Why did LBJ want a confession from LHO?

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Maybe LBJ wasn't seeking a confession from Oswald so much as he was hoping to influence a doctor into saying that Oswald gave a deathbed confession. Just a thought.

 

Possibly.  But he wanted it.  His reason for wanting it is the smoke. 

[Roger Odisio]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

RO--

I can't say you are wrong. 

But...Excellent JFKA researcher John Newman contends the "WWIII" virus was planted by the CIA.

That is, the CIA had LHO visit KGB'er Kostikov in Mexico City, pre-JFKA. 

Then, LBJ was faced with dilemma. Go with the "Russian did it" version of the JFKA, with a Joint Chiefs of Staff that JFK had feared was uncontrollable. And, in fact, LBJ famously told Warren to sit on the WC to avoid 40 million dead Americans. The "Russia" angle was suffocated, as early as Nov. 23, and the "LHO as loner, leftie, loser" invented. 

In Newman's version, LBJ is all but cornered, and did not have advance knowledge of the JFKA. 

I lean to Newman's version, as I suspect a few people as possible were in on the JFKA. Like less than you can count on a woodworker's hand. 

But that's just IMHO....

 

You are mistaken about Newman, Ben.  

You gave a presentation at Duquesne last week didn't you?  Did you watch Newman's piece there?

As I said in my post of highlights, Newman said he believes Johnson knew beforehand about the murder, but the others didn't tell him many of the details because he was drunk all the time and they were afraid he would talk out of turn.

Oswald was a multifaceted patsy.  He could fit several stories.  But you underestimate the killers.  Their plan was much more clearly worked out beforehand than you imply. They almost certainly did not leave the LN version to be "invented" after the murder.   Johnson was not caught in a bind.

As he later told McNamara, he never agreed with Kennedy's plan to pull out of Vietnam, but kept his mouth shut. The killers knew this. 

They also had to know that once he became president he was not going to go after Cuba and risk everything in a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union.  He had lusted after the job too long for that.

The tradeoff was obvious.  Newman used the famous quote from Johnson, once he got into office, to the war mongers:  "get me reelected and you can have your war in Vietnam". This comment was obviously not directed solely at the generals salivating for a war.

Johnson waited until after then '64 election to rev up the war machine, and in fact accused Goldwater of being the candidate seeking war.  He posed as something of a peace candidate and scored a landslide.

Not to mention that Johnson stood by as the war machine rampaged through the Left opposition to their policies in the next several years.  

I go further than I heard Newman saying. The murder never would have happened without Johnson's active assurances to the others that as president he would protect them and help them get some of the things they wanted.

[Marcus Fuller]

He was certainly corrupt enough to be involved. I'm just in two minds regarding how involved he actually was. As a control freak he'd want to know everything that was going on, but if he kept his distance at least he could claim plausible deniability. 

Either way, he had the means and he had the motive. And we only have to look to history to see that, for the most part, whenever someone is forcibly removed from power, it's usually their successor that removed them.

[Joe Bauer]

7 minutes ago, Marcus Fuller said:

He was certainly corrupt enough to be involved. I'm just in two minds regarding how involved he actually was. As a control freak he'd want to know everything that was going on, but if he kept his distance at least he could claim plausible deniability. 

Either way, he had the means and he had the motive. And we only have to look to history to see that, for the most part, whenever someone is forcibly removed from power, it's usually their successor that removed them.

Bingo, Bravo, Right On MF!

LBJ was on the verge of losing his entire career and perhaps even facing jail time as investigations into his criminal business doings had reached serious action critical status.

The Bobby Baker scandal, the Billy Sol Estes one, his Texas business dealings ...you name it.

It was all going to come out.

There was only one way to make it all go away.

[Marcus Fuller]

He had plenty on Hoover too, from what I understand. Hoover plays ball, gets to keep his position, saves face and no doubt benefits in one way or another when LBJ becomes President. I think LBJ's whole, "I never wanted to be president" thing is just bs. His way of trying to hide his motives. Yeah like he didn't want to be one of the worlds most powerful people lol

[Roger Odisio]

15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I've thought along these lines for a few years now.  Somewhere on here recently I read of LBJ not being informed until shortly before the assassination, because he was drunk every day or by evening, and talked a bit.  Granted, as head of the Senate LBJ kept secrets.  He also hated JFK and RFK and was in deep water over the congressional investigation ended on 11/22/63.

I have to wonder if he might have been contacted a week or two before by an old associate from the CIA who he dealt with as head of the Senate on funding issues in particular over the years.  One who held sway over his friend and neighbor J Edgar Hoover, who also hated JFK and RFK.  But was retired, by JFK.  

I think you're referring to what John Newman said in his talk at Duquesne last week:  he thought Johnson knew about the murder beforehand, but the others did not tell him many of the details because Johnson was drunk all the time and they were afraid he would talk out of turn. 

 

Johnson and Dulles, each Washington denizens, knew each other's positions well.   They didn't need clandestine meetings to work things out.

 

Kennedy had thwarted his killers in what must have seemed to them at every turn.  They wanted to reverse the election.

 

But I think it's axiomatic--self evident with no great thinking, evidence or analysis required--that they first had to get assurance from Johnson that once he became president he would protect them, help them cover up the murder, and he would do some of the things Kennedy had refused to do that motivated the murder in the first place.

 

This doesn't mean there isn't a lot of information about Johnson's involvement.  There is.

 

A few days before the murder, McGeorge Bundy, JFK's national security advisor, had drafted NSAM 273 reversing Kennedy's plan to withdraw from Vietnam in NSAM 263.  This was the culmination of the ongoing generals' attempts, outlined in great detail by Newman in his Duquesne talk, ever since 263 was signed, to reverse the withdrawal.

 

Bundy was supposed to give the new memo to Kennedy once he got back from Dallas.  Kennedy would have rejected it as he had made clear before.  Imagine the killers' relief when he came back in a box.  They had succeeded.

 

Johnson signed NSAM 273 one day after Kennedy's funeral.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

You are mistaken about Newman, Ben.  

You gave a presentation at Duquesne last week didn't you?  Did you watch Newman's piece there?

As I said in my post of highlights, Newman said he believes Johnson knew beforehand about the murder, but the others didn't tell him many of the details because he was drunk all the time and they were afraid he would talk out of turn.

Oswald was a multifaceted patsy.  He could fit several stories.  But you underestimate the killers.  Their plan was much more clearly worked out beforehand than you imply. They almost certainly did not leave the LN version to be "invented" after the murder.   Johnson was not caught in a bind.

As he later told McNamara, he never agreed with Kennedy's plan to pull out of Vietnam, but kept his mouth shut. The killers knew this. 

They also had to know that once he became president he was not going to go after Cuba and risk everything in a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union.  He had lusted after the job too long for that.

The tradeoff was obvious.  Newman used the famous quote from Johnson, once he got into office, to the war mongers:  "get me reelected and you can have your war in Vietnam". This comment was obviously not directed solely at the generals salivating for a war.

Johnson waited until after then '64 election to rev up the war machine, and in fact accused Goldwater of being the candidate seeking war.  He posed as something of a peace candidate and scored a landslide.

Not to mention that Johnson stood by as the war machine rampaged through the Left opposition to their policies in the next several years.  

I go further than I heard Newman saying. The murder never would have happened without Johnson's active assurances to the others that as president he would protect them and help them get some of the things they wanted.

Yes, I gave a somewhat botched presentation at Duquesne (technical difficulties). 

I have not seen the Newman presentation. 

No one else seems to have described LBJ as an alcoholic.  I have been studying the LBJ Presidency since the 1970s. People drank and smoked in those days (watching a 1950-60s movie is like watching an ad for the booze and cigarette industries). 

I wonder about Newman. He has also said Bruce Solie and James McCord were Russian spies. McCord as a Moscow stooge sure puts a whole new spin on the Watergate caper. 

Well, interesting topic. 

I will keep to this principle: Innocent until proven guilty.  

The same standard and attitude that is applied to LHO should be applied to LBJ. 

If you sought out exonerating material on LBJ, how would you do that? 

 

 

 

 

[Karl Kinaski]

 My two cents: If the man/agent in scrubs (resembling Oliver Hardy/Bill Harvey)standing in the operating room while the docs worked on Oswald had been indeed Bill Harvey then Johnson would hardly been given the true account of Oswald "deathbed confession" had Oswald regained consciousness.

 

BTW Why was Johnson talking about a "deathbed confession"? Oswald was still alive then and nobody knew at that time (around 13 pm WDC/ 14h pm Dallas), if he would make it. 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[Mike Aitken]

On 11/22/2023 at 1:31 AM, Cory Santos said:

Really interesting.  He stated in a much later interview that he did not believe the Warren Commission.  So why did he care about a confession?    Thanks for heads up.  Early court hearing today so I’ve been tired.  

We have to keep in mind that LBJ was fully aware that all of these conversations were being recorded and/or documented.  In my line of work we wear body cameras and are also constantly recorded by members of the public.  Keeping this in mind, we try to be very careful and think about what we say while being recorded.  I don’t find it implausible that LBJ was making calculated statements during his conversations.  I don’t necessarily believe that he was involved in the actual plot, but he may have made certain statements in order to throw off suspicions that may have been directed his way.

[Cory Santos]

Just now, Mike Aitken said:

We have to keep in mind that LBJ was fully aware that all of these conversations were being recorded and/or documented.  In my line of work we wear body cameras and are also constantly recorded by members of the public.  Keeping this in mind, we try to be very careful and think about what we say while being recorded.  I don’t find it implausible that LBJ was making calculated statements during his conversations.  I don’t necessarily believe that he was involved in the actual plot, but he may have made certain statements in order to throw off suspicions that may have been directed his way.

FYI, I don’t believe this conversation was taped and saved.   At that time not all White House calls were recorded.  Although the phone log does seem to verify it happened.  I think if the LBJ library has it then it should release it.   Anyone know the answer to this?   Not my area.