General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJFK worked to keep peace, bring prosperity for all. Others since 22 Nov 1963, not so much.
For most of the last 52 years -- from Vietnam to Afghanistan, from Somalia to El Salvador and elsewhere -- money trumps peace. The ENEMIES of JFK and Democracy now use their wealth to gain power and use power to protect their wealth and position, just like in feudal days. It is especially evident when you consider the rich, warmongers, and the traitors who lie America into war are above the law and are never held to account.
If Americans don't see that, they need to read more. Television isn't bringing it up, nor do the trolls online.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)No one had to explain why there were no SS on the back of JFK's car. While that pig LBJ had many SS all over his car.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)From footage found, I understand, in a dumpster outside ABC Dallas in the late 90's:
Afterward, in William Manchester's book, Death of a President, we see the "official story" of what happened:
"Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa on November 18 (1963), just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to 'keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car.' Boring wasn't offended. There had been no animosity in the remark." (1988 Harper & Row/Perennial Library edition, pp. 37-38)
The thing is PRESIDENT KENNEDY NEVER SAID THAT.
Not until 35 years later do we learn the truth, though, when the great investigator Vincent Palamara asked the Secret Service agents who were there what happened in 1963:
Agents Go On Record
Thank you for remembering and understanding, politicalboi.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Rather than act like a petulant disinformationist, try, for once, to show where what I posted is wrong.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Brent Wilkes, a U Georgia School of Law professor emeritus, has reviewed the evidence and reported what he's learned.
In the half-century since the Report, a vast mass of additional evidence and new information relating to the assassination has emerged. There have been reinvestigations by Congress. Hundreds of thousands of pages of government documents have been declassified. Responsible private researchers, including academic scholars from major universities, have undertaken their own studies and published authoritative books and articles calling into question the accuracy of the Warren Report. The strange, listless behavior of the Warren Commission itself has been amply documented.
We must, after 50 years, face the hair-raising, inescapable truth: The critics who warned us about the Warren Report were right all along. The Report was a sham which duped the American public while pretending to be based on a full, no-holds-barred inquiry. It was the fruits of an inadequate, hurried investigation by officials who from the beginning had already made up their minds that Oswald was the assassin and that he had acted alone. To get a grasp of how enormously unreliable the Warren Report is, one need only look at the Reports three most important conclusions.
(1) All the shots fired at the presidents limousine were fired by 24-year old Lee Harvey Oswald from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
(2) Oswald fired a total of three shots in less than six seconds, using a bolt-action military surplus 6.5 mm (.255 cal.) Italian carbine, manufactured before 1941, which was found concealed behind some boxes on the sixth floor within minutes of the murder.
(3) Oswald acted alone, and there was no conspiracyforeign or domestic.
These conclusions have not survived the test of time.
SOURCE: http://www.flagpole.com/news/news-features/2014/11/05/discredited-1
Prof. Wilkes has a reputation as a top legal scholar. To learn more, GOOGLE his name and see what pops up. Personally, I think he' s a great American. He isn't afraid to learn the truth, even when it goes against what J Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles say.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)See for yourself or can't your belief system stand the truth?
villager
(26,001 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)It's not logical that you should throw a fit. Enough of that unsubstantiated crying act. If you have a valid point, make it.
It's quite right to question everything, including what happened on this day, regardless of who's upset over the question.
trof
(54,256 posts)CIA
I'm convinced.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)open to dispute. The evidence is overwhelming.
PatrickforO
(14,576 posts)What if the assassination was actually a coup by the MIC because Kennedy was threatening their profits?
What if the bullets that hit Kennedy came from the front, from the grassy knoll?
Oh...
Forgot this...
Nearly...
Logical
(22,457 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)who don't know much of anything. They seem to think that all of reality shrinks to match the size of their awareness.
JFK's greatness was evident to all who lived then. Even his enemies hated him because he was formidable against them. That would make it unanimous.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)He believed in using the powers of government to make life better for ALL Americans. He also believed in democracy for other countries, from Congo to Vietnam.
Dodd and Dulles vs. Kennedy in Africa
In assessing the central character ...
Gibbons description of the Byzantine general
Belisarius may suggest a comparison:
His imperfections flowed from the contagion of the times;
his virtues were his own.
Richard Mahoney on President Kennedy
By Jim DiEugenio
CTKA, From the January-February 1999 issue (Vol. 6 No. 2)
EXCERPT
The Self-Education of John F. Kennedy
During Kennedys six years in the House, 1947-1952, he concentrated on domestic affairs, bread and butter issues that helped his middle class Massachusetts constituents. As Henry Gonzalez noted in his blurb for Donald Gibsons Battling Wall Street, he met Kennedy at a housing conference in 1951 and got the impression that young Kennedy was genuinely interested in the role that government could play in helping most Americans. But when Kennedy, his father, and his advisers decided to run for the upper house in 1952, they knew that young Jack would have to educate himself in the field of foreign affairs and gain a higher cosmopolitan profile. After all, he was running against that effete, urbane, Boston Brahmin Henry Cabot Lodge. So Kennedy decided to take two seven-week-long trips. The first was to Europe. The second was a little unusual in that his itinerary consisted of places like the Middle East, India, and Indochina. (While in India, he made the acquaintance of Prime Minister Nehru who would end up being a lifelong friend and adviser.)
Another unusual thing about the second trip was his schedule after he got to his stops. In Saigon, he ditched his French military guides and sought out the names of the best reporters and State Department officials so he would not get the standard boilerplate on the French colonial predicament in Indochina. After finding these sources, he would show up at their homes and apartments unannounced. His hosts were often surprised that such a youthful looking young man could be a congressman. Kennedy would then pick their minds at length as to the true political conditions in that country.
If there is a real turning point in Kennedys political career it is this trip. There is little doubt that what he saw and learned deeply affected and altered his world view and he expressed his developing new ideas in a speech he made upon his return on November 14, 1951. Speaking of French Indochina he said: "This is an area of human conflict between civilizations striving to be born and those desperately trying to retain what they have held for so long." He later added that "the fires of nationalism so long dormant have been kindled and are now ablaze....Here colonialism is not a topic for tea-talk discussion; it is the daily fare of millions of men." He then criticized the U. S. State Department for its laid back and lackadaisical approach to this problem:
One finds too many of our representatives toadying to the shorter aims of other Western nations with no eagerness to understand the real hopes and desires of the people to which they are accredited.
The basic idea that Kennedy brought back from this trip was that, in the Third World, the colonial or imperial powers were bound to lose in the long run since the force of nationalism in those nascent countries was so powerful, so volcanic, that no extended empire could contain it indefinitely. This did not mean that Kennedy would back any revolutionary force fighting an imperial power. Although he understood the appeal of communism to the revolutionaries, he was against it. He wanted to establish relations and cooperate with leaders of the developing world who wished to find a "third way," one that was neither Marxist nor necessarily pro-Western. He was trying to evolve a policy that considered the particular history and circumstances of the nations now trying to break the shackles of poverty and ignorance inflicted upon them by the attachments of empire. Kennedy understood and sympathized with the temperaments of those leaders of the Third World who wished to be nonaligned with either the Russians or the Americans and this explains his relationships with men like Nehru and Sukarno of Indonesia. So, for Kennedy, Nixons opposition toward Ho Chi Minhs upcoming victory over the French in Vietnam was not so much a matter of Cold War ideology, but one of cool and measured pragmatism. As he stated in 1953, the year before the French fell:
The war would never be successful ... unless large numbers of the people of Vietnam were won over from their sullen neutrality and open hostility. This could never be done ... unless they were assured beyond doubt that complete independence would be theirs at the conclusion of the war.
To say the least, this is not what the Dulles brothers John Foster and Allen had in mind. Once the French empire fell, they tried to urge upon Eisenhower an overt American intervention in the area. When Eisenhower said no, Allen Dulles sent in a massive CIA covert operation headed by Air Force officer Edward Lansdale. In other words, the French form of foreign domination was replaced by the American version.
CONTINUED
http://www.ctka.net/pr199-africa.html
Jim DiEugenio is a DUer.
Thank you for caring about what being a Kennedy Democrat is all about, Waiting For Everyman. That is, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It does truly sicken me to see him smeared these days. I was a very aware 13 when he was murdered (I read the Baltimore Sun from front to back every day and followed current events intently), and I can absolutely say that the world started going down the crapper that day, and has not stopped since.
The Dulles Brothers (who my father-in-law knew personally, Diem too as his personal attache) were from a long line of traitors... see [link:]Treason In America: from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman, by Anton Chaitkin. Without knowing the genealogy and background of certain families, American History is pure fiction, commissioned by the guilty to be written by well-paid spin doctors on pedestals.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Rupert Murdoch and friends in Corporate McPravda are ignoring what it means for how the Inited Stste has become a safe zone for traitors, warmongers, and plutocrats.
Every president has been manipulated by national security officials: David Talbot exposes Americas deep state
From World War II though JFK, "The Devil's Chessboard" explores how Allen Dulles used the CIA as a tool of elites
LIAM O'DONOGHUE
Salon.com, Oct. 15, 2015
This years best spy thriller isnt fiction its history. David Talbots previous book, the bestseller Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years explored Robert F. Kennedys search for the truth following his brothers murder. His new work, The Devils Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of Americas Secret Government, zooms out from JFKs murder to investigate the rise of the shadowy network that Talbot holds ultimately responsible for the presidents assassination.
This isnt merely a whodunit story, though. Talbots ultimate goal is exploring how the rise of the deep state has impacted the trajectory of America, and given our nations vast influence, the rest of the planet. To thoroughly and honestly analyze (former CIA director) Allen Dulless legacy is to analyze the current state of national security in America and how it undermines democracy, Talbot told Salon. To really grapple with what is in my book is not just to grapple with history. It is to grapple with our current problems.
Just as Americas current national security apparatus has used terrorism as a justification for spying on American citizens, torture, and the annihilation of innocent civilians as collateral damage, Talbot places these justifications in a Cold War context, by showing how spymaster Allen Dulles shrugged off countless atrocities using the threat of communism. For readers unfamiliar with Dulles history, the first few chapters are like being splashed in the face with a bucket of ice water. Talbots assertion that Dulles is a psychopath is hard to dismiss after the intelligence agent is shown covering up the Holocaust prior to Americas intervention into World War II by keeping crucial information exposing the horrors of concentration camps from reaching President Roosevelt. Allen Dulles and his fellow Cold Warriors saw Russia, a U.S. ally during World War II not Nazi Germany as the real enemy.
Jumping from geopolitical strategy to the psychological realm, Talbot details how it was not only enemies who had reason to fear Dulles, but his own friends and family, as well. The book veers into a dark, terrifying investigation of the MKUltra Project, a hideous mind control program developed by the CIA during Dulles reign as director, that dosed unsuspecting people with LSD, pushed the limits of sleep deprivation and engaged in other deeply unethical experiments. The program has been exposed, bit by bit, over decades, thanks to lawsuits and previous investigative reporting, but Talbot sheds light on how Dulles subjected his own son and attempted to enroll his wife in these hideous therapies.
By the time The Devils Chessboard eventually climaxes with the events that unfolded in Dallas in 1963, Talbots argument that Dulles had both the power and temperament to execute such a plot is more than believable. Dulles favorite word about someone was whether they were useful or not, Talbot said. And thats the way he thought of everyone to what extent could he use them.
CONTINUED...
It's connecting the dots the CIA Controlled & Corporate Owned News will never mention, even if their secret Swiss bank accounts depended on it.
Sorry for the incompleteness of reply - I am away from my computer and files.
ellie
(6,929 posts)and I thought of you.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...Talbot made the case that Allen Dulles was the Chairman of the Board for the assassination. Seeing how the USA resembles more closely NAZI Germany than what it was in 1963, I think he's on to something.
David Talbot did not mince words in his presentation at Duquesne, either. He publicly named former CIA director Allen Dulles not only as participant in the cover-up of events concerning CIA in the assassination of President Kennedy, Talbot said Dulles was the chief architect of the assassination.
Mr. Talbot has worked for more than two years on a book that I believe will shake the nation's financial and political establishment to its core. Here are Mr. Talbot's words, outlining why:
...I think what we're going to show over the next few years is that Allen Welsh Dulles was much more centrally involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, and its cover-up, than Lee Harvey Oswald.
Fifty years later, it's finally time to give the man his rightful place in history. In his day, Allen Dulles was America's most legendary spymaster, the longest-serving director of the CIA. He took great pleasure in regaling the public about his espionage triumphs. But, for obvious reasons, he could never take credit for his biggest and boldest covert operation:
the killing of the President of the United States in broad daylight on the streets of an American city.
I hope that my forthcoming book, which will be titled "The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, JFK and the Epic Battle for America's Soul" will at long last give Mr. Dulles his due. As I say in my title of my remarks this morning, I believe Allen Dulles truly was the "Chairman of the Board of the Kennedy Assassination."
In September 1965, nearly two years after Kennedy was violently removed from office, Allen Dulles went for a stroll near his home in Georgetown with a young magazine editor named William Morris. The old spymaster, long since retired, struck Morris as an amiable, avuncular character until the name Kennedy suddenly came up in the conversation. Suddenly a dark cloud crossed the old man's brow.
"That little Kennedy," he spat out. "He thought he was a god."
Allen Dulles knew who the true overlords of American power were. (They were) men like him and his brother, not Jack and Bobby Kennedy. The Kennedys were mere upstarts in comparison to the Dulles family. The Dulles dynasty boasted diplomats and international bankers and three secretaries of state. The Kennedy clan, by comparison, was distinguished by saloon keepers and ward healers. When paterfamilias Joseph Kennedy was amassing his fortune as a movie mogul and stock gambler, Dulles and his older brother were running Wall Street from their perch at the world's largest law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell and creating a new global financial order.
During the Cold War, President Eisenhower outsourced the country's foreign policy to the Dulles Brothers, with Secretary of State John Foster Dulles serving as the architect of Washington's global crusade against communism, and Allen Dulles carrying out the darker chores of empire.
Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev who kept looking for a way out of the Cold War noose but found himself repeatedly checkmated by the Dulleses remarked at one point, "One shuddered at what great force was in the Dulles Brothers' hands."
The Dulles Brothers stood at the very apex of American power, straddling an elite network that connected Wall Street, Washington, big oil and international finance. John Foster Dulles was the ultimate counselor for that overworld that ruled the country's government and business, and his younger brother Allen was at privileged circles master of intrigue and subversion, its enforcer...
Mr. Talbot had a lot more to say about the Dulles Brothers, especially Allen Dulles as head of CIA. One of the most important things to remember, Dulles, even after he was out of office, continued to command the respect of people like James Jesus Angleton and Richard Helms, people he had promoted to their positions of power, and people who kept their knowledge of CIA assassination programs away from President Kennedy and the various government investigators who would later ask them about them.
Something I'm personally proud to add: Dulles and his brother are two of the main founders of the BFEE, a term Bartcop coined and I borrow to denote the War Party affiliated with the right wing Wall Street crowd that infested Washington for much of the late 19th and 20th century. Allen Dulles was a good friend and business associate of Prescott Sheldon Bush, Sr.
During the Depression, they tried to overthrow FDR. Before and during World War II, they did business with Hitler. After the war, they imported NAZIs to help fight the commies and build up a case for the Military Industrial Complex. They've done a lot since, from Vietnam to Iraq.
Secret government is un-democratic and, as the illegal wars for oil show, fascistic.
ellie
(6,929 posts)have to pick the book up.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)If you read Talbot's book and James Douglass' "JFK and the Unpeakable" the last 52 years become crystal clear. Those two books draw the whys and hows of 11/22/1963 so clearly that Ray Charles could tell you what the picture is.
What is amazing to me is why some people have no curiosity at all about how the country has gone so horribly astray since JFK's death.
But one reason is that Allen Dulles and the people he was the frontman for were very fond of German fascism and brought countless Nazis- NOT ex-Nazis, there was nothing "ex" about them and many would have been hanged or imprisoned at Nuremberg had Dulles not protected them - to the US and liberally seeded them through the intelligence apparatus. The oligarchs of the day thought German Fascism was the bright shining wave of the future and FDR's implacable opposition to Hitler, even before the war, was yet another thing they held against him.
The Nazis won the war against the US, but it took until the mid-1950s. Win they assuredly did, however.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)Nov 22-25, 1963. No commentary just an "as it happened" show.
One reporter, who I did not recognize, was reporting from the Dallas police station right after Jack Ruby had been identified as being the man who shot Oswald. He said "Not a policeman in this station believes Ruby did this out of patriotic fervor but that he acted only to shut Oswald up." (Again, no current commentary but I wondered if whoever spliced the clips together did so to call attention to the change in the reporting.)
A few minutes later they switched to a later press conference where the "Ruby was trying to protect Mrs. Kennedy from having to testify " story was being created.
As I watched this, I was also struck by how, just 2 days after the assassination, there was no doubt in any reporter's words that Oswald was the assassin. -- No words like "alleged" or "accused" were used.
A few years ago the History channel ran a similar show and I was amazed how much the media was fed about Oswald and his history in the first hours after his arrest. In those pre-computer days it just seems so suspicious now.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)is that three men who challenged Richard Nixon for the presidency ended up getting shot, and all by "lone gunmen".
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)but the CT stuff is bizarre.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)is that someone automatically says "CT" when someone else notes that three presidential candidates running against the same man, but at different times, were shot by "lone gunmen". If that had happened in any other country, Americans would be quick to say that there was something fishy going on.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)If there was a connection between those assasinations, we would have heard about it by now. Were the assassinations of MLK and Malcom X also a part of this theory?
I know of people who believe Oaul Wellstone's airplane was ahot down by a weapon that discharges a directed energy beam ("phaser" in Star Trek lingo). I don't believe that either.
Was LBJ in on these assassinations? They all took place while he was in office.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)But three presidential candidates, all running against the same man but at different times, were shot. That had never happened before or since in American history, even during volatile times like the Civil War era.
And even if someone brought up a connection between those assassinations, it would automatically be dismissed as "CT", like you just did.
Nixon was an asshole, as you admitted.
Nixon had an enemies list, as is well known.
Nixon was known to have been a crooked politician as early as the 1940s.
Nixon was not above committing other types of crimes, like breaking into Democratic Party headquarters.
And we'll never know what was on the 18 1/2 minutes of one of the Nixon tapes that were suppposedly erased by his secretary, Rose Mary Woods.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Did Nixon have MLK and Malcom X killed as well? These assassinations were investigated to death (no pun intended), leaving JFK out of it, do you really believe that the other deaths were at the hands of Nixon's people? They could not even pull off a third-rate burglary without being caught by Forrest Gump.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)If you want to know someone who really hated MLK, though, look no farther than the head of the FBI at the time, J. Edgar Hoover.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)If you have any reliable facts that Nixon had had anything to do with the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcom X, and Wallace, I would like to read them. By the way, the guy who shot Wallace first tried to get into a situation so he could shoot candidate Nixon.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Why would Nixon want to bump off MLK and Malcolm X? What would he have to gain by bumping them off?
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Placing the blame of two thirds of them on Nixon without a shred of evidence, even this many years later, screams CT.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Even though Nixon's plumbers botched the Watergate burglary, Nixon himself was able to fool the public into believing he was not a crook for decades, despite his sleazy methods that dated back to the '40s. His "Checkers speech" was a masterful political snowjob.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts).....think. James W. Douglas (JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters) referred to JFK as a Cold Warrior who achieved office by warning of a 'missile gap,' then evolved into a man of peace.
Douglass also characterized JFK as a young man from a privileged background, who came to care about the poor, those who had been excluded from that great middle class of the 1950's. I think the right still regard him as a 'class traitor,' another reason they still hate him.
Octafish, a book you might find interesting is: The New Camelot Volume One: Camelot and the Overview Effect. I'd give it a mixed review; but, it does help fill in some of the backstory of how JFK put the US on the path to the moon.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)JFK respected other nations -- including the former colonies of European nations in Africa and Asia -- and peoples. How many today think he'd lie America into war to steal other people' oil?
In his landmark work, JFK and Vietnam, the then US Army major and West Point professor Newman found that the Pentagon and CIA gave LBJ, as veep, a more accurate picture of what was happening in Vietnam than they provided JFK, as president.
Why? JFK said he would not get into a land war in Southeast Asia and he certainly was not going to place US draftees in the middle of Vietnam's civil war; Johnson would and did after the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Vietnam Withdrawal Plans
The 1990s saw the gaps in the declassified record on Vietnam filled inwith spring 1963 plans for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. An initial 1000 man pullout (of the approximately 17,000 stationed in Vietnam at that time) was initiated in October 1963, though it was diluted and rendered meaningless in the aftermath of Kennedy's death. The longer-range plans called for complete withdrawal of U. S. forces and a "Vietnamization" of the war, scheduled to happen largely after the 1964 elections.
The debate over whether withdrawal plans were underway in 1963 is now settled. What remains contentious is the "what if" scenario. What would Kennedy have done if he lived, given the worsening situation in Vietnam after the coup which resulted in the assassination of Vietnamese President Diem?
At the core of the debate is this question: Did President Kennedy really believe the rosy picture of the war effort being conveyed by his military advisors. Or was he onto the game, and instead couching his withdrawal plans in the language of optimism being fed to the White House?
The landmark book JFK and Vietnam asserted the latter, that Kennedy knew he was being deceived and played a deception game of his own, using the military's own rosy analysis as a justification for withdrawal. Newman's analysis, with its dark implications regarding JFK's murder, has been attacked from both mainstream sources and even those on the left. No less than Noam Chomsky devoted an entire book to disputing the thesis.
But declassifications since Newman's 1992 book have only served to buttress the thesis that the Vietnam withdrawal, kept under wraps to avoid a pre-election attack from the right, was Kennedy's plan regardless of the war's success. New releases have also brought into focus the chilling visions of the militarists of that erafour Presidents were advised to use nuclear weapons in Indochina. A recent book by David Kaiser, American Tragedy, shows a military hell bent on war in Asia.
CONTINUED with very important IMFO links:
http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm
Recently, The Nation magazine wanted to know "Why don't Americans know what really happened in Vietnam?" Interesting read, it brings up how much USA uses the volunteer military and observes the corporate owned news media don't want to bring that up so that people continue to thank the troops for their service without wondering why they're tasked with missions in 133 countries around the world. What the article missed and people need to know:
JFK ordered withdrawal from Vietnam. LBJ reversed it four days after Dallas.
The 1,000 advisors were the beginning. All US military personnel were to be out of the country by the end of 1965, reported James K. Galbraith.
Then in NSAM 273, four days after the assassination in Dallas, LBJ changes the policy to stay and support South Vietnam in its "contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy."
That important part of JFK history does not get mentioned on television or Corporate Owned News.
PS: Thank you, LongTomH! I look forward to learning more about that book and author Frank White. Very interesting thesis. Me, I'm more the Quixote type wishing we had a space Navy.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,629 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Intriguing history on the Bush connection from one of the nation's best known political science professors, Larry J. Sabato, author of "The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy," in April 1969, Prescott Bush wrote Clover Dulles:
SOURCE p. 368 online:
https://books.google.com/books?id=X7OnBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA368&lpg=PA368&dq=john+mccone+%2B+prescott+bush&source=bl&ots=dJAjiC_h6D&sig=fkfjmBYhc8KD3Relu4Vc93mEyCo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBmoVChMInOeZgovAyAIVBpiACh0JnAxi#v=onepage&q=john%20mccone%20%2B%20prescott%20bush&f=false
Clearly shows how the players, like the aspens, look like a forest of individual trees above ground, but really are connected by their roots underground.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,629 posts)librechik
(30,674 posts)no evidence, he said. Adding one more name to my list of sources who can't be trusted.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The man who made sure that Embarrassing Questions never got asked.
Like many of Dulles' favorites, he had a long and deep business connection to German fascism.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The great DUer MinM found what John Newman wrote on Facebook regarding Mr. Shenon:
Shenons latest piece in Politico (Yes the CIA Director was Part of the JFK Assassination Coverup) is a continuation of the newest stagebegun in 2013of the propaganda campaign to convince Americans that Robert Kennedy got his brother John killed and then worked to cover it up. The genesis of this new stage was a call from a Warren Commission lawyer to Shenon, who then fed Shenon and used him as the mouthpiece for this outrageous scheme. The Castro-did-it propaganda was part of the true coverup of the plot to kill JFK, and it was in play even before the shots were fired in Dallas. But I knew when I read Shenons 2015 paper edition of his book, A Cruel and Shocking Act, that we would be facing a newer, carefully orchestrated campaign to stick it to the Kennedys right at the time when the battle lines are being drawn to force the releaseas required by the JFK Records Actof the remaining JFK records by October 2017. Now, Shenon takes a recently released internal CIA analysis (which also dates to 2013) about DCI McCone blocking the CIAs anti-Castro plots from the Warren Commission, and uses it to bolster his (Shenons) baleful version of history. I will comment on that (David Robarges) analysis after thoroughly reading it. Shenons Politico piece ends by restating a myth he hopes to make stick: that President Johnson appointed former DCI Allen Dulles to the Warren Commission at the recommendation of then Attorney General Robert Kennedy. I will hold back here on commenting about this fabrication because David Talbots new book, The Devils Chessboard, (to be released next week) so thoroughly (pp. 572-574) demolishes it
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22318
So the NEW issue isn't what Robert F. Kennedy thought of the Warren Commission ("shoddy workmanship" , rather it's "RFK recommended Dulles for the Warren Commission to protect RFK's role in CIA-Mafia assassination plots."
Professional Grade Information Management, evident when considering CIA hired Mafia in 1960 when Eisenhower was president.
librechik
(30,674 posts)the field is full of what my husband calls Adjustment Bureau agents (after the Mark Damon movie, which we both love) I always suspect successful or at least, prolific, authors from the NYT or WP or even AP for working the adjustment angle. Strangely, not all of them do.
I had 6 "Thank you Octafish" choices when I put the post up. You are the best. Blessings to you and family for this gut wrenching holiday coming up.
And to quote Hillary, in light of this morning's shoot down of the Russian warplane:
"TURKEY???!!!"
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)LBJ did most of the legislating for JFK's legacy.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)LBJ.
But no, JFK was not a moderate, though he made a good show of it, and eventually he made enough enemies to bring his thousand days to an abrupt halt. Whereupon "The candidate from Brown and Root" took the reins and the rest is a very sad chapter of US history.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-08-25/78397/
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)I like JFK too but the reason we remember him so well is because of his speeches and looks, not his policies. Teddy and RFK were the real liberals JFK was a moderate.
H2O Man
(73,558 posts)It helped the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy. Young and old. Black, brown, red, yellow, and white. Male and female.
It is, of course, difficult to define the JFK of 1951-'63 in the context of today's terms. More, like many human beings, he held a wide range of opinions and beliefs, which were being translated in the actions of his administration, that could correctly be called "moderate." For that matter, on some issues he was conservative. And liberal in still others.
The value of his president, however, can't be defined in such terms. Nor can it be fully understood by the number of bills he pushed, or helped pass. That's not to suggest that legislation is other than extremely important.
It's of some value to also consider -- and not simple in the context of political definitions -- the growth of figures such as JFK and RFK. Robert, for example, started out politically as a frequently obnoxious conservative. But, more important is where he ended up: a mighty conservative liberal, or a mighty liberal conservative? As if those words matter.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)prepared under Kennedy and passed under LBJ, and you have an ambitious domestic program that I would not describe as moderate so much as New Frontier liberal, i.e. not pragmatic so much as enthusiastically programmatic.
MinM
(2,650 posts)http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-TPH-17B-1.aspx
Date(s) of Materials: 2 April 1963
Physical Description: item 1 on 1 dictation belt (2 minutes, 13 seconds)
Copyright Status: Public Domain
Description: The recording of this conversation begins on Dictation Belt 17A.4. Sound recording of part of a telephone conversation held on April 2, 1963, between President John F. Kennedy and Sargent Shriver, Director of the Peace Corps. They discuss speaking to Richard M. Helms about the suspicion that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is trying to place people in the Peace Corps. They also discuss facilitating the movement of members of the Peace Corps into the Foreign Service. Machine noise follows the conversation.
Transcript included. This sound recording was originally recorded on Dictation Belt 17B, which contains additional sound recording(s) following this one. To hear all of the recordings on the Dictation Belt, see Digital Identifier: JFKPOF-TPH-17B, Title: Telephone recordings: Dictation Belt 17B.
Contributor(s):
Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963
Shriver, Sargent (Robert Sargent), 1915-2011
Series Name:
Presidential Recordings.
Subseries Name:
Telephone Recordings [Original accession].
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-TPH-17B-1.aspx
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110820336#post19
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025338852
p.s.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)The Republicans didn't want to discuss JFK after he was murdered.
So, the true story about how dangerously close the world came to nuclear war between the USSR and the USA was not revealed to the public for over 3 decades.
The Cuban Missile Crisis loomed over this entire country, and was so awful, so terrifying that it was an issue so large in scale that it dominated nearly every political decision made in Washington, D.C. and in Moscow, defining the remaining years of the decade of the 60s, the next decade of the 70s, and left it's lingering effect on the world unto this very day.
Good to see you post again, H20 Man.
Stay well and stay healthy, bro.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)From John F. Kennedy: Domestic Affairs, Miller Center of Public Affairs, U Virginia:
Kennedy took office in the depths of the fourth major recession since World War II. Business bankruptcies had reached the highest level since the 1930s, farm incomes had decreased 25 percent since 1951, and 5.5 million Americans were looking for work. Kennedy's response was a series of efforts designed to lower taxes, protect the unemployed, increase the minimum wage, and to focus on the business and housing sectors to stimulate the economy. Kennedy believed that such measures would begin an economic boom that would last until the late 1960s. His advisers thought it possible to "fine tune" the economy with a mix of fiscal and monetary measures; Kennedy accepted their advice and was impressed with their expertise, which seemed to work at the time. Partly as a result of the administration's efforts to pump money into domestic and military spending, the recession had faded by the end of Kennedy's first year in office. The President also proposed new social programs. These included federal aid to education, medical care for the elderly, urban mass transit, a Department of Urban Affairs, and regional development in Appalachia.
http://millercenter.org/president/biography/kennedy-domestic-affairs
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Ronald Reagan called him a "socialist" for doing so.
Operation COFFEECUP - How Reagan Worked to Stop Universal Health Coverage in 1961
In December 1961, the AMA pulled out all the stops to prevent President John F. Kennedy from proposing universal health coverage. For their effort, they recruited a TV-personality.
Write those letters now. Call your friends, and tell them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day . . . we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Sounds familiar to Tea Party crapola of today. Ironic: Corporate McPravda avoids mentioning how one has-been B-movie actor took part in the organized opposition to Medicare in the early 1960s. Here's the story, thanks to Mr. Scott E. Starr:
The Campaign Against Medicare
Monday, March 22, 2010
By Scott E. Starr
EXCERPT...
In order to maintain the illusion of spontaneity, the AMA did not announce the existence of Operation Coffeecup or publicize the Reagan recording. The record was to be used, campaign organizers cautioned, only in the groups meeting under the controlled conditions of the informal coffees. Under no circumstances, recipients of the record were warned, were they to permit commercial broadcast of the recording.
Operation Coffeecup was kept deliberately low-key and internal to the AMA, its Womans Auxiliary, and the trusted friends and neighbors of the Auxiliary women. Reagans efforts against Medicare were revealed, however, in a scoop by Drew Pearson in his Washington Merry-Go-Round column of June 17th. Pearson titled his item on Reagan, Star vs. JFK, and he told his readers:
Ronald Reagan of Hollywood has pitted his mellifluous voice against President Kennedy in the battle for medical aid for the elderly. As a result it looks as if the old folks would lose out. He has caused such a deluge of mail to swamp Congress that Congressmen want to postpone action on the medical bill until 1962. What they dont know, of course, is that Ron Reagan is behind the mail; also that the American Medical Association is paying for it.
Reagan is the handsome TV star for General Electric . . . Just how this background qualifies him as an expert on medical care for the elderly remains a mystery. Nevertheless, thanks to a deal with the AMA, and the acquiescence of General Electric, Ronald may be able to outinfluence the President of the United States with Congress.24
Reagans recorded remarks are quite extensive, and reveal a determined and in-depth attack on the principles of Medicare (and Social Security), going well beyond opposition to King-Anderson or any other particular piece of legislation.
My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on the several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. . .
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. . . .
But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.25
And what was this frightful threat that Reagan perceived as imminent?
. . . Congressman Forand introduced the Forand Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now, this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security. . . .
It should be obvious that Reagans description of the Forand bill is a description of any Medicare-type program, not just a specific piece of legislation.26 The idea that people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance, just is the idea of Medicare.
CONTINUED...
http://geotheology.blogspot.com /
If you get a chance, the geotheology blog continues with details on Operation COFFEECUP. The American Medical Association bankrolled the "mellifluous voice" of Ol' Pruneface.
It's important to bring this up because so many believe history started only yesterday. The rightwing warmongers and greedheads have been organized for a long time. They've demonized liberals like me and my political heroes as socialists and communists. The nation has devolved politically to the point where even the leaders of our own party run away from the word, "Liberal." It's past time America realizes supporting the causes of the rich helped launch the political career of Americas first presidential Reverse Robin Hood.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)June 11, 1963:
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)"Report to the American People on Civil Rights, 11 June 1963"
JFK responds to threats on the University of Alabama campus following desegregation attempts, explaining that all American students are entitled to public education, regardless of race. He also discusses how discrimination affects education, noting that the country cannot preach freedom internationally while ignoring it domestically. The President asks Congress to enact legislation protecting all Americans' voting rights, legal standing, educational opportunities, and access to public facilities, but recognizes that legislation alone cannot solve the country's problems concerning race relations.
Highlights:
This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do.
Transcript link: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/LH8F_0Mzv0e6Ro1yEm74Ng.aspx
.........................................
p.s. I'd never heard this before yesterday and it's quite a surprise. I don't know what became of these particular proposals but it puts to rest yet another bogus claim, namely that JFK was too cautious to lead on civil rights.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Here's what became of the legislation he announces in his June 11, 1963 televised address:
Provisions of the legislation included: (1) protecting African Americans against discrimination in voter qualification tests; (2) outlawing discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; (3) authorizing the U.S. Attorney General's Office to file legal suits to enforce desegregation in public schools; (4) authorizing the withdrawal of federal funds from programs practicing discrimination; and (5) outlawing discrimination in employment in any business exceeding 25 people and creating an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to review complaints.
Passed on July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act was a crucial step in achieving the civil rights movement's initial goal: full legal equality.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Civil-Rights-Movement.aspx?p=3
.............
Who knew?
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I instantly flash back to every detail of my life on that day. Seventeen is an impressionable age, and I do believe my political course was set with the assassination of JFK. Subsequent events/assassinations cemented it.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Like you, the day is seared in my memory My dad was in the US Navy. The family was driving toward Detroit when the news came over the radio. I remember pulling over, so he could phone the base. They told him to get back, so we turned around. The thing that stands out for me -- perhaps embellished by my parents' recollections or clouded by the decades, but I have always remembered it rang clear as a bell -- was thinking when the announcer on the radio confirmed the sad news: "The world will never be the same." Those of us who remember then, I think, would agree.
H2O Man
(73,558 posts)Among the things that I found myself hoping for today, was an OP by you on this topic. I'm mighty pleased to see this! It is much appreciated.
I think that it is difficult, in most cases, for those who were not alive then, to fully understand what Dallas meant .....in large part, because of who JFK really was, what he accomplished in those thousand days, and then potential promise his presidency held.
It was soon to be connected with the murders of three of this nation's most powerful prophets: Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy. When inspired leaders are cut down in such brutal fashion, it does severe damage to a nation.
Thank you!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Even Malcolm at the end of his life.
But it's just a coincidence, I am sure. :sarcasmL
The first question to ask is always "who benefited?"
Which answers itself, really, in these cases.
JEB
(4,748 posts)I have come to believe that the fear I experienced on that day was entirely justified. How different would my life have been had he lived?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)-- Inaugural Address of John F. Kennedy, Friday, January 20, 1961
So, in the short time he had, President Kennedy did what he could to balance the interests of concentrated wealth with the interests of the average American -- necessary for the good of the country.
Professor Donald Gibson detailed the issues in his 1994 book, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency.
From the book:
"What (J.F.K. tried) to do with everything from global investment patterns to tax breaks for individuals was to re-shape laws and policies so that the power of property and the search for profit would not end up destroying rather than creating economic prosperity for the country."
-- Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street. The Kennedy Presidency
More on the book, by two great Americans:
"Gibson captures what I believe to be the most essential and enduring aspect of the Kennedy presidency. He not only sets the historical record straight, but his work speaks volumes against today's burgeoning cynicism and in support of the vision, ideal, and practical reality embodied in the presidency of John F. Kennedy - that every one of us can make a difference." -- Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Chair, House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs
"Professor Gibson has written a unique and important book. It is undoubtedly the most complete and profound analysis of the economic policies of President Kennedy. From here on in, anyone who states that Kennedy was timid or status quo or traditional in that field will immediately reveal himself ignorant of Battling Wall Street. It is that convincing." -- James DiEugenio, author, Destiny Betrayed. JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Had he lived to serve a second term, I'd bet on JFK and Labor over The Fed and Goldman Sach's Too Big To Fail chums. How many on DU think JFK would have signed the Trans Pacific Partnership?
I don't recall any of that put into context in the news coverage, official and academic histories, rhetorical context and so on concerning President Kennedy. Thank you for remembering, JEB.
JEB
(4,748 posts)for reminding me and informing me of so much I was not aware.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Interview with blacklisted comedian, Mort Sahl, 1968 quotes and warnings after JFK's death.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/AnHistoricalPerspective-MortSahl.html
Mort Sahl was black-listed after JFKs death when he came out publically disputing the Warren Commissions lone assassin theory:
ARGO: What is the extent of the conspiracy and why is the government so desperate to keep the truth from the American public?
SAHL: We have determined that elements of the Central Intelligence Agency planned the execution and killed the President. Lee Oswald attended those meetings planning it. He was the only non-CIA man at the meeting. And he worked for the FBI. We then find that an FBI code clerk has a message come through, a twx, through the southern regional offices of the FBI, warning five days ahead that the President will be assassinated and we still later find Oswald saying, "I was a patsy," in the Dallas Police Station. The "elements" are in the Central Intelligence Agency. They don't want to lose their power. And they don't want to fall. It has become government by hoodlum. And I don't blame them. If I were them, I wouldn't want to fall either. I would pull out all the stops as well, as they have. On the other hand, while I know that neo-Nazis would want to kill a man like John Kennedy, I don't understand why liberals would want to protect them from prosecution.
ARGO: What would you say are the roots of this whole era?
SAHL: Fascism. It started with the death of Roosevelt. They moved in and they negated every treaty we made with every world leader who didn't fit the fascist/militarist mold. We went back on our word. As David Schoenbrun says very well, "I am not a dissenter for saying this. Those who betrayed American policy are the dissenters." We've gone back on the dream of national independence and we were the model for the rest of the world. Then when they followed our model, we attacked them for it. Shameful. No one has a right to stain the American flag. And unfortunately, we have people in this country who did it. If America goes, it will surely be an inside job.
ARGO: What will make the American people face themselves and, to use your expression, rise up like an army?
SAHL: Well, they have very decent instincts. If they didn't, the government would not have to hide the facts from them. They could give them any facts and the people would be insensitive. But, they have a sense of decency because they come from better stock then that. And so, once the truth is revealed to them, they're no longer under a cloak of ignorance. Public opinion will change things. There will be a ground swell. These people will resign or will be lost in the shuffle. But, you know, the country was structured so that we could have violent change without violent overthrow. I'm very optimistic in that sense. The principles of America may be better than the group currently practicing or ignoring them, as you will. But, the country has great relilience, and once they get the information, they my yet have time to save themselves.
Our job here is to give the young people time. We're just like the fellow in the movie The Seventh Cross. He works with the partisans. We've got to give the young people time to get here, to save America.
ARGO: Why is the trial that Mr. Garrison's pursuing really the trial of the American people?
SAHL: Because we have to decide. Once the neo-fascists became bold enough to slay the President on the street, they showed their hand. They showed how arrogant they had become. Now it's a question of symptom. That crime was a national symptom. If we can turn our back on that, we will pay a terrible price. That will be the end of this democracy. As a matter of fact, it's been dying since Kennedy's death. We have to cleanse our soul. It's much the same as the French when they regained their national honor, not by framing Dreyfus, but by admitting that they did.
---------------
Seems the CT began immediately, and the "investigation" is yet to be full and completed. As for me, I will stand with those who question, and I will stand proudly.
longship
(40,416 posts)When one pitches a book to ones publisher about the JFK assassination and takes a couple of years research and one finds that Oswald was the only shooter in Dealy Plaza that day, that is not a good conversation.
However, when all the forensic evidence and all ones research on Oswald points to one shooter, one has to abide by the evidence.
There may have been hundreds of assassins on the grassy knoll that day, but all the bullets fired in Dallas that day came from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Repository. That is what all the forensic evidence says.
Plus, there is no dispute that Oswald killed a Dallas policeman that afternoon.
No conspiracy. Oswald was the iconic lone gunman.
And Gerald Posner got it right.
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Closed-Gerald-Posner/dp/1400034620
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)But it also concluded that there was "a high probability" of two gunmen (B) and a "conspiracy" (C):
So I wouldn't put too much faith in Posner.
longship
(40,416 posts)One gun. One shooter.
Conspiracy over.
Bye.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Here's the House Select Committee's conclusion on the forensics (f, "Summary of the Evidence" , which leaves open the "high probability" of multiple shooters. This was in 1979, toward the end of the Carter administration:
from: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_report.htm
longship
(40,416 posts)That's right. There isn't any. Just lunatic conspiracy theories.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)that it was immediately obvious JFK was hit from the front.
Hard to dismiss the opinions of the first people who saw the dead president.
longship
(40,416 posts)There is no evidence that JFK was hit from the front. None whatsoever. However, people make shit up and other people believe it.
Plus, then there are the two bullets recovered, the only two which made any difference that day, both traceable to the very rifle that was itself traced to Oswald. Again, the forensic evidence offers no other interpretation.
There may have been a thousand shooters in Dallas that day, but both bullets that made the difference came from one gun which was fired from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository by Oswald. That evidence is beyond dispute.
All the rest is conspiracy theory looney toons.
ProfessorGAC
(65,061 posts)If you had said one shooting angle, i could buy that.
longship
(40,416 posts)Sorry, there may have been a thousand shooters in Dallas that day, but both of the bullets retrieved were shot from one gun, the one found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository that was purchased by Lee Harvey Oswald.
As I indicated, the forensic evidence is pretty much iron clad. Any other is just lunatic conspiracy theory.
ProfessorGAC
(65,061 posts)No proof that those were the only shell casings at all. Just the 3 they found.
Also, let me posit this: If Gerald Posner says "Case Closed" i know there are holes. That guy is dumber than a bag of dirt.
longship
(40,416 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 23, 2015, 10:13 AM - Edit history (2)
One hit JFK and Connelly; one was the fatal head shot. A third shot, IIRC went wide and was not recovered, although I may be misremembering that. Regardless, since it hit nobody, it is irrelevant.
Either way, all the bullets came from the one gun, that which was traced to Lee Harvey Oswald.
No debate about that. The forensics are beyond dispute. The bullets came from one gun, no matter how many conspiracists one imagines.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)MinM
(2,650 posts)Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)For some reason, his name and important story are down the Memory Hole.
Former U.S. Secret Service Agent Abraham BOLDEN was the first African American Secret Service agent to serve in the White House detail. He was literally hand-picked by President John F. Kennedy. Agent Abraham Bolden reported overt racism by his fellow agents and outright hostility toward the "n... loving president," quoting fellow Secret Service agents on the JFK detail.
In addition to enduring all manner of personal indignities, he was concerned at the lack of professionalism in those assigned to protect the president and reported his concerns. He was told, "OK. Thanks" by his superiors. When the problems weren't addressed, Bolden requested transfer back to the Secret Service office in Chicago.
Abraham Bolden speaks at JFK Lancer.
The story of a man who told the truth:
After 45 Years, a Civil Rights Hero Waits for Justice
Thom Hartmann
June 12, 2009 11:52 AM
A great miscarriage of justice has kept most Americas from learning about a Civil Rights pioneer who worked with President John F. Kennedy. But there is finally a way for citizens to not only right that wrong, but bring closure to the most tragic chapter of American presidential history.
After an outstanding career in law enforcement, Abraham Bolden was appointed by JFK to be the first African American presidential Secret Service agent, where he served with distinction. He was part of the Secret Service effort that prevented JFK's assassination in Chicago, three weeks before Dallas. But Bolden was framed by the Mafia and arrested on the very day he went to Washington to tell the Warren Commission staff about the Chicago attempt against JFK.
Bolden was sentenced to six years in prison, despite glaring problems with his prosecution. His arrest resulted from accusations by two criminals Bolden had sent to prison. In Bolden's first trial, an apparently biased judge told the jury that Bolden was guilty, even before they began their deliberations. Though granted a new trial because of that, the same problematic judge was assigned to oversee Bolden's second trial, which resulted in his conviction. Later, the main witness against Bolden admitted committing perjury against him. A key member of the prosecution even took the fifth when asked about the perjury. Yet Bolden's appeals were denied, and he had to serve hard time in prison, and today is considered a convicted felon.
After the release of four million pages of JFK assassination files in the 1990s, it became clear that Bolden -- and the official secrecy surrounding the Chicago attempt against JFK -- were due to National Security concerns about Cuba, that were unknown to Bolden, the press, Congress, and the public not just in 1963, but for the next four decades.
SNIP...
Abraham Bolden paid a heavy price for trying to tell the truth about events involving the man he was sworn to protect -- JFK -- that became mired in National Security concerns. Bolden still lives in Chicago, and has never given up trying to clear his name.
Will Abraham Bolden live to finally see the justice so long denied to him?
CONTINUED...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/after-45-years-a-civil-ri_b_213834.html
After the assassination, he went to Washington on his own dime and reported what he saw to the Warren Commission. For his trouble -- and despite an exemplary record as a Brinks detective, Illinois State Trooper, and Secret Service agent -- Bolden was framed by the government using a paid informant's admitted perjury and spent a long time in prison. The government also drugged him and put him into psychiatric hospitals.His real crime was telling the truth.
Americans know the Truth: the country hasn't been the same since Nov. 22, 1963. President Kennedy kept the nation out of Vietnam and started toward the moon. Imagine what the New Frontier could have become for us today? Certainly would not be a time where "money trumps peace."
PS: You are most welcome, Mnemosyne. How fast the years have passed, especially apparent on the sad anniversary. Knowing you care about makes me certain better days are ahead for democracy.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)peasants got 120-80 days of the year off
but a little more seriously these goddamn drips are about as smart as pickle water: I've been through the most private notes of Iran-Contra up in Simi Valley--these people are your Asshole Uncle, kept up all night by some tiny country with a pittance in US investments
and they have the whole power of the US and its shadow government at their beck and call
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)by Oliver Stone
Nov. 21, 2015
Living through the news media assault of the past few weeks leading up to this 50th year's commemoration marking the violent end of JFK's presidency, I'm amazed there is any single adult left in the USA who would not think that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only assassin.
Although polls from 1964 on clearly signal the public's distrust of the official story, the mainstream media have never given up telling us how superstitious or illogical the common people are in this belief. As one of that multitude, the motivating factor for my disbelief has not been my idealistic view of Kennedy or what he might have done had he lived, but the very evidence of the shooting itself, which remains, then and now, dubious. Some basic examples:
* The single bullet theory allows for one bullet, fired from the sixth floor, on a downward trajectory, to enter Kennedy's back and then move upward, out his throat and into Texas Gov. John Connally to his front, where it zigs and zags breaking two bones and creating seven wounds. Now, I've been in the infantry and I've seen enough combat to tell you that in all the craziness of war, this "Alice in Wonderland" scenario defies physics and common sense. The American people are not stupid.
* The theory asks us to believe that the president, moving away from the alleged sharpshooter, up six floors, can be shot in the back of his head and snap suddenly back and to the left although common sense and the naked eye tell us that he should be going forward when he receives that shot.
* And that, coincidentally, there was a supposedly empty fence to the right front of the president, which when you stand there in Dealey Plaza presents a nearly perfect line of sight at the president and would naturally justify the motion of the president back and to the left if he were shot from the front right. Now the fact that the fence was supposedly unoccupied during this whole time when the entire plaza was filled with eager observers of the popular president further defies common sense.
We're supposed to accept all that even though:
* More than 50 witnesses testified at the time to the Warren Commission that they heard or saw a shot coming from that fence area to the front of the president.
* The Assassination Records Review Board (1994-1998) found that over 40 witnesses in two locations saw a large avulsive (i.e. penetrating outward) wound in the rear of JFK's skull. This includes highly qualified medical personnel at hospitals in Dallas and Bethesda, as well as FBI agents James Sibert and Frank O'Neill, who were at the autopsy in 1963 and restated it to the board. This wound again indicates an exit wound from a shot to the front. Conclusion: The president was shot from at least two sides, front and back not one location.
* An accidental film made that day, the Zapruder film, shows a sequence of motions that indicate five, probably six shots fired. It also shows that when the president is shot in the back by the "single bullet," that he's moving forward while Connally is still holding his Stetson hat, which is impossible if Connally was hit by the same bullet in his right wrist. The governor himself said he was not hit by the same bullet as Kennedy and added, "I do not for one second believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."
Yet the mainstream media in recent weeks tell us more strongly than ever that Oswald, with his twisted motives, did it alone with his Mannlicher-Carcano Word War II rifle. What kind of history are they talking about? Not the one that is perhaps too dark for them to deal with and unsettling to their smug belief in some form of American exceptionalism, by which our politics are unflawed by such corruption. Is this why the media, with very few exceptions, have not allowed any serious presentation of the evidence against their official story from qualified pathologists, scientists, photographic and ballistics experts, and doctors who disagree?
I've rarely seen the many fine works by these qualified individuals reviewed: Robert Groden's JFK: Absolute Proof (2013), James W. Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable (2008), and James DiEugenio's Reclaiming Parkland(2013). Particularly note in DiEugenio's book Chapters 4-7. They deconstruct the massive 2000-paged tome by prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, overly praised by the media probably because very few people have actually read it. To read DiEugenio's deconstruction is to fully understand the shaping of the lie.
As Friday approaches, please take a moment to remember that no professional marksman has replicated the Warren Commission scenario with Oswald's flawed rifle. To my knowledge, there have been at least four attempts with professionals to simulate the shooting without that rifle. No person ever achieved what the commission said Oswald did on the first try, i.e., attain two of three direct hits in the head and shoulder area to Kennedy in six seconds. This alleged shooting has been achieved only with computer simulations.
CONTINUED w/links...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/11/20/oliver-stone-jfk-conspiracy-assassination-oswald-column/3657321/
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...as a reminder to Americans as to the origins of todays "terrorism-s"...
.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Eisenhower was president. If things had gone according to plan, Nixon would've been president in 1961 during the Bay of Pigs. Dick, it's a safe bet, would have sent in the Marines, along with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, making Allen Dulles and Meyer Lansky and all their rich and corrupt friends very, very happy.
AUG 1960: Richard Bissell meets with Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, and discusses with him ways to eliminate or assassinate Fidel Castro. Edwards proposes that the job be done by assassins hand-picked by the American underworld, specifically syndicate interests who have been driven out of their Havana gambling casinos by the Castro regime. Bissell gives Edwards the go-ahead to proceed. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursues a series of plots to poison or shot Castro. The CIAs own internal report on these efforts states that these plots "were viewed by at least some of the participants as being merely one aspect of the over-all active effort to overthrow the regime that culminated in the Bay of Pigs." (CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3, 14)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/chron.html
Details on the actual sit-down:
Ever wonder about the sanity of America's leaders? Take a close look at perhaps the most bizarre plot in U.S. intelligence history
By Bryan Smith
Chicago Magazine
November 2007
(page 4 of 6)
EXCERPT...
By September 1960, the project was proceeding apace. Roselli would report directly to Maheu. The first step was a meeting in New York. There, at the Plaza Hotel, Maheu introduced Roselli to O'Connell. The agent wanted to cover up the participation of the CIA, so he pretended to be a man named Jim Olds who represented a group of wealthy industrialists eager to get rid of Castro so they could get back in business.
"We may know some people," Roselli said. Several weeks later, they all met at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami. For years, the luxurious facility had served as the unofficial headquarters for Mafioso leaders seeking a base close to their gambling interests in Cuba. Now, it would be the staging area for the assassination plots.
At a meeting in one of the suites, Roselli introduced Maheu to two men: Sam Gold and a man Roselli referred to as Joe, who could serve as a courier to Cuba. By this time, Roselli was on to O'Connell. "I'm not kidding," Roselli told the agent one day. "I know who you work for. But I'm not going to ask you to confirm it."
Roselli may have figured out that he was dealing with the CIA, but neither Maheu nor O'Connell realized the rank of mobsters with whom they were dealing. That changed when Maheu picked up a copy of the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade, which carried an article laying out the FBI's ten most wanted criminals. Leading the list was Sam Giancana, a.k.a. "Mooney," a.k.a. "Momo," a.k.a. "Sam the Cigar," a Chicago godfather who was one of the most feared dons in the countryand the man who called himself Sam Gold. "Joe" was also on the list. His real name, however, was Santos Trafficantethe outfit's Florida and Cuba chieftain.
Maheu alerted O'Connell. "My God, look what we're involved with," Maheu said. O'Connell told his superiors. Questioned later before the 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (later nicknamed the Church Committee after its chairman, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho), O'Connell was asked whether there had ever been any discussion about asking two men on the FBI's most wanted list to carry out a hit on a foreign leader.
"Not with me there wasn't," O'Connell answered.
"And obviously no one said stopand you went ahead."
"Yes."
"Did it bother you at all?"
"No," O'Connell answered, "it didn't."
CONTINUED...
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-2007/How-the-CIA-Enlisted-the-Chicago-Mob-to-Put-a-Hit-on-Castro/index.php?cparticle=4&siarticle=3
Yet, the Mighty Wurlitzer plays the false tune that Kennedy was the guy who wanted Castro dead.
Spies: Ex-CIA Agent In Raleigh Says Castro Knew About JFK Assassination Ahead Of Time
Former CIA agent and author Brian Latell in Raleigh
By The Raleigh Telegram
RALEIGH A noted former Central Intelligence Agency officer, author, and scholar who is intimately knowledgeable about Cuba and Fidel Castro, says he believes there is evidence that Castros government knew about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 ahead of time.
SNIP...
Robert Kennedy, as the Attorney General of the United States, was in charge of the operation, said Latell. Despite the United States best efforts, the operation was nonetheless penetrated by Cuban intelligence agents, said Latell.
Latell said there were two serious assassination attempts by the United States against Castro that even used members of the mafia to help, but both of them were obviously unsuccessful.
He also said that there was a plot by the United States to have Castro jabbed with a pen containing a syringe filled with a very effective poison. Latell said that he believes the experienced assassin who worked for Castro who originally agreed to the plan may have been a double agent. After meeting with a personal representative of Robert Kennedy in Paris, the man knew that the plan to assassinate Castro came from the highest levels of the government, including John F. and Robert Kennedy.
The plan was never carried out, as the man later defected to the United States, but with so many double agents working for Castro also pledging allegiance to the CIA, Latell said it was likely that the information got back to Havana that the Kennedy brothers endorsed that plot with the pen.
CONTINUED...
http://raleightelegram.com/201209123311
Which to anyone interested in justice would seem like a lead worth pursuing.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)maybe they will lay all the questions to rest. Until that time, we still await answers. Thanks for the reminder, Octa!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)From the Mary Ferrell Foundation:
The Devil's Chessboard by David Talbot
David Talbot's new book, The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government, is out. The author of Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, has once again turned his writing talents to the underbelly of post-WWII America, and again with focus on the tumultuous Kennedy years.
The Devil's Chessboard is a biography of CIA spymaster Allen Dulles, covering the years from World War II till Dulles' death at the end of the sixties. The book begins with Dulles' intrigues on behalf of Nazis in the 1940s, and continues on to his glory years overseeing the Cold War in the 1950s from his perch atop the CIA, with his brother Foster as Secretary of State. Talbot catalogues the devastation wreaked on Guatemala, Iran, and the Congo. Talbot rightly calls attention to the timing of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba's murder, which took place within a few days of the inauguration of Kennedy, who had publicly stated his sympathies with movements of national liberation.
The book's last part focuses on the Kennedy years, including the battles between Kennedy and the national security establishment told well in his earlier book Brothers, and leading to this book's charge that Dulles was the key player in JFK's murder. Any effort to tie Dulles to the Kennedy assassination is of course hobbled by the fact that uncovering proof of such involvement would be difficult even with subpoena power and a full-press investigation. The Warren Commission, which featured Dulles itself as its most active member, was hardly that. But where Talbot excels is in the painting of a portrait of the era, and the powerful men who inhabited it, finding interesting and little-noted connections, and building a compelling narrative that includes those dark aspects of the American saga that are usually left undiscussed in such books.
Talbot has an eye for quotes, and one memorable one is derived from the memoirs of French President Charles de Gaulle's information minister, Alain Peyrefitte. Talbot quotes at some length from the words de Gaulle spoke upon his return from the Kennedy funeral. After talking insightfully about the assassination - de Gaulle was a recent target himself - the French president observed the possibility of great upheaval in America, but concluded that it would all be swept under the rug: "But you'll see. All of them together will observe the law of silence.....They don't want to know. They don't want to find out. They won't allow themselves to find out."
SOURCE: http://maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_The_Devils_Chessboard.html
You are most welcome, Generic Other. Thank you for caring all these years. I am very gratified to know that people remember and will pass their memories forward. That way, important ideas will always live, like Democracy.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)It wasn't enough that they blew his head off in Dallas; his enemies have gleefully assassinated his character again and again ever since.
He wasn't a demigod or a saint; he was a man. He had plenty of flaws worth acknowledging and critiquing, but he also did a lot of good that's been dropped down the memory hole in favor of wallowing in seamier things, both true and made up.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Here's a pretty remarkable story, from the day after the assassination. It includes information from Oswald's background in the Marines, life in the Soviet Union, Russian wife, an appeal to Sen. John Tower and his time in New Orleans.
Lee Harvey Oswald is arrested, accused of killing JFK in 1963
(Originally published by the Daily News on November 23, 1963. This story was written by Henry Machirella.)
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Saturday, November 21, 2015, 12:00 PM
DALLAS, TEX., Nov. 22 - Lee Harvey Oswald, a 24-year old ex-marine who once tried to renounce his U.S. citizenship and become a Soviet citizen, was charged tonight with the murder of President Kennedy. Oswald was also charged with the murder of a Dallas policeman.
Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade and Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry said in a joint statement that the murder charges were based on "physical evidence." They added that Oswald had not confessed either crime.
SNIP...
He first went to New Orleans, where relatives lived, and tried to infiltrate an anti-Castro organization.
Rented Room in Dallas
"He offered himself as a former marine to train Cubans for an invasion," related Carlos Bringuier, New Orleans delegate for the Miami-based Cuban Student Directorate. "I was suspicious of him from the start. But, frankly, I thought he might be an agent from the FBI or CIA trying to find out what we might be up to.
"Then, a few days later, I encountered him on Canal Street distributing 'Viva Fidel Castro' literature."
CONTINUED...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lee-harvey-oswald-arrested-accused-killing-jfk-1963-article-1.2431162
Pretty thorough job of reporting. Even picked up on the guy's days in New Orleans as a communist sympathizer. Of course, since then, there's been little mention, apart from Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone, of the other guy in New Orleans Guy Bannister. Of course, there's been no mention of who was paying the New Orleans group who fought with Oswald, CIA man George Joannides. He would later derail the House Select Committee on Assassinations. I know you know that, deutsey. How many people do you know, beside those on DU, that know?
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)begun in the Eisenhower Administration. It had been in the planning stages for at least a year prior to JFK's inauguration, which was only three months before the actual operation.
And the Eisenhower Admin's point man for the project was Richard M. Nixon.
CIA Director Allen Dulles lied Kennedy into signing off on it. The invasion was meant to fail and be used as a pretext for air attacks and a land invasion by the US military. Kennedy absolutely refused to authorize any of those plans. This is all extremely well documented by highly reputable historians, including Kennedy's own direct quotes that "that son of a bitch (Dulles) looked me in the eye and lied to me" and that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)I knew the plans had already been made.
I sometimes get a bit tired of the deification of JFK.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)JFK ordered withdrawal from Vietnam. LBJ reversed it four days after Dallas.
The 1,000 advisors were the beginning. All US military personnel were to be out of the country by the end of 1965, reported James K. Galbraith.
Then in NSAM 273, four days after the assassination in Dallas, LBJ changes the policy to stay and support South Vietnam in its "contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy."
That important part of the Vietnam story doesn't get repeated anywhere near enough, even on DU.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Cuba (and the Soviets) knew when, where, how many etc. were invading. Allen Dulles knew that it the invasion was compromised, but that didn't matter to him. He wanted a fiasco so President Kennedy would be forced into sending in the Navy, Air Force, Army and the Mafia. Dulles was shocked when Kennedy said, "No."
The history wis still covered up. I hope enhanced public scrutiny significantly decreases the treasonous bastards's chances of getting away with treason.
The Cubans knew the time and place of invasion. And the United States knew they knew. Yet, JCS Chairman LEMNITZER and CIA Director DULLES knew Bay of Pigs Op was COMPROMISED, yet told President Kennedy their plan -- developed under Eisenhower and presumably for the Nixon madministration to come -- would work without the United States having to intervene militarily.
So, Castro knew the time and place for the attack. Knowing the plan was the compromised, let alone stupid from a military and political point of view, they failed to inform the President. How is that not treason?
Three MO' bits on JFK and the Bay of Pigs Thing...
Know your BFEE: At every turn, JFK was opposed by War Party
"Wasn't that, like, the Bay of Pigs Thing?"
JFK Would NEVER Have Fallen for Phony INTEL!
If it wasn't for JFK saying, "No," to the warmongering anticommunist paranoid greedheads, it's very possible none of us would be here now.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden reported overt racism by his fellow agents and outright hostility toward the "n------loving president," quoting fellow Secret Service agents on the JFK detail.
Abraham Bolden speaks at JFK Lancer.
The story of a man who told the truth:
After 45 Years, a Civil Rights Hero Waits for Justice
Thom Hartmann
June 12, 2009 11:52 AM
A great miscarriage of justice has kept most Americas from learning about a Civil Rights pioneer who worked with President John F. Kennedy. But there is finally a way for citizens to not only right that wrong, but bring closure to the most tragic chapter of American presidential history.
After an outstanding career in law enforcement, Abraham Bolden was appointed by JFK to be the first African American presidential Secret Service agent, where he served with distinction. He was part of the Secret Service effort that prevented JFK's assassination in Chicago, three weeks before Dallas. But Bolden was framed by the Mafia and arrested on the very day he went to Washington to tell the Warren Commission staff about the Chicago attempt against JFK.
Bolden was sentenced to six years in prison, despite glaring problems with his prosecution. His arrest resulted from accusations by two criminals Bolden had sent to prison. In Bolden's first trial, an apparently biased judge told the jury that Bolden was guilty, even before they began their deliberations. Though granted a new trial because of that, the same problematic judge was assigned to oversee Bolden's second trial, which resulted in his conviction. Later, the main witness against Bolden admitted committing perjury against him. A key member of the prosecution even took the fifth when asked about the perjury. Yet Bolden's appeals were denied, and he had to serve hard time in prison, and today is considered a convicted felon.
After the release of four million pages of JFK assassination files in the 1990s, it became clear that Bolden -- and the official secrecy surrounding the Chicago attempt against JFK -- were due to National Security concerns about Cuba, that were unknown to Bolden, the press, Congress, and the public not just in 1963, but for the next four decades.
SNIP...
Abraham Bolden paid a heavy price for trying to tell the truth about events involving the man he was sworn to protect -- JFK -- that became mired in National Security concerns. Bolden still lives in Chicago, and has never given up trying to clear his name.
Will Abraham Bolden live to finally see the justice so long denied to him?
CONTINUED...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/after-45-years-a-civil-ri_b_213834.html
After the assassination, he went to Washington on his own dime and reported what he saw to the Warren Commission. For his trouble -- and despite an exemplary record as a Brinks detective, Illinois State Trooper, and Secret Service agent -- Bolden was framed by the government using a paid informant's admitted perjury and spent a long time in prison. The government also drugged him and put him into psychiatric hospitals. His real crime was telling the truth.
Ask Don Siegelman, the truth is something more people should try. Thank you for caring about it, Brother bobthedrummer.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)And for a brief time, one of the segments of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" brought up questions that were removed.
Why is Lee Oswalds' school record something to be kept hidden, reasoned by "national security"?
If I could have one wish, it would be to release all the records that would only shed light on much of the Kennedy assassination. None of it has ever made sense to be hidden from the public.
Aren't we getting way past the point of being satisfied with it being non of the public's right to know? It would only shed light on it. What threat to national security are any of the hidden documents?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)By Bertrand Russell
The Minority of One, 6 September 1964, pp. 6-8
The official version of the assassination of President Kennedy has been so riddled with contradictions that it is been abandoned and rewritten no less than three times. Blatant fabrications have received very widespread coverage by the mass media, but denials of these same lies have gone unpublished. Photographs, evidence and affidavits have been doctored out of recognition. Some of the most important aspects of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald have been completely blacked out. Meanwhile, the F.B.I., the police and the Secret Service have tried to silence key witnesses or instruct them what evidence to give. Others involved have disappeared or died in extraordinary circumstances.
It is facts such as these that demand attention, and which the Warren Commission should have regarded as vital. Although I am writing before the publication of the Warren Commissions report, leaks to the press have made much of its contents predictable. Because of the high office of its members and the fact of its establishment by President Johnson, the Commission has been widely regarded as a body of holy men appointed to pronounce the truth. An impartial examination of the composition and conduct of the Commission suggests quite otherwise.
SNIP...
If the composition of the Commission was suspect, its conduct confirmed ones worst fears. No counsel was permitted to act for Oswald, so that cross-examination was barred. Later, under pressure, the Commission appointed the President of the American Bar Association, Walter Craig, one of the supporters of the Goldwater movement in Arizona, to represent Oswald. To my knowledge, he did not attend hearings, but satisfied himself with representation by observers.
In the name of national security, the Commissions hearings were held in secret, thereby continuing the policy which has marked the entire course of the case. This prompts my second question: If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security? Indeed, precisely the same question must be put here as was posed in France during the Dreyfus case: If the Government is so certain of its case, why has it conducted all its inquiries in the strictest secrecy?
SNIP...
In order to retain the basis of all official thinking, that Oswald was the lone assassin, it now became necessary to construct a third theory with the medical evidence altered to fit it. For the first month no Secret Service agent had ever spoken to the three doctors who had tried to save Kennedys life in the Parkland Memorial Hospital. Now two agents spent three hours with the doctors and persuaded them that they were all misinformed: the entrance wound in the Presidents throat had been an exit wound, and the bullet had not ranged down towards the lungs. Asked by the press how they could have been so mistaken, Dr. McClelland advanced two reasons: they had not seen the autopsy reportand they had not known that Oswald was behind the President! The autopsy report, they had been told by the Secret Service, showed that Kennedy had been shot from behind. The agents, however, had refused to show the report to the doctors, who were entirely dependent on the word of the Secret Service for this suggestion. The doctors made it clear that they were not permitted to discuss the case. The third theory, with the medical evidence rewritten, remains the basis of the case against Oswald at this moment. Why has the medical evidence concerning the Presidents death been altered out of recognition?
CONTINUED...
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/sixteenQues.htm
Thank you for understanding -- and remembering, MrMickeysMom. When it comes to truth regarding the JFK assassination, the nation's news media are AWOL. That's why so much disinformation -- they can't WAIT for those who remember to shut up or shuffle off.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)post-ers here.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)JFK ordered withdrawal from Vietnam. LBJ reversed it four days after Dallas.
The 1,000 advisors were the beginning. All US military personnel were to be out of the country by the end of 1965, reported James K. Galbraith.
Then in NSAM 273, four days after the assassination in Dallas, LBJ changes the policy to stay and support South Vietnam in its "contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy."
Very much appreciate that you know what's at stake is democracy. The farthest-travelling person at yesterday's Thanksgiving Dinner was my cousin's widow. He was a US Army doctor in Vietnam. Spent half the time in the field. He made it home, miraculously.
I recall days when the US Government was "We the People." Call me crazy, but I really am out for the "Fawning Acolytes". They may not remember or been around then, but they believe in DEMOCRACY. Thank you for being one, Mc Mike.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)The Nation article link was good reading, I especially liked the sub-link exposing the genesis of the fake charges of peace activists spitting on returning combat vets. And I enjoyed the Salandria piece in your sig line link, too. I've read a bit about him, but almost nothing by him.
I'm glad your cousin's spouse made it through the Viet debacle. And I spotted the 'fawning acolyte' charge in the other link. Whatta yutz.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 27, 2015, 08:35 PM - Edit history (1)
Very, very bad things. Like treason.
This writer sheds light on the Org designed to keep Poppy's CIA "open for business" during the Carter years. It also sheds light on why things never really change, such as wars without end and trickle-down economics:
A NEW BIOGRAPHY TRACES THE PATHOLOGY OF ALLEN DULLES AND HIS APPALLING CABAL
by Jon Schwarz
The Intercept, Nov. 2 2015, 1:24 p.m.
EXCERPT...
Because what the Safari Club demonstrates is that Dulles entire spooky world is beyond the reach of American democracy. Even the most energetic post-World War II attempt to rein it in was in the end as effective as trying to lasso mist. And today weve largely returned to the balance of power Dulles set up in the 1950s. As Jay Rockefeller said in 2007 when he was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dont you understand the way intelligence works? Do you think that because Im chairman of the Intelligence Committee that I just say I want it, give it to me? They control it. All of it. All of it. All the time.
In February 2002, Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal, head of Saudi intelligence from 1977 until September 1, 2001, traveled to Washington, D.C. While there, Turki, whod graduated from Georgetown University in the same class as Bill Clinton, delivered a speech at his alma mater that included an unexpected history lesson:
In 1976, after the Watergate matters took place here, your intelligence community was literally tied up by Congress. It could not do anything. It could not send spies, it could not write reports, and it could not pay money. In order to compensate for that, a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran so, the Kingdom, with these countries, helped in some way, I believe, to keep the world safe when the United States was not able to do that. That, I think, is a secret that many of you dont know.
Turki was not telling the whole truth. He was right that his Georgetown audience likely had never heard any of this before, but the Safari Club had been known across the Middle East for decades. After the Iranian revolution the new government gave Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, one of the most prominent journalists in the Arab world, permission to examine the Shahs archives. There Heikal discovered the actual formal, written agreement between the members of the Safari Club, and wrote about it in a 1982 book called Iran: The Untold Story.
And the Safari Club was not simply the creation of the countries Turki mentioned Americans were involved as well. Its true the U.S. executive branch was somewhat hamstrung during the period between the post-Watergate investigations of the intelligence world and the end of the Carter administration. But the powerful individual Americans who felt themselves literally tied up by Congress that is, unfairly restrained by the most democratic branch of the U.S. government certainly did not consider the decisions of Congress to be the final word.
Whatever its funding sources, the evidence suggests the Safari Club was largely the initiative of these powerful Americans. According to Heikal, its real origin was when Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, talked a number of rich Arab oil countries into bankrolling operations against growing communist influence on their doorstep in Africa. Alexandre de Marenches, a right-wing aristocrat who headed Frances version of the CIA, eagerly formalized the project and assumed operational leadership. But, Heikal writes, The United States directed the whole operation, and giant U.S. and European corporations with vital interests in Africa leant a hand. As John K. Cooley, the Christian Science Monitors longtime Mideast correspondent, put it, the setup strongly appealed to the U.S. executive branch: Get others to do what you want done, while avoiding the onus or blame if the operation fails.
This all seems like something Americans would like to know, especially since de Marenches may have extended his covert operations to the 1980 U.S. presidential election. In 1992, de Marenches biographer testified in a congressional investigation that the French spy told him that he had helped arrange an October 1980 meeting in Paris between William Casey, Ronald Reagans 1980 campaign manager, and the new Islamic Republic of Iran. The goal of such a meeting, of course, would have been to persuade Iran to keep its American hostages until after the next months election, thus denying Carter any last-minute, politically potent triumph.
De Marenches and the Safari Club certainly had a clear motive to oust Carter: They blamed him for allowing one of their charter members, the Shah, to fall from power. But whether de Marenches claims were true or not, we do know that history unfolded exactly as he and the Safari Club would have wished. The hostages werent released until Reagan was inaugurated, Reagan appointed Casey director of the CIA, and from that point forward Americas intelligence community was back in business.
And yet normal citizens would have a hard time just finding out the Safari Club even existed, much less the outlines of its activities. It appears to have been mentioned just once by the New York Times, in a profile of a French spy novelist. It likewise has made only one appearance in the Washington Post, in a 2005 online chat in which a reader asked the Posts former Middle East bureau chief Thomas Lippman, Does the Safari Club, formed in the mid-70s, still exist? Lippman responded: I never heard of it, so I have no idea.
CONTINUED...
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/02/the-deepest-state-the-safari-club-allen-dulles-and-the-devils-chessboard/
When Carter's CIA director, Adm. Stansfield Turner, tossed out the bad apples, rogues, etc. -- Poppy was ticked. They were his chums. So, the petrodollar-connected friends found a work-around. Voila! The hostages are held past the election and Pruneface and Poppy are back in the White House, brought there by the Safari Club, the stay-behind-in-secret-government-office friends of Bill Casey.
Of course, that was how much of the illegal got institutionalized.
The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld
By Prof Peter Dale Scott
Global Research, March 10, 2014
The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 12, Issue 10, No. 5
EXCERPT...
The Safari Club Milieu: George H.W. Bush, Theodore Shackley, and BCCI
The usual account of this super-agencys origin is that it was
the brainchild of Count Alexandre de Marenches, the debonair and mustachioed chief of Frances CIA. The SDECE (Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage) . Worried by Soviet and Cuban advances in postcolonial Africa, and by Americas post-Watergate paralysis in the field of undercover activity, the swashbuckling Marenches had come to Turkis father, King Faisal, with a proposition . [By 1979] Somali president Siad Barre had been bribed out of Soviet embrace by $75 million worth of Egyptian arms (paid for by Saudi Arabia) .95
Joseph Trento adds that The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations, With the official blessing of George Bush as the head of the CIA, Adham transformed the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a worldwide money-laundering machine..96
Trento claims also that the Safari Club then was able to work with some of the controversial CIA operators who were then forced out of the CIA by Turner, and that this was coordinated by perhaps the most controversial of them all: Theodore Shackley.
Shackley, who still had ambitions to become DCI, believed that without his many sources and operatives like [Edwin] Wilson, the Safari Cluboperating with [former DCI Richard] Helms in charge in Tehranwould be ineffective. Unless Shackley took direct action to complete the privatization of intelligence operations soon, the Safari Club would not have a conduit to [CIA] resources. The solution: create a totally private intelligence network using CIA assets until President Carter could be replaced.97
Kevin Phillips has suggested that Bush on leaving the CIA had dealings with the bank most closely allied with Safari Club operations: the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). In Phillips words,
After leaving the CIA in January 1977, Bush became chairman of the executive committee of First International Bancshares and its British subsidiary, where, according to journalists Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin in their 1992 book False Profits [p. 345], Bush traveled on the banks behalf and sometimes marketed to international banks in London, including several Middle Eastern institutions.98
Joseph Trento adds that through the London branch of this bank, which Bush chaired, Adhams petrodollars and BCCI money flowed for a variety of intelligence operations99
It is clear moreover that BCCI operations, like Khashoggis before them, were marked by the ability to deal behind the scenes with both the Arab countries and also Israel.100
It is clear that for years the American deep state in Washington was both involved with and protected BCCI. Acting CIA director Richard Kerr acknowledged to a Senate Committee that the CIA had also used BCCI for certain intelligence-gathering operations.101
Later, a congressional inquiry showed that for more than ten years preceding the BCCI collapse in the summer of 1991, the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, the Customs Service, and the Department of Justice all failed to act on hundreds of tips about the illegalities of BCCIs international activities.102
Far less clear is the attitude taken by Wall Street banks towards the miscreant BCCI. The Senate report on BCCI charged however that the Bank of England had withheld information about BCCIs frauds from public knowledge for 15 months before closing the bank.103
CONTINUED...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-state-the-deep-state-and-the-wall-street-overworld/5372843
Then how about the time in Dallas, when the President said we weren't going to go into Vietnam?
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Thank you, bobthedrummer, for your kind support and brave contributions to truth and democracy. You are both teacher and patriot.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Talk about an act of terrorism.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It's likely her story is known by fewer than a couple of thousand Americans, rather than the majority of Americans a functioning news media with integrity would inform.
The Railroading of LCDR Terri Pike
By William Kelly
Oct. 17, 2011
EXCERPT...
The ARRB meeting report said that, Pike explained that most of the relevant records they found were discovered by accident; that is to say, they were misfiled in boxes outside where they should have been. This is important for two reasons. 1) If they had been filed where they should have been, they would have been routinely destroyed by this point, and 2) as they continue their review of the approximately 900 cu feet of records they have self-identified, they expect they might well continue to discover records of interest to us...LCDR Pike further stated that ONI remained responsible for searching an additional 950 cubic feet of records located in Suitland, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco, and stated those searches were scheduled for completion during fiscal year 97..."
LCDR Pike Faxed the ARRB; indicating that she had finished a declassification review of the.8 cubic feet of defector records, and had prepared a page-by-page index of same. She indicated that transmittal of these documents would occur in the near future.
That appears to be the beginning of the end of such cooperation and the end of LCDR Terri Pike, as there are two different copies of this meeting report in two different typefaces, one with the first sentence of the fourth paragraph highlighted by two circles on one and completely redacted in the other. The line redacted reads: There are a total of 18 folders of material which ONI has determined should go into the JFK collection and have earmarked for delivery to us... Another redacted paragraph follows: Pike said that ONI is going through review of all records covered by the EO; in most cases, they have been willing to release in full about 96% of the documents. She said that for the other 4% they expected that the Board has the power to overrule them anyway, but they had to at least make the request. [Ed. Note: this implies that they might perhaps be resigned to losing some of the information they want to protect and would not appeal a Board decision to release some of this information.].
The redacted paragraph reads: Pike concluded her report by suggesting that we might find more of the records we suggested we wanted in BG38 the records of the CNO. She said that currently ONI is currently organizing a review team...to look through this group...however, ARRB staff may also wish to personally review these records for relevant material. She suggested that changes in alert status, etc. might also be found in CNO records...
CONTINUED...
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2011/10/railroading-of-lcdr-terri-pike-over.html
FTR: Bill Kelly is a DUer.
For some reason, the Press doesn't spend much energy informing the public the United States government is still hiding JFK assassination information from the American people, even though the Federal courts have ordered the release of the information. In the above example, LCDR Terri Pike was reprimanded after she discovered records of what the Office of Naval Intelligence knew about Oswald's "defection" to the USSR. For doing her duty, she was drummed out of the United States Navy.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Great post!
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)"It would be very, very bad to have a rash of investigations." -- J Edgar Hoover
The guy on the left was the one who didn't believe in the Mafia until New York State troopers showed him the license plates from Appalachin. He used a bullet proof car, but never mentioned to JFK he needed one.
The guy on the right was the one who swore North Vietnam attacked the United States in the Gulf of Tonkin and used it as justification to reverse JFK's policy and insert draftee combat troops of the USA into the middle of Vietnam's civil war.
They're the ones who ask us to believe their story -- their theory -- that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Audio flashback: On November 29, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson and FBI Director J Edgar Hoover discussed how to investigate the mysterious assassination of President Kennedy.
"What do you think of Allen Dulles?"
nikto
(3,284 posts)Almost every page has a new OMG detail or disclosure.
Dulles was one of the most evil Americans, ever.
Sounds like Dulles was the natural ancestor of today's corporate, war-loving Neocons.
The added irony is that many of the Neocons are Jewish, and Dulles was an oldtime
WASP blueblood anti-semite.
But both share the same philosophy and vision of American Corporate dominance
in the world.
The nadir of human corruption and sleaze, IMO.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Talbot wrote a book for the ages. The fact Corporate McPravda is blacking out coverage shows its importance.
You might enjoy TUC Radio and its report from a book signing discussion in San Francisco. Peter Dale Scott interviews Talbot and discuss the Deep State.
http://www.tucradio.org/new.html
Thank you for caring about Justice and Democracy, nikto.