Comment of the week

John Kirsch – December 1

I did read “Devil’s Chessboard” and came away feeling that the material relating to the JFK assassination was the weakest part of an otherwise compelling portrait of Dulles as an amoral, behind-the-scenes manipulator. I have no doubt that Dulles, Angleton and others of their ilk met privately all the time. But that proves nothing.

 

 

160 comments

  1. leslie sharp says:

    I have no doubt that Dulles, Angleton and others of their ilk met privately all the time. But that proves nothing. — John Kirsch

    I agree, and meetings at the CIA and/or with CIA personnel in the normal course of events post Dulles’ role as DCIA is in and of itself circumstantial evidence; what matters is who else Dulles might have been meeting with sans his official intelligence credential / after he had been fired by President Kennedy.

    Anyone that knows how to google can identify Kirsch as a credible, award-winning investigative journalist:

    Bushes’ role in school questioned

    Allegations of political influence wielded by the Bush family on faculty at the George Bush School of Gov. & Public Service at Texas A&M University were substantiated by emails and documents sent by Bush aides to school officials encouraging positive political commentary of Gov. Bush.

    Tags: politics Texas presidential campaign censorship intimidation George W. Bush education

    By John Kirsch

    Eagle (College Station, Texas)

    1999

    https://ire.org/resource-center/stories/?q=politics%20Texas%20presidential%20campaign%20censorship%20intimidation%20George%20W.%20Bush%20education

    • Ms Sharp,

      That John Kirsch is a credible, award-winning investigative journalist, isn’t the issue here is it? I know John personally and we email each other on occasion. However I do disagree with his opinion on this matter. I think the circumstantial evidence of Alan Dulles being involved in the coup is overwhelming. The evidence of his role in the cover-up is just as as strong if not stronger – compiled it seems to me, beyond reasonable doubt that Dulles was involved.

      As far as who actually ran the whole thing as a military intelligence operation, that is another matter entirely. Dulles would be in an advisory position, not a command position. It seems well establlished that the master of coups d’etat of that era, General Edward Landsdale would be the prime candidate as the one in command for planning and implementing the actual executive action.

      Harvey and his contingent were certainly brought on-board as active participants in the actual mechanics of the operation, as well as the members of DPD who had former connections with military intelligence. The upper echelon of this scheme includes insiders from both the military, the weapons industry, high finance, and the intelligence community that is drawn primarily from Wall St lawyers, ie; Dulles and his ilk. All had the same vested interests in getting rid of Kennedy.

      Talbot seems to have set the historical stage for the Kennedy assassination with great detail, from OSS WWII actions and personnel, forward into Project Paperclip — that is General Galen and his Nazi German intelligence org.

      In the final analysis, to call this a “Fascist Coup d’Etat” is to my mind quite reasonable and proper.
      \\][//

  2. Anna Quandt says:

    Weak? I would say the material on the JFK assassination is the “speculative” part of the book. I found the speculation very interesting,original and plausible. The outline of the story of the relationship with the Nazis was already known.

  3. Anthony Martin says:

    IMHO, the way to understand this may not be totally with hard facts, though the more the better. My perspective; Consider what is the current system of governance in the US in the 21st century. Then ask; Did this happen accidentally or through deliberate actions. How to change the mechanics of power was an art not unknown to the likes of Dulles. And the latter is more likely than Oswald to be the Father of our Security State! Note; an admitted speculation.

  4. Bob Prudhomme says:

    I still think Photon and his “JFK had an abnormal neck condition” would have made a great topic for Comment of the Week.

  5. Dan says:

    “Devil’s Chessboard” is well written and a major contribution to literature on US intelligence history. The material linking Allen Dulles to the JFK assassination is not especially compelling though.

    The book’s version of Dulles’ actions on November 22, 1963 is inconsistent with the documentation of Dulles’ desk calendars and daily diary (available online from the Mudd Library at Princeton). The calendar states that Dulles and wife had penciled in to spend the weekend at “The Farm”. They flew from National Airport in Washington to Newport News, Virginia in southern Virginia early in the day of November 22, were driven to Williamsburg, Virginia where Dulles spoke to the “Brookings group”. The diary has a handwritten note that at 3 pm after learning of JFK’s death, Dulles returned to Washington, D.C. with John Warner (a CIA attorney). “The Farm” is a term used for a CIA facility near Williamsburg in southern Virginia. Thus the diary indicates Dulles returned to Washington after learning of the assassination, rather than going to “The Farm”.

    • Dan,

      The whereabouts of Alan Dulles has absolutely no bearing on the evidence of his participation in the planning of the event in Dallas.
      No one has ever contended that Dulles was in Dallas, or that he pulled the trigger.

      So I see your comment as utterly out of context here.

      • Dan says:

        “Devil’s Chessboard” states that Dulles spent the assassination weekend at CIA’s “The Farm” (pages 545-546). The book incorrectly states that The Farm is in northern Virginia outside DC, when in fact it is in southern Virginia near Williamsburg. Dulles’ diary states that he returned to DC from Williamsburg at 3 pm on November 22 after hearing of JFK’s death.

        • “The book incorrectly states that The Farm is in northern Virginia outside DC, when in fact it is in southern Virginia near Williamsburg.”~Dan

          Yes, I got that. But what is the significance you find in this error?
          \\][//

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Your statements regarding pages 545-546 are a bit incomplete, possibly misleading to some.
          “As November 22, 1963 dawned…Allen Dulles was away from Washington, as he typically was at the outset of major operations. … Early on the morning of November 22, Dulles caught a Piedmont Airlines flight back to Washington, landing at national Airport around 8:30 a.m. he was then driven to a hotel in Williamsburg, Virgina, where he addressed a Brookings Institution BREAKFAST MEETING. After receiving the news from Dallas, around 1:30 that afternoon, Dulles took a car back to Washington with John Warner, a CIA attorney.
          But, according to Dulles’s date book, he did not spend the evening at home in Washington. he headed back to the northern Virginia countryside, where he would spend the entire weekend at a top secret CIA facillity known officially a Camp Peary, but within the agency as “the Farm”. … As CIA director, Dulles had built himself a comfortable home at the Farm.”
          (pg. 547) “Johnson recalled the spymaster’s well stocked library, which-as late as 1967-still contained the latest CIA reports, intelligence estimates, and classified journals.
          “The Farm was basically an alternative CIA headquarters, from where Dulles could direct ops,” said former congressional investigator Dan Hardway.”

          • Dan says:

            The Dulles calendar and diary indicate that “The Farm” had been penciled in for Nov. 22-24, but that Dulles returned to DC on Nov. 22 after learning of JFK’s death. They clearly indicate he took a Piedmont airlines flight from Washington National Airport to Newport News, Virginia early morning Nov. 22, not a flight to Washington as the excerpt states.

          • Photon says:

            This excerpt is so erroneous and impossible that it is difficult to see how it got past an editor. If Talbot actually stands by such stupid statements I don’t see how any rational person can accept his research methods or believe his conclusions. Obviously Talbot has no idea where Camp Peary was located, where the Farm was located, nor incredibly even where Williamsburg is located. On a GOOD day it takes 3 hours to get to Williamsburg from National Airport on I95; taking the back way on 301 probably another 30 min. And yet he attended a breakfast meeting after landing at National at 8:30am? Complete BS.
            According to Talbot, after Dulles heard that JFK was shot, he drove 3 hours back up to D.C., did God knows what, then turned around and drove another 3 hours back to Williamsburg! Obviously Talbot doesn’t have a clue that Williamsburg ISN’T IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA -by any definition . His narrative is IMPOSSIBLE -as anybody who lives in the D.C. area and goes to Busch Gardens knows. I am sure that this goes over the heads of most CTers, but this story is simply pathetic in its inaccuracy.

          • Dan says:

            Allen Dulles’ desk diary for November 21, 1963 states he attended a dinner at the British Embassy at 8 pm. This would be in DC. This supports the calendar and diary that say he flew from Washington National Airport on the morning of Nov. 22 to Newport News, Virginia, rather than the book excerpt that says he was out of Washington the morning of Nov. 22 and flew to Washington.

          • “Allen Dulles’ desk diary for November 21, 1963 states he attended a dinner at the British Embassy at 8 pm.”~Dan

            The issue is not where Dulles was on the 21st,
            the issue is where Dulles was on the night of the 22nd.
            \\][//

      • Jean Davison says:

        Willy wrote:

        “The whereabouts of Alan Dulles has absolutely no bearing on the evidence of his participation in the planning of the event in Dallas.”

        Not according to a Salon interview about his book in which Talbot said:

        “Dulles himself, who had been retired for two years, during the weekend of Kennedy’s assassination, goes to a remote CIA facility, which is an alternative command post in northern Virginian called “The Farm,” where he monitors activity in Dallas.”

        http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/every_president_has_been_manipulated_national_security_officials_david_talbot_investigates_americas_deep_state/

        Even assuming that Dulles was at “the Farm” that weekend, which he apparently was not, how would Talbot know what Dulles did there?

        • “Even assuming that Dulles was at “the Farm” that weekend, which he apparently was not, how would Talbot know what Dulles did there?”~Jean Davison

          How can you say “he apparently was not” as to Dulles being at the ‘Farm, when this information is given:

          “After receiving the news from Dallas, around 1:30 that afternoon, Dulles took a car back to Washington with John Warner, a CIA attorney.
          But, according to Dulles’s date book, he did not spend the evening at home in Washington. he headed back to the northern Virginia countryside, where he would spend the entire weekend at a top secret CIA facillity known officially a Camp Peary, but within the agency as “the Farm”. … As CIA director, Dulles had built himself a comfortable home at the Farm.” –As Quoted by Ronnie Wayne:
          http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-6/#comment-834331

          How does Talbot know what he did there? It seems clear enough to me, given all the other aspects of what we know about Dulles; that he was there to celebrate a job well done in pulling off a successful coup d’etat.

          Not empty supposition Jean, but based on the well known MO of Alan Dulles; who did have the Means and Opportunity, the Motive, and those are the prime benefits of his participation of the project to install a Fascist state. One only thinly veiled by the Public Relations Regime.
          \\][//

          • Fearfaxer says:

            And of course people like Dulles never pretend they’re one place when in fact they’re somewhere entirely different, and never provide false evidence “backing up” the bogus claim.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “How can you say “he apparently was not” as to Dulles being at the ‘Farm [on the assassination weekend…”

            Please see Dan’s posts about Dulles’s diary and calendar showing that he returned to DC on Nov. 22 after learning of JFK’s death.

            “How does Talbot know what he did there? It seems clear enough to me, given all the other aspects of what we know about Dulles; that he was there to celebrate a job well done in pulling off a successful coup d’etat.

            Not empty supposition Jean,..”

            Of course it is. It’s exactly that. So far I’ve seen zero evidence that Dulles was doing any such thing.

            “… but based on the well known MO of Alan Dulles; who did have the Means and Opportunity, the Motive…”

            Means, motive, and opportunity may point the police in a particular direction during an investigation, but as Wikipedia puts it:

            “Establishing the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused…..

            Contrary to fictional depictions, the court cannot convict merely on these three elements; the prosecution must provide convincing evidence, and prove an opportunity actually acted upon by the defendant.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity

            Countless CT suspects have been said to have had means, motive and opportunity. Suspicion alone isn’t evidence of anything.

          • “According to Dulles’s date book, he did not spend the evening at home in Washington. he headed back to the northern Virginia countryside, where he would spend the entire weekend at a top secret CIA facility known officially a Camp Peary, but within the agency as “the Farm”. … As CIA director, Dulles had built himself a comfortable home at the Farm.”~Talbot

            This is from Talbot, not Ronny Wayne.

            “Contrary to fictional depictions, the court cannot convict merely on these three elements; the prosecution must provide convincing evidence, and prove an opportunity actually acted upon by the defendant.”~wiki

            We are now the court Ms Davison. It is up to us to use well reasoned judgement to decide the matter. As stated Dulles does have the motive, the means and opportunity, as well as a well established MO.

            To now conclude that Dulles would do differently than his well established MO is a matter for YOU to prove otherwise.

            Now to return to well established jurisprudence:

            Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
            Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.

            *The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.*
            \\][//

          • As you see Jean, Wikipedia is not the end all for information, and is not as reliable a source as going to actual professional law references, such as Cornell Law School:

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_406
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
            Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.”

            According to this ABA article on Habit and Routine-Practice Evidence, you are misinterpreting this rule:

            “The Rules of Evidence do not permit evidence of past conduct to prove conduct on a particular occasion. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a) (evidence “of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion”). The concern with such character evidence is twofold:

            We fear that evidence of an individual’s bad character will prejudice the jury, causing them to find against him on the basis of past actions because he is “a bad guy ….”

            http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialpractice/articles/summer2014-0914-habit-and-routine-practice-evidence.html

            So this rule doesn’t apply, Willy.

            Even assuming that Dulles was the devil incarnate, that’s still not evidence he was involved in the JFK assassination.

          • Jean, You misapprehend the meaning of what you are quoting. Rule 406 is not to be confused with having anything to do with “character”, this is what all the legal citations and discussion pertains to.
            Rule 406 stands on it’s own as of bearing according to habit and Routine Practice.

            So it is true as you say that, “Even assuming that Dulles was the devil incarnate…”
            Because Rule 406 has nothing whatsoever to do with CHARACTER, it only has to do with routine habit, which is well established in the case of Allen Dulles.
            \\][//

          • ed connor says:

            Jean-
            I have some experience with FRE Rule 406, having practiced trial law in federal courts for 37 years.
            You are correct that the rule does not “permit evidence of past conduct to prove conduct on a particular occasion.”
            The rule allows the jury to be informed of the person’s or agency’s routine habits and practices, as evidence that they may weigh in determining whether the conduct at issue was more or less likely to have occurred.
            In other words, the routine habit and practice is not dispositive, but is admissible for the jury’s consideration, to be given the weight the jury chooses to allow it. Or, in layman’s terms, it is “admissible, but not dispositive.”

          • Charles says:

            Jean wrtes”

            Even assuming that Dulles was the devil incarnate, that’s still not evidence he was involved in the JFK assassination.

            Jean, your statement demonstrates why I think you are of no use to me or anyone else researching JFK.

            The kind of evidence that would satisfy you will never exist by design. There will be no records, no tapes, no films and no confessions or testimony that will prove this murder. Why would there be? How could there be? If you plotted and or carried out a domestic coup, would you not eliminate all the evidence you could?

            So unless you are prepared to put on an intelligence analyst’s cap and piece together contextual and circumstantial matters, what useful purpose could you ever serve to anyone?

            Knownothingness is an insult to responsible citizenship.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Jean,

            You are correct. Dulles is the devil. You could make a valid argument there is little difference between Hitler’s actions and those of Dulles. I would say Dulles was worse, because his actions were done under the guise of “freedom and democracy.”

            And yes, you are correct that there is no proof that Dulles had anything to do with JFK’s murder.

            However, can you give me the specific part of our constitution that allows a US president or a US CIA director to overthrow a government because of the need to make the super rich mega rich? (Please see the United Fruit Company.) Can you tell me where I can find that in the constitution? I can find no part that allows for that type of action.

            Where is your outrage at Dulles, Eisenhower and the other jackals that created the world in which we live today? You can Dulles a free pass, as that is your right as an American. However, it is MY right to disagree with you and continue to demand that you and the LHO did it by myself crowd acknowledge that the actions of Dulles, Eisenhower, and Kennedy himself helped create an environment in America where people can make decisions and execute “plans” that were not given to them by our constitution.

          • Jean,
            Perhaps you should try wikipedia again, as it is the most simple to understand:

            “Habit evidence is a term used in the law of evidence in the United States to describe any evidence submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on that person’s tendency to reflexively respond to a particular situation in a particular way.

            Habit evidence >*must be distinguished from character evidence*<, which seeks to show that a person behaved in a particular way on a particular occasion based on that person's prior bad acts, or based on the opinion of a witness, or based on that person's reputation in the community. Such character evidence is generally inadmissible.

            Federal Rule of Evidence 406 states, "Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of an eyewitness, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice"."
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habit_evidence
            \\][//

          • So now that we have established what Rule 406 actually means; it is clearly applicable to Allen Dulles. His LIFELONG habits and routines are historically known.

            His planning and participation in coups d’etat around the globe are well known. To suppose that Dulles was not involved in the 1963 coup in Dallas is irrational and preposterous in the extreme.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Concerning my saying, “Even assuming that Dulles was the devil incarnate, that’s still not evidence he was involved in the JFK assassination,” Charles wrote:

            “Jean, your statement demonstrates why I think you are of no use to me or anyone else researching JFK.

            The kind of evidence that would satisfy you will never exist by design. There will be no records, no tapes, no films and no confessions or testimony that will prove this murder. Why would there be? How could there be? If you plotted and or carried out a domestic coup, would you not eliminate all the evidence you could?”

            Ah, so the best evidence there was a coup is that there’s no evidence there was a coup?

            “So unless you are prepared to put on an intelligence analyst’s cap and piece together contextual and circumstantial matters, what useful purpose could you ever serve to anyone?”

            Problem is, lots of theorists have been putting on their analyst’s caps and have come up with dozens of quite different theories with many different suspects. That doesn’t inspire confidence in your method, imo. I want to base my conclusions on evidence, not on anybody’s suppositions, including my own.

            “Knownothingness is an insult to responsible citizenship.”

            Someone once said, “It ain’t ignorance causes so much trouble; it’s folks knowing so much that ain’t so.” As in the old joke, “All 54 of the grassy knoll gunmen have been identified.”

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 4, 2015 at 2:18 pm

            His planning and participation in coups d’etat around the globe are well known. To suppose that Dulles was not involved in the 1963 coup in Dallas is irrational and preposterous in the extreme.

            Please Willy. Settle down a bit.

          • leslie sharp says:

            The following comment bears repeating:

            ‘The kind of evidence that would satisfy you [Jean Davison] will never exist by design. There will be no records, no tapes, no films and no confessions or testimony that will prove this murder. Why would there be? How could there be? If you plotted and or carried out a domestic coup, would you not eliminate all the evidence you could? . . . So unless you are prepared to put on an intelligence analyst’s cap and piece together contextual and circumstantial matters, what useful purpose could you ever serve to anyone? . . . Knownothingness is an insult to responsible citizenship. – Charles

            A case in point:
            Ms. Davison has commented on this site: “Chance Events”
            ‘Ruth and Truly didn’t “position” Oswald in the TSBD. A long series of chance events positioned him there.’

            The concept of “chance events” – given the extraordinary series of events that had to come together followed by a seamless cover up in the early days – struck me as a weak argument to apply to the prosecution of Lee Harvey Oswald so I went looking for the origins. It has been a talking point for ‘Nonconspiracists United” for a number of years. (see biographical sketches of its members here: http://kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html)

            Ken Rahn stated: “We must realize that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy.”
            In that piece posted on his (now defunct?) site, Professor Rahn used the term “chance” 7 times.

            Jean Davison, listed as a member of ‘Nonconspiracists United’, persistently fails to place her arguments related to the Kennedy murder in context and continues to perpetuate the absurd theory of ‘chance events’.

          • JohnR says:

            Jean, for someone who likes the direct quote, you butchered that one. It was Will Rogers who said “It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.”

            http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/willrogers385286.html

          • Jean, I left this as a comment on another thread, but I feel it is especially relevant here, as per your recent commentary pleading coincidence and happenstance:

            “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars — But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
            (Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene III, L. 140-141).

            Those who subscribe to the bumbling view of history, who see “happenstance” and “coincidence” or “Fate” as the primal active force in the world of man, are as jejune as Brutus.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jean, for someone who likes the direct quote, you butchered that one. It was Will Rogers who said “It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.”

            The quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, Josh Billings, and others, with minor changes in the wording:

            https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=what+we+know+that+ain%27t+so

            I was using the Josh Billings version.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Josh_Billings

        • Dan says:

          From David Talbot’s very readable book “Brothers”:

          “While Bobby (Kennedy) avoided controversial sleuths like Lane, Buchanan, and Kilgallen in the months after the assassination, he did not reject their suspicions about the case. But he was determined to keep his own inquiries into Dallas private. He was seen taking long walks in a Washington park with Allen Dulles, the former CIA director who returned from the exile impressed on him by President Kennedy to become the dominant force on the Warren Commission. But Bobby never revealed what the two men discussed during these lengthy conversations.” pp. 262-263.

          The cited source for these meetings between RFK and Allen Dulles is author interview with G. Robert Blakey.

          • “He was seen taking long walks in a Washington park with Allen Dulles”~Dan

            And by this, do you contend that RFK and Dulles must have been “great pals”? And if not why do you bring it up?
            \\][//

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            No, Willy, this is neutral, no great pals about it. By then, Bobby had changed his ways from his hothead youth. He let others do most of the talking when he was looking for info. I believe these conversations later gave RFK a great number of clues about Dallas. He stored these talks with Dulles in the old memory box (the man had a mind like a steel trap) and, by June 1968, he had put it all together from primary sources.

            But we know how that worked out — he met the same end as his brother, and, strangely, on the anniversary of when your Mossad buddies (with an assist by LBJ) sent USS Liberty to the scrap heap. But, hey, it could’ve been worse. They did their darnedest to murder the whole crew and only “succeeded” in slaying about a quarter of them. And though the Zionists threw everything they had at poor Liberty, a communications ship!, she limped into port and most of the men lived to tell the tale.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Willy, oops. Forgot to hit the “sarcasm off” key after “your Mossad buddies.” We’re still cool, right?

          • “Willy, oops. Forgot to hit the “sarcasm off” key after “your Mossad buddies.” We’re still cool, right?”~Roy W Kornbluth

            Yea Roy, we’re cool, Lol

            I did sorta think ‘Huh??’ But I grok the info on the Liberty, especially the slimy role LBJ played in it. LBJ was such a disgraceful and vile character, it seems remarkable that anyone could put anything past him. Johnson was a real psychopath’s psychopath. A “go-getter” in the world of political ponerology.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 5, 2015 at 12:50 am

            “No, Willy, this is neutral, no great pals about it. By then, Bobby had changed his ways from his hothead youth. He let others do most of the talking when he was looking for info. I believe these conversations later gave RFK a great number of clues about Dallas. He stored these talks with Dulles in the old memory box (the man had a mind like a steel trap) and, by June 1968, he had put it all together from primary sources.”

            Bobby might have had a mind like a mouse trap but he was dealing with men that had minds like a bear trap. Bobby wasn’t near the man his brother was or some of the men that worked for JFK.

            I’ve read that some of the Camelot crowd didn’t like Bobby either but I had never seen a quote before this one; “Ted Sorensen remembered him (Bobby) as “militant, aggressive, intolerant, opinionated, and somewhat shallow in his convictions…..more like his father than his brother.”
            “Camelot’s Court; Inside the Kennedy White House”, page 44.

            This coming from one of the biggest Kennedy apologist to walk down the road.

  6. Allen Lowe says:

    well, of course it’s weak if that’s all you’ve read on the JFK assassination – Talbot’s book is fine, but the work done on the political and physical evidentiary aspects of the murder – by DiEugenio, Hancock, Hay, Aguilar, Griffith, Meagher, Russell, et all – is indispensable as intro. Would Kirsch read a bio of Hitler and then tell us that evidence of the Holocaust was ‘weak’ ? Of course not, because no self-respecting historian or journalist would consider one source to be sufficient for any real political or historical understanding. Kirsh is missing the point in a surprisingly clueless way.

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Willy Whitten
      December 2, 2015 at 1:40 pm

      “An extraordinary document from Lemnitzer to the Joint Chiefs. A scathing critique of Kennedy’s policies regarding Vietnam. One can see the seeds of a coup right there as early as May 1961.”

      Mr. Military; you do realize that JFK had replaced Lyman Lemnitzer in early 1962. He had pretty well replaced all of the Joint Chiefs except LeMay, who had a lot of stroke in Congress.

      Most of those that replaced the Joint Chiefs were chosen by JFK’s main military man, Max Taylor. While they might have been unhappy I doubt they would have killed JFK. There is a good bit of sensitivity in the military about killing their commander.

      • “There is a good bit of sensitivity in the military about killing their commander.”~Bill Clarke

        I have read this remark made by you before.

        There is no amount of sensitivity in a psychopath about killing anybody.

        How’s that for a generic statement?

        So I am to take it that to your mind, retired military, particularly general officers would hold no sway in the thinking of general officers still in place.

        You seem to live in a rather “ideal” state of mind Mr Clarke, not to directly say naive, but perhaps a tad gullible.

        You do recall that Kennedy replaced Lemnitzer, for promoting Operation Northwoods, do you not? Or is this too a “controversy” in your mind?
        \\][//

      • JohnR says:

        What if they were convinced the President’s policies constituted a “clear and present danger” to the national security of the United Sates? What if they concluded he was a “domestic enemy?” You and I disagree on the degree of possibility.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          I believe JohnR that since our current president hasn’t been overthrown by a military coup it shows how reluctant the Generals are to reach such a drastic action. Of course Obama was smart enough to fire any general that had a backbone.

          It is our right to disagree a bit and I’m not saying I’m absolutely right. It might be possible that you are more right than I but I sure hope not. The vote is what keeps us from being another Banana Republic.

          • Tom S. says:

            The current president campaigned on a platform including transparency and accountability. Within months he reneged and not only kept the highly controversial (1.a,b,c) Bush appointee Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense indefinitely, reversed his order to release Abu Ghraib “abuse” photo evidence,(2) droned an American citizen on the strength of a sham (unprecedented), secret OLC “ruling”, droned that citizen’s teen aged son weeks later,(3.a,b) and presided over more 1917 Espionage Act prosecutions of leakers than all prior U.S. presidents combined.(4) Just how far right is the U.S. military leadership, Bill, and what are they fighting for, our “freedom”? I thought the allegiance of the military brass you defended on the grounds they permitted the current president to remain in office is, “to the Republic for which it (the American Flag) stands”. It is reasonable to read you as saying the leadership of the military somehow has the perogative to judge the “which it stands” criteria and to act against a CIC, at least in some scenarios. And Bill, have a banana!:

            http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/
            “The studies also support the belief that more voters went to the polls in Florida on Election Day intending to vote for Gore than for Bush.”

            1a. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/22/AR2010092202801.html

            1b. http://articles.latimes.com/1986-12-17/news/mn-3249_1_cia-chief

            1c. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4mCZVkgSAXs/VmAxuxCxECI/AAAAAAAACQA/9KDG9FuqN5c/s512-Ic42/GatesFurmark.jpg from .pdf page 34 – http://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/gates/005_excerpt.pdf

            2. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/prisoner.photos/

            3a. https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/04/09/governments-assassination-of-anwar-al-awlaki-used-substantially-different-eo-12333-analysis/

            3b. http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html

            4. https://www.whistleblower.org/multimedia/defense-one-intelligence-whistleblowers-need-more-protection-advocate-group-argues

          • “I believe JohnR that since our current president hasn’t been overthrown by a military coup it shows how reluctant the Generals are to reach such a drastic action.”~Bill Clarke

            Why would the military overthrow a puppet like Obama who is following the Corporatist script to a Tee and pushing the globalist agenda ahead at breakneck speed? Obama is in the pocket of Wall St. Anyone who can’t see this is… no don’t say “naive” – don’t say “gullible” … how about just downright silly and jejune.
            \\][//

          • JohnR says:

            Sigh. Mr. Clarke and Tom S. have brought President Obama into this discussion. Lest there be any doubt as to my position, here it is: Whether or not one believes President Obama is a domestic enemy (and I don’t,) it is not within the purview of the military to make that assessment, nor it their responsibility to do anything about it. This has become known as the “Schneider Doctrine.”

            http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Schneider_Doctrine

            My reasoning is simple. Modifying an old saying; “If you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”

            It’s provocative title notwithstanding, I’ve always thought this was as best a summary of General Schneider’s contribution to history as any I have ever read:

            http://fff.org/2014/06/03/the-cias-murder-of-rene-schneider/

            Perhaps the moderator, having opened this can of worms, will permit me to post a discussion on this subject that appeared on another site. If one reads the comments one will notice that it is a nice mixture of Obama defenders and detractors.

            https://www.quora.com/Is-Barack-Obama-a-domestic-enemy

            In my opinion, a similar discussion took place at the highest levels in 1963. That discussion provided the intellectual infrastructure necessary for a cabal, so inclined, to justify their acts. In all honesty, I can provide no proof. But, under what circumstances would I be able? “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” -Sir John Harrington.

          • Tom S. says:

            JohnR,
            I did not “bring in” the sitting president to the discussion. I attempted to justify a question for Mr. Clarke that I did not ask clearly enough. If this president has avoided removal from office by the U.S. military leadership, just how much more radically would he have had to conduct himself to influence Mr. Clarke not to have presented this particular example of the military leadership’s patience/tolerance. I anticipated a response from Mr. Clarke possibly extolling the merits of generals Stanley Mcchrystal or David Petreaus. I have difficulty understanding how President Obama has managed to displease the military leadership, despite the anecdotes I outlined. Was GW Bush their kind of guy? I found Mr. Clarke’s example troubling, unsettling. Obama, in recent times, is probably the best we could hope for, but that speaks mostly to the success of the conditioning programs relenlessly targeting the voters. “We all have a potential to rise up, and in this country anyone can still aspire to become a defense contractor or subcontractor, meanwhile, shelter in place!”

          • Charles says:

            It never fails me to amaze me how Americans like Bill can see that foreign governments are riddled with factions and subject to coups, civil wars and wars of aggression for internal reasons like Argentina in the Falklands.

            Yet they are utterly blind to the same thing happening in the U.S., somehow believing that here everybody abides by the rules.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            December 3, 2015 at 3:37 pm

            JohnR,
            “I did not “bring in” the sitting president to the discussion. I attempted to justify a question for Mr. Clarke that I did not ask clearly enough.”

            I apologize for bringing Obama into the discussion. I thought it a good example at the time; now not so much with the controversy it caused.

            ‘I anticipated a response from Mr. Clarke possibly extolling the merits of generals Stanley Mcchrystal or David Petreaus.”

            I never understood why McChrystal did that but he knew you do not diss the CIC and live to tell about it. Obama fired him and rightly so. Petreaus is, I believe, the best fighting general we have had in a long time. A pity he fell from grace.

            Let me be very clear here; I support civilian control of our military 100%. Our military doesn’t get to choose which president it works for. If we do have a dangerous president it is up to our Congress to remove him by impeachment.

            “It is reasonable to read you as saying the leadership of the military somehow has the perogative to judge the “which it stands” criteria and to act against a CIC, at least in some scenarios.

            Good grief Tom, that is the last thing I meant to say. I say again; the military has no right to remove a president. Period.

            And Bill, have a banana!:

            Thanks Tom but with my potassium deficiency I take a pill. But I do like banana. But we are a long way from being a banana republic.

          • JohnR says:

            Charles, Mr. Clarke never wrote that we are immune. He merely disagrees on the possibility. Personally, I’m more befuddled by American citizens that favor a coup.

            http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2693-yougov-poll-29-of-americans-would-support-a-military-coup

            You might want to check the date.;)

          • JohnR says:

            Tom S., I suppose I could have written “Mr. Clarke brought President Obama into the discussion, and Tom S. responded.” Having mentioned the President myself, I can hardly complain. I thought I was nit-picketty!

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Charles
            December 3, 2015 at 4:05 pm

            “Yet they are utterly blind to the same thing happening in the U.S., somehow believing that here everybody abides by the rules.”

            You might find many Americans like this but I can assure you that I’m not one of them.

            So please tell me Chuck;

            1. Did we ever have a military sponsored coup before JFK or one after JFK?
            2. Did we have another Civil War that I missed.

          • JohnR says:

            Mr. Clarke, no apology is necessary. The only “injury” I suffered is carpal tunnel syndrome from taking most of the day writing my post over and over and over again, trying to get it juuuuuust right. I did learn something, though. Officers and enlisted men take different oaths. Any idea why?

            http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Mr. Clarke,

            As a veteran of the most tragic war in this country’s history—Vietnam—I am obligated by my recently departed father to treat you with the ultimate respect.

            Having said that, we are MUCH closer to a banana republic than most people realize. When a man NEVER elected to office—Dulles—can overthrow democratically elected governments to help his mega rich friends become richer, I can assure you that ain’t a properly functioning democracy. ( I hope my high school English teacher is in a better place, or I will pay hell for the word ain’t.)

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JohnR
            December 3, 2015 at 5:53 pm

            “I did learn something, though. Officers and enlisted men take different oaths. Any idea why?”
            http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

            I’m afraid I can’t answer that JohnR. In fact, I’m afraid I wasn’t aware we swore a different oath. But both require a person to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both domestic and foreign. Now Hitler required that his military swear an oath to him personally and not the country. Very bad reults.

            Your link is very interesting. Note some restrictions placed on people that wish to swear the oath during the Civil War.
            “Under an act of 2 July 1862 the oath became: “I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto;”

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Steve stirlen
            December 3, 2015 at 6:08 pm
            Mr. Clarke,
            “As a veteran of the most tragic war in this country’s history—Vietnam—I am obligated by my recently departed father to treat you with the ultimate respect.”

            I appreciate your thought Steve but please don’t treat me any different than you would anyone else here. I’m guessing your father would feel the same way.

            “Having said that, we are MUCH closer to a banana republic than most people realize. When a man NEVER elected to office—Dulles—can overthrow democratically elected governments to help his mega rich friends become richer,”

            I realize that we have created more than a few banana republics but not in the United States itself. That is why our government doesn’t turn over every six months and why our president is elected instead of being placed in office by the military.

            Where we disagree on Dulles (or any other director) is that I think Dulles worked to fulfill his president’s order. You think Dulles was working on his own. Is this correct? Because if Dulles was acting on his own, as you and others believe, then I would have to change my thoughts here to agree with your thoughts.

            The two governments that JFK wanted to overthrow has a wealth of evidence that JFK approved it and the CIA helped run the operations. No doubt JFK approved the BOP operation and no doubt JFK approved the removal of Ngo Dinh Diem.

            “I can assure you that ain’t a properly functioning democracy. ( I hope my high school English teacher is in a better place, or I will pay hell for the word ain’t.)”

            Willy wrote me up for punctuation the other day. You will probably get a note from Willy too.

          • “1. Did we ever have a military sponsored coup before JFK or one after JFK?”Bill Clarke

            This issue is not a “military sponsored coup”; the issue is an industrialist sponsored coup, carried out by the military.
            Did we ever have on of those?

            Ask General Smedley Butler, who the industrialist attempted to recruit for a coup against the Roosevelt regime.

            Short answer YES a coup d’etat was considered and was in the works until Butler revealed the details of the coup before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee.
            http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm
            \\][//

          • Charles says:

            Bill writes

            “I realize that we have created more than a few banana republics but not in the United States itself. That is why our government doesn’t turn over every six months and why our president is elected instead of being placed in office by the military.”

            The most advanced systems of oppression are when its victims don’t realize it. When you look at the political candidates of the last 50 years, do you really think that is truly the best the U.S. people could produce? Do you expect politicians not to break campaign promises?

            Do you think about corruption at the state or municipal level? Ever been to the bad parts of Chicago or Baltimore, talked to a guy named Al Capone? Ever got a speeding ticket south of the Mason Dixon line, shaken down or shot by a cop? Been to a for profit prison? Been to Gitmo? Have you ever been sold into slavery, lynched or even just been Black? Have you thought about Watergate and what that really said about the Feds, or questioned what Bud did with the Iranians to pull off the October Surprise and how he paid them off with Iran Contra?

            Ever hear a government official say “the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper”? Even if they never said that, it is how they treat it.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 4, 2015 at 7:03 pm

            “1. Did we ever have a military sponsored coup before JFK or one after JFK?”Bill Clarke

            Ask General Smedley Butler, who the industrialist attempted to recruit for a coup against the Roosevelt regime.

            Short answer YES a coup d’etat was considered and was in the works until Butler revealed the details of the coup before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee.
            http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm

            Thanks Willy. But I was thinking more of an attempt that gets the president assassinated or at least severely wounded.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Charles
            December 5, 2015 at 5:16 pm

            The most advanced systems of oppression are when its victims don’t realize it. When you look at the political candidates of the last 50 years, do you really think that is truly the best the U.S. people could produce?”

            I’ve often asked my self that same question. Is this the best we can do? Going back to Clinton’s first election I haven’t filled in the box for president. I vote for every other office but not for president because none have been of presidential timber. Plus I haven’t really liked an of them.

            Do you think about corruption at the state or municipal level? Ever been to the bad parts of Chicago or Baltimore, talked to a guy named Al Capone? Ever got a speeding ticket south of the Mason Dixon line, shaken down or shot by a cop? Been to a for profit prison? Been to Gitmo? Have you ever been sold into slavery, lynched or even just been Black? Have you thought about Watergate and what that really said about the Feds, or questioned what Bud did with the Iranians to pull off the October Surprise and how he paid them off with Iran Contra?

            “Ever hear a government official say “the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper”? Even if they never said that, it is how they treat it.”

            I can’t agree more and it infuriates me. I take our Constitution very seriously. These rum-drums that want to “change” the fine old Constitution make me very very nervous.

          • Ask General Smedley Butler, who the industrialist attempted to recruit for a coup against the Roosevelt regime.

            What happened is that one fellow went to Butler and claimed that a coup was in he works, and claimed that a lot of big shot capitalists were behind it.

            The evidence that any were is entirely missing.

          • “Thanks Willy. But I was thinking more of an attempt that gets the president assassinated or at least severely wounded.”~Bill Clarke

            And since the coup that Butler was recruited for never took place, how are we to imagine what violence may or may not have taken place?

            Your “thinking” always seems to deflect any answers given to you Bill.
            Of course I don’t mean this in a mean way.
            grin
            \\][//

          • “What happened is that one fellow went to Butler and claimed that a coup was in he works, and claimed that a lot of big shot capitalists were behind it.
            The evidence that any were is entirely missing.”~McAdams

            Not so ‘Professor’:

            “Even more alarming, the elite-controlled media failed to pick up on the story, and even today the incident remains little known. The elite managed to spin the story as nothing more than the rumors and hearsay of Butler and French, even though Butler was a Quaker of unimpeachable honesty and integrity. Butler, appalled by the cover-up, went on national radio to denounce it, but with little success.

            Butler was not vindicated until 1967, when journalist John Spivak uncovered the Committee’s internal, secret report. It clearly confirmed Butler’s story:
            In the last few weeks of the committee’s life it received evidence showing that certain persons had attempted to establish a fascist organization in this country…

            There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned and might have been placed in execution if the financial backers deemed it expedient…

            MacGuire denied [Butler’s] allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made to General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principle, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various form of veterans’ organizations of Fascist character.”
            http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm
            \\][//

          • MacGuire denied [Butler’s] allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made to General Butler,

            You don’t seem to understand that MacGuire was the person who claimed to Butler that there was a huge capitalist plot, but MacGuire’s claims are unsupported by any other evidence.

            You are saying that Butler was truthful about MacGuire’s claims. There is no particular reason to doubt that. It’s MacGuire’s claims that are unsupported.

          • Tom S. says:

            I guess you’ll stamp “buff” on my forehead, but you cannot get by with a partisan alteration of history and expect to influence broadly. This is what Time, Inc. reported in the same, Feb. 25, 1935 issue.

            The belittling, so similar to your own efforts to marginalize, ala “buff” trivialization. I retrieved both of these back before Time, Inc. hid its archive behind a pay wall.:

            http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,754551,00.html
            Monday, Feb. 25, 1935 or http://www.wordola.com/wusage/mauny/f1930-t1939-p26.html
            “Names make news.” Last week these names made this news:

            …To Pittsburgh one morning went eagle-nosed Major-General Smedley Darlington (“Old Gimlet Eye”) Butler, to speak at a banquet.* That same day Jimmy (“Schnozzle”) Durante was appearing at a Pittsburgh theatre. Stepping off his train, General Butler thrust his head forward in characteristic pose, stomped down the platform. Loiterers, mistaking him for the well-publicized Durante, began to cheer. That evening nosey Comedian Durante turned up at the banquet where nosey General Butler was speaking. A cameraman snapped them nose to nose…..

            https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=D9hkVtWEPIrA-AWEyLmQBQ#q=%22that+General+Butler%27s+story+of+a+Fascist+march+on+Washington+was+alarmingly+true.%22

            http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,754551-3,00.html
            ….Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler’s story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true.

          • ….Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler’s story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true.

            I thought conspiracy people believe that the Committee was a coverup?

            Now you are quoting TIME that it believed in a conspiracy?

            Where is the “report” that said there was a capitalist plot? It should be a government document, found in any Depository library.

            I think you are confusing the issue of what Butler said he was told (probably true) with whether was he was told was true (no evidence it was).

          • Tom S. says:

            I follow the money. Who are “conspiracy people,” buffs? You praised my post recently, on your own newsgroup, for research related to the Klein’s money order “was never cashed”. Is a team jersey
            required to hunt for and present facts?

            Jules Archer, from pg. 178:
            https://books.google.com/books?id=9E5CnPV20jwC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=van+zandt+plot+theodore&source=web&ots=T-QwE7DBF2&sig=d-W_TiujHeqGOog4vuIpsFo7520#v=onepage&q=%22third%20time%22&f=false

            But committee investigators found that he had indeed called
            upon Butler that day and had had available at least sixteen
            thousand dollars, largely in thousand-dollar bills. Unless MacGuire
            had shown them to him, Butler could not possibley have known about
            them, lending verification to the general’s charge that they had been
            tossed on his bed as a bribe….

            Maccguire reluctanly admitted receiving $75,000 from Clark
            for an “unexplained purpose,” the McCormack-Dickstein Committee
            report later noted, while working on a drawing account of $432 a month.
            This $75,000 was in addition to $30,000 he had also received from
            Walter E. Frew, of the Corn Exchange Bank, for the Committee for a
            Sound Dollar and Sound Currency, Inc. “Whether there was more, and how
            much more,” said the report, “the (McCormack-Dickstein) Committee does
            not yet know.”
            MacGuire admitted spending almost $8,000 on the trip to Europe,
            ostensibly to buy bonds, but the investigators noted the trip had
            resulted in detailed reports to MacGuire’s backers on various
            Fascist organizations abroad.
            Although he still denied having tossed the eighteen thousand-dollar
            nills on Butler’s bed in the Newark Hotel, the committee found bank
            records showing he had bought letters of credit six days later from
            Central Hanover Bank, paying for them with thirteen thousand-dollar bills.

            ….McCormack: You previously testified that you only had one
            transaction in the swapping of checks with Christmas (Clark’s attorney)
            of $20,000 and until later, when you paid back the balance?
            MacGuire: No, I believe that was paid back to Christmas in cash.
            McCormack: What have you got to show thaat?
            MacGuire: I haven’t got anything to show it.
            McCormack: Did you get a receipt from Christmas?
            MacGuire: No, sir; not necessarily; as far as that goes. he is an old
            friend of mine….

            At this point McCormack produced subpoenaed bank records showing that
            MacGuire had cashed letters of credit in the amount of $30,300, prior
            to the Legion convention in Chicago. MacGuire claimed that this money was
            meant to allow him to buy bonds in case he came across a good buy.

            McCormack: What did you do with that $30,300 in Chicago?
            MacGuire: I kept the money in cash and put it in a safe
            deposit box with First National Bank…
            McCormack: What became of that money?
            (continued below)

          • Tom S. says:

            (continued from Jules Archer pg. 178)

            MacGuire: That money was brought back and returned to Mr. Christmas.
            McCormack: In Cash?
            MacGuire: Yes.
            McCormack: When did you return this $30,300 to Mr. Christmas?
            MacGuire: I do not remember the date…
            McCormack: Did you get a receipt for it?
            MacGuire: No, I did not get a receipt for it?…
            McCormack: Let me ask you this: why should you have cashed
            the letters of credit in Chicago and put the money in a safe
            deposit box?
            MacGuire: Becaues I felt that if I had a chance to buy the bonds I
            could buy them right off for cash.
            McCormack: Wouldn’t letters of credit be accepted just as cash?
            MacGuire: They probably would.
            McCormack: Wouldn’t they be safer than cash on your person?
            MacGuire: They probably would, yer; but there is no objection
            to getting the cash, is there?
            McCormack: Did you buy any bonds?
            MacGuire: No, sir.
            McCormack: What bonds did you want to buy?….
            MacGuire: I think the Chicago Sanitary District 4’s.
            McCormack: Whom did you talk to about buying Chicago Sanitary District 4’s?
            MacGuire: I did not talk to anybody.
            McCormack: Whom did you speak to about it?
            MacGuire: I didn’t speak to anybody….
            There was an interesting exchange, nevertheless, in the matter
            of $65,000 MacGuire testified that he had received for traveling
            and entertainment expenses:

            McCormack: So the way you want to leave it is there
            is $65,000 or $66,000 that Mr. MacGuire received from
            either you, or Mr. Clark, which he spent in the period
            between June and December of 1933 for traveling an enter-
            tainment expenses?
            Christmas: Yes, Sir.
            McCormack: Did he return to you some time in August
            (1934) approximately $30,000 in cash?
            Christmas: No.
            McCormack: Do you know he testified he did?
            Christmas: The committee gave me some indication of
            such testimony at a previous session.
            McCormack: Assuming he has testified to that, that is
            not so?
            Christmas: I would say he is in error. He is mistaken.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Tom S.

            You had better be careful. Asking Mr. McAdams to recognize facts that are outside of the government’s “official” version will surely get you one of his famous ad hominem quotes.

          • I follow the money.

            I don’t see anything there showing a plot from big time capitalists to overthrow the government.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            John your laughable. R.E. follow the money.
            Even Marina said follow the money. Oil, depletion allowance. U.S. Steel. The privately owned Federal Reserve (I.E. the bankers and Wall Street) vs JFK printing Government Money. Who did CIA director Dulles represent on Wall Street all those years from the Nazi’s to the banana republics?

          • “I don’t see anything there showing a plot from big time capitalists to overthrow the government.”~McAdams

            Of course not “professor” – you can’t see ANYTHING that proves that this is a Corporatist State.

            There is the smoke of the indoctrinated conformist in your eyes, you are simply blind to that which stands naked before you; a grotesque gorgon that has you in its spell.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 6, 2015 at 11:14 am

            “Your “thinking” always seems to deflect any answers given to you Bill.”

            Perhaps Willy that is because many of the answers I’m given are BS. And you have been one of the leading proponents in giving me BS answers.

            “Of course I don’t mean this in a mean way.
            grin.”

            Nor do I. And with your “grin” I see a spark of humor that I have never seen in you before. Keep up the good work Willy.

      • David Regan says:

        Given what we now know about Operation Northwoods, I wouldn’t put anything past Lemnitzer. He approved the Northwoods in 1962, a proposed plan to discredit the Castro regime and create support for military action against Cuba by staging false flag acts of terrorism and developing “a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington”. Lemnitzer presented the plans to Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, but three days later JFK told the general that there was no chance that the US would take military action against Cuba. Within a few months, after the refusal to endorse Operation Northwoods, Lemnitzer was denied another term as JCS chairman. Even after Northwoods was shot down, Lemnitzer still kept pushing for military action against Cuba. And we all know how pleased the JCS/CIA were with Kennedy after his resolution of the Missile Crisis.

        • bogman says:

          “Given what we now know about Operation Northwoods, I wouldn’t put anything past Lemnitzer.”

          Or that rest of the JCS at the time for that matter. For me, that document is exhibit A that a gov’t conspiracy was NEVER outside the realm of possibility. If they thought killing innocent people to jump-start a war in Cuba was OK, what’s killing a president they considered a clear and present danger to national security is not a huge leap, IMO.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Gore Vidal once asked Fletcher Knebel how he got the idea for “Seven Days In May,” which was published in 1962. The response was “talking to Admiral Radford.” Radford was retired from the military at that point, but he worked as an advisor on military issues for both Nixon and Goldwater. Whatever he said to Knebel, the latter was left with the impression that Radford, as well as other high-ranking military men, were very comfortable with the idea of removing a POTUS they deemed insufficiently wedded to Cold War orthodoxy.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Fearfaxer
            December 4, 2015 at 8:13 am

            “Whatever he said to Knebel, the latter was left with the impression that Radford, as well as other high-ranking military men, were very comfortable with the idea of removing a POTUS they deemed insufficiently wedded to Cold War orthodoxy.”

            I don’t believe “left with the impression” is very solid evidence.

          • Bogman says:

            It’s on the record that JFK read the book, thought it was credible and pushed for the movie to be made, even heading for Camp David for the weekend so the movie crew could film around the White House.

            In many ways, “Seven Days in May” is JFK’s warning from the grave.

        • I want to remark on how fascinating and informing the last three comments from TomS have been. This thread has really bloomed with fine information all around.
          I am saving Tom’s latest comments as URLs in my 1933 coup thread at my blog.
          Splendid stuff, really.
          \\][//

      • “Mr. Military; you do realize that JFK had replaced Lyman Lemnitzer in early 1962.”~Bill Clarke

        Do you realize that the scathing memo I originally referred to was written on May 8, 1961? Lemnitzer was still Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at that time.
        This opinion certainly had a deep effect on the general leadership of the US military. The replacement of almost the entire Chiefs of Staff by Kennedy, surely would have had an even deeper effect on the top officers in the military.
        If such a situation is not a recipe for a coup d’etat, then what is?]
        \\][//

      • Of course the question rarely asked is:

        Did the military industrial complex actually want to win the war in Vietnam?
        Or did they want to prolong it as long as they possibly could for fun & profits?

        This question should be considered deeply, as profit is probably the greatest reason for war there is.
        \\][//

      • Gerry Simone says:

        There is a good bit of sensitivity in the military about killing their commander.

        It’s been written that LeMay enjoyed a stogie while watching JFK’s autopsy from viewing gallery.

        Maybe JFK should’ve replaced him too when he had the chance.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Gerry Simone
          December 3, 2015 at 3:47 pm

          “It’s been written that LeMay enjoyed a stogie while watching JFK’s autopsy from viewing gallery.”

          I’ve never read that but I certainly do not doubt it.

          “Maybe JFK should’ve replaced him too when he had the chance.”

          I agree but I understand why JFK didn’t fire him. Evidently LeMay had a lot of supporters in our congress and to fire LeMay would have caused a nasty battle JFK did not need or want.

          LeMay had stayed too long.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Yes, LeMay (“this is worse than the appeasement at Munich”, R.E. the Cuban Missile crisis), first strike nuclear advocate) and his stogie were there. In The Eye of History, pg. 195, corpsman Paul O’Connor.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Thank you Ronnie. Mr. Jenkins was at the Lancer Conference and I think he mentions that Humes told him or someone else to tell that guy smoking a cigar to stop, but after that person explained later to Humes that it was General LeMay, Humes said “you didn’t actually tell him now did you?”, and Jenkins or whoever, said “no sir”. Evidently, that would’ve been a no-no, considering rank.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            You’re probably right that firing him would’ve caused waves. (I remember in the Fog of War how LeMay increased the success rate of bombing missions over German territory in WWII – he was quite gutsy and proved his mettle – you’d want a guy like on your side if you were fighting a war).

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Willy Whitten
      December 2, 2015 at 5:14 pm

      “There is a good bit of sensitivity in the military about killing their commander.”~Bill Clarke

      “I have read this remark made by you before.”

      “There is no amount of sensitivity in a psychopath about killing anybody.”

      “How’s that for a generic statement?”

      Not too bad. Not too bad at all Willy. But the entire American military is not made up of “psychopath” Generals.

      “You seem to live in a rather “ideal” state of mind Mr Clarke, not to directly say naive, but perhaps a tad gullible.”

      Aw Willy, did you really have to? You call me gullible when it is in fact you that; (A)buys Prouty’s BS. (B) buys Newman’s crap. (C) gets confused about NSAM 263, (D)believes we escalated before the communist, (E) thinks China didn’t help NVN until LBJ escalated and I could go on but this should be enough to show how gullible you are.

      “You do recall that Kennedy replaced Lemnitzer, for promoting Operation Northwoods, do you not? Or is this too a “controversy” in your mind?”

      Yes, I am aware of that Willy.

      • Photon says:

        Of course, as a military veteran Willy knows all about the Command Structure and how often military officers engage in politics.
        As a college graduate he is eminently qualified to comment on academic affairs, research and philosophy.
        But if he thinks that Williamsburg is in Northern Virginia he doesn’t have a clue.
        And if he doesn’t think that Talbot should be questioned about all of his conclusions if Talbot can’t get something as simple as that correct I question his conclusions.

        • “But if he thinks that Williamsburg is in Northern Virginia he doesn’t have a clue.”~Photon

          The “N” in northern is not capitalized in my comment.
          So Williamsburg is about mid-state and on the coast. Is there another Williamsburg in Virginia that you think that Talbot might confusing the coastal Williamsburg for? Or was it simply be a minor error?

          Who knows for sure Photon? Certainly not you.

          As per my knowledge about military affairs, or anything else; I know you are a great believer in anemic mainstream academia, which is actually indoctrination masquerading as “education”. For you the thought of a didactic education is unthinkable, because of the very indoctrination you have suffered.

          You can be here now, in this world driven my war and conquest and think it healthy and natural, while the pathos pumps through your system like clear blood, bringing no oxygen to your consciousness.

          So if you think that the minor flaw of the word “northern” can in any way compete with the hoochie dance of your “JFK’s abnormal neck” routine, then it is time for another round of Pin the Tail on the Donkey.
          \\][//

          • Gerry Simone says:

            The best photon can harp upon are his minor errors.

            But who is photon anyway?

            Who is he to question anyone?

          • Photon says:

            If Talbot doesn’t know were Camp Peary was a basic premise of his theory goes down the drain. Did Dulles actually live at the Farm-or did he live on his own farm and Talbot got mixed up?
            It is also reflective of poor research-despite the hype on this site I have pointed out multiple simple errors Talbot made-including his ridiculous paragraph misidentifying the Single Bullet.
            Serious historians have made similar comments about the accuracy of statements made. Perhaps that is why outside of conspiracy circles this book is going nowhere.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Recently got my copy of Devil’s Chessboard and haven’t read much of it, just a few snippets from looking in the index and, of course, the picture captions (great photos!). This sub-thread about the location of “The Farm” and Camp Peary seems dumb.

            There’s something related that IS important and I believe Talbot has it wrong — where Dulles was the evening of 11-22. I can’t cite the sources right now, but I thought it was nailed down that he was at the CIA-FBI part of Quantico, which is definitely in Northern VA. When you leave the Beltway on I-95 South, you don’t have time to smoke a smoke before you reach the exit for the Marine base. Williamsburg, definitely NOT in NVA, is well over two hours from D.C. Can anyone help me out? Maybe it was some other VIP spook(s) who was (were) around Quantico.

            That Dulles left D.C. (National Airport) after 8:30 am, and was driven to Williamsburg (to address a Brookings Institute breakfast), and then back to D.C., and then back to the Tidewater area SE of Richmond AGAIN seems strange, even for Dulles. Maybe Talbot has it right that AD ended up in northern VA (which Quantico is), but wrong that he made the DC to W’burg trip a third time in less than 12 hours.

          • Photon says:

            This entire Talbot schedule for Dulles on Nov 22 should be questioned by any serious researcher, for it reveals such a superficial understanding of places, names and locations as to be almost comical. For someone who lived in the D.C. enviorment Talbot apparently has no knowledge of the area outside of the Beltway-aside from the usual colloquial stereotypes of the uninformed who do not do battle with 95, 66 and the infamous Dulles Toll Road. What I find fascinating is that if you check out any interview, YouTube video or speech that Talbot makes he gives virtually the same identical statement describing this affair-down to the ridiculous northern Virginia quote. It is rehearsed- never spontaneous. That is very telling.
            The entire narrative for Dulles’ actions on Nov 22 should be seen for what it is -made up speculation by somebody with incomplete facts marked by gross errors.
            You want to REALLY know where Dulles spent the assassination weekend? Not Williamsburg, not Quantico, not some mysterious ” northern” Virginia location called the Farm. He spent it at 2723 Q Street, N.W.
            What else did Talbot make up?

          • Photon says:

            Roy, you definitely have enough time to “smoke a smoke ” on I95 from the Beltway to Quantico- on a good day it is a 25 minute drive. But in 1963 the more likely route would have been Rte. 1-Jeff Davis Hwy.-45 min to an hour.
            But it doesn’t matter. There is no CIA facility at Quantico, now or in 1963. Before 9-11 the CIA and FBI weren’t even supposed to talk to each other outside of clearly defined exceptional cases. If anything there was an adversarial relationship. Dulles had no reason to go to Quantico.
            The Camp Peary instillation is a training facility-not a headquarters, not a place where intelligence is analyzed. What evidence does Talbot have that Dulles was even AT Camp Peary AT ALL on Nov.21? Does he expect us to believe that a Brookings Institute briefing would be held at a Top Secret training facility that nobody could get into? When there were well known meeting facilities for just such a meeting in Williamsburg itself? Talbot never mentions were the meeting was actually held in Williamsburg . He just assumes that it was at the Farm-a totally ludicrous conclusion for a private institute that has no security clearances at all.
            I am convinced that this whole Dulles narrative claimed by Talbot was created by Talbot out of whole cloth. Of course CTers will never do the due diligence to show how completely screwed up Talbot got the story.
            Well, now you know the rest of the story.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘The entire narrative for Dulles’ actions on Nov 22 should be seen for what it is -made up speculation by somebody with incomplete facts marked by gross errors.’ — photon

            ‘You want to REALLY know where Dulles spent the assassination weekend? Not Williamsburg, not Quantico, not some mysterious ” northern” Virginia location called the Farm. He spent it at 2723 Q Street, N.W.’ — photon

            ‘Dulles was in D.C. at least on Nov. 23.’ – photon

            “made up speculation by somebody with incomplete facts . . .” Apparently photon’s facts are dribbling through in a similar fashion as the facts related to the abnormality in President Kennedy’s neck. Perhaps photon might consider waiting until it has it’s ducks in a row before attacking David Talbot’s expose of Dulles. Will it provide documentation that Dulles at his home on Q Street on November 22nd and 23rd to the exclusion of being where Talbot claims?

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Guys, I’m pretty sure there was a “The Farm” on the outskirts of the Quantico USMC base, close to the FBI Academy. Not owned by Dulles, it was used by the MIC bigshots: DoD, CIA, some Feebies. Anyone heard of this?

          • Dan says:

            Perhaps related to the issue of “The Farm” on November 22, James Bamford writes in “Body of Secrets” that at the time of the assassination John McCone’s deputy at CIA, Marshall Carter, was quail shooting at The Farm near Williamsburg. Carter wrote several days later that “we returned at once…”. p. 132.

            Bamford cites William Manchester for the statement that at the time of the assassination the Joint Chiefs of Staff were meeting with the commanders of the West German Bundeswehr in the Gold Room at the Pentagon. p. 131. Presumably this is the reconstituted German General Staff.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          You have evidence of Willy having military training and experience? I must have missed it. Please repost.

          • As I have already stated on this forum, I am not at liberty to discuss what military or intelligence experience I may or may not have.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 4, 2015 at 9:51 am

            As I have already stated on this forum, I am not at liberty to discuss what military or intelligence experience I may or may not have.

            I don’t think you have had any, Willy. Certainly a man coming from intelligence would have a better understanding of security than to think Oswald had a Top Secret Crypto.

          • as much as she would stomp and glower
            to insist a mum naught but a flower
            when she plunged from the steep high tower
            the mums petals they did shower
            O how the sphinx would weep
            that cryptic message still would keep

            From The Flower of Zanzibar by Kiplard Yewing
            \\][//

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Bill Clarke,
            I’m a veteran of productive labor, mostly housebuilding, and most of that was the most difficult, dirty, and dangerous trades in residential construction: roofing, framing, siding, and decking. For 30 years I had companies that employed many and performed the tasks that the vast majority of Americans increasingly disdain, due to the militarization of America. So you and Photon (though back in the day, he helped me on a few especially tough jobs when I could find no other help) can look down your nose at me too, while y’all are sneering at Willy. I’m one of those civilians who have had it so easy doing the fundamental labor of this nation, AND paying for this massive, mostly unnecessary, military. So you and your buddies could flap your arms and prance around with a gun in your hands; and free grub, threads, medical care and housing. All the while telling yourselves “We’re fottin fer their fraydumb!” When really you’re allergic to real work and competing in the free market. You and Pho prefer the commie world of rank and Big Brother taking care of you.

            Ever since Kennedy, the military has increasingly despised non-military. Your pet name for us civvies is “dirtbags.” You guys watch too much TV, and imagine the soap opera divas are real Americans, that all we do is vetch and lay around. Yeah, probably the Americans YOU know are like that.

            Other jobs and places I’m a veteran of: hospital, metal working factory, woodshop, warehouse, high school teacher, education analyst; and yes a government office worker, which is all that someone in the military is, the cushiest, best perks government “job” there is.

            One more thing I’m a veteran of, though it’s not a job, more like a love or a hobby. I couldn’t be in the VVAW, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, because I simply wasn’t a Vietnam vet. Back in the day, we had a sort of auxiliary group called The Friends of the VVAW. They made me the 5-star general and the buck private of that because I got such a kick out of both the organizing and the grunt work. I was, and still am, a real stinker.

            You guys stop acting like you have some special knowledge and experience just because you kiss the rear-end of the war-machine that has enslaved us and ruined this nation and much of this world. Please.

          • Photon says:

            Ever been to Arlington, Roy? Any National Cemetary ?
            Ever met a disabled Vet? Perhaps you can equate putting shingles on a house with seeing your best friend take a round in the head and getting hit with his teeth, skin , eyeball and brain tissue. I certainly can’t.
            But there is the rub.You and others on this site claim to know more about the military than veterans who actually served, more about forensic pathology than world renowned forensic pathologists, more about anatomy than physicians who actually dissect the human body, more about ballistics than individuals who actually experiment and publish in reputable journals, more about FBI policies and procedures than FBI agents themselves , more about individuals and their opinions than the individual’s family members themselves. So CTers will accept even the most absurd claims from CT authors, like David Talmot’s nonsense of where Allen Dulles was on Nov. 22, 1963 without the simple exercise of looking at a map that reveals that his entire claim about the whereabouts of Dulles during the weekend of the Assassination is nothing but a complete sham.
            Dulles was in D.C. at least on Nov. 23.

          • Bogman says:

            And Photon, how much forensic and anatomy knowledge did Gerald Ford have when he moved the back wound to the neck in the WR?

          • Photon’s comment of, December 5, 2015 at 1:06 pm:
            Is nothing but a load of Jingoberry Pie. A political speech, full of emotional rhetoric and tugs at the disingenuous “Patriot’s Heart”.

            Whether the controversy over the whereabouts of Dulles on the evening of Novermber 22nd is dismissed as tidily as Photon suggests, is also a well patterned prattle of rhetoric.

            And it is in Photon’s constant apologia of a National Security State, established on war and conquest, the furtherance of empire and full spectrum fascist dominance that persists to this very day, that makes Photon’s commentary so unsettling to those of us still fighting for the principles of Justice and Liberty that were once the credo of a Republic; now long passed into the mists of history.
            \\][//

          • ed connor says:

            Paul, are you insinuating that you served in combat and had a comrade’s “brains, teeth and eyeballs” splattered on your fatigues?
            If so, please inform us: branch of service, MOS, date and location of engagement, etc.
            Or are you a poseur, as your nom de plum suggests?
            Not to worry, Paul. SCOTUS overruled the “Stolen Valor Act” on First Amendment grounds in U.S. v. Alvarez in 2012.
            You are safe, even though you have no mass, “Photon.”

          • Charles says:

            BIG RED LIGHT here on Photon,

            Whenever someones drapes their arguments in death shrouds, especially in violent death by combat, you know they are full of crap. The people in it for real have too much respect to use the dead as poker chips on a rhetorical gaming table.

            Henry Kissinger could have said of General Haig, ‘soldiers know as much about politics as cattle know about agriculture.’

          • Photon says:

            No Ed, it was the experience of a friend of mine who saw half of the Marines on his helicopter killed and still suffers PTSD four decades later. For some misguided reason Mr. Kornbluth thinks that his construction experience is somehow equivalent to serving in the Armed Forces, where people get ” free grub,threads, medical care and housing. All the while telling yourselves ‘We’re fottin’ fer their fraydumb’ “. Truly an insensitive and ignorant statement.
            Willy, the whereabouts of Allen Dulles on Nov. 22, 1963 are extremely important because David Talbot made them so, to the point of bringing them up iin a stereotypic and rehearsed statement virtually every time his is interviewed on the subject of his book and the assassination. I think that his ” northern Virginia” mistake is only the tip of the iceberg-not only is his claim of where Dulles was the weekend of the assassination grossly in error, he is guilty of inventing claims with NO EVIDENCE-like his preposterous claim that Dulles had a comfortable house built on the grounds of the “Farm” that he used as a personal retreat.
            If one had the time and inclination I am sure that one could find more unsupported claims and gross errors in the book-I have only documented those that I picked up reading the Assassination chapter-only a small portion of the book.What other things did he make up or get wrong?

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Photon B.,
            The vast majority of our military who are hurt or killed are hurt or killed by their own comrades-in-arms. Pat Tillman is the rule, not the exception. And “comrades-in-arms” includes all the rent-a-mercenary corporations like Blackwater/Xenon and Craft International LLC.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 5, 2015 at 2:51 am

            Part 1

            We have turned over an ugly stone here and I regret it. That said, if you are going to claim that our military killed JFK you need to understand some things about our military. Apparently you don’t understand. I’m not saying you have to have military experience to understand this but like anything else experience helps to understand something.

            “I’m a veteran of productive labor, mostly housebuilding, and most of that was the most difficult, dirty, and dangerous trades in residential construction: roofing, framing, siding, and decking.”

            Spend 3 weeks at a time out in the bush in I Corps riding on an ACAV and then you might tell me about “difficult, dirty, and dangerous trades. Have you ever heard an RPG coming for you? Have you ever gone 3 weeks without a shower? Until then…….

            “So you and Photon can look down your nose at me too, while y’all are sneering at Willy.”

            After I came home from Vietnam my brothers and I started an earth moving and grading outfit. Did it for 27 years before I retired. I did the work necessary before you could do your work. So I would have a hard time looking down my nose at someone in the building trades. I sneer at Willy and he sneers at me. That is just the way me and Willy are.

            “I’m one of those civilians who have had it so easy doing the fundamental labor of this nation, AND paying for this massive, mostly unnecessary, military.”

            The military is mostly necessary because the presidents keep using the military. If the president doesn’t send them they don’t go. We have got to stop blaming our military and CIA for things our presidents did or approved of.

            “So you and your buddies could flap your arms and prance around with a gun in your hands [You should meet some real combat veterans]; and free grub [I hope you like C-Rats], threads [a couple of uniforms?], medical care [they get you blown up is it really asking too much to get patched up] and housing [Do you realize they count sleeping on that ACAV as your housing allowance?] When really you’re allergic to real work and competing in the free market.”

            I told you I worked construction for 27 years. I was the estimator. Most all of our work, especially the early years, was bid jobs. I liked the work and I liked the bid. So you are wrong here.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 5, 2015 at 2:51 am

            Part 2

            “You and Pho prefer the commie world of rank and Big Brother taking care of you.”

            You don’t know what Pho and I prefer.

            “Ever since Kennedy, the military has increasingly despised non-military.”

            I don’t think so. During Johnson’s time our public turned against the war and unfortunately turned against the soldier [anti-military]. By the time of Clinton we had a president that despised the military [anti-military]. I wonder why the military didn’t overthrow Clinton!! Now mostly the public supports the soldier if not the war. I like that.

            “And yes a government office worker, which is all that someone in the military is, the cushiest, best perks government “job” there is.”

            So I suppose all those names on the Wall were “office workers”? Good grief, you have no idea of what you speak of.

            “I couldn’t be in the VVAW, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, because I simply wasn’t a Vietnam vet.”

            Not being a Vietnam Vet didn’t stop Al Hubbard from being the leader of the VVAW. If their leader wasn’t a vet then they discriminated against you. The kicker here is that when they discovered ole Al Hubbard wasn’t a Vietnam Vet they didn’t fire him; he went right on being the leader of the VVAW. Mostly this was a phony organization filled with phony people like Al and John Kerry.

            “I was, and still am, a real stinker.”

            I’ve noticed that basic training often takes the “stinker” out of a man. If not basic training then his first trip to the bush often does it. A pity you and Willy missed both.

          • “What other things did he make up or get wrong?”
            ~Photon

            Beats me Photon, maybe he thought Dulles had a weird neck or something!

            He did not say “North Virginia” that was Larry and my mistake. Talbot just said “Virginia”.
            Is that clear to you yet?
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 5, 2015 at 5:23 pm

            Photon B.,
            The vast majority of our military who are hurt or killed are hurt or killed by their own comrades-in-arms.

            This isn’t true. Again you show your ignorance of military operations.

          • Photon says:

            Willy, please see my comment of Dec 2, 9:54.
            As I have stated Talbot in recorded interviews continuously mentions ” northern Virginia” as the site of the “Farm”. Obviously, despite his vaunted research for this book he really doesn’t have a clue as to where it really is!
            If you live in the D.C. area you will discover that many of the movers and shakers have estates in an area of Northern Virginia centered around Middleburg called the Hunt Country. These horse farms are about an hour outside of D.C. An example would be JFK’s Atoka.
            It is apparent to me that Talbot has totally confused the location of the Farm and assumes that it is located in this Hunt Country area, not in the much more distant Tidewater area. To him it would make sense for Dulles to make an hour’s trip on the evening of Nov. 22,1963- it is a narrative much more believable than a crazy 3 hour drive down to Williamsburg. Talbot apparently forgot that merely looking at a map his version of events goes down the drain. He made the whole thing up.

          • Tom S. says:

            Roy,
            Your “Part 1” displays 518 words, and your “Part Deux” exceeds 600 words….

          • “He made the whole thing up.”~Photon

            I am shocked, yes SHOCKED that you would say that Talbot is lying!

            As you yourself know very well, “honorable men do not lie”!!!

            No one lies Photon, that is just a story made up by disgruntled satanists and pawn brokers.
            \\][//

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Billpho, Part 1 a
            Here I sit listening to Saintjohn Hunt, son of E Howard Hunt, talking about his mother Dorothy’s murder at the hands of the MIC over Chicago, on the Coast to Coast radio show, thankfully with guest host R Syrett, not the abominable George Snory, USN vet which he brings up with disturbing frequency. Once again, I must respond to errors from our war-loving posters.

            You guys are a broken record about this phony guts-and-glory hooey, like, “You ever had your buddy’s guts splode in yer face while yer eatin a heapin heppin of nitrate-heavy C-rats?! Huh, have yuh?!” Though thanks for bringing it up one more time again. I shouldn’t have to spell it out for you, that I and we all have seen the results of modern ordnance, after telling you about my ardent participation as the ringleader of the Friends of the VVAW, but here goes anyway.

            Of the scores of Nam vets I met in the early 70s, I cannot think of one who was NOT horribly scarred physically and mentally. May I brag about my two favorites? I know they won’t mind although they’re excessively modest.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Billpho part 1b:
            Brian O’Connor, native of Rahway NJ, moved to NC after his tourS because of some chick he was in love with. And then he fell in love with Greensboro/Guilford College as much as his knockout wife; don’t ask me why, I’m still mystified. The happiest man I ever met, not a resentful bone in his mangled body. Brian used to joke that “The Ballad of the Green Beret” (remember that maudlin, closet-homoerotic piece of garbage? “Put silver wangs on my son’s chest”) is what made him join the Marines right out of high school — claimed he would’ve joined at 17 but his parents had a brain and cared about their son. He made the Green Berets. At the end of his second tour, his outfit was pinned down by VC, so they called in air-support. You’ve heard of Bouncing Bettys, right? One of many highly anti-Geneva anti-personnel devices we used on “anything that moves”. Well, the choppers dropped em on their OWN GUYS. Years later, O’Connor still looked like he’d been in a fight with a woodchipper. He loved Bob Dylan and Joan Baez (maybe overmuch from eschewing the toady Barry Sadler), claimed they were the Shakespeare of our time; I scoffed, “Naw man, Hendrix, Yes, King Crimson are the acme.” He and his wife never missed an opportunity to start a singalong.

            Larry York, eidetic Irishman, fiery hair and disposition — certified Conscientious Objector who joined the service as a medic!! What in the world?! He went in just wanting to help his generation, and he came out not so peaceful, wanting to fight the Silent (Smirking, Sneering) and Greatest (Greediest) Generations. We fantasized about going to Canada, assembling an army of Boomer exiles, and, well…… let’s leave it at that. We could have done it, too. Our buds used to tell us, “Hey man, shut up!” as they ran away.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Billpho, Part Deux a:
            From 4th paragraph of your Part 2 above: “During Johnson’s time our public turned against the war and unfortunately turned against the soldier [anti-mil].”
            1. There was no “war” until LBJ’s time.
            2. Only out West did any of the public turn against the soldier. Spitting incidents were very rare, highly exaggerated by military crybabies. Now, in Vietnam, there were many Americans turning against the “soldier,” well actually the odd brass. Ever hear of fragging? It’s when draftees, the real soldiers, took out slavery-loving officers, usually from the academies, who were trying to make their captain bars on the blood and guts of the boys who were plucked out of the farms and factories back Stateside. In 1968, there were over 100 certified frags. It was probably several hundred really.

            Next sentence, “By the time of Clinton we had a president that [sic, “who”] despised the military [anti-mil].”
            1. Did he despise them because he got the Pentagon budget down to $200B? Without all that extra blood, sweat and tears (over a trillion now) going down the toilet, we had the last great economic boom, good for all except Daddy Warbucks.
            2. What obeisance did Willy C not pay our lords and masters? Please expound. DoD had it great. Was it because he dodged the draft like Bush, Cheney, and every other connected American did after 1966?

            Next sentence, “I wonder why the military didn’t overthrow Clinton!!”
            1. This must be sarcasm directed at those of us who think MIC was a principal in the removal of JFK. I hope it’s sarcasm.
            2. Besides, if MIC knows nothing else, they know what’s good for them. They’re not into committing suicide en masse, yet.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Billpho Part Deux b:
            Next, “Now mostly the public supports the soldier if not the war.”
            1. Haven’t you heard? We’re in a perpetual War on Terror. You don’t consider a trillion plus per annum public support? Though true that it’s on the gov./military credit card. And don’t forget that it was another two Texans who started this War on Terra, Bush/Cheney, because they were asleep at the wheel on 9-11.
            2. And boy oh boy do we support the soldier. On top of the trillion plus every year, Obama more than doubled VA spending from $75B in 2009 to $175B in 2014, but a lot of that was for treating Agent Orange Nam vets from over 40 years ago, long overdue. It’ll probably top $200B next year. And all you hear is how rotten we treat the poor vets.

            From your 6th paragraph, “So I suppose all those names on The Wall were ‘office workers’? Good grief, you have no idea of what you speak.”
            Vietnam, even more than the previous wars, was fought by real, working Americans. The career military got out of it, didn’t have to go. And they didn’t want to get fragged. Just one part of the rottenness of it.

            In 2012 on C-Span, two Canadians were running for “co-president of the States.” They wrote a comedy book. They said the first thing they’d do if elected, at the Inauguration, is declare all Americans veterans of class warfare so we all could use VA. The reason we have the worst slums, crime, and health in the developed world is because of the military. Any schoolgirl from Europe, Canada, Australia could take care of any 10 American military in a fair fight. They are not such rollovers as we.

            Google Kay Griggs sometime and if you don’t recognize any of what she saw then you weren’t in the military, or you were in an office staring at a wall or a machine the whole time.
            Oh yes, you commented on my “I’m a real stinker” comment, and how boot-camp or some such GI Joe crap woulda taken that out of me. (I’ve had 1,000 bootcamps, can’t you read?!) I didn’t think I had to spell that out too. It was understood: a real stinker… to the fat, drunk, sneaky, goldbricking, holier than the rest of us, elitists who lord it over us. All my life, I have too much experience with you guys. I know you well. Per capita, we spend 20 times what the rest of the world pays for defense, 4.5% of the world’s population forks over more than half of the world’s military expenditure. Yet all we hear is how badly we treat the military.

          • Photon says:

            Roy, I hate break this to you but the Green Berets are not Marines.
            Bouncing Betty’s – from a helicopter? Even Cobras didn’t drop anti-personnel mines.
            You have been had.
            No wonder you are willing to believe the Roscoe White BS.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 6, 2015 at 6:06 pm
            Billpho, Part 1 a

            Roy Boy, I don’t expect you to know how many rounds your M-16 fires per minute. I don’t expect you to tell me how to set the timing and head space on the .50 cal machine gun. But what I do expect is for you to have some knowledge about this entire BS you are spreading here. If you want to discuss it then learn something about it. I’ll correct these latest flops you’ve made but I don’t intend on replying to this ridiculous stuff of yours for long.

            “You ever had your buddy’s guts splode in yer face while yer eatin a heapin heppin of nitrate-heavy C-rats?! Huh, have yuh?!”

            I’m not the one that posted this. Try to keep up Roy. You won’t find any “war story” that I’ve told on this site or any other.

            “Though thanks for bringing it up one more time again. I shouldn’t have to spell it out for you, that I and we all have seen the results of modern ordnance,”

            Did you smell it? If not you know nothing of “modern ordnance”. Just like you know nothing of basic training.

            “After telling you about my ardent participation as the ringleader of the Friends of the VVAW, but here goes anyway.”

            I really liked this one. A phony gang that wouldn’t let you in but kept the wannabe Al Hubbard as their leader. You should have sued!

            “Of the scores of Nam vets I met in the early 70s, I cannot think of one who was NOT horribly scarred physically and mentally.”

            I call BS on this one Roy. Now you are the one telling war stories.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 6, 2015 at 6:17 pm
            Billpho part 1b:

            “Put silver wangs on my son’s chest”) is what made him join the Marines right out of high school — claimed he would’ve joined at 17 but his parents had a brain and cared about their son. He made the Green Berets”.

            This is another ridiculous comment of yours. He could have joined the Marines or he could have made the Green Berets but he couldn’t have done both. You see Roy; the Green Berets are part of the U.S. Army, not the U.S. Marines. Again you show a terrible lack of knowledge here.

            “At the end of his second tour, his outfit was pinned down by VC, so they called in air-support. You’ve heard of Bouncing Bettys, right? One of many highly anti-Geneva anti-personnel devices we used on “anything that moves”.

            You bottom out here, Roy Boy. This is the worst you’ve done so far to show your ignorance and your wiliness to accept anything written that serves your purpose… I’m howling in laughter that you can declare with such authority such an obvious fairy tale. You have to build a bouncing betty on the ground. No way do they work thrown out of a chopper. Why don’t you tell me just how a bouncing betty works? Can you tell me who made them (hint; it wasn’t us).

            “We fantasized about going to Canada, assembling an army of Boomer exiles, and, well…… let’s leave it at that. We could have done it, too.”

            Yes, let us just leave such BS at that. You couldn’t have done a damn thing Roy.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 6, 2015 at 6:26 pm
            Billpho, Part Deux a:

            “From 4th paragraph of your Part 2 above: “During Johnson’s time our public turned against the war and unfortunately turned against the soldier [anti-mil].”

            “1. There was no “war” until LBJ’s time.”

            There was a war from 1945. We helped ship the French soldiers back to Vietnam to reclaim the colony of Vietnam. We also financed France for much of the war. Are you aware of the escalations that Kennedy made in Vietnam; especially 1962 and 1963?

            “2. Spitting incidents were very rare, highly exaggerated by military crybabies.”

            I agree with this.

            Next sentence, “By the time of Clinton we had a president that [sic, “who”] despised the military [anti-mil].

            “1. Did he despise them because he got the Pentagon budget down to $200B? Without all that extra blood, sweat and tears (over a trillion now) going down the toilet, we had the last great economic boom, good for all except Daddy Warbucks.”

            No, he despised them before he got to be president. It was when they were about to draft his sorry ass and Slick Willy didn’t want none of that.

            “2. What obeisance did Willy C not pay our lords and masters? Please expound. DoD had it great. Was it because he dodged the draft like Bush, Cheney, and every other connected American did after 1966?”

            That and the lying hoops he rolled to stay out of the draft.
            Next sentence, “I wonder why the military didn’t overthrow Clinton!!”

            “1. This must be sarcasm directed at those of us who think MIC was a principal in the removal of JFK. I hope its sarcasm.”

            Good work Roy. It was not only sarcasm but indeed bitter sarcasm.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Pho bro,
            Because the Green Berets are not in the Marines, that means Brian O’Connor does (did) not exist? What are they, Army? Brobdingnagian? It was just a few years ago when I got it straight that the lilliputian Emperors of the Navy are called admirals, and the poobahs of the Army are generals. (Nods to Swift, or did you miss that seminar?)

            Anyway, O’Connor was a Green Beret who was torn up by Bouncing Bettys (Isn’t it strange that the US war-machine generally gives slightly sexual female names to our most fiendish machines of macabre?) that were dropped from something/someone in the air. It wasn’t Daedalus, and it was American. He was no fraud; he proudly wore his uniform and medals. A public speaker, he was checked out by more Doubting Thomases than Carter has liver pills. I heard through the grapevine that he passed away recently due to his maimingS. Now I have to contact an old high school buddy (whom I haven’t talked with in a couple years) who knew him better than me, and see if it’s true. I hope you’re happy for causing me all this trouble.

            Brian O, if you’re out there in the ether, I’m sorry for making fun of Dylan back then. You are right, Bob and Joan are the Shakespeare of our day.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 6, 2015 at 6:53 pm
            Billpho Part Deux b:

            “1. Haven’t you heard? We’re in a perpetual War on Terror. You don’t consider a trillion plus per annum public support? And don’t forget that it was another two Texans who started this War on Terra, Bush/Cheney, because they were asleep at the wheel on 9-11.”

            Haven’t you heard Roy? How many troops do we have in Iraq today? I’m not talking about money Roy, I’m talking about respect, compassion and understanding. Last time I looked these didn’t have a price tag on them.

            Neither Bush nor Cheney are Texans. Cheney was born in Lincoln, Nebraska and was primarily raised in Summer, Nebraska and Casper, Wyoming. Cheney, who never met a war he didn’t like except the one he dodged 5 times didn’t come to Texas until Clinton put him out of a job. Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut. Spent his early years in Texas up until about the 7th grade. Have you heard of “carpet baggers”?

            “From your 6th paragraph, “So I suppose all those names on The Wall were ‘office workers’? Good grief, you have no idea of what you speak.”

            “Vietnam, even more than the previous wars, was fought by real, working Americans. The career military got out of it, didn’t have to go.”

            For crying out loud Roy, have you ever heard of World War II? You might need to sit down for this one; the “career military” competed for duty in Vietnam. You had to have had a command position in Vietnam to move up.

            “Google Kay Griggs sometime and if you don’t recognize any of what she saw then you weren’t in the military, or you were in an office staring at a wall or a machine the whole time.”

            Kay Griggs, Former Marine Colonel’s Wife Talks Again About Military Assassin Squads, Drug Running, Illegal Weapon Deals And Sexual Perversion Deep Within The Highest Levels Of U.S. Military And Government. http://www.whale.to/b/griggs.html

            Trust me Roy; I’ve heard so much of that crap I can tell you what they are going to say before I read it. Not word for word mind you but I got the general BS of these people down. Strike 3. Sit down Roy.

            “Oh yes, you commented on my “I’m a real stinker” comment, and how boot-camp or some such GI Joe crap woulda taken that out of me. (I’ve had 1,000 bootcamps, can’t you read?!) I didn’t think I had to spell that out too. It was understood: a real stinker…”

            Hanging dry wall does not a boot camp make. This is silly Roy. And it is silly for you to think you would have come into a combat unit and caused trouble. In Vietnam in a combat unit that would have gotten you an ass whipping probably. It was different over there you see.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Charles
            December 5, 2015 at 4:43 pm

            Top Post. Charles, I’m wondering if I could have your permission to save your message here? And if so could I have permission to use it in a Vietnam War group I follow?

            Whenever someones drapes their arguments in death shrouds, especially in violent death by combat, you know they are full of crap. The people in it for real have too much respect to use the dead as poker chips on a rhetorical gaming table.

            Henry Kissinger could have said of General Haig, ‘soldiers know as much about politics as cattle know about agriculture.’

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Thanks, guys. Learn something every day. So Green Berets are Army, not Marines. I’ve always assumed since Special Forces are the best of the best, they had to be USMC. Goes to show how far logic goes.

            So — since I was wrong (I’m going to have to check this out when I’m free, say in the year 2050, to make sure) about what branch of the service the GBs are in, I guess this scotches me whole idea of what went down 11-22-63. So Oswald MUST HAVE caused at least four bullet marks outside the limo (Stemmons sign, N sidewalk of Elm, S lane of Elm in front of Jean Hill, S side of Main in front of James Tague), AND five external wounds on John Connally, AND six external wounds and countless internal wounds on JFK, AND at least four bullet marks IN the limo (windshield trim, back of mirror, windshield itself and chrome ashtray on the back of the front seat). All from different directions. All in six seconds with a joke of a rifle that may not even have been fired.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Dear Billie Boy,
            The third to last sentence of your 2:14 post proves that you misunderstand me 100%, “… come into a combat unit and caused trouble.” Every single word I have put on this site is all about STOPPING trouble. In my family, every male in the older generation served in the military. In my generation, about half. I have known and worked with countless vets. They neatly fall into two groups, which is unseen elsewhere in nature or society. Group One’s life and experience was enriched by military service, if only to see a number of lunatics they don’t want to end up like. They appreciate civilian life and the myriad types of civilians all the more, sometimes to a ridiculous extent.

            Group Two is the lunatics. The hateful, lazy, moronic, greedy, resentful, elitist (and some criminal) lunatics who think they’re better than “dirtbag” civilians, only because they pranced around with a gun in their hands and smelled cordite in the morning.

            JFK was definitely in Group One. His killers and their myriad accomplices were definitely in Group Two.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Oh jeez, one more superhuman thing that USMC Oswald did on 11-22, how could I forget? He ran a three-minute mile from his boardinghouse, shot JD Tippit dead, leaned over him, and, not even breathing heavy, spit in his face, “You poor dumb cop.”

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            So Billie Boy, or is it Gurl,
            You declined to mention what you think of Kay Griggs’ tale. Is she a liar too?

          • Photon says:

            Roy, I don’t have any idea who is lying, you or your friend Mr. O’Conner. But somebody is-because your story about Marine Green Berets and Bouncing Betty mines is nothing but horse manure-and is as comical as the faux vets who run around wearing badges on the wrong side of the uniform or putting specialist devices upside down. The next thing that you will tell us is a veteran friend of yours was hit by a panzerfaust dropped by an Air America bomber.
            If you are going to post it would be to your advantage to at least learn a little about the subject. Your knowledge of the military is non-existent based on the phony stories you need to post in order to state your opinion.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Please stop Roy. For the love of Jesus please stop. You are driving me crazy with your throwing Bouncing Betties out of a chopper or anything else. It just ain’t right Roy. The BB is a “Land mine”. It is hidden “underground” and that is hard to do being thrown out of a chopper. It explodes when pressure (a foot usually) is applied to the trigger. When triggered it pops up out of the ground before it explodes at about waist height. This might blow off sexual organs you mentioned and your gut won’t be in good shape. They were very nasty but they were not thrown out of choppers. Grenades at time but never BB. Please learn this one thing for me, Roy.

            Noun1. bouncing betty – an antipersonnel land mine
            booby trap, ground-emplaced mine, land mine – an explosive mine hidden underground; explodes when stepped on or driven over. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bouncing+betty

            A Bouncing Betty.
            S-Mines, or as they are better known, Bouncing Betties are an explosive device in Battlefield Vietnam. The S-mine was first developed in Germany and produced from 1935 onwards. It was used in WWII, after which it was copied and used by a lot of nations, including the Soviet Union, the USA, China, Finland and others.

            After being triggered, the Bouncing Betty is propelled into the air, [please note Roy] after which it detonates, sending out hundreds of metal balls. Thanks to this process, it had a 20 meter lethal radius and a 100 meter injure radius. http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Bouncing_Betty

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 7, 2015 at 5:49 am

            So Billie Boy, or is it Gurl,
            You declined to mention what you think of Kay Griggs’ tale. Is she a liar too?

            I don’t doubt her old man didn’t get drunk and beat her. Then when you get to the assassins and such her credibility suffers.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 7, 2015 at 3:36 am

            “Thanks, guys. Learn something every day. So Green Berets are Army, not Marines. I’ve always assumed since Special Forces are the best of the best, they had to be USMC. Goes to show how far logic goes”.

            “So — since I was wrong (I’m going to have to check this out when I’m free, say in the year 2050, to make sure) about what branch of the service the GBs are in,”

            Here Roy, let me help you some more.

            Special Forces (United States Army)
            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

            ActiveJune 19, 1952 – present
            Country United States of America
            Branch United States Army
            TypeSpecial operations force
            Part of United States Special Operations Command
            United States Army Special Operations Command
            Garrison/HQFort Bragg, North Carolina

            The United States Army Special Forces, known as the Green Berets because of their distinctive service headgear, are a special operations force tasked with five primary missions:

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Bill C. and Photon B.,
            I’m crying uncle. No mas, bitte. Whether Brian O’Connor and many other GIs were torn up by Bouncing Bettys or Whirling Susans or Screaming Mimis dropped on them by Cobras or Rattlesnakes or Asps, I don’t know. You got me. All I know is that a guy who was built like a brick house was chopped up real bad by some anti-personnel device, which spit out some kind of jagged razor blades, dropped on him by his own guys. I saw the disgusting scars. O’Connor wasn’t bashful about wearing shorts and short-sleeve shirts. Sorry about the incorrect nomenclature, youse guys. I must move on or we’re going to melt down the wires on this website.

      • “Aw Willy, did you really have to? You call me gullible when it is in fact you that…”~Bill Clarke

        Naw Bill, I don’t “have to” do nuthin’ – but I can express my opinions, and there you have mine.

        You assert, “it is in fact you that..”, and THAT is mere opinion stated as fact. It is IN FACT one of the hysterical and irrational arguments made by the WC cult to attempt to extinguish the Motive that the MIC clearly had.
        \\][//

  7. On 8 May 1961, JCS Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer sent a blistering telegram to the Pentagon. Lemnitzer said it appeared “the unhappy sequence of events in Laos” was being repeated, adding that this “can only mean the loss of Vietnam.” In a scathing indictment of the President’s cautious approach to the Communist threat in Southeast Asia, Lemnitzer argued the problem in simple terms: “Does the U.S. intend to take the necessary military action now to defeat the Viet Cong threat or do we intend to quibble for weeks and months over details of general policy…while Vietnam slowly goes down the drain of Communism as North Vietnam and a large portion of Laos have gone to date?”
    * * * * * * *
    An extraordinary document from Lemnitzer to the Joint Chiefs. A scathing critique of Kennedy’s policies regarding Vietnam. One can see the seeds of a coup right there as early as May 1961.

    Read the entire document here:
    https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d47

    Note: This information was provided initially by another commentator on this blog. I have forgotten exactly who. But I commend him for pointing out this vital piece of history
    \\][//

    • bogman says:

      And Ford shines again in protecting the American people from the truth:

      In 1975, President Ford appointed Lemnitzer to the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States (aka the Rockefeller Commission) to investigate whether the Central Intelligence Agency had committed acts that violated American laws and allegations that E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis (of Watergate fame) were involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

      http://operation-gladio.net/lyman-lemnitzer

      Wolf, meet hen house.

  8. Ronnie Wayne says:

    My question to Mr. Kirsch which brought about his comment of the week, asking if he had read Devil’s Chessboard, was in response to his previous post on the thread Is David Talbot right that the CIA killed JFK. In it he said “JFK reportedly wanted to break the CIA, or words to that effect. But he didn’t do that, he replaced Dulles and left the agency intact. (not true, he also fired General Cabbell, brother of Dallas mayor Cabbell, and Bissell, in addition to about 1 in 3 CIA employee’s per DCB if I remember right). He next stated “What motive would the CIA have had for taking the colossal risk of assassinating the president of the United States.”
    Mr. Kirsch has made posts on this site previously (though not recently) I’ve found relevant and prescient. I was unaware of his status as a respected journalist.
    Elements of the CIA prior to the assassination had multiple motivations to take the colossal risk from the BOP, the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK’s perceived weakness on Communism from his Peace overtures. But not the entire mostly dedicated and patriotic members. Dulles was still acting on behalf of those he represented in the Banking, Oil and (for example) U.S Steel interests. Not withstanding is the Military aspect of the Military Industrial Complex Ike mentioned. JMO, no disrespect intended for a respected journalist.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      My question to Mr. Kirsch was made with the following thoughts in mind. I’d previously read about the assassinations and government overthrows orchestrated under Dulles watch, e.g. Guatemala, Iran, and the attempts on Castro. I’d not read about the alleged CIA support of the DeGaulle attempt and attempted overthrow. Nor that of Dulles proposed assassination attempt on Stalin before he became DCI. I came to the conclusion that yeah it’s entirely possible considering his ongoing connections with his loyal covert employees in the CIA that he could have still been representing the interests of the Corporate Political Elite he worked for throughout his career.

  9. Michael Tyrrell says:

    I just finished TDChessboard. Great read. Given all the circustances. I find Talbot’s scenario offers the more likely descrprition of events. An establishment crime, the assassination was carried out by Cuban expatriots bent on revenge for their slaughter at the Bay of Pigs.

  10. Fearfaxer says:

    “Bill Clarke
    December 4, 2015 at 5:27 pm
    ‘Willy Whitten
    December 4, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    His planning and participation in coups d’etat around the globe are well known. To suppose that Dulles was not involved in the 1963 coup in Dallas is irrational and preposterous in the extreme.’

    Please Willy. Settle down a bit.”

    Was WW’s comment a bit overheated and over the top. Yes. But he has a valid point. Dulles and the various other Gentlemen Murderers of the CIA planned operations that resulted in the deaths of some by direct assassination, and as a result of events that ensued from them can be said to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of others. To suggest they would never attempt to kill a President they deemed a threat to what they perceived as US interests due to insufficient anti-Communist fervor is simply naive. It doesn’t make their culpability in JFK’s murder a certainty, or even likely, but it certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand.

    I don’t think Dulles was part of a plot to murder Kennedy. I do think he would have liked to see JFK somehow removed from the picture, and if he heard whispers about any such plot, he’d have done nothing to interfere. He was a truly dreadful human being, even worse than his godawful brother.

  11. Jordan says:

    Fighting for SE Asian democracy was a ruse, and could have never been successful regardless of the firepower brought to bear in support of such.

    However, the premise of fighting communism or any other great fear of the day, has long been used to conceal the real motivations behind the acts undertaken in the name of defeating the cause of such fear.

    • I agree Jordan,

      “Fighting to make the world safe for Democracy” is the greatest ruse that the Amerikan Empire has used as an excuse for exploitation, and plunder of the rest of the world.

      But the US is simply a garrison state for a global elite that oversee’s the implementation of the agenda — the processes of the New World Order.
      \\][//

      • Steve stirlen says:

        Willy,

        I have said this before, and I am going to continue to say it until I can no longer type. Your posts are always informative to me because while this site is about JFK, you are able to look past the physical evidence—although you know it in precise detail—but you are able to do what the WC did not want to do—dig for the reasons why this country is not living up to the dreams it promised. Your use of the words ruse and American democracy is spot-on perfect and as well said as any post I have ever read. There is a price to pay for ordinary American citizens to pay for the sins of “patriots” such as Allen Dulles, McCloy, LBJ and every other politician that spouts military action to make the world safe for American democratic principles. (People should read capitalism by brute force.)

        Well said, well said!

        • Thank you Steve, just remember Bill Clarke is reading here and he just might smack you up side the head with some Jingoberry pie for saying that — cuz he KNOWS it’s a Grand Ol’Flag it’s a High Flyin’ Flag!!! And all that.

          Nah, Jimmy Cagney ain’t got nuthin on BC…
          “Why I oughtta and I ain’t!”
          grin
          \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 7, 2015 at 7:55 am

            Thank you Steve, just remember Bill Clarke is reading here and he just might smack you up side the head with some Jingoberry pie for saying that — cuz he KNOWS it’s a Grand Ol’Flag it’s a High Flyin’ Flag!!! And all that.

            Nah, Jimmy Cagney ain’t got nuthin on BC…
            “Why I oughtta and I ain’t!”
            grin

            Thanks for the complement Willy and keep that sense of humor going.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Willy Whitten
        December 6, 2015 at 10:52 pm

        I agree Jordan,

        “Fighting to make the world safe for Democracy” is the greatest ruse that the Amerikan Empire has used as an excuse for exploitation, and plunder of the rest of the world.

        Aw Willy, there you go with the Amerikan again. Did you do it just to get my goat or what.

        The troops had a saying that you might like; “Fighting for peace is like F__king for chastity”.

        • “Aw Willy, there you go with the Amerikan again. Did you do it just to get my goat or what.”~Bill Clarke

          No I am perfectly serious. ‘America’ is the term used for the Constitutional Republic, whereas ‘Amerika’ is the term used for the Corporatist, Panoptic, Maximum Security Police State.
          \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 7, 2015 at 8:26 pm

            “Aw Willy, there you go with the Amerikan again. Did you do it just to get my goat or what.”~Bill Clarke

            No I am perfectly serious. ‘America’ is the term used for the Constitutional Republic, whereas ‘Amerika’ is the term used for the Corporatist, Panoptic, Maximum Security Police State.
            \\][//

            Does America and Amerika have the same flag? Why does my spell checker hit on Amerika? Because it is BS?

          • Bill Clarke asks;
            “Does America and Amerika have the same flag?”

            Answer; No there are only 13 stars on the American Flag

            “Why does my spell checker hit on Amerika? Because it is BS?”

            Answer; Because your spell checker is stupid.

            \\][//

    • Conceptualizing the NEW WORLD ORDER as a stagnant ‘object’ is error. This globalist order is a perpetual ‘process’. It is a living organism, in a real sense, an entity; in metaphor.

      Corporatism, the immortal “fictitious entity” is the key mechanism driving the process.
      \\][//

  12. Richard Love says:

    I wanted so much to see new and useful material on the assassination as I am no longer the child I was when JFK was killed and hope to see the truth RE Dallas come out in my lifetime.

    Talbot’s book unfortunately adds little to no new information to the debate and actually clouds it. Talbot seems to be knowledgeable and has done his homework so I am baffled as to why he would state in chapter 20:

    “The so called magic bullet that delivered the fatal blow to Kennedy’s skull before proceeding on its improbable course…”

    While the magic bullet is aptly named, and its supposed course is quite improbable, no one to my knowledge in the vast literature surrounding the assassination states this bullet caused Kennedy’s fatal head wound. It is instead understood that the magic bullet struck Kennedy in the back prior to the fatal head wound.

    I would recommend Stephen Kinzer’s book, “The Brothers – John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and Their Secret World War” to anyone is interested in the role Dulles may have played in the assassination’s sanctioning and/or cover-up.

    • Photon says:

      Richard, I pointed this out some time ago. I really don’t think he knows much about actual facts in the JFK assassination.
      His book is full of errors and bizarre geographical conclusions, like his belief that Williamsburg is in northern Virginia. I really wouldn’t trust any of his conclusions that are not corroborated by somebody else.
      He has participated on this blog in the past. The fact that he has headed for the hills and refuses to comment on this blog about our findings confirms to us that he has no answers to the issues brought up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more