From the Sierra Leone Times: Kennedy assassination aborted U.S. reconciliation with Cuba.
The author notes what JFK told French journalist Jean Daniel in October 1963.
I can assure you that I have understood the Cubans. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made inthe Sierra Maestra when he justifiably called for justice and specially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption,” Kennedy said. “I will go even further to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear,” Kennedy told the reporter
Kennedy assassination aborted U.S. reconciliation with Cuba – Sierra Leone Times
The “Need to Know” as constricted by the usurpers who instituted the National Security State, is not restricted to military matters, it covers (literally) all information. A people who would be free must have access to information to make meaningful decisions for themselves. The sequestering of information by the State is counter to the entire conceptual underpinning developed in the Declaration of Independence.
The unalienable rights to Liberty cannot be maintained by a population that is uninformed and disinformed by the illegitimate syndicate squatting in DC. “National Security” is a scam produced and maintained by charlatans to grasp political power in the hands of the few to lord over and rule the many.
How many more generations of fools will it take before this system implodes on itself? Perhaps fewer than you might imagine.
\\][//
This reminds me of an Alexandar Hoffman graphic from 2012.
This illegitimate reality must be corrected through exposing the composition of the syndicate and its adjutants in the armed forces, departments of revenue, executive branches, legislatures, judiciaries, departments of mis-education, media outlets, and industry.
our rules for government vs government’s rules for us:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m72xx8GekB1qze542o1_1280.jpg
“I can assure you that I have understood the Cubans. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made inthe Sierra Maestra when he justifiably called for justice and specially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption,” Kennedy said. “I will go even further to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear,” Kennedy told the reporter
\\][//
Willy,
You’ve repeated the quote from the opening of this thread and again I’ll point out there’s another half of the quote in which JFK continued, “But it is also clear…”
Full text here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/UnofficialEnvoy.html
JFK presented the same two themes in the last speech he gave on Cuba, November 18, 1963:
“The genuine Cuban revolution, because it was against the tyranny and corruption of the past, had the support of many whose aims and concepts were democratic. But that
hope for freedom and progress was destroyed. The goals proclaimed in the Sierra Maestra were betrayed in Havana.
It is important to restate what now divides Cuba from my country and from the other countries of this hemisphere. It is the fact that a small band of conspirators has stripped the Cuban people of their freedom and handed over the independence and sovereignty of the Cuban nation to forces beyond the hemisphere. They have made Cuba a victim of foreign imperialism, an instrument of the policy of others, a weapon in an effort dictated by external powers to subvert the other American Republics. This, and this alone, divides us. As long as this is true, nothing is possible. Without it, everything is possible. Once this barrier is removed, we will be ready and anxious to work with the Cuban people in pursuit of those progressive goals which a few short years ago stirred their hopes and the sympathy of many people throughout the hemisphere….”
Full text here:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9529&st=&st1=
Thank you Jean, that is what JFK said in a public speech, at the same time he had sent an envoy to reach out to Castro. And by the way another to reach out to Khrushchev.
I think if Kennedy would have lived he would have been encouraged by the answers that Castro gave Jean Daniel.
All water under the bridge now?
I think not, who killed Kennedy?
\\][//
“Thank you Jean, that is what JFK said in a public speech, at the same time he had sent an envoy to reach out to Castro.”
JFK’s public speech agrees with what was being said privately, according to the memos quoted in this thread. On 11/12/63, McGeorge Bundy wrote that he relayed these instructions from the President to Attwood:
“In particular, we would be interested in knowing whether there was any prospect of important modification in those parts of Castro’s policy which are flatly unacceptable to us: namely, the three points in Ambassador Stevenson’s recent speech1 of which the central elements are (1) submission to external Communist influence, and (2) a determined campaign of subversion directed at the rest of the Hemisphere. Reversals of these policies may or may not be sufficient to produce a change in the policy of the United States, but they are certainly necessary, and without an indication of readiness to move in these directions, it is hard for us to see what could be accomplished by a visit to Cuba.”
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v11/d377
Strings were attached, publicly and privately.
“Strings were attached, publicly and privately.”
~Jean Davison
Well imagine that! Strings are ALWAYS attached in negotiations. But in REAL negotiations strings are detached and reattached in various manners in order reach an agreement. And that is only if an agreement is really at the heart of such negotiations. As we have noticed with “negotiation” such as the peace negotiations between the Palestinians and “Israel”, it is the “Peace Process” that is the real agenda, no a resolution. The process itself is the agenda. One can call this the BIG STALL, it has all the appearances of honest negotiations, but a resolution is never at hand. It has been more than 60 years in that situation. In the meantime ‘Eretz Israel’ has come to pass.
One can see the same thing happening on these very threads on JFKfacts; where the “process” goes on and on without resolution, because certain parties in the “negotiations” do not seek a resolution, their agenda is to keep the “process” alive, with the “appearance” of good faith.
Very much the MO of the National Security State itself.
\\][//
“In conclusion, Fidel Castro said to me: “Since you are going to see Kennedy again, be an emissary of peace, despite everything. I want to make myself clear: I don’t want anything, I don’t expect anything, and as a revolutionary the present situation does not displease me. But as a man and as a statesman, it is my duty to indicate what the bases for understanding could be.”
All this was said two days before President Kennedy’s death.”
~Jean Daniel
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/UnofficialEnvoy.html
\\][//
it is a mere coincidence that JFK was killed while Jean Daniel was having lunch with Castro?
The “Cold War” was burlesque, just like ALL wars are burlesque and theater.
All wars are contrived for the gain of money and power of by the Military Industrial Complex.
Those who support these wars are chumps, those who bleed and die in these wars are the ultimate chumps.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
March 19, 2016 at 1:22 pm
“The “Cold War” was burlesque, just like ALL wars are burlesque and theater.”
“All wars are contrived for the gain of money and power of by the Military Industrial Complex.”
“Those who support these wars are chumps, those who bleed and die in these wars are the ultimate chumps.”
You read and believe Fletcher Prouty. That is what I call the ultimate chump.
Mr. Clarke,
Maybe you can answer a question for me. As you know, I am in complete agreement with you that Mr. Dulles and Eisenhower are both equally guilty in regards to the Shah of Iran and the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran.
Question: why wasn’t Eisenhower ever charged with a crime? I can find no part of the US constitution that allows a president to overthrow a foreign government because of money. Can you help me?
Second question: you have referred several times on this website to “draft dodgers.” What about George W. Bush? I believe he served in the “champagne unit.” Do you have the same scorn for Mr. Bush as you do for John Doe, who traveled to Canada to avoid dying for a war that stared as a lie, had nothing to do with stopping the spread of communism, and resulted in the death of 58,000 American lives?
Just curious to know your thoughts, please.
Steve,
I tried, but I can’t prevent what I expect will happen next, (without full cooperation of commenters) as in every other discussion in which the “invitation” manifests itself. Good-bye, Cuba!
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/jfk-assassination-aborted-u-s-reconciliation-with-cuba/#comment-863609
Tom S.
My sincerest apologies to you and everyone on the site. You can actually blame this one on my wife. For some stupid reason, she wants me to finish painting the house I started last fall. The nerve!
Actually, it is frustrating for me. I, like most commenters, simply don’t have the time to be here everyday. Well, I could, but I would be single. Bill Clarke and I discussed this on a thread last month, and then due to my advanced age, I forgot which thread it was. When I saw Bill’s name, I wanted to ask him the questions I did not get to on the other thread.
I promise I will be better behaved in the future! I don’t mean to hijack any thread, but this working for a living gets in the way of enjoying life!
Keep up the great work, and I will be on my best behavior!
P.S. Could we have a thread on the behavior of Gerald Ford and the FBI in the near future?
My sincerest apologies to you and everyone on the site. You can actually blame this one on my wife. For some stupid reason, she wants me to finish painting the house I started last fall. The nerve!
Steve, now I would be interested in your thoughts on this; “Was not the Bay of Pigs in Cuba similar to our motives in Guatemala and Iran?”
This is about Cuba and is on topic for this thread. I’m sure Tom wouldn’t object to you answering this one and I certainly value your opinion.
Take it from an old man; you need to get the house painted. When mamma isn’t happy no one is happy!
Steve Stirlen
March 20, 2016 at 8:02 pm
Mr. Clarke,
“Maybe you can answer a question for me. As you know, I am in complete agreement with you that Mr. Dulles and Eisenhower are both equally guilty in regards to the Shah of Iran and the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran.”
“Question: why wasn’t Eisenhower ever charged with a crime? I can find no part of the US constitution that allows a president to overthrow a foreign government because of money. Can you help me?”
Can’t help you Steve. I don’t know. All I can do is throw out some thoughts here and be brief about it to assist Tom S. in keeping things on topic here. The president is the most powerful man in the world and a hard target to indict I’m sure. A lot of presidents, past, present and no doubt the future, have and will do if not illegal then immoral things that should have caused an indictment or impeachment. But they get a pass. I think that is called “power”. Was not the Bay of Pigs in Cuba similar to our motives in Guatemala and Iran? And too Ike might have had enough plausible denial to cover his butt and blame it on the CIA.
“Second question: you have referred several times on this website to “draft dodgers.” What about George W. Bush? I believe he served in the “champagne unit.” Do you have the same scorn for Mr. Bush as you do for John Doe, who traveled to Canada to avoid dying for a war that stared as a lie, had nothing to do with stopping the spread of communism, and resulted in the death of 58,000 American lives?”
“Just curious to know your thoughts, please.”
If you will notice, if I called someone a draft dodger I was probably talking about Shrub Bush, Dick Cheeny, and Paul Wolfowitz. Three Chicken Hawks; they passed their time the rich way but didn’t bat an eye about sending others to war.
All three are very disgusting to me. I don’t remember ever talking about John Doe that went to Canada but it doesn’t matter to me anymore. They all got to come home.
Again as a nod to Tom S. I won’t discuss your thoughts on Vietnam here. But I don’t agree with you here.
marie fonzi – May 11, 2015 at 10:47 am
“Here I am, speaking for Gaeton again, but I’ve read correspondence where Gaeton expressed faith in Fletcher Proudy, who he visited at his home in Virginia.”
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/insiders-who-suspected-a-jfk-plot/#comment-759640
\\][//
Which further harms Fonzi’s credibility:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm
He accepted a bogus story about Hal Hendrix:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#fonzi
Then there is the fact that Fonzi said several CIA assets infiltrated Garrison’s office, but he had no evidence of that.
Indeed, internal CIA memos show the Agency was getting its information from the public press, not any inside source.
Dr. McAdams, the last two comments you’ve submitted, including the one I am replying to, present a combined total of three links from your own website.
I asked you this four days ago. Have I simply overlooked your reply, or …..?
Not that you have any standing to demand that, but the last update was to this:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm
I updated Cherami and Bill Hunter. I should give you credit for finding that material, and I’ll do that the next time I edit the page.
The updates before that were the Robertson article:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/robertson.htm
And the Mark Lane unedited testimony:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lane_interviews/
The next update will be the McClelland material from Carter.
Which further harms Fonzi’s credibility”~McAdams
Many of your spurious charges against Fletcher Prouty were addressed in another thread here not long ago.
It is obvious to those of us who have studied Prouty’s work, that he is an unimpeachable source, therefore the most dangerous source of information to the posers and charlatans who continue to propagate the utterly untenable official narrative about the JFK assassination, ie; coup d’etat.
You make claims that are shown to be false, such as claiming that the CIA did not have assets infiltrated into Garrison’s group. This was gone over in the greatest detail, much of which was spawned by Tom Scully’s findings.
The defamation of Fletcher Prouty is seen as necessary, and is found to be based on falsehoods and spin by the few holdouts who continue to defend the indefensible tome of lies and deceit known as the Warren Commission Report.
McAdams and his comrades are in fact all washed up as far as any sane and lucid reader is concerned. That they will never admit to such is a given, it is their job, their livelihood as professional propagandists.
So we endure this circus of the absurd brought to us by the McAdams Group, who self identify despite their complaints to the contrary.
\\][//
Scully has shown no such thing. All he has shown is that everybody (including Garrison) was connected to everybody else, including one person who was drummed out of the CIA in 1952.
We have an extensive paper trail of the CIA response to Garrison, and nothing shows any source inside Garrison’s office.
In fact, the CIA people were confused by Garrison’s constantly changing charges and claims.
TomS, I’m simply having difficulty differentiating between McAdams’ insults of the host (and that be you as representative) vs insults hurled at John McAdams (and that would include mine occasionally.) vs his insults of many of us for months on end vs. insults toward you as an invaluable commenter on this site. Would that these lines in the sand had been adhered to from the outset, you would not be saddled with determining “this far and no further.” It’s Jeff’s home, that’s a fact, and you as his representative have the last call. You as a commenter on the other hand walk a thin line. I respect the challenge you’re faced with daily but calling McAdams out on a specific topic because he affronts you as a commenter – not as representative of the host of the site – seems to me to be slipping off that thin line.
I have previously pointed out some serious issues with some of the articles on Professor McAdams’s site, including an overreliance on CIA sources and outdated books.
The page that McAdams links to does not provide any link to the Hal Hendrix story, but only the lead paragraph and a description of the rest of the article. Without the actual article, it is impossible to say whether the summary provided is fair.
I would suggest that we need more evidence than this if we are going to dismiss Mr. Fonzi’s excellent book.
Here you go:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/hendrix.pdf
I think you need to explain about “CIA sources and outdated books.”
“Scully has shown no such thing. All he has shown is that everybody (including Garrison) was connected to everybody else, including one person who was drummed out of the CIA in 1952.”~McAdams
It was obvious at the time you didn’t grasp the information Tom brought out in those threads dedicated to the Garrison trial. It is equally obvious you simply haven’t the intellectual capacity to participate here with any effectiveness.
\\][//
You always turn nasty when you get your ass kicked on the evidence.
Explain how Tom has shown that any CIA people penetrated the Garrison “investigation.”
The fact that Garrison was the brother in law of the godfather of the nephew of somebody who once worked with somebody who was in the wedding of somebody who was kicked out of the CIA in 1952 doesn’t do it.
So specify what “evidence” supports Fonzi’s silly notion.
Dr. McAdams, please point to when and where I presented any of those particular details.
Why are you mocking and insulting me, trivializing my research details, and by extension, me personally? It seems inexcusable to blatantly mock the person who is tasked to determine which, if any, if your well above average stream of submitted comments to this website get displayed in a timely manner, or at all.
If you do not like the verifiable facts I’ve presented, what would be the reasonable course of an individual with your education, experience, and reputation?
To point out that they don’t prove anything.
But that doesn’t seem to work, so I resorted to parody.
But Willy was claiming that you proved that the CIA had penetrated the Garrison “investigation” with multiple agents.
Did you think you had proven that?
Let us recap the details Dr. McAdams admits resorting to parody in reaction to.:
The following details are presented in chronological order.:
http://blog.donaldhcarpenter.com/2011/03/david-baldwinclay-shaw.html
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
David Baldwin/Clay Shaw
“I spent some time last week nailing down the relationship between David Baldwin, the ex-CIA man, and Clay Shaw. There are a lot of interesting coincidences in that one.”
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/thomas-jeffersons-affair-with-sally-hemings-tell-us-about-jfk/#comment-857613
Tom S. – February 12, 2016
(Link to supporting footnote – https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vuym6rw9doQ/Vrdqs-3WcEI/AAAAAAAACu0/OK-mVPFKpW0/s512-Ic42/BaldwinCousinDonaldCarpenterFootnote.jpg )
Dr. McAdams considering what I have actually presented on the pages of this website and the considerable effort undertaken to effect it, have you ever accorded a colleague or one of your students, disrespect at all similar to what you are exhibiting here?
“Why are you mocking and insulting me, trivializing my research details, and by extension, me personally? It seems inexcusable to blatantly mock the person who is tasked to determine which, if any, if your well above average stream of submitted comments to this website get displayed in a timely manner, or at all.” — TomS
With respect, after sparring with John McAdams on this site for 3 years under the purported banner of honest discourse, in one fell swoop he might be banished because he has insulted the moderator? Something seems out of order. Who on this site has NOT been insulted by McAdams? And then they came for . . . ?
Of course, no “fell swoop” would take place without the approval of the owner of the site.
Unless I’ve misinterpreted the Liz Garrison / David Baldwin – Jesse Core / Monte and Stephen Lemann discovery, TomS has never posited that any of those individuals overtly infiltrated the Garrison investigation. He has identified the fact that Jim Garrison’s wife was closely related to key individuals with history in the CIA; he has questioned why Sklar and Stone were not aware of those critical relationships; he has questioned how those relationships influenced the NBC/WDSU expose. From there, I believe it is incumbent on those of us who continue to question why this investigation has been drawn out without resolution for five decades to pursue the possible significance of the Liz Garrison connections.
…As well as the prominent and persistent non-disclosure of the conflict of interests bedeviled former Texas Monthly and Washington Post editor, the Dean Emeritus Nicholas B. Lemann of the Columbia Graduate School
of Journalism, even in the Russo V. Conde Naste court proceedings of 1992…..
http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/50-nicholas-lemann/10
We know for instance that author Russ Baker, “Family of Secrets” proudly refers to his credential from Columbia University School of Journalism. Would not an alumni such as Baker who values that credential – let alone one who is respected for his fearless pursuit of the facts – ask Nicholas Lemann about what seems at least on the surface to be a conflict of interest in his articles related to the Garrison investigation? Can we identify other graduates of Columbia currently enjoying a journalism career and ask them to study carefully Dean Lemann’s career and body of work related to the Garrison investigation to determine if they smell a story?
Professor McAdams: Thanks for the link.
As for “CIA sources and outdated books,” I refer you to this comment:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/in-1974-call-to-abolish-cia-sanders-follows-in-footsteps-of-jfk-truman/#comment-859507
806 F. Supp. 603 (1992)
Perry RUSSO
v.
CONDE NAST PUBLICATIONS d/b/a Gentlemen’s Quarterly.
Civ. A. No. 92-1219.
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
November 17, 1992.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/806/603/1747985/
\\][//
Wait a minute, there was a lot more specific information put to the page on the Garrison trial controversy. This focus on some asserted ‘conflict of interest’ that Garrison had due to his marriage is only one angle in which to view that motherload of information.
The distinction being; Jim Garrison was prosecuting Clay Shaw/Bertrand. Garrison was not related to Clay Shaw.
The disruption of Garrison’s group by moles from both CIA and elite insiders, some of which were ‘in-laws’ to Garrison is the crux of the matter.
As with all things here, a relitigation of that entire argument would fall to the advantage of the Warren apologists, as another of the endless carousels leading to cognitive dissonance and confusion.
\\][//
On September 20, 1967, the CIA held its first “Garrison Group Meeting” (No 1 – 20 September 1967). This high level, classified meeting was attended by the “Executive Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, Deputy Director for Plans, Mr. Raymond Rocca of CI Staff, Director of Security and Mr. Goodwin.”
“The Minutes of the Meeting read as follows:
[https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6515#relPageId=2&tab=page]
“1) “Executive Director said that the Director has asked him to convene a group to consider the possible implications for the Agency emanating from New Orleans before, during, and after the trial of Clay Shaw.”
“2) “General Counsel discussed his dealings with Justice and the desire of Shaw’s lawyers to make contact with the Agency.”
“3) “[Raymond] Rocca [who was Jim Angleton’s chief lieutenant] felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.”
“4) Executive Director said the group should level on two objectives: (a) what kind of action, if any, is available to the Agency, and (b) what actions should be taken inside the Agency to reassure the Director that we have the problem in focus. The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial and what might be feasible during and after the trial. It was agreed that OGC and Rocca would make a detailed study of all the facts and consult with Justice as appropriate prior to the next meeting.”
The meeting was chaired by – F.W.M. Janney
“So, as early as 1967, we learn here that ‘Rocca felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.’ If this isn’t prima facie evidence that Clay Shaw was not only an asset of the CIA but was part of the conspiracy “to assassinate President Kennedy,” then I don’t know what else to say . . .
“Here, we have a high-level internal CIA meeting where the No. 2 main on the Counter Intelligence staff (Ray Rocca) tells everyone that Garrison ‘would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw,’ only because Rocca knew what had taken place.
The CIA is guilty, and always has been.
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/the-garrison-group-what-one-top-cia-official-said-about-clay-shaw/
\\][//
Willy,
Willy,
Now McAdams may invoke Holland’s “bedeviled by spooks” article on a page of his site to point out that not only was the CIA not culpable,
but considering the late date of the meeting minutes (transcriped by W. Janney) they were well behind the curve, obviously playing “catch up”.
This is a CIA that could not identify Ed Baldwin’s law partner, James F Quaid, Jr., triggered by Quaid’s April, 1967 letter to Helms, requesting
inclusion on “the list.” Angleton was documented as having found nothing on Quaid, either. Lawrence Houston wrote to Quaid, assuring him there
was no list. (see- http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=101350&relPageId=2&search=quaid_and%20lawrence )
Nearly simultaneously,
(See- https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-853537 )
Dr. McAdams could place this contradiction on the lower part of the same page displaying Holland’s article, also mentioning that Garrison
and Ed Baldwin were ADA’s under Senior WC Asst. Counsel. Leon Hubert, Jr. when he served as NODA. Hubert presided over the WC questioning of
Nancy Perrin Rich, and when Hubert was absent from NOLA, Garrison was his second in that pre-1963 period and had occasion to assign fellow
ADA Ed Baldwin to a criminal case prosecution. But in the spring of 1967, when Baldwin’s law partner James F Quaid, Jr. wrote to Helms requesting
the same consideration CIA had just granted Atty. Cobb, quoted above, the CIA is documented as reverting to its “Sergeant Klink mode.”
“Now McAdams may invoke Holland’s “bedeviled by spooks” article on a page of his site to point out that not only was the CIA not culpable,
but considering the late date of the meeting minutes (transcriped by W. Janney) they were well behind the curve, obviously playing “catch up”.”
~Tom S.
Let him if he wishes.
I know McAdams and Holland’s spin on all of this.
I reject it:
Rocca clearly indicated concern that their man Shaw was liable for conviction…IF…Garrison could not be stopped by CIA chicanery. That is CIA’s routine habit, or MO, to infiltrate and subvert their opponents. To think they would sit by and allow Garrison to break open the JFK assassination case is preposterous.
\\][//
No, because Rocca was skeptical of the New Orleans justice system.
And with Garrison as DA, he had a right to be.
Happily, the jury was sensible.
As for the CIA “Garrison Group,” a much more complete account is here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
“As for the CIA “Garrison Group,” a much more complete account is here:”~McAdams
I have read this spin before “professor”.
As I said I don’t buy it. You are reframing what Rocca said from your tilted perspective, like everything you do here.
\\][//
The mere possibility that JFK was willing to open channel with Castro regardless of any strings would have been the third strike for the exile community (Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis being the first two). They couldnt take the chance he would have been re-elected. so quite likely, the teams that our own CIA trained to assassinate Castro using mafia financing probably were turned against JFK. This would have been a colossal intelligence failure and enormous embarrassment to our country, and would have certainly been necessary to coverup if this was true. And RFK would have had to go along with this to preserve his political career since he had been in charge of the get Castro effort.
Agreed on all the above except it was much more than an “intelligence failure.” That’s where the conspiracy was born and implemented.
“And RFK would have had to go along with this to preserve his political career since he had been in charge of the get Castro effort.”
~Lawrence Schnapf
RFK ordered Landsdale to shut down the “get Castro effort” after the fiasco over the Northwoods document. RFK dropped out of the controversy after John was killed to preserve his life, not his political career.
Robert knew full well who had killed his brother and why. He also knew that he was next if he made a public peep.
\\][//
Tom, the last post copied more of the page than I intended; this second one has the part I meant to post:
. . .
The final straw may have come during a White House meeting on February 26, 1962. Concerned that General Lansdale’s various covert action plans under Operation Mongoose were simply becoming more outrageous and going nowhere, Robert Kennedy told him to drop all anti-Castro efforts. Instead, Lansdale was ordered to concentrate for the next three months strictly on gathering intelligence about Cuba. It was a humiliating defeat for Lansdale, a man more accustomed to praise than to scorn.
As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly “go soft” on Castro, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade Cuba quickly slipping away. The attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead and Castro, unfortunately, appeared to have no inclination to launch any attacks against Americans or their property Lemnitzer and the other Chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion into hating Cuba so much that they would not only go along, but would insist that he and his generals launch their war against Castro. “World opinion, and the United Nations forum,” said a secret JCS document, “should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.”
BODY OF SECRETS, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82
\\][//
I am repeatedly reminding everyone to include links in their comments. Dr. McAdams has assisted in this effort.
Tom. I am not sure if you are directing your comment about links in comments. I have provided the source and page number to the information in my last comment:
BODY OF SECRETS, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82
However there is a link to that source on the Internet at:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html
\\][//
“The final straw may have come during a White House meeting on February 26, 1962. Concerned that General Lansdale’s various covert action plans under Operation Mongoose were simply becoming more outrageous and going nowhere, Robert Kennedy told him to drop all anti-Castro efforts. Instead, Lansdale was ordered to concentrate for the next three months strictly on gathering intelligence about Cuba…”
Before accepting any conclusion from a secondary source, it’s a good idea to ask what it’s based on.
All U.S. anti-Castro efforts certainly didn’t end in February, 1962. See this memo from November 12, 1963, for instance, that reports on acts of sabotage and “harassment”:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v11/d376
Jean,
Interesting paragraph from the document you linked to:
Further: Bobby Kennedy was at the meeting. Given he was JFK’s brother, he clearly would have been the “honcho” there.
This was not some rogue group.
Dr. McAdams, I remind you that you label other commenters and ridicule their politics……
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/590101_620919%20Chronology%201.pdf
Continued from my last comment…
“Further: Bobby Kennedy was at the meeting. Given he was JFK’s brother, he clearly would have been the “honcho” there.
This was not some rogue group.”~McAdams,
Regarding;
376. Memorandum for the RecordSource
Washington, November 12, 1963.
SUBJECT
Cuban Operations
“The consensus was that CIA should proceed with its **planning** for this type of activity looking toward January.”
The crux of the crunch is missing here, and that is the word, “implementing” said planning.
\\][//
You seem to have overlooked some things:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621118_Abbreviations%20Chronology%201.pdf
And this:
Kennedy was not George McGovern, and he was not Jimmy Carter.
No, Dr. McAdams, he was not. Considering the status quo Kennedy inherited from the Eisenhower administration, do you think it is unreasonable to say that Kennedy likely was largely responsible for saving millions of lives and the irradiation of significant portions of the industrialized world’s environment?
https://books.google.com/books?id=VqY4Wr3T5K4C&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=%E2%80%9Cno+military+experience+at+all,+%E2%80%9D+lemnitzer&source=bl&ots=Qg9m4CjGsw&sig=MUiWC5TEK3rbdFJ6BOhjVYdcllk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijtpKpuNLLAhVFQSYKHb3QCT8Q6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Cno%20military%20experience%20at%20all%2C%20%E2%80%9D%20lemnitzer&f=false
Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency
By James Bamford – page 69
Tom S.
March 21, 2016 at 2:53 pm
“No, Dr. McAdams, he was not. Considering the status quo Kennedy inherited from the Eisenhower administration, do you think it is unreasonable to say that Kennedy likely was largely responsible for saving millions of lives and the irradiation of significant portions of the industrialized world’s environment?”
I don’t think it is unreasonable to say that at all. No doubt that is true.
But you have to remember that the Kennedy boys did much to antagonize Castro. I’ll spot JFK the Bay of Pigs since he was new to the job. Operation Mongoose was certainly uncalled for. Add this to the actions that Ike had approved and in total we sent Castro a message that said “we’re coming for you and hell is coming with us.
I think it not unreasonable that Castro expected an invasion by the U.S. I think that led us to the Missile Crisis.
Compared to what?
To a hypothetical President Curtis LeMay, probably.
Compared to any real U.S. President, no.
Although his confrontation with the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis was pretty risky, he did correctly calculate he could win that.
Kennedy was a Cold Warrior, but a reasonably prudent one. He was closer to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan than McGovern or Jimmy Carter.
He was clear that Communism was a moral evil, and a threat to mankind. But he was also willing to seek opportunities for cooperation and ratcheting down tensions.
Professor,
Pretty risky is right, was it not as much prayer, luck and bluster? I think he was closer to (beyond) Carter in his Peace initiatives while President.
The Kennedy Boys were famous for playing both ends against the middle. JFK could be exploring backchannel with Castro at the same time his administration was continuing the pressure. By this point in time, he was distrusted by the exile community and word getting out to that community about the backchannel would have been the final straw. if he was re-elected, they knew he would not be constrained about concerns from his right wing critics.
Just think how much better Iran was after we toppled the democracy there in ’53 and helped, via CIA/Mossad-trained SAVAK, the Shah run the joint with torture chambers and death squads?
And how much better Guatemala was after we toppled the democracy there in ’54 and helped the dictators run the joint with torture chambers and death squads?
How much better Chile was after we toppled the democracy on 9.11.73 and helped the fascist Pinochet run the joint with torture chambers and death squads?
And just think how much better Honduras is today after we recently helped foment a coup against Zelaya so that the joint can be run via death squads and torture chambers? (Thank you, President Hillary!)
Spreading freedom and democracy is a tough business, I know. But thank god we’ve got the guts to do it.
Don’t forgot Putin and Billary’s friend Kissinger’s bombing orders of a neutral country that paved the way for the Khmer Rouge to genocide self-sufficient farmers who most Americans would come to know only as uneducated peasants. I recommend locating the documentary called Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia that is brutally honest in contrast to The Killing Fields which was only brutal and funded by benefactors of the CFR.
theNewDanger,
Thank you for reminding the forum of John Pilger’s documentary, ‘Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia’
“Uhh..gawblesmurkah…”
\\][//
You left out Grenada. I believe that involved Cuban communist soldiers. Nice talking to you again, Gary.
Gary,
The best post I have read on this site in over a year. Thank you. The policy makers of the USA have done such a wonderful job making sure the world loves American imperiali…oops, I meant democracy. Well said and right on point.
The real question here is if JFK had not been assassinated could he, in a second term, have achieved “detente” with Castro? With the recent passage of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty it might have been possible. This thread is about speculation per the title.
If the US made peace with Russia, Cuba would too.
You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. All we are saying, is give Peace a chance…John Lennon.
It’s often overlooked that there were strings attached to a possible détente with Cuba. Immediately after this quote from JFK, Jean Daniel continued:
QUOTE:
After a silence during which he was able to note my surprise and my interest, the President continued: “But it is also clear that the problem has ceased to be a Cuban one, and has become international—that is, it has become a Soviet problem. I am the President of the United States and not a sociologist; I am the President of a free nation which has certain responsibilities in the Free World. I know that Castro betrayed the promises made in the Sierra Maestra, and that he has agreed to be a Soviet agent in Latin America. I know that through his fault—either his ‘will to independence’, his madness or Communism—the world was on the verge of nuclear war in October, 1962. The Russians understood this very well, at least after our reaction; but so far as Fidel Castro is concerned, I must say that I don’t know whether he realizes this, or even if he cares about it.” A smile, then: “You can tell me whether he does when you come back. In any case, the nations of Latin America are not going to attain justice and progress that way, I mean through Communist subversion. They won’t get there by going from economic oppression to a Marxist dictatorship which Castro himself denounced a few years ago. The United States now has the possibility of doing as much good in Latin America as it has done wrong in the past; I would even say that we alone have this power—on the essential condition that Communism does not take over there.”
And this quote from a meeting of the Special Group (on Cuba), Nov. 5, 1963:
QUOTE
The Attorney General emphasized that as a prelude to all this the U.S. must require some fundamental steps such as the end of subversion in Latin America and removing the Soviet troops in Cuba before any serious discussion can take place about a detente.
UNQUOTE
In a similar vein, JFK’s final speech on Latin America, 11/18/63:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9529
Then there is this:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v11/d377
What Kennedy wanted was a “Tito solution.” The odds of Castro agreeing to that were virtually nonexistent, however.
“What Kennedy wanted was a “Tito solution.” The odds of Castro agreeing to that were virtually nonexistent, however.” ~McAdams
And “professor” McAdams knows this because…? Because he is psychic? Because he has the prescience of Laocoon? Because his muse Casandra (Jean Davison) assured him so?
No it must be that magic piece of paper with those mystical runes that is called a “diploma”! McAdams is after all a ‘certified’ “Political Scientist”. Just the title turns his eyes into crystal balls.
\\][//
I quoted JFK and RFK, Willy. If you don’t like what they said, don’t blame me.
“I quoted JFK and RFK, Willy.”~Jean Davison
Yes Jean you have often quoted JFK and RFK totally out of context, or have spun their words backward.
I am afraid I cannot blame them for your misrepresenting what they said.
\\][//
That’s pathetic, Willy. Instead of evidence you offer insults, as usual.
I quoted RFK from this Nov. 5 1963 memo and it was the ONLY comment from RFK in that memo:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v11/d373
“Totally out of context,” you say?
“I quoted RFK from this Nov. 5 1963 memo and it was the ONLY comment from RFK in that memo:”
~Jean Davison
373. Memorandum for the Record — Washington, November 5, 1963.
I do not see a quote from RFK in this memo. I see a characterization of what RFK was supposed to have said.
\\][//
More from Daniel:
So Castro’s collectivism could be tolerated, but not exporting revolution, or being a client of the Soviet Union.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/UnofficialEnvoy.html
“In conclusion, Fidel Castro said to me: “Since you are going to see Kennedy again, be an emissary of peace, despite everything. I want to make myself clear: I don’t want anything, I don’t expect anything, and as a revolutionary the present situation does not displease me. But as a man and as a statesman, it is my duty to indicate what the bases for understanding could be.”
All this was said two days before President Kennedy’s death.”
~Jean Daniel
\\][//
And so Jean thinks that somehow all of this means that the JFK assassination did not abort US reconciliation with Cuba.
Is that your position Jean?
\\][//
My position is “it is often overlooked that there were strings attached to a possible détente with Cuba.”
Jean Davison
March 18, 2016 at 1:24 am
“My position is “it is often overlooked that there were strings attached to a possible détente with Cuba.”
I agree but I’m not sure “overlooked” nails it here. I believe these “strings” are purposely “avoided”. Avoiding them makes the Jack would have made peace with Cuba much brighter.
Of course these strings we speak of very well doomed any hope of reaching an agreement with Castro. It would have required, for starters, that Castro stop exporting communist revolution in Latin America. I see nothing that makes me believe Castro would have done that at the time.
I certainly believe JFK wanted peace with the Soviets and Cuba. It simply wasn’t in the cards at the time.
“I certainly believe JFK wanted peace with the Soviets and Cuba. It simply wasn’t in the cards at the time.”
Total misrepresentation of the reality of JFK’s peace initiatives with Kruschev and Castro. Kruschev was on-board with ending the Cold War (which led to his being deposed after JFK’s death) and Castro was ready to go it alone without the USSR.
JFK was an open-minded, rational human being scared shyteless by the Cuban Missile Crisis and ready for peace. Some had other plans.
Far from being “often overlooked,” the fact that JFK’s detente proposals were conditional is mentioned in the Sierra Leone Times article. Nor is it surprising, since successful diplomacy generally involves demands and concessions from both parties.
The airy (and unsupported) statements that Castro would have never have agreed to any detente are belied by the fact that the Cuban government tried, on several occasions, to resume the peace talks with Lyndon Johnson, who was not interested. The Cuban detente was just one of numerous promising programs that died with JFK.
Exactly. Why would Castro pursue peace with LBJ if he wasn’t serious about making peace with JFK?
It was in the works and ’65 would’ve brought it to fruition. Instead, we got the Gulf of Tonkin, the kinda bullshyte JFK rejected after the Bay of Pigs.
Bill Clarke, I did not catch Bogman’s comment, or I would have invited him to submit it here.:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/21772/ You’ve replied to his off-topic reference. The link I
shared in the last sentence is the perfect place to offer your off-topic opinion.
Unofficial Envoy An Historic Report from Two Capitals
by Jean Daniel
The New Republic 14 December 1963, pp. 15-20
. . .
How many of you here actually read this entire thing?
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/UnofficialEnvoy.html
\\][//
The stalwart watchmen (CIA/Military network) so heavily invested and entrenched in the Cold War mentality, could not envision an alternate reality outside of Pax American. After all, they won WWII. With victory comes the spoils – in their eyes, this meant creating their perverted versions of a network of global quasi-fascist dictatorships under their control. “They” ultimately proved to be the totality of the subterranean network of people engaged in guns, oil, and drugs (GOD). This established global interlocking network sought hegemony over mineral-rich countries to support US and allied business interests. It was into this milieu JFK was elected the POTUS. Schooled by their father, Ambassador Joseph P Kennedy, and heeding the warning from Former President Dwight D Eisenhower, both John and Robert Kennedy earnestly fought to dismantle this power concentrated juggernaut strangling and skewing, both foreign and domestic policies. The stalwart watchmen of the subterranean network gave their tacit approval for the coup to proceed. JFK realized that from this milieu a coup was possible in the US, thus the film noir, Seven Days in May. It was reported in the New York Times “The C.I.A.’s growth was “likened to a malignancy” which the “very high official (JFK) was not sure even the White House could control . . . any longer. If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon.” The agency “represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.” JFK went so far as to outline the conditions (the mindset of the plotters) under which the coup could take place. A Kennedy in the White House was antithetical to the interests of the stalwart watchmen and their subterranean network. The Kennedy’s had to be overthrown.
Based on what we know that Kennedy was reaching out to Castro and Russia through back channels before his assassination, I think relations with both countries would have been far different than it ended up being after 11/22/63.
It’s quite possible Khrushchev would not have been deposed.