Where was the pushback?

[Eddy Bainbridge]

The theory goes that JFK was assassinated as a pretext for invasion of Cuba. Following this into a further theory; it is suggested some sort of countermanding of this narrative, to be replaced by the lone-nut assassin narrative. I would be grateful if anyone can explain why there was not apparently any pushback against this changing of the narrative. At first blush, it seems extremely unlikely that, if a group desired the success of the initial pretext that they would meekly accept the lone-note theory. If a group had the power to set up the pretext , then surely they would have the levers to reinforce the message?

[Benjamin Cole]

12 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The theory goes that JFK was assassinated as a pretext for invasion of Cuba. Following this into a further theory; it is suggested some sort of countermanding of this narrative, to be replaced by the lone-nut assassin narrative. I would be grateful if anyone can explain why there was not apparently any pushback against this changing of the narrative. At first blush, it seems extremely unlikely that, if a group desired the success of the initial pretext that they would meekly accept the lone-note theory. If a group had the power to set up the pretext , then surely they would have the levers to reinforce the message?

In a way, Sen. Richard Russell asked the same question on national TV in 1964.

Even Russell, a national security expert and long-time chair of the Armed Services Committee, was surprised at the sudden emphasis on Vietnam, while Cuba was dropped like a hot potato. 

My own speculation is that after the JFKA, the decision was made not to "validate" the JFKA by invading Cuba. That is, it was known US intel assets had done the JFKA deed, and to invade Cuba would be to reward the act. Upper echelons decided to back away. What if the truth about the JFKA emerged as US troops were fighting in Cuba?  

Why the post-JFKA headlong rush into Vietnam is another gigantic topic. But even Richard Russell was not in the loop. LBJ soon regretted the war, and Nixon and Kissinger regarded the war as already lost upon entering the White House. 

[W. Niederhut]

14 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The theory goes that JFK was assassinated as a pretext for invasion of Cuba. Following this into a further theory; it is suggested some sort of countermanding of this narrative, to be replaced by the lone-nut assassin narrative. I would be grateful if anyone can explain why there was not apparently any pushback against this changing of the narrative. At first blush, it seems extremely unlikely that, if a group desired the success of the initial pretext that they would meekly accept the lone-note theory. If a group had the power to set up the pretext , then surely they would have the levers to reinforce the message?

The lack of pushback by the Joint Chiefs adds weight to the hypothesis that the JFK assassination was motivated by a broader concern about JFK's efforts to de-escalate the Cold War, especially in Southeast Asia-- e.g., Vietnam and Indonesia.

Edited August 25, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Brancato]

12 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The theory goes that JFK was assassinated as a pretext for invasion of Cuba. Following this into a further theory; it is suggested some sort of countermanding of this narrative, to be replaced by the lone-nut assassin narrative. I would be grateful if anyone can explain why there was not apparently any pushback against this changing of the narrative. At first blush, it seems extremely unlikely that, if a group desired the success of the initial pretext that they would meekly accept the lone-note theory. If a group had the power to set up the pretext , then surely they would have the levers to reinforce the message?

Eddy - I’m not expert enough to lay down details, but I’m pretty sure there was pushback. My reading of it is that LBJ, and his White House and Hoover clamped down on the conspiracy theories revolving around Oswald in MC, Castro, and nipped in the bud plans already in place to proceed with a military led Cuba invasion and possibly far worse, full on nuclear with the Soviets and Chinese, plans for which had been developed by the JCS and presented to JFK. That didn’t stop the conspirators in Mexico City, David Phillips/Winston Scott/DFS and others from continuing to provide reasons why LBJ should act against Cuba at least. So the way I read it, your last sentence underestimates the power of the Executive to put a stop to the aims of the clique that carried out the assassination. 

[Sandy Larsen]

In all my studying of the Mexico City incident, I've been amazed by how certain key CIA members never gave up the idea that the Cubans and Russians had been in collusion with Oswald to kill Kennedy. More (fake) evidence of this (fake) collusion was created even after the Johnson administration decided to cover up the Mexico City evidence and put all the blame on Oswald.

So I am surprised by the subject of this thread.

 

EDIT: Paul said it better than I.

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Eddy - I’m not expert enough to lay down details, but I’m pretty sure there was pushback. My reading of it is that LBJ, and his White House and Hoover clamped down on the conspiracy theories revolving around Oswald in MC, Castro, and nipped in the bud plans already in place to proceed with a military led Cuba invasion and possibly far worse, full on nuclear with the Soviets and Chinese, plans for which had been developed by the JCS and presented to JFK. That didn’t stop the conspirators in Mexico City, David Phillips/Winston Scott/DFS and others from continuing to provide reasons why LBJ should act against Cuba at least. So the way I read it, your last sentence underestimates the power of the Executive to put a stop to the aims of the clique that carried out the assassination. 

Paul,

     However, if LBJ was colluding in the assassination plot, (as some believe) wouldn't he have also been in collusion with the primary motive?

     In other words, if the plan was to use the assassination as a pretext to invade Cuba, would LBJ, as a co-conspirator, have dared to abruptly overturn the plan?

     In contrast, LBJ allegedly told the Joint Chiefs, in December of 1963, "O.K., gentlemen, you can have your war, (in Vietnam) just make sure I get elected next year."

Edited August 25, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Reading all the informed views above I can see some holes in my premise: There was evidence of continued pushback/support of the initial pretext (thankyou Sandy) but perhaps the premise overemphasises the power of the plotters. Maybe the failure to force through the attack on Cuba indicates a 'rogue' plan? One supposed to force 'authorities' to act, as opposed to one validated by 'authorities'. 

 

I can speculate that informed plotters had sufficient information to expect the 'commies did it' pretext to work: An implicated Oswald, favourable public opinion, an executive rehearsed in pretexts for war, and an executive with a pre-prepared plan to cover up provocative assassinations of officials. I am willing to be persuaded of a separation in motives between the assassins and the new executive. 

[Paul Brancato]

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

     However, if LBJ was colluding in the assassination plot, (as some believe) wouldn't he have also been in collusion with the primary motive?

     In other words, if the plan was to use the assassination as a pretext to invade Cuba, would LBJ, as a co-conspirator, have dared to abruptly overturn the plan?

     In contrast, LBJ allegedly told the Joint Chiefs, in December of 1963, "O.K., gentlemen, you can have your war, (in Vietnam) just make sure I get elected next year."

It is unclear whether the real motive of the planners of the assassination was to go after Castro, even though so many pieces were laid in place beforehand and activated immediately after. I’ve often said here that it wasn’t necessary to kill JFK if the motive was really Cuba, because an unsuccessful attempt to do so would suffice as long as the attempt pointed at Castro. This is why I think the real motive of the actual killing of the President was to further the deeper aims of the Military Industrial Complex which were a war in Vietnam and a continuation of US Cold War policies. I think it’s clear that JFK wanted to end the Cold War and seek a new Peace. 

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

It is unclear whether the real motive of the planners of the assassination was to go after Castro, even though so many pieces were laid in place beforehand and activated immediately after. I’ve often said here that it wasn’t necessary to kill JFK if the motive was really Cuba, because an unsuccessful attempt to do so would suffice as long as the attempt pointed at Castro. This is why I think the real motive of the actual killing of the President was to further the deeper aims of the Military Industrial Complex which were a war in Vietnam and a continuation of US Cold War policies. I think it’s clear that JFK wanted to end the Cold War and seek a new Peace. 

Using Occam's Razor as a guide, the answer is clear and has been clear for a long time. Marcello ordered the hit. He had the motive, the means and the money to pay for it. What was not clear until very recently is where does the CIA fit into this?

The answer is with the missing piece of a three-sided pyramid.

That is where the expat Cubans join with RFK and the CIA who join with the Mafia.

That is the second side of the pyramid.

The missing third side involves the lives of people like McLendon and Murchison and Haiti and De Mohrenschildt - all glued together by three ships: the Mi Amigo; Galaxy and Olga Patricia. Follow the lives of those ships and you meet all of the people involved with the murder of JFK.

Robert Blakey was correct all along, but his problem was not knowing about the missing third dimension to this puzzle.

[Cliff Varnell]

The Tale Told by Two Tapes by Vincent Salandria  

<quote on>

[National Security Adviser] McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the [White House] Situation Room and was spending that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot, New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968, p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the Mafia and/or renegade elements. 

<quote off> 

The President Has Been Shot, Charles Roberts (p. 141) A reporter for Newsweek, Roberts was on AFI and saw McGeorge Bundy at Andrews Air Force Base, where Air Force One landed. 

<quote on> 

I remember looking at (McGeorge) Bundy because I was wondering if he had any word of what had happened in the world while we were in transit, whether this assassination was part of a plot. And he told me later that what he reported to the president during that flight back was that the whole world was stunned, but there was no evidence of a conspiracy at all.

<quote off> 

Who would have given orders to McGeorge Bundy to repeat the lie that there was no evidence of conspiracy found in Dallas? 

Bundy couldn't have made that determination sitting in the Situation Room.  

Turns out there was another "quintessential WASP establishmentarian" who turned up telling a great big lie: the #3 man at the State Department, W. Averell Harriman.

The Assassination Tapes, Max Holland, pg 57: 

<quote on> 

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

<quote off> 

A Very Human President, Jack Valenti (1973, p3) 

<quote on> 

Shortly before 7:00 P.M., I escorted Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Ambassador Averell Harriman into the office. I fidgeted outside, in the middle of what would have appeared to be an objective onlooker to be a melange of confusion. No one of the Johnson aides, Marie Fehmer, his secretary; the late Cliff Carter, his chief political agent; Bill Moyers, nor any of the rest, was quite certain of what lay ahead. We were all busy on the phone and trying to assemble what measure of office discipline we could construct. 

<quote off> 

Spanning the Century: The Life of W. Averell Harriman, by Rudy Abramson, pg 625: 

<quote on> 

[Harriman] spent the afternoon helping [George] Ball [#2 man at the State Dept], who was, if anyone truly was, running the United States government, since [Dean] Rusk [Secretary of State] and several other Cabinet members were airborne, coming home after turning back from a flight to the Far East. As darkness fell, Averell drove out to Andrews Air Force Base with Ball and Alexis Johnson, joining the official mourning party standing silently on the floodlit ramp as the President's casket was lowered from the rear door of Air Force One. 

<quote off> 

The Wise Men, Walter Isaacson & Evan Thomas, pg. 640: 

<quote on> 

[The Diem] coup [in South Vietnam] was messy. Diem's body was found riddled with bullets and stab wounds.  John Kennedy himself was shot to death three weeks later. Bill Sullivan [Harriman's chief of staff] found Averell Harriman that afternoon sitting on the edge of his chair, in front of a television set, holding his head in his hands.

<quote off> 

That Lee Harvey Oswald had been in the Soviet Union was announced on the news at 4:25pm EST. Sundown in Washington DC occurred at 4:50pm EST. 

How could Harriman gather "the US government's top Kremlinologists" in such a short period of time? And all of them reached the same snap decision on the basis of next to no information?  

In 1963 the top three Kremlinologists were George Kennan, Charles Bohlen, and Harriman himself. According to his biography, Charles Bohlen was traveling in Europe that day; according to his biography, George Kennan spent the day quietly in Princeton with Robert Oppenheimer. 

Harriman went out to Andrews around sundown with George Ball and Alexis Johnson -- neither of whom were Kremlinologists. 

The idea anyone could draw the snap conclusion of Soviet innocence is absurd -- unless that person knew who pulled off the plot.

Vincent Salandria: "Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012"

<quote on> 

I explained [to Specter] that the day after the Kennedy assassination I met with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman. We decided that if Oswald was the killer, and if the U.S. government were innocent of any complicity in the assassination, Oswald would live through the weekend. But if he was killed, then we would know that the assassination was a consequence of a high level U.S. government plot. 
Harold Feldman and I also concluded that if Oswald was killed by a Jew, it would indicate a high level WASP plot. We further decided that the killing of Oswald would signal that no government investigation could upturn the truth. In that event we as private citizens would have to investigate the assassination to arrive at the historical truth.

<quote off> 

Jack Ruby was Jewish.

In 1963 Averell Harriman (Skull & Bones 1913) and McGeorge Bundy (Skull & Bones 1940) were the top two WASPs in the US government.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Tale Told by Two Tapes by Vincent Salandria  

<quote on>

[National Security Adviser] McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the [White House] Situation Room and was spending that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot, New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968, p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the Mafia and/or renegade elements. 

<quote off> 

The President Has Been Shot, Charles Roberts (p. 141) A reporter for Newsweek, Roberts was on AFI and saw McGeorge Bundy at Andrews Air Force Base, where Air Force One landed. 

<quote on> 

I remember looking at (McGeorge) Bundy because I was wondering if he had any word of what had happened in the world while we were in transit, whether this assassination was part of a plot. And he told me later that what he reported to the president during that flight back was that the whole world was stunned, but there was no evidence of a conspiracy at all.

<quote off> 

Who would have given orders to McGeorge Bundy to repeat the lie that there was no evidence of conspiracy found in Dallas? 

Bundy couldn't have made that determination sitting in the Situation Room.  

Turns out there was another "quintessential WASP establishmentarian" who turned up telling a great big lie: the #3 man at the State Department, W. Averell Harriman.

The Assassination Tapes, Max Holland, pg 57: 

<quote on> 

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

<quote off> 

A Very Human President, Jack Valenti (1973, p3) 

<quote on> 

Shortly before 7:00 P.M., I escorted Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Ambassador Averell Harriman into the office. I fidgeted outside, in the middle of what would have appeared to be an objective onlooker to be a melange of confusion. No one of the Johnson aides, Marie Fehmer, his secretary; the late Cliff Carter, his chief political agent; Bill Moyers, nor any of the rest, was quite certain of what lay ahead. We were all busy on the phone and trying to assemble what measure of office discipline we could construct. 

<quote off> 

Spanning the Century: The Life of W. Averell Harriman, by Rudy Abramson, pg 625: 

<quote on> 

[Harriman] spent the afternoon helping [George] Ball [#2 man at the State Dept], who was, if anyone truly was, running the United States government, since [Dean] Rusk [Secretary of State] and several other Cabinet members were airborne, coming home after turning back from a flight to the Far East. As darkness fell, Averell drove out to Andrews Air Force Base with Ball and Alexis Johnson, joining the official mourning party standing silently on the floodlit ramp as the President's casket was lowered from the rear door of Air Force One. 

<quote off> 

The Wise Men, Walter Isaacson & Evan Thomas, pg. 640: 

<quote on> 

[The Diem] coup [in South Vietnam] was messy. Diem's body was found riddled with bullets and stab wounds.  John Kennedy himself was shot to death three weeks later. Bill Sullivan [Harriman's chief of staff] found Averell Harriman that afternoon sitting on the edge of his chair, in front of a television set, holding his head in his hands.

<quote off> 

That Lee Harvey Oswald had been in the Soviet Union was announced on the news at 4:25pm EST. Sundown in Washington DC occurred at 4:50pm EST. 

How could Harriman gather "the US government's top Kremlinologists" in such a short period of time? And all of them reached the same snap decision on the basis of next to no information?  

In 1963 the top three Kremlinologists were George Kennan, Charles Bohlen, and Harriman himself. According to his biography, Charles Bohlen was traveling in Europe that day; according to his biography, George Kennan spent the day quietly in Princeton with Robert Oppenheimer. 

Harriman went out to Andrews around sundown with George Ball and Alexis Johnson -- neither of whom were Kremlinologists. 

The idea anyone could draw the snap conclusion of Soviet innocence is absurd -- unless that person knew who pulled off the plot.

Vincent Salandria: "Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012"

<quote on> 

I explained [to Specter] that the day after the Kennedy assassination I met with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman. We decided that if Oswald was the killer, and if the U.S. government were innocent of any complicity in the assassination, Oswald would live through the weekend. But if he was killed, then we would know that the assassination was a consequence of a high level U.S. government plot. 
Harold Feldman and I also concluded that if Oswald was killed by a Jew, it would indicate a high level WASP plot. We further decided that the killing of Oswald would signal that no government investigation could upturn the truth. In that event we as private citizens would have to investigate the assassination to arrive at the historical truth.

<quote off> 

Jack Ruby was Jewish.

In 1963 Averell Harriman (Skull & Bones 1913) and McGeorge Bundy (Skull & Bones 1940) were the top two WASPs in the US government.

 

 

That's interesting Cliff. But how would Averell Harriman know that certain officials at the CIA had plotted to kill the president? He didn't have the NTK (need to know).

It could be that Harriman merely worried that the Soviets would be blamed, and that it might lead to nuclear war. And so he tried to nip it in the bud.

 

BTW, if Harriman did know about the plot, why didn't he also come up with an excuse for the Cubans? For example, that the Cuban specialists all say that the Cubans weren't behind it.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That's interesting Cliff. But how would Averell Harriman know that certain officials at the CIA had plotted to kill the president? He didn't have the NTK (need to know).

If he ordered the assassination he needed to know.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It could be that Harriman merely worried that the Soviets would be blamed, and that it might lead to nuclear war. And so he tried to nip it in the bud.

How would he know the Soviets were not involved unless he knew who was?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

BTW, if Harriman did know about the plot, why didn't he also come up with an excuse for the Cubans? For example, that the Cuban specialists all say that the Cubans weren't behind it.

Oswald didn’t go to Cuba.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It could be that Harriman merely worried that the Soviets would be blamed, and that it might lead to nuclear war. And so he tried to nip it in the bud.

How would he know the Soviets were not involved unless he knew who was?

 

If Harriman was in on the plot, it's hard to believe he could behave so recklessly as to give a clue as to who did it (by saying who didn't do it).

I think its more likely that he could see the writing on the wall... rumors of Soviet involvement, leading to international tension, leading to who knows what. So, as one of the leading Kremlinologists, he nipped any Soviet suspicion in the bud.

 Lying about the other Kremlinologists was justified by the seriousness of the matter.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If Harriman was in on the plot, it's hard to believe he could behave so recklessly as to give a clue as to who did it (by saying who didn't do it).

What’s reckless about it?  He told the truth — the Soviets weren’t involved.  He lied about consulting other Kremlinologists.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think its more likely that he could see the writing on the wall... rumors of Soviet involvement, leading to international tension, leading to who knows what.

We do know what — the United States had first strike nuke dominance over the Soviets until 1965 (see The Perils of Dominance by Gareth Porter.)

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So, as one of the leading Kremlinologists, he nipped any Soviet suspicion in the bud.

In this scenario Averell Harriman unilaterally on the spot decided he had to protect the entire US government — the entire world! — from suspecting the Soviets even though he had no idea whether they were involved or not.

He risked committing treason?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 Lying about the other Kremlinologists was justified by the seriousness of the matter.

This is the same horsesht LBJ fed Earl Warren.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

If Oswald had been gunned down instead of Tippit I dare say Adlai Stevenson would have denounced the Soviets at the UN while the US Air Force bombed Cuba back to the Stone Age.