The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified?

[David Josephs]

Backhanded insults now?

You;ve been asked repeatedly by every poster on this thread to explain yourself...

and each time you simply BOLD the same ole crap and call it new and improved....

Your premise is incorrect Charles. There is not a single person you can name who felt the way your premise assumes:
YOU believe "many of them did" yet you cannot name a single one... cannot point to a reason WHY they would feel that way and stomp around with insults to anyone who questions you...

Adele asks the same question as Cliff, Bill, Phil and me

How were the most powerful people in and around government who, innocent of any involvement in the conspiracy, were told and accepted as being true what today we call the Phase I story, mollified when they asked (and I believe many of them did), "If we go along with this cover-up of Cuban and Soviet complicity for the greater good, how and when will the guilty Cuban and Soviet parties be punished?"

That's not what I'm asking at all, Bill, so allow me to pose the question again -- this time a bit more artfully.

Don't over-complicate my question.

I'll try to ask it one more time:

How were the most powerful people in and around government who, innocent of any involvement in the conspiracy, were told and accepted as being true what today we call the Phase I story, mollified when they asked (and I believe many of them did), "If we go along with this cover-up of Cuban and Soviet complicity for the greater good, how and when will the guilty Cuban and Soviet parties be punished?"

and yet again

How could non-conspiratorial Cold Warriors who accepted as true the Phase I argument that Cubans/Soviets did it AND agreed to go along with the patsying of LHO in order to stave off nuclear war be expected to let the "real" killers of JFK off the hook forever?

Get back to me when you can offer more than your opinion.

Since when does "I BELIEVE" not constitute an opinion when nothing to support it is offered?

CD: The WW III scare that is the Phase I scenario was created for a reason: To force powerful figures not involved in the conspiracy to go along with what to them would be immediately recognizable as the patently false LHO-alone Phase of the cover-up.

Jim D:Not so sure I agree with this. And I am familiar with Scott's work on it and Newman's riff on that tune.

Oh look, another that doesn't buy your premise.... all this in the first 4 pages of the thread.

I created this thread to solicit answers to the following question:

How were the most powerful people in and around government who, innocent of any involvement in the conspiracy, were told and accepted as being true what today we call the Phase I story, mollified when they asked (and I believe many of them did), "If we go along with this cover-up of Cuban and Soviet complicity for the greater good, how and when will the guilty Cuban and Soviet parties be punished?"


David Josephs responds by posing a question I didn't ask:

"Who was aware of this Phase 1 story?"


Don't get me wrong: David's is an interesting question -- one worthy of its own thread. But like so many other responses this thread has generated to date, it contributes nothing of value to the effort to answer my original query.

So asking WHO Charles is referring to contributes NOTHING OF VALUE to the query.... IOW when the premise is wrong, blatantly and completely unsupported and wrong... it doesn't matter, just answer the question or STFU and go home....

Charles then FINALLY states he is talking about Katzenbach and Russell.... https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post65753

as if THEY fit the WHO he asked about in his question...

and STILL Adele has to ask yet again - after THREE attempts at clarifying his position and naming Katz and Russell as the "most powerful people in government who were told and accepted as true... blah blah blah

and he goes on to insult Adele and me once again....

=====

So let's go to the link CD posted in post #1 - the basis for his questions...

In Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, I called these "Phase-One" reports, part of

a two-fold process. Phase One put forward the phantom of an international plot, linking Oswald to the USSR, to Cuba, or to both countries together. This phantom was used to invoke the danger of a possible nuclear confrontation, which induced Chief Justice Earl Warren and other political notables to accept Phase Two, the equally false (but less dangerous) hypothesis that Oswald killed the President all by himself. …. [T]he Phase-One story… was first promoted and then defused by the CIA. Michael Beschloss has revealed that, at 9:20 AM on the morning of November 23, CIA Director John McCone briefed the new President. In Beschloss' words: "The CIA had information on foreign connections to the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, which suggested to LBJ that Kennedy may have been murdered by an international conspiracy."[SUP][SUP]28[/SUP][/SUP]

So I will ask one last time... Who, CD, are you saying asked or even WOULD HAVE ASKED the question: "If we go along with this cover-up of Cuban and Soviet complicity for the greater good, how and when will the guilty Cuban and Soviet parties be punished?"

Warren? Russell? RFK? McCone? LBJ? Hoover?

You can't name anyone since no one cared about punishing Cuban/Soviet parties... they only CARED about deflecting the attention from those actually involved and not getting themselves killed in the process.... Phase 1 and Phase 2 were both bullsh!t Charles.... and if you read Schweiker you'd know it was the "fingerprints of Intelligence" that made them go along with the cover-up... NOT an international conspiracy...

Here Charles, read the ENTIRE presentation... not just the parts you like http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_O...#_ftnref20

Hey, Everybody,

One thing I learned in College at the University of Chicago when Robert Hutchins was Chancellor, and classes were conducted by the Socratic discussion method of teaching, was that DEFINITIONS were very important to be understood and agreed upon. It clarifies thinking for members and allows for more calm and orderly discussions, understanding, agreement, and even disagreement. It does not impede the expression of ideas, it may actually broaden and expand understanding and knowledge.

So, please, define your terms. We are not mind readers, and we all need to know what it is that is being discussed or questioned. That may be why these melees occur when this is not happening. When someone does not understand something, a definition (or description or name) may be essential.

My two cents. Thanks for reading.

Adele

Thank you for this, Adele. I truly respect your work, your mind, and your intentions in this exchange.

Please be aware that I have defined my terms at least THREE TIMES on this thread, which I originated. If you read from the opening post, you will see how I have attempted to reword/clarify the expression of my initial, relatively complex hypothesis.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide further clarification -- which at this point would amount to dumbing down the material and patronizing the majority of DPF correspondents. And to be blunt, I do not believe that further clarification is necessary in order to make my work accessible to bright readers who have a moderately sophisticated grasp of this case in particular and deep politics in general.

I shall not cross the border from simple to simple-minded.

As previously stated, I am not particularly proud of the fact that I lose patience with individuals who do not bring the requisite intelligence and/or learning to our discussions.

And then there are a select few whose repeated misreadings and misrepresentations of fact are, in my informed opinion, ego-driven and/or offered in service to dark agendas.

I have created many DPF threads on which I state a hypothesis and invite honorable argument. In doing so I am not seeking obeisance, but only honest debate.

My prose is not always as artful as I might wish it to be. But it is always the best of which I am capable at the moment I create it.

Warm regards.