Is Thom Hartman a CIA propagandist? I sure think so...

[bobbie]

A while back I mentioned that I'd read Thom Hartman's (co-written) book "Ultimate Sacrifice" which claims that the mafia killed JFK, without the CIA. Since "the mob dunnit" is as bogus as the claim that Oswald dunnit, I concluded that it was disinformation=propaganda. Since journalists that write propaganda are often CIA assets, I concluded that Thom Hartman was a CIA hack.

I'm finding evidence that this is true. (Of course it's hard to prove someone is in the CIA; it's a covert agency and they're supposed to deny it...as Hartman does on his homepage...)

Ok. A central premise of "Ultimate Sacrifice" is that Juan Almeida, the current Vice President of Cuba, "head of the army, famous hero of the revolution, best friend to the late Che Guevara, was in direct contact with Bobby Kennedy's top Cuban exile aide in the summer and fall of 1963; he was to receive $500,000 for helping stage a coup and the down payment was delivered before JFK was assassinated." (Ultimate Sacrifice withheld the actual name of Almeida and only referred to a high ranking official in Cuba, but the authors recently identified him by name.)

Wim Dankbaar, a leading researcher into JFK's assassination, directly asked Fabian Escalante, "Cuba's leading authority on the history of CIA activities against his country," (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKalmeida.htm), and the author of many books on the CIA and Cuba, if Juan Almeida was really a CIA mole as alleged by Thom Hartman (and co-author).

Here is Escalante's email response:

"This information must be an active measure of the CIA. It's a dirty trick. There is no degree of certainty in this. I thought this book would have the better (kind of) arguments."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7968&st=30

:smoke:

[bobbie]

1. Another fun post from Wim Dankbaar, JFK assassination researcher

"According to the article, Lamar Waldron agrees to Almeida being a mole, secretly talking to Kennedy to overthrow Castro.

Or do interpret the article incorrectly? I quote again from the article:

Author Lamar Waldron is set to tell the following sensational details in the paperback on Oct. 9. In the hardcover edition of his book, Waldron went to great lengths to conceal the identity of the Cuban official who was working with President John F. Kennedy and for U.S. interests back in the '60s. Now the CIA has decided to reveal who the man is. Author Waldron advised them not to, but the powers that be feel the man's best protection is wide publicity after the trade book's release. Castro can't take action against him in secret as he did back in 1990.

The minute I read this, I know it's in the same category as Fabian Escalante flying to Dallas on 11/22/1963. That's the category of Ultimate Horse Manure.

So where does that leave Ultimate Sacrifice?

Or is this article the real horse manure?

It would be nice if Mr Waldron and/or Mr Hartmann could give us their comments here.

Wim"

Lots of lively discussion:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7968

Note: Mr Waldron, the co-author, does reply to Wim in this forum. I find the reply to be quite lame.

So does Wim:

"What bothers me about the Ultimate Sacrifice scenario is that all people implicated are not around anymore to comment....

So Roselli, Marcello and Trafficante , "the men behind the murder", were able to torpedo the plan? They didn't want to get rid off Castro?

And then they had the Warren Commission cover up for them?

Bush must be happy with this book...

Wim"

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbie]

3. Yes I know, Hartman has many loyal fans (or colleagues)

I don't expect them to appreciate the evidence. But I'm sure enjoying the process of uncovering it...

I'll assume you haven't read "Ultimate Sacrifice" and therefore can't discuss it in an informed fashion.

Thanks for keeping the thread kicked.

[Zorra]

50. Hey, Thom - Try not to spit your lunch all over your keyboard

you read this thread.
;-)

[rman]

6. ridicule is not a valid argument

[bobbie]

7. Actually I gave a *strong* statement from an excellent resource...

Fabian Escalante, as evidence. So perhaps you can address the facts and actually discuss my accusation, rather than slinging around insults and calling me a liar. (Is that permitted in DU?)

Are you saying that Fabian Escalante is a liar? Are you saying that you doubt Fabian Escalante called Hartman's claim CIA disinfo? Are you saying *anything* of substance?

[lvx35]

4. The thing about CIA assets...

Is that they don't really have to have a damn clue who their working for. The lines between whose an asset for who have got to be so freaking murky...I mean its the whole name of the game to hide your tracks. It sounds like some BS is in that book, but its so hard to say something like "the CIA killed kennedy". Who? The guy who reported to kennedy, or shady assets the spooks met with in some dark alley? Assets like the mafia guys hired to take out Castro? Would Hartman's thesis be wrong if it were?

[bobbie]

8. Well you make an interesting point about the murky world of CIA...

But in fact the CIA is a branch of government with employees who get paychecks and contractors who get stipends and holidays and sick days and so on, just like other branches of government. If someone works for the CIA, they know it. Whereas if someone is *manipulated* by the CIA, they may not know it.

But I'm talking about the prospect of an author as an actual CIA employee, working with full knowledge that their mission is to spread disinformation. Given the fact that the CIA's operation mockingbird was all about subversion of the free press and the dissemination of propaganda using "assets" to write articles and books, and the fact that the Bush administration has fake "journalists" (e.g., Jeff Gannon) on payroll, I think it's reasonable to wonder about specific books.

Especially a specific book that a prominent expert on the CIA's infiltration of Cuba refers to as likely "an active measure of the CIA...a dirty trick."

Writers that work for the CIA do get paid, a lot of money in fact. Cord Meyer got paid to write for the CIA. That was his job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_Meyer

"Further details of Operation Mockingbird were revealed as a result of the Frank Church investigations (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) in 1975. According to the Congress report published in 1976:
"The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets."
Church argued that misinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

You make a really good point when you indicate that it's a blurry line between the mafia and the CIA. They work(ed) so closely that there's almost no disctinction in some ways. Still, it's hugely significant if a US government agency like the CIA, using our tax dollars, killed an elected president. That's--you know--a coup. Again, using our tax dollars. And sure they used mafia personnel, probably as some of the trigger men on the triangulation team in Dealy Plaza (e.g., James Files). But the mafia on it's own couldn't have done it, couldn't have stolen JFK's body and faken an autopsy, couldn't have covered up the crime with a bogus commission, and couldn't have sustained the coverup for forty years. That's government.

And it is possible to point specifically to the CIA, a distinct government entity, with headquarters in Langley Virginia, in a building built with our tax dollars, with a director that reports to the president, and accuse them of murder. And accuse them of planting stories in the media to cover up that murder.

[lvx35]

20. Its possible to point to the CIA, but I'm not sure it makes sense.

I mean think about it...Did somebody put out a memo to the analysts at Langely: "Hey, we're gonna kill the president, any good ideas on how"? These guys leak all the time on much lesser issues. I think you've got to look at the larger picture: (what follows is educated speculation, I can't say I *know* any of this at all!) The "hundreds" of agents mentioned are strategically located nodes in an effing HUGE network of people around the world and in the US. Pay for these people can come from the CIA, CIA front companies (so the CIA doesn't cut their paycheck) or standard companies benefiting from CIA support/policies, or people positioned within standard companies that are part of the network. Often, its not necessary to get paid directly at all. The business networking value of being part of THAT network is priceless.
So do you see what I am saying? Basically this network is beast under its own control. Its an emergent, standalone complex and all Langley can do is try to stay plugged near the top. If they unplugged from the mobsters, they would lose their power, the network would not go away.
So what I'm saying is that there is a whole landscape of secrecy and connections out there, with intelligence agencies plugged in. They hold huge amounts of power for covers-up and so forth, with or without CIA blessing. So while the JFK killing probably came out of this network, I'm not so sure we can point the finger at any government agency for it! :)

[bobbie]

22. It totally makes sense, you could be describing exactly what happned

There are lots of CIA front companies. And since CIA front companies are the same as the CIA, there is no distinction, that would still make the CIA responsible. Even if the murder was committed by former CIA agents, or former "employees" of the front company, a CIA that created a lawless culture and made it their business to train assassins would certainly be culpable in my eyes.

But I think it was a mix of current (as of 1963) and former CIA agents who led the coup, working closely with the mob (again, not much distinction between the mob and the CIA), the FBI, the Secret Service, the Dallas Police, the Dallas Mayor, the filthy rich, and good ol' LBJ.

And a big reason that I car so much who dunnit is 'cause it's been the same people clinging to power since then. They seized it and kept it-for over 40 years.

But back to the perps, there is a mountain of evidence for the CIA alone. Here is a tiny sample:

-In 1961 as a result of the Bay of Pigs disaster, President Kennedy fired the top three CIA officials: director Allen Dulles, deputy CIA director Charles Cabell, and Deputy Director of Operations Richard Bissell. They all despised him for that. Kennedy subsequently visited Dallas, and when his motorcade was moved one block North at the last minute, to an area vulnerable to ambush he was murdered. The mayor of Dallas was in charge of security for Kennedy's visit and the motorcade route. The mayor was Earle Cabell, brother of Charles Cabell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcabelC.htm

-Hours after the murder three men/”tramps” were “arrested” in Dealy Plaza hiding in a railroad car behind the infamous grassy knoll where the fatal shot originated. They were photographed by many reporters. Subsequently Lois Gibson, renowned forensic artist and facial expert for the Houston Police Department, awarded with a 2004 entry in the Guinness Book of World Records for solving the most crimes from composite sketches, identified "the three tramps" from photos. She concludes with certainty that the individuals are Chauncey Holt, Charles Rogers, and Charles Harrelson. In her own words, she "bets the farm on it".

Her findings are presented in a narrative slide presentation.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm

Chauncey Holt was a CIA agent, assassin, document forger
Charles Rogers (is?) a CIA assassin
Charles Harrelson is a contract assassin, father of actor Woody Harrelson
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKholt.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKharrelson.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrogersC.htm
(There is no arrest record from this incident in the Dallas Police files.)

Chauncy Holt made a taped statement shortly before his death about his “sympathy for Oswald” (and his family) over the fact that he was a patsy. (He doesn’t express sympathy for the murdered president.)
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/holtonoswald.wmv

-In1985 A civil court jury ruled that CIA agent and convicted Watergate “burglar” E. Howard Hunt was in Dallas on June 21, 1963 – the day before JFK’s murder – and was therefore most likely involved in the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlaneM.htm

-Two FBI memos from 1963 place George (HW) Bush, of the “Central Intelligence Agency,” in Dallas at the time of the assassination.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps/id6.html

[Raksha]

30. Error in your post (or your source).

>>-In1985 A civil court jury ruled that CIA agent and convicted Watergate “burglar” E. Howard Hunt was in Dallas on June 21, 1963 – the day before JFK’s murder – and was therefore most likely involved in the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.<<

The date should be November 21, 1963.

[bobbie]

40. Thank you Raksha! I wrote that and screwed up the date

Good catch.

[lvx35]

78. Sounds like we're on the same page.

I'm really not informed enough on the JFK assassination to discuss these fine points, but I don't think we're disagreeing. My main point is just that the network of near invisible power players here is a standalone entity, with a history going back hundreds of years. The way the CIA pulls strings in this network and this network pulls strings in the CIA is quite complex, so one has to be careful with placing squarely in the CIA or any alphabet soup agency...One doesn't want to give the false idea that by eradicating the CIA you would eradicate this network that stretches way beyond any agency or country. The real issues are vastly more complex than that!

[bobbie]

80. Ahhhhhh, yes, there is a power structure much more vast

And in fact they're in charge now, even though they're acting in opposition to the CIA (e.g., attacking them about the WMD intelligence before attacking Iraq).

I struggle with what to call them. Can't come up with a satisfactory term.

Neo-cons, no, 'cause they're called "neo-liberals" globally so that's confusing.
PNACers, nah it doesn't communicate anything.
The Country Club, no it's global.
Power Control Group, as they call them on ratical.org? Too unemotional.
Goose-stepping nazis, too unoriginal.

But you're right. The CIA was just the tool they use in a certain country and era.

Yep we're on the same page. And not like Mark Foley. :evilgrin:

[rman]

36. how could this "beast under its own control" create the Warren Commission,

and how could it have done all the things that facilitated the assassination and the things that covered it up?

As robertpaulsen posted elsewhere in this thread:

Jim Garrison: "Could the Mob change the parade route, Bill, or eliminate the protection for the President? Could the Mob send Oswald to Russia and get him back? Could the Mob get the FBI the CIA, and the Dallas Police to make a mess of the investigation? Could the Mob appoint the Warren Commission to cover it up? could the Mob wreck the autopsy? Could the Mob influence the national media to go to sleep? And since when has the Mob used anything but .38's for hits, up close. The Mob wouldn't have the guts or the power for something of this magnitude. Assassins need payrolls, orders, times, schedules. This was a military-style ambush from start to finish... a coup d'etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings."

Again: how could this "beast under its own control" do all that without help from the agencies that employ them?

[bobbie]

41. The CIA beast evolved from being an intelligence gathering agency

To a policy-making branch of government.

Exactly one month after President Kennedy's murder (sure doesn't seem like a coincidence) ex-President Harry Truman wrote the following remark in an article called "Limit CIA Role To Intelligence" in the Washington Post. (Wonder if ol' Harry realized the Post was CIA controled...)

"For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas."

The creator of the CIA is saying--shortly after JFK's assassination--that the CIA is *out of control*: "I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. ...There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position."

--

The Washington Post
December 22, 1963 - page A11

Harry Truman Writes:
Limit CIA Role
To Intelligence

By Harry S Truman
Copyright, 1963, by Harry S Truman

INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.
Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.
But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations.
I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.
Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

[lvx35]

77. well..

I think its at least equally implausible to suppose that it was planned in an open way at Langley. In regards to the questions, neither the mob nor CIA is required to get Oswald to Russia and back, nor make a mess of the investigation, nor are they required to use .38s. But the bigger point I am trying to make is that their isn't some clear line where the mob (or anyone in the beast) ends and CIA begins. Really what I'm saying is that its not as top down heirarchal as all that. Assassins need payrolls, but payrolls can come from the mob, with some ambiguous language from a CIA guy stating that "we'd love to help you get into this casino business but JFK really holds us back". That kind of thing. I'm saying that its all really murky.

[bobbie]

81. Yes, and once we realize that a widespread plot becomes more believable

I used to wonder how all those supposed different groups would coordinate: CIA, mob, FBI, so on.
But hell, the more I read the more I realize mobsters were often with the CIA and visa versa.

The rich unscrupulous people will hang together and make sure they get theirs and the peasants, and the pacifist Irish Catholic presidents, don't get uppity.

[lvx35]

83. Yeah, its really interesting how it all links together.

Human networks in general. You've got an element on the part of he individual, self interest, which when combined with an intelligent mind makes all sort of higher orders form, each person playing the game for their own good, recognizing when its profitable to co-operate or betray. Out of this emerges a group of top players, who see the profit in mutual co-operation. Others below them recognize the need to diversify, because being a specialist makes them indispensible to higher ups and other specialists. These diversified indivuals form co-operative networks with specialists of other fields. This is the core attribute of the 'hive mind' associated with intelligence gathering, but the actual truth is that this hive mind stretches beyond the limits of any organization or intelligence agency, its an emergent property of human behavior which any effective organization must contend with, or endeavor to operate within at the highest level. Staying plugged in and as close to the power players as possible is the name of the game for all of them. Co-operating when its profitable to do so (such as CIA/mob co-operation against communist regimes) is also the name of the game...So all kinds of unholy alliances form, but it all comes back to that indivual pursuit of self interest. Really fascinating stuff... :)

[rman]

5. quite possible

There are to many things to enable the assassination and to cover it up, that the mafia could not have done on its own (multiple security stand-downs, Warren commission, fixing the autopsy). Unless the mob had infiltrated various government agencies (including the CIA) to deeply that in effect the mob was(is) part of the government - but then it would be inaccurate to say that there was no CIA involvement.

Besides that it is well known that the anti-Castro movement was a CIA operation with strong mafia involvement, and that they felt JFK was to soft on Castro. After all it was JFK who first stopped plan A for an invasion of Cuba and then messed up plan B - the Bay of Pigs - by not going ahead with full US military support for the invasion.

Not to mention that we have JFK on tape discussing retreating from Vietnam.
http://www.whitehousetapes.org/clips/1963_1104_jfk_vietnam_memoir.html

Looking at it from another perspective there is operation Mockingbird, and there's no reason to assume it ever ended.

[bobbie]

10. Exactly rman, the mafia could not have covered up this crime for 40 years

I totally agree. And they're still covering it up, since the "long gunman/magic bullet" scenario has been discredited. So now the "mafia dunnit/Castro dunnit" scenarios are being floated around to distract us (IMO). But, as Jim Garrison, District Attorney of New Orleans, asked in "On the Trail of the AssassinS":

"Could the mob have obtained Governor Connally's clothes, sending them out to be drycleaned after the arrival of the President's limousine at Parkland Hospital, thus removing all evidentiary marks? Could the Mafia have whisked President Kennedy's body past the Texas authorities, who wanted it kept for the local autopsy as Texas law required, and got it aboard Air Force One? Could the Mafia have placed in charge of the President's autopsy an Army general who was not a physician? Could the Mafia, in the course of the autopsy, have ordered the pathologists not to probe the neck wound lest a bullet from the front be found lodged in the spine? Could the Mafia, afterwards, have ordered the chief pathologist, Commander Humes, to burn his original autopsy notes? Could the Mafia have arranged for President Kennedy's brain to disappear from the National Archives?"
http://teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/hsty3080/3rdYr3080/frames/jim1.html

And, as you say, I doubt Operation Mockingbird ever ended...in spite of (*because of*?) George HW Bush's assurances that it was stopped after the Church commission exposed it.

"Not to mention that we have JFK on tape discussing retreating from Vietnam.
http://www.whitehousetapes.org/clips/1963_1104_jfk_viet... "

Ohmygod that is the most amazing link. Thank you!
I'd been putzing around the whitehousetapes site but hadn't found anything as good as this. That's just heartbreaking to hear him playing with his young kids as he's dictating his report about Vietnam.

[robertpaulsen]

9. I always loved Garrison's response in JFK to the Mob Did It Theory

.
Jim Garrison: Could the Mob change the parade route, Bill, or eliminate the protection for the President? Could the Mob send Oswald to Russia and get him back? Could the Mob get the FBI the CIA, and the Dallas Police to make a mess of the investigation? Could the Mob appoint the Warren Commission to cover it up? could the Mob wreck the autopsy? Could the Mob influence the national media to go to sleep? And since when has the Mob used anything but .38's for hits, up close. The Mob wouldn't have the guts or the power for something of this magnitude. Assassins need payrolls, orders, times, schedules. This was a military-style ambush from start to finish... a coup d'etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings.


For me, that pretty much shoots a fatal hole in any theory that the conspiracy to kill JFK begins and ends with the Mob, no element of the government involved whatsoever. Anyone who tries to propagate such a theory is automatically suspect, in my book.

[bobbie]

11. So funny robertpaulsen, we were posting the same thing

At the same time!

Yup, Garrison blows the mob scenario out of the water.
And that quote is directly from his book, "On the Trail of the Assassins." Oliver Stone just quoted it.

"Anyone who tries to propagate such a theory is automatically suspect, in my book."
Um, exactly. I feel the same way. Very suspect.

[robertpaulsen]

12. That is funny! And it's a great book, too.

I have both Trail and the other book Stone adapted for the movie JFK, Jim Marr's Crossfire. Seems like most of the movie was adapted from Trail with bits and pieces from Crossfire, like most of the scene with Garrison and X (Fletcher Prouty).

It's amazing how people involved in that whole "Bay of Pigs" thing are still causing problems. I'm sure you're aware of Luis Posada Carriles, and how the mainstream media is finally reporting 30 years after the fact that the CIA had foreknowledge of the bombing of the Cuban airliner direct from Carriles and apparently did nothing (LIHOP) to stop it. Wonder how long it will take before the mainstream media starts reporting CIA foreknowledge of more recent terror attacks.

[bobbie]

13. Yes, I have Crossfire checked out from the library

And I just returned On the Trail of the Assassins.
Crossfire is really kind of a reference book in a way, I'm surprised to discover.
I have to give Oliver Stone his props; he used the right books by the most trustworthy authors.

"It's amazing how people involved in that whole "Bay of Pigs" thing are still causing problems. I'm sure you're aware of Luis Posada Carriles, and how the mainstream media is finally reporting 30 years after the fact that the CIA had foreknowledge of the bombing of the Cuban airliner direct from Carriles and apparently did nothing (LIHOP) to stop it. Wonder how long it will take before the mainstream media starts reporting CIA foreknowledge of more recent terror attacks."

Oh, U R amazing robertpaulsen. It's so nice to have DU, where people who follow real news can discuss it.

And the media totally focused on President Chavez's "El Diablo" remarks at the UN (and they were fun I must admit). But his bigger point was that Bush et al are hypocrites about terrorism. CIA agent Luis Posada Carrile kills 73 people by blowing up an airplane (among his many other crimes). The CIA helps him escape from a Venezualan jail, refuses to extradite him, protects him in the US, and sends him to other countries (El Salvador among them?) to keep doing what he does best. All the while preaching against terrorism.

He also hinted that the CIA was behind 911.
""And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists."

Amid the difficult translation, Chavez is clearly making reference to elements of the CIA being behind 9/11."

Did the US media report this in all the hysteria about Chavez? Hell no.
But I read about it here:
http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/chavez_slams_us_protection_posada_at_un.htm

Search google on keywords: "chavez UN CIA Luis Posada Carrile" and just try to find an English language site discussing it...

[robertpaulsen]

21. I had a little more luck with the google search.

I put in: Chavez, UN, CIA, Luis Posada Carriles

Here's some good links I got:

What the CIA Could Learn from Venezuela: The Luis Posada Carriles Case
Friday, May 13, 2005

By: Eva Golinger

The stir raised by the recent news of a political asylum petition submitted by one Luis Posada Carriles, Cuban by nationality and wanted international terrorist, has placed the Bush Administration in a conundrum. If it grants asylum to Posada Carriles, it negates its universal declaration of a "war on terrorism" that includes "those who harbor or refuge terrorists". But if it denies asylum to Posada Carriles, not only does the U.S. Government turn its back on a former servant of this country, since Posada was an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the 1960s to an unknown date, but it also is placed in the most delicate situation of deciding whether to extradite him to Venezuela, where he is a fugitive from justice, sending him to some third country considered neutral where he could be tried for his crimes, or giving him protected status in the U.S., which would grant him rights to reside and work freely in the confines of the world’s superpower and top warrior against terrorism. Granting the extradition of Posada Carriles to Venezuela would be treated by the international media as a victory for President Hugo Chávez, a pill hard to swallow for a Bush Administration that has supported several efforts to oust the Venezuelan leader over the past few years.

As a result of this rather sticky situation posed to a second term Bush government, State Department and White House spokesmen have refused to recognize Posada Carriles’ presence in the United States, despite the known fact that his asylum application has been submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Department. Approximately six weeks ago, news stories on local Florida channels began broadcasting information about the clandestine arrival of Luis Posada Carriles to US soil. Soon after, his attorney, Eduardo Soto, announced that Posada Carriles would apply for asylum based on his service to the Central Intelligence Agency during the cold war and his fear of political persecution should he be deported to his native Cuba.

An application for political asylum can only be submitted once an individual enters the United States, and it must be presented within one year of entry.

In order to be eligible for asylum, an individual must meet the definition of a "refugee" under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), defined as "someone who is unable or unwilling to return to and avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her home country or, if stateless, country of last habitual residence because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."

more...

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1446

US accused of 'terror hypocrisy'

Venezuela has said the US will be guilty of double standards on terrorism if it does not extradite a Cuban exile wanted over the bombing of a plane.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the man, Luis Posada Carriles, was "a self-confessed terrorist".

He said the US had no choice but to send him back to Venezuela, where he escaped from jail two decades ago.

Venezuela wants the man to stand trial over the bombing of the Cuban plane in 1976 that killed 73 people.

more...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4564715.stm


The Terrorist and the CIA's Operation 40
Who Has What to Hide About Luis Posada Carriles?

By TOM CRUMPACKER

Luis Posada's immigration case is now set for hearing before a Homeland Security judge in Texas on August 29. On May 21 Secretary Rice indicated the Homeland case might go on for many months and his extradition would be determined on its completion. With motions and appeals and paid lawyers, this might mean years. A provision in the US-Venezuela extradition treaty says the custodial state can keep the alleged criminal until its own proceedings against him arising from crimes committed there are completed.

But surely a minor "crime" such as a traffic ticket or a failure to report to Homeland Security on entry is not what was contemplated. And even if Posada could somehow convince the Homeland judges of the validity of his spurious residency and asylum claims (that he is a US resident although he has lived abroad for 30 years; that he is entitled to asylum here although he has murdered hundreds of innocent people), he still should be extradited now to Venezuela because his migration status (whether resident or asylee) has nothing to do with extradition for trial for his alleged crime, murdering 73 people in 1976.

Posada is a Venezuelan citizen by naturalization and a Cuban citizen by birth. As a Cuban he has rights under the Cuban Adjustment Act and its "wet foot, dry foot" policy, which takes precedence over more general laws. On setting foot in US, whether legally or illegally, any Cuban can stay here and apply for residency after a year. In other words, the pending immigration cases against Posada are a farce, a way of making it appear that there's some reason for not extraditing now.

So why not just send him to the extradition judge and be done with it? What's the reason for keeping him here? Delay for delay's sake? Aggravate the Venezuelan government? Weaken the US claim to be the world leader in its "war against terrorism"? None of these seem very convincing as motives, even for this Administration. According to recently declassified CIA reports (National Security Archives, Book 153), in custody after his October 6, 1976 bombing of the Cubana civilian airliner, flight 455, agent Posada threatened CIA that if forced to talk, the Venezuelan government "would go down the tube" and there would be "another Watergate."

more...

http://www.counterpunch.org/crumpacker07022005.html



Lots of other great links are there. But you're right, MSM dropped the ball here and most Americans are in the dark unless they saw it live like I did. Chavez said a lot of things that weren't highlighted, like when he called the UN "worthless" and proposed an overhaul of the veto powers of permanent members. But the 9/11 stuff was especially glossed over, and I'm not surprised he suspects involvement of the CIA. You should read my signature link for the paper I wrote, American Judas. It only touches slightly on 9/11, but it does name an ISI agent that might be a link between al-Qaeda and the CIA. Ironically, his initials are OSS.

[bobbie]

23. These are excellent links, thanks

Any chance I could read your American Judas paper? And/or your signature link? Sure is intriguing.

>Chavez said a lot of things that weren't highlighted, like when he called the UN "worthless"

And the UN doesn't want to vote to let Venezuela in? Huh. Go figure. ;-)

[robertpaulsen]

25. Sure!

BTW, OSS are the initials of Omar Saeed Sheikh, but he seems to go by many names. In American Judas, just look under Saeed Sheikh.

AMERICAN JUDAS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=66773

Or just click below if you want to read it in pdf format.

[bobbie]

67. Oh, glad you explained what OSS is robertpaulsen

I'd have assumed it was the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA.

You sure put together a lot of valuable info here. Thank you for posting the link. How long did it take you to research and write that?

[bobbie]

16. There's a very good/short movie about Luis Posada Carriles' crimes here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISzE4ZAsjeo

And the US protection of this terrorist.

It includes the black box tape of the pilot and tower communication after the bombs exploded; they're desperately trying to return to the airport. It's awful.

[robertpaulsen]

19. Thanks. Very chilling.

I'm SO SURE Kissinger knew nothing about this. :sarcasm:

[Matariki]

24. if 'the mob' in question is the BFEE - then yep.

[bobbie]

28. Um, you're so right, and the BFEE was involved in JFK's murder

It appears.

Two FBI memos from 1963 place George (HW) Bush, of the “Central Intelligence Agency,” in Dallas at the time of the assassination.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps/id6.html

[rman]

37. true, but that "mob" does not exclude involvement of the CIA

and other govt agencies - which is contrary to Hartmann's claims.

[bobbie]

42. Very true, in fact the CIA and mafia worked so closely together in 1963

That there was little distinction between them. Many many CIA people (e.g., Chauncey Holt, James Files,...) were also mob.

That may still be true today, I don't know.

[omega minimo]

14. quit attacking Hartmann

[cali]

15. I'm with you, but

just want to add that this is a supremely silly thread.

[bobbie]

18. Really? So you don't think the public murder of our elected president

Is important? You don't think the 40+ year cover-up of the murder is important? The mafia dunnit scenario is part of the cover-up. It's disinformation. Propaganda. That makes the disseminators propagandists. If Thom Hartman is a propagandist, you don't want to know?

Fine, if you don't want to know then that's your biz. But it's not silly to uncover cover-ups of a bloody violent murderous coup in the US.

[cali]

87. No, it's not. It's called

a logical fallacy, and your OP is a text book example of one. It's pretty clear that you never learned the rudiments of critical thinking, if you're claiming that you have any evidence. You have provided precicely zilch in that department.

[bobbie]

17. Why should I quit trying to uncover the truth about someone

Who I believe is helping the government cover up their bloody violent 1963 coup?

Instead of just demanding that a thread cease, how about discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the accusations?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

57. you should stop SLANDERING the man while you research

unless you have a vested interest in SLANDERING one of the best liberal voices and best informed educators on the most important subjects affecting the American people.

:evilfrown:

[rman]

35. It's called well-founded criticism

[bobbie]

43. I see from your avatar that you admire President Chavez too

That is one courageous man. Taking on the BFEE practically alone. I can see why he seems to admire Castro.

[omega minimo]

58. IT'S CALLED SLANDER

:puke:

[robertpaulsen]

62. You make it sound like being in the CIA is a bad thing.

As far as I can see, bobbie hasn't violated the IIPA by stating that she thinks he is a CIA propagandist, based on her research. You can only out a CIA agent based on what you know (like Libby, Armitage, Rove and Cheney) not what you think.

[omega minimo]

63. the presentation is inflammatory and slanderous

[robertpaulsen]

64. Inflammatory? Yes. Slanderous? No.

[omega minimo]

65. it slanders his name and discourages broader listenership-- a shame

unecessary and detrimental

[robertpaulsen]

66. I would think it does the opposite for any critical thinker.

If I didn't already know who Thom Hartmann was, I'd dig a little deeper and make up my own mind.

But I still don't understand how it's slander. One can be a liberal journalist, even a great liberal journalist, and still be a CIA asset.

[bobbie]

68. Totally agree, the intent was to inflame and inform

And warn.
I'm very pleased at the good discussion that ensued.
That's what I would expect and hope for from DU.

And for those that don't agree: fine, of course you should decide for yourself. We should all be damn careful who we trust.

[omega minimo]

70. it's better to inform and discuss without flamebait and slander

[bobbie]

71. What I posted was in no way flamebait or slander

My subject was "Is Thom Hartman a CIA propagandist? I sure think so..."

The CIA has paid many journalists over the years to produce articles and books and commentaries that will further their agenda, yet not be attributed to them. That's what Operation Mockingbird was/is? all about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

And even if Ultimate Sacrifice wasn't written on behalf of the CIA, which I think it is since they are the ones explicitely being cleared of murder by Hartman, it's the very definition of propaganda:

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause;
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=propaganda

[omega minimo]

73. Bullshit. You've already stated you intended to flame. NO MORE KICKS

[bobbie]

74. Oh learn language! The two words are not synonomous

But I'll provide word definitions for you since you seem unable to distinguish between two words with different meanings.

Flamebait: "A message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in. (This is not to be confused with tweaking someone.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait

Inflame: "10. to be kindled, as passion."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflame

Note that flamebaiting refers to someone who has no interest in the subject. Given that I've spent days discussing this and giving evidence and researching and debating and...providing remedial English classes, I clearly have an interest. In fact I have a great interest in JFK, which is the original reson I read the book being discussed, and I post in many JFK threads.

(If you don't know what "synonomous" means then you're on your own.)


On edit: Added link

[omega minimo]

75. GO BACK TO THE HIVE

:puke:

[bobbie]

79. Okey dokey. And thanks for the kick!

;)

[davidinalameda]

27. I always thought Mary Hartman was

[Shakespeare]

29. What a complete load of bullshit.

Of all the people out there worth going after, and you attack Thom Hartman? Lame. Lame, lame, lame. And incredibly stupid.

[Marr]

31. Do you know how paranoid that sounds?

He's CIA because he disagrees with your ideas on the JFK assassination?

Thom Hartmann is one of the most eloquent, informed, and thoughtful voices on the left these days. A CIA asset wouldn't write a book about the marginalization of the middle class, and the devastating effects of corporate government.

[rman]

34. It is because Hartmann's theory is so obviously flawed,

as has been amply demonstrated several times already.

[bobbie]

44. Not just because he "disagrees" with me

Go back and read my original post in this thread. I'm talkin' evidence not just disagreement:

"...Wim Dankbaar, a leading researcher into JFK's assassination, directly asked Fabian Escalante, "Cuba's leading authority on the history of CIA activities against his country," (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKalmeida.htm ), and the author of many books on the CIA and Cuba, if Juan Almeida was really a CIA mole as alleged by Thom Hartman (and co-author).

Here is Escalante's email response:

"This information must be an active measure of the CIA. It's a dirty trick. There is no degree of certainty in this. I thought this book would have the better (kind of) arguments.""


I'm quoting some pretty good sources. If you don't trust the sources then that's understandable because it's damn hard to know who to trust now days. But it's inaccurate to say that I suspect Hartman merely because I disagree with him. Though as rman says, Hartman's theory is *so* flawed; it's hard to fathom why he'd promote it.

[Liberal In Texas]

86. I haven't seen so many incredible leaps in logic since Colin Powell

stood up in front of the UN and showed the world drawings of mobile weapons of mass distruction that he implied were satellite or aerial photos.

Thom Hartman is a national treasure, and is an important voice in the liberal/progressive community.

You, Bobbie, show nothing but strange tinfoil hat connections that make no sense. I've read a few of your posts and have tried to understand. Nothing clicks. You have no proof, no logic, and no ability to defend your position.

Now, go away.

[Swamp Rat]

32. No. My mind has not changed much since you posted this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2287891

To the contrary, I have grown to respect Thom Hartmann even more after I saw him on CSPAN a couple days ago with Mark Crispin Miller.

[ConsAreLiars]

33. My response got deleted.

I suppose I was too blunt. Anyway, the leap from "I know who killed Kennedy" to "Hartman is CIA" seemed a bit, uh, well, a bit strange.

[Gold Metal Flake]

39. I asked a simple question in that thread. Never did get answered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2287891#2294465

[bobbie]

48. Sure you did, go back and read my original post in this thread

I'm talkin' sources and quotes, i.e., evidence.

[Gold Metal Flake]

49. You may be "talkin' " but you have provided nothing.

Please provide your evidence that Thom Hartmann is or was a CIA asset.

[bobbie]

53. Already have

If you expect to ever see personnel records from the CIA then you don't understand the nature of The Company.

So take it or leave it; not everyone will be convinced. We'll all decide for ourselves.

[Gold Metal Flake]

55. Please provide a link to the post containing the evidence.

I have yet to see any. Please provide the link.

[bobbie]

60. Here, take it or leave it, I'm done repeating myself to you Opposite

Of course you could just scroll the screen up to see the evidence in the first post of this very thread, but then you'd have to expend energy and think. Plus you'd risk getting carpel tunnel, so here't tis yet again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2420742

A while back I mentioned that I'd read Thom Hartman's (co-written) book "Ultimate Sacrifice" which claims that the mafia killed JFK, without the CIA. Since "the mob dunnit" is as bogus as the claim that Oswald dunnit, I concluded that it was disinformation=propaganda. Since journalists that write propaganda are often CIA assets, I concluded that Thom Hartman was a CIA hack.

I'm finding evidence that this is true. (Of course it's hard to prove someone is in the CIA; it's a covert agency and they're supposed to deny it...as Hartman does on his homepage...)

Ok. A central premise of "Ultimate Sacrifice" is that Juan Almeida, the current Vice President of Cuba, "head of the army, famous hero of the revolution, best friend to the late Che Guevara, was in direct contact with Bobby Kennedy's top Cuban exile aide in the summer and fall of 1963; he was to receive $500,000 for helping stage a coup and the down payment was delivered before JFK was assassinated." (Ultimate Sacrifice withheld the actual name of Almeida and only referred to a high ranking official in Cuba, but the authors recently identified him by name.)

Wim Dankbaar, a leading researcher into JFK's assassination, directly asked Fabian Escalante, "Cuba's leading authority on the history of CIA activities against his country," (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKalmeida.htm ), and the author of many books on the CIA and Cuba, if Juan Almeida was really a CIA mole as alleged by Thom Hartman (and co-author).

Here is Escalante's email response:

"This information must be an active measure of the CIA. It's a dirty trick. There is no degree of certainty in this. I thought this book would have the better (kind of) arguments."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7...

[Gold Metal Flake]

61. I asked for proof, not supposition on your part.

Please provde proof.

This "Since journalists that write propaganda are often CIA assets, I concluded that Thom Hartman was a CIA hack" is not proof.

[bobbie]

46. And I totally respect that people here are critical thinkers

I would frankly hope that people would decide for themselves. I decided for myself and just happen to have decided something different. But given how much we've been lied to in this country, it's good to be skeptical.

[reprehensor]

38. "Asset" may be a bit harsh.

Considering that secret agents promise not to talk about about their work, and many go to their graves not talking about their work, we would never know, unless he came clean.

I haven't read the book, but I'm familiar with two recent strong books, resulting from the disclosure of government documents, that argue for CIA involvement;

http://www.amazon.com/Oswald-CIA-John-Newman/dp/0788154877

"Oswald and the CIA" by John Newman

This meticulously documented expose gives the lie to the official CIA position that it had no relationship of any kind with Lee Harvey Oswald, alleged assassin of President John Kennedy. A former U.S. military intelligence officer for 20 years, Newman (JFK and Vietnam) relies primarily on newly released government documents made available within the last three years under the JFK Assassination Records Act, passed in 1992, which mandates that the U.S. government make available all its information on this case. Using CIA, FBI, military and American embassy files to reconstruct Oswald's activities from his 1959 defection to the Soviet Union up until his murder, Newman shows that the CIA was spawning a web of deception about Oswald weeks before the president's murder. For example, the agency has denied that it knew about Oswald's 1963 visits to the Cuban consultant in Mexico City, but Newman refutes this, using interlocking CIA and FBI cables and reports. The evidence presented here, though fragmentary and based on heavily censored and edited documents, strongly suggests that the CIA had a keen operational interest in Oswald, that it kept tabs on him and that Oswald, either willingly or as a patsy, was deeply involved in CIA operations. CIA documents suggest that the agency had a hand in Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union and monitored his activities there and his return home in June 1962. This heavily annotated tome, which reads like an intricate spy thriller, serves as a corrective to Norman Mailer's Oswald's Tale.

and

http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Justice-Garrison-Assassination-History/dp/1597970484/sr=1-1/qid=1161254946/ref=sr_1_1/102-4483233-7185767?ie=UTF8&s=books

"Working with thousands of previously unreleased documents and drawing on more than one thousand interviews, with many witnesses speaking out for the first time, Joan Mellen revisits the investigation of New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison, the only public official to have indicted, in 1969, a suspect in President John F. Kennedy’s murder.

Garrison began by exposing the contradictions in the Warren Report, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was an unstable pro-Castro Marxist who acted alone in killing Kennedy. A FAREWELL TO JUSTICE reveals that Oswald, no Marxist, was in fact working with both the FBI and the CIA, as well as with U.S. Customs, and that the attempts to sabotage Garrison’s investigation reached the highest levels of the U.S. government. Garrison interviewed various individuals involved in the assassination, ranging from Clay Shaw and CIA contract employee David Ferrie to a Marine cohort of Oswald named Kerry Thornley, who was also a CIA asset. Garrison’s suspects included CIA-sponsored soldiers of fortune enlisted in assassination attempts against Fidel Castro, an anti-Castro Cuban asset, and a young runner for the conspirators, interviewed here for the first time by the author.

Building upon Garrison’s effort, Mellen uncovers decisive new evidence and clearly establishes the intelligence agencies’ roles in both a president’s assassination and its cover-up, set in motion well before the actual events of November 22, 1963."

(There is also a less than positive publisher review at Amazon.)

http://www.joanmellen.net/index.html

---------------------------------------

I will be attending the COPA conference in Dallas this year, I'll ask some of the experts what they think of the Hartmann production.

[bobbie]

47. "Asset" is actually a standard term lots of writers use for CIAers

I sure didn't create it. I guess it's meant to include both CIA employees and contractors. Tho' it doesn't sound harsh to me, just vague.

"I will be attending the COPA conference in Dallas this year, I'll ask some of the experts what they think of the Hartmann production."

Oh, wow I had to look that up:
"The Committee for an Open Archives (COPA) is also holding a research conference on political assassinations..."

That's excellent. Have you been to that before? I obviously know nothing about it since I had to look it up, but I'm sure glad that people are so actively researching these political murders. Please do report back. I assume it's scheduled for Nov 22...(?)

[shance]

45. Me thinks one of the "gatekeepers".

n/t

[Strelnikov_]

51. No. I Always Thought The Mob Did It. His Book Filled In Some

of the missing pieces for me, like how they thought they could get away with it.

[0rganism]

52. Isn't it possible that Thom could be wrong without being a CIA plant?

I'm curious as to how you've eliminated this option in your analysis. Thanks.

[bobbie]

54. I don't understand your question

Thom Hartman is not alleging he's a CIA plant; he's denying it...on his homepage in fact.
I'm saying he is a CIA propagandist, based partly on the information given in this thread.

[omega minimo]

59. and who do you work for?

[0rganism]

69. I must have misunderstood your title, then

By "CIA propagandist" I thought you meant he was collecting a paycheck from the CIA or through a CIA operative to knowingly disseminate CIA propaganda.

[bobbie]

72. You can look up "propaganda" and "propagandist" in the dictionary

You can look up CIA in Wikipedia, or on google,...

Then the meaning of my words will be clear.

[rman]

56. Hypothetically possible

But it is so obvious that the mob alone could not have done all that facilitated and covered up the assassination - perhaps most prominently the Warren Commission and its report - that it is kindof ridiculous to conclude that "the mob did it".
Hartmann's book covers only a part of what has been published before.

[diamidue]

76. Did you see this on You-tube?

It clearly shows that the security people who were guarding Kennedy in Dallas were given a signal to step away from the car at one point - leaving Kennedy unprotected. I can see the CIA having the power to influence such a thing, but the mob?????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFpPjjKdUds

[bobbie]

84. Yeah diamidue, I'd seen it, it's a great find, thanks for the link

That footage shows the Secret Service standing down, withdrawing from protecting the president. In fact when he came to town, after an attempt to assassinate him in Florida, after warnings were sent to every regional FBI office warning of a plot to kill JFK in Dallas, he had *no* protection in Dealy Plaza.

If that isn't conclusive proof of a plot I don't know what is. His guards intentionally left him unprotected.

The Secret Service has rules for securing an area and they were all broken in Dealy Plaza. Rooftops were unsecured, windows were open in tall buildings, there were no motorcycle cops flanking JFK's limo, they left the bubble roof off the limo, there were no agents on the rear of the car (as you noted; they were told not to stand on the rear of the car), the motorcade drove thru an area with tall buildings after making a very sharp turn and slowing to about 7mph--all against their rules, there was an open umbrella on a warm sunny day (the infamous umbrella man), there was not one secret service agent standing in the Plaza, there was no law enforcement in the "killing zone"/after the turn, and when the first shots were fired only one secret service agent (Clint Hill) moved. The rest just stood still and let about three seconds go by until the fatal shot was fired. Oh, except for LBJ's SS agents who immediately sprung into action. The driver of JFK's limo nearly stopped. He *stopped* after the first shot and only hit the gas after he turned and saw that JFK was dead.

Ah, and the man who should have been in charge of security--L. Fletcher Prouty, was literally sent to the South Pole so he couldn't plan the security or be in Dallas. He's the man who inspired the character of "X" in the movie "JFK" (played by Donald Sutherland).
He remarks, at length, about it here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GoD.html

Among his observations:

"Kennedy had been in Miami in September 1963. Prior to that, a Miami police informer had uncovered the existence of a plot to kill JFK either in Miami or in some other city. The Miami police, in accordance with good practice, turned this information over to the FBI and the FBI informed the Miami Police that they had turned that information over to the Secret Service. When JFK went to Miami, he was well protected to and from the airport because he traveled by helicopter. This was the beginning of the plot and from that time on the FBI and the Secret Service should have been on maximum alert. Why weren't they? Who pulled them off the job? Certainly not Oswald. Certainly not Castro. Certainly not Khrushchev.

...How could it have happened that the Secret Service, contrary to all good sense and all professional "Protection" practice, permitted the President and the Vice-President to be in close proximity in the same city, in the same procession? This is unheard of. The Secret Service dates back more than a century and they had never permitted that to take place before. Why this time?

...These were not the only oversights. I have always been concerned about the failure of the Secret Service to act in accordance with their long-established and highly professional standard operating procedures on Kennedy's Texas trip. We know that the Secret Service does not have the numbers to permit it to cover every possible avenue and angle of danger; but what we also know is that over the years it has keen the practice of the Secret Service to call upon trained elements of the Armed Forces and other technical assistance to flesh out their strength in compliance with "Protection" policy.

In 1963 there was in Washington, D.C. the 113th Army Intelligence Unit, which was highly trained for this purpose. A counterpart of this unit was the 112th at 4th Army Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The 112th had a detachment, the 315th, in San Antonio. Its commanding officer, among others, complained bitterly that his unit was not used in protection along with the Secret Service after he had keen told that the services of his unit would not be needed. On more than one occasion he called his headquarters and called Washington to correct this "oversight." Like the old dog, he and his men had keen well trained and they were ready to go into action. It takes strong and deft control from the top to keep a unit out of the action for which it has been trained.

...Not only did the Secret Service disregard experienced and qualified assistance from the Armed Forces, but they did not act in accordance with their own time-tested regulations. I recall, when we walked down Avenida Reforma in Mexico City before Eisenhower's trip, being told that if we found a place where Eisenhower could not be properly protected, the Secret Service "manual" stated that the "President's car must maintain not less than 44 mph until clear of any danger zones." I joked with the Secret Service officer about the "44 mph." Why not "45 mph" or "50 mph." He answered that tests had determined that a car traveling 44 mph was going fast enough to guarantee all but 100 percent assurance that the President would be safe. It was Secret Service men working under the provisions of the same manual who let the President's car creep around that corner at Dealey Plaza at 8-9 mph. Why?

...Trained U.S. Army Intelligence Units were told their assisstance was not needed in Dallas during the JFK visit. William McKinney, a former member of the crack 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, has revealed that both Col. Maximillian Reich and his deputy, Lt. Col. Joel Cabaza, protested violently when they were told to "Stand Down" rather than to report with their units for duty in augmentation of the Secret Service in Dallas. McKinney said, "All the Secret Service had to do was nod and these units would have performed their normal function of Protection for the President in Dallas."

...McKinney added that, "Highly specialized classes were given at Camp Holabird on the subject of Protection. This included training designed to prepare this army unit to assist the Secret Service. If our support had not been refused, we would have been in Dallas."

...Also, as we looked up at the high buildings on Mexico City's main street, he told me that agents would check and secure each floor and each window of each building. This is not as big a job as it may seem. The Secret Service knows the exact timing of the movements of the President and they see to it, using radios and men on rooftops, that his progress is covered all the way. This is their business and they are good at it.

But in Dallas, for some strange reason, someone picked a dangerous turn in the road. The procession passed slowly to the right, and then it turned slowly to the left, and all of the time the President's car was right under hostile windows. How simple and how correct it would have keen for Secret Service men, aided by all of the Armed Forces required, to have checked those buildings, to have sealed any unused floors (such as that famous deserted sixth floor), and then to have shut all of the front windows. Then, by placing a radio-equipped man in the Plaza, all he would have had to do was to watch if a single window opened. If it did, he would call to the man on the roof and have someone dispatched to check that window, and with that same call he would have alerted the whole force, especially those with the President's party.

This chronology and theme need not be pursued further here. What is important is to point out that trained and experienced organizations such as the Secret Service and the Army were somehow given instructions not to take part. In bureaucratic terms alone this is hard to do. Each organization fights for its prerogatives and for its role. Yet someone ordered them to stand down...

[upi402]

82. Well I figured the CIA was pissed at Bush, but not *this* pissed!

to sick Thom Hartman on the poor skittish little neocons is just not elegant...



{snif}
j/k


seriously, working like eugene hausefuss (sp?) or Phil Agee?

I doubt he is.

[bobbie]

85. "to sick Thom Hartman on the poor skittish little neocons"

}(

Yeah that has to violate the Geneva conventions...oh I forgot, the Geneva conventions don't apply to us.