Comment of the week

sh – April 5

From the review: “Talbot’s work is not without flaws—which I will detail later. But it is so far ahead of its competitors, and it deals with such a wide variety of important subjects, that I strongly recommend reading it. Most books I review in this field I read once, and then walk outside and throw them in the dumpster. Talbot’s book is

so large in scale, so rich in detail, so wide-ranging and relevant in its gallop through time, that I read it twice—all the while writing 43 pages of notes in preparation for this review. It was the only way to do the book justice. And anyone who says they can grasp and appreciate the 620 pages of text in one reading is not being candid” http://www.ctka.net/2015/TalbotDulles.html

57 comments

  1. Tom S. says:

    My concern is that too many, including the reviewer, Jim DiEugenio, presented here in the comment by sh, appear to live in glass houses.

    Are DiEugenio, David Talbot, or critic of both, Photon, actually in a position to judge what is or is not accurate?

    In fact, who can readers trust to be discerning at all times, in all matters? I am too often disappointed in what I am reading in submitted comments here, and in many posts in other forums.

    This person is one of my favorite recent targets, and ironically, Jim DiEugenio is of a mindset that continues to enable this writer.:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1983/11/20/20-years-after-dallas/3f048775-d891-4097-b32d-c5bac324e98f/
    20 Years After Dallas
    By Nicholas Lemann – November 20, 1983
    I WAS 9. I was in the locker room changing after a fourth grade gym class when the word began to spread that President Kennedy was dead. There was a brief period, ….. in which rogue, uncontrolled children’s emotions were able to find full expression.

    These were, I remember vividly, giddy and gleeful: in general because children raised on television see death by gunfire as exciting and without consequence, and in particular because in my part of the country, Louisiana, at that moment Kennedy was a much-hated man….
    …..In other words, I missed all of the rise of the Kennedy reputation, became aware of it just when it was at its peak and was able to see all of its drift downward through the years.

    It seemed that every twist and turn of events had the effect of sending something Kennedy stood for into disrepute. Chief among these, of course, was the Vietnam War, which was the forge of my generation even as most of us didn’t fight in it. The common view of the late ’60s and early ’70s that Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson’s and Richard Nixon’s war was gradually corrected (most notably by David Halberstam’s “The Best and the Brightest”) and more blame laid at the feet of Kennedy and his circle. In particular Kennedy’s attachment to quick, surgical action as a form of military policy — trying to kill Castro, sending in the Green Berets — fell into well-deserved disfavor, on both practical and moral grounds.

    That the revelations about Kennedy’s sex life came out at the same time as the reassessments of his foreign policy seemed not at all peculiar. If you were raised on the civil rights, peace and feminist movements (and even if you veered off into the self-fulfillment movement), you were taught to value idealism, gentleness and moralism. The rise in reputation of these qualities boded ill for the reputation of the tough, pragmatic, sharp Kennedy. He lived and governed according to a version of masculinity that became much scorned. It looked as if the explanation for Judith Exner and for the Bay of Pigs was exactly the same….
    …..By an accident of location, I was more often confronted with the facts of the Kennedy assassination than most people. In 1967, our young, reform-minded district attorney in New Orleans, Jim Garrison, announced that he was investigating the question of who really had murdered Kennedy. There followed a terrible stretch of years during which Garrison, who was either crazy or very cynical, possibly both, was the dominant figure in the public life of my hometown…..

    • Bill Pierce says:

      Tom S. asks:
      “In fact, who can readers trust to be discerning at all times, in all matters?”

      Carnac the Magnificent? Bill Kristol?

      At least Carnac was amusing. But, no. Tom treats us to Lemann’s turgid, self-indulgent, WaPo opinion piece from 1983 . . . the tenderloin of the Reagan Enlightenment.

      Is there any difference between George Will, David Brooks, Lemann, Cokie Roberts, Richard Cohen or any of the other establishment gatekeepers? It’s all the same bullsh*t. Is that the point?

  2. “Is DiEugenio, David Talbot, or critic of both, Photon, actually in a position to judge what is or is not accurate?”~Tom S.

    It is my opinion that it is up to each one of us to judge by our own lights what is and is not reasonable and accurate.

    I have not actually read The Devils Chessboard, only a lot of reviews of it, including this one:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-devils-chessboard-allen-dulles-the-cia-and-the-rise-of-americas-secret-government/5484565

    But I have to say that Allen Dulles is not an unknown quantity to those of us who study history. The “honorable man” meme promoted by Photon goes against everything I have found in history concerning Dulles, and his brother John Foster.

    I will eventually buy a copy of this book, when I have finished reading my current batch. From what I have read in reviews, it may have some flaws, and those may be more or less substantial depending on ones personal knowledge base, and opinion. As far as I know there is not a PERFECT book on any subject; but Talbot’s book seems worthy of ones library as far as I can tell.
    \\][//

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Willy, how can you judge the book at all if you’ve not read it?

      • Photon says:

        You can’t. While I did not read all of it, I read enough of it ( particularly the final chapters) to find enough mistakes and outright falsehoods to make reading the rest of it pointless. All it took was to read the one sentence about the “Magic Bullet” being the headshot to realize that no matter how others may spin it, such a fundamental error reduces the rest of the ” historical facts” purported in this book to be questionable .
        He accuses a man of murder-without a single shred of physical evidence, only based on his contempt for the man’s history of serving his country as he was DIRECTED to do.
        It is the same old story of Conspiracy theorists letting their political convictions drive their beliefs about the assassination to the point of convicting innocent men ( and in the case of Ruth Paine) and women of complicity to commit murder. Never mind that the legal system may have already determined that they are not guilty-as in the case of Clay Shaw.Even that acquittal didn’t stop some individuals from making careers out of claiming that he was guilty of murdering JFK.
        How would you like it if someone accused a deceased relative of yours of murdering the President without any evidence simply to make a buck?

        • “He accuses a man of murder-without a single shred of physical evidence, only based on his contempt for the man’s history of serving his country as he was DIRECTED to do.”~Photon

          Photon doesn’t know anything about evidence and law. He is a pretender. Federal Rule # 406 states that there need be no direct witness of an act that is proven to be a routine habit of an individual or organization. This is the codification of the common law term Modus Operandi.

          Anyone who knows the history of Dulles knows that he was involved in many coups, and dirty deals with Nazis and fascists of all kinds.

          Any who act as apologists for such criminals against humanity are culpable as accessories after the fact.
          \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            April 6, 2016 at 1:59 pm

            “Anyone who knows the history of Dulles knows that he was involved in many coups, and dirty deals with Nazis and fascists of all kinds.”

            Yes Whitten, I believe that to be true. Dulles was also involved in the Bay of Pigs circus that JFK allowed to go forward. I hope we can agree that the BOP was an attempted regime change that failed. The BOP differed from coups in Iran and Guatemala only by failing. So did the removable of Ngo Dinh Diem, a regime change that worked. It worked so good the Vietnamese went trough about 8 governments in 18 months. So in the end it was a failure also.

            My question being why do I never hear you mention JFK as also being involved in these coups?

          • Tom S. says:

            Bill Clarke,
            Anyone who comments in this thread will be approved for one comment referencing Vietnam.
            You’ve had yours. If you want to comment further related to Vietnam, there is a designated
            thread for that.: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/21772/#comments

          • “Dulles was also involved in the Bay of Pigs circus that JFK allowed to go forward.”~Bill Clarke

            Yes, and JFK set very strict perimeters on the approval of the project. A project that all who grasp history understand was inherited from the Eisenhower administration. And as Tom has shown, was not presented honestly to JFK from the very beginning.

            Having gone through these points countless times on this blog, I will sum it up as such:

            The whole project of the Bay of Pigs was a SET-UP, meant to fail, to force the young inexperienced President into committing US military ground, naval and air forces; to save the disaster that the project was designed to be.

            Rather than do that, Kennedy took the public blame and canned all of those who had headed up that project–who had in effect attempted to blackmail Kennedy into something he clearly did not want to do.

            These are my final remarks having to do with Mr Clarke’s remarks on this thread.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill Clarke, for lack of a more appropriate slot on the site, I post this here, anxious to pursue the controversy sans Vietnam over whether or not John Kennedy was manipulated by his military, whether or not he was a skilled politician who wanted to manage his policies that would lead eventual toward peace, whether or not he was new at the job and finding his way, and all permutations in between.

            A relevant vignette: “On the night of April 16-17, 1961, when the relatively young President needed the advice of the armed forces as the Bay of Pigs invasion was turning into an unmitigated fiasco, the tension between President Kennedy and Admiral Burke was palpable.

            As told by Admiral Burke’s biographer, the late E.B. Potter, in the early-morning hours of 17 April, President Kennedy, VP Lyndon Johnson, Sec State Dean Rusk, and Sec Def Robert McNamara, in white tie and tails, along with the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Lyman Lemnitzer and Admiral Burke, in dress uniforms with medals, left the East Room, . . . for the Oval Office.

            There, Richard M. Bissell of the CIA informed President Kennedy that although the situation was bad, it “could still take a favorable turn if the President would authorize sending in aircraft from the carrier.”

            “Burke concurred,” wrote Potter. “Let me take two jets and shoot down the enemy aircraft.” he urged. But President Kennedy said “No,” and reminded them that he had said ‘over and over again’ that he would not commit U.S. forces to combat. Apparently he did not want the world to find out what it already knew, that the whole expedition had been conceived, planned, and armed by the United States.

            According to Potter, ‘Burke suggested sending in a destroyer. Whereupon Kennedy explodes. ‘Burke.’ He snapped. ‘I don’t want the United States involved in this.’ ‘All in all, Mr. President.’ Burke snapped back, ‘but we are involved.'”

            All in all, not a pleasant exchange.

            Admiral Burke continued as Chief of Naval Operations for three-and-a-half more months. On 1 August, 1961 . . . he relinquished his office. . . “– “Muzzling Admiral Burke”, Elias P. Demetracopoulos . . . an episode that in and of itself was intriguing during the early weeks and months of the Kennedy administration when Kennedy was attempting to reign in the military’s beating of the nuclear war drums, particularly if the epilogue to the incident as it relates to Richard Nixon can be verified . . . and made all the more interesting when considering today’s links provided by Tom S. on an earlier jfkfacts thread: (read here, Tom S links provided April 6, 2016 at 12:14 am and 2:01 pm
            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/devils-chessboard-today/#comments) because John Mitchell and Richard Nixon’s CREEP (Committee to Reelect the President) set up offices at the same address as Arleigh Burke’s military think tank, CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies).

            (continued)

          • Tom S. says:

            From Richard Bissell oral history, Part II, 7/5/1967:

            http://archive1.jfklibrary.org/JFKOH/Bissell,%20Richard%20M/JFKOH-RMB-02/JFKOH-RMB-02-TR.pdf
            ,,, I can say this: In a meeting that General Cabell [Charles Pearre Cabell] and I had
            with Dean Rusk early Sunday evening, which has been described in
            various books, he offered us the chance to speak to the President on the
            telephone in his presence and seek a reversal of that decision. We
            did not take that opportunity, feeling, frankly, that the cause
            was hopeless. Rusk had called the President; Rusk had laid this matter
            before the President; Rusk had told the President that we felt very strongly that
            this strike was a military necessity. Rusk had then stated his own reasons
            why given developments in the U.N., another air strike would be politically disastrous
            and the President, to Rusk, had reaffirmed his decision. Cabell and
            I felt that there really was a negligible chance that we could induce
            the President to change his mind. Moreover, I think it has to be repeated that
            in some quarters, at least, there was a doubt as to whether the air strike was
            such an absolute necessity. Dean Rusk himself had been a participant in
            World War II operations in Burma of an irregular warfare type, and he
            had said on a number of occasions that operations of this sort did not
            depend nearly so heavily on air cover as did conventional amphibious operations by
            organized troops.
            -38-
            ….O’CONNOR:
            In one of the books on this subject it is
            said that you and Admiral Burke [Arleigh Albert Burke]
            and General Lemnitzer [Lyman L. Lemnitzer] did plead at one time or another directly to the President for air cover for the beaches. Did you…
            BISSELL:
            Well, Monday night we did do that. That was twenty-four
            hours later and after the Brigade was already in very
            deep trouble. That was either Monday night or Tuesday night—it was Tuesday night, I believe.
            O’CONNOR:
            What was the President’s attitude at that point?
            BISSELL:
            That’s the time he did grant one hour of action by Navy aircraft to protect the Cuban B-26’s, but it was abortive in the sense that …
            -39-

          • leslie sharp says:

            http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHP-AR6715-B.aspx
            Consider the photographs and President Kennedy’s ‘public’ remarks at the Presentation of the Distinguished Service Medal to Admiral Arleigh A. Burke that reflect a similar perfunctory attitude Kennedy had at the presentation on the “retirement” of Allen Dulles. Clearly there was no love lost with either of these Cold Warriors.

            “I have served with Admiral Burke in the Government as President . . . for only 6 months but I must say that in that period I have come to the same opinion of him that my predecessors have had, and that is that I know of no American who is more devoted to his country, who is more willing to make any contribution that he can make to its welfare, and who more appropriately typifies the best qualities in the American serviceman.” — President Kennedy http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ppotpus/4730886.1961.001/598?view=image&size=100

            http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHP-KN-C19554.aspx
            “I know of no other American in the history of this country who has served in seven administrations of seven Presidents–varying from . . . and yet at the END OF EACH ADMINISTRATION [Kennedy was barely into his first so he was laying the ground that he was not including himself in the conclusion of this comment – carefully couched] each President of the United States has paid tribute to his service–and also has counted Allen Dulles as THEIR friend. [at this point Kennedy had the opening to wax lyrical about his friendship with Dulles and he did not]

            . . .This is an extraordinary record, and I know that all of you . . . understand why this record has been made. I regard Allen Dulles as an almost unique figure in our country. I know of no man who brings a greater sense of personal commitment to his work–who has less pride in office–than he has.” – President Kennedy
            http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8461

            We hear obligatory language at both ceremonies.

            (continued)

          • leslie sharp says:

            (continued)

            While Allen Dulles returned to Sullivan & Cromwell and Nation-Wide Securities where he served the board alongside former Sec Army Frank Pace, former Chief Naval Operations Robert Carney, former Chair of Joint Chiefs Maxwell Taylor, President of Columbia University Grayson Kirk et al, – Arleigh Burke, the quintessential Cold Warrior immediately joined the board of Texaco as well as Financial General and Foster Wheeler – military contractor/banking concern founded by Ret. General George Olmsted (on the board of Bell International) – and co-founded the Centre for Strategic and International Studies committed to influencing global war policies and strategies. By 2012, the 50 year anniversary, CSIS had become one of the world’s preeminent international policy institutions focused on “defense and security . . .” http://csis.org/about-us

            These individuals represented everything President Kennedy was coming to abhor if one earnestly considers “The Strategy of Peace” by Senator John F. Kennedy, edited by Allan Nevins, Harper Brothers 1960

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            April 6, 2016 at 5:17 pm

            “The whole project of the Bay of Pigs was a SET-UP, meant to fail, to force the young inexperienced President into committing US military ground, naval and air forces; to save the disaster that the project was designed to be.”

            The entire project was to overthrow Castro. How did you miss that?

            “These are my final remarks having to do with Mr Clarke’s remarks on this thread.”

            Good. Please don’t make me remind you of your pledge here.

          • “I regard Allen Dulles as an almost unique figure in our country. I know of no man who brings a greater sense of personal commitment to his work–who has less pride in office–than he has.” – President Kennedy

            Leslie, that is a most remarkable quote! Such a subtle dig at Dulles; “who has less pride in office–than he has.” Kennedy cut Dulles off at the knees in such clever use of language; the oxymoron between the first and second stanza.

            I cannot help but be convinced that this was not lost on Dulles, giving cause for further hatred of Kennedy.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            leslie sharp
            April 6, 2016 at 6:01 pm

            “Bill Clarke, for lack of a more appropriate slot on the site, I post this here, anxious to pursue the controversy sans Vietnam over whether or not John Kennedy was manipulated by his military, whether or not he was a skilled politician who wanted to manage his policies that would lead eventual toward peace, whether or not he was new at the job and finding his way, and all permutations in between.”

            My opinion Leslie. Yes, the military tried to manage the president. I think they always do but after the BOP JFK didn’t put up with it so much. Except for LeMay JFK soon removed the Chiefs. There is a checks and balance here between the military and the president that I think has been good for the country.

            Again my opinion; The generals and admirals had come to power with Eisenhower. Ike greatly harmed the regular Military with his “New lOOK” strategy of depending on nuculear weapons at the expense of our regular troops on the ground. JFK is given great credit for reversing this trend and rightly so.

            So the president and the military was at odds. The military had learned to depend on nuculear weapons under Ike and being hard core cold warriors they believed we would have to fight the Soviets sooner or later. I believe after the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK sincerely wanted peace, especially in regard to nukes.

            While the comfort level wasn’t that great with JFK and the Bulls it could have been worse like the Clinton administration. But I don’t think we need the military and the president getting too cozy.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “The whole project of the Bay of Pigs was a SET-UP, meant to fail, to force the young inexperienced President into committing US military ground, naval and air forces; to save the disaster that the project was designed to be.

            Rather than do that, Kennedy took the public blame and canned all of those who had headed up that project–who had in effect attempted to blackmail Kennedy into something he clearly did not want to do.” — Willy Whitten

            I’m not disputing Willy Whitten’s statement but I do think when making unconditional comments it’s essential to provide sources, otherwise we are reading opinion. When Admiral Burke snapped to his Commander in Chief, “. . . we are involved”, was Kennedy stunned by the revelation, or was he simply insulted by the insubordination?

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘ . . . that is a most remarkable quote! Such a subtle dig at Dulles; “who has less pride in office–than he has.” Kennedy cut Dulles off at the knees in such clever use of language; the oxymoron between the first and second stanza.’ — Willy Whitten

            I couldn’t agree more, and I think Kennedy’s clever phrasing when he said that ALLLL those presidents before him considered Dulles a great man [and a friend?] yet stopped short of joining the cadre is exemplary of Kennedy’s facility with thought, expression and nuance.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘My opinion Leslie. Yes, the military tried to manage the president. I think they always do but after the BOP JFK didn’t put up with it so much. Except for LeMay JFK soon removed the Chiefs. There is a checks and balance here between the military and the president that I think has been good for the country.’ — Bill Clarke

            Bill, will you concede that we the people have yet to figure out how to prevent these high level miliatary types from leaving official service only to benefit from the industrial complex that kept them afloat – bringing with them their connections – let alone establishing and or joining think tanks that perpetuate the war machine? In essense that is what happened when Kennedy began to deconstruct the apparatus … those people simply moved down or up Pennsylvania Avenue (or Wall Street), depending on your perspect from 1600.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            leslie sharp
            April 6, 2016 at 9:32 pm

            Bill, will you concede that we the people have yet to figure out how to prevent these high level miliatary types from leaving official service only to benefit from the industrial complex that kept them afloat – bringing with them their connections – let alone establishing and or joining think tanks that perpetuate the war machine? In essense that is what happened when Kennedy began to deconstruct the apparatus … those people simply moved down or up Pennsylvania Avenue (or Wall Street), depending on your perspect from 1600.

            I agree. It has been a problem for a long time and probably always will be. It might be less common but the same happens with the civilian staff members. They all feather their own nest.

          • “I’m not disputing Willy Whitten’s statement but I do think when making unconditional comments it’s essential to provide sources, otherwise we are reading opinion.”~Leslie Sharp

            I did not provide a source because Tom already did, and that source was the planners themselves who admitted that they had firm intelligence that the possibility of a popular uprising against Castro was nonexistent.
            See Tom’s comment of:

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/devils-chessboard-today/#comment-867728

            \\][//

          • Fletcher Prouty can add a lot of detail to the Cuba situation as it developed:

            The Pivotal Operation of the JFK Era
            by L. Fletcher Prouty

            “Few, if any, international events of the Twentieth Century have been so misunderstood and so viciously misrepresented by the media and by “historians” as that which is popularly known as the anti-Castro “Bay of Pigs” operation that took place when a Brigade of about 1,400 U.S. supported Cuban-exiles landed on the shores of the island of Cuba at dawn on April 17, 1961.

            Because of the passage of years and the growing mass of untrue and contrived reporting, few people have had an opportunity to discover the truth behind this notionally “Clandestine” operation that was created and directed by the CIA. Furthermore, to fully understand this operation, it is imperative that one becomes aware of its antecedent roots that grew so profusely in the mire of underground operations during the fifties. We need to understand the concealed, and frequently distorted, events many of which had their origin during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. The “Bay of Pigs” plan did not originate during the Kennedy administration. It had been inherited, full-blown. During the last few months of 1958, it had become clear that the Cuban President/Dictator Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar, was being forced to flee; and that Fidel Castro was leading his band of well financed rebels out of the Sierra Maestra mountains into Havana, unchecked. By late December 1958, Castro was close to Havana. The country was his to take.”

            http://www.prouty.org/bay_pigs.html

            \\][//

          • Without introductory comment, the Report states starkly:

            “At about 9:30 P.M. on 16 April, Mr. McGeorge Bundy, Special

            Assistant to the President, telephoned General C. P. Cabell of CIA to inform him that the dawn air strikes the following morning should not be launched until they could be conducted
            from a strip within the beachhead.” [NOTE: That Bay of Pigs site had been selected, because–among other advantages–

            there was a suitable air-strip on the beach. The Brigade’s B-26’s would operate from there once it had been secured.

            That was the plan; but it was predicated upon the destruction of Castro’s jet aircraft first.]

            Gen Cabell and Mr Bissell tried to persuade Secretary Rusk to permit the dawn D-Day strikes.

            “The Secretary indicated that there were policy considerations against air strikes before the beachhead airfield was in the hands of the landing force…”

            The Secretary added, with reference to the air strikes that President Kennedy had ordered, “They were not vital.”

            The Report continues:

            “The order cancelling the D-Day strikes was dispatched to the departure field in Nicaragua, arriving when the pilots were in their cockpits ready for take-off.”

            http://www.prouty.org/bay_pigs.html

            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Thanks Leslie for the “less pride in his office” quote and agree I with Willy.
            I’ve never seen it.
            I don’t think it was a dig, it was a slap in the face. Which Dulles took personally.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Willy, apologies. I was focused on another aspect of the Esterline scenario, incorporating the separate but related incident with Admiral Burke and the phrase “apparently he [Kennedy] did not want the world to find out what it already knew . . . ”

            “Burke concurred,” wrote Potter. “Let me take two jets and shoot down the enemy aircraft.” he urged. But President Kennedy said “No,” and reminded them that he had said ‘over and over again’ that he would not commit U.S. forces to combat. Apparently he did not want the world to find out what it already knew, that the whole expedition had been conceived, planned, and armed by the United States.”

            I’m having difficulty sorting who – Burke’s biographer, Potter, or the author of the piece this was extracted from – is alleging that Kennedy knew full well what was going on and was just trying to spin the public relations. I realize I’m conflating these scenarios and the individuals involved but in fact it’s obvious there was a continuity to how things were unraveling; the challenge is determining who had the most objective recall of events, who knew precisely what Kennedy was thinking, not to mention who was or was not lying.

          • “I regard Allen Dulles as an almost unique figure in our country. I know of no man who brings a greater sense of personal commitment to his work–who has less pride in office–than he has.” – President Kennedy

            Leslie, that is a most remarkable quote! Such a subtle dig at Dulles; “who has less pride in office–than he has.” Kennedy cut Dulles off at the knees in such clever use of language; the oxymoron between the first and second stanza.

            It’s only an oxymoron if you assume “pride” is a good thing:

            http://www.deadlysins.com/pride/

            Then there is this:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=r3VPoeny_3gC&pg=PT521&lpg=PT521&dq=%22pride+of+office%22+definition&source=bl&ots=rD7GVy2G9n&sig=bKUvaCdROasByBTZWGsS1VkXR64&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhk5S8i_7LAhVT32MKHXGICHUQ6AEIJzAD#v=onepage&q=%22pride%20of%20office%22%20definition&f=false

            [Commentary on a biblical passage]

            6. The narrative form in which Jesus has just spoken is designated by John as a paroimia (GK 4231), a “figure of speech.” …In spite of the fact that Jesus used imagery intended to help his listeners understand, they did not grasp the meaning of what he was saying to them. Nothing blinds the eyes so much as pride in one’s position. From their perspective they were the authentic guardians of religious truth and Jesus was merely an itinerant teacher without proper credentials. The certainty that one knows locks out the possibility of being wrong. Blinded by the pride of office, they were unable to understand that Jesus was classifying them as thieves and robbers.

        • Tom S. says:

          ….. Never mind that the legal system may have already determined that they are not guilty-as in the case of Clay Shaw.Even that acquittal didn’t stop some individuals from making careers out of claiming that he was guilty of murdering JFK…..

          And they whirl and they twirl and they tango
          Singing and Jinging a Jango
          Floating like the heavens above
          Looks like Muskrat Love

        • Paulf says:

          Photon, I don’t know whether the rank disingenuous nature of your posts is funny or sad. Again, I doubt you believe what you are writing, but if you do you need psychological help. Do you really weep for the reputation of this dead spy?

          Whether Dulles had anything to do with JFK’s murder or not, he was a grotesque human being who thought nothing of killing anybody when it suited his purpose. And would himself happily admit it. One can argue the evidence, such as it Is, about JFK, but to be offended on behalf of a corrupt Cold War spook who reveled in his own nihilism is a special brand of chutzpah.

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Oh Photon,

          What a load of CRAP from you!

          Your words:

          “He accuses a man of murder-without a single shred of physical evidence, only based on his contempt for the man’s history of serving his country as he was DIRECTED to do.”

          My words:

          Okay, I will play along. Let us say for just a minute that Dulles had nothing to do with JFK’s murder, or to use your words, “not a shred of physical evidence.” Can you tell us how much time Dulles served in prison for his action in Iran and the overthrow of the democratically elected government there? Or, the United Fruit Company? How about his “boss” that did the directing, the president? How much time did ANY US president serve for allowing or ordering the overthrow of a foreign government? Can you help me with that number, please?

          Can you also point to the part of the US Constitution that ALLOWS for the US of A to invade and depose of leaders because they refuse to play ball with American corporations? I can’t seem to find that part of our constitution. Can you help? Let me use your verbiage: Give me one example of where the US Constitution says its perfectly within its right to butcher innocent people so the mega rich can become mega, mega rich?

          Go ahead and spout Dulles’ “innocence” in the JFK murder if you want to. However, maybe you can explain to the new folks on this site your lack of concern about Dulles’ criminal behavior in Iran and the United Fruit Company? If you are going to feign disdain about Dulles being unfairly accused abut JFK, then please feign disdain about his CRIMINAL actions around the world.

          Also, if you could explain the new folks on this site why it is okay for the US to invade and destroy innocent lives abroad, that would also be most helpful.

          Care to be completely honest about Dulles, Photon? Otherwise, you risk being a hypocrite.

          The REAL truth is that Dulles is NOT innocent in JFK’s death. His actions elsewhere suggest that he SHOULD have been investigated. However, why would that happen when NO ONE else was really investigated, outside of the deranged loner, LHO.

          Making a buck off a dead president? You mean like Gerald Ford did when he wrote his wonderful book telling us why LHO was a lone nut? Like that?

          • Jordan says:

            Perhaps the better questions is:

            Where in the CIA manual does it say that the CIA is “…duty bound to honor and abide by the Constitution of these United States…”..?

            The CIA evolved into the worst incarnation of the Pinkertons anyone could have ever dreamed… Except those that did so….

          • Photon says:

            That’s a nice statement Steve. But nowhere do you mention any evidence linking Dulles to the events in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. As far as presidents overthrowing governments you seem to have forgotten the coup that took place 3 weeks before the assassination and who authorized it ( against the very military advice that has been roundly criticized during the Bay of Pigs). That action guaranteed increased American involvement in the war taking place in that same country, arguably contributing to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Oh Photon,

            Yes, it is a nice statement. However, you have failed to do what you accuse the CT side of doing all of the time. Answer my questions. Yes, I know, you cannot find the answers in the WR bible, so you may struggle, but you can still attempt to answer.

            1. Where in the constitution does it allow a US president OR CIA director to overthrow foreign governments for money.

            2. How much time did a sitting US president serve in prison for committing such an illegal act?

            3. How much time did Dulles serve in prison for committing illegal acts?

            I am hoping for an answer this time.

            You can try and paint Dulles as a saint to the folks out there, especially the new ones to this site, but you are full of it, and you know it. He was, is, and always be a murderous thug. I don’t care who directed him to do what. I suppose using your logic Goering was innocent because Hitler “made” him do it? What a load of crap.

            Yes, you are correct about Dulles and JFK in Dallas. But tell me, Photon, where else but in America can you have a murderer sit on a “blue-ribbon” committee formed by another murderer to try and “investigate” someone who was murdered?

            Ah, the joys of democracy!

        • marty feeney says:

          “While I did not read all of it.” WOW! There’s a backhanded left jaw, right cross, body slam of a comment about a book that needs your full attention.

          Well your comments on this list seem to have the Warren Report (I call it “Gone With the Evidence”)cross referenced to the punctuation and the fabrications. Have you practiced your keen David Talbot analysis on Gone With The Evidence?

          I mean the Warren Report is part of the crime, it too was hit by the bullet from the Texas Book Depository along with Connally, Kennedy, Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater, Amelia Earhart, and Wiley Post.

          The autopsy of the Warren Report found multiple wounds in the cranial section where doctors found a big gaping hole bleeding laughing gas.

          I once saw all 26 volumes stuffed in a gelatin can shaped like JFK’s head. When it exploded the gelatin resembled Gerald Posner.

          David Talbot has explained the crime of the 20th century.

          And all the records still kept secret, all the official dissembling for 53 years, all the mindless recitation of ‘evidence’ long gone, all the witnesses never asked the right questions, all the clown nose juggling with the rifle, the wallet, the bullet, all the convoluted explanations of autopsy photographs (I know to assuage Kennedy family grief OMG), all the puppet defenders like marionettes dangling on a string, make all your comments about the final chapters in David Talbot’s book Shredded Wheat.

        • Brian Joseph says:

          “How would you like it if someone accused a deceased relative of yours of murdering the President without any evidence simply to make a buck?”

          That’s a good question to also ask Rachel and June Oswald.

        • Federal Rules of Evidence # 406

          Habit; Routine Practice

          “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 eyewitnesses, 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

          \\][//

        • “Our original concept is now seen as unachievable in the face of controls Castro has instituted,” Esterline said. There will be no internal unrest earlier believed possible, nor will the defenses permit the type of strike first planned. Our second concept (1,500–3,000 man task force to secure a beach with airstrip) is now seen as unachievable except as a joint Agency/DOD action.” — Esterline report to Bissell (November 15, 1961) – ‘Legacy of Ashes’ by Tim Weiner [pg. 191-192]

          \\][//

        • Fearfaxer says:

          “While I did not read all of it, I read enough of it . . .”

          In other words, you haven’t read the book either. Either you read something completely, or you don’t. You haven’t, therefore aren’t qualified to render an opinion on the book as a whole.

      • I am not judging the book Ronnie, but I am judging Allen Dulles.

        As I explained I have a “sense” for what is in the book from reading reviews as well as excerpts of it on Salon.
        \\][//

      • sgt_doom says:

        Aren’t you fed up with all these commenters who claim to have read only “part” of a book, and then dare to comment?

        Just like all those fraudsters who claim to have read all the volumes of the Warren Commission Report, then go on to sound like complete liars and fabricators.

        My two major thoughts for the day:

        Eugene Dinkins, RIP 2012

        Jamie Scott Enyart

        http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-18/local/me-25805_1_kennedy-fall

        http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKenyartS.htm

  3. The object of the Bay of Pigs operation was to bring regime change to Cuba, to overthrow Castro. But those who designed the operation KNEW that the premise given for the landings were false. That premise was that when the anti-Castro units hit the beach at Bay of Pigs, the Cuban people would rise up to support them and bring down Castro in a popular counter-revolution.

    Put plainly, those who designed the operation knew that the only way for accomplishing the overthrow of Castro was full scale US military intervention. The Bay of Pigs fiasco was designed as a provocation against Kennedy, to force his hand.

    Kennedy was not amused, he got rid of those most responsible to this crass attempt at trickery.
    \\][//

    • Addendum to above:

      The planners of the Bay of Pigs had intelligence reports showing that popular support for a counter revolution against Castro was nonexistent. (See Tom’s earlier comment on this.) So the planners knew that the ostensible “uprising” was a hoax when they promoted the idea to Kennedy.
      \\][//

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Willy Whitten
      April 6, 2016 at 7:42 pm

      “The object of the Bay of Pigs operation was to bring regime change to Cuba, to overthrow Castro.”

      Thank you for your honesty on this one. You might not be talking to me but you are certainly answering my message here. I knew you would.

    • Jordan says:

      How many plots were there to eliminate Castro…?

      How many were successful…?

      How much did all these efforts and experiments cost…?

      Cuba was a means to an end…Money and profits, legal and otherwise.

      LBJ didn’t need to continue the Cuba ruse, he was provided with another one…Vietnam.

  4. Paul May says:

    For what it’s worth:

    ”The CIA has done nothing but support policy… [It operates] with the cooperation of the National Security Council and under my instructions.” – President John F. Kennedy, 1963

    ”If the policy was wrong, it was not the product of the CIA but of each administration. We must not forget that we are not dealing with a dream world but with a very tough adversary.” – Senator Robert F. Kennedy, 1963

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Hi Paul! Welcome back. Photon’s been carrying your water for you. Hope you’ve shown the appropriate amount of gratitude. 😉

      What are the contexts in which those quotes were stated, specifically what are the sources? You can find a number of public comments which praise the CIA by any number of elected officials, but statements like this are often issued by people whose private opinion is far different. You think everybody who publicly praised the FBI back in those days had a high opinion of its performance, and thought Hoover was doing a bang-up job?

  5. “For what it’s worth:”~Paul May

    It is worth little to nothing without supporting links and context.

    Having seen this material before, my opinion is that both quotes fall into the category of ‘Diplomatic Decorum’, another nuanced tactic of dealing “with a very tough adversary,” which CIA was to both Kennedy’s.

    Leslie Sharp has provided some other examples of such on this thread.
    \\][//

    • Paul May says:

      It occurs to this writer Mr. Whiten that you appear to emphasize “diplomatic decorum” in many instances. How exactly do you reconcile that? One could use that argument each time JFK addressed the public or did a news conference.

      • “One could use that argument each time JFK addressed the public or did a news conference.”~Paul May

        When such public statements conflict with what is known of private opinions it would be appropriate to “use” that argument.
        The conflicts between Dulles and the Kennedy’s was well enough known. I think denial of such is disingenuous.
        \\][//

    • Photon says:

      Was JFK ever sincere in any of his speeches or was everything simply ” Diplomatic decorum”?

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        Photon,

        I noticed that you failed to respond to my post. Here is another chance for you.
        Oh Photon,

        Yes, it is a nice statement. However, you have failed to do what you accuse the CT side of doing all of the time. Answer my questions. Yes, I know, you cannot find the answers in the WR bible, so you may struggle, but you can still attempt to answer.

        1. Where in the constitution does it allow a US president OR CIA director to overthrow foreign governments for money.

        2. How much time did a sitting US president serve in prison for committing such an illegal act?

        3. How much time did Dulles serve in prison for committing illegal acts?

        I am hoping for an answer this time.

        You can try and paint Dulles as a saint to the folks out there, especially the new ones to this site, but you are full of it, and you know it. He was, is, and always be a murderous thug. I don’t care who directed him to do what. I suppose using your logic Goering was innocent because Hitler “made” him do it? What a load of crap.

        Yes, you are correct about Dulles and JFK in Dallas. But tell me, Photon, where else but in America can you have a murderer sit on a “blue-ribbon” committee formed by another murderer to try and “investigate” someone who was murdered?

        Ah, the joys of democracy!

      • A question based on such wide open general terms can not be answered in other than a general wide open declaration of independence from an obligation to make such a supposition as would stand as an answer.

        Photon attempts to hand me a choice of either saying that JFK was an insincere prevaricator — or discarding my opinion that JFK and Dulles despised one another. This is the type of tricky dicky tacky rhetorical commentary Photon has become infamous for on JFKfacts.

        The dish is cold, I shall have none of it.
        \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Is any politician ever sincere, or are they simply reading speeches carefully prepared by others, and designed to tell the public what they want to hear?

        For example, did JFK really plan to escalate the war in Viet Nam, or was he just saying the necessary things that would win him an election in ’64?

      • https://lynchs.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/1954-coup-mural.jpg

        Diego Rivera’s famous mural: “Gloriosa Victoria”, depicting the Dulles brothers, the American ambassador Peurifoy, and Eisenhower’s face on a bomb greeting …
        \\][//

  6. Zandalf says:

    I am currently 572 pages into this 620 page book – and it is a most excellent book indeed! It is yet another book which should be required reading in all high schools and colleges throughout the USA.

    While an informed reader will no doubt recognize many of Dulles’s and the CIA’s murderous deeds, this book really puts the big picture, and much of the whole picture, into focus. It is a most excellent diatribe and expose into the duplicitous, psychotic, criminal, and evil actions of the CIA, the “Deep State”, and the many, many terrible folks who have been employed by them.

    There is one particularly odd thing uncovered however…. like it or not, it was none other than Mr. Dulles himself who we have to thank for apparently beginning the process of disenfranchising the monumentally obnoxious – and homosexual – Joe McCarthy, and his equally, if not more so obnoxious – and flamingly homosexual partner Roy Cohn….. (not that homosexuals are necessarily any more likely to be psychopaths than straights). Who’d a thunk?!!

  7. Bob says:

    Just finished Talbot’s book. I have been researching and writing on this subject for several years with the intent of writing the definitive account. Talbot beat me in several respects, including timing, access and depth. My book will go further, but it will not disagree with Talbot for the most part. I think he got it mostly right.

    It is a best seller from a respected journalist. Where is the outrage? Where is the mass media coverage? Are they so ashamed of their compliancy, that they dare not speak?

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