Did a Far-Right/Industrial faction double-cross a Mob/Anti-Castro faction?

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

. . .

Watergate? It was an attempted black-bag job at the DNC headquarters, to either steal information prior to the '72 election or to plant suspicious material which could then be "discovered", which would discredit the Democratic Party. However, McGovern was so inept as a candidate, the failure of the mission at the Watergate was of little consequence in the election.

Now, Dick Nixon certainly benefitted from each, with the exception of Watergate.

Cui bono, indeed?

I mostly agree with you but I wonder if we should consider the possibility that those who give can also take away.  Perhaps the erudite E Howard Hunt and G Gordon Liddy were inexplicably sloppy in implementing the Watergate break-in because getting caught was always intended? 

LBJ did bring us the Vietnam War - but he also enfranchised African Americans, started the Great Society welfare programs, and enhanced FDR wealth redistribution schemes.  He came to regret Vietnam.   Except for ratcheting up the war, my belief is that LBJ was pretty far from an ideal president for those involved in the JFK/RFK/MLK/Geo Wallace/Watergate coups.   So, LBJ was told quit in 68 or _____________.    

Likewise, Nixon tried wage and price controls and after a brief attempt to re-energize the Vietnam War also wrote it off as un-winnable. He started the Environmental Protection Agency and brought lowered tensions with both China and the Soviets through détente.  Nixon enhanced Social Security by instigating the Cost of Living Increase and supported the ERA.  He's often ranked more liberal than the Clintons.   I think it might be reasonable to suggest that Nixon was about as annoying as JFK & LBJ to the Hard Right; despite his evil Lord of Darkness image.    It goes almost unmentioned that from 1961-1974 every US president was removed from office and/or failed to successfully complete a reasonably expected second term.

....so, couldn't an argument exist that the hard-right who always want to avoid paying taxes and increase military spending didn't get their ideal candidate until 1980?   Perhaps both LBJ and Nixon were once favored golden boys but fell out of favor for resenting Vietnam and pushing domestic taxes & spending?   Everyone from Kennedy to Carter failed to meet expectations.  It's almost like the political violence and intrigue failed entirely, or even backfired.

 

Jason

Edited August 26, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Michael Clark]

10 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Yup. Nixon. Which leads to another prominent Republican family.

Michael,

one thing I would like to add to your theory is that it was nit necessary to kill JFK in order to provoke a US retaliation against Castro. An attempted assassination, blamed on a Castroite, would have sufficed. However, the same is not true for Vietnam. For a deep change in US foreign policies JFK had to be eliminated.

Paul, thanks for your input.

This is an evolving CT. I'll make a few remarks. Some of them repeat what I suggested above, some of it is new.

I have to point out that I believe that there was no intention to invade Cuba after the assassination. The promise of a Cuba invasion was a ruse to get the the anti Castro Cubans to act, and actually do the shooting. They got double-crossed. That is the main point of the theory and has not changed.

What is new, since I started the thread, is that I believe that the assassination was carried-out largely to secure US control over Guantanamo Bay. I believe that it was determined that unfettered control of Guantanamo could only be born-out by an antagonistic relationship. I believe that Kennedy would have eventually persued detent, normalization or war with Cuba. An invasion and war would have eventually led to some kind of normalization, and Guantanamo's status would again come into question. Whoever led Cuba, would address that issue, and the leader could or would die, be overthrown or assassinated and Guantanamo would again be challenged. My theory has the convenience of being born out by the history of the last 55 years. Guantanamo never has been challenged or questioned under the adversarial relationship.

Now, I repeat myself that I believe that the adversarial relationship had the added benefit of neutralizing off-shore Mafia power, and a competing tourist market. It also satisfied racial and anti-Catholic prejudices. 

In my theory, Anti-Castro Cubans did-it for the price of a free Cuba and they got double crossed. That is why they showed-up at Watergate.The adversarial relationship was preferred and Nixon was never going to invade. On the ground, the double-cross was managed locally, in Texas and Dallas. But I am now comming to believe that a wider range of elements on the right approved of and assisted in the plan.

i don't believe that we were actually trying to assassinate Castro. That was a ruse as well. Castro and Communism meant antagonism and isolation.

To be sure, Its all speculative and a working hypothesis.

 

[Jason Ward]

2 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

...

...

i don't believe that we were actually trying to assassinate Castro. 

...

 

The Hard Right enjoys its greatest popularity when there is a scary foreign enemy.   Enemies are useful.   Dentists don't want to really eliminate tooth decay and anti-communists don't really want to eliminate the whole rationale for militarization and being anti-communist (Castro/USSR).

Jason

[Paul Brancato]

Michael - you think that JFK was killed in order to secure long term control of Guantanamo bay? Despite the various logical suppositions in your theory, I find your conclusion extremely unlikely.

[Michael Clark]

Replying to Mark Knight, I am thinking that the sole purpose of the Watergate break-in was simply to get caught, and light a fire under Nixon's butt. It very well may be that Hunt, Mccord and Liddy, and their families, were under a direct and certain threat to cause a Cuban invasion, or they would be killed. Hunt Liddy and Mccord may not have been aware of a the preferred status of perpetual antagonism with Cuba, or they would not have been in a position to tell the Cuban exiles of that plan. They would have been beyond furious, and exacted revenge.

[Michael Clark]

1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - you think that JFK was killed in order to secure long term control of Guantanamo bay? Despite the various logical suppositions in your theory, I find your conclusion extremely unlikely.

Yes, I don't expect to find much  support, but it answers the largest question I have. Why did we not invade? Why set-up the Commie-LHO, stage an obvious conspiracy, and then fall back to the Lone-nut angle?

A WW3 threat does not answer that question for me. That threat would not have been new on 11-22-63. This is the largest factor that drove me to this theory. Second largest=Castro's survival and the perpetual antagonism (we could have killed him).Third largest= Watergate.

[Michael Clark]

Is "The Alien Presence" a code name for "Guantanamo"?

lol

[Jason Ward]

37 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Yes, I don't expect to find much  support, but it answers the largest question I have. Why did we not invade? Why set-up the Commie-LHO, stage an obvious conspiracy, and then fall back to the Lone-nut angle?

A WW3 threat does not answer that question for me. That threat would not have been new on 11-22-63. This is the largest factor that drove me to this theory. Second largest=Castro's survival and the perpetual antagonism (we could have killed him).Third largest= Watergate.

We didn't invade and we fell back on the lone-nut angle because the conspirators were unable to control Hoover + LBJ; in particular they were unable to manage public perception.  As you've determined in your original CT at the top of this thread, there are multiple enemies of JFK and even those who did not participate in the Conspiracy take advantage of his death.    

I think it's worth considering that Hoover + LBJ knew what was going on from day one and then went full speed at framing a coverup via Oswald that ends up being the safest outcome for LBJ + Hoover and even the rest of America.  It pleases neither the Left nor the Right.  However, it does further enhance Hoover's ideal state of existence and the source of his power = the ability to blackmail any and all challengers.

 

Jason

Edited August 26, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Michael Clark]

2 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

We didn't invade and we fell back on the lone-nut angle because the conspirators were unable to control Hoover + LBJ; in particular they were unable to manage public perception.  As you've determined in your original CT at the top of this thread, there are multiple enemies of JFK and even those who did not participate in the Conspiracy take advantage of his death.    I think it's worth considering that Hoover + LBJ knew what was going on from day one and then went full speed at framing a coverup via Oswald that ends up being the safest outcome for America.  It pleases neither the Left nor the Right.

 

Jason

Jason, it just does not make sense to me that a Dallas/Walker/KKK/JBS driven plot would include all the MC stuff, including so many CIA assets, rogue or not. LHO, the CIA sheep-dipped Commie does not fit that conspiracy. I now see why you want to see LHO as "crystallized" as close to 11-22 as possible. The earlier and earlier LHO's crystallization happens, the more and more difficult it is to accept your theory.

If it was going to be a Lone Nut, it did not matter what the ideology of the perp was. 

 

Michael

[Jason Ward]

17 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Jason, it just does not make sense to me that a Dallas/Walker/KKK/JBS driven plot would include all the MC stuff, including so many CIA assets, rogue or not. LHO, the CIA sheep-dipped Commie does not fit that conspiracy. I now see why you want to see LHO as "crystallized" as close to 11-22 as possible. The earlier and earlier LHO's crystallization happens, the more and more difficult it is to accept your theory.

If it was going to be a Lone Nut, it did not matter what the ideology of the perp was. 

 

Michael

It wasn't going to be a Lone Nut.  It was going to be a commie.   Also, I don't want LHO's involvement decided "as close to 11-22" as possible.  I believe LHO is crystallized as a potential patsy on 10April63.  He was finalized around Mexico City I'm thinking.

The Dallas/walker/KKK/JBS faction always intended for this to be an event blamed on a commie conspiracy with ties to Cuba and/or the Soviets.  I'm not sure what you think doesn't make sense?

 

Jason

Edited August 26, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Michael Clark]

2 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

It wasn't going to be a Lone Nut.  It was going to be a commie.   Also, I don't want LHO's involvement decided "as close to 11-22" as possible.  I believe LHO is crystallized as a potential patsy on 10April63.  He was finalized around Mexico City I'm thinking.

The Dallas/walker/KKK/JBS faction always intended for this to be an event blamed on a commie with ties to Cuba and/or the Soviets.

 

Jason

Roger that. But we digress from the topic of my pet CT thread. Debate is what these threads are all about. Walker stuff spills everywhere, all to often. 

[Jason Ward]

12 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Roger that. But we digress from the topic of my pet CT thread. Debate is what these threads are all about. Walker stuff spills everywhere, all to often. 

This might be worth considering if you think Nixon-Watergate ties in to your CT:

 

“Nixon kept a fairly low public profile in the funeral’s immediate aftermath while mapping out his political future.  Meanwhile, a right-wing publication soon promoted Oswald’s involvement in an alleged assassination attempt against far-right General Edwin Walker in Dallas, helping to clinch the case against the now-dead Oswald.    Added to this was a later claim that Oswald had once planned to assassinate Nixon.” 315

 

“It is important to remember that while Helms was engaged in his cover-ups, several authorized and unauthorized anti_Castro operations were still alive and viable, meaning that Helms had to conceal information while still preserving those operations and his options.  He had to decide what to hide, and from who, and what to reveal.   Some of the decisions Helms made that day would become CIA dogma for decades…”  308

 

“When Ferrie’s name surfaced that weekend ..in relation to JFK’s assassination, Helms was no doubt frantic…”  308 

 

Watergate: The Hidden History: Nixon, the Mafia, and CIA

by Lamar Waldron pp. 308-315

...this whole chapter can be seen free online; it is very relevant to your CT starting on p. 311 onwards here:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=v1tu-5PlbUEC&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=david+morales+someone+hijacked+oswald&source=bl&ots=JdKSwj5QXD&sig=ywD_rRmia_r9NLUnGCiQnEBQqm8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC0oSc4PXVAhXhgFQKHXwvB0IQ6AEISTAI#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited August 26, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Mark Knight]

Since this is the JFK assassination forum, I'm not going to sidetrack myself with Watergate itself. The common denominator in all this is Nixon. Nixon didn't pull any triggers himself. We all can agree to that. But I think that the key to it all is Nixon. The hush money conversations about Watergate shows a Mafia-style knowledge on Nixon's part. Bags of untraceable cash? Yeah, we can do that. 

So who (plural) was bankrolling all this? To what end? Johnson gave the MICC Vietnam. We weren't getting out very quickly on LBJ's watch. But Johnson was savvy enough to know that when he lost Cronkite's support, he'd lost America's support as well and a second term simply wasn't in the cards.

What I don't understand--and I lived through that era-- is what happened to Gene McCarthy after RFK's assassination. Humphrey, initially a stand-in for LBJ, never had the nomination sewed up. McCarthy was "persuaded" to step aside...somehow. Money? Threats? Blackmail? Not sure, but I'd wager that Nixon's backers found a way to "convince" McCarthy to drop out. I don't think anyone on the Democrat side of the ledger was was behind it. McCarthy seemed to fold his cards after RFK's death, and he only offered a token challenge to Humphrey.

Once Humphrey was the nominee, Nixon's election was assured. Until someone decided they weren't getting their money's worth from Nixon, and Watergate came about. The cabal giveth the White House, and the cabal taketh away. Not convinced the warhawks were the only kingmakers of the Nixon presidency.

[Paul Brancato]

Mark - does the Humphrey/McCarthy thing remind you of Clinton/Sanders? The Democratic Party establishment in both cases was probably the cause, though unlike McCarthy, Sanders didn't drop out.. But the death of RFK I would blame on others.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Mark Knight]

1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mark - does the Humphrey/McCarthy thing remind you of Clinton/Sanders? The Democratic Party establishment in both cases was probably the cause, though unlike McCarthy, Sanders didn't drop out.. But the death of RFK I would blame on others.

I believe the parallel is uncanny...and unnerving. Technically, McCarthy didn't drop out; he simply gave up campaigning. But it was the party "regulars" who gave the nomination to Humphrey, much as it was the "superdelegates" (party "regulars") who gave Clinton the nomination.