Justyn Dillingham reviews David Talbot.
Reading the book’s account of how Dulles ensured his own power by stocking the State Department and the Pentagon with loyal allies, it’s hard not to think of Dick Cheney pursuing the same strategy with equal success. The vast surveillance system so dramatically revealed to the world by Edward Snowden could never have come to pass without the culture of fanatical secrecy and habitual lawlessness handed down by Dulles and his loyal agents.
Source: Bookslut | The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government by David Talbot
83 thoughts on “The Devil’s Chessboard today”
I think this issue of whether Kennedy and Dulles were mortal enemies or not has exhausted itself, in that common sense tells us that John Kennedy and Allen Dulles were adversaries to the core of their being.
As PaulF has expressed, one’s own simple life experiences tells us this is so.
It is clearly futile to argue with those such as Photon, who is clearly disingenuous and has an agenda here. The Warren apologists are of one mind in this agenda; to spread cognitive dissonance in these threads, to argue points over and again in mind numbing carousels. Again this very thread serves as a prime example.
‘No matter what I think, the mere fact Jim [diEugenio] and Paul [Trejo] disagree bitterly tells me something. Namely, that someone very wise about human beings had a hand in the whole matter. Someone who knew if there were various trails of possible thought, individuals who pursued those trails would end up in conflict.’ — Jon Tidd, former commenter jfkfacts.org
I must be drunk, because I’m reading people argue that Kennedy had a world of respect for a guy he fired. Fired, as in “go away, I don’t want you running things anymore.”
Because in business and government, firing someone is a well-established way of connoting respect. In fact. I wake up every day wishing that my bosses respect me enough to fire me.
And people are always honest about people they fire. When CEOs step down to “spend more time with their families” or to “pursue better opportunities,” we all know that nobody would ever say such a thing if it wasn’t true. Surely those people weren’t really let go against their will.
The phoniness of the people who argue the LN side is truly baffling. Because arguing patent nonsense makes everything else they say dubious and reeks of insincerity. No rational human being would think any president respects bureaucrats they fire, things don’t work that way.
Exactly. There’s no argument here – JFK didn’t respect the top brass in the CIA or the Pentagon after the Bay of Pigs and several were quietly removed within the year, Dulles included.
Quite prescient Paulf. The act of firing someone can be unpleasant as I know. Sometimes it could have fatal consequences.
Dulles and McCloy are prime examples of the saying that sociopaths tend to rise to the top….IMHO….
Angleton too? Orchids, poetry, and trout flies, a bit introverted?
The importance of the content of this book might be judged by it’s lack of attention by the Main Stream Media. The refusal by the NYT and Washington Post to review it in spite of other positive reviews is indicative of it hitting home so to speak. The lack of interest by the 1% owned MSM is SOP these days.
The book is still a “milestone” as one researcher called it.
Read it if you have not.
I need to re-read it to further fully absorb it, it is deep.
History will judge it important I believe. But I’m not a Historian.
The lack of attention is based. on the factual errors in the book that cause real historians not to take it seriously..
His entire time line for Dulles’ actions on Nov. 22 is completely screwed up-as even Jim DiEugenio admitted on CTKA.
How can any serious researcher accept a source that doesn’t even understand that the ” Magic Bullet” controversy does not involve the head shot?
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
Cont: “The book is a major achievement in more than one way. It should now become the standard biography of Allen Dulles. In its stark excavation of the evil he represented, the book stands beside, and actually surpasses, Kai Bird’s biography of John McCloy. To think that these two men served on the investigatory panel to find out who killed President Kennedy—that fact is just not palatable today. This book proves that the Commission was doomed from the start.”
McCloy has a remarkably sordid history and neither man should have been involved.
The penultimate conflict of interest….
Let me point out that Talbot claims that Dulles spent the evening at “the Farm” on November 22nd.
The viewing of JFK’s casket was on the 23rd. Dulles being at that viewing in no way an alibi Dulles for the evening of November 22.
Photon may recall that we went over all of these points previously on this blog.
“How can any serious researcher accept a source that doesn’t even understand that the ” Magic Bullet” controversy does not involve the head shot?”~Photon
I know that Photon isn’t going to actually read Talbot’s book.
But he could at least read Jim DiEugenio’s review of that book, so he can avoid mischaracterizing what DiEugenio says.
Actually, unlike you I read both-although not all of Talbot’s nonsense, but enough to uncover the errors that I have posted.
“Actually, unlike you I read both”~Photon
Then you should know that Jim DiEugenio’s review did not speak to the topic of ‘the Farm’, as you claimed. You are the only one squawking about it.
So Photon, Where is Camp Perry (The Farm) located? Is it not in fact in York County near Williamsburg, Virginia?
Is not Talbot’s guffaw really quite minor, in his calling it “northern Virginia?
I will answer myself it was a minor error. I would never expect a reasonable answer from Photon.
I am confident readers would much prefer to be directed to supporting evidence that Dulles indeed
went from Williamsburg to a residence he maintained at or was assigned to him on, security restricted US government property despite Dulles’s resigned status from CIA, than to read unceasing clashes of a personal nature. Talbot published a book. He is apparently in error in describing where in the state of VA Williamsburg is located. Aren’t we here (AGAIN) because Talbot weakly supported a component of a key claim in his book and Photon seizes on the opportunity Talbot has provided?
“Talbot published a book. He is apparently in error in describing where in the state of VA Williamsburg is located.”~Tom
Yes, and I consider that a small error, because The Farm is indeed just out of Williamsburg.
That was my sole point that I wanted to point out.
Willy, would you consider claiming that Manhattan was in Upstate New York a small error? How about claiming that San Jose is in Southern California? What would you say about an author who would make such grossly inaccurate statements? That his research is so poor he couldn’t even get well-known geographic facts straight-and was so cavalier about accuracy that he allowed that ignorance to be published? No, I don’t think so.
As long as he says what you want to hear you can ignore errors that would have caused a college professor to throw a term paper into a wastebasket.
Do you see how much more personal you took this “discussion” in you comment that is never going to appear,
than Photon took it, up to this point? Why waste the time I lose reading it? You end up putting it only in front of me instead of the target of your frustration.
How often will you both prompt me to remind you that the comments should be interesting to readers and not redundant indulgences?
leslie sharp [A conversation with David Talbot thread at jfkfacts.org]
April 10, 2016 at 1:02 pm
“Gentleman Spy, The Life of Allen Dulles”, Peter Grose
‘Allen was flying to his Long Island country home toward noon on Friday, November 22, 1963, after giving an early morning interview in Boston. Arriving in Lloyd Neck for a relaxed weekend, he heard the news that jolted the entire wold to attention, and to grief. Like countless others in a hundred nations, he could say for years to come, “I shall never forget when I first heard the news of the Dallas tragedy.”‘ pg. 540
April 10, 2016 at 1:24 pm
That is the only source I have found with that description, and it is contradicted by numerous
other accounts placing Dulles in Williamsburg on the morning of that date. Dulles in Boston was
earlier in that same week.
April 10, 2016 at 5:57 pm
Tom, I suspected that, but I think it’s significant and worth highlighting as indicative of a failure by credible publishers to employ conscientious fact checking and that if David Talbot is going to be tarred for his errors, those errors by authors whose books once skirted close scrutiny by the establishment let alone assassination researchers, should be brought to task. And how do we know if Grose was or was not innocent in positioning Dulles in Long Island?
“And how do we know if Grose was or was not innocent in positioning Dulles in Long Island?”
Do you mean “innocent”, as in making an innocent mistake, or do you mean innocent in that he had his facts straight?
Leslie, the truth shall set you free.
Whether you like it or not, fact-checking has never been a strong suit with the ” research ” community-particularly if a book pushes the conspiracy line.Had anybody fact-checked Tink Thompson’s claims in “Six Seconds” I doubt that it would have ever reached the status it did ( nor enrich the author as much as it did). I thought that it was very revealing when he couldn’t explain his .30-.30 claims when I challenged him on this site-and amazing that in 30 years nobody had even bothered to question those allegations nor recognize the contradictions in his story.
The same applies to the near-religious acceptance of Dr. McClelland’s ER perceptions of JFK’s head wound. Would so many CTers accept his version of that head wound if they were aware that the first written description of that wound by him stated ONLY that JFK had a wound in the LEFT TEMPLE-an incorrect diagnosis that he later admitted was TOLD to him, not based on personal observation?
A commission created by the POTUS succeeding assassinated POTUS Kennedy includes this exhibit, without additional comment in its voluminous Report.:
I suggest you focus your fussin’ on where it actually mattered. No citizen author’s book was or is
as influential as the details, or lack of them in the WCR. Time and again, you give the impression of attempting to shift attention and criticism to where it matters least. Who do you expect your audience is for that particular slant?
“Had anybody fact-checked Tink Thompson’s claims in “Six Seconds” I doubt that it would have ever reached the status it did ( nor enrich the author as much as it did). I thought that it was very revealing when he couldn’t explain his .30-.30 claims when I challenged him on this site-and amazing that in 30 years nobody had even bothered to question those allegations nor recognize the contradictions in his story.”~Photon
“Dr” Photon has a peculiar mode of memory as displayed in this comment. I recall Josiah Thompson explaining very clearly that the bullet he had photographed was pulled from the desk of O.P. Wright. It was NOT the bullet that had been given to the SS, it was a standard pointed hunting round from a package of re-loader ammo — but it was the same type of bullet that Tomlinson and he handled before giving it to the authorities.
The first 4 links in the chain of custody of the bullet found at Parkland are unable to identify it as CE399.
1. Orderly Darrell Tomlinson >>
2. Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright >>
3. SS Agent Richard Johnsen >>
4. Agent Rowley (Secret Service Chief).
A break in the chain of custody at this proximate point proves that the bullet of record, CE399 is NOT the bullet found at parkland, and therefor CE399 is a planted bullet by the highest authorities themselves.
Let me remind you once again: A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet”
A memo from the FBI’s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, “ON JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF … ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in original).
This document actually shows the chain of custody to be intact.
There is no expectation that civilians can ID a particular bullet that they did not initial.
Tomlinson and Wright said the bullet “looked like” and “appears to be” the bullet their handled.
“Tomlinson and Wright said the bullet “looked like” and “appears to be” the bullet their handled.”~McAdams
Agent Odum denied he ever had that bullet, and that he never showed it to Tomlinson and Wright:
. . .
Mr. Odum told Aguilar, “I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.” [Fig. 11] Unwilling to leave it at that, both authors paid Mr. Odum a visit in his Dallas home on November 21, 2002. The same alert, friendly man on the phone greeted us warmly and led us to a comfortable family room. To ensure no misunderstanding, we laid out before Mr. Odum all the relevant documents and read aloud from them.
Again, Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the Kennedy assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI’s investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence. But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he said he would certainly have turned in a “302” report covering something that important. Odum’s sensible comment had the ring of truth. For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once secret files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.
Figure 11. Recorded interview with FBI Agent Bardwell Odum, in which he denies he ever had C.E. #399 in his possession.
Thus, the July 1964 FBI memo that became Commission Exhibit #2011 claims that Tomlinson and Wright said they saw a resemblance between #399 and the bullet they picked up on the day JFK died. However, the FBI agent who is supposed to have gotten that admission, Bardwell Odum, and the Bureau’s own once-secret records, don’t back up #2011. Those records say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question, a comment that leaves the impression they saw no resemblance. That impression is strengthened by the fact that Wright told one of the authors in 1966 the bullets were dissimilar. Thus, Thompson’s surprising discovery about Wright, which might have been dismissed in favor of the earlier FBI evidence in #2011, now finds at least some support in an even earlier, suppressed FBI memo, and the living memory of a key, former FBI agent provides further, indirect corroboration.
This item does NOT show what McAdams claimed:
It only shows that agents Tod and Frazier initialed the bullet in question. It advised having it identified by Johnson and Rowley. We now know that neither of them could identify the bullet.
There is no chain of custody leading from the Parkland Bullet to CE399.
‘Whether you like it or not, fact-checking has never been a strong suit with the ” research ” community-particularly if a book pushes the conspiracy line’
photon, I hardly think it could be argued that Grose’s book on the life of Allen Dulles supports the “conspiracy’ line of thinking. In fact it is a rather flattering portrayal of Allen Dulles as evidenced in the title “Gentleman Spy”.
So the question remains, how did LN researchers overlook the error in the Grose book which stated that Dulles was in Long Neck if indeed he was as you insist elsewhere? Can you have your Virginia, your Maryland and your Long Island and eat it too, photon?
Dillingham’s review ably documents the Talbot’s insight. Too bad the mainstream media is doggedly ignoring this important book. ‘Devil’s Chessboard’ should be required reading for each and every student of American history.
“Chessboard” reveals some vital truths that the mainstream media would rather not face.
Like Williamsburg is in Northern Virginia?
Like Dulles spent the weekend at ” the Farm” when he was seen on national TV paying his respects at the White House on Nov. 23?
Like the ” Magic Bullet” hit JFK in the head?
The guy has no credibility .
By your hyper-exacting standard, neither does the Warren Commission. But you know that.
Thank heaven Bugliosi authored a flawless book, or you would still be
including criticism of him, personally in your comments here, even nine years later.
The irony of your selective condemnation does not escape notice. Your high regard for Allen Dulles certainly indicates your evenhandedness.
Yes it does, as did Jack Kennedy’s high regard for him.
As did Bobby Kennedy’s high regard for him.
“as did Jack Kennedy’s high regard for him.
As did Bobby Kennedy’s high regard for him.”
~Photon, referring to Allen Dulles
A most preposterous notion to be sure Photon.
The Kennedy’s and Dulles were diametrically opposed to each other in political and moral philosophies. They despised one another.
Sure, photon may dig up some quote by the Kennedy’s professing high regard for the creature, but this is simply statesman like decorum for propriety, not their true feelings.
Anyone who actually believes that the Kennedy’s and Dulles held each other in high regard is mortally naïve or utterly disingenuous.
Such a high regard JFK threw him out of government.
Willy,what evidence do you have that ” they despised one another” aside from conspiracy lore? That conclusion is nothing but an unsubstantiated myth invented out of whole cloth. JFK had close personal relationships with individuals who had dissimilar political views- the most obvious being George Smathers and Barry Goldwater. But hey, why let facts get in the way of character assassination.
“But hey, why let facts get in the way of character assassination.”~Photon
The only character assassination here is Photon claiming that JFK held Allen Dulles in high regard. Holding a mortal enemy in high regard is stupidity. JFK was not stupid.
Jean and Tom,
“You have a conflict of interests. You want to keep your book relevant. You cannot have certain details be of
I have to say that Tom’s comment sounds similar to Photon’s on another thread wherein he accuses conspiracy writers of doing it for the money.
There was a time when I thought that it was likely that Dulles was one of the planners of the assasination. I don’t think so anymore although I have no doubt that he particpated in the cover up of what really happened and his participation in that was likely to provide cover for the CIA, some of whom were working with Oswald on a false flag attempted and failed assasination designed to cause an invasion of Cuba.Oswald was to disapear and the charge would be that he had escaped to Cuba. The US would demand his return and when he was turned over the US would invade. The real plotters either hijacked that operation or had the real hit planned from the start and had people at a lower level including Oswald thinking that it was to be a failed attempt. Compartmentalization and laying the groundwork for what people like Dulles would see as necessitating coverup to prevent an international crisis because elements of the US government were plotting an invasion of Cuba. I think Dulles was used and I don’t think the Kennedys disliked him and that he was likely seen by Bobby as covering Bobby’s butt lest the lots to assasinate Castro came to light. I think it was a domestic conspiracy and the plotters not only laid the groudwork for the coverup but also perhaps unknowingly also laid the groundwork for history to cast a pretty suspicious eye on Dulles.
“…CIA, some of whom were working with Oswald on a false flag attempted and failed assasination designed to cause an invasion of Cuba.”
That ties nicely with the Operation Northwoods mentality that was the policy of the Joint Chiefs at the time. I think the assassination, Oswald and Northwoods were connected.
“The guy has no credibility.” ??? The documented success of Brothers? He was embraced for it and Salon by the MSM. Now he’s too hot to handle because he broached a taboo subject.
“Anyone who actually believes that the Kennedy’s and Dulles held each other in high regard is mortally naïve or utterly disingenuous.”
“Allen Dulles handled himself awfully well, with a great deal of dignity,” Robert Kennedy said of the period after the Bay of Pigs, “and never tried to shift the blame. The President was very fond of him, as I was.”
–Schlesinger, “Robert Kennedy and His Times, p. 459
According to several writers, following the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy told Dulles, “Under a parliamentary system of government, it is I who would be leaving. But under our system, it is you who must go.”
You have not convinced me that even you believe JFK held Dulles in high regard, or that he was fond of Dulles.
How did Kennedy not know that Eisenhower didn’t approve an invasion of Cuba? It didn’t happen while he was in office. He could not have given an order to do so when he was no longer Commander in Chief. It is really a pointless statement attempting to divert a President’s responsibility to know the facts before making a decision to somebody else.
It leads me to question the veracity of the author.
Who do you think is lying, Schlesinger or RFK?
If there’s evidence that the Kennedys didn’t hold the opinion about Dulles expressed in that quote, what is it? I’m certainly open to believing it, if you can show me.
The author you quoted didn’t present any evidence that I see when he made the claim about what Joe Kennedy supposedly told his son. Is there any?
I’m not naïve enough to accept any writer’s assertion as fact without seeing what it’s based on.
You have a conflict of interests. You want to keep your book relevant. You cannot have certain details be of
any consequence, just as DiEugenio cannot have the relatives of Garrison’s wife being the principle named CIA saboteurs of Garrison and his investigation, matter in the least. For both of you authors, your reactions are reflexive and quite understandable. It is reasonable not to accept what you keep defending,
warm relations and mutual admiration between Allen Dulles and the Kennedy brothers.
BTW, I think the more we actually know, the more we have to take what we think we know with a grain of salt. We have to embrace less, admitting to ourselves that it is all quite complicated.
Again Jean, nobody has to be lying when it comes to the decorum of statesmanlike speech. It is political language Jean, empty of true meaning, just as Orwell stated.
What was Bobby going to say to an author who was likely to publish his answers: “Allen Dulles was a no good S.O.B. and me and John hated that bastard!”?
Guys like Trump, who might be expected to say something like that, didn’t come along until half a century later.
“You have a conflict of interests. You want to keep your book relevant. You cannot have certain details be of
That’s BS, Tom. I don’t give a flip about “keeping my book relevant.” That’s a fantasy you’re projecting onto me.
I’ve been posting in JFK forums ever since Prodigy years ago, when I was delighted to find a group of people who knew what CE399 was, even though most of them didn’t agree with me. I have NEVER brought up the subject of my book on any public forum, not ever. If I say things similar to what I wrote back then it’s because that’s what I believed then and still believe.
I take it from this personal attack that the author you quoted provided no evidence to support his claim about why JFK appointed Dulles.
I don’t care whether the Kennedys hated Dulles or not. I just want to see the evidence for it.
Sorry, I forgot the link. Please post this instead.
“Again Jean, nobody has to be lying when it comes to the decorum of statesmanlike speech….What was Bobby going to say to an author who was likely to publish his answers: “Allen Dulles was a no good S.O.B. and me and John hated that bastard!”?
Well, Willy, here’s RFK’s reported opinion of J. Edgar Hoover from the same book.
…Anthony Lewis asked Robert Kennedy whether he thought Hoover just a nasty person or truly dangerous. “No, Kennedy replied, “I think he’s dangerous.” “He’s rather a psycho,” he told John Bartlow Martin, “…I think it’s a very dangerous agency…and I think he’s become senile and rather…frightening.” (p.260)
So much for “the decorum of statesmanlike speech.” If RFK didn’t want to comment on Dulles he could’ve said “no comment.” He didn’t have to lie.
“Anthony Lewis asked Robert Kennedy whether he thought Hoover just a nasty person or truly dangerous. “No, Kennedy replied, “I think he’s dangerous.” “He’s rather a psycho,” he told John Bartlow Martin, “…I think it’s a very dangerous agency…and I think he’s become senile and rather…frightening”.”~Jean Davison
Perhaps J Edgar Hoover was a softer target by that time. Dulles was still dangerous to RFK, in fact he most certainly had a hand in Robert Kennedy’s death as well as his brother John’s.
“Perhaps J Edgar Hoover was a softer target by that time. Dulles was still dangerous to RFK, in fact he most certainly had a hand in Robert Kennedy’s death as well as his brother John’s.”
Or maybe Schlesinger’s quote was accurate and RFK meant what he said. You certainly haven’t presented any evidence to the contrary. You haven’t shown that the Kennedys “despised” Dulles nor provided a shred of evidence for your other accusations quoted above.
“You haven’t shown that the Kennedys “despised” Dulles nor provided a shred of evidence for your other accusations quoted above.”~Jean Davison
I think that a proper assessment of the entire period shows that there was great antagonism between Kennedy and Dulles – serious mortal antagonism. If you can’t see that, it is no my problem.
You have not put either one of those quotes in context, nor perspective. You don’t even state what dates they were made, and it is unclear as to which author quoted which quote.
“I think that a proper assessment of the entire period shows that there was great antagonism between Kennedy and Dulles-”
Willy neither you nor anybody else on this site has given a shred of evidence for that statement. To the contrary, several people on this site have posted references (including personal recordings never intended to be made public) that show that Dulles was respected by the Kennedys and specifically by Robert Kennedy.
Like many CTers you try to invent a motive for someone to have a reason to kill JFK-although in your world every political appointee who gets fired has a reason to kill the person who fired him.
However, if you can’t even prove that the individual whom you claim was “despised” by the Kennedys had anything but a cordial relationship with them it would appear that your conclusion is not logical.
It seems to me that far too often CTers are interested in promoting narratives establishing some type of conflict with JFK or his policies. They then jump to conclusions ( often based on erroneous information or interpretations) that the supposed conflict would generate a motive to kill JFK. Therefore, if such motive existed it proves that the individual with that motive killed JFK-no matter what the physical evidence actually is. So it is with Dulles-because he took the fall for the BOP he wanted to kill JFK. So it is with the military-industrial complex – because JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam. So it is with Joannides- because he helped with funding anti-Castro organizations and members from one of those organizations had a run-in with Oswald he must be part of the plot to kill JFK. Of course, if none of the original assumptions can be proven correct than the motive cannot exist in the first place.
Wow Photon, this is a “McAdamsesque” leap (twisting, distortion, manipulation….) if I have ever seen one.
You attempt to twist a covert, domestic obstruction of congressional committee investigation per the dusting off of “retired” Joannides presented by CIA to HSCA as, “he’s here to help in your investigation,” as a baseless and unreasonable example of a CT assassination of JFK conspirator. Much closer to reliable description is that Joannides was assigned by CIA in direct violation of its charter, to work covertly to assassinate the HSCA’s investigation, not unlike what you are hard at work here doing to your own credibility.
Please point out to us where the CIA informed the elected congressional representatives serving on the HSCA, or its appointed managers, that your alleged victimized Joannides had performed as –
“Of course, if none of the original assumptions can be proven correct than the motive cannot exist in the first place.”~Photon
Dear “Dr” Photon, “than” is not the word to use in that sentence. The proper word is then.
When you learn proper syntax I will take you seriously. Until then…. Lol
You are correct Willy-it should have been ” then”.
But as that is all that you criticized I must assume that you agree.
“You are correct Willy-it should have been ” then”.
But as that is all that you criticized I must assume that you agree.”~Photon
But then again you would be mistaken. Rather than agree with you I entirely disagree with you.
Here and now, now and then and again.
As I said, and herein reiterate, I think the record is clear that there was great animosity between Kennedy and Dulles, as well as animosity between Kennedy and the whole military industrial complex. And it was that animosity that led to the coup d’etat in Dallas.
Willy, how about just one episode that demonstrates this animosity. Not some second-hand claim made by a conspiracy theorist, but clear, unambiguous evidence.
There isn’t any.
It is unfathomable the Kennedys could have held Dulles in high regard given revelations of the Taylor Commission report in June 1961.
The conduct of Dulles and Bissell was borderline treason. Soviets Knew Date of Cuba Attack http://wpo.st/RwNT1
“how about just one episode that demonstrates this animosity.”~Photon
Actions speak louder than words. Kennedy canned Dulles and Bissell because he was betrayed by them with the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
You can twitch and moan that “Dulles was allowed to retire”–that “Kennedy gave Dulles a medal”, but you know as well as I do that was all decorum, statesmanship for public consumption.
The record is clear on this “Dr” Photon, and I am not going to relitigate this with you again.
Can’t do it, can you Willy?
Despite your claim, there is NO evidence for the animosity that you and so many CTers desperately want to believe existed. Instead, there is ample evidence that RFK trusted Dulles to the point of requesting his presence on the Warren Commission ( sorry, I consider Katzenbach an honorable man) and his assistance with touchy Civil Rights issues.
He gained the respect of JFK and RFK for ” going quietly into that good night” after resigning, giving JFK the political cover for some very bad decisions, the most prominent being not doing his homework and anticipating what could go wrong.
There was no animosity . Only mutual respect.
Photon, who do you anticipate your audience is for your linkless claims that have the effect of
transforming Richard M. Bissell into an advocate for President Kennedy, considering your provocative opinions?
“Instead, there is ample evidence that RFK trusted Dulles to the point of requesting his presence on the Warren Commission.”~Photon
That is third hand hearsay based on something Fortes claimed. And Fortes said simply “the attorney general”, he did not mention RFK by name, he only referred to “the Attorney General”.
As Katzenbach was “Acting” Attorney General at the time, it is reasonable that Fortes, an enemy of the Kennedy’s himself, considered Robert Kennedy washed up and finished with his brother dead. So he considered Katzenbach the Attorney General (as he became under Johnson shortly thereafter).
I was looking for the September 61 Fortune article but this is all I could find.
Dulles put the blame for the BOP on JFK in it. I can’t remember what book discusses this but if I remember right it was before JFK Fired Dulles. It was a stab in the back to his acting Commander in Chief to his hirelings in the CIA as well as the anti Castro Cubans.
“I can’t believe I was stupid enough to let them proceed”.
“I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the wind”.
“that LITTLE Kennedy, he thought he was a GOD.
“He gained the respect of JFK and RFK for ” going quietly into that good night” . . .
There was no animosity . Only mutual respect.” — photon
What an extraordinary spin of events, photon. Are you seriously proposing that readers disregard the fact that Kennedy wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces” as reported in the newspaper of record, the NYTimes but all the while he held in high esteem its director Allen Dulles?
a quick google search for “splinter into a thousand pieces”: (apparently there is little dispute by historians that Kennedy indeed was outraged by the actions of THE CIA headed by Allen Dulles.)
A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the …
Philip Shenon – 2013 – History
Recalling the exchange, Guthman said that Kennedy did not specify who … aide that he would “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.
Supermac: The Life of Harold Macmillan
D R Thorpe – 2010 – Biography & Autobiography
Bruce contributed a memoir on the Kennedy—Macmillan relationship, ‘The … Kennedy. who said he wanted ‘to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and …
James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of …
Michael Howard Holzman – 2008 – Biography & Autobiography
After it was over, John Kennedy famously told Richard Bissell that in a … President Kennedy said that he wanted ‘to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and …
JFK: Assassination Rehearsal – Page 46 – Google Books Result
Nick M. Nero – 2014 – History
Che Guevara sent Kennedy a note through Richard Goodwin thanking him for … he said he would “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the …
Photon, as recently as 2014 Peter Kornbluh addressed these very dynamics in his piece printed in the NYTimes.
Nothing in his piece suggests that Kennedy held Allen Dulles in high esteem.
“End C.I.A. Covert Operations
Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive, is the co-author of “Back Channel to Cuba: The Hidden History of Negotiations Between Washington and Havana.”
DECEMBER 21, 2014
“In the aftermath of the failed C.I.A.-led invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, John F. Kennedy angrily told his top aides that he wanted to “splinter the C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” For a brief period, the president considered a State Department recommendation to strip the agency of its covert functions, reorganize and even rename it.”
So to distill the question, photon, are you arguing that in spite of how enraged Kennedy was with the CIA that he continued to hold its director, Allen Dulles in high esteem?
“that LITTLE Kennedy, he thought he was a GOD.”
That is a quote from the Talbot book we are discussing; ‘Devil’s Chessboard’.
I know these lines well, but don’t know the original source for them:
“I can’t believe I was stupid enough to let them proceed”.
“I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the wind”.
Original source is former Harper & Row editor, Willie Morris.:
Minor supporting note.:PDF page four, Dulles …Call Diaries, telephone call from Willie Morris, 07-28-65.: http://www.princeton.edu/mudd/finding_aids/MC019.09/Correspondence_Appointment_Call_Diaries_1945-1968/19650707_0000034656.pdf
Indications this is suppressed information.
No searchable “snippets” available at google books.:
No Kindle Edition of the book.:
No mention of it here.:
Willie Morris: An Exhaustive Annotated Bibliography and a Biography – By Jack Bales
McAdams attempts to minimize it.:
No mention in the latest biogrpahy of Willie Morris.:
Willie: The Life of Willie Morris
By Teresa Nicholas
I ordered a “very good” condition, used hardcover edition of Morris’s book, “New York Days”. Shortly after the book arrives midweek, I will present an image of the page displaying the intriguing, important quote attributed to Dulles that seems very sparsely represented (ignored) by alleged Willie Morris experts. The money consistently seems on the suppression side, or at least that it is the observed outcome and I’m sure I’m not the most ambitious or perceptive individual who has noticed this and reacted to it in a self serving way.
In “New York Days”, Willie Morris shared his reaction to what he said Dulles let slip out.:
Since we by now know that the Warren Commission (i.e. Arlen Specter) deliberately fabricated the Single Bullet Story by making what was one entry in the back into two and at the same time pretending they were talking about one and the same all the time; there can be every reason to doubt what the Mastermind behind the whole report conveyed through it. Remember that the falsification was confirmed by that infamous interview that Dan Rather did with dr Humes; where he confirmed the identity between Boswell´s face sheet and Rydberg´s drawing. From this discovery we can also start dismounting the whole idea of “conspiracy theorists”!
As with so much of conspiracy lore, the ” break the CIA into a thousand pieces” quote seems based on a single unverifiable source and repeated ad infinitum until it has been accepted as fact-just like Tink Thompson’s claim that Bobby Hargis was “hit with such force that he thought that he was hit” BS-proven to have been made up by Thompson but accepted as fact. Tom S., instead of ” suppressing ” the quote isn’t just as likely that historians after 50 years of study have found no independent evidence that the quote was ever made and cannot confirm it? But look at what happened to the CIA over the next two and a half years. Was it broken into a thousand pieces? Was it broken at all? No. JFK actually expanded its mission, authorized Project Mongoose, utilized it for secret actions in supposedly neutralist Laos, relied on it for carrying out policy in Vietnam, depended on it for information in formulating Cold War strategy and relations. And what happened to the CIA in the aftermath of the assassination ? LBJ tried to cut its budget ( although frankly that budget did not accurately reflect the agency’s resources-expanded covertly under JFK).
But let us for the sake of argument accept a theory that JFK didn’t like the CIA. How does one go from that to assuming that he detested Allen Dulles? Or that Dulles detested him? If CTers are so eager to accept the ” thousand pieces” quote why do they ignore JFK’s comment to Dulles that if the US had a Parliamentary government he would have had to resign, but instead Dulles had to go-which after years of working for the government Dulles obviously knew. From what is reported by historians JFK appreciated Dulles falling on his sword without objection or comment- and we know that JFK never passed up an opportunity to denigrate opponents he felt had ” no class”-as he did with Nixon following the 1962 California election.
So again I ask-where is there ANY evidence of animosity between Dulles and JFK, Dulles and RFK, Dulles and any member of the Kennedy family?
“Suppressed information,” Tom? The book is searchable at Amazon and it’s widely quoted:
Jean, thank you for finding that searchable access to the paperback edition of Willie Morris’s “New York Days”. I hope you will agree it is an obscure resource, compared to google books. I searched for it briefly,
but unsuccessfully. Recall it is the same Amazon resource I stumbled upon in my search for verification that
my research details on Garrison’s wife’s familial links to principles of the opposition to his investigation were in fact, original finds. I found the Amazon searchable edition of Donald H Carpenter’s biography of Clay Shaw and its obscure details on the links between the Baldwins, Lemanns, and Lee Ziegler Garrison.
I came into an interest in researching the JFK Assassination investigation equipped with the skills of an amateur genealogist, so please take that into consideration if your initial reaction to my question is that it seems to cross a line.
Considering that Yazoo City, MS, pop. under 12,000, the town where Willy Morris was born and is buried in, and is a locale you also have past connection to, why do you seem as quick to support what is absurd on its face and vehemently supported by Photon and John McAdams, admiration of Allen Dulles by JFK and RFK?
Consider that this was included in the most prominent obit of Willie Morris and that in “New YorK Days,”
Willie shared the “That little Kennedy,” quote he attributed to Dulles.:
During the time they were both at Oxford, UK, Willie recalled in an article in “Car & Driver” that he and Yoder shared driving adventures in a 1927 Buick they had named the “John Foster Dulles.” Yoder was associate
editor at the Star when Willie’s Jan. 25, 1976 Star column (see .PDF- http://jfk.pics/MorrisDullesWashStar_Jan2576.pdf ) recounted his unsuccessful collaboration with Allen Dulles attempting to write a magazine rebuttal article on the responsibility for the Bay of Pigs outcome.
.PDF pg. 46 –
Willie Morris’s book, “New York Days” arrived, first edition in like new condition….skimming the relevant chapter, I spotted this and took a
screen shot of this page, using the link Jean included in her comment.
“How could I have been so stupid as to let them proceed” can be found on pg. 302 of Reclaiming Parkland. It is sourced to Peter Kornbluh, Bay of Pigs Declassified, 1998.
Congressional Record – Senate, May 3, 1966
‘And President Kennedy, as the enormity of the Bay of Pigs came home to him, said to one of his highest officials of his administration that he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”‘
And I speculate you have used the NY Times as a standard for accurate and well-researched journalism most of your life, particularly given your penchant for “credentials”, highest education, rational analysis, etc. Are you now suggesting that the April 23, 1966 article in the “newspaper of record” that quoted an insider, albeit an unnamed source who stated that Kennedy said he would “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces” be discounted because Kennedy didn’t act on the threat before his reelection? You will now be under ever closer scrutiny when you play the “professional credentials” argument in any scenario. If the NYTimes isn’t good enough for you then please explain why, and please explain how you can apply such a double standard. Cherry picking would of course be the logical answer. You might also do a little original research and see if you can find a ‘denial’ by close associates or former members of the Kennedy administration that Kennedy said those words, let alone a retraction from the NYT.
PS You’re disingenuous if you assert that splintering an agency headed by Allen Dulles was not a direct attack on Dulles the man.
Turning to ad hominem shows you can’t debate the evidence.
“Turning to ad hominem shows you can’t debate the evidence.”~McAdams
The “professor” returns to regurgitate a tired and insipid remark. One that is belied by the exchange of evidence from both sides of this debate. McAdams may disagree with one side over the other, however claiming that the evidence has not been debated is simply rhetorical nonsense.
Go ahead McAdams, say it again: “Willy can’t help himself from making more ad hominem.”
By the numbers “professor”…1,2,3,4; what are we waiting for?
Willy, the “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the wind” quote can be found in JFK and The Unspeakable by James Douglass on page 15. It is attributed to a article called CIA; Maker of Policy or Tool in the New York Times 4/25/66.
The “Those Bastards” quote I’ve not looked for in depth. I thought maybe Arthur Schlesinger but found nothing in A Thousand Days. As I remember reading it was to Bobby near the end of the Bay of Pigs or the day after when the full realization of how he’d been had hit home. It was overheard by a trusted aide, maybe Powers or O’Donnell?
Despite Jean’s comment and many more my original question has not been answered sufficiently.
David Talbot and Devil’s Chessboard are still credible to me. That it is rejected by the Main Stream Media is further evidence
of it’s value.
David Talbot is not credible? BS.
Ronnie, how does quoting a book published in 2008 give credence to a quote that had been floating around for the previous forty years? It doesn’t, any more than referring to a published claim that Carlos Hathcock said that he couldn’t make the Dealey Plaza shot makes the original false quote genuine.
Leslie, any congressional staffer can get anything published in the Congressional Record, even an obituary of a family friend. Quoting the New York Times reporting the statement gives it no more air of accuracy than claiming that a Jayson Blair article must be accurate since it was in the Times.
The point is that the whole Dulles issue rests basically on that one statement-and that statement (dubious as it is) apparently had one unreliable source with no independent confirmation that it was ever made, no matter how often it has been repeated in the conspiracy literature. Even if it was true, how does it personally refer to Dulles? Even if it was true, didn’t JFK’s actions to expand the CIA prove that his intentions were otherwise?
The bottom line is that nobody has posted anything confirming the so-called animosity between Dulles and JFK. Because none existed.
‘Because none existed.’ — thus sayeth photon.
In spite of serious inferences to the contrary as reported in the “paper of record” you insist that Dulles and Kennedy were buddies, or at best there was no animosity after the BOP. Perhaps you can you identify how frequently the Dulles’ and Kennedy’s dined out together? There are hundreds of accounts of John Kennedy engaging with friends – EET Smith, Stuart Symington among many – yet I can’t locate any reference to an actual personal friendship between Allen and Jack, not manifested in their social calendars. Perhaps you have inside insight you would share with the public? You are relying on their public decorum as proof there was no animosity. That’s weak and you know it. Please link to proof these men were ‘friends’ in the true sense of the word; don’t rely on politically driven statements by Allen Dulles, John or Robert Kennedy. You’re not in the company of naive students here photon.
Tom S. — April 15, 2016 at 5:05 pm
It is not clear to me from that excerpt whether the one receiving the message from CIA about needing help was the author Willie Morris, or Allen Dulles.
Is Morris himself claiming to have taken the tests to join CIA?
Yes, see- http://www.amazon.com/New-York-Days-Willie-Morris/dp/0316583987#reader_0316583987
…click “look inside,” upper left corner of screen, above book jacket image. Use search box in mid-lower left,
type in search word Louisiana, first search result, page 34. The ” that little Kennedy” quote is on page 36.