+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Lyndon Johnson and Allen Dulles as co-CEOs of the JFK Assassination (/thread-5259.html)
Lyndon Johnson and Allen Dulles as co-CEOs of the JFK Assassination - Robert Morrow - 05-01-2011
A very prominent JFK assasssination researcher told me in the past year that it could very well be a case of Allen Dulles and Lyndon Johnson as co-CEOs of the JFK assassination. That is pretty much what I think, with the shadow government of a handful of Texas oil barons and the Rockefellers, especially Nelson, giving Lyndon Johnson and Allen Dulles their full support. Lyndon Johnson and his close ties to the inner circle of post-WWII US intelligence at the highest levels is the key to the JFK assassination - that means folks like Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, and John J. McCloy.
I think it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that Lyndon Johnson's #1 pick for president in spring, 1968 was Republican Nelson Rockefeller.
Whenever I think of Allen Dulles, I think of how he built the CIA, hated John Kennedy and was handing out books to Warren Commission members on the FIRST day and telling them all US political assassinations were the work of lone nuts. THAT ALONE is enough to make a citizen's arrest of Allen Dulles for the JFK assassination.
So, lets look at the Allen Dulles angle possibility put forth by Jim DiEugenio:
JIM DIEUGENIO ON ALLEN DULLES:
1. Dulles was the most active member of the Warren Commission. This is deduced by his appearances and number of questions according to Walt Brown in The Warren Omission.
2. Through the Morgan empire, the Dulles brothers were in on the formation of the CFR.
3. At Sullivan and Cromwell, Allen's value was in his services derived from overseas connections to top clients like United Fruit, and DuPont. (Mosley, p. 77) For example, in 1932 he saved a rich oil and mineral field for the Mellon family when he rigged the Colombian presidential elections by bribing one of the candidates. (Lisagor and Lipsius, p. 129) It is these types of clients that Allen would stay loyal to when he became CIA Director by arranging things like the Guatemala coup in 1954 for United Fruit.
4. Dulles revolutionized the CIA, and it became his baby.
It was Dulles who began the Agency's specialty of engineering the overthrows of governments who wanted to keep their natural resources for themselves i.e. Iraq in 1953, Guatemala in 1954. It was under Dulles that the CIA began its program of executive action against nationalist heads of state in the resource rich Third World e.g. plotting the murder of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo. It was under Dulles that the concept of preparing lists of those to be killed after a coup became established doctrine. (See here) And it was under Dulles that men willing to do this kind of dirty work now rose in the Agency e.g. David Phillips and Howard Hunt. Dulles originated the CIA's use of religious groups as cover organizations. Dulles began the systematic process of using the media to disguise these lethal actions and keep them from the public. That particular project was called Operation Mockingbird. As Director, Dulles' worst traits had free rein because his brother was Secretary of State and Foster had strong influence over President Eisenhower.
5. What is extraordinary about what Dulles did with the CIA is that it was too much for even certain elements of the Eastern Establishment i.e. the very people who Dulles worked with and for. In 1956, David Bruce and Robert Lovett composed the Bruce-Lovett Report on the CIA for President Eisenhower. That report is almost nowhere to be found today. RFK had access to it during his service on the board of inquiry into the Bay of Pigs debacle. Bruce and Lovett had served on the forerunner of what came to be known as the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board: a group of private citizens meant to monitor American intelligence activities abroad.
Lovett told the Cuban board that, "I have never felt that the Congress of the United States ever intended to give the United States Intelligence Agency authority to conduct operations all over the earth." (ibid) Lovett's report and testimony held great sway with the Kennedys. In fact, Joseph Kennedy was so impressed by working with Lovett that he urged JFK to offer him a top job in his Cabinet. After his Bay of Pigs testimony, President Kennedy called Lovett in for a private meeting. He told the president that the CIA was "badly organized, dangerously amateurish and excessively costly." It had to be re-organized, which wasn't possible with Eisenhower as president and Dulles as Director. (ibid p. 478)
There can be little doubt that Lovett's testimony and his relationship with Kennedy's father helped convince JFK to fire Allen Dulles. How important was it? Lovett's influence was so profound that after JFK fired Dulles, Robert Kennedy was determined to find out if any other relative of Dulles was still at the State Department. When he found out that Allen's sister Eleanor worked there, he ordered Dean Rusk to fire her. Because "he didn't want any more of the Dulles family around." (Mosley, p. 473)
This is the man LBJ appointed to the Warren Commission. As shown above, he became the most active member of that cover-up. And it started almost immediately. At the Commission's second meeting he urged the Commissioners to read a book by Robert Donovan that depicted " a pattern running through" American assassinations "that I think we'll find in this present case." Namely, they are the work of one man. (12/16 transcript, p. 52) Dulles also backed the idea of the Commission not having independent investigators. (DiEugenio, p. 90)
6. It later turned out that Dulles had nothing but scorn for both the evidence and critical arguments against the Oswald-did-it hypothesis. In 1965, at UCLA, David Lifton questioned Dulles about the Zapruder film and Harold Feldman's essay entitled "51 Witnesses" about many witnesses hearing a shot from the grassy knoll. Dulles not only denied that evidence, he ridiculed Lifton for even bringing it up. He said bizarre things like "There is not a single iota of evidence indicating a conspiracy." When Lifton pointed out testimony, and even pictures, of smoke arising on the grassy knoll, Dulles derisively replied with, "Now what are you saying, someone was smoking up there?" When Lifton brought up Feldman's essay, Dulles even though he knew full well about it asked him where it was published. When Lifton answered, Dulles replied, with ridicule: "The Nation! Ha, ha, ha, ha , ha." When Lifton showed him frames from the Zapruder film arranged in sequential order to show Kennedy's head going back toward the seat the opposite direction of a shot from the Texas School Book Depository Dulles said: "You have nothing! Absolutely nothing! ... I can't see a blasted thing here. You can't say the head goes back. I can't see it going back. It does not go back. You can't say that." Dulles then tried to neutralize this Z film argument by tendentiously saying he had never heard it before. (Best Evidence, pgs. 34-36) When, of course, the Commission had seen the film dozens of times. They just did not feel that powerful evidence, like Kennedy's violent reaction backwards, merited mention in the Warren Report.
7. Although Dulles was married, he had multiple affairs throughout his life. One of his lengthier dalliances was with Mary Bancroft. He met her in Switzerland and brought her into the OSS. (Mosley, pgs 170-71) Mary Bancroft admitted that she was friends from an early age with Ruth Forbes Paine. (George Michael Evica, A Certain Arrogance, p. 234) In fact, Mary Bancroft and Ruth Forbes remained friends for a very long time. So when she divorced her first husband, Ruth and her new husband Arthur Young were still friendly with Bancroft. (ibid) Ruth Forbes was the mother of Michael Paine, and mother-in-law to Ruth Paine. This was the Quaker couple who befriended the Oswalds in 1963 and separated Marina from Lee after their return to Dallas from New Orleans. After Oswald's arrest, that separation enabled Ruth to have much control over Oswald's possessions, which were left in the Paine garage. Some of this turned into dubious, yet incriminating evidence against him e.g. the infamous backyard photographs.
In light of the Bancroft-Paine relationship, I have always found the following quote by and about Dulles to be interesting and provocative: "Dulles joked in private that the [JFK] conspiracy buffs would have had a field day if they had known ... he had actually been in Dallas three weeks before the murder ... that one of Mary Bancroft's childhood friends had turned out to be a landlady for Marina Oswald ... and that the landlady was a well-known leftist with distant ties to the family of Alger Hiss." (Evica, p. 230) Dulles had a weird sense of humor. To some, those facts are no laughing matter.
8. In addition to being in Dallas three weeks before the assassination, Lisa Pease has discovered another curious location for Dulles on the actual day of the assassination. According to notes written on his calendar, Dulles happened to be at "the Farm". You have to know something about CIA shorthand to understand what that means. As Jim Hougan discovered, it can actually refer to two places: the CIA training facility in Camp Peary, Virginia, or Mitch Werbell's sixty acre weapons development laboratory in Georgia. (Hougan, Spooks, p. 29) As Hougan notes, the confusion in the names is deliberate. For Werbell was a wizard in creating lethal weapons to be used in counter-insurgency warfare and assassinations, neither of which the CIA wanted to be openly involved with. In discussing a silencer created by Werbell, Hougan noted the following: that the sound pattern created in Dealey Plaza with shots heard in two directions could well have been created by two teams using Werbell's partial directional silencers. (ibid, p. 36) It would be interesting to hear Dulles explain why he was at either place on that day. Especially since he was not employed by the CIA anymore.
9.. But someone else saw Truman's column and had a different reaction. In April of 1964, while serving on the Commission, Allen Dulles arranged to meet Truman at his home. After exchanging formalities, Dulles had arranged for his assistants to leave the room. Dulles then did two things: 1.) He tried to soften Truman up by telling him how much he admired him for setting down the Truman Doctrine after World War II, and 2.) He tried to say that what he covertly did as CIA Director was only a natural evolution of the Truman Doctrine. In short: guilt by association. Dulles then pulled out the real reason for why he was there. He took out the December 22nd editorial and said that, consequently, Truman's editorial "seemed to be a misrepresentation of his position."
As the meeting ended and his associates rejoined the two men, Dulles explicitly praised John McCone, the man JFK picked to succeed to his office after Kennedy fired him. But as of yet, there had been no explicit mention of President Kennedy himself. Dulles now did so, and in a startling way. As he was leaving, he mentioned the "false attacks" on CIA in relation to Vietnam and how Kennedy had repudiated those attacks. This last statement suggests that Dulles harbored suspicions that this dispute was why Truman wrote the editorial.
Dulles concludes the memo by saying he was not sure "what will come of all this. It is even possible, maybe probable, that he will do nothing when he thinks it over." He then suggests that Houston get the president's old pal Clark Clifford to contact Truman and perhaps even McCone should do so himself. He then tells Houston to show the memo to Richard Helms and Cord Meyer and perhaps they can do something with the Director.
The clear implication is that Dulles wanted Truman to either take back or soften his December editorial. If he didn't succeed, he wanted a phalanx of people to intervene: Clifford, Helms, Cord Meyer, even John McCone if necessary.
We now come to an utterly fascinating parting shot: Dulles bringing up the recent "false attacks" on CIA in relation to Vietnam. He's probably referring to the now-famous columns published in October and December of 1963. The October columns were penned by Arthur Krock and Richard Starnes for the NY Times and Washington Daily News. The December ones were by Starnes for the New York World-Telegram. Krock's piece mentioned a source in Vietnam who likened the CIA's growth "to a malignancy" which even the White House could not control. His source added that if the USA ever experienced a coup it would come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. Starnes' source said the same: "If the United States ever experiences a Seven Days in May it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon." In a column dated 12/11 Starnes explained how Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia was worried about certain CIA elements trying to overthrow him. Starnes later added that an Agency source told him he was appalled at what was going on in Southeast Asia, and questioned whether President Kennedy had had any "effective control over this monstrous bureaucracy." In a 12/3 column, Starnes questioned that with Dulles on the Commission, how could the truth about Oswald in the Soviet Union ever be known? Of course, Kennedy could not have repudiated the December columns, but I know of no place where he repudiated the October columns. In all probability, Dulles was trying to dupe Truman into issuing a retraction. But his actions are even more suggestive if he was referring to those columns; especially when one adds in the fact that he specifically mentioned Kennedy to Truman in regards to them. Because if one looks at the first generation of Kennedy assassination books, no one connected those dots Vietnam, those columns, JFK's death that early. Was Dulles trying to prevent anyone from doing so in the near future?
Any objective person would admit that this material on Dulles is relevant in evaluating the make-up of the Warren Commission. Especially since he became its most active member. The reader must pose the obvious question: Why did LBJ ask this guy to be on the Commission? To put it another way: If you were Oswald's defense lawyer, would Dulles be on the jury?
(Abridged from my Reclaiming History Review, Pt. 8)