Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

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.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Dagosto View Post

    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.
    Hi Phil

    I didn't forget about our discussion here. Thinking it thru I've concluded the entire premise is absurd: that any US Kremlinologist could determine the innocence of the Soviets when all that was known at the time was that Oswald went to Russia. News of Oswald's Soviet ties hit the airwaves at 4:25pm EST (iirc) Harriman went to the airport around 6. How could anyone make a responsible conclusion of Soviet innocence in such short time with such little information?

    That Oswald lived in the Soviet Union exonerates the Soviets?

    The only way someone could honestly claim knowledge of Soviet innocence was if they knew who assassinated JFK.

    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.
    Jack Valenti – in “A Very Human President” (1973, p3)
    <quote on>
    Shortly before 7:00 P.M., I escorted Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Ambassador Averell Harriman into the office. I fidgeted outside, in the middle of what would have appeared to be an objective onlooker to be a mélange of confusion. No one of the Johnson aides, Marie Fehmer, his secretary; the late Cliff Carter, his chief political agent; Bill Moyers, nor any of the rest, was quite certain of what lay ahead. We were all busy on the phone and trying to assemble what measure of office discipline we could construct.
    <quote off>

    After that meeting Cliff Carter called the Dallas Assist. DA to get him off the international conspiracy charge.


    Could Harriman have consulted those experts by telephone or telex?
    Okay. How does that discussion go? Kennedy was dead, the police arrested an ex-Marine who'd lived in the Soviet Union.

    "Well, that settles it, the Soviets were not involved, we all agree!"

    "Okay, I'm on the way to the airport...."

    Such a snap judgment couldn't happen, could it?


    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.
    Okay. So Oswald lived in the Soviet Union and that's proof positive the Soviets were not involved. Several Kremlinologists all made the same snap decision?

    Such reasoning defies logic.


    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.
    How could they say anything at that point? Oswald wasn't even charged with the crime!


    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.
    Fair enough.

  7. 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
    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff Varnell View Post

    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.
    I did, thank you.

    I'd bet Harriman wanted to kill the Oswald-as-Red-Agent scenario which was still being pushed in some quarters. The die was in the process of being cast.


    I

  8. Default

    Thanks for your reply Cliff. I still don't see any real evidence of Harriman's involvement in the assassination. He may have been full of it regarding his opinion about what "top Kremlinologists" had said and yes, it was way too soon to conclude that but how does that equate to "ordering the assassination" which is what this discussion is about? And even if he was lying as you claim he was he would have only been lying about his certainty that there was no Soviet involvement because in actual fact, there wasn't any! And again, there were many, many people in government discounting the possibility of any conspiracy , Soviet or otherwise, without having any more basis for their opinions than Harriman had for his. Were they all conspirators?

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Dagosto View Post
    Thanks for your reply Cliff. I still don't see any real evidence of Harriman's involvement in the assassination.
    I think we're looking at Harriman's possible knowledge of the plot.

    The Wise Men, Walter Isaakson & Evan Thomas, pg 640:


    [11/22 Harriman's Chief of Staff] Bill Sullivan found Averell Harriman that afternoon sitting on the edge of his chair, in front of a television set, holding his head in his hands.

    Sounds like Harriman was extremely uptight that afternoon.

    That bit about "US gov't top Kremlinologists" was clearly a lie.

    He may have been full of it regarding his opinion about what "top Kremlinologists" had said and yes, it was way too soon to conclude that but how does that equate to "ordering the assassination" which is what this discussion is about?
    I'm laying out my approach to the case, your mileage will vary no doubt. Look for the liars. Like Bundy:

    The President Has Been Shot. Charles Roberts (p. 141) A reporter for Newsweek Roberts was on AFI and met McGeorge Bundy at Andrews.


    I remember looking at (McGeorge) Bundy because I was wondering if he had any word of what had happened in the world while we were in transit, whether this assassination was part of a plot. And he told me later that what he reported to the president during that flight back was that the whole world was stunned, but there was no evidence of a conspiracy at all.
    11/23 George HW Bush called the FBI to put the finger on fellow Young Republican James Parrott. Liar.

    The evening of 11/22 Jock Whitney went into his office at the New York Herald Tribune to write an editorial identifying Oswald as a lone psychopath. Liar.

    Harriman, Bundy and Bush were Skull & Bones.

    Whitney, Harriman and Bush had pads in uber-exclusive Jupiter Island, Florida.

    The cover-up was directed by high level WASPs.

    And even if he was lying as you claim he was he would have only been lying about his certainty that there was no Soviet involvement because in actual fact, there wasn't any! And again, there were many, many people in government discounting the possibility of any conspiracy , Soviet or otherwise, without having any more basis for their opinions than Harriman had for his. Were they all conspirators?
    At 7pm EST 11/22/63 there was one guy pushing the no-conspiracy story -- McGeorge Bundy.

    There was more activity painting Oswald as a Red agent.

    Bill Kelly compiled the following:

    6)Julio Fernandez, one of three anti-Castro Cubans whose boat was financially supported by Clair Booth Luce, called Luce, wife of the publisher of Time-Life on the evening of the assassination to report information on Oswald's activities in New Orleans. Fernandez, a former Cuban publisher, was married to an attorney who worked for Catholic Welfare Services in Miami.

    7)In Miami, shortly after the assassination, Dr. Jose Ignorzio, the chief of clinical psychology for the Catholic Welfare Services, contacted the White House to inform the new administration that Oswald had met directly with Cuban ambassador Armas in Mexico.



    8)In Mexico City, David Atlee Philips of the CIA debriefed a Nicaraguan intelligence officer, code named "D," who claimed to have seen Oswald take money from a Cuban at the Cuban embassy. [see: Alvarado Story]



    10)Brothers Jerry and James Buchanan, CIA propaganda assets, began promoting the Castro-did-it theme immediately. According to Donald Freed and Jeff Cohen (in Liberation Magazine), the source of the Buchanan's tales was the leader of the CIA supported International Anti-Communist Brigade (IAB). "Back in Miami," they wrote, "a high powered propaganda machine was cranking out stories that Oswald was a Cuban agent…" Sturgis is quoted in the Pampara Beach Sun-Sentinel as saying that Oswald had talked with Cuban G-2 agents and fracassed with IAB members in Miami in 1962.
    None of this proves Harriman-dunnit, but it does make him a Person of Interest deserving closer scrutiny.
    Last edited by Lauren Johnson; 03-11-2019 at 12:32 AM.

  10. #20

    Default

    Who's assassination are we talking about? Howdy Doody's?

Posting Permissions

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