Jump to content
The Education Forum

Roger Christensen

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Roger Christensen's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. There are some interesting pieces of information in this article. But the reference to "Mr George Bush of the CIA" in a FBI memo remains one of the most important documents. So we are still stuck with the question about whether "Mr. George Bush" is the now famous George H.W. Bush. If George Bush lied about his cooperation with Felix Rodrigues in the Iran-Contra scandal that is obviously important. This raises the possibility that he also lies about other CIA activities he has been involved in. And it seems improbable that he was appointed chief of the CIA if he had no background in the organization. (But it is not unthinkable. Kennedy appointed John McCone, not an obvious candidate for the job, because he did not trust the CIA). But if Bush lied about his CIA activities, why did he do it? If he was involved in the Kennedy assassination, that would be an obvious reason, but other reasons are also possible. He could have other things to hide: cooperation with the mafia or involvement in other secret operations. And if he worked together with Bay of pigs veterans suspected of involvement in the JFK assassination and Watergate, he wouldn't want that to be known, even if he was not involved himself. And if he was involved in the assassination together with anti-Castro cubans, would he have put forward information that shows that he knows these gruops well? But there is defintitely need for more investigation into CIAs activities in that period, whether they were connected to the assassination or not. The national security concerns can't be an excuse now that the cold war is over. Haldeman's statement that "bay of pigs" was a code used when talking about the assassination is also interesting. But i would take everything Haldeman says with a pinch of salt even if it seems to be a confession at a time when he had nothing more to lose. There seems to be a couple of inaccuracies in the article. Haven't the three tramps been identified as others than the Watergate burglars? And the changing of the parade route is one of the myths Ian Griggs tries to kill in his new book "no case to answer".
  2. Two things have puzzled me about George Bush Sr. and the Kennedy assassination. One is that many people suspect him of being involved even if the evidence i have seen is not very impressive. But he has definitely been in a position to know sometheing about the asssassination. So i am surprised that investigators and researchers hasn't questioned him more than they have (I am not sure if he has been questioned at all). Even if we assume that the George Bush in the FBI memo is "our" George Bush that does not mean he was involved in the assassination. It just shows he knew something or thought he knew something. And the claim from Escalante that Bush helped financing operation 40? Well, Escalante said that happened on the initiative of Richard Nixon, as vice president we must assume. In other words, Kennedy wasn't president yet. If we are to suspect George Bush of anything, we must find evidence of suspicious activities at later stages. And that is not difficult. It is easy to find compromising material about three generations of Bushes, but nothing that ties them directly to the JFK assassination in my opinion. But George Bush may very well have known people involved, that is another thing. As a matter of fact, i would be very surprised if he did not know much about the assassination. The fact that he knew George de Mohrenschild is interesting enough. And as head of the CIA and later president he must have had access to very important sources of information. But if we assume George Bush knows more than he says about the assassination, can we suspect that he has taken part in cover-ups when he worked for the CIA? That is possible. But all the people involved in cover-ups can't be involved in the assassination. I guess most people in this forum will agree that people like Earl Warren and Gerald Ford have taken part in cover-ups. (Most notably Ford who "moved" Kennedy's back wound in the Warren report). But that does not make them likely suspects. The most important question about George Bush is not whether he was involved, but what he actually knows. If i investigated the case he would be one of the first people i questioned.
  3. Hello everyone! I am a new member of this forum and have read with interest the debate about Lyndon B. Johnson's motives in 1960. I think some caution is needed here. Lyndon B. Johnson isn't exactly one of my favourite politicians. As a matter of fact i think he was the worst president in the US after the war, he was a xxxx, whealer-dealer, blackmailer, war-monger and i don't know what. He was perhaps a murderer too, the information about him, Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace doesn't smell good. (The Kennedy assassination isn't the only murder in which he is a suspect). And for him the assassination came at a very convenient time, so it is no coincidence he is a suspect. But i am not at all convinced that he was involved. And if we are to conclude that he planned the assasination already in 1960 i think we need either solid evidence about such planning or we must at least be able to exclude other possible motives for his actions. Many take it for granted that Johnson had "the means and the motives" to carry out and cover up the assassination. I have no problems with the motives, but i am not sure about the means. Many suspect involvement by rogue elements in the CIA, the military or the secret service. But if that is the case, is it so obious that Johnson could conspire with them? The vice president is not the second most powerfull politician in the US, that is why we are having this discussion. The Vice President is not part of the daily decission-making in most US administrations. It has also been suggested that Johnson was involved in another way: by conspiring with Texas oil millionaires and criminals like Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace. This theory can't be dismissed, but there are some problems with it. First of all, if Billie Sol Estes' confession is the whole story about the murder we will have a huge "surplus" of information. What about the mobsters who confessed involment both before and after the assassination, all the smoke comming out of New Orleans, Oswald's mysterious trip to Mexico City and more? I may have missed something, but i find it difficult to link this to Estes' confession about what took place. I also think a very good question was raised in an earlier post: If Johnson was involved, why isn't it possible to find evidence against him in CIA and FBI documents? This is very relevant in the Estes-Wallace theory. If Johnson was behind a conspiracy that did not include the FBI or the CIA, why haven't these agencies tried to uncover it? It could clear them from suspicion. Lyndon B. Johnson's legacy would take a heavy beating, but the power structures in Washington would not suffer from it. So what were Johnson's motives in 1960? It is not easy to rationalize about his actions, we can only speculate. He might have thought that Kennedy would die, or even believe he would be murdered, and therefore see this as a chance to be president. He was cynical enough to make such calculations, but that does not have to mean he was involved in the murder. Another possible reason is that he miscalculated his position as a Vice Precident. He might have thought that the scandals that threatened his carreer in 1963 would not be known if he was vice president, that the White House would protect his secrets because they could threaten the entire administration. It also possible that he thought his abilities as a blackmailaer would secure him more power than VPs usually have. He perhaps even thought he could blackmail Kennedy out of office or compromize him one way or the other to force him to resign. There are many possible reasons for Johnson's actions in 1960, i think we need more solid evidence if we are to believe he planned the assassination already then.
  4. My name is Roger Christensen. I am 33 years old and live in Tønsberg, Norway. I work with environmental issues in a state agency. I do not study history on a professional basis, but i have always taken an interest in current affairs and modern history. There are different reasons for my interest in the Kennedy assassination. It is very much "the crime of the century" with many pieces of information and evidence to take into consideration. But it is more than that. Most of the people who lived then remember it very well as a shocking event. And i think the heated debates about the issue 40 years later reflect this experience. The reason is perhaps that different theories about the assassination is closely linked to other issues: was he murdered because he was a progressive president or has he been idolized after his death? Did he want to pull out of Vietnam or not? Which role do the CIA, the military and the mafia play in US politics? Did the US policy against Cuba backfire when Kennedy was assassinated? Why are the official investigations so disputed? All these questions are very much about what we think about US society and politics in that very tense period.
×
×
  • Create New...