The Invasion of Cuba: Never the Intention of JFK Hit Sponsors

[Jack White]

How does the CIA/JVB/LHO/Ferie/Ochsner plot to kill Castro
with the teenager's cancer virus which LHO was to deliver to
Cuba, only to be foiled by a hurricane, fit into the KILL CASTRO
scenario?

Jack

[Ed Jewett]

Charles, I swept right past all the other responses without reading them so as not to be influenced by them and and thus could respond to your Post #1 thesis freshly. I am not a student of the events of Dealey Plaza at the same level as almost everyone else here. I do not inherently disagree with what you have said. But what I have gleaned from a host of reading-at-a-distance and the recent excursion through JFKU is that that thesis needs the tiniest bit of tweaking.

The way I grok the process and events -- and this was leant some credence by JFKU -- is that a significant numbers of "inputs" are put into the system, threads or strings if you will, little bits of "action" and covertness that can be yanked if and when some puppeteer deems it useful. In that way, as any given plan or operation evolves, there are a number of players and plausibly deniable assets and events in play which can be "turned", twisted, yanked, or burned and destroyed. [That all of them don't get handled cleanly is simply the residue with which people like the investigators os deep politics and 'state actions against democracy' can then use to deduce what really went down. They become the clues that don't add up, or provide further insight into the actions of the perps when they themsleves are re-turned.]

I think the rustling of anti-Cuban sentiments and actions was real -- certainly for lots of the people involved. That it was never intended to "go live" then must be seen as true or not true only in the light of things that never occurred or tumbled into place.

But then I was never a high-level spook...

[Charles Drago]

Charles, I swept right past all the other responses without reading them so as not to be influenced by them and and thus could respond to your Post #1 thesis freshly. I am not a student of the events of Dealey Plaza at the same level as almost everyone else here. I do not inherently disagree with what you have said. But what I have gleaned from a host of reading-at-a-distance and the recent excursion through JFKU is that that thesis needs the tiniest bit of tweaking.

The way I grok the process and events -- and this was leant some credence by JFKU -- is that a significant numbers of "inputs" are put into the system, threads or strings if you will, little bits of "action" and covertness that can be yanked if and when some puppeteer deems it useful. In that way, as any given plan or operation evolves, there are a number of players and plausibly deniable assets and events in play which can be "turned", twisted, yanked, or burned and destroyed. [That all of them don't get handled cleanly is simply the residue with which people like the investigators os deep politics and 'state actions against democracy' can then use to deduce what really went down. They become the clues that don't add up, or provide further insight into the actions of the perps when they themsleves are re-turned.]

I think the rustling of anti-Cuban sentiments and actions was real -- certainly for lots of the people involved. That it was never intended to "go live" then must be seen as true or not true only in the light of things that never occurred or tumbled into place.

But then I was never a high-level spook...

Thanks for your valuable response, Ed.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I combined snippets from my original post with reactions to some of your thoughts as rendered above.


DRAGO: The sponsors of the JFK assassination never intended to permit a post-Dallas retaliatory invasion of Cuba[.]

JEWETT: [A] significant numbers of "inputs" are put into the system, threads or strings if you will, little bits of "action" and covertness that can be yanked if and when some puppeteer deems it useful[.]

COMMENT: I emphasized "sponsors" because the Evica/Drago "sponsor/facilitator/mechanic" model of the JFK hit informs just about everything I write about the event -- including my initial post on this thread.

We are in agreement that "inputs," or options, are indeed built into intelligence ops not just during the planning stages, but also post-initiations, as ideas and goals are refined and exigent circumstances are addressed.

In 1963 as today, and for consistent and evolving reasons, a Communist Cuba is as critically important a component in the agendas of the sponsors of the JFK hit and their heirs as is the continuing "ominous" presence of Hugo Chavez. (And let's neither conflate the life of Fidel with the life of the Revolution, nor understand Cuba's Revolutionary structure to be monolithic in its philosophical and operational manifestations.)

In 1963, eliminations of the pre-eminent Caribbean bogeyman and/or Communism in Cuba may indeed have existed as inputs/options for the sponsors and the "treasonous cabal of hard-line American and Soviet intelligence agents whose masters were above Cold War differences" who did their bidding at the highest facilitator level; however, I must argue that there is no evidence to suggest that, at the sponsorship level, they were on the table as desired consequences of the JFK hit.

DRAGO: [The sponsors called for the planting of] false evidence to support a plausible connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and Fidel Castro's government solely in order to promote fears of an American-Soviet nuclear exchange should an honest investigation of the muder be conducted.

JEWETT: I think the rustling of anti-Cuban sentiments and actions was real -- certainly for lots of the people involved. That it was never intended to "go live" then must be seen as true or not true only in the light of things that never occurred or tumbled into place.

COMMENT: Of course anti-Cuban sentiments were manipulated by the sponsors and their highest-level facilitators -- but only for the purposes of creating false sponsors and, minimally, securing pre-hit services from individuals and institutions committed to murdering Castro and destroying the Cuban Communist Party.

How can I be so certain that the eliminations of Castro and the Cuban Communist Party were not part of the sponsor's overall plan? Because Castro and the Cuban Communist Party remain in place to this day, and there is no other credible hypothesis put forward to date to explain why an invasion of Cuba did not follow on the heels of JFK's assassination.

To address one of the non-credible hypotheses commonly trotted out to refute my reasoning on these issues, I included the following in my first post here: "The capture of a living, talking LHO -- as opposed to the display of a shot-while-trying-to-escape assassin's corpse or the presentation of 'evidence' for LHO's successful flight to Cuba -- was insufficient to derail plans for a Cuban invasion."

A "living, talking" LHO never possessed knowledge of the plot sufficient to implicate and give away the games of high level facilitators -- let alone all-but-invulnerable sponsors whose identities we can but grasp at even today. And even if he did, he was effectively silenced from the moment of his arrest to the moment of his execution. And beyond.

You thoughts, please.

[Anthony Marsh]

The Pedro Charles letters were one such hoax that the Cuban exiles used to link Oswald to Castro and spark an invasion of Cuba. Unfortunately Hoover thought they were real and cited them as evidence of conspiracy stemming from Castro and LBJ believed Hoover.
That and other hoaxes related to it were the reason why LBJ ordered a cover-up and formed the Warren Commission.

[Ed Jewett]

[quote=Ed Jewett]

You thoughts, please.

Bear with me; this may take a bit. First, I ought now to go back and read the thread. Second, I'll need to pause for reflection and thought, as I may in deeper than I belong. Luckily, I just made a fresh cup of coffee.

[Charles Drago]

The Pedro Charles letters were one such hoax that the Cuban exiles used to link Oswald to Castro and spark an invasion of Cuba. Unfortunately Hoover thought they were real and cited them as evidence of conspiracy stemming from Castro and LBJ believed Hoover.
That and other hoaxes related to it were the reason why LBJ ordered a cover-up and formed the Warren Commission.

This could not be more wrong.

[Charles Drago]

[quote=Ed Jewett]

You thoughts, please.

Bear with me; this may take a bit. First, I ought now to go back and read the thread. Second, I'll need to pause for reflection and thought, as I may in deeper than I belong. Luckily, I just made a fresh cup of coffee.

Ed,

I can't imagine you being in over your head on this or any other subject on which you choose to opine.

Drink up, and get back to us when you can.

Respectfully,

Charlie

[Ed Jewett]

[quote=Ed Jewett]

You thoughts, please.

Bear with me; this may take a bit. First, I ought now to go back and read the thread. Second, I'll need to pause for reflection and thought, as I may in deeper than I belong. Luckily, I just made a fresh cup of coffee.

Ed,

I can't imagine you being in over your head on this or any other subject on which you choose to opine.

Drink up, and get back to us when you can.

Respectfully,

Charlie

Thank you, sir. I shall try to live up to the compliment.

Two coffees with Kahlua later, here it is, as a starter. (In the long run, someone with some sophisticated software for mind-mapping, network charting, an an acumen for business research might get deeper...)



Wow! Having reviewed the thread, I can only first echo what I have said before. I am in disbelief that I am even here on this forum, let alone in this thread. It suggests I ought to withdraw and let the big boys play. I am limited for not having spent the time and depth that others have looking at the details (but then I was always struck by the Salandria caution about not getting trapped in the detail). I am also limited for not having perhaps a critical understanding of British cultural experience, milieu and nuance, since many of the participants here are in or from the UK. I do have to laugh (and probably agree) with the suggested Peter Dale Scott theory of ‘throw a rock and hit a narco-trafficker’ (more about which later).

I come to the question late, ‘tainted’ by the many events since 11/22/63 (but then perhaps that has informed me as well). While I was alive then, I didn’t begin studying JFK (and then only as a reader of books) until I was well beyond college; I had the time then. But I’ve lived through the history and now am post-9/11, and look at things to a great extent through that lens. So I am coming at this question of sponsorship from a “stand-off” position and, to a degree, intuition based on the intensity of my research since 9/11 on subjects tangential to the JFK questions.

With regard to the Evica/Drago "sponsor/facilitator/mechanic" template, I think I understand/understood Drago’s use of the word “sponsor”. I see that template as being relatively transparent: the mechanics are the shooters and their associates, the facilitators are the guys in charge of both the set-up of the stage and the takedown of the stage (and also critically involved in the cover-up, the propaganda and disinformation, etc.), and the sponsors are the folks whose shirt-cuffs will never be so much as dusty, the ones who winked at the right time, whose deep state or overworld machinations -- far removed from the visible inner circles of government agencies -- decide what shall happen (even if only in broad strokes, leaving the details to the facilitators and mechanics). Correct me, Charles, if I am wrong.

All that introductory “white bread” having been dispensed with, let me begin to build my thinking/awareness in the following way, all of which is focused on the Evica/Drago concept of “sponsor”:


#1) Douglass, in JFKU (Page 370), says:

“Even before his assassination took place, there was evidence that those in command of our security agencies may have already been thinking about whom they might have to kill next for the sake of the nation.”

Why do I choose that quote?

A) To zero in more thoroughly on the nature, depth and “command” of our security agencies….; it is a given that “intel” is now split among perhaps as many as 14-20 separate entities; this should be teased apart, charted, mapped and analyzed as a project for the future, and perhaps even retrospectively to see the nature, status, activity, power/salience, and “command” of what agencies existed in the early 60’s. Earlier in JFKU, Douglass drops what for me is a tantalizing “bone” when he mentions Naval Intelligence, in this case as the “cut-out” for Oswald after his arrest (page 366), as alleged by Marchetti, and also because of some possible role played by Naval Intelligence in other matters (ahem[/FONT]). Perhaps someone should look at or chart the frequency with which Naval ranks have provided the formal leaders of the CIA, the NSA, and the NSC. I also note the word “command” and go back to the earlier stated theory that said “command” actually existed outside the agency and well beyond the starred uniforms or others sitting in the chair behind the desk (more about which later).

B)To introduce my perspective or bias of looking at this thing backwards… i.e., from what we can see or discern about deep state/security state process and operations in the recent ten years to see if it illuminates what happened in Dallas. The idea of killing people for the good of the nation is now very much in the forefront, openly admitted and practiced (and most of us would likely adhere to some theory about multiple cases in the past). Thie approach is also used (albeit far more wisely and intensely) by Peter Dale Scott. The one resource of his I have at my fingertips is his book “The Road to 9/11”. (Maybe my lifetime will extend long enough for me to become intimately familiar with the rest of them. )[Scott’s glossary is here: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...t+glossary ]

From that book:

“The tension between an open public state and a closed deep state or security state existing within it is an old and widespread phenomenon. In the United States, it has become more acute since the beginning of the Cold War in the 1940s, when the investment firms of the Wall Street overworld provided President Harry Truman with his secretary of defense, James V. Forrestal. This same overworld provided them with both the ideas and the personnel for a new Central Intelligence Agency.” [Page 4]


“The overworld was clearly centered in Wall Street in the 1940s, and CIA was primarily designed there.”] [Page 6]


“The subordination of the flag to trade has satisfied most U.S. economic interests, or so-called traders, symbolized by Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations. But it also created a so-called Prussian backlash, especially in the military ….” [Page 8]

“From 1945 to 1947 elements in the U.S. Army conspired to maintain contacts with former German anti-communists in Europe and their German Army commander, General Reinhard Gehlen. Five men were involved, of whom three (William J. Donovan, Allen Dulles, and Frank Wisner) were representatives of the Wall Street overworld and also of the New York Social Register….

Although it took two years to overcome their opponents, the Wall Street lawyers and bankers in Truman’s administration succeeded in 1947 in establishing CIA…. This new agency … had been urged on Washington by the War-Peace Studies Project of the Council of Foreign Affairs in the early 1940s. [Footnote 40] It was reinforced by a report commissioned in 1945 by navy secretary James V. Forrestal. The report was written Ferdinand Eberstadt, who like Forrestal was a private Wall Street banker from the investment bank Dillon Read. [Footnote 41] [See below* for more about Dillon Read.]

As CIA director Richard Helms narrates in his memoirs, Allen Dulles (then a Republican lawyer at Sullivan and Cromwell in New York) was recruited in 1946 “to draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947. [Footnote 42] Dulles promptly formed an advisory group of six men, all but one of whom were Wall Street investment bankers or lawyers. [Footnote 43] In 1948, Forrestal appointed Dulles chairman of a committee, along with two other New York lawyers, to review CIA’s performance. [Footnote 44] “The three lawyers conferred for close to a year in one of the board rooms at J. H. Whitney,” another Wall Street investment firm. [Footnote 45]

In its first two decades, CIA, like its intellectual parent the Council on Foreign Relations, was dominated internally and externally by the aristocratic elements of the New York overworld. All seven of the known deputy directors of CIA during this period came from the same New York legal and financial circles; and six of them were listed in the New York Social Register as well. [Footnote 46] When joined by the young James Angleton, son of an international corporation executive, this early core became the basis for an inner “agency-within-an-agency” that survived into the 1960s**. [Footnote 47]

Within a year the NSC was authorizing covert operations overseas through CIA. In fact, these operations were being implemented by an even more secret group within CIA, the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC)….” [For the sake of brevity, I am leaving out the description of the “CIA success in Italy”, the election of a Christian democratic government.] “The wealthy industrialists in Milan were hesitant to provide the money, fearing reprisals if the Communists won, and so the hat was passed at the Brook Club in New York. But Allen Dulles felt the problem could not be handled effectively in private hands. He urged strongly that the government establish a covert organization. [Footnote 51]

This episode is instructive. The defense secretary felt the operation should be a private undertaking, but a private Wall Street lawyer (from the political party that was not currently in power) determined that it should be carried out by the government…..” [Pages 12-13]

With the exception of Footnote 43, I shall not replicate their text here, but if others feel it is important or useful and don’t have ready access to the book, drop a note in the thread.

Footnote 43 reads as follows:

“Helms with Hood, Look Over My Shoulder, 82-83; cf. Hersh, Old Boys, 185. The six were Kingman Douglass, managing partner of Dillon Read; Robert Lovett of Brown Brothers Harriman; William H. Jackson and Frank Wisner of Carter, Ledyard and Milburn; Paul Nitze of Dillon Read; and former Director of Central Intelligence Admiral Sidney Souers, who in 1946 retired to become a St. Louis investment banker.”


* A great deal of my perspective or intuition about question comes from “Dillon, Read and Co., Inc.: The Aristocracy of Stock Profits” by Catherine Austin Fitts, available online at http://www.dunwalke.com/ . Two elements of the story:

#1) “In June of 1999, Richard Grasso, Chairman of the New York stock exchange, went to Colombia to visit a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia Commander to encourage him to reinvest in the New York Stock Exchange ...”

#2) “John Birkelund arrived at Dillon Read in September 1981. Born in Glencoe, Illinois, he had graduated from Princeton and then had joined the Navy where he served with the Office of Naval Intelligence in Berlin. While in Europe he became friends with Edward Stinnes, who recruited him after a short career with Booz Allen in Chicago to work in New York for the Rothschild family, considered to be one of if not the wealthiest family in the world….. He started at Amsterdam Overseas Corporation, which then moved its venture capital business into New Court Securities with Birkelund as co-founder. New Court was owned by the Rothschild banks in Paris and London, Pierson Heldring Pierson in Amsterdam and the management. Their venture successes included Cray Research, inventor of the high-powered computers by that name, and Federal Express, the courier company based in Memphis which is the largest recipient of Federal government contracts in Tennessee. A Time Magazine story from December 1981, “The Rothschilds Are Roving” describes a decision by the French Rothschilds in response to the nationalization of Banque Rothschild by President Mitterrand to move significant operations and focus to the U.S. Time reports that they are changing the name of their aggressive venture capital firm, New Court Securities to Rothschild, Inc. and are taking over from the current CEO, John Birkelund.

** And beyond? I note simply that Reagan’s DCI was the former chairman of the SEC. In addition, there is further niblets available inside “the Lynx Lair”, a collection of material wondering out loud if there was a connection between Iran-Contra, 9/11 and the recent bailouts in the U.S. That can be accessed here: http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Un...topic=7553

Look there and elsewhere for material on:

• Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, CEO of American International Group (AIG);
  
• John Negroponte;
  
• Admiral Poindexter;
  
• Indications of computerized machinations in, on and around Wall Street;
  
• Ed Encho’s four-part series on MainCore;
  
• Steve Kangas’ work, The Origins of the Overclass; while some would say that the title suggests that the CIA created the overclass, not that the overclass created the CIA, the materials inside the Lynx Lair suggest that the CIA succeeds in perpetuating and insulating the overclass by acting as its intelligence/operations network in Gladio-like methods, commercial or industrial espionage, economic warfare by multiple means (including the now-critical field of "black" or stealth software), and "wet" executive actions;
  
• Kennedy’s own warning:
  

"...a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."

The broader section of somewhat-related threads is here: http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Un...wforum=163

What also clearly must be kept in mind, discussed to a great degree in Scott's "Road to 9/11", is that the internal "deep" battle for dominance of the American system after the Vietnam War era has been waged by multiple groups in a back-and-forth and evolving manner. The elements that function and battle now were not the same as those active in the early 60's. There are some subtle links and nuances, but we are cautioned to maintain clarity of a precise and crystalline nature.

[Anthony Marsh]

What do you think is wrong. Hoover was a moron. You know that.
In a memo on Dec. 12, 1963 he told his top aides that there are
letters indicating that Oswald was part of a conspiracy.
In the White House tapes you can hear LBJ refer to the information that Hoover gave him about Oswald's visit to the Cuban embassy in Mexico. That was the Alvarado tale of Oswald being paid $6,500 by the DGI agent. LBJ cited that as proof that it was a conspiracy and used it to blackmail people into serving on the Warren Commission. In order to prevent WWIII.

[Paul Rigby]

A quick plug for a thread started by Gerald Ven on JFK Lancer, "Adm. George W. Anderson, Jr., Joint Chiefs & JFK." In particular, this excellent post in response by Gary Craig:

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard...87079&page

Interesting. In a briefing for RFK on Operation Mongoose from the JCS files:

"... the military believe the continued existence of the Castro Communist regime is incompatable with the minimum security requirements of the United States and the entire Western Hemisphere."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...elPageId=3

Then on 12/3/63 a complete about face?

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL TAYLOR from LBJ

The more I look at it, the more it is clear to me that South Vietnam is our most critical military area right now. I hope you and your colleages in the Joint Chiefs of Staff will see to it that the very best available officers are assigned to General Harkins' command in all areas and for all purposes. We should put our blue ribbon men on this job at every level.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...elPageId=3

Gary Craig