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."

Why Wouldn't The CIA Release All The Remaining JFK Files This Thursday?

After Trump announced Saturday that he planned to release the remaining JFK files, let's first understand Dotard isn't doing this out of the generosity of his heart. Oh no. In fact, a congtessional law dating from 1992 mandated all files related to the JFK assassination be released in 25 years. That deadline arrives this Thursday, the 26th.

What do we mean by unreleased files?  This refers to about 3,100 previously unreleased files that hold tens of thousands of pages of new material. The National Archives has another 30,000 pages of documents that had been disclosed before but only partially and with redactions.

Other partial files have been released without explanation. One of these is the incriminating notes written by Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford which altered the position of the upper back wound to a base of neck wound in order to make the single bullet theory of Arlen Specter work, e.g.

The report of the change also appeared in the NY Times.

Researcher Jefferson Morley has expressed particular interest in the redacted files especially those to do with  William Harvey and David Atlee Phillips,   e.g.

Phillips ran all the cut outs (fake personae, duplicate Oswalds, 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, on Nov. 22, 1963.  It was also Phillips who used forged cables from the Mexico City station he ran to frame Oswald. As noted by Peter Dale Scott (‘Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics’, 2013, p. 25) : "At least three show signs of CIA doctoring and the first, which does not, was nevertheless so misleading as to be possibly dishonest.” This was the October 8th cable that claimed Oswald had appeared at the Soviet Embassy on Oct. 1, and that  he had spoken with Valeriy Kostikov three days earlier. (Kostikov was top man in the KGB's "Department Thirteen" - responsible for assassinations.)

Harvey, for his part, led the agency's assassination operations, and likely had even expanded the CIA's  original basic 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. Morley in a 2008 book on Phillips wrote "there might be stuff on why we were interested in the Cuban consulate, how we surveilled the consulate."  Of course, many of these questions were answered more than 15 years earlier by John Newman in his book 'Oswald and the CIA' which also for the first time disclosed Oswald's CIA files, including: the OS-351-164 (office of security), the 201-289248 CI/SIG, and the 74-500.  All of these, in the words of Newman, the Warren Commission was "suspiciously quiet about".

In addition, when the agency did submit Oswald’s 201-file to the Warren Commission (under the header of Commission Document 692) they did not indicate it clearly or mark it as such. Instead, as Dale Scott (and also John Newman) observed the CIA buried it in a  Sept. 24 “memorandum”  relocated to a much later position in the file , making it appear as if it had been falsely drafted after the culpable Oct. 10 fake cables.

Despite all of this,  we are informed that Trump's CIA head - Pompeo- like previous CIA chiefs,  is cautioning against releasing all. The skinny is that certain files - like those concerning former CIA boss William Harvey- and Miami -based CIA spook George Joannides, may undermine national security by revealing secret methods.  Let's call bullshit on this one time, and emphasize the only thing that would be revealed is the CIA's (and NSA's) own hands in the assassination - with Lee Oswald the set up decoy - to hide the real perpetrators.

This isn't conspiracy "theory" but fact, and it boggles the mind so many who claim to be serious researchers haven't even been able to find the actual autopsy photos, which first appeared in David Lifton's book, Best Evidence (opposite page 382).

Then there was former Secret Service agent Clint Hill who  appeared for a couple of soundbites on CBS this morning as he sought  to further muddy the waters,  insisting baldly that "Oswald was the lone assassin". This clueless dolt, totally  immersed  in boundless ignorance,  also added:

"There will always be conspiracy theories no matter what. But everybody should remember that's what they are, not fact."

After hearing Hill babbling this bunkum, I was certain he'd never once examined the actual autopsy photos of the rear exit wound. Instead he remains captivated by Warrenite bunkum and the fake photo (see below) created at the behest of the Commission. .

Let's bear in mind then that Clint Hill  wouldn't be able to distinguish a JFK conspiracy fact from theory anyway. This is  because he's done no genuine investigation into the deed, or even examined the detailed files.(Including, I warrant, Oswald's CIA files - see the cited list earlier.)  He's basically a hack and stooge like Gerald Posner who appeared on the ABC News last night to try to argue there is nothing more there - only bland omissions of known info.  Posner's many oversights, lies, distortions and "fake facts" are revealed in an issue of The Electronic Assassination Newsletter. Several dedicated actual researchers  collated these assorted "Posnerisms"  mainly from his propaganda book, 'Case Closed' (1993).

http://assassinationweb.com/twpos.htm

Posner's role, like Hill's, is clearly as a media tool  to try to uphold the Warrenite lone nut  fantasy. As for the assumption of a rear head shot,  that was obliterated via the actual autopsy photos showing the rear of JFK's skull blown out. This could only have come from a frontal shot, e.g.

Any actual rear head wound would have been obliterated by the frontal shot's cavitation path backward. In effect, anyone subscribing to such a rear head shot is more than likely misdirected  by the bogus mortician's plaster reconstruction which was used to sell the TSBD shooter location (see left image).

The actual autopsy image which neither Posner or Hill appear to know about is also confirmed by Bethesda Naval Hospital lab tech Paul O'Connor's sketch of JFK's head at the autopsy , e.g.


The massive rear cavitation end path shows just how much of the skull had to be reconstructed using mortician's plaster to give the illusion of an intact back of head. 

. He further indicated it displayed more damage than could possibly be done by a military jacketed bullet. The bullet was more likely the explosive or frangible type.  Parkland surgeon Charles Crenshaw also validated that the rear of the head had been blown out and readers interested can obtain his excellent book, 'JFK - Conspiracy of Silence' .  This link to a .pdf version of Dr. Crenshaw's book can be found below:

http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Conspiracy_Of_Silence.pdf

Most interesting (page 10) is when Dr. Crenshaw was shown one of the Warren autopsy photos and asked by Gary Shaw (of the Sixth Floor Museum)  whether it matched what he observed when attending to JFK,  Dr. Crenshaw was incredulous. He immediately spotted the fake and ascertained  that the head had been "manipulated".  It was immediately evident to him that a conspiracy was at work, else why alter the massive frontal head wound to a rear one?

Dr. Crenshaw also noted the aberrant behavior of Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (pp. 80-81) running around Trauma Room 1 like a mad chicken with its head cut off, and gun out. Crenshaw also referenced Hill's later hospitalization for a nervous breakdown, and one certainly wonders if this retired agent isn't still affected.  I won't go so far as to say addled in the head, but hearing him babble so assuredly this morning about "conspiracy  theory" nonsense, one wonders.

What CBS should be commended for in its reporting this morning is the cautionary note that we may still all be played by Trump and his cronies again. First, we learned of this released CIA statement:

"The CIA continues to engage in the process to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to any previously  unreleased CIA information."

Then we learned, based on a White House release this a.m., read by CBS correspondent Chip Reed:

"The President wants to release the documents in the interest of transparency but the President also said that's unless agencies provide a compelling and clear national security or law enforcement  justification."

As Reed put it:

"That is a loophole or exception you could drive a truck through."

In other words we may actually see very few of the key files released. Which are most suspect that we'd be interested in? 

1) All those to do with the operations of William Harvey

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”

Harvey would have authorized the mutation of the original Staff D plan - to take out Castro to one with JFK the prime target.   We also know  no one informed the Warren Commission that 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.

2) The role of George Joannides

George Joannides - whose files the CIA is bent on most protecting

In mid-1963, one of the main responsibilities of Joannides was the handling of the DRE (Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil ) whose members were all at forefront of the fight to eliminate Fidel Castro. A once-secret memo with portion noting the use of the DRE originally came under control and oversight of Gen. Edward Lansdale and described how the DRE operatives were to be deployed in Miami and New Orleans. (Not long after, Oswald was filmed on Canal Street in New Orleans in an altercation with Bringuier.)

Here’s what we do know: According to declassified CIA records corroborated by interviews, Joannides served as chief of the CIA's anti-Castro psychological warfare operation in Miami in 1963. The operation was run out of the largest CIA station outside of Langley, called JM/WAVE. More than 300 CIA agents directed over 3,000 Cuban agents and subagents, out of a front corporation called 'Zenith Technical Enterprises, Inc.' near (the then)  Crandon Park.  (My family used to often visit Crandon Park, especially its popular zoo.)   More than 50 other dummy fronts and organizations were also used for the employment of the anti-Castro (exile) Cubans, such as Carlos Bringuier.

Bringuier himself was also likely a member of the DRE, given it was one of the biggest and most active CIA-backed groups in Miami. In mid-1963, one of the main responsibilities of Joannides was the handling of the DRE whose members were all at forefront of the fight to eliminate Fidel Castro, first via Operation Mongoose, later through the CIA’s own covert assassination program, ZR Rifle.  But their use in mid -1963 was to assist in painting Oswald as a fellow-traveler and communist sympathizer. In fact, the evidence from Oswald's CIA files suggests he was trying to infiltrate the group.

According to a CIA memo found at the JFK Library, Joannides was giving $25,000 a month (about $147,000 in today's dollars) to the DRE at the time when the group's New Orleans delegation decided to collect intelligence on and publish propaganda about Oswald.

Clearly, the only reason to withhold the Joannides files - like the ones on Harvey - would be the agencies' refusal to confirm what most of us already know.  In other words, keeping the loop of "ambiguity" open so the conspiracy deniers (like .John McAdams) can keep their little websites churning out denials much like the Reich wing climate denial sites deny the links of the recent monster storms to climate change.

The bottom line is that most of the salient information and key files have already been released and have been sitting under people's noses for two decades or more. The fact is additional files, with the possible exception of the Joannides   ones, will add very little to our insights.  This is something to keep in mind as more and more media mouthpieces start exaggerating the importance of remaining files  or the impact if Trump declines to release them based on agency demands.

As for Charlie Rose's brief burp at the end of the CBS segment: "We always come back to the same conclusion".

Well, of course, because the media especially refuses to parse the detailed files that unequivocally disclose conspiracy, such as the autopsy photos in Lifton's book, or the basic physics of the head shot.  But what can we expect in a nation where PR and propaganda reign. Even Michael Beschloss, a presumed eminent historian - appearing on 'Hardball' this evening,  believes Oswald showed up in Mexico City - an unforgiveable misstep for anyone with his name cachet.

Another example of media codswallop is this refuse from the WSJ today (p. A4):

“Among insights scholars hope to gain from documents is why assassin Lee Harvey Oswald traveled to Mexico City before the killing.”

Which begs the question of whether such “scholars” are blind, woefully ignorant or plain stupid. First, Oswald was not the assassin, given he was used under Harvey's Staff D as the patsy or decoy. All the evidence points to that. Second, Oswald – the real one – never went to Mexico City.

The image (right) taken by the CIA Mexico City station ('Oswald and the CIA', 1993, John Newman) was not of Oswald at all, e.g.

Thus, any scholar's claim that the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City is where "Oswald showed up weeks before Kennedy's death" is pure hogwash. Oswald never went to Mexico City, period, and this is one of the litmus tests to distinguish a serious JFK researcher from a pretender.  The photo at right above, taken by actual cameras mounted outside the Mexico City station (and appearing originally in John Newman's 'Oswald and the CIA') show incontrovertibly that the person who showed up was an impostor. A heavy set guy bearing no resemblance to Lee.

Scholars? Now we have to ask if real or a pseudo. scholar like Gerald Posner.  What we need is for the government to come clean, no excuses and release all the hitherto unseen files and also non-redacted versions of earlier files. 

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.

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