Let's Blame Bobby

It's the return of the once-lost series that Paul Trejo didn't want himself to read.


Now it's time to shift gears for a little while, due to my recovery of some posts that were deleted from The Education Forum in late June of 2013. The previous Summer I had begun a series of postings that dealt with an agenda to lay the blame for President Kennedy's death on his brother Robert; these were originally posted in Gary Loughran's thread "Blame it on the Bobby." In this re-posting I'm starting with a revised version of my second posting in that thread in order to give better context on the larger issue of the Central Intelligence Agency's plotting and attempts to carry out political assassinations, and the extent to which those were known or approved by President Kennedy (and Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General). The information below originally appeared as "Let's Blame Bobby, Part II" at The Education Forum on 13 July 2012............ More.

Good stuff, Dan, thanks. Look forward to having this stuff resurrected.

Thanks, Greg. Guess we'll see how things go ........ this time     The indirect responses have already been interesting.

In going back through the posts, it was heartening to revisit some of the fine work done by Bill Kelly and Robert Howard. If nothing else, anyone interested enough to read this stuff will get to experience some of that too.

Also, I forgot that guests aren't able to use links directly, so here's


Gary Loughran's "Blame it on the Bobby" thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10323&hl=%22blame%20it%20on%20the%20bobby%22&page=1

and "Let's Blame Bobby: Part One":

http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/2014/09/lets-blame-bobby-part-one.html

"Let's Blame Bobby: Part Two"

http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/2014/09/lets-blame-bobby-part-two.html


Below is a revised version of what was originally posted as "Let's Blame Bobby, Part I" at The Education Forum on 11 July 2012.


The following excerpt is from Jeff Shesol's Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud That Defined a Decade (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997), pp. 126-129 [from Chapter 5, "A Heavy Reckoning"].......

........COMMENT
What stood out the most to me in this excerpt is the phrase "as surely as Oswald's fingerprints appeared on the murder weapon." Since we can only talk about a single palm print allegedly discovered on the alleged murder weapon, it appears Shesol had very little familiarity with the details of the murder of President Kennedy. And instead of citing the Warren Report or the HSCA Report in developing his initial presentation about "embittered Oswald" and the context in which he was led to act as he allegedly did, Shesol instead relied on historical interpretations put forth in Max Holland's journal articles. As such, it's no great surprise that Shesol seriously suggests that the US trade embargo against Cuba and Cuba's expulsion from the Organization of American States "must have jarred" Oswald. Those more familiar with the evidence and issues -- and less dependent on Max Holland -- are aware that the circumstances Shesol notes as incriminating (of "Oswald's shadowy past") are the very ones that have raised the most concerns about intelligence operations that used Lee Harvey Oswald: "defection to the USSR, contacts with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico, and pro-Castro activity in New Orleans."

To be fair, Shesol's book is not about the murder of President Kennedy but about the relationship between Lyndon Johnson and Robert Kennedy. But one would think the author of a book which appears to be a good profile of that relationship would have more familiarity with the details of the most important event that occurred in it.

The rest of Shesol's account involves issues touched on in "Let's Blame Bobby: Part One," and has similar inconsistencies or outright contradictions. For instance, it's acknowledged that the CIA was trying to assassinate Castro well before Robert Kennedy came to power, and that Richard Helms' testimony was self-serving; but the gist is that Kennedy was "a wild man" implicitly authorizing extreme and murderous things -- not ruling anything out but only requiring his stamp of approval. And in this part we're led to assume, as far as we can tell, that Shesol relied more on primary sources (like the Church Committee's Assassination Report) than on Max Holland's interpretations. Most serious of all, Shesol suggests that Robert Kennedy was briefed by CIA representatives on all assassination attempts against Castro, not just in the specific Mafia-related case. There's an important distinction there, obscured by Shesol's presentation: the difference between the Attorney General of the United States getting pissed off at learning about one CIA assassination effort -- involving the mob, of all things -- and his only being pissed because it involved the Mafia (unlike, we are left to assume, the great many others officially authorized that didn't use the Mafia).

Overall, the scenario Shesol presents is what would be expected where "inside accounts" from CIA sources are taken at face-value and an accused principal is unable to defend himself (being dead).

"Let's Blame Bobby: Part Three"


Below is a revised version of my original post at The Education Forum on 17 July 2012.


The following excerpt is from Professor Joan Mellen's "The JFK Assassination: Its Impact on America's History," the text of an address delivered at New York City's 92nd Street "Y" on 28 January 2007 (and posted that same month at The Education Forum).

"....It was a great disappointment to New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison that Robert Kennedy did not assist him in his investigation......."

More:  http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/2014/09/lets-blame-bobby-part-three.html

A former CIA assassination team leader told a conference audience Sept. 26 in a blockbuster revelation that he saw accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald with their mutual CIA handler six weeks before the killing and there would have been no anti-Castro movement in Cuba without the CIA funding.
David ATLEE Phillips
This is lateast BULL SHIT passed on as something new at todays AARC conference in DC When will the missinformation stop

"Let's Blame Bobby: Part Four"

After my original posting of "Let's Blame Bobby, Part III" at The Education Forum, a gentleman named Robert Howard made a post regarding a claim Joan Mellen had made in her address at the 92nd Street "Y." On 19 July 2012 Robert wrote.........

More:  http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/2014/09/lets-blame-bobby-part-four.html

Thanks Dan. I just posted a link to part one to FB - already one share and 2 likes in a matter of minutes...

Well thank you Greg. Seems maybe I shoulda been more obtrusive at the forum's FB page instead of trying to convince family & friends to check out my blog 

Thank you, I appreciate it.

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:Well thank you Greg. Seems maybe I shoulda been more obtrusive at the forum's FB page instead of trying to convince family & friends to check out my blog 

Thank you, I appreciate it.

No problem, Dan.  Actually it was on my personal page. Keep forgetting about the forum page because someone else is doing the admin there now (and doing a sterling job!)

Edit to add -- I just looked and it has been put on the forum page as well.

Ok, thanks again. Power to the people.

"Let's Blame Bobby: Part Five"


Below is a revised version of my original post of "Let's Blame Bobby, Part IV" at The Education Forum on 1 August 2012.

In Part Three we looked at an excerpt from "The JFK Assassination: Its Impact on America's History," a speech delivered by Professor Joan Mellen in January of 2007. Under initial review it was found that one allegation she made against Robert F. Kennedy is undermined by the report of a man named Charles Donald Ford............

More:  http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/2014/10/lets-blame-bobby-part-five.html

akaDan who our Brian Lattel and Michael Warner and who do they work for ?

gerrrycam, they are two of many people who interviewed Sam Halpern over the years. Apparently they work for the CIA as CIA History Staff personnel. Their interview with Halpern on 4-7-98 was referenced by Prof. Joan Mellen as the source of the idea that Robert Kennedy while Attorney General sought to use mobsters in plans to assassinate Fidel Castro. The link is the interview:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessionid=7CE9A0AA247F86FAAF089272C37F873B?docId=52051

"This is the interview with Sam Halpern, done by Brian Latell and Michael Warner in the spaces of the Center for the Study of Intelligence on the 7th of April, 1998."

gerrrycam wrote:A former CIA assassination team leader told a conference audience Sept. 26 in a blockbuster revelation that he saw accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald with their mutual CIA handler six weeks before the killing and there would have been no anti-Castro movement in Cuba without the CIA funding.
Antonio Veciana
This is lateast BULL SHIT passed on as something new at todays AARC conference in DC When will the missinformation stop

gerrry, I sympathize entirely with wanting the misinformation to stop. I assume it was Antonio Veciana spreading "the latest bullshit"? But I'm pretty sure that's a photo of David Phillips, yes? From your post (which was empty the last time I saw it), the "Antonio Veciana" next to the photo looks like you thought this is a photo of Veciana?

Thanks dwdunn for the correction on Phillips photo. copy and past can get you in trouble. My main bitch is making of Phillips as the mastermind and Win Scott as innocent bystander.

Phillips  became Mexico City's Chief of Cuban Operations in September 1963, just before Oswald visited the city.
Gaeton Fonzi believed Phillips was Bishop. In the HSCA's 1979 report, it stated:
"The committee suspected that Veciana was lying when he denied that the retired CIA officer was Bishop. The committee recognized that Veciana had an interest in renewing his anti-Castro operations that might have led him to protect the officer from exposure as Bishop so they could work together again. For his part, the retired officer aroused the committee's suspicion when he told the committee he did not recognize Veciana as the founder of Alpha 66, especially since the officer had once been deeply involved in Agency anti-Castro operations. Further, a former CIA case officer who was assigned from September 1960 to November 1962 to the JM/WAVE station in Miami told the committee that the retired officer had in fact used the alias, Maurice Bishop. The committee also interviewed a former assistant of the retired officer but he could not recall his former superior ever having used the name or having been referred to as Bishop

From Pat Speer in awe of the "amazing" revelations of Veciana.

He said a few other important things, IMO. One is that in the months before the assassination, Phillips had asked him if one could get a visa to visit Cuba simply by showing up at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and asking for one. Veciana said he had told Phillips "No".

What a crock. If anyone knew the answer to that question, it was Phillips.

gerrrycam wrote:Thanks dwdunn for the correction on Phillips photo. copy and past can get you in trouble. My main bitch is making of Phillips as the mastermind and Win Scott as innocent bystander.

Phillips  became Mexico City's Chief of Cuban Operations in September 1963, just before Oswald visited the city.
Gaeton Fonzi believed Phillips was Bishop. In the HSCA's 1979 report, it stated:
"The committee suspected that Veciana was lying when he denied that the retired CIA officer was Bishop. The committee recognized that Veciana had an interest in renewing his anti-Castro operations that might have led him to protect the officer from exposure as Bishop so they could work together again. For his part, the retired officer aroused the committee's suspicion when he told the committee he did not recognize Veciana as the founder of Alpha 66, especially since the officer had once been deeply involved in Agency anti-Castro operations. Further, a former CIA case officer who was assigned from September 1960 to November 1962 to the JM/WAVE station in Miami told the committee that the retired officer had in fact used the alias, Maurice Bishop. The committee also interviewed a former assistant of the retired officer but he could not recall his former superior ever having used the name or having been referred to as Bishop

I think that's just how it's done, g -- each person's expendable; Scott's an innocent bystander until evidence against him comes out, then HE's the "mastermind" (acting on his own of course) while his own immediate superior was "innocent". And so on

Anyone interested would do well to check out David Phillips' security classified testimony before the HSCA; my dim recollection is that it was at the History Matters website. Some highlights were Phillips' inability to account for why there was no photograph or film of Oswald in his alleged visits to Cuban consulate or Soviet embassy in Mexico City despite the volume of camera surveillance at those critical places (as I recall, Phillips' only explanation was proposing possible technical difficulties); and the fact that Phillips and the MC's FBI attache' (Clark Anderson?) both wound up a couple years later working at the US Embassy in the Dominican Republic (just in time for the Communist revolution put down by American invasion of Marines). Also, numerous conversations that had to go off the record (in an executive session already considered "security classified") FWIW

greg parker wrote:From Pat Speer in awe of the "amazing" revelations of Veciana.

He said a few other important things, IMO. One is that in the months before the assassination, Phillips had asked him if one could get a visa to visit Cuba simply by showing up at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and asking for one. Veciana said he had told Phillips "No".

What a crock. If anyone knew the answer to that question, it was Phillips.

Seems like someone in that crowd (AARC conference) would've recognized the same thing. But nobody threw any tomatoes?

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:

greg parker wrote:From Pat Speer in awe of the "amazing" revelations of Veciana.

He said a few other important things, IMO. One is that in the months before the assassination, Phillips had asked him if one could get a visa to visit Cuba simply by showing up at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and asking for one. Veciana said he had told Phillips "No".

What a crock. If anyone knew the answer to that question, it was Phillips.

Seems like someone in that crowd (AARC conference) would've recognized the same thing. But nobody threw any tomatoes?

There were smarter people than me there. I can only assume that there are other agendas.

Ahhh, where would we be if we hadn't had agendas to deal with?

Greg, I want to thank you once again for your support, particularly as the place seems to have gotten real quiet since you expressed that support publicly. Probably only a coincidence. The concluding post is up now; I doubt it will make some people any happier, but that's life.

"Let's Blame Bobby: Conclusion"

http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/2014/10/lets-blame-bobby-conclusion.html

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:Ahhh, where would we be if we hadn't had agendas to deal with?

Greg, I want to thank you once again for your support, particularly as the place seems to have gotten real quiet since you expressed that support publicly. Probably only a coincidence. The concluding post is up now; I doubt it will make some people any happier, but that's life.

"Let's Blame Bobby: Conclusion"

http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/2014/10/lets-blame-bobby-conclusion.html

So... I have to call it a pile of horse droppings to give it positive support?

Sorry, but I'm gonna make it ghost-town by proclaiming it to be bloody good shit.

Sorry to ask a dumb question. Blame Bobby for what? 

(1) The assassination? 
(2) Not strenuously objecting to the cover-up? 
(3) Sabotaging Garrison's investigation by proxy? 
---
#1 no. 

#2 To a limited extent - yes. Allen Dulles was a prime mover on the WC and Bobby to my knowledge, didn't raise any objections to his appointment or his clout on the committee. LBJ claimed he had RFK's approval for his appointments. 

#3 Yes. Garrison couldn't understand it either. But he knew one thing - Bobby was doomed. He also knew Walter Sheridan was Bobby's guy in New Orleans. 

But I'll read the EF thread to see if it leads me to different conclusions.

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:In reviewing all this now, I would tend even more strongly towards the cynical interpretation instead of the generous, as that's "how it's done" in public relations, media manipulation, and guiding the historical record. The goal appears to be to get the supposedly professional journalists and academics to say what you want or need them to say; their word will then be taken for granted as "honest reporting" and "scholarly research," with only "alternative viewpoints" and "debate" to worry about. In other words, it all gets dropped into a bucket of relativistic bullshit along the lines of "what is truth?" and so serves the more general goal of obscuring our understanding.

Another great series, Dan.

I especially liked the ending (quoted above).

M.Ellis wrote:Sorry to ask a dumb question. Blame Bobby for what? 

(1) The assassination? 
(2) Not strenuously objecting to the cover-up? 
(3) Sabotaging Garrison's investigation by proxy? 
---
#1 no. 

#2 To a limited extent - yes. Allen Dulles was a prime mover on the WC and Bobby to my knowledge, didn't raise any objections to his appointment or his clout on the committee. LBJ claimed he had RFK's approval for his appointments. 

#3 Yes. Garrison couldn't understand it either. But he knew one thing - Bobby was doomed. He also knew Walter Sheridan was Bobby's guy in New Orleans. 

But I'll read the EF thread to see if it leads me to different conclusions.

Regarding #3, as James DiEugenio  pointed out in Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pp 255-259, it’s far from clear that Sheridan was working for Bobby Kennedy in sabotaging the Garrison investigation. DiEugenio presents a lot of evidence suggesting that Sheridan’s attack on Garrison had more to do with his many intelligence connections than with his (former?) relationship with Bobby Kennedy.