The Bush dynasty and the Cuban criminals

[Octafish]

Fulgencio Batista, El Hombre



A brave author explains how Jebthro got big:

The Bush dynasty and the Cuban criminals

New book reveals links of two presidents and the governor of Florida with exiled hardliners

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Monday December 2, 2002
The Guardian

The brother of President George Bush, the Florida governor, Jeb Bush, has been instrumental in securing the release from prison of militant Cuban exiles convicted of terrorist offences, according to a new book. The Bush family has also accommodated the demands of Cuban exile hardliners in exchange for electoral and financial support, the book suggests.

Last year, after September 11, while the justice department announced a sweep of terrorist suspects, Cubans convicted of terrorist offences were being released from US jails with the consent of the Bush administration, according to the book, Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana, by Ann Louise Bardach, the award-winning investigative journalist who has covered Cuban and Miami politics for the New York Times and Vanity Fair.

The Bush family connections go back to 1984 when Jeb Bush began a close association with Camilo Padreda, a former intelligence officer with the Batista dictatorship overthrown by Fidel Castro.

Jeb Bush was then the chairman of the Dade county Republican party and Padreda its finance chairman. Padreda had earlier been indicted on a $500,000 (£320,000) embezzlement charge along with a fellow exile, Hernandez Cartaya, but the charges were dropped, reportedly after the CIA stated that Cartaya had worked for them.

CONTINUED...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,851913,00.html

Sort of does a lot of explaining.

[seemslikeadream]

1. Photos of the extraordinary self-important Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and his Congressman brother, Mario

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3182568

[Octafish]

2. Fulgencio Batista, friend of the powerful. Like Richard M Nixon.

This is where the whole Bay of Pigs Thing started.

Biography

General Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar (January 16, 1901 - August 6, 1973) was the de facto military leader of Cuba from 1933 to 1940 and the de jure President of Cuba from 1940 to 1944. He then became the country's leader, after staging a coup, from 1952 to 1959. His authoritarian government generated opposition, notably from Fidel Castro's guerrilla movement by which Batista was ousted, in what is known as the Cuban Revolution.

Youth and first rule

Batista was born in Banes, Holguín Province, Cuba in 1901. He is said to have been the son of Belisario Batista and Carmela Zaldívar, Cubans who fought for independence from Spain. Of very humble origins, Batista began working from an early age. A self-educated man, he attended school at night and is said to have been a voracious reader. Batista was considered socially a mulatto (mixed African and Spanish blood, for the Taíno were considered extinct. Photographs reveal additional admixtures which while some say were Filipino and seemingly indicate strong proportions of indigenous Taíno). He bought a ticket to Havana and joined the army in 1921. Sergeant Batista was a leader of the 1933 "Sergeants' Revolt" which replaced the Provisional Government of Carlos Manuel de Céspedes who had previously ousted Gerardo Machado. It is generally conceded that U.S. Special Envoy Sumner Welles approved of this. Ramón Grau was made president and Batista became the Army Chief of Staff and effectively controlled the presidency.

During this period Batista violently suppressed a number of attempts to defeat his control. This included the squashing of an uprising in the ancient Atares fort (Havana) by Blas Hernández, a rural guerrilla who had fought Gerardo Machado. Many of those who surrendered were executed. Another attempt was the attack on the Hotel Nacional where Cuban former army officers of the Cuban Olympic rifle team (including one Enrique Ros) put up stiff resistance until they were defeated. Here again Batista troops executed a good number of the surrendered. The irony is that many of these officers had helped overthrow Machado. There were many other often minor and almost unrecorded attempted revolts against Batista. These too were bloodily suppressed. These minor revolts included one in Guamá, a place in the Sierra Maestra south of Guisa, where the followers of an anti-Batista guerrilla leader known as Gamboa (apparently a member, or former member, of the Antonio Guiteras anti-Machado guerrillas) were defeated and dispersed.

Grau was president for just over 100 days before being replaced by Carlos Mendieta y Montefur (11 months), then José Barnet y Vinajeras (5 months), and then Miguel Gómez y Arias (7 months) before Federico Laredo Brú managed to rule from December 1936 to October 1940.

In October, 1940, Batista, who formed a coalition with the Cuban Communist Party was elected President of Cuba. During his tenure, he drafted the 1940 constitution (later approved by President Grau), widely regarded as a progressive document with regards to labor, unemployment, and social security, and implemented several liberal economic reforms. In 1944, Batista was forbidden by law to seek re-election by term limits and was succeeded by Grau. Batista retired to Florida before returning in 1952.

Second rule

Batista staged an almost bloodless coup d'état on March 10, 1952, removing Carlos Prío Socarrás (elected in 1948). Cubans in general were stunned, for they, remembering the bloodshed of the 1930's, were not ready to fight. Batista created a consultive council integrated from pliable political personalities of all parties who appointed him President three months before new elections were to be held. There were unanswered appeals to the Organization of American States and the UN (Thomas, 1971, 1998). Batista's past democratic and pro-labor tendencies and the fear of another episode of bloody violence gained him tenuous support from the now very old survivors of the Independence Wars, the bankers, the association of cane growers, the colonos (often prosperous share croppers and owners), and the leader of the major labor confederation, the CTC, Eusebio Mujal. Only a few labor leaders "such as Pascasio Linarer, Jesús Artigas and Calixto Sánchez" rebelled. The Ortodoxo and Auténtico, the major political parties, were undecisive.

CONTINUED...

http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Batista/Aug2006BatistaEN.htm

Banana Republicans.

The Mob's President:
Richard Nixon's Secret Ties to the Mafia

by Don Fulsom

During the height of the Watergate scandal, Atty. Gen. John Mitchell's wife, Martha, sounded one of the first alarms, telling a reporter, ''Nixon is involved with the Mafia. The Mafia was involved in his election.''

White House officials privately urged other reporters to treat any anti-Nixon comments by Martha as the ravings of a drunken crackpot.

Time, however, has proved Mrs. Mitchell right.

Richard Nixon's earliest campaign manager and political advisor was Murray Chotiner, a chubby lawyer who specialized in defending members of the Mafia and who enjoyed dressing like them too, in a wardrobe highlighted by monogrammed white-on-white dress shirts and silk ties with jeweled stickpins. The monograms said MMC, because – perhaps to seem more impressive – he billed himself as Murray M. Chotiner, though, in reality, he lacked a middle name.

In this cigar chomping, wheeler-dealer, Nixon had found what future Nixon aide Len Garment called ''his Machiavelli – a hardheaded exponent of the campaign philosophy that politics is war.''

When Nixon went on to the White House, both as vice president, and later as president, he took Chotiner with him as a key behind-the-scenes advisor – and for good reason. By the time he became president in 1969, thanks in large part to Murray Chotiner's contacts with such shady figures as Mafia-connected labor leader Jimmy Hoffa, New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello, and Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, Richard Nixon had been on the giving and receiving end of major underworld favors for more than two decades.

SNIP...

(Meyer)Lansky was considered the Mafia's financial genius. Known as ''The Little Man'' because he was barely five feet tall, Lansky developed Cuba for the Mob during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, when Havana was ''The Latin Las Vegas.'' Under its tall, swaying palms, gambling, prostitution and drug trafficking netted the U.S. Syndicate more than $100-million-a-year – even after handsome payoffs to Batista.

In the mid-‘50s, Batista designated Lansky the unofficial czar of gambling in Havana. This was so Batista could stop some Mob-run casinos from using doctored games of chance to cheat tourists. A shrewd, master manipulator whose specialty was gambling, Lansky was also known among mobsters as honest. It wasn't necessary to rig the gambling tables to make boatloads of bucks. Lansky directed all casino operators to ''clean up, or get out.''

Lansky, in turn, was very generous with the Cuban dictator. As former Lansky associate Joseph Varon has said: ''I know every time Myer went to Cuba he would bring a briefcase with at least $100,000 (for Batista). So Batista welcomed him with open arms, and the two men really developed such an affection for each other. Batista really loved him. I guess I'd love him too if he gave me $100,000 every time I saw him.''

Lansky saw to it that his friends were generous to Batista too. In February 1955, Vice President Richard Nixon traveled to Havana to embrace Batista at the despot's lavish private palace, praise ''the competence and stability'' of his regime, award him a medal of honor, and compare him with Abraham Lincoln. Nixon hailed Batista's Cuba as a land that ''shares with us the same democratic ideals of peace, freedom and the dignity of man.''

CONTINUED...

http://www.crimemagazine.com/06/mobpresidentnixon,0205-6.htm



Small world.

[AntiFascist]

6. Excellent...

and the CIA became involved with the Cuban mob in planning Castro's assassination.

Here's another great Crime Magazine article about Nixon and the mafia:

http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm

[Octafish]

20. Richard Nixon's Greatest Cover-Up: His Ties to the Assassination of President Kennedy

Thank you, AntiFascist. That is one hell of an article.



Great picture, too.

Here's a bit on the "Bay of Pigs Thing."

Richard Nixon's Greatest Cover-Up: His Ties to the Assassination of President Kennedy

by Don Fulsom
CrimeMagazine.com

EXCERPT...

E. Howard Hunt, of course, went on to become President Nixon's chief dirty trickster and secret intelligence operative. In 1972, five Hunt-recruited former CIA men — all veterans of the Bay of Pigs invasion planning — were caught by police while burglarizing Democratic headquarters at the Watergate office building in Washington. Fearing that Hunt's role would soon be learned — and the burglary traced back to the White House —Nixon immediately set out to blackmail g an FBI investigation of the break-in. He had his chief of staff, Bob Haldeman, tell CIA Director Richard Helms that Hunt, if apprehended, might spill the beans about a major CIA secret. On one of the original Watergate tapes, the president rehearsed Haldeman on exactly what to tell the intelligence chief: "Hunt knows too damned much ... If this gets out that this is all involved ... it would make the CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and it's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs thing ... which we think would be very unfortunate for both the CIA and the country ... and for American foreign policy."

In a generally overlooked revelation in a post-Watergate book, Haldeman said: "It seems that in all those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination. (Interestingly, an investigation of the Kennedy assassination was a project I suggested when I first entered the White House. Now I felt we would be in a position to get all the facts. But Nixon turned me down.)" Haldeman added that the CIA pulled off a "fantastic cover-up" that "literally erased any connection between the Kennedy assassination and the CIA."

On a White House tape made public in the 1990s, Haldeman fingered Nixon as the source of his information that the CIA had reason to fear Hunt's possible disclosure of "Bay of Pigs" secrets. The newest Nixon tapes are studded with deletions — segments deemed by government censors as too sensitive for public scrutiny. "National Security" is cited. Not surprisingly, such deletions often occur during discussions involving the Bay of Pigs, E. Howard Hunt, and John F. Kennedy.

One of the most tantalizing nuggets about Nixon's possible inside knowledge of JFK assassination secrets was buried on a White House tape until 2002. On the tape, recorded in May of 1972, the president confided to two top aides that the Warren Commission pulled off "the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated." Unfortunately, he did not elaborate. But the context in which Nixon raised the matter shows just how low he could stoop in efforts to assassinate the character of his political adversaries.

The Republican president made the "hoax" observation in the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt against White House hopeful George Wallace, a longtime Democratic governor of Alabama. The attempt left Wallace paralyzed below the waist. Nixon blurted out his comments about the falsity of the Warren findings in the middle of a conversation in which he repeatedly directed two of his most ruthless aides, Bob Haldeman and Chuck Colson, to carry out a monumental dirty trick. He urged them to plant a false news story linking the would-be Wallace assassin — Arthur Bremer — to two other Democrats, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. George McGovern —possible Nixon opponents in that year's fall elections. "Screw the record," the president orders on at one point. "Just say he was a supporter of that nut (it isn't clear which of the two senators he is referring to). And put it out. Just say we have an authenticated report."

As well as helping to perpetuate the Kennedy assassination "hoax" by turning down Haldeman's proposal for a new JFK probe, Nixon had a major hand in perpetrating it. In November of 1964, on the eve of the official release of the Warren Report, private citizen Nixon went public in support of the panel's coming findings. In a piece for Reader's Digest, he portrayed Oswald as the sole assassin. And Nixon implied that Castro — "a hero in the warped mind" of Oswald — was the real culprit.

CONTINUED...

http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm

E Howard Hunt worked with Averell Harriman in the Marshall Plan days. Harriman was Prescott Bush's colleague in their days helping rearm the Reich.

[AntiFascist]

22. .... and what was it that E. Howard Hunt wanted from the Watergate Hotel HQ?

other reports have indicated that it may have included photos of him being arrested at Dealey Plaza. Hunt's reason for doing this: protect his own ass. Nixon's reason for the CIA Plummers: to protect the integrity and reputation of his presidency.

[Swamp Rat]

3. Maybe McCain will pick Jeb for VP?

:hi: ¡Órale buey!

[Octafish]

8. Big concern o' mine, that.

It'd likely go: "First Romney. Then Jebthro."



"Patience. Patience. McCain is getting up there. How's your life insurance?"

History shows what might certainly speed up the agenda:

HINCKLEY: HIT MAN FOR THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT?

Wow! That image is spot-on, Compay!

To'l mundo aqa ban bien. ¿Y aya? Van bien, Herman'?

[Swamp Rat]

9. dupe

[Swamp Rat]

10. I think Lieberconman is a likely pick

:hi:

[Virginia Dare]

23. He'd probably be Sec Def or Sec of State....n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. Romeney is the type of candidate they like

Totally moldable and corruptible.

[Virginia Dare]

24. I think that was probably Romney's carrot for dropping out..

seeing as how McCain hates his guts, it's the only explanation that he'd be in serious contention for V.P. Of course McCain will be lucky to make it four years, so Mittsy picks Jebby as his V.P., and we're off to never never land bushco style again.

[ConsAreLiars]

4. All hail Octafish. Your hard work in providing us with the hidden history of power in the US is

awesome. I've put a lot of effort over my many years into understanding "how things work," and not a lot you post is totally new to me, at least when it comes to the broad picture. But many of the details and the interconnections you reveal are truly new and revealing even to me. They add further detail to the what I had already learned.

I am a skeptic by nature and very "show-me-the-evidence" by training. So I easily recognize a a lot of "conspiracy" crap as just that, crap. But your posts are admirable. Just the facts, well documented, relevant, and instructive.

Thank you for the good work you are doing, always.

[Octafish]

11. (Blush) Thank you, ConsAreLiars! The thing is most people have no idea.

I'm very sorry, my Friend. My posts sound like broken records to those who know the story.

What I'm trying to do is get the word out. It is surprising so see where these articles turn up.

It'd be nice if they all were to see and understand this cartoon:



Then they'd need the facts to fill in what the symbols mean. That's where words – and DU – come in...

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=319

http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bushnazidealingscontinueduntil1951.htm

…and your words mean everything to me. While I am not worthy, thank you.

[blm]

16. If not for the few who don't care HOW it sounds to repeat the truth over and over again as more

citizens begin to open their eyes and minds to the facts of our nation's actual historic record, who WOULD be protecting the accuracy of that record for those still unfamiliar with the truth? Certainly not our nation's media.

[Octafish]

21. JFK – How the Media Assassinated the Real Story

Thank you for understanding and standing up to speak the truth, blm.

Most people would have stuck their heads in the sand and said, “It’s not my problem.”

JFK – How the Media Assassinated the Real Story

By Robert Hennelly & Jerry Policoff

If the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was one of the darkest tragedies in the republic's history, the reporting of it has remained one of the worst travesties of the American media. From the first reports out of Dallas in November of 1963 to the merciless flagellation of Oliver Stone's JFK over the last several months, the mainstream media have disgraced themselves by hewing blindly to the single-assassin theory advanced by the FBI within hours of the murder. Original, enterprise reporting has been left almost entirely to alternative weeklies, monthly magazines, book publishers, and documentary makers. All such efforts over the last 29 years have met the same fate as Oliver Stone's movie: derision from the mainstream media. At first, the public bought the party line. But gradually, as more and more information slipped through the margins of the media business, and finally through the efforts of Congress itself, the public began to change its mind.

Today, according to a recent New York Times/CBS poll, an astonishing 77 percent of Americans reject the Warren Report's conclusions. How did such a tremendous credibility gap come about? And, assuming that the majority of Americans are right, how did a free press so totally blow one of the biggest stories of the century? To find out, Village Voice has reviewed hundreds of documents bearing on the media's coverage of the assassination, and has discovered a pattern of collusion and co-optation that is hardly less chilling than the prospect of a conspiracy to kill the president. In particular, The New York Times, Time-Life, CBS, and NBC have striven mightily to protect the single assassin hypothesis, even when that has involved the suppression of information, the coercion of testimony, and the misrepresentation of key evidence. The "Voice" has discovered that: Within days of the assassination, the Justice Department quashed an editorial in The Washington Post that called for an independent investigation; within two weeks the FBI was able to crow that NBC had pledged not to report anything beyond what the FBI itself was putting before the American people; only four hours after the murder, Life magazine grabbed up one of the main pieces of evidence--the Zapruder film-- misrepresenting the content to millions of readers in its very first post-assassination issue and then continuing the lie with ever-changing captions and Zapruder frames in its special issue supporting the Warren Commission report; in 1967, a supposedly independent CBS documentary series on the assassination was in fact secretly reviewed and seemingly altered by former Warren Commission member John Jay McCloy, through a "Dad says" memo written by his daughter Ellen McCloy, then administrative assistant of CBS News president Richard Salant; within that same CBS series, the testimony of Orville Nix--an amateur filmmaker who captured the "the grassy knoll" angle on tape--was tailored to fit the requirements of CBS's Warren Commission slant. Much of this unethical and immoral practice was accomplished under the pretext of "sparing the Kennedy family."

Indeed, the coverage of the assassination was complicated by the cross-identification between reporters and the president. The Kennedys were the first, and possibly the last, American political family to so thoroughly cultivate the fourth estate; in the aftermath of the assassination, the media completely relinquished its usual skepticism and opened the door for the government to do whatever it found most expedient. What possible motive could the national media have for failing to properly investigate the Kennedy murder? Perhaps they were genuinely seduced by this "Camelot" they themselves created. And if anyone was going to end Camelot, far better for the memories, far better for the family, that it be a lone psycho than a conspiracy. And if the media were solicitous to the Kennedys in this way, they were positively patronizing to the citizenry. It was Vietnam all over again: the war was good for the country, so don't report how badly it was going; a conspiracy to kill the president would be demoralizing at home and humiliating abroad, so sweep under the rug any evidence pointing in that direction. And then of course there was the national security issue.

Many of the editors who were calling the shots on assassination coverage had come out of World War II. Their country took precedence over the truth; the CIA and FBI were entitled to the benefit of the doubt; the "free press" was sometimes confused with the Voice of America. J. Edgar Hoover, supreme patriarch of the FBI and all-powerful with a distraught Robert Kennedy out of the way, knew just how to exploit the opportunity. Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach recalls that Robert Kennedy, attorney general at the time, was so despondent he didn't even see the point of an investigation. "What the hell's the difference? He's gone," Katzenbach remembers RFK saying before handing over the reins. Just three days after the assassination an internal Justice Department memo from Katzenbach to Bill Moyers, then a top aide to Lyndon Johnson, spelled out the Justice Department's strategy, a strategy that would prevail to a shocking degree right through the end of the decade:

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat--too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.

Katzenbach, whose memo sets out the Warren report results a year before the commission reached them, suggests that a "Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel" be appointed to examine evidence and reach conclusions. In closing he writes,

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

CONTINUED…

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/assassinations/jfk/policoff-stone-JKF.htm

On a personal note: I would have given up on this Thing a long time ago were it not for your encouragement and spirit, Patriot.

[blm]

15. Once the pieces start fitting it's hard to even pretend it's tinfoil time. The actual records that

exist and can be accessed through the National Security Archives tell a story that is more in line with what gets labeled 'conspiracy' than anything that has come out of the MSM since the early 90s.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

This is exactly why the top investigative reporters of the real crimes of BushInc were blackballed and targeted for takedown throughout the 90s. Especially, Robert Parry and the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter Gary Webb.

[bleever]

5. Lots of 'splainin.

Unless they can keep it quiet, no matter how many years go by.

[Octafish]

12. Bush's Endless Hypocrisy on Terror

One man's terrorist is another man's vandal freedom fighter.

Bush's Endless Hypocrisy on Terror

By Robert Parry
Consortiumnews.com May 21, 2008

Is a government guilty of terrorism if it harbors known terrorists? What should one say about a country that permits open fund-raising on behalf of a terrorist implicated in the mass killing of civilians?

What about a government that secretly arms a guerrilla army that wantonly kills and abuses civilians while seeking to overthrow an elected government?

If your answer to those questions is to recite George W. Bush’s dictum that a government that harbors or helps terrorists should be punished just like the terrorists, then you must turn your wrath on the U.S. government and the Bush family -- guilty on all the above points.

But the U.S. political/media system continues to view the world through a cracked lens that focuses outrage on “enemy” regimes while refracting away a comparable fury from similar actions by U.S. officials.

So, while President Bush ponders whether to add Venezuela to the terrorist list – because of a captured Colombian guerrilla computer that appears to implicate Hugo Chavez’s government in weapons smuggling – Bush would broach no criticism of Ronald Reagan who armed Nicaraguan contra guerrillas in the 1980s.

Reagan continued that covert war even after the ruling Sandinistas won an election in 1984 that most outside observers praised as free and fair and even after the facts of the contras’ human rights abuses – kidnapping, torturing and murdering civilians – became widely known and were acknowledged by some senior contra leaders.

Though Reagan was well aware of the contras’ cruelty (he privately called them “vandals”), he hailed them publicly as “freedom fighters” and equated them with America’s “Founding Fathers.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/052008.html

We're almost there. The polls show a majority of We the People have woken up.

[tom_paine]

7. K & R. Octafish...

:yourock: :yourock:

[Octafish]

13. Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy

Here's why Poppy and Jebthro's Cuban buddies in Miami matter:

The Waters of Knowledge

versus

The Waters of Uncertainty

Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy

by E. Martin Schotz

INTRODUCTION

My task this afternoon is to explore with you the reasons the American people do not know who killed President Kennedy and why. In order to do this we will have to deal with three interdependent conspiracies which developed in the course of the assassination and its aftermath. These are (1) the criminal conspiracy to murder the President by a cabal of militarists at the highest echelons of power in the United States; (2) the conspiracy which aided and abetted these murderers after the fact, by covering for the assassins, also a true criminal conspiracy involving an extremely wide circle of government officials across the entire political spectrum and at all levels of government; and (3) a conspiracy of ignorance, denial, confusion, and silence which has pervaded our entire public.

The major focus of my talk today is this third conspiracy on the part of the public, which includes our so-called "critical community". I want to show you that our failure to know is not based on any lack of data or because the data is ambiguous. It is all extremely simple and obvious. Rather we don't know because we are deeply emotionally resistant to what such knowledge tells us about ourselves and our society. Furthermore the powers-that-be do not reward people for such knowledge. Indeed if a person is willing to acknowledge the truth, is in a position to share such knowledge with the public, and wishes to do so, then the organized institutions of our society will turn sharply against such a person.

Now this is not a new problem in the history of society. In fact, I want to read to you a Sufi tale from the Ninth Century which can help to orient us to the problem. The tale is entitled "When the Waters Were Changed." It goes as follows:

When the Waters Were Changed

Once upon a time Khidr, the Teacher of Moses, called upon mankind with a warning. At a certain date, he said, all the water in the world which had not been specially hoarded, would disappear. It would then be renewed with dfferent water, which would drive men mad.

Only one man listened to the meaning of this advice. He collected water, went to a secure place where he stored it, and waited for the water to change its character.

On the appointed date the streams stopped running, the wells went dry, and the man who had listened, seeing this happening, went to his rdtreat and drank his preserved water.

When he saw, from his security, the waterfalls again beginning to flow, this man descended among the other sons of men. He found that they were thinking and talking in an entirely different way from before; yet they had no memory of what had happened, nor of having been warned. When he tried to talk to them, he realized that they thought that he was mad, and they showed hostility or compassion, not understanding.

At first he drank none of the new water, but went back to his concealment, to draw on his supplies, every day. Finally, however, he took the decision to drink the new water because he could not bear the loneliness of living, behaving and thinking in a different way from everyone else. He drank the new water, and became like the rest. Then he forgot all about his own store of special water, and his fellows began to look upon him as a madman who had miraculously been restored to sanity.

The struggle for truth in the assassination of President Kennedy confronts us with the problem of the "waters of knowledge" versus "the waters of uncertainty." Let me give you an example involving two important individuals who attempted to bring the truth before the American people. I am speaking of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and filmmaker Oliver Stone.

CONTINUED...

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/schotz.html

Since 2003, I've felt the same about you, tom_paine. Thank you for understanding.

[tom_paine]

17. Thank you for your wealth of information, and sharing it at DU.

:toast:

[ConsAreLiars]

18. a kick - knowing the facts does matter (nt)

[Octafish]

26. CIA tried to frame Oswald and blame Cuba for President Kennedy's assassination

Without ever having to actually produce the photograph for investigators,
here's a guy the CIA told the Warren Commission was OSWALD in Mexico City...



...of course, the guy just SAID he was Oswald
to the Soviet embassy employees and the CIA,
listening in on the bugged phone line.

He really was just PRETENDING to be Oswald.
And the reports of the time are that the man made a big stink at the Soviet embassy,
trying to make contact with a KGB officer known for his wet work.
This was a couple of months before the assassination.

Now why would the CIA lie about this?
Could it be part of a, um, plan
to make Oswald out to be some kind of violent Communist lone nut?

The Framing of Oswald

"The CIA advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."

The paragraph shown above comes from an FBI memo sent to both the White House and the Secret Service on November 23, 1963, the day after President Kennedy's assassination. It was a follow-up to a phone call at 10:01 AM, in which Director Hoover informed Lyndon Johnson of the same fact. Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of Kennedy held in police custody in Dallas, had been impersonated in phone calls to the Soviet Embassy in Mexio City.

The fact that Oswald was impersonated less than two months prior to the Dallas shooting was obviously important news. What made the revelation even more stunning was that, in one such call, "Oswald" referred to a previous meeting with a Soviet official named Kostikov. Valeriy Kostikov was well-known to the CIA and FBI as a KGB agent operating out of the Embassy under official cover. But, far more ominously, the FBI's "Tumbleweed" informant had previously tipped off the U.S. that Kostikov was a member of the KGB's "Department 13," involved in sabotage and assassinations.

An otherwise inexplicable impersonation episode takes on an entirely new meaning in this light. The calls from the Oswald impersonator made it appear that Oswald was a hired killer, hired by the Soviet Union no less. This was a prescription for World War III.

Perhaps the perfect plan was foiled by the fact that Oswald was captured, allowing the FBI to interrogate him and compare his voice to the tapes of these tapped phone calls, which were apparently flown up from the CIA's Mexico City Station on the evening of November 22. In any case, what should have been a hot lead to sophisticated conspirators was instead quickly buried—by November 25, FBI memos made no more mention of tapes, only transcripts. The CIA has maintained to this day that the tapes were routinely recycled prior to the assassination, and no tapes were ever sent. But the evidence that the tapes did exist and were listened to is now overwhelming, and includes several FBI memos, a call from Hoover to LBJ which appears to have been suspiciously erased, and even the word of two Warren Commission staffers who say they listened to the tapes during their visit to Mexico City in April 1964!

Back in November 1963, with the knowledge that it wasn't Oswald in these calls to the Soviet Embassy tightly held, and with witnesses coming forward to claim seeing Oswald take money to kill Kennedy from Cuban operatives, a coverup went into high gear. Lyndon Johnson used the fear of nuclear war, bandying about the figure "40 million Americans" who would die in a nuclear exchange. Even though he knew of the impersonation, Johnson used this false scare to press men like Richard Russell and Earl Warren onto a President's Commission which another Commissioner, John J. McCloy, said was to "settle the dust."

CONTINUED...

http://www.history-matters.com/frameup.htm

Those interested in a scholarly analysis might enjoy John Newman's analysis:

http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_1.html

Oswald in Mexico City

According to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald traveled to Mexico City in the fall of 1963, in search of a visa for travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union. He failed in that effort and returned to Dallas, where 7 weeks later he shot President Kennedy.

Allegations of a Cuban or Soviet conspiracy, based on events and stories related to this visit, bloomed in the aftermath of the assassination. They were apparently instrumental in the creation of the Warren Commission, and over the years more and more has trickled out regarding a trip which ultimately remains enigmatic.

The record on Mexico City is wildly muddled and mysterious. Was Oswald impersonated there? Who is the "mystery man" caught by photo surveillance? Why are CIA records on the trip at sharp variance with participant's memories? Were the witnesses who reported events indicating a Communist conspiracy telling the truth, spinning false tales, or perhaps reporting on staged incidents? Did Oswald, or someone pretending to be him, threaten the life of JFK in the Cuban Embassy?

Despite the mysteries, one thing is certain. The events in Mexico City had a profound effect on the federal government's response to the assassination. President Johnson invoked fears of nuclear war in putting together the Warren Commission, finally enlisting a recalcitrant Earl Warren by telling him "what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City."

CONTINUED w Lots o' Links and Sources:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Oswald_in_Mexico_City

Thank you for caring and understanding, ConsAreLiars. Reading between the lines and lies, we just might be getting somewhere.

[EFerrari]

19. kick

[Octafish]

25. Peter Dale Scott: THE KENNEDY-CIA DIVERGENCE OVER CUBA

Here's that thing I was looking for. Peter Dale Scott chronicles how CIA's Helms and FitzGerald FALSELY made out like it was Bobby Kennedy who ordered the hit on Castro.

Deep Politics III

by Peter Dale Scott

V. THE KENNEDY-CIA DIVERGENCE OVER CUBA

“It is inconceivable that a secret intelligence arm of the government has to comply with all the overt orders of the government”
-- James Angleton(1)

Two recent books on the tribulations of the Kennedy presidency have attributed the brothers’ aggressiveness towards Cuba in 1963 to (in the words of Alexander Haig, a junior observer) “the impatient prodding of Robert Kennedy.”(2) Both books argue further (though in different ways) that Bobby’s dabbling in these murderous operations “somehow contributed to his brother’s murder.”(3)

I shall suggest in this chapter that in 1963, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedys’ Cuban operations were carefully thought out, and not just attributable as Mahoney suggests to Bobby’s “violent antipathy to Castro.”(4) On the contrary, we shall see that their timing corroborates what JFK himself spoke of in 1963, the targeting of Cuba as part of an elaborate tit-for-tat chess game with the Soviet Union, to retaliate against what were perceived to be Soviet aggressions elsewhere:

As he had explained to the National Security Council on January 22, 1963…”…We can use Cuba to limit Soviet actions in the way the Russians use Berlin to limit our actions.” Now, on April 19, faced with Communist moves in Southeast Asia, the President remarked at least twice that he wanted to link the continued Soviet presence in Cuba with Communist activities in Laos. The Soviets, he commented, were “continuing the type of harassment effort that we had stopped by the Cuban exiles,” and they were not moving out of Cuba as we wished.”(5)

It does not appear that the Kennedys shared this higher rationale for their Cuban tactics with either the CIA or the Joint Chiefs. Both the CIA and the Pentagon had been at odds with the White House following the Kennedys’ failure to bail out the disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco. In addition the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been excluded from Ex Comm meetings after their recommendations of an invasion to remove Castro from power.(6) It is clear that the Kennedys’ tight control over Cuban ops, for purposes which were either not understood or not shared by subordinates, contributed to further tensions within an already divided administration. Above all, as CIA officer Walter Elder told Seymour Hersh, “There was an intense dislike in CIA for Bobby.”(7)

In all the discussions about the John F. Kennedy assassination, there have been major disagreements about the full range of Kennedy's policies in 1963 towards Cuba. It is clear however that he was simultaneously pursuing more than one "track" in 1963, and that in one of these tracks -- the exploration of a possible accommodation with Castro through direct contacts -- the President pointedly excluded the CIA.

The carrot of accommodation was not the only track. We shall see that by June the Kennedys were also applying the stick of sabotage operations (in conjunction with the CIA). But there were powerful reasons prompting the Kennedys towards accommodation and even direct contacts with Castro representatives, reasons pointing beyond Cuba to the President's larger hopes for accommodation and improved relations with the Soviet Union.

In 1963 both strategies of accommodation, with Cuba and with the Soviet Union, developed increasingly hostile opposition, in the country, in Congress, and even within the Administration. Particularly within the CIA, those elements still smarting from the Bay of Pigs defeat went beyond their policy directives to frustrate the accommodation track.

I shall argue that senior officials within the CIA, notably Richard Helms and Desmond FitzGerald, knew of the Kennedy brothers' secret moves to initiate direct communications with Castro, disapproved of them, and took steps to poison them. Their most flagrant action was to initiate a new series of secret meetings with a known assassin and suspected double agent, Rolando Cubela Secades (code-named AMLASH), at which a major topic of discussion was the assassination of Fidel Castro. Helms, without consulting the Attorney General, authorized a contact plan whereby in October 1963 (and possibly again on November 22) FitzGerald met with Cubela, and promised him material assistance in assassinating Castro, while posing (falsely) as a "personal representative of Robert F. Kennedy."(8)

CONTINUED...

http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm

Gee. Isn't stabbing your Commander-In-Chief in the back treason? Must be a tradition in certain circles.

[Judi Lynn]

27. Just saw this thread! I'm saving it to read tonight. Thank you so much. n/t