That’s the question raised by a Boston Globe column on JFK conspiracy trolls. My answer on Medium.
Days
Hours
Minutes
Technical assistance courtesy of the Mary Ferrell Foundation | Designed by iWebResults
“Why didn’t one CIA/FBI/DoD official lose their jobs after 911?”
Because Mohammed Atta was not an asset, being closely monitored.
Atta did not have anybody corresponding to:
• Banister
• Joannides
• De Mohrenschildt
• Paines
• Hosty
JM:”CIA had another agenda: to make sure the WC critics did not learn about the CIA’s pre-assassination, illegal surveillance programs (HTLINGUAL and MKCHAOS) that they used to spy on the anti-war movement…”
What war? There were a few thousand American military advisors in Nam/1963. Did those CIA anti-war programs exist pre-assassination:
‘The CIA formed a Domestic Operations Division in 1964. In 1965,LBJ requested that the CIA begin its own investigation into domestic dissent—independent of the FBI’s COINTELPRO.’
Be careful when trying to figure out CIA motives and agendas.
“why not one of the senior CIA and the FBI officials who knew about the politics, travels, and contacts of accused assassin Lee Oswald before JFK was killed lost their jobs after November 22, 1963.”
Why didn’t one CIA/FBi/DoD official lose their jobs after 911?
Long time lurker and redditor here. To suggest Reddit represents some kind of intelligible data regarding assassination theories is a gross false-equivalence. It’s like saying we can obtain meaningful political science data from reading the discourse on people’s wall Facebook pages.
Furthermore the ratio of comments-to-post-approvals consistently proves that comment threads rarely represent user preference as expressed on the original post by up/down votes.
I don’t post comments on JFK assassination threads any longer. Arguing with posters who adamantly claim that Oswald’s alleged shots were ‘easy’ hits on a slow moving target is like banging your head against the wall.
As I have argued on JFK Facts, two top CIA officials opposed to JFK’s dovish foreign policy—counterintelligence chief James Angleton and deputy director Richard Helms—should have lost their jobs after Kennedy was killed on their watch.
A factual reading of the CIA’s own declassified documents allows no other conclusion in my view. On October 10, 1963, four undercover officers reporting to Angleton and Helms took a good long look at accused assassin Lee Oswald and wrote a detailed cable about him. They closed by assuring themselves and their colleagues that Oswald was “maturing.” If Oswald killed JFK six weeks later, the composition of that cable was a firing offense for all involved.
Unfortunately, the CIA’s cable about the “maturing” Oswald as not made public until thirty years after the crime, long after the six official investigations had concluded, and Angleton and Helms had retired. The CIA mandarins didn’t lose their jobs (or their clandestine power) because official secrecy spared them from democratic accountability.
——————————————————————
I do not understand why Angleton and Helms should have lost their jobs because four officers made a statement about LHO that turned out to be incorrect.
What is disturbing–and perhaps this is why they should have lost their jobs–is because the CIA’s coverage of LHO in Mexico City (if it was JFK) was NOT reported to the FBI prior to the assassination.
And of course why this memo was not reported to the WC. As readers know, JJA was the CIA “liason” with the WC.