Thomas Buchanan: Did he solve the JFK case?

[Tim Gratz]

John quotes Buchanan:

"The most anti Communist of Europeans realize the death of Kennedy was more sincerely mourned in Moscow than in any other foreign capital, if only for the fact that leaders of the Soviet Union staked their whole political careers upon the chance of a ditente with the United States. "

Detente, of course, is misspelled. But Buchanan's point is exactly the same as Trento's, that Khruschev's political career was based on the chance, through JFK, of a detente with the United States.

It is the thesis of the part of the Trento book (The Secret History of the CIA) that deals with the Kennedy assassination that there was a faction within the Politburo that wanted to get rid of Khruschev and since he was deriving support from his developing relationship with Kennedy, the first step in the plot to oust Khruschev was to get rid of Kennedy.

Again quoting Buchanen:

Clearly, then, it was the thesis of the Dallas lawenforcement agencies that Oswald had committed a premeditated murder to advance the Communist world revolution. He was said to be a Soviet-trained expert at political assassination, who intended to escape to Cuba or to Russia.

If the suspect in this case had lived, the prosecutor would have had to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a Russian-trained, pro-Castro and pro-Communist assassin felt the death of Kennedy would benefit the Soviet Union and the Cuban revolution.

(In this case the red color of the quotes is intentional.) Buchanan, of course, has this all wrong. The original thesis of Dallas law enforcement may have been a Communist conspiracy but LBJ through Cliff Carter ordered that the indictment of Oswald delete all references to a Communist conspiracy. This order came, if I recall correctly, the very night of the assassination. The LAST thing LBJ wanted was anyone trying to prove Soviet or Cuban involvement in the assassination.

Buchanen again:

Neither did the Cubans have the slightest reason to want Lyndon Johnson in the White House. A short time before the President's assassination, Fidel Castro had, in fact, declared that Kennedy had "come to understand many things over the past few months." The New York Times quotes him as stating, "I'm convinced that anyone else would be worse." He even added that Kennedy "still has the possibility of becoming, in the eyes of history, the greatest President of the United States, the leader who may at last understand that there can be coexistence between capitalists and socialists, even in the Americas." In this belief he had, for several weeks before the President was murdered, been engaged in interviews with the French journalist Jean Daniel (who was at that time foreign editor of l'Express), which were intended both by Kennedy and by Castro as an effort, through non-diplomatic channels, to explore the possibility of normalizing their relations. Daniel had first interviewed the President of the United States on October 24th: he had then gone directly to Havana, and had interviewed the Cuban leader there on several occasions; he had promised to go back to Kennedy and to deliver Castro's confidential message before publishing his interviews. The Cuban leader's interest in such negotiations may be indicated by the fact that, in one interview, he talked to Daniel from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. Even Castro's most bitter adversaries scarcely can impute to him a reasonable motive to have asked the President, through Daniel, questions vital to the future of the Cuban nation and then ordered him assassinated without waiting for his answer. An affirmative response by Kennedy to Castro's trial balloon would have prepared the way for an eventual top-level meeting with the U.S. President - a meeting much less likely now, with Lyndon Johnson in the White House - one which might have stabilized the Castro Government, enabling it to channel funds and labour wasted now on national defence to economic projects desperately needed by the Cuban people. It was not the moment Cuba would have chosen to kill Kennedy. If such an act had been considered, it would have occurred during the period when the United States was sponsoring the Bay of Pigs invasion, or in 1962, when the whole world seemed on the brink of war and Cuba faced direct U.S. invasion.

Buchanen is, of course, wrong again, but perhaps this is understandable due to his lack of knowledge. Castro knew, but Buchanan probably did not, that at the very time that Kennedy was responding to Castro-initiated peace "feelures" his administration was plotting yet another scheme to kill him. Moreover, through the Second Naval Guerilla, the Kennedys were also planning a second U.S. invasion of Cuba.

The leaders of Brigade 2506, Artime and Oveida, both said that they knew that their dream of a free Cuba died with Kennedy on the streets of Dallas. The pledge that Kennedy made to them in the emotional rally at the Orange Bowl in December of 2506 that one day their flag would fly over a free Cuba would go unfillfilled due to the murder of the pledgor.

It is not, I suspect, coincidence that Castro rescheduled the meeting with Daniel so that it would coincide with the death of Kennedy. While Daniel is about to discuss with Castro Kennedy's desire for peace, Castro knows (but Daniel does not) that Kennedy's agent (since all CIA employees are members of the Executive Branch) is in the process of delivering to Rolando Cubela in Paris a pen that Cubela can use to kill Castro. Castro cannot, of course, be sure that the death of Kennedy will stop the assassination plots and the second invasion, but he DOES know that if Kennedy lives the plots on his life will continue as will the plans for the second invasion.

[Mark Stapleton]

Tim,

Are you seriously suggesting that a section of the Soviet Politburo were involved in killing JFK as a roundabout way of getting rid of Khrushchev? Surely there were easier ways to get rid of him than risking a nuclear war.

p.s. you misspelt the author's name thrice.

[Dawn Meredith]

Tim,

Are you seriously suggesting that a section of the Soviet Politburo were involved in killing JFK as a roundabout way of getting rid of Khrushchev? Surely there were easier ways to get rid of him than risking a nuclear war.

p.s. you misspelt the author's name thrice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

___________________________

Hmmm, one minute Tim says Castro did it, now it's the KGB....

He hangs out with Gus Russo.....

I guess the right wingers who come to these forums just can't handle that JFK was offed by the powers that be in the good old US of A.

Anyone who says differently may just be on their payroll.

There, I've said it.

[Pat Speer]

I've recently come across a book called "Legacy of an Assassination" that came out in May 1964, before the Warren Report, and its thesis is a mixed-one. It claims that Kennedy was a traitor AND the Russians killed him. Why they would kill a man supposedly sympathetic to their cause I haven't yet uncovered. Perhaps the author Norbert Murray was onto the Trento theory years ahead of anyone else. In the back of the book, he lets us in on a secret, however, when he includes both a list of books which will help one understand the assassination and pictures of candidates with the proper attitude towards the Russians. Among the books is Robert Welch's The Politician, in which he says Ike was a Russian sympathizer. The two politicians he endorses are Goldwater and Nixon.

I consider Buchanan's book well-intentioned but not particularly well-informed. Murray's book is neither.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

Tim,

Are you seriously suggesting that a section of the Soviet Politburo were involved in killing JFK as a roundabout way of getting rid of Khrushchev? Surely there were easier ways to get rid of him than risking a nuclear war.

p.s. you misspelt the author's name thrice.

Tim argues this at every opportunity. This was the view of the extreme right-wing, neo-fascists at the time in America. For an example of this see the writings of Billy James Hargis.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhargis.htm

Hargis, the founder of Christian Crusade, as "a Christian weapon against Communism and its godless allies" claimed in 1964 that JFK was assassinated as a result of a communist conspiracy. He also believed that the KGB and the American Communist Party tried to place the blame on right-wing organizations such as the John Birch Society. However, they were unable to supply logical reasons for their beliefs and gradually shrunk away from view.

In 1975, Michael Eddowes published his book, Khrushchev Killed Kennedy (1975), Eddowes argued that Kennedy was killed by a Soviet agent impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald. Eddowes was a right-wing writer for hire. It later emerged that book had been financed by the Texas oil billionaire, Haroldson L. Hunt (the man Thomas Buchanan claimed had paid for the assassination of JFK.

To test his theory, Eddowes brought a suit in Texas to exhume Oswald's body. This was originally refused but after gaining the support of Lee Harvey Oswald's family, the exhumation took place on 4th October, 1981. The body was taken to the Baylor Medical Center. Identification was made primarily using dental records. At a news conference held later the following statement was issued: “The findings of the team are as follows: We independently and as a team have concluded beyond any doubt, and I mean beyond any doubt, that the individual buried under the name of Lee Harvey Oswald in Rose Hill Cemetery is in fact Lee Harvey Oswald.”

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKeddowes.htm

The CIA (in the form of James Angleton, former chief of the CIA's counter-intelligence section) also began putting this story around after he was forced to resign in 1973. Angleton was a alcoholic who was suffering from paranoia (an occupational hazard in the CIA). He provided this information to Edward Jay Epstein and it appeared in his book Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKepstein.htm

Another CIA asset, Jack Anderson, was persuaded to write a series of articles for the Washington Post suggesting that Fidel Castro joined forces with the Mafia to kill Kennedy.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAandersonJ.htm

Joe Trento relied on information from James Angleton to suggest that Castro/KGB were involved in the assassination in his book The Secret History of the CIA (2001). I think he now regrets this and is unwilling to defend these views in public.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKtrento.htm

I think Tim is the last of the Castro/KGB did it still around. Anyway he is the only one on the Forum who appears to be willing to argue for this theory.

[Mark Stapleton]

Tim's claim that LBJ, through Cliiff Carter, deleted all reference to a communist conspiracy in LHO's indictment is also a crock. It seems likely that LBJ did this after reaching consensus with certain people that the LNT was the official story. The consensus could only be reached, IMO, after undertakings were made that LHO would die before any trial, burying a genuine investigation with him. IMO, searching for any record left by LBJ revealing the identity of these certain people is wasting time. LBJ seems to have been one of the cleverest and most cunning of politicians and any records left to scrutiny by him would most likely push investigators in the wrong direction.

The only problem I have with Buchanan's book is he that states (p.188) that any involvement by LBJ would be "fantastic". I can forgive him for this because he wouldn't have known things about LBJ that we know now.

[Tim Gratz]

John I agree that a lot of the basis for the suggestion of Soviet involvement came from Angleton.

Possible support for Soviet involvement is the presence of Kostikov in Mexico City (whether he met with Oswald or an imposter) and Kostikov's association with Rolando Cubela. Plus, of course, Nagell claims that the KGB had advance knowledge of an assassination plot and were trying to stop it.

Query, what if an element within the KGB plotted the assassination (which is what the Trento scenario suggests) and the KGB hierarchy found out about it and was desperately trying to stop it, fearing, of course, it could lead to American retaliation? This would certainly go a long way toward explaining what was happening with the KGB and Nagell. It would also explain why the KGB could not simply contact US authorities.

IMO, Nagell's claim of KGB foreknowledge of the assassination is an important matter that must be carefully evaluated. If Nagell was correct, that matter must be considered for consistency with any scenario of the assassination.

And by the way it is not that I bring this theory up at every opportunity but only that I thought it interesting that Buchanan's book is consistent with Trento's theory when it states that Khruschev was staying in office and basing his survival on his relationship with JFK.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Possible support for Soviet involvement is the presence of Kostikov in Mexico City (whether he met with Oswald or an imposter) and Kostikov's association with Rolando Cubela.  Plus, of course, Nagell claims that the KGB had advance knowledge of an assassination plot and were trying to stop it.

I agree that Castro (and the KGB) probably knew about the plot to assassinate JFK. By 1963 Castro’s agents had deeply infiltrated the anti-Castro groups in America. If these groups were involved in the conspiracy against JFK then Castro would have known about. I expect that Castro sent back information to JFK on this via Lisa Howard and Jean Daniel. It was of course important for Castro that JFK remained alive. I assume this information (although not its source) was passed to the SS, FBI and the CIA.

The interesting thing about Buchanan is that much of the information came from Jean Daniel. He was foreign editor of the L’Express at the time (the articles that eventually became Who Killed Kennedy? were first published in the newspaper in March, 1964). The CIA (and the Warren Commission) knew about Buchanan’s proposed book. It is interesting how Operation Mockingbird dealt with this. I will post about this later today.

[Tim Gratz]

Castro also knew about JFK's plot to kill him.

If Castro knew about a plot by anyone else to kill JFK, there is certainly no evidence anywhere to suggest that he communicated that knowledge to any authority in the U.S. It certainly would have been a way for Castro to ingratiate himself with JFK. When a purported enemy saves your life, the enmity can quickly disappear.

Therefore, the reasoning must be that either the plot was Communist intitiated or that Castro wanted JFK dead (due to the continuing US plots against him).

By the way, as a bit of an alternative on my scenario, Gerry Hemming recently advised me that he believes the Soviet military intelligence was behind the plot and the KGB was trying to stop it.

I reiterate what seems an obvious point: KGB foreknowledge of the assassination (if true) is an extremely salient matter to be used in evaluating any theory of the assassination.

[John Simkin]

I am very interested in the way that Operation Mockingbird dealt with the JFK assassination. Thomas Buchanan appears to have been the first one to get out a book out criticising the lone-gunman theory (May, 1964).

The CIA was able to put enough pressure on American companies not to publish the book. However, Buchanan got a contract from the left-wing UK publisher, Secker & Warburg. The next strategy was to make sure the book was criticised in the American media. In his book, Facing Reality, Cord Meyer explains this strategy. As he points out, it was not necessary to pay the right-wing press to deal with books that were anti-CIA. They did that without being asked. Mockingbird was mainly about using liberal journalists writing for “progressive” journals. These people were seen as reliable and therefore their work would not be easily dismissed as being “propaganda”. You would have often noticed how often Tim Gratz supports his arguments by the claim that it is supported by liberals. This is a common Mockingbird tactic.

For example, Mockingbird used Leo Sauvage in the New Leader to launch its attack on Buchanan. New Leader was edited by S. M. Levitas. He had been receiving money from the USIA before 1948. After that he got it from Mockingbird. Sauvage pointed out that Buchanan was a member of the American Communist Party before being sacked by the Washington Star. The problem with McCarthyism is that some writers refused to be cowed by the threat of being blacklisted. Buchanan, like many others, sought to make a living in Europe. Many came to live in the UK (blacklisted writers contributed a great deal to our emerging film and television industry. However, Buchanan went to live in France where he wrote for left-wing newspapers.

The CIA was not able to bully Buchanan into submission. The same was also true of Joachim Joesten, another left-wing journalist who came to the UK to get his books on the JFK assassination published.

Sauvage makes it clear that he also has doubts about the lone-gunman theory (the idea behid this is that the reviewer is being objective). What Sauvage objects to is the suggestion that powerful groups such as the CIA or the Texas oil industry could be behind such an act. Sauvage seems to hold the view that it was two madmen working together. Later, of course, it was either Castro or the Mafia who did it.

Sauvage tries to give the impression that Buchanan’s book is full of mistakes. In fact, it is far more accurate that the Warren Commission Report that was to be published a couple of months later. Sauvage also implies that the book has been written to cover-up Soviet/Cuban involvement in the assassination.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuchananT.htm

Buchanan has some interesting things to say about Marxism and the assassination of JFK:

Nor could a native Marxist have expected any benefit from Kennedy's assassination. Communists had first been prosecuted under Truman, and the policy continued under Eisenhower. By the time the Kennedy Administration took office, membership in the US Communist Party had been reduced from a peak strength of about 100,000 to less than 10,000. There had been no noticeable relaxation under Kennedy in this campaign against domestic Communists, but neither had the effort been intensified. A spokesman for the US Communists had recently announced their membership, after a long decline, was finally beginning to make gains. This tendency might have continued and, indeed, expanded as official anti-Soviet hostility diminished. The first group to suffer, if such tensions were renewed, would be the US Communists themselves. And if it could be shown that US Communists had engineered the crime, the worst excesses which the country knew after the murder of McKinley or during the dominance of Senator McCarthy would have seemed an era of tranquillity and tolerance by contrast with the persecution to which Communists would then have been subjected. It is, consequently, inconceivable that if the Communists did have this suicidal notion, the assassin would have posed before the crime to have a snapshot taken of himself holding the murder weapons, with a copy of The Worker, the official party paper.

No conceivable political objective of the US Communists, moreover, has been served by Kennedy's elimination. There appears to have been disagreement in the US party, back in 1960, whether to support the Kennedy campaign or to remain completely neutral. Kennedy had run with Communist support, however. And by 1963, on the main issues of the daythe Negro civil rights drive and disarmament-the President was felt to be an ally-temporary, to be sure, but of a key and, it was later feared, an irreplaceable importance. One has but to read the very issue of The Worker Oswald is alleged to have been reading to observe that Kennedy was being treated, at that time, with a respect not far removed from admiration. To the Communists of the United States, the President's domestic foes were their foes, also. And Gus Hall, a national official, had asserted that the party should endorse the President for re-election in the 1964 campaign. One scarcely sees why any Communist would murder the one man who could make sure that Barry Goldwater would not reach the White House.

The assassination of the President may thus be shown to have served no political objective which can reasonably be attributed to the domestic Communists or, for that matter, to the Communists of any country. It is one of the ironic aspects of this case that the first people to proclaim their indignation that the President was murdered by the "Communists" were those who, one day earlier, had been attacking Kennedy as a "pro-Communist" himself, and saying that he was the best friend that the Communists had ever had....

Why would any Communist or person of pro-Communist opinions act as though he were an anti-Communist? This was the question we had been asking. For the anti-Communist effect of the announcement of the murderer's alleged political affiliation was, as any one could easily have forecast, overwhelming, and to the extent that the original hypothesis is still believed, remains so.

Why would any Leftist hand his enemies this weapon? we demanded. And the answer which was tentatively given was that Oswald, the presumed assassin, must have been a crazy Marxist, not an ordinary, sane one. We can now definitely state that he was not insane by any definition, medical or legal.

And the Communists were not collectively insane enough to sponsor such a project. We have been assured by no less an authority on their activities than F.B.I. Director Hoover that there is no evidence of any Communist connection with the Oswald plot. And it is manifest that they obtained no benefit from it, but on the contrary it threatened to provoke an inquisition which would liquidate the left-wing movement in the USA, discredit Khrushchev and perhaps inspire a vengeful nation to invade the Cubans...

In the State of Texas, more than any other State in the United States, the penalties attached to mere suspicion of pro-Communist opinions are particularly virulent. In 1954, the Governor of Texas, Allan Shivers, asked the legislature of that State to pass a law to punish persons who might, in the future, undertake pro-Communist activities in Texas, although he admitted that, at that time, there were so few radicals in Texas "that it can't be called a problem." He felt very strongly that mere membership, apart from any overt action, was sufficient to require the penalty that he demanded: death. The legislators felt this might be slightly in excess of any penalty permitted by the US Constitution and reduced it to a maximum of $20,000 fine and 20 years in prison.

He would be a brave man, therefore, who would go into the State of Texas and proclaim himself to be a Marxist, which is what Lee Harvey Oswald did-a brave man, and a most imprudent one, unless he had somebody to protect him.

For it seems that Oswald had been given opportunities to publicize his Marxist views by people to whom such opinions were abhorrent-opportunities the Communists themselves could not have purchased fell into the lap of Oswald. He was the guest speaker in an interview over radio station WSDU on August 21, 1963, when he proclaimed himself as "secretary" of the New Orleans chapter of Fair Play for Cuba. And there had been articles about his radical activities in the New Orleans papers, the result of which was that he lost his job and went back to the Dallas area. Although in Dallas there was very little unemployment, Oswald could not find a private individual or company that wished to hire him since he was by now one of the city's most notorious "subversives." He was consequently forced to live on unemployment cheques until the city government itself employed him on October 15, 19 days after the White House had announced that Kennedy would be in Dallas in November.

On the face of it, this happened with deceptive innocence. Mrs. Ruth Paine, a Quaker woman in whose house the Oswald family was boarding, was alerted by a neighbour, Wesley Frazier, a municipal employee, that a job was open at the Texas School Book Depository, where Frazier was himself employed. Why didn't Oswald make an application for the job? it was suggested. Mrs. Paine called up Roy S. Truly, Oswald's future boss, and asked if it was true that there was a position vacant. Truly said for Oswald to report to him; he interviewed him, and he hired him.

Oswald's job was, it is true, a temporary, minor post; it is quite plausible that no security precautions were considered necessary, at the time that he was hired. But once his name was on the payroll, Oswald automatically fell under the jurisdiction of the city government of Dallas-the most anti-Communist of cities in America's most anti-Communist of States.

The F.B.I. knew where Oswald was working, for Mrs. Paine says that she gave that information to them when they called at her home shortly after Oswald had been hired. She also told them that he had a room in Dallas, according to the New York Times of January 26. It must be clear that the police of Dallas also had this information, even if the FBI had not advised them. In each city of the size of Dallas, the Police Department has a "Red squad" whose exclusive duty is to keep informed as to the residence, employment and activities of persons thought to be potentially "subversive," just as there are squads which specialize in the activities of "vice" lords like Jack Ruby. In New York, the Communist or left-wing sympathizers are comparatively numerous, but in a place like Dallas leftists are so rare that the police assigned to watch them probably outnumber those who have been designated for surveillance.

[Pat Speer]

Oswald's job was, it is true, a temporary, minor post; it is quite plausible that no security precautions were considered necessary, at the time that he was hired. But once his name was on the payroll, Oswald automatically fell under the jurisdiction of the city government of Dallas-the most anti-Communist of cities in America's most anti-Communist of States.

The F.B.I. knew where Oswald was working, for Mrs. Paine says that she gave that information to them when they called at her home shortly after Oswald had been hired. She also told them that he had a room in Dallas, according to the New York Times of January 26. It must be clear that the police of Dallas also had this information, even if the FBI had not advised them. In each city of the size of Dallas, the Police Department has a "Red squad" whose exclusive duty is to keep informed as to the residence, employment and activities of persons thought to be potentially "subversive," just as there are squads which specialize in the activities of "vice" lords like Jack Ruby. In New York, the Communist or left-wing sympathizers are comparatively numerous, but in a place like Dallas leftists are so rare that the police assigned to watch them probably outnumber those who have been designated for surveillance.

[/color]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is typical of the problems inherent in Buchanan's book. I really wish he'd updated and corrected some of this stuff after the Warren Report came out and pointed out his errors. One: he incorrectly thinks that the TSBD was some sort of government operation and that Oswald's employment there signifies government awareness of his activities. Two: he assumes that the DPD had extensive files on Oswald before the assassination, when Oswald was politically inactive while living in Dallas and this would have been unlikely. In short, he lets his anti-American bias fill in the blanks a little too often. His political analysis is good most of the time, such as when he discusses the lack of motive on the part of the communists, but his assumptions of Oswald's victimization at the hands of an oppressive government is not backed up by the facts. It seems he's identifying too much with Oswald.

[Mark Stapleton]

Castro also knew about JFK's plot to kill him.

If Castro knew about a plot by anyone else to kill JFK, there is certainly no evidence anywhere to suggest that he communicated that knowledge to any authority in the U.S.  It certainly would have been a way for Castro to ingratiate himself with JFK.  When a purported enemy saves your life, the enmity can quickly disappear.

Therefore, the reasoning must be that either the plot was Communist intitiated or that Castro wanted JFK dead (due to the continuing US plots against him).

By the way, as a bit of an alternative on my scenario, Gerry Hemming recently advised me that he believes the Soviet military intelligence was behind the plot and the KGB was trying to stop it.

I reiterate what seems an obvious point:  KGB foreknowledge of the assassination (if true) is an extremely salient matter to be used in evaluating any theory of the assassination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you ponder this point for me, Tim, as I'm having trouble figuring out your reasoning:

At the time of the assassination, there were many rumours flying about concerning the possibility of JFK's assassination. Last month I was looking at old newspapers at the N.S.W. library and there was a reference to a plot to kill JFK in an Australian newspaper a few days prior to the assassination. What I'm arguing is that maybe the KGB had foreknowledge of the plot to kill JFK---they only had to read the papers for that---but so did many other people/groups. The suggestion that the KGB or Soviet military intelligence was behind the plot (if Gerry Hemming told you this he either has a good sense of humor or he doesn't know as much as I thought he did) is bizarre. Why then would the Soviets have LHO, a man with Communist leanings, in Dallas pointing suspicion right back at them? Why also would they immediately declare that they didn't believe the official lone nut explanation of the crime? (Buchanan, p.13). Agreeing with the LNT puts them in the clear, doesn't it?

Those trying to tailor an assassination theory to compliment their political philosophy are easily exposed.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

"Those trying to tailor an assassination to compliment their political philosophy are easily exposed."

I assume this comment must be directed at the many leftists to attempt to argue that Kennedy was killed by, as Dawn put it, "the powers that be", but who offer not one scintilla of evidence to support that theory.

It may be that those who, in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, proclaimed that Castro did it were motivated, at least in part, by anti-Communism. It amazes me that so many members of the Forum seem incapable of understanding that when I suggest that Castro did it it is not related to or motivated by my admittedly right-of-center views. For I make it clear that Castro's motive was not anti-Americanism but self-preservation: to stop the CIA plots to kill him. Trujillo, a right-wing dictatior, could have had the same motivation. I am critical of all members of American government who condoned murder as an instrument of our foreign policy. This is a sentiment that should be shared by persons of all political philosophies. I would note that the man who initiated contracting with the Mafia to kill Castro was a liberal CIA official and a Kennedy official.

Mark also wrote:

"Why then would the Soviets have LHO, a man with Communist leanings, in Dallas pointing suspicion right back at them?"

Mark, do you then take the position that Oswald was a definite Communist-leading leftist? Many people believe, as I do, that Oswald was probably working for US intelligence. If Oswald was a patsy, he was presumably set-up by Communists who knew his connections to US intelligence, knowing that those connections would guarantee a cover-up. It would be foolhardy indeed for the CIA to use as a patsy someone who could be connected to the CIA. The only rational explanation would be that Oswald was set up by renegade elements of the CIA who did not know of his connections to US intelligence. It seems to me that if Oswald was connected to US intelligence that fact almost conclusively rules out US intelligence as part of the conspiracy. Certainly there were genuine leftists who could have been made the patsy if necessary.

Frankly what might make me reevaluate my position was if I was convinced that Oswald was a genuine leftist but not in fact a KGB agent. Then I agree it would make no sense for the Soviets or Cubans to pin the assassination on him.

Your point that if Communists were behind the assassination they would have shut up and supported the lone nut theory is one, however, that merits serious consideration. One possible explanation is that the Communists arguning a right-wing conspiracy were not in fact aware that it was a Communist plot. I assume Communist intelligence also employed compartmentalization.

It is necessary to evaluate all possible scenarios. Another explanation is that Castro did it but without official Soviet sponsorship and those Soviets denouncing the lone nut theory may have even thought an investigation would prove CIA involvement if, as they suspected, Oswald was a CIA agent.

Edited April 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Mark wrote:

"Those trying to tailor an assassination to compliment their political philosophy are easily exposed." 

I assume this comment must be directed at the many leftists to attempt to argue that Kennedy was killed by, as Dawn put it, "the powers that be", but who offer not one scintilla of evidence to support that theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, while the rest of your post is an effective defense of your suspicions of communist involvement, your line about "scintilla" almost made me scream. When one looks over the historical record, one encounters Hoover, Specter, Belin, Posner, etc. using this line over and over, quoting each other, winking at each other, rolling around together in a field of poppies. The use of the word scintilla has become a code of sorts for "I refuse to think about what I don't want to think about and so I'm just gonna stomp my feet and insist there's no evidence to contradict what I want to believe." While you could very well be right about Castro--I think you're wrong--but you could be right--you should at least acknowledge that Oswald's getting killed while in police custody in LBJ's home state of Texas is many times more suspicious than Kostikov knowing Cubela, who was, after all, an official of a country his country had placed under protection. You should also acknowledge that LBJ's motive in killing Kennedy was many times stronger than Castro's motive; Castro, after all, had reason to think things were getting better, while LBJ, due to the brewing Bobby Baker scandal and Bobby Kennedy's lock on the Justice Department, could only think things were getting worse.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, you know of course that I greatly appreciate your work and efforts and your writings, and I look forward to reading each of your posts. I think it intelligent of you to acknowledge that I might be right about Castro. I in turn acknowledge that I could be wrong. As I have said before, I think that the evidence linking Castro is simply stronger than evidence pointing to others.

For instance, look at the Ruby shooting of Oswald. It is not clear that Ruby was assisted by the Dallas police but it is clear that Ruby was linked to organized crime. And there is evidence that fairly persuasively links him to visiting Trafficante in prison in Cuba in 1959. And I understand that it was Cubela who assisted in getting Trafficante temporarily released from prison so he could attend his daughter's wedding. Most people believe that Cubela was a double agent for Castro. So we have Trafficante linked to Oswald's killer and we also have Trafficante linked to a Castro double agent. And of course we have Trafficante's acknowledgement to his lawyer of his involvement in the assassination. And there is fairly compelling evidence that it was Trafficantec who had Rosselli whacked. Tie that into the alleged preassassination contacts between Rosselli and Ruby.

And how could Castro believe things were getting better with Kennedy when (if Cubela was a double agent) Cubela had reported to him that an American had assured him that his plan to kill Castro was personally endorsed by JFK's brother?

According to the Castro biography "Guerilla Prince" by a respected female journalist specializing in Latin American affairs, when Castro said to Jean Daniel that he admired JFK that was a lie because Fidel hated him and Havana was full of billboards excorciating Kennedy. Why would he not since he reasonably believed that Kennedy had approved the latest attempt on his life. Few if any people admire people they suspect of plotting their violent demise.

I do not believe one can reasonably argue that the person with the strongest motive killed Kennedy. I would not argue that it was Castro because he had a stronger motive than anyone else. However, in point of fact Castro did have the strongest motive since he faced continuing American efforts to kill him while JFK remained in office while LBJ only faced jail.

Even though I was not old enough to vote in 1964, I disliked everything about LBJ and, having read "A Texan Looks at Lyndon" had concluded he was a crook. Despite that, I would not like to think of a former American President as a murderer. I do have to grant, however, that LBJ certainly had a strong motive to kill Kennedy to possibly fend off a criminal conviction. And perhaps I should retract my "scintilla of evidence" remark since there is that alleged Malcolm Wallace fingerprint. However, interestingly, the "Blood and Money" book suggests that Wallace was probably a Communist so the possible participation by Wallace is not inconsistent with a Communist plot.

My rejection of LBJ as the "big fish" (wherever that term comes from) is based on the fear that engulfed him on November 22nd as well as my reading of "The Assassination Tapes". If LBJ was the "big fish" he was an incredible actor.