Truth Jihad
Kevin Barrett
Kevin Barrett
Below is the lightly-edited transcript of part two of my interview with Saint John Hunt, recipient and custodian of father E. Howard Hunt's confession to participating in the LBJ-approved, CIA-orchestrated murder of JFK. (Go to Part 1.) (Listen to the interview.) (Listen to my interview with James Douglass, author of the best single JFK assassination book, JFK and the Unspeakable.)
* * *
Kevin BarrettWelcome back. This is Truth Jihad Radio. I'm your host Kevin Barrett, talking today with Saint John Hunt. He's the son of Howard Hunt, the Watergate burglar and confessed CIA conspirator in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, who did us quite a service by leaving that confession. And his son Saint John Hunt, a very brave man, has done us an equally big service by helping get the truth out about history. Unfortunately, it seems the truth is out there, but the truth is still being kept "out there," away from most of the people. You know, I recently had Vincent Bugliosi on my show, Saint John, and he's a very smart guy.
Hunt
Yeah.
Barrett
But he thinks that his magnum opus is his book supposedly proving that Oswald acted alone. How do smart people like Bugliosi look at your material, which is backed up by so much evidence, and somehow not get it?
Hunt
Yeah, Vincent is, like you said, a very intelligent guy. He's done tremendous work in the justice system. When his book, which is probably about the size of two telephone directories on top of each other - it's a good six inches thick, probably weighs fifteen pounds - and of course the entire book is pointing in the direction that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. When that book was hitting the stands, I did a couple of talk shows. And Bugliosi was asked about my book, and my purported evidence and stuff. He dismissed the entire thing by saying that I, Saint John Hunt, was not to be trusted.
Barrett
So he thinks you're making it all up?!
Hunt
Well, he just said I was not to be trusted because I had a history of substance issues in the past, and that it was all just the ravings of a senile old man, and the greed of his son to try to make a fast buck.
Barrett
Oh boy. "Kill the messenger." It's the same story everywhere.
Hunt
I respected Mr. Bugliosi up until that time. But that was really a courtroom tactic that's well-known. You smear - I mean, if a prostitute gets raped, you bring out the fact that she's a prostitute, and everybody goes, "Oh, well it's okay, then, because that's her line of work." You smear, you kill the messenger. But really the message isn't my message, it's my father's message. So it has nothing to do with what I've done in my life.
Barrett
There are hand-written notes. There's a tape recording.
Hunt
And my father told me it isn't the first time it's been suggested that our own American government was the lead provocateur in this assassination attempt. So there have been several books that have made bigger splashes in the media but have been kind of discounted and thrown to the side. Certainly Madeleine Brown's book detailing her long-term affair, even having a child, from LBJ, and that LBJ confided in her many times, after much drinking, that he was involved in the killing, the assassination, of JFK. And everyone knows that Johnson had a very dark, dark history, where there were several killings, and Johnson was just mad with power. He had a lust for power. And he realized, of course, this according to my father, that if JFK were re-elected, that would put Johnson as the vice-president for another four years, making it probably impossible for him to run for the presidency.
Barrett
And they were thinking of dropping him from the (1964 Democratic) ticket too, I understand.
Hunt
Yes they were, that's correct. And Johnson barely got on the ticket as VP the first time around.
Barrett
And they didn't like him, apparently.
Hunt
Not at all.
Barrett
The Kennedies took him (Johnson) on as a necessary evil to win Texas and to win the presidency. But they couldn't stand him, and Johnson couldn't stand them. And he got wind that they were going to drop him from the ticket. And he was a born power-craving kind of leader...
Hunt
Yeah, well, he had a lot of people backing him. He did have a lot of power. In some ways, it's that lust for power that this really is all about. And of course this is a tried-and-true scenario here. You can go back to Julius Ceasar.
Barrett
Right.
Hunt
This kind of stuff has been going on for such a long time. But the United States of America holds itself up as a place where this could never happen. And so you've got 200 years of this kind of fairy tale. And people just don't want to believe (the truth). It's got to be somebody else doing it. That's why the truth is out there, but I don't think it will ever be admitted to by this government, the Obama government, or any future government. Because to admit that the assassination of JFK and possibly RFK were coups d'état constructed by our own government is just gonna be too much to tell the world at large.
Barrett
Well part of the problem, Saint John, I think, is that the same forces are still in power, maybe even more ensconced in power now, and that's why they work so hard at keeping the truth covered up. If this (the CIA's killing of JFK) were just an aberration, and we didn't have these deep state actors and these secret governments running around behind the scenes, then nobody would really have that strong of an interest in keeping it covered up. Sure, there would be an emotional interest, but not a really compelling one. But the problem is, these same types of people blew up the World Trade Center. And God knows what they'll do next year.
Hunt
You're absolutely right. And it goes beyond the individuals, because a lot of the key players in this - almost all of them - are dead and gone. But it's not the individual, it's the ideology that they serve. And the ideology, as you're saying, is very much in control today. It's that same ideology that allowed for the 9/11 attacks, and the continuing wars, if you want to call them that, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The people aren't still alive, but the ideology is stronger than ever. It's really bringing down this country.
And now, because corporations are viewed by the Supreme Court as people, you have this huge ability for corporations to donate tens of millions of dollars to political campaigns, which further entrenches that same ideology. So we've really got a lot of work to do. A strong battle's ahead of us, to even this out a little bit.
Barrett
It's really a terminal case of corruption. And it seems to me that the more you deny it, the more you buy into this myth that "such things could never possibly happen in the pristine, antiseptic United States of America," the more cover these corrupt forces have to get away with bigger and bigger forms of murder. And it really seems to me that November 22nd, 1963 was the turning point. If they can get away with that, if they can murder the President in broad daylight - and then murder the patsy, the fake assassin, on live TV - and have this (second murder) done by Jack Ruby, a mobster, a mob hit man from the Chicago mob, moved down to Texas - I mean, if they can get away with that, they can get away with anything.
Hunt
That's right.
Barrett
And they have. And they still are.
Have there been any openings for you in the mainstream media, besides Rolling Stone, which broke your story and did a pretty creditable job of it. I was surprised; they're not always that good. But that seemed to be the end of it. I was expecting that after that Rolling Stone piece, your story would at least be making into, you know, page two of the New York Times, and they'd start trying to verify it or disprove it. But it seems like they all just kind of turned away from it.
Hunt
Well, there were a couple of points where it could have gone mainstream. The Los Angeles Times did a story on it. But much to my dismay, the headline of the story was "No Credible Evidence in Son's Allegations of His Father..." And more recently, I would have to say...well, Alex Jones certainly isn't mainstream, but he's one of the bigger off-mainstream-media icons. And of course Jesse Ventura, doing his Conspiracy TV show on TruTV, had me on and did part of a segment for his show. He showed the documentation and stuff. Jesse Ventura is a very serious guy, a wonderful man. He's got great morals, great courage.
Barrett
He's one of my heroes. He actually endorsed my campaign for Congress in 2008.
Hunt
That's excellent, yeah.
And that's about as far (into the mainstream) as it's gotten. Because really, the way the mainstream media, the powers that be, the corporate controlling interests - they've realized now that the best way to deal with something like this is to not deal with it at all, and just let the "conspiracy kooks" talk all they want, and let them have all their little publications, their little TV shows and radio shows, and just not even give them enough credibility to deny (the allegations). The slimiest way to avoid dealing with something like this is to just avoid dealing with it at all. And that's a very powerful weapon.
Barrett
Indeed. And with the 9/11 case, I had some direct experience there. Because I got into that at the beginning of 2004 - the obvious controlled demolition of WTC Building 7, which should have been front page headlines on September 12th, 2001 -
Hunt
Yeah.
Barrett
-but was just completely buried, they had orders from the top not to ever show it or talk about it in the media. But by the summer of 2006, things were building up to the point that they apparently decided to switch tactics and bring us into the spotlight for awhile and throw rotten fruit at us. So I was selected as one of these people to be dragged on Fox news and have rotten fruit thrown at me. But it didn't work well, the rotten fruit bounced back in their faces. So after a couple of months of this, they slunk back into their holes and won't talk about it any more.
But with the JFK thing, it's far enough behind us, that you would think there would be the potential for more honest coverage.
Let's talk a little bit about the specifics of your information. You mentioned that Johnson was a key player in this, according to your father. And Cord Meyer of Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's media-control outfit, was another.
Hunt
Yeah, well, some of the characters that my father mentioned as having been involved were: Cord Meyer, he was a chief of station in Great Britain, a CIA officer. And of course Cord had a much deeper resolve for hating Kennedy. His ex-wife was one of Kennedy's many, many mistresses. Mary Meyer.
Barrett
That's an interesting story in itself, isn't it?
Hunt
She was later killed quickly and very cleanly while she was walking her dog or jogging or something in Georgetown, in the tow path alongside the canal.
Barrett
She was hanging out with Timothy Leary -
Hunt
She was.
Barrett
And taking LSD, and taking it with Kennedy at the time that he suddenly turned towards peace, and started talking about complete disarmament.
Hunt
So Cord was (involved). And Lyndon Johnson was in agreement, all he had to do was nod and say yes, let's get rid of this guy, and he can become president. That was his end. He was not involved in the day-to-day planning that my father said he attended sat the safe houses in Miami, Florida.
Bill Harvey was a CIA boss, and he was head of the Rome office, and he brought in - now it's been uncovered that he sent messages to his superiors suggesting the use of Corsicans for hit men rather than American mafiosi, which would be much easier to trace in a trail leading back to the CIA. So he suggested the use of Corsicans. And of course the Corsican that my father told me, his name was "Sarkay," and he didn't know anything more about that gentleman. But that's the name that he recalled from some of those meetings. Antono Veciana was an anti-Castro in Alpha 66, one of the most dangerous, bloodiest anti-Castro ex-Cuban military brigade 2506. This all ties in and goes back to the Bay of Pigs, for one thing. And then in later years, some of these same characters surfaced in Watergate.
Barrett
And the interesting thing about that is, that in Watergate, I think it was either Erlichman or Haldeman that Nixon sent over to Helms to threaten Helms with exposure of "The Bay of Pigs thing." And Helms reacted by screaming, "This Watergate thing has nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs thing!" And, I think it's Haldeman who said in his book that "the Bay of Pigs thing" was code for the JFK assassination.
Hunt
That's correct, you hit it on the head. Yep, that is absolutely correct. And Nixon, of course, knew my father, and knew my father as a very serious and potentially dangerous person. Under Eisenhower, Nixon had been White House liason to this very, very secret and illegal crew under the name Operation 40, I believe. It was a ring of assassins that were on call to assassinate any foreign leaders, dignitaries, embassy employees, or anybody else that was unfriendly to the United States. And Nixon knew about that.
Barrett
Wow. And Nixon was of course also part of the Bay of Pigs operation, the CIA's secret invasion of Cuba that was planned under Eisenhower, launched under Kennedy, but then Kennedy refused to send in the Marines and the bombers, and everyone (in the CIA) hated him after that.
We'll be back in a moment. This is Kevin Barrett, talking with Saint John Hunt.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment