logo
CIA agent came across Oswald before JFK assassination, newly released document reveals

CIA agent came across Oswald before JFK assassination, newly released document reveals

Axiosa day ago
For the first time since President Kennedy's assassination nearly 62 years ago, the CIA has tacitly admitted that an agent specializing in psychological warfare ran an operation that came into contact with Lee Harvey Oswald before the Dallas assassination.
Why it matters: The disclosure Thursday — nestled in a batch of 40 documents concerning agent George Joannides — indicates the CIA lied for decades about his role in the Kennedy case before and after the assassination, according to experts on JFK's slaying.
The linchpin document: A Jan. 17, 1963, CIA memo showing Joannides was directed to have an alias and fake driver's license bearing the name "Howard Gebler."
Until Thursday, the agency had denied that Joannides was known as "Howard," the case agent name for the CIA contact who worked with activists from an anti-communist group opposed to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro called the Cuban Student Directorate.
For decades, the agency also falsely said it had nothing to do with the student group, which was instrumental in having Oswald's pro-Castro stances published soon after the shooting.
The bottom line: "The cover story for Joannides is officially dead," said Jefferson Morley, an author and expert on the assassination. "This is a big deal. The CIA is changing its tune on Lee Harvey Oswald."
The information comes to light as part of President Trump's order that the government meet its obligations to disclose all documents under the JFK Records Act of 1992.
Little was known of Joannides' involvement in the case until disclosures in 1998 under the records act. New disclosures of previously hidden records keep adding slices of information to the story.
Zoom in: Joannides was the deputy chief of the CIA's Miami branch, overseeing "all aspects of political action and psychological warfare." That included covertly funding and directing the Cuban student group, commonly referred to as DRE for its Spanish-language initials.
On Aug. 9, 1963, more than three months before Nov. 22 assassination, four DRE operatives got into a scuffle with Oswald in New Orleans when he was passing out pro-Castro "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" pamphlets. The subsequent court hearing was covered by local news media.
On Aug. 21 , 1963, Oswald debated DRE activists on local TV, providing more media attention to him as a communist.
After the assassination, DRE's newsletter identified Oswald as a pro-Castro communist, and the Miami Herald and Washington Post covered the story.
A year before Oswald became known as pro-Castro, the Pentagon formulated a plan called Operation Northwoods to stage a false-flag attack in the United States, blame Cuba and then attack it.
Zoom out: The new documents don't shed any additional light on Kennedy's shooting or settle the controversy over whether Oswald acted alone. Nor is there any evidence showing why the CIA covered up Joannides' ties to DRE.
All the records disclosed so far show how the CIA lied about financing or being involved with DRE. That includes the agency's interactions with the Warren Commission (1964), the Church Committee (1975), the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1977-78) and the Assassination Review Board (until 1998).
The intrigue: Joannides didn't just have knowledge of Oswald before the assassination — afterward he played a central role in deceiving the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
At the time, the CIA appointed Joannides to be its liaison with the committee. But he and the agency hid the fact that he was involved with DRE and therefore the Kennedy case, slow-walked the CIA's production of records, and lied.
The committee's chief counsel, Robert Blakey, testified in 2014 that he asked Joannides about "Howard" and DRE, and that "Joannides assured me that they could find no record of any such officer assigned to DRE, but that he would keep looking," Blakey said.
A former committee investigator, Dan Hardway, testified before a House Oversight committee last month that Joannides was running a "covert operation" to undermine the congressional probe into the assassination.
Two years after stonewalling the committee, Joannides was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal by the CIA in 1981. He died in 1990.
What they're saying: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican overseeing the House committee examining the newly released JFK documents, said Joannides was "1,000 percent" involved in a CIA coverup.
Morley and some others who've written extensively about Kennedy's assassination believe rogue CIA agents might have been involved in the killing, but Morley's not ready to say Joannides was one of them.
Others, such as author Gerald Posner, believe Oswald was the lone gunman. But all are in agreement that the CIA acted in bad faith after Kennedy was killed.
"It's vintage CIA. They never provide transparency. They don't tell the truth. They obscure. They obfuscate. And when the documents come out, they look bad," Posner said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Croatian right-wing singer Marko Perkovic and fans perform pro-Nazi salute at concert
Croatian right-wing singer Marko Perkovic and fans perform pro-Nazi salute at concert

New York Post

time3 hours ago

  • New York Post

Croatian right-wing singer Marko Perkovic and fans perform pro-Nazi salute at concert

A hugely popular right-wing Croatian singer and hundreds of thousands of his fans performed a pro-Nazi World War II salute at a massive concert in Zagreb, drawing criticism. One of Marko Perkovic's most popular songs, played in the late Saturday concert, starts with the dreaded 'For the homeland — Ready!' salute, used by Croatia's Nazi-era puppet Ustasha regime that ran concentration camps at the time. Perkovic, whose stage name is Thompson after a U.S.-made machine gun, had previously said both the song and the salute focus on the 1991-95 ethnic war in Croatia, in which he fought using the American firearm, after the country declared independence from the former Yugoslavia. He says his controversial song is 'a witness of an era.' Advertisement 5 Popular right-wing Croatian singer and hundreds of thousands of his fans performed a pro-Nazi World War II salute during a concert. AP The 1990s conflict erupted when rebel minority Serbs, backed by neighboring Serbia, took up guns, intending to split from Croatia and unite with Serbia. Perkovic's immense popularity in Croatia reflects prevailing nationalist sentiments in the country 30 years after the war ended. The WWII Ustasha troops in Croatia brutally killed tens of thousands of Serbs, Jews, Roma and antifascist Croats in a string of concentration camps in the country. Despite documented atrocities, some nationalists still view the Ustasha regime leaders as founders of the independent Croatian state. Advertisement Organizers said that half a million people attended Perkovic's concert in the Croatian capital. Video footage aired by Croatian media showed many fans displaying pro-Nazi salutes earlier in the day. The salute is punishable by law in Croatia, but courts have ruled Perkovic can use it as part of his song, the Croatian state television HRT said. Perkovic has been banned from performing in some European cities over frequent pro-Nazi references and displays at his gigs. Advertisement Croatia's Vecernji List daily wrote that the concert's 'supreme organization' has been overshadowed by the use of the salute of a regime that signed off on 'mass executions of people.' 5 Organizers said that half a million people attended Perkovic's concert. AP 5 Fans arrive for the concert in Zagreb, Croatia. AP 5 According to regional N1 television, while 'Germans have made a clear cut' from anything Nazi-related 'to prevent crooked interpretations and the return to a dark past … Croatia is nowhere near that in 2025.' AP Advertisement Regional N1 television noted that whatever the modern interpretations of the salute may be its roots are 'undoubtedly' in the Ustasha regime era. N1 said that while 'Germans have made a clear cut' from anything Nazi-related 'to prevent crooked interpretations and the return to a dark past … Croatia is nowhere near that in 2025.' In neighboring Serbia, populist President Aleksandar Vucic criticized Perkovic's concerts as a display 'of support for pro-Nazi values.' Former Serbian liberal leader Boris Tadic said it was a 'great shame for Croatia' and 'the European Union' because the concert 'glorifies the killing of members of one nation, in this case Serbian.' 5 Serbian populist President Aleksandar Vucic criticized Perkovic's concerts as a display 'of support for pro-Nazi values.' AP Croatia joined the EU in 2013. Croatian police said Perkovic's concert was the biggest ever in the country and an unseen security challenge, deploying thousands of officers. No major incidents were reported.

An increasing share of American adults are going hungry
An increasing share of American adults are going hungry

Axios

time3 hours ago

  • Axios

An increasing share of American adults are going hungry

More Americans are going hungry, per new data from Morning Consult. The big picture: It's a shocking data point for the wealthiest country in the world, and comes at a time when the stock market is hitting record highs and President Trump just signed a bill slashing food benefits. The rise is like a slow-moving train wreck, says John Leer, chief economist at Morning Consult. "There's such a disconnect now between record highs on Wall Street and elevated levels of food insecurity." Zoom in: The share of adults who tell Morning Consult in monthly surveys that they sometimes or often don't have enough to eat — or are food insecure — has been creeping up over the past several years. In May, 15.6% of adults were food insecure, almost double the rate in 2021. At that time Congress had beefed up SNAP benefits and expanded the Child Tax Credit driving down poverty rates, and giving people more money for food. Zoom out: The rate appears higher than pre-pandemic levels. Morning Consult's data only goes back to 2021. However, federal data that measures food insecurity, and roughly lines up with Morning Consult's findings, shows the numbers were already above pro-COVID levels back in 2023. Demand for food is up 120% from three years ago at the Philadelphia-area food bank network where George Matysik is executive director. As soon as the government support pulled back in 2022, "we started to see the numbers go up," says Matysik, who is with the Share Food Network, which serves hundreds of thousands of people. Demand just continued to rise from there, along with grocery prices. Between the lines: Congress just passed a huge cut to food benefits, or SNAP, that is likely to make the situation far worse, says Matycik. The "big, beautiful bill" pushes states to provide more funding for SNAP, and tightens work requirements for benefits. Before, adults over age 54 weren't required to work; now the age limit is 64. And fewer parents are exempted from working, as well. It's expected that millions will lose benefits, and more would receive less. People will have less money for food, further driving folks to food banks, which had already been dealing with different spending cuts from the White House. Reality check: Some of the cuts to SNAP, involving state funding, don't take effect until 2028 — raising the possibility that they might not happen. The data also looks a bit volatile, bouncing around quite a bit — it spiked at the end of 2024, and it's not clear why. It is likely a reflection of how precarious it is to make ends meet for folks at the lower end of the wage scale — some are in hourly jobs with fluctuating schedules, which can be rough on one's personal finances. The other side: The White House and congressional Republicans argue that cuts to these benefits are a way to push more people into the labor market and reduce dependence on government assistance, as well as an effort to reduce waste, fraud and abuse.

‘As a Security Partner, China Is Not There' for Iran
‘As a Security Partner, China Is Not There' for Iran

Atlantic

time4 hours ago

  • Atlantic

‘As a Security Partner, China Is Not There' for Iran

China isn't ready to be the world's next superpower: That's one thing the exchange of fire between Israel and Iran in June made abundantly clear. The country that was perhaps Tehran's most important diplomatic and economic partner wound up playing virtually no role when Iran and Israel came to blows. This, despite the fact that Beijing has actively sought stronger relations with many countries in the Middle East—not just Iran, but also Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—and despite China's evident stake in promoting stability in a region that supplies more than half of its oil imports. So why didn't China step up? Beijing did make some effort to assert its influence. In mid-June, Chinese leader Xi Jinping proposed a four-point plan, calling for a cease-fire and negotiations to contend with Iran's nuclear program, and offering to play a 'constructive role' in restoring peace. But Xi's proposal went nowhere. He couldn't bring the belligerents to the table—especially not Israel. The two countries have never been particularly close, and Beijing deeply offended the Israeli leadership by taking a pro-Hamas position after the group's October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israeli civilians. But amid Israel's recent military successes, Beijing has tried to soften its approach. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has opened a dialogue with his Israeli counterparts and in a phone call in October stated that China 'is ready to resume exchanges in all aspects as soon as possible,' according to an official summary of his comments. But Israel's leaders are likely to remain cautious, given China's relationship with Tehran. In the recent past, Beijing has helped the Iranians circumvent Washington-led sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Alongside Russia and India, China has welcomed Iran into two important forums: the BRICS group of emerging economies and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an association of countries connected to Central Asia. And China purchases nearly all of Iran's oil exports, providing vital resources to its moribund economy. Given these links, Chinese leaders might be expected to wield influence over Tehran. They've done so in the past: In 2015, China encouraged Iran's leadership to join the Obama administration's nuclear deal, and in 2023, it brokered a détente between Tehran and its regional rival, Saudi Arabia. But if China and Iran are too close for Israel's comfort, they are still not as close as they appear to be. Iran certainly has reason to question whether China is fully committed to the relationship. In 2021, China promised to invest $400 billion in Iran over 25 years as part of an enhanced strategic partnership, but progress toward that goal has been slow. Chinese cumulative direct investment in Iran reached only $3.9 billion at the end of 2023. And Chinese companies have been wary of doing business with Iran due to U.S. sanctions—a risk made clear when Meng Wanzhou, now deputy chair of the telecom giant Huawei, was detained in Canada in 2018 at Washington's request on sanctions-related charges. China also takes advantage of Iran's vulnerability by purchasing its oil at steep discounts. As a result, Tehran has tried to balance Chinese influence by maintaining strong ties to India, Beijing's chief rival within the developing world. The Iranians also undoubtedly know that China can't ultimately protect them from the United States and Israel. Trade with China cannot fully substitute for real relief from Western sanctions. Beijing isn't likely to pressure Washington into lifting them, either. And although China has been steadily upgrading its armed forces, it still can't project military power all the way to the Middle East. Beijing probably wouldn't want to do so anyway: It tends to eschew the sorts of close alliances and mutual-defense arrangements that Washington routinely forges with other governments. 'China is not trying to be the security provider in the Middle East, and honestly, no one has asked China to,' Yun Sun, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center who specializes in Chinese foreign policy, told me. Beijing's response to the Israel-Iran conflict reflected all of these limitations. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has offered his Iranian counterpart little beyond diplomatic support. 'As a security partner, China is not there' for Iran, Mohammed Baharoon, the director general of the Dubai Public Policy Research Center, told me. 'If we are talking about a security situation, like the war, Russia has a closer relationship with Iran than China.' For many in the Middle East, China's standoffishness doesn't seem like the worst thing: Beijing isn't doing anything to escalate the Israel-Iran conflict, either. But then, China is also in no position to challenge or provide a counterweight to the United States in the region. The Gulf states have cultivated ever more trade and investment with China—but they still crave close diplomatic and economic relations with Washington above all. President Donald Trump's May visit, during which the Gulf royals lavishly feted him,'is proof that the U.S. is the most important partner for these countries,' Jonathan Fulton, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who monitors Chinese policy in the Middle East from Abu Dhabi, told me. Within the region, China is not seen as 'leading political, strategic, diplomatic, and economic issues. Right now, there is really only one country that does all of that, and that's the U.S.' The same is true on a global scale. Xi attempted to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, and to promote his own peace proposal, after Moscow's invasion in 2022. But his all-too-obvious favor for Russia undercut his credibility as a broker. Efforts to intervene in the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza in 2023 fell flat due to Beijing's overt pro-Palestinian bias. Wang Yi repeatedly called for a cease-fire, but the U.S. engaged in the consistent diplomacy that eventually produced one. In both cases, Xi exploited the crises to further Chinese interests—deepening ties to a desperate and isolated Russian President Vladimir Putin, and scoring propaganda points in the global South by criticizing Washington's support for Israel. China's actions in these crises are indicative of its true role in global affairs. The so-called axis of authoritarianism—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—is not a tightly coordinated cabal. And China's economic heft is not translating into political and military power as quickly as it could be. Chinese leaders just haven't marshaled the diplomatic and military muscle—still less the political will—to usurp America's position as the world's premier power. To get there, Chinese leaders will need not just more resources and experience, but also a new vision for their role in the world.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store