New Fred Litwin Article on Morley

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Fred Litwin has been engaged in a debate with Morley regarding the latter's assertions about Operation Northwoods. The following article debunks Morley's Northwoods assertions and some other dubious Morley claims:

A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

[Micah Mileto]

https://archive.org/details/nationalsecurityarchive-weisberg?query="litwin"&sin=TXT

 

Some of Litwin's old stuff

[S.T. Patrick]

Wait, this has RFK wondering if there is any way to "sink the Maine again"? I just looked it up at the JFK Library site. He did say it. Those do seem to be his words in the transcript. And if so, then he's suggesting a false flag be done - as Northwoods did (and to which the apologists always say the Kennedys opposed vehemently). I'm wondering what the apologetic spin will be on this. I do think "rabid" as a word is so subjective that Morley can't prove that it wasn't and Litwin can't prove that it was. It's hard to prove adjectives that completely depend on the user's view and extent of the word. One man's "rabid" is another man's "interested in," "curious about," "obsessed with," or "hell-bent on." But adjectives don't have hard and fast parameters. You're then back to Clinton's "what the word 'is' is" nonsense about semantics. So, I think the argument over one adjective as a descriptor is fruitless. The argument here - and, oh, there will be one to follow - is what RFK meant and what that says about RFK and Cuba and how both sides of the debate are sure to spin this. But this was said by RFK and he and JFK are different people. One's words shouldn't automatically represent the other directly, even if it did often. Looking forward to seeing how this progresses in the thread and whether the Kennedy apologetics crowd and the RFK-as-war-monger crowd can find some reasonable explanation together. I have my guess that, 200 posts later, both sides minds will remained unchanged. Yet, it's an interesting transcript.  

Edited July 5, 2023 by S.T. Patrick

[Gerry Down]

Any chance of a podcast debate between these two? 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Fred Litwin has been engaged in a debate with Morley regarding the latter's assertions about Operation Northwoods. The following article debunks Morley's Northwoods assertions and some other dubious Morley claims:

A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

I think Litwin clearly has the better arguments when it comes to Operation Northwoods and JFK's willingness to use force against the Castro regime. However, I think Litwin stumbles when he sees nothing but spontaneous reactions and coincidences in all the 11/22 to 11/28 efforts to blame Castro for the assassination. 

Litwin's convincing arguments on Northwoods and JFK's intentions toward Cuba highlight a problem among conspiracy theorists, namely, the fact that many conspiracy theorists insist on denying JFK's hawkish anti-communism and instead paint him as a liberal peacenik. They argue that JFK was pushed into trying to keep South Vietnam free and pushed into trying to topple Castro; even worse, they claim that he was trying to shut down all anti-Castro operations and that he was determined to abandon South Vietnam after the election. These claims do a great disservice to JFK and to his legacy.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Larry Hancock]

JFK and RFK were clearly different people and to a large extent JFK had compartmentalized himself from both RFK and Fitzgerald in regard to Cuban ops in 63 - which is why JFK was still considering approval for certain sabotage operations while Wave, Morales, and Shackley were letting Commando Mambeses go ahead with attacks and sabotage on their own and Fitzgerald was even reporting on it to the Special Group and the interdepartmental oversight team which RFK was involved with  - but not to JFK.

In contrast, JFK had ordered the Joint Chiefs to begin planning to take over all covert ops against Cuba from the CIA and that was in progress, the same thing he had done in Vietnam.  Even while JFK was beginning a negotiations track with Castro he was allowing the covert ops track to proceed - this stuff is not black and white and JFK was a very pragmatic person. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

When people post things by Fred Litwin I am really kind of surprised, but this is Parnell.

Please, Fred Litwin cannot be trusted.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/litwin-and-the-warren-report

Another reason:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/i-was-not-a-teenage-jfk-conspiracy-freak

Edited July 5, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now, let us get down to brass tacks.

Anyone can do a Lamar Waldron on this subject.  Especially when one has help from five other like minded hacks.

But to use just one example, how can anyone write anything about Kennedy and Cuba in 1963, and never mention the Attwood, Daniel, Howard back channel? Or the remarkable letter JFK wrote to Castro through Daniel which more of less shocked Fidel with its depth of understanding of Cuban history and Castro's position in it.  Or Attwood saying that if Kennedy had not been killed, he was certain he would have been flying to Veradero through Mexico the next year to establish preliminary relations on the way to recognition.  Or the fact that Castro pleaded with LBJ to continue the back channel, even offering to help stage an attack on Cuba, to camouflage what was really happening. (https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/jfk-and-castro-7300) 

Did none of this happen?  Or is it just erased for propaganda purposes?

Or how about this?  When Kennedy had the perfect opportunity to invade Cuba in April of 1961, he did not.  He swallowed defeat.  Dulles and Bissell were so certain he would not, that they lost their jobs over setting him up.  And we have this in writing.

Another one we can throw down the memory hole?

Fast forward to 1962.  Kennedy now has another perfect opportunity to invade, or at least bomb, Cuba.  Again, he does not.  He won't even bomb the missile silos. He negotiates through a back channel to Dobrynin.  And he tells the Russian ambassador they have to settle soon since he thinks the Pentagon is planning his overthrow.

Did this not happen?  It most certainly did.

And this is what caused Castro to attempt to deal with Kennedy on the back channel basis.

Now, Kennedy had called off MONGOOSE and was in the process of greatly decreasing any and all Cuban operations at the time.  Harvey and Halpern were upset about this already because the way they saw it, it was simply boom and bang.  And this is why they were both involved in plots to kill Castro.  But both Bundy and Fitzgerald later said that in the second half of 1963, these operations amounted to a Peter Seller's like The Mouse that Roared project.  In David Corn's book on Shackley, Bundy said that they were utterly inconsequential raids that were kind of like mosquito bites.  Des Fitzgerald wrote two letters to the White House in 1964 strongly urging that the whole program be dropped.  For in six months they got off five total raids, less than one per month.  He strongly implied that the net result was actually helping Castro.  In other words they were counter productive, since they had little or no impact.

As John Newman notes, when Kennedy refused to go along with Northwoods, Lemnitzer said, let us just invade anyway.  This is what got him terminated, with Taylor taking his place since he was more of a counterinsurgency guy.

As anyone who studies this knows, Kennedy was very interested in the Castro back channel.  And he told Bundy this, but unfortunately, the CIA found out about it.  As Larry Hancock notes, there is some anecdotal evidence that the Cuban exiles in the CIA's employ found out about it. And there is  some sketchy evidence that this was a motivating force behind JFK's murder.  

What Parnell has posted here is something like what Selverstone wrote about Vietnam.  An exercise in cherry picking which purposefully avoids the main point. Selverstone actually said in an interview that we don't really know what Kennedy would have done in 1964 and 65.  Uh Marc, Bundy, Taylor and McNamara all said Kennedy was never committing combat troops into Vietnam.  Taylor said JFK was the one guy stopping combat troops from entering Vietnam. By the end of 1965, there were 170,000 combat troops in theater. And that would peak out at about 540,000.

As per Joannides, Tunheim told Oliver that the CIA suckered them about that file.  Just as they snookered Blakey about who Joannides was.  As Morley notes, George was cleared for SI in the summer of 1963. Just what  that special intelligence was about, we do not know.  And I do not think we will ever know with the latest move by Biden on the JFK Records Act.

Edited July 5, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

The record has long been obvious, IMO, that JFK was both trying to overthrow Castro and trying to make nice with Castro. This is how it is done, people. You work both ends. If you make headway on the one end then you might stop working the other. But until that time... 

It should be noted, moreover, that this wasn't from a lack of conviction on his part. He was a smart man. The current situation--a Russian puppet off the coast of Florida--was unacceptable. So he worked a number of options to change that situation. Should Castro have turned his back on Russia and sought a relationship with the U.S., It would have been fine. Should some exiles have overtaken Castro, that would have been fine as well.

As far as "re-sinking the Maine", that is not a reference to a Northwoods like operation, where innocents would be killed. It's a reference to taking advantage of a propaganda opportunity, should one arise. Kinda like LBJ did with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. 

[James DiEugenio]

I don't see how you overthrow Castro with five mini raids in six months.

As I said, Fitzgerald wanted the whole thing called off since he thought it was so weak it was counter productive.

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

JFK and RFK were clearly different people and to a large extent JFK had compartmentalized himself from both RFK and Fitzgerald in regard to Cuban ops in 63 - which is why JFK was still considering approval for certain sabotage operations while Wave, Morales, and Shackley were letting Commando Mambeses go ahead with attacks and sabotage on their own and Fitzgerald was even reporting on it to the Special Group and the interdepartmental oversight team which RFK was involved with  - but not to JFK.

In contrast, JFK had ordered the Joint Chiefs to begin planning to take over all covert ops against Cuba from the CIA and that was in progress, the same thing he had done in Vietnam.  Even while JFK was beginning a negotiations track with Castro he was allowing the covert ops track to proceed - this stuff is not black and white and JFK was a very pragmatic person. 

This picture borders on fantasy, I hate to say. It ignores a mountain of evidence. The idea that RFK did not keep JFK informed about anti-Castro operations is nothing but wishful thinking by those who seek to paint JFK as a peacenik. 

As for the statement "the same thing he had done in Vietnam," this is based on Fletcher Prouty's bogus claims. To his credit, JFK realized he had made a serious mistake in agreeing to a coalition government in Laos. The record shows he had no intention of repeating that mistake in Vietnam, which is one reason he summarily rejected De Gaulle's proposal for a coalition government. The White House tapes show JFK was determined to keep South Vietnam free, as do the speeches he took with him to deliver in Texas, one of which he was going to give at the Trade Mart after the Dallas motorcade.

Oh, yes, JFK, like the Romans, would talk with anyone, but never from a position of weakness or fear. He was indeed prepared to make peace with Castro, but only on the condition that Castro stop exporting communism to Latin America and stop acting as a puppet of the Soviet Union. 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Larry Hancock]

Mike, all I can do is to refer you to my book In Denial which presents the Cuba Project under Eisenhower and Cuban operations under JFK in great detail - based on the most recent available documents, I think it fairly supports all the points I made here and I'm always happy to deal with them individually - however its far too much of a complex subject, including the sourcing to deal with here so I will leave the support for the remarks to the book.

My reference to "the same thing as in Viet Nam" is his strategy of handing off covert military operations to the military - something that emerged from the debacle at the Bay of Pigs and which is fully documented for both Vietnam and in the directives and tasking for the JCS, related to Cuba.  Something fully underway as of the summer of 63. 

Strangely enough my position on JFK is far from what you would describe as "making him a peacenik",  he was possibly the most "balanced" president in the last Century.  In fact that is what triggered much of the opposition to him, much of which I recall from hearing it in person.

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, let us get down to brass tacks.

Anyone can do a Lamar Waldron on this subject.  Especially when one has help from five other like minded hacks.

But to use just one example, how can anyone write anything about Kennedy and Cuba in 1963, and never mention the Attwood, Daniel, Howard back channel? Or the remarkable letter JFK wrote to Castro through Daniel which more of less shocked Fidel with its depth of understanding of Cuban history and Castro's position in it.  Or Attwood saying that if Kennedy had not been killed, he was certain he would have been flying to Veradero through Mexico the next year to establish preliminary relations on the way to recognition.  Or the fact that Castro pleaded with LBJ to continue the back channel, even offering to help stage an attack on Cuba, to camouflage what was really happening. (https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/jfk-and-castro-7300) 

Did none of this happen?  Or is it just erased for propaganda purposes?

Or how about this?  When Kennedy had the perfect opportunity to invade Cuba in April of 1961, he did not.  He swallowed defeat.  Dulles and Bissell were so certain he would not, that they lost their jobs over setting him up.  And we have this in writing.

Another one we can throw down the memory hole?

Fast forward to 1962.  Kennedy now has another perfect opportunity to invade, or at least bomb, Cuba.  Again, he does not.  He won't even bomb the missile silos. He negotiates through a back channel to Dobrynin.  And he tells the Russian ambassador they have to settle soon since he thinks the Pentagon is planning his overthrow.

Did this not happen?  It most certainly did.

And this is what caused Castro to attempt to deal with Kennedy on the back channel basis.

Now, Kennedy had called off MONGOOSE and was in the process of greatly decreasing any and all Cuban operations at the time.  Harvey and Halpern were upset about this already because the way they saw it, it was simply boom and bang.  And this is why they were both involved in plots to kill Castro.  But both Bundy and Fitzgerald later said that in the second half of 1963, these operations amounted to a Peter Seller's like The Mouse that Roared project.  In David Corn's book on Shackley, Bundy said that they were utterly inconsequential raids that were kind of like mosquito bites.  Des Fitzgerald wrote two letters to the White House in 1964 strongly urging that the whole program be dropped.  For in six months they got off five total raids, less than one per month.  He strongly implied that the net result was actually helping Castro.  In other words they were counter productive, since they had little or no impact.

As John Newman notes, when Kennedy refused to go along with Northwoods, Lemnitzer said, let us just invade anyway.  This is what got him terminated, with Taylor taking his place since he was more of a counterinsurgency guy.

As anyone who studies this knows, Kennedy was very interested in the Castro back channel.  And he told Bundy this, but unfortunately, the CIA found out about it.  As Larry Hancock notes, there is some anecdotal evidence that the Cuban exiles in the CIA's employ found out about it. And there is  some sketchy evidence that this was a motivating force behind JFK's murder.  

What Parnell has posted here is something like what Selverstone wrote about Vietnam.  An exercise in cherry picking which purposefully avoids the main point. Selverstone actually said in an interview that we don't really know what Kennedy would have done in 1964 and 65.  Uh Marc, Bundy, Taylor and McNamara all said Kennedy was never committing combat troops into Vietnam.  Taylor said JFK was the one guy stopping combat troops from entering Vietnam. By the end of 1965, there were 170,000 combat troops in theater. And that would peak out at about 540,000.

Let me take the last paragraph first. You are the one who engages in egregious cherry picking when it comes to JFK and Vietnam, not Selverstone. Your "review" of his book simply ignores most of the evidence he presents and misstates or ignores several of his arguments.

Selverstone is absolutely correct in noting that we do not know what JFK would have done in '64 and '65. Arthur Schlesinger has made the exact same point. JFK was never faced with anything approaching the situation that LBJ faced in '64 and '65. The problem is that you've swallowed the myth that the war going badly in '62 and '63, when in fact the war was going quite well, as has been confirmed by North Vietnamese sources.

If you would ever bother to read non-far-left sources on the war, you would discover that LBJ did not want to deploy combat troops to South Vietnam either. He did so only very reluctantly and hoped they could be withdrawn in a short time, so much so that he initially tried to conceal their deployment. (I might add that LBJ's relationship with the Joint Chiefs was anything but cozy. At times he subjected them to angry rants of profane screaming, even in front of others.)

As for JFK and Cuba, you and Litwin are talking past each other. You ignore or minimize his valid evidence, and he ignores or minimizes your valid evidence. That being said, his valid evidence shows that your interpretation of your valid evidence goes too far and incorrectly seeks to paint JFK as a peacenik. 

You seem unwilling to admit that JFK's approach was a carrot-and-stick approach and that he was fully prepared to greatly ramp up the pressure against the Castro regime if he could not get a satisfactory negotiated solution. You focus on the carrot evidence but dismiss or minimize the stick evidence.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

The problem is that you've swallowed the myth that the war going badly in '62 and '63, when in fact the war was going quite well, as has been confirmed by North Vietnamese sources.

Based on those book reviews of I forget which book a while back, this is hardly a myth. The reviewers absolutely slammed that guy for taking these supposedly conclusive North Vietnamese sources out of context to spin that the war was actually going well under Diem. Newman alone presents mountains of evidence to the contrary, and if I recall, this idea that the war was going well in ‘62-‘63 was referred to derisively by those scholarly reviewers as the “revisionist perspective”. I would need to read these North Vietnamese sources myself and compare with American primary source material to really have an opinion, but Selverstone’s argument on this seems to be pretty far removed from the historical consensus you make it out to be. 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Litwin is dishonest. I have alerted him to misstatements or misleading statements and instead of clarifying the issue he simply rationalizes his error. Dont fall for his shtick.I