The context of my question is relatively narrow, as you rightfully suggest.
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?
Is it a simple matter of telling them later that ROGUE ELEMENTS of Cuban and/or Soviet intelligence and/or military services were responsible, and that those individuals would be targeted for liquidation in due time?
Again, might the murder of Che -- among others -- have been passed off as JFK retribution?
"How could non-conspiratorial Cold Warriors who accepted as true the Phase I argument that Cubans/Soviets did it... "
Charles, where is the evidence that the Cold Warriors accepted it as true?
I think it's important in any proposition to establish the facts.
And then, even if you provide public (or private hearsay) statements about the assassination suggesting that they accepted it as true, that doesn't mean they accepted it as true.
I give you Robert Kennedy and the Warren Commission Report.
Such is political double think.
In my opinion, I think deep down most people in the know.. knew... or suspected.. that Kennedy was done by us and not them.
So, do they voice it and try to bring down the CIA?
I posed this hypothetical with the caveat that it was better suited for a book (fiction) proposal or screen treatment (drama) than for a serious discussion of this topic.
On the other hand ...
Having a little fun with all this: There would have been zero operational necessity to tell the planners of Che's execution and the mechanics who pulled it off that their action would be characterized -- falsely, secretly and to a very small group -- as retaliation for Che's involvement in the JFK hit.
And now that I'm officially off the wall: The death of Yuri Andropov might have been explained in a similar fashion.
Charles Drago Wrote:I posed this hypothetical with the caveat that it was better suited for a book (fiction) proposal or screen treatment (drama) than for a serious discussion of this topic.
On the other hand ...
Having a little fun with all this: There would have been zero operational necessity to tell the planners of Che's execution and the mechanics who pulled it off that their action would be characterized -- falsely, secretly and to a very small group -- as retaliation for Che's involvement in the JFK hit.
And now that I'm officially off the wall: The death of Yuri Andropov might have been explained in a similar fashion.
It makes for dramatic irony: Earl Warren and the Innocents, told that an operation's underway to avenge JFK's murder, are put to ease with news of Che's death, secretly by the hands of JFK's killers. With a second chance to put away a Commie patsy -- they got it right.
Charles Drago Wrote:I posed this hypothetical with the caveat that it was better suited for a book (fiction) proposal or screen treatment (drama) than for a serious discussion of this topic.
On the other hand ...
Having a little fun with all this: There would have been zero operational necessity to tell the planners of Che's execution and the mechanics who pulled it off that their action would be characterized -- falsely, secretly and to a very small group -- as retaliation for Che's involvement in the JFK hit.
And now that I'm officially off the wall: The death of Yuri Andropov might have been explained in a similar fashion.
It makes for dramatic irony: Earl Warren and the Innocents, told that an operation's underway to avenge JFK's murder, are put to ease with news of Che's death, secretly by the hands of JFK's killers. With a second chance to put away a Commie patsy -- they got it right.
I don't get it, as Che's death happened on or about October 9th, 1967.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Charles Drago Wrote:I posed this hypothetical with the caveat that it was better suited for a book (fiction) proposal or screen treatment (drama) than for a serious discussion of this topic.
On the other hand ...
Having a little fun with all this: There would have been zero operational necessity to tell the planners of Che's execution and the mechanics who pulled it off that their action would be characterized -- falsely, secretly and to a very small group -- as retaliation for Che's involvement in the JFK hit.
And now that I'm officially off the wall: The death of Yuri Andropov might have been explained in a similar fashion.
It makes for dramatic irony: Earl Warren and the Innocents, told that an operation's underway to avenge JFK's murder, are put to ease with news of Che's death, secretly by the hands of JFK's killers. With a second chance to put away a Commie patsy -- they got it right.
I don't get it, as Che's death happened on or about October 9th, 1967.
Come rain, hail or sun they will always get their man....Andropov was another 2 decades on from that. It is just a possible scenario Peter.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Charles Drago Wrote:Read Scott, and read my excerpt posted earlier on this thread.
I'm well aware of Scott, it's an interesting weave of the threads.
I have a few problems with it though.
"fully armed warplanes were sent screaming toward Cuba. Just before they entered Cuban airspace, they were hastily called back. With the launching of airplanes, the entire U.S. military went on alert."
Did anyone other than Hosty mention this incident in the last 50 years?
Now Hosty may well have been told that, but who told him and how was it corroborated?
Also... in another different weave of the threads, Robert Kennedy is suspecting/accusing the LBJ/Goverment/CIA of killing his brother immediately after the assasination and not Cuba.
Charles, your most insightful comment was posing the question What do/did Harriman, Bundy, Whitney have in common?
Gibson puts Acheson and Rostow at the ignition cycle of the Commission engine.
Angleton toiled in the preparation of the files on the false detector as Phillips choreographed his work with Banister.
Crude red tags where laid on early, but the phases only appear significant to us.
The military-intelligence apparat already loathed and despised Kennedy.
CIA primarily Dulles and his agents Bundy et al would have sowed that seed with Bay of Pigs, Missile Crisis, Test Ban, detente and demarche.
A wink is as good as a nod to the Cold Warriors, to the Old Guard, to the hawkish conclaves who took out JFK and Khrushchev, who would take out Bush-Gorbachev in The Package.
Our friend from military intelligence intoning with deadly countenance the terrible damage caused by Kennedy
The hissed warning of Eliot Janeway to the Boston financial house(s) if not a wider audience
The public humiliation by Ted Dealey
The impudence of Curtis LeMay greeted with schoolyard encouragement by the Chiefs
The climate of betrayal and revenge suggested by Give Us This Day, a propaganda work by a key propagandist who admitted forging cables
The brazen defiance of Lodge on the eve of the assassination of POTUS
The key principle is the structure of this security state as transmilitary bordering on a cult of terror and brutality
It was not necessary then and is not necessary now to tell cogs why they need to obey
Besides which many wished him gone
And those who rued his butchering knew, like Bobby, nothing would come of objection but death in the night and a column inch obit
Else why no comment of the irony of a "war on terror" wherein the DCI is an inside apologist of jihad and the only high official to warn of a 911-type attack died in the Towers, having been driven from FBI counterterrorism leadership
If you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow
Power comes out of the barrel of a gun
Ted Kennedy attempts to forge cooperation with Andropov vis-a-vis Reagan re-election. Andropov dies.
Lebed presents opposition to Putin. Lebed's helicopter down.
When a high military official expressed in my presence the disgust of still having to talk about Oswald's culpability it was clarified.
Obedience does not require reason, and there are most certainly no objections.
Foster expressed objections to Marsha Scott.
Petraeus presented a potenteial source of objection.
Woodward will regret this.
The art of persuasion is making the offer which can't be refused.
Only in the halls of academe and the fora of the cyber academy is the air clean and free.
Elsewhere it is filled with the stench of meat and powder.
