Mark Knight

Stan, while I haven't had the time to check out the links, I actually believe that, in the context of the JFK assassination, LBJ was used...or, more correctly, played like a grand piano. Johnson was predictable, if nothing else...and I believe that his predictability is what made him the perfect presidential puppet for those who pulled the strings. I no longer believe that the Don Reynolds testimony before Congress happening on the day of the assassination was mere coincidence; rather, I believe it was meant as a warning to LBJ: we can take, you down, too, if we so choose...so you can either march in step with us, or pay the price. In hindsight, could that not also have been the case with Nixon?...both LBJ and NIxon were dirty, but Nixon made the decision to try to cut the strings, while Johnson decided to do as he was told. Shanet, I believe you're on the right track...McCloy, Walker, Taylor, Mannlichers...the puzzle is coming together a bit more.

Lyndon Johnson was a 1930's "good-ol'-boy" politician trapped in the 1960's. He didn't understand television, apparently, or at least not well enough to mold a positive image of himself..and these days just about ANYONE can do that! And I agree with you that he failed to fully sell the country on Vietnam and civil rights. But, nevertheless, civil rights ended up being his legacy. Probably for all the wrong reasons, if my reading of Johnson is correct...and DESPITE his lack of statesmanship, vision, and true leadership. It happened, on his watch, and with his backing...so it was his accomplishment to rightfully claim. We can debate what LBJ SHOULD have done from here to eternity--and I honestly don't think we're on opposite sides of THAT issue--but it still won't detract from what was accomplished in regards to civil rights during his administration, and with his assent. And THAT, I believe, was the topic of this thread.

Try this link to a speech Oswald gave: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t+Oswald+speech From what I can determine, Oswald had a grasp of a sort of utopian--or, as he referred to it, "Trotskyite"--form of communism which differed significantly from the despotic Stalinism that we are more familiar with. So it's evident, from the text of the speech, that he read SOMETHING about communism, and he had a higher-than-average comprehension of the differences in the communism he "preached" and the communism practiced in the 1950's and 1960's in the Soviet Union and its spheres of influence. Whether this answers your question or not, it does indicate that Oswald had a working knowledge of the style of communism he allegedly advocated. I would surmise that his knowledge of the "failures" of Soviet-styled communism would imply that he had knowledge of their system as well; else he would NOT have been able to articulate the differences. Whether that is evidence of reading a particular piece of literature or not is a conclusion each researcher will have to draw individually. But that's just my impression.

In order to get his legislation passed, LBJ didn't need to sell the country; he merely needed to sell the Congress...which he did; that was his best skill. I don't argue, either that LBJ was a statesman; you can put a pig in a tuxedo, and he's still a pig...and you can put LBJ into the presidency, and he's still...well, you get the idea. But I'm beginning to believe that LBJ thought that, after the Bobby Baker scandal and the other messes that were bubbling just below the surface that had his fingerprints all over them, he needed to have his name associated with something that was more right than it was political, so that the judgement of history, of his legacy, would include SOMETHING positive. It is an innate desire of all men to be remembered for something; and to a career politician like Johnson, civil rights would be the ticket to raise his star, to distance him from all the hack political moves that had heretofore defined his career. No, that DOESN'T make him a statesman, by ANY means; it just makes him a shyster with a LITTLE bit of a conscience.

In the wake of the JFK assassination, LBJ got unprecedented congressional cooperation. Had there not been an assassination, JFK's tax-cut legislation, as well as Johnson's social programs, probably would have languished, victims of the filibustering skills of senators like Everett M. Dirksen [whom LBJ phoned to plead for his cooperation on the civil rights legislation].

Went thru the roster from WC report three times, and found no one named Aday...same with traffic and security detail. Is the Meatloaf blowin' smoke?

Johnson may have been a crook--I firmly believe it--but politically, he was a pragmatist above all else. Brown vs. Board of Education was, in 1963, already nine years old; yet racial discrimination and segregation still prevailed, not merely in the "deep South," but in cities in "border states" as well...cities like Louisville, Kentucky, where de facto segregation still exists though not necessaily due to discrimination any more. In Louisville, the home of three-time world heavyweight boxing champion Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, it really wasn't until after the riots over court-ordered busing in 1975 that a SERIOUS dialogue between the races began. Having grown up in the shadow of Louisville, I witnessed the struggles there, so I can speak of them confidently. My point about LBJ is that, as the pragmatic politician, he could feel the winds of change blowing directly in his face. He instinctively knew that the door had been opened toward equality, but it had been opened only a crack. He knew that unless the door was opened further a mighty explosion might occur, from the building rage and resentment that black Americans had from being told time and again, "Not yet" or "Not too much, nor too fast". In fact, the riots seen in America in the mid-1960's--Watts, Detroit, and countless others--were hinted at by Johnson when he spoke of "this patient stuff...this piecemeal stuff.." While it might have cost the party in the short term, Johnson also had to be thinking about the administration's legacy, and how history would remember them. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it became Johnson's legacy...and Lyndon Johnson, the old-school, dirty, crooked politician that he was, had a permanent, indelible halo for his presidential portrait, no matter what else came back to haunt him. No matter that Johnson was corrupt; his administration has a hallowed place in history for its contributions to equality and civil rights. And I believe that Johnson wanted the credit for prodding JFK in that direction, even if Kennedy was somewhat inclined that way himself. Not exactly atonment for Johnson's sins, mind you, but something positive for the scales of justice to weigh.

Tim, I hope you don't get discouraged in following this line of investigation. I still believe that SOME level of participation by pro-Castro forces, whether under the direction of Castro's government or not, is something that has NOT been 100% ruled out as at least a partial factor in the assassination. And as long as it is not an IMpossibility, the theory is still in play. While I personally don't believe that it was the DECISIVE factor in the assassination, I don't think that it's out of the realm of possibility. Your research in this area actually frees others of us to pursue other areas of our own curiosity in the matter, so just because some may suggest that your work is a waste of time and energy, don't get the impression that EVERYONE thinks that way. As I say, until you can rule OUT a theory, it's still a valid theory. Improbability doesn't necessarily translate to impossibility--on ANY theory--despite what some here might contend. And whenever someone tries to shut down ANY area of discussion, I'm reminded of McAdams and Posner and anyone else who thinks that all of the relevant evidence has already been seen...what are THEY trying to hide? The truth?

In an internet search for articles about singer Meatloaf, who was once known as Marvin Aday but now goes as Michael Aday, I found an article in which he claims that he has some knowledge about who was actually involved in the JFK assassination [yeah, yeah, they all do...]. Meatloaf, or more properly Mr. Aday, claims his dad was a member of the Dallas Police Department in 1963, and was on duty that day. The article further stated that the senior Mr. Aday had some problems with alcohol, and sometime later in the 1960's resigned from the DPD. I've not been able to put any meat on these bones, up to this point. Does anyone here have a roster of the DPD officers on November 22, 1963? What about assignments on that day? While I was initially inclined to blow this claim off as another "wannabe" seeking a second "fifteen minutes of fame", I'd hate for this to be an item that might just reveal some evidence we could actually use, after initially ignoring it. Anybody have anything on Mr. Aday and the DPD? Or is the Meatloaf just blowing smoke?

In my opinion, European dominoes begat visions of Asian dominoes, and the visions began with China and Korea, and progressed to Vietnam. When the French were getting their derrieres handed to them on a platter at Dien Bien Phu in '54, the US made the mistake of seeing this as a battle against communism...while hindsight gives us the insight to realize that it was more a battle against colonialism [anyone care to recall Algeria?]. The French sphere of influence was on its way out of existence, much as the British Empire also saw the sun set in the years following WWII. Unfortunately, the US view of Vietnam was regional [think Korea] rather than global [think India, et al]. There may be those who see the Vietnam war as a battle for control of the Indochina drug trade cloaked in the camoflage of capitalism-vs.-communism, and there may actually be a glimmer of truth in their arguments. But I believe that Vietnam began as a naive attempt by the US to help the non-communist government--ANY non-communist government--resist the tide of communism that some Americans saw as sweeping the earth. This is why, even in 1963, the US troops were still considered "advisors," and that their mission was to train the ARVN troops how to successfully wage war. Unfortunately, the bullheadedness of the US military leadership caused them to refuse to merely accept the ARVN's unwillingness to fight--by and large, the Vietnamese citizens didn't care WHO the government was, as long as they had rice and weren't being attacked--and walk away from the indifference of the Vietnamest people. But once committed, the US military was too blinded by pride to let what was essentially a civil war play out on its own; if the ARVN wouldn't fight Charlie, then by damn, WE'LL fight Charlie FOR 'em...it's for their own good. Friend and foe looked and spoke alike in Vietnam...and often, your friend today turned out to be your foe tomorrow. Essentially, the majority of Vietnamese MAY have cared about the outcome, but it became increasingly evident over the years that those who opposed the communists didn't care ENOUGH to keep the fight up themselves. Remember, "you can lead a horse to water, but..." There was no national unity in South Vietnam, or at least not enough to create a credible resistance. In the end, THAT is what doomed the US-led forces. With no visible desire to fight the communists shown by the South Vietnamese, the will of the US citizens to provide troops--and money--to defend those unwilling to defend themselves eventually crumbled. The Domino Theory was only partially correct; where the people had a strong enough will to fight their own battles, the people eventually prevailed against communist domination [witness Poland...a long time coming, but it signaled what could be accomplished by a proud people in the battle against repression]. But where the people were apathetic, communism took over despite outside help. The lesson the US should havelearned from Vietnam is that one cannot drag a country kicking and screaming into independence; that country must be a willing participant in the fight if the fight is to ever be successful. Whether the same result will occur in Iraq or Afghanistan remains to be seen. While the Afghani people are a race of fierce warriors [witness their fight against the Soviets], I believe it's still too early to judge whether the US-led "reform" government there will remain for a significant length of time. And in Iraq, the formation of a government, even WITH US guidance, has been a formidable challenge; whether stability will result still hangs in the balance. Stay tuned.

James, I almost wish you hadn't posted that photo...now all we need is a link to UFO's, and the people who dismiss conspiracy theorists as "nutcases" might have something to chew on... Still, good stuff...

My understanding of the way that the tax code is changed in the United States is that a bill originates in the House of Representatives, and it is first considered by the House Ways and Means Committee. After passage by the committee, the bill is then considered by the entire House, where it is subject to amendment; if passed by the house, the bill then goes to the Senate. In the Senate, after a similar committee hearing, the bill must be considered by the entire Senate. If the bill then passes the Senate, it next travels to a joint House-Senate conference committee, where any differences between the House-passed version and the Senate-approved version are worked out. It is only after this rigourous procedure that the President has the option to sign the bill. Often the bill presented to the President for signature bears little resemblance to the bill the President initially pushed the introducing House member to sponsor. In light of that, I would tend to agree with Tim, that Kennedy's advocacy of eliminating the oil depletion allowance would seem to have scant chance of being the PRIMARY motive for the assassination. After all, Kennedy's tax bill, which provided a tax CUT for most Americans, was bottled up in Congress at the time of his assassination, with little chance of passage. Surely this group of rich and powerful oil men could lobby/wine and dine/outright bribe enough Senators and Representatives to have a similar effect on any changes to the oil depletion allowance? Sure, the stakes were in the millions of dollars; but with 535 members of Congress, odds are that the elimination of the depletion allowance could have been scuttled without a single shot being fired, and without a single life lost.

My understanding of the way that the tax code is changed in the United States is that a bill originates in the House of Representatives, and it is first considered by the House Ways and Means Committee. After passage by the committee, the bill is then considered by the entire House, where it is subject to amendment; if passed by the house, the bill then goes to the Senate. In the Senate, after a similar committee hearing, the bill must be considered by the entire Senate. If the bill then passes the Senate, it next travels to a joint House-Senate conference committee, where any differences between the House-passed version and the Senate-approved version are worked out. It is only after this rigourous procedure that the President has the option to sign the bill. Often the bill presented to the President for signature bears little resemblance to the bill the President initially pushed the introducing House member to sponsor. In light of that, I would tend to agree with Tim, that Kennedy's advocacy of eliminating the oil depletion allowance would seem to have scant chance of being the PRIMARY motive for the assassination. After all, Kennedy's tax bill, which provided a tax CUT for most Americans, was bottled up in Congress at the time of his assassination, with little chance of passage. Surely this group of rich and powerful oil men could lobby/wine and dine/outright bribe enough Senators and Representatives to have a similar effect on any changes to the oil depletion allowance? Sure, the stakes were in the millions of dollars; but with 535 members of Congress, odds are that the elimination of the depletion allowance could have been scuttled without a single shot being fired, and without a single life lost. Don has made the point that money, power, and revenge were most likely the motives behind the assassination, and I tend to agree with him that it was more likely a combination of all three, rather than one factor exclusively, that precipitated the events that deadly day in Dallas. In my opinion, the question has never been WHICH was the motive; rather, the question remains: to what degree did each of these reasons factor into the assassination? That, my friends--as they said years ago--is the $64,000 question.

I believe that perhaps the three most common motives for murder are money, revenge, and power. John and Tim have, to some degree, covered the money and revenge angles. [Of course, no discussion of revenge in the JFK assassination case would be complete without mention of the Mafia...and I fully expect someone to add that angle to the revenge discussion in short order.] So that leaves power. In the Kennedy administration, there were power struggles going on almost constantly. The Bay of Pigs [bOP] invasion was a power struggle, where the CIA and those behind the invasion clamored for air support that Kennedy denied them. So Kennedy won the power struggle here, but probably added both the CIA and the Cuban expatriot community to the revenge column of accounts. And as early as 1961, there was a faction in the National Security Council--according to James Galbraith--which advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, during the projected "window of opportunity" in which US nuclear superiority over the Soviet union was guaranteed, a window which was projected to close around December of 1963. Yet JFK was resisting the overtures toward war, especially toward nuclear war and its risk of casualties on both sides in the millions of lives. And with National Security Action Memo [NSAM] 263, Kennedy was putting into motion a plan that, according to statements by Defense Secretary McNamara, would have withdrawn ALL American troops from Vietnam by early 1965. These decisions by Kennedy didn't sit well with the military; add in the 1963 Test Ban Treaty, and Kennedy's negotiated settlement of the Cuban Missile Crisis [negotiations which weren't revealed at the time], and the folks in the "war business" saw a President who was trying to put them OUT of business. While the President was, nominally, the Commander-in-Chief of the military, more often than not in American history presidents have merely "rubber-stamped" the military's desires to go to war. But Kennedy was actually exerciusing some power as Commander-in Chief, and the military powers-that-be were bristling at a civillian [ex-Navy or not] who was calling the tune. If something wasn't done soon, the military forces of the United States might just become what their cabinet department had been named after WWII--a Department of Defense, rather than a Department of War, as it had been known for most of US history. The military had to find a way to wrest the power to make war from the hands of this apparent peace-lover, and place the power into the hands of one not so reluctant to let the men of war do what they knew best. And if they could make the "changing of the guard" appear to be the result of a plot from our arch-enemy, the war they drooled for might be precipitated. But it wasn't ONLY the military that craved power. LBJ wanted to be President more than anything in the world [the admonition "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind in this case]; the same could be said for Richard Nixon. While both LBJ and Nixon apparently lacked the power themselves to pull off the Kennedy assassination, each had associates capable of engineering the feat, and BOTH appear to have had some knowledge and involvement in the assassination AFTER the fact. And this is why, over 40 years later, there is still reasonable doubt. What WAS the actual motive? Money? Revenge? Power? There is considerable circumstantial evidence pointing in each direction, but at this point we haven't determined with 100% certainty WHO held the actual "smoking gun," much less the actual motive for what was undoubtedly the "crime of the century."

My contention about LBJ is based upon the fact that, right after the assassination, he spoke of NOT wanting a Congressional investigation or a Presidential commission, and how the assassination was, properly, a legal matter for the Great State of Texas to investigate and settle. LBJ was convinced, apparently, that since the matter wasn't addressed by federal law, it was a matter for the state of Texas...period...and his phone conversations in the first days after the assassination reflect this. In fact, he seemed adamant about it. But by the 29th of November, Johnson had done a complete reversal of course. On my first reading of the LBJ tapes transcripts a few years ago, my response was, "WHO got to him, and HOW?" While I realize that Johnson was a political opportunist, whose "convictions" were whatever was the more politically profitable for him, even for a sleazeball like Johnson this reversal was out of character. THEN when I read Galbraith's articles, it suddenly made sense. I firmly believe that there was a faction of the military that was hell-bent on nuclear war, and the Warren Commission was first a device to buy LBJ some time--and distance--from the assassinatio itself, and then secondarily a device to skew the results away from the itchy trigger fingers...while giving Johnson a way to turn Vietnam into something of a pacifier for the military to suck on. Remember those flimsy fallout shelters that Americans were advised to build in the late '50's and early '60's? Obviously, they weren't designed to withstand a Soviet nuclear attack on the US; but they WOULD protect Americans from the nuclear fallout generated by an AMERICAN nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. So the idea of the military actually advocating a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union isn't that far-fetched; and if a faction of the military actually advocated such an attack, the only question remaining is, how far would they go to make it actually happen? Obviously, the assassination of a FOREIGN head of state wasn't out of bounds; what would make a DOMESTIC assassination out of the question, in order to get their nuclear attack finally under way...and within the "window of opportunity," during which US nuclear superiority was still assured? I believe that there were actually two schools of thought within the military structure; one, as Ron points out, wanted a perpetual enemy so there could be some sort of permanent reason to keep military expenditures high...a self-perpetuating job, one in which none of their functions would ever become obsolete, one based upon the hardware and manpower of conventional warfare. But I firmly believe there was a second type of military mindset, one that wantoe to be able to demonstrate to the world that the US was not only the most powerful nation in the world, but that we had the cajones, if you will, to use our might if the need ever arose. As the current war in Iraq demonstrates, having nukes but being afraid to use them [actually, being cautious and judicious about their use] makes the United States vulnerable to the smallest principality with a car and some dyanmite. Immediately after WWII, the US' apparent willingness to use nukes made us respected and feared by the other nations of the world whose respect and, in some cases, fear was justified. I believe that the pro-nuke faction foresaw a day, like today, in which the awsome might of the US nuclear arsenal no longer was feared by ANY nation, because EVERYONE in the world would know that it would never be used again. The 1963 test-ban treaty made these military minds question JFK's resolve. If he was ultimately unwilling to use America's most awesome and destructive weapons, was he really fit to lead the country? And then add NSAM 263 to the mix...to them, not only was Kennedy a coward when it came to nukes, he was going to pull the plug on the conventional war, too...all the while with Berlin and Cuba simmering on the back burners, and no will to flex our military muscles in either of these places. I believe that the JFK administration had reached "critical mass"...the military was, effectively, at odds with the commander-in chief; the pro-Castro Cubans hated him, as did the anti-Castro Cuban expatriots; the sex scandals could explode in their faces at any moment, as the press had caught the story and some were smelling blood; The Bobby Baker scandal was about to sink Johnson, and the November 22 testimony of Don Reynolds would've clinched it; the mob was ready for revenge, for both the failure to give Cuba back to them and for Bobby's relentless prosecutions, despite the help they gave the JFK campaign in '60 [the Hoffa issue just added fuel to the fire, as far as the mob was concerned]; The Kennedy tax-cut plan was bogged down in Congress; the "negro" problem, as some in the administration saw the civil rights case, was getting worse instead of better. As of 12:29 pm on November 22, 1963, the implosion of the Kennedy administration was all but assured. At 12:30, all of these problems were resolved. All except the problems with the military. NSAM 273 had already been drafted, reversing JFK's position on Vietnam; it just need the new executive's signature. When that happened, Vietnam was a "go", and escalation was just around the corner. But what if the military tried to convince the new chief executive that, because of the change in commander-in-chief, the Soviets would now think we're vulnerable to a nuclear strike, and that our only chance at survival was that pre-emptive strike that had been on the books for years? Sure, it might cost us as many as 40 million American lives; but wasn't that a small price to pay, relatively speaking, to assure that we didn't end up as yet another nation under Soviet communist domination? In terms of 1963, I cannot fathom that such a conversation DIDN'T take place...whether there were any records of it or not. After all, the idea that "godless communists" were bent on "world domination" hadn't gone away in 1963; we still had Civil Defense drills, even in small towns, in order to prepare for the "expected" communist nuclear attacks. In fact, it seems to me that it was only AFTER the Kennedy administration ended that this kind of talk faded away. So even as the Soviet nuclear arsenal increased, it became less and less of a concern. [illigical, but interesting to consider.] I think that, rather than a Soviet attack becoming less of a possibility, it was actually the chance of an AMERICAN "pre-emptive" attack that faded after the "window of opportunity" passed, and the WC Report concluded that there was no Soviet conspiracy.

Tim, I think you and I are on the same page, to a degree..but I may not be expressing my ideas as well as I might. I'm going to cop an excuse that it's because I'm writing this after a physically-draining third-shift job, which tends to make the mental "muscles" sluggish as well. My point is NOT that Johnson WANTED to start a nuclear war to avenge JFK's death; in fact, I believe exactly the opposite. I believe that Johnson wanted to PREVENT a nuclear war to avenge JFK's death. But I also believe that elements of the military were pressuring him to move in that direction, and that they might seriously have considered the assassination as "sufficient provocation"...where else would LBJ have gotten the idea that "40 million American lives" might have been at risk, had a Soviet-based conspiracy been discovered? Frankly, under NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES would that number of Americans have been at risk. I repeat...NO other circumstances. I believe LBJ was running scared. After all, if the military HAD managed to kill JFK over his refusal to let them get rid of the nukes in Russia--and China, it seems, since the main complaint was the lack of flexibility in the nuclear option's plans--then how much easier would it be to rid themselves of an old man with a known history of heart problems? I honestly believe that LBJ realized that this time, he was so overmatched as to be completely impotent, with the exception of influencing the outcome of the WC conclusion...and he HAD to plant the seeds of the "no Soviet/Cuban conspiracy" outcome even as the commission was being constructed, twisting arms with the appeals to both patriotism and the saving of millions of American lives. For THAT conclusion, there certainly IS more than a "scintilla of evidence"...re-read the text of the LBJ phone calls, in case you've forgotten. And if you disagree with my conclusion, PLEASE tell me under what circumstances YOU believe LBJ would've had reason to bring up the possible loss of 40 million American lives, in the context of the Warren Commission's investigation. I believe that no other conclusion allows LBJ's comments to make sense. Taking the pre-emptive nuclear strike idea further, it would tend to add credence to L. Fletcher Prouty's claims, but from a somewhat different direction than Prouty leads us. It would mark the assassination as a government job, and the military as the architects, and it would tie in to Vietnam as Prouty claims...but Vietnam would be the CONSOLATION prize handed to the military, rather than the nuclear "kewpie doll" they actually sought. There are a lot of other avenues in which the pre-emptive nuclear strike scenario makes sense of other, otherwise-conflicting theories on the JFK assassination, all of which are supported by bits and pieces of the evidence. But without SOME event as monumental as a proposed nuclear strike, all this patchwork evidence simply won't make a quilt. If we have competing factions within the government fighting over something as significant as nuclear war, the idea of losing a single life--even if it IS the President--is preferable to losing 40 million in the response to a pre-emptive nuclear strike...and that only considers one possible view of the "prevent" team! And as far as determining when a pre-emptive strike is justified...after all the smoke, ash, dust, and radiation clears, who would be left in the USSR to challenge the US position that we were provoked? If the attack was successful...NO ONE. And I can picture the "pro-attack" faction of the military actually putting forward such an argument...and adding how much safer the world would be if the Soviet--and Chinese--nuclear weapons were destroyed. [Remember that the Soviet ICBM's were considered somewhat unreliable; the Chinese at that point had no viable missile delivery system]. And I'd wager that, in some still-classified file somewhere, there's an assessment weighing whether a scenario wherein up to 40 million American lives were a cost worth bearing in order to achieve world security, as well as the status of being the only surviving superpower. There have been studies made of even more outrageous scenarios in the past, which have been classified until recent years; it's hardly a stretch of the imagination to suggest that this particular one may have also been done during the early 1960's.

After looking over the info on the SIOP--which, as you mentioned, Galbraith failed to mention--I believe that on the whole, Galbraith is fundamentally correct. One of JFK's concerns about the SIOP--and one which goes back at least as far as the 11/20/58 NSC meeting--was the inflexibility of targeting. That is, the US strategic plan was, to quote [out of context] a Steppenwolf song, "...fire all of your guns at once...", without differentiating between Chinese or Soviet or any other targets, as the plan was pretty much an "all-or-none" approach to nuclear weapons. Galbraith also correctly notes that, even without a Soviet counter-response, the effects of nuclear fallout on the US population was a significant concern. So it would occur to me that, for the most part, the documents you reference only tend to support Galbraith. Where we have a difference of opinion--interpretation?-- is whether a pre-emptive attack on the USSR would REQUIRE a specific warning of an impending Soviet attack. It's MY contention that, in the wake of the JFK assassination, the assassination itself would have been considered sufficient provocation to launch such a pre-emptive attack, had there been sufficient evidence of a Soviet or Cuban conspiracy. I further believe that LBJ's comments to both Earl Warren and Senator Russell support this position...and that, from the context of LBJ's comments, he's implying that he is already under pressure to exercise that option, should the evidence lead in the direction of a Soviet or Cuban plot. As viewed thru the prism of the 2003 pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, I firmly believe that there was probably a faction in 1961 who was also of the opinion that, if America waited for sufficient provocation from the Soviet Union, it would already be too late...just as there was in 2003 regarding Iraq. "If we wait to retaliate, we're already too late," goes that line of reasoning. Besides, how does one determine exactly what is "unequivocal strategic warning of impending Soviet attack on the U.S.", at a point at which a PRE-EMPTIVE attack would be possible? UNTIL a Soviet missile was launched, there was ALWAYS a possibility that the "impending" attack could be cancelled; AFTER a missile launch, the attack is no longer PRE-EMPTIVE, but REACTIVE. So I think that gives the NSC and JCS some "weasel room" as to when they could launch a pre-emptive attack...and I fully believe they ALL realized that fact. There may, indeed, be "honor among thieves," but the 2003 attack on Iraq demonstrated that the military establishment will bend the facts to fit the war [WMD's? Risk to the national security of America?]...and I have little reason to believe that the policy was much different in 1961-63.

Nancy, I believe you're mistaken on LBJ and Vietnam. Through the US participation in SEATO--the SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization, a NATO-like structure--the US became involved in Vietnam in 1954, after the French disaster at Dien Bien Phu. That would have been under the Eisenhower administration. Under the Kennedy administration, the US sent "advisors" to train the ARVN soldiers. It was well documented, however, that the American "advisors" often had to fight to defend themselves after the ARVN soldiers turned tail and ran on the battlefield. In October of 1963, JFK drafted NSAM [National Security Action Memo] 263, in which he stated his plan to reduce US involvement by 1,000 troops by the end of 1963...and McNamara and others state their belief that JFK planned to pull ALL American forces out of Vietnam by 1965. But NSAM 263 was never made public during JFK's lifetime, and on November 23, 1963 NSAM 273 --which ESCALATED American involvement in Vietnam-- was revealed to LBJ [it had evidently been drafted prior to JFK's assassination, but never signed], and it had LBJ's signature by November 26, 1963. Was Nixon set up? It was his own words on tape that brought him down...taped on his own White House taping system. Nixon's own words proved that he had been involved in the obstruction of justice. It's awfully hard to be "set up" to confess, especially if you hadn't done anything wrong. No, the truth is, Nixon was dirty. And LBJ was also dirty. One's guilt doesn't absolve the other. But LBJ never got a presidential pardon "for any crimes he may have committed"; Nixon did. Quite an unusual application of the presidential pardon, as they are usually granted only AFTER a conviction for a crime. As far as I know, Nixon's presidential pardon was the ONLY one ever granted PRIOR TO a trial or conviction. To me THAT says a mouthful about Gerald Ford's beliefs on Nixon's guilt.

Frankly, I'm rather surprised that this topic has generated so little interest. If my suspicions are correct, on November 22, 1963, the United States of America became the world's largest "banana republic," when the military engineered a coup to remove the elected leader. By implicating the Soviet Union and/or Cuba, the MIC expected to get their highly-desired nuclear attack under way. That, of course, would explain a lot of the "unexplained" circumstances around the JFK assassination. Like the presence of Army intelligence in Dealy Plaza...like the Guy Bannister/ONI connection...and on and on. And in true military and CIA tradition, to assure "plausible deniability," all the factions who had an axe to grind with JFK were let in on parts of the plan...the Mafia...pro-Castro cubans...anti-Castro Cubans...so that no one could finger the actual shooter, because there were so many. But since no one knew ALL the details, the plan never unraveled. Of course, there were those on the National Security Council who were opposed to the proposed nuclear strike on the Soviet Union; that would explain why there is evidence emerging that there were both "hit" and "prevent" teams operating in Dallas that day. My further guess is that the Secret Service wasn't privy to the plan, else the motorcade might have been cancelled over security concerns. As far as LBJ's involvement, as VP he was briefed on the NSC meetings that he didn't sit in on, so he was not only aware of the proposed nuclear strike but also the "window of opportunity" that was projected to close in December, 1963. So my guess is that Johnson might have been told of the plot, but he may not have taken it 100% seriously until events unfolded before his eyes. I'm guessing that the planned overnight stay at the LBJ Ranch was when/where Johnson planned to plead his case to stay on the ticket in 1964...but had the assassination not occurred, the Reynolds testimony before Congress that day would have probably been the deciding factor in convincing Kennedy to dump Johnson. In fact, I'm speculating that the Reynolds testimony was part of the "prevent" team's efforts. WHY? Because, had the news of the Reynolds testimony come to the attention of the national media an hour before the assassination, LBJ's prospects of KEEPING the presidency--had the assassination taken place as it did--would've been in grave doubt. As events occurred, the Reynolds testimony was "lost," not to be considered until such a late date that it was of no effect. AFTER the assassination, BOTH sides who knew the details also knew that they had to keep what they knew quiet. If the MIC got their way, and the Soviets were blamed and the proposed nuclear strike became a reality, the "prevent" side of the NSC could never reveal the truth. And if the "prevent" side managed to only prevent a nuclear war, the "hit" side could never reveal that they actually tried to provoke nuclear war. And since the NSC consideration of nuclear war was classified information, BOTH sides were sworn to silence. And in the aftermath, in the same manner as LBJ arm-twisted his appointees to the Warren Commission, pressure was applied to doctors, policemen, and witnesses...all in an effort to NOT link the assassination to a conspiracy--or at least not to any PARTICULAR conspiracy--on the grounds of patriotism, when a reason could be cited. The "prevent" team had to present a case that there was no Soviet-tied conspiracy, so as to prevent retailation by nukes. But the "hit" team, when they realized that the Soviet conspiracy theory wasn't going to be officially embraced, had to let the other conspiracy theories float; a grain of truth in each, so that the assassination would never be traced to the actual perpetrators in the military community. So who ACTUALLY pulled the trigger? It might be easier to answer the question who DIDN'T fire a shot in Dealy Plaza. The military got the "palace coup" they wanted, but LBJ eventually thwarted the nuclear-retailation option. Had Johnson grown a conscience? Hardly. But it was probably far easier to sleep at night knowing that, while he might have had this one or that one individual "snuffed," he sure as hell wasn't responsible for risking the lives of 40 MILLION Americans. To keep the military sharks at bay, Johnson agreed to implement NSAM 273, bury NSAM 263, and later created the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The result? the MIC got their war, sans nukes, and LBJ got to live. I mean, with his history of heart problems, it would've been easy to slip LBJ a "loaded" slice of apple pie, as the Gemstone writer alleges was done to J. Edgar Hoover...and I'm sure Johnson realized as much. But since LBJ couldn't possibly let the country--and the world--know that, by hiding the truth of the JFK assassination he'd actually prevented a nuclear war, he instead decided to make the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the "Great Society" programs become his legacy. LBJ was still a scoundrel, but throughout his presidency he was, effectively, a dog on a short leash...and the MIC held the other end. Nixon? As VP, he was aware of the NCS assassments regarding the prospects of nuclear war with the Soviet Union since at least 1957. By 1960, it's almost a certainty that he knew about the "window of opportunity" for a pre-emptive strike on the Soviet Union--since the VP was either present at, or briefed on, NSC meetings. And in light of this proposed "window of opportunity," Ike's warning about the MIC in his farewell address becomes significantly more urgent than most people understood at the time. Ike couldn't actually come out and mention the nuclear strike option, but when re-reading his words in that context, it's unmistakable, to me, that this is EXACTLY what his reference is. So if Ike knew about it, Nixon surely knew about it. And Nixon was a "hawk," when it came to the military. With his insight into international relations, you can bet Nixon knew damned well what a possible Soviet conspiracy would mean after the assassination. But did Nixon have some foreknowledge? I tend to think that some in Washington kept Nixon informed as to what was going on behind the scenes--CIA possibly, in light of his approval of the BOP operation, and Kennedy's lack of enthusiasm for the project and general disdain for the CIA in the aftermath. So if Nixon was being informed by a CIA source, it's not a phenomenal leap to assume he had some level of awareness of the assassination plot. The Watergate tapes imply that this was so; and Nixon assumed throughout his presidency that his knowledge of "this Bay of Pigs thing" was his ticket to immunity from anyone inside the government allowing him to be brought down...a major miscalculation on his part, as history has shown. In fact, I believe that it's quite possible that the nuclear war option might actually tie up ALL the loose ends in the JFK assassination...as well as making more sense of Oswald's speech before the Jesuit students during his stay in New Orleans, as he spoke in terms of a post-nuclear-war society. The scary part is, if I'm right about this, I might not be able to buy life insurance again, if history is our guide in these matters. I realize it's a long post...but I think it deserves more discussion than it's received to this point.

I believe that some of you may be missing the point I was attempting to make: that factions of the NCS and the JCS were trying to start a pre-emptive nuclear war against the Soviet Union as early as 1961; JFK was against it; and with JFK out of the way AND by making his assassination look as though the Soviets and/or the Soviet-sponsored Cubans were behind it, it was an unprecedented opportunity to not only have their nuclear war, but to do so with the blessing of not only the majority of the US citizenry, but perhaps the blessing of most of the civilized world. Now, had LBJ been in favor of such a nuclear war, he could have been a little less of an arm-twister in establishing his presidential commission, yet he could have packed it with persons of the proper political persuasion [pardon the accidental alliterative ambush] to come to any conclusion he wanted. But it appears that LBJ was more interested in making it known that there was one outcome he DIDN'T want from the commission, rather than making a case for any particular outcome that he DID prefer to see. Maybe I'm just being hard-headed here, but combined with the burial of NSAM 263 and the emergence of NSAM 273, it appears that Johnson may have figured that the MIC was behind the assassination--in fact, with the General Dynamics/Bobby Baker connection that came out in Congressional testimony on November 22, 1963 [testimony that was pushed off the pages of the newspapers by JFK's assassination, rather conveniently it would seem], LBJ's knowledge of MIC involvement would seem to be a question of "how much" he knew, rather than "if" he knew--and decided his response would be, "I can't let you have your nukes, but I'll let you have Vietnam, bigger and better than ever." So LBJ also let the "window of opportunity" for a pre-emptive nuclear strike slip away, as well an opportunity to not only nuke Moscow but to have Mr. and Mrs. America cheering as he did so. But, knowing the terrible price JFK paid for not OKing the nuclear strike, LBJ offered them Vietnam as a consolation prize...not so much to save the lives of millions in the Soviet Union, but to NOT lose 40 million potential American voters, most of whose sympathy he'd just "earned" by JFK's death. Remember, LBJ was a politician before anything else. Now, I'm not saying the CIA wasn't involved in the assassination; a lot of evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, points toward the conclusion that they WERE involved. I'm just opening up the possibility that ANOTHER reason for the assassination MAY have been JFK's reluctance to give the NSC and JCS their nuclear war, and they saw JFK's assassination as their best opportunity to PROVOKE the nuclear strike, with the approval of the Americal people. My point on THIS thread is NOT to debate which of the possible guilty parties to the assassination may have been "patsies" under this scenario. Indeed, with the CIA, the Mob, the Cubans, The Soviets, the Birchers, and God-knows-how-many-other allegedly aggrieved parties being mentioned as possible assassins or conspirators--or both--it is conceivable that we could spend a lot of time on the "who" aspect, which has previously been developed a lot of directions on a lot of other threads, and lose sight of another potential "why" that arises when we consider what this NSC/JCS desire for a pre-emptive NUCLEAR strike on the Soviet Union actually might mean in the context of the assassination. SO...OK if we consider THAT aspect? Or am I out of line to ask that?

John, those are exactly the quotes I recalled reading. Originally, I had mentioned Russell and the 40 million number in my post, but because I didn't have the quotes, I went with Galbraith's linking of Earl Warren and the number 100 million. But this is exactly a smoking gun, that LBJ instructed Russell, at least, NOT to find a Cuban- or Soviet-based conspiracy, on the grounds [implied] that to do so could precipitate a nuclear war, and that [specifically] forty million American lives could be lost in a matter of minutes. The idea comes to mind that LBJ, being the political pro that he was, traded a nuclear war for the escalation of Vietnam, and the NSC and the JCS bought the trade. But it also sounds as if, by the arm-twisting techniques Johnson used on Russell, he was actually scared that, if he [Johnson] didn't prevail, a nuclear war was inevitable...and, as the man behind the Warren Commission, history would eventually judge him as a great humanitarian when the story finally came out that he had averted nuclear war. In other words, he actually was "a legend in his own mind." But by doing so, Johnson also set back the cause of TRUTH more than 40 years, and counting, to this point.

Awhile back, I became aware of an article by James K. Galbraith regarding the National Security Council (NSC) and the discussion, as early as 1961, of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. http://www.prospect.org/print/V5/19/galbraith-j.html While the prospect of nuclear war paints a chilling picture, it also might give us some more insight into the reasons behind the JFK assassination. Had there been a conncetion found between the JFK assassination and the Soviet Union, there is little doubt but that a military response would have been appropriate. Given the details of the Galbraith article, if LBJ truly was worried that such a nuclear war was about to begin, it's no wonder that he would have been adamant that his presidential commission find NO evidence of Soviet involvement...or that Johnson even convened a commission to begin with, in order to bring about a cooling-off period of six to nine months, in order that the NSC's "window" for such a pre-emptive nuclear attack would have closed. In that way, should the story ever come out, Johnson and his supporters could claim that he had saved millions of lives by his actions, lives that certainly would have been lost in a nuclear war. It would also make some sense of Johnson's comments to Chief Justice Earl Warren, when trying to persuade him to become chairman of the Warren Commission, that a hundred million lives may hang in the balance (I don't have the exact quote at hand, but it was along those lines). Has this previously been discussed here?

Ron, I believe you're on the right track. JFK was being baited toward war for his entire administration. The most obvious examples were the BOP, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Vietnam situation he inherited from Ike. But here's something else we can't rule out: the NSC/JCS allegedly wanted a pre-emptive NUCLEAR strike on the Soviet Union, according to information from James K. Galbraith: http://www.prospect.org/print/V5/19/galbraith-j.html According to the information I've seen on this, the "window of opportunity" in which the US's nuclear superiority over the USSR would stil provide a favorable outcome, was projected to close in the third quarter of 1963. And since JFK has let the window close, he was endangering national security, in the eyes of some powerful people. Is that reason enough to kill him, or have him killed? If you add this to the information already known, it may have been enough to tip the scales.

Indeed, what WAS Tippitt doing in Oak Cliff at 1 pm? According to the MP3 I have of the KLIF broadcast from 11/22/63, the Dallas Police Dispatcher informed a KLIF newsman immediately after the shooting was reported that ALL available officers were ordered to report immediately to the area of Elm and Houston, "code 3" [full lights and siren operating]. Apparently, Tippitt never obeyed the order. I find that strange, to the point of incredible. Here we have the reported shooting of the President of the United States, and all available officers are ordered to report to the scene of the shooting, and Tippitt disobeys the order. When a crime of this magnitude is involved, and an officer disobeys an order to report to the scene of the crime, all sorts of warning lights and bells go off in my mind. Apparently the same reaction didn't occur within the DPD. I find that strange... am I the only one?