Mark Stapleton

Steve, I think that's the way it will happen, if it ever does. But it still is improbable, IMO. The strongest human instinct is self preservation. When Hitler invaded Poland he knew that some of his men would die but, if it started WW2 and he won, then he would probably not. Launching a nuclear warhead, with detonator, at a target with a known retaliatory capacity requires a different mindset altogether. It's a suicide note less the paper. The self preservation instinct is strongest in those who rise to positions of leadership and power over others. It follows that they would be unlikely to willingly discard all they have struggled to achieve over the years in order to achieve a mutual annihilation. It's ironic that the very potency of nuclear weapons makes their use very unlikely. There's many examples of nuclear armed powers initiating conventional wars against non-nuclear nations. They nearly always win but even when they don't, as in Vietnam, the nuclear option is never really entertained. Some might argue that if every nation were to develop a nuclear capacity, wars may cease altogether. Pure conjecture, of course.

Lee, Thanks for that interesting post. However, I think all that deployment of weapons on foreign soil was primarily a deterrent measure. Even back in '63 it was no small thing to start a nuclear war and the Pentagon knew how frightening the consequences would be. They would have had to consider the possibility of such an action destroying the world economy and America's pre-eminent place in it. There has never been a war between two nuclear armed countries and the reason, IMO, is that if such an event were to occur, the people waging the war would be just as likely to lose their lives, as well as the lives of their families and friends, as the rest of the citizens of that country, and if they managed to somehow survive they would emerge to find a toxic, shambolic mess. In a conventional war this scenario is much less likely. Digressing briefly, this is why I believe a nuclear attack from a country like North Korea is most improbable, despite Kim's threatening rhetoric. Why would he ensure the death of his family, children, future generations etc by launching a nuclear attack on Japan or South Korea ? Unlike most of his fellow countrymen, he has a lot to live for--dictators live in lovely mansions. The only instance where a nuclear armed nation would launch a nuclear attack on another nuclear armed nation would be, IMO, if they believed they were fulfilling some biblical prophesy pertaining to armagedden.

Ray, I just checked and you are 100% correct--it was Tom Howard, Ruby's lawyer. All that substance abuse much be catching up with me. It appears I've done Mr. Wade a disservice. Thanks for the correction.

I was joking, boofhead. No sense of humor, Tim.

Mark, I think you've posted some interesting thoughts on this thread, but I just can't buy your underlying assumption that the JCS were seriously wanting a pre-emptive nuclear strike. I agree with Ron that what they were really after was a lengthy engagement in Vietnam. They were a very aggressive group of Generals but (with the possible exception of Curtis LeMay) I don't think they were absolutely nuts. They must have known what the retaliatory strikes would do, not to mention the domestic and international ramifications of a nuclear strike on the USSR, let alone a pre-emptive one. IMO, the only chance that they wanted a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the USSR would be if they had been totally spooked by the Cuban missile crisis. That's possible I guess....

Tim's been tumbled!

Ray, I'm open to correction here but I'm almost certain I saw Henry Wade mouth the aforementioned words on a TV interview shortly after Ruby was arrested. I'm hoping Forum members will set the record straight. If I'm wrong I'm sure Tim will severely chastise me.

Yes, I'll agree LBJ was responsible for civil rights legislation although I believe JFK would had done the same after '64. The topic of the thread is "LBJ and civil rights--give the man his due". The second half of the title is open to interpretation and that's what I was doing--giving the man his due.

Charlie, Great post. I suppose it's easy to be wise after the event, but it's truly amazing that the DPD, FBI and Secret Service were allowed to get away with such behavior in the aftermath of the assassination. My favorite was D.A. Henry Wade stating on November 24 that Jack Ruby should be awarded a medal for shooting LHO. This should have resulted in his immediate dismissal from office. It proves that the assassination was engineered domestically, does anyone really think the machinery of natural justice would be so willingly sabotaged on orders from afar ? The DPD were being fed a line and they obeyed. They couldn't have seriously been conducting an investigation that way--nobody could be that dumb. The most disturbing thing was the way the media failed to analyse the circumstances surrounding the assassination.

Mark, You make a good point (one I forgot about), namely, after JFK's assassination a wave of public support and goodwill swept over LBJ making it easier for him to implement his policies. This is a phenomenon commonly observed when nations experience a deep crisis--they rally behind the leader. However, my point about LBJ not having the necessary leadership skills to carry the country with him is still, IMO, valid. Great leaders not only steer legislation through, they also convince the people that it is in their best interests. They do this by appealing to the nation with forceful arguments and sound logic. Sometimes this means going over the heads of those journalists and broadcasters who see their role as dissemination of the political process, and speaking directly to the public. The only two Presidents in recent times to display this ability were, IMO, JFK and Ronald Reagan. Despite the undeserving windfall of public goodwill bestowed on LBJ after the assassination, he was still unable to convince America that civil rights legislation and intervention in Vietnam were in the nation's best interests. He should have done much better with the former and, on the issue of Vietnam, a great leader would have seen that intervention was not in the interests of the nation and would have scrapped plans for a lengthy engagement (as JFK was planning to do). Unlike JFK, LBJ had no vision regarding America's place in the world, merely a desire to further enrich his cronies via lucrative contracts and beneficial policies, thereby ensuring their eternal gratitude (and his political survival). Unlike JFK, he didn't earn his wartime decoration by risking his life for his country--no, he earned his blue star (through political connections) for taking part in a bombing raid, as an observer, on a supply depot in New Guinea--he even took his camera! He had no vision, no courage, no sense of history and no intellectual credentials. A cheapjack hick, elevated by historical accident way beyond his ability.

The trouble with LBJ was that on the big issues he couldn't persuade the country to get behind him. On Vietnam, the country went with it tentatively then turned against it. On civil rights, the South were against it from the start and 1968 was America's worst year for racial unrest. He also presided over a relentless escalation of the Cold War. That's the third strike, isn't it? LBJ was a great backroom dealer and Congressional arm twister, navigating legislation through the Senate being his long suit. There the credit stops. He was no statesman. Where was his powerful oratory and his memorable speeches? I believe he modelled himself on FDR but didn't have the intuition to realise that the 30's and 40's were different from the 60's. JFK had more statesmanship in his big toe than LBJ ever had. Just my opinion of course.

An interesting post, Ron. To me this matter is so confusing it's not worth pursuing, although I'm sure it's material to the case.

Dixie: Cokie isn't about to swim against the official version of the JFK assassination. As you probably know, she is a television political analyst for ABC News. I strongly doubt she would be seen on ABC News again if she publicly questioned the official findings of the Warren Commission. Just my opinion, though. According to Harrison Livingstone in his book, "High Treason," Lindy Boggs helped the HSCA to continue with its investigation during the debate on the Floor by saying that her husband would have wanted it to go on. (p.320) Her husband Hale Boggs had major problems with the credibility of the single bullet theory. Bill Cheslock <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with you Bill. How many people are going to jeopardise their career to dig up a stinking dead cat ? Personally, I don't blame them. I don't give up on the case, though. All it takes is a Government to reopen the case and declassify all existing records. It will happen one day. Eventually America will have to unburden its conscience.

Jim, According to IMDb, "Seven Days in May" was released in the U.S. on February 12, 1964. Having been written and filmed prior to the assassination makes it almost prophetic. Back to the NSA, according to "Invisible Government", the first non-military director of the agency was Eugene G. Fubini, an Italian born physicist whose appointment was confirmed by the Senate in 1963. He had been questioned during the Armed Services Committee hearings in June 1963 about his political affiliations in Italy prior to his emigration to the U.S. in 1939. After working in the Airborne Instruments Laboratory in New York, he joined the Pentagon in 1961 and became convinced that vital national secrets were being given to the Russians through careless public disclosure. Prominent on his list of security violations were public statements made by Defense Secretary McNamara and his Deputy. The Agency came under the direct control of Defense Secretary. Why would he criticise his boss? Apparently the agency had suffered from many security scandals since its inception and when the House voted in 1963 to give the Defense Secretary absolute power to fire NSA employees without explanation or appeal it created a controversy with Thomas Gill, Hawaii Democrat, claiming that it opened the way to "arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of Government administrators". It was likened to "the Soviet Union, Red China and Castro's Cuba". None of this takes us very far in trying to find a connection with the assassination and this strange little agency except for the observation that it may have provided more evidence to those in authority that JFK was trying to take them further down the Communist path. That lousy pinko.

Stan, That is interesting. I recall that scene with RFK and Dobrynin from the movie "Thirteen Days" but I must have missed the reference to a military takeover. It's possible that RFK was overdramatising the situation in order to elicit the desired response but it's interesting all the same.

And what's Connally so worried about? ("My God, I wonder if they're going to kill us all.") <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Ron, Thanks for that. Regarding LBJ, this photo really speaks a thousand words. By the way, is that Roy Kellerman in the foreground sharing LBJ's wardrobe consultant? I agree Governor Connally looks surprisingly stern. I think JFK's impromptu speech was a slight dig at Texas and it's politics, a warm up for what he was planning to say at the Trade Mart. This might account for the Governor's disapproving glare.

The guy on the right looks German or Scandinavian. I don't think they are photos of the same man.

Jim, Thank you for that reply. I've just read your thread "Serendipity" in the seminars section and it answers many questions on both General Taylor and Major General Walker. Perhaps one of the reasons for JFK's initial approval of Taylor was because he had had such a spectacular falling out with the previous administration. As head of the JCS at the time of the assassination, it's hard to imagine him not being aware, and thus condoning or even planning the assassination. Also, I consider his predecessor, Lyman Lemnitzer, to be a "person of interest". Do you think a retired JCS chief would have more capacity or less capacity to involve himself in such a thing?

Stan, Thanks for the nice comments. Yes, I'm starting to come around to your assassination scenario, although I believe a Texas oil connection is in there as well. People like Clint Murchison and H. L. Hunt would have happily lent all the resources at their disposal to the cause ie. money and influence. Dallas was their "home ground" and the DPD, the Mayor and the D.A. were all there to follow orders with canine ferocity and dog-like obedience. There's a famous picture of JFK delivering his final speech outside the hotel in Fort Worth on the morning of November 22. Looking on is LBJ in a white trench coat with a knowing expression on his face that, for me, says it all. Maybe James or Robin will post it.

John, I was unaware that Boggs had made these claims before his death. If true, it makes his death even more suspicious. I suppose there's no chance the Government will reinvestigate his demise?

JFK researchers who reject the LNT are always being asked to believe in incredible coincidences but it looks like more than coincidence to me. Of course Major General Walker also has the strong Texas connection and his views on JFK were well known among his peers. The NSA is worthy of strong focus. Given its extraordinary secrecy provisions, research of this shadowy agency is not easy, as you are discovering. I note that a tie in with John Beltram Hurt is beginning to emerge as per your reseach on that thread. Great researching, Jim. Two quick questions; Did Major General Walker leave the USA shortly before the assassination and "hole out" overseas for a while as I've read elsewhere and was General Maxwell Taylor a personal friend of JFK's as I've also read elsewhere?

Maybe nothing worthwile will come out of BSE's book but LBJ and Cliff Carter are still smelling like month old fish.

Shanet, Thank you for the very informative overview of the NSA and its role in the intelligence community. Your comments are supported by David Wise and Thomas B Ross in "Invisible Government" (1964) which I've just read. Have you read this? Your assassination scenario has started to look quite interesting to me. The elevation of General Carter after the assassination is telling, although the book mentions that Carter was Deputy Director to Dulles at the CIA at the time of the assassination but was promoted to Director of the NSA in 1965. It doesn't mention Karamessines or Fitzgerald.

Tim, I was referring to post#5 on the aforementioned thread, posted by Don Jeffries which said in part that the reason for Greer's dislike of JFK was "well, he was a Catholic you know". Extramarital affairs weren't mentioned. I stand by my statement that having a driver who personally dislikes the man he is entrusted to protect is remarkable. Further, his immediate braking (after the first shots) does nothing to allay suspicions. A competent driver would have hit the gas and yawed the car all over the place in order to protect the President. If you read that thread you'll discover there was widespread condemnation of his actions by witnesses. Ralph Yarborough, who was a lot closer to the event than you or I, was scathing. And your analogy re Bill Clinton leaves me totally perplexed. It's not relevant.

Tim, I know little about the subject matter of this thread but I agree---James and Robin can post all the photos of Marilyn they have and I won't complain at all.