Cowardly Democrats Allowed the Cover-Up to Occur

[Pamela Brown]

5 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Just so I'm clear, what exactly is it that you're implying here? That Bob Dylan has been involved in political assassinations?

That Bob has been involved in behind the scenes machinations which have had a connection to some assassinations, yes...

 

[Pamela Brown]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, LBJ was comparing what the CIA was doing with the help of the mafia--trying to kill Castro--to the actions of the mafia in the 30's. 

Are you really suggesting that Dylan--a college drop-out wanna-be Woody Guthrie--was somehow involved? 

You're not referring to the Nobel laureate, seemingly untouchable Bob Dylan?  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

That Bob has been involved in behind the scenes machinations which have had a connection to some assassinations, yes...

 

Are you alluding to something along the lines of the CIA station in Laurel Canyon? 

[James DiEugenio]

Un oh, I smell a big U turn coming on this  thread.

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Obviously, that plan failed. I totally get that RFK and other family members were devastated, and I could excuse them if their inaction and silence had only lasted a few weeks. But, once they saw the FBI's propaganda blitz for the lone-gunman theory, they should have shaken off their grief and loudly protested the emerging myth. Certainly, at the very latest, when the Warren Report was released, with its obscene disregard for the truth, they should have spared no effort to challenge the report in the public arena.

I'm reminded of Mary Pinchot Meyer, who truly loved JFK. She recognized early on that the emerging tale was a brazen falsehood, and when the Warren Report was released, she became determined to challenge it. Yes, that's what got her killed. However, if many/most/all of JFK's family members and friends had boldly and loudly challenged the government's myth, the conspirators would have been unable to silence them, and the cover-up probably would have collapsed. If nothing else, such determined, vocal opposition from JFK's family members and friends would have drastically changed the public debate on the issue. 

It takes courage, and power, to stand up. To me it’s understandable why the family waited. When RFK was murdered it was off the table. I wouldn’t conflate Democrats at large with the Kennedy family. I agree with Mr. Price here. Of course the ‘liberal’ media failed utterly, as did Congress, both parties. I often ask myself what I would do faced with the kind of choice they had to make. If I stuck my neck out, and got a phone call threatening my children I think I’d back down. It’s a dangerous world, and post JFK so many possible witnesses were killed or silenced. Hoover had files on everyone, and everyone knew it. 

[Paul Brancato]

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

Un oh, I smell a big U turn coming on this  thread.

Lol 

[Pamela Brown]

21 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Are you alluding to something along the lines of the CIA station in Laurel Canyon? 

No. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

If enough of JFK's family and friends had forcefully challenged the Warren Report, this would have made an enormous difference and probably would have created such a firestorm that the cover-up would have collapsed.

I'm' not sure it was"probable" but certainly a lot more likely than what they accomplished sitting on the sidelines. I think Michael's right.  If say Bobby was actively involved in spearheading public opinion against the single gunman theory he wouldn't have emboldened his enemies and I  think the chances of him being assassinated would have been much less than greater.

Richard makes a number of good points, all of them are political, but after all Bobby was a politician

Richard:He tamped down some of the initial (pardon the pun), rush to judgement because he, as a lawyer knew not to get out ahead of what he knew or could prove. 

"A man's got to know his limitations" and Robert Kennedy understood his limitations very well.  He also understood the implications to national security, the operation of government and the implications on international policy and standing. 

As Paul says, of course the media failed. Ironically, I'm not sure Bobby lacked courage, though I suspect everyone around him did.

One attitude that's always been portrayed on this forum. And I see it playing out right now, in that no one's mentioned this. Could Bobby have just been completely perplexed with considering any one of a number of his enemies that were possibly behind the assassination of his brother, and was just paralyzed with no certain place to go?

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Pamela Brown]

On 8/17/2022 at 4:41 PM, Michael Griffith said:

Yes, the vast majority of the Republican members of Congress and Republican federal officials displayed moral cowardice in response to JFK's assassination, and a few of them actually took part in the cover-up. However, the cover-up probably would have failed if JFK's family members, close friends, and other prominent Democrats had had the courage to publicly challenge the obscene lone-gunman theory.

The excuse given for their cowardice was that they had to remain silent "in order for the Kennedy family to heal." How could anyone "heal" when an obscene myth about JFK's death was being foisted on the nation? 

The pattern of tragic cowardice continued in the 1970s with the HSCA investigation. Congressional Democrats Don Edwards and Henry Gonzalez, supposed allies of JFK, played key roles in the firing of Richard Sprague as chief counsel for the HSCA. Gonzalez, as HSCA chairman, was the one who fired him. When Sprague was fired and when G. Robert Blakey was then installed as chief counsel, the Democrats had huge majorities in the House and Senate, and Democrat Jimmy Carter was president. Democrat Griffin Bell, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals by JFK, was the Attorney General, appointed to the post by Jimmy Carter. How could they have allowed these things to happen? Where were the Democrats when the CIA was obstructing, stonewalling, and misleading the HSCA?

JFK's family and friends--the people who should have publicly voiced loud, fierce objections to the lone-gunman fiction--displayed tragic cowardice and enabled the Warren Commission to mislead tens of millions of Americans for years to come. Years later, when outrage over the leaked Zapruder film and disclosures of CIA crimes led to the creation of the HSCA, JFK's fellow Democrats again failed to do their moral and civic duty (as did nearly all Republicans in Congress and elsewhere in the government).

With all due respect, you may be missing something. Not to make excuses for them. However, I believe Jackie was threatened into silence by LBJ. The first sign of that was LBJ's forcing Jackie to stand in the photo with him at his unnecessary swearing-in.  He and Lady Bird had a nice white outfit ready for her when she boarded AF1, but she refused to change her clothes. She said, "Let them see what they have done." I think that was just the start of it.  

Let's not forget that just two hours earlier she had not only watched JFK killed and Gov. Connally wounded, but she was a hairs-breath from being killed herself (look at Z312). It is hard to imagine how much trauma she was already dealing with prior to LBJ's demand.

I think this is something that must be taken into account.  Since then, RFK was taken out. Teddy was almost killed in an aircraft accident.  Then there was Chappaquidick.  And John Jr. was lost.  So, one way or another, this is the burden the Kennedys have to live with. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Pamela Brown

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Un oh, I smell a big U turn coming on this  thread.

Jim, can you please elaborate. 

[Benjamin Cole]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You realize that in this case the "Deep State" was the President, right? And not some three letter organization... 

Pat--

I disagree about you on this one. 

The idea that the tremendously well-funded, experienced and intrepid national intel apparatus became inert during the Trump Presidency...just doesn't hold water for me. 

It is a matter of record that former CIA director Michael Morrel was placing op-eds in the NYT advising voters vote for HRC even before the 2016 election. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html

Such sharp journalists as Bret Stephens (NYT), Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and Aaron Mate have dismissed Russiagate as "an elaborate hoax." 

Then there was 50 intel officers signing a letter that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian disinformation prop. Including five former CIA directors. 

More recently, 

‘Sounds about Right’: Ex-CIA Chief Michael Hayden Implies Trump Should Be Executed for Taking Classified Docs

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/sounds-about-right-ex-cia-chief-michael-hayden-implies-trump-should-be-executed-for-taking-classified-docs/

At what point did the Deep State do anything except try to remove Trump for office? 

The Trump forces always looked more Keystone Kops than anything else. 

Trump's experience in manipulating events and media coverage, compared with that of the Deep State...jeez, is like comparing a minnow to a whale. 

None of this makes Trump a nice guy.

You can have two truths: Trump is an amoral boor, in spades, and the CIA and DC establishment loathed, detested and reviled Trump, and acted accordingly. As for the multinationals, they want open borders for China trade and cheap immigrant labor.  Draw your own conclusions.

As for the 1/6 hearings, I stand by my statement: In format, a twin to the Warren Commission.

Only the prosecution presents evidence, and calls witnesses. The narrative is controlled by the prosecution, and the press becomes stenographers, at best. Plenty of plays are made to emotions and passion and patriotism. There is no judge.

I will post shortly a story on the "300" Proud Boys seen heading towards the Capitol. It appears to be a bogus meme---but illustrative of the 1/6 hearings. 

The 1/6 hearing are essentially a show trial. 

BTW: If you believe 300 Proud Boys we seen heading towards the Capitol on 1/6, in a contingent, please provide video evidence. I have searched a high and low...and it does not exist.

I will happily stand corrected. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/18/2022 at 1:34 AM, Pat Speer said:

Some points to consider... 

1. LBJ picked 4 Republicans and 3 Southern Democrats to man the Warren Commission because he knew a northern Democrat was unlikely to play along. 

2. Arlen Specter became a Republican after his stint on the Warren Commission's staff, in part because he knew that his creation of the SBT would hurt him more with Democrats than Republicans. 

3. The congressmen and historians who called for a new investigation in the 60's were largely Democrats.

4. Ted Kennedy supported the creation of the HSCA, and the HSCA may not have been created without his support.

5. Pre-Trump, the prominent politicians to say they questioned the conclusions of the Warren Commission were mostly Democrats, and the Republicans who did question it were mostly of the commies-did-it variety.

I largely agree with every point you make here, but those points don't change the fact that JFK's family, friends, and allies failed to forcefully, vocally confront the lone-gunman myth. There is some question about how strongly Teddy backed the formation of the HSCA. But, even assuming he strongly backed the committee's creation, he stayed on the sidelines after that, not to mention that he said nothing when the Warren Report came out 13 years earlier. 

The firing of Richard Sprague was inexcusable and was a devastating blow to the HSCA investigation--not a fatal blow, but a badly damaging one. I think Dick Russell's chapter on Sprague in On the Trail of the JFK Assassins proves there was no valid reason to fire Sprague and every reason to keep him. Democrats had the power to defend Sprague and keep him as chief counsel, but they caved in. They had huge majorities in Congress, and they controlled the White House and the Justice Department. Yet, they let the Deep State's propaganda campaign against Sprague intimidate them into firing him.

If Teddy and other Kennedy family members, not to mention other prominent Democrats, had vocally, forcefully defended Sprague and demanded that he remain as chief counsel, the HSCA investigation could have been historic and decisive. But it didn't happen because there were simply no Kennedy family members and prominent Democrats willing to stand up for Sprague and to insist on full, unconditional cooperation from the CIA, the FBI, and the Secret Service. 

At that time (late 1970s), it was still possible to bring at least some of the conspirators to justice. Even Blakey said he believed it was possible to get convictions of a few of the conspirators. But there was no one with the courage of Mary Pinchot Meyer in the Kennedy family or among JFK's friends and allies. Thus, the conspirators got away with their crime and the lone-gunman tale has never been officially exposed and repudiated.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Jonathan Cohen]

12 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

That Bob has been involved in behind the scenes machinations which have had a connection to some assassinations, yes...

Can you back up this rather major claim with any actual evidence?

[Joe Bauer]

23 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

From someone who was young at this time, and remembers the reaction of people around me and the public. I take issue with a lot assertions made here  that "the JFKA started a distrust of government in the U.S. that's never recovered". No way, It was the tragedy of the Viet Nam War and the war resistance, and the race riots of the 60's that changed the U.S.for good. The JFKA was sort of an afterthought, a sort of icing on the cake  that reared it's ugly head after people finally started doubting their government narrative, and their kids were coming home in body bags. That was the lead story for almost a decade!.

I disagree regards these two points.

I was 12 when JFK was taken out.

Just a kid, but let me tell you I had never seen anything in my young life that stopped, stunned and shocked "everyone" in the world around me ( a small town one I admit ) as much as the JFK assassination and 2 days later the killing of the main suspect right inside the Dallas Police Department building basement.

Weeks ( even months ) of 24/7 main stream news coverage.

The JFK killing was a dark grey cloud pall that hung over everything this entire time.

No one seemed to have any clear idea of how to even discuss the JFK murder. 

However, when sleazy strip joint owner Ruby blasted a hole in the main and only suspect Oswald's gut on live national TV with tens of millions of Americans watching, and in the most improbable location security breakdown imaginable , I can remember everyone expressing one main thought and feeling...suspicion.

Half the adult population of this country couldn't help but feel this. It was rational to do so considering the impossibly illogical Oswald security breakdown circumstances.

I didn't hear anyone expressing suspicion immediately after JFK killing, but after Oswald's for sure.

I believe millions of Americans felt an uncomfortable and even unsettling twinge of suspicion also by seeing LBJ step into the presidency by the virtue only of JFK's murder.

Texas good ole boy LBJ was the antithesis of JFK in so many ways. 

The JFK killing ( and equally the Oswald one) was the first real birth of serious widespread government mistrust in my opinion.

This was expressed and fed by a huge wave of JFK conspiracy books and articles that were immediately published nation wide. Yet, people had to get on with their daily lives. 

Even thoughts of suspicion and mistrust ( although not totally abandoned ) fade.

However, with other nation rocking events like the murders of MLK and RFK taking place  just 5 years later, I truly believe the average American sensed that "all three assassinations together" of the most popular and influential anti-establishment political and social leaders of that era were more than coincidental.

That nefarious forces in our nation with immense power ( including inside our own government ) had to be involved.

That suspicion and mistrust was deep and widespread more than our history books related imo.

I cite the huge success of Oliver Stone's film "JFK" as proof of that proposition.

30 years "after" 11,22,1963, tens of millions of Americans ( especially those who lived through JFK's assassination ) came out in droves to see that film because they still harbored and were still connected to it's suggestive premise that there was something very suspicious and nefarious about the JFK and OSWALD killings, and not being able to confidently dismiss the possibility that forces inside our own government were involved.

The fact that every national polling ( hundreds ) since 1963 regards the "lone gunman " findings of the Warren Commission shows a majority of Americans "still" not believing or accepting that finding ( 60 years later!) is my strongest argument point affirming the reality of true and continuous serious mistrust of our government in this major way.

And that it all started with the JFK and Oswald killings.

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Pamela Brown]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Can you back up this rather major claim with any actual evidence?

What would you consider 'actual evidence'?

And BTW, I consider my statement an assertion...

What do you think of this article?

https://inbroaddaylight.wordpress.com/2021/05/17/what-if-someone-such-as-bob-dylan-is-an-experiment-an-hypothesis-for-an-alternate-reality/