The Communication Breakdown

[John Simkin]

I do not have the Sorenson book but I do own a copy of Katharine Graham's, Personal History (1997). In the book she explains how her husband, Phil Graham, got Douglas Dillon a job in JFK's cabinet. It was of course Graham who persuaded JFK to appoint LBJ as his running mate. Graham also established Operation Mockingbird with Frank Wisner in 1948. Both men were later to commit suicide in the same way in the same place (their holiday home). Interestingly, Graham did it just before JFK was assassinated.

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

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

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

Well here is Graham's account of how Dillon got the job.

Right after the election, he started talking to and writing the president-elect about appointments to the new administration. Both Phil and Joe Alsop thought Kennedy ought to appoint our friend Douglas Dillon as secretary of the Treasury. Dillon was a liberal Republican who had served as undersecretary of state in the Eisenhower administration and had contributed to the Nixon campaign, so this didn't seem like a strong possibility. Arthur Schlesinger and Ken Galbraith had dinner with us one evening, and, as Arthur noted in his book A Thousand Days, "we were distressed by (Phil's) impassioned insistence that Douglas Dillon should and would-be made Secretary of the Treasury. Without knowing Dillon, we mistrusted him on principle as a presumed exponent of Republican economic policies." But as Arthur also wrote, "When I mentioned this to the President-elect in Washington on December, he remarked of Dillon, "Oh, I don't care about those things. All I want to know is: is he able and will he go along with the program?'"

What a refreshing thought - if only more presidents felt that way! In fact, the president-elect called. Joe about the liberals wanting Albert Gore (father of the Clinton administration vice-president, Al Gore) for the position, but he told Joe that he wanted Dillon. Joe recalls Kennedy saying, "They say that if I take Doug Dillon he won't be loyal because he's a Republican." Joe responded that it would be very hard to imagine a man less likely to be disloyal than Dillon. He also added, "And if you take Albert Gore you know perfectly well, i) he's incompetent; ii) you'll never be able to hear yourself think, he talks so much; iii) when he isn't talking your ear off, he'll be telling the New York Times all." I'm sure this whole conversation with Kennedy was recalled in Alsopian terms, but I'm also sure that some such conversation did indeed take place.

[Tim Gratz]

By the way, I do not think it is polite to impugn another person's motives, or, for that matter, to call a person "a rodent". The former is presumptuous; the latter is puerile. But that pales to labeling someone a murderer with no evidence to support the allegation.

And Bernice, I will dig out my copy of Sorenson's book but I am confident it will support my recollection of his potrayal of the friendship between JFK and Dillon.

And when I feel enough initiative I will try to contact Sorenson to get his (printable)opinion regarding the allegations against Dillon.

And by the way, it is not necessary to prove Dillon's INNOCENCE. If you want to call him a murderer and assassin, I think you'd better have evidence to support it!

Another example of Mark's wild logic: The fact that Dillon was in the intelligence service fighting Nazis for the forces of truth and justice somehow makes it more likely he was an assassin? This idea is lunatic!

[Tim Gratz]

John (quoting a book):

Joe recalls Kennedy saying, "They say that if I take Doug Dillon he won't be loyal because he's a Republican." Joe responded that it would be very hard to imagine a man less likely to be disloyal than Dillon.

And Dillon was a loyal supporter of JFK in his Cabinet; and a personal friend.

I seriously doubt that he suspended his loyalty long enough to participate in the murder of his friend.

Why don't we concentrate on REAL suspects, e.g. Santo Trafficante, Jr? A lot more valuable use of our time than speculating on Kennedy's Cabinet members.

Are the people propounding the "Dillon did it" disinformation agents trying to sidetrack our efforts to track down the real assassins? Just a thought.

[Pat Speer]

Are the people propounding the "Dillon did it" disinformation agents trying to sidetrack our efforts to track down the real assassins?  Just a thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are the people propounding "Castro did it" disinformation agents trying to sidetrack our efforts? Just a thought.

Sorry, Tim. You stepped right into that one.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

No, Pat, that had already been stated.

I just figured that turn-about was fair play.

In any event, the idea that Kennedy's friend killed him is so preposterous on its face it is not worth the effort we have spent on it.

Castro, however, had called Kennedy a "cretin" and "the Batista of our times" in the same speech that he warned American leaders would not be safe if they continued in their efforts to kill Cuban political leaders. Those efforts did continue.

It is not a waste of time to seriously consider the evidence pointing south. It is a phenomenal waste of time to speculate about other crazy theories with not a speck of evidence to support them.

That is my point. The whole Dillon thing is such a distraction one might wonder if it is intentional.

[Shanet Clark]

BALLAST AND BILGE HAS SUNK MY THREAD !

THE MOCKINGBIRD KNOWS SEVENTEEN SONGS !

Everyone in the virtual conference knows when I say

Principle figure, that I mean Douglas Dillon.

The palace guard bent over backward to give a number of good shots at Kennedy.

I say orders came down from the top, and Taylor, Walker, Dullles

and Dillon's past fascism support this, Admiral Forrestal and DILLON READ.

[Tim Gratz]

Shanet:

1. Dillon a fascist is incredible.

2. For the umpteenth time it is "principal" not "principle".

3. Your grammar is as loose as your logic.

[Stan Wilbourne]

Gone

Edited March 6, 2010 by Stan Wilbourne

[Bernice Moore]

By the way, I do not think it is polite to impugn another person's motives, or, for that matter, to call a person "a rodent".  The former is presumptuous; the latter is puerile.  But that pales to labeling someone a murderer with no evidence to support the allegation. 

And Bernice, I will dig out my copy of Sorenson's book but I am confident it will support my recollection of his potrayal of the friendship between JFK and Dillon.

And when I feel enough initiative I will try to contact Sorenson to get his (printable)opinion regarding the allegations against Dillon.

And by the way, it is not necessary to prove Dillon's INNOCENCE.  If you want to call him a murderer and assassin, I think you'd better have evidence to support it!

Another example of Mark's wild logic:  The fact that Dillon was in the intelligence service fighting Nazis for the forces of truth and justice somehow makes it more likely he was an assassin?  This idea is lunatic!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*************************

To make things clear Tim....to you and the membership......as it seems your post above may have been addressed to me??

I did not impugn your motives... nor call you a rodent..not label anyone a murderer..I have been trying to supply some information from other researchers..so do not shoot the "messenger"..

Please, do reread Sorenson's passages pertaining to Dillon..as I said, I did so just the other day, and wondered at the time, if you perhaps were meaning another book..?..as there was nothing that mentioned any great familiarity between them, other than his loaning RFK his home in Florida after the assassination...and as I had stated he worked well with him as he did the others ...If you feel you must contact Sorenson, then by all means do so...would be interesting....but also you should reread anything related to Dillon....in his book first..IMO..

I have not called anyone an assassin nor a murderer....I personally do not think anyone has, they have made inquiries as to the possibility that he could have in some way known about the plans for an assassination....and perhaps been involved in that way, and just went along........I believe...unless I missed that direct accusation....

I simply do not know, if his being in intelligence fighting nazi's would make him more likely to be an assassin, ??? and No, not everything and everyone is to be looked at in an accusatory or in a conspiratorial fashion...recall when I asked if the evidence was going to be forthcoming when an accusation against you was made re Sergetti ( sp)..??..

But Tim, you ask for it...you certainly do...

as it does not matter what the others post, not in this nor in many other threads it seems...you are right there, going overboard, telling them how wrong they are, and how right you are and you simply do not respect other peoples opinions..you do not discuss, nor look at both sides, you have your theory in stone in that wee neat box labeled, Cuban and Castro..and possibly Russia, and that's it...there are many other sides to all of this ,as well you know...sometimes have a look at what is outside that box of yours......

A man you have much respect for asked you to start a thread of your own, and post your information pertaining to the cubans, we all know in that area you have great knowledge....you thought it a good idea, and said I believe, you would...

You haven't...instead for some reason, long before Dillon's name came upon the scene, you simply dismissed any information I posted, from Shaw's book... and any discussion on any information related to it...and any other discussion that other members did try to achieve....you implied it was garbage information... did you really think that would stop me from posting more, and now you use the accusation that we, I,whomever are disinformationists...well that is an old ploy...that disinfos themselves use, as if you didn't know.....and it does not work...

The members want to simply research no matter where it leads, and you do not have the right to impede their way ....but for some reason, you do believe you have that right..and do so incessantly.....but then again so does the government.........I try to look at both sides when a subject comes up for research, no matter where it leads...I do wish you could do the same...IMO..

P.S...So what ? if someone makes a spelling or grammatical error, this is not an English Language Forum....it is proper to be correct , but all do not have a spell check...and all do not have perhaps the education others have...so what??

Now to prove to you again ,about what I say,in trying to research both sides of the subject and not jumping to any conclusions..........I spent time today searching for more information on Douglas Dillon, wherever it leads....and this is what I have found....

B.....

*******************************************

In "Robert Kennedy: His Life" by Evan Thomas...2000

Dillon is mentioned many times, and quoted..he speaks of the times off the rocky coast of Maine when the Kennedy family sailed off on cruises with friends..they did so with road maps and not proper charts...back in 62..p:183

He is also mentioned as being on the Executive Committee of the National Security Council ( ExCom) the name given the policy advisors to President Kennedy during the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis...p:210

Re the blockade: "Robert Kennedy did not rule out by any means an air strike. But after the excruciating night of waiting for the troops to arrive at old Miss.,he had low confidence in the military's capacity to do anything with precision.""He knew there was no such thing as a surgical strike.""said Douglas Dillon..and he wanted to buy time to look for other, less obvious escape routes.p: 216.

On the Thurs. there had been a meeting and a consensus,the President thought had been forming around a blockade or a quarantine..approach, but by Fri. morning disagreements had broken out anew..."Minds and opinions began to change again, and not only on small points." "Meeting alone with the President on the Fri. morning, the Joint Chiefs virtually bullied the President into begin bombing."

After they had left ,JFK groused to Kenny O'Donnell he mumbled a joke but was not amused.."Those brass hats have one great advantage in their favor, if we ...do what they want us to do, none of us will be alive later to tell them they're wrong."

"* At about this time Kennedy (RFK) privately counted up the votes on a piece of scrap paper .Under "Blockade" he wrote ,"McNamara ,Gilpatrick,(Rusk,( with a plus sign) Thompson, Bohlen, Adlai, Nitze, (with a question mark and an arrow pointing to the * Strike* column), Lovett, Ed Martin,Ball, Alexis Johnson, Sorensen." Under "Strike" he wrote, "MacBundy,Taylor, Chiefs, Acheson, Dillon, John MCone," ( with a question mark and the notation. "switched"..p:217

On Fri morning Oct.20/62

" Hawks Acheson and Bundy had formidible allies. Dillon, McCone and General Taylor all emphatically chimed in for air strikes. The doves seemed to reel for a moment ,Geroge Ball said he was a "waverer" between air strikes and a bockade."

The State dept. note taker then caught some of RFK's eloquence, as he spoke against the air strikes and for a blockade:

"He thought it would be very ,very difficult indeed for the President if the decisions was for an air strike, with all the memory of Pearl Harbor and with all the implications this would have for us in whatever world there would be afterward...For 175 years we had not been that kind of country.A sneak attack was not in our traditions. Thousands of Cubans would be killed without warning, and a lot of Russians too. He favored action, to make known unmistakably the seriousness of the Unites States determination to get the missiles out of Cuba, but he thought the action should allow the Soviets some room for maneuver to pull back from their over-extended position in Cuba."

Bundy was irritated at the speech and said" this is all very well ,but a blockade would not eliminate the bases, an air strike would."...But others were listening one was Treasury Secretary Dillon felt he was witnessing " a real turning point in history. The way Bob Kennedy spoke was totally convincing to me .I knew then that we should not undertake a strike without warning."..Most of the others came around..or were softened their insistance on an immediate strike.They would continue to argue and wrestle with the options, but RFK had carried the day." pp: 218-19

On "Black Saturday, Oct.27th/62

After his meeting with Dobrynin.RFK returned to the WH and to his strung-out comrades in the cabinet room.......late that night when the air force pilots were being handed their target folders..There was but one moment of personal solicitude.

RFK asked Bob McNamara ..who had been working around the clock ,how he was..

"Well", said McNamara untruthfully .Watching the sun set, he had wondered if he would live out the week.."How about yourself."."All right." said RFK.....snip...

The group began to discuss an invasion and removing ,once and for all, Fidel Castro.The talk turning blustery,"I would suggest that it would be an eye for an eye." said McNamara."That's the mission." said Douglas Dillon. RFK interjected "I'd take Cuba back. That would be nice." "Another voice chimed in ." I'd take Cuba away from Castro." And, finally, to punch drunk laughter, someone else cracked ; "Suppose we make Bobby mayor of Havana." At midnight the ExCon broke up to get some rest, await Moscow's answer-- or prepare for war..p: 229.

Birmingham Alabama..May 2/62

King's Project C had been fizzling...

"Out of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church flowed a thousand children some as young as 6 years old, to flood the department stores and lunch places downtown..Sheriff Eugene"Bull" Connor played his role.He turned high pressured fire hoses and dogs on the children..and arrested many...Within a day ,cameramen from every major network and a number of foreign correspondents had descended on Birmingham".

The Kennedy's initial approach was the usual one: searching out a compromise.

But RFK's attention...and the machinery of the federal government ....was now engaged...which was really what King had wanted all along. He ( RFK) was furious and felt that the children had been used and could be hurt.

They had tried the back channels. Burke Marshall" knew some lawyers down there and the editor of the paper." he slipped into town to mediate. Cabinet members were enlisted to call Birmingham businessmen and plead for peace. At Treasury, Douglas Dillon phoned the head of U.S.Steel, which owned the biggest plant in town.When King was arrested a second time, the money for bail was raised by RFK by calling on Walter Reuther of the Auto Workers and other union allies, who dipped into their slush funds for ready crush....and by May 10th...the patient and assiduous Marshall had worked out a deal with the city fathers to gradually desegregate the lunch counters, rest rooms, theaters and the rest..The children were released from the overflowing jails..But the next day the violence continued with a bombing..pp: 242-3

I believe this was Fall 66:

Regarding community action agencies , finding some monies ..."some white businessmen willing to put their money into the ghetto..".

"In early September RFK met Andre' Meyer , the hard nosed chairman of Lazard Fr'eres investment bankers who was already a trustee of the Kennedy family investments, and a financial advisor to Jackie Kennedy......snip....With typical urgency, Kennedy rounded up three other prominent businessmen with Kennedy ties...investment banker Douglas Dillon,CBS chairman William S.Paley, and IBM chairman Thomas Watson..all in one day..His pitch was practical ,said a friend who was discreetly working behind the scenes to line up other busness leaders and their money.."It, wasn't moral obligation.It was :look at the chaos we're going to have if we don't do something."

...snip......"Congress voted $45 million for a vaguely worded national program of job training, and economic development in blighted areas. But Kennedy( RFK) needed immediate funds to pay for the overhead of the Bed-Sty Corporation, so he turned to the Ford Foundation..." they turned him down....."Kennedy went over their heads to implore the new head of the Ford Foundation, McGeorge Bundy. RFK had always been edgy around Bundy ,who lacked the requisite blind loyalty to the Kennedys. But Bundy was reassured that men such as Doug Dillon and Tom Watson were rallying behind Kennedy's idea..Bundy authorized a Ford Foundation grant totaling $750,000

to get the Bed-StyCorporation off the ground."pp:325-26

"Kennedy's experiments were just that, not conversion.

He listened to Bob Dylan, but more often to Broadway show tunes.

He named sons in 1965 and 1967 after pillars of the establishment--a hawkish chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff ,General Maxwell Taylor, ( Mathew Maxwell Taylor Kennedy),

and two patrician statesmen, Douglas Dillon and Averell Harriman

(Douglas Harriman Kennedy).....p.346

Bernice

Edited June 16, 2005 by Bernice Moore

[Tim Gratz]

Bernice, I tremendously apologize for the false implication.

It was Mark who made those remarks!

Thanks! Glad I cleared that up. Sorry about the confusion.

[Mark Stapleton]

Bernice, I tremendously apologize for the false implication.

It was Mark who made those remarks!

Thanks!  Glad I cleared that up.  Sorry about the confusion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

I'll let that go through to the 'keeper. More importantly, where's your answer to my question which you graciously agreed to supply. I know you must have the book nearby, it's like the Holy Grail of books for those foolish enough to disbelieve Dillon's innocence. Like an addict, I need that proof of innocence which lies within those pages, Tim. I'm waiting.

[Ron Ecker]

Given that there was complicity within the Secret Service, why would it have to go above Chief Rowley (former FBI), if even that high? (The principle - or is it principal, I'm confused now - of "need to know.") Rowley, after all, was in DC for any hands-on management needed. Dillon was on an airplane, in no position to order the planting or destruction of bullet fragments, the cleanup of blood, or anything else.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Mark Stapleton]

Given that there was complicity within the Secret Service, why would it have to go above Chief Rowley (former FBI), if even that high? (The principle - or is it principal, I'm confused now - of "need to know.") Rowley, after all, was in DC for any hands-on management needed. Dillon was on an airplane, in no position to order the planting or destruction of bullet fragments, the cleanup of blood, or anything else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

Perhaps, but if there was complicity within the SS, I'd be surprised if Douglas Dillon didn't know of it. I realise that top executives delegate, but they also know that they ultimately bear responsibility for the performance of their department. Also, I don't think you necessarily needed to be in Dallas on November 22 to have been in the loop.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

for those foolish enough to disbelieve Dillon's innocence.

All I can do is shake my head!

There was no Secret Service complicity in the assassination. Another ridiculous assertion. Ask Al Carrier. Even if an agent did not react the way he should have in an emergency, that does not mean he was a conspirator, for gosh sakes. People make mistakes in emergencies.

I once handled a case called "shoulder dystocia". Dystocia means difficulty. Shoulder dystocia means a fetus' shoulders impact on the mother's bone structure preventing normal delivery. If the baby is not brought out soon, it will suffer brain damage. It is an obstetric emergency that happens from time to time and obstetricians are instructed in a corckscrew manuever to eradicate the baby. Well, in this case the doctor panicked and to get the baby out he pulled hard enough to tear out the nerves from the baby's brachial plexus. The result was that the baby had Erb's Palsy, which is the inability to move her left arm, and it is a condition that can never be cured. Interestingly, the parents were black folk from Zambia and the doctor was a white South African working at the UW Hospital.

The fact that the doctor, in the emergency situation, knowing the baby might die or suffer brain damage, did not follow his training, does not mean the doctor was trying to damage the baby. He made a mistake. And the fact that he was from South Africa and his patients were black changed that fact not one bit. We all make mistakes.

If someone wants to argue that one can deduce a sinister motive from a mistake made by a secret service agent in an emergency, I would like the proponent of that theory to declare that he or she has never made a mistake. And if the reference is to Greer, perhaps an explanation can be offered of what was done to induce Greer to drive a vehicle at which bullets would be flying.

Greer is just another innocent person whose character has been assassinated by the so-called liberals on this forum. Incredible!

Edited June 17, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark wrote:

for those foolish enough to disbelieve Dillon's innocence.

All I can do is shake my head! 

There was no Secret Service complicity in the assassination.  Another ridiculous assertion.  Ask Al Carrier.  Even if an agent did not react the way he should have in an emergency, that does not mean he was a conspirator, for gosh sakes.  People make mistakes in emergencies.

I once handled a case called "shoulder dystocia".  Dystocia means difficulty.  Shoulder dystocia means a fetus' shoulders impact on the mother's bone structure preventing normal delivery.  If the baby is not brought out soon, it will suffer brain damage.  It is an obstetric emergency that happens from time to time and obstetricians are instructed in a corckscrew manuever to eradicate the baby. Well, in this case the doctor panicked and to get the baby out he pulled hard enough to tear out the nerves from the baby's brachial plexus.  The result was that the baby had Erb's Palsy, which is the inability to move her left arm, and it is a condition that can never be cured.  Interestingly, the parents were black folk from Zambia and the doctor was a white South African working at the UW Hospital.

The fact that the doctor, in the emergency situation, knowing the baby might die or suffer brain damage, did not follow his training, does not mean the doctor was trying to damage the baby.  He made a mistake.  We all do.

If someone wants to argue that one can deduce a sinister motive from a mistake made by a secret service agent in an emergency, I would like the proponent of that theory to declare that he or she has never made a mistake.  And if the reference is to Greer, perhaps an explanation can be offered of what was done to induce Greer to drive a vehicle at which bullets would be flying.

Greer is just another innocent person whoe character has been assassinated by the so-called liberals on this forum.  Incredible!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

What relevance your analogy has to the JFK assassination is a mystery best left for another day. Everyone knows people make mistakes Tim, but that's not the issue here is it?

I'm more concerned with the parts of Sorenson's book which prove (to you) his innocence--you said so on post #50. Why are you avoiding this? Do you have the book?