Richard Nixon and the Kennedy Assassination.

[Mark Knight]

I think that, by 1963, Nixon didn't have any long-range political plans for '64 OR '68. In '62 Nixon couldn't win the governorship of his home state; so presidential politics, at that point, weren't his focus. But I don't think it would've been out of character for Nixon to have known of a plan to assassinate JFK and have done nothing, as Lynne contends, since it would've been a just case of revenge in Nixon's eyes..."karma," I suppose, in the current US television context. Kennedy had caused Nixon to be tagged a loser, and Nixon saw the assassination as Kennedy's just desserts, in my opinion.

It could be argued that, consistent with Nixon's nature, Nixon was brought into the plot precisely because of a desire for some sort of revenge on JFK. In 1963, with Nixon's mindset, it wouldn't have been a hard sell. But I don't think Nixon could've possibly been the mastermind of such a plot, as that role doesn't conform to Nixon's nature in a 1963 context.

If you view the political violence in the US between 1963-72 as unconnected events, then a series of fortuitous violent coincidences occurred which were all ultimately beneficial, over the long-term, for Nixon's political career...a career that was beyond life support in 1962.

Imagine a surviving ex-President JFK articulately ridiculing Nixon's political positions in '68; the events in '63 assured that would never happen. The JFK assassination meant one less negative political connection to Nixon's past, and one less stumbling block in the future. So I still contend that JFK's assassination WAS, ultimately, beneficial to Nixon's presidential aspirations. But in '64, with or without JFK's assassination, Nixon was still politically dead, and even if there was undisputable proof that Nixon had some degree of involvement with the assassination, Nixon's political resurrection couldn't have possibly occurred prior to '68.

The question as to whether any Nixon-related conspiracy in '63 could have been targeting '68 for Nixon's "Comeback Special" [apologies to Elvis fans...I just couldn't resist] would be speculation at best. I believe that Nixon was convinced that JFK's assassination would allow for Nixon's political resurrection, but as early as '63 I don't think a specific date, such as '68, was envisioned...not yet, at least. But absent JFK's assassination, I truly believe that Nixon's political career, like Generalissimo Francisco Franco, would be "still dead."

[Len Colby]

Len,

I don't think there is any question that the JFK assassination benefited Nixon and every other Republican. They were faced with the prospect of a Kennedy dynasty (John, Robert, and Ted). Nixon had to write off 1964 in any case. Goldwater was to be the nominee. In the unlikely prospect that Goldwater won in 1964, then ran for reelection, Nixon's year would be 1972. But Goldwater was bound to lose in 1964, so Nixon could count on 1968 as being his year. He could run against LBJ in 1968 with some secret plan to end the Vietnam War. But LBJ made it easy for Nixon by not running for reelection. I don't think Nixon or the powers that be had any idea that Robert would be stupid enough to run for president in 1968 or any other time, but they were wrong. But not as wrong as Robert.

Ron

I don't think LBJ made it easy for Nixon by not running. The unpopularity of the war made his candidacy untenable. Although I disagree with Tim on almost everything except civil rights he is right [and Right] when he says that from what was known in 1963 killing JFK would put him out of the picture until '72. I don't think there was any indication back then that Bobby or Teddy could have been viable presidential candidates. IMHO it was only their brother's martyrdom that gave them this status.

If one is going to argue that Nixon had motive to kill JFK one has to show that in late 1963:

1] He still harboured Presidential ambitions despite his "kick around" quote and

2] He had reason to believe it would increase his chances of getting elected.

Under the current system of electing presidents loosing candidates only got elected later under special curcumstances [see previous post] Nixon in '68 became and still is the only exception. Incumbants alsoonly lost under special circumstances [pre 1976].

One can admire JFK [and his brothers] and despise Nixon without believing that Tricky Dick benefited from the assassination or atleast that he could have forseen benefiting from it.

[Lynne Foster]

There is no provision, under the current system, for climbing over dead bodies.

Len, I don't think that a textbook analysis does any more than distort the truth here.

[Mark Knight]

Had LBJ won the nomination, rather than LJB's stand-in, Humphrey, I doubt that the result would have been different. Not only had the war made LBJ unpolular, but the Pueblo incidnet on LBJ's watch had tarnished his image as a leader. Nominally, Johnson was the leader, but by March of '68, nobody was following.

I believe that Nixon's position in '63 on the JFK assassination would've been based upon a perception of revenge. Any political considerations on Nixon's part would've come afterwards, perhaps as much as two years later. But the fact that the '68 assassinations of MLKjr and RFK eliminated the primary obstacles to a Nixon presidency, in my opinion, should not go unnoticed. Nor should the similarities of those shootings with the one in DP be overlooked. I believe that they are probably connected, but obviously NOT from a master plan concocted in '63 by Nixon.

I think that Nixon was pursuaded to cooperate with those who committed these acts, and to try to make it appear that Nixon was merely an opportunist whose good fortune only coincidentally occurred through the brutal murders of others.

I think that the success of the JFK assassination was what demonstrated "we CAN do it," and encouraged if not directly caused the MLKjr and RFK assassinations.

And I think that the persons behind these murders left Nixon to twist slowly, slowly in the wind when he was of no further value to them; hence the impeachment/resignation.

Remember that this is only speculation based upon my interpretation of what the evidence shows. Unlike Lynne, I don't assert that it is fact. But I assert that it is both possible and plausible.

So I contend that, while in '63 Nixon's primary motivation for any level of participation in the JFK assassination would've been revenge-based, to deny that it was ULTIMATELY of political benefit to Nixon is somewhat short-sighted.

[Lynne Foster]

I disagree

Edited November 14, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Lynne Foster]

I think you are wrong. Richard Nixon's actions had no more to do with revenge than Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, who volunteered their services to assassinate Castro.

This is about their deep-seated beliefs, I think you fundamentally misunderstand an assassin like Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon believed that it would be detrimental to American Foreign Policy to expose the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Do you agree with Richard Nixon?

Edited November 15, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Lynne Foster]

Does this fit?

Having gotten into a fistfight with Lee Harvey Oswald, Frank Sturgis determined that he would make a perfect patsy, and he asked Howard Hunt to "prep" him, which explains the letter from an unsuspecting, Lee Harvey Oswald, asking Mr. Hunt about his "official capacity".

Sounds like Oswald had to wait until November 22nd, 1963, to determine his "official capacity."

[Gerry Hemming]

Does this fit?

Having gotten into a fistfight with Lee Harvey Oswald, Frank Sturgis determined that he would make a perfect patsy, and he asked Howard Hunt to "prep" him, which explains the letter from an unsuspecting, Lee Harvey Oswald, asking Mr. Hunt about his "official capacity".

Sounds like Oswald had to wait until November 22nd, 1963, to determine his "official capacity."

----------------------------

And out of the Metropolis telephone booth -- and wearing, NO -- not an "S", but the gold letters "M-W":

Yeegads, faster than a "Speed-Freak", able to leap tall buildings with a single "Swish"!!

IT IS !! -- [Wait-for-It] -- MATT WEBERMAN !!

Aaargh,

GPH

_________________

[Lynne Foster]

Why are you being silly? Isn't it a good theory?

In the first place, Oswald was 'just a patsy'.

In the second, it looks like he had significant contact with both Sturgis and Hunt.

In the third place, Oswald, Hunt and Sturgis were in Dealy Plaza on November 22nd, 1963.

In the fourth place, Howard had a "psychological manipulator" reputation.

In the sixth place, Oswald was the "official" patsy.

In the seventh place, Oswald did not shoot the President, even though extraordinary lengths were taken to "prove" otherwise.

I think the letter to Mr. Hunt is more significant in the context of a confrontation between Frank Sturgis and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Gerry Hemming]

Why are you being silly? Isn't it a good theory?

In the first place, Oswald was 'just a patsy'.

In the second, it looks like he had significant contact with both Sturgis and Hunt.

In the third place, Oswald, Hunt and Sturgis were in Dealy Plaza on November 22nd, 1963.

In the fourth place, Howard had a "psychological manipulator" reputation.

In the sixth place, Oswald was the "official" patsy.

In the seventh place, Oswald did not shoot the President, even though extraordinary lengths were taken to "prove" otherwise.

I think the letter to Mr. Hunt is more significant in the context of a confrontation between Frank Sturgis and Lee Harvey Oswald.

---------------------------------------

I'm being SILLY ??!!

One thru seven is totally silly B.S.

Your sound just like Weberman attempting to resurrect his phony "coup d'etat in america" crap book -- acetate sheet lay-overs -- matching Sturgis with the "Harrelson ??" tramp; or is it the Chauncey Holt ?? tramp; and check everybody's "EARS" tramp.

Your phony repetition of Weberman's Bio on Sturgis/Fiorini is total B.S. !! Suddenly we've got these "evil-doers" watergate bunglers -- so let's jump in and blame everything on them "tramps"!!

This is the same phony Bio that AJW has in his Nodu-Rhoids !!

Fonzi screws up on Dave Morales, who while drunk makes seemingly anti-Kennedy remarks. I wonder if the Mexican restaurant owner was drunk when he spoke with Gaeton ??!!

Now we hear all of the "CONCLUSIONS" without even one citation to authority -- do you even know what that term means ??

Nixon's daughters and extended family are still alive and well. But here you go making bald allegations claiming that he is an assassin, a murderer -- just being a crook wasn't bad enough for you ??

Some taxi driver [unnamed] -- such and such photo being interpreted as inculpatory. What is it with the Nixon photo? Was he picking his nose, or his toes in Poughkeepsie ? He was somewhere in the Western Hemisphere on November 22nd -- thus he must have been in Dallas drinking, not a coke like the chicken-chewing schwarze on the 6th floor [in the so-called phony "sniper's nest"]; but her preferred Pepsi instead -- so that makes Nixon guilty of WHAT ??

We've already dealt with this running-off-at-the-mouth gibberish years ago. Indicate where you are getting your "insider??" scoop from. You continue to repeat incessantly, theories and claims disposed of two decades ago.

You are a juror who has already reached a verdict before the trial even begins. Even before you have set foot inside the courthouse !!

And I'm being silly??!! Give me a break. Where is your photo. Have you sent one to John yet ??

Chairs,

GPH

________________________

[Lynne Foster]

It sounds like you rely on John McAdams for all your information.

Who the hell is Weberman?

[Len Colby]

Having gotten into a fistfight with Lee Harvey Oswald, Frank Sturgis determined that he would make a perfect patsy, and he asked Howard Hunt to "prep" him, which explains the letter from an unsuspecting, Lee Harvey Oswald, asking Mr. Hunt about his "official capacity".

Sounds like Oswald had to wait until November 22nd, 1963, to determine his "official capacity."

Got any evidence to back this claim other than the undocumented/plagarized claims of an author no one on this board ever heard of before and even you [claim] don`t know anything about?*

Me asking you this is in no way an indication of my political leanings. Some one could show up an say JFKwas killed by neo-Nazis. If I asked for evidence that wouldn`t make me a neo-Nazi.

*Even the spelling of his name seems to be a mystery to you!!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

It sounds like you rely on John McAdams for all your information.

Who the hell is Weberman?

Just asking that question exposes you as a dabbler, with no serious bona fides in this subject. "Who is Weberman" Who is Frenchy" stop you are splitting my sides. Where do you think you are woman, JFK for beginners. Stop posting this simplistic rubbish, go away and do some serious research, you are becoming a forum joke. I dont see eye to eye with Mr Hemming often, But to suggest that he needs McAdams for his insights is purile, now desist, before he administers another spanking. Steve.

[Len Colby]

I think you are wrong. Richard Nixon's actions had no more to do with revenge than Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, who volunteered their services to assassinate Castro.

This is about their deep-seated beliefs, I think you fundamentally misunderstand an assassin like Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon believed that it would be detrimental to American Foreign Policy to expose the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Do you agree with Richard Nixon?

Where`s the beef?

ditto above post can you back your claims?

It sounds like you rely on John McAdams for all your information.

Who the hell is Weberman?

Just asking that question exposes you as a dabbler, with no serious bona fides in this subject. "Who is Weberman" Who is Frenchy" stop you are splitting my sides. Where do you think you are woman, JFK for beginners. Stop posting this simplistic rubbish, go away and do some serious research, you are becoming a forum joke. I dont see eye to eye with Mr Hemming often, But to suggest that he needs McAdams for his insights is purile, now desist, before he administers another spanking. Steve.

Lynne and Mat Wilson [if they aren`t one and the same] should hook up with Bruce Campbell Adams and Tom Flocco. We could call them the Fooltastic Four, joinly they would be able to solve all the mysteries of the Universe!

PS - Who is Mr. Hemming? LOL

Edited November 15, 2005 by Len Colby

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I think you are wrong. Richard Nixon's actions had no more to do with revenge than Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, who volunteered their services to assassinate Castro.

This is about their deep-seated beliefs, I think you fundamentally misunderstand an assassin like Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon believed that it would be detrimental to American Foreign Policy to expose the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Do you agree with Richard Nixon?

Where`s the beef?

ditto above post can you back your claims?

It sounds like you rely on John McAdams for all your information.

Who the hell is Weberman?

Just asking that question exposes you as a dabbler, with no serious bona fides in this subject. "Who is Weberman" Who is Frenchy" stop you are splitting my sides. Where do you think you are woman, JFK for beginners. Stop posting this simplistic rubbish, go away and do some serious research, you are becoming a forum joke. I dont see eye to eye with Mr Hemming often, But to suggest that he needs McAdams for his insights is purile, now desist, before he administers another spanking. Steve.

Lynne and Mat Wilson [if they aren`t one and the same] should hook up with Bruce Campbell Adams and Tom Flocco. We could call them the Fooltastic Four, joinly they would be able to solve all the mysteries of the Universe!

PS - Who is Mr. Hemming? LOL

Who is this Jack Ruby you all keep talking about. And what does TSBD stand for. LOL

OH and BTW, the hostility that you meet here has nothing to do with us trying to withold the truth from the public, we just cant believe how naive you are Lynee.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Stephen Turner