|
|
 | | From: | Hottie 4 Dik | | Subject: | Re: you call this a game site?? ?? | | Date: | Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:06:07 GMT |
|
|
 | wisdom of these choices. In
intelligence parlance, there is a familiar phrase: muddying the
waters. This means that by confusing and confounding the listener
with diverse and prolific amounts of information, the main point
becomes obfuscated. Since none of the Mafia plots succeeded, one
could claim they were ineffectual. The huge amount of publicity
garnered by them could eventually be deflected onto the Mob's
role in them and not the Agency's. The AM/LASH plots, exposed in
even more copious documentation, could be used in a similar way.
If Castro knew about these plots within his midst, couldn't he
then claim turnabout and use the same tactics by employing a
Communist in the U.S. to kill Kennedy? This, or a combination of
the two, has been what suspect writers like Jean Davison and Jack
Anderson have been foisting on the public for years.
The Establishment Takes Some Hits
The political fallout from the Church Committee was quite
intense. The CIA took quite a few hits, though it emerged intact.
Eastern Establishment-GOP mainstay Allen Dulles was implicated in
the authorization of two assassination plots (Lumumba and
Castro). Even Republican icon Dwight Eisenhower was implicated:
The chain of events revealed by the documents and testimony is
strong enough to permit a reasonable inference that the plot to
assassinate Lumumba was authorized by President Eisenhower.
Nixon was shown to be obsessed with getting rid of the Allende
regime in Chile. And since he had already been disgraced with
Watergate, his defenders, like Bill Safire of the New York Times,
felt that this was piling on. As we shall see, Safire struck back
through Judith Exner.
But the plots against Castro took center stage. They seemed full
of sensational, fantastic revelations that seemed right out of a
James Bond movie: poison pills, exploding sea shells,
contaminated diving suits etc. But no matter how hard they tried,
the media moguls (New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles
Times) could
|
|
|
