The Invasion of Cuba: Never the Intention of JFK Hit Sponsors

[Jim DiEugenio]

Jim - in Talbot's Brothers, he does describe Sheridan acting on behalf of RFK (at least partly) during the Garrison investigation.

I know that.

Tracy, did you read my review of Talbot's book. I took him to task for that.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Jim,

Anthony Summers is now posting (at least a few recent posts) on the EF. He has made some changes to his updated, newest version of Not In Your Lifetime. All the changes seem to be what I've termed "neo-con" type thinking- moving away from evidence that supports conspiracy. I asked him a few questions, like who he believed killed JFK, and who covered it up, but he hasn't answered yet. I think he now believes Oswald shot Tippit, as he was evidently impressed by the research of Dale Myers. He also was converted on the Clinton witnesses issue by the work of one of your favorites, Patricia Lambert. None of this makes any sense- real researchers should be more sure than ever there was a powerful conspiracy.

Yes, I am aware of this.

And I don't think its a coincidence that he did this for the 50th.

Summers has always been one who likes to be in the MSM limelight. And he is familiar with what it takes to get there. Even if the MSM is dying a slow death.

So he gets rid of the Garrison stuff, teams up with the likes of Lambert, publicizes a witness interview with Blakey, gets it in the Enquirer and presto: I'm available for the 50th.

I never understood why he changed the title of his book. Now I am beginning to understand. Even when the discoveries of the ARRB have made the case for a conspiracy even stronger, he still won't go back to that old title. And he still publicizes his relationship with Blakey.

Some people have encouraged me to do a column on this. I think I will.

[Tracy Riddle]

Yes, I read your review of Brothers, though I'll have to go back and refresh my memory. One thing drives out another, as they say.

Summers said he never wanted the title "Conspiracy" (it was chosen by his original publisher), and he changed it when he had the opportunity.

[Jim DiEugenio]

In the original book entitled Conspiracy, Summers' clearly outlines outlines a plot to kill Kennedy.

That plot includes segments of the Mafia, the CIA and Cuban exiles. Its the plot described by Jim Garrison is his interview with Russell in, I think Harper's in 1976.

Now, if your book is about that, and in fact that is what Conspiracy is about, then what is so bad about the title? Why change it to some nebulous, indefinite saying by Warren which translates into:


WE ARE NEVER GOING TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!

Know what I say to that? Horse crap.

Summers' book, which I liked in its original form, in its various revisions, has become weaker and weaker as time has gone on. I couldn't even read the thing by the nineties. It had become that diluted.

This is what happens when one is concerned with being an MSM darling. Which he has always been.

And one other thing: according to Paul Hoch, Summers was instrumental in putting together the Bugliosi/Spence debacle in London. Thanks Tony.

[Jim Hargrove]

Sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious to everyone, but let me just quickly review some highlights of the attempt to blame the assassination on Cuba.

1. In August, an Oswald gets himself arrested for handing out Fair Play for Cuba Committee literature. As part of the setup, the CIA's Clay Shaw probably gets Oswald involved with the FBI's Guy Banister. The association of Oswald with both the CIA and the FBI is enough to put an investigation into cover-up mode right from the start, no other ingredients required.

2. In September, an Oswald approaches Castro's personal friend and gun supplier Robert McKeown and offers to pay up to three times the retail price for four Savage automatic rifles. No doubt one of these rifles was supposed to have appeared at the assassination scene instead of a certain Italian carbine.

3. An Oswald or two visit Mexico City to try to travel on to Cuba and, we're told, one of them shouts about killing Kennedy outside the Cuban Consulate.

4. Days later, an Oswald applies for a job at Continental Oil and tells the the interviewer he had tried to visit Cuba a few days earlier.

5. In November, a note signed "Lee Oswald" is slipped under the door of the President of the Cuban Liberation Committee.

6. An hour after an Oswald's arrest, Hoover writes, "Oswald made several trips to Cuba...."

7. At Dallas Police HQ, Ruby corrects Henry Wade's reference to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

And on and on. Even people who believe the assassination was all about the Russian bogey-man and proxy wars in S.E. Asia will probably admit that there were people among the rabid anti-Castro immigrants and the CIA personnel who supported them who hated Kennedy for his decisions about the Bay of Pigs and for whatever they may have known about agreements following the missile crisis. For them, this issue wasn't just about the care and feeding of the Warfare State. It was personal.

Was President Kennedy moderating his Cold War views toward the end of his life? Clearly. Had he decided to wind down the campaign against North Vietnam late in his life? The record seems to indicates so. Did LBJ reverse that policy? Obviously. Was a significant portion of military brass ready to go to war in SE Asia? Yes, again... BUT....

Where is any real non-circumstantial evidence that the whole blame-Castro-for-the-assassination setup was merely Phase One in a larger plan? To me, the case for that is surely possible, but not compelling.

Jim

[R.K. Locke]

Just to be clear, Peter Dale Scott's "phase one" hypothesis is not specific to Cuba alone. What he actually argues is that phase one stories were floated to link Oswald to the idea of an "international Communist conspiracy", thus ensuring that phase two (the "lone nut" scenario) could be implemented without dissent from politicians who might otherwise seek to hold the intelligence community to account.


That being said, it is interesting to consider just howthe rabidly anti-Castro elements who were undoubtedly involved in the assassination were placated after the event, especially when they realised that no invasion of Cuba was to be forthcoming.

[R.K. Locke]

Interesting post. I think that G.M Evica was right to state that Rockefeller was essentially the Establishment front man for a plot that transcended national borders and Cold War differences. This is where the Sponsorship level of the assassination truly lies in my opinion (although it must be remembered that the individuals in question are in many ways simply the latest manifestation of a phenomenon that has been with us for millennia...)




This is what I am beginning to lean to today. That is was not just about Cuba, not even just about Vietnam, not just about detente with USSR. But including all of that and more. That was the idea behind my talk in Pittsburgh, which i will be repeating in Dallas.

And it goes to the heart of who Kennedy really was and the battle over his image. Which is as bitterly fought over as the forensics of the JFK case. And which many people on our side do not fully understand. E.g. Anthony Summers.

Jim, I think you are definitely heading in the right direction with this approach.

Globalism and "Free Trade" have been the dominant ideologies of the transnational ruling classes for a long time, and Kennedy was stalling those agendas in a big way. He was also attempting to reign in big business within the U.S. and was promoting always bad-for-business ideas of peace, neutrality and national sovereignty. A dangerous mix.

The story of Watergate and the takedown of Nixon can also be viewed through the same lens. See this video interview with Jon Rappoport (from about 10 minutes onwards) for a detailed explication of this idea:

[video=youtube_share;XBZzu7q67AQ]http://youtu.be/XBZzu7q67AQ[/video]

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Summers has changed some parts of his book as presented in http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/jfk-ed...-the-crap/

He congratulates Dale Myers for his work on Tippit, he has dropped the Clinton incident and downplayed Ferrie's importance and "...demolishing much of the shaky stuff propagated since the Garrison circus."
I have ordered his book and i am awaiting to read it. It seems that there is a new wave of thinking, by researchers who think of themselves as the "factual" researchers in contrast to the "conspiracy theorists" who have failed in their approach as much as the LN proponents. This new wave thinking promises to bring a change in approach that will replace the outdated approach of the "conspiracy theorists" who have failed to prove anything. They also believe that nothing is certain, some of them believe that the case will never be solved, and they mock Garrrison and his importance. They also pay too much importance to hidden documents that may or may not prove anything sinister, while ignoring the rest of the evidence. I am curious as to where this new thinking will lead us to.

[Tracy Riddle]

Many researchers have not studied the Tippit murder in much detail, and Myers' book is superficially convincing. Except that he ignores a lot of his own evidence, and if you really know the case, you realize there is a lot more to it.

A lot of "hard headed journalists" like Summers also put too much faith in government documents. Some of them may have been fabricated back in the day, and the really incriminating ones were probably destroyed.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Wow.

He congratulates Myers for his work on Tippit?!

Does he now say Oswald shot Tippit?

That is just nutty in light of the recovered wallet and the work on the timing by Ernest and McBride.

OMG, Tony Summers in cahoots with Reitzes and Myers.

How would have ever thought it.