Oswald and the Sylvia Odio Incident – JFK Assassination: 50 Reasons For 50 Years – Episode 06 – Mike Swanson (07/19/2016)
This is episode six in the 50 Reasons for 50 Years series created by Len Osanic of www.blackopradio.com.
In this episode researcher James DiEugenio, and author of Destiny Betrayed talks about the strange visit Sylvia Odio received by two anti-Castro Cubans and their buddy named “Leon Oswald.”
The Mexico City Oswald story is the heart of the JFK assassination and this visit took placed during Oswald’s supposed trip to Mexico City.
The story is in the WC.
I will post an episode every Tuesday.
There is something new always happening in the JFK case. Jefferson Morley just released a new book a few days ago detailing several CIA people who knew of Oswald BEFORE the assassination took place. To find out more about this book and see an interview he did about it go here.
Why the Pentagon Does Not Want Putin and Obama to Team Up Against ISIS: Gareth Porter on the Scott Horton Show (07/17/2016)
This is an excellent interview by Scott Horton of Gareth Porter, an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. They discussed President Obama’s proposed cooperation with Russia in a combined air campaign against the Al Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front jihadist forces in Syria – and the strong opposition to such a plan within Obama’s own national security bureaucracy. Porter wrote an article on this you can read at Consortiumnews.com.
To download MP3 click here.
Interview transcript below:
00:31 Scott Horton: …..Alright, introducing our good friend, Gareth Porter. He’s more than 200 of those 4000 interviews, jeez, maybe 300 by now, I don’t know. And for very good reason, he’s my most very favorite reporter out of everybody, and I’ve got a lot of favorite reporters. But Gareth Porter, he’s the author of the book on the Iranian nuclear program. It’s called “Manufactured Crisis: The Truth about the Iranian Nuclear Scare.” And boy, he’s written a ton of great articles all about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now focusing on Syria. This one is a new fight over Syria war strategy. It’s at consortiumnews.com and also at antiwar.com, a very important piece. Welcome back to the show here, Gareth.
01:35 Gareth Porter: Thanks so much, Scott. Glad to be back on the show.
01:37 SH: Very happy to have you here. Very complicated war there in Syria. I guess the listeners of this show more or less understand the breakdown that it’s the Assad government, and his army, the State army of Syria, aligned with Hezbollah, allied with Iran and allied with Russia and they’re fighting against a, basically, Al Qaeda and ISIS led Sunni-based insurgency which is backed by the United States, Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and Israel. To some degrees over time this fluctuates, I’ll let you clarify. And then of course also, America and Russia are backing the Kurds and are attacking the Islamic State and have been bombing the Islamic State for the last two years since they declared their caliphate based out of Raqqa in Eastern Syria and Mosul in Western Iraq. So now, we’re trying to figure out how to end this war short of one side declaring a complete and total victory because apparently that’s not in the cards. We need some kind of negotiated piece here or we need some kind of change in strategy by I don’t know America, Russia, or some of the major powers, to change the game on the ground to get this thing over with one way or the other before it turns into a 15-year Lebanon length civil war here Gareth, so tell us please, what is going on?
03:06 GP: Well yeah, I think you’re absolutely right in your overall summary except for sort of the distinction between ISIS and Al Qaeda were Al-Nusra Front of course is not simply that they’re two variants of the Al Qaeda based theme, but rather that they are on different sides of the war in the sense that ISIS and Al-Nusra Front are rivals for the ultimate prize of gaining power in Syria, rather than allies in the struggle against Assad. So in other words, there are really three sides to the war, or maybe four sides if you include the Kurds, and that does indeed make it a very complicated conflict, and makes it more difficult to figure out what the end game is gonna look like. I would say, however, that if there’s one possibly hopeful sign on the horizon, it is that the Turkish government of President Erdogan is now rethinking its policy towards Syria. It’s not ready to give up its support from Al-Nusra Front clearly at this point.
04:26 GP: On the other hand, there is this distinct possibility, although perhaps a small possibility, that Turkey could approach the Russians, and I think they probably already have approached the Russians, about the possibility of a deal under which Assad would remain in power but would have to take away… That is to say the Russians putting pressure on Assad and using their own military power, would have to force the Kurds to give up their demand for autonomy in the area along the Turkish-Syrian border, the Northern border of Syria, next to Turkey. And that’s a long shot, but that is one possibility that is beginning to be discussed as a solution that could provide the basis for Turkey to say, “Okay, we’ll shut down the lifeline to the Al-Nusra Front and it’s allies.” So I just wanted to throw that in there.
05:37 SH: Well, and they’ve already cut off ISIS, right? There was a time where the Turks were happy to let ISIS raise money there, were happy to leave their border wide open to them, were happy to buy black market oil from them.
05:47 GP: I think that’s right. At this point, the Turks have cut off ISIS and therefore, ISIS has turned on them and of course, started to carry out terrorist bombings of the terrible nature against Turkey.
06:08 SH: So I’m trying to keep my scorecards straight here. So now, in this article, now you’re talking about a proposal that the Russians offered to the Americans, somewhat along these same lines, is what you’re talking about, maybe this deal between the Russians and the Turks.
06:28 GP: Well, what the Russians were proposing to the United States was that, “Yeah, let’s the two of us get together and carry out an air campaign against Al-Nusra Front that would really weaken it significantly.” And the premise of it would be that the non-jihadist parts of the factions, if you will, of the armed opposition to his side, would retreat from or would separate themselves physically and organizationally from Al-Nusra Front, would cease the close military cooperation including direct participation in the military planning with Al-Nusra Front that they have been carrying out in the past. And that would then allow both United States and the Russian Air Forces to cooperate in carrying out a more effective campaign against Al-Nusra Front.
07:36 GP: Now the US has, as I understand it, never said simply no to that but they’ve always wanted to have some further conditions imposed on the arrangement. And that’s what we now see covered in my story about the Obama Administration’s response diplomatically to the Russian plan, and that was provided or given to the Russians on June 27th. And in that proposal according to both The Washington Post article, as well as other news media coverage of it, the Obama Administration wants the Russians to essentially, as one source put it, not my source, but a publish source put it, they want to ground the Air Force of the Assad regime.
08:32 GP: And that’s obviously putting it in the strongest terms, it would mean that the Assad regime would not be carrying out further bombing. Now, I don’t think that’s gonna be acceptable to, and clearly, that’s not gonna be acceptable to the Russians. But more explicitly, what my understanding is that the Obama Administration was demanding that the Russians agree that there would be no further bombing of the areas controlled by the US clients, is the way I’m gonna put it, the armed clients of the CIA in Syria after this agreement would go into effect.
09:21 GP: So that leaves a lot of questions unanswered obviously, and this was really where my article sets out to try to discern what it is that’s really going on here. So my article basically says that the folks who have the hard line in the Obama Administration on Syria, who want the Obama Administration to either use military force against Assad or carry out a much more aggressive program of military assistance to the armed opposition or both are very much opposed to this and that includes the Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who has made it known that he doesn’t like this proposal.
10:10 GP: But clearly, factions within the CIA and I think it’s clearly those folks who are responsible for the covert operation in Syria, or the so-called covert operation of aiding the armed opposition in Syria, they’re opposed to this because it carries them further away from where they wanna be, which is in a much more aggressive program. So we know that there are factions within the Obama Administration who are opposing this, but I further raised the question of how serious is the Obama Administration about really wanting to go ahead with this kind of program. I have serious questions about that.
10:52 SH: Alright. Now, so Gareth, the other thing is, well okay so the CIA backs these different groups, but to what degree can they really tell them what to do? In other words, if America, say Obama instructed the CIA to instruct the mythical moderates to, “Yeah. No. Now, we really mean it. Separate yourself from Al-Nusra, ’cause we’re about to bomb Al-Nusra.” Can he even get them to do that? Or are they just gonna say, “No. We’re down with Al-Nusra and not with you ’cause you’re gonna end up stabbing us in the back anyway,” and this has been the problem all along, or really they haven’t tried to separate them out from Al-Nusra like in the deal from a few months ago.
11:32 GP: Yeah. I think the point here is that, if the United States is not willing to tell its allies, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, no more arming of the opposition groups if they’re not going to cooperate with the ceasefire, then those groups are not going to pay attention to what the United States says. And I think that’s exactly what has happened in the past, that the US sort of parrots the line that yes, we support a ceasefire and we expect all groups who have signed up for the ceasefire, meaning the groups that are our clients, to participate in this and to separate themselves from the Al-Nusra Front. But in fact, John Kerry knows very well that they’re not gonna do it as long as they can count on the external regional allies to continue their policy of providing a lifeline from across the Turkish border, and of course as long as their able to get though against the Russian and Syrian bombing. But I think that’s correct that the US clients are not going to comply with that because they don’t see it as in their interest, and they believe that they can continue on the present course because they have the support of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
13:02 SH: Yeah. So where even they really do have some strings to pull. CIA actually probably could boss them around, but they would have to crack down on their allies and have their allies crack down on the mythical moderates, and they’re just not willing to do that is what you’re telling me.
13:16 GP: That’s exactly right and this has been the crux of the matter ever since this program began in 2013, or even earlier depending on how you date it. The United States has been part of a coalition and it has valued it’s alliances with the regional allies more than it does peace in Syria or any other interest. And that in my view is the real problem with US Middle east policy, that the US does not really care about… Can I use the A-S-S word? It does not give a rat’s ass about the Syrian people or about peace in Syria. It values primarily being able to have access to the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, and access to the Bahrain Naval Base which is controlled by Saudi Arabia, and access to the crucial land and air bases in Qatar. So this is…
14:24 SH: So what you’re saying is when Obama finally decides to stop deliberately backing terrorists, he can’t because all of our satellite tails are wagging the imperial dog.
14:36 GP: Well, I don’t think that terrorism has really been the primary interest here for many years, in fact. But yeah, the point is that we…
14:45 SH: Well, the Al-Nusra guys target civilians with suicide attacks and that kind of thing, right? And the Ahrar Al-Sham massacres people for having the wrong religion, what am I missing?
14:56 GP: Well, we are de facto using the terrorists in Al-Nusra Front as a basis for the policy in Syria have been since 2012 or 2013. And therefore, I would argue and have argued that the terrorism/counter terrorism is not the reason the United States is doing anything in Syria.
15:25 SH: Oh, I understand what you mean. I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by that, but I understand. You’re saying our war on terrorism is not what’s relevant, but that’s not what I was talking about either. I was talking about our war for terrorism, for Christ’s sake.
15:41 GP: Neither counter terrorism nor the concern about civilians in Syria, nor the concern about stability in the Middle East have anything to do with, or are governing concerns about US Policy. It is continuing to maintain the United States as a regional hegemon, a regional super power, and that demands access to these bases, it demands the continuation of the military status quo, in that sense. So I continue to believe that that is what controls the US Policy in the Middle East and again, Obama is merely a kind of steward of that continuous policy rather than someone who ever intended to really upset the apple cart.
16:33 SH: Right. Well, and I hope I didn’t sound like some kind of Trumpian birther saying that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist or whatever. He obviously is pursuing these interests for… Doing the very same thing Ronald Reagan did which is backing these guys in order to accomplish American goals.
16:49 GP: Yeah, except that in fact, Reagan was more “progressive” in the sense of recognizing reality and being upset about, in the case of Reagan’s policy, what the Israelis were doing and was willing to say publicly, “Hey, we got to stop that, the Israelis have got to stop this.” He was in fact more reality-oriented in his own way, at least during the early 1980s than Obama has proven to be and that’s I think a very telling point about the nature of US National Security policy over these decades.
17:26 SH: Yeah, I saw a clip of Ronald Reagan talking about how the Israelis ought to get out of the West Bank, I couldn’t believe it. And that was par for the course for a Republican president back in the 80s, wow.
17:36 GP: Last night, I saw a screening of a new film on the occupation of the American mind.
17:42 SH: That’s where I saw the clip. Exactly, yeah.
17:44 GP: Okay. Yeah, yeah. So we saw the same clip then. Okay, yeah.
17:49 SH: Hey all, Scott Horton here, it’s always safe to say that once you keep at least some of your savings in precious metals as a hedge against inflation, and if this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet. Since 1977, Roberts & Roberts Brokerage Inc has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, and they do it well. They’re fast, reliable, and trusted for more than 35 years, and they take Bitcoin. Call Roberts & Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.com.
18:20 SH: Yeah, I was just a kid then, I didn’t remember that, but I didn’t know anything about it. Yeah, that was really something else to see him and being so frank about it, the way he was being too. This was serious business. He wasn’t making a soft suggestion or something.
18:34 GP: Various memoirs record the fact that Reagan really was personally very upset about what the Israelis did. He did not understand. He had simply not understood what was really going on there, and when he understood it, he was quite upset. And that was an interesting moment, shall we say, in US National Security policy [chuckle] that took place.
18:53 SH: Yeah, absolutely. Alright now, so let me get back to Ash Carter for a minute here. This guy was sold when they got rid of Chuck Hagel and they brought in Ash Carter to be the Secretary of Defense. They basically sold him as a wonk, like he’s a mathematician, and he’s a physicist, and he’s a technocrat, and he’s gonna… Nobody knows his name, but he’s gonna be the place holder until the next administration, basically. We’re not gonna have any more stars. We’re promoting this guy from inside the Pentagon. And there was the story that he had advocated an attack on North Korea and a couple other things that made people wonder maybe there was a bit of an ideology here. But from where I’m sitting, it seems like, and I know I’m over-simplifying, but I’m doing so, so that you can clarify, it seems like there’s a real split between the CIA and the DOD about whether we wanna back Al-Qaeda in, more or less, back Al-Qaeda through our allies and all those caveats in Syria.
19:54 SH: And the DOD, I don’t know if they take it personally, the attack on the Pentagon back 16 years ago, still or exactly what their problem is, but they still seem to not be over their hatred of Al-Qaeda. Maybe it was 4,500 of them that got killed fighting the Sunni insurgency in Iraq war two. The CIA apparently doesn’t give a damn. But then, both sides cry to Nancy Youssef at The Daily Beast about it and say, “Nancy, those guys are backing our enemies and we want them to stop.” And yet Carter seems like he’s on the side of the CIA, not the DOD. So what’s going on there?
20:27 GP: Okay. Good question, good question, good point. Two things. One, first of all, Ash Carter’s real interest here has nothing to do with Syria. Again, it has to do with DOD’s interest, and what’s the primary interest that DOD has in Russia? It is continuing the New Cold War. So what Ash Carter is concerned about is that if the Obama administration were to sign up to a real joint military effort with the Russians, that would be a big blow to the New Cold War. And so he’s simply not gonna buy into that at all. So I think that’s the primary concern. Now, the secondary question here or a second question, let me put it that way, is this consideration of what’s going on with regard to US military cooperation with the Kurds? And that has to do with not just Al-Nusra Front but even more so with cooperation with the Kurds against ISIS. The Kurds have become the primary military force, apart from Assad against ISIS.
21:42 SH: In Syria anyway, yeah.
21:43 GP: In Syria, right. And so that’s where the… Particularly, this is not so much Ash Carter, but the military, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military who are carrying out the war against ISIS are, of course, very close to the Kurds in that regard. And that’s why, I think, you get this military versus CIA conflict.
22:09 SH: Well, and I always hear different versions, Gareth, of just how separate JSOC’s chain of command is from the rest of the military, and I guess it changes back and forth, whether they’re really under the Chiefs or whether they’re the President’s private army on their own chain of command, or how exactly that works.
22:26 GP: I think it depends on the location of where they’re involved. In the case of Syria, I think they’re probably much more closely linked into the chain of command, the military chain of command, than they would have been in Afghanistan, for example.
22:45 SH: But you’re still saying that the split between them and the Secretary of Defense can still be pretty great when they’re in the middle of a mission like this?
22:52 GP: Absolutely, yeah. I think so. In other words, particularly if the Secretary of Defense is talking about avoiding cooperation with the Russians to go against Al-Nusra Front and inevitably against ISIS as well. In other words, there would be a combination of cooperation against Al-Nusra Front as well as against ISIS. And so definitely that would be a conflict.
23:25 SH: And remind me one more time, Gareth, Al-Nusra Front and their leadership are sworn, loyal to the person and the goals of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Al-Qaeda, the butcher of New York City hiding out in Pakistan somewhere right now.
23:39 GP: Yeah. In Al-Qaeda’s political culture, there is such a thing as, I think it’s called bayat, allegiance is a very important concept, and you either have it or your don’t. If you don’t, then it’s a very serious matter. If you break off, this is a big deal. And so there have been efforts within Al-Nusra Front supposedly, reportedly there is a faction that has tried to get al-Julani, the head of Al-Nusra Front, to agree to cut off his relationship to Al-Qaeda or to seize his loyalty, his allegiance to al-Zawahiri. And that’s failed. Clearly, he has never been interested in that. He has never been willing to seize to pledge his allegiance to the head of Al-Qaeda. So that’s a key fact here. It’s just not gonna happen.
24:46 SH: Yeah, I don’t know. The fly on the wall thing seems like it would be a lot of fun, but I wanna really crawl inside the mind of Ashton Carter for a minute here and try to figure out how picking a fight with Russia is a higher priority, is such a high priority that never mind that we’re backing everyone who’s backing the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda in Syria. Isn’t that high treason?
25:20 GP: [chuckle] Well…
25:22 SH: Isn’t it?
25:24 GP: It’s not treason within the system of course, as you know very well. You and I agree that many of the things that have been done in the name of national security should be considered treasonous. I mean, I hold no…
25:40 SH: Again, no secret Muslim conspiracy here, but they’re still backing our enemies, our enemies, yours and mine, the civilians of the land between Mexico and Canada. They made these enemies for us and they just keep making them and making them. When they’re fighting them, they’re making them, and when they’re backing them, they’re making them even more than that.
25:57 GP: Well, but then it’s not just Ashton Carter, of course, it’s the entire national security bureaucracy that signed on to the strategy of cooperating with our regional allies in backing the army of conquest in Idlib province, which was the reigning US strategy in Syria from 2014 up ’til relatively recently. And to some extent, there’s at best ambiguity about it today. That’s still as far as I can see a de facto US policy in Syria. So again, this is the way they have decided to pursue US interests in Syria for a variety of bureaucratic and domestic political interests that have produced the result. But I think that if you’re looking for a reason for this, for Ashton Carter to take that position, it’s very simple. That’s where the money is, in the military budget. The military budget is such that you have to have what they call near-appear rivals to justify the kind of spending that we have been indulging and continue to indulge in in the military budget. It’s China and Russia that provide the rationale for backing hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of spending well into the future, and that’s…
27:36 SH: What would they ever do if they got their regime changed? What would they ever do if they’d put another Yeltsin in charge in Russia, did some kind of color-coded thing in China and put their sock puppets in charge of these last two independent powers on Earth, then who are they gonna target? India?
27:54 GP: No. Then they’re in the soup. Then you see what happened after the end of the Cold War. They had to suffer a very severe loss of budget. And that’s what they’re determined not to have happen again. That was a very serious problem for them for many, many years. They were in the darkness as it were. They were out in the desert suffering from lack of military budget. And so when they saw the possibility when Putin began to respond to an aggressive NATO stance in Europe, they saw the rationale for a new Cold War and I think that’s what we’re seeing in practice here. And they’re determined not to let go of that. And that’s the primary motivation for Ashton Carter and the staff of the office of the Secretary of Defense at this point, and to a considerably stand of course Joint Chiefs of Staff are in the same place. But they also have a war to fight in Syria and that provides a counter weight to some extent to that consideration.
29:10 SH: So now wait a minute. If we rewind it all back to the ’92 defense planning guidance in rebuilding America’s defenses and this and that and the other thing, is it fair to say then that the whole Middle East war, Iraq War two and everything since then is all part of a proxy war with Russia? Still just like the days of the USSR?
29:31 GP: No. I think you have to distinguish between what was going on in the planning, the run up to the Iraq invasion in 2003 as well of course as the first Gulf War. These were wars that were fought for different reasons but to a considerable extent in the knowledge that this was a way of ensuring two things. One, that you would have a sort of permanent war state that would justify much higher levels of military budget than would otherwise be the case. In both the first Gulf War and the Iraq War, this was a huge part of the rationale within the military and within the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld specifically, that’s what he had mind. I’ve never written about this but I have a lot of information which I someday will write about how Rumsfeld’s position on the invasion of Iraq was very strongly shaped by the need for a fix on how to be able to fund a whole new generation or generations to come of high-tech weaponry while at the same time having a way of carrying out regime change in Iraq. And he was offered that opportunity to accomplish both those things by the Air Force strategy of shock and awe. Basically, the Air Force strategy of carrying out regime change by air power without having any significant ground force footprint in the country. So that was a military budget problem that he had. And he was solving that by the invasion of Iraq.
31:25 SH: Alright. So we know now that when Richard Perle says, “Real men go to Tehran,” that yeah, he’s speaking for Ariel Sharon there. But well, wait a minute now. Assuming, I think you agree, that was initially part of the plan they thought they were gonna be able to get away with is going straight to Syria and Iran too, and they weren’t thinking about Putin and breaking Iran away from Russia at that point? That was just, they were really just thinking about Israel? Or thinking about overall weapons…
31:55 GP: At that point, I don’t think that they were consciously thinking about the relationship between Iran and Russia. No, absolutely not. No.
32:02 SH: Okay. ‘Cause Iran is one of Russia’s last kind of dependent sort of allied states, right?
32:09 GP: Yeah, you can’t really use an ally or alliance in talking about Iran and Russia, that’s not gonna work because they’ve never trusted one another at any moment. [chuckle] It’s been a…
32:20 SH: Yeah, there’s a lot of bad blood there I understand too.
32:23 GP: Yeah. Very, very shaky relationship. So you really can’t use alliance at all for that.
32:27 SH: Yeah. But it wouldn’t make sense if I was Douglas, well, forget him, if I was Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz to say, “Yeah, it would weaken Russia’s position a bit if we had our guy back in power in Tehran.”
32:39 GP: Yeah, sure. That could be thrown into the mix, in the discussion in the National Security Council, but that’s not the primary thought at all. That’s not the primary thrust of the planning for the war in Iraq.
32:53 SH: Sure. Alright. Well, good deal, man. Thank you very much for doing the show as always, Gareth. I really appreciate it.
32:58 GP: My pleasure as always, Scott.
33:00 SH: And I know the audience really appreciates it too ’cause they tell me. That’s the great Gareth Porter everybody. This is one is at consortiumnews.com and at antiwar.com. It’s called, “The New Fight Over Syria War Strategy.” It’s a really important piece. I hope you’ll go and look at it. Again, it’s at antiwar.com right now. And that’s the Scott Horton Show. Check out the archives at scotthorton.org, sign up for the podcast feed there, help support at scotthorton.org/donate and follow me on Twitter@scotthortonshow.
Did Oswald Go to Mexico City Like the Warren Commission Said? – JFK Assassination: 50 Reasons For 50 Years – Episode 05 – Mike Swanson (07/05/2016)
This is episode five in the 50 Reasons for 50 Years series created by Len Osanic of www.blackopradio.com.
In this episode researcher John Armstrong, and author of Harvey and Lee talks about the trip to Mexico City that the Warren Commission said he made, but there are many reasons to doubt that he ever made
The Mexico City Oswald story is the heart of the JFK assassination.
I will post an episode every Tuesday.
There is something new always happening in the JFK case. Jefferson Morley just released a new book a few days ago detailing several CIA people who knew of Oswald BEFORE the assassination took place. To find out more about this book and see an interview he did about it go here.
Journalism is now considered treason by some in America. On July 4th the sad thing is that we have gone so far away from the Constitution and Bill of Rights we have gotten to the point were journalism can get you put in jail.
Few journalists know the cruelty of government censorship as well as James Risen, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist at the New York Times, targeted for several major stories implicating criminality by the US war machine and its national security state.
But what does July 4th mean to people today?
Is it July 4th about pure worship of the state or the principles that guided the founding fathers into creating the nation they did?
Neocon State Department Bureaucrats Demand Action in Syria and Against Russia – Mike Swanson (06/30/2016)
The neocons have not gone away and are using the State Department bureaucracy to make new demands for aggressive action. They are back on the warpath, seeking to bomb the Syrian government and scheming to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia en route to another “regime change” – while ignoring the grave dangers, says James W Carden in an article you can read on the ConsortiumNews.com by clicking here.
Scott Horton interviewed Carden about his article to get the scoop and a fantastic overview of the history that have led to what has become a complete US foreign policy mess.
You can listen to the MP3 of this interview by clicking this link.
Oswald’s Strange New Orleans Spy Games – 50 Reasons For 50 Years – Episode 04 – Mike Swanson (06/28/2016)
This is episode three in the 50 Reasons for 50 Years series created by Len Osanic of www.blackopradio.com.
In this episode researcher Joan Mellon, and author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History, explains how Lee Harvey Oswald engaged in strange intelligence activities in New Orleans with CIA and FBI handlers.
I will post an episode every Tuesday.
There is something new always happening in the JFK case. Jefferson Morley just released a new book a few days ago detailing several CIA people who knew of Oswald BEFORE the assassination took place. To find out more about this book and see an interview he did about it go here.
Jefferson Morley of www.jfkfacts.org did this interview on RT.COM.
He is working on a book about CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton and wrote an article about his experience of How the CIA Writes History.
Morley also just published a new must read book titled the CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files.
Oswald’s Spy Life Journey To the Soviet Union – 50 Reasons For 50 Years – Episode 03 – Mike Swanson (06/21/2016)
The television box and Warren Commission have told you that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut who fell out of the sky on November 22, 1963, but there is much to be suspicious about when it comes to his real life.
Oswald defected to the Soviet Union and then came to the United States with the help of a State Department loan.
Watch this short video.
Researcher Bill Simpich discusses Lee Oswald in the context of US intelligence programs aimed at information gathering inside the Soviet Union.
This is episode two in the 50 Reasons for 50 Years series created by Len Osanic of www.blackopradio.com.
I will post an episode every Tuesday.
The Warren Commission claimed that Oswald was a lone nut who practically fell out of the sky, but we now know that Oswald was known to several key CIA officials before the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
This new JFK book titled CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files by Jefferson Morley of www.jfkfacts.org just released last week details the evidence that backs up this statement in the records.
You can get this book right now on Amazon by going here.
This is an important book because the government is due to release more files about these CIA personnel in 2017.
Morley gave an interview with Jacob Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation about his book and what is happening.
As Hornberger writes in a blog post, “Morley also reveals a close relationship between the CIA and an American anti-Castro group that began advertising Oswald’s connections to communism and the Soviet Union immediately after the assassination?”
“That raises questions: Why didn’t the CIA reveal that relationship to official agencies investigating the assassination of President Kennedy? Why did a federal judge and the chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations accuse the CIA of deceit and deception?”
“The U.S. government retains almost 3,600 assassination-related records, consisting of tens of thousands of pages that have never been seen by the public. More than 1,100 of these records are held by the CIA.”
“What is in those secret files? What do they reveal about JFK’s death? Why has the CIA been so reluctant to release them? And when will they finally be revealed to the public? Will they answer the disturbing questions that the revelations in this book raise?”
You can get this book right now on Amazon by going here.
Records show that Oswald was often in two places at the same time and J. Edgar Hoover wanted to know why two years before the JFK assassination.
Researcher John Armstrong describes some of the evidence supporting a four-decade suspicion: that two separate people may have been using the name Lee or Harvey Oswald.
This is episode two in the 50 Reasons for 50 Years series created by Len Osanic of www.blackopradio.com.
I will post an episode every Tuesday.
With thousands of advertisements seen by Americans everyday, and a corporate media that reinforces the needs of Empire, propaganda in the U.S. is more pervasive and effective than ever before.
The manipulation of public opinion through suggestion can be traced back to the father of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, who discovered that preying on the subconscious mind was the best way to sell products people don’t need, and wars people don’t want.
To get a deeper understanding of how propaganda functions in today’s society, Abby Martin interviewed Dr. Mark Crispin Miller, professor of Media Studies at New York University, on her show Empire Files.
Doctor Miller in this interview explains how modern propaganda actually began during World War I.
It also acts to “mold” the mind of the masses through subtle means and not direct hammering to make them come to believe that the way to think is simply the way they should think. And then they come to love the propaganda images and even willing to kill for them. And so today they worship the military-industrial complex as a modern day pyramid and thousands go to college in hopes of finding a place of meaning in the bureaucracy that works in it for themselves.
The reality is Bernay’s discovered that people actually enjoy mind control.
Here are key quotes by Bernay’s from his own book titled Propaganda:
“But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain politicians for news, the newspaper reporters are obliged to work in harmony with their news sources.”
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
“The great Allied campaign to celebrate (or sell) Democracy, etc., was a venture so successful, and, it seemed, so noble, that it suddenly legitimized such propagandists, who, once the war had ended, went right to work massaging or exciting various publics on behalf of entities like General Motors, Procter & Gamble, John D. Rockefeller, General Electric.”
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
“Here was an extraordinary state accomplishment: mass enthusiasm at the prospect of a global brawl that otherwise would mystify those very masses, and that shattered most of those who actually took part in it. The Anglo-American drive to demonize “the Hun,” and to cast the war as a transcendent clash between Atlantic “civilization” and Prussian “barbarism,” made so powerful an impression on so many that the worlds of government and business were forever changed.”
You can buy the Bernays book and take the red pill by going here.
New Book “CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files” by Jefferson Morley – Mike Swanson (06/10/2016)
The book answers the simple question what did the CIA know about Oswald and when did they know it. It reveals the CIA people closest to this question and interviews key CIA personnel.
It is an important book and a must read for anyone interested in the JFK case.
Here is an interview Morley did about his book right before its release.
Here is a transcript of the above interview:
0:00:00 Speaker 1: Your host, Joe Cristiano.
0:00:04 Joe Cristiano: Welcome everyone to Liberty Talk radio, America’s libertarian voice, broadcasting from our studio in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to around the world. I’m your host, Joe Cristiano, and this is your antidote to popular talk radio. Today we’re pleased to have Mr Jefferson Morley as our guest. He’s an author and the editor of JFK Facts, the premier destination on the web for information and discussion about the assassination of JFK. Mr Morley has worked in Washington journalism since 1980 as an editor and reporter for The Washington Post, Salon, The Nation, and The New Republic. He teaches a course in the History of the CIA at the University of California in the District of Columbia. His forthcoming Kindle e-book, CIA and JFK: The Last Assassination Secrets, is the culmination of 20 years of research into the role of certain CIA undercover officers in the events that led to the president’s death. The book reveals the existence of a top secret batch of JFK Assassination files that the CIA is required to release in October of 2017. Mr Morley, welcome to our program.
0:01:22 Jefferson Morley: Great to be here, Joe. Thanks for having me.
0:01:24 JC: I’m going to plead general ignorance on the subject. I’ve read about it. In fact, I think we had mentioned that we had Jacob Hornberger from the Future Freedom Foundation. He gave me more background than I’ve ever known before, regarding the assassination. But the JFK assassination has to be all the way up there with the 9/11 conspiracy. They always call it a conspiracy, and it just rubs me the wrong way. If you’re contrary to what is being published by our federal friends in Washington, it’s not a point of view, it’s a conspiracy. So you’re way up there. So you’re fighting probably the biggest battles, probably even bigger than 9/11, probably the number one battle. And so I give you all the credit in the world. I don’t think I would do it, because I can see this brick wall [chuckle] coming at me real quick.
0:02:21 JM: Joe, there’s definitely a brick wall there. But the point is we are getting past that tired conspiracy debate, because what we have now is not theories, what we have now is the facts. After five investigations, after a lot of declassification of records, we understand the events that happened in November 22nd, 1963, much better. This was the 9/11 of its day. It was a national catastrophe, and it was never well explained. The president was killed under mysterious circumstances really, and the government put in a story very quickly, that one man had killed the president and for no reason. And people didn’t believe that. They didn’t believe it in Dallas, which is a very conservative city. They didn’t believe it in New York, which is a very liberal city. It just didn’t hang together. But the government put forward this story that one man killed the president for no reason, and we’ve been stuck with that ever since.
0:03:22 JM: And what my book does, CIA and JFK, is look at the event, look at what we’ve learned over the year. And what do we understand now? And one thing that’s very clear, Joe, is the original story, that some guy came out of nowhere and shot President Kennedy for no reason… He was a Communist, but not really. What was the motive for the crime? And then the man who was accused, who denied he had committed the crime, Lee Oswald, is then killed in police circumstances. Mysterious, shocking, stunning events. And I wasn’t around then. Well, I was. I was in kindergarten, so I have a vague memory of the day that this happened, but a formative event. Flash forward 50 years later, we understand much better now. That guy who supposedly shot the president, Lee Oswald, he was not an unknown guy who came out of nowhere. He was very well known to senior CIA officials, and I can name a dozen examples. And I don’t have a theory about those officials, but Oswald was well known to senior CIA officials before November 22nd. That’s a fundamental fact, indisputable, that was never put on the table in 1963-64, when they were coming up with this official story. Because if that were known, some people at the CIA would have lost their jobs. That never happened. Nobody ever lost their job because of the Kennedy assassination. Nobody ever went to jail. Nothing.
0:04:54 JM: So that’s why it remains in American political culture to this day. It never goes away. We always have a new movie about JFK or about LBJ or about the assassination, because this event, this single super important event in American history, has never been explained. And the government’s explanation is simply not credible. It doesn’t explain the facts that we know. So at the time, it was soothing. It was like, “Oh, it’s just the tragedy of life. Some guy killed the president.” Okay. That’s fine, but we’re grown ups now. That is not an adequate explanation of how President Kennedy came to be killed. So my book is about, what do we know now and what might we know soon? And so this is not something that is off… This is something that the next president is gonna have to decide about. So let me give you a little background, Joe, ’cause this is important part. My book tells the story, and this is not well known. It doesn’t get covered in major news organizations yet.
0:05:56 JM: I think some of them are beginning to realize that it’s a very good and interesting and important story. But the story is this… Back in 1992 Oliver Stone made his movie JFK, and this was kind of the original depicting Kennedy’s assassination, the conspiracy of his enemies in the Pentagon and the CIA. Very popular movie, very well done, lot of a lot of great actors. And so this critical acclaim for this movie really provoked tremendous debate in Washington. And so Congress, in the wake of that, with Stone pointing his finger and saying cover-up, conspiracy, Congress said well, “The government needs to make all of its JFK records public.” And so they created a law and it’s a pretty good law. And they created an independent group and they went through all the government records. And there was tons of stuff that was secret. This is in 1992. So this is already 30 years after the crime. And so in the ’90s, in the mid 1990s, a huge amount of information came out into the public record.
0:07:01 JM: And that’s how I can tell you this story about how well-known Oswald was to the CIA. These new records that came out, they confirmed that. That was not something that was really shared with any of the earlier investigations. But now it’s pretty clear that there was a lot we didn’t know about the CIA and Oswald. So that law went into effect, a lot came out, people like me and jfkfacts.org and maryferrell.org, which is another website about the assassination. JFK Lancer, a lot of scholars publishing books have picked up on this new material, and really begun to… It gives us a much better understanding of what the Kennedy assassination was all about. And we’re not really wrapped up in that conspiracy debate, conspiracy that. I’m not interested in theories. I’m a journalist and in my experience, the people who wanna talk about JFK theories, are usually the people who don’t wanna talk about the facts.
0:07:58 JM: So my approach is, let’s leave out the theories. You can think whatever you want. You can say, “Jeff, you’re full of it.” Or whatever. I’m not gonna try and talk you into it. What I’m gonna do is, I’m gonna tell you about the evidence. And my book, CIA and JFK is about what the government files, the CIA files that are, known to exist that are known to be related about the assassination and that are scheduled, and this is the kicker, Joe, that are scheduled to be released in October 2017. Why October 2017? Well, when Congress passed that law in 1992 they said, “All JFK records must be made public.” But if the agency has a concern about a name of an informant or an operation, they can request that, that be delayed from being disclosed right away. But after 25 years, everything has to be made public, okay.
0:08:51 JM: That law was passed in 1992, add 25 years and you come to October 2017. So we have this deadline coming up where a lot of this material is supposed to become public. Now according to the law there is a loophole in the law. And the loophole in the law is, the agencies like the FBI or the CIA, if they want this material to stay classified, stay secret after the 25 years is up, they can do that, but they have to get the approval of the president. So next October 2017, we’ll have a new president. We don’t know who that will be. But that president’s gonna face a choice, “Do we make the last JFK records public or not?” And I think it’s safe to say that the CIA and the FBI are going to request that at least some of this material remain secret. So we’re gonna have a fight and the next president is gonna face a real question in October 2017. “What do we do?”
0:09:54 JM: Well, this is the same thing as the, maybe you’ve talked about it on your show, the 28 pages from the 9/11 commission report, which have been… There’s 28 pages that are secret, that have never been made public about about 9/11. And people have been pushing for those to be made public. Senator Bob Graham, President Obama is thinking about it, he said. So that’s like an issue today. Well, the JFK files that are gonna come up in October 2017, it’s the same thing. It’s like, “Here’s a little piece of our history.” Are we gonna make it public or we’re just going to say, “The agencies have the right to keep this history walled off from us.”? So this JFK, it’s 50 years ago, who cares about that? But it’s actually an issue today. It still matters today, it’s still important, and people still care about clarifying this really crucial moment in American history. So my book, CIA and JFK, Kindle e-Book, you can order it now, explores what we really know about these records and who was involved. And my approach is pretty narrow. I don’t come in with a theory. I come in and look at who were the CIA people who knew about Oswald, who were involved in these events in 1963, and what do we know about them?
0:11:13 JM: So like I said, at the top there’s probably a dozen CIA officers who were in some way knowledgeable about Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination. What were they doing? What did they think? Were they manipulating him? Did they underestimate him? Whatever. Any reasonable person who’s interested in the subject would say, “Yeah, we should straighten this out.” Reasonable people don’t extend to the CIA, where it’s their job to keep secrets and they are gonna hang on to these secrets and not talk about it. So it’s an important issue to… It’s an important measure of, does the public, the citizenry, have the ability to kind of pressure their government into being accountable?
0:12:00 JM: And this law is very clear. It was in the past, in 1992, you got 25 years. After 25 years, everything is public, and that’s the point that we’re at now. So the question is, will we get everything? And it’s a test of our government, and it’s a test of ourselves. Same way that the 28 pages are. Can we get this? Can we know the full story of 9/11, or is the government gonna hide it from us?
0:12:21 JC: Right. Why are you publishing the book now, or making it available now? Why not wait till after October, 2017? What’s the logic there?
0:12:38 JM: Because the logic is this, Joe. If there is not public attention put on these records now, the CIA will get away with withholding the maximum amount, and we will never learn anything. So what we need is, we need attention between now and then. We need the presidential candidates to address the issue. “What do you think about the 28 pages? Do you favor the release of the rest of the JFK Records?” Those are basic questions that should be on the table now for the 2016 election. Because if I waited ’til October 2017, it’s too late. The only thing that will stay the hand of the CIA from keeping this material public, is people talking about it and coverage. Because then they’ll be embarrassed, and then they might be embarrassed into doing the right thing. So that’s why it’s coming out now, and that’s why people need to know the story now. We will have leverage in October 2017, if enough people know about this, presidential candidates have talked about it, addressed the issue, said, “Here’s what I think about how the government should approach secrecy issues.” And that’s really the bigger issue here. It’s not what happened 50 years ago. It’s how much of the government’s business can be kept secret? That’s a legitimate issue for 2016 elections. So I wanna get that out there. That’s why I’m publishing the book now. I wanna get that out there now, so that we have a shot at getting these records.
0:14:10 JC: I see. Now what kind of relationship did Lee Harvey Oswald have with with the CIA? You mentioned that relationship or that known factor.
0:14:23 JM: What I said was that there were a dozen CIA officers who knew about him. They were familiar with his file. They were familiar with his travels. They were familiar with his biography. Where did he come from? And he had a very interesting life for a young man. He had been in the Marines and served in Japan and the Philippines. He got a discharge. He went to the Soviet Union out of sympathy for Communism. He lived in the Soviet Union for a couple years. This whole time when Oswald was doing all of this, the CIA was paying close attention to him. And the officers, who I talk about in my book, are the officers who knew about him. They were informed about him. And this isn’t guesswork or rumor or a theory, this is based on the CIA and FBI records that have been released. So that’s what… So Oswald, the accused assassin, was somebody who people at the top of the CIA were thinking about at the time, within a few weeks before Kennedy was killed. And this was all unknown, so it never came out until now.
0:15:30 JM: So that’s the story that I’m getting in, is, what did these guys know? When did they know it? Who did they think Oswald was? What was going on in their lives? What was going on in CIA covert operations? So the story goes really into the heart of how an intelligence agency works. And I’m not saying these guys killed Kennedy. I’m saying, if there’s anybody in the US government who knew about this, it was these guys. So if we wanna understand November 22nd, 1963, we need the records of these CIA officers. We need to understand what were they doing at that time, in terms of political action, psychological warfare, secret operations against Castro? That is the milieu in which Oswald lived when he was accused of the assassination. So this veil has been drawn over CIA operations in 1963, and now only 50 years later is the veil beginning to come down and we can see what was going on. So that’s what this is about is, we are reopening what the CIA was doing in 1963, and trying to understand, did that have some connection to the events that led to the assassination of the president?
0:16:41 JC: Was Lee Harvey Oswald, was he under surveillance? They knew about him, but was he under surveillance during this period of time? And so the CIA should’ve known what he was doing, or where he was, or what he was planning?
0:17:00 JM: Absolutely. Joe, it’s not that they should’ve known, they did know. There’s no doubt about that. Wherever he went, the CIA received reports on his activities, and they received reports from many sources: From the FBI, from the New Orleans Police Department, from the State Department, from a secret operation to open mail. They had opened the letters of Oswald’s mother. So he had a very fat file in the CIA before November 22nd, 1963. And this is another thing that is really not talked about in major news organizations and mainstream media, but it’s also pretty much indisputably true, is the CIA really knew a lot about this guy. Now, was somebody in touch with Oswald? We don’t know, we don’t know. But they were certainly in a position to know everything about him, his politics, his travels, his foreign contacts, his state of mind, his letters from his mother. That’s how detailed their knowledge was of this man.
0:18:04 JC: So was he chosen as the perpetrator of this crime simply because he was an easy target for the FBI, because they can justify it by virtue of his background?
0:18:17 JM: Well, yeah. As somebody said in the White House right after the assassination, this whole story, the president killed by a communist, it was like it was too pat. It didn’t make any sense. And the more you look into that and understand who Oswald was, there’s really no motive for the crime. Oswald was a liberal socialist leftist guy, he wasn’t a crazed fanatic or anything like that. He thought Kennedy was kind of an ordinary politician. The thing that Oswald liked the best about Kennedy was that he was pro civil rights, very unusually for a young man with no education from the south. Oswald was instinctively sympathetic with black people, and this is the height of the civil rights movement, Jim Crow, all of that. And so Oswald was sympathetic. The idea that he would then turn around and kill the most pro civil rights President? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. Doesn’t make a lot of sense. So you ask, “Was Oswald a patsy?” Well Oswald said he was a patsy. When they asked him, when he was arrested, there was a press conference and reporters were shouting at him, and somebody said, “Did you shoot the president?” He said, “I did not shoot the President, I’m a patsy.” And so a patsy, that’s a fall guy, that’s somebody who is set up to take the blame for something that he didn’t do. Oswald said he was a patsy and you have all of these people around him who specialize in secret operations. It’s a possibility that he was set up and manipulated.
0:19:52 JC: Yeah. There’s only one thing that I’m somewhat familiar with. I understand that the rifle that was used by, apparently used by, allegedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald was a Carcano rifle. Am I correct? .
0:20:09 JM: Right, yes.
0:20:11 JC: Now, I’m sort of a gun guy. But many years ago I did a lot of reloading and stuff like that, and I still subscribe to Gun Tests magazine and I read the articles and stuff like that, I haven’t done anything in years. But I own a Carcano rifle. So what I did is that I looked up in my… I got several manuals on certain rifles and their characteristics. And the one characteristic of a Carcano rifle is its inaccuracy. And the reason for that is that it’s an overbore rifle. It was made over-bored. And the logic was, “Well, it’ll be a little less accurate but it won’t wear as much. So men in the field could fire more rounds with it without having to have it refurbished.” And so I thought to myself… I read this and this is only a few years ago that I read this, ’cause I have a Carcano rifle. It’s a garbage rifle [chuckle] and I got it for 100 bucks by the way. And I said to myself, “If someone was going to assassinate the President, you think they would go out and and get a relatively inexpensive, highly inaccurate rifle to shoot at a far distance?” That didn’t make any sense.
0:21:28 JM: No it doesn’t. And your story is great Joe, I’m no gun expert. I’ve read in the forensic evidence, there’s a lot of people who know a lot more. But yeah, a cheap, lousy rifle, and expert marksmen were for the most part unable to get off the number of shots to fit the official theory. So yeah, that’s another aspect of it. Another way to look at the whole story is, would Oswald be convicted based on the evidence that we have now? If you brought this case to… And it’s a very weak case.
0:22:16 JC: Right. A very, very weak case, right.
0:22:17 JM: It’s a forensic case and there’s a lot of… There’s bad evidence, there’s evidence that’s been mishandled or fixed. So part of the problem with this case is, that there’s a effort to kind of draw a veil of confusion over all of it. And the point you bring up, that it doesn’t make sense that this would be the murder weapon for this crime.
0:22:43 JC: Yeah, you could make an argument that he didn’t know any better, he was a wacko, he didn’t know a rifle from a handgun or a knife. But here’s a guy who’s a marksman, apparently he was in the military. And these guys know everything about the one thing that they need to operate properly, and that’s their side-arm, their firearm, their rifle. They know everything about it, they’re one with the cosmos with it. And you don’t take the most inaccurate rifle ever built [chuckle] to assassinate. When I read that it just… I said, “I’ve never heard this before.” And I’m reading… And this is just a technical magazine. This book that I was reading, was a technical magazine, reloading, and talked about different gun powders that are used for the mag. Had nothing to do with the assassination, with Lee Harvey Oswald, nothing at all. It was a reloading magazine. And when I read that I said, “My God, I’ve never heard that before.”
0:23:40 JM: Yeah well, you touched on just one of the many evidentiary problems in this case. And so we don’t have a good explanation of Kennedy’s assassination, but we do have an opportunity to really learn something more. And there are big breakthroughs possible in this, and I think that we could have a drastically different understanding of Kennedy’s assassination in five years, than we do now, if we had all the information. Or maybe not. I’m not making any promises, but there is a lot of very relevant information that the CIA and other government agencies are still hiding. And October 2017 is a real chance for us to get that material. So my book is an effort to kind of explain this whole story, and what’s out there and what might be the explanation. What was really going on with the president and his enemies at the time, and Oswald? And again, it’s a complicated story. It’s prone to over-simplification, but it’s not incomprehensible either, it’s not beyond the pale. We’re talking about the workings of an intelligence agency, and contrary to what you see in the movies, intelligence agencies are a bureaucracy. They follow procedures, even when they’re very secretive. And so we understand now a lot better how the CIA operated in 1963. It’s not a matter of mystification, it’s a matter of fact. And with that we can begin to really understand this great event, important event in American history in a new way.
0:25:22 JC: It just seems that there are so many players in this play. And didn’t it require many people to cooperate in the same way and to assure that there was no whistle-blowers or naysayers or contrarians in this entire production, if you will? It seemed that they had to be incredibly well coordinated and everyone that was told to shut up and say nothing, they had to guarantee they had to shut up. Then the question is, is that Lee Harvey Oswald… He was shot, right, by, I forgot the guy’s name…
0:26:09 JM: Jack Ruby.
0:26:10 JC: Yeah, right. Did that play into that whole scenario that I’m just painting right now?
0:26:17 JM: Yeah, if you go back to the time, this trauma, the President of the United States shot down in broad daylight. We were a year after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the President was killed by a Communist. Lyndon Johnson, who became President that day, was terrified that he was gonna find himself in a nuclear war. And so the convenient truth, that one guy killed the President for no reason, that was very reassuring to everybody in power in Washington. And so President Johnson, before the investigation, decided, they started with what the conclusion was gonna be. That was this guy did it alone, and we’re not gonna talk about anybody else’s motives, we’re not gonna talk about his association, we’re not gonna go there, because it might be war. And so this kind of panicky feeling, which was very real at the time, put this blanket over the story.
0:27:14 JM: Now there were people right from the start, who said, “No, that’s not what happened. What about this? ” And there was a concerted effort right from the start to discourage discussion; it was painful, don’t go there, it’s anti-American. But the fact is, it was very strong. It was very popular right from the start that the official explanation didn’t make any sense. People gave the government the benefit of the doubt, the Warren Commission, many distinguished people, Earl Warren, the Chief Justice, probably the leading liberal in the country, and Richard Russell, Dean of the Senate, leading Conservative in the country. So people gave them the benefit of the doubt, but it just didn’t hang together. Now a lot of people who rushed to defend the official story, they didn’t know that something else had happened. They were probably acting sincerely. They couldn’t believe that anything else was possible. So, were a lot of people in on it? Well, a lot of people were just gonna rally to their country, they’re gonna take what’s most reassuring, they’re gonna go with what the CIA says, if you work at the CIA especially. So the idea that the official story wasn’t right, was kind of incomprehensible to people, especially as you get closer into the government.
0:28:35 JM: If you work in the government you think the government’s a good thing, or a pretty good thing. You work for the CIA, you probably like the CIA. And so there was this tremendous pressure to conform and to reject, and anybody who objected or said anything differently was attacked. Mark Lane, the author and lawyer, who died last week, was the most prominent example of this. He was kind of an obnoxious guy from New York, and put himself forward as Oswald’s attorney. And he wrote this book about the Warren Commission Report and about the assassination called ‘Rush To Judgment’. This book was an amazing best-seller, seven weeks on the New York Times best seller list at number one. So this is by 1965, this is maybe two, three years after the assassination. There were very widespread doubts from the start. And another thing that’s quite interesting to note, and has become very obvious over the years, they say, “Oh, you know, conspiracy theorists, they don’t really know how the government really works.” And that’s often true, people who aren’t well-schooled in the government, with conspiracy theories, that’s not true. But what’s interesting about JFK is, there were lots of people very high in the government who didn’t believe the official story.
0:29:56 JM: And let’s start right there, Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon Johnson endorsed the Warren Commission and said, “Lay this to rest.” All of that. Privately, Lyndon Johnson never believed it. Never. Lyndon Johnson juggled conspiracy theories, but he never believed that one man killed the President for no reason. He thought President Kennedy had been killed by his enemies. He didn’t know who. Robert Kennedy, the President’s brother, he suspected either Mafia or CIA. Jackie Kennedy suspected that there was a conspiracy. I wrote a book about Winston Scott, the CIA’s top man in Mexico in the 1960s, super conservative, super loyal to the CIA, didn’t believe the official story, and wrote it down. So these kind of doubts were very pervasive at the popular level. People said it doesn’t pass the smell test. And even at the elite levels of government people said… They went along publicly because they had to do it, it had a certain momentum, but privately people didn’t really believe that. So that’s another reason why there’s this dissatisfaction. Even leaders of our government don’t believe this story.
0:31:06 JC: Jefferson, excuse me. I hate to interrupt you, but we’ve had a call on the line that wants to break in and ask a question. So do you mind if I interrupt you and we take a call, please?
0:31:16 JM: No. Not at all. Let’s talk.
0:31:16 JC: Okay. Line one, Caller, you’re on the air. Your question or comment please.
0:31:21 Lloyd: Hello Joe, this is Lloyd.
0:31:24 JC: Lloyd, thank you for calling Liberty Talk Radio.
0:31:27 Lloyd: Yeah. On the mystery of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being used by Oswald.
0:31:35 JC: Yes.
0:31:35 Lloyd: It doesn’t make sense from an average person standpoint. But when you put it in the fact that Oswald was passing out the leaflets for the Fair Play for Cuba working under Guy Banister, passing those out, and he was marketing himself as a Cuba sympathizer, which I think he was probably a double agent, kinda working for the CIA at that time. Now in 1958-’59, I believe it was, when Castro was trying to overthrow Batista, the CIA was delivering Mannlicher-Carcano rifles to Castro to overthrow Batista. So now, you have Oswald who purchases by mail order, Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. He paid more than what it should’ve cost. He got the scope with it. It was like $29.95. Back in those days I remember, I was a gun enthusiast as a kid, looking through Montgomery Ward catalogue, you could buy a British 303 rifle, the war surplus, for $8.99.
0:32:52 JC: Wow. [chuckle]
0:32:54 Lloyd: And you could buy several of the old Belgian rifles and stuff like that for $13 or something to that effect. Now, if you’re trying to set up a patsy, what better rifle than to have one that someone is passing out leaflets in support of Cuba, and have the same rifle that the Cubans would use. Any comments?
0:33:20 JM: Yeah. A good point that the Carcano rifle was widely available. It’s peculiar that, if you could get such a cheap rifle anywhere, why would Oswald get it as a mail order item? But I think that the… And it seems unlikely that the rifle did cause the wounds of all the people in the car, such a cheap rifle. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
0:33:56 Lloyd: I believe that the rifle could’ve done the damage. In fact, a long time ago, back in ’72, I was overseas. I was in the Air Force, and I was in a good library, and I actually started going through the Warren Report. I didn’t go through it all, of course, it’s several big volumes. But I found the parts in there where they were going through the trajectory and the ballistics, and all this kind of stuff. And there is a plausible explanation for the bullet that went through Kennedy’s neck, and through the seat, and into Connelly. And a bullet can actually do that, because Connally was sitting down lower than Kennedy, which would give it… And plus, once a bullet hits something, it does deflect somewhat. And then, the other thing is, people say it was a pristine bullet. I’ve seen pictures of the bullet, it was not totally pristine. It was somewhat shaped like a bullet, simply because it was a jacketed bullet. It was not lead nosed, like people use for hunting. And those bullets, unless they hit something really, really hard, do come out pretty much looking still like the shape of a bullet. But I’m kind of a conspiracy theorist. I’ve read a lot of this stuff, but I was just gonna bring up basically the note on the rifle. Why that particular rifle would be one, that if the CIA were setting up a patsy, that is the perfect rifle to do it.
0:35:28 JC: Okay. All right, Lloyd. Great comment. Yes, Jefferson.
0:35:33 JM: Yeah, so in my book I don’t really address these kind of forensic issues, but they’re always in the background. I’ll just say, in reference to his comment, Governor Connally was quite clear that the first bullet hit President Kennedy in the back, and the second bullet hit him in the back and it was two different bullets. Connally said that, and his wife Nellie, who was sitting next to him, said that. And they were both experienced hunters, they knew their way around guns. But if what they say is true, then the Warren Commission was false. Because the Warren Commission said that that’s not what happened. So even right there, at the most basic level, the government’s account is not supported by the two witnesses who were closest at the scene of the crime.
0:36:32 JC: Right. Lloyd, are you still on the air? No, Lloyd’s gone, okay. Jefferson, can we just break for about 60 seconds for station identification and give an opportunity for our sponsors to say ‘hello’. Okay? Okay, thank you. Don’t go away, we’ll be right back. Folks, don’t go away. The second half is gonna be better than the first half, if you can believe that.
0:36:53 S1: You’re listening to Liberty Talk Radio. Political talk derived from a historical perspective not always palatable, but good food for thought. Pure libertarian talk, with host Joe Cristiano, libertytalkradio.com.
0:38:17 JC: Welcome back everyone. This is Joe Cristiano, you’re listening to Liberty Talk Radio. With us we have Mr. Jefferson Morley. He’s the author and the editor of JFK Facts, the premier destination on the web for information and discussion about the assassination of JFK. We’re discussing his book, the upcoming book, it will be a Kindle e-book, CIA and JFK: The Last Assassination Secrets. The only book that I’ve ever read on JFK was a book by Roger Stone, The man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ. What’s your opinion of that book?
0:38:58 JM: It’s a political tract designed to malign the reputation of a liberal hero, and that’s what Roger Stone does. He’s a hard-ball, right wing, conservative political strategist, and he always… What his political campaigns or whatever he’s involved in, that’s what he talks about, is he goes bare knuckles. Now is it true? No, it’s not true. It’s not factually supported. The case that Lyndon Johnson killed President Kennedy is very weak. And I think Stone brings that up as part of his larger project of advancing a hard-right conservative agenda. Roger Stone, as you may know, has been very close to Donald Trump in launching his campaign. Reportedly there have been some differences between the men. I was hoping that… Roger Stone’s a nice man, I’ve met him. He noticed the assassination story very well. I think his partisan enthusiasms get the better of him. But he could be a good voice for full disclosure on the JFK issue, if he has some influence with Donald Trump.
0:40:17 JM: So yeah, on the internet the “LBJ did it” meme is very popular, it’s popular in Texas. And for sure, LBJ was a real son-of-a-bitch.
0:40:30 JM: The more we know about him.
0:40:31 JC: Right. It’s amazing. [chuckle]
0:40:34 JM: He was mean, and every time you think you heard the most, then you hear another story. [0:40:39] ____ I think it’s very interesting that President Johnson did not believe the official story. Whatever you think about Johnson, whether you like him, hate him, whatever, he was a superb political mind. He was a genius. He had an incredible political mind, a nose for power. Look at what he did in his life, where he came from and all that. You can’t say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So when LBJ says the government’s version of the story is incredible, I give that a lot of credibility.
0:41:15 JC: Yeah. Well, then then the question remains, if the official story is in question, who killed JFK?
0:41:32 JM: I don’t think we can point to individuals, but I think we can say, what’s never been investigated is the possibility that the president was killed by enemies in his own government, and people with the ability to cover their tracks through the use of official secrecy. So we’re talking about people working in classified agencies, which would be Defense Department and CIA. So if there was a conspiracy, that’s where you need to look. And if you wanna look at the people who were most likely to be involved, you know that’s what my book is about. We can get down and talk about specific people. So I think that if we got all the records we’re talking about, we might know a lot more about the culpability of certain CIA officials and the death of the president.
0:42:21 JC: What would be the motive? What was the motive, in your opinion, at this point in time?
0:42:26 JM: You know, Kennedy had taken a series of decisions that were very disturbing to the Defense Department, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs and the CIA. And there were three, really, that were… The first was the refusal to support the CIA brigade at the Bay of Pigs, which was attempting to overthrow the Castro government. A lot of people in Miami and the CIA never forgave Kennedy for that, they felt that he had abandoned them in the line of fire. That that was disgraceful. Then during the Cuban Missile Crisis a year later, in October of 1962, Kennedy’s advisors and the Joint Chiefs strongly recommended that he invade the island, destroy the Soviet missiles that were being built there, and throw out Castro. And Kennedy refused to do that, even though the Joint Chiefs were unanimous, and even most of his civilian advisors favoured them. And Kennedy rejected that hawkish advice and pursued a more dove-ish policy and settled the crisis without a war.
0:43:40 JM: And then the third thing was, in 1963 Kennedy pushed very hard for a test-ban treaty on the testing of nuclear weapons. And this was opposed by the Joint Chiefs, at least privately. And so Kennedy was moving the country’s foreign policy to the left. And he was gonna reopen diplomatic relations with Cuba and he was perceived as a threat to US national security by a lot of people. So that would give the motive for an assassination operation, which would be to defend the national security of the United States. That’s how such people might have seen it. So, I think that’s the leading possibility that’s never really been examined. And that’s where the evidence that’s still secret… That’s what we’ll learn about if we get those records.
0:44:30 JC: Yeah. You know if this occurred today, there would be a lot more skepticism than there was back then. I mean, back then we could not perceive that anything internally would have been involved in that thought process at all.
0:44:53 JM: Right. Yes. We know a lot more about how the government works. You know, in 1963 the CIA was just a rumor. And even the best informed journalist in Washington really had no idea how the CIA actually worked. And that’s very different now. And so, we do have much more skepticism. And likewise, the same thing, we have more knowledge. So since Ed Snowden came along, we understand much better how this mass surveillance system, NSA, and all that, works. Before we could’ve guessed, you might have thought this or that, but the government lied about it, constantly. The congressman would say, “Sir, do you spy on millions of Americans?” “No, we do not.” That was a lie.
0:45:47 JC: Right.
0:45:47 JM: Right. Now we know much better. And so the government has less credibility as people become more informed, and they can’t get away with those kind of lies anymore. So that’s the current relevance of JFK, which is, if we’re gonna stop the government from lying today, one place to start is what happened 50 years ago. Because that’s way in the past and doesn’t have anything to do with anything, it’s history, right? But if we can’t do it on JFK, we don’t have a prayer of holding the government accountable today. So there is a contemporary importance to the JFK story. It’s a reflection of, do we have the ability to hold the government accountable, back then or today?
0:46:31 JC: I’m gonna ask you a very unfair question, if you don’t mind. [chuckle] And that is that, there are other events that the government’s story doesn’t seem to hold water. I mean, it sounds good, but it doesn’t run very well. And of course I always pick on 9/11. The only thing I know, for example, about 9/11 as a fact… I own a company that does occupation health testing. And we are the quintessential experts in respirators and respirator use. We do training on it, we have special machines that cost thousands of dollars to make sure that it fits properly. I mean, if you had to question the state of Oklahoma regarding respirators you came to me. I mean that’s… We are the people. And we do thousands of fit tests on every conceivable respirator in the world made. Yet on 9/11, the government indicated that they had just received 3,000 respirators that they were giving out to all the people who were helping with the rescue effort. And I’ll never forget this, I sat by the TV when I heard that, and I literally yelled out, I’m not kidding you, I yelled out as if I was speaking to someone in the room and saying, “No, you didn’t!” And then I looked, I said, “Who am I talking to? There’s no one in this room but me!”, [laughter] you know. I just felt stupid, I said, “I’m talking to the television set.”
0:48:00 JC: And the reason why they came out so quickly, was because I knew the respirators are just-in-time inventory and you can’t get 3,000 respirators. You may be able to get 20, but you can’t get 3,000. Now, you can get 3,000, but you’re gonna have to wait. And of course, they didn’t give out 3,000 respirators. They gave 3,000 dust masks out, and the dust masks are only used for very specific types of contaminants and they have to be fitted properly so that they work, etcetera. I won’t go through the whole history. And I’m yelling. I’m saying, “Well, this is all wrong.” In fact, the government broke every single regulatory rule regarding respiratory protection that they write about. They broke every single one of them.
0:48:44 JC: And I was so angry. I said, “How could they do that when they impose these restrictions on companies,” and justifiably so. The companies should be doing this. But then they break every one and say, “Look how great the government is. They gave 3,000 respirators out free of charge to all these people,” and that was all bunk. And after that, I became incredibly skeptical of everything the government said about 9/11, everything. I started questioning everything. Now, I don’t know much about it. I’m just like the average guy on the street. Who knows what happened? But I guess my point being is, that we seem to have that same skepticism today regarding the JFK assassination as we do now of 9/11. Of course, of everything I’m saying, that means I’m a conspiracy nut and all this other stuff. But spare me with that, you know?
0:49:34 JM: No, no no, I mean it started with JFK, because the government didn’t produce a credible explanation and never did. And so people’s skepticism and cynicism about the government went up. And if you chart, over time, do you have faith and confidence in the federal government? World War II, ’50s, ’60s, it’s rising. 1964 Warren Commission is issued and it goes like this. It goes straight down and has never really recovered. Now, there were other things that weren’t there, Vietnam and all of that. But that was when people learned that it was in the government’s interest to put out a certain kind of story, because that satisfied all the interests. It didn’t satisfy the interests of truth. It satisfied all the political interests. So we have that same skepticism.
0:50:29 JM: Now, 9/11, Joe, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. 9/11 was a conspiracy. I think it was a conspiracy created by Osama bin Laden and this guy named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed came up with the plan and hired the guys and bin Laden gave the money and they conspired and the result was the 9/11 attacks. I think that part of the story is true. Now, where government secrecy comes in, the 28 pages is, who else was involved in this? Was there more Saudi money going to these guys? What did the US know about that? There’s aspects of the story that we don’t know and that the government would prefer to hide. Do those change the fundamental picture of who was the intellectual author of the crime? I think we know who the intellectual author of the crime was on 9/11. It was Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
0:51:23 JC: Yeah, yeah. But it garners enough skepticism that it’s difficult to accept anything that is being said today, and it sort of skews the compass. It’s like putting a magnet next to a compass and you never know what direction you’re going into. Just the other day the president said on television… I don’t remember the exact words, but he says his administration respects the sovereignty of foreign countries. And you think about all the drones that are being flown all over the place, [chuckle] dropping bombs in sovereign countries and sometimes it’s hospitals and innocent men, women and children. I mean, the audacity to say something like that. You don’t have to be a news-hound and verify it. You know this is happening, and what they say is an exact contradiction of what they’re doing, that you see every day on television. And I think the United States is losing its credibility, not only in the world, but with its own citizens. And this is why the likes of a Donald Trump, for example, or Bernie Sanders and those guys and maybe a third-party candidate is getting so much attraction during this electoral season.
0:52:41 JM: Yeah, yeah. I mean, when the government makes these implausible statements, it’s playing with fire. Because it’s very reckless, and it undermines everything that the government does. It undermines the notion that we can act collectively, which we have to do. And so the propagandistic aspects of this… It’s in this national security realm where the lies, the fake statements, are especially profound. Because it’s always dressed up with, “We’re protecting you. So you can’t know this, ’cause it’s for your own good that we can’t tell you this.” It’s a very pernicious argument, and it makes people very cynical. Because they feel that they’re being played, and they are. And the country was kind of played after the Warren Commission. We didn’t have a real investigation of why the president was killed. We had an investigation of convenience. And the explanation we got was what served the array of political interests in Washington. And that’s still the way the game is played now. So the challenge is, how do we, the average people out there, hold the government accountable? And we do have these powerful new media tools, the internet. So the people have some more power, we had whistle-blowers from the inside, like Ed Snowden. We have Wiki leaks. So it’s a struggle. It’s a constant struggle.
0:54:22 JC: Now, can you divulge to us at this point in time? Or would would you prefer to withhold it? What is the conclusion of your book?
0:54:32 JM: The conclusion of my book is, if we wanna know the truth about who killed President Kennedy, we have to have all the evidence. And so we don’t, we don’t have all the evidence. But if we wanna know the truth and we wanna know specifically about the dozen or so men and women who I talk about in my book, then let’s see the evidence. But until then, we’re not going to have that whole stupid conspiracy thing, right. We’re gonna say the facts, which is the government is concealing… The CIA’s concealing its records about the JFK assassination to this day. Now, why are they doing that? I mean, I’m skeptical to suspicions. If you don’t have something to hide, don’t hide anything. The CIA has nothing to hide on JFK, they will produce these records. If they come forward and say, “We wanna hide something,” then I will say, “I think they got something to hide, because they’re telling us that.” Right?
0:55:23 JM: So the conclusion of my book is, we’re going to come to this moment in 2017 and we’re gonna have that conversation. There’s gonna be attention to this issue. Believe me, Joe, there’s gonna be attention to this issue, ’cause people understand now, what’s out.
0:55:38 JC: Yeah, if in fact these papers, when they are presented in October of 2017, reveal that much of what the government, or some of what the government has said about the assassination of JFK is proven to be incorrect or false, you think this was going to have an effect on mostly everything that the government has said about other incidences that occurred? Do you think there’ll be some sort of backlash against government in general? And would it be broad enough in scope to maybe lessen or weaken the government, as we know it today?
0:56:15 JM: Yes, absolutely, it will. And this is the symbolic importance of JFK is, it still resonates, it still… It’s kind of archetypal American story. I teach this stuff in school, so I meet a lot of college students, and they’re still fascinated by it. Although it’s very far from them. People like me, who actually can remember the day, barely, I was in kindergarten, we’re going fast. So the number of people who actually can remember the event is shrinking every year, but there’s still this very basic interest. And so clarity about the Kennedy assassination would have, I believe, a powerful ripple effect of saying, “Hey, you know? We gotta get this right. We have to hold secret agencies accountable.” It will create this pressure for more disclosure, more accountability. That’s all to the good.
0:57:07 JM: So I think that that’s why October 2017 is important, because it’s not just about now. It’s about the 28 pages. It’s about mass surveillance. It’s about, what are we gonna do about this today? It’s a kind of exhibit A from the past that is very relevant to the present. And so, yes, I believe it will have political ripple effects if we learn more and can clarify the JFK story.
0:57:31 JC: And I think those ripple effects will be very unsettling, but overall they’ll be good long-term for the salvation of this country, whatever is left of it. And hopefully will help steer us in the right path, because right now we just seem to be going in the wrong direction. So I hope your book is an impetus towards correcting that journey that we’re on, which I don’t particularly care for. Now we have about two minutes to go. I like to give you the last two minutes to sum things up, inform our listeners how they may reach you, or order your book and when it’s available, etcetera. So the rest of the show is yours.
0:58:13 JM: Yes, so Joe, thanks for the opportunity. I love to be able to have a real discussion instead of like a sound-bite discussion, where we can talk and we get a caller who knows something and he can say his piece. So thank you for taking the time. My book, CIA and JFK: The Last Assassination Secrets, is a Kindle e-book. You can get it on Amazon Download. You can preorder it now, it’ll be available on June 10th. And it really is a roadmap to what we know about the CIA and the JFK assassination, and what we might learn in the near future, and highlights the importance of the secrecy issue in the 2016 campaign.
0:58:56 JM: So, I urge people to look for the book on Amazon. Or wanna know more about me and look at JFK facts, which is JFKfacts.org. It’s a website about the assassination. We present a lot of news, a lot of information, answer your questions. And you can email me, editor@JFKfacts, and I’m always answering questions from readers. People are curious about this. So, I think the more people who know about this, the more we will have attention on this very timely issue of secrecy and national security in 2016. And the JFK story is just a brilliant, fascinating way to understand how we got into the predicament today. So my book is a guide to that right.
0:59:47 JC: Well, maybe this will be the spark to send us in the right direction. I wanna thank you so much for being on our show, you’ve been a delightful and informative guest. And I do hope you will accept our invitation, maybe, to return at a later date when there’s some updates. And if you do just give us a call when you think it’s appropriate, we’d love to have you back on the show.
1:00:05 JM: Joe, I would love to do that. There will be more news, so we will talk again and I look forward to that.
1:00:09 JC: Okay. Thank you so much for being on our show. Folks, this is the end of today’s broadcast. We’d like to thank our sponsors for the financial support. And we’d like to thank you for listening in. You can further the cause of liberty by recommending this program to your friends. Let us hear from you. Our email address is firstname.lastname@example.org. Remember, you’re either allowing your liberties to be taken away or you are striving to protect them. Unfortunately there is no middle ground. Until next time, this is Joe Cristiano. You’ve been listening to Liberty Talk Radio. Stay well, stay tuned.
Grab This Free Report: Why IDM Mining Is Our Top Gold Stock Pick
This free issue of WSW Monthly is devoted to the rise in mining stocks and how to profit from it. It includes our top mining stock pick of July, which is IDM Mining (we own 140,000 shares and 70,000 warrant options of it, because we put our money where our mouth is). But do not think about buying it or any other mining stock before you read this report. To get this report click here