More truth about the JFK assassination

From Thom Hartmann::


Thom Hartmann, Air America radio host and co-author of
the new book “Ultimate Sacrifice,” is featured in an
explosive special produced by NBC which will run on
the Discovery Channel on Thursday, May 11 at 9pm
(Eastern, and again later that night at 1am).

In “Conspiracy Files: JFK Assassination” Hartmann
shows for the first time on TV declassified CIA
documents about a top secret JFK plan to stage a coup
against Fidel Castro that was set for December 1,
1963–just ten days after JFK was to return from his
trip to Dallas. The CIA codenamed their part of the
coup plan AMWORLD, and it was completely withheld from
the Warren Commission and all later Congressional
investigating committees.

One reasons for all the secrecy was because Mafia
bosses from Chicago, Tampa, and Louisiana-East Texas
managed to infiltrate the AMWORLD coup plan. The
Mafia bosses were being prosecuted by Attorney General
Robert Kennedy, and they used parts of AMWORLD in
their attempts to assassinate JFK first in Chicago
(three weeks before Dallas), in Tampa (four days
before Dallas), and finally in Dallas. The Tampa
attempt was also withheld from the Warren Commission
and Congress, and is revealed on TV for the first time
by Hartmann and Waldron.

A tragic case spotlighted in the special is that of
Abraham Bolden, the first African-American
presidential Secret Service agent. Bolden was
arrested when he tried to tell the Warren Commission
about the Chicago and Tampa attempts against JFK, and
other Secret Service problems. But Hartmann reveals
in the special that “we’ve gathered a fairly abundant
collection of evidence that Bolden was framed” by a
member of the Chicago mafia. “Here’s one of the
people going a great and noble job…and for this his
life is destroyed.”

Hartmann also reveals that more than a million CIA
files about JFK’s assassination are still being
withheld from Congress and the American people, even
though the 1992 JFK Act requires their disclosure.

  1. Dissonant_Dissident

    May 13, 2006 at 12:46 pm

    Hey Mark …caught this on Discovery, and although it was interesting, have to say I didn’t find the one declassified document in question, accompanied with other connected dots, to necessarily be a “slam dunk,” as it were.

    Granted, I’m sure the piece on Discovery took a lot of info and condensed it …however, say for instance, the theory that Kennedy and his top advisors all knew of the hit planned in Chicago just prior to the planned Dallas trip – what I got from the Discovery piece was that, from that point, a more extensive tour was cut short, yet they decided to go to Dallas afterall (?) with Kennedy “willing to make the sacrifice” with his uneasiness, nervousness about the Dallas appearance, in order to show good will to the Cubans/Castro …..?! …with no cover in the vehicle, even though they knew assassination plots were enveloping?

    And maybe I missed something, but it seemed that the latter half of the piece was exclusively devoted to reinforcing the “official” theory that – okay, here’s where it gets odd – Oswald acted as the lone assassin even though the mob wanted to use him as a likely scapegoat. However, as I said, it’s strange, cause this is postulated along side a long rehashing of likelihood that Oswald was soley responsible, had it planned, murdered Kennedy with that old Italian rifle, et al, and this didn’t seem to be presented in a comparative manner, but somehow in conjuncture with the mob angle.

    Who knows? That doesn’t make much sense based on what’s presented, but it likewise doesn’t make much sense to suggest Kennedy was a saintly figure opposed to the wants of the military industrial complex. I’ve always held to the theory that it had something to do with retaliation from the alphabet orgs who wanted Kennedy out of the way. Why? ???

  2. MCM

    May 14, 2006 at 2:11 am

    No, no, DD, the argument is not that Oswald did it, but that he was indeed the patsy——set up by the mafia bosses (Roselli, Marcello, Trafficante) who had JFK assassinated.

    Please read Ultimate Sacrifice, the book that Hartmann wrote with Lamar Waldron. It will answer all your questions.

  3. Dissonant_Dissident

    May 15, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    Realize that’s what I took from the Discovery bit as I’ve obviously not read the book. And although I’ve never believed the official version of JFK’s assassination, I’ve also not studied the subject in detail either.

    What I’m saying though is that from the Discovery show, it seemed that throughout the second half, the thrust went from speculating on the mob setting Oswald up as their patsy, to simply rehashing/reinforcing the Warren Commission’s version of events. This observation clearly doesn’t apply to a book I’ve not read, but what I got from the Discovery segment.

  4. Charles R. Drago

    May 17, 2006 at 5:04 pm

    Dear Mark,

    I’ve taken the liberty of posting our recent e-mail exchange on “Ultimate Sacrifice.” Minimal edits have been made to facilitate blog review.

    Hope all is well, and that we can continue this exchange.

    Warm regards,

    Charlie Drago


    I trust that you will accept the following in the spirit in which it is offered: as a respectful plea for the application of identical levels of scholarship and analysis to the issue of the assassination of John F. Kennedy that you demonstrate with profound regularity in your work on the greater meanings of election thefts and related matters.

    As a quick Google search will indicate, I have published essays on the subject of the disenfranchisement of the American electorate commonly referred to as the “Kennedy assassination” in academic journals, and lectured on same at scholarly conferences. Most recently I contributed the introduction to “A Certain Arrogance,” by George Michael Evica, PhD (author of “And We Are All Mortal,” originally published by the University of Hartford Press and soon to be reissued in updated form), a study of the abuses of liberal educational and religious institutions by American intelligence agencies during the Cold War.

    My JFK-related message has been succinctly presented: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who does not conclude that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

    Conspiracy in this assassination is as well-established and incontrovertible an example of historical truth as is the Holocaust, and all who are in a position to know that truth and who instead choose to deny it are morally and intellectually akin to Holocaust Deniers.

    Your unequivocal endorsement of the conclusions of Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann as presented in their “Ultimate Sacrifice” is deeply troubling. FYI, you should know that, during the latter stages of Lamar’s research, I was pleased to assist him in the presentation of a paper at an academic conference in Dallas, and otherwise to encourage his work.

    After the closest, most informed reading of the final product, however, I reluctantly must conclude that my support was ill-considered.

    The Waldron/Hartman thesis is fatally flawed in many areas. We can go on at length with an exchange of positions on the book; for the purposes of this e-mail, I will direct your attention to a single issue.

    The authors’ view of the hierarchical structure of the intelligence/organized crime nexus of the period under consideration is at best myopic (although in comparison to their appreciations of the levels of authority and areas of operation and influence of high-ranking CIA officers involved in the assassination conspiracy, it is relatively 20/20).

    In terms of your work on the elections thefts, I commend you for the courage you exhibit as you bear the slings and arrows sent your way by the ad hominids, so to speak. I’m reminded of the Chinese proverb, “When a finger points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.”

    I thank you again for your critically important books and lectures. I hope that this communication will spur you to deeper consideration of the still-reverberating echoes of the Dealey Plaza crossfire.


    Thanks for your email, and by all means do tell me where the Waldron/Hartmann
    thesis is mistaken. I do assure you that I read the book with care, and found its
    scholarship impressive. In other words, I did not hail the book because I wanted to
    believe its claims, but read it before judging it (which is of course my usual practice).

    Which is to say that my mind is open. So do enlighten me. (BTW, whoever said that
    JFK’s murder was not the result of a criminal conspiracy? And why is W/H’s
    argument “preposterous on its face”? Those mafiosi had every reason to whack

    In any case, I do appreciate your kind remarks about my work on Bush/Cheney’s
    election fraud.


    I had no doubt that you read the book in its entirety and thoughtfully. Regarding my analysis of the shortcomings of W/H’s methods and conclusions, and in response to your direct questions, I submit the following abbreviated remarks:

    1. “Whoever said that JFK’s murder was not the result of a criminal conspiracy?” — The Warren Commission and its apologists, for starters. Not to mention historians, scholars, intellectuals (Noam Chomsky, for heaven’s sake), and otherwise well-informed friends who should know better, and the same mainstream press that denies the reality of the election thefts you document so convincingly.

    Indeed, it is the imprimatur of the parent state alone that accounts for the longevity of the lone nut absurdity. As I’ve put it to a number of audiences: Imagine … what if the official government investigators had operated honestly, and as a result concluded that, based upon unbiased analyses of ballistic, eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, medical, circumstantial, and general forensic evidence, conspirators of the domestic political variety had ordered the hit; then, almost immediately, a small group of self-styled “critics” dismissed that work and instead proposed what in fact we know today as the real WC’s theory. How long do you think the shelf life of such a rogue argument would be? Forty three years? How about 43 seconds!

    2. “Why is W/H’s argument ‘preposterous on its face’? Those Mafiosi had every reason to whack Kennedy.” — Indeed they had, and I’d argue that there’s little doubt that figures from OC were brought into the plot in the roles of facilitators and, later, false sponsors. What is preposterous is Lamar’s argument that Marcello, Trafficante, and Rosselli enjoyed the means to play the roles of prime sponsors and planners.

    I stipulate that when we implicitly differentiate between “organized crime,” and “big business,” and “intelligence agencies” in the contexts of the crime, and of what Peter Dale Scott has termed the “deep political” structure of the period, we are citing distinctions without true differences. John Rosselli — “Colonel John Rawlston,” big time player at JM/WAVE, the CIA’s Miami operation, and trusted confidante of David Sanchez Morales, action officer there — is THE prime example of the living, connective tissue between OC and CIA.

    But when Lamar argues that David Atlee Phillips, head of the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division at the time and one of the knights (perhaps I should say bishops), if you will, of the agency, could somehow have been manipulated by and, to use the appropriate vernacular, otherwise become the wise guys’ bitch, he dismisses volumes of scholarship, supported by scores of cubic feet of documentary record, establishing precisely the inverse relationship.

    On the mechanical level, the assassination could not have been executed in the manner that unfolded in Dealey Plaza had not security been stripped from the motorcade. And simply stated, none of the godfathers or their proprietary rogue intelligence officers had the jam to pull that off.

    (Indeed, security stripping remains a sine qua non for successful attacks on targets well protected by, for the most part, incorruptible guards. It happened in advance of the JFK and MLK murders. And if you’ll permit me a bit of latitude, it took place before the assassinations of the American electoral process in 2000 and 2004; the security afforded by conventional voting machines, paper trails, and hand counts was stripped, thus leaving the target all but defenseless.)

    Lamar and Hartmann have performed a great service to history by uncovering the AM/WORLD plan Discussion of their intentionally ham-handed implication that the so-called “Coup Leader” was none other than El Che is best left for another time.

    Like all effective disinformation
    nded or otherwise), the central argument of “Ultimate Sacrifice” is gift-wrapped within a goodly amount of fact and startling revelation. The goal: cognitive dissonance. Or might I say, stripping the security provided by reason.

    Another fatal flaw in L/H’s presentation: He cannot present a scenario for the godfathers’ selection of LHO as the perfect patsy (no other description is fitting) that passes the laugh test. The tired Uncle Dutz Murret argument simply doesn’t hold water.

    3. “[I] read [“Ultimate Sacrifice”} before judging it (which is of course my usual practice).” I’m certain that you did, and in fact I have too much respect for your work to have assumed any other scenario. But the question must be raised: Have you given equal consideration to the conflicting literature and historical record, readings of which surely would more clearly inform your judgment and, I’m willing to wager, lead to an entirely different conclusion?

    Please know that I have not contributed original research to the investigation of the JFK murder and its ramifications. Rather, my role has been to offer original thinking on such matters as the definition and pursuit of justice in the case (I was first to propose an amnesty commission), influencing public opinion and political action in terms of pressing for new investigations and further declassifications and releases of pertinent documents, etc. Accordingly, I’d like to recommend two book length treatments of the Kennedy assassination and related issues that I believe you’ll value and from which great benefit may be derived.

    “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK,” by Peter Dale Scott (University of California), and “The Man Who Knew Too Much,” by Dick Russell (Carroll and Graf). I won’t presume to describe these complex and compelling arguments other than to note my certainty that, by comparison, “Ultimate Sacrifice” will suffer greatly in your estimation.

    Finally (for now), I’ll make certain that you receive a copy of the previously referenced “A Certain Arrogance” by Professor Evica. And I do so hope that we can continue this dialogue.

    Thanks again for all your work, and for your prompt and courteous response.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.