JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963

[Mc Mike]

198. I agree with you about the dictabelt evidence.

Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Further, I say that the statement, by French SDECE intelligence man Herve Lamarr (pen name James Hepburn) in his book 'Farewell America', that the 'Zapruder footage was altered' is very credible. I studied it with low tech humble means in the early '90's, by running it frame by frame on my VCR, and could see cuts and splices, even before reading that French Intel had done a black bag job to obtain the original footage. They announced via publication of the book that they had done so, and that they had the unaltered footage to prove it.

The phony dictabelt evidence is like the altered Zapruder footage. People who don't believe the outrageously fallacious 'official story' sometimes wound up basing SOME objections to the official story on red herring style 'official evidence', then reasonable advocates of the official story point to the flawed logic and evidence that resulted, as 'proof' that further buttresses that official story. The change in HSCA staff from Sprague to Blakely was a way to de-rail the investigation, which had it's momentum from a massive public demand for post-Watergate 'clean up the gov' efforts. Therefore, the results of the HSCA covered some ground that the WC woefully failed to do, but put the de-railing poison pill of 'all based on one dictabelt recording'.

But it's obvious that the dictabelt recording had nothing to do with the findings that individual right wing intel members, organized crime members, Batista Cubans, etc., were possibly involved in the conspiracy. Those kinds of conclusions obviously weren't drawn from an audio tape, BB.

The link I referred to from Octa had a lot of credible reporting, from the Boston Globe, AP, San Jose Merc, etc. It showed statements by a lot of key government players that indicated a fight for control between the CIA and Kennedy over foreign policy. An interesting book by Mark Aarons and John Loftus titled 'Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, The Nazis, and the Swiss Banks' made this statement -- "In effect, there were two CIAs in Germany, one liberal (Department of Army Detachment), one conservative (DDU). The first took orders from the President, DDU took its from Dulles, who had joined Thomas Dewey's Campaign Staff, expecting Dewey to be the next President." (p. 234) That shows a fight for control within intel itself, with a faction that didn't believe that 'politics stop at the water's edge', but instead placed themselves above President Truman, and unaccountable to his orders and control, because they wanted to take political power in this country. It's a eerily and blatantly familiar pattern that played out again the next time a Democratic president was elected, and of course the smirking nazi coddling repug shithead Dulles is involved yet again.

Between Truman and Kennedy, Republican Prez Eisenhower held office. Now, I've read your writing and links on this op that named key players and info from them suggesting Kennedy backed the Vietnam war and coup, and I've read Octa's writing and links that named key players and info from them suggesting the CIA was attempting to wrest control of our gov from the Presidency. With all the evidence and statements from and about key players like Lodge, Harriman, Bundy, Lemnitzer, Lansdale, McNamara, O'Donnell, Galbraith, etc., the info can become an overwhelming labrynth that baffles even the smart citizens who read this site. Too many components swirling to keep straight in the head of anyone who isn't an avowed scholar of US foreign policy '55 - '65. Digression aside, I bring up Eisenhower for a couple of reasons. First, the only and obvious reason for his warning about the MIIC in his farewell speech was to say that there were forces that he couldn't control or change when he was president, which he was worried would destroy Democracy in this country, so you can draw a straight line from Dulles' treasonous actions during Truman's administration to Dulles' treasonous actions during Kennedy's Administration, and it goes right through Eisenhower's warning about forces above him during his own administration. I call him a Republican instead of my usual term 'repug', because he fought against the nazis, and didn't believe they had aims or values that he could compromise with to further his own party's power and goals.

Second, when you bring up Eisenhower's chastisement of Kennedy re Cuba, it shows a marked distinction between Republican cold warriors and Kennedy. And Kennedy's denial of air support was an agreed upon precondition. Air support would only be provided when the massive popular uprising, which the CIA lyingly guaranteed, occurred. That was clearly stated before the operation, and military and intel figured he'd just send them anyway, even when it became clear that they lied to the President. Of course the whole Bay of Pigs operation was built before Kennedy came into office, by the same Military Industrial intel complex -- featuring shit head Poppy Bush, and E. Howard Hunt, and Dulles, and Nixon's Batista cuban buddies -- the same MIC that Eisenhower warned of, and it was pushed onto Kennedy a few months after he came into office.

And the results which Sabato reported Eisenhower predicting, of 'emboldened communists attacking because they detected weakness', didn't come about from the failed attempt to reinstate Batista subordinates into power. True, we got the Missile crisis, but did that come from the failure of the bay of pigs, or from the attempt itself? Either way, we wound up with a temporary removal of Cuban missiles and US missiles in Turkey, and we also got the red phone. The Bay of Pigs failure didn't result in Cuba as a springboard for a Russian commie takeover of the Americas.

There are a lot of things we won't agree about, but to me, it's still positive to discuss them. Photos of Nixon laughing it up with the Chinese communist leaders while carpetbombing Vietnam, though we were only in Vietnam to supposedly fight China's effort to spread Chinese communism -- that's essence of 'cold warrior'. Bullying, irrational, driven by lust for power, financially benefitting Dow and Monsanto, irrationally hypocritical, bloodthirsty and mass-murderous. The Berlin airlift, that's self-defense. Well thought out. It's like being in a bar and some drunken loud mouth is yelling and bullying, threatening and breaking things, then some quiet guy knocks his ass out. A reasonable person doesn't say both are violent bar patrons, though by strict definition they are. In 1960, Kennedy knocked Nixon's ass out in the election, and the repugs couldn't quit screaming and crying about it. And the people above and behind Nixon killed Kennedy.