• The CIA Director Was Part of the JFK Assassination Cover-Up
    35 replies, posted
[QUOTE]After JFK’s assassination in Dallas in November 1963, President Lyndon Johnson kept McCone in place at the CIA, and the CIA director became an important witness before the Warren Commission, the panel Johnson created to investigate Kennedy’s murder. McCone pledged full cooperation with the commission, which was led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, and testified that the CIA had no evidence to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin, was part of any conspiracy, foreign or domestic. In its final report, the commission came to agree with McCone’s depiction of Oswald, a former Marine and self-proclaimed Marxist, as a delusional lone wolf. Story Continued Below But did McCone come close to perjury all those decades ago? Did the onetime Washington outsider in fact hide agency secrets that might still rewrite the history of the assassination? Even the CIA is now willing to raise these questions. Half a century after JFK’s death, in a once-secret report written in 2013 by the CIA’s top in-house historian and quietly declassified last fall, the spy agency acknowledges what others were convinced of long ago: that McCone and other senior CIA officials were “complicit” in keeping “incendiary” information from the Warren Commission. Read more: [url]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197#ixzz3o5kPpbPM[/url][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197?curator=MediaREDEF[/url]
interesting. seems like the CIA covered Oswald's ties to Cuba and Russia so as to minimize the chances of another cuban missile crisis or worse
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48866141]interesting. seems like the CIA covered Oswald's ties to Cuba and Russia so as to minimize the chances of another cuban missile crisis or worse[/QUOTE] Pretty much, they didn't want to connect the USSR to the assassination of a US president, even if Oswald did act alone, his USSR connections could have been seen as a setup Others are going to say that means that the CIA did it though
I was expecting something about how the CIA killed Kennedy
I'm confused on how this is a cover up. Its more of a acknowledgement that members of the CIA lied to the government panel to protect other covert operations and intelligence.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48866362]I'm confused on how this is a cover up. Its more of a acknowledgement that members of the CIA lied to the government panel to protect other covert operations and intelligence.[/QUOTE] hence, covering up the truth. it doesn't need to be sinister to be a coverup
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48866201]Holy shit so Jfk was killed by the Soviet Union and the Cia hid it to break mutually assured destruction and avoid nuclear Holocaust. It's actually really obvious in hindsight.[/QUOTE] I don't see where you gathered that from. All that this article says is that McCone lied about US Assassination plots against Castro and failed to adequately investigate Oswald's trip to Mexico. The CIA could have shut down the investigation to keep from looking incompetent or to prevent implicating the USSR or Cuba, but I don't think you can really tell which case with just this document.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48866432]hence, covering up the truth. it doesn't need to be sinister to be a coverup[/QUOTE] Maybe I was expecting some kind of huge discrepancy here instead of whats presented
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48866201]Holy shit so Jfk was killed by the Soviet Union and the Cia hid it to break mutually assured destruction and avoid nuclear Holocaust. It's actually really obvious in hindsight.[/QUOTE] Perhaps they thought looking like they did it was worth the alternative. Perhaps the JFK conspiracy... was a conspiracy.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48866675]If the USSR really killed JFK and the CIA hid it from the rest of the government, they possibly saved the lives of everyone on the planet. Job well fucking done.[/QUOTE] My question is how much they hid it from the rest of government, because making serious decisions like that is not their job. Their job is to gather information, collect the facts, inform policymakers of the facts and let those policymakers make a decision. There can be exceptions when elected officials aren't actually cleared for sensitive information, but if it's a matter of preventing WW3 then that really, really, [I]really[/I] should be up to the President. The idea of an intelligence agency deciding to withhold information from elected officials for a perceived greater good makes me feel pretty uncomfortable. If they were trying to stop WW3 then clearly they had good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. How many NSA officers thought they were doing the right thing these past few years? Civilian oversight is critical to keeping any government agency in check, and that means no secrets.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48866941]Civilian oversight is critical to keeping any government agency in check, and that means no secrets.[/QUOTE] In a perfect world where public doesn't turn into a mob with collective IQ of 30 if more than two people are present in the same space at the same time, that would be the case. Unfortunately, people are dumb.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48866941]My question is how much they hid it from the rest of government, because making serious decisions like that is not their job. Their job is to gather information, collect the facts, inform policymakers of the facts and let those policymakers make a decision.[/QUOTE] I dunno, after 9/11 happened we went and invaded 2 countries and occupied them for a decade before realising that wasn't the greatest idea, we just did it because we were angry and seeking to destroy the people that attacked us. I worry what we might have done if we thought the Soviet Union assassinated our President. We might not be talking about this now if Congress voted to declare war on the Soviet Union and retaliate.
are you two really disagreeing with catbarf? this is like civics 101 stuff. what makes the CIA the final moral authority in that situation? [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] it's not like they'd hold a plebiscite on whether or not to drop the bombs, the white house and select senate committees that hear special info arent run of the mill minds, whatever a person might think
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48868027] it's not like they'd hold a plebiscite on whether or not to drop the bombs, the white house and select senate committees that hear special info arent run of the mill minds, whatever a person might think[/QUOTE] White house and senate committees consist of people, people are dumb and prone to make decisions without having all of the data and context. If some information can possibly spark the end of the world, keep it from reaching anyone with any sort of authority until it isn't relevant anymore, preferably - destroy it. That depends on whether the information CIA withheld actually was [b]this[/b] important. On the other hand, that's up for them to determine - special services are generally kept just for that, analysing and processing (and filtering, like it or not) information.
[QUOTE=gudman;48868240]White house and senate committees consist of people, people are dumb and prone to make decisions without having all of the data and context.[/QUOTE] think about how arrogant and blatantly self-contradicting this is, please
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48868027]are you two really disagreeing with catbarf? this is like civics 101 stuff. what makes the CIA the final moral authority in that situation?[/QUOTE] Believe it or not, global thermonuclear war > the democratic process. So in this case civics can go fuck itself.
A unilateral decision by a lone man on more than one occasion saved the world from being destroyed by refusing to launch a retaliatory strike after a system glitch even though his orders and his society expected him to given his conditions. Sometimes the best decision is not the civicly minded decision.
Its amazing how much of an EVIDENT conspiracy the murder of JFK was. Like, a guy who: -OPENLY agrees with the USSR -Leaves the US defense forces -Goes to live in the USSR -Comes back Is allowed to freely operate and do as he pleases around. Then they find him with the rifle that killed JFK and once they put him into custody he starts yelling "I'm a patsy!" Then a guy with ties to the mafia, comes and kills him point blank range and god knows why. Later on, that same guy, is also killed. Someone kinda messed up the process.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48868932]Its amazing how much of an EVIDENT conspiracy the murder of JFK was. Like, a guy who: -OPENLY agrees with the USSR -Leaves the US defense forces -Goes to live in the USSR -Comes back Is allowed to freely operate and do as he pleases around. Then they find him with the rifle that killed JFK and once they put him into custody he starts yelling "I'm a patsy!" Then a guy with ties to the mafia, comes and kills him point blank range and god knows why. Later on, that same guy, is also killed. Someone kinda messed up the process.[/QUOTE] What do you mean the same guy is also killed. Do you want to charge his heart with murder?
Are you forgetting the "patsy" shot and killed a police officer who tried to stop him escaping?
[QUOTE=plunger435;48869011]What do you mean the same guy is also killed. Do you want to charge his heart with murder?[/QUOTE] JFK <- Killed by Oswald <- Killed by that guy with mafia ties <- Killed by ???
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48869043]JFK <- Killed by Oswald <- [B]Killed by that guy with mafia ties[/B] <- Killed by ???[/QUOTE] You're thinking of Jack Ruby.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48868932]Its amazing how much of an EVIDENT conspiracy the murder of JFK was. Like, a guy who: -OPENLY agrees with the USSR -Leaves the US defense forces -Goes to live in the USSR -Comes back Is allowed to freely operate and do as he pleases around.[/QUOTE] He was being watched by the CIA, but they didn't believe he was up to anything sinister. As the article states, they were tracking his movement and (illegally) intercepting his mail. [QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48868932]Then they find him with the rifle that killed JFK and once they put him into custody he starts yelling "I'm a patsy!"[/QUOTE] He killed a Dallas Police Officer during his initial escape. In fact, he was originally arrested on the suspicion of killing a police officer, and charged with the assassination after his arrest. [QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48868932]Then a guy with ties to the mafia, comes and kills him point blank range and god knows why. Later on, that same guy, is also killed.[/QUOTE] That "guy" was nightclub owner Jack Ruby, who was not in great health and died of a stroke.
Sure whatever, I don't believe shit the government says.
there's very little information to back this up, and the only other places reporting it are tabloids. As a matter of fact, all of the other reports point towards this article. I'm more inclined to believe it's a fabrication.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;48870028]there's very little information to back this up, and the only other places reporting it are tabloids. As a matter of fact, all of the other reports point towards this article. I'm more inclined to believe it's a fabrication.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDF"]well you can read the actual report put out by the CIA if you have doubts.[/URL]
I always feel real bad for JFK. He had some great potential to be an amazing President.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48868693]think about how arrogant and blatantly self-contradicting this is, please[/QUOTE] How? CIA is literally [b]the[/b] agency specialising in collecting and analysing information. They got their hands on something they deemed way too dangerous to release not just to public, but to even share with the rest of the government agencies. That's kind of why they exist, to assign value to data and predict the outcome of certain events. I don't see any self-contradiction, let alone arrogance - I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone out there, and especially not smart enough to judge the special services without having all the info.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;48868843]Believe it or not, global thermonuclear war > the democratic process. So in this case civics can go fuck itself.[/QUOTE] This argument doesn't really work when its the same idiots hiding the facts who would be entirely responsible for starting said thermonuclear war. It's not like they put that shit to a vote before they launch the missiles.
[QUOTE=gudman;48867011]In a perfect world where public doesn't turn into a mob with collective IQ of 30 if more than two people are present in the same space at the same time, that would be the case. Unfortunately, people are dumb.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48867114]I dunno, after 9/11 happened we went and invaded 2 countries and occupied them for a decade before realising that wasn't the greatest idea, we just did it because we were angry and seeking to destroy the people that attacked us. I worry what we might have done if we thought the Soviet Union assassinated our President. We might not be talking about this now if Congress voted to declare war on the Soviet Union and retaliate.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about holding a public referendum, I'm talking about informing the elected policymakers who are responsible for setting policy and have the appropriate security clearance, at the very least the President, HPSCI, and SSCI. Federal agencies are [I]not[/I] supposed to set policy, they're supposed to enact policy dictated to them and report the facts to help inform policy. Refusing to pass on information that could inform a decision is absolutely shaping policy. Do you really not see how dangerous of a precedent it is to say that it's okay for unelected officials and government agencies to hide their activities from elected leadership as long as they believe it's for the greater good? [QUOTE=gudman;48870550]How? CIA is literally [B]the[/B] agency specialising in collecting and analysing information. They got their hands on something they deemed way too dangerous to release not just to public, but to even share with the rest of the government agencies. That's kind of why they exist, to assign value to data and predict the outcome of certain events. I don't see any self-contradiction, let alone arrogance - I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone out there, and especially not smart enough to judge the special services without having all the info.[/QUOTE] Again, it's collect, analyze, inform. They can determine the sensitivity when assigning a security classification, but they absolutely cannot outright decide that they're above the President and won't pass that information along to the government that they serve. They sure as hell don't get to say 'we're smarter than the President and Congress so we're going to lie to them to shape their response the way we want it'. The explicit job of the intelligence community is to gather information and inform policymakers, not to shape world events of their own volition, acting independently of the elected body of government. The phrase 'rogue agency' gets tossed around a lot in places where it's not true, but for an agency to deliberately withhold information at the behest of its leadership in order to alter US foreign policy without authorization or oversight is absolutely, 100%, positively a rogue act.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.