Instead of worrying about CIA files with non-existent references to Lee Oswald, readers in the Birmingham area have the opportunity to see some copies of artwork portraying Agency actions using airborne assets.
One is of a B-26 attacking a column of troops heading to the Bay of Pigs. The original is in the Agency main building in Virginia.
If the CIA was willing to display a piece of artwork at its headquarters that illustrated one of its greatest failures, why would anybody think that that episode generated animosity significant to plan and execute an assassination of a President who gave more support and responsibility to the Agency than any previous President?
I missed this article. It’s one of the best I’ve read on the subject in recent weeks. Even if they do end with a lone nut opinion.
Instead of worrying about CIA files with non-existent references to Lee Oswald, readers in the Birmingham area have the opportunity to see some copies of artwork portraying Agency actions using airborne assets.
One is of a B-26 attacking a column of troops heading to the Bay of Pigs. The original is in the Agency main building in Virginia.
If the CIA was willing to display a piece of artwork at its headquarters that illustrated one of its greatest failures, why would anybody think that that episode generated animosity significant to plan and execute an assassination of a President who gave more support and responsibility to the Agency than any previous President?