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

[Ashton Gray]

Gary, I just know you have given up on me by this time...but here I am: wheezing, gasping, reeling; only this >< far from falling face-down on my keyboard and contracting QWERTY-face; nicked and grazed by the slings and arrows of festering, fuming, fulminating foes; one step ahead of more deadlines than the sorcerer's apprentice had water buckets—with nary a sorcerer in sight—and staring down the barrels of two (that's 2) books that both have to be finished by April (neither having diddly to do with any subject related to these forums).

But, by God, here I am.

So the question stands, one that each has to answer for himself: Was the CIA involved or not?

Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment.

And there lies the still undisclosed thought.

There lies the source of evil intent.

There lies the power.

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

Hi Ashton,

Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post.

A hundred mea culpas, and one for lagniappe. Yes, I was guilty of a cursory read and a quick hand to the keyboard on that part of my earlier reply to you. The whole Yankee/Cowboy thing was astir in a few threads at the time, and when you put "Texas oilmen" and "big finance/banking" in the same sentence, my knee jerked. It's always unfortunate when one's jerking knee breaks one's own nose.

The point you actually made—that they all came "from similar peerage and lineage"—is certainly worth a look, and I have no argument with it. I believe that the trump card to all of it, though, is what I mentioned somewhere (in the thread Paul Rigby started about Castro, etc., I think, where I cribbed from an early draft of this reply) concerning the inescapable interdependancy of oil interests everywhere and international banking. They are joined at the hip and head, and not one is going anywhere without the other, I don't care if their lineage goes back to Ra, the Sun God, or Rae, the trailer-trash hooker with a sunny disposition.

I do believe that the CIA was created as a vehicle for achieving the goals of this/these unseen hand(s).

I don't know how any serious study of CIA and its creation possibly can lead to any other conclusion. In fact, I've searched in vain for any rational justification for its creation. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the "Cold War" was created by CIA and its masters and minions, after the fact, to sort of reverse-engineer some kind of "reason" for its existence, and to provide "justifiable" cover for its rampant criminal activities all over the globe.

One of the most chilling insights into the kind of amoral thugs who knew how to hold their pinky fingers correctly while sipping tea, and who formed the core of this criminal organization from the beginning comes from E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography. It isn't chilling by it's scope or infamy, because it just isn't. What's chilling about it, to me, is the off-hand, business-as-usual way Hunt writes the following about an event at the end of the war, in Shanghai (boldface added):

"In the basement of the American Club someone came across a dozen cases of prewar Scotch whiskey. These were brought up to the bar, but the first drinker of that Scotch died in agony beside the American Club bar: the Japanese had doctored random bottles of whisky with cyanide before leaving.

"This was bad news for a pair of

OSS senior officers

who had set about cornering the Shanghai market on Scotch. Their hotel rooms were filled to the ceiling with cases of it, and they had made large investments in the whisky, anticipating thirsty visitors

from the fleet

. Now no foreigners in Shanghai dared drink Scotch whiskey, and the

enterprising black marketers

went bankrupt, to the

general satisfaction of those of us

who had been

excluded from the promising transaction

."

—E. Howard Hunt,

c/o General Delivery, Hell

<SPIT!>

There you go. There's a glimpse into the writhing snake-pit of CIA standard-issue "ethics."

It seems a natural offshoot for these sources of evil intent to create a company which could protect and, also, facilitate their goals; the usual suspects power and money. The evil doers and the CIA not being mutually exclusive.

You can take that further. I believe the actual underlying thought is this: international oil and international arms and international banking could not operate internationally as monopolistically as they have without just such a covert international force.

So if it isn't CIA—who is it?

With a ready-made army of covert criminal OSS scum at the end of WW II—many of whom, like "the Oily Boys," had worked directly in the interests of the oil and finance barons throughout the war—CIA had to be created.

These kingmakers imo wanted Nixon and instead got Kennedy. From the offset or shortly thereafter a decision was taken that Kennedy could/would not serve the common aims of these folk and plans were put forth for his removal, however and whatever it took to achieve this.

I don't know how far I can follow you down that path. At this point, I'm not so sure it entirely mattered that it was Kennedy. (I just know that's going to win me a whole new batch of friends, right there.) I'm beginning to form a hazy consideration that it simply was a coup, and he happened to be there. I'm beginning to squint at all of the proposed "motives" for "getting Kennedy," per se, very narrowly. I'm beginning to believe that there was something larger at work than simply "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

There's no question that ramping up war in Southeast Asia was on the CIA agenda. That's why CIA arranged for the Diem coup 21 days before they took out Kennedy. And there's no question that Vietnam did absolute wonders for the arms, banking, and oil worms. And there's no question that Kennedy was leaning toward bailing from Vietnam shortly before the assassination—but! There's also no question that the planning of his murder was in the works long, long before the events in October-November 1963 related to Kennedy's intentions to extract U.S. involvement.

Your belief, obviously?, is that the patriotis of the CIA do not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor do they work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

Ayup.

Who do they work for?

International banking first, I think. Oil and armaments (oh, yeah: and drugs, all varieties) are their handmaidens.

Who holds this power to exercise the events on 22/11/1963?

See above.

and Why?

Because they are amoral scum who like to take $50 out of your pockets by loaning you $5. Then taxing you another $20 on all of it.

That's even easier than cornering the black market on Scotch and fleecing the U.S. fleet.

Ashton

[Mark Stapleton]

Gary,

Thank you very much for your collegial response.

I prefer collegial discussions, much more productive, etc.

Hi Cliff,

Don't think this argumentative, but I don't prescribe to the CIA as a monolithic org. I do feel it has been controlled and headed by generally the same folk since it's inception. But like any large - and in portions of the CIA deliberately unweildy - organisation there will be factions, even in a goup of 4 friends there may be. This does not preclude the same goals being shared.

I'm unsure of what the Angleton piece was meant to illustrate

Angleton was the key member within Kennedy's Catholic constituency

in CIA -- they shared social circles. Losing Angleton sealed his fate, I'd

speculate. After all, who would have been Oswald's ultimate boss at CIA

if not Angleton at counter-intel?

Also, we associate Angleton with an interesting word Ashton cited: mad.

The manner in which Kennedy was killed indeed reflected something unhinged.

I'll argue that the "unhinged" elements in the American ruling class in 1963

operated within the National Security state and not among the bean counters

at the Fed.

I also want to point out the sectarian fault lines within the CIA as it relates to

the Y/C dichotomy. Robert Maheu's "Mormon mafia" CIA faction controlled the

Hughes empire, and those dudes were Cowboys.

Here's a passage from the memoirs of CIA case officer Joesph B Smith,

PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR (pg 13), explaining why he quit in 1973 after

23 years with the CIA.

...[A]lthough I had gone to Harvard, it would have been better if I had gone to

Princeton and been a member of the OSS. I was not a Catholic, nor an Eastern

European ethnic. I just did not fit into the ruling cliques in the Clandestine Services.

Furthermore, I had always been in the minority of officers who sought to enlist

the efforts of the non-communist left. Perhaps my greatest shortcoming, I guessed,

was that I could not treat people as unimportant spare parts to be used up and thrown

away as administrators like Ted Shackley could. I asked for early retirement, and I

decided to stay in Mexico.

Usually when you see a phrase like "CIA memoir" ya need yer back-up bullxxxx

detector to be in as good a shape as yer main rig.

But PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR managed to get published without being

vetted by CIA -- something to do with Smith living in Mexico, if I recall correctly.

That crack about Princeton was a direct slap at WASP blue-blood Richard Helms,

key figure in CIA's covert action programs. Most CIA blue bloods went to Yale

(like Bush) but Dickie Helms was the Princeton man.

As Smith indicates, however, Clandestine Services was dominated by Catholics.

Cliff,

I don't want to get enmeshed in the ongoing battle here, but I have to state that, in my opinion, Angleton was not really part of JFK's catholic constituency. He was a friend of Israel--that was where his loyalties lay.

He covered for Israel in the important early years of their nuclear programme. 'Official' US intelligence was always kept a few years behind the curve, courtesy of JJA's Israel desk.

He blamed everything on a communist plot. Again this suited Israel. The communist bloc supported Egypt and Syria in those days. America has unreservedly supported Israel from 11/22 to the present day and has embarked on a dangerous partisan path in this region ever since. The media participates of course.

The CIA and Mossad shared intelligence from the early fifties. Influential Jewish Americans like Teddy Kollek helped broker this arrangement. I believe they shared a world view and still do.

I really can't see JJA as an ally of JFK or his 'catholic constituency'. If anything JJA willingly betrayed JFK.

The result of years of limp aquiescence to this flawed vision may soon be realised in the Middle East.

I see Angleton as a malignant influence, infecting US strategic policy at a critical period in its history. He and JFK were poles apart.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Thanks Ashton, It was surely worth it just for the chance to fire off that first paragraph

I still think Nixon would have been more of a "our man in the White House" style president.

Gary

[Dawn Meredith]

Gary, I just know you have given up on me by this time...but here I am: wheezing, gasping, reeling; only this >< far from falling face-down on my keyboard and contracting QWERTY-face; nicked and grazed by the slings and arrows of festering, fuming, fulminating foes; one step ahead of more deadlines than the sorcerer's apprentice had water buckets—with nary a sorcerer in sight—and staring down the barrels of two (that's 2) books that both have to be finished by April (neither having diddly to do with any subject related to these forums).

But, by God, here I am.

So the question stands, one that each has to answer for himself: Was the CIA involved or not?

Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment.

And there lies the still undisclosed thought.

There lies the source of evil intent.

There lies the power.

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

Hi Ashton,

Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post.

A hundred mea culpas, and one for lagniappe. Yes, I was guilty of a cursory read and a quick hand to the keyboard on that part of my earlier reply to you. The whole Yankee/Cowboy thing was astir in a few threads at the time, and when you put "Texas oilmen" and "big finance/banking" in the same sentence, my knee jerked. It's always unfortunate when one's jerking knee breaks one's own nose.

The point you actually made—that they all came "from similar peerage and lineage"—is certainly worth a look, and I have no argument with it. I believe that the trump card to all of it, though, is what I mentioned somewhere (in the thread Paul Rigby started about Castro, etc., I think, where I cribbed from an early draft of this reply) concerning the inescapable interdependancy of oil interests everywhere and international banking. They are joined at the hip and head, and not one is going anywhere without the other, I don't care if their lineage goes back to Ra, the Sun God, or Rae, the trailer-trash hooker with a sunny disposition.

I do believe that the CIA was created as a vehicle for achieving the goals of this/these unseen hand(s).

I don't know how any serious study of CIA and its creation possibly can lead to any other conclusion. In fact, I've searched in vain for any rational justification for its creation. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the "Cold War" was created by CIA and its masters and minions, after the fact, to sort of reverse-engineer some kind of "reason" for its existence, and to provide "justifiable" cover for its rampant criminal activities all over the globe.

One of the most chilling insights into the kind of amoral thugs who knew how to hold their pinky fingers correctly while sipping tea, and who formed the core of this criminal organization from the beginning comes from E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography. It isn't chilling by it's scope or infamy, because it just isn't. What's chilling about it, to me, is the off-hand, business-as-usual way Hunt writes the following about an event at the end of the war, in Shanghai (boldface added):

"In the basement of the American Club someone came across a dozen cases of prewar Scotch whiskey. These were brought up to the bar, but the first drinker of that Scotch died in agony beside the American Club bar: the Japanese had doctored random bottles of whisky with cyanide before leaving.

"This was bad news for a pair of

OSS senior officers

who had set about cornering the Shanghai market on Scotch. Their hotel rooms were filled to the ceiling with cases of it, and they had made large investments in the whisky, anticipating thirsty visitors

from the fleet

. Now no foreigners in Shanghai dared drink Scotch whiskey, and the

enterprising black marketers

went bankrupt, to the

general satisfaction of those of us

who had been

excluded from the promising transaction

."

—E. Howard Hunt,

c/o General Delivery, Hell

<SPIT!>

There you go. There's a glimpse into the writhing snake-pit of CIA standard-issue "ethics."

It seems a natural offshoot for these sources of evil intent to create a company which could protect and, also, facilitate their goals; the usual suspects power and money. The evil doers and the CIA not being mutually exclusive.

You can take that further. I believe the actual underlying thought is this: international oil and international arms and international banking could not operate internationally as monopolistically as they have without just such a covert international force.

So if it isn't CIA—who is it?

With a ready-made army of covert criminal OSS scum at the end of WW II—many of whom, like "the Oily Boys," had worked directly in the interests of the oil and finance barons throughout the war—CIA had to be created.

These kingmakers imo wanted Nixon and instead got Kennedy. From the offset or shortly thereafter a decision was taken that Kennedy could/would not serve the common aims of these folk and plans were put forth for his removal, however and whatever it took to achieve this.

I don't know how far I can follow you down that path. At this point, I'm not so sure it entirely mattered that it was Kennedy. (I just know that's going to win me a whole new batch of friends, right there.) I'm beginning to form a hazy consideration that it simply was a coup, and he happened to be there. I'm beginning to squint at all of the proposed "motives" for "getting Kennedy," per se, very narrowly. I'm beginning to believe that there was something larger at work than simply "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

There's no question that ramping up war in Southeast Asia was on the CIA agenda. That's why CIA arranged for the Diem coup 21 days before they took out Kennedy. And there's no question that Vietnam did absolute wonders for the arms, banking, and oil worms. And there's no question that Kennedy was leaning toward bailing from Vietnam shortly before the assassination—but! There's also no question that the planning of his murder was in the works long, long before the events in October-November 1963 related to Kennedy's intentions to extract U.S. involvement.

Your belief, obviously?, is that the patriotis of the CIA do not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor do they work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

Ayup.

Who do they work for?

International banking first, I think. Oil and armaments (oh, yeah: and drugs, all varieties) are their handmaidens.

Who holds this power to exercise the events on 22/11/1963?

See above.

and Why?

Because they are amoral scum who like to take $50 out of your pockets by loaning you $5. Then taxing you another $20 on all of it.

That's even easier than cornering the black market on Scotch and fleecing the U.S. fleet.

Ashton

Ashton: This is one of the most perceptive posts I have ever read. (I wonder if and how Charlie will spin THIS?

You have taken the Yankee/Cowboy analysis to its most logical conclusion. I am sure Oglesby will be proud.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Gary, I just know you have given up on me by this time...but here I am: wheezing, gasping, reeling; only this >< far from falling face-down on my keyboard and contracting QWERTY-face; nicked and grazed by the slings and arrows of festering, fuming, fulminating foes; one step ahead of more deadlines than the sorcerer's apprentice had water buckets—with nary a sorcerer in sight—and staring down the barrels of two (that's 2) books that both have to be finished by April (neither having diddly to do with any subject related to these forums).

But, by God, here I am.

So the question stands, one that each has to answer for himself: Was the CIA involved or not?

Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment.

And there lies the still undisclosed thought.

There lies the source of evil intent.

There lies the power.

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

Hi Ashton,

Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post.

A hundred mea culpas, and one for lagniappe. Yes, I was guilty of a cursory read and a quick hand to the keyboard on that part of my earlier reply to you. The whole Yankee/Cowboy thing was astir in a few threads at the time, and when you put "Texas oilmen" and "big finance/banking" in the same sentence, my knee jerked. It's always unfortunate when one's jerking knee breaks one's own nose.

The point you actually made—that they all came "from similar peerage and lineage"—is certainly worth a look, and I have no argument with it. I believe that the trump card to all of it, though, is what I mentioned somewhere (in the thread Paul Rigby started about Castro, etc., I think, where I cribbed from an early draft of this reply) concerning the inescapable interdependancy of oil interests everywhere and international banking. They are joined at the hip and head, and not one is going anywhere without the other, I don't care if their lineage goes back to Ra, the Sun God, or Rae, the trailer-trash hooker with a sunny disposition.

I do believe that the CIA was created as a vehicle for achieving the goals of this/these unseen hand(s).

I don't know how any serious study of CIA and its creation possibly can lead to any other conclusion. In fact, I've searched in vain for any rational justification for its creation. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the "Cold War" was created by CIA and its masters and minions, after the fact, to sort of reverse-engineer some kind of "reason" for its existence, and to provide "justifiable" cover for its rampant criminal activities all over the globe.

One of the most chilling insights into the kind of amoral thugs who knew how to hold their pinky fingers correctly while sipping tea, and who formed the core of this criminal organization from the beginning comes from E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography. It isn't chilling by it's scope or infamy, because it just isn't. What's chilling about it, to me, is the off-hand, business-as-usual way Hunt writes the following about an event at the end of the war, in Shanghai (boldface added):

"In the basement of the American Club someone came across a dozen cases of prewar Scotch whiskey. These were brought up to the bar, but the first drinker of that Scotch died in agony beside the American Club bar: the Japanese had doctored random bottles of whisky with cyanide before leaving.

"This was bad news for a pair of

OSS senior officers

who had set about cornering the Shanghai market on Scotch. Their hotel rooms were filled to the ceiling with cases of it, and they had made large investments in the whisky, anticipating thirsty visitors

from the fleet

. Now no foreigners in Shanghai dared drink Scotch whiskey, and the

enterprising black marketers

went bankrupt, to the

general satisfaction of those of us

who had been

excluded from the promising transaction

."

—E. Howard Hunt,

c/o General Delivery, Hell

<SPIT!>

There you go. There's a glimpse into the writhing snake-pit of CIA standard-issue "ethics."

It seems a natural offshoot for these sources of evil intent to create a company which could protect and, also, facilitate their goals; the usual suspects power and money. The evil doers and the CIA not being mutually exclusive.

You can take that further. I believe the actual underlying thought is this: international oil and international arms and international banking could not operate internationally as monopolistically as they have without just such a covert international force.

So if it isn't CIA—who is it?

With a ready-made army of covert criminal OSS scum at the end of WW II—many of whom, like "the Oily Boys," had worked directly in the interests of the oil and finance barons throughout the war—CIA had to be created.

These kingmakers imo wanted Nixon and instead got Kennedy. From the offset or shortly thereafter a decision was taken that Kennedy could/would not serve the common aims of these folk and plans were put forth for his removal, however and whatever it took to achieve this.

I don't know how far I can follow you down that path. At this point, I'm not so sure it entirely mattered that it was Kennedy. (I just know that's going to win me a whole new batch of friends, right there.) I'm beginning to form a hazy consideration that it simply was a coup, and he happened to be there. I'm beginning to squint at all of the proposed "motives" for "getting Kennedy," per se, very narrowly. I'm beginning to believe that there was something larger at work than simply "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

There's no question that ramping up war in Southeast Asia was on the CIA agenda. That's why CIA arranged for the Diem coup 21 days before they took out Kennedy. And there's no question that Vietnam did absolute wonders for the arms, banking, and oil worms. And there's no question that Kennedy was leaning toward bailing from Vietnam shortly before the assassination—but! There's also no question that the planning of his murder was in the works long, long before the events in October-November 1963 related to Kennedy's intentions to extract U.S. involvement.

Your belief, obviously?, is that the patriotis of the CIA do not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor do they work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

Ayup.

Who do they work for?

International banking first, I think. Oil and armaments (oh, yeah: and drugs, all varieties) are their handmaidens.

Who holds this power to exercise the events on 22/11/1963?

See above.

and Why?

Because they are amoral scum who like to take $50 out of your pockets by loaning you $5. Then taxing you another $20 on all of it.

That's even easier than cornering the black market on Scotch and fleecing the U.S. fleet.

Ashton

Ashton: This is one of the most perceptive posts I have ever read. (I wonder if and how Charlie will spin THIS?

You have taken the Yankee/Cowboy analysis to its most logical conclusion. I am sure Oglesby will be proud.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Gary, I just know you have given up on me by this time...but here I am: wheezing, gasping, reeling; only this >< far from falling face-down on my keyboard and contracting QWERTY-face; nicked and grazed by the slings and arrows of festering, fuming, fulminating foes; one step ahead of more deadlines than the sorcerer's apprentice had water buckets—with nary a sorcerer in sight—and staring down the barrels of two (that's 2) books that both have to be finished by April (neither having diddly to do with any subject related to these forums).

But, by God, here I am.

So the question stands, one that each has to answer for himself: Was the CIA involved or not?

Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment.

And there lies the still undisclosed thought.

There lies the source of evil intent.

There lies the power.

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

Hi Ashton,

Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post.

A hundred mea culpas, and one for lagniappe. Yes, I was guilty of a cursory read and a quick hand to the keyboard on that part of my earlier reply to you. The whole Yankee/Cowboy thing was astir in a few threads at the time, and when you put "Texas oilmen" and "big finance/banking" in the same sentence, my knee jerked. It's always unfortunate when one's jerking knee breaks one's own nose.

The point you actually made—that they all came "from similar peerage and lineage"—is certainly worth a look, and I have no argument with it. I believe that the trump card to all of it, though, is what I mentioned somewhere (in the thread Paul Rigby started about Castro, etc., I think, where I cribbed from an early draft of this reply) concerning the inescapable interdependancy of oil interests everywhere and international banking. They are joined at the hip and head, and not one is going anywhere without the other, I don't care if their lineage goes back to Ra, the Sun God, or Rae, the trailer-trash hooker with a sunny disposition.

I do believe that the CIA was created as a vehicle for achieving the goals of this/these unseen hand(s).

I don't know how any serious study of CIA and its creation possibly can lead to any other conclusion. In fact, I've searched in vain for any rational justification for its creation. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the "Cold War" was created by CIA and its masters and minions, after the fact, to sort of reverse-engineer some kind of "reason" for its existence, and to provide "justifiable" cover for its rampant criminal activities all over the globe.

One of the most chilling insights into the kind of amoral thugs who knew how to hold their pinky fingers correctly while sipping tea, and who formed the core of this criminal organization from the beginning comes from E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography. It isn't chilling by it's scope or infamy, because it just isn't. What's chilling about it, to me, is the off-hand, business-as-usual way Hunt writes the following about an event at the end of the war, in Shanghai (boldface added):

"In the basement of the American Club someone came across a dozen cases of prewar Scotch whiskey. These were brought up to the bar, but the first drinker of that Scotch died in agony beside the American Club bar: the Japanese had doctored random bottles of whisky with cyanide before leaving.

"This was bad news for a pair of

OSS senior officers

who had set about cornering the Shanghai market on Scotch. Their hotel rooms were filled to the ceiling with cases of it, and they had made large investments in the whisky, anticipating thirsty visitors

from the fleet

. Now no foreigners in Shanghai dared drink Scotch whiskey, and the

enterprising black marketers

went bankrupt, to the

general satisfaction of those of us

who had been

excluded from the promising transaction

."

—E. Howard Hunt,

c/o General Delivery, Hell

<SPIT!>

There you go. There's a glimpse into the writhing snake-pit of CIA standard-issue "ethics."

It seems a natural offshoot for these sources of evil intent to create a company which could protect and, also, facilitate their goals; the usual suspects power and money. The evil doers and the CIA not being mutually exclusive.

You can take that further. I believe the actual underlying thought is this: international oil and international arms and international banking could not operate internationally as monopolistically as they have without just such a covert international force.

So if it isn't CIA—who is it?

With a ready-made army of covert criminal OSS scum at the end of WW II—many of whom, like "the Oily Boys," had worked directly in the interests of the oil and finance barons throughout the war—CIA had to be created.

These kingmakers imo wanted Nixon and instead got Kennedy. From the offset or shortly thereafter a decision was taken that Kennedy could/would not serve the common aims of these folk and plans were put forth for his removal, however and whatever it took to achieve this.

I don't know how far I can follow you down that path. At this point, I'm not so sure it entirely mattered that it was Kennedy. (I just know that's going to win me a whole new batch of friends, right there.) I'm beginning to form a hazy consideration that it simply was a coup, and he happened to be there. I'm beginning to squint at all of the proposed "motives" for "getting Kennedy," per se, very narrowly. I'm beginning to believe that there was something larger at work than simply "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

There's no question that ramping up war in Southeast Asia was on the CIA agenda. That's why CIA arranged for the Diem coup 21 days before they took out Kennedy. And there's no question that Vietnam did absolute wonders for the arms, banking, and oil worms. And there's no question that Kennedy was leaning toward bailing from Vietnam shortly before the assassination—but! There's also no question that the planning of his murder was in the works long, long before the events in October-November 1963 related to Kennedy's intentions to extract U.S. involvement.

Your belief, obviously?, is that the patriotis of the CIA do not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor do they work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

Ayup.

Who do they work for?

International banking first, I think. Oil and armaments (oh, yeah: and drugs, all varieties) are their handmaidens.

Who holds this power to exercise the events on 22/11/1963?

See above.

and Why?

Because they are amoral scum who like to take $50 out of your pockets by loaning you $5. Then taxing you another $20 on all of it.

That's even easier than cornering the black market on Scotch and fleecing the U.S. fleet.

Ashton

Ashton: This is one of the most perceptive posts I have ever read. (I wonder if and how Charlie will spin THIS?

You have taken the Yankee/Cowboy analysis to its most logical conclusion. I am sure Oglesby will be proud.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Gary, I just know you have given up on me by this time...but here I am: wheezing, gasping, reeling; only this >< far from falling face-down on my keyboard and contracting QWERTY-face; nicked and grazed by the slings and arrows of festering, fuming, fulminating foes; one step ahead of more deadlines than the sorcerer's apprentice had water buckets—with nary a sorcerer in sight—and staring down the barrels of two (that's 2) books that both have to be finished by April (neither having diddly to do with any subject related to these forums).

But, by God, here I am.

So the question stands, one that each has to answer for himself: Was the CIA involved or not?

Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment.

And there lies the still undisclosed thought.

There lies the source of evil intent.

There lies the power.

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

Hi Ashton,

Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post.

A hundred mea culpas, and one for lagniappe. Yes, I was guilty of a cursory read and a quick hand to the keyboard on that part of my earlier reply to you. The whole Yankee/Cowboy thing was astir in a few threads at the time, and when you put "Texas oilmen" and "big finance/banking" in the same sentence, my knee jerked. It's always unfortunate when one's jerking knee breaks one's own nose.

The point you actually made—that they all came "from similar peerage and lineage"—is certainly worth a look, and I have no argument with it. I believe that the trump card to all of it, though, is what I mentioned somewhere (in the thread Paul Rigby started about Castro, etc., I think, where I cribbed from an early draft of this reply) concerning the inescapable interdependancy of oil interests everywhere and international banking. They are joined at the hip and head, and not one is going anywhere without the other, I don't care if their lineage goes back to Ra, the Sun God, or Rae, the trailer-trash hooker with a sunny disposition.

I do believe that the CIA was created as a vehicle for achieving the goals of this/these unseen hand(s).

I don't know how any serious study of CIA and its creation possibly can lead to any other conclusion. In fact, I've searched in vain for any rational justification for its creation. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the "Cold War" was created by CIA and its masters and minions, after the fact, to sort of reverse-engineer some kind of "reason" for its existence, and to provide "justifiable" cover for its rampant criminal activities all over the globe.

One of the most chilling insights into the kind of amoral thugs who knew how to hold their pinky fingers correctly while sipping tea, and who formed the core of this criminal organization from the beginning comes from E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography. It isn't chilling by it's scope or infamy, because it just isn't. What's chilling about it, to me, is the off-hand, business-as-usual way Hunt writes the following about an event at the end of the war, in Shanghai (boldface added):

"In the basement of the American Club someone came across a dozen cases of prewar Scotch whiskey. These were brought up to the bar, but the first drinker of that Scotch died in agony beside the American Club bar: the Japanese had doctored random bottles of whisky with cyanide before leaving.

"This was bad news for a pair of

OSS senior officers

who had set about cornering the Shanghai market on Scotch. Their hotel rooms were filled to the ceiling with cases of it, and they had made large investments in the whisky, anticipating thirsty visitors

from the fleet

. Now no foreigners in Shanghai dared drink Scotch whiskey, and the

enterprising black marketers

went bankrupt, to the

general satisfaction of those of us

who had been

excluded from the promising transaction

."

—E. Howard Hunt,

c/o General Delivery, Hell

<SPIT!>

There you go. There's a glimpse into the writhing snake-pit of CIA standard-issue "ethics."

It seems a natural offshoot for these sources of evil intent to create a company which could protect and, also, facilitate their goals; the usual suspects power and money. The evil doers and the CIA not being mutually exclusive.

You can take that further. I believe the actual underlying thought is this: international oil and international arms and international banking could not operate internationally as monopolistically as they have without just such a covert international force.

So if it isn't CIA—who is it?

With a ready-made army of covert criminal OSS scum at the end of WW II—many of whom, like "the Oily Boys," had worked directly in the interests of the oil and finance barons throughout the war—CIA had to be created.

These kingmakers imo wanted Nixon and instead got Kennedy. From the offset or shortly thereafter a decision was taken that Kennedy could/would not serve the common aims of these folk and plans were put forth for his removal, however and whatever it took to achieve this.

I don't know how far I can follow you down that path. At this point, I'm not so sure it entirely mattered that it was Kennedy. (I just know that's going to win me a whole new batch of friends, right there.) I'm beginning to form a hazy consideration that it simply was a coup, and he happened to be there. I'm beginning to squint at all of the proposed "motives" for "getting Kennedy," per se, very narrowly. I'm beginning to believe that there was something larger at work than simply "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

There's no question that ramping up war in Southeast Asia was on the CIA agenda. That's why CIA arranged for the Diem coup 21 days before they took out Kennedy. And there's no question that Vietnam did absolute wonders for the arms, banking, and oil worms. And there's no question that Kennedy was leaning toward bailing from Vietnam shortly before the assassination—but! There's also no question that the planning of his murder was in the works long, long before the events in October-November 1963 related to Kennedy's intentions to extract U.S. involvement.

Your belief, obviously?, is that the patriotis of the CIA do not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor do they work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

Ayup.

Who do they work for?

International banking first, I think. Oil and armaments (oh, yeah: and drugs, all varieties) are their handmaidens.

Who holds this power to exercise the events on 22/11/1963?

See above.

and Why?

Because they are amoral scum who like to take $50 out of your pockets by loaning you $5. Then taxing you another $20 on all of it.

That's even easier than cornering the black market on Scotch and fleecing the U.S. fleet.

Ashton

Ashton: This is one of the most perceptive posts I have ever read. (I wonder if and how Charlie will spin THIS?

You have taken the Yankee/Cowboy analysis to its most logical conclusion. I am sure Oglesby will be proud.

Dawn

[Cliff Varnell]

You have taken the Yankee/Cowboy analysis to its most logical conclusion. I am sure Oglesby will be proud.

Dawn

Dawn, ask Carl if he thinks Howard Hughes was a "handmaiden" for the Rockefellers.

[Cliff Varnell]

Mark, I just noticed your post (slow boy that I am)...

Gary,

Thank you very much for your collegial response.

I prefer collegial discussions, much more productive, etc.

Hi Cliff,

Don't think this argumentative, but I don't prescribe to the CIA as a monolithic org. I do feel it has been controlled and headed by generally the same folk since it's inception. But like any large - and in portions of the CIA deliberately unweildy - organisation there will be factions, even in a goup of 4 friends there may be. This does not preclude the same goals being shared.

I'm unsure of what the Angleton piece was meant to illustrate

Angleton was the key member within Kennedy's Catholic constituency

in CIA -- they shared social circles. Losing Angleton sealed his fate, I'd

speculate. After all, who would have been Oswald's ultimate boss at CIA

if not Angleton at counter-intel?

Also, we associate Angleton with an interesting word Ashton cited: mad.

The manner in which Kennedy was killed indeed reflected something unhinged.

I'll argue that the "unhinged" elements in the American ruling class in 1963

operated within the National Security state and not among the bean counters

at the Fed.

I also want to point out the sectarian fault lines within the CIA as it relates to

the Y/C dichotomy. Robert Maheu's "Mormon mafia" CIA faction controlled the

Hughes empire, and those dudes were Cowboys.

Here's a passage from the memoirs of CIA case officer Joesph B Smith,

PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR (pg 13), explaining why he quit in 1973 after

23 years with the CIA.

...[A]lthough I had gone to Harvard, it would have been better if I had gone to

Princeton and been a member of the OSS. I was not a Catholic, nor an Eastern

European ethnic. I just did not fit into the ruling cliques in the Clandestine Services.

Furthermore, I had always been in the minority of officers who sought to enlist

the efforts of the non-communist left. Perhaps my greatest shortcoming, I guessed,

was that I could not treat people as unimportant spare parts to be used up and thrown

away as administrators like Ted Shackley could. I asked for early retirement, and I

decided to stay in Mexico.

Usually when you see a phrase like "CIA memoir" ya need yer back-up bullxxxx

detector to be in as good a shape as yer main rig.

But PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR managed to get published without being

vetted by CIA -- something to do with Smith living in Mexico, if I recall correctly.

That crack about Princeton was a direct slap at WASP blue-blood Richard Helms,

key figure in CIA's covert action programs. Most CIA blue bloods went to Yale

(like Bush) but Dickie Helms was the Princeton man.

As Smith indicates, however, Clandestine Services was dominated by Catholics.

Cliff,

I don't want to get enmeshed in the ongoing battle here, but I have to state that, in my opinion, Angleton was not really part of JFK's catholic constituency.

He was a friend of Israel--that was where his loyalties lay.

He covered for Israel in the important early years of their nuclear programme. 'Official' US intelligence was always kept a few years behind the curve, courtesy of JJA's Israel desk.

He blamed everything on a communist plot. Again this suited Israel. The communist bloc supported Egypt and Syria in those days. America has unreservedly supported Israel from 11/22 to the present day and has embarked on a dangerous partisan path in this region ever since. The media participates of course.

The CIA and Mossad shared intelligence from the early fifties. Influential Jewish Americans like Teddy Kollek helped broker this arrangement. I believe they shared a world view and still do.

I really can't see JJA as an ally of JFK or his 'catholic constituency'. If anything JJA willingly betrayed JFK.

The result of years of limp aquiescence to this flawed vision may soon be realised in the Middle East.

I see Angleton as a malignant influence, infecting US strategic policy at a critical period in its history. He and JFK were poles apart.

Not in the summer and fall of 1960.

Angleton hung out in the same social circles as JFK (JJA was tight, after all, with JFK's

girlfriend Mary Pinchot Meyer), and Angleton's also-Catholic boss Allen Dulles colluded

with JFK to hit Nixon from the right on Cuba policy in the 1960 election.

They say Sam Giancana backed JFK in 1960.

As I pointed out in my previous post, these elements of JFK's "Catholic constituency"

turned on him after the Bay of Pigs.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Don Jeffries]

I agree with Ashton Gray's assessment that "Cuba" was not the motive behind the assassination of JFK. For all intents and purposes, Cuba died as an American political issue along with JFK. Not only was there no invasion of Cuba afterwards, the "hard-liners" who supposedly were so offended by our Cuban policy that they conspired to murder a sitting U.S. president, virtually vanished into the dark corners of our society, never to be heard from again. If Kennedy infuriated them, why weren't they incensed at Johnson, who did absolutely nothing to overthrow Castro? How about Nixon, who would have really been in their camp in regards to toppling the Castro regime? He did nothing as well. Those "rogue" elements stayed around for quite some time in the CIA; did they somehow lose their power after murdering JFK? While being powerless to actually overthrow Castro, after killing JFK, they somehow managed to orchestrate a coverup that has been so effective it is still in effect over 40 years later. A coverup so effective that Peter Jennings-certainly no friend of anti-Castro forces-was compelled to lie his sorry butt off on a ridiculous, anti-conspiracy ABC 40th anniversary special. But then again, there are others who claim that JFK had agreed to an overthrow attempt of Castro on December 1, 1963, but was assassinated anyway by the same "rogue" elements for being insufficiently anti-Castro. Hmm. To say this makes no sense is an understatement, especially when those "rogue" forces were compelled to kill JFK for not being hard enough on Castro (when he had supposedly agreed to a coup against him in little over a week from then), yet not motivated enough to then carry out the coup against Castro themselves.

Imho, the many good researchers who continue to focus on "Cuba" and "anti-Castro forces," and the "Castro/Mob connection" to the JFK assassination, are looking at a smokescreen designed by the real conspirators to divert attention away from the primary motive for the assassination- which was our burgeoning war in Vietnam. We should be looking at the conspirators at the ground level, like Secret Service agents Emory Roberts, William Greer and Roy Kellerman. We can speculate about the motives of Angleton, Dulles, Helms, etc., all we want, but we have clear and obvious proof that Greer and Kellerman failed miserably on November 22, 1963, and were never punished for their complete lack of response, nor even questioned about the subject. As for Roberts, we have video proof that he called off an agent scheduled to run alongside the motorcade (Henry Rybka) and testimony that he called back agent Ready when he attempted to run towards the presidential limousine. They are all very suspect and should have been questioned rigorously by those "investigating" the assassination. We also know that presidential aide McGeorge Bundy told JFK's cabinet members, on the afternoon of the assassination, that there was "no conspiracy" and that the lone assassin had been apprehended. Bundy told them this from his position in Washington, D.C., only a few hours after Oswald was arrested, and when little about him was known (not to mention before any true investigation of the crime had been conducted). Bundy should have been confronted about this very suspicious behavior.

Keep up the good work, Ashton. Your posts are thought prokoving and entertaining.

[Ashton Gray]

A thoughtful and thought-provoking post, Don, regardless of any points we seem to be in agreement on. I wish I had more time to devote to it, but this particularly caught my attention:

We also know that presidential aide McGeorge Bundy told JFK's cabinet members, on the afternoon of the assassination, that there was "no conspiracy" and that the lone assassin had been apprehended. Bundy told them this from his position in Washington, D.C., only a few hours after Oswald was arrested, and when little about him was known (not to mention before any true investigation of the crime had been conducted). Bundy should have been confronted about this very suspicious behavior.

The covert manipulation of JFK by Bundy starting 20 May 1963 to get the Ambassador to Haiti, Thurston, recalled to Washington, and to get units of the U.S. fleet moved away from key positions, all while DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles were running around in New York and D.C. with CIA and Rockefeller reps is an event simply staggering in scope and implications. As soon as Bundy issued the Executive Order arising from these secret meetings with Kennedy, DeMohrenschildt shot back to Dallas, and in two days was en route to Haiti.

Just days later (the day after the Cortez hotel meeting in El Paso confirming the Texas trip for JFK), CIA launched its phony "Red Cross" operation—purportedly aimed at Cuba, naturally—with a rendezvous point near Hogsty reef, which is almost centered between Haiti and Cuba, and near the area where the U.S. fleet ships had been withdrawn.

I published a fair portion of timeline related to this in the thread called "Questions for Gary Hemming." I believe it is very solid evidence of collusion between Bundy, CIA, and the DeMohrenschildt/Clemard Joseph Charles operations, which have their own ties not only to the Rockefeller money interests, but to CIA's WUBRINY operation, which now has been linked to Bush the Elder.

And regrettably I have to leave this here at the moment.

Ashton

Edited February 13, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

cleaning up the duplicate post...

Edited February 13, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I agree with Ashton Gray's assessment that "Cuba" was not the motive behind the assassination of JFK. For all intents and purposes, Cuba died as an American political issue along with JFK.

Correct. What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was

a failure. The express purpose of the assassination was to pin the crime on Castro

and establish a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba.

Oswald's capture deprived the plotters of the "irrevocable evidence" required to

justify the invasion to the world.

Not only was there no invasion of Cuba afterwards, the "hard-liners" who supposedly were so offended by our Cuban policy that they conspired to murder a sitting U.S. president, virtually vanished into the dark corners of our society, never to be heard from again.

Never to be heard from again?

Tell that to the tens of thousands of Vietnamese slaughtered in Operation Phoenix.

Tell that to Bobby Kennedy. Tell that to Salvador Allende.

Tell it to all those heroin junkies and crack heads hooked on the product those

"hard liners" helped import all those years.

If Kennedy infuriated them, why weren't they incensed at Johnson, who did absolutely nothing to overthrow Castro?

The plotters blew it -- Johnson didn't. They couldn't hold LBJ responsible for the

failure to kill Oswald 11/22/63, could they?

Killing JFK was a winner-take-all proposition, the success of which depended on

Oswald's quick demise. They failed. And thus their dreams of invading Cuba

died Friday afternoon when Oswald was captured.

If the sole intent was to merely end JFK's life, there were many ways to do it quietly.

The manner of JFK's execution speaks to its purpose.

How about Nixon, who would have really been in their camp in regards to toppling the Castro regime?

He did nothing as well.

You assume that the plotters were only anti-Castro Cubans?

It wasn't a "rogue operation" -- you didn't get that idea from me.

He did nothing as well. Those "rogue" elements stayed around for quite some time in the CIA;

did they somehow lose their power after murdering JFK?

Sigh.

I never said anything about "rogue elements."

I'll argue that the origin of the plot was "rogue" in the sense that the operatives

came up with the idea, which was then pitched to their betters, instead of the other

way around.

While being powerless to actually overthrow Castro, after killing JFK, they somehow managed to orchestrate a coverup that has been so effective it is still in effect over 40 years later.

Wrong. The assassins didn't mange the cover-up.

The plot was designed to look like a conspiracy. Oswald-as-lone-nut was

a contingency plan.

Johnson and Hoover had foreknowledge of the assassination -- they signed

off on it.

But they weren't the driving force behind the assassination -- they were the

driving force behind the cover-up.

Not the same operation.

A coverup so effective that Peter Jennings-certainly no friend of anti-Castro forces-was compelled to lie his sorry butt off on a ridiculous, anti-conspiracy ABC 40th anniversary special. But then again, there are others who claim that JFK had agreed to an overthrow attempt of Castro on December 1, 1963, but was assassinated anyway by the same "rogue"

Stop. I have made it abundantly clear in my prior posts that I do not

use the word "rogue" in the manner you ascribe to me.

Tell you what, Don, read Larry Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED,

and then we can have a polite discussion.

Otherwise, this is a waste of my time.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Ashton Gray]

What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was a failure.

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me.

You might want to get a second opinion.

Ashton

[Sid Walker]

What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was a failure.

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me.

You might want to get a second opinion.

Ashton

I have to agree with Ashton on this.

The mugs who shot him really blew it.

43 years is a short time in politics.