Inner Circles

[John Iacoletti]

The introduction to Gus Russo’s book “Live by the Sword” is intriguing enough that I decided to read it. Here is a quote from it that I can identity with:

When the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) began gearing up in 1978, I spoke often with its staff members, directing them to areas I believed important. It was their meticulous photographic, forensic, and ballistic work that convinced me that Oswald alone shot President Kennedy. From that point on, only one question remained for me to answer: Was Oswald a hired gun?

Interesting, given that the HSCA didn't actually turn up any new evidence showing that Oswald shot Kennedy.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I used to think that way also. But after learning more about Castro, I am questioning that theory.

LBJ said he thought Castro was behind the assassination, in retaliation for the plots against him. So why didn't LBJ respond?

In any case, Castro's (and Che's) fanatical hatred of the US at at that time was near Bin Laden level (and Bin Laden wouldn't do anything to cause the US to respond, right?). I don't think there's evidence that Castro was behind Oswald's acts; but I don't think he was very rational when it came to the US. His hatred blinded him to it.

I'm sure you know this incident? On September 7, 1963 Castro visited the Brazilian Embassy in Havana to recognize the celebration of Brazilian independence. While there he singled out the AP reporter Daniel Harker (according to Harker's account) and told him this:

"If U.S. leaders are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe. Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they too can be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death."

Castro later said that it wasn't a threat by him against JFK but a warning that if he worked with these "terrorists" that they could strike back at him. Harker later said that it was clear to him what Castro meant: he wasn't talking about the anti-Castro Cubans who would strike back but Castro.

Harker later gave more details. He said: "I never misunderstood Catro. There was absolutely no hint that he was referring to the Cuban exiles. Spanish is my first language, as a Latin- American born in Columbia, Venezuela. That'w why the AP sent me to Havana in the first place, because I was fluent in both Spanish and English.

Castro chose me for the interview because I had interviewed him two months earlier, and he was impressed with the accuracy of my account. After the September conversation, I stayed in Havana three more years and never once did he complain that I had misrepresented him. In fact, all our wire transmissions were monitored by the Castro government, which had to approve the material before it was sent out. The interview [with Castro] lasted three hours. We stood the entire time. Castro was not mad, merely colloquial. Castro remained cordial with me in the years after the interview."

This threat was published in the New Orleans paper. Did Oswald read it? I'll wager he most certainly did.

[Charles Collins]

LBJ said he thought Castro was behind the assassination, in retaliation for the plots against him. So why didn't LBJ respond?

In any case, Castro's (and Che's) fanatical hatred of the US at at that time was near Bin Laden level (and Bin Laden wouldn't do anything to cause the US to respond, right?). I don't think there's evidence that Castro was behind Oswald's acts; but I don't think he was very rational when it came to the US. His hatred blinded him to it.

I'm sure you know this incident? On September 7, 1963 Castro visited the Brazilian Embassy in Havana to recognize the celebration of Brazilian independence. While there he singled out the AP reporter Daniel Harker (according to Harker's account) and told him this:

"If U.S. leaders are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe. Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they too can be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death."

Castro later said that it wasn't a threat by him against JFK but a warning that if he worked with these "terrorists" that they could strike back at him. Harker later said that it was clear to him what Castro meant: he wasn't talking about the anti-Castro Cubans who would strike back but Castro.

Harker later gave more details. He said: "I never misunderstood Catro. There was absolutely no hint that he was referring to the Cuban exiles. Spanish is my first language, as a Latin- American born in Columbia, Venezuela. That'w why the AP sent me to Havana in the first place, because I was fluent in both Spanish and English.

Castro chose me for the interview because I had interviewed him two months earlier, and he was impressed with the accuracy of my account. After the September conversation, I stayed in Havana three more years and never once did he complain that I had misrepresented him. In fact, all our wire transmissions were monitored by the Castro government, which had to approve the material before it was sent out. The interview [with Castro] lasted three hours. We stood the entire time. Castro was not mad, merely colloquial. Castro remained cordial with me in the years after the interview."

This threat was published in the New Orleans paper. Did Oswald read it? I'll wager he most certainly did.

LBJ said he thought Castro was behind the assassination, in retaliation for the plots against him. So why didn't LBJ respond?


I believe that, if there was convincing evidence that Castro was behind the assassination, LBJ would have responded (due to the public outcry and resulting political pressures). Just LBJ's suspicions were not enough to act upon (and risk a potential nuclear war with the Soviets). And I believe that Cuban intelligence was much better than even our intelligence agencies gave them credit for (at the time). And it is possible that they could have used LHO covertly, leaving no convincing evidence of it.


In any case, Castro's (and Che's) fanatical hatred of the US at at that time was near Bin Laden level (and Bin Laden wouldn't do anything to cause the US to respond, right?). I don't think there's evidence that Castro was behind Oswald's acts; but I don't think he was very rational when it came to the US. His hatred blinded him to it.

Castro first came to the U.S. for help, but was refused to even be seen by the Eisenhower administration. Castro had nationalized all international businesses and was executing his enemies and these type of actions angered the U.S. and it's leaders. Eisenhower even banned all sugar imports from Cuba. And virtually handed Cuba to the Soviets (who were happy to purchase all the sugar, etc., etc.). Castro's "Armageddon Letter" to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missle Crisis is a good example of your irrational behavior beliefs. Here is another:

Quote from Russo's book:

...Halperin quoted Castro as often saying, "We [Cuban revolutionaries] are not agraid of danger. As a matter of fact, we thrive on it. And besides, everyone has to die sooner or later."


This threat was published in the New Orleans paper. Did Oswald read it? I'll wager he most certainly did.


Yes, I also believe that LHO read that article in the N.O. newspaper.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

LBJ said he thought Castro was behind the assassination, in retaliation for the plots against him. So why didn't LBJ respond?


I believe that, if there was convincing evidence that Castro was behind the assassination, LBJ would have responded (due to the public outcry and resulting political pressures). Just LBJ's suspicions were not enough to act upon (and risk a potential nuclear war with the Soviets). And I believe that Cuban intelligence was much better than even our intelligence agencies gave them credit for (at the time). And it is possible that they could have used LHO covertly, leaving no convincing evidence of it.


In any case, Castro's (and Che's) fanatical hatred of the US at at that time was near Bin Laden level (and Bin Laden wouldn't do anything to cause the US to respond, right?). I don't think there's evidence that Castro was behind Oswald's acts; but I don't think he was very rational when it came to the US. His hatred blinded him to it.

Castro first came to the U.S. for help, but was refused to even be seen by the Eisenhower administration. Castro had nationalized all international businesses and was executing his enemies and these type of actions angered the U.S. and it's leaders. Eisenhower even banned all sugar imports from Cuba. And virtually handed Cuba to the Soviets (who were happy to purchase all the sugar, etc., etc.). Castro's "Armageddon Letter" to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missle Crisis is a good example of your irrational behavior beliefs. Here is another:

Quote from Russo's book:

...Halperin quoted Castro as often saying, "We [Cuban revolutionaries] are not agraid of danger. As a matter of fact, we thrive on it. And besides, everyone has to die sooner or later."


This threat was published in the New Orleans paper. Did Oswald read it? I'll wager he most certainly did.


Yes, I also believe that LHO read that article in the N.O. newspaper.

The general claim by the conspiracy advocates - or some of them -  is that Oswald was framed because "they" - the conspirators - wanted a justification for a war with Castro. So a pro-Castro person (whether Oswald was a legitimate Castroite or whether it was his "legend" or cover) was framed - e.g., the Mexico City trip was by an impostor - in order to blame Castro and then it was to be used to eliminate him.

But of course none of that happened. Castro was not blamed, the Soviets were not blamed; in fact, the Warren Commission - a supposed fraudulent investigation - blamed Oswald alone for the act. The assassination wasn't used as a sort of Reichstag fire incident to justify actions by LBJ or Hoover et al. Nothing was done as a result.

Even LBJ's suspicions of Castro's involvement were pushed aside. LBJ didn't ask for an investigation of the matter, he didn't push the CIA or his intelligence people to look into the matter: he did, well, nothing. In fact, Joe Califano, one of his top aides, said he was ordered by LBJ to go to the anti-Castro exiles and tell them to stop their war on Castro, that LBJ was not going to allow a continuation of it.

So the claim that a pro-Castro person was framed in order to justify a removal of Castro completely falls apart. In fact, not only was Castro not blamed, he was cleared of any role.

As to Castro and Che: In addition to the letter to Khrushchev (and he said in his memoirs that when he read it to the Politburo that they were stunned), Che admitted shortly after the crisis was resolved that had he and Fidel had the missiles that they would have launched them. He said he realized that that would have been the end of Cuba - and that millions would have been likely killed in a larger war - but that a strike against "global imperialist aggression" warranted it.  As I said, I don't think Castro ordered the assassination; but I don't think he particularly cared about the consequences of doing so. He was striking the "imperialist monsters" and that justified it.

[Charles Collins]

The general claim by the conspiracy advocates - or some of them -  is that Oswald was framed because "they" - the conspirators - wanted a justification for a war with Castro. So a pro-Castro person (whether Oswald was a legitimate Castroite or whether it was his "legend" or cover) was framed - e.g., the Mexico City trip was by an impostor - in order to blame Castro and then it was to be used to eliminate him.

But of course none of that happened. Castro was not blamed, the Soviets were not blamed; in fact, the Warren Commission - a supposed fraudulent investigation - blamed Oswald alone for the act. The assassination wasn't used as a sort of Reichstag fire incident to justify actions by LBJ or Hoover et al. Nothing was done as a result.

Even LBJ's suspicions of Castro's involvement were pushed aside. LBJ didn't ask for an investigation of the matter, he didn't push the CIA or his intelligence people to look into the matter: he did, well, nothing. In fact, Joe Califano, one of his top aides, said he was ordered by LBJ to go to the anti-Castro exiles and tell them to stop their war on Castro, that LBJ was not going to allow a continuation of it.

So the claim that a pro-Castro person was framed in order to justify a removal of Castro completely falls apart. In fact, not only was Castro not blamed, he was cleared of any role.

As to Castro and Che: In addition to the letter to Khrushchev (and he said in his memoirs that when he read it to the Politburo that they were stunned), Che admitted shortly after the crisis was resolved that had he and Fidel had the missiles that they would have launched them. He said he realized that that would have been the end of Cuba - and that millions would have been likely killed in a larger war - but that a strike against "global imperialist aggression" warranted it.  As I said, I don't think Castro ordered the assassination; but I don't think he particularly cared about the consequences of doing so. He was striking the "imperialist monsters" and that justified it.

Well said! Here is another quote from Russo’s book that supports one of those points:

Castro himself supported the view that his alignment was transient and pragmatic. As if to drive home the point of his non-allied independence, he said, “I hate Soviet imperialism as much as Yankee imperialism! I’m not breaking my neck fighting one dictatorship to fall into the hands of another.”

And here is yet another one regarding Ike’s methods:

What transpired under Ike’s direction led Blanche Cook, author of The Declassified Eisenhower, to label him “America’s most covert President.” Implicit in Eisenhower’s demand for counter-insurgency was the need for detailed planning: any undertaking was to commence not one moment before every possible contingency had been addressed. In addition, Ike demanded total deniability for the President, and he got what he wanted: after counter-insurgent escapades, the CIA burned the entire paper trail of its communications with the President.

Similarly, in my mind, there is no reason to not believe that if Castro thought that he also could have total deniability, that he might have employed (or at least encouraged) LHO. The evidence of this however, is scant and uncorroborated.

[Charles Collins]

Another quote from Russo’s book (to counter the claim that LHO was only complementary of JFK):

“He was extremely critical of President Kennedy, and he was just obsessed with what America did to support this invasion at the Bay of Pigs, obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy.”             —Volkmar Schmidt, describing a conversation he had with Oswald soon after his return from Russia16