LBJ :The Passage of Power. By Robert Caro

[John R. Tonkovich]

IHas anyone read this? Or any of Caro's LBJ series.

I am deep into it, and the Bobby Baker situation certainly was becoming perilous for Lyndon.
I knew of the story, but seeing it in such depth is striking.

I'm not an " LBJ did it" guy - far from it, having seen the pretty dubious ...theories, Madeline Brown, Mac Wallace et.al.  But Iit does bring up the " cui bono" approach.

Thoughts?

[Benjamin Cole]

Read the Caro series as it came out. Solid history.

Obviously, lots of detail.

There are JFKA "LBJ did it" devotees...but the connection between LBJ and LHO has always been, well, a blank.

In fact, the real-world connections of LHO to any organization are filmy at best, through it is record he visited KGB officers in MC, and was evidently in touch with Cuban G2'ers in New Orleans. 

Serious researcher Larry Hancock says LHO was only an earnest if wayward Marxist, and not affiliated with any intel agency.

My best guess is LHO worked with low-level G2'ers, Alpha 66'ers or JMWAVE'ers to effect the JFKA. Confusing matters is G2 had penetrated Alpha 66, and JMWAVE.

Then there is the curiosity of KGB asset Bruce Solie possibly manipulating LHO.

I still don't know what happened.

[John R. Tonkovich]

Mr. Cole:

Thanks for the polite, measured response.

I'm looking forward to the final LBJ book; let's all wish for continued good health fo Mr. Caro.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

IHas anyone read this? Or any of Caro's LBJ series.

I am deep into it, and the Bobby Baker situation certainly was becoming perilous for Lyndon.
I knew of the story, but seeing it in such depth is striking.

I'm not an " LBJ did it" guy - far from it, having seen the pretty dubious ...theories, Madeline Brown, Mac Wallace et.al.  But Iit does bring up the " cui bono" approach.

Thoughts?

Of all of the people or groups who had a motive to kill JFK, of those who would benefit most from his death, LBJ is probably at the top or near top of any list. Not just for the Baker matters but the fact, as Caro points out, that LBJ believed his political life was at a complete end, it was all over. And politics was everything to him. He had no influence in the White House (in fact he was mocked by the Kennedy people) and despite apparently thinking he would have some as VP, none in the Senate. Why he thought he could have sway over the Senate is a mystery. I guess he thought JFK would use him with legislation. But didn't. He really made a huge mistake here.

As you know from the Caro book, Baker had a lot of dirt on a lot of people, including JFK. Anyone bringing LBJ down would risk bringing down many others with him. Or he could. There was sort of a "mutual assured destruction" with many people not wanting to launch the first missile. Still, LBJ must have been really worried.

What's odd for me is that after the assassination LBJ kept ALL of the Kennedy people, including the ones who mocked him, in his Administration. Not only the Cabinet people like McNamara and Rusk but the Kennedy Mafia like O'Brien, Powers and O'Donnell. O'Brien in particular was important in getting his legislation passed and the accounts I've read are that O'Brien absolutely loathed LBJ. Not a hard thing to do since LBJ was so crude and vulgar.

As to LBJ's role: Showing motive isn't enough. Castro had a motive too - the plots, the covert war on his "Revolution." So did the Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Birchers, et cetera. But getting from motive to Dallas on November 22, 1963 at 12:30 is another question. Too many conspiracy people think showing motive is enough, that the rest can be filled in later. It's not; you can't go from conspiracy first and then evidence second. The evidence has to come first. Too often in conspiracy world this is how they argue, they think showing motive covers enough ground. It doesn't.

[John R. Tonkovich]

Of all of the people or groups who had a motive to kill JFK, those who would benefit most from his death, LBJ is probably at the top or near top of any list. Not just for the Baker matters but the fact, as Caro points out, that LBJ felt his political life was at a complete end, it was all over. And politics was everything to him. He had no influence in the White House (in fact he was mocked by the Kennedy people) and despite apparently thinking he would have some, none in the Senate. Why he thought he could have sway over the Senate is a mystery. He really made a huge mistake here.

But Baker had a lot of dirt on a lot of people, including JFK. So anyone bringing LBJ down would bring many others with him. Or he could. There was sort of a "mutual assured destruction" with many people not wanting to launch the first missile.

What's weird about this, of course, is that LBJ kept ALL of the Kennedy people, including the ones who mocked him, in his Administration. Not only the Cabinet people like McNamara and Rusk but the Kennedy Mafia like O'Brien, Powers and O'Donnell. O'Brien in particular was important in getting his legislation passed and the accounts I've read are that O'Brien absolutely loathed LBJ. Not a hard thing to do since LBJ was so crude and vulgar.

Showing motive isn't enough though. Castro had a motive too - the plots, the covert war on his "Revolution." So did the Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Birchers, et cetera. But getting from motive to Dallas on November 22, 1963 at 12:30 is another question. Too many conspiracy people think showing motive is enough, that the rest can be filled in later. It's not; you can't go from conspiracy first and then evidence second. The evidence has to come first. Too often in conspiracy world this is how they argue, they thinking showing motive covers enough ground. It doesn't.

Thanks for the response.
Yes, LBJ did keep and work with the majority of JFK's people, and a great deal of JFK's proposals were carried out. But, that was not guaranteed to happen.

So, perhaps the assassination - if it was a conspiracy-  did not reap what "alleged" conspirators had sowed (or is it sown) Obviously,  we're getting into counterfactual history, so I'll stop here.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Thanks for the response.
Yes, LBJ did keep and work with the majority of JFK's people, and a great deal of JFK's proposals were carried out. But, that was not guaranteed to happen.

So, perhaps the assassination - if it was a conspiracy-  did not reap what "alleged" conspirators had sowed (or is it sown) Obviously,  we're getting into counterfactual history, so I'll stop here.

There was, of course, no guarantee that he would be elected President in 1964. Maybe the Baker scandal explodes, maybe he has another heart attack; lots of unforeseen things could happen. So killing JFK (assuming he was behind it) gives him a year as President. That doesn't mean it's the end of any Baker investigation. A Republican wins the White House, his career is really over and the Baker dirt is exposed by a GOP Justice Department. Win/win turns into lose/lose.

In conspiracy world, everything is smoothly run, all of the right buttons are pushed and work, the people, the ones who carried out the conspiracy and followup generations investigating it, act like cogs in a machine, follow orders and remain silent forever, and everything comes out as planned. Easy peasy. In the real world, as we know simply by reading the news each day, none of that is true. In fact, it's the opposite. People screw up, events unexpectedly happen and "all of the plans of mice and men go awry."

[Louis Earl]

On the subject of why LBJ kept all the Kennedy people after the assassination:  He hardly had time to assemble a team. Everyone was in shock around the US, if not in a lot of the world.  LBJ had been kept on the outside by the K people since day one; I doubt he had  any idea about what was going on other than superficially. LBJ once said "I'd rather have someone inside the tent pissing out than have them outside the tent pissing in."  Keeping the K people in the government was the only way to know what they were up to.