New York Times: Why is the CIA still keeping secrets about Oswald?

[bunnysoft]

October 17, 2009
C.I.A. Is Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery

By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON — Is the Central Intelligence Agency covering up some dark secret about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Probably not. But you would not know it from the C.I.A.’s behavior.

For six years, the agency has fought in federal court to keep secret hundreds of documents from 1963, when an anti-Castro Cuban group it paid clashed publicly with the soon-to-be assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. The C.I.A. says it is only protecting legitimate secrets. But because of the agency’s history of stonewalling assassination inquiries, even researchers with no use for conspiracy thinking question its stance.

The files in question, some released under direction of the court and hundreds more that are still secret, involve the curious career of George E. Joannides, the case officer who oversaw the dissident Cubans in 1963. In 1978, the agency made Mr. Joannides the liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations — but never told the committee of his earlier role.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17inquire.html

[DJ13]

1. Probably because Bush sr. is still alive

[Festivito]

3. It would place a pall over the funeral arrangements.

Oh, that would be apropos.

[Raster]

2. Good question: Why is the CIA covering up information about the assasination of JFK?

Damned good question.

[sofa king]

9. If you like that question, you'll love this.

Who called the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, impersonated Oswald, and asked to be put in touch with a Soviet-bloc assassin?

And why did NSA and the CIA pretend those phone call tapes and transcripts didn't exist?

[boppers]

4. Duh. It's about hiding signals passing measures...

..and "unofficial" missions.

No secrets here.

[annabanana]

5. Wouldn't it be nice if the NYT turned into a newspaper with

a robust investigative team?

[Bitwit1234]

6. Just think

In 1963 people would never believe that the CIA was doing the things we KNOW they are and have done. So I would not trust any investigations or reports that the CIA was involved in, in that time period. And it goes for the FBI also..look at the control Hoover had.

[Phx_Dem]

7. Because he was one of them. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

8. Ayup.

Oswald was a CIA asset, and a patsy just like he said he was.


GHWB knows.

[applegrove]

10. CIA probably doesn't want to stir the pot. That would be my guess. Oswald was just

a pipsqueak with a gun who took down a great man. It is reason for gun control.

[bertman]

11. Applegrove, do some reading before you accept the pipsqueak with a gun explanation.

There is much evidence that Oswald was a CIA asset.

Here are some good reads that will help you expand your knowledge of the events surrounding President Kennedy's assassination: "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs; "Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy" by David Lifton; "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane; "Legacy of Secrecy" by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann; "Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of JFK" by John Davis.

I think you'll find that any and all of these books are exceptionally interesting, informative, and well-written.

[Mimosa]

12. Bertman, the answers are accessible to everybody but the NYT. LOL

Superb recommendations.

I just read http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1570757550/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256986184&sr=8-1>JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass. (Orbis books, 2008) It is EXCELLENT, ties the facts in previous books together, is remarkably well written. Check out the reader reviews.


Diaries, biographies, official records and investigations, as well as personal interviews he conducted are among the tools Douglass used to bring alive the history of the Kennedy era and the preceding years of the Cold War. I have read excellent biographies of John Kennedy but none had conveyed to me the soul of the man, and his distinct personal philosophy. This history accomplishes that and far more. Click on the link to read reviews by many readers whose praises are better than I can express. A few weeks ago I was discussing JFK with a friend. We seemed to have separately figured out that in articles and various books through the past 2 decades John F. Kennedy had been denigrated as a heartless satyr. The 'Playboy' lifestyle which some alleged he lived is at odds with his busy schedule during the 3 short years of his presidency. It could be there has been a motive behind demeaning JFK and all the Kennedys.

Another factor which makes this book desirable in a hardback edition is that it is beautifully bound and printed on fine paper. The typeface is sized well for reading. The dustjacket design is handsome. That is exceeding rare in today's publishing market.

[bertman]

14. Exactly, Mimosa. The largest propaganda organ of the corporate media's print division.

Thank you for the reminder about "JFK and the Unspeakable". Several others on DU have recommended it but I haven't found it in a used bookstore yet. Maybe the library has it.

[bertman]

15. Mimosa, here are some additional thoughts on the NYT's role in the disinformation

campaign surrounding the JFK assassination. It is possible, although, I think rather unlikely, that the NYT did not want to reveal what a bunch of shills they were during the aftermath of the assassination, so they have simply ignored the volumes of evidence that have been produced to discredit the Oswald as lone gunman theory. The Times produced hundreds of articles in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. They proudly chronicled them in 2003 in a book titled "Four Days in November". Of course, they were trying to show what a sterling group of journalists were employed by the NYT and how thoroughly they had covered JFK's death and the subsequent assassination of Oswald, but exactly the opposite is revealed if one has even a modicum of knowledge of what actually took place in Dallas during those four days in 1963.

What "Four Days in November" shows about the Times and its "journalists" is that they swallowed the lone gunman allegations hook, line, and sinker, even though their own reporting showed gaping holes in the "official" story and what eye witnesses, including police officers, former military officers, and everyday Americans, saw and heard AT THE SCENE. The Times did no ground-breaking investigation, nor did it follow up on discrepancies in the official story. They simply parroted exactly what the Dallas Police and the FBI said.

That they had the gall to print "Four Days in November" as an example of how well the Times used its "enormous resources in New York, in offices throughout the country and the world, and especially in Washington, the epicenter of most of the journalistic action" is emblematic of the arrogance of the NYT organization.

Embarrassing as it should have been to the Times to have such a huge blot on its record, it is very likely that their lack of actual journalistic investigation and integrity had everything to do with the Times' desire to please its highly-placed sources in the CIA and apparatuses of government. They depended on the good graces of the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, etc. to get inside information that would allow them to "scoop" other news organizations and would allow them to tout the validity and authority of their sources. BUT, that access came at a price--a high price. The CIA used its clout to enroll the editors and owners of major news outlets as "un-official" operatives IN DEFENSE OF AMERICA. We forget that during those times, the Communists were portrayed as our mortal enemies and our government and clandestine services were focused on doing everything possible to stop the communist menace. Part of the CIA/government campaign was to persuade the corporate media elites that they were obligated to keep state secrets and to present the facade of being watchdogs of democracy, when, in fact, they were enablers of the takeover of our government by the military-industrial-corporate complex. Does anyone see any resemblance to the current state of our media's love affair with the War on Terror?

The ongoing subservience of the Times to the MICC was highlighted again in 2001, 2002, 2003 by its failure to fully investigate the 9-11 attacks and its cheerleading for the Bush administration during the runup to the Iraq War.

Whenever I see a front-page story of the Times I immediately ask myself what would be the REAL reason for the Times' portrayal of the story in whatever light it's portrayed.

[Mimosa]

17. Woo Hoo, Thanks, Bertman.

Bertman, from the articles they'd published one would think the House Committee Investigations of Assassinations in 1978 had never even occurred.

I have a friend who went to Ivy league schools who told me the CIA was recruiting mainly among journalist students back in the mid to late 70s. (Probably true before too.) You may recall (I don't) but it's been reported that journalists including Bob Woodward are members of 'The Company.'

I'm so tired of the JFK (and RFK) assassination being called a mystery. My bud with CIA connections says as long as Poppy bush is alive we'll not hear about Bush Family connections (Zapata Petroleum?) to the assassination.

[Vidar]

13. Some of the guilty still live.

[WinkyDink]

16. "Probably not"?? Bwahahahahaha!