One of these needs, ever since 1963, has been to preserve the threadbare fiction that Lee Harvey Oswald by himself killed the president, and no one in the CIA was involved in any way.How can we make the American people more aware that elements of the CIA lied about the assassination in 1964, and are still lying today?
One of these needs, ever since 1963, has been to preserve the threadbare fiction that Lee Harvey Oswald by himself killed the president, and no one in the CIA was involved in any way.How can we make the American people more aware that elements of the CIA lied about the assassination in 1964, and are still lying today?Tags: Unhappy Marriage EssayApa Paper Writing NumbersParagraph Essay HelpResearch Paper CriterionBurning Barn CharactersEcotourism In Essay
He then he gave orders to Helms’s replacement, James Schlesinger, “to turn the place inside out.” In , I argue that, by banishing Helms to Iran, Nixon had heightened a conflict between the two forms of power (the state and the deep state), a conflict in which he, and not Helms, would become the victim.
I believe that Tehran became a new center for Helms’s machinations, in conjunction with the intelligence agencies of Iran, France, and Saudi Arabia.
Then, two days later, the FBI joined the subterfuge by falsely reporting that “no tapes were taken to Dallas.” Because of this lie, an investigation more than a decade later by the House Select Committee on Assassinations would erroneously declare that there was no “basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald imposter.” (The existence of an Oswald impersonator in the months before the president’s murder would in and of itself have been prima facie evidence of a conspiracy in Kennedy’s death.)You will probably not be able to keep up with each tall tale, nor does it matter.
They have a cumulative effect, one that explains why it is impossible to study these documents without coming away believing in conspiracy. For Part 1, please go here, and for Part 2, go here.) Now let us compare the CIA’s lying performance in 1964 with its lying performance in 2015.
At risk in these crucial months was the preservation of the agency itself, or at a minimum the preservation of its operational capacity.
The choice confronting him was not between two conflicting oaths.
” Some people have deduced, from the fact that CIA officials lied, that the CIA killed Kennedy.
I myself believe only that some CIA individuals were involved, along with others in other agencies.
Worse, the article focuses on the failure of the CIA to tell the Warren Commission about its plots to assassinate Castro, which may very well have been relevant; but in so doing it deflects attention away from the CIA’s suppression of its own LCIMPROVE operation in October involving “Lee Oswald” (or “Lee Henry Oswald”), which unquestionably was of very great relevance.
Worst of all is the article’s conclusion: Max Holland, one of the most fair-minded scholars of these events, has concluded that “if the word ‘conspiracy’ must be uttered in the same breath as ‘Kennedy assassination,’ the only one that existed was the conspiracy to kill Castro and then keep that effort secret after November 22nd.”Of the many things wrong with this sentence, the worst service to truth in my mind is the skillful effort to divert attention away from the Angleton operation involving Oswald, and to focus instead on plots to kill Castro.