JFK and Watergate

[Pat Speer]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Tim. They just didn't want to rub the Soviets' faces in it; I'm sure the reds knew exactly where the cameras were. I believe it's in ZR/Rifle where the Cubans published the photos they'd taken of the people photographing them. Fun and games.

As far as Second Naval Guerrilla, I'm another skeptic. I have to admit I'm leaning towards believing Shackley on this one. Speculation: if Artime and co. knew that time was running out on the U.S.' backing of their forces, they might have tried to force the U.S.' hand through assassination. Whenever I remember that Hunt's son was named after Artime and William F Buckley was the godfather to Hunt's kids, I can't help but think there's a tie-in somewhere.

See if you can get Hunt and Hemming in a room together, leave the room, and turn on a hidden tape recorder. It could be interesting.

Edited May 26, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Greg Wagner]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Tim-

The "lip service" comment was mine on another thread.

While it is true that in a sense Kennedy was pursuing a “dual track” with regard to Cuba, when viewed in the context of his entire foreign policy 11/62 and beyond, Kennedy's intent was clear.

Consider:

*NSAM 263

*Kennedy’s signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963

*Kennedy’s decision to opt for blockade during the missile crisis, despite pressure from within his administration to invade or conduct air strikes (Thirteen Days)

*Kennedy’s White House and the Kremlin carried out intensive back-channel communications and negotiations during the entire crisis. And while Kennedy publicly took a firm, no-negotiations stance toward the Soviet Union, he privately pursued ways to bring the crisis to a peaceful end.

*The Jean Daniel meeting, which clearly signaled his intent to open a dialogue with Castro

*The deal he cut to resolve the missile crisis. Specifically, his promise not to invade Cuba along the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Turkey. With this, one must also consider the content and tone of Khrushchev’s 12/11/62 letter to Kennedy:

“I will tell you frankly that we have removed our means from Cuba relying on your assurance that the United States and its allies will not invade Cuba. Those means really had the purpose of defending the sovereignty of Cuba and therefore after your assurance they lost their purpose. We hope and we would like to believe--I spoke of that publicly too, as you know--that you will adhere to the commitments which you have taken, as strictly as we do with regard to our commitments. We, Mr. President, have already fulfilled our commitments concerning the removal of our missiles and IL-28 planes from Cuba and we did it even ahead of time. It is obvious that fulfillment by you of your commitments cannot be as clearly demonstrated as it was done by us since your commitments are of a long-term nature…. Within a short period of time we and you have lived through a rather acute crisis. The acuteness of it was that we and you were already prepared to fight and this would lead to a thermonuclear war. Yes, to a thermonuclear world war with all its dreadful consequences…. We agreed to a compromise because our main purpose was to extend a helping hand to the Cuban people in order to exclude the possibility of invasion of Cuba so that Cuba could exist and develop as a free sovereign state. This is our main purpose today, it remains to be our main purpose for tomorrow and we did not and do not pursue any other purposes…. Therefore, Mr. President, everything--the stability in this area and not only in this area but in the entire world--depends on how you will now fulfill the commitments taken by you. Furthermore, it will be now a sort of litmus paper, an indicator whether it is possible to trust if similar difficulties arise in other geographical areas. I think you will agree that if our arrangement for settling the Cuban crisis fails it will undermine a possibility for manoeuvre which you and we would resort to for elimination of danger, a possibility for compromise in the future if similar difficulties arise in other areas of the world, and they really can arise. We attach great significance to all this, and subsequent development will depend on you as President and on the U.S. Government.”

When Kennedy flatly refused Ex-Com’s invade and air strike options and ultimately settled on the naval blockade, he did it primarily because of his concerns over what the first two options could lead to- nuclear war with the USSR. He determined that that risk was simply too great. In Khrushchev’s letter to Kennedy, he clearly indicates that, in his view, the burden is now squarely on JFK’s shoulders to avoid going right back to square one, with the increased likelihood of confrontation with the Soviets. Kennedy had just spent two of the most difficult weeks of his life deftly avoiding this confrontation. It defies logic to think that he would then wish to seek such a confrontation, while the Soviets still had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed and ready to fly. Further, Khrushchev cleverly points out that U.S. credibility is at stake. With two diametrically opposed and heavily armed super-powers vying for supremacy, the possibility of future conflict elsewhere in the world seemed likely. And should the U.S. fail to honor its commitment re: Cuba, the possibility of such conflicts being peacefully resolved through negotiation would be slim. Again, given Kennedy’s clearly demonstrated preference to avoid military confrontation with the Soviets, it defies logic to think that JFK was hell bent on invading Cuba, particularly post 11/1962.

So again, as clearly demonstrated throughout the missile crisis, we see Kennedy’s understanding of the political environment in the U.S. leads to this “dual track” scenario. Just as he was publicly professing a tough stance against the Soviets during the missile crisis while privately negotiating for peace, so was that same strategy being employed post missile crisis in addressing Cuba. He could not simply “flip a switch” and shut down the exiles and the hardliners in his own government. But he was clearly and carefully moving away from that agenda and toward one of peaceful co-existence. Additionally, while Kennedy was clearly attempting to open a dialogue with Castro, it would also have helped the U.S. to gain the upper hand in such a dialogue if Fidel perceived that JFK was still willing to support his demise should such dialogue prove fruitless.

Even though (as clearly demonstrated over and over again) Kennedy was simply not willing to use the hammer, it benefited him politically, and in his appeal to Castro for dialogue, to give the appearance that he was.

So, while I will not engage in the finger-wagging, condescending tone that you delight in using, I will suggest that while one could argue Kennedy’s post 11/62 policy re: Cuba was to support yet another attempt at an exile coup or invasion, such an argument would be short-sighted, and completely out of context.

BTW, I do own a copy of Live By The Sword. Although I have not yet read it, I plan to. As most Forum users realize, rarely are books written on the assassination and surrounding events completely without problems, inaccuracies, bias, or omissions. However, they almost always have SOMETHING of value to offer. The key is knowing how to mine those nuggets, and not end up with a bag of pyrite (fool’s gold).

Edited May 26, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Mark Knight]

Greg, I do believe you're on the right track. It appears that Kennedy was pursuing peace after the Cubam Missile Crisis, above all other considerations. But JFK was no fool; he knew that in order to secure the peace, our committments would have to be honored, but rather than disarmament, as some on the extreme right portrayed Kennedy's stance, Kennedy actually stood for peace through strength.

I believe that, after 11/62, Kennedy realized that the world had been on the precipice of destruction. Peering over the edge of that precipice, what he say not only chilled him to the bone, but it changed him. The Test Ban Treaty, his speeches from that time forward, NSAM 263, and other similar evidence brings me to conclude that Kennedy wanted peace rather than war.

The purpose of the Artime, as Greg stated, was a carrot-and-stick approach to Cuba; we're offering you a carrot, but we're not afraid to swing a stick if we need to. Call it leverage, but don't call it a primary part of Kennedy's Cuba policy, because it just doesn't fit the post-11/62 pattern. I believe that the Artime deal was more to pacify the anti-Castro Cuban community--and the those leaning to the right--than a significant threat to Fidel. As close as the '60 election was, in '64 this was going to be yet another way to hedge the bets.

If you read the "WANTED FOR TREASON" poster, you know that Kennedy was being painted by the right as a "commie" because he negotiated with Kruschev rather than slinging nuclear weapons at Moscow. Goldwater was painting JFK's reluctance to use the nuclear arsenal as a betrayal of the American people. And I'm certain that there were high-ranking military officials who had the same views. But LBJ's comments to Richard Russell about the potential deaths of "40 million Americans" show that the administration was not unaware of the consequences of a nuclear confrontation. [better, I suppose--in LBJ's mind--to lose a few THOUSAND troops in a conventional war over several years, than MILLIONS in an instant, and politically MUCH more explainable.]

For JFK to have nixed air support for the BOP operation, and then placed his full support behind yet ANOTHER invasion of Cuba would have been, in my opinion, not ONLY political suicide, but the height of IDIOCY as well...knowing the potential consequences regarding how the Soviets would view our reneging on our 11/62 agreement. It was the SOVIETS who had the worldwide reputation of reneging on agreements, while it was the stated policy of the US to not attack another nation unprovoked [prior to the Bush administration].

[Dan Ryan]

Your theory is an interesting topic for discussion John. However there are two key questions though that need consideration. FIRST How can you believe that LBJ knew little of the assassination when there is clear evidence that he knew before the assassination that things were afoot?

Why did he meet DeMohrenschildt? Why visit Texas in a private plane instead of Airforce2? Why the fourteen minute gap on his tapes, if LBJ was clean and Hoover wasn't, wouldn't LBJ keep the evidence?

LBJ was involved in close kin cover-up after the assassination. Why did his cousin and reputed double, Jay Bert Peck (die?July '64 in Garland) so quickly after the assassination? Why did his sister (die)? LBJ was one of J Edgar's closest friends, do you seriously believe that they didn't get together on this one?

SECOND the Watergate Conspiracy is still a mystery. To this day no-one knows what Nixon was seeking. So how can you state that the JFK conspiracy was covered up but the Watergate affair wasn't. Sure Nixon was ousted but that had more to do with his mental health at the time, than his being exposed. They feared him being in charge. Hence Schlessinger taking control. Had Nixon not cracked up he would not necessarilly have been threatened with impeachment and ultimately been told to stand down by Haig. The liberal press baited Nixon and adored the ridicule certainly as much as your suggested CIA machinations to eliminate Nixon.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

So, while I will not engage in the finger-wagging, condescending tone that you delight in using, I will suggest that while one could argue Kennedy’s post 11/62 policy re: Cuba was to support yet another attempt at an exile coup or invasion, such an argument would be short-sighted, and completely out of context.

Greg, the problem is you are arguing using logical analysis to support your position, but not the FACTS. And your logic could be wrong. But the facts, as they say, speak for themselves.

You have yet to investigate the financial commitment the Kennedy Administration was making to the Second Naval Guerilla, AMTRUNK and Manuel Artime. With the time you spent formulating your post, you probably could have discovered those facts through the index in "Live By the Sword".

As an example why your logic could be wrong, let's just take two of your points:

*NSAM 263

There are other ways to interpret NSAM 263, but without getting into that debate, assuming arguendo JFK planned to reduce the troop commitment in Vietnam, what does that necessarily have to do with whether or not he intended an invasion of Cuba? JFK could certainly have decided that America had an interest in getting rid of Communists within our backyard (heck, I'm closer to Fidel than I am to Luis Posada Carriles--geographically speaking, of course) but not to fight a war 10,000 miles away.

And another point you make: why would JFK plan an invasion of Cuba in late 1963 when he did not choose to invade when he had the chance during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962? Well, there are several answers to this. One, JFK might not have wanted to invade when all of the nuclear warheads were still 90 miles from our shore (even though there was a question whether they were yet operational. Second, Khruschev's response to the Cuban missile crisis might have convinced him that the Soviet Union would never go to war over Cuba.

So as you yourself said "talk is cheap" and so is arguing by inferential logic. Look at the facts, man. Huge amounts of money were going into the Second Naval Guerilla and Artime's operation. The CIA was still trying to kill Castro, and there are certainly indications the Kennedys were aware of Cubela.

I am sorry to sound condescending but it is frustrating beyond belief that you assume a position that is totally contrary to what was happening; at least a week has gone by since our original exchange and you have yet to research the level of the Kennedy Administration's commitment to Second Naval Guerilla and Artime. The facts seem to make no difference to you, or you would have followed up on my suggestion to research the monetary commitment. Nothing will interfere with your preconceived theories. At least that is the way it appears.

Why was Kennedy secretly funding the plans for the Second Naval Guerilla? Just to fool the limited number of Cuban exiles who were privy to those plans? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Edited May 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Your theory is an interesting topic for discussion John. However there are two key questions though that need consideration. FIRST How can you believe that LBJ knew little of the assassination when there is clear evidence that he knew before the assassination that things were afoot?

Why did he meet DeMohrenschildt?

Did he? Could you provide me with more information on this?

LBJ was involved in close kin cover-up after the assassination. Why did his cousin and reputed double, Jay Bert Peck (die?July '64 in Garland) so quickly after the assassination? Why did his sister (die)? LBJ was one of J Edgar's closest friends, do you seriously believe that they didn't get together on this one?

LBJ’s sister died before the assassination. However, LBJ has been linked with her death. Josefa Johnson is believed to have had affairs with John Kinser and Mac Wallace. Kinser opened a golf course in Austin and asked Josefa to approach her brother for financial help. When LBJ refused it is believed that Kinser resorted to blackmail.

On 22nd October, 1951, Mac Wallace shot dead John Kinser. According to Barr McClellan, the killing had been organized by Edward Clark. At his trial in February, 1952, Wallace was found guilty of murder. Eleven of the jurors were for the death penalty. The twelfth argued for life imprisonment. The judge overruled the jury and announced a sentence of five years imprisonment. He suspended the sentence and Wallace was freed.

Some people believe Mac Wallace was one of the gunman who killed JFK. See:

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

Josefa Johnson died of a cerebral hemorrhage on 25th December, 1961. Despite state law, no autopsy was conducted. Twenty-three years later the lawyer, Douglas Caddy, wrote to Stephen S. Trott at the U.S. Department of Justice. In the letter Caddy claimed that Billie Sol Estes, Lyndon B. Johnson, Mac Wallace and Cliff Carter had been involved in the murders of several people including Josefa Johnson and John Kinser. Douglas Caddy, by the way, was the lawyer that E. Howard Hunt approached during the Watergate scandal. Caddy refused to represent him.

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

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Caddy, by the way, was the lawyer that E. Howard Hunt approached during the Watergate scandal. Caddy refused to represent him.

It is one thing to represent Billie Sol Estes or Mac Wallace, but E. Howard Hunt!!

Didn't Caddy represent one of the Watergate players or otherwise have a role in it?

Might be interesting in your Watergate section to have a thread on the attorneys who represented the defendants and who else they have represented. May or may not advance the research. Isn't it correct that some attorneys had definite ties to the CIA? Plus, of course, if someone can control the attorney who represents someone in a criminal proceeding that can be a good way to "control" the person to ensure he does not make any unwanted disclosures.

[Pat Speer]

Might be interesting in your Watergate section to have a thread on the attorneys who represented the defendants and who else they have represented.  May or may not advance the research.  Isn't it correct that some attorneys had definite ties to the CIA?  Plus, of course, if someone can control the attorney who represents someone in a criminal proceeding that can be a good way to "control" the person to ensure he does not make any unwanted disclosures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe Caddy was Hunt's lawyer for a time. I was reading the Weberman site the other day and came across A.J.'s theory that Bernard Fensterwald, who was an influential leader of the JFK research community, had CIA ties, if I understood him correctly. While Fensterwald was McCord's lawyer, I took that as McCord trying to come clean, not as Fensterwald helping him cover-up. If Fensterwald was CIA, why would he have included a Watergate/JFK assassination links section and a substantial Howard Hughes section in his book Coincidence or Conspiracy? Makes no sense.

Edited May 27, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

Tim,  your Castro did it scenario seems to be going on across a number of threads and I think I have to enter a couple of things into the mix.

First,  we have at least half a dozen consistent and reinforcing instances of gossip/leaks prior to the assassination in regard to something being planned against JFK.  All these leaks can be directly tied back to a mix of anti-Castro individuals, all of whom were peripherally involved with individuals on the periphery of the old Havana gambling crowd.  There are no apparent connections in any of this to Castro or Castro agents. Your only option for involving Castro or the Soviets would be one that Hemming has put forth over time and that is that the Cuban/Soviet intel orgainization was so good and had so infiltrated exile and CIA organizations that they could insert orders and pull strings to actually organize a conspirace from outside. 

Second, we do have remarks from Morales,  Phillips and Martino which indicate the conspiracy involved US intelligence officers - and its a matter of record that all three of those individuals were associated.  Having Morales  say "we took care of that SOB" is far more significant than a random remark or even a public confession.  The same thing goes for Phillips making a statement  about US intel officers being involved - only a short while before his death and after years of fighting any such assertion.  Of course that does not imply the CIA as an organization had anything to do with it,  it does suggest individuals CIA officers  were involved in some fashion.

Third, and in line with the title of this thread,  there is a great deal of evidence to  suggest Ruby was involved in some minimal fashion with the conspiracy and then  used to eliminate Oswald when things went bad.  Only the WC and those fanatically attached to Oswald being a LN are able to avoid the Ruby associations and strange behaviors (not to mention his sudden cash infusion days before and his LA visitors).  Not to mention his legal defense being organized out of Vegas. For your Castro scenario to work you will have to somehow tie the Ruby involvement in with a Castro plot - and that will be a real challenge.

You are too kind Larry. It is every thread. I am coming close to deleting Tim’s attempts to turn every thread to a “Castro” did it discussion. I thought your contribution deserved to be in this thread.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

"You are too kind Larry. It is every thread. I am coming close to deleting Tim’s attempts to turn every thread to a “Castro” did it discussion. I thought your contribution deserved to be in this thread."

I agree Larry's thoughts should be posted here.

John, I do not mean to offend but let me remind you that in your first post in this thread you wrote:

"Morales and his team came up with the perfect solution to the problem. They would make it look like that JFK had been killed by a team working on the orders of Fidel Castro. This would then give the opportunity for LBJ, the new president, to order an invasion of Cuba."

You first raised the issue of Castro as the ultimate patsy. That required a reply. to-wit: far from being a patsy, he did it. Which, of course, if true, refutes all of your speculation. I am not sure if that comment was a necessary element to the scenario you suggested and had you not inserted it Fidel would not be a part of this thread.

It is an interesting question why none of your members seem to even consider Castro involvement and I am not sure if under the circumstances it is worth my effort to continue these thoughts. Not that I would give up the Forum and I do remain open to alternative theories if there is anything but speculation to support them.

[Greg Wagner]

Mark wrote:

So, while I will not engage in the finger-wagging, condescending tone that you delight in using, I will suggest that while one could argue Kennedy’s post 11/62 policy re: Cuba was to support yet another attempt at an exile coup or invasion, such an argument would be short-sighted, and completely out of context.

Greg, the problem is you are arguing using logical analysis to support your position, but not the FACTS.  And your logic could be wrong.  But the facts, as they say, speak for themselves.

You have yet to investigate the financial commitment the Kennedy Administration was making to the Second Naval Guerilla, AMTRUNK and Manuel Artime.  With the time you spent formulating your post, you probably could have discovered those facts through the index in "Live By the Sword".

As an example why your logic could be wrong, let's just take two of your points:

*NSAM 263

There are other ways to interpret NSAM 263, but without getting into that debate, assuming arguendo JFK planned to reduce the troop commitment in Vietnam, what does that necessarily have to do with whether or not he intended an invasion of Cuba?  JFK could certainly have decided that America had an interest in getting rid of Communists within our backyard (heck, I'm closer to Fidel than I am to Luis Posada Carriles--geographically speaking, of course) but not to fight a war 10,000 miles away.

And another point you make:  why would JFK plan an invasion of Cuba in late 1963 when he did not choose to invade when he had the chance during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962?  Well, there are several answers to this.  One, JFK might not have wanted to invade when all of the nuclear warheads were still 90 miles from our shore (even though there was a question whether they were yet operational.  Second, Khruschev's response to the Cuban missile crisis might have convinced him that the Soviet Union would never go to war over Cuba.

So as you yourself said "talk is cheap" and so is arguing by inferential logic.  Look at the facts, man.  Huge amounts of money were going into the Second Naval Guerilla and Artime's operation.  The CIA was still trying to kill Castro, and there are certainly indications the Kennedys were aware of Cubela. 

I am sorry to sound condescending but it is frustrating beyond belief that you assume a position that is totally contrary to what was happening; at least a week has gone by since our original exchange and you have yet to research the level of the Kennedy Administration's commitment to Second Naval Guerilla and Artime.  The facts seem to make no difference to you, or you would have followed up on my suggestion to research the monetary commitment.   Nothing will interfere with your preconceived theories.  At least that is the way it appears.   

Why was Kennedy secretly funding the plans for the Second Naval Guerilla?  Just to fool the limited number of Cuban exiles who were privy to those plans?  Does that make any sense whatsoever?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Tim-

Well I certainly don’t mean to frustrate you, but I do understand where you’re coming from, as I too have felt that same frustration at times. And I will make an effort to read Live By The Sword this summer. Perhaps that will help me to better understand your point-of-view.

You use the word “fact” repeatedly in your effort to point out what you perceive to be errors in my thinking:

“…you are using logical analysis to support your position, but not the FACTS.”

“…you probably could have discovered those facts through the index…”

“Look at the facts, man.”

“The facts seem to make no difference to you…”

You are right in suggesting that the weight of an argument should stand on the facts, as truth and inquiry are a process related to fact, logic, and argument. However, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, the facts in this case are often contradictory and ultimately inconclusive. This is largely, but not entirely, due to disinformation and governmental secrecy, the result of which renders deductive logic (the process of reaching a conclusion that is guaranteed to follow, eg. mathematics) unavailable in many instances. Or as the Talking Heads so eloquently put it:

Facts are simple and facts are straight

Facts are lazy and facts are late

Facts all come with points of view

Facts don't do what I want them to

When the nature of the evidence renders deductive reasoning impossible, we are left with abductive reasoning (reasoning based on the principle of inference to the best explanation). The key to understanding abductive reasoning lies in the “inference to the best explanation” part. It appears that this is where you and I view things differently.

Tim, you made the very true statement that there are different ways to interpret evidence (I think your reference was to NSAM 263). That is an absolutely true statement. However, I would suggest that some methodologies of interpreting evidence are inherently more reliable, and I would argue more correct, than others. For example, with regard to my reference to NSAM 263, you ask, “…what does that necessarily have to do with whether or not he (Kennedy) intended an invasion of Cuba? JFK could certainly have decided that America had an interest in getting rid of Communists within our backyard….” To support my premise that Kennedy’s true agenda regarding Cuba, the one that began in October 1962, was one seeking coexistence with Castro’s Cuba rather than eradication, I utilized abductive reasoning. That is, I used several other facts, matters of historical record, to establish context: NSAM 263, Kennedy’s signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, Kennedy’s decision to opt for blockade during the missile crisis, Kennedy’s intensive back-channel communications with Khrushchev while publicly taking a firm, no-negotiations stance toward the Soviet Union, Jean Daniel’s meeting with Castro, the deal Kennedy made to resolve the missile crisis, and Khrushchev’s 12/11/62 letter to Kennedy. These are matters of fact, that when viewed in relation to one another, form a very clear, logical basis for understanding Kennedy’s foreign policy. This is where understanding abductive reasoning and inference to the best explanation is valuable. The “dual track” appearance Kennedy’s Cuba policy had on the surface (going forward from 11/1962) forces historians to decide which “track” Kennedy was truly supporting, and would have supported had he lived. In my view, since the nature of the evidence precludes the use of deductive reasoning (deductive logic), abductive reasoning (abductive logic) is the correct method to employ. Given the established framework I cited, which clearly establishes Kennedy’s tendencies and over-arching philosophy with regard to conflict and foreign policy, abductive reasoning tells us that Kennedy’s ultimate “track” with regard to Cuba was one of dialogue and peaceful co-existence. This is true because it is the “track” that is most congruent with the many Kennedy foreign policy decisions which frame this issue in historical context.

As opposed to abductive reasoning, the methodology you employ to interpret the evidence in this instance is interpolation. Interpolation is a message (spoken or written) that is introduced or inserted. For example, in your prior post you stated, “…Khruschev’s response to the Cuban missile crisis might have convinced him (Kennedy) that the Soviet Union would never go to war over Cuba.” While certainly a possibility that one might consider, the facts as they exist today simply do not provide any contextual framework or support to that idea. In fact, Khrushchev’s 12/11/62 letter to Kennedy candidly and forcefully stated just the opposite (see an excerpt of the text of this letter in my prior post). Additionally, in another letter between the two of them during the same period (I can’t seem to locate it at the moment, but perhaps another Forum member can recall the date of this communication), there is a passage that expresses a truth that they both understood to the effect that there are forces in their respective governments that they themselves may become powerless to control should tensions escalate. So, while the idea that Kennedy might have concluded that the Soviets would not go to war over Cuba based on the outcome of the missile crisis sounds plausible on an elementary level, closer examination using sound logical reasoning methodology renders such a suggestion devoid of merit. Such are the pitfalls associated with interpolation.

Abductive reasoning versus interpolation.

With regard to Kennedy’s funding of the Second Naval Guerilla, I believe I addressed that in my earlier post. Call it leverage to be used in the dialogue Kennedy was seeking, call it temporary placation of the militant exile community and the hawks in his administration, call it a “carrot and stick” approach, or call it a combination of all of the above. But common sense and the employment of sound methodology in interpreting the facts clearly prevent one from calling it Kennedy’s true policy toward Cuba.

And no, I have not researched the amount of money Kennedy pledged to the Second Naval Guerilla. However, simply providing funding doesn’t tell us anything about the motivation behind such financial support.

Edited May 27, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Ron Ecker]

It is an interesting question why none of your members seem to even consider Castro involvement

Tim,

I have certainly considered it. Evidence of Castro complicity has been given to us courtesy of the CIA, particularly the travel report on Policarpo, and Win Scott telling us "Escalante was here." But I don't recall ever getting an answer to this question: how did Castro manage a massive U.S. government coverup, beginning within minutes of the assassination, and how has he managed to continue doing so for 42 years? On the day of the assassination, after the deed was done, how many Castro agents were aboard AF1 or AF2, working on the body or getting it somewhere to work on? How many Castro agents were at Bethesda, botching a simple autopsy as only traitors or enemy agents could do? How many Castro agents sat on the Warren Commission, and how many later worked for the HSCA? How many were involved in murdering a dozen or so potential HSCA witnesses, virtually all of them with connections to the CIA or FBI? Why would Castro be so concerned to protect the CIA and FBI, and why does he continue to protect them with what must be countless Castro agents in the U.S. media?

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

You are too kind Larry. It is every thread. I am coming close to deleting Tim’s attempts to turn every thread to a “Castro” did it discussion. I thought your contribution deserved to be in this thread.

John, "It is every thread" is, of course, an exaggeration.

I would also point out that not only did you put Castro in play in THIS thread by saying he was framed by the conspirators, you also introduced Gilberto Policarpo and called him a CIA agent. My posts were simply in response to the issues you raised.

That is why this is called a "debate". Hardly a debate if each and every response was "Good scenario, John." But the hard questions help refine and refocus our thinking. I like James Richards' comment from Oscar Wilde.

Edited May 28, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

I have just read Richard Helms’ autobiography, A Look Over My Shoulder. Like most of these CIA memoirs you learn more by what the writer leaves out than by what he puts in. He has very little to say about the JFK assassination. Interestingly, he does not mention John Whitten (the man who he replaced with James Angleton in writing the report on the assassination with William Sullivan). He spends much time praising Angleton. Although he says that in the last few years he cruelly “spoofed” journalists with false stories about the CIA. (I wonder what Joe Trento and Tim Gratz makes of that comment?)

In Sullivan’s autobiography he talks of his close friendship with Helms. However, Sullivan only gets two very brief mentions in Helms’ autobiography.

Helms also puts his side of Watergate. He of course denies any CIA involvement and hardly mentions E. Howard Hunt. He refers to Haldeman’s attempt to blackmail him with the “Bay of Pigs thing”. Helms, hoping the reader has not read Haldeman’s book, implies that Nixon/Haldeman were really referring to the Bay of Pigs and not the JFK assassination.

Helms does confirm in the book that Hunt (although he does not mention him by name) was trying to blackmail the CIA via Nixon. He mentions several meetings when this subject was raised. He says that Dean was especially insistent that the CIA should pay up. Helms agreed that he had the ability to do this (he had funds that could not be traced back to the CIA). However, he says he rejected the idea. Helms said that a lot of pressure was applied on his deputy, Vernon Walters. In fact, Walters was keen to do a deal. Helms says that Walters was scared what Nixon could do to him. Walters was keen to retire to Florida without becoming involved in any scandal. Helms also suggests that Walters wanted to do a deal for political reasons. He implies that he had extreme right-wing opinions. Does anybody know anything of importance about Waters? What did Nixon have over him? Or was it purely ideological.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

I have just read Richard Helms’ autobiography, A Look Over My Shoulder. Like most of these CIA memoirs you learn more by what the writer leaves out than by what he puts in.

A perceptive comment, John.

As you know, the CIA released only a heavily redacted copy of the 1967 Inspector General's Report to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The (presumably) complete copy was released in the early 1990s as I recall.

Has anyone ever studied the information that the CIA thought could not be shown to the House Committee?

If not, it might make an interesting exercise.