If the CIA was involved at all, in any way...

[Ashton Gray]

NOTE: In addition to the image attachment quota, the forum now—and I couldn't make this up if I tried—has quotas for the number of QUOTE BLOCKS that can be used in responding to someone's post. That's right: you're not permitted more than some handful of quotes from another message or poster. Why? Why such an arbitrary babysitting of quotations? You'll have to ask the admins. Given that Cliff Varnell's message to me must have pushed that quota to its limits, I'm now reduced to having to recode the whole message, stripping out the quote codes and replacing them with color just to be able to reply. That's right, the "limitation" is this inane and pointless: you actually can quote all you want—you just can't use the standard BB code provided by the software for quoting. You have to use OTHER codes instead—which does nothing at all to reduce the amount of text or bandwidth. I just know some of you think I'm making this up. I'm not. Of course this arbitrary "limitation" doesn't prevent the most egregious and prevalent forum quoting abuse that goes on all the time: reposting the entirety of some long message just to add one or two lines of comment at the end. Or, messages that look like the windshield of a car that went through a locust storm with all the half-codes left splattered all over them. Oh, well. Spend all the time you want trying to figure this one out. Meanwhile, back at the Rainbow Ranch...

CLIFF VARNELL:

The primary goal of the JFK assassination was to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba

ASHTON:

...you still haven't answered the question: For whom?

CLIFF VARNELL:

Those with a vested interest in a US military take-over of Cuba. Mostly Cowboys, if I

may use Carl Oglesby's Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy..

You can with people who accept simplistic and generalized references instead of specific answers to specific questions. You've said the Kennedy assassination was to create "a pretext for a military invasion of Cuba," and I've asked "for whom," and I have yet to see an anwer to the question I asked. United States military invasion of a country with close ties to the superpower, at the time, of the Soviet Union, in the aftermath not only of the Bay of Pigs debacle but of the infamous nuclear arms standoff isn't a game of cowboys and broomstick horsies.

So if you don't have an answer to "for whom," meaning a specific person or specific persons with names and faces, then how about you just say so and we won't have to drag this out any longer.

ASHTON:

For whose benefit?

CLIFF VARNELL:

Depends on their proximity to pre-Castro business interests.

Heh.

Look, Cliff, I enjoy a good tap-dance as much as anybody. But here's why I'm asking the questions to begin with: you've got some pretty bombastic assertions afloat all over the forum about how "the whole Kennedy assassination is totally solved," and about how sort of ignorant and uninformed anyone who doesn't see it or know it is, so I'm asking for you to enlighten me. So far, we're at strike two.

ASHTON:

Ordered by whom?

CLIFF VARNELL:

I think Lansdale put it together initially on a "rogue" basis

Oh. One of them pesky CIA "rogues" straying off the reservation. Gotcha'. That seems to have been an epidemic in the ranks of the CIA over the years, huh? I mean, they had a whole herd of "rogues." (Which sort of starts to water down the word a little, but what are you going to do?)

I hate to put a knot in this string, but I'm afraid, Cliff, that Lansdale could not order the United States military invasion of a country under even the wildest stretch of imagination—rogue or no-rogue. (And, yes, I know that you answered a different question than the one I asked, but then, that's just another form of no-answer to what I did ask, so we're at strike three.)

ASHTON:

Run by whom?

CLIFF VARNELL:

Ed Lansdale, David Phillips, David Morales.

<Sigh> Cliff, you've gone over a cliff. Every one of my questions with "whom" in it was precisely and exclusively and only pursuant to, and relevant to, and directed to your assertion of motive for the assassination, that being, according to you, "to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba."

I didn't ask you who you think the assassination was "run by." I asked you who would run a military invasion of Cuba.

So far you have not answered even one single question about who such a military invasion was for, who would benefit from such a military invasion, who would order such a military invasion, who would run such a military invasion, and the final—and most important—question...

ASHTON:

On whose authority?

CLIFF VARNELL:

[cue Treasure of the Sierra Madre]

"Badges? We don' need no steenkeen badges!!"

Tell it to the Marines, pal.

Ashton

Edited December 19, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

CLIFF VARNELL:

The primary goal of the JFK assassination was to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba

ASHTON:

...you still haven't answered the question: For whom?

CLIFF VARNELL:

Those with a vested interest in a US military take-over of Cuba. Mostly Cowboys, if I

may use Carl Oglesby's Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy..

You can with people who accept simplistic and generalized references instead of specific answers to specific questions. You've said the Kennedy assassination was to create "a pretext for a military invasion of Cuba," and I've asked "for whom," and I have yet to see an anwer to the question I asked.

Yes you have. For some reason you don't want to acknowledge it as such. I cited Johnson's

blessing of Lansdale's kill-JFK plotting. You know, Vice-President Johnson.

I didn't realize you wanted to present me a grade school civics quiz.

Ashton, you're asking me who has authority over the military?

And my answer is the President.

And you're asking me who are the top people in the military?

And my answer is the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

How'd I do? Do I get an "A"? May we resume the discussion of the case?

Or...Did you think I was refering to another Johnson when I cited the blessings of

"LeMay, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, Johnson"??

And, of course, I cited THIS in my original response, lo so many days ago, but

I apologize for not under-lining the key points.

I'll put the important stuff in caps nice and bold:

From James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, pg 87, 4/10/62 CJCS Lemnitzer memo to

Sec Def McNamara, emphasis added:

(quote on)

THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF believe that the Cuban problem must be

solved in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing

the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political,

economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that MILITARY

INTERVENTION by the United States will be required to overthrow the present

communist regime...THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF believe that the United States

can undertake MILITARY INTERVENTION in Cuba WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL

WAR. They also believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to

MINIMIZE communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action.

(quote off)

Although Kennedy sacked Lemnitzer as CJCS and replaced him with Gen. Maxwell Taylor,

General Curtis LeMay stayed on as Air Force Chief.

That's the main name in the military on Eleven Twenty Two -- LeMay. According to

Paul O'Connor LeMay attended the autopsy, smoking his big cigar...

United States military invasion of a country with close ties to the superpower, at the time,

of the Soviet Union, in the aftermath not only of the Bay of Pigs debacle but of the infamous

nuclear arms standoff isn't a game of cowboys and broomstick horsies.

One more time. With feeling.

(quote on)

THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF believe that the United States can undertake MILITARY

INTERVENTION in Cuba WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL WAR. They also believe

that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to MINIMIZE communist

opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action.

(quote off)

So if you don't have an answer to "for whom," meaning a specific person or specific

persons with names and faces, then how about you just say so and we won't have to drag this out

any longer.

I haven't been naming names?

Top military super-hawks -- Lansdale, LeMay, Lemnitzer.

Top CIA involvement -- Helms and Angleton.

Top Evil Rich Perp -- H.L. Hunt

The Unholy Trio who put the plot together -- Lansdale, Phillips, Morales.

Players primed to play ball: Hoover, Johnson, Dulles, Bush, Giancana.

What did all these ball players have in common?

They wanted to play ball again in Cuba -- each with their own agenda.

Why didn't that happen?

The patsy wasn't rubbed out on Eleven Twenty Two as planned.

This is the conclusion I've drawn, and I cite the following works:

Gaeton Fonzi's THE LAST INVESTIGATION

James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS (chapter on Operation Northwoods)

Larry Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED

Anything by Rex Bradford esp. his work on Hoover's Oswald-the-Fidelista file.

I'll also argue that the nature of the throat wound and Kennedy's response to it

suggests that the weapon that fired the round was most likely created by

Mitchell WerBell III.

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

I'll argue that WerBell adapted the blood-soluble paralytic originally developed for

the CIA and military by Charles Senseney.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf

I'll argue that this scenario matches the credible witness statements (in Dealey Plaza,

at Parkland, at Bethesda), the Dealey Plaza photo evidence, and the historical record.

ASHTON:

For whose benefit?

CLIFF VARNELL:

Depends on their proximity to pre-Castro business interests.

Heh.

Contentless dismissal is not argument, much less a rebuttal.

Look, Cliff, I enjoy a good tap-dance as much as anybody. But here's why I'm asking the questions to begin with: you've got some pretty bombastic assertions afloat all over the forum about how "the whole Kennedy assassination is totally solved,"

That's it! You're Speering me and I don 't dig it.

I truly enjoy discussing this case with you, Aston, but when you put quotation marks

around sentences YOU wrote and attribute the statement to me -- it pisses me off.

The last time you did it, I let it slide. No more, please.

I'd like to keep this collegial. PLEASE quote me directly and accurately when

characterizing my position, and I will show you the same respect. Okay?

Now, I never said the case was "totally solved." I never used those words. I feel the case

is solved to 95%. In fact, I like to invoke what I call...

The Cliff Varnell 95% -- JFK Assassination Rules of Thumb:

Rule #1: 95% of the first day witness statements are credible.

Rule #2: 95% of the photographic evidence is genuine. (There are cases where the

witness statements and the photo evidence are at odds).

Rule #3: There's a 95% chance that elements within the American National Security

state -- Pentagon/CIA operatives -- killed Kennedy with the intent to establish a pre-text

for the invasion of Cuba.

Rule #4: 95% of what is said and written about this case is bullxxxx, including the

2 million plus words from the usenet postings of one nksy@sfo.com (me).

and about how sort of ignorant and uninformed anyone who doesn't see it or know it is, so I'm asking for you to enlighten me. So far, we're at strike two.

No, Ashton, we just finished the top of the ninth and according to the rules of baseball

I don't have to take my last at bats so I'm kicking it in the locker room knocking down

a couple of my favorite intoxicants...

ASHTON:

Ordered by whom?

CLIFF VARNELL:

I think Lansdale put it together initially on a "rogue" basis

Oh. One of them pesky CIA "rogues" straying off the reservation.

Please re-read my statement. I'll re-state it with a key word in bold...

I think Lansdale put it together INITIALLY on a "rogue" basis

IOW, Lansdale was putting it together while still talking to the generals

about taking advantage of a possible explosion of the John Glenn launch,

winter '62.

I'll cite the relevant passage again:

James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS (pg 84):

(quote on)

On February 20, 1962, [John]Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida,

on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of

truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But [Chairman of the

JCS] Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to [Operation

Mongoose chief] Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective

is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic]."

This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, "by manufacturing various pieces of

evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as

NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were

preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pre-text to launch a war.

(quote off)

I think that Lansdale had other ideas, something a bit more pro-active than

waiting around for a rocket to explode.

In this sense Lansdale (plotting with Phillips and Morales) were acting on their own,

INITIALLY.

Before long they received the material support of H.L. Hunt and Sam Giancana, and the

blessings of Dickie Helms, Jay Jay Angleton, Miss Hoover, Poppy Bush, Allen "the Man"

Dulles, and the Vice President of the United State Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Gotcha'. That seems to have been an epidemic in the ranks of the CIA over the years, huh? I mean, they had a whole herd of "rogues." (Which sort of starts to water down the word a little, but what are you going to do?)

What you could do is address the points I make and not the ones I don't make.

I hate to put a knot in this string, but I'm afraid, Cliff, that Lansdale could not order the United States military invasion of a country under even the wildest stretch of imagination—rogue or no-rogue.

I have never argued that Lansdale could order the military invasion of Cuba. Where do you

come up with stuff, Ashton?

You habitually remove most of what I write and replace it with straw.

What Lansdale did, with the help of Phillips and Morales, was arrange for the President of

the United States to be assassinated and his death blamed on Fidel-lover L.H. Oswald.

The plan -- which was vetted with the sitting Vice President -- was to produce "irrevocable

proof" that Oswald was an agent of Fidel. The plotters didn't particularly care if the

conspiratorial nature of the crime was revealed as long as the patsy was gunned down

soon after the deed.

This did not happen, of course, which is why Mickey and Minnie ain't knocking

back virgin Cuba Libres at the Havana Disneyland, not yet anyway.

(And, yes, I know that you answered a different question than the one I asked, but then, that's just another form of no-answer to what I did ask, so we're at strike three.)

I've answered your questions. As you noted, this is not an original position I'm laying

out here. I'm summing up what many regard as the bulk of the evidence.

It's disappointing to Parlor Gamers to hear that the game has been over for years.

ASHTON:

Run by whom?

CLIFF VARNELL:

Ed Lansdale, David Phillips, David Morales.

<Sigh> Cliff, you've gone over a cliff. Every one of my questions with "whom" in it was precisely and exclusively and only pursuant to, and relevant to, and directed to your assertion of motive for the assassination, that being, according to you, "to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba."

I didn't ask you who you think the assassination was "run by." I asked you who would run a military invasion of Cuba.

And what part of the phrase "PENTAGON documents" don't you understand?

What part of Operation Northwoods don't you get?

What part of the phrase "THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF" confuses you?

Or the phrase "MILITARY INTERVENTION"?

"WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL WAR"?

To whom do you think I was refering when I cited the "blessings" of this Operation

Northwoods-type JFK assassination plot coming from "LeMay, Hoover, Helms, Angleton,

Johnson"...???

Tell it to the Marines, pal.

Ashton

Tell it to tourists, Ashton. Your little first grade civics quiz is silly.

Edited December 19, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Hogan]

Of course this arbitrary "limitation" doesn't prevent the most egregious and prevalent forum quoting abuse that goes on all the time: reposting the entirety of some long message just to add one or two lines of comment at the end.

Ashton's observation speaks for itself.

[Terry Mauro]

I didn't ask you who you think the assassination was "run by." I asked you who would run a military invasion of Cuba.[/color]

And what part of the phrase "PENTAGON documents" don't you understand?

What part of Operation Northwoods don't you get?

What part of the phrase "THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF" confuses you?

Or the phrase "MILITARY INTERVENTION"?

"WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL WAR"?

To whom do you think I was refering when I cited the "blessings" of this Operation

Northwoods-type JFK assassination plot coming from "LeMay, Hoover, Helms, Angleton,

Johnson"...???

Tell it to the Marines, pal.

Ashton

Tell it to tourists, Ashton. Your little first grade civics quiz is silly.

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

"Ashton, you're asking me who has authority over the military?

And my answer is the President.

And you're asking me who are the top people in the military?

And my answer is the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Excuse me, but if memory serves me well, it was in William Manchester's book, "One Brief, Shining Moment" where he relates to when Eisenhower, while turning over the keys of The Whitehouse to JFK, warned him of how THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, don't care about what the president has to say regarding their [TJCOS's] little forays into other nations' affairs, will continue to disregard the policies set forth in The Geneva Accords, and how they continued to OVERRIDE his [Eisenhower's] attempts to exercise THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO, if and when he happened to have disagreed, or had taken issue with, or protested the nature of, or the course by which their [TJCOS's] objectives were appearing to proceed, or were taking.

And, I am telling you, Varnell, the TJCOS take their cues, and do the bidding of those who lobby for the most lucrative corporate contracts to make the most profits from the products and services rendered and sold, which feed the markets, which in turn, fill the tills of the financial houses with the greatest stranglehold on the pockets and bank accounts of the citizenry of this country, and its allies. HELLO! Do you need a map to the NYSE, or to Allen Dulles' office at Sullivan and Cromwell on Wall Street, just to mention a couple of places? Not to mention their affiliates' houses and establishments in Europe? All sweeping generalities, aside.

Edited December 19, 2006 by Terry Mauro

[Cliff Varnell]

"Ashton, you're asking me who has authority over the military?

And my answer is the President.

And you're asking me who are the top people in the military?

And my answer is the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Excuse me, but if memory serves me well, it was in William Manchester's book, "One Brief, Shining Moment" where he relates to when Eisenhower, while turning over the keys of The Whitehouse to JFK, warned him of how THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, don't care about what the president has to say regarding their [TJCOS's] little forays into other nations' affairs, will continue to disregard the policies set forth in The Geneva Accords, and how they continued to OVERRIDE his [Eisenhower's] attempts to exercise THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO, if and when he happened to have disagreed, or had taken issue with, or protested the nature of, or the course by which their [TJCOS's] objectives were appearing to proceed, or were taking.

And, I am telling you, Varnell,

Kinda hostile, ain't ya?

Spare me the lectures on Pentagon or CIA perfidy, I think I've spelled them out quite well.

Launching a massive invasion of another country is -- if you haven't noticed -- a bit more

than a "little foray into other nation's affairs."

In order for the US to have launched a full-scale military invasion of Cuba it would

have to be ordered by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I'm not arguing that LBJ was actually calling the shots -- but he had to sign off on it if such

an invasion were to take place.

Aside to the gentle reader: I love this -- I have Ashton Gray accusing me of saying that

Lansdale could order an invasion of Cuba, and Terry Mauro taking me to task for saying

that it would take a Presidential order to launch an invasion of Cuba.

I know they're both are keen to take a whack at my argument, but it looks to me like

they're tripping over each others toes.

Terry, Ashton, I think you two should huddle and get on the same page.

that TJCOS take their cues, and do the bidding of those who lobby for the most lucrative corporate contracts to make the most profits from the products and services rendered and sold, which feed the markets, which in turn, fill the tills of the financial houses with the greatest stranglehold on the pockets and bank accounts of the citizenry of this country, and its allies. HELLO!

Hello, back. If you think the Eastern Establishment killed one of their own, fine. You're

entitled to shrill non-arguments that make no sense.

You don't appear to be aware of the existence of the oil industry, the illegal drug trade,

the black market in guns, and all the other black business of the Texas-based operators.

Do you need a map to the NYSE, or to Allen Dulles' office at Sullivan and Cromwell on Wall Street, just to mention a couple of places? Not to mention their affiliates' houses and establishments in Europe?

I cited Dulles' involvement, just as I cited Johnson's involvement.

Something about the language I use that makes it difficult for you to process, Terry?

Do you need a map to the Dal-Tex Building -- co-owned by Clint Muchison and H.L. Hunt?

Do you need a map to New Orleans where Oswald was linked to Guy Banister and the

CIA's anti-Castro activities?

Do you need a map to the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City where Oswald was

sheep dipped as an agent of Fidel?

I love it when people blame all the evils of the world on the "liberal Eastern Establishment"

while the state of Texas pumps out geo-political criminality on a staggering scale.

Do you need a map to Texas, Terry?

Edited December 19, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

duplicate post

Edited December 19, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Ashton Gray]

Hi, Cliff. Thanks for getting back to me with actual answers, now, to the questions I had asked some number of messages back.

Your answers go directly to my original premise for this topic, and its pursuant question, which I'm going to recap here at the outset of this reply, just as I originally wrote it in the first message in this thread:

======================

If the CIA was involved at all, in any way, in the Kennedy murder, it was not taking orders from, or acting in the exclusive interests of, or beholden to, or doing the bidding of, or reduced to a parity with, or in any way junior to:

• Texas oil men

• Texas politicians

• The Vice President of the United States

• Pro-Castro forces

• Anti-Castro forces

• Cubans

• Castro

• The Mafia, or any part thereof

So was the CIA involved or not?

======================

Before taking up your individual answers below, I'm going to summate here, first, what I understand to be your answer to the seminal question of this topic: "So was the CIA involved or not?"

You correct me if I'm wrong (in as few unnecessary words as you can manage), but my understanding is that you assert that the entire plan for the Kennedy assassination was, indeed, the origination of a CIA founding veteran, General Edward Lansdale—but only as a CIA (and military) "rogue."

You then posit further crucial CIA involvement, naming such CIA superstars and long-time CIA veterans as:

• Richard Helms

• James Jesus Angleton

• David Atlee Phillips, and

• David Sanchez Morales.

Unless my count is off, we have, in your scenario, no fewer than five central CIA figures all conspiring together to effect the murder of John F. Kennedy—but only as CIA "rogues" keeping this dark secret from the rest of the CIA.

I need to pause here in this summation to point out that this "CIA rogue" scenario that you (and others) have put forward completely clears then-CIA Director John McCone of any knowledge or participation at any relevant time.

Now, I am not reaching even slightly to any rhetorical devices such as hyperbole to state here what I clearly understand your answer to the seminal question above to be. I must, though, be able to orient your further answers, below, to this central and primary question, above, so unless and until you correct any false impression I've gotten from your copious writings, I am going to proceed on the basis of the above, which is my good-faith understanding of your screed.

Omitting, for the moment, any real assessment of the proven participation on 10 October 1963 of CIA's Jane Roman, J. C. King (Chief of all CIA operations in the Western Hemisphere), and Tom Karamessines (Deputy to CIA covert operations chief) in sending patently false information on Lee Harvey Oswald to CIA Mexico, I'm going to turn to your answers concerning motive for the murder John F. Kennedy, which you claim to have been effected through the participation of five CIA "rogues" listed above.

To recap your proffered motive, you say that these CIA "rogues" were sympathetic to and cooperative in the Lansdale plan for the following purpose: "To establish a pre-text [sic] for a military invasion of Cuba."

Sincerely hoping that I am not taking too many liberties in attempting to paraphrase my best understanding of your position, your case is that a military invasion of Cuba was important enough to CIA's Edward Lansdale, Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales that they would conspire (as "rogues," outside of any other CIA knowledge or participation) to effect a daylight murder of the President of the United States, and thereby engender enough public loathing against Castro and Cuba to justify the replacement President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, with the backing of Congress, to launch an all-out military invasion of Cuba—despite the recent Bay of Pigs catastrophe and the nuclear arms stand-off with the Soviet Union over Cuba that terrified the world.

Now, I know my reputation, and I fear that you, or others, may think that I am resorting to my infamous sarcasm or hyperbole here in attempting, in the best way I can, to reduce and distill your prolix pronunciamentos into something accessible, into a fair and probative summation that takes into account my most honest and sober comprehension of what you have put forward—however incomprehensible any or all of it might seem to me.

And it is on the foundation of this model, if I understand you correctly, that you stand to say the assassination of John F. Kennedy has been "solved."

Given that statement of my best understanding, I will attempt below to address your specific answers going to motive and other purported participants in a quest for that alleged motive: "a pre-text [sic] for a military invasion of Cuba." (while also attempting to work around the quotation quotas of the board).

I asked you for whom such a pretext (assassination of the President) for a military invasion of Cuba was being manufactured. You now have answered, in pertinent part:

I cited Johnson's blessing of Lansdale's kill-JFK plotting. You know, Vice-President Johnson.

...Ashton, you're asking me who has authority over the military?

And my answer is the President. [ASHTON NOTE: Meaning, I can only presume, that Johnson would accede to the Presidency, and order the military invasion. He did accede to the Presidency. He did not order a military invasion of Cuba.]

And you're asking me who are the top people in the military?

And my answer is the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

...I cited the blessings of "LeMay, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, Johnson"

...From James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, pg 87, 4/10/62 CJCS Lemnitzer memo to Sec Def McNamara, emphasis added:

(quote on)

THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that MILITARY INTERVENTION by the United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF believe that the United States can undertake MILITARY INTERVENTION in Cuba WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL WAR. They also believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to MINIMIZE communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action.

(quote off)

Although Kennedy sacked Lemnitzer as CJCS [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and replaced him with Gen. Maxwell Taylor, General Curtis LeMay stayed on as Air Force Chief.

That's the main name in the military on Eleven Twenty Two -- LeMay. According to Paul O'Connor LeMay attended the autopsy, smoking his big cigar...

...I haven't been naming names?

Top military super-hawks -- Lansdale, LeMay, Lemnitzer.

Top CIA involvement -- Helms and Angleton.

Top Evil Rich Perp -- H.L. Hunt

The Unholy Trio who put the plot together -- Lansdale, Phillips, Morales.

Players primed to play ball: Hoover, Johnson, Dulles, Bush, Giancana.

Thank you. Let's now bring the cast of suspects purportedly engaged in this assassination plot up to date:

• Purported Participants in the Plot
  to Murder John F. Kennedy in Order to Provide
  a Pretext for a Military Invasion of Cuba,
  According to Cliff Varnell, et al.
  • Vice Pesident Lyndon Baines Johnson
  • Director of FBI J. Edgar Hoover
  TEXAS OIL MEN:
  • H.L. Hunt
  • George W. Bush
  MAFIA FIGURES
  • Sam Giancana
  SENIOR MILITARY "ROGUES"
  • General Curtis LeMay
  • General Lyman L. Lemnitzer
  • General Edward Lansdale (also a CIA "rogue"—see below)
  CIA "ROGUES":
  • Former Director of CIA Allen Dulles
  • Richard Helms
  • James Jesus Angleton
  • David Atlee Phillips, and
  • David Sanchez Morales
  

I'll pause here only to mention what seems, to me, to be something of an omission: the assistant to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor was one Thomas A. Parrott, another long-time CIA veteran, who doubled as secretary for the Special Group and the Special Group Augmented at all relevant times. How and why I believe that should be mentioned in passing at this point I will defer to a later time. Suffice it to say that other members of said Special Groups included General Edward Lansdale and Director of CIA John McCone. But let us move on...

What did all these ball players have in common?

They wanted to play ball again in Cuba -- each with their own agenda.

Why didn't that happen?

The patsy wasn't rubbed out on Eleven Twenty Two as planned.

All right. Allow me to update the record here to the best of my understanding: all the felonious, murderous planning and plotting by the 13 (so far) powerful men listed above to murder Kennedy and thereby launch a military invasion of Cuba was foiled by someone (who, I have no idea—it hasn't been revealed so far) dropping the ball on murdering Lee Harvey Oswald the same day.

The fact that Oswald was murdered a little over twenty-four hours later went for nought: it wasn't good enough. So the murders of both John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald accomplished nothing that the plotters had intended to accomplish.

This is the conclusion I've drawn, and I cite the following works:

Gaeton Fonzi's THE LAST INVESTIGATION

James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS (chapter on Operation Northwoods)

Larry Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED

Anything by Rex Bradford esp. his work on Hoover's Oswald-the-Fidelista file.

I'll also argue that the nature of the throat wound and Kennedy's response to it suggests that the weapon that fired the round was most likely created by Mitchell WerBell III.

Objection. Stringent objection. There is no "throat wound" in evidence. There is a tracheotomy opening in evidence, with oral claims that a throat wound had been there in the same place prior to the tracheotomy.

It seems that always when proponents of the purported "throat wound" sally forth with a case built on it, they somehow sort of uniformly omit mention of the tracheotomy (performed on someone who had half their skull and brains missing), and the fact that the tracheotomy forever eradicated any and all possibility of ever establishing the prior presence or absence of any such alleged "throat wound."

You operate on any articles of faith-based belief you want. And by all means, peddle that to anybody who will buy it—and lots of people always line up for snake oil, wherever sold. Don't try to put it past me again, though, as any established "fact." It isn't. Period. So if you want to debate the alleged "throat wound," start a new thread and I'll meet you there. Meanwhile, I'm not wasting any more forum space on it here in this topic.

I next asked for whose benefit would a "military invasion of Cuba" be manufactured. As is demonstrated in the record, you didn't supply an answer. Instead you took offense at something I said, paraphrasing you in innocence, lamentably using quotation marks for something I though was an accurate restatement of your own claims. I'm not qoing to squander any of my quote quota on this, since it isn't responsive to my questions, but I am going to answer it, regrettably resorting to color and other devices for quotations.

I had said:

• ASHTON GRAY: ...[H]ere's why I'm asking the questions to begin with: you've got some pretty bombastic assertions afloat all over the forum about how "the whole Kennedy assassination is totally solved"
  

You replied in pertinent part:

• CLIFF VARNELL: That's it! You're Speering me and I don 't dig it. I truly enjoy discussing this case with you, Aston, but when you put quotation marks around sentences YOU wrote and attribute the statement to me -- it pisses me off. ...PLEASE quote me directly and accurately when characterizing my position, and I will show you the same respect. Okay? ...Now, I never said the case was "totally solved." I never used those words. I feel the case is solved to 95%.
  

Okay. There was no intention to misrepresent you or your position. Therefore, I'll merely quote below (in color) three statements you have made that are of record in this forum, and will provide the post numbers so any members who care to verify the accuracy and context of these quotes can do so, and I'll allow others to determine for themselves whether or not I mischaracterized your own statements:

• CLIFF VARNELL: "The case of John F. Kennedy's murder was solved in 2001 with the publication of James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, with its revelations about Operation Northwoods." —18 August 2006, Post #72511
  CLIFF VARNELL: "This case is solved to my satisfaction and I don't need the NY Times to ratify my conclusion." —17 November 2006, Post #81458
  CLIFF VARNELL: "The JFK research community has hypnotized itself into thinking that the case hasn't already been solved." —1 December 2006, Post #83351
  

You'll have to state for yourself whether you stand by those statements, or have fallen back from them.

Maybe you didn't mean "totally solved" when you said "solved." Maybe you just meant "partially solved." You didn't add any such qualifiers, though, did you? It calls to mind being "a little bit pregnant."

Moving on...

I next asked you by whom such a military invasion of Cuba would be ordered. You have answered, consistent with your above answers:

I think Lansdale put it together INITIALLY on a "rogue" basis. IOW, Lansdale was putting it together while still talking to the generals about taking advantage of a possible explosion of the John Glenn launch, winter '62.

...I think that Lansdale had other ideas, something a bit more pro-active than waiting around for a rocket to explode.

In this sense Lansdale (plotting with Phillips and Morales) were acting on their own, INITIALLY.

Before long they received the material support of H.L. Hunt and Sam Giancana, and the blessings of Dickie Helms, Jay Jay Angleton, Miss Hoover, Poppy Bush, Allen "the Man" Dulles, and the Vice President of the United State Lyndon Baines Johnson.

...I have never argued that Lansdale could order the military invasion of Cuba. ...What Lansdale did, with the help of Phillips and Morales, was arrange for the President of the United States to be assassinated and his death blamed on Fidel-lover L.H. Oswald.

The plan -- which was vetted with the sitting Vice President -- was to produce "irrevocable proof" that Oswald was an agent of Fidel. The plotters didn't particularly care if the conspiratorial nature of the crime was revealed as long as the patsy was gunned down soon after the deed.

This did not happen, of course... .

Although the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, certainly was "gunned down soon after the deed," I understand that your position is that it wasn't "soon enough." Nor do you state who was supposed to do the timely gunning down.

The net effect is that the cast of purported conspirators has not changed. I have to pause again, though, this time merely to reflect upon the apparent absence of any Cuban co-conspirators in this drama as you have laid it out. I'm hoping one or two will appear on the stage in a late act.

I then had asked you by whom the military invasion of Cuba would be carried out—hypothetically given the success of this purported plot.

And what part of the phrase "PENTAGON documents" don't you understand?

What part of Operation Northwoods don't you get?

What part of the phrase "THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF" confuses you?

Or the phrase "MILITARY INTERVENTION"?

"WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL WAR"?

I'll only mention here the date of the sudden "revelations" about Operation Northwoods: 18 November 1997. I don't have any further comment at this time.

The last question I asked you, you didn't answer at all. Perhaps you felt it had been answered by your having included Lyndon Baines Johnson as successor to Kennedy.

That question that remains unanswered was, and is, on whose authority would any such "military invasion of Cuba" be carried out. I can only surmise, unless you wish to correct this impression, that you believe Lydon Baines Johnson could have pulled off such a drastic military invasion, in the Zeitgeist of late 1963-1964, without the slightest intervention by or involvement of Congress, and without any political or nuclear fallout.

And I can only presume that you believe that all these men shared a belief in just such an immediate wielding of new-found power vested in Johnson by the explosion of John F. Kennedy's skull:

• • Director of FBI J. Edgar Hoover
  TEXAS OIL MEN:
  • H.L. Hunt
  • George W. Bush
  MAFIA FIGURES
  • Sam Giancana
  SENIOR MILITARY "ROGUES"
  • General Curtis LeMay
  • General Lyman L. Lemnitzer
  • General Edward Lansdale (also a CIA "rogue"—see below)
  CIA "ROGUES":
  • Former Director of CIA Allen Dulles
  • Richard Helms
  • James Jesus Angleton
  • David Atlee Phillips, and
  • David Sanchez Morales
  

So as I see this, your position is in direct opposition to my entire primary thesis at the top of this thread and this message, your assertion, contrariwise, being that the CIA was involved—but only "rogue" elements of CIA—and that those "rogue" CIA elements were working at the behest and in the interests of not only Texas oil men and the Mafia, but also in concert with "rogue" military generals and the Director of the FBI.

But no Cubans named anywhere.

And after all their efforts, after three violent and vicious murders in two days, no military invasion of Cuba occurred.

95% of what is said and written about this case is bullxxxx, including the 2 million plus words from the usenet postings of one nksy@sfo.com (me).

Yes. There is that. I'll give you that. Your industry at spreading such as is condensed and summarized in this post cannot be denied or gainsayed in any way. You may single-handedly hold the record, but I don't know.

What I do know, or at least strongly believe, is that if I said what I actually think about it, I would be permanently banned from this forum within the hour.

Ashton Gray

Edited December 19, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

Ashton Gray wrote:

(quote on)

Before taking up your individual answers below, I'm going to summate here, first,

what I understand to be your answer to the seminal question of this topic: "So was the

CIA involved or not?"

You correct me if I'm wrong (in as few unnecessary words as you can manage), but

my understanding is that you assert that the entire plan for the Kennedy assassination

was, indeed, the origination of a CIA founding veteran, General Edward Lansdale—but

only as a CIA (and military) "rogue."

(quote off)

No, Ashton, I said that he set out INITIALLY on his own (w/Phillips & Morales).

I am not describing the assassination of JFK as a "rogue" operation, and although it

could be argued that any operation that didn't involve JFK committing suicide might be

considered "rogue," I do not wish to characterize it as such beyond of its point of origin.

Ashton Gray continues:

(quote on)

You then posit further crucial CIA involvement, naming such CIA superstars and

long-time CIA veterans as:

• Richard Helms

• James Jesus Angleton

• David Atlee Phillips, and

• David Sanchez Morales.

Unless my count is off, we have, in your scenario, no fewer than five central CIA

figures all conspiring together to effect the murder of John F. Kennedy—but only as

CIA "rogues" keeping this dark secret from the rest of the CIA.

(quote off)

Your research hasn't indicated to you that these people operate on a "need to know" basis?

Those in the CIA who "needed to know" were in on it; those who didn't need to know, weren't.

I need to pause here in this summation to point out that this "CIA rogue" scenario that you (and others) have put forward completely clears then-CIA Director John McCone of any knowledge or participation at any relevant time.

Why would McCone need to know?

If you can make an argument for McCone's involvement, I'm all ears.

Now, I am not reaching even slightly to any rhetorical devices such as hyperbole to state here what I clearly understand your answer to the seminal question above to be. I must, though, be able to orient your further answers, below, to this central and primary question, above, so unless and until you correct any false impression I've gotten from your copious writings, I am going to proceed on the basis of the above, which is my good-faith understanding of your screed.

I would like to correct your false impression that I have restricted the possible involvement

of other CIA operatives below the level of Deputy Director of Plans, Richard Helms.

I cited Helms and Angleton as the top-level CIA perps -- how did you conclude that that

precludes the involvement of others in the CIA?

Omitting, for the moment, any real assessment of the proven participation on 10 October 1963 of CIA's Jane Roman, J. C. King (Chief of all CIA operations in the Western Hemisphere), and Tom Karamessines (Deputy to CIA covert operations chief) in sending patently false information on Lee Harvey Oswald to CIA Mexico,

Sigh.

For those who have been paying attention, I have cited Oswald's sheep dipping

in Mexico City as a key event. That I didn't name the CIA girl who made coffee for

Phillips while he was running anti-Castro operations in MEXI doesn't mean she didn't

play an operational role -- I just don't know, and, unlike others, maybe I'm not all that

anxious to drag every name thru the mud.

Not that that's a bad thing when discussing the CIA...

I'm going to turn to your answers concerning motive for the murder John F. Kennedy, which you claim to have been effected through the participation of five CIA "rogues" listed above.

Your repeated mis-use of the word "rogue" creates a false impression as to my argument.

Perhaps we need to visit dictionary.com and a review of the definition of the word --

INITIALLY

Ashton Gray wrote:

(quote on)

To recap your proffered motive, you say that these CIA "rogues" were sympathetic

to and cooperative in the Lansdale plan for the following purpose: "To establish

a pre-text [sic] for a military invasion of Cuba."

Sincerely hoping that I am not taking too many liberties in attempting to paraphrase my

best understanding of your position,

(quote off)

Yes, Ashton, you are taking too many liberties. You have not properly processed my

use of the word "rogue."

I despair that I cannot explain it any clearer than this: Lansdale was not ordered to

assassinate JFK. He and the CIA guys came up with it on their own (that's the "rogue"

part) and received the blessing for the operation from Helms, Johnson, Hoover, Dulles

et al (the "non-rogue" part.)

your case is that a military invasion of Cuba was important enough to CIA's Edward Lansdale, Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales that they would conspire (as "rogues," outside of any other CIA knowledge or participation)

That last bit I have NOT argued, obviously. And it's coming to a point where I find

repeating myself is not productive.

to effect a daylight murder of the President of the United States, and thereby engender enough public loathing against Castro and Cuba to justify the replacement President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, with the backing of Congress, to launch an all-out military invasion of Cuba—despite the recent Bay of Pigs catastrophe and the nuclear arms stand-off with the Soviet Union over Cuba that terrified the world.

And what does the historical record show about that post-Missile-Crisis thinking in the

Pentagon and Defense Dept. in 1963?

James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, pg. 89:

(quote on)

Even after Lemnitzer lost his job, the Joint Chiefs kept planning "pretext" operations

at least into 1963. Among their proposals was a plan to deliberately create a war

between Cuba and any of a number of its Latin American neighbors...

...The report even suggested secretly paying someone in the Castro government

to attack the United States [which Bamford notes is an act of treason]...

...In May 1963, Asssistant Secretary of the Defense Paul H. Nitze sent a plan to the

White House proposing "a possible scenario whereby an attack on a United States

reconnaissance plane could be exploited toward the end of effecting removal of the

Castro regime."

(quote off)

The historical record indicates that the "pretext" strategy was alive and well

in super-hawk circles in 1963.

Now, I know my reputation, and I fear that you, or others, may think that I am resorting to my infamous sarcasm or hyperbole here in attempting, in the best way I can, to reduce and distill your prolix pronunciamentos into something accessible, into a fair and probative summation that takes into account my most honest and sober comprehension of what you have put forward—however incomprehensible any or all of it might seem to me.

You don't have to take my word for anything. Read the material. Read: THE LAST INVESTIGATION,

by Gaeton Fonzi; BODY OF SECRETS, by James Bamford (esp pgs 82-91 re Northwoods); BREACH

OF TRUST, by Gerald McKnight; and SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED by Larry Hancock -- and then

come back and tell me why I'm wrong.

And it is on the foundation of this model, if I understand you correctly, that you stand to say the assassination of John F. Kennedy has been "solved."

To the extent the case can be solved, yes, to a certainty of 95%, imo. As I stated

in other threads -- the case is solved to my satisfaction. I am here to so argue.

Does that mean I claim it to be 100%? No. How could I?

Doesn't mean that this answers all the little mysteries the Parlor Gamers love, it won't

tell us the name of the shooters, but this conclusion that JFK was murdered in order to

provide a pretext for the invasion of Cuba is consistent with the vast bulk of the evidence,

I will argue.

Given that statement of my best understanding, I will attempt below to address your specific answers going to motive and other purported participants in a quest for that alleged motive: "a pre-text [sic] for a military invasion of Cuba." (while also attempting to work around the quotation quotas of the board).

I asked you for whom such a pretext (assassination of the President) for a military invasion of Cuba was being manufactured. You now have answered, in pertinent part:

Cliff Varnell: I cited Johnson's blessing of Lansdale's kill-JFK plotting. You know, Vice-President Johnson.

...Ashton, you're asking me who has authority over the military?

And my answer is the President. [ASHTON NOTE: Meaning, I can only presume, that Johnson would accede to the Presidency, and order the military invasion. He did accede to the Presidency. He did not order a military invasion of Cuba.][

If'n I hadda dolla for everytime I went over this -- I could buy the first TWO rounds,

Ashton.

The patsy was captured alive. A live patsy proclaiming his innocence queered the

"irrevocable proof of Castro complicity" standard Lemnitzer set for a successful

false flag operation.

Phillips and Hoover had extensive, irrevocable files proving the case.

But they couldn't use 'em.

And you're asking me who are the top people in the military?

And my answer is the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

...I cited the blessings of "LeMay, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, Johnson"

...From James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, pg 87, 4/10/62 CJCS Lemnitzer memo to Sec Def McNamara, emphasis added:

(quote on)

THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that MILITARY INTERVENTION by the United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF believe that the United States can undertake MILITARY INTERVENTION in Cuba WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL WAR. They also believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to MINIMIZE communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action.

(quote off)

Although Kennedy sacked Lemnitzer as CJCS [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and replaced him with Gen. Maxwell Taylor, General Curtis LeMay stayed on as Air Force Chief.

That's the main name in the military on Eleven Twenty Two -- LeMay. According to Paul O'Connor LeMay attended the autopsy, smoking his big cigar...

...I haven't been naming names?

Top military super-hawks -- Lansdale, LeMay, Lemnitzer.

Top CIA involvement -- Helms and Angleton.

Top Evil Rich Perp -- H.L. Hunt

The Unholy Trio who put the plot together -- Lansdale, Phillips, Morales.

Players primed to play ball: Hoover, Johnson, Dulles, Bush, Giancana.

[AG]: Thank you. Lets now bring the cast of suspects purportedly engaged in this assassination plot up

to date:

No, let's not.

You're trying to re-frame my point in such a way as to to be advantageous

to your rhetorical approach, I suspect, but I haven't read the rest of the post

yet so I guess I should give you the benefit of the doubt?

I do not regard "blessing" the plan the same as "participating" in the plan.

I think it possible (although not highly likely) that Richard Helms' sole

involvement was to sit stoically while being briefed on the progress of

the plot, giving his "silent assent."

There may have been much such "silent assent" in many corridors

of power in America and around the world in the Fall of '63.

But such speculation leads to dragging more and more people's names through

the mud, an exercise I'd prefer to leave to others.

Ashton: Purported Participants in the Plot

to Murder John F. Kennedy in Order to Provide

a Pretext for a Military Invasion of Cuba,

According to Cliff Varnell, et al.

This is boring. Ashton, you have seized on the word "rogue" and like a rib-show'n

dawg you won't let yer jaws off that piece of meat for anything -- anything!

I never refered to anyone other than Lansdale, Phillips and Morales

as "rogue" and that was ONLY in the initial steps of the plot to kill

Kennedy.

Those quotation marks around the word "rogue" in the context of anyone

other than the aforementioned Terrible Trio is a product of one Ashton Gray,

not one Cliff Varnell.

I'll end for now with a passage from Larry Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED,

pg 90:

(quote on)

The road to Dallas was not a straight one. There were branches that lead to

Washington, D.C., Chicago, Florida and even Mexico City. There were threats

and possibly even preparations for attacks in other cities before Dallas.

One constant does emerge in all the leads, the names, and the gossip -- the Cuba

factor. In that respect all roads pass by and through the war against the Communist

regime in Cuba, the war against Castro that continued to be waged in 1963. Not a cold

war, rather a covert one. A war of shadows -- and shadow warriors.

(quote off)

[Cliff Varnell]

[snip Ashton's disfigurement of my argument]

Aston wrote:

I'll pause here only to mention what seems, to me, to be something of an omission: the assistant to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor was one Thomas A. Parrott, another long-time CIA veteran, who doubled as secretary for the Special Group and the Special Group Augmented at all relevant times. How and why I believe that should be mentioned in passing at this point I will defer to a later time. Suffice it to say that other members of said Special Groups included General Edward Lansdale and Director of CIA John McCone. But let us move on...

Why do you assume I've precluded lower level players?

Is there anything I've written that would lead you to assume such?

Cliff Varnell wrote:

What did all these ball players have in common?

They wanted to play ball again in Cuba -- each with their own agenda.

Why didn't that happen?

The patsy wasn't rubbed out on Eleven Twenty Two as planned.

All right. Allow me to update the record here to the best of my understanding: all the felonious, murderous planning and plotting by the 13 (so far) powerful men listed above to murder Kennedy and thereby launch a military invasion of Cuba was foiled by someone (who, I have no idea—it hasn't been revealed so far) dropping the ball on murdering Lee Harvey Oswald the same day.

The guy who eventually did the deed was responsible for Oswald's death,

or so I would speculate.

AG:

The fact that Oswald was murdered a little over twenty-four hours later went for nought: it wasn't good enough. So the murders of both John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald accomplished nothing that the plotters had intended to accomplish.

I didn't say "nothing." Each had their own agendas that might very well have been

fulfilled by JFK's death. But the organizing goal was left unfullfilled, obviously.

CV:

This is the conclusion I've drawn, and I cite the following works:

Gaeton Fonzi's THE LAST INVESTIGATION

James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS (chapter on Operation Northwoods)

Larry Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED

Anything by Rex Bradford esp. his work on Hoover's Oswald-the-Fidelista file.

I'll also argue that the nature of the throat wound and Kennedy's response to it suggests that the weapon that fired the round was most likely created by Mitchell WerBell III.

AG:

Objection. Stringent objection. There is no "throat wound" in evidence. There is a tracheotomy opening in evidence, with oral claims that a throat wound had been there in the same place prior to the tracheotomy.

And, pray tell, why did they perform a trach unless they had some reason to believe

he couldn't breathe?

It seems that always when proponents of the purported "throat wound" sally forth with a case built on it, they somehow sort of uniformly omit mention of the tracheotomy (performed on someone who had half their skull and brains missing), and the fact that the tracheotomy forever eradicated any and all possibility of ever establishing the prior presence or absence of any such alleged "throat wound."

If there were no throat wound they wouldn't have performed a trach, would they?

You operate on any articles of faith-based belief you want.

No, I'm careful to cite witness testrimony, photographic evidence, documentary evidence.

Because you push pet theories that are contradicted by the witnesses and the photographs,

you must operate totally on faith, Ashton.

And by all means, peddle that to anybody who will buy it—and lots of people always line up for snake oil, wherever sold. Don't try to put it past me again, though, as any established "fact." It isn't. Period. So if you want to debate the alleged "throat wound," start a new thread and I'll meet you there. Meanwhile, I'm not wasting any more forum space on it here in this topic.

It doesn't fit your pet theories, so it couldn't be.

That's the problem with developing a pet theory first and then trying to jigger

the evidence to fit the theory.

Someone sees something that doesn't fit -- that person is delusional, a

dupe, a xxxx, an incompetant, a villain?

To be continued...

[Dawn Meredith]

If I hear ONE more person attempt to argue that JFK was killed by "rogue elements of the CIA" I am going to f*****g scream. "Rogue elements" do not take out the Commander -in- chief. I doubt that "rogue elements" actually do much of consequence.

I wonder where this idea even originated. (Probably Langley central) But it has always brought to my mind Tony Summers, who Jim Garrison called "One of the CIA's more accommodating whores". For those lamebrains who perpetuate this assinine myth I can only agree with the DA.

Dawn

[Myra Bronstein]

If I hear ONE more person attempt to argue that JFK was killed by "rogue elements of the CIA" I am going to f*****g scream. "Rogue elements" do not take out the Commander -in- chief. I doubt that "rogue elements" actually do much of consequence.

I wonder where this idea even originated. (Probably Langley central) But it has always brought to my mind Tony Summers, who Jim Garrison called "One of the CIA's more accommodating whores". For those lamebrains who perpetuate this assinine myth I can only agree with the DA.

Dawn

I'm pretty tired of hearing it too.

I guess it's the CIA apologists' come-back when confronted with the fact that the CIA killed President Kennedy. It's getting harder and harder to deny the CIA's role, so they try to muddy the water with some murky inane claim about amok agents. Bullxxxx. The CIA killed the President on behalf of their business clients and/or their own business interests. You know, to keep the world safe for capitalism.

[Cliff Varnell]

If I hear ONE more person attempt to argue that JFK was killed by "rogue elements of the CIA" I am going to f*****g scream. "Rogue elements" do not take out the Commander -in- chief. I doubt that "rogue elements" actually do much of consequence.

I wonder where this idea even originated. (Probably Langley central) But it has always brought to my mind Tony Summers, who Jim Garrison called "One of the CIA's more accommodating whores". For those lamebrains who perpetuate this assinine myth I can only agree with the DA.

Dawn

It's interesting how ONE WORD creats a Pavlov's dog response.

I never said "JFK was killed by rogue elements of the CIA".

I said the plot INITIALLY started with Lansdale/Phillips/Morales acting

on their own, but eventually they garned significant support and the

operation cannot be described as "rogue."

Why do I detect the screaming of pet theories in distress?

[Cliff Varnell]

Ashton Gray continues:

(quote on)

I next asked for whose benefit would a "military invasion of Cuba" be

manufactured. As is demonstrated in the record, you didn't supply an answer.

(quote off)

Of course, as the record shows, I answered thusly:

(quote on)

Depends on their proximity to pre-Castro business interests. I think J Edgar Hoover's

or Gen. LeMay's interests in a Cuban takeover were more ideological, whereas Bush

and Giancana may have found the ideological component incidental.

(quote off)

Seems pretty clear to me I was refering to the variety of motivations involved.

I cited a couple of guys with ideological motivations, and I cited a couple

of guys with financial motivations.

To say that some of the perps had financial motivations does not preclude

others from having more ideological motivations.

Pardon me if this answer doesn't suffice, but to claim I didn't give you an

answer isn't right, is it?

Ashton Gray wrote without a trace of irony:

(quote on)

Instead you took offense at something I said, paraphrasing you in innocence,

lamentably using quotation marks for something I though was an accurate

restatement of your own claims.

(quote off)

Ashton, the next time I need someone to innocently paraphrase me -- you're not hired.

Ashton Gray continues:

(quote on)

I had said:

• ASHTON GRAY: ...[H]ere's why I'm asking the questions to begin
  with: you've got some pretty bombastic assertions afloat all over the forum about how
  "the whole Kennedy assassination is totally solved"
  

You replied in pertinent part:

• CLIFF VARNELL: That's it! You're Speering
  me and I don 't dig it. I truly enjoy discussing this case with you, Aston, but when you put
  quotation marks around sentences YOU wrote and attribute the statement to me -- it pisses
  me off. ...PLEASE quote me directly and accurately when characterizing my position, and I
  will show you the same respect. Okay? ...Now, I never said the case was "totally solved."
  I never used those words. I feel the case is solved to 95%.
  

Okay. There was no intention to misrepresent you or your position. Therefore, I'll

merely quote below (in color) three statements you have made that are of record in this

forum, and will provide the post numbers so any members who care to verify the accuracy

and context of these quotes can do so, and I'll allow others to determine for themselves

whether or not I mischaracterized your own statements:

(quote off)

Great idea, Ashton!

Let's endeavor to restore the original context to the following remarks.

CLIFF VARNELL: "The case of John F. Kennedy's murder was solved in

2001 with the publication of James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, with its

evelations about Operation Northwoods." —18 August 2006, Post #72511

I will paraphrase my own remarks that preceded that comment, if I remember

correctly.

I may have this wrong, so please correct me if so, but as I recall I wrote:

(quote on)

Let me step up to the plate in the Great JFK Parlor Game:"The case of John F. Kennedy's

murder was solved in 2001 with the publication of James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS,

with its revelations about Operation Northwoods."

(quote off)

Ever notice how I use the phrase "Parlor Game," Ashton?

Slightly derisive. Actually, more than slightly derisive.

So any one who claims 100% knowledge of the plot is a Parlor Gamer.

I think my 95% rule of thumb is an accurate expression of a "reasonable conclusion."

CLIFF VARNELL: "This case is solved to my satisfaction and I don't need the NY Times to ratify my conclusion." —17 November 2006, Post #81458

And what part of "to my satisfaction" don't you grasp?

IMO = To my satisfaction.

CLIFF VARNELL: "The JFK research community has hypnotized itself into

thinking that the case hasn't already been solved." —1 December 2006, Post #83351

This riposte was in response to Ashton Gray's condescending suggestion that

I have been hypnotized and duped along with so so many others...I fired back

too effectively, perhaps.

AG:

You'll have to state for yourself whether you stand by those statements, or have fallen

back from them.

CV:

You didn't have to take them out of context, but you did.

Maybe you didn't mean "totally solved" when you said "solved." Maybe you just meant "partially solved." You didn't add any such qualifiers, though, did you?

Yes, I did, as already noted.

Parlor Gamers as always so dead certain of their little pet theories.

I went slumming with you, Ashton.

It calls to mind being "a little bit pregnant."

[/quote off]

So how long *is* the carnival in town?

Ashton Gray: Moving on...

I next asked you by whom such a military invasion of Cuba would be ordered. You have answered, consistent with your above answers:

I think Lansdale put it together INITIALLY on a "rogue" basis. IOW, Lansdale was putting it together while still talking to the generals about taking advantage of a possible explosion of the John Glenn launch, winter '62.

...I think that Lansdale had other ideas, something a bit more pro-active than waiting around for a rocket to explode.

In this sense Lansdale (plotting with Phillips and Morales) were acting on their own, INITIALLY.

Before long they received the material support of H.L. Hunt and Sam Giancana, and the blessings of Dickie Helms, Jay Jay Angleton, Miss Hoover, Poppy Bush, Allen "the Man" Dulles, and the Vice President of the United State Lyndon Baines Johnson.

...I have never argued that Lansdale could order the military invasion of Cuba. ...What Lansdale did, with the help of Phillips and Morales, was arrange for the President of the United States to be assassinated and his death blamed on Fidel-lover L.H. Oswald.

The plan -- which was vetted with the sitting Vice President -- was to produce "irrevocable proof" that Oswald was an agent of Fidel. The plotters didn't particularly care if the conspiratorial nature of the crime was revealed as long as the patsy was gunned down soon after the deed.

This did not happen, of course... .

Ashton Gray continues:

(quote on)

Although the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, certainly was "gunned down soon

after the deed," I understand that your position is that it wasn't "soon enough."

Nor do you state who was supposed to do the timely gunning down.

(quote off)

Jack Ruby would be the likeliest suspect.

Ya t'ink?

AG:

(quote on)

The net effect is that the cast of purported conspirators has not changed. I

have to pause again, though, this time merely to reflect upon the apparent

absence of any Cuban co-conspirators in this drama as you have laid it out.

I'm hoping one or two will appear on the stage in a late act.

(quote off)

Because, unlike you, I'm reluctant to accuse people of murder.

The 13 people I have named -- 14 counting Ruby -- I have no problem

accusing of murder and treason.

If your taste runs expansively in this direction, go for it.

AG:

(quote on)

I then had asked you by whom the military invasion of Cuba would be carried out—hypothetically given the success of this purported plot.

And what part of the phrase "PENTAGON documents" don't you understand?

What part of Operation Northwoods don't you get?

What part of the phrase "THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF" confuses you?

Or the phrase "MILITARY INTERVENTION"?

"WITHOUT RISK OF GENERAL WAR"?

I'll only mention here the date of the sudden "revelations" about Operation Northwoods: 18 November 1997. I don't have any further comment at this time.

The last question I asked you, you didn't answer at all. Perhaps you felt it had been answered by your having included Lyndon Baines Johnson as successor to Kennedy.

That question that remains unanswered was, and is, on whose authority would any such "military invasion of Cuba" be carried out. I can only surmise, unless you wish to correct this impression, that you believe Lydon Baines Johnson could have pulled off such a drastic military invasion, in the Zeitgeist of late 1963-1964, without the slightest intervention by or involvement of Congress, and without any political or nuclear fallout.

The slightest intervention by Congress?

What a sick joke that is!

How fast did the Gulf of Tonkin resolution get through? 3 days.

How fast would a resolution pass in the face of "irrevocable proof" of Fidel's

hand in the murder of the President of the United States?

You think for a second that if the FBI and CIA came through with what they had

ginned up on the dead-Friday-Oswald that Congress wouldn't go along

with anything Johnson wanted?

Ashton with a little appropriate editing help writes:

(quote on)

And I can only presume that you believe that all these men shared a belief

in just such an immediate wielding of new-found power vested in Johnson by

the explosion of John F. Kennedy's skull:

• • Director of FBI J. Edgar Hoover

TEXAS OIL MEN:

• H.L. Hunt

• George W. Bush

MAFIA FIGURES

• Sam Giancana

SENIOR MILITARY OFFICERS

• General Curtis LeMay

• General Lyman L. Lemnitzer

• General Edward Lansdale (also a CIA —see below)

CIA OFFICERS

• Former Director of CIA Allen Dulles

• Richard Helms

• James Jesus Angleton

• David Atlee Phillips, and

• David Sanchez Morales

Yes, Ashton, all these guys believed that if they could present "irrevocable proof"

of Oswald's tie to Castro, the US would have, in words attributed to Dickie Helms,

"bombed Cuba back into the middle ages."

So as I see this, your position is in direct opposition to my entire primary thesis at the top of this thread and this message, your assertion, contrariwise, being that the CIA was involved—but only "rogue" elements of CIA—and that those "rogue" CIA elements were working at the behest

No, no. This is clearly not my position. I agree with you that these CIA

guys weren't working at the behest of anything but their own agenda,

which was to establish a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba.

Other people shared this agenda. They also had their own agendas.

One guys agenda doesn't preclude other guys from having personal

agendas -- does it?

and in the interests of not only Texas oil men and the Mafia, but

also in concert with "rogue" military generals and the Director of the FBI.

Unless you think I said Lansdale was in concert with himself, I never

said anything about "rogue military generals."

You invented that piece of fiction and I'm taking heat. Ironic given your sig

line, innit, Ashton?

But no Cubans named anywhere.

I'll leave it for the Parlor Gamers. Except to say that any Cuban

involved was a potential pasty.

And after all their efforts, after three violent and vicious murders in two days, no military invasion of Cuba occurred.

[

95% of what is said and written about this case is bullxxxx, including the 2 million plus words from the usenet postings of one nksy@sfo.com (me).

Yes. There is that. I'll give you that. Your industry at spreading such as is condensed and summarized in this post cannot be denied or gainsayed in any way. You may single-handedly hold the record, but I don't know.

What I do know, or at least strongly believe, is that if I said what I actually think about it, I would be permanently banned from this forum within the hour.

Ashton Gray

Weak arguments always betray tropism toward ad hominem.

[Ashton Gray]

If I hear ONE more person attempt to argue that JFK was killed by "rogue elements of the CIA" I am going to f*****g scream. "Rogue elements" do not take out the Commander -in- chief. I doubt that "rogue elements" actually do much of consequence.

I wonder where this idea even originated. (Probably Langley central) But it has always brought to my mind Tony Summers, who Jim Garrison called "One of the CIA's more accommodating whores". For those lamebrains who perpetuate this assinine myth I can only agree with the DA.

Dawn

It's interesting how ONE WORD creats a Pavlov's dog response.

I never said "JFK was killed by rogue elements of the CIA".

I said the plot INITIALLY started with Lansdale/Phillips/Morales acting on their own, but eventually they garned significant support and the operation cannot be described as "rogue."

You are the one who introduced into this thread the concept of a "rogue" CIA veteran, General Edward Lansdale, being the originating source for the plot to murder John F. Kennedy in cold blood, as though it were Lansdale's own personal aberration having nothing to do with his having been a founding member of CIA, keeping the frequent company of McCone, Dulles, Helms, Hunt, et al.

You are the one who introduced into this thread the concept that "initially" this was merely Lansdale's own "rogue" idea, divorced from the greater purpose and agenda of the Central Intelligence Agency itself, and that Lansdale only got the initial support and agreement of two other "rogue" CIA veterans, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales.

You go on about how we all need to look up the definition of "initially," your escape hatch for your "rogue" characterization of CIA involvement in the assassination plot, so we can all be more accepting and compliant and just admit that the JFK murder has been "solved" through such acceptance of the "rogue" origins of the premeditated murder.

Well, how about we all look up the relevant definition of "rogue":

• ROGUE: No longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop; a rogue union local
  

You are the one who has asserted, repeatedly, this inobediant, uncontrollable, deviant, renegade exogenous origin for any and all subsequent CIA involvement in the premeditated murder of John F. Kennedy.

You are the one who, by so postulating and asserting, have exonerated from complicity the head of the entire agency at all relevant times, John McCone, to whose hands the blood-drenched CIA sceptre had been passed from Allen Dulles; who was overseeing the black secrets of MKULTRA at all relevant times; and to whom Edward Lansdale was answering at all relevant times—through the Special Groups and Lansdale's involvement with Operation Mongoose.

You are the one who has asserted that the buck stopped at the desk of Richard Helms for any and all CIA knowledge or involvement in the premeditated murder of John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald.

You are the one who has invoked CIA's favorite apology, "compartmentalization," the same song as the CIA puppet Patrick Gray sang: "The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing." Ignoring, of course, the fact that not a finger on either hand moves without the knowledge and permission of the head.

You are the one who by insinuation has tacitly postulated that John McCone—the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; the head of the world's most massive clandestine intelligence machine—was so incredibly stupid, so utterly blind, so hilariously incompetent, so hopelessly seized in a walking cognitive coma, that Edward Lansdale, Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales could plot right under his nose, but in complete secret from him, for over a year at least, using agency funds, lines, personnel, safe houses, facilities, and transportation in the meticulous planning and execution of what proved to be a successful assassination of the President of the United States, McCone then going on in blind, ignorant innocence to sit dutifully cheek-by-jowl with Richard Helms in the Warren Commission—in front of McCone's predecessor, Dulles; and in front of the father of the deformed, malevolent, psychotic, pathologically lying bastard child called CIA, John J. McCloy—and assure them and the world that none of his CIA Boy Scouts were involved.

Apparently, though, all we have to do is go look up the word "initially," and we'll all understand how the case has been "solved."

I don't know how many millions of people by now have been subjected to this "rogue" poison, but I sure hope they all remembered to drink from the antidote bottle marked "INITIALLY."

I don't think they have. And if they have, they've just fallen for a typical CIA double-layered trick: "INITIALLY" is no antidote at all, but the final poison: exogenous origin.

I think this has so seeped into the research groundwater that there will never be any way to measure the amount of destruction and set-back to any real advance of the case toward actual solution. But that's just my opinion.

Why do I detect the screaming of pet theories in distress?

Screaming theories may be closer than they appear.

Ashton

Edited December 20, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff Varnell:

I never said "JFK was killed by rogue elements of the CIA".

I said the plot INITIALLY started with Lansdale/Phillips/Morales acting on their own,

but eventually they garned significant support and the operation cannot be described

as "rogue."

You are the one who introduced into this thread the concept of a "rogue" CIA veteran, General Edward Lansdale,

No. I used the R-word to describe the origins of the plot to kill Kennedy. I used this

oh-so-potent R-word in a very limited context.

A reasonable conclusion can be drawn that these three guys, L/P/M, whose careers

were based on the installation or removal of heads of state, would be the first

to consider the violent removal of yet another head of state.

Is it that big a deal who thought of killing Kennedy first?

Maybe others can weigh in on this question -- is it a fundamental point

that the origin of the plot to kill Kennedy had to be in the mind of

someone with more stature than little ol' Ed Lansdale?

Ashton, I guess this chicken-egg thang is all you've got, now. Eh?

You can't argue from the witness testimony -- no witness testimony has ever been

deemed reliable by you, that I can tell.

You can't argue from any photographic evidence -- it's all suspect, right?

You can't argue from government documents -- every bit of it is mis-direction,

even documents that were suppressed for decades finally emerge to spread

even more mis-direction...isn't that what you're implying about Northwoods?

[An aside to the gentle reader: notice the use of the "?" at the end of the

last sentence. Instead of imputing this idea directly to Ashton, I pose it

in the form of a question which Ashton can answer in any way he pleases.

Contrast this with Ashton's tactic of imputing to me notions never I expressed,

and putting phrases of his own creation in quotation marks and attributing

them to me...I'm just say'n...]

Apparantly the R-word comes with a whole cabin load of baggage, so much so that

to even utter the word in a very specific, limited context is to call the Heretics Court

into session.

[Lansdale et al]being the originating source for the plot to murder John F. Kennedy

in cold blood,

Yep, guys whose jobs were to effect Coup d'Etat were the first to think of Coup d'Etat.

What an absurd notion! (?)

as though it were Lansdale's own personal aberration having nothing to do with h

is having been a founding member of CIA, keeping the frequent company of

McCone, Dulles, Helms, Hunt, et al.

And the Heretics Court opens with a stern denunciation of an argument

I certainly never made.

Why would L/P/M brainstorming about killing Kennedy mean they had "nothing" to

do with the other CIA guys?

I don't follow that logic at all.

The desire to create a pre-text to invade Cuba was not a "personal aberration"

with anyone. Lots of people in the military and intel communities were racking

their brains to come up with ways to fight Castro.

From James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, pgs 84-5

(quote on)

Among the actions recommended was "a series of well coordinated incidents to

take place in and around" the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This

included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have

them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be

saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft

sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations."

The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called

for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion

aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although

the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the

Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one

million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a

similar plan. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,"

they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of

national indignation."

There seemed no limit to their fanaticism: "We could develop a Communist Cuban

terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,"

they wrote. "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking

haven in the United States.

We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). . . .

We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even

to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."

Bombings were proposed, false arrests, hijackings:

*"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban

agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement

also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."

*"Advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican [Republic] Air Force

to intrusions within their national air space. 'Cuban' B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could

make cane burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could

be coupled with 'Cuban' messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican

Republic and 'Cuban' shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the

beach. Use of MiG type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation."

*"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as

harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."

(quote off)

Obviously, lots of people had lots of ideas.

It was Lansdale's idea that became operational on a "need to know" basis.

If one needed to know about the plot, one was in on the plot.

What is so hard to grasp about that?

You are the one who introduced into this thread the concept that "initially" this was

merely Lansdale's own "rogue" idea, divorced from the greater purpose and agenda of

the Central Intelligence Agency itself,

This is an egregious absurdity.

I never said this "rogue" idea was divorced from the clearly well documented intent

of the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba.

I have asserted quite the opposite.

I gather, gentle reader, from reading the opinions of the judges on this

forum's Heretic Court that the following scenario (which I don't discount

but regard as a long long shot) would be *acceptable* to present:

Nelson Rockefeller says to Gen. Edward Lansdale:

"Goddamn Kennedy is diddling with the Federal Reserve. He's left the

ranch and my brothers and I want him taken out. Can you help?"

Lansdale replies:

"Sure thing, Rocky. How do you want it done?"

Rockfeller furrows his brow:

"So that her hubby's blood and brains get splattered all across that Bouvier bitch's

pretty little face!"

Lansdale's lips curl into an evil grin:

"Those wide-set eyes...I hate her!"

Here is the scenario I posit (95%), which has incurred the wrath of the

Heretics Court:

Edward Lansdale to H. L. Hunt:

"Kennedy sold out to Castro. We've got a plan to kill Kennedy and

pin it so hard on Castro even those Eastern Establishment pinkos

will agree to an invasion of Cuba. Can we count on your help?"

Hunt's eyes light up:

"If we can't vote the Communists out -- we'll shoot 'em out!"

So even though H.L. Hunt is actually quoted as saying those very words,

do we chance to hear the plea, "Do not look at that man behind the curtain!"

In earlier posts on this thread, a roster of Eastern Establishment types were

listed as potential perps. Let's list them again with a notation of their politics.

Now, this ain't a list of "good guys" -- the "liberal" Eastern Establishment financed

the Nazis, after all. But is this the group that killed Kennedy?

Nelson Rockefeller -- liberal Republican.

Henry Cabot Lodge -- liberal republican

W. Averell Harriman -- liberal Republican disguised as a Democrat

Dean Acheson -- moderate Democrat

Walt Rostow -- non-partisan anti-communist hawk

Bundy Bros. -- liberal anti-communist hawks

Or is it more reasonable that this group killed Kennedy?

Gen. Curtis LeMay -- rabid anti-Communist/Goldwater Republican

H. L. Hunt -- rabid anti-Communist/Goldwater Republican

J. Edgar Hoover -- rabid anti-Communist/Goldwater Republican

James Jesus Angleton -- rabid anti-Communist

Gen. Edward Lansdale -- rabid anti-Communist

David Atlee Phillips -- rabid anti-Communist who claimed to be a liberal Democrat

I think Oglesby's Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy rightly identifies the two wings

of the American ruling elite -- the "liberal" Eastern Establishment and the

"conservative" Sunbelt Cowboys.

To pin the murder of Yankee John Kennedy -- in the absense of any compelling

evidence -- on the Eastern Establishment Yankees smacks of neo-cons pinning

the blame for 911 on Bill Clinton.

and that Lansdale only got the initial support and agreement of two other "rogue" CIA

veterans, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales.

Your use of the word "only" implies that Lansdale's idea was not popular

in some quarters, which is an argument I never made.

I'm saying that the 3 top coup-makers huddled together before they pitched

the idea to anyone else. They *were* working together on Mongoose related

projects, after all.

And for proposing what seems a perfectly reasonable scenario I am now branded

some lamebrained Langley whore out to poison the minds of all whose eyes strike

such misfortune as to glance across my words.

The "liberal" wing of the American ruling elite killed Kennedy...Ah, savor the smell of

Neo-Con in the morning...it smells like...bullxxxx...

To be continued...

Edited March 30, 2007 by Cliff Varnell