Ultimate Sacrifice by Thom Hartmann & Lamar Waldron

[Myra Bronstein]

5. In a recently published book, Ultimate Sacrifice, the authors argue that in 1963 JFK and the CIA were working with Juan Almeida Bosque and Che Guevara in a plot to overthrow Fidel Castro. Do you think this is possible? If so, why has Castro allowed Almeida to remain in office (according to the authors, Castro has known about the plot since the early 1990s)?

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

No, I do not think it is possible that JFK and the CIA were working with Che and Juan Almeida against Castro. The authors must have been smoking something!

Well, I frankly have a lot of problems with the premise of the book. And with the claim that the CIA was duped.... Anyway, I've asked the same question twice with no reply. Here it is again:

I just read "Ultimate Sacrifice" and have a question for Mr. Waldron.

If the Kennedys were close to overthrowing Castro, why wouldn't the mafia wait until Castro was out of power to kill JFK? Wouldn't they want to get their casinos and property back after capitalism is, presumably, restored -- *before* assassinating their enemy?

Thank you.

Myra

[Myra Bronstein]

5. In a recently published book, Ultimate Sacrifice, the authors argue that in 1963 JFK and the CIA were working with Juan Almeida Bosque and Che Guevara in a plot to overthrow Fidel Castro. Do you think this is possible? If so, why has Castro allowed Almeida to remain in office (according to the authors, Castro has known about the plot since the early 1990s)?

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

No, I do not think it is possible that JFK and the CIA were working with Che and Juan Almeida against Castro. The authors must have been smoking something!

Well, I frankly have a lot of problems with the premise of the book. And with the claim that the CIA was duped.... Anyway, I've asked the same question twice with no reply. Here it is again:

I just read "Ultimate Sacrifice" and have a question for Mr. Waldron.

If the Kennedys were close to overthrowing Castro, why wouldn't the mafia wait until Castro was out of power to kill JFK? Wouldn't they want to get their casinos and property back after capitalism is, presumably, restored -- *before* assassinating their enemy?

Thank you.

Myra

Is Mr. Waldron still going to answer our questions?

[Myra Bronstein]

5. In a recently published book, Ultimate Sacrifice, the authors argue that in 1963 JFK and the CIA were working with Juan Almeida Bosque and Che Guevara in a plot to overthrow Fidel Castro. Do you think this is possible? If so, why has Castro allowed Almeida to remain in office (according to the authors, Castro has known about the plot since the early 1990s)?

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

No, I do not think it is possible that JFK and the CIA were working with Che and Juan Almeida against Castro. The authors must have been smoking something!

Well, I frankly have a lot of problems with the premise of the book. And with the claim that the CIA was duped.... Anyway, I've asked the same question twice with no reply. Here it is again:

I just read "Ultimate Sacrifice" and have a question for Mr. Waldron.

If the Kennedys were close to overthrowing Castro, why wouldn't the mafia wait until Castro was out of power to kill JFK? Wouldn't they want to get their casinos and property back after capitalism is, presumably, restored -- *before* assassinating their enemy?

Thank you.

Myra

Yes!

I found the thread recently with David Talbot's review of Ultimate Sacrifice, and he asked the same question I've had since I read the book:

"The biggest puzzler about the authors' Mafia theory is this: Why in the world would organized crime bosses, who had been scheming to return to Havana ever since Castro's revolutionary government had evicted them from their immensely lucrative casinos, knock off Kennedy just days before he was about to knock off Castro? Here again, "Ultimate Sacrifice" fails the basic logic test."

Thank you David, thank you.

Here's the thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5520

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2...view/index.html

Good review... I mean, not for the authors but for the greater good (i.e., what I believe).

This is my other problem with the book:

"While the authors take pains to (repeatedly) exonerate the CIA in the killing of Kennedy, their book actually winds up raising serious questions about the agency's possible role in the crime. Though it's not the authors' scenario, after finishing "Ultimate Sacrifice" the reader is left with the unmistakable impression that the assassination was probably the work of a conspiracy involving elements of the CIA, Mafia and anti-Kennedy Cuban exiles -- a cabal that was working to terminate Castro's reign (by any means necessary) and turned its guns instead against Kennedy."

Yeah, and the pains it goes to (repeatedly) to "exonerate the CIA" makes it seem like disinformation. The fact that it tries to prop up the flagging "mob dunnit" story makes it seem like official disinformation. I'm honestly puzzled by the defense of this book.

Good ol' Salon.

[John Simkin]

I found the thread recently with David Talbot's review of Ultimate Sacrifice, and he asked the same question I've had since I read the book:

"The biggest puzzler about the authors' Mafia theory is this: Why in the world would organized crime bosses, who had been scheming to return to Havana ever since Castro's revolutionary government had evicted them from their immensely lucrative casinos, knock off Kennedy just days before he was about to knock off Castro? Here again, "Ultimate Sacrifice" fails the basic logic test."

It has been claimed that David Talbot's poor review on Ultimate Sacifice is not unconnected to his own book on the assassinations of JFK and RFK that will appear next year.

Peter Dale Scott was also critical of Ultimate Sacrifice when it appeared in 2005. However, in a recent seminar in Washington, he pointed out that he thought the new paperback edition did include some very important information about the possible connections between the JFK assassination and the drug industry.

[Myra Bronstein]

I found the thread recently with David Talbot's review of Ultimate Sacrifice, and he asked the same question I've had since I read the book:

"The biggest puzzler about the authors' Mafia theory is this: Why in the world would organized crime bosses, who had been scheming to return to Havana ever since Castro's revolutionary government had evicted them from their immensely lucrative casinos, knock off Kennedy just days before he was about to knock off Castro? Here again, "Ultimate Sacrifice" fails the basic logic test."

It has been claimed that David Talbot's poor review on Ultimate Sacifice is not unconnected to his own book on the assassinations of JFK and RFK that will appear next year.

So, anyone who writes about President Kennedy's assassination and give a bad review to another such book is being disingenuous and self-promoting? Or just Talbot? Who has "it been claimed" by John?

More on Ultimate Sacrifice from another ed thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5748

"And I wouldn't site "Ultimate Sacrifice" as a source on anything other than an example of the continuation of the theme that RFK had sanctioned his brother's murder (per Russo, et al), and all the schmeil about C-Day is a figment of their imagination - they admit making up the word C-Day, which never happened.

Their hypothetical coup never happened, while the real coups took place in Siagon and Dallas.

BK"

"I agree with Bill that it seems the authors of Ultimate Sacrifice bought into the same old Roselli-generated cover-up story about Bobby having caused his brother's death. I admit to personally considering Bobby's role to be paramount in any understanding of the anti-Castro dynamics in late 1963. However, I certainly do not believe that "Col. Roselli" of JM/WAVE was working from the same playbook as Bobby.

Trying to fathom Bobby's role is like the metaphor of blind men describing an elephant, one feeling the leg and thinking it's a tree, another feeling the tail and thinking it's a snake. He was running numerous compartmentalized Cuban special groups, deliberately keeping participants from knowing the entire scheme, if there was in fact any single overall scheme. The authors of Ultimate Sacrifice felt a certain part of the anatomy and came to their narrow conclusion.

Richard Reeves noted about the president, and by extension, his brother: "Kennedy was decisive, though he never made a decision until he had to, and then invariably he chose the most moderate of available options." The peace overtures were still in play at the time of JFK's death, despite what Harry Williams may have believed.

T.C."

A blind man describing an elephant. Beautiful.

[John Simkin]

I found the thread recently with David Talbot's review of Ultimate Sacrifice, and he asked the same question I've had since I read the book:

"The biggest puzzler about the authors' Mafia theory is this: Why in the world would organized crime bosses, who had been scheming to return to Havana ever since Castro's revolutionary government had evicted them from their immensely lucrative casinos, knock off Kennedy just days before he was about to knock off Castro? Here again, "Ultimate Sacrifice" fails the basic logic test."

It has been claimed that David Talbot's poor review on Ultimate Sacifice is not unconnected to his own book on the assassinations of JFK and RFK that will appear next year.

So, anyone who writes about President Kennedy's assassination and give a bad review to another such book is being disingenuous and self-promoting? Or just Talbot? Who has "it been claimed" by John?

More on Ultimate Sacrifice from another ed thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5748

"And I wouldn't site "Ultimate Sacrifice" as a source on anything other than an example of the continuation of the theme that RFK had sanctioned his brother's murder (per Russo, et al), and all the schmeil about C-Day is a figment of their imagination - they admit making up the word C-Day, which never happened.

Their hypothetical coup never happened, while the real coups took place in Siagon and Dallas.

BK"

"I agree with Bill that it seems the authors of Ultimate Sacrifice bought into the same old Roselli-generated cover-up story about Bobby having caused his brother's death. I admit to personally considering Bobby's role to be paramount in any understanding of the anti-Castro dynamics in late 1963. However, I certainly do not believe that "Col. Roselli" of JM/WAVE was working from the same playbook as Bobby.

Trying to fathom Bobby's role is like the metaphor of blind men describing an elephant, one feeling the leg and thinking it's a tree, another feeling the tail and thinking it's a snake. He was running numerous compartmentalized Cuban special groups, deliberately keeping participants from knowing the entire scheme, if there was in fact any single overall scheme. The authors of Ultimate Sacrifice felt a certain part of the anatomy and came to their narrow conclusion.

Richard Reeves noted about the president, and by extension, his brother: "Kennedy was decisive, though he never made a decision until he had to, and then invariably he chose the most moderate of available options." The peace overtures were still in play at the time of JFK's death, despite what Harry Williams may have believed.

T.C."

A blind man describing an elephant. Beautiful.

It was suggested by those who sought to defend Ultimate Sacrifice. I like David Talbot thought that Lamar Waldron has misinterpreted the evidence. I would even go as far to say that he might be a victim of a CIA disinformation campaign. However, like Peter Dale Scott, I accept that Lamar does provide a lot of important new information.

That said, I do not agree with those critics who have attacked Lamar because of his claims that JFK and RFK were behind the assassination plots against Castro. It is important to judge JFK and RFK on their record. Until the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK followed a fairly hard-line anti-communist policy. RFK even continued this after 1962. Even JFK seemed to be following two different paths (assassination and negotiation) in 1963.

RFK’s conviction that this hard-line policy was a complete failure did not really happen to 1967. Cynics believe that this only happened as a means of gaining the presidency in 1968.

It is politically naïve to believe that JFK and RFK were two shining white knights who were assassinated because of their “liberal” views on civil rights and foreign policy. Even RFK did not believe that the JFK government had been too liberal. In fact, he admits that they were only too willing to do deals with white racist politicians in the Deep South. For example, read “Robert Kennedy: In His Own Words: The Unpublished Recollections of the Kennedy Years” (1988).

[John Dolva]

There seems to be a concerted CIA drive to focus research on Cuba. The CIA and sponsored elements like Bosch have been working to destabilise the Cuban government for 46 years. Does it make sense that (particularly as part of the economic terrorism waged on Cuba is the funding of groups and individuals who serve this cause irrespective of the truthfulness of their efforts) these people who are now talking are no longer part of this overall effort? Perhaps they live to 'talk' because they talk in the approved manner. What alternative scenario is it that they wish people to not look at?

Of course the Kennedys were willing to do deals with these southern politicians whoever they were. Up to a point. When push came to shove they were prepared to send in the military and arrest promonent figures. Kennedy was an inclusionist, but he had limits defined by his true self.

The notion of Kennedy as soft on civil right comes from the left of him. It's certainly not as the southern sixties status militant right saw him. To them he was a subversive communist who threatened the constitution. A traitor deserving of death.

Edited November 29, 2006 by John Dolva

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

It was suggested by those who sought to defend Ultimate Sacrifice. I like David Talbot thought that Lamar Waldron has misinterpreted the evidence. I would even go as far to say that he might be a victim of a CIA disinformation campaign. However, like Peter Dale Scott, I accept that Lamar does provide a lot of important new information.

It is, indeed, a worthless book that offers nothing new or important, irrespective of the slant or interpretation placed upon the new revelations. As Dr. Scott has noted, in order for disinformation to be effective, the majority of it must be true, salted with falsehoods designed to mislead.

That said, I do not agree with those critics who have attacked Lamar because of his claims that JFK and RFK were behind the assassination plots against Castro. It is important to judge JFK and RFK on their record. Until the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK followed a fairly hard-line anti-communist policy. RFK even continued this after 1962. Even JFK seemed to be following two different paths (assassination and negotiation) in 1963.

Since I've argued this point with Tim Gratz and others over the past few years, I feel compelled to raise the same points here. The assumption that the Kennedys sought Castro's murder is based solely upon the oral recollections of CIA personnel, who had their own agenda in floating this canard.

[There is documentary evidence that the idea was discussed; there is no documentary evidence it was ever given White House approval. The available evidence indicates Castro's murder was pursued by CIA prior to Kennedy attaining the Oval Office, and then continued thereafter, despite both Kennedy's and Johnson's apparent orders that CIA cease and desist.]

The critical weak link in this self-serving fiction is self-evident from the very same oral recollections: DCI John McCone insisted that he had never been asked to undertake this by the Kennedys, nor had his Agency underlings ever briefed him on such a plot. [When pressed under oath, Helms and others admitted that McCone was left out of this loop.]

How can it be that the Kennedyss - pointedly wary of CIA after the Bay of Pigs - would bypass the very man they had intalled to run the Agency and deal directly with his staff instead? How could it be that such staff, having been tasked by the White House to murder a foreign leader, wouldn't first seek the approval of their nominal boss prior to doing so? [Even if only to ask: "Is this legal?"]

RFK’s conviction that this hard-line policy was a complete failure did not really happen to 1967. Cynics believe that this only happened as a means of gaining the presidency in 1968.

While I'm with the cynics on this point, one must leave open the possibility that RFK grew wiser over the years.

It is politically naïve to believe that JFK and RFK were two shining white knights who were assassinated because of their “liberal” views on civil rights and foreign policy.

Yes, it is "naive" to subscribe to that view. It is equally naive, or perhaps disingenuous, not to factor in the known view of the Kennedys held by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA hardliners: that the Kennedys were too liberal, and that their pursuit of the most moderate options in foreign policy verged on appeasing the Communists.

It is doubtful that both men were killed by conspirators who agreed with their policies. We know who most vocally disagreed with those policies, yet "Ultimate Sacrifice" goes to great pains to avoid considering their motives for wishing the Kennedys dead. An odd oversight, indeed.

Even RFK did not believe that the JFK government had been too liberal. In fact, he admits that they were only too willing to do deals with white racist politicians in the Deep South. For example, read “Robert Kennedy: In His Own Words: The Unpublished Recollections of the Kennedy Years” (1988).

Your assessment make it seem as though they had a choice, when no preferable option existed.

One doesn't govern with the elected representatives that you wish you had in Congress; but must govern with those who have been elected. [With apologies to Donald Rumsfeld for the paraphrasing.] Were the Kennedys to refrain from dealing with racist politicians, they'd have garnered support from a handful of elected representatives in each party, and no legislation would have been passed.

Let us remember accurately the political topography of 1963 and just who populated the corridors of power at the time. "Ultimate Sacrifice" doesn't seem to do so; let us not make the same mistake.

[Michael Hogan]

I just read "Ultimate Sacrifice" and have a question for Mr. Waldron.

If the Kennedys were close to overthrowing Castro, why wouldn't the mafia wait until Castro was out of power to kill JFK? Wouldn't they want to get their casinos and property back after capitalism is, presumably, restored -- *before* assassinating their enemy?

Maybe they realized that in terms of casinos and tourism, Havana would never return to her glory days. Perhaps they recognized that an emerging Las Vegas market, the growing demand for drugs and the efficacy of domestic real estate transactions under the guise of "legitimate" corporations would represent a better return on investment. Particularly after RFK was rendered just another lawyer.

[Myra Bronstein]

It was suggested by those who sought to defend Ultimate Sacrifice.

So you said. And I tried to get specifics, like who said that?

Without specifics a statement like "It has been claimed that..." can inadvertantly be taken as a whispering campaign. The kind of tactic Alan Simpson used in the Clarence Hill confirmation hearings for the US supreme court:

"And now, I really am getting stuff over the transom about Professor Hill. I have got letters hanging out of my pockets. I have got faxes. I have got statements from her former law professors, statements from people that know her, statements from Tulsa, Oklahoma saying, watch out for this woman. But nobody has got the guts to say that because it gets all tangled up in this sexual harassment crap."

http://wings.buffalo.edu/AandL/english/fac.../Simpson_Thomas

Notice the total lack of specifics to disprove.

You say that others accuse David Talbot of being disingenuous and self-promoting in his review of Ultimate Sacrifice. You haven't supported that with any specifics.

I like David Talbot thought that Lamar Waldron has misinterpreted the evidence. I would even go as far to say that he might be a victim of a CIA disinformation campaign.

I would go so far as to say that the authors might be mockingbirds. Just speculation on my part, but they're certainly promoting the CIA party line with their mob dunnit scenario.

That said, I do not agree with those critics who have attacked Lamar because of his claims that JFK and RFK were behind the assassination plots against Castro. It is important to judge JFK and RFK on their record. Until the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK followed a fairly hard-line anti-communist policy. RFK even continued this after 1962. Even JFK seemed to be following two different paths (assassination and negotiation) in 1963.

And President Kennedy showed his greatness by evolving after the missile crisis. As I think you know his evolution from son-of-rich-man to President of the people was the reason he was murdered. It is important to credit him for the courage to oppose the war-profiteers as he became increasingly isolated in his opposition, while he is judged on his record. His record was clearly anti-cold war, anti-hot war, anti-covert war, and anti-CIA. He also showed wisdom in allowing contingency plans to be generated, which I think any good president would have to do.

RFK’s conviction that this hard-line policy was a complete failure did not really happen to 1967. Cynics believe that this only happened as a means of gaining the presidency in 1968.

Again, who are these unnamed cynics John?

Maybe this is a cultural thing and it's considered more polite to say "cynics believe" than "I believe." Is that the case?

It is politically naïve to believe that JFK and RFK were two shining white knights who were assassinated because of their “liberal” views on civil rights and foreign policy. Even RFK did not believe that the JFK government had been too liberal. In fact, he admits that they were only too willing to do deals with white racist politicians in the Deep South. For example, read “Robert Kennedy: In His Own Words: The Unpublished Recollections of the Kennedy Years” (1988).

You seem to have fallen victim to a logical fallacy. The fact that someone dislikes a book you vehemantly defend does not mean they're "naive." And let's stick to the subject of this thread, which is about the book and the soundness of the book's premise.

[Pat Speer]

Myra, I think you're way off base when you state John is vehemently defending Lamar's book. He is not. I understand him to say he disagreed with Lamar's premise but found his book worthwhile. Most researchers would agree.

My take: people fall in love with their own discoveries. Lamar discovered evidence that AMWORLD was real and not a contingency, and built his theory around it. I saw a previously undiscussed entrance wound in an autopsy photo, and built a theory around it. Similarly, Gary Mack and Jack White discovered what might be a man in the Moorman photo and built their theories around it. It's just human nature. As a consequence I see no reason to suspect Lamar is a disinformationist. Not by a long shot. He is a member of this forum and a close associate of Larry Hancock's. The two have worked closely together for years and have shared more information than most researchers have seen. The blind men with the elephant analogy is apropos however in that Larry sees a rogue element of the CIA as more than just mob employees and Lamar is inclined to believe the hit was basically a mob operation.

Unfortunately, there are many on this forum that believe everything bad must derive from the CIA. The CIA is thus equated with the boogie-man. But who is the CIA? The CIA is made up of a combination of typists, file clerks, postal workers, interpreters, historians, press agents, etc. My best friend's mom--Suzy Homemaker for the last 40 years--worked as a CIA secretary circa the Bay of Pigs operation. (She claims she saw some memos indicating an operation was afoot but remembers no details.) The percentage of CIA employees knowledgeable of CIA ops involving political assassinations is incredibly small. As pointed out by Robert, some of these men were "cowboys," working without clear authorization. Senator Frank Church called the CIA of this period a "rogue elephant." If you research these "cowboys" as I call them, you'll see that there was a clique within the CIA including Barnes, Hunt, Phillips, Morales, Robertson, and (possibly) Joannides, that felt personally loyal to Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell (who were fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs), felt the anti-Castro Cubans were betrayed at the Bay of Pigs, and quite possibly had connections to organized crime as well. These men had a history of taking decisive and reckless actions, and of concocting bizarre propaganda campaigns. In short, they were perfectly capable of pulling off the assassination without alerting anyone above them. If they were involved it could lead higher, but on the other hand it could lead nowhere. If someone were to connect Barnes and Phillips to LBJ it would be prove quite interesting. As it is LBJ seems to have been closer to Helms, a much more cautious practitioner of black ops than Barnes, and someone much less likely to put himself at risk.

My point, I suppose, is that it's far from clear that the CIA as an organization called the shots, literally.

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra, I think you're way off base when you state John is vehemently defending Lamar's book. He is not. I understand him to say he disagreed with Lamar's premise but found his book worthwhile. Most researchers would agree.

My take: people fall in love with their own discoveries. Lamar discovered evidence that AMWORLD was real and not a contingency, and built his theory around it. I saw a previously undiscussed entrance wound in an autopsy photo, and built a theory around it. Similarly, Gary Mack and Jack White discovered what might be a man in the Moorman photo and built their theories around it. It's just human nature. As a consequence I see no reason to suspect Lamar is a disinformationist. Not by a long shot. He is a member of this forum and a close associate of Larry Hancock's. The two have worked closely together for years and have shared more information than most researchers have seen. The blind men with the elephant analogy is apropos however in that Larry sees a rogue element of the CIA as more than just mob employees and Lamar is inclined to believe the hit was basically a mob operation.

Unfortunately, there are many on this forum that believe everything bad must derive from the CIA. The CIA is thus equated with the boogie-man. But who is the CIA? The CIA is made up of a combination of typists, file clerks, postal workers, interpreters, historians, press agents, etc. My best friend's mom--Suzy Homemaker for the last 40 years--worked as a CIA secretary circa the Bay of Pigs operation. (She claims she saw some memos indicating an operation was afoot but remembers no details.) The percentage of CIA employees knowledgeable of CIA ops involving political assassinations is incredibly small. As pointed out by Robert, some of these men were "cowboys," working without clear authorization. Senator Frank Church called the CIA of this period a "rogue elephant." If you research these "cowboys" as I call them, you'll see that there was a clique within the CIA including Barnes, Hunt, Phillips, Morales, Robertson, and (possibly) Joannides, that felt personally loyal to Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell (who were fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs), felt the anti-Castro Cubans were betrayed at the Bay of Pigs, and quite possibly had connections to organized crime as well. These men had a history of taking decisive and reckless actions, and of concocting bizarre propaganda campaigns. In short, they were perfectly capable of pulling off the assassination without alerting anyone above them. If they were involved it could lead higher, but on the other hand it could lead nowhere. If someone were to connect Barnes and Phillips to LBJ it would be prove quite interesting. As it is LBJ seems to have been closer to Helms, a much more cautious practitioner of black ops than Barnes, and someone much less likely to put himself at risk.

My point, I suppose, is that it's far from clear that the CIA as an organization called the shots, literally.

Well... the rogue typist theory is one I hadn't heard before.

I suppose we have a fundemental difference of opinion on the book, and on a major force behind at least two of the big four assassinations of the sixties. I'll just leave it at that.

[John Simkin]

I like David Talbot thought that Lamar Waldron has misinterpreted the evidence. I would even go as far to say that he might be a victim of a CIA disinformation campaign.

I would go so far as to say that the authors might be mockingbirds. Just speculation on my part, but they're certainly promoting the CIA party line with their mob dunnit scenario.

I do not think it is helpful to describe fellow researchers as "disinformation agents" because you disagree with their theories. I have met Lamar and liked him a lot. He has spent 17 years on the research and made many personal sacrifices to produce "Ultimate Sacrifice". As long-time members will no, I believe the "mob did it" theory was put out by the CIA in 1967. However, I have no reason to doubt that Lamar is completely genuine in his own theories of what happened.

[John Simkin]

Since I've argued this point with Tim Gratz and others over the past few years, I feel compelled to raise the same points here. The assumption that the Kennedys sought Castro's murder is based solely upon the oral recollections of CIA personnel, who had their own agenda in floating this canard.

This is of course true. That is the way “plausible deniability” works. If it is true of JFK, it is also true of all the presidents that were in office during the “638 CIA attempts to kill Castro” (Fabian Escalante). Were Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton kept in the dark as well?

According to CIA agents, and this includes those who are not linked to the assassination of JFK, Robert Kennedy played a dominant role in pushing the agency to “take out Castro”. Is it possible that RFK knew but JFK did not? Maybe, but in my view, unlikely.

[John Simkin]

One doesn't govern with the elected representatives that you wish you had in Congress; but must govern with those who have been elected. [With apologies to Donald Rumsfeld for the paraphrasing.] Were the Kennedys to refrain from dealing with racist politicians, they'd have garnered support from a handful of elected representatives in each party, and no legislation would have been passed.

Let us remember accurately the political topography of 1963 and just who populated the corridors of power at the time. "Ultimate Sacrifice" doesn't seem to do so; let us not make the same mistake.

Of course, it is necessary to do deals in order to get elected. The point is, how far do you go? You also have to consider the consequences if you have no intention of keeping these promises. For example, JFK had meetings with Richard Bissell and Allen Dulles before he was elected. JFK promised to take a hard-line on Cuba. In fact, during the presidential election, he attacked the Eisenhower and Nixon for being soft on communism in regards to Cuba. In return, JFK was told about the plans to arrange for anti-Castro exiles to invade Cuba. I suspect he was also told about the plans to assassinate Castro just before the invasion. Even though the CIA have always denied this was part of the plan, it does not make much sense without combining the two actions.

JFK also did deals with the Texas oil industry, promising to leave their “oil depletion allowance” alone.

JFK also sent RFK down to the Deep South to promise no legislation on civil rights. Maybe, his father even made promises on his behalf to the Mafia.

The problem about making promises is that if you break them you will be punished, either by the electorate or by the pressure groups you have let down.

One also has to look at the record of the JFK administration. JFK did go along with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Nor did he make principled decisions about civil rights. As RFK explained, JFK sacked Harris Wofford, chairman of the Subcabinet Group on Civil Rights (1960-1962), because he was too passionate about the subject of civil rights legislation.

Most importantly, JFK and RFK put Martin Luther King under a lot of pressure to call of his civil rights demonstrations. The same tactic was used against the leaders of the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) who were causing bad publicity for the Democratic Party in the Deep South with their Freedom Rides. Thank goodness they took no notice of JFK. The truth is that the main reason black civil rights were achieved was because of the actions of people like Martin Luther King, James Farmer and Bayard Rustin and not because of the views of so-called liberal white politicians.

As the people of Iraq are currently finding out, you have to fight to get freedom and democracy. It is not something that you can have imposed on you.