12-07-2010, 08:53 AM
Lyndon Johnson and the CIA
murdered John F. Kennedy
George Herbert Walker Bush was deeply involved, too
LBJ said it was "Texas oil and those fucking renegade intelligence bastards in Washington" [Texas in the Morning, Madeleine Brown, p.189]
from Robert Morrow political researcher Austin, TX 512-306-1510
Madeleine Duncan Brown was a mistress of Lyndon Johnson for 21 years and had a son with him named Steven Mark Brown in 1950. Madeleine mixed with the Texas elite and had many trysts with Lyndon Johnson over the years, including one at the Driskell Hotel in Austin, TX, on New Year's Eve 12/31/63.
In the morning of January 1, 1964, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:
"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."
He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!
"That's bullshit, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that crap!"
"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.
"It was Texas oil and those fucking renegade intelligence bastards in Washington." [said Lyndon Johnson, the new president.] [Texas in the Morning, p. 189] [LBJ told this to Madeleine on 1/1/64 in the Driskell Hotel, Austin, TX in room #254. They spent New Year’s Eve ‘64 together here. Room #254 was the room that LBJ used to have rendevous’ with his girlfriends – today it is known as the LBJ Room, and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskell. Located on the Mezzanine Level.]
What Lyndon Johnson did not tell his mistress was that Texas big oil and the CIA had killed John Kennedy on behalf of Lyndon Johnson. LBJ either organized the plot to kill JFK or he knew about it in advance and agreed to cover the murder up. LBJ in the fall of 1963 was like a cornered animal. He was about to be dropped from the presidential ticket in 1964 by JFK. Also, LBJ could very well have been indicted in the Bobby Baker scandal that was breaking at that time in fall, 1963.
I believe that Lyndon Johnson was at the heart and center of the murder of John F. Kennedy. LBJ had a lot of help, too, from the CIA, the Mafia, Texas oil millionaires, anti-Casto Cubans and high officials in the military and government, including J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI who was LBJ's next door neighbor in Washington, DC for 19 years as well as a close personal friend.
Here is an excellent article that summarizes the "LBJ did it" case:
http://www.viewzone.com/lbj/ The best JFK assassination web site to check out is www.jfkmurdersolved.com Also, check these 4 YouTube videos of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, the Guilty Men, banned from the History Channel because it got too close to the truth.
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaWUcyjAeIk
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05AsvqWfzts
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJPWhn6P5...annel_page
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO0q4gsDURk
5) http://religionandmorality.net/multimedi...sJFK2.html (Here are ALL 9 episodes together in one place of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, including the 3 ones that were banned because they got very close to the truth.)
From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:
“The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, JOHNSON of Texas, GEORGE BUSH, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?"
I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped. Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, p. 638-639]:
In order to understand the JFK assassination, you have to understand the criminality of Lyndon Johnson BEFORE the JFK murder and the criminality of George Herbert Walker Bush AFTER the JFK murder. Lyndon Johnson: in addition to stealing the 1948 Senate election with vote fraud, LBJ also made a career of taking $$ millions in bribes. Lesser known is that LBJ had a hit man named Malcolm Wallace who would kill people who could have gotten LBJ indicted, thrown in jail or endangered his political career. Billie Sol Estes fingers LBJ, his top aide Cliff Carter, & Malcolm Wallace in the murders of Henry Marshall, JOHN F. KENNEDY and 6 others. Go to this web page to read about who LBJ murdered: www.home.earthlink.net/~sixthfloor/estes.htm . Lyndon Johnson was one sick, evil son of a bitch who would do anything to get ahead, including murdering John F. Kennedy.
In Nov. ’63, LBJ was a dangerous, cornered animal. He was about to be dropped from the 1964 Demo ticket and he was possibly headed to JAIL because of the Bobby Baker scandal. LBJ and the CIA murdered JFK, with the equally corrupt LBJ friend Hoover of the FBI in charge of covering it up.
Six weeks after the murder of JFK, on 1/1/64 LBJ’s beloved mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown asked LBJ who killed JFK. She says LBJ got angry, hopped out of bed and started pacing and waving his arms; then Lyndon Johnson said, “It was Texas oil and those fucking renegade intelligence bastards in Washington!” [Texas in the Morning, Madeleine Brown, p.189] In other words: the CIA (Bush), LBJ’s biggest campaign contributors (Texas oil) and closest friends murdered John F. Kennedy.
George Herbert Walker Bush:
“Fucking Renegade Intelligence Bastard”
George H.W. Bush, despite his lies, has been CIA for a very LONG TIME. Bush helped organize the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April of 1961. The Bush family was heavily vested in the Bay of Pigs operation against Castro. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the CIA and the anti-Castro Cubans hated JFK as much as they hated Fidel Castro. Eventually LBJ, the CIAand George Bush would use this hate to murder JFK.
Read this web page: www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm covering GHW Bush’s very probable involvement in the killing of JFK. Google 1) “JFK II – The Bush Connection.” (video) 2) “Tom Flocco George Bush photo” 3) Google the “Nixon-Bush Connection to the Kennedy Assassination” by Paul Kangas.
During Watergate one of Nixon’s aides mentioned that he had spoken to George H.W. Bush about the “Bay of the Pigs” thing. Nixon asked what was Bush’s response? The aide said that George H.W. Bush “broke out in assholes and then shitted all over himself.” Haldeman said that “the Bay of Pigs thing” were Nixon’s code words for the JFK assassination. George H.W. Bush has the blood of JFK all over his hands and he might shit all over himself if YOU ever find out the Ugly Truth about his murderous ways.
George Bush has a long criminal career of massive CIA DRUG SMUGGLING. Google the video: “Mena Connection: Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA, Drug smuggling”
IT IS VERY LIKELY GEORGE H.W. BUSH, JEB BUSH AND
OLLIE NORTH MURDERED BARRY SEAL IN FEB., 1986
Barry Seal was a CIA asset and legendary drug smuggler. It is very likely that VP George H.W. Bush, his son JEB BUSH and Ollie North MURDERED Barry Seal in 1986. Barry Seal was about to spill the beans in court about GHW Bush’s criminal drug involvement. You can read about it in Al Martin’s book The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider. Here are some good web links:
1) www.wethepeople.la/seal2.htm 2) Google “Barry Seal Spartacus.”
George Herbert Walker Bush used CIA Pegasus unit
Assassins to Terrorize Ross Perot in the 1992 campaign
Google “Chip Tatum Pegasus” for the Ugly Truth about Bush
George H.W. Bush is a career criminal with a lot of dirty, evil secrets to hide. Ross Perot, while he was hunting for US POWs in Asia, came across clear evidence of US CIA heroin smuggling from Burma. This is in addition to the HUGE amounts of cocaine that Bush/Clinton/CIA/Jeb Bush/Oliver North were bringing in from Central America. Google “Bo Gritz letter to George Bush.” GHW Bush was very scared of what might happen to him if a hard ass like Perot ever became president. Bush was giving his CIA assassins the green light to murder/terrorize Ross Perot. George H.W. Bush said: “you are authorized to use whatever means necessary to recover said documents and insure that this criminal [Ross Perot] is brought to justice. You are authorized to exceed existing regulations and FTM’s to accomplish this mission. If loss of life occurs as a result of the performance of your duties, you shall be exempt and protected from prosecution.” [Chip Tatum, Pegasus Files – Google it!]
Major General Edward Lansdale was probably in operational charge of the assassination in Dallas. JFK did not make him ambassador to Vietnam in 1961, which Lansdale coveted. Here is a photo of Lansdale taken on the sidewalk in front of and just a few feet west of the Texas School Book Depository: ! http://www.apfn.net/dcia/tramps1.jpg Fletcher Prouty gives his insights: http://www.prouty.org/letter.html Here is a Lansdale bio: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDlansdale.htm Also, Wikipedia on Lansdale: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lansdale Forget the 3 tramps, the identification of Lansdale by Fletcher Prouty and General Krulak is the jewel in that photo! Edward Lansdale had a rectangular head: http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&...q=&gs_rfai=
Here is a 3/14/85 letter by Gen. Victor H. Krulak also identifying Edward Lansdale at the TSBD on 11/22/63: http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html Edward Lansdale, the CIA’s assassinations expert, - his presence in Dallas indicts the CIA.
Here are the folks who I think were involved in the murder of John Kennedy. Some folks had foreknowledge and were participants in the planning of the murder of JFK. Other folks knew the truth and actively covered up the assassination, protecting the CIA murderers of JFK:
1) Lyndon Johnson – plotted to kill JFK. The job of LBJ and Hoover was to cover up the assassination. The job of the CIA was to kill JFK. 2) J. Edgar Hoover of FBI- I think he had foreknowledge. Like LBJ, he hated the Kennedys. 3) Allen Dulles, head of CIA fired by JFK 4) Richard Helms – CIA 5) James Angleton – CIA 6) E. Howard Hunt – CIA 7) Frank Sturgis – CIA 8) Edward Lansdale – CIA (probably the guy running the field operation for the assassination on site at Dealey Plaza 9) George Herbert Walker Bush – Texas oil, CIA, elite political player even then 10) Nelson Rockefeller – probably involved in the plot 11) David Atlee Phillips – CIA 12) Jack Ruby – killed Oswald to cover up plot. Others in Lyndon Johnson’s circle who probably were involved: Cliff Carter his political director – definitely involved in cover-up, probably was in on plot in advance. Ed Clark – top lawyer for LBJ – very possibly deeply involved in the JFK assassination. Other key plotters would be HL Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. (Texas oil men kingpins) and Curtis LeMay head of the Air Force.
Other folks like Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford and James McCoy may not have been killers, but knew the truth and helped to cover it up after the fact. Nicholas Katzenbach helped cover it up as well. As did MANY CIA assets in the print and TV media.
As for Lee Harvey Oswald, I lean toward the view that he was completely set up to be the “patsy” of the assassination by the CIA. He probably did not kill Officer Tippitt either. If Oswald was one of the killers/plotters/shooters, then he was doing an operation at the behest of the CIA and Lyndon Johnson. The whole case against Oswald was pretty much a fabrication by the CIA and FBI. Oswald was probably a low level CIA agent who we know acted as an informer for the FBI, who were rivals to the CIA.
Check out the amazing Arthur Krock column in NYT on 10/03/63! The CIA and JFK were at WAR with each other! JFK knew he did not have control of the CIA. http://www.jfklancer.com/Krock.html An amazing column which even includes public speculation in an elite newspaper (back then) about the possibility of the CIA engineering a coup d’etat! The bottom line is that John Kennedy did NOT have control of the CIA and his WAR with them was even spilling into print into the public elite media.
The New York Times
October 3, 1963 p. 34
The Intra-Administration
War in Vietnam
By Arthur Krock
... One reporter in this category is Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard newspapers. Today, under a Saigon dateline, he related that, "according to a high United States source here, twice the C.I.A. flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge . . . [and] in one instance frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought from Washington because the agency disagreed with it." Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a "very high American official . . . who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy . . . are the following:
The C.I.A.'s growth was "likened to a malignancy" which the "very high official was not sure even the White House could control . . . any longer." "If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon." The agency "represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone."
... The C.I.A. may be guilty as charged. Since it cannot, or at any rate will not, openly defend its record in Vietnam, or defend it by the same confidential press "briefings" employed by its critics, the public is not in a position to judge. Nor is this department, which sought and failed to get even the outlines of the agency's case in rebuttal. But Mr. Kennedy will have to make a judgment if the spectacle of war within the Executive branch is to be ended and the effective functioning of the C.I.A. preserved. And when he makes this judgment, hopefully he also will make it public, as well as the appraisal of fault on which it is based.
JFK was an out of control Sex Freak. And the people (LBJ, CIA, military, Hoover) who murdered him used that as a one justification for their actions. They considered JFK soft on communism, reckless in his personal life, and MOST IMPORTANTLY a direct threat to their power (LBJ, Allen Dulles, Hoover): http://www.cwporter.com/jfksex.htm
Reply to charges of JFK being a sex freak. I believe JFK was indeed an out of control sex freak.
1) http://www.ctka.net/pr997-jfk.html
2) http://www.ctka.net/pr1197-jfk.html
1) I urge you to look into LBJ's close association with Malcolm Wallace, his on call hit man. A good book to get is Billie Sol Estes a Texas Legend. Billie Sol will tell you about Lyndon's murderous ways: http://www.amazon.com/Billie-Sol-Estes-T...493&sr=1-1 Read the book and you will see how CLOSE Billie Sol was to Cliff Carter, LBJ's political operative.
2) Texas in the Morning by Madeleine Duncan Brown. LBJ told her on 12/31/63 at the Driskell Hotel in Austin that he knew that big oil and the CIA had murdered JFK. I think Lyndon was lying; I think he forget to add that big oil, the CIA and his own hit man Malcolm Wallace was involved.
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/1314-presidents.html
Madeleine Duncan Brown, YouTube interview 6/30/97: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA-nEy4vEs0 Here are some more:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_ty...Brown&aq=f
Here is another good web link to YouTube video interviews of Madeleine:
http://hidhist.wordpress.com/assassinati...ssination/
JFK Murder Treason: LBJ’s Mistress Blows Whistle on LBJ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzPvpPcmiGA
Madeleine Brown is incorrect when she describes a big party in Dallas on the night of Thursday 11/21/63 … it did not happen that way, however I think Madeleine is right about what Lyndon Johnson told her about Texas oil and CIA involvement in the JFK assassination. I think that Lyndon Johnson’s close allies H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. were deeply involved in the JFK assassination.
3) I find the account of Loy Factor in the Men on the Sixth Floor to be extremely credible. I think Loy Factor was one of the hit men recruited by LBJ and Mac Wallace to murder JFK. Here is the web page: http://home.earthlink.net/~sixthfloor/ I would read this book very closely. How does this Indian from Oklahoma know SO MUCH about the layout of the Texas School Book Depository? Because he was there and Mac Wallace recruited him. You can interview author Glen Sample at 714-638-8724. He personally met Loy Factor and is convinced of his accuracy. They have 7 hours of taped interviews with Loy Factor.
4) I would read everything that Saint John Hunt, the son of E. Howard Hunt has to say. E. Howard Hunt made a deathbed revelation saying that LBJ recruited Cord Meyer of the CIA to murder JFK. http://www.saintjohnhunt.com/ Also, http://forwardamerica.blogspot.com/2007/...ng_25.html A super article is “The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt”: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto...oward_hunt
E. Howard Hunt on Youtube (Part 1): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VQQqxY_PwU
(Part 2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKUalnht32I
Another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_QjqwP2PtY
Here is a good article on E. Howard Hunt’s revelation: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...1918.shtml
5) Barr McClellan wrote a book fingering LBJ. Don Thomas, of Box 13 fame, and a very, very close aide of LBJ said flatly that Ed Clark "took care of things in Dallas." Meaning Ed Clark, who was later given 2 million dollars by the oil companies, helped kill JFK for LBJ. Another firm lawyer also told Barr McClellan that LBJ murdered JFK.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmcclellan.htm Here is Barr's book: http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Money-Power-...223&sr=1-1
Here is a good link by Phil Brennan, detailing the pressure that Robert Kennedy was putting on Lyndon Johnson at this time: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Esixthfloor/brennen.htm
6) Walt Brown is an expert on the JFK assassination who is convinced LBJ was involved. Read his essay on Cuba: The Line in the Sand. The fiasco of the Bay of Pigs, then the later Cuban Missile Crisis, both probably created a fertile ground of Kennedy-haters for LBJ to recruit his killers of JFK. Check it out: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/dparchiv1.htm#CUBA
7) Here is an excellent article that summarizes the "LBJ did it" case:
http://www.viewzone.com/lbj/
8) Then there is the positive identification of Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building.
10) Craig Zirbel wrote a book The Texas Connection in 1991 that presents an excellent case that LBJ murdered JFK: http://www.amazon.com/Texas-Connection-C...193&sr=1-1 Here is a good YouTube clip with Craig Zirbel on LBJ's probable involvement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBxoq_ZMhos
11) The Men Who Killed Kennedy, the Guilty Men was so close to the truth that the LBJ family, Presidents Carter and Ford, Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers demanded it be taken down. It is the Ugly Truth relating to LBJ. I urge you to watch it here on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaWUcyjAeIk
12) Lyndon Johnson and his neighbor in Washington, DC of 19 years, J. Edgar Hoover were absolutely critical to the cover up of the murder of John Kennedy: http://surftofind.com/document I think they were both involved in the planning of the assassination.
There are just so many things that implicate LBJ. Here is another little nugget. LBJ wanted Jackie to ride with him in Dallas! According to one of JFK's friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVdangf91BQ LBJ did not want Jackie’s brains to get blown out (such a gentleman – NOT!). Video posted as “Johnson wants Jackie to ride with him”
And here is Jack Ruby saying it was "the man in the office now" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-L5xYwb2ls&NR=1 Another Jack Ruby video, not made public at the time it was made: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...6594543303
Then we have LBJ wanting a "deathbed confession" from Oswald, as relayed to Dr Crenshaw. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB6q7b_3YvI The question I would want to ask Oswald would be "Was there anyone else involved, if so, who?”
Lyndon Johnson was a
STONE COLD KILLER:
http://home.earthlink.net/~sixthfloor/estes.htm
LETTER #2 - FROM DOUGLAS CADDY (lawyer for Billie Sol Estes)
August 9, 1984
Mr. Stephen S. Trott
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
RE: Mr. Billie Sol Estes
Dear Mr. Trott:
My client, Mr. Estes, has authorized me to make this reply to your letter of May 29, 1984. Mr. Estes was a member of a four-member group, headed by Lyndon Johnson, which committed criminal acts in Texas in the 1960's. The other two, besides Mr. Estes and LBJ, were Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace. Mr. Estes is willing to disclose his knowledge concerning the following criminal offenses:
I. Murders
1. The killing of Henry Marshall
2. The killing of George Krutilek
3. The killing of Ike Rogers and his secretary
4. The killing of Harold Orr
5. The killing of Coleman Wade
6. The killing of Josefa Johnson
7. The killing of John Kinser
8. The killing of President J. F. Kennedy.
Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders. In the cases of murders nos. 1-7, Mr. Estes' knowledge of the precise details concerning the way the murders were executed stems from conversations he had shortly after each event with Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace.
In addition, a short time after Mr. Estes was released from prison in 1971, he met with Cliff Carter and they reminisced about what had occurred in the past, including the murders. During their conversation, Carter orally compiled a list of 17 murders which had been committed, some of which Mr. Estes was unfamiliar. A living witness was present at that meeting and should be willing to testify about it. He is Kyle Brown, recently of Houston and now living in Brady, Texas.
Mr. Estes, states that Mac Wallace, whom he describes as a "stone killer" with a communist background, recruited Jack Ruby, who in turn recruited Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Estes says that Cliff Carter told him that Mac Wallace fired a shot from the grassy knoll in Dallas, which hit JFK from the front during the assassination.
[The letter continues …]
Sincerely yours,
Douglas Caddy
Famous “Altgens” photo of Lyndon Johnson’s car door coming open VERY SOON after the first shot at Kennedy. LBJ’s car is the white looking car and it is 3 cars behind Kennedy. I think it is obvious Lyndon Johnson had foreknowledge of when and where the assassination attempt on Kennedy would be made. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/Altgens.jpg
The second thing to notice is the oak tree. Perhaps 1/2 second before, JFK's limo was UNDER the oak tree and SHIELDED from any clean shot from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Supposedly (not in reality) Lee Harvey Oswald is in that upper southeastern window of the TSBD firing shots at JFK. How can he LHO fire a shot at JFK through that tree, from his phantom spot of the upper right corner of the TSBD? Answer: he CAN'T and he DIDN'T! The first shot at JFK came from else where, either directly in front or directly behind JFK's limo.
LBJ and Secret Service agent Rufus Youngblood were listening to a walkie talkie turned down low: http://senatoryarborough.tripod.com/ Remember Texas US Senator Ralph Yarborough and LBJ hated each other, so Yarborough was not going to cover for him. LBJ was in the 3rd car behind John Kennedy. In 1963, on the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Ralph Yarborough rode in the motorcade only two cars back from the presidential limousine. Yarborough was in the same convertible as Vice President Lyndon Johnson, Lady Bird Johnson, and secret service agent Rufus Youngblood.
Senator’s Ralph Yarborough's Suspicion of Lyndon Johnson
"There is the well-publicized story of Agent Rufus Youngblood, who reportedly threw himself on top of Vice President Johnson after the shooting began in Dealey Plaza.... Johnson, in a statement to the Warren Commission, mentioned the incident:
I was startled by a sharp report or explosion, but I had no time to speculate as to its origin because Agent Youngblood turned in a flash, immediately after the first explosion, hitting me on the shoulder, and shouted to all of us in the back seat to get down. I was pushed down by Agent Youngblood. Almost in the same moment in which he hit or pushed me, he vaulted over the back seat and sat on me. I was bent over under the weight of Agent Youngblood's body, toward Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough....
However, former Texas senator Ralph Yarborough, who was sitting beside Johnson that day, told this author: 'It just didn't happen.... It was a small car, Johnson was a big man, tall. His knees were up against his chin as it was. There was no room for that to happen.' Yarborough recalled that both Johnson and Youngblood ducked down as the shooting began and that Youngblood never left the front seat. Yarborough said Youngblood held a small walkie-talkie over the back of the car's seat and that he and Johnson both put their ears to the device. He added: 'They had it turned down real low. I couldn't hear what they were listening to.'"--Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy
Ralph Yarborough's Suspicion of the Warren Commission Investigators
"A couple of fellows [from the Warren Commission] came to see me. They walked in like they were a couple of deputy sheriffs and I was a bank robber. I didn't like their attitude. As a senator I felt insulted. They went off and wrote up something and brought it back for me to sign. But I refused. I threw it in a drawer and let it lay there for weeks. And they had on there the last sentence which stated: 'This is all I know about the assassination.' They wanted me to sign this thing, then say this is all I know. Of course, I would never have signed it. Finally, after some weeks, they began to bug me. 'You're holding this up, you're holding this up' they said, demanding that I sign the report. So I typed one up myself and put basically what I told you about how the cars all stopped. I put in there, 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future presidents, they should be trained to take off when a shot is fired.' I sent that over. That's dated July 10, 1964, after the assassination. To my surprise, when the volumes were finally printed and came out, I was surprised at how many people down at the White House didn't file their affidavits until after the date, after mine the 10th of July, waiting to see what I was going to say before they filed theirs. I began to lose confidence then in their investigation and that's further eroded with time."
--Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy
Here is a good link by Phil Brennan, detailing the pressure that Robert Kennedy was putting on Lyndon Johnson at this time: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Esixthfloor/brennen.htm Phil Brennan wrote this 11/19/2003 – 40 years after the assassination about how Robert Kennedy was telling the Washington press corp it was open season on Lyndon Johnson and his corruption:
“For the most part, the Washington press corps kept the lid on the story - until the
late Bob Humphrey, then the GOP Senate leadership's spokesman, an
incredibly gifted strategist and a mentor, asked me to tell the story to the late
Delaware Republican Sen. John Williams, a crusader for good
government and a crackerjack of an investigator.
Sen. Williams asked me to introduce him to Hill and I did. They got together with
some Senate investigators for the GOP minority and Hill told them the whole
story, including the part played by Vice President Johnson. Williams
got his committee to launch an investigation and the lid came off.
A few days later, the attorney general, Bobby Kennedy, called five of
Washington's top reporters into his office and told them it was now open season
on Lyndon Johnson. It's OK, he told them, to go after the story they
were ignoring out of deference to the administration.
And from that point on until the events in Dallas, Lyndon Baines Johnson's future
looked as if it included a sudden end to his political career and a few years
in the slammer. The Kennedys had their knives out and sharpened for him
and were determined to draw his political blood - all of it.
In the Senate, the investigation into the Baker case was moving quickly ahead.
Even the Democrats were cooperating, thanks to the Kennedys, and an
awful lot of really bad stuff was being revealed - until Nov. 22, 1963.
By Nov. 23, all Democrat cooperation suddenly stopped. Lyndon would serve a
term and a half in the White House instead of the slammer, the Baker
investigation would peter out and Bobby Baker would serve a short sentence and
go free. Dallas accomplished all of that. “
Excellent Spartacus biography on Lyndon Johnson: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjohnsonLB.htm
LIFE Magazine was within days of breaking a major story on Lyndon Johnson that would have been extremely politically damaging to him. By 11/22/63, the political career of Lyndon Johnson was hanging by a thin, thin thread and Robert Kennedy, having told the Washington press corps that it was open season on Johnson, was about to cut it with scissors:
In 1963 Johnson got drawn into political scandals involving Fred Korth, Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker. According to James Wagenvoord, the editorial business manager and assistant to Life Magazines Executive Editor, the magazine was working on an article that would have revealed Johnson's corrupt activities. "Beginning in later summer 1963 the magazine, based upon information fed from Bobby Kennedy and the Justice Department, had been developing a major newsbreak piece concerning Johnson and Bobby Baker. On publication Johnson would have been finished and off the 1964 ticket (reason the material was fed to us) and would probably have been facing prison time. At the time LIFE magazine was arguably the most important general news source in the US. The top management of Time Inc. was closely allied with the USA's various intelligence agencies and we were used after by the Kennedy Justice Department as a conduit to the public."
The fact that it was Robert Kennedy who was giving this information to Life Magazine suggests that John F. Kennedy intended to drop Johnson as his vice-president. This is supported by Evelyn Lincoln, Kennedy's secretary. In her book, Kennedy and Johnson (1968) she claimed that in November, 1963, Kennedy decided that because of the emerging Bobby Bakerscandal he was going to drop Johnson as his running mate in the 1964 election. Kennedy told Lincoln that he was going to replace Johnson with Terry Sanford.
Don B. Reynolds appeared before a secret session of the Senate Rules Committee on 22nd November, 1963. Reynolds told B. Everett Jordan and his committee that Johnson had demanded that he provided kickbacks in return for him agreeing to a life insurance policy arranged by him in 1957. This included a $585 Magnavox stereo. Reynolds also had to pay for $1,200 worth of advertising on KTBC, Johnson's television station in Austin. Reynolds had paperwork for this transaction including a delivery note that indicated the stereo had been sent to the home of Johnson. Reynolds also told of seeing a suitcase full of money which Baker described as a "$100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing the Fort Worth TFX contract".
1) Please carefully read what Harry Truman said in WashPost 12/22/63. Truman wrote and Op-Ed in the Washington Post saying "Limit CIA role to Intelligence" just one month to the day after the JFK assassination. I think it is clear from this column that he thinks the CIA may very well have had something to with the JFK assassination.
2) Please note: Harry Truman's column on the CIA was REMOVED FROM THE AFTERNOON EDITION of the Washington Post that day. Do you think it was because Truman hit some nerves ... and told too much of the truth? I do. - Robert Morrow 512-306-1510
http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html
The Washington Post
December 22, 1963 - page A11
Harry Truman Writes:
Limit CIA Role
To Intelligence
By Harry S Truman
Copyright, 1963, by Harry S Truman
INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.
Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.
But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations.
I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.
Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/29-8 Published on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Are Presidents Afraid of the CIA?
by Ray McGovern
In my article of Dec. 22, I referred to Harry Truman's op-ed of exactly 46 years before, titled "Limit CIA Role to Intelligence," in which the former President expressed dismay at what the Central Intelligence Agency had become just 16 years after he and Congress created it.
The Washington Post published the op-ed on December 22, 1963 in its early edition, but immediately excised it from later editions. Other media ignored it. The long hand of the CIA?
Truman wrote that he was "disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment" to keep the President promptly and fully informed and had become "an operational and at times policy-making arm of the government."
The Truman Papers
Documents in the Truman Library show that nine days after Kennedy was assassinated, Truman sketched out in handwritten notes what he wanted to say in the op-ed. He noted, among other things, that the CIA had worked as he intended only "when I had control."
In Truman's view, misuse of the CIA began in February 1953, when his successor, Dwight Eisenhower, named Allen Dulles CIA Director. Dulles' forte was overthrowing governments (in current parlance, "regime change"), and he was quite good at it. With coups in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954) under his belt, Dulles was riding high in the late Fifties and moved Cuba to the top of his to-do list.
Accustomed to the carte blanche given him by Eisenhower, Dulles was offended when young President Kennedy came on the scene and had the temerity to ask questions about the Bay of Pigs adventure, which had been set in motion under Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would NOT approve the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles reacted with disdain and set out to mousetrap the new President.
Coffee-stained notes handwritten by Allen Dulles were discovered after his death and reported by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke. They show how Dulles drew Kennedy into a plan that was virtually certain to require the use of U.S. combat forces. In his notes Dulles explains that, "when the chips were down," the new President would be forced by "the realities of the situation" to give whatever military support was necessary "rather than permit the enterprise to fail."
Additional detail came from a March 2001 conference on the Bay of Pigs, which included CIA operatives, retired military commanders, scholars, and journalists. Daniel Schorr told National Public Radio that he had gained one new perception as a result of the "many hours of talk and heaps of declassified secret documents:"
"It was that the CIA overlords of the invasion, Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Richard Bissell had their own plan on how to bring the United States into the conflict...What they expected was that the invaders would establish a beachhead...and appeal for aid from the United States...
"The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots. American forces, probably Marines, would come in to expand the beachhead.
"In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed," added Schorr.
The "enterprise" which Dulles said could not fail was, of course, the overthrow of Fidel Castro. After mounting several failed operations to assassinate him, this time Dulles meant to get his man, with little or no attention to what the Russians might do in reaction. Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak; fired Dulles and his co-conspirators a few months after the abortive invasion in April 1961; and told a friend that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds."
The outrage was mutual, and when Kennedy himself was assassinated on November 22, 1963, it must have occurred to Truman that the disgraced Dulles and his outraged associates might not be above conspiring to get rid of a President they felt was soft on Communism-and, incidentally, get even.
In his op-ed of December 22, 1963 Truman warned: "The most important thing...was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions." It is a safe bet that Truman had the Bay of Pigs fiasco uppermost in mind.
Truman called outright for CIA's operational duties [to] be terminated or properly used elsewhere." (This is as good a recommendation now as it was then, in my view.)
On December 27, retired Admiral Sidney Souers, whom Truman had appointed to lead his first central intelligence group, sent a "Dear Boss" letter applauding Truman's outspokenness and blaming Dulles for making the CIA "a different animal than I tried to set up for you." Souers specifically lambasted the attempt "to conduct a ‘war' invading Cuba with a handful of men and without air cover."
Souers also lamented the fact that the agency's "principal effort" had evolved into causing "revolutions in smaller countries around the globe," and added:
With so much emphasis on operations, it would not surprise me to find that the matter of collecting and processing intelligence has suffered some."
Clearly, CIA's operational tail was wagging the substantive dog-a serious problem that persists to this day. For example, CIA analysts are super-busy supporting operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan; no one seems to have told them that they need to hazard a guess as to where this is all leading and whether it makes any sense.
That is traditionally done in a National Intelligence Estimate. Can you believe there at this late date there is still no such Estimate? Instead, the President has chosen to rely on he advice of Gen. David Petraeus, who many believe will be Obama's opponent in the 2012 presidential election.
Fox Guarding Henhouse?
In any case, the well-connected Dulles got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFK's assassination. Documents in the Truman Library show that he then mounted a targeted domestic covert action of his own to neutralize any future airing of Truman's and Souers' warnings about covert action.
So important was this to Dulles that he invented a pretext to get himself invited to visit Truman in Independence, Missouri. On the afternoon of April 17, 1964 he spent a half-hour trying to get the former President to retract what he had said in his op-ed. No dice, said Truman.
No problem, thought Dulles. Four days later, in a formal memo for his old buddy Lawrence Houston, CIA General Counsel from 1947 to 1973, Dulles fabricated a private retraction, claiming that Truman told him the Washington Post article was "all wrong," and that Truman "seemed quite astounded at it."
No doubt Dulles thought it might be handy to have such a memo in CIA files, just in case.
A fabricated retraction? It certainly seems so, because Truman did not change his tune. Far from it. In a June 10, 1964 letter to the managing editor of Look magazine, for example, Truman restated his critique of covert action, emphasizing that he never intended the CIA to get involved in "strange activities."
Dulles and Dallas
Dulles could hardly have expected to get Truman to recant publicly. So why was it so important for Dulles to place in CIA files a fabricated retraction. My guess is that in early 1964 he was feeling a good bit of heat from those suggesting the CIA might have been involved somehow in the Kennedy assassination. Indeed, one or two not-yet-intimidated columnists were daring to ask how the truth could ever come out with Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission. Prescient.
Dulles feared, rightly, that Truman's limited-edition op-ed might yet get some ink, and perhaps even airtime, and raise serious questions about covert action. Dulles would have wanted to be in position to flash the Truman "retraction," with the hope that this would nip any serious questioning in the bud. The media had already shown how co-opted-er, I mean "cooperative"-it could be.
As the de facto head of the Warren Commission, Dulles was perfectly positioned to exculpate himself and any of his associates, were any commissioners or investigators-or journalists-tempted to question whether the killing in Dallas might have been a CIA covert action.
Did Allen Dulles and other "cloak-and-dagger" CIA operatives have a hand in killing President Kennedy and then covering it up? The most up-to-date-and, in my view, the best-dissection of the assassination appeared last year in James Douglass' book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/maggie/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]. After updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still more interviews, Douglass concludes the answer is Yes.
April, 1967 Memo from CIA to Media Assets on how to defend Warren Report (i.e. cover up JFK assassination).
Question: why does CIA even HAVE media assets?
CIA Instructions to Media Assets
This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Emphasis has been added to facilitate scanning.
CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of...
"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.
"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.
