Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Bradley Ayers

JM/WAVE and the assassinations of JFK and RFK

10 comments:

  1. Great interview, James & Bradley!!
    Any chance you could get Jim Marrs on to talk about his new revised and updated Book Crossfire?

    A 2 hour special would be nice, James.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, that can be arranged. I will get ahold of him and set it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Jim!!

      Looking forward to it already!!

      Delete
  3. Thank you, Jim Fetzer and Bradley Ayers, for the great interview. I would say it is the best ever as it covers a CIA seldom written about, black operation, JM WAVE, the CIA station in Florida and the attempts to kill Castro and involvement in the JFK assassination. As I see it, the CIA has been covering up this involvement ever since. Every time there in an investigation such as the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations witnesses die mysteriously.

    I was surprised to know that there have been three presidents, Truman, Kennedy and Obama, who wanted an investigation of the CIA due to its aggressive activities and unaccountablity. Ray McGovern, CIA whistleblower, wrote this piece in The Consortium appearing in Third World Traveler.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/AreUSPresidentsAfraidCIA%3F.html

    Are (U.S.) Presidents Afraid of the CIA? by Ray McGovern
    ..... President Obama stands in the tradition of a dozen American presidents. Harry Truman and John Kennedy were the only ones to take on the CIA directly. Worst of all, evidence continues to build that the CIA was responsible, at least in part, for the assassination of President Kennedy. Evidence new to me came in response to things I included in my article of Dec. 22, "Break the CIA in Two."

    ReplyDelete
  4. P.S.
    Almost all I know about hidden history is due to "whistleblowers" like John Stockwell who put together a huge bibliography of must read books--books I would never have read had I not heard Stockwell ("In Search of Enemies") on C-SPAN talking about what is being done in our name around the world. (Bibliography is in his book "Praetorian Guard.")

    This was in the early 90s before the Internet was available. So, were it not for noble whistleblowers like Brad and the books they wrote, I would not have had the background to understand what is happening today. So, thanks again for risking so much to get the truth out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chapter 17, 1985: The House Select Committee (2), THE FINAL COVER UP: How The CIA Controlled The House Select Committee On Assa

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp17.html

    The CIA's problem
    Given this background of the HSCA status in late 1976, it can easily be seen that the CIA was up against much more serious opposition than it ever had been before in the JFK murder and cover-up. They had ruined Jim Garrison's reputation and curtailed his investigation by various dirty trick means. They had been in solid control of the Warren Commission by the simple expedient of having four of the Commissioners belonging to them; Dulles, Ford, McCloy and Russell.

    They were also able to kill enough people who knew the truth, to slow down any truth-seeking that might have taken place. They also hid documents, destroyed and altered evidence, lied about other evidence, and bald facedly (Dulles) admitted that they wouldn't tell the President or the Commission if Lee Harvey Oswald had been a CIA agent (which he had been). In the Rockefeller Commission situation they were in complete control of that attempt to reinforce the Warren Commission's findings. And in the Church Committee investigation, the Schweiker/Hart subcommittee on the JFK case was very limited and controlled in what they could do.



    But in the new situation, in Richard A. Sprague and his professionals with so much knowledge of the CIA's role in the murder and the cover-up, they faced a crisis. They knew they had to do several things to turn it around and to continue to keep the American public from realizing what was happening. Here is what they had to do:

    Get rid of Richard A. Sprague.


    Get rid of Henry Gonzalez.


    Get rid of Sprague's key men or keep them away from CIA evidence or keep them quiet.


    Install their own chief counsel to control the investigation.


    Elect a new HSCA chairman who would go along, or who could be fooled.


    Cut off all Sprague's investigations of CIA people. Make sure none of the people were found or bury any testimony that had already been found, or murder CIA people who might talk.


    Keep the committee members from knowing what was happening and segregate the investigation from them.


    Create a new investigative environment whose purpose would be to confirm all of the findings of the Warren Commission and divert attention away from the who-did-it-and-why approach.


    Control the committee staff in such a way as to keep any of them from revealing what they already knew about CIA involvement.


    Control committee consultants in the same way, and staff members who might leave or who might be fired.


    Continue to control the media in such a way as to reinforce all of the above.


    Continue to murder witnesses or assassins in emergency situations if necessary.
    The CIA successfully did all twelve of these things. The techniques they used were much more subtle and devious than those they had used before, although they did continue with murders of potential HSCA witnesses and with media control.


    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/AreUSPresidentsAfraidCIA%3F.html

    Are (U.S.) Presidents Afraid of the CIA? by Ray McGovern
    The Truman Papers
    Documents in the Truman Library show that nine days after Kennedy was assassinated, Truman sketched out in handwritten notes what he wanted to say in the op-ed. He noted, among other things, that the CIA had worked as he intended only "when I had control."
    In Truman's view, misuse of the CIA began in February 1953, when his successor, Dwight Eisenhower, named Allen Dulles CIA Director. Dulles' forte was overthrowing governments (in current parlance, "regime change"), and he was quite good at it. With coups in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954) under his belt, Dulles was riding high in the late Fifties and moved Cuba to the top of his to-do list.
    Accustomed to the carte blanche given him by Eisenhower, Dulles was offended when young President Kennedy came on the scene and had the temerity to ask questions about the Bay of Pigs adventure, which had been set in motion under Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would NOT approve the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles reacted with disdain and set out to mousetrap the new President.
    Coffee-stained notes handwritten by Allen Dulles were discovered after his death and reported by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke. They show how Dulles drew Kennedy into a plan that was virtually certain to require the use of U.S. combat forces. In his notes Dulles explains that, "when the chips were down," the new President would be forced by "the realities of the situation" to give whatever military support was necessary "rather than permit the enterprise to fail."
    Additional detail came from a March 2001 conference on the Bay of Pigs, which included CIA operatives, retired military commanders, scholars, and journalists. Daniel Schorr told National Public Radio that he had gained one new perception as a result of the "many hours of talk and heaps of declassified secret documents:"
    "It was that the CIA overlords of the invasion, Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Richard Bissell had their own plan on how to bring the United States into the conflict...What they expected was that the invaders would establish a beachhead...and appeal for aid from the United States...
    "The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots. American forces, probably Marines, would come in to expand the beachhead.
    "In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed," added Schorr.
    The "enterprise" which Dulles said could not fail was, of course, the overthrow of Fidel Castro. After mounting several failed operations to assassinate him, this time Dulles meant to get his man, with little or no attention to what the Russians might do in reaction. Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak; fired Dulles and his co-conspirators a few months after the abortive invasion in April 1961; and told a friend that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds."
    The outrage was mutual, and when Kennedy himself was assassinated on November 22, 1963, it must have occurred to Truman that the disgraced Dulles and his outraged associates might not be above conspiring to get rid of a President they felt was soft on Communism-and, incidentally, get even.
    In his op-ed of December 22, 1963 Truman warned: "The most important thing...was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions." It is a safe bet that Truman had the Bay of Pigs fiasco uppermost in mind.
    Truman called outright for CIA's operational duties [to] be terminated or properly used elsewhere." (This is as good a recommendation now as it was then, in my view.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. In the very tricky business of dissecting the falsehoods of official history, one should never forget that there are often competing factions within factions -- and parallel conspirators plotting either to exploit, cancel, enhance, or re-direct the conspiracies of other plotters.

    A prime case in point: the JFK Murder.

    In 1961 the fascistic Joint Chiefs of Staff passionately wanted to invade Cuba and humiliate Russia, even at the risk of WWIII, which they were "sure" was winnable. ("We might get our hair mussed, but...") When all previous attempts to enlist the uncooperative young President in their mad scheme failed (the Cuban Missle Crisis, Operation Northwoods, et. al.) they opted instead to lend their support to one of the several ongoing plots, swirling about the Washington underworld at the time, to assassinate him... and blame Castro for sponsoring the deed!

    Cooler (albeit still malevolent) heads prevailed (i.e. LBJ, Hoover, Warren, the intel spooks, etc.) and WWIII was providentially averted by their tightly controlling the subsequent "investigation" and assuring the public that Ozzie was NOT a "Castro agent" (despite all the planted evidence to that effect which then had to be discredited and discarded) but merely a "crazed lone nut".

    JFK's multitudinous enemies (the Mob, Big Oil, the Fed Banksters, nuke-craving Israel, the Langley Boys, etc.) were all delighted to get a new Prez who had pledged to be far more permissive of their various evil agendas -- and even the generals and the arms merchants were quickly placated with the promise of a huge, protracted, proxy war in Southeast Asia, one that would not only enrich the merchants of violent death (via billions for fresh bombs, guns, planes and helicopters) but also secure the essential-to-the-money-laundering-banksters heroin trade from the Golden Triangle, for decades to come.

    A more recent example: The OKC Bombing.

    (continued...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (continuing...)

      The Neocon/Israel-firster/PNAC fanatics were absolutely delighted when the generals helped them convince Daddy Bush to stage the 1991 Gulf War, essential as it was in keeping the Military-Industrial Complex humming after the 1989 Collapse of the Soviet Empire robbed the USA of a formidable "enemy".

      But when the Iraqi Army had been successfully driven out of Kuwait and thoroughly decimated (via war-crime style massacring) during their long march of retreat, Bush the Elder took the generals' advice to declare victory and quit cold. A boots-on-the-ground invasion of Bagdad, they argued, would be foolhardy and too costly, since it would then entail several years of occupation, insurgency, and nation-building. But the Zionist Fifth Column was far from satisfied with this insufficiently bloody state of affairs, leaving in place as it did a sworn enemy of "The Chosen State," no matter how weakened by defeat and sanctions. So, the plotters employed their massive political-manipulation machinery to deny Daddy B a second term and began banking on a new, comparably spooked-up Oval Office tenant (the bastard Rockefeller descendant and sex maniac from Mena) to do their dirty work.

      The casus belli (to justify an all-out invasion of Iraq) they settled on was a false-flag event to take place not in the Mideast, but in the American Heartland -- namely Oklahoma City. And why, you might ask..,

      Because it was a city rich with credible patsies, namely a local population which four years earlier been supplemented by the RESETTLEMENT OF A LARGE CADRE OF IRAQIS who had been granted asylum in the USA after they had rendered "services" to the American military in its rout of Saddam's once-mighty forces. "Could some of these so-called refugees have been concealing their continuing loyalty to Saddam?" the sayanim-controlled media would quickly and loudly ask, in the wake of the bombs going off at the Federal Building -- and the hunt would be on to catch the "dark-skinned, Mideastern-looking" villains who had sought to violently avenge their dear leader's 1991 defeat at American hands.

      Once caught, the patsies would be neatly framed with "slam-dunk" evidence that they were acting on orders from Bagdad, and because of the horrendous carnage (think of the little children butchered in the daycare centre!) Congress would have no choice but to authorise invasive war with (Israel's longtime enemy) IRAQ!

      (continued...)

      Delete
    2. (continuing...)

      But the neocons' warmongering part of the plot was ultimately FOILED, apparently by other clever factions within the "shadow government" with different immediate priorities, namely storing-and-destroying certain government records harmful to the Clintonistas, and ramping up domestic paranoia about militia-style "hate groups in the Heartland" whose existence would help justify enacting (unconstitutional, of course) new police-state statutes. The behind-the-scenes struggle between the factions lasted a mere 72 hours, after which the media drumbeat about "dark-skinned Mideastern-looking" suspects ceased abruptly, to be replaced by a burgeoning narrative about a disgruntled ex-soldier who foolishly went for a drive without license plates.

      And the Zionist Fifth Column bided their time for a season and more, confident that the generals and the spooks and the arms merchants and the banksters would eventually find common cause again in making war on Iraq. And they finally did, but only as grudging payback for acquiescence in the staging of 9/11, which had as its primary goal the re-stabilisation of a global heroin trade that had by 2001 shifted its primary sourcing from Southeast Asia to the hills of Afghanistan.

      Toppling Saddam, while of prime importance to the Zio-faction, was distinctly a lesser priority of the other factions.

      But hey, they finally pulled off BOTH mass-murder/human-sacrifice rituals (two invasions/wars/occupations in less than two years) on quite a grand scale after all, didn't they, despite some factional differences along the way.

      Delete