A Sarcastic "Thank you" to Phil Shenon

[Alan Dale]

Dan Hardway has written a "must read" article that I want to share as much as possible. Please help direct attention to this important contribution to our on-going battle against deceit and misdirection. http://2017jfk.org/read/

[Peter Lemkin]

Dan Hardway has written a "must read" article that I want to share as much as possible. Please help direct attention to this important contribution to our on-going battle against deceit and misdirection. http://2017jfk.org/read/

Good article. Short. Bitter-Sweet. True.

The 'conspiracy' was not just against JFK, but against anything resembling a democracy for most Americans and for American polity. The Oligarchic Right and their sycophantic followers have always wanted a top-down hierarchical, crypto-dictatorial, undemocratic, crypto-fascist state - and now they all but have (or already have) one. 911 having been their last little 'stage device' to make this so...but Dallas was one of their first BIG ones after WW2....but not the first and certainly not the last in a very long line of dirty tricks and covert operations against democracy and the rule of law; and any semblance of the distribution of the wealth and power in the society.

Welcome to neo-feudalism serfs. There is no democracy in America - unless WE organize and take it back from those who stole it from us. I'd say that goes too for most of the rest of the World.

[Paul Rigby]

Dan Hardway has written a "must read" article that I want to share as much as possible. Please help direct attention to this important contribution to our on-going battle against deceit and misdirection. http://2017jfk.org/read/

Fowler Hamilton: The DCI who never was

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=19433

I should explain that the Dulles succession intrigues me for two main reasons.

First, this was an appointment of profound significance for Kennedy and his new diplomacy: If he couldn't establish control over the Agency, what hope for his reassertion of the primacy of the diplomatic over the paramilitary, of détente over cold (and hot) war? I stress that this isn't an example of retrospective imposition. The issue of the CIA's behaviour was a matter of deep concern to the White House at the time.

Second, the late shuffling of the deck which resulted in the appointment of McCone, not Hamilton, is eerily reminiscent of what happened in the senior ranks of the Secret Service at much the same time.

If I had to place money on one hypothesis before the rest, it would be this: A late and sustained intervention by such as Acheson et al, perhaps supplemented by the emergence of a classic Angletonian smear. But this is pure guess-work and fit only for testing against the evidence.

Confirmation of that thesis duly came from Robert Howard:

There was a controversy regarding Fowler Hamilton's appointment as a potential successor to Allen Dulles, but if you accept Robert Kennedy's explanation, it is probably not for the reason you might think. In the interview with John Bartlow Martin, after mentioning JFK's desire for Bobby to head the CIA, which was determined to be too controversial, they take the point up.

In Robert F. Kennedy - In His Own Words p. 253 (Milo) Fowler Hamilton.....

MARTIN: Fowler Hamilton became head of AID.

RFK: It centered on Fowler Hamilton. I spoke to him tentatively about becoming head of CIA. Everybody had spoken well of him and thought that he had gotten very high marks. Then we found in some papers that had been uncovered - he'd worked in the Second World War in some capacity -- in a code that had been broken in the Second World War, that there was a Russian spy, somebody working in the same department as he, who was delivering important information to the Communists, He was close enough to Fowler Hamilton that at least one person on the British side had thought that the information had come from Fowler Hamilton. Actually, investigating and looking into it deeply, I was convinced that it had not. He wasn't involved at all. But the British had the information. If there was somebody over there in an important position who thought so and they had to work closely together, it might even infect the relationship.

All of which illustrates yet again, if you want to know what Dulles was up to in the period 1962-1963, follow Angleton.