Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: John Barbour: Averill Harriman ordered the assassination

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    Scott, its the other way around. He says it was not the Russians.
    Is there a better source than Max Holland for what Harriman told LBJ?

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    Scott, its the other way around. He says it was not the Russians.
    Ooops! Got caught up in the moment, and well, there's no darn excuse, I should've taken the time and read it clearly, I figured, lots of folk tried blaming the communist in the early stage of the aftermath that the only thing on their minds were ousting Fidel, what they didn't expect, and it blew up in their face is the fact that Fidel blamed the U.S. for whacking their own president, that pretty much prevented the U.S. from any planned invasion, November 25, 1963 was called off. That's my point.

    Scott

  3. #13

    Default

    I'm not just pulling information out of thin air, I have been in communication with the son of Babun, his profession is a doctor in Miami, his father and uncle, the Babun brother's worked with my father in an assassination plot to kill Fidel, Raul and Che.


    Scott

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Dagosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff Varnell View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Dagosto View Post
    Well that's only proof that Harriman lied about a meeting of top Kremlinologists. That's hardly proof that he "ordered the assassination" of JFK as Barbour claimed.
    Of course. There's no hard evidence of any particular person ordering the assassination.

    But because Harriman lied about something as important as possible Soviet involvement a few hours after the murder marks him as a legitimate "person of interest" worthy of greater scrutiny.
    After re-reading your original post I find that the claim about Harriman lying about the meeting of Kremlinologists to be a pretty weak one. And, by the way, I have very little trust or confidence in anything that Max Holland writes or says.

    Let's take the argument by parts.

    1. Holland's statement is second hand and he doesn't actually mention a meeting - you do that. Could Harriman have consulted those experts by telephone or telex?

    2. Holland does not name any participants so saying that Bohlen and Kennan were either traveling or did not mention any meeting with Harriman does not preclude the possibility that other men were consulted and that Holland is embellishing by using the term "top Kremlinologists". Maybe he was referring to the "top Kremlinologists" available on short notice on 11/22/63.

    So I have difficulty concluding that this is hard evidence of Harriman "lying" about the view of Soviet experts about their involvement (or lack of same) in the assassination. I would be more convinced if you had a source other than Holland and had a direct quotation of what Harriman actually told LBJ. And if he was, is your argument that Bohlen and Kennan would have supported the case for Soviet involvement and Harriman either lied about what he was told or avoided consulting them because he knew what they would say? I'm having a hard time with that one.

    I can see Harriman going along with the Lone Nut coverup by denying any foreign involvement, in effect, telling LBJ what he wanted to hear (not that there actually was any Soviet or Cuban involvement as we well know). But I can't get from there to him being a major player in the plot without much more convincing evidence. Sure, he's a person of interest because of this Eastern Establishment/big banking roots and his association with the national security state. But we can say that about a lot of other guys as well.
    Phil, I won't get down to the library until after Thanksgiving to dig out the biographical quotes regarding Charles Bohlen, George Kennan and Roger Hilsman.

    I emailed Max Holland requesting a transcript of the tape of the LBJ/Harriman meeting, but didn't hear back.

    Your argument deserves a more detailed rebuttal than I can do in the short term.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff Varnell View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Dagosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff Varnell View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Dagosto View Post
    Well that's only proof that Harriman lied about a meeting of top Kremlinologists. That's hardly proof that he "ordered the assassination" of JFK as Barbour claimed.
    Of course. There's no hard evidence of any particular person ordering the assassination.

    But because Harriman lied about something as important as possible Soviet involvement a few hours after the murder marks him as a legitimate "person of interest" worthy of greater scrutiny.
    After re-reading your original post I find that the claim about Harriman lying about the meeting of Kremlinologists to be a pretty weak one. And, by the way, I have very little trust or confidence in anything that Max Holland writes or says.

    Let's take the argument by parts.

    1. Holland's statement is second hand and he doesn't actually mention a meeting - you do that. Could Harriman have consulted those experts by telephone or telex?

    2. Holland does not name any participants so saying that Bohlen and Kennan were either traveling or did not mention any meeting with Harriman does not preclude the possibility that other men were consulted and that Holland is embellishing by using the term "top Kremlinologists". Maybe he was referring to the "top Kremlinologists" available on short notice on 11/22/63.

    So I have difficulty concluding that this is hard evidence of Harriman "lying" about the view of Soviet experts about their involvement (or lack of same) in the assassination. I would be more convinced if you had a source other than Holland and had a direct quotation of what Harriman actually told LBJ. And if he was, is your argument that Bohlen and Kennan would have supported the case for Soviet involvement and Harriman either lied about what he was told or avoided consulting them because he knew what they would say? I'm having a hard time with that one.

    I can see Harriman going along with the Lone Nut coverup by denying any foreign involvement, in effect, telling LBJ what he wanted to hear (not that there actually was any Soviet or Cuban involvement as we well know). But I can't get from there to him being a major player in the plot without much more convincing evidence. Sure, he's a person of interest because of this Eastern Establishment/big banking roots and his association with the national security state. But we can say that about a lot of other guys as well.
    Phil, I won't get down to the library until after Thanksgiving to dig out the biographical quotes regarding Charles Bohlen, George Kennan and Roger Hilsman.

    I emailed Max Holland requesting a transcript of the tape of the LBJ/Harriman meeting, but didn't hear back.

    Your argument deserves a more detailed rebuttal than I can do in the short term.
    Thank you Cliff - I appreciate your making the effort. I'm still at a loss to understand what his motivation would have been. To disguise Soviet involvement? Since this, as we know, was non-existent what would be the point? To throw shade at any idea of a conspiracy and focus the investigation on Oswald? More believable but hardly necessary given that the die had already been cast.

    Enjoy your holiday.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •