Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Brancato]

Paul I agree with the Australian, and think that you miss the forest for the trees. You construct a theory that is too pat when it comes to drawing fine lines between the conservatives and the radical right, as you call them. You are unwilling to see Hoover and Dulles by their real colors, and are wedded to Walker as being the key. You seem to have decided long ago that the conspiracy could not come from the top of the national security state pyramid, because it presumes too much evil from our leaders. I would say that the only difference between Walker and Dulles, for instance, was one of style. Walker was out front, the others were much more careful and subtle. And for sure, when it comes to the raw exercise of power, Dulles, Hoover and others of their ilk had much more than Walker. You are forced to bend and twist to explain why the plotters had the overthrow of Castro as their objective, and Johnson and his administration were forced to adopt the lone nut to avoid possible civil war. A more direct cause and effect exists - that the plotters had much more global aims in mind, and that JFK was threatening those aims. Getting rid of him enabled them to consolidate power and proceed unhindered. Castro was small potatoes, as subsequent events show.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul I agree with the Australian, and think that you miss the forest for the trees. You construct a theory that is too pat when it comes to drawing fine lines between the conservatives and the radical right, as you call them. You are unwilling to see Hoover and Dulles by their real colors, and are wedded to Walker as being the key. You seem to have decided long ago that the conspiracy could not come from the top of the national security state pyramid, because it presumes too much evil from our leaders. I would say that the only difference between Walker and Dulles, for instance, was one of style. Walker was out front, the others were much more careful and subtle. And for sure, when it comes to the raw exercise of power, Dulles, Hoover and others of their ilk had much more than Walker. You are forced to bend and twist to explain why the plotters had the overthrow of Castro as their objective, and Johnson and his administration were forced to adopt the lone nut to avoid possible civil war. A more direct cause and effect exists - that the plotters had much more global aims in mind, and that JFK was threatening those aims. Getting rid of him enabled them to consolidate power and proceed unhindered. Castro was small potatoes, as subsequent events show.

I must say, Paul B., that you do grasp my position fairly well.

I am skeptical about theories that attribute crass and unrepentant Evil to the US Government -- and claims that to this very day that US Government is covering up its own Evil by withholding records about Lee Harvey Oswald.

I am skeptical about theories that claim that the CIA planned, executed and covered-up the murder of JFK. We are shown circumstantial evidence -- suspicions at a high level -- and "it must have been" and "as everybody knows" types of arguments.

In my reading there is a galaxy of difference between Dulles and Ex-General Edwin Walker -- who graduated in the BOTTOM 10% of his class at West Point, and whose intellect was challenged by the John Birch Society literature -- of which he could never liberate himself. Walker therefore had an average IQ at best.

Yes, Walker was a great soldier and gunnery Captain -- but was he really two-star General material?

General Walker's pathetic performance as a General in Germany 1960-1961 is a matter of Congressional Record. Walker's ridiculous right-wing speeches after he became a civilian are a matter of his own private papers for all to read.

Walker was not an intellectual -- and in my opinion, because he was a member of the John Birch Society, this suggests that he might have taken a blow to the head during combat in WW2 or in Korea. (Or perhaps the rumors about Walker having a brain tumor might have some truth in them.)

Now, contrast this intellectual pea-brain with an intellectual giant like Allen Dulles. There is really no comparison -- look at the accomplishments of Allen Dulles in WW2 and in the CIA as Agent and Director. What an intellect!

No, Paul B., you'll have to offer more than equivocation to compare these two men, so very different.

So I conclude -- if one leans to the Left (just as one leans to the Right) one is going to miss the most important nuances of American Politics -- because most Americans strive mightily to stand in the Middle Road of politics, and resist the two extremes.

Therefore -- I need more PROOF if somebody is going to blame the US Government for the murder of JFK.

I agree that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act ALONE. I insist that he had Accomplices. I demand to know their names at the Ground-Crew level.

It's been fifty years and, like most other readers in the world, I'm still waiting.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Gene Kelly]

Paul:

I think the murder was planned, executed and vigorously protected afterwards by the same small cabal... one comprised of lower level professionals with an axe to grind (BOP, revenge, continuance of paramilitary initiatives) and a specific agenda (Cold War, Communists, Cuba, and national security). There's plenty of evidence to suggest William Harvey, David Morales and their JMWave cronies used tried/true methods to link Oswald to Russia (Mexico City) and to Cuba (New Orleans) along with a bogus rifle and other carefully planted evidence. Much of this is strongly evident in retrospect. These people were expert in black operations and espionage, and they did not simply kill the president; in John Newman’s words they "neutralized" law enforcement and intelligence agencies that would otherwise have performed their investigative duties competently. Organized crime and right wing radicals were used in certain actions and operations (as cut-outs, and typical for these kinds of things) could never have accomplished that feat.

I think we see CIA, FBI and politicians covering their backsides in the aftermath of the crime. I also believe we do know the names of the ground level functionaries. Several of the Dallas participants were later sent into hostile territory on virtual suicide missions (to remove them from testimony). Tony Cuesta and Diaz Garcia are examples of likely Dealey Plaza ground crew participants, as are Felipe Vidal Santiago, Rolando Quintero and Nestor Izquierdo. Herminio Diaz Garcia was a hit man who was the head of security at the Havana Riviera hotel from 1959 to 1960, prior to Castro’s rise to power. He was also held in custody in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, like many other dissidents. He left Cuba in June 1963, and was seconded to counterintelligence specialists with CIA’s JMWAVE operation in Miami led by Morales. Diaz was killed in Cuban waters years later while on a mission to assassinate Castro.

Gene

[Gene Kelly]

Paul (and Paul):

I too am intrigued by General Walker and his involvement. I've read the work of Jim Root who lays out Walker's connections, as well as seen the connection to the relationship with Warren Reynolds, a Tippit shooting witness. There are far too many coincidences with Walker's story and circumstances. As Vince Palamara recently pointed out, there was a place in Dallas called Hidell Hardware near General Walker's house, originally located on Travis Street, close to where Walker lived in 1963, just off the interstate and on a direct route that Oswald would have used. That's simply an amazing coincidence... and most who study this case are wary of coincidence. So Walker was somehow intertwined and he was certainly a controversial right-wing character, who disparaged the Kennedy's and had serious motive. However, I find his blatant right-wing connections to be too good to be true. I sense that he was being used as a distraction and was as much a patsy as Oswald was ... and he knew it, as evidenced by his theatric post-assassination behaviour and statements.

Gene

[Paul Brancato]

Gene - its an interesting observation that Walker was being used. I agree with you on the ground crew. I guess I already made clear my belief that orders came from higher up. Did you mean Rafael Quintero, or is there also a Rolando Quintero?

Have you read Joan Mellen's book 'Our Man in Haiti'? Although she presents no direct evidence of this, I suspect that the identity of the still redacted Wubriny 2 is George Bush, and Wubriny 1 is Thomas Devine. One of the problems in nailing this down is that not everyone who worked for the CIA was on the payroll. In the case of George Bush, I think its clear from the infamous Hoover Memo that he worked for the CIA at least as early as 1959, but in the capacity of private citizen, through his family connections. No real proof of his involvement with the BOP and the Cuban exiles being trained to assassinate foreign leaders like Castro, but plenty of circumstantial evidence. A look at his later career is very enlightening. He eventually becomes CIA director, and then Vice President. During the Reagan years it is clear that Bush was the a White House point man for the Iran Contra operations, using many of the same Cubans. Bush family involvement explains a lot of future history, including the continuing redactions and unreleased documents. Loosely, this is 'sources and methods', except in this case revealing a truth like that, i.e. George Bush and the CIA operations involving assassinations and possibly the JFK assassination, would totally shake up our political landscape.

Funny thing, I keep coming back to this on the forum, but get very little feedback. Do readers think I am nuts, or are they just afraid to chime in? I know first hand how closely the Bush family watches its backside.

[Gene Kelly]

Paul:

Clearly George Bush was CIA, and his affiliation with oil industry (Zapata Oil) and involvement in Bay of Pigs (Operation Zapata) is well documented. The two military transport ships that ferried the Cuban guerillas were named the "Barbara" and the "Houston". You don't go to Yale and then become Director of CIA (appointed by Gerry Ford) with no connections or experience. Bush was CIA Director for only one pivotal year (1976) because former director William Colby was allegedly revealing too much of the Agency's dirty secrets. In 1977, Jimmy Carter (not trusting Bush) forced his resignation. Between 1977 and 1979, Bush became the director of the Council on Foreign Relations foreign policy organization. Clearly, Bush was not on the side of the saints as far as the Kennedy's were concerned.

Regarding his role in the JFK murder, I do struggle to make the leap of faith although Bush was a political enemy of JFK. McGeorge Bundy, the National Security Advisor and Henry Cabot Lodge, the insubordinate ambassador to Vietnam who Kennedy was planning to fire, also appear to be political enemies, as are William Pawley and John J. McCloy. And then there is Allen Dulles ("That little Kennedy... he thought he was a god"). Howard Baker once asked Nixon, “What do you know about the Kennedy assassination?” Nixon replied “You don’t want to know.”

I have similar mixed feelings about LBJ, although many feel strongly about his complicity and he certainly had considerable motive given how derogatory the Kennedy's treated him, along with the Billie Sol Estes and Baker scandals. It is significant that after LBJ had withdrawn from the presidential race, he secretly supported Nelson Rockefeller for president, as he wanted someone who could stop Robert Kennedy. If one accepts the larger premise of a Yankee-Cowboy War that JFK (and RFK) were caught in the middle of, perhaps these larger dots are connectable ... funded by the shadow government of Texas oil barons and the Rockefellers. LBJ was a much more successful politician that GWB, and his character and political behavior are much more controversial and in keeping with extreme political maneuvers. I'm reminded of the saying that "assassination is politics by other means".

As far as why the Bush connection doesn't get much traction on the Forum, I believe it's because this is too political (and too big) to wrap one's arms around. It's also simply not as interesting as the ground level speculations. There is certainly a political backdrop to JFK's murder, and this is the obvious reason for why, 50 years later, it's still considered unsolved. This is also a reason for why each administration since has been reticent to reopen the case, or dig into the truths. One of the very basic conundrums in the assassination is why our powerful government would not solve the case (once and for all) and release whatever key records are left. The answer to those questions is like the big elephant sitting in your family room. It is an answer that many Americans still have a very hard time accepting; it's just too big to imagine... and in Nixon's words, we don't want to know.

Gene

[Paul Trejo]

Paul:

I think the murder was planned, executed and vigorously protected afterwards by the same small cabal... one comprised of lower level professionals with an axe to grind (BOP, revenge, continuance of paramilitary initiatives) and a specific agenda (Cold War, Communists, Cuba, and national security). There's plenty of evidence to suggest William Harvey, David Morales and their JMWave cronies used tried/true methods to link Oswald to Russia (Mexico City) and to Cuba (New Orleans) along with a bogus rifle and other carefully planted evidence. Much of this is strongly evident in retrospect. These people were expert in black operations and espionage, and they did not simply kill the president; in John Newman’s words they "neutralized" law enforcement and intelligence agencies that would otherwise have performed their investigative duties competently. Organized crime and right wing radicals were used in certain actions and operations (as cut-outs, and typical for these kinds of things) could never have accomplished that feat.

I think we see CIA, FBI and politicians covering their backsides in the aftermath of the crime. I also believe we do know the names of the ground level functionaries. Several of the Dallas participants were later sent into hostile territory on virtual suicide missions (to remove them from testimony). Tony Cuesta and Diaz Garcia are examples of likely Dealey Plaza ground crew participants, as are Felipe Vidal Santiago, Rolando Quintero and Nestor Izquierdo. Herminio Diaz Garcia was a hit man who was the head of security at the Havana Riviera hotel from 1959 to 1960, prior to Castro’s rise to power. He was also held in custody in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, like many other dissidents. He left Cuba in June 1963, and was seconded to counterintelligence specialists with CIA’s JMWAVE operation in Miami led by Morales. Diaz was killed in Cuban waters years later while on a mission to assassinate Castro.

Gene

Gene, I appreciate your posting your theory in such a succinct and clear manner.

Also, I think your theory has a lot to recommend it -- it's well-researched.

I do agree, e.g. that William Harvey, David Morales and JMWave personnel are likely participants -- and in the case of David Morales, he is, IMHO, an absolutely certain plotter, because of his personal confession.

Also, the Cuban motivation is the absolutely strongest motivation in 1963, IMHO. We err, IMHO, when we try to apply motivations from later years to the murder of JFK.

The JMWave personnel were obsessed with Cuba. The failure to re-take Cuba was the Achilles heel of the JFK White House.

Further, I agree with you when you say that "a small cabal...comprised of lower level professionals" within the CIA were the main plotters.

That suggests to me that the official CIA was not involved (except in the panicked cover-up). The murderers included "lower-level" Agents who acted secretly, below the well-known (to them) radar of the CIA and FBI.

That was the problem with the CIA in 1963 -- they were largely set-up by former Vice-President Nixon, and they had little loyalty to JFK, but more vitally, they were experts in SECRECY. The less loyal among them could and would keep secrets even from the White House -- and even from their CIA bosses.

Although I exempt Allen Dulles from these "lower-level" Agents, I have little doubt that his sources of information were superior, so he knew more about what was happening underground than the new CIA Director. Yet I don't believe that he took direct action -- although he probably predicted the effort -- and he was a civilian at the time.

Jim Garrison has proved that the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald began as soon as Oswald entered New Orleans in the Spring of 1963, and continued throughout the Summer of 1963, specifically by Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier. The entire New Orleans FPCC episode was street theater.

It is impossible to believe that Clay Shaw was involved without the knowledge of the "lower-level" CIA Agents you reference, Gene, namely, William Harvey and David Morales.

As for the rifle, I don't think it was bogus -- but it was lucky for the planners. It had already been used to try to kill Edwin Walker, IMHO, and this was the act which doomed Lee Oswald to his fate. It was George De Mohrenschildt, Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt (who confessed) who convinced Lee Harvey Oswald to murder Ex-General Edwin Walker.

Oswald missed, and three days later the identity of Oswald was given to Walker through the FBI agent who heard it from Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin who heard it from George De Mohrenschildt himself. Walker knew on Easter Sunday that Lee Harvey Oswald (and one other person) was his shooter on 10 April 1963.

(We get this info from Walker's personal papers, as well as from Dick Russell's TMWKTM combined with the Warren Report.)

The manipulation of Oswald's rifle was an afterthought, managed by Gerry Patrick Hemming (by his own confession). Hemming was also part of the JMWave operation (at a very low level) as was Loran Hall (at an equally low level). These were the sorts of assets that David Morales could manipulate.

Experts in black operations, they laid their plans with professional acumen -- as per Larry Hancock (SWHT/2010).

Yet what Larry Hancock and Joan Mellon have not yet recognized, IMHO, is that for their ground-crew support in Dallas (which was not "neutralized" but "exploited") they relied on fanatics in the right-wing.

Such fanatics would have by now joined the Cuban Exile march against JFK. We see this in the post-Grand Jury pronouncements of Edwin Walker -- that the Kennedys had so enraged him that he was now going to join the Cuban Exiles.

I appreciate, Gene, that you recognize that "Organized crime and right wing radicals were used in certain actions," yet more detail is clearly required.

I also agree with you that "we see CIA, FBI and politicians covering their backsides in the aftermath of the crime." This is true of the official CIA and FBI. I believe there were rogues (like Harvey and Morales) inside the CIA and inside the FBI (possibly James Hosty) who gave secret support to the cabal.

Now, Gene, you chose to name ground-crew names, and I am very grateful for your courageous speculation on this point. Yet all your names are Cuban Exiles (i.e. Tony Cuesta, Diaz Garcia, Felipe Vidal Santiago, Rafael Quintero, Nestor Izquierdo, and Herminio Diaz Garcia). While you might be right, IMHO you've neglected any Mafia or American right-wing radicals in your line-up.

I think one major point remains to be highlighted -- that the mistake of the CIA was to stoop to such a low level as using the Mafia and the Underground right in its operations in the USA.

While the CIA had the custom of using the Mafia in foreign countries, they had no experience, and no protocol for domestic operations at all. Cuba was a bit too close to the USA to work with -- and they should have remained in Honduras and Guatemala for ALL their operations -- i.e. Florida was their big mistake.

The biggest blunder inside that blunder was that the Mafia and the Underground right -- which consists not only of criminals but also of extremely stupid and headstrong individuals -- could now go around boasting that they were CIA Agents. The CIA got a tremendous black-eye from these hundreds of idiots claiming that they were CIA Agents, when actually they were the lowest-paid CIA "flunkies" that ever existed.

Frank Sturgis is only one key example. This would include everybody named by Joan Mellen in her ground-breaking 2005 book, "Farewell to Justice," (e.g. Thomas Edward Beckham and his principal handlers, Jack Martin and Fred Crisman).

Here were perhaps hundreds of street-level flunkies who boasted about being CIA Agents -- and most were little more than common criminals -- like Johnny Roselli and many more.

Frank Sturgis, by the way, is a certain plotter, because of his personal confession.

E. Howard Hunt, also, is a certain plotter (somewhat removed) because of his personal, death-bed confession.

Yet not nearly enough light has been shown on Loran Hall or Edwin Walker, IMHO. Walker was a Dallas asset with a mammoth altitude and authority amongst right-wing crackpots -- for which Dallas was famous.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 30, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Gene Kelly]

Paul:

Thanks for your reply...I enjoy the thoughtful challenge. These days, I'm personally trying to converge on the story. After so long, and so much written, the information borders on overwhelming. I'm primarily influenced by the works of Fonzi, Douglas, Hancock, Mellen and others. And there's "Harlot's Ghost" by Norman Mailer, which fixes Harvey in the center of the storm. The Tippit saga has also brought the story into focus for me, and I see strong parallels to RFK's murder five years later... Google the name Manuel Pena and you see how the CIA infiltrated the police, manipulated evidence and intimidated witnesses in both JFK and RFK. For me, it becomes the same principals, similar methods, and a common agenda.

I feel guilty when becoming engrossed in an aspect of the JFK story... this thread is after all about Harry Dean's memoirs. So it’s easy to get side-tracked. I'm reminded that - in a brainstorm session - it doesn't matter what you label or title the topic because you will ultimately surface the issues that need discussion. I agree that many right-wing characters surface in this story. If the world today is half as chaotic as it was in Dallas in the 60's, then it is truly a scary place... countless determined people with lots of passionate causes.

The names that I mention as ground crew are mainly shooters and spotters, mentioned because they figure prominently in the work of authors whom I find credible. The fact that they're all Cuban names is what it is... that's who was being used in those days, and it’s no surprise you see the same mix of nationalities in Watergate almost ten years later. It's no coincidence (imho) that most of the names are Cuban... there was a strategy in that selection. Cuba was a backdrop for the times, and part of the cover (and reason) for what happened, so those nationalities are not surprising. I do not however for a moment think it’s a complete list, and (while not expert in these things) such an operation likely had all sorts of logistics... transport, radio men, diversionaries, backup teams, photographers, and sweepers to clean up. A real team effort.

This was no mafia shooting... and I can't conceive it being simply a right-wing action. It was a very public execution, and highly coordinated. I'm also struck by the strong parallels to the contemporaneous Phoenix Program in Viet Nam (hunter-killer teams), and the assassination methods used in that action ... such professionals would never be seen or detected, and their presence and fingerprints would have been effectively removed forever. My strong intuition is that many of the same people (the "Southeast Asia" group that Gary Underhill warned of) were involved in Dealey Plaza. So if they too comprised part of the ground crew, I fear we have little hope of uncovering their identities.

I respect your intuition about the radical right and those organizations. They form a toxic mix (i.e. the "milieu") with mercenaries, mafia, Cubans and all sorts of intelligence types... hard to keep track of who's doing whom. After wrestling with Edwin Walker (a lunatic and deviant, who nonetheless rose to the rank of general) for some time, I've come to similar terms with his role and place in the story... a diversion and a scapegoat, meant to take us off of the true path of the assassins. The radicals you speak of are analogous to the 6th floor of the TSBD and the Mannlicher-Carcano ... they serve as a diversion or red herring.

Respectfully,

Gene

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul:

Thanks for your reply...I enjoy the thoughtful challenge. These days, I'm personally trying to converge on the story. After so long, and so much written, the information borders on overwhelming. I'm primarily influenced by the works of Fonzi, Douglas, Hancock, Mellen and others. And there's "Harlot's Ghost" by Norman Mailer, which fixes Harvey in the center of the storm. The Tippit saga has also brought the story into focus for me, and I see strong parallels to RFK's murder five years later... Google the name Manuel Pena and you see how the CIA infiltrated the police, manipulated evidence and intimidated witnesses in both JFK and RFK. For me, it becomes the same principals, similar methods, and a common agenda.

I feel guilty when becoming engrossed in an aspect of the JFK story... this thread is after all about Harry Dean's memoirs. So it’s easy to get side-tracked. I'm reminded that - in a brainstorm session - it doesn't matter what you label or title the topic because you will ultimately surface the issues that need discussion. I agree that many right-wing characters surface in this story. If the world today is half as chaotic as it was in Dallas in the 60's, then it is truly a scary place... countless determined people with lots of passionate causes.

The names that I mention as ground crew are mainly shooters and spotters, mentioned because they figure prominently in the work of authors whom I find credible. The fact that they're all Cuban names is what it is... that's who was being used in those days, and it’s no surprise you see the same mix of nationalities in Watergate almost ten years later. It's no coincidence (imho) that most of the names are Cuban... there was a strategy in that selection. Cuba was a backdrop for the times, and part of the cover (and reason) for what happened, so those nationalities are not surprising. I do not however for a moment think it’s a complete list, and (while not expert in these things) such an operation likely had all sorts of logistics... transport, radio men, diversionaries, backup teams, photographers, and sweepers to clean up. A real team effort.

This was no mafia shooting... and I can't conceive it being simply a right-wing action. It was a very public execution, and highly coordinated. I'm also struck by the strong parallels to the contemporaneous Phoenix Program in Viet Nam (hunter-killer teams), and the assassination methods used in that action ... such professionals would never be seen or detected, and their presence and fingerprints would have been effectively removed forever. My strong intuition is that many of the same people (the "Southeast Asia" group that Gary Underhill warned of) were involved in Dealey Plaza. So if they too comprised part of the ground crew, I fear we have little hope of uncovering their identities.

I respect your intuition about the radical right and those organizations. They form a toxic mix (i.e. the "milieu") with mercenaries, mafia, Cubans and all sorts of intelligence types... hard to keep track of who's doing whom. After wrestling with Edwin Walker (a lunatic and deviant, who nonetheless rose to the rank of general) for some time, I've come to similar terms with his role and place in the story... a diversion and a scapegoat, meant to take us off of the true path of the assassins. The radicals you speak of are analogous to the 6th floor of the TSBD and the Mannlicher-Carcano ... they serve as a diversion or red herring.

Respectfully,

Gene

I still come back to one of my earlier questions but let me phrase it a little differently.

1. Can everyone here agree with the proposition that the proposed planners and executioners of the plot were intelligent individuals --- perhaps even (in many cases) very intelligent?

2. If proposition in #1 is accepted -- then what, exactly, did the plotters think would be accomplished by murdering JFK? Did the subsequent developments turn out the way they originally anticipated? In other words, they achieved what they wanted to achieve? So, for example, putting LBJ into the Presidency was a much more satisfactory development and conformed to what the plotters wanted to achieve?

Because if someone tells me that replacing JFK with LBJ is what the plotters thought was their most desirable outcome -- I have a MAJOR problem with that supposition.

3. Let's put this in the context of the crowd which Harry Dean ran around with. Let's assume that Harry's story is essentially accurate. Does ANYBODY reading this thread want us to believe that the Birch Society WANTED LBJ to become President because they thought he would represent THEIR interests better or more faithfully than JFK? Now---choose any other person or group whom is alleged to have been involved in the plot (anti-Castro Cubans, the Mob, etc.) Does anybody believe that any of them preferred LBJ over JFK?

Edited July 1, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

1. not necessarily, perhaps. compared to what?

2. their goals. to some extent. ditto. yes.

3 irrespective of harry, yes though they preferred goldwater but that can be dealt with by the rightward shift that occurred. segregationists. yes, with prev proviso.

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - the answer to your third question is easy enough, and it is a good question to ask, because a plot would only have been worth it if LBJ was preferable to JFK. If Bircher ideology is to be taken at face value, LBJ was not much of an improvement. But for the Pentagon and the CIA there is absolutely no question that LBJ was the man they wanted to see in the White House. And that is also true for the Mafia, and for Hoover.

[Thomas Graves]

Ernie - the answer to your third question is easy enough, and it is a good question to ask, because a plot would only have been worth it if LBJ was preferable to JFK. If Bircher ideology is to be taken at face value, LBJ was not much of an improvement. But for the Pentagon and the CIA there is absolutely no question that LBJ was the man they wanted to see in the White House. And that is also true for the Mafia, and for Hoover.

Excellent post, Paul Brancato.

I agree.

And LBJ was better than JFK for the Soviet military establishment, as well.

--Tommy

Edited July 1, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - the answer to your third question is easy enough, and it is a good question to ask, because a plot would only have been worth it if LBJ was preferable to JFK. If Bircher ideology is to be taken at face value, LBJ was not much of an improvement. But for the Pentagon and the CIA there is absolutely no question that LBJ was the man they wanted to see in the White House. And that is also true for the Mafia, and for Hoover.

The Pentagon and CIA and Mafia and Hoover "absolutely" wanted LBJ?

I'm sorry but I do not understand that supposition. The senior management at those agencies continued to be JFK appointees and generally they continued the policies of both Eisenhower and JFK. For example, JFK intensified the CIA's "Operation Mongoose" program (begun by Eisenhower), which was the CIA's anti-Castro sabotage campaign and JFK even pursued Castro assassination attempts involving Mafia figures.

So what did the Mafia achieve that was so significantly better (after JFK) than what they had in previous years? Did the US Justice Dept and other law enforcement agencies suddenly stop pursuing Mafia figures or interests?

In every society there are always people with grievances because public policy choices are selected by government officials at all levels (city, county, state, national) which inevitably adversely affect somebody's personal interests. There always are what our founders called "factions" in politics. Every serious student of American history (particularly during the 1950's and 1960's) knows that there was a poisonous atmosphere within our body politic over choices made by Eisenhower and JFK.

Radical rightists were livid because Eisenhower refused to dismantle the New Deal and Fair Deal brick-by-brick -- as they had been led to believe he would. Robert Welch described Ike as a conscious dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy whose motivations were primarily ideological. i.e. he was a conscious traitor -- and (according to Welch) Eisenhower's appointments and associations indisputably "proved" Eisenhower's "treason".

Other factions were angry with Eisenhower because he used troops to enforce de-segregation in Little Rock schools and he signed new civil rights legislation into law which chipped away at the power and privileges of the white racist establishment in our southern states and he appointed "liberals" to key positions within our government --- including (according to Welch and persons with similar viewpoints -- such as Joseph Kamp) known "Communists" and "Communist sympathizers". [Again, see Welch's chapter in The Politician re: Ike's associates and appointments --- which generally reflects the prevailing viewpoint within radical right circles.]

Many foreign policy factions were angry with Eisenhower because of his supposedly weak "containment" policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and he kept us out of Vietnam and did precious little to help the French effort against Ho Chi Minh and he did not "unleash" Taiwan's Chiang Kai Shek during the 1954-1955 "Taiwan Straits Crisis". Furthermore, Ike was suspicious of the "military industrial complex" which he thought had too much influence over our foreign policy establishment. They also rejected Ike's "Summit Diplomacy" efforts and his perceived weak response to the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. [And they had the same reaction to LBJ's reaction to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.]

And perhaps worst of all, the radical right was livid with Eisenhower because of what they perceived as his Administration's undermining of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. When LBJ came into office, the Birch Society's annual evaluation of "Communist influence and control" within the U.S. reached its zenith (i.e. 60-80% was our "score").

So why didn't the Mafia or CIA or Pentagon "plot" to assassinate Ike or why would they "absolutely" prefer LBJ?

[Larry Hancock]

I would add that a number of Eisenhower's senior Generals were publicly outspoken against he and his defense politics. They accused him literally of gutting

the national defense. Read their articles and it sounds likes the same military diatribes against JFK. Ike was so mad about it hat he actually asked

the Justice Department to confirm that he could court marshal them even if they were retired - as many did. Unlike more modern, and acquisition, DOJ

opinions, he was told he couldn't do that ...and it really upset him.

[Gene Kelly]

Ernie:

I think you're applying logic, and trying to make it fit with LBJ as a better vehicle for the plotters. I agree with Paul (in an earlier statement) and think this murder was much simpler and less glamorous or strategic... revenge was central to the action.

In the aftermath, we did not invade Cuba. Castro was never eliminated. A first strike against Russia never came close again. The Joint Chiefs and LeMay/Lemnitzer faded into oblivion. Atomic disaster was avoided. Communism failed 30 years later. The cold war eventually ended and Viet Nam was viewed as a dismal failure. Central America did not fall to foreign domination. The CIA was eventually splintered and neutralized.

I do think that the Oil guys prospered. But Hoover faded away (some say eliminated by the plumbers)... so did Allen Dulles and his cronies. The JBS and radical right also faded into obscurity... no longer relevant after 1980. Fidel Castro ironically stayed in "power" for quite a long time after Dealey Plaza (although Nikita Khruschev did not). I simply don't see LBJ as the 'prize' in 1963, nor do I see Harry Dean's comrades as central or influential to what happened. It appears to be centered about pure revenge.

Gene