Ultimate Sacrifice: Salon Review

[Gary Buell]

I hesitate to jump in here because I haven't yet read your book (on order). I have read Gus Russo's book though and, as I recall, he mentions planning for a December 1963 invasion but apparently the window for that came and went, and Russo devotes the most space to an OPLAN which called for military action in the latter part of 1964. A contingency plan as well but one which was being seriously considered. Can you help clarify this?

[Pat Speer]

Now a book comes along to explain this phenomenon with a body of evidence that says Kennedy bros. Planned an attack that backfired (I will read book to be fair) . Have yet more researchers taken some bait?

Chris, it is intriguing to me that Waldron's scenario has seemed to light so many fires. I'm wondering if the attraction isn't that it clears LBJ and the CIA of any malevolence. The one piece that is an ABSOLUTE CROCK, as far as I'm concerned, is that Bobby Kennedy went along with the cover-up of his brother's death in order to protect the proposed coup. Anyone who's been around grieving people should understand that Bobby and Jackie were in deep shock, the kind of shock that takes months if not years to get over (if ever). If I'm reading Waldron right in that he proposes RFK went along with the Warren Commission cover-up in the name of national security, I must admit I'm skeptical.

Pat and Chris:

Thank you for these probative posts. Having just read all about the alleged Bobby cover-up in Mellen's book I have been quite saddened by such a prospect: something I always considered disinformation in prior books. Indeed, in 1986, when I read that Bobby and JFk were trying to kill Castro in Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt" I was so incensed that I called "411", got his phone number and we had quite the debate, which continued by mail for months. I have read the closing chapters in "AFTJ" twice now. The first time I did not buy the story Angelo gave to Mellen. But yesterday, after reading at length about Sheridan being sent, allegedly by Bobby, to destroy Garrison-to cover for the get Castro allegations, again attributed to Bobby (and presumably JFK) I jumped ahead to see if Bobby was still portrayed this way in Melen's book. This required reading the last chapter again, and this time the story seemed more compelling. BUT: So what? Does this make it so? One poster here writes that this is "old news" called by a new name, but I find the above two posts more pursuasive.

We know that JFK was planning to meet with Castro. We know that the CIA likely overheard this, via wiretaps and it was at total odds with the Agency's plans. We know that JFK and CIA were at war. We know that The Company has produced a number of "authors" to really muddy the waters. It's really back to that old LBJ quote : "Kennedy was trying to get Castro; only Castro got him first" (paraphrased).

Now we are to believe this stuff, this time, on the basis of a few interviews? We do have Dick Goodwin, quoting how angry Bobby was to hear that he was "trying to kill Castro". That RFK was in reality the one trying to keep Castro alive. Is Goodwin fabricating? Is his view not instructive here?

Dawn

-----------------------

The ONLY time that Bobby & Company "backed-off" from hitting Fidel & Company was: When even "non-ex-Fidelista" Manolo Reboso aligned himself with "Harry" in the CONTINOUS ARGUMENTS [by others than just myself] -- and explained that: WITHOUT Fidel & Company, the Soviet Brigade would pull a coup d'etat and thenceforth we would be dealing with a SOLID Soviet satellite !!

Too bad you have been fooled by the REAL experts for so long, but you are only one of thousands who have swallowed the tabloid trash about this matter for years. However, don't burn your books yet -- more is yet to come (FORTH) !!

Chairs,

GPH

______________________

Gerry, this is a strange post. It's well established that the Kennedys were running a carrot and stick game with Castro, trying to get him to jump through a ring of fire and back into the American sphere of influence. It's NOT well established, outside of the tabloid trash gossip of a few discreditable sources, that they had a commitment to whack the beard. It's a matter of historical record--not tabloid gossip--that JFK became quite upset upon hearing of the deaths of Diem and Trujillo. His reaction to Diem's death was even a source of ridicule to the hardened ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge. The Church committee, furthermore, discovered that the state department was undecided about supporting the coup in the Dominican, and that Kennedy called it off after the BOP disaster. Nevertheless, the coup went off, due in part to the fact that the CIA's Tracy Barnes had arranged for rifles to be transferred to the plotters without the state department's knowledge, and without higher approval, and had thus set the wheels in motion months before. The record is therefore that the Kennedys were more moderate in their use of violence and murder than the rest of the government. This is proved once again by the October Missile Crisis, where the Kennedys stared down the Pentagon (and quite possibly saved the world from a nuclear catastrophe).

And yet you seem to think that those of us who doubt the Kennedy's blood lust for Castro have been fooled by "experts". You seem to be stating that the REAL Kennedys were out for Castro's blood, yummy-yummy, and were committed to ending his life, even while they were secretly beginning negotiations whereby they would quite possibly receive all they could hope for in Cuba--a liberal democracy.

If you honestly believe this I firmly believe that it is you who has been duped. I ask you, who among the anti-Castro community is so sure that the Kennedys were REALLY going to kill Castro? How can they be so SURE the Kennedys were not just playing along and giving them something to do (conveniently getting them out of the country) while the Kennedys were in fact secretly attempting to make peace with Castro? How can they be so SURE? I believe that if anyone within that community is SURE, then they are a xxxx. I suggest you take the names of those that are sure and draw a ring around them. I suggest that within that ring you will find the names of those that should be immediately investigated in order to determine who REALLY killed Kennedy. And it wasn't a commie.

[Frank Agbat]

I'm always willing to change my mind, but until I have read this book (which will take some time, since I can't even finish Harvey and Lee), I will believe the following, which I have believed for some time. The Mafia was involved, the Mafia was happy to be involved, but this was a coup d'etat of which the Mafia was not in charge and in which the Mafia did not call the shots.

Whether or not the Mafia wanted to see JFK dead by December 1, 1963, there is no doubt in my mind that LBJ wanted to see JFK dead before the end of Don Reynolds's Capitol Hill testimony on November 22, 1963. Talk about good timing!

Ron,

Exactly. For LBJ to be innocent of implications in JFK's death, he would have to be acclaimed as the luckiest politician in world history.

I mean, the assassin's bullets are sending him to the White House while simultaneously Reynold's testimony is sending him to jail. And the US media (fearless bastion of truth) said nothing of this. Still don't. Today. Now. Never?

Mark,

I've always found the various "fortuitous circumstances" that befell LBJ to be quite extraordinary. Various authors over the years have exposed the LBJ political machine and the personality of LBJ. Suffice it to say that after reading various accounts of LBJ's exploits, it is not outside the realm of possibility for him to have more than "fortune smiling on him."

On the other hand, he could be the intended and designed recipient of such good fortune... How better to control than with a dutiful puppet (a puppet fearful on all levels; from life and limb all the way through exposure and political/personal ruin).

His personality and actions tend me toward the former, but the latter is certainly within the realm of reason as well.

Regards,

Frank

[Mark Stapleton]

I'm always willing to change my mind, but until I have read this book (which will take some time, since I can't even finish Harvey and Lee), I will believe the following, which I have believed for some time. The Mafia was involved, the Mafia was happy to be involved, but this was a coup d'etat of which the Mafia was not in charge and in which the Mafia did not call the shots.

Whether or not the Mafia wanted to see JFK dead by December 1, 1963, there is no doubt in my mind that LBJ wanted to see JFK dead before the end of Don Reynolds's Capitol Hill testimony on November 22, 1963. Talk about good timing!

Ron,

Exactly. For LBJ to be innocent of implications in JFK's death, he would have to be acclaimed as the luckiest politician in world history.

I mean, the assassin's bullets are sending him to the White House while simultaneously Reynold's testimony is sending him to jail. And the US media (fearless bastion of truth) said nothing of this. Still don't. Today. Now. Never?

Mark,

I've always found the various "fortuitous circumstances" that befell LBJ to be quite extraordinary. Various authors over the years have exposed the LBJ political machine and the personality of LBJ. Suffice it to say that after reading various accounts of LBJ's exploits, it is not outside the realm of possibility for him to have more than "fortune smiling on him."

On the other hand, he could be the intended and designed recipient of such good fortune... How better to control than with a dutiful puppet (a puppet fearful on all levels; from life and limb all the way through exposure and political/personal ruin).

His personality and actions tend me toward the former, but the latter is certainly within the realm of reason as well.

Regards,

Frank

You're right, Frank. LBJ may have been the innocent beneficiary of such timely good fortune. However, a study of "Lucky" Lyndon's career reveals an alarming pattern of similar man made providence, like the sudden death of an honest Texas Government official named Henry Marshall who was threatening to expose the activities of Lucky and his buddies (see the thread on Larry Hancock's book in the book review section) or his "miraculous" victory over fellow Texan Coke Stevenson in 1948.

That LBJ was the innocent recipient of anything other than help from friends who knew that LBJ (like Don Corleone) always rewarded those who did him a service, is about as likely as the possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world (apologies to any devout Pastafarians).

Now a book comes along to explain this phenomenon with a body of evidence that says Kennedy bros. Planned an attack that backfired (I will read book to be fair) . Have yet more researchers taken some bait?

Chris, it is intriguing to me that Waldron's scenario has seemed to light so many fires. I'm wondering if the attraction isn't that it clears LBJ and the CIA of any malevolence. The one piece that is an ABSOLUTE CROCK, as far as I'm concerned, is that Bobby Kennedy went along with the cover-up of his brother's death in order to protect the proposed coup. Anyone who's been around grieving people should understand that Bobby and Jackie were in deep shock, the kind of shock that takes months if not years to get over (if ever). If I'm reading Waldron right in that he proposes RFK went along with the Warren Commission cover-up in the name of national security, I must admit I'm skeptical.

Pat and Chris:

Thank you for these probative posts. Having just read all about the alleged Bobby cover-up in Mellen's book I have been quite saddened by such a prospect: something I always considered disinformation in prior books. Indeed, in 1986, when I read that Bobby and JFk were trying to kill Castro in Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt" I was so incensed that I called "411", got his phone number and we had quite the debate, which continued by mail for months. I have read the closing chapters in "AFTJ" twice now. The first time I did not buy the story Angelo gave to Mellen. But yesterday, after reading at length about Sheridan being sent, allegedly by Bobby, to destroy Garrison-to cover for the get Castro allegations, again attributed to Bobby (and presumably JFK) I jumped ahead to see if Bobby was still portrayed this way in Melen's book. This required reading the last chapter again, and this time the story seemed more compelling. BUT: So what? Does this make it so? One poster here writes that this is "old news" called by a new name, but I find the above two posts more pursuasive.

We know that JFK was planning to meet with Castro. We know that the CIA likely overheard this, via wiretaps and it was at total odds with the Agency's plans. We know that JFK and CIA were at war. We know that The Company has produced a number of "authors" to really muddy the waters. It's really back to that old LBJ quote : "Kennedy was trying to get Castro; only Castro got him first" (paraphrased).

Now we are to believe this stuff, this time, on the basis of a few interviews? We do have Dick Goodwin, quoting how angry Bobby was to hear that he was "trying to kill Castro". That RFK was in reality the one trying to keep Castro alive. Is Goodwin fabricating? Is his view not instructive here?

Dawn

-----------------------

The ONLY time that Bobby & Company "backed-off" from hitting Fidel & Company was: When even "non-ex-Fidelista" Manolo Reboso aligned himself with "Harry" in the CONTINOUS ARGUMENTS [by others than just myself] -- and explained that: WITHOUT Fidel & Company, the Soviet Brigade would pull a coup d'etat and thenceforth we would be dealing with a SOLID Soviet satellite !!

Too bad you have been fooled by the REAL experts for so long, but you are only one of thousands who have swallowed the tabloid trash about this matter for years. However, don't burn your books yet -- more is yet to come (FORTH) !!

Chairs,

GPH

______________________

Gerry, this is a strange post. It's well established that the Kennedys were running a carrot and stick game with Castro, trying to get him to jump through a ring of fire and back into the American sphere of influence. It's NOT well established, outside of the tabloid trash gossip of a few discreditable sources, that they had a commitment to whack the beard. It's a matter of historical record--not tabloid gossip--that JFK became quite upset upon hearing of the deaths of Diem and Trujillo. His reaction to Diem's death was even a source of ridicule to the hardened ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge. The Church committee, furthermore, discovered that the state department was undecided about supporting the coup in the Dominican, and that Kennedy called it off after the BOP disaster. Nevertheless, the coup went off, due in part to the fact that the CIA's Tracy Barnes had arranged for rifles to be transferred to the plotters without the state department's knowledge, and without higher approval, and had thus set the wheels in motion months before. The record is therefore that the Kennedys were more moderate in their use of violence and murder than the rest of the government. This is proved once again by the October Missile Crisis, where the Kennedys stared down the Pentagon (and quite possibly saved the world from a nuclear catastrophe).

And yet you seem to think that those of us who doubt the Kennedy's blood lust for Castro have been fooled by "experts". You seem to be stating that the REAL Kennedys were out for Castro's blood, yummy-yummy, and were committed to ending his life, even while they were secretly beginning negotiations whereby they would quite possibly receive all they could hope for in Cuba--a liberal democracy.

If you honestly believe this I firmly believe that it is you who has been duped. I ask you, who among the anti-Castro community is so sure that the Kennedys were REALLY going to kill Castro? How can they be so SURE the Kennedys were not just playing along and giving them something to do (conveniently getting them out of the country) while the Kennedys were in fact secretly attempting to make peace with Castro? How can they be so SURE? I believe that if anyone within that community is SURE, then they are a xxxx. I suggest you take the names of those that are sure and draw a ring around them. I suggest that within that ring you will find the names of those that should be immediately investigated in order to determine who REALLY killed Kennedy. And it wasn't a commie.

Pat,

Great post. Revisionists like Gerry and Tim G would have us believe that Kennedy was secretly planning to invade Poland next and his assassination was a milestone for world peace.

[William Kelly]

Now I want to hear the Kennedy family's official response to all this - probably from Ted, and unofficial, feelings - from RFK, Jr.

Schlessinger also should chip in.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

It's well established that the Kennedys were running a carrot and stick game with Castro, trying to get him to jump through a ring of fire and back into the American sphere of influence. It's NOT well established, outside of the tabloid trash gossip of a few discreditable sources, that they had a commitment to whack the beard.

Well, Pat, Professor Joan Mellen asserts in "AF2J" that the Kennedys had operations to kill Castro, independent of the ongoing CIA assassination attempts.

I would admit I do not see clear support for this assertion in her citations but her book, as error-ridden as it may be, is beyond "tabloid journalism". Moreover, there are articles in tabloids that turn out to be true. If I recall correctly the Judith Campbell Exner story was first revealed in a tabloid.

Dawn wrote on another thread (re "AF2J"):

Tim: You may dislike Mellen's book and really believe "Garrison got it all wrong", but many in the research community give this book high praise. Just on the book cover we get: Fonzi, Aguilar, Stone, Dick Russell, Cyril Wecht, Dick Gregory... some major heavies in this case.

In this thread, Dawn wrote:

Pat,

Great post. Revisionists like Gerry and Tim G would have us believe that Kennedy was secretly planning to invade Poland next and his assassination was a milestone for world peace.

Dawn's comment was to complement Pat's post that stated, as noted above, that there are no reputable authorities who believe the Kennedys were trying to get Castro. Interestingly, at least as it relates to this salient issue, Professor Mellen is as much a "revisionist" as Dawn claims Gerry and I are. Respectfully, Dawn cannot have it both ways. Either she needs to acknowledge that Professor Mellen was correct, or otherwise she is stuck with the conclusion that Professor Mellen was wrong on this most important point, a point which may very be a key to understanding the assassination.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Tim, you know I believe that almost everyone who's written about the medical evidence has made serious mistakes. Well, my instinct tells me I'll feel the same way about Mellen's book, once I get around to reading it. Most of the mistakes made in this case have come from people trying to make the facts fit their scenario. People come up with a scenario, which fits a few facts, and then they distort the rest of the facts to FIT their scenario. Even worse, memory researchers have established that once the scenario has been developed, the memory of the scenario supercedes the memories of the specific facts, and the truth is lost. In other words, it has been established that the human mind is not a tape recorder and that it is normal everyday behavior for us to LIE to ourselves. Boswell convinced himself a wound he KNEW was on the back was somehow on the neck, etc.

It seems likely to me that Professor Mellen couldn't figure out why Bobby was antagonistic towards her hero Garrison, and came to believe that Bobby was hiding something. That Bobby was personally trying to kill Castro, a la the Pearson lies told to appease LBJ, is such a something. To me, it's far more likely that Bobby, who never read the Warren Report, relied upon his friends to check out Garrison, and that these men came to believe Garrison was a fraud. People who make broad statements--"I've solved the case"--without having all their facts in order are frequently denounced as frauds by men who've spent their lives working as lawyers. I think Bobby shut out Garrison because he believed Garrison was an attention-seeker... a man trying to win friends and influence the electorate by dancing a jig on JFK's grave. I'm not aware of Bobby trying to shut down Lane or Weisberg or any of the other men looking into the case. I'm not aware of Teddy attempting to influence the Church Committee in any way. I don't think there's a thing to the "bloodthirsty Bobby" crap. When Bobby said things like "we need to get Castro", the CIA DELIBERATELY interpreted it as "GO KILL CASTRO NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES EVEN IF IT MEANS USING PEOPLE THAT WILL TURN AROUND AND BLACKMAIL US" , because that is what they wanted to hear.

At least, this is what fits MY scenario...

Edited December 12, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

Just a quick note for those members who do not visit the book review section. Lamar Waldron has started answering questions about his book, Ultimate Sacrifce, here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5494

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, I am unaware of any evidence to support Mellen's point that RFK had independent operations to kill Castro. I used the point to illustrate how seriously flawed Mellen's book is, for if she had evidence to support that revisionist point she certainly did not make it clear.

That being said, I think there IS evidence that the Kennedys were aware of the CIA's plots to kill Castro. Why, Mellen claims that Helms testified that Harvey was personally instructed by RFK himself to have Lansdale write a memo on assassinations. She says it is in Helm's testimony to the Church Committee (testimony I have not been able to find on-line.) I seriously doubt Helms said that or the Church Committee would have focused on it. I think however that there is some thin evidence of Kennedy knowledge of CIA plots. Because the evidence is thin it is therefore subject to historical debate. I think it is fair to say that most professional historians believe JFK was witting of the plots.

Your point that Bobby did not try to shut down Lane or Weisberg is interesting but of couse being an author is far different from being a prosecutor. If RFK had really wanted his brother's assassination solved, he would have communicated that to the WC, I would assume.

But your point that people try to bend facts to fit their agenda is certainly true. To some extent, if an author wants to advance a POV it may be appropriate for the author to "marshall" the facts that fit his or her scenario. I admire authors who will set forth arguments on both sides of an issue, so the reader can reach his own conclusion. There is a wonderful example of this in Ian Griggs' book.

[Don Bohning]

1. While I had not heard of it, I am not surprised that there was something called a secret anti-Castro activity called AMWORLD, either for a CIA operation or a broader government wide operation [such as Mongoose] during 1963. When I was researching by book, the Castro Obsession, I was a bit puzzled by the fact that the various covert activities that year - with the exception of AMLASH/Cubela; and AMTRUNK - did not have a code name; they included Oliva's consolidation of all Cubans into a single unit in the US Army; Artime's activities in Central America Hinckle and Turner say it was called Second Naval Guerrilla but both Rafael Quintero and Sam Halpern told me they never heard of any such thing]; Commandos Mambises, and the hit and run sabotage operation run by JMWAVE out of Miami, etc., all of which I describe in detail in my book. But reading some of the Ultimate Sacrifice excerpts etc., it is clear to me that they are talking about some of the same things.

2. It’s no secret that Cyrus Vance was leading a good bit of the effort although the entire anti-Castro operation according to documents was overseen the State Department’s Coordinator of Cuban Affairs, beginning in early January 1963. That job initially was held by Sterling Cottrell who was succeeded by John Crimmins.

3. Alexander Haig, in his book, INNER CIRCLES [page 109] identifies "Cyrus Vance as the executive agent for the entire federal government in dealing with Cuba and the threat the Castro's regime posed to the Western Hemisphere. This included responsibility for coordinating a secret war against Cuba that encompassed sabotage, commando raises, and propaganda and other clandestine activities." That could have been AMWORLD.

4. I do not believe, however, there was a Dec. 1, 1963 date scheduled for an invasion of Cuba nor do I believe - as indicated by what I have read of Waldron's account - that the Mafia was involved in this effort.

5. The authors say the pledge against an invasion never went into effect because Castro refused on-site inspections of the missile withdrawals. Whether the no-invasion pledge was valid or not is still an open question. It came up again in the early 1970s during the Nixon administration when the Soviets were sending nuclear powered submarines to Cienfuegos for refueling and, to the best of my recollection, the no invasion pledge was still in dispute. Minutes of a Nov. 12, 1962, Excom meeting, notes that: “The President commented that an assurance covering invasion does not ban covert actions or an economic blockade or tie our hands completely. We can’t give the impression that Castro is home free.” I don’t think there is any documentation that shows Kennedy considered the pledge null and void. Subsequent documents make it clear that U2 inspection overflights were ongoing to verify missile withdrawal, with Washington concerned a U2 might be downed by a SAM missile. As outlined by the authors, the no-invasion pledge would not have applied in any event, if there was a coup in Cuba and the coup leaders asked for international help.

6. It sounds like a cop-out to me where the authors say they know, but won’t identify, the so-called “coup leader.” The excuse about violating national security laws at this late date is pretty lame. I doubt that anyone would prosecute them.

7. Another graph says they have discovered a Dec. 10, 1963, cable sent to the CIA director, and attributed to a “western diplomat”, reporting “Che Guevara was alleged to be under house arrest for plotting to overthrow Castro.” Having worked at the Miami Herald’s Latin staff for many years, I can’t tell you how many similar unfounded rumors - from such sources - kept popping up, ranging from Castro’s assassination to Guevara’s disappearance. If Guevara had been under house arrest for plotting to overthrow Castro, he never would have been allowed to leave Cuba.

8. They say Cy Vance was the “only man” who knew everything about this plot besides Robert Kennedy, and that Vance “was one of the few military leaders who knew the full scope of C-Day while the plan was active.” The reason that Vance drafted the plan - if he did - is because under a new June 19, 1963, multi-agency covert action program against Cuba, Vance, as Secretary of the Army, was designated by President Kennedy as “the executive agent for the entire federal government in dealing with Cuba [Al Haig, Inner Circles, page 109].

9. Among others were generals, Max Taylor, Joe Carroll, etc. along with John McCone, Richard Helms, Des Fitzgerald and key field operatives such as David Morales and Dave Phillips. They say there is no evidence that J. Edgar Hoover knew about it. Why should Hoover know? He didn’t know anything about any of the other covert operations against Cuba either, Bay of Pigs, Mongoose, etc. Others likely to have known about such a plan were Joe Califano [Vance’s aide] and Alexander Haig, then an Army colonel, both actively involved in the anti-Castro efforts. Both are still alive, both have written memoirs. I interviewed Haig at his home in West Palm Beach for my own book and we discussed Cuba extensively. He gave no indication such a plan existed. Califano refused several interview requests, but he does deal with Cuba in a chapter in his 2004 book and reiterates again that both he and LBJ think Castro had a hand in the assassination.

10. I find it difficult to believe that if the coup plan as it is described by the authors existed, that we would not have heard of it previously. Several of the people listed above have written memoirs, i.e, Helms, Phillips, etc. and make no mention of it, even though they discuss other such covert operations. The authors also error in saying that the CIA planed to assassinate Castro began in 1959 under Vice President Nixon. I also dispute that the CIA – without telling the Kennedys – was continuing to work with the Mafia on plot against Castro in the fall of 1963. I don’t believe that. And there is certainly no indication of that in either the Church committee report or the CIA IG’S 1967 report on plots to assassinate Castro. In fact, the Church Committee says explicitly that: “the first action against the life of a Cuban leader sponsored by the CIA” occurred in July 1960.

11. It is also odd, that the authors don’t mention Sam Giancani, who was involved with the CIA in assassination plots against Castro. There were two CIA/Mafia plots to assassinate Castro, one originated with Richard Bissell [or Sheffield Edwards, depending on who you believe] in August 1960; Robert Kennedy, according to declassified documents, became aware of it in May 1962 when he was alerted by Hoover that he had evidence Giancani’s girlfriend was sleeping with the President. Bobby then got a briefing from Lawrence Houston, the CIA's general consul, and Sheffield Edwards, the CIA’S security chief on the first Mafia-CIA attempt against Castro. The only other recorded Mafia-CIA attempt to assassinate Castro was underway at the same time – unknown to Bobby Kennedy – this time under the direction of Bill Harvey, head of Task Force W, the CIA component of Operation Mongoose. It was essentially a resurrection of the failed earlier Mafia plot.

12. The authors also mention Operation Amtrunk as being a CIA operation which looked for disaffected Cuban military officers. It was a CIA operation, but one that was forced on the CIA. The operation originated – as shown in declassified documents in my possession - with two Miamians exiled from Cuba, George Volsky. Their codename for it was Operation Leonardo. Logistical support for it was essentially forced on the CIA by the Kennedy White House, through the influence of NYTimes correspondent Tad Szulc, a close friend of Volsky’s.

13. It appears the authors rely heavily on Enrique Ruiz-Williams. While he was very close to Bobby Kennedy, I think he was less important the he led the authors to believe and not nearly as important – or any closer to – Bobby Kennedy than Erneido Oliva [who is not even indexed in the book. Oliva was designated by President Kennedy [an article appeared in the NYTimes] as the representative of the Bay of Pigs Brigade. His liaison at the Pentagon was Al Haig.

14. My own conclusion is that AMWORLD – if that is the codename for the operation – was one among many potential plans to get rid of Castro and that it was “a just in case” plan, that may or may not have been tied in with AMLASH [Rolando Cubela] and perhaps Manuel Artime and Erneido Oliva, both captured at the Bay of Pigs, who became very close to Bobby Kennedy. As noted in my own book [see pages 187-188], and as related to me by Oliva, he and Artime [Ruiz-Williams was not present] met in mid-January 1963 with Bobby Kennedy – less than a month after they had been released from Cuban prisoners - they met Kennedy at his home in Hickory Hill, Virgina. There, according to Oliva, he outlined a new anti-Castro plan to them. Artime would set up guerrilla camps in Central America and Oliva would integrate all the Cubans in the US military into a single unit and the two projects would eventually mesh.

15. In their excerpts summary, the authors express amazement at one point that “a check of newspaper files from the summer and fall of 1963 uncovered a few articles confirming that there had been activity by Kennedy-backed Cuban exiles in Central America at the time.” No wonder, because by then, Artime’s deputy, Rafael Quintero had been traveling back and forth to Costa Rica and Nicaragua arranging to set up the Artime camps with about 300 recruits and it had already started to get attention in the Miami newspapers.

16. I have a series of lengthy declassified documents obtained at the LBJ Library in Austin, prepared in advance of a Dec. 19, 1963, briefing for LBJ Cuba, including a 22-page draft document dated Dec. 15, 1963 that reviews “Current Cuba Policy.” It starts out by noting that: “The bare minimum objective of our police is a Cuba which poses no threat to its neighbors and which is not a Soviet satellite. In moving towards this objective we have rejected the options of unprovoked U.S. military intervention in Cuba and of an effective, total blockade around Cuba – primarily because they would risk another US/USSR confrontation. Instead, we are engaged in a variety of unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral measures, both defensive and offensive, which stop short of these drastic measures.”

MY OWN COMMENT: It hardly seems likely that such a memorandum for the president would be written two weeks after an alleged invasion was scheduled without any mention of it.

17. Finally, I close with an email exchange with Oliva on March 28, 2000, as a followup to an interview I had with him earlier that month in Washington.

Q – Did anyone else attend the January 1963 meeting at Hickory Hill in addition to Bobby Kennedy, Artime and yourself?

A – No one else was present during that particular meeting with Bobby Kennedy. However, the information I provided to you can be easily corroborated. Artime spent more than six million dollars in Central America with its paramilitary operations and I was, until the end of the program, in charge of the military side as Alexander Haig states in his Inner Circle book.

Q – What exactly did Bobby Kennedy tell you other than they were going to fund the Artime program with $6 million and create the Cuban unit in the U.S. military?

A – That was the main topic of our conversation?

Q – Did he at anytime indicate that it would eventually lead to Castro’s overthrow? And, if so, by invasion or a joint operation between the Cuban unit and Artime’s group?

A – At that time it was not discussed any invasion of Cuba. Only that the two programs would eventually join forces to facilitate the liberation of Cuba. How? I never asked that, but the commitment on my program was open to the public to see. I have in my possession many clippings of interviews I granted while training at Fort Benning and Fort Sill. In those interviews my expectations and understanding of the training provided by the US Army, Navy and Air Force.

Q – You said you finished your plan – requested in September (1963) – for the Cuban unit in December whey they told you it was no longer needed. Can you tell me if the plan contemplated an invasion?

A – As stated before, no.

Q – What exactly was Artime’s group supposed to accomplish?

A – By attacking targets of opportunity [in Cuba], infiltrating personnel to reorganize the underground in Cuba, he would have created the favorable conditions for a larger military action against Castro.

All this, of course, after the famous – or infamous – K-K [Kennedy-Khrushchev/NO INVASION] pact.