“Did JFK sign his death warrant by firing CIA chief?”
That’s the question asked by Jerome Corsi, the author best known for his 2004 best-seller, “Unfit for Command,” which peddled the false story that John Kerry did not deserve the medals he received as a boat captain in Vietnam war.
Corsi’s JFK theory is more factual than his Kerry smear. As recounted in World News Daily, Corsi tells a hyped-up version of the “CIA did it” scenario, contending JFK was killed by enemies of his Cuba policy, led by former CIA Allen Dulles The theory is more credible than theorist.
Leslie, how about some hard,verifiable evidence that shows in ANY way how the CIA was involved in any aspect of the JFK assassination. None of this wild speculation about coordinated plots run by shadowy non- persons and scores of agents. Give us a name of a CIA agent. Give us evidence that any Federal employee was actively involved in shooting JFK. Give us any shooting scenario that in any way conforms with the physical evidence that has been present for 50 years that proves that anybody in the CIA had the opportunity or motive to kill JFK.
Above all, please tell us how the CIA achieved all of those assassinations it was supposedly so good at. Name one assassination that you can conclusively prove was done by the CIA.
Dan,
I’ve read the comparison with the Reichstag fire.
Some of the earliest credible researchers (PD Scott and Dick Russell come to mind) had the intelligence and logic to concentrate their investigation on the scene of the crime. They paid a good deal of attention to the culture of Dallas and of Texas.
Over the years, that focus – for whatever reasons – shifted primarily to “THE” CIA, in spite of the term being an enormously broad label having no real meaning other than “intelligence,” and striking exclusive images of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. (Jeff Morley’s quest for undisclosed documents has fueled that shift.) If one is to consider the Bay of Pigs as sufficient justification to assassinate an elected president in broad daylight in a young, ultra-conservative city like Dallas, one must also consider this tiny little snippet in reference to the last US Ambassador to Cuba, Philip Bonsal’s “serious concern at the treatment being given American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.” No where in that exchange did Bonsal express concern for freedom loving (Bay of Pigs type) Cubans. Dallas and Texas represent ties to a significant portion of private investment in Cuba at the time.
The shift to THE CIA may also have been induced when more facts surfaced about planned assassination(s) in Miami and Chicago, leading many to believe that Dallas simply happened to be the scene of the crime, and that it could have happened anywhere because the CIA functioned everywhere (which begs the nagging question, why did we as Americans accept that CIA was operating on domestic soil in the first place? Where was our collective outrage?) I am of the opinion that the 3-city theory was part of the cover-up. The three major cities represented diversion and cover for Dallas because all three shared similar characteristics – Miami, Chicago and Dallas were bound together via the Mafia; Miami and Chicago connected through sheer wealth and investment; and Dallas and Chicago connected via the military industrial financial complex; all three shared connections via the intelligence community which I believe were tied to the semi-private effort designed to protect private interests outside of US boundaries. I personally do not believe the assassination would have been successful in any city but Dallas. There would not have been sufficient esoteric meaning in Miami, (the impact of the manner in which the assassination took place in Dallas on our democratic psyche cannot be overstated – Salandria said as much) and Mayor Daly and the Irish community in Chicago would have been difficult to silence in the aftermath in their city.
(Assuming my comment will be posted beyond the aforementioned): on the topic of Allen Dulles, I recently posted this on another thread on this site.
Even Dulles could have been set up as a patsy. I’m not naive when I share the following passage from “Gentleman Spy,” by Peter Grose (pg. 540). Of course Allen Dulles was a master of propaganda and counter intelligence, but I think this is worthy of study:
Dulles: “I shall never forget when I first heard the news of the Dallas tragedy.” …. [John Kennedy] “was a man who hadn’t had a chance really to show his full capabilities,” Allen told Tom Braden in his oral history for the Kennedy Presidential Library. “He’d gone through the very difficult days ….” and here Allen had to recall his own part in making those difficulties. “All that, he had put behind him,” Allen said. “He was at a point to move forward and show us the full possibilities of a very extraordinary man.”
Dulles may have been the master deceiver in the Great Game, but a man of his apparent temperament would never have authorized the assassination without being guaranteed he would get away with it. Who had the power to make that guarantee? His colleagues at Sullivan & Cromwell?
Even Dulles could have been set up as a patsy. I’m not naive when I share the following passage from “Gentleman Spy,” by Peter Grose (pg. 540). Of course Allen Dulles was a master of propaganda and counter intelligence, but I think this is worthy of study:
Dulles: “I shall never forget when I first heard the news of the Dallas tragedy.” …. [John Kennedy] “was a man who hadn’t had a chance really to show his full capabilities,” Allen told Tom Braden in his oral history for the Kennedy Presidential Library. “He’d gone through the very difficult days ….” and here Allen had to recall his own part in making those difficulties. “All that, he had put behind him,” Allen said. “He was at a point to move forward and show us the full possibilities of a very extraordinary man.”
Dulles may have been the master deceiver in the Great Game, but I believe that he would never have authorized the assassination without being guaranteed he would get away with it. Who had the power to make that guarantee?
Of course JFK increased funding for the CIA, expanded its mission, placed it in the forefront of his battle with Castro. He was a fan of clandestine warfare and saw it as a cheap alternative to conventional warfare.
But heck, why bring up documented facts?
I smell psy warfare. The strategy of having leftward truths coming from rightward mouths matches today’s MSNBC, FOX source-weaving strategy.
Of course this will get much more play that real researchers CIA done it books such as those by John Newman, James. W. Douglass etc. And it will get more play PRECISELY because it can be associated with a right wing nut and become easily dismissible for the magazined “””left”””.
Nathaniel,
These are complex nuances. Who gets away with murder if the spotlight continues to adjust ever so subtly to draw ultimate focus on THE CIA? This has been happening primarily over the last decade, and all of the earliest research suggesting a far more complicated assortment of aligned interests behind the assassination is falling by the wayside. Seems to me like everything is on course as charted 50 years ago.
“I smell psy warfare. The strategy of having leftward truths coming from rightward mouths matches today’s MSNBC, FOX source-weaving strategy.”
I guess that’s one possible interpretation.
However, I’d suggest there’s a more obvious and mundane explanation: an author writes a book about the assassination and publicises it to try and whip up some sales.
Unfortunately, all too often in the conspiratorial mindset the obvious and mundane is immediately discarded in favour of something far less verifiable.
Such as: This is yet another element of a carefully orchestrated ongoing disinformation campaign by persons and groups unstated (and presumably unknown).
If this gets more “play” in the media that’s arguably due to the public profile of the author. That’s not to say his argument has any merit of course.
I’m not sure how you get from the release of a book to “psy warfare” in this case. I imagine there must be a lot of dots to join up along the way. At face value, to me anyway, this just seems like an author doing some press to plug his book.