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

[Ed Jewett]

[quote=Ed Jewett]

You thoughts, please.

Bear with me; this may take a bit. First, I ought now to go back and read the thread. Second, I'll need to pause for reflection and thought, as I may in deeper than I belong. Luckily, I just made a fresh cup of coffee.

Ed,

I can't imagine you being in over your head on this or any other subject on which you choose to opine.

Drink up, and get back to us when you can.

Respectfully,

Charlie

Thank you, sir. I shall try to live up to the compliment.

Two coffees with Kahlua later, here it is, as a starter. (In the long run, someone with some sophisticated software for mind-mapping, network charting, an an acumen for business research might get deeper...)



Wow! Having reviewed the thread, I can only first echo what I have said before. I am in disbelief that I am even here on this forum, let alone in this thread. It suggests I ought to withdraw and let the big boys play. I am limited for not having spent the time and depth that others have looking at the details (but then I was always struck by the Salandria caution about not getting trapped in the detail). I am also limited for not having perhaps a critical understanding of British cultural experience, milieu and nuance, since many of the participants here are in or from the UK. I do have to laugh (and probably agree) with the suggested Peter Dale Scott theory of ‘throw a rock and hit a narco-trafficker’ (more about which later).

I come to the question late, ‘tainted’ by the many events since 11/22/63 (but then perhaps that has informed me as well). While I was alive then, I didn’t begin studying JFK (and then only as a reader of books) until I was well beyond college; I had the time then. But I’ve lived through the history and now am post-9/11, and look at things to a great extent through that lens. So I am coming at this question of sponsorship from a “stand-off” position and, to a degree, intuition based on the intensity of my research since 9/11 on subjects tangential to the JFK questions.

With regard to the Evica/Drago "sponsor/facilitator/mechanic" template, I think I understand/understood Drago’s use of the word “sponsor”. I see that template as being relatively transparent: the mechanics are the shooters and their associates, the facilitators are the guys in charge of both the set-up of the stage and the takedown of the stage (and also critically involved in the cover-up, the propaganda and disinformation, etc.), and the sponsors are the folks whose shirt-cuffs will never be so much as dusty, the ones who winked at the right time, whose deep state or overworld machinations -- far removed from the visible inner circles of government agencies -- decide what shall happen (even if only in broad strokes, leaving the details to the facilitators and mechanics). Correct me, Charles, if I am wrong.

All that introductory “white bread” having been dispensed with, let me begin to build my thinking/awareness in the following way, all of which is focused on the Evica/Drago concept of “sponsor”:


#1) Douglass, in JFKU (Page 370), says:

“Even before his assassination took place, there was evidence that those in command of our security agencies may have already been thinking about whom they might have to kill next for the sake of the nation.”

Why do I choose that quote?

A) To zero in more thoroughly on the nature, depth and “command” of our security agencies….; it is a given that “intel” is now split among perhaps as many as 14-20 separate entities; this should be teased apart, charted, mapped and analyzed as a project for the future, and perhaps even retrospectively to see the nature, status, activity, power/salience, and “command” of what agencies existed in the early 60’s. Earlier in JFKU, Douglass drops what for me is a tantalizing “bone” when he mentions Naval Intelligence, in this case as the “cut-out” for Oswald after his arrest (page 366), as alleged by Marchetti, and also because of some possible role played by Naval Intelligence in other matters (ahem[/FONT]). Perhaps someone should look at or chart the frequency with which Naval ranks have provided the formal leaders of the CIA, the NSA, and the NSC. I also note the word “command” and go back to the earlier stated theory that said “command” actually existed outside the agency and well beyond the starred uniforms or others sitting in the chair behind the desk (more about which later).

B)To introduce my perspective or bias of looking at this thing backwards… i.e., from what we can see or discern about deep state/security state process and operations in the recent ten years to see if it illuminates what happened in Dallas. The idea of killing people for the good of the nation is now very much in the forefront, openly admitted and practiced (and most of us would likely adhere to some theory about multiple cases in the past). Thie approach is also used (albeit far more wisely and intensely) by Peter Dale Scott. The one resource of his I have at my fingertips is his book “The Road to 9/11”. (Maybe my lifetime will extend long enough for me to become intimately familiar with the rest of them. )[Scott’s glossary is here: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...t+glossary ]

From that book:

“The tension between an open public state and a closed deep state or security state existing within it is an old and widespread phenomenon. In the United States, it has become more acute since the beginning of the Cold War in the 1940s, when the investment firms of the Wall Street overworld provided President Harry Truman with his secretary of defense, James V. Forrestal. This same overworld provided them with both the ideas and the personnel for a new Central Intelligence Agency.” [Page 4]


“The overworld was clearly centered in Wall Street in the 1940s, and CIA was primarily designed there.”] [Page 6]


“The subordination of the flag to trade has satisfied most U.S. economic interests, or so-called traders, symbolized by Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations. But it also created a so-called Prussian backlash, especially in the military ….” [Page 8]

“From 1945 to 1947 elements in the U.S. Army conspired to maintain contacts with former German anti-communists in Europe and their German Army commander, General Reinhard Gehlen. Five men were involved, of whom three (William J. Donovan, Allen Dulles, and Frank Wisner) were representatives of the Wall Street overworld and also of the New York Social Register….

Although it took two years to overcome their opponents, the Wall Street lawyers and bankers in Truman’s administration succeeded in 1947 in establishing CIA…. This new agency … had been urged on Washington by the War-Peace Studies Project of the Council of Foreign Affairs in the early 1940s. [Footnote 40] It was reinforced by a report commissioned in 1945 by navy secretary James V. Forrestal. The report was written Ferdinand Eberstadt, who like Forrestal was a private Wall Street banker from the investment bank Dillon Read. [Footnote 41] [See below* for more about Dillon Read.]

As CIA director Richard Helms narrates in his memoirs, Allen Dulles (then a Republican lawyer at Sullivan and Cromwell in New York) was recruited in 1946 “to draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947. [Footnote 42] Dulles promptly formed an advisory group of six men, all but one of whom were Wall Street investment bankers or lawyers. [Footnote 43] In 1948, Forrestal appointed Dulles chairman of a committee, along with two other New York lawyers, to review CIA’s performance. [Footnote 44] “The three lawyers conferred for close to a year in one of the board rooms at J. H. Whitney,” another Wall Street investment firm. [Footnote 45]

In its first two decades, CIA, like its intellectual parent the Council on Foreign Relations, was dominated internally and externally by the aristocratic elements of the New York overworld. All seven of the known deputy directors of CIA during this period came from the same New York legal and financial circles; and six of them were listed in the New York Social Register as well. [Footnote 46] When joined by the young James Angleton, son of an international corporation executive, this early core became the basis for an inner “agency-within-an-agency” that survived into the 1960s**. [Footnote 47]

Within a year the NSC was authorizing covert operations overseas through CIA. In fact, these operations were being implemented by an even more secret group within CIA, the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC)….” [For the sake of brevity, I am leaving out the description of the “CIA success in Italy”, the election of a Christian democratic government.] “The wealthy industrialists in Milan were hesitant to provide the money, fearing reprisals if the Communists won, and so the hat was passed at the Brook Club in New York. But Allen Dulles felt the problem could not be handled effectively in private hands. He urged strongly that the government establish a covert organization. [Footnote 51]

This episode is instructive. The defense secretary felt the operation should be a private undertaking, but a private Wall Street lawyer (from the political party that was not currently in power) determined that it should be carried out by the government…..” [Pages 12-13]

With the exception of Footnote 43, I shall not replicate their text here, but if others feel it is important or useful and don’t have ready access to the book, drop a note in the thread.

Footnote 43 reads as follows:

“Helms with Hood, Look Over My Shoulder, 82-83; cf. Hersh, Old Boys, 185. The six were Kingman Douglass, managing partner of Dillon Read; Robert Lovett of Brown Brothers Harriman; William H. Jackson and Frank Wisner of Carter, Ledyard and Milburn; Paul Nitze of Dillon Read; and former Director of Central Intelligence Admiral Sidney Souers, who in 1946 retired to become a St. Louis investment banker.”


* A great deal of my perspective or intuition about question comes from “Dillon, Read and Co., Inc.: The Aristocracy of Stock Profits” by Catherine Austin Fitts, available online at http://www.dunwalke.com/ . Two elements of the story:

#1) “In June of 1999, Richard Grasso, Chairman of the New York stock exchange, went to Colombia to visit a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia Commander to encourage him to reinvest in the New York Stock Exchange ...”

#2) “John Birkelund arrived at Dillon Read in September 1981. Born in Glencoe, Illinois, he had graduated from Princeton and then had joined the Navy where he served with the Office of Naval Intelligence in Berlin. While in Europe he became friends with Edward Stinnes, who recruited him after a short career with Booz Allen in Chicago to work in New York for the Rothschild family, considered to be one of if not the wealthiest family in the world….. He started at Amsterdam Overseas Corporation, which then moved its venture capital business into New Court Securities with Birkelund as co-founder. New Court was owned by the Rothschild banks in Paris and London, Pierson Heldring Pierson in Amsterdam and the management. Their venture successes included Cray Research, inventor of the high-powered computers by that name, and Federal Express, the courier company based in Memphis which is the largest recipient of Federal government contracts in Tennessee. A Time Magazine story from December 1981, “The Rothschilds Are Roving” describes a decision by the French Rothschilds in response to the nationalization of Banque Rothschild by President Mitterrand to move significant operations and focus to the U.S. Time reports that they are changing the name of their aggressive venture capital firm, New Court Securities to Rothschild, Inc. and are taking over from the current CEO, John Birkelund.

** And beyond? I note simply that Reagan’s DCI was the former chairman of the SEC. In addition, there is further niblets available inside “the Lynx Lair”, a collection of material wondering out loud if there was a connection between Iran-Contra, 9/11 and the recent bailouts in the U.S. That can be accessed here: http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Un...topic=7553

Look there and elsewhere for material on:

• Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, CEO of American International Group (AIG);
  
• John Negroponte;
  
• Admiral Poindexter;
  
• Indications of computerized machinations in, on and around Wall Street;
  
• Ed Encho’s four-part series on MainCore;
  
• Steve Kangas’ work, The Origins of the Overclass; while some would say that the title suggests that the CIA created the overclass, not that the overclass created the CIA, the materials inside the Lynx Lair suggest that the CIA succeeds in perpetuating and insulating the overclass by acting as its intelligence/operations network in Gladio-like methods, commercial or industrial espionage, economic warfare by multiple means (including the now-critical field of "black" or stealth software), and "wet" executive actions;
  
• Kennedy’s own warning:
  

"...a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."

The broader section of somewhat-related threads is here: http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Un...wforum=163

What also clearly must be kept in mind, discussed to a great degree in Scott's "Road to 9/11", is that the internal "deep" battle for dominance of the American system after the Vietnam War era has been waged by multiple groups in a back-and-forth and evolving manner. The elements that function and battle now were not the same as those active in the early 60's. There are some subtle links and nuances, but we are cautioned to maintain clarity of a precise and crystalline nature.