Documentary on Jack Ruby

[Tim Gratz]

Justin wrote:

I find it interesting the character assassination of JFK that still goes to this day.

Telling the truth is not character assassination.

Ron Ecker had the courage to state that Kennedy rightly should have been removed from office because of his affair with Judith Campbell. Now with the caveat that I give statements by mafiosos no more credit than statements by Communists, in the Bonanno book "Bound By Honor" he states that Hoover used the Campbell affair to "blackmail" JFK to keeping him on as FBI Director. So JFK's affair with Campbell did indeed affect his conduct in office.

That JFK probably should have been impeached over Campbell (and probably over Rometsch as well) in no way minimizes the horror and the illegality of his murder. Nor should it in any degree affect the vigor of our search for the truth.

That being rightly said, as I have mentioned before, I regret ever learning about Campbell, Rometsch and his other adulteries. I prefer the image of JFK as a family man with his wife and children. Despite my disagreement with his policies, I greatly admired his style and wit and I will never forget those terrible "four days in November".

I note the irony, however, that these matters would probably never have surfaced but for the rejection of the "lone nut" WC theory, which was fueled primarily by

people who were the strongest Kennedy admirers. RFK's concerrn over "the dark side of Camelot" may very well have been what prompted his participation in the cover-up.

But they must be discussed since there may be a relation to his murder. Obviously, any time a married person is murdered the question of his or her intimate involvement with others must be considered. Now I consider this theory even more ridiculous than many posted here, but it is theoretically possible that Joe DiMaggio financed the assassination because he was certain the Kennedys had Marilyn killed. (Again, I don't think there is an iota of evidence to suspect him.) My point is simply Kennedy's affairs open up a whole new "cast of characters" with motive to kill Kennedy.

With respect to the discussion of JFK's policies, and the issue of whether the Kennedys' "vendetta" against Castro precipitated the missile crisis, the suggestion that no one should question the "mythology" of Kennedy lest it be considered "character assassination" is, IMO, preposterous. Kennedy should be idolized and his policies not subject to criticism merely because he was murdered? Is criticism of Bush's policies "character assassination"?

The best word to describe my view of JFK is "nuanced". Back in the sixties, I strongly disagreed with many of his policies. And I still do. But he was a charismatic leader winning friends for the US. His speech in West Berlin was magnificent and I think that speech alone could have been sufficient to motivate the KGB to kill him! The Peace Corps and the moon landing (sorry, Jack) are two of his enduring accomplishments. And the tax cut that he proposed proved to be great economics. And I also think RFK's crusade against the MOB may have been the beginning of the end of the Mafia (and may have played a role in the assassination.) And I truly believe that had he not been killed, Castro would have been history before November of 1964, and what a difference that would have made!

My feeling is Kennedy was most likely killed by someone acting to benefit Castro (probably with his knowledge), but perhaps, and less likely, by anti-Castro exiles (who may have been manipulated without their knowledge of JFK's more guarded plans to oust Castro). Clearly there was Mob participation. If there was KGB involvement, it may have been motivated by the friends JFK was making for the free world. So his assassination may well have been fueled by the policies and programs for which he deserves great credit. On the other hand, at least the Kennedy participation in the cover-up was no doubt motivated in part by the fear of disclosure of the "dark side of Camelot"--a fear by RFK that was certainly prescient.

It is ridiculous (if not a calculated ploy to stifle dissent) to label the revelation of the "dark secrets" of Camelot as "character assassination". Indeed they must be a part of a search for the truth of the REAL assassination. But unless they lead to the discovery of the conspirators, it is regretful that an unsuccessful search led to those disclosures.

My feelings are best summed up by a phrase from Bob Seger's "Against the Wind":

"Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then." (John hates it when I use song lyrics to make a point.)

[Justin Martell]

Justin wrote:

I find it interesting the character assassination of JFK that still goes to this day.

Telling the truth is not character assassination.

Ron Ecker had the courage to state that Kennedy rightly should have been removed from office because of his affair with Judith Campbell.  Now with the caveat that I give statements by mafiosos no more credit than statements by Communists, in the Bonanno book "Bound By Honor" he states that Hoover used the Campbell affair to "blackmail" JFK to keeping him on as FBI Director.  So JFK's affair with Campbell did indeed affect his conduct in office.

That JFK probably should have been impeached over Campbell (and probably over Rometsch as well) in no way minimizes the horror and the illegality of his murder.  Nor should it in any degree affect the vigor of our search for the truth.

That being rightly said, as I have mentioned before, I regret ever learning about Campbell, Rometsch and his other adulteries.  I prefer the image of JFK as a family man with his wife and children.  Despite my disagreement with his policies, I greatly admired his style and wit and I will never forget those terrible "four days in November".

I note the irony, however, that these matters would probably never have surfaced but for the rejection of the "lone nut" WC theory, which was fueled primarily by

people who were the strongest Kennedy admirers.  RFK's concerrn over "the dark side of Camelot" may very well have been what prompted his participation in the cover-up.

But they must be discussed since there may be a relation to his murder.  Obviously, any time a married person is murdered the question of his or her intimate involvement with others must be considered.  Now I consider this theory even more ridiculous than many posted here, but it is theoretically possible that Joe DiMaggio financed the assassination because he was certain the Kennedys had Marilyn killed.  (Again, I don't think there is an iota of evidence to suspect him.)  My point is simply Kennedy's affairs open up a whole new "cast of characters" with motive to kill Kennedy.

With respect to the discussion of JFK's policies, and the issue of whether the Kennedys' "vendetta" against Castro precipitated the missile crisis, the suggestion that no one should question the "mythology" of Kennedy lest it be considered "character assassination" is, IMO, preposterous.  Kennedy should be idolized and his policies not subject to criticism merely because he was murdered?  Is criticism of Bush's policies "character assassination"?

The best word to describe my view of JFK is "nuanced".  Back in the sixties, I strongly disagreed with many of his policies.  And I still do.  But he was a charismatic leader winning friends for the US.  His speech in West Berlin was magnificent and I think that speech alone could have been sufficient to motivate the KGB to kill him!  The Peace Corps and the moon landing (sorry, Jack) are two of his enduring accomplishments.  And the tax cut that he proposed proved to be great economics.  And I also think RFK's crusade against the MOB may have been the beginning of the end of the Mafia (and may have played a role in the assassination.)  And I truly believe that had he not been killed, Castro would have been history before November of 1964, and what a difference that would have made!

My feeling is Kennedy was most likely killed by someone acting to benefit Castro (probably with his knowledge), but perhaps, and less likely, by anti-Castro exiles (who may have been manipulated without their knowledge of JFK's more guarded plans to oust Castro).  Clearly there was Mob participation.  If there was KGB involvement, it may have been motivated by the friends JFK was making for the free world.  So his assassination may well have been fueled by the policies and programs for which he deserves great credit.  On the other hand, at least the Kennedy participation in the cover-up was no doubt motivated in part by the fear of disclosure of the "dark side of Camelot"--a fear by RFK that was certainly prescient.

It is ridiculous (if not a calculated ploy to stifle dissent) to label the revelation of the "dark secrets" of Camelot as "character assassination".  Indeed they must be a part of a search for the truth of the REAL assassination.  But unless they lead to the discovery of the conspirators, it is regretful that an unsuccessful search led to those disclosures.

My feelings are best summed up by a phrase from Bob Seger's "Against the Wind":

"Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then."  (John hates it when I use song lyrics to make a point.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It takes alot more than motive to kill the President of The United States and get away with it for more than 40 years. The Mob, Castro, or the KGB could have POSSIBLY had the means to assassinate JFK but NONE of those parties have the ability to cover it up for over 40 years. If there was ANY proof of any of those parties killing JFK it would have meant the end of their existance, which is what the power elite in the U.S. Government wanted anyway. The fact the JFK did not go along with the power elite is why he was killed. His killing would be the reason that they were looking for to enter into war. Your 16 pages of "Castro did it" are asinine. LBJ did not respond to JFK's assassination because he was afraid to suffer the same fate? JFK's vendetta against Castro? Anyone who would have been president at that time would have been doing the same thing it was pretty much the policy to assassinate new possibly communist leaders in foreign countries. Most people who have done any studying into the assassination believe that a massive conspiracy involving numerous elements of the U.S. government is what happened on 11/22/63. The fact the you do not is baffling, by your numerous posts and the intelligent words used in them I know you are not a dim bulb. So what is it?

[Mark Knight]

The best word to describe my view of JFK is "nuanced". Back in the sixties, I strongly disagreed with many of his policies. And I still do.

Tim, to me this seems disingenuous. In 1961, for example...just how aware were you of politics in general? It's my belief that, due to your age during the Kennedy administration, the ONLY political ideas you had consisted of simply parroting what you heard within your own household.

Can you enumerate specific policies you disagreed with, and elaborate the reasons? I have my doubts. Of course, my own ideas about the Kennedy administration were formed by what I heard discussed in my own household. I don't consider that an indictment of EITHER or us, but I DO consider it a step toward TRUTH. BUT over the years I have made some efforts to reconcile my perceptions of that era with the historical record. Some of my preconceived notions have been vindicated, and in some cases I have been humbled and had to reconsider my position. If TRUTH is our aim, we can do no less.

When JFK advocated better relations with the Soviet Union, it was considered treasonous, dealing with those commie SOB's; when Nixon began normalizing relations with China, and "detente" was the word in dealing with the Soviets, it was "statesmanship." WHY?? Were not the same intentions and aims involved--those of making the world a safer place?

In the context of the world today, JFK's administration's policies would be looked upon as quite conservative. Compare Reagan's first administration and JFK's...other than the contrast between Grenada and the BOP, I fail to see a lot of philosophical difference.

NOW...turning this thread back toward the initial topic...I am STILL intrigued by information connecting Ruby, then of Chicago, with a relative newcomer to Congress, a Mr. Nixon of California, in the late 1940's ['47?]. I have NEVER heard an explanation of this connection that is either clear or concise.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

Tim, to me this seems disingenuous. In 1961, for example...just how aware were you of politics in general? It's my belief that, due to your age during the Kennedy administration, the ONLY political ideas you had consisted of simply parroting what you heard within your own household.

Mark, I took a keen interest in politics when I was nine years old (in 1958). My father was a very ardent Democrat and my mother a Republican but less ardent perhaps. About the only arguments I remember my parents having were about politics, and some were somewhat heated. My father worked for the post office and my family was lower middle class, so there was not an economic influence on my politics.

I think I became a Republican because I liked President Eisenhower. I remember passing out Nixon literature in 1960 (at the age of eleven).

It was in 1961 that I began to read deeper about politics and started to understand that Nixon was not a conservative Republican by any means. I was greatly influenced by the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr., starting with "Up From Liberalism"; then "God and Man at Yale"; "The Committee and its Critics" (defending HUAC); "McCarthy and His Enemies". And I also read "A Conscience of a Conservative" and "Why Not Victory" by Barry Goldwater and I became an ardent Goldwater supporter by early 1962. I also read Buckley's National Review.

I followed politics very closely. As much as I disliked JFK's politics, I admired him as a person and as a great intellect. I watched every single one of Kennedy's press conferences and greatly admired his wit. I was greatly upset by his assassination and although it would be an exaggeration to state that I cried for four days I did shed many a tear that terrible week-end in November.

In high school I became active in the Teen-Age Republicans and in 1966 I was elected the Chairman of the Wisconsin Teen-Age Republicans. It was a hotly contested election, although the election did not turn on political philosophies. I started with two opponents but one dropped out and endorsed me. My other opponent, from a very wealthy Milwaukee suburb, was endorsed by the incumbent Republican governor, but I still managed to win. (In fact, I think his endorsement backfired because the high school age Republicans saw it as an attempt to control them.)

I always got along well with Democrat friends and a friend of mine from Madison, Mark Barbash (whose father was a UW professor) was elected Chairman of the Young Democrats at the same time. Together we organized a "Model Legislature" where high school age Republicans and Democrats came to Madison, actually sat in the legislative chambers and learned the legislative process. There was a banquet following the close of business which was usually addressed by the governor (it became an annual event).

In college, I was elected the Chairman of the College Republicans. Then I had but one opponent and, as incredible as it may seem to forum members, as conservative as I was, my opponent's objection was that I was insufficiently conservative. (In 1968 I had supported Reagan over Nixon for the GOP presidential nomination. Even that did not qualify me as conservative enough by some standards!).

I will not belabor you (or this post) with all of the differences I had with JFK. One fundamental difference was that I agreed with Goldwater (and Buckley etc) that our objective should be the defeat of Communism rather than simply its "containment". Simply put, you do not win a war by staying on the defensive. We tried to prevent Communist take-overs of third world countries to be sure but we did not try to bring the Communist puppet states to democracy. (Conservatives thought it disgraceful that we did not support the freedom fighters in Hungary in 1965.) I think Reagan proved in his term that Goldwater was right. He set out to defeat Communism, and, by golly, he did!

I still adhere to many of the values and philosophies I acquired in my youth and I believe many have been proven right (correct, I mean, we know they were right) by history. However, I think Goldwater was wrong to oppose the civil rights legislation (first proposed by JFK but passed by LBJ) and I think the voting rights Act of 1965 brought great progress to our country. I remember as a youth being appalled by what the Southern Democrats were doing to the civil rights workers.

Re the "correctness" of the politics I endorsed, I would cite as one example Robert Strange McNamara. Even though he was a Kennedy "whiz kid" I never liked him and he was one of the "engineers" of our fatally flawed Vietnam policies.

I stated in a different thread that another reason why I became a Republican was because I saw the Democrat party as consisting in the north of corrupt labor and big city bosses (e.g. Daley in Chicago) and as rabid and violent racists in the South (e.g. Robert KKK Byrd). I knew in 1964 that LBJ was a crook, having read (and distributed) "A Texan Looks at Lyndon." Here again I feel vindicated by history which has demonstrated that there was even greater corruption by the Democrat city machines than we knew about in 1960, and that LBJ was definitely corrupt as well.

In the early sixties there were definitely some "over-the-edge" far-out Republican "kooks" (e.g. in many cases the members of the John Birch Society). I met a few of these people myself (since the Teen-Age Republicans were part of the Young Republicans whose age limit was thirty-five). My experience with these people allows me to better understand the thinking of some of the extreme Kennedy-haters.

I once sat at the head table of a Young Republican fund-raising dinner at which the speaker was F. Clifton White, who had master-minded the "draft Goldwater" movement. The Goldwater nomination was a definite draft; Goldwater had been opposed to running. "Suite 3505" is an interesting book that reports how Goldwater was indeed drafted. Goldwater essentially dumped the people who ran the "Draft Goldwater" movement for his friends from Arizona, a move which, in my opinion, helped doom his campaign. Of course, I think it was highly unlikely he could have won given his propensity to make reckless statements and the support for LBJ that was engendered in large part by the assassination of JFK.

I probably went on too long but wanted to demonstrate to you that my view on the events of the sixties is shaped not only from the history books but also (more importantly) from having lived through them.

Finally, I agree with you that in retrospect JFK's foreign policy was far closer to Reagan's than to some of today's Democrats. I think the biggest mistake JFK made was supporting the coup against Diem, a move opposed by his brother Bobby as well as other members of his administation. This coup led to successive regime changes in South Vietnam which clearly hurt the effort against the Communists.

Thanks for hearing me out, Mark!!

Edited May 23, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Shanet Clark]

If you are interested in this line of thought you should read my seminar paper

"Was JFK's Assassination 'Legal'?: Dallas and the 25th Amendment"

Seymour Hersh's book "Dark Camelot" is an accurate and realistic view of john Kennedy's private life.

Whatever private biographical material that emerges now in the public press should be considered part of the ONI and NSA files on John Kennedy.

If the man was stripped of his security clearance and suffered EXECUTIVE SANCTION, then it is not character assassination to discuss these problematic personal anecdotes.

JFK's relationship with ANGIE DICKINSON, MARY PINCHOT MEYER, ELLEN ROMESCH and other women is documented, his ADDISON'S DISEASE and drug usage is well documented.

Although I am a "radical" coming from the "left" I find it imperative to address squarely these unflattering facts:

because these earthy realities may well have served as the rationale and excuse for his murder..................

[Mark Knight]

Tim, I greatly appreciate your response to my post. Prior to that, I had very little understanding of your position on JFK's administration, other than some generic "disagreement" comments.

I grew up in a VERY Democrat household...My dad was a Truman-style Democrat, of the "give-'em hell" persuasion, and Mom was of similar mindset, but a bit muted in comparison. I grew up calling myself a liberal, but I was NOTHING like the folks who claim that mantle today; as per the comparison in my post above, if Reagan was a conservative, then my politics run toward the conservative side.

Dad, for all his protestations that he was a Democrat, never voted for a Democratic Party presidential nominee after LBJ [i recall some mumblings about "communist SOB's" regarding McGovern, Mondale, and a few others], and I have voted for independent candidates when the choice was available [Perot the most outstanding example].

I do believe that, in order to understand possible motives for the JFK assassination, one has to investigate ALL the evidence that's available. If that leads one into areas of his personal life that tend to tarnish the legend, as long as the information is true there is no character assassination.

Now...once again, I'd like tu turn this thread back toward Jacob Rubenstein, a/k/a Jack Ruby...and I'm STILL intent on probing his connection to Nixon back in the '40's [1947?]. Does anybody have any info--other than the report that Nixon interceded on Ruby's behalf regarding a Congressional probe--as to exactly what the nature of the Ruby-Nixon connection was?

[Norman T. Field]

I saw the HC doc on Mr. Rubenstein, IMO, disinformation worthy of Victor Posner. No mention of Jack's Chicago connections at all. Anybody know why Jack had to leave Chicago? He killed a cop! His punishment is exile? Tell me he is not connected. Also no mention of Jack's tearful pleas to Justice Warren to get him out of Dallas and Jack would tell him everything he knew. Plus, no reference to the huge increase in phone traffic at his club in the months prior to the hit. Lots of calls to Chicago and Miami and New Orleans.

I remember reading an interview with Castro, where he was asked about involvement in the JFK hit. His response was along the lines of 'why would I kill my best chance for reapproachment with the US?'.

Castro likely new that JFK pulled the plug on the air strikes, which doomed the invasion. Castro certainly knew that JFK pulled the missles out of Turkey. In the USSR, Kruschev was considered to have won a great victory by getting the missles out of Turkey, why would the KGB or the GRU have wanted to hit the guy who was their friend?

Then go ask various right wing types in the US how they felt about the missles in Turkey being pulled after JFK folded on the airstrikes. Who has the motive now?

[Mark Stapleton]

I saw the HC doc on Mr. Rubenstein, IMO, disinformation worthy of Victor Posner. No mention of Jack's Chicago connections at all. Anybody know why Jack had to leave Chicago? He killed a cop! His punishment is exile? Tell me he is not connected. Also no mention of Jack's tearful pleas to Justice Warren to get him out of Dallas and Jack would tell him everything he knew. Plus, no reference to the huge increase in phone traffic at his club in the months prior to the hit. Lots of calls to Chicago and Miami and New Orleans.

I remember reading an interview with Castro, where he was asked about involvement in the JFK hit. His response was along the lines of 'why would I kill my best chance for reapproachment with the US?'.

Castro likely new that JFK pulled the plug on the air strikes, which doomed the invasion. Castro certainly knew that JFK pulled the missles out of Turkey. In the USSR, Kruschev was considered to have won a great victory by getting the missles out of Turkey, why would the KGB or the GRU have wanted to hit the guy who was their friend?

Then go ask various right wing types in the US how they felt about the missles in Turkey being pulled after JFK folded on the airstrikes. Who has the motive now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Norman,

Good post. I agree 100% with your observations. There were many other candidates with much stronger motives to kill JFK than Castro. Tim will probably reply to your post and say something like, "With respect, Norman....." (I love that one) and tell you to go and read a lot of "Castro did it" material but don't worry---it's a rite of passage on this forum (and despite the rampant right wingery he's not a bad guy).