Peter Dale Scott: "The JFK Assassination: New York Times Acknowledges CIA Deceptions"

The New York Times, on October 17, published a page-one story by Scott Shane about the CIA’s defiance of a court order to release documents pertaining to the John F. Kennedy assassination, in its so-called Joannides file. George Joannides was the CIA case officer for a Cuban exile group that made headlines in 1963 by its public engagements with Lee Harvey Oswald, just a few weeks before Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy. For over six years a former Washington Post reporter, Jefferson Morley, has been suing the CIA for the release of these documents. [1]

Sometimes the way that a news item is reported can be more newsworthy than the item itself. A notorious example was the 1971 publication of the Pentagon Papers (documents far too detailed for most people to read) on the front page of the New York Times.

The October 17 Times story was another such example. It revealed, perhaps for the first time in any major U.S. newspaper, that the CIA has been deceiving the public about its own relationship to the JFK assassination.

On the Kennedy assassination, the deceptions began in 1964 with the Warren Commission. The C.I.A. hid its schemes to kill Fidel Castro and its ties to the anti-Castro Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil, or Cuban Student Directorate, which received $50,000 a month in C.I.A. support during 1963.

In August 1963, Oswald visited a New Orleans shop owned by a directorate official, feigning sympathy with the group’s goal of ousting Mr. Castro. A few days later, directorate members found Oswald handing out pro-Castro pamphlets and got into a brawl with him. Later that month, he debated the anti-Castro Cubans on a local radio station.

That the October 17 story was published at all is astonishing. According to Lexis Nexis, there have only been two earlier references to the CIA Joannides documents controversy in any major U.S. newspaper: a brief squib in the New York Daily News in 2003 announcing the launching of the case, and a letter to the New York Times in 2007 (of which the lead author was Jeff Morley) complaining about the Times’ rave review of a book claiming that Oswald was a lone assassin.

(The review had said inter alia that “''Conspiracy theorists'' should be ''ridiculed, even shunned... marginalized the way we've marginalized smokers.'' The letter pointed out in response that those suspecting conspiracy included Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Robert Kennedy, and J. Edgar Hoover.)

The New York Times has systematically regulated the release of any facts about the Kennedy assassination, ever since November 25, 1963, when it first declared Oswald, the day after his death, to have been the “assassin” of JFK. A notorious example was the deletion, between the early and the final edition of a Times issue, of a paragraph in a review of a book about the JFK assassination, making the obvious point that “MYSTERIES PERSIST.” [2]

Apparently there was similar jockeying over the positioning of the Scott Shane story. In some east coast editions it ran on page eleven, with a trivializing introductory squib, "Food for Conspiracy Theorists." In the California edition, headlined “C.I.A. Is Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery,” it was on page one above the fold.

One can assume that the Times decision to run the story was a momentous one not made casually. The same can probably be said of another recent remarkable editorial decision, to publish Tom Friedman’s op-ed on September 29 about the “very dangerous” climate now in America, “the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.”

Friedman did not mention JFK at all, and his most specific reference was to a recent poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Obama be killed?” [3] Four days later the Wall Street Journal expressed similar concern, adding to the “poll on Facebook asking whether the president should be assassinated, a column on a conservative Web site suggesting a military coup is in the works.” [4]

Friedman’s column broke a code of silence about the threats to Obama that had been in place ever since two redneck white supremacists (Shawn Adolf and Tharin Gartrell) were arrested in August 2008 for a plot to assassinate Obama with scoped bolt-action rifles. Andrew Gumbel’s story about them ran in the London Independent on November 16, 2008; of the fifteen related news stories in Lexis Nexis, only one, a brief one, is from a U.S. paper.

It is possible to take at face value the concern expressed by Friedman in his column. The Boston Globe, a New York Times affiliate, reported on October 18 that “The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US Secret Service.” [5]

But there may have been a higher level of concern in the normally pro-war Wall Street Journal’s reference to a military coup. Such talk on a conservative web site is hardly newsworthy. More alarming is the report by Robert Dreyfuss in the October 29 Rolling Stone that Obama is currently facing an ultimatum from the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs: either provide General McChrystal with the 40,000 additional troops he has publicly demanded, or “face a full-scale mutiny by his generals...The president, it seems, is battling two insurgencies: one in Afghanistan and one cooked up by his own generals.” [6]

One can only guess at what led the New York Times to publish a story about CIA obstinacy over documents about the JFK assassination. One explanation would be the similarities between the painful choices that Obama now faces in Afghanistan – to escalate, maintain a losing status quo, or begin to withdraw – and the same equally painful choices that Kennedy in 1963 faced in Vietnam. [7] More and more books in recent years have asked if some disgruntled hawks in the CIA and Pentagon did not participate in the assassination which led to a wider Vietnam War. [8]

Six weeks before Kennedy’s murder, the Washington News published an extraordinary attack on the CIA’s “bureaucratic arrogance” and

obstinate disregard of orders... “If the United States ever experiences a `Seven Days in May’ it will come from the CIA...” one U.S. official commented caustically. (“Seven Days in May” is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.) [9]

The story was actually a misleading one, but it was a symptom of the high-level rifts and infighting that were becoming explosive over Vietnam inside the Kennedy administration. The New York Times story about the CIA on October 17 can also be seen as a symptom of rifts and infighting. One must hope that the country has matured enough since 1963 to avoid a similarly bloody denouement.


1. “C.I.A. Is Cagey About '63 Files Tied to Oswald,” New York Times, October 17, 2009,

2. Jerry Policoff, The Media and the Murder of John Kennedy,” in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch, and Russell Stetler, The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (New York: Random House/Vintage, 1976), 268.

3. Friedman, in decrying attacks on presidential legitimacy, recalled that “The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” It is worth recalling also that the public outcry about Whitewater was encouraged initially by a series of stories by Jeff Gerth, since largely discredited, in the New York Times. See Gene Lyons, “Fool for Scandal: How the New York Times Got Whitewater Wrong,” Harper’s, October 1994.


5. Bryan Bender, “Secret Service strained as leaders face more threats Report questions its role in financial investigations,” Boston Globe, October 18, 2009,

6. Robert Dreyfuss, “The Generals’ Revolt: As Obama rethinks America’s failed strategy in Afghanistan, he faces two insurgencies: the Taliban and the Pentagon.” Rolling Stone, October 29, 41. Several other articles entitled “The Generals’ Revolt” have been published since 2003, including at least two earlier this year and a number in 2006, when retired generals’ pushed successfully for the removal of Rumsfeld over his handling of the Vietnam War.

7. Gareth Porter, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005), 266.

8. See for example James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008).

9. Washington Daily News, October 2, 1963; discussed in Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2008), 286.

Peter Dale Scott is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Peter Dale Scott

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The famous picture taken of the JFK procession by reporter James Altgen showing JFK's Secret Service detail in the chase car just staring at JFK struggling with his neck after being shot is proof that JFK was assassinated by elements within his own government. Note the Secret Service agents wearing shades calmly looking right at JFK as the poor President struggles in pain. Now take a look at LBJ's Secret Service chase car. LBJ's Secret Service are reacting. See the rear door already opened?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC


Wasn't one of the agents running towards JFK's car at the time of the fatal shot? I also remember another film in which they are seen waving their hands, apparently in puzzlement after being told to stay in the car behind JFKs.

In the picture three of the security guys seem to be looking towards something - perhaps towards where the sounds of the shots were coming.

It's not necessary for these guys to have been "in the know".

If they had been, would they have stood so carelessly behind the president? I mean, they too could have been in danger so close to the target.

Just after the fatal shot, yes

but JFK lifts his hands up to his neck when he appears after the freeway sign. The SS guy doesn't appear until after.

By the way, is that Oswald in the doorway? Sure looks like him.

SSA Clint Hill


After parts of JFK's head is blown off, Jackie crawls out unto the rear of the car to collect a piece of JFK's head. That is when Jackie's Secret Service agent, Clint Hill, runs up to the car and assists Jackie back into car.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Ok. What about the other notes...

... in my comment (three agents looking in the same direction; the agents knowing they could be in danger too if they knew of the assassination plot)?

Silence is Golden


I would only pick persons I could count on to say nothing.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Obviously so, Brian...

... but that does not directly relate to my questions.


Clint Hill never even touches Jackie Kennedy before she's back in the limo with the bone, brain-matter or what it was..

About this photo :
The real point ,IMO, isn't that LBJ's SS-detail reacts, it's that JFK doesn't HAVE ONE !!
Why ? Because they got ordered away from the presidential limo at Love Field Airport as you can see in this video :

Personally I have turned more doubters or "lone nutcase"- believers with this than by showing them the excellent version of the zapruder-film
I have . EVERYBODY understands that Lee Harvey Oswald did not have the capability to order the SS around ..

Also available here (in better quality) with all the other local TeeVee news coverage :

This is what the limo should have looked like :

Photo by Tommy Eure, November 18 1963 .
Yes, that's his studio at 3225 W. Grand Central Avenue (later named Kennedy Boulevard) in Tampa
the motorcade is passing

" Justice for Barry Jennings "


"The real point ,IMO, isn't that LBJ's SS-detail reacts, it's that JFK doesn't HAVE ONE !!"

That is a powerful video.

The night before,

Bob Schieffer and other reporters from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram bought the agents drinks at the FtW Press Club and later at an infamous after-hours place. Documented in Scheiffer's memoir.

JFK ~ Segue into 9/11 Truth

With November 22nd approaching, this is an excellent opportunity for many of us to segue 9/11 Truth into the Kennedy subject. The JFK incident can be a very effective tool in our dissemination. Unlike the JFK cover-up and other false flag events, ANY individual can directly view hard evidence about 9/11. Our job is to get people to look. Look at this poll about JFK

We will have a table set up at the JFK Lancer Conference

this year in Dallas.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

Recommended Film - Dark Legacy

The film entitled: "Dark Legacy: George Bush and the Assassination of JFK" is highly recommended to realize the evidence showing the coup d'etat, execution-murder of John F. Kennedy and the obvious government cover-up that has happened since November 22nd, 1963.

Dark Legacy provides a thorough, documented, criminal indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush as a supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy.

Film running time about 1 hour and 40 minutes

This may be one of the most relevant films today that shows how WWII might not have ended as we thought, or were told. There is evidence of fascist infiltration into the US and UK intelligence agencies, perpetrated by the financiers of the World War, and with those involved in the arms race with weapons of mass destruction.

President Eisenhower warned us of the infiltration of the Military Industrial Complex at his farewell address. One one can see how the the coup d'etat of JFK's assassination and the events of September 11, 2001 are inter-connected, and this path we are on for endless war.

I hope to show this film in a community setting on November 22nd; and go for a sauna afterward. That could help eliminate some of the toxins received from a society infiltrated by the darkest of demons.

Valley 9/11 Truth publicly screened this film in Northampton, Massachusetts on September 23rd. It is long, so you may want to show an excerpt, but it is useful to follow the film with a discussion on why 9/11 evidence is key for our best chances for disclosing many hidden dark secrets. It is now or never..

News fit to transmit in post Cassini flyby era
<>~<>~ ~<>~<>
<> for life's survival in the 21st Century <>

I also recommend

Russ Bakers recent book FAMILY OF SECRETS , He covers in great detail the footsteps of Bush Sr, at the time of the JFK assassination.

Ray McGovern said there are two CIAs

Brad Friedman interviewed Ray McGovern a little over a month ago on the Mike Malloy Show.

This article was published the day after the interview on 9/11/2009.

During my interview last night with 27-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern on the Mike Malloy Show (which I've been guest hosting all this week), the man who used to personally deliver the CIA's Presidential Daily Briefings to George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan, among other Presidents, offered an extraordinarily chilling thought --- particularly coming from someone with his background.

In a conversation at the end of the hour (audio and transcript below), as I was trying to pin him down for an opinion on whether or not he felt it was appropriate for CIA Director Leon Panetta to have reportedly attempted to block a lawful investigation into torture and other war crimes committed by the CIA, McGovern alluded to a book about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and noted he felt it likely that both Panetta and President Obama may have reason to fear certain elements of the CIA.

"Let me just leave you with this thought," he said, "and that is that I think Panetta, and to a degree President Obama, are afraid --- I never thought I'd hear myself saying this --- I think they're afraid of the CIA."...

McGovern went on to note "the stakes are very high here," in relation to Attorney General Eric Holder's recently announced investigation of the CIA now under the direction of Panetta. "His main advisers and his senior staff are liable for prosecution for war crimes. The War Crimes statute includes very severe penalties, including capital punishment for those who, if under their custody, detainees die. And we know that at least a hundred have, so this is big stakes here."

He then recommended James W. Douglass' new book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.

"He makes a very very persuasive case that it was President Kennedy's, um, the animosity that built up between him and the CIA after the Bay of Pigs, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because he was reaching out to the Russians and so forth and so on. It's a very well-researched book and his conclusion is very alarming," the long-time CIA veteran noted in what turned out to be a chilling end to our interview in which he described "two CIAs".

One, he says, was created by President Truman to "give him the straight scoop without any fear or favor. And then its covert action arm, which really doesn't believe --- which doesn't belong in this agency." McGovern referred to that CIA "advisedly" as the President's "own personal gestapo" which acts without oversight by the Congressional committees once tasked to do so.

"And so if you're asking why Obama and Panetta are going very very kid-glove-ish with the CIA, I think part of the reason, or the explanation is they're afraid of these guys because these guys have a whole lot to lose if justice takes its course."

"So, it's pretty scary. Yes, it is," he concluded.

Here is the link to bradblog which also has the audio interview posted:

The same core group of criminals

conspired to kill the Pres. in broad daylight & set up succesfulll B.S. commissions.

With that knowledege, it's VERY EASY to understand how 9.11 was pulled off.

Obama should be afraid ...

I think Obama got the message, no need to show him the secret JFK film-footage, shot from a grassy knoll in Dallas ..

"Secret Service Told Dallas Police to Stand Down at Obama Rally Weapons Screening
Police concerned about order to stop screening
By JACK DOUGLAS Jr. | Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.
The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.
Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on.
"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."
The Secret Service did not return a call from the Star-Telegram seeking comment.
Doors opened to the public at 10 a.m., and for the first hour security officers scanned each person who came in and checked their belongings in a process that kept movement of the long lines at a crawl. Then, about 11 a.m., an order came down to allow the people in without being checked.
Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, the order was made by federal officials who were in charge of security at the event.
"How can you not be concerned in this day and age," said one policeman.
JACK DOUGLAS Jr., 817-390-7700"
" Justice for Barry Jennings "

never trust the ny times

the article begins with “Is the Central Intelligence Agency covering up some dark secret about the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Probably not.” "probably" not?

the article ends with “’Most conspiracy theorists don’t understand this,’ Mr. Posner said. ‘But if there really were a C.I.A. plot, no documents would exist.’” how the times loves the old "conspiracy theorist" pigeonhole refrain.

in between are the usual ny times' propaganda nuances, like, “Or was the agency simply embarrassed by brushes with the future assassin.” “future assassin?” this language of today goes quite well with the infamous “assassin slain” headline the ny times ran the day after jack ruby eliminated oswald.

all in all, this story is just more ny times' propaganda, and nothing to get up about. occasionally the times will publish stories to re-ignite the thinking public’s hopes, while pacifying their know-it-all “liberal” readership. this story is one of those. see thru it. the ny times is nothing but a public relations firm for the powers that be—the powers that assassinated jfk and brought about 9/11.

never trust anything in the ny times.

I agree

Any article that would give mockingbird shill Gerald Posner the last word in which he derides the intelligence of "conspiracy theorists" says it all.

talk of military coup over obama foreign policy decision


it would appear as if ex vp cheney has numerous allies inside the warmongering centers of power at the pentagon.
he is back out front getting aggressive with his appeasement rhetoric about obamism abroad.

it is not surprising that obama is moving slowly on the issue of afghanistan, nor surprising that senator kerry went to
afghanistan to plead the case of the obama presidency that there must be a second runoff election.

the democrats are desperately seeking a way to legitimate deepening intervention there and in pakistan.

obviously, the greatest risk to american democracy has already taken place: the false flag operations of 9-11 which
set in motion the new permanent war on terror, as the neocons call it, and most all insider politicians accept these

but there is an unusual amount of debate by traditional washington standards re. what exactly is the "end game" in
afghanistan. even conservative columnist george will sought to establish his place in pundit history by coming out
early for a new "smaller footprint" approach to the war there: more drones and sea based missile attacks, fewer troops
on the ground. in washington, this kind of thinking reflects the limits of the debate: challenging the boundaries of
counterinsurgency theory as defined by the bipartisan realpolitick.

my sense is that obama is entering the phase of his presidency where he must stare down his enemies, and
refuse to blink in the face of their wrath and veiled and not so veiled threats, if american democracy matters.

but for the most part, american democracy is a sideshow, as we are learning year by year since 1963. most
americans have become overwhelmingly resigned to the rule of financial oligarchs and militarists tied to
arms manufacturers and private mercenary contractors (the new multinational enterprises institutionalized
into a permanent boom sector of american capitalism following the attacks of 9-11).

so far, obama has shown a classic "moderate" democrat's tendency to blink before these powers that be.

but even president obama, despite his popularity abroad (symbolized by his nobel peace prize) must confront
the painful facts of an election campaign in 2012 where he has nothing to show for his four years, beyond an
unprecedented bailout of the banks, and an extension of unemployment benefits to the growing numbers of
jobless in imperial america.

he will be blamed for all that came before him, but reckless federal government spending with warfare
state inflation without end will always be immune from the conservative critique of his economic management
of a crumpling empire at home.

for now, obama's safest option is to continue to talk up withdrawal plans in iraq while escalating militarism
in afghanistan and pakistan.

most likely, knowing the real history of the jfk precedent, and having been close to edward kennedy before, he will
accept who rules america, and cut a deal of limited escalation to appease the warmongering fraction which dominates
the american government, knowing those left of the rightist fraction which rules america have no option but to fight for
his second term, however compromised it must and will be.

JFK/Obama parallels

I have the greatest respect for Peter Dale Scott. Looking into the assasination of JFK after seeing Stone's film is how I became an activist, particularly after stumbling onto Scott's book- Cocaine Politics.

Daniel Ellsberg (a good friend of PDS) spoke last Saturday at an anti-war rally in San Francisco. Ellsberg was a last minute addition, surprise speaker, and cautioned us that the plan was to expand the war- up to 500,000 troops and that we were the first anti-war protest of the "big war." He also said that people at this stage of the war against Vietnam, felt small, insignificant and thought that their efforts had no effect, when in actuality they helped to prevent a nuclear war against Vietnam- and that our efforts might also be contributing to rein in slightly the madness of those in power from escalating the war to an even worse level of violence.

The anti-war turnout was not enormous, several hundred, not thousands.

I've also been considering moving forward with Deception Dollar #11. I still think the idea of the white guy wearing the Obama mask, flanked by Cheney lowering a Bush mask, with "Regime Rotation" beneath the faces and on top "Continuity of Government" is a good idea which resonates daily more and more as Obama pushes forward with the same agenda as the previous regime. I don't know what is the best title to feature on the back of the Dollar, maybe The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 and instead of a website- Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False. Unfortunately Interlink Books has never made a decent website for DRG's books which we could promote without cringing. The major problem with that would be that Griffin really does not like the idea of the masked Obama character- so perhaps a different title would be better, so that he doesn't have to distance himself from our effort.

I can understand why Griffin and Peter Dale Scott have concern about the place that Obama is in - and warring elements within a right wing and an ultra right wing CIA. The attacks on Obama are extreme. However, there are some very valid condemnations of Obama (which I agree with). Thierry Meyssan's article posted at ... entitled Corruption Behind the 2009 Nobel Peace Priize, and Alex Jones new film The Fall of the Republic- posted in 13 parts at has some very damning stuff in it.

I honestly don't know who Obama is, but there certainly are at least two or three Obamas- the brand Obama, the cultlike media creation being used to sell policies, the Obama whose actions betray the rhetoric used to sell those policies.

Whether Cheney pulled Bush's strings or not, Bush should be held accountable for his actions, his policies, the wars he instigated under false pretenses.

Jones' film stated that one of our best hopes were the freshman Congrressmen that did have the courage to speak out and question legislation that is clearly not in the interest of the American people. He did not advocate violence, but he did hint that the government had been hijacked and it was our responsibility to get control over it, and that we need to do so- before our sovereignty is completely lost. I think the "wait and see give Obama some slack attitude of the "hopeful left/liberals" is misplaced optimism/wishful thinking. Clinton/Gore did give us NAFTA/WTO... and the current legislation being pushed at the national and international level is devastating to the country and threat to human rights, everywhere.

Carol Brouillet

Another great JFK film

is "Rush to Judgement" by Mark Lane in 1967. The interviews with witnesses are very interesting.

It is up (in 10 parts) on YouTube:

I was just a kid

when JFK was murdered but even then I knew it was a set-up and that Oswald was the fall guy. Especially after he was murdered by Jack Ruby. For me it was worse than 9/11. I loved JFK and cried my eyes out. I figured LBJ was behind it. After 9/11 I believed the official story and hang my head in shame for my stupidity. I should have known better. We have no real government or president. JFK was the last real one. Our country is being run by what Ike called the "military industrial complex." Ike knew. God damn it I want my country back! I want to be proud to be an American again. To hell with the New World Order thugs.