Article: Obama-First Oval Office Meeting, Cuba and JFK

Of the myriad of problems awaiting the new president, one of those brought up by CNN on Saturday was the current Cuban embargo, which in one form or another has been policy longer than a significant number of the voters that helped put Obama in the White House have been alive. According to Susan Hendricks on CNN on Saturday, “The president-elect has made it clear there will be a change in U.S. policy towards Cuba.” CNN further quoted Obama from last May 23rd as saying, “I intend to turn the page. It’s time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It’s time for a new strategy… It’s time to let Cuban-American money make their families less dependent on the Castro regime. That is the commitment that I’m making right here.” As in all issues, Obama is likely to encounter resistance. But it just may be that after going through the transition of power from one administration to another, he may be silent on this promise. Policies on Cuba date from even before the earliest days of President Kennedy’s administration and the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. After Castro received our help to come to power, he turned his back on us and brought a socialist agenda to Cuba. This infuriated people in our government and military, and thus began the attitudes that have brought us to where we are today in our (non) relationship with Cuba, including the revelations of our sponsored attempts to remove Castro by assassination in the 1960s. Yet the official American attitude towards Cuba has been unexplainable by many, and indeed surpasses understanding of many of us. The opening of the assassination records of President Kennedy in the 1990s revealed an interesting background on the concerns our government had on Cuba, of which we previously had known little. There was an assumption that Castro was targeting American officials because of the attempts we made on his life (in fact, Castro made such a statement to American media). To ensure that the reaction of the public to such an atrocity by Cuba was minimized, the government had a plan, approved by then Attorney General Robert Kennedy (brother to the president), that would provide cover-story methods to keep the public in the dark about Cuba’s involvement (see the video documentary, “The Men Who Killed Kennedy—And the Truth Shall Make You Free” by Nigel Turner Productions). This plan (which I’ll call the “Cuban Cover-story”) apparently provided for controlled autopsies on victims of Cuba’s retaliation. To the researchers who discovered this plan, and probably to most others, this presented a great “aha” moment, explaining why the president’s body was literally stolen from Dallas authorities by the Secret Service, and a less than informative autopsy being performed. When one views this policy to minimize American response to such an assassination act by Cuba, it directly contradicts the supposed attitude that the perpetrators of Operation Northwoods had (also during the same time period), that being to steer America’s public attitude towards favoring a liberating war with Cuba. Something does not reconcile between the two goals, unless you view the Cuban Cover-story with being strictly to facilitate elimination of the president of the United States by certain individuals in the American Intelligence Community (for whatever reasons they had). In relation to Cuba, there are issues of the assassination that indicate very astute political knowledge being utilized, and those issues directly contribute to our current attitude towards Cuba. Someone in the planning had enough sense to realize that while the American public needed a cover story for the assassination (Oswald-alone, assassination version ‘A’), that another, and more plausible story, would be needed for certain high-ranking leaders within our government (version ‘B’) to prevent the real truth from being known for many years. These leaders would have to be convinced that they knew the actual “inside” information on the assassination and thus would control any attempts at an official investigation revealing too much information. Enter the “Castro-did-it” cover-story, and its related goal of avoiding an all-out war with Cuba, but trying to choke them off economically. To my knowledge, there is only circumstantial evidence that there exists in the hierarchy of government a Castro-did-it cover-story. I further believe that the sitting and past presidents have some separate knowledge of the assassination that they have been passing on to successors, which of course will shortly be passed on to Obama if true, and possibly even today (Monday, November 10, 2008). For instance, if the Director of the CIA thinks that assassination version ‘B’ is the real story, it could explain a curious meeting of presidents in late 1988. George Bush (the first) was a former Director of the CIA and was vice-president under Reagan. If my theory of presidential knowledge and the Castro-did-it cover story is correct, he would have learned sometime during transition (with incredible disbelief given his inside CIA “knowledge”), from the chief-executive who fell asleep during cabinet meetings, certain unknown facts in the assassination. It could explain why the ex-presidents all came to the White House ostensibly to hand-deliver a report they all contributed to, but may have actually been for a private session to discuss the matter and convince the doubting-Thomas-elect. Curiously, Nixon was excluded from their meeting and was entertained that day by vice-president-elect Quayle. The sad fact may very well be that the Cuban Cover-story was part of the assassination plan, and may have caused Robert Kennedy to state to one of his own close associates in the Cuban exile community over the phone that “…one of your guys did it,” and thus, unknowingly, may have been duped into contributing to the success of the assassination when he approved the Cuban Cover-story in its early stages (also covered in [T]he Truth Shall Make You Free). So, Mr. Obama may today be learning something very shocking, and it may by necessity curtail any plans he had for changing our attitudes towards Cuba. It makes me wonder what will happen after the Castro brothers are gone. Will our government then tell us, “Well, we can reveal the truth now, Castro murdered our president!”? Then we will be subjected to a parade of living, former heads of government who knew personally of assassination version ‘B’ to tell us how this must be true, because that they were entrusted with this sensitive information over the last 45 years, thus bringing to at least a partial end of version ‘A’ of the assassination, but leaving intact the total cover of version ‘C,’ the real truth. Will our presidents ever tell us what that is? With each incoming new administration, I hope for that, but even Bill Clinton, who stated to the media during his first campaign that he believed as Senator Gore that there was a conspiracy in the assassination, failed to reopen any binding criminal investigation, and even seemed to hesitate at getting the work of the Assassination Records Review Board under way. Maybe today will be different.