Why Was JFK Killed?

[David Josephs]

As I said about the Middle East when we started. I didn't know why anyone would consider it important in the context of why JFK was assassinated. If it was even an item, I think it would have been minor. There were certainly much hotter political spots going on around the world at that time and it's not an issue that I have considered important within that context. Cuba, Viet Nam, Berlin, Laos, were hot spots and seem to have been higher on the agenda. I hope that these items were not the primary cause of his death, but then I suspect that the agenda was to get rid of him and they just found a reason.

As i said on one of the comments above, I didn't even think about the fact that I was in the middle east in 58-59-60-61 until I started discussing it. Strange.....(Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, amongst others)

With all due respect Kenneth... These other hot spots did not control a large portion of the world's oil.

There is a larger context than the movement of leaders in and out of power. Israel and the US are linked, period... JFK was all for relieving tensions and de-escalation everywhere on the planet.

How does that bode for business and the spread of democratic capitalism when we are supposed to adopt a live and let live mentality with the world's emerging nations while our #1 enemy WAS INDEED looking to turn any and all nations toward communist rule centered in Moscow...

To the majority of America's defenses and offenses related to this equal yet opposite spread of ideology, JFK's hopes and energies pushed in that direction meant either a drastic shift in how control, power and fortune was made... or the removal of this one man and his voice in favor for what we've seen since... and it's disgraceful that we could have lead the planet towards peace but due to justified paranoia and timing it was not to be.

Why was any leader who pushed for equality in the use and benefits of the world's (or that nation's) resources seen as a threat? Kinda of answers itself, no?

Nations were/are created to give sovereignty (and therefore the right to defend itself) to the lands of the wealthy against those who would take them,domestic or foreign.

IMO the desire of the "sponsor" level of this tragedy was to keep the world's duality going. Us against Them from both sides - you think if the KBG believed they were winning, which they were, they'd want to give up their lead for peace?

IMO JFK was killed to solidify the hold on the government these sponsors gained in the 8 Ike years after planting the seeds from about 1935. JFK was strong enough a leader to stir the people to action... revolutionary action in the eyes of the Sponsors and the Facilitators who enabled them

(btw Sponsor-Facilitator-Mechanic is a model to identify those involved, developed by Drago and Evica)

To conclude that he was killed for any one reason is to, imo, miss the larger context of those who run things within the Mil Ind Cong Complex

[Kenneth Drew]

Good summation, DJ. I don't disagree with any of it.

With all due respect Kenneth... These other hot spots did not control a large portion of the world's oil. True, but they did involve areas where a lot of personal fortunes had the potential to be made or lost. Look how many got super rich from Viet Nam alone.

One very compelling situation was developing that had an overwriting effect was LBJ's future. Presidency or jail ? Wonder if that was a hard decision for him?

The Mafia certainly had several persons whose life was being impacted.

I have no problem believing any or all of these factors were involved in driving the conspiracy to remove JFK. who got there first? Who gave the 'go ahead'? While there are several potential answers to that, the question of who covered it up is a little more straight forward. But the fact that the coverup was orchestrated by those at the level it was says a lot about where the order/decision for the shoot came from. Within that context, I don't feel as if the 'Middle East Situation' was even a serious talking point when decision time arrived.

[James DiEugenio]

Kenneth:

If JFK was anti Saudi Arabia and anti Shah, and he was backing guys that were trying to spread progressive, even socialist policies in a pan Arab sweep, I mean you don't think someone noticed that? Like maybe David Rockefeller for instance?

Further, as I noted in my power point presentation, just one mine in Indonesia, the famous Grasburg mine yielded 2.6 billion worth of gold, silver and copper in just one year in this millennium, when it was over 30 years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasberg_mine

That mine is on the island that JFK deliberately made the Dutch give back to Sukarno in 1962. In 1965 when--in one of the most ingenious operations the Agency ever executed--Suharto and the CIA overthrew Sukarno, it was one of the very first properties that Suharto laid open for international investment. Freeport Sulphur, was very interested. As Lisa Pease proved while she was co editing Probe with me. Below is a link to a landmark article she wrote. As you can see from where it is linked, people all over the world found out about this piece. It actually inspired a book called Freeport in Indonesia.

https://newhistorian.wordpress.com/2007/01/24/jfk-indonesia/

Hate to tell you Ken, but that is big money, even today.

JFK's foreign policy was reshaping places all over the globe. In the direction of nationalism, not imperialism. We in the JFK community speak only of Cuba and Vietnam, 98% of the time. Mainly because those were the most obvious ones. And everyone then made like lemmings, as they usually do in this community.

But Kennedy was breaking with the past in many places. And that meant a lot of money was on the table.

Edited August 6, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Josephs]

And I'm with you up to the Middle East not being serious talking point especially within this context. What we did in Israel after JFK is very telling, no?

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/arab-israeli-war-1967

And a little history from the Jewish perspective https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/roots_of_US-Israel.htmlwhich is a great site as well to see the actual letters between JFK and Ben-Gurion The JFK section of this site is quite deep and is very helpful in coming to one's own opinion about the time and context.

Emotions pro/con Israel were as high as for communism, as I see it. One compelling reason support for Israel was always so strong was that family banking conglomerates remained sympathetic to Israel and in charge of much of the US economic base. I'm not saying that his stance one way or the other was a critical factor in his demise... but it can't be dismissed as a minor factor.

I truly believe that our ability to understand the tensions and fears and the stakes involved at this time in history cannot be understated.. Stories and understanding handed down the generations cannot account for this mindset switch. The only ideology that repeatedly wins appears to be the spending of other people's money while simultaneously saddling debt on the population... Most the -ism's, from my readings of history keep coming around to this one thing - who gets to spend the money, how do I/We get to keep as much from this spending of other people's money and by God we better be defending the right to live this way and get others to see it too.

Look at the 2 top Republicans... Funny thing, the Bush family is probably worth 10x Trump... but you still don't spend YOUR money, you spend other people's and make a lot of friends. and you never let 'em know how much you got...

At the core of the question asked of this thread must be cooperation among some very key people to accomplish the How. Galloway & Burkley at Bethesda basically create the evidence to support Oswald from behind and above. Who could have influenced 2 rear admirals in the Navy to do such a thing?

The Evidence is the road map to this How.

I'm throwing this scribble up for those who may not know the connections within that Naval base that night. Cut off at the Top is JCS Naval Admiral Anderson

There are a lot names, some very familiar and some not... this helped me see that evening more clearly and enjoy Best Evidence that much more.

Some of the people in that room HAD to be involved in this amazing cover-up... If Oswald did not pull the trigger. {edit - if I got something wrong let me know... thx}

Edited August 6, 2015 by David Josephs

[Jon G. Tidd]

Ditto James Di @ post #33.

In fact James, please write a diary here about what you write.

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Josephs,

Who do you think orchestrated [1] JFK's murder, and [2] Oswald's murder?

[David Josephs]

1 - resources within and at the disposal of the US Military and its intelligence operations

2 - see #1. Rinse and repeat.

The history of US intelligence begins with the Navy's ONI well after the Civil war. the Army who had spies under Washington also got organized again for intelligence at this time.

In between, the wealthy had their own spy networks as they were the only ones who afforded traveling the world and wanted the information... the governments were not paying for the services... until much later when the wealthy learned more about other people's money.

To believe that the Fathers of US Intelligence, who were then connected to captains of industry and members of congress, would ever allow it to fall outside of their own control is to not understand the role of the military in any nation's history.

[James DiEugenio]

Dave:

That first link you have above in number 34 did not work for me.

I hope everyone here reads Lisa's milestone essay on Indonesia. To me it did for Indonesia what Prouty and Scott did for Vietnam. IT is amazing how many sites have linked to her essay all over the world. I counted at least 12.

BTW, here is what John Pilger said about Suharto's sell out o this country after Sukarno was neutralized.

The deal was that Indonesia under Suharto would offer up what Richard Nixon had called “the richest hoard of natural resources, the greatest prize in south-east Asia.” In November 1967, the greatest prize was handed out at a remarkable three-day conference sponsored by the Time-Life Corporation in Geneva. Led by David Rockefeller, all the corporate giants were represented: the major oil companies and banks, General Motors, Imperial Chemical Industries, British American Tobacco, Siemens and US Steel and many others. Across the table sat Suharto’s US-trained economists who agreed to the corporate takeover of their country, sector by sector. The Freeport company got a mountain of copper in West Papua. A US/European consortium got the nickel. The giant Alcoa company got the biggest slice of Indonesia’s bauxite. America, Japanese and French companies got the tropical forests of Sumatra. When the plunder was complete, President Lyndon Johnson sent his congratulations on “a magnificent story of opportunity seen and promise awakened.” Thirty years later, with the genocide in East Timor also complete, the World Bank described the Suharto dictatorship as a “model pupil.”

Edited August 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, when you read the above, ask yourself: What was Nixon doing at this conference? (Or did I read too much into the quote?) He was a private citizen at this time. After you chew on that a bit, read this about Nixon and Vietnam in 1964:

http://jimhougan.com/wordpress/?p=98

They didn't call him Dirty Dick for nothing now did they?

But secondly, recall, in 1961, Sukarno declared that 80% of all profits of those doing business in Indonesia should go to the Indonesia treasury. If not, they would face the prospect of nationalization. Kennedy actually backed this and tried to make it easier for Sukarno to come to economic terms with the companies who decided to leave.

One more point about the Rockefeller family involvement in the plunder of Indonesia under Suharto. LBJ and Nelson Rockefeller were close friends. In fact, he wanted Nelson to run in 1968 since he did not think Nixon could beat RFK.

One last point about LBJ and the Rockefellers and Indonesia. In the fall of 1963, David Rockefeller wanted a meeting with JFK about Brazil. Kennedy would not take the meeting wince he knew that Rockefeller wanted him to OK a coup in Brazil. Well, after Kennedy's assassination, in December, LBJ did take that meeting. The coup was enacted shortly thereafter.

Who was the point man in the coup?

The Rockefeller family lawyer, John McCloy, as he sat on the WC. Conflict of interest maybe? As he corrected the drafts of the Warren Report, McCloy did them from an office at Rockefeller Plaza in NYC.

Edited August 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[John Dolva]

The history (formal) of us intelligence goes back to Benjamin Franklin, back to when he organised the department of Postal Inspection in the USPO which he had set up previously. At the time of the Civil War there were about 16 PI's active. The second in command in the Confederate governement came from the USPO to form the mirror department in the confederacy and went back to it after the war. During the war the PI's on both sides were important in intelligence gathering. In the time before and after the department operatives grew and shrunk as needed, but it had an unbroken history until Nixon disbanded it in 1970.

edit add, typos : also of interest : with the sacking of JE Day(63), Kennedys replacement brought an end to the close collaboration between the USPO Post Master General and the CIA.

With the change to the USPO/PI(70) department Nixon ended the patronaged position(automatic cabinet membership) of the PMG.

Edited August 7, 2015 by John Dolva

[James DiEugenio]

btw, the first part of my Nixon vs JFK essay is done and will be going up soon at CTKA.

I think a lot of people here who was interested in the Big Picture will find this interesting.

[Kenneth Drew]

btw, the first part of my Nixon vs JFK essay is done and will be going up soon at CTKA.

I think a lot of people here who was interested in the Big Picture will find this interesting.

on that link in 34, if you cut it and paste it, should work, that's what I did to get to the site. Just clicking on it didn't work for me either

[James DiEugenio]

THanks Ken, it worked.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Jim Di,

Your attention to Indonesia as well as the Middle East demonstrates the significance of U.S. money guys in 1960s America.

My recommendation here is, follow the money.

Nixon didn't have money; he was a politician. Perhaps a flawed individual. But a gifted politician. The sort of politician for his time.

Nixon would be regarded today, if he were on the stage in the 1960s, as an intelligent, fairly moderate politician.

Money is what killed JFK. Money was and is power. JFK had personal money, but he was opposed by far greater money.

[Chuck Schwartz]

I agree with David Josephs that the CIA(Intelligence) and the Military killed JFK. I think they did that because they believed in the Domino Theory - Communism had to be stopped in Vietnam. Here, I believe John Newman and his book " JFK and Vietnam" is quite convincing (at least it is to me). JFK would not allow the Military to escalate their war in Vietnam and that is why they killed him.

Oswald was killed by Ruby because Oswald could point his finger at the CIA (DAP) during a trial. That is why LBJ said LHO could not go to trial and he was allowed to be murdered in a Dallas jail. Peter Dale Scott in his various essays has detailed how Ruby ran guns in Cuba with the Mafia (Trafficante) and the CIA (Frank Sturgis/ Fiorini and E. Howard Hunt). This was done in the '59-'60 timeframe. Ruby once corrected the Dallas Police during a Press conference after LHO was captured by the Dallas Police. There was reference to LHO's time with the Fair Play for Cuba and the reference was not exactly correct- Ruby made the correction right then and there. He was in on the conspiracy from the get-go.