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

[Peter Lemkin]

His willingness to give a whole lot of his cocaine smuggling business to Zapata Offshore, is my best guess.

http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi...ontext=csa

JFK's murder may have been the horse's head in Fidelito's bed.

Genuine research about post revolutionary Cuba from the university of JMWAVE Miami is like looking for Hassidic interpretations of Purim on the Stormfront forum.

And Varnell would like us to believe, by implication, the US has never been involved [at the Governmental Level and ABOVE] in drug dealing?!?!? :loco: There is no evidence Cuba has at the Governmental level - nor Castro - except in the planted stories by the CIA and their ilk; anti-Castro Cubans et al. Same game was played with Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, when there is ample documentation that is was 'The Enterprise' of North, Poindexter, Bush et al. who were running drugs and arms - while blaming it on the Sandanistas. Nice try Cliff......that bullshit won't be stepped in here.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Charles, if what you are implying was true, then, in the example I used, the so-called "surge" would never have been implemented. And Vietnam would never have lasted as long as it did. Since by about 1967, even the CIA wanted out. There is a famous memo by Helms to McNamara in which he says that the USA would be better off leaving than staying in.

And in fact, LBJ wanted to get out at this time. But his efforts were stymied by Nixon and the Chennault back channel during the 1968 election. This is another example of what I was talking about, splits in the power elite. Therefore, the war continued on for 7 more years.

This is why, for example, I don't have much patience for Alex Jones. As Seamus pointed out in his article about him, Jones tries to insinuate that there is this New World Order consensus about the universe which stems from these Power Elite groups like the Bilderbergers etc.

I don't agree with that. I think its simplistic and demagogic. I think that there are divisions within this ruling class.

The Iraq debacle was a good example. And IMO, that marked the beginning of the end for the neocons.

[Don Jeffries]

I'm one of the few who believe that Cuba was a smokescreen, a fallback option similar to the "Mafia did it" theme. However you look at it, from the moment JFK was pronounced dead in Dallas, Cuba ceased to be an American political issue. There was no attempt at a second Bay of Pigs, and the CIA apparently stopped trying to kill Castro.

So if those who conspired to kill JFK were motivated by a desire to see Castro removed from power, what happened? Flush off their success in Dallas, with a more sympathetic figure in the White House, why did they not even try to adopt a more hard-line approach towards Cuba? Why did they even stop talking about Castro?

And remember, the whole "Cuba" thing has been used over the years to try to indirectly smear RFK for his own brother's assassination, from LBJ's "Castro got Kennedy first" to the insinuations of Evan Thomas and others that Bobby felt "guilty" about the efforts to kill Castro, which they inaccurately claim he approved of, and was reluctant to deal with his brother's death because he felt his "own" efforts to "get Castro" had blown up in his face. And if "Cuba" was the impetus for JFK's death, why did they kill RFK five years later? Was he secretly still "obsessed" with Castro?

Imho, the whole "Cuban" aspect of the assassination distracts attention away from the idea that Kennedy was killed because he threatened the most powerful forces in our society, not because of his policy towards Cuba. There are far more obvious, and significant, motives behind the assassination of JFK.

[Charles Drago]

Charles, if what you are implying was true, then, in the example I used, the so-called "surge" would never have been implemented. And Vietnam would never have lasted as long as it did.

I'm not following you, Jim.

Each circumstance/conflict is unique -- albeit with the common denominators of war profiteering and addictions (to drugs and oil) servicing.

Profitable business ventures are supported until the profits dry up. Bankruptcy ensues. Venture capital is re-assigned.

Since by about 1967, even the CIA wanted out.

The wishes of the hammer are of no consequence to the carpenter, contractor, architect, and client.

There is a famous memo by Helms to McNamara in which he says that the USA would be better off leaving than staying in.

There is a famous report by the U.S. government in which it is concluded that LHO alone killed JFK.

And in fact, LBJ wanted to get out at this time. But his efforts were stymied by Nixon and the Chennault back channel during the 1968 election. This is another example of what I was talking about, splits in the power elite. Therefore, the war continued on for 7 more years.

Are you seriously suggesting that LBJ and RMN -- and even Claire Chennault -- helped comprise a "power elite" that called, among other shots (intended), JFK's assassination and the prolongation of the Vietnam War?

This is why, for example, I don't have much patience for Alex Jones. As Seamus pointed out in his article about him, Jones tries to insinuate that there is this New World Order consensus about the universe which stems from these Power Elite groups like the Bilderbergers etc.

Straw man fallacy here, Jim. Jones is worthless.

I think that there are divisions within this ruling class.

As there are among all groups of human beings -- and for that matter, within individuals. Not exactly a EUREKA! moment here.

[Charles Drago]

I'm one of the few who believe that Cuba was a smokescreen, a fallback option similar to the "Mafia did it" theme. However you look at it, from the moment JFK was pronounced dead in Dallas, Cuba ceased to be an American political issue. There was no attempt at a second Bay of Pigs, and the CIA apparently stopped trying to kill Castro.

So if those who conspired to kill JFK were motivated by a desire to see Castro removed from power, what happened? Flush off their success in Dallas, with a more sympathetic figure in the White House, why did they not even try to adopt a more hard-line approach towards Cuba? Why did they even stop talking about Castro?

And remember, the whole "Cuba" thing has been used over the years to try to indirectly smear RFK for his own brother's assassination, from LBJ's "Castro got Kennedy first" to the insinuations of Evan Thomas and others that Bobby felt "guilty" about the efforts to kill Castro, which they inaccurately claim he approved of, and was reluctant to deal with his brother's death because he felt his "own" efforts to "get Castro" had blown up in his face. And if "Cuba" was the impetus for JFK's death, why did they kill RFK five years later? Was he secretly still "obsessed" with Castro?

Imho, the whole "Cuban" aspect of the assassination distracts attention away from the idea that Kennedy was killed because he threatened the most powerful forces in our society, not because of his policy towards Cuba. There are far more obvious, and significant, motives behind the assassination of JFK.

Don and I find ourselves in ... gulp ... full agreement on this.

The following paragraph from your argument above is worth re-posting insofar as it is first cousin to the question I initially posed as the theme of this thread:

So if those who conspired to kill JFK were motivated by a desire to see Castro removed from power, what happened? Flush off their success in Dallas, with a more sympathetic figure in the White House, why did they not even try to adopt a more hard-line approach towards Cuba? Why did they even stop talking about Castro?

My educated guess is that the most rabidly ideological anti-Castro Cubans were bought off, scared off, or just plain offed.

[Cliff Varnell]

[quote=Cliff Varnell]


His willingness to give a whole lot of his cocaine smuggling business to Zapata Offshore, is my best guess.

http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi...ontext=csa

JFK's murder may have been the horse's head in Fidelito's bed.

Genuine research about post revolutionary Cuba from the university of JMWAVE Miami is like looking for Hassidic interpretations of Purim on the Stormfront forum.

And Varnell would like us to believe, by implication, the US has never been involved [at the Governmental Level and ABOVE] in drug dealing?!?!?

Charles, you are unfamiliar with my argument in this area.

I mentioned Zapata Offshore. Did Zapata Offshore have connections to "the Governmental Level and ABOVE"?

Since the business was funded significantly by the brother (Roland Harriman) of JFK's #3 at State (Averell Harriman, the long-time employer of G. Bush's father Prescott), my implication should have been crystal clear,

:loco: There is no evidence Cuba has at the Governmental level - nor Castro - except in the planted stories by the CIA and their ilk; anti-Castro Cubans et al.

That's why I called it "my best guess."

Yeah, I suspect Castro runs dope, and has run dope for decades. I suspect many governments of complicity in global narco-trafficking.

To think otherwise is naive.

Same game was played with Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, when there is ample documentation that is was 'The Enterprise' of North, Poindexter, Bush et al. who were running drugs and arms - while blaming it on the Sandanistas.

The same game? You asked me a question, Charles, and I answered it. How is that "playing the same game"?

Yes, I think governments smuggle drugs. Even Commie ones. To think otherwise isn't just naive...it's fucking naive.

Nice try Cliff......that bullshit won't be stepped in here.

Since when is Fidel Castro a sacred cow?

There is a nice irony at play here. I'm warned in the DEEP POLITICS Forum not to analyze Castro's possible role in the drug trade? And yet it's Peter Dale Scott who expressed the view that the global drug trade was behind all the major deep political events of our lifetime.

Go figure.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Don:

Cuba was not a "smokescreen" as far as policy went. Eisenhower and Dulles wanted Castro out. This is why in 1959, the war against Castro was planned, and the CIA Mafia plots were originated. And the trade embargo enacted and the Bay of Pigs plans were enacted. Dulles and Bissell then continued this and hoodwinked JFK into launching it. Hoping that he would commit American forces en masse to save it from failure. When JFK found out this trickery, he decapitated the top level of the CIA and Dulles and Hunt fought back by blaming the failure on him, with the myth of the "cancelled D Day air strikes", which were never actually part of the plan, they were a contingency. Afterwards, Kennedy decided on the Mongoose route to pressure Castro.

None of this is a "smokescreen". These are all historical facts. What gets into a smokescreen is how one uses these facts.

There is a difference between blaming Cuba for the assassination, whichever way you want to do it, and saying that one of the plans of the conspirators was to get an invasion of Cuba as a result of Kennedy's death.

No serious person believes that Castro killed Kennedy, its always been a CIA fallback position. And only a few buy the argument about RFK's guilt factor immobilizing him.

Cuba was not a "smokescreen" as far as policy went. Eisenhower and Dulles wanted Castro out. This is why in 1959, the war against Castro was planned, and the CIA Mafia plots were originated.

But many people I know do think that one of the aims of the plot was to get an invasion of Cuba. And you can actually see parts of that within some of its aspects: the actions of the DRE and Bringuier afterwards, the McKeown story, the order to the strike force, David Phillps planting stories about Oswald being in Mexico in September to receive funds for a future attempt etc. No reasonable person can deny these important strands.

And its not accurate to say the plots to kill Castro stopped with JFK's death. The IG report says they went on until 1965.

LBJ clearly did not want any kind of commie plot--or any plot at all-- involved in the investigation. And he did this by intimidating the heck out of Warren. There is also evidence the White House was in contact with Dallas and relayed the message to charge Oswald singly, no conspiracy. Hoover knew this, and he decided to squelch any leads that indicated conspiracy from the outset. Beginning that night with the switching of CE 399.

As far as Cuba goes under LBJ, there was a review of Cuban policy in the summer of 1964. Because there were still operations ongoing against the island. But by this time, one of the guys driving the campaign, Bill Harvey, has been gone from the CIA desk and is being shuffled out. He has been replaced by Fitzgerald.

Helms and Fitzgerald conducted the review for the White House, and I quote these memos in my book. Since the attack on Cuba was squelched after Kennedy's death, they see little upside in continuing the mini campaign against Castro. They conclude, as Magda mentions, that this is really counter productive in the long run. Castro is too strongly entrenched by now, his defenses fairly strong, the populace has too much allegiance to him, therefore the attacks they have been running are simply pin pricks without lasting effect. So they actually recommend to the White House that what was left of the program be wound down by the end of the year, that is 1964. And from what seems to have happened, the White House appears to have concurred.

From here of course, LBJ decided to switch the resources and focus to Southeast Asia. In a big way. The planning for a huge land war was well along by the summer of 1964. Which is where Walt Rostow, a man LBJ liked a lot, wanted to go anyway. And, as I said, it was this impending debacle that really put the kabosh on further American forays later. And actually saved regimes like the Sandinistas.

[Charles Drago]

Cliff,

Regarding your post # 56: You're all over the place in terms of mis-directing responses.

You need to do a better job identifying the correspondent to whom you are responding. An example: You address me in your comments regarding the "same game" quote that is not mine.

So too your response to the "that bullshit" comment.

And nobody here is "warning" you about anything.

[Cliff Varnell]

His willingness to give a whole lot of his cocaine smuggling business to Zapata Offshore, is my best guess.

http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi...ontext=csa

JFK's murder may have been the horse's head in Fidelito's bed.

Genuine research about post revolutionary Cuba from the university of JMWAVE Miami is like looking for Hassidic interpretations of Purim on the Stormfront forum.

True enough. They wanted to pin an ideological motivation on Castro drug smuggling, that he was trying to destabilize American society.

Utter bullshit, of course.

It's all about the money, pure and simple.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Regarding your post # 56: You're all over the place in terms of mis-directing responses.

You need to do a better job identifying the correspondent to whom you are responding. An example: You address me in your comments regarding the "same game" quote that is not mine.

So too your response to the "that bullshit" comment.

And nobody here is "warning" you about anything.

Yikes! Never post hung-over...never post hung-over....never post hung-over...