JFK and Watergate

[Tim Gratz]

Very interesting post, Pat. I'll have to read "Widows". I did not know Trento and Corson testified on opposite sides. I bet it was an interesting trial.

I continue to be impressed by your knowledge of the history involved.

Shackley's perspective is interesting but it does not seem too likely. Larry thinks that JM/Wave just kind of lost steam as the attention of the Johnson administration shifted to SE Asia. From Califano's book, Johnson certainly appears to have taken some steps to shut down the operations but they were not turned off overnight.

[John Simkin]

While I have no problem with John's speculating, his specualtion should be based as much as possible on the known facts.  With this in mind, a few errors caught my eye.

1. The Warren Report was not written by Angleton and Sullivan but by the WC's staff lawyers, with Lee Rankin and Norman Redlich supervising its over-all construction, as I remember.  I believe Redlich, who was almost fired by the Commission for his extreme-left views, re-wrote the majority of its text, in order to bring a consistency to its tone and content.

2.  Hunt knew Colson before he was hired by the White House.  The two men had met years before at a reunion at Brown University.

3.  It's doubtful Hunt and Morales would work together. The papers released on the 1954 Guatemalan operation reveal that one paramilitary officer, a Vincent Pivall, reported an intelligence agent for a security breach, when the agent left important papers behind in his apartment after heading back to Washington.  As Rip Robertson was Morales' boss, and as Robertson sung the praises of this Pivall in his final report, I believe Pivall was Morales.  Phillips' The Night Watch reveals the close relationship between the two men.  Similarly, Hunt's Undercover reveals he was pulled off the Guatemalan operation just before it went into action, and was not brought back to celebrate at the Washington party for the operation attended by Eisenhower, Nixon, Dulles, Barnes, Haney, Robertson, and Morales.  I suspect the men hated each other.

1. What I was saying is that Warren Commission Report was based on the report provided by Hoover. This was the report written by Sullivan and Angleton. LBJ says in one of his phone conversations with Hoover that this would happen.

It is true that Ford leaked to Hoover that Norman Redlich was asking difficult questions of the evidence. This resulted in questions about Redlich being asked in Congress, by Ralph F. Beermann and Karl E. Mundt. It was suggested that Redlich was attempting to cover-up the Soviet role in the assassination. Redlich survived but he had to agree to change his position on subjects like Oswald’s attempts to make contact with Ruby after the assassination.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKredlich.htm

2. I know that Hunt knew Colson. I thought I made that clear in my posting. Hunt used Colson to persuade John Ehrlichman to give him the job in the White House.

3. Hunt might have been in conflict with Morales. However, they shared the same political views and I expect they were willing to work together on this operation. However, this is pure speculation on my part.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

However, this is pure speculation on my part.

And the distinction between "pure" and "impure" speculation is . . . ?

Hey, it was a joke! I understand "pure speculation" to mean without any facts to back it up.

[Pat Speer]

It is true that Ford leaked to Hoover that Norman Redlich was asking difficult questions of the evidence. This resulted in questions about Redlich being asked in Congress, by Ralph F. Beermann and Karl E. Mundt. It was suggested that Redlich was attempting to cover-up the Soviet role in the assassination. Redlich survived but he had to agree to change his position on subjects like Oswald’s attempts to make contact with Ruby after the assassination. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew that Ford led the charge to get Redlich fired but I didn't know that Hoover leaked the info to Congress. This makes sense. Is there a memo by Ford indicating that the nature of Redlich's questions had anything to do with his being investigated? I'd like to see it if you know where I can find it.

[Pat Speer]

Very interesting post, Pat.  I'll have to read "Widows".  I did not know Trento and Corson testified on opposite sides.  I bet it was an interesting trial.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I remember Plausible Denial, Marchetti said his sources on the Hunt memo were Weberman and Corson. Weberman admitted he'd never seen the memo and Corson denied its existence in his depostion. When Lane clutched at straws and deposed Trento, who'd written a similar article as Marchetti's on the memo (and who, incidentally, had not been sued), Lane got lucky. Hunt's attorney asked Trento a question he thought he knew the answer to--how he knew the memo existed--and got the shocking reply that Trento knew it existed because Angleton had shown it to him. Angelton also denied the memo existed, both to Lane and the HSCA.

From this it's clear that someone lied. Since Weberman has said here that he now believes the memo never existed, in effect, calling Trento a xxxx, I'm hoping Trento will finally come out and either admit he lied, or acknowledge that his friends Corson and Angleton lied about the memo under oath, and offer us a possible reason why (seeing as Hunt's being in Dallas was so innocent and all).

Edited May 25, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Very good summary and analysis, Pat.

It is certainly possible a closer analysis of what was going on here re the memo that may or may not have existed will get us closer to the truth re the assassination.

Thanks!

[Tim Gratz]

Could you clarify weberman's role, Pat? It sounds like weberman first told Marchetti about the memo (Marchetti cites him as one of his sources) and later weberman denied the memo ever existed. Am I reading you correctly?

Did Marchetti just make it up (or fall for a false tale by weberman)?

Sometimes I deplore speculation but query if you have a theory what was going on here, and why.

Thanks!

[Pat Speer]

Could you clarify weberman's role, Pat?  It sounds like weberman first told Marchetti about the memo (Marchetti cites him as one of his sources) and later weberman denied the memo ever existed.  Am I reading you correctly?

Did Marchetti just make it up (or fall for a false tale by weberman)?

Sometimes I deplore speculation but query if you have a theory what was going on here, and why.

Thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I recall Plausible Denial, Marchetti said Weberman was one of his sources. Now Weberman has said he thinks it was all a big game and there never really was a memo. The problem with that is that Trento has testified he saw the memo. So someone is lying. My take is that there was a memo, and that Blakey or someone pulled it aside. Gary Buell posted an exchange he had with Trento on another thread which said that this is what he feels happened. Trento also says that he thinks Hunt was innocent and that his presence in Dallas was more a public relations problem than anything else. Where that falls short is that that means his friends Angleton and Corson both lied about something inconsequential.

I think it's time we reflect on Dulles' statements in the executive sessions of the WC in January 1964. Our intelligence officers, past and present, believe they have a license to lie under oath on anything that may jeopardize national security, which in a broad sense means anything that may embarrass the company or the bureau. It kinda makes me sick. Look at Hoover's proven lies, Helms' proven lies, Phillips' proven lies, Hunt's proven lies, Dulles' withhholding of info from the WC, and then flash forward to Ollie North's lies, Casey's lies, and then ask yourself if maybe we'd be better off with a completely open society, without this cavalcade of liars pretending to be heroes. At what point do our protectors become our masters?

Edited May 25, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, I basically agree with you but I do recall Churchill's famous quote about protecting truth with a "bodyguard of lies". Obviously, in wartime there is a place for clandestine operations and secret plans. It is rather amazing, and fortunate for free men everywhere, that the Nazis never discovered plans for D-Day.

One problem that arose in the Kennedy case was the possibility that the investigation would reveal CIA secrets. As an example, as you know, the CIA was deathly afraid that the Warren Commission's attempt to rebut Marguerite Oswald's story that the FBI had shown her, on the 23rd, photos of Jack Ruby, would lead to the revelation of its constant photographic surveillance of the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, a methodology no doubt employed in other important cities. A case could even be made that, in the long-term interest of the country, protection of such CIA methods might be more important than solving the assassination.

The problem, of course, is when "national security" is used to cover the derriers of members of the bureaucracy--or, depending on one's POV, if it was used in the Kennedy case to protect conspirators within the government.

Edited May 26, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

The problem, of course, is when "national security" is employeed only to cover the derriers of members of the bureaucracy--or, depending on one's POV, if it was used in the Kennedy case to protect conspirators within the government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lot of these "sources and methods" are not secret at all, except to the American people. Like the Russians didn't know we had someone across the street from their embassy taking pictures! I seem to remember that Cuba handed the HSCA pictures of OUR photographic operations, because the CIA wouldn't provide it. or maybe I'm mixing together a couple of different books... Anyhow, outside of the identities of our moles, there was little the Russians and Cubans didn't know about, and NOTHING that should have been hidden from the Warren Commission under any circumstances. The supposed purpose of having men like McCloy and Dulles on the WC was because they could be trusted with our nation's secrets; if the FBI and CIA refused to trust them we would have been better off with a couple of actual investigators.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, with due respect to your vast reading and knowledge, I think you may be wrong here. Do you recall the CIA memo where they discussed the possibility of having to evacuate the employees conducting the surveillance because of concern it would come out when the photos of the Mexico City mystery man were published? I know the memo was cited here; it may be on "History Matters" web-site.

I am sure there were things we were doing to them that they did not know, and vice versa.

[Mark Stapleton]

John, perhaps we can approach some common ground.

It is most important (I am sure you would agree) first to get our facts in order.

You have been quick to dismiss my theory of Cuban involvement in the asssassination because you felt Castro had no motive.  Therefore, my position was illogical.  Now, I gather from your post, that you are not familiar with the plans for the second invasion of Cuba.  They are discussed both in "Someone Would Have Talked" and "Live By the Sword".  I will prepare to post on them at greater length tomorrow.  Clearly RFK was following these plans very closely.

I would assume you might concede Castro motive if I convince you of the seriousness of the plans.

You wrote:

What was the point of JFK carrying out secret negotiations with Castro in 1963? (I assume you are not claiming that the documents released in 2003 were not forgeries.) Why would he take all the risks that this strategy entailed? After all, if his Cuba strategy was exposed he could have lost the 1964 election.

Your last point is very good.  Clearly, if the public (which hasd gone through the missile crisis) had learned that JFK was going to "sell out" to Castro, even Barry Goldwater might have been able to defeat him.  Had he successfully removed Castro, on the other hand, his re-election would have been assured.  JFK, being the political animal that he was, realized this, of course. 

So how does one reconcile the peace talks (of course I agree they existed) with the invasion plans?  There have been several suggestions.

One is that the peace talks were insincere, an effort to lull Castro prior to the invasion.  Similar to what the Japanese did to the Americans prior to Pearl Harbor.  This is what Lisa Howard concluded.

Another possibility is that it was a deliberate "two track" policy and if JFK could negotiate with Castro a solution that was politically acceptable, i.e. that would not doom JFK at the polls, then the invasion plans would be cancelled.  It may have been unlikely that Castro would have kicked the Soviets out of Cuba, but an imminent invasion would certainly give him incentive to consider it to guarantee the survival of his regime.

There are many intelligent people who accept the possibility of Cuban involvement in the assassination.  Some have had access to inside information.  If forum members are unwilling to read "Live By the Sword" it does not surpise me they are not willing to consider my scenario.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

To me it doesn't make any sense for JFK to plan to invade Cuba. The first attempt was half hearted at best. JFK then goes on to establish direct contact with the Kremlin, followed by a nuclear test ban treaty in August, and engages in covert discussions with Castro's regime. So then he's going to throw all this away by invading the Soviet Union's close ally? As a politician he would be regarded as a person not to be trusted and this would be something JFK would want to avoid at all costs. Why go to all the trouble of establishing mutual trust with the Eastern bloc only to squander all that hard earned goodwill? It doesn't matter how many books you have based your interpretation on--the scenario makes no sense and represents a inexplicable departure from logic on Kennedy's part. It's wild and mischievous speculation.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

It doesn't matter how many books you have based your interpretation on--the scenario makes no sense and represents a inexplicable departure from logic on Kennedy's part. It's wild and mischievous speculation.

As a famous Englishman once said: "Humbug!" Mark, I think I it was you who once posted here that JFK was only paying "lip service" to a second invasion and I asked you to research how much the Kennedy Administration was funding the Second Naval Guerilla and Manuel Artime.

I see from the above post you have not bothered to find this out yet.

Why let facts get in the way of theorizing? It is, after all, much easier to pontificate than hit the books and find out what was really going on!

And let me tell you this: I suspect what the average voter felt was more important to JFK than what Nikita felt. And the Cuban Missile Crisis taught him that Nikita was not going to sacrifice the Soviet Union to save the bearded one.

JFK met with Artime on Sunday, November 17, 1963 and meetings to plan the invasion were ongoing even on the day of the assassination.

Only one thing saved Fidel's life: the bullets that took Kennedy's.

Now these facts do not, of course, PROVE that Fidel killed JFK: only that he had a strong motive. But you HAVE to ignore them because they do point straight to Fidel.

I will consider you serious about "doing your homework" (and solving the case) when you can tell me how much the Kennedy administration was funding Second Naval Guerilla. I'll give you the references if you want.

Edited May 26, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, here is a link to the CIA memo re its concern the photo surveillance would be doomed by WC publication of the photo of the "mystery man":

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...10290_0002a.htm

Edited May 26, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

I knew that Ford led the charge to get Redlich fired but I didn't know that Hoover leaked the info to Congress.  This makes sense.  Is there a memo by Ford indicating that the nature of Redlich's questions had anything to do with his being investigated?  I'd like to see it if you know where I can find it.

This story comes from Seth Kantor's book, Who was Jack Ruby? (1978). I highly recommend the book. Kantor worked for the Dallas Times Herald in 1963. While working in Dallas he became friendly with Jack Ruby who supplied him with the material for several stories that appeared in his newspaper.

Kantor was in the presidential motorcade when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dealey Plaza. He arrived at Parkland Hospital while Kennedy was receiving medical care. Kantor testified before the Warren Commission that while in the hospital he entered into a conversation with Jack Ruby. It has been suggested that Ruby might have been involved in tampering with the evidence. Ruby denied he had been at the hospital and the Warren Commission decided to believe him rather than Kantor.

In his book Who Was Jack Ruby? (1978), Kantor examines the reasons why the Warren Commission seemed to be unwilling to carry out "an in-depth probe of Ruby's past". Kantor also provides information that suggests that Ruby was "allowed" into the Dallas Police Station so that he could kill Lee Harvey Oswald.

Who Was Jack Ruby? includes the following passage:

The Belin Theory was that the city bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket might well have been his basic "passport" to Mexico. Oswald had been reported to have been in Mexico two months earlier and having gotten there by bus. Belin also was aware of the Warren Commission testimony given by Nelson Delgado, who had served in the Marine Corps with Oswald. Delgado had recalled Oswald once telling him that the best way to escape from authorities in the United States to Russia was by way of Mexico, where a plane could be caught to Havana, and then another plane to Moscow.

The Belin Theory was innovative and extremely logical but suffered a fatal axing within the Warren Commission when Belin figured out that Oswald probably was in the act of escaping to Mexico when encountered by officer Tippit on Tenth Street. That injected a foreign connection into the escape which blew the Warren Commission's mind. Mexico. Cuba. Russia. Belin had practically invented World War III.

It was Norman Redlich who put the ax to the Belin Theory. Redlich had a great deal of control over what would appear in the Warren Report. Redlich, remember, had survived the communist witch-hunt aimed at him on Capitol Hill three months earlier when the granting of his security clearance had been threatened. And now Redlich wanted to keep from stirring up any more problems for Earl Warren, so he argued that Belin had come up with nothing more than supposition, which had no place in the Warren Report. Belin argued in return that the Commission had a public obligation to disclose the existence of Oswald's possible escape plan, even if it were removed from chapter six of the Report and relegated to the 31-page section in the appendix of the Report, entitled "Speculations and Rumors." But Redlich instead saw to it that the Warren Report made no attempt to explain why Oswald, the fast-moving young man on the lam, appeared to be heading directly toward Jack Ruby's apartment with a gun. Instead, the Warren Report simply said, "There is no evidence that Oswald knew where Ruby lived."