LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover and the JFK assassination conspiracy

[Douglas Caddy]

[Jon G. Tidd]

Thank you for the clip, Douglas.

To the extent the panel members focus on Hoover, they talk about the cover-up; which I believe is correct. Hoover may have feared retirement at JFK's hands, but he surely had some dirt on JFK (and RFK) that would have given JFK pause. Hoover was in important ways the most powerful man in America.

To the extent the panel members focus on LBJ, they examine the reasons JFK's death on November 22 helped LBJ avoid criminal charges; which I also believe is correct. The panel members are also correct that LBJ held great sway in Dallas. Johnson, however much he was hip-deep in the cover-up, however much he breathed a sigh of relief at the assassination, however much he was a corrupt and mentally ill S.O.B., could not have had JFK killed without lots of help. Some of the help would have talked, as Billy Sol Estes did in the 1980s. But Billy Sol Estes focused on Henry Marshall, not JFK. Which tells me LBJ didn't order the hit. He may have had foreknowledge of the hit, and I half-believe (but only half-believe) he did.

As I look at the assassination today, I see it as a professional killing, very carefully arranged so as to ensure [a] JFK was in fact killed, Jackie was not injured, [c] collateral damage to humans could be ignored, [d] a patsy acceptable to the PTB was presented, and [e] a thorough investigation of JFK's murder would involve picking painfully off many scabs.

Many here dislike what I'm about to say. Which is, JFK made himself an easy target. All right, dismiss Mimi Alford. Discard Marilyn Monroe. And the German beauty. Dismiss them all. JFK had a zipper problem. It was the New Frontier.

The idea JFK was killed because he did X is not correct. He was killed because he opposed Y.

[Martin Blank]

Thank you for the clip, Douglas.

To the extent the panel members focus on Hoover, they talk about the cover-up; which I believe is correct. Hoover may have feared retirement at JFK's hands, but he surely had some dirt on JFK (and RFK) that would have given JFK pause. Hoover was in important ways the most powerful man in America.

To the extent the panel members focus on LBJ, they examine the reasons JFK's death on November 22 helped LBJ avoid criminal charges; which I also believe is correct. The panel members are also correct that LBJ held great sway in Dallas. Johnson, however much he was hip-deep in the cover-up, however much he breathed a sigh of relief at the assassination, however much he was a corrupt and mentally ill S.O.B., could not have had JFK killed without lots of help. Some of the help would have talked, as Billy Sol Estes did in the 1980s. But Billy Sol Estes focused on Henry Marshall, not JFK. Which tells me LBJ didn't order the hit. He may have had foreknowledge of the hit, and I half-believe (but only half-believe) he did.

As I look at the assassination today, I see it as a professional killing, very carefully arranged so as to ensure [a] JFK was in fact killed, Jackie was not injured, [c] collateral damage to humans could be ignored, [d] a patsy acceptable to the PTB was presented, and [e] a thorough investigation of JFK's murder would involve picking painfully off many scabs.

Many here dislike what I'm about to say. Which is, JFK made himself an easy target. All right, dismiss Mimi Alford. Discard Marilyn Monroe. And the German beauty. Dismiss them all. JFK had a zipper problem. It was the New Frontier.

The idea JFK was killed because he did X is not correct. He was killed because he opposed Y.

maybe X and Y are the same thing

[Glenn Nall]

thanks, Mr Caddy.

bingo.

[Douglas Caddy]

Ray Locker of USA Today and author of "Nixon's Gamble" that will be published tomorrow has authorized the newspaper to publish the chapter below that deals with the FBI over the decades and specifically with William Sullivan's behind the scene relationship with the CIA that even Hoover did not know about.

'Nixon's Gamble' excerpt: Nixon's accomplice at the FBI
By Ray Locker, USA TODAY 12:28 p.m. EDT September 30, 2015

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/30/nixons-gamble-excerpt-sullivan-accomplice-fbi/72751074/

[David Andrews]

Thank you for the clip, Douglas.

To the extent the panel members focus on Hoover, they talk about the cover-up; which I believe is correct. Hoover may have feared retirement at JFK's hands, but he surely had some dirt on JFK (and RFK) that would have given JFK pause. Hoover was in important ways the most powerful man in America.

To the extent the panel members focus on LBJ, they examine the reasons JFK's death on November 22 helped LBJ avoid criminal charges; which I also believe is correct. The panel members are also correct that LBJ held great sway in Dallas. Johnson, however much he was hip-deep in the cover-up, however much he breathed a sigh of relief at the assassination, however much he was a corrupt and mentally ill S.O.B., could not have had JFK killed without lots of help. Some of the help would have talked, as Billy Sol Estes did in the 1980s. But Billy Sol Estes focused on Henry Marshall, not JFK. Which tells me LBJ didn't order the hit. He may have had foreknowledge of the hit, and I half-believe (but only half-believe) he did.

As I look at the assassination today, I see it as a professional killing, very carefully arranged so as to ensure [a] JFK was in fact killed, Jackie was not injured, [c] collateral damage to humans could be ignored, [d] a patsy acceptable to the PTB was presented, and [e] a thorough investigation of JFK's murder would involve picking painfully off many scabs.

Many here dislike what I'm about to say. Which is, JFK made himself an easy target. All right, dismiss Mimi Alford. Discard Marilyn Monroe. And the German beauty. Dismiss them all. JFK had a zipper problem. It was the New Frontier.

The idea JFK was killed because he did X is not correct. He was killed because he opposed Y.

At long last - if this Y is not Vietnam, what is it?

Edited September 30, 2015 by David Andrews

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Andrews,

JFK opposed many things: the CIA, the BOP invasion, Israel's development of a nuclear weapon, the mafia (through RFK), the U.S. right-wing, etc.

In my opinion, he would not have led the U.S. into war in Viet Nam the way LBJ did; but he would not have abandoned South Viet Nam to Ho Chi Minh's communists either. Viet Nam was a problem for JFK. But he had had success, so he thought, in dealing with North Viet Nam in Laos. The 1960s, both in the U.S. and in Viet Nam, would have played out somewhat differently under JFK. Somewhat, because he was not LBJ.

Viet Nam is not the issue, David, IMO. Viet Nam was one ingredient in the mix at the time. It's a distraction in terms of the JFK assassination, IMO.

[James DiEugenio]

That is a neat excerpt from USA Today about Sullivan.

But it was not his idea to infiltrate the Klan and destroy them from the inside.

It was Bobby Kennedy's.

[David Andrews]

David Andrews,

JFK opposed many things: the CIA, the BOP invasion, Israel's development of a nuclear weapon, the mafia (through RFK), the U.S. right-wing, etc.

In my opinion, he would not have led the U.S. into war in Viet Nam the way LBJ did; but he would not have abandoned South Viet Nam to Ho Chi Minh's communists either. Viet Nam was a problem for JFK. But he had had success, so he thought, in dealing with North Viet Nam in Laos. The 1960s, both in the U.S. and in Viet Nam, would have played out somewhat differently under JFK. Somewhat, because he was not LBJ.

Viet Nam is not the issue, David, IMO. Viet Nam was one ingredient in the mix at the time. It's a distraction in terms of the JFK assassination, IMO.

It's not the issue, but it is the biggest issue in terms of money and unfettered foreign policy decisions. I would call it the deciding issue, for which all of JFK's prior behaviors were seen as predictors of his future recalcitrance.

There can be no arguing as to how Vietnam would have gone under a second Kennedy administration. It was seen to that there would be no such thing. The roughly ten years of war that followed proceeded as hoped for in his absence, and then in RFK's absence, regardless whether they proceeded as planned for otherwise. We will never know how the conflict would have been handled under his leadership and through his interaction with other US and international political players.

[Glenn Nall]

David Andrews,

JFK opposed many things: the CIA, the BOP invasion, Israel's development of a nuclear weapon, the mafia (through RFK), the U.S. right-wing, etc.

In my opinion, he would not have led the U.S. into war in Viet Nam the way LBJ did; but he would not have abandoned South Viet Nam to Ho Chi Minh's communists either. Viet Nam was a problem for JFK. But he had had success, so he thought, in dealing with North Viet Nam in Laos. The 1960s, both in the U.S. and in Viet Nam, would have played out somewhat differently under JFK. Somewhat, because he was not LBJ.

Viet Nam is not the issue, David, IMO. Viet Nam was one ingredient in the mix at the time. It's a distraction in terms of the JFK assassination, IMO.

just curious. what says he was opposed to the Bay of Pigs invasion? I'm not sure he was. My very infantile understanding is that he faltered at the last minute once he saw that the organization of this catastrophe was not going to be corrected (not that this excuses his actions - hard to excuse a person's actions when no one - and I mean NO ONE - knows exactly what they were that night when those Oh-So-Honorable Company men presented what they presented - as the boats were landing.)

Let's call it as it is. There're official 'truths,' and then there's the truth. Not arguing, just offering some perspective.

And STRAIGHT UP curiosity - was he really against Israel gaining Nukes? why...? [never heard that before]

Edited October 1, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

Thank you for the clip, Douglas.

To the extent the panel members focus on Hoover, they talk about the cover-up; which I believe is correct. Hoover may have feared retirement at JFK's hands, but he surely had some dirt on JFK (and RFK) that would have given JFK pause. Hoover was in important ways the most powerful man in America.

To the extent the panel members focus on LBJ, they examine the reasons JFK's death on November 22 helped LBJ avoid criminal charges; which I also believe is correct. The panel members are also correct that LBJ held great sway in Dallas. Johnson, however much he was hip-deep in the cover-up, however much he breathed a sigh of relief at the assassination, however much he was a corrupt and mentally ill S.O.B., could not have had JFK killed without lots of help. Some of the help would have talked, as Billy Sol Estes did in the 1980s. But Billy Sol Estes focused on Henry Marshall, not JFK. Which tells me LBJ didn't order the hit. He may have had foreknowledge of the hit, and I half-believe (but only half-believe) he did.

As I look at the assassination today, I see it as a professional killing, very carefully arranged so as to ensure [a] JFK was in fact killed, Jackie was not injured, [c] collateral damage to humans could be ignored, [d] a patsy acceptable to the PTB was presented, and [e] a thorough investigation of JFK's murder would involve picking painfully off many scabs.

Many here dislike what I'm about to say. Which is, JFK made himself an easy target. All right, dismiss Mimi Alford. Discard Marilyn Monroe. And the German beauty. Dismiss them all. JFK had a zipper problem. It was the New Frontier.

The idea JFK was killed because he did X is not correct. He was killed because he opposed Y.

At long last - if this Y is not Vietnam, what is it?

really?

where would you like to start? The US Steel Embargo? The Mil/Ind/Cong Complex that saw K as soft on Communism, their Golden Goose? (right, that's where Viet Nam fits in - but there's a bigger picture when you're willing to look at it - VERY angry people wanted CASTRO dead and the US blamed for it == $). How bout the 2 singularly most powerful men in the USA, one looking at ABSOLUTE prison time, the other at ABSOLUTE humiliation...?

hell, K had more enemies that Donald Trump. Viet Nam's too easy.

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Andrews,

I believe I'm in the minority here in reading NSAM 263 not as a plan for withdrawing from Viet Nam per se but rather as an expression of hope that the South Vietnamese government could, by the end of 1965, take full responsibility for defending itself and its territory from the Viet Cong and NVA. It's clear to me, at least, that if the South Vietnamese government had not stepped up to the plate by the end of 1965, there would have been U.S. ground forces, in whatever number was needed, to keep South Viet Nam afloat in a second JFK term. JFK may have had a relatively good read on Viet Nam, but he was not about to hand the country over to Ho Chi Minh.

Ho Chi Minh and his compatriots wanted to take over South Viet Nam and were willing to try to do so at any cost. None of this changed on or after November 22, 1963.

Glenn Nall,

I was wrong to say JFK opposed the BOP invasion. IMO, he did not oppose the invasion forcibly enough to deter the half-hearted attempt that was made. As I understand, JFK told Richard Bissell of CIA that air cover would not be provided until the landing force had secured a beachhead. To me, that instruction, if it was in fact given, allowed for ambiguity. When would a beachhead be considered secured? That question does not have a precise answer. Ineffective air cover was provided and made no difference. To me, JFK was trying to game the situation. Surely IMO he would have claimed success if the landing had succeeded in overthrowing Castro. The fact he took responsibility for the landing's failure means nothing to me. He was going to get blamed no matter what. By taking responsibility, he seized the high road, a basic JFK strategy.

Just so you don't get me wrong Glenn, I consider the JFK murder to be the most important crime of the 20th century. I want justice for those responsible. At the same time, I don't wear rose colored glasses when it comes to JFK.

[James DiEugenio]

Jon:

NSAM 263 was attached to the McNamara Taylor Report. That report was written and edited by JFK through Krulak.

He literally delivered it to those two men on the plane to then present to him. That report includes the entire withdrawal plan.

After that was decided, Kennedy called a meeting of his advisors and essentially rammed it down their throats, it was a take it or leave it discussion: we are getting out.

He then told McNamara to go outside and announce it to the press. And as he was walking out, JFK told him through the window, "And tell them the withdrawal means the helicopter pilots also"

That is all supplemented by the declassified SecDef Meeting of May of 1963 in Hawaii. At that meeting McNamara called in all the State, Defense and CIA heads and made it clear the USA was getting out in 1965. He heard from every chief as to how the progress for withdrawal was going. In most cases he thought it was too slow, and asked it be hurried up. They got the message, as Wheeler wrote that any request for more time would be met by a presidential refusal.

How anyone can argue that this would have been reversed later is simply strange to me. When all the internal evidence points one way, and all the chief advisors--McNamra, Bundy, Taylor--all agree, and you even have phone calls in which McNamara is saying, "We have to get out of Vietnam!", I mean what else do you want?

Most of this was in Newman's book. But the SecDef meeting and the phone call were declassified by the ARRB. Since then we actually have the evacuation order issued by Kennedy in November. As John Newman has said, Kennedy was worried that Saigon would collapse before 1965. So he head a contingency plan put together for how to evacuate all the civilian Americans there.

I see no convincing evidence to counter this today. Kennedy's speeches are to be discounted since he knew he could not reveal what he was doing before the election. In fact, he even said that.

As for Saigon falling in say 1966, well he was ready to absorb that instead of inserting combat troops. That is the one thing JFK would not do. Which is why he absorbed the loss at Bay of Pigs rather than send in direct American intervention. He knew he would have to work his withdrawal plan around the election, as LBJ worked his escalation plan around the election. See, no one was working on any escalation plan for JFK in the fall of 1963.

That all changed with LBJ at the helm.

Edited October 2, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Don Jeffries]

Glenn,

JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs from the Eisenhower administration. It was a CIA project, and they expected the new young president to rubber-stamp it. The myth that JFK refused to provide air protection at the last minute is just one of the many smears against the Kennedys which aren't supported by the facts.

JFK was new to the job, and extremely naive politically at the time of the Bay of Pigs. More than any other event, in my view, this disaster changed the way he looked at the military-industrial complex and the intelligence agencies. His response- especially the firing of Dulles and Bissell- certainly impacted the way the tptb looked at the Kennedys.

[Glenn Nall]

Glenn,

JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs from the Eisenhower administration. It was a CIA project, and they expected the new young president to rubber-stamp it. The myth that JFK refused to provide air protection at the last minute is just one of the many smears against the Kennedys which aren't supported by the facts.

JFK was new to the job, and extremely naive politically at the time of the Bay of Pigs. More than any other event, in my view, this disaster changed the way he looked at the military-industrial complex and the intelligence agencies. His response- especially the firing of Dulles and Bissell- certainly impacted the way the tptb looked at the Kennedys.

yes.

I know this.

I'm quite tired of some members in here assuming that i'm uneducated in JFK legacy, and/or that i'm an idiot. from what i've assessed, there's very little room for either judgement from very many contributors to this dialog.

i force myself to remember that some of you likely know things that are not very public. I'd encourage you all (not you, so much, Don, you've always been fair and objective --- please offer understandable definitions of these two words where required? I've given up) to extend others similar possibilities. What some people know might incontrovertibly xxxx your theories up.