The exoneration of Lyndon Johnson?

[W. Niederhut]

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Because there was no upside in killing JFK if Johnson was gonna continue his policies, but more importantly you don't get quid if you don't give quo.

Precisely.  And the Cold War hawks who conspired to kill JFK knew very well that LBJ disagreed with JFK's peace initiatives and decision to withdraw from Vietnam.  Israel's acquisition of nukes was another critically important geopolitical issue where LBJ disagreed with JFK's position.

Rather than studying and connecting the dots about LBJ and the JFK assassination, Ben is resorting to his usual O.J. Simpson criteria for determining guilt-- as he has done in the case of Trump's J6 mob attack on Congress and Mueller's aborted investigation of Trump's 30-year involvement with Putin and his oligarchs.

If the scrubbed glove doesn't fit, Ben must acquit.

[Cliff Varnell]

On 12/9/2023 at 2:27 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Early indications shortly after the assassination were that the assassination was a Cuban/Russian plot.

As Cliff Varnell likes to point out, this possibility was quickly discounted out by Averell Harriman, who said that all the Soviet experts all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the plot. Which wasn't true... the Soviet experts had not been asked.

It is because of this that Cliff believes that Harriman was behind the assassination plot.

Not just “because of this.”  Harriman made SE Asia his bailiwick as soon as Kennedy hired him in early ‘61. Harriman side-stepped JFK to green-light the overthrow of Diem.  After Diem’s murder, JFK moved Harriman to Latin American affairs.  The murder of JFK suited Harriman’s goals in SE Asia.

On 12/9/2023 at 2:27 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

But IMO, Harriman simply couldn't believe that the Russians would make such a dangerous move, and decided himself to proclaim so, adding that other experts agreed with him just to give it some weight. Making such a bold move is in character for Harriman.

It would have been “in character” for an innocent Harriman to consider the possibility a rogue Soviet faction pulled off the hit, and “in character” to consult others.

The murder occurred less than 6 hours earlier.  A little soon to draw conclusions, ain’t it?

On 12/9/2023 at 2:27 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

The information back to Air Force 1 saying that Oswald was the lone murderer probably originated from whoever consulted Harriman.

There’s no evidence anyone consulted Harriman.  Bundy and Harriman were Skull & Bones brothers.  The information back to AF1 probably resulted from Harriman consulting Bundy.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Ten minutes after LBJ first arrived at the White House, Averell Harriman told him the US gov’t top Kremlinologists were unanimous in the view the Soviets were not involved.

But there was no communication between the top Soviet hands that day.  Harriman’s lie is highly suspicious.

 

Cliff,

(EDIT: I wrote the following while Cliff was posting the previous post.)

In his OP, Roger Odisio said the following:

The call from the White House situation room telling those coming back to DC that the murderer had already been arrested and he did it alone.  Absolute proof that the preplanned cover up was off and running. The Situation Room was run at the time by McGeorge Bundy, the guy who had already redrafted NSM 263 as 273 that Johnson would sign the day after JFK was buried.

(I had no idea that Washington's lone-nut decision had already been made by then.)

 

When I read that, I recalled what you have said before about Averil Harriman. I replied:

Early indications shortly after the assassination were that the assassination was a Cuban/Russian plot.

As Cliff Varnell likes to point out, this possibility was quickly discounted by Averell Harriman, who said that all the Soviet experts agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the plot. Which wasn't true... the Soviet experts had not been consulted. ...

The information back to Air Force 1 saying that Oswald was the lone murderer probably originated from whoever consulted Harriman.

 

 

Roger disagreed with that and said that the idea that loner Oswald was to blame, and not the Soviets, came from the plotters, not Harriman, and were relayed to Air Force One by McGeorge Bundy. Roger said that this was the beginning of the plotter-planned cover up.

Here are my questions for you:

1. Do you believe that Harriman's comments about the Kremlinologists came early enough that they influenced what Bundy relayed to Air Force One on their flight back to DC (about Oswald being the lone killer)?
2. Regarding the topic of this post, how does your belief differ from Roger's? (It appears that the primary difference is that you belief Harriman was in on the plot and whereas Roger doesn't. Though he might believe Bundy was.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

54 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There’s no evidence anyone consulted Harriman.  Bundy and Harriman were Skull & Bones brothers.  The information back to AF1 probably resulted from Harriman consulting Bundy.

 

Bundy didn't consult Harriman?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Bundy didn't consult Harriman?

 

We don’t have direct evidence of it, but it’s a reasonable assumption.  I understood your comment — “Whoever consulted Harriman” — as a reference to someone other than Bundy.

[Michael Griffith]

On 12/7/2023 at 3:54 PM, Roger Odisio said:

They did get the full war in Vietnam they wanted, which paved the way for almost continuous war since.

We must, must, must ditch this demonstrably false myth, sooner or later. The Pentagon hawks did not get "the full war in Vietnam they wanted." Not even close.

After taking office, LBJ told the Joint Chiefs he wanted to cut defense spending. He told South Vietnam's leader that he hoped U.S. forces could be withdrawn. Even in the face of severe Communist provocations in 1964 that killed numerous Americans in South Vietnam, LBJ either did not respond or responded with milk-toast pinpricks. 

Only when Hanoi vastly escalated their war effort in early 1965, an escalation that dwarfed their 1961 escalation--only then did LBJ reluctantly agree to send in combat troops, and he nearly dallied too long. What's more, the LBJ White House tapes and other records show that LBJ hoped the deployment would be brief. 

Even when LBJ, again with great reluctance, approved the sending of more combat troops and the launching of air raids, he put insane, absurd restrictions on our military operations, especially on our air operations, that justifiably infuriated the Joint Chiefs and other Pentagon hawks (as well as conservative members of his own party, such as Senator Stennis). The Joint Chiefs and other hawks viewed LBJ's war effort as dangerously handcuffed, incompetent, weak, and as aiding the Communist assault on South Vietnam.

These facts are a matter of well-documented history. Among many other books, they are documented in H. R. McMaster's widely acclaimed masterpiece Dereliction of Duty, in George Herring's book LBJ and Vietnam, in Michael Hunt's book Lyndon Johnson's War, in General Phillip Davidson's book Vietnam at War, and in Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp's seminal book Strategy for Defeat.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Cliff,

(EDIT: I wrote the following while Cliff was posting the previous post.)

In his OP, Roger Odisio said the following:

The call from the White House situation room telling those coming back to DC that the murderer had already been arrested and he did it alone.  Absolute proof that the preplanned cover up was off and running. The Situation Room was run at the time by McGeorge Bundy, the guy who had already redrafted NSM 263 as 273 that Johnson would sign the day after JFK was buried.

(I had no idea that Washington's lone-nut decision had already been made by then.)

 

When I read that, I recalled what you have said before about Averil Harriman. I replied:

Early indications shortly after the assassination were that the assassination was a Cuban/Russian plot.

As Cliff Varnell likes to point out, this possibility was quickly discounted by Averell Harriman, who said that all the Soviet experts agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the plot. Which wasn't true... the Soviet experts had not been consulted. ...

The information back to Air Force 1 saying that Oswald was the lone murderer probably originated from whoever consulted Harriman.

 

 

Roger disagreed with that and said that the idea that loner Oswald was to blame, and not the Soviets, came from the plotters, not Harriman, and were relayed to Air Force One by McGeorge Bundy. Roger said that this was the beginning of the plotter-planned cover up.

Where did Roger say anything about Harriman?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Here are my questions for you:

1. Do you believe that Harriman's comments about the Kremlinologists came early enough that they influenced what Bundy relayed to Air Force One on their flight back to DC (about Oswald being the lone killer)?

I think it’s reasonable to speculate that Harriman told his little Skull & Bones brother Bundy to push the Lone Nut scenario once the designated Commie Patsy escaped death.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

1. Regarding the topic of this post, how does your belief differ from Roger's? (It appears that the primary difference is that you belief Harriman was in on the plot and whereas Roger doesn't. Though he might believe Bundy was.)

 

Someone Would Have Talked, Larry Hancock, pg 401-2:

<quote on, emphasis added>

1:15 PM on November 22, when the President was known to be dead, Malcolm Kilduff approached Johnson about making a statement.  Johnson’s response was, “No.  Wait.  We don’t know whether it’s a Communist conspiracy or not.  Are they prepared to get me out of here?”  Johnson’s first concern after the shooting appears to be conspiracy.  While still at Parkland both S.A. Youngblood and S. A. Roberts approached Johnson with similar concerns and strongly advised him to get out of Dallas and get airborne as quickly as possible...

Despite his own remark and those of the Secret Service, Johnson appeared reluctant to leave Parkland. </q>

He was waiting for the outcome with the Patsy.

[Kirk Gallaway]

 

Yeah, LBJ is the ultimate low hanging fruit of JFK conspiracy lore. He just couldn't help it with all his motives.

Obviously with a guy like him, nothing would surprise me. But a lot of the  people in  "The men who killed Kennedy", #9? including Madeleine Duncan Brown, Judyth Baker  and Barr Mc Clellan (  FYI, whose son Scott was George W. Bush's press secretary.)  I think are just douchebags IMO, as was Billy Sol Estes.. I once was more susceptible to such stories. But having spent so much time studying the JFKA , I've seen so XXXXX and nefarious allegations come and go.

What JFKA student wouldn't salivate at the idea that Malcolm Wallace was LBJ's" hit man" and he killed Henry Marshall and his own sister! We love foci of evil here, and If that isn't a sufficient "focus of evil", I don't know what is!. And nothing would surprise me happening in Texas in the 50's, but I don't really  believe any of it.  Not that I would argue with anyone who did.

This is a good thread.

The people who were most concerned about JFK were concerned about  "appeasement" and the  Cold War ending. They  didn't have to be very sophisticated to know that LBJ was going to be a big improvement to them. But I've never believed that JFK being killed was purely  a binary decision about whether to escalate the war in Vietnam

But those issues aren't the bane of JEH or the FBI. Though we know there were unaccounted for minutes in their phone call, was it the following day? between JEH and LBJ. That could be just an acknowledgement of what the direction of the plan will be regarding how they are going to pursue Oswald's guilt.

I don't think LBJ was part of the  plan, and I don't think he colluded with any group that was,  before or after the assassination. But we all know LBJ was part of a coverup.  I think he had better  suspicions about who killed JFK than Bobby, who at least at first, had a lot of allegations but no specifics.

LBJ worked to take  suspicion away from the Russians, Cubans, the government (Joint Chiefs and the CIA), and decided to deflect foreign policy objectives away from Cuba and toward SE Asia, and was savvy enough to know that Civil Rights legislation was the current wave of history and knew he had the unique background being the previous Majority Leader of the Senate  to pull it off.

I don't think there's any sufficient knowledge to speculate LBJ being owned by Hoover, Dulles, or Harriman or anybody, though it's fun to kick around. I don't think there were a lot of strings and negotiations going on between the plotters when  LBJ became President. It was relatively seamless. A perceived radical was removed from office.

I'm going with what we know , and that paints a somewhat logical story by itself. You can get lost, with dot connecting, assigning dominion over some of LBJ's contacts over others, but we don't have a clear track of how powerful each contact was. But as I say, it is fun to speculate.

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

We must, must, must ditch this demonstrably false myth, sooner or later. The Pentagon hawks did not get "the full war in Vietnam they wanted." Not even close.

After taking office, LBJ told the Joint Chiefs he wanted to cut defense spending. He told South Vietnam's leader that he hoped U.S. forces could be withdrawn. Even in the face of severe Communist provocations in 1964 that killed numerous Americans in South Vietnam, LBJ either did not respond or responded with milk-toast pinpricks. 

Only when Hanoi vastly escalated their war effort in early 1965, an escalation that dwarfed their 1961 escalation--only then did LBJ reluctantly agree to send in combat troops, and he nearly dallied too long. What's more, the LBJ White House tapes and other records show that LBJ hoped the deployment would be brief. 

Even when LBJ, again with great reluctance, approved the sending of more combat troops and the launching of air raids, he put insane, absurd restrictions on our military operations, especially on our air operations, that justifiably infuriated the Joint Chiefs and other Pentagon hawks (as well as conservative members of his own party, such as Senator Stennis). The Joint Chiefs and other hawks viewed LBJ's war effort as dangerously handcuffed, incompetent, weak, and as aiding the Communist assault on South Vietnam.

These facts are a matter of well-documented history. Among many other books, they are documented in H. R. McMaster's widely acclaimed masterpiece Dereliction of Duty, in George Herring's book LBJ and Vietnam, in Michael Hunt's book Lyndon Johnson's War, in General Phillip Davidson's book Vietnam at War, and in Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp's seminal book Strategy for Defeat.

 

I'd like to see if @James DiEugenio agrees with the gist of this comment.

 

[Michael Griffith]

25 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

We must, must, must ditch this demonstrably false myth, sooner or later. The Pentagon hawks did not get "the full war in Vietnam they wanted." Not even close.

After taking office, LBJ told the Joint Chiefs he wanted to cut defense spending. He told South Vietnam's leader that he hoped U.S. forces could be withdrawn. Even in the face of severe Communist provocations in 1964 that killed numerous Americans in South Vietnam, LBJ either did not respond or responded with milk-toast pinpricks. 

Only when Hanoi vastly escalated their war effort in early 1965, an escalation that dwarfed their 1961 escalation--only then did LBJ reluctantly agree to send in combat troops, and he nearly dallied too long. What's more, the LBJ White House tapes and other records show that LBJ hoped the deployment would be brief. 

Even when LBJ, again with great reluctance, approved the sending of more combat troops and the launching of air raids, he put insane, absurd restrictions on our military operations, especially on our air operations, that justifiably infuriated the Joint Chiefs and other Pentagon hawks (as well as conservative members of his own party, such as Senator Stennis). The Joint Chiefs and other hawks viewed LBJ's war effort as dangerously handcuffed, incompetent, weak, and as aiding the Communist assault on South Vietnam.

These facts are a matter of well-documented history. Among many other books, they are documented in H. R. McMaster's widely acclaimed masterpiece Dereliction of Duty, in George Herring's book LBJ and Vietnam, in Michael Hunt's book Lyndon Johnson's War, in General Phillip Davidson's book Vietnam at War, and in Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp's seminal book Strategy for Defeat.

I forgot to include the fact that the record shows that LBJ repeatedly indicated deep concern that escalating the Vietnam War would interfere with his domestic agenda, especially with the Great Society.

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Where did Roger say anything about Harriman?

 

The only time Roger said anything about Harriman is when he disagreed with your assessment that the idea of there being no Soviet involvement originated with him.

You can read it yourself if you wish, here:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29950-the-exoneration-of-lyndon-johnson/?do=findComment&comment=522596

 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Cliff,

(EDIT: I wrote the following while Cliff was posting the previous post.)

In his OP, Roger Odisio said the following:

The call from the White House situation room telling those coming back to DC that the murderer had already been arrested and he did it alone.  Absolute proof that the preplanned cover up was off and running. The Situation Room was run at the time by McGeorge Bundy, the guy who had already redrafted NSM 263 as 273 that Johnson would sign the day after JFK was buried.

(I had no idea that Washington's lone-nut decision had already been made by then.)

 

When I read that, I recalled what you have said before about Averil Harriman. I replied:

Early indications shortly after the assassination were that the assassination was a Cuban/Russian plot.

As Cliff Varnell likes to point out, this possibility was quickly discounted by Averell Harriman, who said that all the Soviet experts agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the plot. Which wasn't true... the Soviet experts had not been consulted. ...

The information back to Air Force 1 saying that Oswald was the lone murderer probably originated from whoever consulted Harriman.

 

 

Roger disagreed with that and said that the idea that loner Oswald was to blame, and not the Soviets, came from the plotters, not Harriman, and were relayed to Air Force One by McGeorge Bundy. Roger said that this was the beginning of the plotter-planned cover up.

Here are my questions for you:

1. Do you believe that Harriman's comments about the Kremlinologists came early enough that they influenced what Bundy relayed to Air Force One on their flight back to DC (about Oswald being the lone killer)?
2. Regarding the topic of this post, how does your belief differ from Roger's? (It appears that the primary difference is that you belief Harriman was in on the plot and whereas Roger doesn't. Though he might believe Bundy was.)

 

Let me summarize the heart of what I'm saying.  It doesn't depend on what LBJ's mistress said, or scandals around him that were tightening the noose around his neck. Johnson was in real danger of getting kicked off the ticket in '64 and he knew it. But there were larger issues in play.

To summarize,  The objectives of the killers was get the policy changes they wanted and get away with the murder by covering up their role while blaming someone else.  As president, Johnson was the only entity, the only person, who could play an important role in achieving all of that. 

All of this had to be worked out between Johnson and the other plotters before they went ahead with the murder.. 

[Joe Bauer]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The above photo is "epically" disturbing.

One of the most disturbing in American history.

LBJ pulled the totally traumatized and blood covered Jackie Kennedy into his swearing-in ceremony?

She certainly didn't ask or volunteer to be a part of this sick purpose, cramped body political photo-op scene on her own.

The look of grief, shock and trauma ( even terror!) on Jackie's face is so powerful it is heart breaking and gut wrenching to even see.

Just minutes earlier she saw her husband's head savagely blown apart (just inches from her face!) with his brains and blood sprayed all over her!

She clearly looks like someone who is so psychologically traumatized her number one priority need should have been being tended to by mental health professionals in an extreme crisis protocol.

Sat or laid down in a quiet calm place, comforted, kept away from any crowds at all. Maybe even sedated?

Not thrust into a stifling body cramped space filled with LBJ sycophants more than anyone else.  Jackie K. probably didn't hear a word of what was being said.

To me her requested attendance in that ceremony was beyond misguided. It was stunningly thoughtless even cold-hearted cruel. A twisted self-interest promoting kind of cruel.

Besides the ghastly look of grief and shock on Jackie's face, the photo's other aspects just enhances it's epic tragic, sad and thoughtless cruelty energy conveyance. Perversely so.

Congressman Thomas is smilingly winking at LBJ in what looks to me like a "celebratory" gesture?

Like "good going Lyndon buddy" you're THE MAN now! 

How f******  stupid ... even sick that looks in that photo.

Imo there is not one rationally excusable reason Thomas could give to be smiling and congratulatory winking at LBJ in that social setting. Not one.

And then there is Lady Bird's restrained yet still incongruously misplaced smile expression.

I'm sure it wasn't intentionally unfeeling in meaning. I would imagine someone in her position not knowing exactly how to react in that unprecedented highly shocking sad and tension filled situation.

Yet, Lady Bird's smile just adds to the photo's epically disturbing perverseness of a totally traumatized Jackie K's torment in not just being dragged into that stifling body cramped political photo-op den of LBJ cronies at a time of extreme psychological trauma personal need and care, but juxtaposed even more disturbingly with the odd facial expressions ( sinister meaning or not ) shown in it.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Roger Odisio]

35 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Yeah, LBJ is the ultimate low hanging fruit of JFK conspiracy lore. He just couldn't help it with all his motives.

Obviously with a guy like him, nothing would surprise me. But a lot of the  people in  "The men who killed Kennedy", #9? including Madeleine Duncan Brown, Judyth Baker  and Barr Mc Clellan (  FYI, whose son Scott was George W. Bush's press secretary.)  I think are just douchebags IMO, as was Billy Sol Estes.. I once was more susceptible to such stories. But having spent so much time studying the JFKA , I've seen so XXXXX and nefarious allegations come and go.

What JFKA student wouldn't salivate at the idea that Malcolm Wallace was LBJ's" hit man" and he killed Henry Marshall and his own sister! We love foci of evil here, and If that isn't a sufficient "focus of evil", I don't know what is!. And nothing would surprise me happening in Texas in the 50's, but I don't really  believe any of it.  Not that I would argue with anyone who did.

This is a good thread.

The people who were most concerned about JFK were concerned about  "appeasement" and the  Cold War ending. They  didn't have to be very sophisticated to know that LBJ was going to be a big improvement to them. But I've never believed that JFK being killed was purely  a binary decision about whether to escalate the war in Vietnam

But those issues aren't the bane of JEH or the FBI. Though we know there were unaccounted for minutes in their phone call, was it the following day? between JEH and LBJ. That could be just an acknowledgement of what the direction of the plan will be regarding how they are going to pursue Oswald's guilt.

I don't think LBJ was part of the  plan, and I don't think he colluded with any group that was,  before or after the assassination. But we all know LBJ was part of a coverup.  I think he had better  suspicions about who killed JFK than Bobby, who at least at first, had a lot of allegations but no specifics.

LBJ worked to take  suspicion away from the Russians, Cubans, the government (Joint Chiefs and the CIA), and decided to deflect foreign policy objectives away from Cuba and toward SE Asia, and was savvy enough to know that Civil Rights legislation was the current wave of history and knew he had the unique background being the previous Majority Leader of the Senate  to pull it off.

I don't think there's any sufficient knowledge to speculate LBJ being owned by Hoover, Dulles, or Harriman or anybody, though it's fun to kick around. I don't think there were a lot of strings and negotiations going on between the plotters when  LBJ became President. It was relatively seamless. A perceived radical was removed from office.

I'm going with what we know , and that paints a somewhat logical story by itself. You can get lost, with dot connecting, assigning dominion over some of LBJ's contacts over others, but we don't have a clear track of how powerful each contact was. But as I say, it is fun to speculate.

Here, with one correction, is the heart of your mistake.

"I don't think LBJ was part of the  plan, and I don't think he colluded with any group that was,  before or after the assassination. But we all know LBJ was part of a coverup."  

LBJ wasn't just part of the coverup, he ran it in minute detail.  Starting with his order to illegally snatch the body back to Washington so they could control the results of a fake autopsy. And the phone call  to Air Force One that afternoon saying the killer had already been captured and he acted alone, something they could not have known at that time unless saying so was part of a pre-murder plan designed to intimidate the returning staffers to go along with their preplanned story,  And naming Allen Dulles to the WC.   And on and on.

You think none of this was planned before the murder?  The killers committed the murder without a plan in place to get away with it?  And Johnson, as central to not only the coverup but also as the guy who would have to implement the policy changes they wanted that sparked the murder in the first place, was not involved in devising the pre-murder plan that had to have been made?

[Joe Bauer]

LBJ of course wasn't in on any organizational planning of the JFKA.

How stupid would that be?

All that was required of him was the be okay with it. To be ready for it.

And to make sure there was a controllable investigation of it.

And what more obvious action could LBJ take to do that than to appoint someone like his longtime fellow JFK hating friend Allan Dulles to be an influential member of the investigative commission and his "like brothers" friend J. Edgar Hoover ( also JFK and RFK hating) to be in charge of the evidence they would use to reach their JFKA guilty party finding?

I don't understand LBJ down players pretending LBJ wasn't corrupt enough to ever condone or even possibly order certain threat enemies to be murdered in his obsession with political power and personal wealth gain.

And obsession Ed Tatro described as ruthless, E. Howard Hunt described as "maniacal" and Richard Nixon even ominously inferred "You know that Lyndon...he never liked to be number two!"

Edited December 12, 2023 by Joe Bauer