A Mob Role and a Cuban Coup Plot Explain JFK's Assassination (Buzzflash)

[kpete]

Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmannn Argue That a Mob Role and a Cuban Coup Plot Explain JFK's Assassination
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 7:55pm. Interviews

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

Legacy of Secrecy provides additional evidence showing that John and Robert Kennedy planned to stage a coup against Fidel on Dec. 1, 1963, ten days after JFK's trip to Dallas--and that three Mafia bosses infiltrated that top secret plan. ... The new information includes the confessions of all three Mafia bosses, and some of their associates.

-- Lamar Waldron, coauthor, Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination

* * *

There are four basic theories: 1) Oswald did it alone (sorry Vincent Bugliosi, not a chance); 2) Castro and/or the Soviets directed Oswald; 3) the CIA arranged it and 4) the Mafia was behind the assassination. And, of course, there are various blends of these perspectives. Waldron and Hartmann find a lot of evidence to support theory 4. They present a compelling case, but you be the judge. Co-author Lamar Waldron was interviewed by BuzzFlash.

* * *

BuzzFlash: In brief, how does Legacy of Secrecy differ from Ultimate Sacrifice?

Lamar Waldron: Much information has continued to emerge since the publication of the extensively updated trade paperback of Ultimate Sacrifice in 2006, information which provides even more confirmation of what we had originally written. Legacy of Secrecy provides additional evidence showing that John and Robert Kennedy planned to stage a coup against Fidel on Dec. 1, 1963, ten days after JFK's trip to Dallas--and that three Mafia bosses infiltrated that top secret plan. The mob leaders used parts of the secret plan to kill JFK in a way that forced Robert Kennedy, LBJ, and other key officials to cover-up much information, to prevent another confrontation with the Soviets, just a year after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The new information includes the confessions of all three Mafia bosses, and some of their associates.

..................

BuzzFlash: What motivated you and Thom Hartmann to take on perhaps the most analyzed and speculated upon assassination in American history -- and to spend two decades doing it?

Lamar Waldron: After spending a couple of years exploring all the various theories, and running into the usual roadblocks and lack of documents, we decided to talk to people who had actually worked with John and Robert Kennedy in 1963. The first was JFK's Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, who revealed that JFK was close to staging a coup and invasion of Cuba at the time of his death--but (unlike the Bay of Pigs fiasco) this plan was so secret that even Rusk was only told about it after JFK's death.

Next, JFK's close aide Dave Powers explained that he and another JFK aide had witnessed shots from the grassy knoll, while they were riding in the limo right behind JFK's. But Powers said they were both pressured to change their testimony to the Warren Commission "for the good of the country." With revelations like those, it was hard not to pursue all the leads until we eventually had the whole story. One Kennedy aide led to another, until we'd eventually talked to more than two dozen people who had worked with John or Robert Kennedy. Their disclosures led us to documentation in the National Archives, and eventually, to helping additional documents be identified and released.

much more at:
http://buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/137

[catnhatnh]

1. Kpete AND Kennedy....That's a K&R.N/T

[Peace Patriot]

2. Nope, I don't believe it. JKF's learning curve (and RFK's as well) was toward peace,

and away from these CIA skulduggery plots and wars. That learning curve culminated in JFK's magnificent speech on world peace to the United Nations and his signing of the first nuclear non-proliferation treaty. With RFK, it ended with his taking up the cause of ending the Vietnam War, in his 1968 presidential campaign.

I think we are seeing serious disinformation--including planted disinformation--that has led these researchers astray.

This is especially non-credible to me:

"The first was JFK's Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, who revealed that JFK was close to staging a coup and invasion of Cuba at the time of his death--but (unlike the Bay of Pigs fiasco) this plan was so secret that even Rusk was only told about it after JFK's death."

Yup, after his death, and thus his inability to contradict it. Dean Rusk was a warmonger. He would have had good reason to slander JFK.

Another incredulity:

"The mob leaders used parts of the secret plan to kill JFK in a way that forced Robert Kennedy, LBJ, and other key officials to cover-up much information, to prevent another confrontation with the Soviets, just a year after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

"The new information includes the confessions of all three Mafia bosses, and some of their associates."

We're supposed to believe confessions of Mafia bosses? Same problem. Non-credible sources--for a plot that just doesn't make any sense, given JFK's and RFK's evolving outlook on our own government and world affairs (evolving toward peace and justice).

I'm not familiar with this evidence, nor how they have analyzed it. This is the first I've heard of their theory. But it strikes me very strongly as intuitively wrong. And I suspect that aspects of the plots to assassinate these two progressive leaders, within five years of each other, along with Martin Luther King (within three months of RFK's murder), and the subsequent lying, cover-ups and disinformation, have led them down wrong alleys, to wrong conclusions. I would hate to think that Thom Hartman would do this--mislead people--knowingly (in a continued cover-up of some kind). That would be hard to believe. But I can see any researcher just getting too involved in his and his co-workers' blindered view, to not grasp that they have been misdirected.

It seems quite obvious to me that both RFK's and MLK's assassinations were related to the Vietnam War and the massive war profiteering that it engendered. And, looking back at JFK's growth as a leader, over his shortened term in office, and what happened almost immediately after his death--the dramatic escalation of the war in Vietnam--I think his death was also related to that war. RFK had taken up the banner of the anti-war movement. MLK, against all advice, followed his heart, and stirred up a raft of shit, with his magnificent speech against the war at the Riverside Church in New York. He was told to stick to civil rights. He would not. The LBJ-Humphrey faction of the Democratic Party were thickly engaged in the slaughter of the first million people in Southeast Asia. RFK turned against them. He "got religion," so to speak. He also became an advocate for the poor in Latin America. Our war profiteers had big plans for more lucrative slaughter in Vietnam, and horrendous wars in Latin America as well. And I think what RFK was doing in championing a more peaceful and socially just path for the U.S. was picking up from where his brother was heading in his third year in office, when he was cut down. JFK wasn't fully out of the "Cold War" mentality yet, but that's where he was heading.

Bang-bang, shoot-shoot.

It's pretty clear that organized crime, and the anti-Castro Cubans (the Miami mafia), were involved in JFK's assassination. But it is not at all clear that they planned and executed it, and much more likely that they were being used in various ways by more powerful actors (much like the Watergate burglars were used). But this certainly could lead to false turns in the maze of misdirection. Deep Throat gave the best all-time advice: "Follow the money." Who profited? And, I would add, who profited the most?

If RFK had been elected in 1968 (and it's likely that he would have been), THINK of the billions and billions of dollars that would have been lost to the war profiteers, to the gain of social programs, as he de-escalated and ended that horrendous stupid fucking war. It's comparable to thinking of, what if Howard Dean or John Kerry had won the 2004 election? (Kerry did, actually--but didn't take office.) A leader with a mandate to end a gigantic war profiteer boondoggle was not to be tolerated. Today they have Diebold and ES&S. Back then they used assassins' bullets. Hitler used "brownshirts" beating up voters and stuffing ballot boxes. It's all the same story. There is fabulous profit to be made in war--profit beyond the wildest dreams of any mere mafia (unless it's the Bush Cartel--dirty scheming, conscienceless criminals, on a mind-boggling scale).

I think the story sketched in this OP is a backwards story. RFK didn't go after his brother's killers (or hadn't yet, anyway--when he himself was killed), therefore his reason must have been something that he would agree to cover up. But, given the baffling mysteries surrounding his death, you have to wonder if the threat of his investigating his brother's death (especially if he was elected president) wasn't an added motive for assassinating him. I think the first and most obvious motive was the war, which was to continue for seven more terrible, terrible years, at the cost of another million lives. And for what? It wasn't even for oil. Heroin, maybe. I don't know. But basically utterly senseless, unconscionable killing--with only one purpose that I can see: re-creating, consolidating and improving the WW II war machine for future uses. The public reaction against it is a measure of its insanity. It took the warmongers thirty years to get the US back into a major war, and, even then, in Feb 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq, nearly 60% of the American people opposed it (all polls).

I'm as certain as I can be that Bobby Kennedy would not have allowed that to continue, and that, if his brother had lived, he would have stopped it in his second term if not before. I've seen evidence of some executive orders that JFK issued withdrawing US military 'advisers' from Vietnam, shortly before he was killed. LBJ immediately rescinded those orders, and, eleven months later, we were in a full scale war. I think both JFK and RFK ran afoul of the CIA and the war profiteers (including the Bush Cartel) on this issue (and possibly others). JFK's term was truncated, and a second Kennedy term, with RFK, was prevented. And MLK, a great moral force against the war, was also eliminated--all for the same reason, by the same people. Everything else--the details of their murders--is misdirection.

When you think of what happened back then--losing all three within five years time, in the leadup to and prosecution of the first half of the war--you can't help but see that their deaths are related and require a bigger cause than some mafia bosses' grudge. These deaths were designed by people with extraordinary powers to cover them up. All three are mysteries, to this day. And in one fell swoop, the progressive movement in this country was dealt a death blow. It never recovered. The American people certainly remembered "the lessons of Vietnam" in Feb 2003, but, by then, we were helpless to prevent it. Was that also one of the motives?

[MinM]

3. You are correct, Peace Patriot. JFK was developing a Cuban back-channel.

http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Kennedy wanted French journalist Jean Daniel to tell Castro that he understood the horrible exploitation, colonization, and humiliation the history of Cuba represented and that the people of Cuba had endured. He even painfully understood that the USA had been part of this during the Batista regime. Startlingly, he said he approved of Castro's declarations made in the Sierra Maestra Mountains. He added, "In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear." Daniel was somewhat taken aback by these sentiments. But, Kennedy continued, the dilemma now was that Cuba -- because of its Soviet ties -- had become part of the Cold War. And this had led to the Missile Crisis. Kennedy felt that Khrushchev understood all these ramifications now, after that terrible thirteen days.

The president concluded with this, "...but so far as Fidel Castro is concerned, I must say I don't know whether he realizes this, or even if he cares about it." Kennedy smiled and then ended Daniel's instructions with this: "You can tell me whether he does when you come back.".

Daniel then went to Havana. On November 19th Castro walked into his hotel. Fidel was fully aware of the Attwood/Lechuga meetings. He was also aware of Kennedy's briefing of Daniel. He had found out about this through Howard. In fact, he had told her he did not think it would be a good idea for him to meet Attwood in New York. He suggested that the meeting could be arranged by picking up Attwood in Mexico and flying him to Cuba. Castro also agreed that Che Guevara should be left out of the talks since he opposed their ultimate aim. Attwood said that Lechuga and he should meet to discuss a full agenda for a later meeting between himself and Castro. This was done per Kennedy's instructions, and JFK wanted to brief Attwood beforehand on what the agenda should be. Things were heading into a higher gear...

On the third day, Daniel was having lunch with Fidel when the phone rang. The news about Kennedy being shot in Dallas had arrived. Stunned, Castro hung up the phone, sat down and then repeated over and over, "This is bad news ... This is bad news ... This is bad news." (p. 89) A few moments later when the radio broadcast the report stating that Kennedy was now dead, Castro stood up and said, "Everything is changed. Everything is going to change."...

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x6350

[Peace Patriot]

6. Thanks for this info, MinM! This makes much more sense to me.

Granted I was young when those events occurred--and an impressionable young Kennedyite (I volunteered for JFK's campaign at age 16), although by the time Bobby ran for president, I was so anti-war that I didn't vote for him in the CA primary. I voted for Eugene McCarthy (who had been quicker to condemn the war, and challenged LBJ in New Hampshire). I knew Bobby would win. I expected him to be a great president. I even had faith that he would end the war. But I wanted to send a message to him: THIS is what I'm voting for--end the war NOW!

I had voted for LBJ in 1964--my first vote for president. He advertised himself as the "peace candidate" back then, while secretly escalating the Vietnam War and planning a full-scale conflagration. I am forever warning people about this. Beware of Democrats bearing peace! And I'll say it again right now. Beware of Democrats bearing peace!. It is a caution. And it is aimed at our fully understanding our situation at the heart of this bloody-minded, undemocratic global corporate empire. Work for peace, but do not get all demoralized, and depressed, and disempowered again, if you are disappointed. Understand Obama's situation, as well as that of We, the People. Our country is in a lot of trouble, and I mean a lot--in every sphere. He cannot work miracles. He is hemmed in many ways. WE have to rebuild this democracy and this country. We cannot expect him to wave a magic wand and all will be well. And we can already see, in many of his appointments, the forces at work against any real change.

But to get back to my point--I was starry-eyed for JFK. I was not much of a political thinker at 16. (I remember having big arguments with my boyfriend, who supported Adlai Stevenson--a real leftist for that era.) So I've tried to improve my political/historical perspective on JFK--keeping my eyes open. His early rhetoric is ludicrously "Cold War"--par for the course in those days, but still. I remember his absurd points in his historic debates with Nixon. He said we had developed a "missile gap" under Ike (with Nixon as VP). I mean, really--a "missile gap." Not enough missiles to blow up the world. But by the time the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, JFK was a changed man. He had to personally face Armageddon. It transformed him, I think. The sobering reality of a totally blown up planet hit him hard. And, as RFK and his brother were so close, I think it hit them at the same time, with RFK taking somewhat longer for it to manifest. What hit them was the necessity of peace. We simply HAD to find a way toward a peaceful, disarmed world--or the human race was a gonner. A lot of people felt this during the Cuban Missile Crisis (not including me, oddly), but these day, JFK and RFK, had PERSONAL, DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY for it. They were both young men, with children--both with an Irish sympathy for the poor and downtrodden. It must have been a staggering realization, that, here they are--two rich Irish brats, one generation from the potato famine, with a button between them that could blow everyone on earth to hell and gone.

That's what turned RFK into a peacenik (as we were called in those days). But to be a peacenik in the midst of the "Cold War"--a peacenik at the seat of power--was to face yet more danger--political danger, and ultimately physical danger. And what I think of both men now--JFK and RFK--is enormous admiration. Despite their privilege, despite the "Cold War" context that they bought into (--we were only a few years out of the red-baiting McCarthy era, and not at all yet clear of it), they had the capacity to change, to open their hearts and minds, in ways that U.S. politicians were simply not allowed to do. I think one consequence of this was NASA and the goal of putting men on the moon--the effort to bend military spending toward peaceful uses. Another was their support of the civil rights movement. (I think MLK greatly influenced RFK, as did the ecumenical movement in the Catholic Church at the time.) Another, the nuclear disarmament treaty. But it was not any particular accomplishment that I admire them for. Neither of them lived long enough to fully realize policy goals. It is something less tangible--their effort to see their way out of the "Cold War." Neither of them ever really gave up that viewpoint entirely--but they did try to see, to imagine, to envision something better.

Why wasn't I worried about the Cuban Missile Crisis? I was older then, and should have been worried. But I was not. I had faith that JFK would never blow up the world. And--funny thing--in all my naivete, I was right.

It seems that Castro had a similar kind of faith--not so naive, of course--but similar to the thing felt by many pro-JFK adults at the time. JFK possessed a creative mind and a movable heart. He was the future--where America might have gone, had we been luckier, and the assassin's aim less sure.

[MinM]

4. Lamar Waldron was thoroughly debunked here:

http://www.ctka.net/ultimate_final.html :patriot:

[Bucky]

5. Sorry, but what about the 3 grassy knoll snipers, 17 mafia goons, 4 grays, & Mickey Rooney?

Or is that just all one big "so-called" coincidence, as you Elvis-deniers like to "say."?

[apocalypsehow]

9. WRONG - no gunmen were involved at all!!! It was those bastards in the peanut industry, damn them.

Irrefutable proof here:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_theories_suggest_kennedy_wasnt

[Cetacea]

7. I am partial to the theory that is was Bobby's own squadron

working on Castro that turned on Jack. Bobby supposedly was setting up a inner, secret assassination group that would have so much plausible deniability that it would be difficult to finger any one person. I think that Oswald was supposed to be taking a little trip to Cuba and Bobby could not have that info get out. I believed Oswald then and still believe that he did not kill anyone.
The other bit about fear of a war with Russia may have played into the cover-up. If there wasn't a cover-up then it's amazing this country is still here.

[robertpaulsen]

8. I don't doubt the Mob's involvement, but at a lower level.

To quote Garrison from the movie JFK:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.