09-03-2019, 10:34 PM
Phil Dagosto Wrote:After re-reading your original post I find that the claim about Harriman lying about the meeting of Kremlinologists to be a pretty weak one. And, by the way, I have very little trust or confidence in anything that Max Holland writes or says.
Hi Phil
I didn't forget about our discussion here. Thinking it thru I've concluded the entire premise is absurd: that any US Kremlinologist could determine the innocence of the Soviets when all that was known at the time was that Oswald went to Russia. News of Oswald's Soviet ties hit the airwaves at 4:25pm EST (iirc) Harriman went to the airport around 6. How could anyone make a responsible conclusion of Soviet innocence in such short time with such little information?
That Oswald lived in the Soviet Union exonerates the Soviets?
The only way someone could honestly claim knowledge of Soviet innocence was if they knew who assassinated JFK.
Quote:Let's take the argument by parts.
1. Holland's statement is second hand and he doesn't actually mention a meeting - you do that.
Jack Valenti in "A Very Human President" (1973, p3)
<quote on>
Shortly before 7:00 P.M., I escorted Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Ambassador Averell Harriman into the office. I fidgeted outside, in the middle of what would have appeared to be an objective onlooker to be a mélange of confusion. No one of the Johnson aides, Marie Fehmer, his secretary; the late Cliff Carter, his chief political agent; Bill Moyers, nor any of the rest, was quite certain of what lay ahead. We were all busy on the phone and trying to assemble what measure of office discipline we could construct.
<quote off>
After that meeting Cliff Carter called the Dallas Assist. DA to get him off the international conspiracy charge.
Quote: Could Harriman have consulted those experts by telephone or telex?
Okay. How does that discussion go? Kennedy was dead, the police arrested an ex-Marine who'd lived in the Soviet Union.
"Well, that settles it, the Soviets were not involved, we all agree!"
"Okay, I'm on the way to the airport...."
Such a snap judgment couldn't happen, could it?
Quote:2. Holland does not name any participants so saying that Bohlen and Kennan were either traveling or did not mention any meeting with Harriman does not preclude the possibility that other men were consulted and that Holland is embellishing by using the term "top Kremlinologists". Maybe he was referring to the "top Kremlinologists" available on short notice on 11/22/63.
Okay. So Oswald lived in the Soviet Union and that's proof positive the Soviets were not involved. Several Kremlinologists all made the same snap decision?
Such reasoning defies logic.
Quote:So I have difficulty concluding that this is hard evidence of Harriman "lying" about the view of Soviet experts about their involvement (or lack of same) in the assassination. I would be more convinced if you had a source other than Holland and had a direct quotation of what Harriman actually told LBJ. And if he was, is your argument that Bohlen and Kennan would have supported the case for Soviet involvement and Harriman either lied about what he was told or avoided consulting them because he knew what they would say? I'm having a hard time with that one.
How could they say anything at that point? Oswald wasn't even charged with the crime!
Quote:I can see Harriman going along with the Lone Nut coverup by denying any foreign involvement, in effect, telling LBJ what he wanted to hear (not that there actually was any Soviet or Cuban involvement as we well know). But I can't get from there to him being a major player in the plot without much more convincing evidence. Sure, he's a person of interest because of this Eastern Establishment/big banking roots and his association with the national security state. But we can say that about a lot of other guys as well.
Fair enough.