Evaluating the Case against LBJ

[Adele Edisen]

Adele

The photo date is in dispute. It may have been taken in 1960.

Dulles' visit to Ruth Paine was something he mentioned.

I don't insist Dulles went to LBJ's ranch in November 1963.

He was, however, in Dallas, and in typical AWD fashion, treats that cavalierly.

In the overall scheme of things we have a long view, at least a century to consider, from WW I to the present.

LBJ cannot stand on the manure mound of national shame for a day in 1963 and claim it.

POTUS himself would scoff, "You didn't build that. Someone else made that happen."

Phil,

I was asking Vasilios about Dulles at LBJ's ranch, and you gave that reference, so I was answering you, but not really, because I was making a general response to the reference. It wasn't your claim that Dulles had been at LBJ's ranch in November, 1963. In 1960, which seems a more reasonable date for that photo, Dulles had been Director of the CIA, and had not yet been responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, which led to his leaving the CIA. And also, remember LBJ later spoke of the CIA as "Murder, Inc.", so it's unlikely he would have cottoned up to Dulles after that.

The latter part of 1960 was when JFK and LBJ were running in the election campaigns all over the country. Maybe he met with LBJ in 1960 at his ranch after the election to give him information about the CIA's activities in Cuba and elsewhere, as he also did with John Kennedy since they were now in office after the November elections. I assume he wanted to keep his job as Director of the CIA at that time.

But in 1963, maybe Dulles was just visiting his oil millionaire friends in Dallas who had backed the black operations and subversions in oil-rich foreign countries under cover of anti-communist activities. Or maybe he was visiting, besides Ruth Paine, the White Russian community members in Dallas who had ended up playing a role in the JFK assassination. Weren't George De Mohrenschildt and Dalton Moore (of the CIA) living in Dallas in 1963?

I understand that Dulles (and maybe McCloy, too) literally begged to be put on the Warren Commission (to protect their Wall Street clientele? Dr. Donald Gibson said the Warren Commission should be called the Dulles-McCloy or McCloy-Dulles Commission because they controlled it).

Johnson had to give his good friend, Senator Richard Russell, the "Johnson treatment" (strong persuasion) to try to convince him to be on it. I think Johnson did this to have some way of knowing what was going on during its term. Russell never accepted the conclusion that Oswald was responsible for the death of Kennedy, and Johnson had agreed with him in private talks. When Russell wanted his strong dissent published in the Report of the Commission, and Justice Warren had so promised him, Russell blew up in fury when it had not been done. Remember that a Nazi historian, one of Hitler's 26 historians, who was brought to the US by the US Army and CIA through the Paperclip Operations after WWII, was the Editor of the Report. Who's orders would he have followed?

With three dissenters, Representatives Hale Boggs, Senator Sherman Cooper, and Senator Richard Russell, there certainly should have been a Minority Report added to the Report of the Warren Commission. What else was being hidden? I guess we've been finding that out over these almost fifty years.

In the overall scheme of things we have a long view, at least a century to consider, from WW I to the present.

We sure do, Phil.

Adele