Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Gratz: Right-Wing Extremist


Recommended Posts

Tim has it a bit wrong. When RFK's phone logs were released (in the nineties I believe) they revealed a single phone call between RFK and Fitzgerald in the six month period preceding the assassination. The phone call occured on the very day the CIA HQ received news that Cubela was requesting a personal meeting with RFK. Although there is no record of the substance of the call, the timing certainly could indicate that the topic was Cubela's request.

No cognitive dissonance here. Nor any ideological bias. A call is a call, and the possible significance of the timing speaks for itself.

Quote source please...while it's certainly possible, it sounds like one of those old exile wive's tales, kinda like Castro trying to blow up Manhattan.

I repeat for the one thousandth time that Richard Helms testified that he and Fitz DECIDED not to talk to RFK about Cubela. Richard Helms fell on his sword for no pol, that's for sure. He was no Libby.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pat, the phone call between Fitzgerald and RFK is a matter of public record. I found it in Russo's book.

Re Helms testimony:

Helms may not have known Fitzgerald had talked to RFK. He could have been covering for RFK. Or, it is possible that despite the interesting timing the call was NOT related to Cubela. I respectfully disagree that Helms fell on the sword for no pol. I think he was the man who kept the secrets. I suspect he may very well have protected Richard Nixon as well. Helms was indeed "the man who kept the secrets", as Thomas Power put it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cubela, a medical doctor, was certainly intelligent enough to understand that it was most unlikely that request would be honored. But my suspicion is Cubela was acting on behalf of Castro and that Fitzgerald's assurances to him were recorded.
The above evades the basic point: if Cubela was sufficiently suspicious and/or investigative to demand a meeting with RFK, why would his inability to obtain the requisite meeting be interpreted as Kennedy approval? What did FitzGerald have to offer that would provide assurance of Kennedy complicity? It couldn't be the easily proven lie that FitzGerald was a senator.

A while back, Tim Gratz asserted that there was a critical timing involved that demonstrated RFK's actual support for the Cubela initiative. He claimed that RFK's phone logs reveal that he had contact with FitzGerald the same day that FitzGerald met with Cubela in October, 1963. I have still seen no evidence of this. It's in this cognitive dissonance that Tim's right-wing bias is demonstrated.

Tim

Tim: I'd like to see some proof for your views: precisely some proof to refute what Tim C has written above.

Excellent points.

Bu we all know that Tim avoids/evades all our questions. It must be difficult to be a rightwinger on a forum about who killed JFK. I admire Tim for trying, actually. I think he puts us with US because no one else on the right gives a xxxx about the truth in this case and Tim sees that so he gravitates to a place where people obviously care and that's more important than that we all at odds with him about our personal/ political /philosophical bent.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim has it a bit wrong. When RFK's phone logs were released (in the nineties I believe) they revealed a single phone call between RFK and Fitzgerald in the six month period preceding the assassination.
Quote source please...while it's certainly possible, it sounds like one of those old exile wive's tales, kinda like Castro trying to blow up Manhattan.
Pat, the phone call between Fitzgerald and RFK is a matter of public record. I found it in Russo's book.

It should be a simple matter to provide the source for the date of the "single phone call between RFK and FitzGerald in the six month period preceding the assassination." What is Russo's specifically cited source? Who initiated the call? Was the date the same as was asserted here months ago, October 11th? What is the source for the assertion that the RFK-FitzGerald call occurred the same day the CIA received the request from Cubela for a personal meeting with RFK?

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cubela, a medical doctor, was certainly intelligent enough to understand that it was most unlikely that request would be honored. But my suspicion is Cubela was acting on behalf of Castro and that Fitzgerald's assurances to him were recorded.
The above evades the basic point: if Cubela was sufficiently suspicious and/or investigative to demand a meeting with RFK, why would his inability to obtain the requisite meeting be interpreted as Kennedy approval? What did FitzGerald have to offer that would provide assurance of Kennedy complicity? It couldn't be the easily proven lie that FitzGerald was a senator.

A while back, Tim Gratz asserted that there was a critical timing involved that demonstrated RFK's actual support for the Cubela initiative. He claimed that RFK's phone logs reveal that he had contact with FitzGerald the same day that FitzGerald met with Cubela in October, 1963. I have still seen no evidence of this. It's in this cognitive dissonance that Tim's right-wing bias is demonstrated.

Tim

Tim: I'd like to see some proof for your views: precisely some proof to refute what Tim C has written above.

Excellent points.

Bu we all know that Tim avoids/evades all our questions. It must be difficult to be a rightwinger on a forum about who killed JFK. I admire Tim for trying, actually. I think he puts us with US because no one else on the right gives a xxxx about the truth in this case and Tim sees that so he gravitates to a place where people obviously care and that's more important than that we all at odds with him about our personal/ political /philosophical bent.

Dawn

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

To all concerned:

Would it be possible for those posting with the same first name, if you could add your

surname initial, as well? For example: Tim C. or Tim G.

The reason I ask is that even though your full surname appears at the beginning of a post, by the time a thread has been added to and responded to, unless you travel back up to the top, you might make the mistake of forgetting which one of the Tims is stating his views, or which one of the Tims is being referred to.

Also, when making reference to, or in differentiating between the two Tims, if the poster would take the opportunity to add each of the Tims' surname initial, would be helpful as well. Por favor?

But then again, one could always use surnames only, I suppose.

Thanks,

Ter :tomatoes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim C wrote:

It should be a simple matter to provide the source for the date of the "single phone call between RFK and FitzGerald in the six month period preceding the assassination." What is Russo's specifically cited source? Who initiated the call? Was the date the same as was asserted here months ago, October 11th? What is the source for the assertion that the RFK-FitzGerald call occurred the same day the CIA received the request from Cubela for a personal meeting with RFK?

To which Tim G responded:

Tim, I shall try to check it what Russo's source was in his book. As stated, the discovery of the existence of the call occured when the RFK phone log was publicly released some time in the 1990s. From memory, the log only indicated the existence of the call and not who initiated it. Speculation on my part, but if the log was prepared by RFK's secretary, it is possible the log only logged calls made to RFK: i.e., calls the secretary received. (How would she know of calls RFK made unless he religiously recorded them?) Since the calls were made public, I assume the log is still "housed" somewhere so the information can be verified.

The absence of phone calls between RFK and FitzGerald for six months prior is, of course, also based on the publicly released log. Again, if my premise about the log is correct, the conservative way to state it would be that that was the only call FitzGerald made to RFK in that period.

I am quite sure the date that Cubela made the request to meet with RFK was a matter of record long before the RFK phone logs were made public Again, I shall try to check this.

There is also the issue that the CIA prepared language for JFK's IAPA speech on November 18 that had been promised to Cubela by FitzGerald during his October 29, 1963 meeting with Cubela. A CIA officer reported delivering the language to JFK in the WH. Again, I shall check and post this information. (I think I know it from memory but I do not want to post from memory in case I am mistaken.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Tim G, surely you must SEE that the difference between Barry Goldwater and Geroge Bush is EXTREME?

Back in 64 I found Goldwater scary, but...fast forward to now....this group is positively terrifying.

And I know you -(Tim G)- believe W to be a Christian. I do not. His policies and vindictiveness are about as anti-Christian as it gets. Too late people are beginning to see this gang of thugs for what they really are.

(But I also believe he stole both elections).

Dawn

___________________________________

Hi Dawn,

Reminds me of one particular Sunday morning in the spring or summer of '68. The only time I've ever decided to go to church (the Presbyterian church in La Jolla) by myself in my whole life. Well, guess who was already sitting in one of the front pews when I arrived a little late?-- none other than that man of High Morals-- Richard "Tricky Dicky" Mill-House Nixon! Looking back at it, I realize that he probably just had some time to "kill" (pardon the pun) and seized the opportunity to make a real "righteous" impression upon the well-connected congregation. It was right during the campaign, after all. I'm sure the main reason he was in town was to get some more "dirt" on his opponents from and/or to solidify his relationship with his buddies "Dame" Hoover and Hoover's boyfriend, Tolson, who always stayed at the Del Charro in La Jolla during the Del Mar racing season...

FWIW, Thomas

___________________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder whether Thomas is the only member who ever attended church with Richard Nixon.

Betcha none of our members have attended church with JFK, RFK, Nixon, LBJ, or any of the other big name players.

Anybody?

Does God count as a big name player these days?

I once attended church with some rea -live Guatemalans, before they were killed by our religiously connected death squads. During the Reagan Adminsitration there was a policy of shipping right wing evangelicals to Guatemala and using them as part and parcel of the counterintelligence strategy that

killed an additional 100,000 citizens of that country.

"OUR God is marching on" --Mark Twain, Battle Hymn of the Republic Brought Down to Date

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim C wrote:

It should be a simple matter to provide the source for the date of the "single phone call between RFK and FitzGerald in the six month period preceding the assassination." What is Russo's specifically cited source? Who initiated the call? Was the date the same as was asserted here months ago, October 11th? What is the source for the assertion that the RFK-FitzGerald call occurred the same day the CIA received the request from Cubela for a personal meeting with RFK?

To which Tim G responded:

Tim, I shall try to check it what Russo's source was in his book. As stated, the discovery of the existence of the call occured when the RFK phone log was publicly released some time in the 1990s. From memory, the log only indicated the existence of the call and not who initiated it. Speculation on my part, but if the log was prepared by RFK's secretary, it is possible the log only logged calls made to RFK: i.e., calls the secretary received. (How would she know of calls RFK made unless he religiously recorded them?) Since the calls were made public, I assume the log is still "housed" somewhere so the information can be verified.

The absence of phone calls between RFK and FitzGerald for six months prior is, of course, also based on the publicly released log. Again, if my premise about the log is correct, the conservative way to state it would be that that was the only call FitzGerald made to RFK in that period.

Aside from the wholly unspecific citation provided by Russo, he reads far too much into this purported anomaly. There are perfectly good reasons that FitzGerald and RFK didn't speak to each other frequently. They apparently loathed each other. FitzGerald was a conservative Republican, and replaced a man at CIA whom the Kennedys apparently loathed with equal fervour, William Harvey. Consequently, it would not be unusual for each man to contact the other as infrequently as possible. That such a phone call was allegedly made around the time of Cubela's request, however, doesn't indicate that this was the topic of conversation.

Also, as per your own stipulation above, if the phone call was placed by FitzGerald, who knows what its purpose was? According to what's been made public to date, FitzGerald was far more keen than Helms to have Kennedy's permission, but was overruled by Helms. Did FitzGerald disobey Helms and place the call anyway? If so, why would a conservative Republican who allegedly despised the Kennedys think such a gambit necessary, at the risk of alienating his direct superior?

Helms' testimony on this is perfectly clear, though astonishing. Not only was RFK never asked for his permission to pursue the Cubela avenue [let alone to self-defeatingly impersonate a Senator as RFK's purported emissary], neither Kennedy was ever made aware of any specific plot to kill Castro, per Helms.

When RFK did discover details about such a plot, he went ballistic, according to all and sundry. It has been suggested that RFK only forbade CIA to use the Mob in such assassination plots, and did not stipulate that there be no such further plots, only that they not include the Mob without his being informed. Who tells us this? CIA personnel, the very same ones who neglected to ask for permission in the first instance, and apparently thereafter failed to disclose subsequent plotting to their own Commander in Chief. Yet we should grant their self-serving, CYA testimony the benefit of the doubt.

Moreover, let's recall that it was FitzGerald who initiated the scheme by which a US diplomat, James Donovan, would unwittingly present a bacteria-laden deepsea-diving suit to Castro during the negotiations to release the Bay of Pigs hostages. Did FitzGerald also call the White House on that occasion, to seek similar permission? Check the dates of the phone logs and let us know. If such a call transpired in the right time period, perhaps Russo is correct. If not, it undermines his speculation regarding the singular October '63 phone call, and bolsters Helms' assertion that the Agency didn't trouble the White House with such requests for permission, ever.

I am quite sure the date that Cubela made the request to meet with RFK was a matter of record long before the RFK phone logs were made public Again, I shall try to check this.

Immaterial point, for reasons cited above.

There is also the issue that the CIA prepared language for JFK's IAPA speech on November 18 that had been promised to Cubela by FitzGerald during his October 29, 1963 meeting with Cubela. A CIA officer reported delivering the language to JFK in the WH. Again, I shall check and post this information. (I think I know it from memory but I do not want to post from memory in case I am mistaken.)

Given that the language was prepared by CIA, what makes you draw any conclusions about it? Did FitzGerald or anyone within CIA truthfully advise either Kennedy why such language was required in the speech? How can one know? This is more speculation.

As for the CIA courier's report, if true, it substantiates that a package was sent to the White House. Unless the courier actually wrote the pertinent portion of the speech, and hence knew what he was delivering and why, this is merely a verbal equivalent to a Fedex receipt. Even if he did know what he was delivering, he couldn't have known whether it was something that CIA insisted be included, or something that JFK wished to have included. This is, again, gossamer-thin speculation, utilized more because it serves Russo's agenda than for any probative value it presents to us, or to history.

Moreover, such language may have been drafted and delivered, but the courier would [or should] have been unaware of its purpose, and it is highly unlikely that he delivered it directly into the President's hands. Surely, JFK didn't take personal receipt of every package addressed to him.

The most potent tool in dissecting such agenda-driven works as Russo's is a bit of common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is anything but common, particularly among those few who share Russo's agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Robert:

Curious for your source that Desmond Fitzgerald was a conservative Republican who loathed JFK. That is not my understanding.

Remember Fitzgerald told some CIA personnel in 1964 that had JFK not been killed, Castro would have been removed from power in Cuba by Christmas of 1963 (supporting the premise of "Ultimate Sacrifice".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Robert:

Curious for your source that Desmond Fitzgerald was a conservative Republican who loathed JFK. That is not my understanding.

Remember Fitzgerald told some CIA personnel in 1964 that had JFK not been killed, Castro would have been removed from power in Cuba by Christmas of 1963 (supporting the premise of "Ultimate Sacrifice".

As far as the insertion of code words into Kennedy's speech, Helms testified that as far as he was concerned the AMLASH plots were not assassination plots as much as they were plots designed to undermine Castro. It's possible that the Kennedys went along with the insertion of certain words into JFK's speech, after being promised it would give encouragement to a potential asset. It's also likely, however, that they were never informed of Cubela or his desire to kill Castro. Based on Helms' testimony, there's no reason to suspect they knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...