Skewering More Absurd Trump - JFK Comparisons

Let us admit that given Donnie J. Dotard's poll numbers are now historically low, it follows his many acolytes would be in full desperation mode  to try rehabilitate his rep. And what better way than by trying to make specious comparisons with John F. Kennedy. In this case, dredging up the most negative or appalling,  claimed JFK  actions (like stealing elections, "coup d'etat's" and "back channels"). As if Kennedy is now on a par with Dotard and his actual documented appalling behavior (grabbing pussies praising white supremacists as 'fine people', laundering dark money from Russian Mafia, and stealing elections with the help of Russkies etc.). I will leave out the incidental 'fluff' analogies or what I call "decorative clutter", i.e.:  which burger bars JFK frequented, what yachts - if any - he used,  or his Palm Beach getaways. None of these get to the core of governance or policies. With that in mind I now respond to the core comparisons made by our friendly Right wing blogger:

He writes:

In foreign policy, the story is even worse. He is planning an invasion of a hostile country, which is almost certain to fail disastrously.

I believe our blogger friend is referring to the Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 - which Kennedy himself admitted was the "biggest blunder" of his career. But it is important to grasp that the plan was NOT crafted or spawned by him or his administration - but by Ike, Dwight D. Eisenhower's. 

Little known by Americans, “Operation Zapata” (aka 'The Cuba Project') was actually initiated and developed during the Eisenhower administration and pushed on Kennedy. (Telling him it was "in the national security interest” to do it). Awed by the conviction and national security patter of an elder president with 8 years in the Oval office, (while he himself was a new-be), JFK took Ike at his word and paid the price.

Most of this didn’t come to light until the discovery of an internal CIA Report on the “Cuba Project”, which had been kept hidden for over 35 years.  The results were released under ‘The Bay of Pigs Declassified’.  It was actually based on the agency’s own internal audit and assessment of its behavior in respect of the event.

According to the declassified report, the Agency committed at least four extremely serious mistakes:

i)                Failure to subject the project, especially in its latter, frenzied stages to a cold and objective appraisal by the best talent available before submitting the final plan to Kennedy

ii)              Failure to advise the President, at an appropriate time, that the mission’s success had become dubious- and to recommend the operation therefore be canceled.

iii)            Failure to recognize the project had become overt and that the military effort had become too large to be handled by the Agency alone

iv)             Failure to reduce successive project plans (dating back to 1959) to formal papers and to leave copies with the President and his advisors, to request specific written approval, confirmation thereof.

The section goes on to note (p. 53):

“The timely and objective scrutiny of the operation in the months before the invasion – including study of all available intelligence- would have demonstrated to Agency officials that the clandestine paramilitary preparations had almost totally failed and there was no responsive underground Cuban force ready to ally with the invaders.”

The commentary is even more critical of the CIA after noting (ibid.) that the United States Intelligence Board, the Office of National Estimates, and Office of Current Intelligence all provided clear warning that a careful reappraisal was needed.

RE: Cancellation (p. 55):

“Cancellation would have been embarrassing. The Brigade could not have been held any longer in ready status, probably not held any longer at all. Further, its members would have spread their disappointment far and wide. Because of multiple security leaks in the huge operation, the world already knew about the preparations, and the Government’s and nation’s embarrassment would have been public”

Re: The Choice (ibid.)

“The choice was between retreat without honor and a gamble between ignominious defeat and dubious victory. The Agency chose to gamble, at rapidly decreasing odds.”

The consensus position of the National Archivists is that JFK was misled by the Agency’s hubris and incompetence. Depending on the CIA for guidance as to intelligence about this operation – in preparation for more than two years-  the Agency blew it and big time. JFK took the blame, yes, but the CIA ultimately was responsible for not advising cancellation when they knew the near zero chances of success, had the opportunity to do so.

As per a Baltimore Sun piece on the above named Report findings ('Internal Probe Blamed Bay of Pigs Fiasco on CIA', p. 6A, Feb. 22, 1998), it was noted:

"The 150-page report, released after sitting in the CIA Director's safe for nearly three decades, blames the disastrous attempt to oust Fidel Castro not on President John F. Kennedy's failure to call airstrikes, but on the agency itself."


"The CIA's ignorance, incompetence, and arrogance toward the 1,400 exiles it trained and equipped to mount the invasion was responsible for the fiasco, said the report, obtained by the Associated Press yesterday."

"The document criticized almost every aspect of the CIA's handling of the invasion: misinforming Kennedy administration officials, planning poorly, using faulty intelligence and conducting an overt military operation beyond 'agency responsibility as well as agency capability'."

In the wake of the Bay  of Pigs fiasco, and learning how badly he’d been played, JFK fired Allan Dulles – the then CIA Director  -  and asserted his willingness to “smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” He also fired Charles Cabell, the deputy CIA director at the time and unwittingly laid the basis for the national security state to act against him.

Our friend adds:

He has established a secret back-channel which he intends to use in times of crisis to communicate secretly with the Kremlin. Yet he is willing to risk nuclear war. And he has no objection to the assassination of political enemies and coups against allied governments.

This again discloses historical ignorance. The "back channel" to which he refers was simply a means of extraordinary diplomatic contact in time of emergency. The emergency was an impending nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. At issue was whether a communication received from the Soviet Embassy - rejecting a resolution to the crisis -  was the "final word" or a missive sent before the Embassy had received JFK's initial message. Hence, the contact was one of crucial clarification, and enabled a peaceful resolution without nuclear war. There was no "risking of nuclear war" precisely because Kennedy (and Khrushchev) went the extra mile to avoid it. 

Our Trump-backing blogger goes over the top in his claim of "no objection to assassination of political enemies."  Indeed, the most Kennedy would do in the case of Nixon or others who harassed him was make fun, as in press conferences.   If our friend is instead referring to the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro that was done as part of Operation ZR Rifle, initiated and sustained by the denizens of the CIA.  This program was overseen by top spook William Harvey, who with his minions kept Kennedy out of the loop.  Harvey, for his part, led the agency's assassination operations as far back as the Eisenhower administration and likely had even expanded the CIA's  original basic assassinations handbook for foreign hits based on a 1954 operation ("PBSuccess") in Guatemala, e.g.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

Harvey  feuded constantly with JFK's brother Robert, over the administration's crisis with Cuba.

His other claim about "coups against allied governments"  makes it sound as if JFK  was overthrowing all kinds of allied nations, which is total codswallop. What he's probably referring  to is the CIA overthrow of the Diem brothers  and their killing in South Vietnam - which I've explained multiple times already.  As I explained in one (Oct. 15, 2014) post,  Kennedy had been in a test of wills and missions with the CIA since the Bay of Pigs and his firing of Allen Dulles  One of his retaliatory measures was to create  a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), responsible to him, and soon mandating all overflights of Cuba be done by the Strategic Air Command, not the CIA. He also defined a list of directives on what the CIA could and could not, do. By the end of 1961, JFK's 'Special Group' had no less than 17 recommendations for the "reorganization and redirection of the CIA".

The CIA, however, retaliated by withholding intelligence from Kennedy, including the plans to assassinate Castro via ZR Rifle.  Kennedy got his  final wake up call on who was controlling his government when, in an early September, 1963 meeting he was informed by a David Bell of AID (a CIA cover organization) that the funds from the Commodity Import Aid Program had “already been cut off”,  essentially assuring a coup would ensue with the Diem government in South Vietnam. (Source 'JFK and the Unspeakable', p. 192).  

Kennedy was evidently livid and directly asked Bell who had told him to do that, to which Bell replied, “No one” (ibid.). The will to power disclosed here indicates the CIA felt it more powerful than Kennedy’s government. If it felt that, it would also feel it could take him out if he crossed them any more - which threshold was likely transgressed when he commenced a secret  rapprochement with Castro in late 1962.  (The Diems themselves were killed in a black ops hit on Nov. 2 1963)

Yet this same president has the temerity to go to Europe and make speeches about the need to defend “western civilization.”

Yes, he did and he more than merited giving those fine speeches because he front and center cultivated important alliances, as with the German Chancellor  (Konrad Adenauer) and others. Also vowing to protect Berlin and insure critical supplies were air lifted into that besieged city.  Rather different than Trump not even having the courtesy to shake Chancellor Angela Merkel's hand when she visited the Oval Office, and accusing the Germans of all sorts of trivial nonsense.

Oh hell…my bad, the “guy” I just described is NOT President Trump – but none other than old JFK!

Yep, JFK is the one who had the requisite upbringing to display common courtesies to real allies, as opposed to one Donald Trump - ignoring Angela Merkel at the White House and even pushing aside the leader of Montenegro at a G7 confab six months ago.  No, Donnie Dotard would rather grovel before autocratic, murdering dictators like Duterte in the Philippines and Erdogan of Turkey .

As is now well known, JFK had numerous extramarital affairs. One was with Judith Campbell, whose other lovers included the Chicago organized crime boss Sam Giancana and his sidekick Johnny Roselli.

Yes, he did have those affairs - though at the time he was unaware of the mob connections. And while he did have those affairs they were consensual. He did not go around bragging about "grabbing pussies" or going behind the doors at the Miss Universe contests and leering at the women as they dressed or undressed - not to mention trying to grab their breasts and crotches. ("They let you do it!")

His compulsive infidelity to his wife Jackie, was only one of JFK’s many deceptions. Throughout his political career, he concealed the severity of his medical problems (he suffered from acute back pain, hypothyroidism, and Addison’s disease).

Let's take the last charge first: Yes, JFK did conceal his Addison's disease and back pain. Why? Because he believed a man (and a president)  ought to suck it up and not whine like a little bitch - like Trump did with his bone spurs to get out of Vietnam. And yes, JFK had been unfaithful - just as many other presidents were at different times (e.g. FDR, Bill Clinton, James A. Garfield, Warren G. Harding etc.)   Also,  Kennedy's dalliances were always behind closed doors and away from prying eyes. Discretion was the key. More to the point of difference, he never came out (like Trump) and bragged openly of sexually assaulting women - grabbing their genitals or breasts. JFK wouldn't reach for a woman's private parts unless she granted her consent..  So he didn't just run amuck as Trump did, grabbing at the Miss Universe contestants.

Nor would JFK ever have been so fucking dumb as to be caught in a Russian Kompromat - as Trump was. As the Steele Dossier notes, 

"Trump's perverted conduct in Moscow (2013) included hiring the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel. where he knew President and Mrs. Obama (whom he hated) had  stayed on one of their official trips to Russia, and defiling the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers'  (urination) show in front of him.   The hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to."

Now, there is no reason at all to doubt this account - despite the fact the breathless media has declared it the most contentious (and "salacious") part of the dossier. The reason is that the reported behavior (from Steele's  "Source E") is perfectly compatible with Trump's psychological profile of malignant narcissism and vengeful payback. It is indeed exactly what this POS would do to a bed that he knew the Obamas had slept in. And moreover, this behavior is totally consistent with that of a loathsome asshole who brags about grabbing pussies.

His campaign is said to have called on Mafia assistance to defeat Richard Nixon in 1960. 

Not quite true. His father, Joe, had actually asked Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's assistance with Illinois.  The unvarnished truth here: Kennedy didn't need Illinois's 27 electoral votes. He ended up with 303 total.  Do the math as we hope our friend does: . 303 - 27 = 276. Kennedy still  wins.

In foreign policy, Kennedy combined callousness with recklessness. His questionable interventions ranged from an abortive invasion of Cuba to a bloody coup d’état in South Vietnam.

These two canards were already dispelled earlier,

On his watch, the CIA sought to assassinate Fidel Castro using Mafia hit-men.

At the time this would have occurred "under any president's watch."   After the CIA's Bay of Pigs debacle and JFK's vow to "break it into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the four winds". the agency had morphed into a rogue organization. Then William Harvey's bunch - using mob assets-  took it upon itself to kill Castro. The agency also sought vengeance -for JFK's  firing of its boss Allen Dulles (later appointed by LBJ to the Warren Commission) by withholding key intelligence concerning its operations to do with Cuba.  This was until Kennedy broke up the agency's plans by ordering an FBI raid on  an Operation Mongoose supply camp at Lake Pontchartrain,  Louisiana in 1963.

On his watch, the Berlin Wall was built, the ugliest symbol of the Cold War division of the world.

 So wait! You're going to blame JFK for that!? Our friend appears to need to bone up on the post- WWII history of Europe and especially Germany - which was divided into East and West parts, as well as Berlin. For his information the wall was erected on Soviet territory and the only way to have stopped it would have been to launch a war against the Russians. Which, of course, would have triggered a nuclear war. Doubtless what his master Dotard would have done.

And on his watch, the world came closer than at any other time to nuclear Armageddon, during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. How was catastrophe averted? By using a back channel to the Kremlin to cut a secret deal.

This was dealt with earlier.  And let us note he's right the world "never came closer to nuclear war" but that is exactly why it was good JFK was in office and not the unhinged "fire and fury"  Donnie Dotard. The imp who fancies letting Russian whores piss all over him to defile the bed a previous president slept in - in a Moscow hotel.  Again, also, it wasn't an actual "back channel" but a diplomatic emergency communications channel - which he ought to be down on his knees applauding right now - else we wouldn't even be having this exchange.

But this is the desperation the Trump acolytes and groupies  must resort to now as their little idiot sinks further in the polls. And in national disgrace.

There are also resemblances between President Trump’s prior Warsaw speech and the speeches JFK made in Europe, which routinely extolled the benefits of Western civilization.

And, as I mentioned in my last post, if  JFK had been a Repub, he would have been treated with the same ferocious animosity that Trump is treated today, for acts much less heinous than those of JFK.

Uh, there are actually NO resemblances unless one has a fantastic imagination. The Trump Warsaw speech was actually a paean to fascists and autocrats - i.e. latter day Nazis and Nazi wannabes.  Given JFK had intelligence, grace, culture and wit - as opposed to egotistic megalomania - there is no way he'd be treated like Trump even if he was a GOOPr. But then he'd never be a GOOP because be always made fun of them and their hide bound, business first mentality. As when he once commented during a campaign speech:

" I run against a candidate who reminds me of the symbol of his party, the circus elephant, with his head full of ivory, a long memory and no vision..."

And… it’s a pretty safe bet that no Dem today would dream of running on JFK’s approach to government or embrace his political beliefs. 

Probably true, but that is exactly WHY JFK was assassinated! Hence, no Dem to my knowledge would run on the same sort of bold program including (as JFK did) pulling out of Vietnam, and forging a nuclear test ban treaty with Khrushchev that also prevented deployment of anti- missile systems.

And…as I also mentioned, JFK was an ardent tax-cutter who championed across-the-board, top-to-bottom reductions in personal and corporate tax rates, slashed tariffs to promote free trade, and even spoke out against the “confiscatory” property taxes being levied in too many cities.

Uh, I already dispelled this tomfoolery in my previous post on Trump -JFK comparisons. Please read it again, my friend. And try to process how manifestly illogical it would be for an "ardent tax cutter" to be pilloried in the financial press as a "statist" and for "welfare spending".  It's interesting this blogger has high praise for JFK when he imagines him doing something similar to what Trump did (even when his belief is totally erroneous) but smears Kennedy's actions as "heinous" when they're perceived to diverge. Namely, on all those dozens of  occasions JFK shows he's 100 times the president Dotard will ever be, especially in enacting wide benefit tax cuts, bringing the country through a real nuclear crisis with high level diplomacy, and forging actual binding alliances with other genuine allies - as opposed to pandering to thugs or using a hostile foreign power to get elected

.

Let's also recall JFK -  by his eloquent speeches and appeals to the best in human nature ("Ask not what your country can do for your but what you can do for your country") - elevated civil discourse and didn't degrade it,  or sow divisions (unlike Dotard's incessant tweet attacks and rabble rousing).

Yep, it's no wonder Right bloggers like this - wallowing in their bubbles-  would push the envelope of veracity and even destroy it to try and make believe their goon Dotard is even one hundredth the man and president John F. Kennedy was. When in fact, he isn't fit to lick the soles of JFK's wingtips.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/76886/it-wasnt-the-elites-trump-merely-roused-the-rabble

Excerpt:

"I'd argue that elites and elitism themselves were far less of an electoral factor than the historical proclivity of many Americans to blindly and ignorantly rage — to put it in the vernacular — against their betters. That's what enabled Donald Trump's election. The difference between elites' (presumed) smugness and the rabble's resentment is perhaps a small, but nonetheless important, distinction."

A TV Series ('11-22-63') As Dumb As The Book It's Based Upon

King's book (11-22-63) is based on a total fictional take.  So the TV series like the book is based on the "Oswald dunnit" myth.

Teacher Jack Epping studies Dealy Plaza layout

More evidence the elites and their propaganda lackeys are doing their best to get Americans to accept the canned nonsense and BS that Lee Oswald killed JFK: a new TV series (to run as a streaming vehicle on Hulu) based on Stephen King's daffy pseudo-sci fi novel '11-22-63'.

As I noted at the time King's  '11/22/63' came out, he admitted creating his lead character,  school teacher "Jack Epping", to attempt to travel back in time to stop the "nasty, snarling" (in one perp walk photo King referenced in an MSNBC interview in 2011) Lee Harvey Oswald "from carrying out his foul deed". So King, having been suckered into the Oswald dunnit myth,  decided to write an 849 page "gorilla of a book" to further the crass disinformation disgorged in the Warren Report.

The problem is that King's thesis is bollocks. It is based on the false historical presumption that Lee Harvey Oswald was the perpetrator and sole assassin. (Thanks to the Warren Commission, which was really a creature of Lyndon Johnson, as opposed to an official government investigation such as the 1978-79 House Subcommittee on Assassinations which found a "96% probability of conspiracy")

That King,  the media and the powers behind it could even believe they can sell this pile of ripe merde is beyond belief.  Not only that, but that they could make an eight part adaptation of the book, and enlist 500 extras to participate in this sham - as well as actors like Chris Cooper and James Franco. (Not to mention shutting down the center of Dallas for 2 days to "recreate the scene" - according to a recent TV Guide account)

In his original 'Morning Joe' interview on Nov. 16, 2011 King declared:

"I am prepared to get my ass kicked by conspiracy theorists on my book tour!"

And indeed he did, as researcher after researcher held this horror hack's feet to the fire for getting abundant facts wrong and revising history wholesale in his gargantuan novel - that almost rivals Vince Bugliosi's bunkum ('Reclaiming History')  in its fictional license and liberties.

When Scarborough pressed him for the basis, say avoiding a conspiracy plot, King was blunt.

"You know, Ockham's Razor and all".

Okay, hold it right there!  Invoking Ockham only works properly when applied  to a hypothesis concerning a natural event, or phenomenon! The reason is simple: we expect all natural events or phenomena to conform to a limited number of defined natural laws, including: the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy law), Newton's laws of motion, and the conservation of mass -energy. In addition, the primary attribute of most natural laws is the simplicity of their hypotheses, i.e. economy of assumptions.

The problem inherent in applying it to the Kennedy assassination is that this event is a fundamentally HUMAN driven act not a natural act or based on a natural phenomenon. It is imbued with human motivations, plans and agendas. Indeed, it is  the plausible presence of human subjective contamination that automatically places the event in the realm of the  unnatural  so that Ockham's Razor cannot be logically applied.

In effect, we are making a deliberate separation between the causes and effects which govern the natural world, say like solar eclipses, coronal mass ejections, asteroid flybys etc. and those which govern human affairs. The latter are enmeshed in complexes of emotions and ideological agendas that can't be quantified like Newton's laws of motion, or simplistically reduced to one cause-one effect relationships. In addition, humans - unlike natural laws- are capable of deceit and misdirection. So, from many points of view, it would be foolhardy to reduce the realm of human behavior - including putative conspiracy - to the model applicable to simple natural laws. It would require something basically approaching a general denial that humans would or could ever act with duplicity. Which is total nonsense.

From this point of view, King ought to be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing - or that Ockham's Razor could legitimately be generalized and used as a litmus test as if the Kennedy assassination were like a solar eclipse or the planetary occultation of a star.

King did refer in his 2011 interview to assorted "conspiracy theories" (which he claimed to have investigated), but they were all of the weakest variety: the Mafia -Sam Giancana Mob theory - i.e. the Mob whacked him because he set his brother Bobby - as Attorney General - loose on the mob with his hearings, when Giancana & Co. allegedly allowed JFK to win Chicago and hence Illinois electoral votes in 1960; or "the Cubans did it" conspiracy, i.e. a cabal of disaffected Cubans nailed him for not providing air cover during the Bay of Pigs and so allowing them to be captured by Castro's revolutionaries and imprisoned. And lastly, the 'Fidel did it" theory - that Castro engineered the assassination to get back at Kennedy (for allowing the assorted CIA attempts on his life)

Nowhere,  at no point, either in his book or in his interview (or the Hulu adaptation),  is the key evidence cited that character Epping would need: the CIA's  201-289248 CI/SIG file on Oswald (released after the JFK Records Act) bearing the letter ‘D’ on the cover sheet,  indicating  a CIA Staff D, or SIGINT (signals intelligence) operation run in concert with the National Security  Agency or NSA. As pointed out by Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics Quarterly, Jan. 1994): “In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D, he was assigned the task of developing the CIA Assassinations Project, ZR/Rifle”

Most researchers who are serious understand that ZR/Rifle at the behest of Harvey was re-directed against JFK. The tipping point for most of us was when the spooks - like David Atlee Phillips, e.g

became aware of Kennedy's efforts at rapprochement with Castro, via aide William Atwood. (It had been Phillips who ran all the cut outs (fake personae, duplicate Oswalds, fake files etc. ) to implicate Oswald as a commie nut in league with the KGB and Soviets – all the better to paint him as the one lone nut assassin in Dallas.

This has been known for over 20 years by researchers and yet King's character (and King himself) were evidently too dense or clueless to patch it together.

King then ran off the rails, displaying even more lack of attention to historical details, by asserting to Joe Scarborough that:

"Oswald won Hell's Lottery!"

He made this offhand blurtation in connection to Oswald being hired at the Texas School Book Depository on Oct. 16, 1963, or a mere six days before the assassination. But it was no "lottery" that he won, rather being targeted by Ruth Paine to ensure he was there in order to play the patsy role. King made reference to Paine and her testimony that Lee left his keys, and other possessions as he left for work on the fateful day. All of which are lies.

Paine herself was a deceitful, untrustworthy witness who never truthfully acknowledged, either before the Warren Commission or a later New Orleans Grand Jury, that her sister (Sylvia Hyde Hoke) in fact worked for the CIA - while her husband's (Michael's) mother, Ruth Forbes Paine Young, was connected to Allen Dulles (the former CIA Chief) who JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs. (James Douglass, 2008, JFK and the Unspeakable, Orbis Books, p. 169)

Let us also recall that Dulles was appointed by LBJ as one of the Warren Commissioners. Between Dulles and Hoover (LBJ's good pal) all the documents and access for the Warren Commission could easily be managed and cherry -picked to drive the conclusion toward the lone nut nonsense. The latter did, however, serve a purpose in the warped reality of the Warrenites - as it justified the Commission avoiding the Oswald as KGB assassin  ruse.

Ruth Paine, who King seemed to hold up as some kind of unquestioned paragon, also never acknowledged in any of her testimony that she withheld from Lee the news of a better paying job offer made on Oct. 15. This came by way of phone call to the Paine Residence from Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission. According to the documented materials presented by author James Douglass (op. cit., p. 171):

"Adams spoke with someone at the Paines' number about his being prepared to give Oswald referral for permanent employment as a baggage handler at Trans Texas Airways for a salary $100 a month higher than that offered by the Book Depository's temporary job".

Adams then left a message with whoever took his call for Oswald to contact him about the job, but this was never done. Adams tried to phone for Oswald the next day, and was told he "wasn't here". Why? Why wasn't the better paying job information passed on to Oswald? Given Paine's background, and her connections to CIA people like her sister and Allen Dulles, the obvious reason is to put the patsy in place.

Here in a nutshell is the real reason King chose to do the hackneyed "Oswald dunnit" theme for his book, as well as the streaming Hulu adaptation: He was bloody lazy and it was a damned sight easier to regurgitate the official humbug than having to do real research and dig up the actual conspiracy (which we now tie to the CIA and William Harvey in the NSA via the Staff D operations and Oswald's CI/SIG file).  

Even TIME in its recent (Feb. 15, p. 55) write up about this farce essentially calls it out as being too simplistic to demand an 8-part series. ("The premise is so simple that conspiracy theories don't even enter into it.")  The problem then becomes violating a fictional version of Ockham's by expanding the fictional purview far beyond what is actually needed to narrate the pseudo-account.

Thus, a single lone nut-based story ought to wrap up in 4 parts or less. Obviously, a real conspiracy theme - tracking down conspirators like David Atlee Phillips, George Joannides and others-  would take more. Not to mention lead character Epping having to track down all three teams of assassins in Dealey Plaza (triangulation of gunfire) to stop JFK's murder as opposed to just one guy in one building. THAT would have delivered a real impact as well as logically- justified suspense, excitement as opposed to the phony, contrived alternative on offer from Hulu.

But as TIME notes: "Eight parts is too many and the series goes down several blind alleys".

Ignoring the main point that the whole Oswald dunnit angle is a blind alley, the biggest of all. At least King -- in his interviews- could have admitted he lacked the patience or background to put more ballast into his work. But rather than do that he again took the facile path of blasting "conspiracy theorists" like a true Warrenite toadie.

Apart from all these revisionist historical sore points, there is the technical one that it is simply impossible to go back in time 50+ years in a physical form. (Even leaving out the well -known 'grandfather paradox').  Stephen Hawking's own temporal axiom - which he cited in an April 1990 'PLAYBOY' interview(p. 83) -  notes that even if a theoretical time travel technique could be developed one could never traverse to a time or event earlier than the point at which the machine was made. If that was in 1999 then one can't go back any further. (However, in my up and coming scifi novel, 'The Lancer Expedition', a team of historians and physicists is able to project its Goldstone bosons - linked to consciousness - back to the event to at least document what actually transpires.)

Rather than watch this tripe, viewers are better served by watching anything else, say like 'Amazing Race' or even 'Survivor'.  Their time would be much better spent, especially in avoiding being propagandized by this BS.

Tom Hanks Finally Gets To Broadcast His JFK Anti-Conspiracy Bollocks ( In Miniature)

Vince Bugliosi -author of 'Reclaiming History' - figures prominently in Tom Hanks' recycled propaganda piece on the Kennedy assassination.

Imagine assembling a cavalcade of talking heads with some name cachet to dispute and attempt to skewer the evidence that John F. Kennedy was assassinated in a conspiracy. It would require some degree of moxie especially if one also was a self-proclaimed "Kennedy liberal".  But this was Tom Hanks, as he catapulted himself from the fictional Forrest Gump to would- be modern pop historian of record, most recently in a CNN 1-hour presentation on the JFK assassination.

Most people are aware that pop historians Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman were to have completed a 13 part HBO series on the event based on Vince Bugliosi's ridiculous book 'Reclaiming History" - to support the Warren Commission whitewash. This was to be for the 50th anniversary year (2013).  Hanks went so far as to say in one Truthdig interview that he intended to "do the American public a service" - because they "have been snookered into believing that Lee Harvey Oswald was framed."  .  Evidently, Hanks,  Goetzman and Bugliosi were convinced that Gerald Posner's earlier, two -bit hatchet job 'Case Closed' wasn't enough - and they were right. Within a short time critics had exposed all of Posner's tricks, omissions, distortions and disinformation which the interested reader can peruse here:

http://assassinationweb.com/twpos.htm

So Hanks' job was formidable: to do what Gerald Posner was unable to. Recall when I told German friends at the Zugspitze about Hanks' grandiose plans they howled with laughter and asked 'Who was trying to snooker who?'  Most couldn't believe a high grade comic actor would deign to produce a historical series about Kennedy.  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/germans-tom-hanks-wasting-his-time-with.html

One can, of course, inquire into Hanks' bona fides as a Kennedy historian of any type. Those who want the details (Goetzman's too) can  check out Jim Di Eugenio's superb book, 'Reclaiming Parkland',  where we learn Hanks first rose to some minor theatrical prominence at Skyline High School in Oakland, CA, and subsequently entered Chabot Community College in Hayward, CA as a drama specialist.  Hanks - as Di Eugenio notes- basically has no history creds at all, but he did rise to stardom with 'Splash" and then - after becoming a household name - met Gary Goetzman on the set of 'Philadelphia'. The rest, as they say, is history and the pair went on to make a set of historical series, starting with 'Band of Brothers' on HBO.

That these guys even read the full Warren Report, the official government report (released by the HSCA)  or any of the recently released files under the JFK Records Act is doubtful. As Di Eugenio put it ((p. 16):

"How did these men get into a position to make such momentous public decisions about highly controversial and very important historical issues."

Well, because of their connections - especially to media elites and propagandizers (like Vince Bugliosi, and Max Holland) with an axe to grind about anything that raises the issue of conspiracy.

But let us fast forward.

Hanks' Kennedy conspiracy- skewering extravaganza never made it to HBO, even after he and Goetzman pared it down to nine parts and pleaded with the producers re: its "import". But the decision of the honchos at HBO was that it would be a ratings disaster and the details those like Bugliosi would go into,  would simply cause viewers' eyes to glaze over.  In addition, Hanks' previous project, 'The Pacific', didn't draw the numbers of his earlier popular history efforts, e.g. Band of Brothers. So the project had to be mothballed.

But who knew at the time that this historical fiasco would be resurrected but in distilled,  miniature form? Thus, it appears Hanks and Goetzman were bound and determined to get this propaganda promotion (maybe for the CIA?)  on the air in some form, and with some cooperating media outfit. Evidently, they succeeded with CNN - in a series televised over last weekend entitled 'The Sixties'. One of the episodes was 'The Kennedy Assassination' and as soon as I spotted Hanks and Goetzman's names (as executive producers)  I figured they might try a hit job on JFK lone nut skeptics in that episode. I was absolutely correct.

To their credit they present actual historical footage from the times, including Oswald's being paraded through the Dallas police station and also being asked questions by reporters  - which would never happen today.  He provides responses that are all consistent with Peter Dale Scott's evidence that he was methodically framed by the security state to act as the patsy. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html

Where it turns into propaganda is the edited insertion of dissing talking heads, starting with Bugliosi himself. There we see the former Manson prosecutor whining in a tinny voice that "everything he said was provably a lie" . But, of course, we now know just about everything Bugliosi said about Oswald was a lie, and the Warren Report he and his associates defend so vigorously is just a tissue of lies woven into more lies (as well as fake exhibits). But this despicable affront to American intelligence was given the mantle of probity by assembling  a set of commissioners possessing a veneer of name gravitas.  See my FAQs on the WC here for its many failings, omissions, and suborning detritus that really ought to have outraged any real lawyer:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_13.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_14.html

Bugliosi immediately follows his "lies" outburst by asserting  Oswald was a "nut" and once that was "learned" his prosecution as the lone gunman became inevitable. In fact, Bugliosi had become prey to the very media canards Peter Dale Scott exposed in his 'Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics’, e.g. that of a:

"neurotic frustrated by neglect, and 'angered' (Posner's words) that 'others failed to recognize the stature he thought he deserved."

This codswallop was then additionally integrated into the CIA- confected narrative that Oswald was a "KGB -linked assassin"  hired to kill Kennedy. Under the tutelage of Warren Commissioner Dulles, it was decided to drop it and pursue the lone gunman narrative instead. The spooks agreed they didn't want to use an unproven bit of nonsense to frighten the American people to death after assembling a compendium of lies.

Alas, these illustrious historical actors presented by Hanks and Goetzman included Allen Dulles - the very CIA head JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs and who set up his own anti-Kennedy gov't in the wake to bring Kennedy down by hook or crook- or bullets see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/convergence-of-two-important-books.html

Bugliosi soon appears again, bellyaching that  "conspiracy theorists had  dug so deeply they had ended up splitting hairs then splitting the split hairs until the Kennedy case had become the most complex ever known". Of course, this is outrageous hyper-bullshit. In fact, all that happened is that when actual files (previously withheld) were finally released under the JFK Records Act in 1992 researchers finally had the material they needed to pursue the case in all its dimensions, including: Clay Shaw's CIA contract agent number,  Oswald's CIA files (CI/SIG and 74-500), and the fact that Kennedy had planned to pull all personnel out of Vietnam by 1965 via National Security Action Memorandum 263.

There followed stock footage of Oswald's murder by Jack Ruby which saw other media heads visibly pouting in their expressed outrage,  as if no one could be stupid enough to challenge the finding that good ol' Jack simply acted out of his heart as a latter day cowpoke who took down the 'bad guy'.  (But he did have a personal motive: he wanted to drive more business to his 'Carousel Club' - as the place owned by the guy who killed the big, bad assassin. NO thought that he'd be in the slammer for his misdeeds).

Oh, then there was the objection that hey, Ruby was a "groupie"  of the Dallas cops and always came to the station, so WHY would any dolt think it was "unusual" he was there? The odds are, well,.....astronomical!  Another pompous gasbag spouted that "Ruby had only a few minutes to get into the station" i.e. from where he'd been earlier, "so how the heck could he have been sure to be armed and known Oswald would be there so he could shoot him?" The "limited time" disproved it.

Sorry, Roscoe, it doesn't. (Also, controverting evidence shows Ruby had more than ample time to get inside and get a good shot)

Ruby's very regular presence likely made him privy to the scuttlebutt that Oswald was being moved to a new site, so was aware of the day and time and brought his weapon. As gangster Johnny Roselli confessed to one source (before he was to appear before the HSCA) :  "Of course Jack did it, to silence Oswald!" After which Roselli found himself in the Intracoastal waterway off Miami gutted like a fish and crammed inside a waste can. Escaping gases from the corpse caused the can to rise to the surface as reported by Gaeton Fonzi in 'The Last Investigation' (the HSCA real gov't investigation that Hanks and Goetzman omit.)

The only one with the sober take, amidst all Hanks' parading puppets, was Oswald's mother, who told it straight that she believed Ruby was a "hired killer to shut the mouth of Lee Oswald".  Subsequently released files disclose she nailed it.

On the segment to do with Jim Garrison, all the venomous claims and slanders made against him are interjected, as well as images of Clay Shaw - holding the New Orleans States -Item in his hands with the front page reading, 'NOT GUILTY!' and yucking it up   More Hanks' selected  talking heads follow, yapping how the case was tossed out. Well, of course it was, since the Judge in the case (Haggerty)  refused to allow Garrison to cite or introduce Shaw's alias, 'Clay Bertrand'.

Like most of the content of this blatant hit job, no mention is made that after the JFK Records Act and files release, the CIA DID fess up that Shaw was a contract agent and worked for them. As CIA Doc. (JFK 1993: 6.28.16.07.26.560280) notes:

"A memorandum marked for files says that J. Monroe Sullivan, #280201, was granted a covert security  approval as of 10 December 1962 so he could be used in Project QKENCHANT [Clay L. Shaw has #402897]"

Under the CIA  banner QKENCHANT one is cleared for intelligence procurement. Such clearance meant you were a safe contact  for the Agency and hence could be used as a "cut out" (employing an alias)  , with the CIA giving you only a certain amount of information. Clay Shaw then, had the ability to recruit other agents, thereby granting them security approvals. From the available files disclosed long after Garrison's efforts ended, Shaw used his QKENCHANT clearance to "plan or coordinate CIA activities" as well as "initiate relationships with non-Agency persons or institutions." In this guise, Shaw was effectively part of the CIA's clandestine services with Covert Security Approval, working under cover.  

Not skipping a beat, Hanks then brings in "experts" like Arlen Specter and some low level Warrenite stooges and media twerps to disparage the skeptics who found fault with the single bullet theory. A 2-dimensional plan overview of the limo and the positions of JFK and Connally are shown to refute the critics SBT objections - with Bugliosi arguing that Connally was not really seated directly in front of Kennedy, a perspective achieved by altering Connally's  seat position relative to JFK in the rear.  They'd have certainly managed to convince many people that yes indeed, that single bullet could find its way through both men to make seven wounds and emerge barely scathed. BUT....if one goes to the sideways diagram, and appeals to the records track, one finds the horse fly in the ointment, e.g..



The "horse fly" is at the entry point in JFK's back. Recall that early on the Warren whitewashers realized their original sketch of the bullet entry wouldn't work:

The upper inclined blue arrow shows the trajectory of the bullet that the Warren Commission first believed would be needed in order to account for BOTH the JFK back wound AND the neck wound - then entering Connally to make his wounds.

The problem was that with the upward angle trajectory the shooter would've had to have been firing literally  from street level,   which would have eliminated a TSBD shooter (alleged to be Oswald). Thus, at least one WC member (Gerald Ford) realized for the SBT to work the Commission's drawing had to reset the placement higher - changing it to the light yellow trajectory through the base of the neck, and a downward angle.. .

The initial draft of the report(conforming to the blue upward trajectory)  had  stated:


"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine." 

Ford altered it to read:

"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."
 
Clearly, Ford wanted the document to conform with the single bullet myth  (requiring now the yellow shot arrow) and would stoop to altering a document on record to attain the goal.  The problem for Ford and the Warrenites is one of basic anatomy. The original autopsy sheet, including the placement and description of the back wound, was signed and verified by Admiral George Gregory Burkley, personal physician to the president who directed the autopsy at Bethesda. He verified the back wound placement on November 24th .

That death certificate revealed the back wound to be, in the Admiral's own words, at the president's "third thoracic vertebra.”  The neck has seven CERVICAL vertebrae, and this observed and verified wound was described as three THORACIC vertebrae lower than the neck itself.

The final report then read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." Ford insisted this was “a small change, …intended to clarify meaning, not alter history”. But alter history is exactly what it did! For by altering the original autopsy report, Ford and his cohorts succeeded in conferring a measure of validity on Specter’s single bullet theory. This is despite the fact that analysis of the resulting trajectory doesn’t even conform to basic laws of Newtonian dynamics!

To make matters worse for Ford et al, the throat wound was described by Parkland surgeon Malcolm Perry (who should know his business given having to deal with multiple Dallasites' gunshot wounds at Parkland) as an ENTRY wound..

Cleverly, Hanks and his parade of propagandizers made reference to none of this. But that is the special talent of Hanks and Goetzman: to frame viewer perceptions by omission. (In the preceding episode, "The World On the Brink", they omit any mention of Kennedy evolving away from his cold warrior pose after the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the violent opposition of Gen. Curtis Lemay to Kennedy's naval blockade during it. They also omit his documented rapprochement with Fidel Castro. But then they obviously would know that would have given the security warhawks a prima facie case to kill him.)

Interspersed throughout we see and hear all the Warren Commission groupies and puppets, from yes, Max Holland, to Vince Bugliosi to David Susskind and assorted Jim Garrison critics.  They note at the time a majority of Americans don't buy the Warren Report - for all the reasons I have cited ad infinitum, and we hear these varied snarky mini-speeches - as if to lecture any viewers they damned well ought to know better:

Trying to add more reinforcement to the hit job Hanks et al then get this bit of canned, subjective insight from Priscilla Johnson McMillan (author of 'Marina and Lee')  :

"If you understood the Walker shooting, you knew Lee was like a cocked rifle. He could go off at any time".

The true fact is that Lee had nothing to do with the Walker shooting, but why fret over facts when Hanks and Goetzman can recruit willing disinformationists to do their dirty work. McMillan, as later records disclosed, worked as a research pawn for the CIA, so it's no surprise her book would be framed the way it is (that Lee was this seething loose cannon). See:

http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-cia.htm

 A salient point to make which McMillan omits: the slug found at the scene was from a 30.06 as reported from the FBI files cited in Mark North’s excellent book Act of Treason (page 255). So how did a 30.06 rifle mutate into Oswald’s alleged 6.5 mm Mannlicher –Carcano some months later, when all the evidence is Oswald never fired such or was ever photographed with such?  Why would Hoover, the FBI, the Warren Commission and the Dallas Police be so eager to hang this shooting on Oswald, to later implicate him in the JFK assassination? Mark North again has the answer:

“Hoover, the Dallas P.D. and the Warren Commission realized early on that an examination of Oswald’s past reveals only a pacifist engaged in leftist activism. Simply put, he is nonviolent”

North aptly points out (ibid.) subsequently that the Walker shooting – like other “media myths” -  was totally unrelated to the assassination and further:

“would have faded into total obscurity but for the fiction that will be created on 11/22/63”

One does have to hand it to Hanks and Goetzman for clever editing and inserting all the most gravitas-resonating voices of the time, including Eric Sevareid, and Walter Cronkite to instill the meme that finding for conspiracy is all about finding "comfort" in a brutish random world where-  according to Sevareid:  "power and majesty can be wiped out in an instant by a skinny, weak-chinned little character".

After all, at least a conspiracy provides a sense of "order", where a lone nut killer is "random".  Of course, a real conspiracy involving the national security state is a billion times more upsetting to a sane person - given it implies any President can be removed by force. A lone gunman scenario would be balm by comparison given it would mean a plausible 'one off' and not that systematic killers are lurking to take out anyone who steps too far out of  line. Do these two fools- Hanks and Goetzman-  really believe Americans to be that fucking stupid? Evidently they do!

Hey! Allen Dulles didn't look that skinny and "weak-chinned" to me!

And then we are treated to the authoritative voice of Walter Cronkite:

"What would be more comfortable? Accepting a lone assassin, or believing a second assassin suddenly materialized out of thin air, fired a shot and disappeared again without leaving a trace of his rifle, his bullet or any other sign of existence?"

But barely ten years after "Uncle Walter" said those words, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) did find for a "96 percent probability" of a second gunman based on acoustic tests done by MIT researchers. While a special gov't appointed team attempted to refute it, they failed, and moreover none of them were bona fide  acoustic specialists like the MIT group.

Then there is  pseudo-historian Robert Dallek, husking through his teeth:

"They don't want to believe that something so random would have occurred."

Well, uh yeah, Robert, especially when the alleged rifle couldn't even be made to replicate Oswald's purported shots in test trials! See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-fhe-jfk.html

To make matters worse, he resorts to false analogy:

"Can you believe you could stop off a curb someday and be killed by an oncoming car? Nobody believes that kind of possibility for themselves but it happens! Is life that fortuitous or uncertain?"

Yes, it can be, but that's not at all the same as all the evidence pointing to being framed, as a set up or decoy for an actual assassination conspiracy.  Dallek, like other pro-Warren flunkies -  and that includes the pop stars of Hanks and Goetzman -want to expunge the fact that Oswald was framed. If he was framed - and we have the CIA's  (Mexico City) cables from David Atlee Phillips to prove it -  then it was no  "random" event  but planned - by the same CIA spooks who framed him. See e.g. the previous links I gave just preceding the paragraph commencing with the words "Where it turns into propaganda".

In this Dallek (like Cronkite and Sevareid),   commits the same error as mathematician John Allan Paulos, in his 2008 book, Irreligion: mistaking the low political value of the person assassinated for the high political value of the assassination.

The end blather comes compliments of Bugliosi, squealing about lack of faith in government:

"They've (conspiracy believers) lost so much faith in government they actually think the government is an accessory after the fact to the President's murder. It can't get too much worse than that."

Well, it can if it is true, and all the recent record  releases point to it ,  namely the involvement of the CIA. After all, nowhere in Bugliosi's cinder block of a book was it even mentioned that the USAID Commodity Import Aid Program  to S. Vietnam had been cut off without informing Kennedy- until David Bell (CIA and USAID go between) told him. This prompted New York Times journalist Arthur Krock  in his piece  ‘The Inter-Administration War in Vietnam’, The New York Times, Oct. 3, 1963). to write:

"If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA”
 
This followed his observation  that:  "the CIA had flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.”

What? Vince lacked the I.Q. to locate this NY Times piece? Or was he too lazy or too dedicated to protecting the Warren claptap? For sure - as a former prosecutor - he'd have seen prima facie evidence for government involvement!  In addition, it's mystifying to have seen him whining about this when this is the same guy wrote:  'The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President'. This refers to the noisome interjection of the Court in the 2000 Florida recounts, basically handing the 2000 election to Gee Dumbya Bush.  Basically, Bugliosi believed the high court committed "treason" as he often referred to it in interviews to promote the book. So in fact at one time he did believe the government  - a sector of it  - could be an accomplice to nefarious acts. So why not to assassination? And oh, let's not forget Operation Northwoods!

This was described by James Bamford  (Body of Secrets, Doubleday Books): p. 82 as:

“maybe the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government”

This treacherous campaign of terror was to include the sinking of refugee boats (carrying Cuban refugees) on the high seas, as well as the killing of innocent citizens on American cities’ streets, plus random bombings carried out in Washington, DC, Miami and other places. The objective? To deliberately incite a war with Castro's Cuba. One can easily see from both the October, 1962 exchanges and also the Northwoods information, that the JCS and especially LeMay - had a major 'Jones' for starting a war.

Hell, we even have FOIA files for the preliminary plan that was later accepted - which would have been easily accessible to Hanks and Goetzman if they had more investment in truth than confecting propaganda. E.g.












































That neither Bugliosi, Hanks or Goetzman could evidently find the same documents shows me they are all either incompetent, or they are committed to mass brainwashing : Bugliosi using his portentous, misleading propaganda book, Hanks and Goetzman with their biased hit job on Warren Commission skeptics and conspiracy proponents, researchers. They all ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The lone voice in the hour that stood out for me was that of historian Robert Caro:

"The assassination changed the trajectory of America. So it was a different place after the assassination than it was before Kennedy was killed. If you look at America as a whole in the 20th century - and look at America in the 1960s - you really see how that event split the history."

Thankfully, this will likely be the last half-baked historical propaganda piece we can expect from Hanks and his pal Goetzman, masquerading as real history.  Hanks insists he is a "Kennedy Liberal" which is interesting because that is exactly what I am. So why are Hanks and myself at 180 degree opposite poles on the Kennedy assassination? Why is it that I do believe Oswald was indeed framed and set up as a decoy and Hanks thinks we're all "snookered"?

I think the separation can be almost entirely explained on the basis that Hanks hasn't done one tenth the research, reading and other investigations that I have actually carried out (and described in detail in my recent book, 'The JFK Assassination: The Final Analysis').  How many years, decades has Hanks spent plowing through relevant materials, including old documents, newspapers, newsreels, clips, tape transcripts and FOIA -released files? Or, did he just commence doing it within a year or so of the publication of Vince Bugliosi's pro-Warren Commission PR book? Meanwhile, I have been at it non-stop  since 1977, including going through all the volumes of the House Select Committee on Assassinations- published in 1979. I've also done my own physics analysis of the shot sequence, including relevant computations of momentum, torque acting on the body and the impulse needed to send a piece of skull flying over the limo trunk. (A little observation Bugliosi also never processes in trying to explain why the head shot at Z-313 is really due to a "jet effect")

It is all very well, then, to seek to disabuse a population about their strong belief in Oswald's innocence, or that he wasn't the lone gunman, but what have YOU got to show in terms of your own bona fides?  Thankfully, it appears Hanks' further specious responses - apart from this CNN piece- will spread no more devious propaganda - dispensed from presumed trustworthy pundits -  masquerading as truth.

See also:


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/BesmirchingHistory.html

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2007/05/reclaiming-history-from-vince-bugliosi.html

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

Convergence of Two Important Books Shows Kennedy Was Victim of the Deep State

Outside of the deep politics research community, there are few Americans who appreciate the import and magnitude of John F. Kennedy's assassination 52 years ago. It could all be as much a historical 'black hole' as the nature of the interiors of those celestial objects constitutes a physical hole for astrophysics.  Indeed, if one isn't part of the deep politics research constellation he or she will likely not be aware of what the 'deep state' means, far less what all the fuss is about over one dead president from over a half century ago. The person may even mistake the low political value of JFK himself (as a personality) for the high value of the assassination. (A danger author Michael Parenti first warned about).

The point is that the assassination was the primary event, not John F. Kennedy per se. It was the assassination that altered the arc of American history for the worst. It was the assassination  that had the high political value, since with Kennedy out of the way, many more nefarious initiatives could be undertaken, including assassinations and launching an 8-plus year undeclared war in Vietnam. Hence Parenti's articulation of the basis for assassination research ('The Dirty Truth'. p. 186), we:

"are raising grave questions about the nature of state power in what is supposed to be a democracy."

 

  That  Kennedy crossed thresholds with the deep state that made him a target is something exposed in more than one book, including Peter Dale Scott's 'War Conspiracy' and more recently David Talbot's new work, “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government,”  which extends out from JFK’s murder to investigate the rise of the shadowy network that Talbot holds ultimately responsible for the president’s assassination.

Before Talbot's book,  there was James Douglass' 'JFK and he Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters', which showed:


-  Gen. Curtis LeMay and others pushing JFK towards attacking Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis

-  JFK’s efforts and strategies to make peace with the Soviets, including 21 secret correspondences with Khrushchev

-   Kennedy’s secret efforts to establish normal relations with Cuba and the fury that this [it] caused within the CIA and amongst Cuban exiles

-  JFK’s determined efforts to get U.S. troops out of Vietnam and the forces within his administration that resisted and ultimately prevented this effort

-  Kennedy standing up to U.S. steel interests and the bitterness that this lead to among U.S. business leaders, including Henry Luce, publisher of Fortune

-  The overwhelming evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was on the CIA payroll and had an assortment of handlers

-  The CIA plot that painted Oswald as a communist sympathizer and lunatic with ties to the Soviet Union and Cuba

-  How power brokers convinced the official investigators (Warren Report) to pin the assassination on Oswald

-   The underreported plot to kill JFK in Chicago, stopped and bungled by the Secret Service one month before Kennedy was killed in November of ’63.

-  The latest forensic evidence that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the published autopsy x-rays are composite fakes.

-  The stories of many witnesses who saw things differently than the official story, who were sometimes killed, died of mysterious causes, or had their stories changed or their lives threatened.

Interwoven with Talbot's book, the deep politics researcher sees clearly for the first time what drove those like Allen Dulles  - then CIA Chief and de facto head of the deep state -  to take Kennedy out. In short, JFK had gotten too big for his political-policy breeches and challenged Dulles' hegemony on too many fronts.

Smirkingchimp.com blogger David Swanson offers one of the best summary takes:

"Talbot's book is still one of the best I've seen on the Dulles brothers and one of the best I've seen on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Where it differs from Douglass' book, I think, is not so much in the evidence it relates or the conclusions it draws, but in providing an additional motivation for the crime.

JFK and the Unspeakable depicts Kennedy as getting in the way of the violence that Allen Dulles and gang wished to engage in abroad. He wouldn't fight Cuba or the Soviet Union or Vietnam or East Germany or independence movements in Africa. He wanted disarmament and peace. He was talking cooperatively with Khrushchev, as Eisenhower had tried prior to the U2-shootdown sabotage. The CIA was overthrowing governments in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Vietnam, and around the world. Kennedy was getting in the way.

The Devil's Chessboard depicts Kennedy, in addition, as himself being the sort of leader the CIA was in the habit of overthrowing in those foreign capitals. Kennedy had made enemies of bankers and industrialists. He was working to shrink oil profits by closing tax loopholes, including the "oil depletion allowance."

JFK was also determined to rein the CIA in after the Bay of Pigs, firing Dulles and his deputy Charles Cabell, and then setting up  a Defense Intelligence Agency, responsible to him, and soon mandating all overflights of Cuba be done by the Strategic Air Command, not the CIA. He also defined a list of directives on what the CIA could and could not, do, and a 'Special Group' that had no less than 17 recommendations for the "reorganization and redirection of the CIA".

This Dulles could not abide.

Talbot places these justifications in a Cold War context, by showing how Dulles shrugged off countless atrocities using the threat of communism. By late 1962 Kennedy was already seen as at least a commie sympathizer by virtue of his back channel rapprochement efforts with Fidel Castro- even dispatching medical aid to the Communist island nation (via emissary William Atwood)  to show good faith.

This alone would have enraged the CIA -led anti-Castro Cubans, not only the vets from the Bay of Pigs disaster (who still blamed Kennedy for not providing air support) but the  members of the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of the largest anti-Castro groups in the United States.  In the spring of 1963 we know that the Chief of Psychological Warfare branch of the CIA's JM/WAVE station in Miami (George Johannides,),  was “guiding and financing” the DRE.   This  included providing the DRE with up to $25,000 a month, so long as they submitted to CIA discipline.

The mere leak to the group that Kennedy was making nice with Fidel would have had any number of these right wing Cuban exiles volunteering to help make a CIA executive action a reality. (Look how little it took to provoke members of the same anti-Castro axis to take down a Cuban plane with 73 on board off Barbados coast  on Oct. 6, 1976)

Talbot further shows that Dulles  was a psychopath given how he is shown covering up the Holocaust prior to America’s intervention into World War II by keeping crucial information exposing the horrors of concentration camps from reaching President Roosevelt. Dulles and his fellow CIA Cold Warriors saw Russia, a U.S. ally during World War II – not Nazi Germany – as the real enemy. Given the extent to which Kennedy was seen supportive of Castro (via rapprochement) or Nikita Khrushchev, e.g. signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in August, 1963   - which also severely limited all anti-missile defense systems - they 'd have justified Kennedy's violent  removal.

In fact, by the time of Kennedy's rapprochement efforts, Dulles - who had surreptitiously set up an anti-Kennedy government in exile after his firing-  would have treated JFK as just another head of state to be earmarked for assassination like previous ones. Such was laid out in their earlier assassination manuals as far back as 1954 with the PBSUCCESS program, e.g.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

The immediate enabler and architect would have been William Harvey. The key clue was the letter ‘D’ – on the cover sheet of Oswald’s 201 file – indicated CIA Staff D, a SIGINT or signals intelligence operation run in concert with the National Security Agency or NSA. As pointed out by Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics Quarterly, Jan. 1994): “In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D, he was assigned the task of developing the CIA Assassinations Project, ZR/Rifle.”

Most researchers who've delved into this in much more depth than superficial 'buffs' come away with the conviction Oswald was set up as part of ZR/Rifle. However,  with the plot now turned against Kennedy. Oswald was likely used as the dupe or decoy so the actual perps (likely Cuban exiles, and trained assassins - from the Army's Ft. Benning Assassin school) could escape. And Harvey would have been the mastermind, following Dulles' order or in conjunction with them as part of an NSA coordinated operation.

Indeed, Talbot, in a recent interview on salon.com notes:

" I have an eye-witness that pinpoints one of these men, William Harvey, on a plane to Dallas, shortly before the assassination. He was spotted by his own deputy. And his deputy told his children years later that was convinced that William Harvey was involved in the assassination of Kennedy. This was the guy who was responsible for the assassination operation aimed at Fidel Castro. He was working with the mafia to kill Castro. He was a notorious figure in the CIA. So, for him to be flying to Dallas, shortly before the assassination, at least raises some serious questions."

But one of the most reprehensible facts Talbot details is the extent to which Dulles and cronies were very socially comfortable with many members of the Nazi elite, including bankers, security and intelligence people. To them, the whole question about war crimes and the horrors the Nazis had committed during the war were secondary to the more important geo-political questions [such as] who will rebuild Germany after the war and how to make sure the Soviet Union does not overrun Europe.

To them also, Kennedy -  by his willingness to stand up to the Nazi-nexus of spooks  -would have shown himself a prime and urgent target. That the deep state was protecting its associations with Nazi spies is well known by deep politics researchers.  Readers can also find more information on the Nazi- CIA ties here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-agencies-used-1000-nazis.html

Excerpt:

In 1968, Mr. Hoover authorized the F.B.I. to wiretap a left-wing journalist who wrote critical stories about Nazis in America, internal records show. Mr. Hoover declared the journalist, Charles Allen, a potential threat to national security.

Thus we see Hoover, head of the FBI, was protective of the Nazi links, and invoked "national security" to protect them.   One wonders what the immediate consequences might have been had Kennedy learned of them - the full extent  -  which wasn't revealed in files until decades later. Might not this have speeded up the need for action? The CIA, as Talbot notes,  is still withholding 15,000 key documents related to the Kennedy assassination including [documents related to] people in the Dulles assassination group. Talbot adds, in his salon.com interview:

"It is vital that we get those 15,000 documents that the CIA is still withholding in defiance of that (JFK Records Act)  law. There are a lot of clues in those [released] documents and I have used a lot of them."

Talbot also makes mention of the Nazi Wartime Disclosure Act.  It may well be, as we gradually uncover more of the deep state connections to the Kennedy assassination, we also see the extent to which the CIA's use and coddling of high profile Nazis played a direct role - perhaps even in the strategy and mechanics of taking Kennedy out.

We will see.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bob-burnett/54660/the-war-on-democracy-the-deep-state