they did and did not call him. The first question I would have asked him was, "Who is the man who ultimately got your request for information on Oswald at CIA?"

Answer: Mr. Angleton.

And you would be off and running.

[James DiEugenio]

This is a question by Mike Walton:

But my question is: do you ever get the feeling that Kennedy may have over-reached in who he brought in as his White House advisors? In other words, the people he hired to work for him may have been going around whispering everything they hear to State and the CIA? Your thoughts on that?

My short answer is that, in the sense that JFK relied on others for his lists of appointments, that is probably correct. As Lisa notes in her article, since Kennedy was not closely acquainted with most of the so called Establishment figures, he assigned others to give him the lists for these. I think he made a number of mistakes. But two key ones were Rusk at State, and Bundy as NSA.

Because of this, JFK essentially had to run his own foreign policy. So, not only was he battling the GOP and RW nuts like Sourwine, by some of the time he was in opposition to his own cabinet

(BTW, I think Mike Walton is a valuable member of this forum. Most of what he writes is good, even if you do not agree with him.)

[Guest]

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt

 

 

 

[Guest]

The Otto Otepka Case.

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt, scans by me.

[Guest]

Otto Otepka HSCA

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt, scans by me.

[Guest]

Five more pages on Otto Otepka.

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt, scans by me.

[Cliff Varnell]

On 7/31/2016 at 5:15 PM, James DiEugenio said:

This is a question by Mike Walton:

But my question is: do you ever get the feeling that Kennedy may have over-reached in who he brought in as his White House advisors? In other words, the people he hired to work for him may have been going around whispering everything they hear to State and the CIA? Your thoughts on that?

My short answer is that, in the sense that JFK relied on others for his lists of appointments, that is probably correct. As Lisa notes in her article, since Kennedy was not closely acquainted with most of the so called Establishment figures, he assigned others to give him the lists for these. I think he made a number of mistakes. But two key ones were Rusk at State, and Bundy as NSA.

After the election Joe Kennedy put his son in the hands of Wise Man Robert Lovett. It was Lovett who recommended Rusk and Bundy as well as McNamara and Dillon.

Whose agenda commanded the loyalty of these men? Not JFK’s!