Robert Maheu

[Pat Speer]

Robert, I agree with your analysis of the CIA's actions. The DOP was conducting their own foreign policy, both under Bissell and Helms. Helms' testimony pretty much confirms this: he admits to keeping McCone in the dark about the hits, and using Bobby's name to entice Cubela without Bobby's knowledge. While the Kennedys put the pressure on the CIA to do something about Castro, the CIA decdided to murder him all on their own. But you left one question dangling. You said in an earlier post that Kennedy had expressly forbade assassination. Were you guilty of over-stating your case, as we all sometimes do, or are you aware of an incident where JFK expressly forbade the CIA or military from planning Castro's death?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Re Robert's points that the Kennedys never authorized the assassination of Castro, I'd lke to respond at greater length later but in the context of the foregoing this comment is appropriate: after the meeting with RFK, Edwards pointedly commented that RFK never forbade the CIA murdering Castro; what angered him was the CIA's employment in the plot of the very Mafia principals he was trying to prosecute.

And that's the very pith of the problem: Kennedy's entourage unanimously recall that JFK refused to authorize Castro's murder, whereas those in CIA who plotted it anyway insist - without proof - that he had authorized it.

So, ultimately, it's a he-said/he-said scenario of the Kennedys versus CIA.

Not much has changed in forty years, has it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert, I agree with your analysis of the CIA's actions.  The DOP was conducting their own foreign policy, both under Bissell and Helms. Helms' testimony pretty much confirms this:  he admits to keeping McCone in the dark about the hits, and using Bobby's name to entice Cubela without Bobby's knowledge. 

All of which seems more than passing strange if the President had already ordered Castro murdered.

While the Kennedys put the pressure on the CIA to do something about Castro, the CIA decdided to murder him all on their own.  But you left one question dangling.  You said in an earlier post that Kennedy had expressly forbade assassination.  Were you guilty of over-stating your case, as we all sometimes do, or are you aware of an incident where JFK expressly forbade the CIA or military from planning Castro's death?

Given the extant record - replete with holes where we would like to see documentation - it boils down to what Kennedy's political intimates said [and as you know, they insist to a man that despite intense pressure from those around them, neither Kennedy authorized killing Castro, or Diem, for that matter.] 

In the opposite corner, we find CIA personnel insisting that they knew JFK/RFK wanted Castro dead, even though neither man ever came right out and said so.

According to the various biographies and tell-all memoirs written by JFK's politcal intimates - there were two components to the Bay of Pigs plans inherited from the Eisenhower administration at which JFK balked. 

First, CIA's plans called for the use of the US military, which even Eisenhower had originally precluded.  At some point soon after JFK's inauguration, Eisenhower seems to have changed his mind about that, because Kennedy apparently asked him point-blank if the goal of removing Castro was important enough that the US should publicly show its hand.  Eisenhower reportedly replied that he felt the issue was grave enough to warrant doing so.  Despite this advice, Kennedy insisted that US sponsorship of the invasion should remain deniable, and that no US military forces be used.

The second Bay of Pigs component Kennedy eschewed - again, according to the recollections of his intimate circle - was Castro's murder, scheduled to coincide with the invasion.

Post-invasion, Allen Dulles appeared on "Meet The Press" and was asked if CIA had relied upon an anticipated popular uprising among Cubans to ensure Castro's overthrow.  He said that CIA hadn't counted upon that, though the Agency had expected "something" to happen which didn't transpire.  That could be a reference to Castro's murder.  It could refer to CIA's anticipation that when backed into a corner by the spectre of military failure, the President would authorize the use of US military force.  Or it could refer to something else that's yet to be revealed.

I'm sure you and others interested in this aspect of the case share my frustration that this issue is not cut and dried, and thus cannot be consigned to the "solved" file.  My viewpoint is that unless and until somebody comes up with some kind of definitive smoking gun evidence proving Kennedy's acquiescence in the kill-Castro plots, we can choose to believe those who knew Kennedy best, or those who were subsequently caught trying to kill Castro and offered as their alibi that a dead President had instructed them to do it.

If that means I've overstated my case, my apologies to anyone who feels that way.  But, unless and until CIA can provide justification more convincing than "he never said it, but we knew what he wanted from his and RFK's body language and vehemence," what I detect is CIA's ex post facto rationalization for disobeying a dead President's order by lying about what they were instructed to do.

I'll gladly change my mind when I'm provided with a reason to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Ron Ecker]

I'd just like to say that we might should take with a grain of salt what JFK's political intimates might claim that JFK told them off the record about this or that. Didn't some of these same people (I remember at least that Sorenson was involved) help Ted Kennedy throw together a story about swimming across the channel to his hotel and the rest of that crap about Chappaquiddick? Would these people lie for the Kennedys? You betcha.

Ron

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I'd just like to say that we might should take with a grain of salt what JFK's political intimates might claim that JFK told them off the record about this or that. Didn't some of these same people (I remember at least that Sorenson was involved) help Ted Kennedy throw together a story about swimming across the channel to his hotel and the rest of that crap about Chappaquiddick? Would these people lie for the Kennedys? You betcha.

Ron

You raise a valid point, Ron.  And had any of those Kennedy political intimates broken rank in the past forty years to disclose a 'new truth' on the topic, it would have done much to make me reassess things.

However, when forced to select between two diametrically opposed versions of the same events - which is what we face, to our chagrin - I'll remain more inclined to credit the accounts of those closest to Kennedy than those of convicted perjurers such as Helms, and his underlings.  [Particularly so long as CIA personnel remain on the list of assassination suspects.] 

The former group may seek to preserve a dead President's legacy, but the latter group's motivation may be more visceral: staying out of prison for treasonous behaviour in direct contravention of their own President's wishes.  [This holds true irrespective of whether or not one has CIA personnel on one's own list of Dealey Plaza suspects.]

I'll leave it to each individual to decide which motive is the more compelling, and reach whatever conclusions they will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Pat Speer]

Actually, Robert, that perjurer Helms's testimony is the strongest evidence for our contentions. In order to save his reputation, he had every opportunity to say that the Kennedys had told him to kill Castro, yet failed to do so. He said, instead, that he thought it was Bissell's job to tell Dulles and Dulles' job to tell Kennedy and McCone. He said that one would never talk outright about such matters, as it was important to protect men of high standing from the fall-out of making such decisions. (WHY? THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PAID TO DO!!! WHY WOULD WE WANT SUCH DECISIONS MADE AT ANY LEVEL OTHER THAN THE TOP??? This same issue was resurrected in Iran-Contra.)

Anyhow, Helms compared the Castro assassination attempts to the death of Becket. As I recall, King Henry II didn't really want Becket murdered, so the comparison may be more appropriate than Helms intended. In sum, Helms admitted that the assassination attempts were initially planned in the Eisenhower era but were continued on through two other administrations without the knowledge of either President or the DCI (McCone's successor Admiral Rahorn was never told either) simply because of the fear of embarrassing the men in charge by asking them if such a policy was still our policy. Of course, if Helms had personally disagreed with the policy he wouldn't have asked either, because of that whole embarrassment thing. Yeah, right.

[John Geraghty]

Here is a document I just came across from 1954 giving Maheu covert security clearance.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/....do?docId=17153

I can't read who the signatory is or where he is stationed. At best guess, it looks like WH/2, which is Western Hemisphere, Division 2.

John