Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Communication Breakdown


Recommended Posts

Stan, there is indeed proof that JFK had discussed national security matters with Monroe.

And, what's worse, Monroe, unwittingly, passed them on to a suspected Soviet agent while she was in Mexico in the summer of 1962.

The man's name was Frederick Vanderbilt Field and yes he was an heir to the Vanderbilt fortune.

The FBI discovered Monroe's discussions with Field because it had bugged Field's residence in Mexico.

Hoover was steaming mad when he read the report. A copy of the report is (now) a matter of public record.

And Stan I think I can assure you that if this stuff had come out in the press it would have finished JFK politically. His pecadilloes before he became President were one thing but the disclosure that as president he was sharing a girl friend with the don of the Chicago mafia would have been the end of his political career. Given the moral climate of the sixties, the revelation that he was a serial adulterer, regardless of who his bed-mates were, would have been sufficient. If you were Hoover and had access to this information, you surely had no need to seek an assassin. Which is why I think Shanet's theory, while superficially plausible, will not fly.

Note also is all we are discussing is possible motivations to kill Kennedy, As I have said repeatedly, I think it is morally objectionable to accuse someone of murder merely because he or she may have had a motive. There must be at least SOME evidence he or she acted on the motivation before the person can be responsibly characterized as even a POSSIBLE conspirator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Stephen Turner

And Stan I think I can assure you that if this stuff had come out in the press it would have finished JFK politically. His pecadilloes before he became President were one thing but the disclosure that as president he was sharing a girl friend with the don of the Chicago mafia would have been the end of his political career. Given the moral climate of the sixties, the revelation that he was a serial adulterer, regardless of who his bed-mates were, would have been sufficient. If you were Hoover and had access to this information, you surely had no need to seek an assassin. Which is why I think Shanet's theory, while superficially plausible, will not fly.

Tim, have you ever considered that the reasoning behind the assassination was so much more than just removing JFK from power. This was a statement of future intent, made by powerful people, Washington insiders, Dallas Oilmen, The millitary,Etc. The point needed to be rammed home, WE run the show and dont YOU forget it. Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, have you ever considered that the reasoning behind the assassination was so much more than just removing JFK from power. This was a statement of future intent, made by powerful people, Washington insiders, Dallas Oilmen, The millitary,Etc. The point needed to be rammed home, WE run the show and dont YOU forget it. Steve.

Also, it takes time to remove a president, if you have to impeach him. Time was running out. With what Johnson was facing, it would have been a double impeachment. Talk about a constitutional crisis.

If his sins were exposed, I don't think JFK would have resigned. All he had to do was lay out the known case against Johnson and say, "I'm the best that you've got. I promise to be good from now on, and I'm going to have a new running mate."

In addition, resignation or impeachment could not be blamed on Castro.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron wrote:

Also, it takes time to remove a president, if you have to impeach him. Time was running out.

Time for what?

Besides, had I been a Republican operative and wanted to get at JFK, I would have gone to him privately and said, "Mr. President, we have this, this and this on you. Obviously enough to impeach you. But impeachment will tear the country apart. So we request that you resign for health reasons. Should you agree to do so, for the sake of the country, I will ensure that these documents never see the light of day." Similar of course to the group of Senators who approached Nixon to tell him his game was over, but this would be done privately.

I have little doubt that would have accomplished its purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron wrote:

Also, it takes time to remove a president, if you have to impeach him. Time was running out.

Time for what?

Time for Lyndon Johnson. They were cooking his goose in hearings on Capitol Hill on the day of the assassination. Of course the hearings shut down. What a difference a day makes.

Also time was getting short on Vietnam, as far as the military was concerned. JFK had already signed a document about starting to bring troops home.

And of course it was time to finally get rid of Castro. As I said, impeachment, or as you say quietly getting JFK to resign, would not prompt an invasion of Cuba, which many believe was an integral part of the plot against JFK.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the objective was to replace JFK with LBJ you have a point re time being of the essence.

I do not believe JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam, at least certainly not before the 1964 election, so I think that argument fails.

Even more so the Cuba issue. I recently read a statement made by Desmond Fitzgerald made in early 1964 that had JFK not been assassinated Castro would have been gone by Christmas of 1964. If the motive of the conspirators was to "get Castro" they certainly shot themselves in the foot. Moreover, they clearly were not witting of the AMLASH/AMTRUNK/Second Naval Guerilla plans of the Kennedy brothers.

And as I said, given the information that existed on JFK, there is no doubt in my mind he would have resigned to avoid the infamy of a public impeachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the objective was to replace JFK with LBJ you have a point re time being of the essence.

And as I said, given the information that existed on JFK, there is no doubt in my mind he would have resigned to avoid the infamy of a public impeachment.

Don' be so NAIVE and deal with the MURDER of the PRESIDENT and its circumstances as it happened not as how you WISH it happened, with polite men quietly presenting incapacity files and asking quietly for a complete turn over of government....they had the files, the capability, the pretext, the rationale and they didn't ask peermission like in that fond scenario........

Forrestal ------ look at Admiral Forrestal's fate if you want a precedent

for another US national security executive sanction under color of law .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron wrote:

Also, it takes time to remove a president, if you have to impeach him. Time was running out. With what Johnson was facing, it would have been a double impeachment. Talk about a constitutional crisis.

constitutional crises for whom, the media? The political face of Washington? The pantywaist naysayers that hated Catholics and thought the Pope changed his residence to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? Having endured the Civil War and all that THAT entailed, this country and the citizens of this country were much tougher than that -- having the nukes hanging over ones head, well, thats a different story. That was the making of - a constitutional ERASER!

If his sins were exposed, I don't think JFK would have resigned. All he had to do was lay out the known case against Johnson and say, "I'm the best that you've got. I promise to be good from now on, and I'm going to have a new running mate."

In addition, resignation or impeachment could not be blamed on Castro.

bingo

David Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

constitutional crises for whom, the media?

Yes, that's who usually calls such things a constitutional crisis. I must admit that I let the brainwashed part of my mind speak in this instance. Fortunately I think most of my mind remains dirty.

But then didn't Bill Clinton say that he "saved the Constitution" by managing to stay in office? Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron wrote:

Yes, that's who usually calls such things a constitutional crisis. I must admit that I let the brainwashed part of my mind speak in this instance. Fortunately I think most of my mind remains dirty.

But then didn't Bill Clinton say that he "saved the Constitution" by managing to stay in office? Ha ha ha ha ha.

what would we do without these tremendous EGO'S :D

I enjoy your postings Ron -- KUTGW!

David Healy

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, before this thread passes away, would anyone like to hazard an informed guess about who Cabot Lodge might have been calling ?

Nelson Rockefeller and Allen Dulles.

Taylor.

Shanet,

I think Taylor was one of those present at the Nam summit, so I don't think it was him. Stan's choice of Rockefeller is interesting. Wasn't he part of the banking interests that were being threatened by Kennedy's determination to bypass the Federal Reserve ? If there's anyone out there who knows any more about these calls (or call) please join in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...