JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on January 22, 2021, 03:41:49 PM
-
In the 1960's, the CIA were engaging in dirty tricks of setting up soviet officers with prostitutes, then filming them in bed, and then threatening to show the footage to their wives if they did not pass on secret information to them.
It seems to me that if the CIA wanted to get rid of JFK, they would have just gone down this route. Film him in bed on one of his many escapades, and then release this footage to the press. This would have derailed his 1964 campaign, making it more likely the pro-war Richard Nixon would have been made president, and in this way the CIA/military industrial complex would get to continue and ramp up the Vietnam war.
So why would the CIA/military industrial complex go to all the complex trouble of assassinating JFK and setting up a patsy (i.e Oswald) and altering this autopsy footage/x-rays rather than simply film JFK in bed with someone and then release that to the press?
I don't think there is a good answer to that other than the CIA/military industrial complex had nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza.
-
In the 1960's, the CIA were engaging in dirty tricks of setting up soviet officers with prostitutes, then filming them in bed, and then threatening to show the footage to their wives if they did not pass on secret information to them.
It seems to me that if the CIA wanted to get rid of JFK, they would have just gone down this route. Film him in bed on one of his many escapades, and then release this footage to the press. This would have derailed his 1964 campaign, making it more likely the pro-war Richard Nixon would have been made president, and in this way the CIA/military industrial complex would get to continue and ramp up the Vietnam war.
So why would the CIA/military industrial complex go to all the complex trouble of assassinating JFK and setting up a patsy (i.e Oswald) and altering this autopsy footage/x-rays rather than simply film JFK in bed with someone and then release that to the press?
I don't think there is a good answer to that other than the CIA/military industrial complex had nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza.
"They" were smarter than us and decided to shoot him in broad daylight in the middle of a crowded street with numerous people with cameras filming it.
Not only that: they decided to shoot him from in front and then collect all the material and alter it to make it look like he was shot from behind.
Then "they" assembled a collection of distinguished men - several with long careers in the law - to cover all of this up. Knowing that all would be quiet about their treason for the rest of their lives and that everyone otherwise involved would remain silent. Everyone from waitresses and cab drivers and shoe salesmen and warehouse workers and steamfitters to presidents. All would keep their secret.
Then "they" altered the Dominion voting machines. Oops, that's another conspiracy.
In conspiracy world everything looks simple and easy to do. "They" can do anything and everything. Plan it out, execute it, keep it quiet. Everything looks simple to do if you read conspiracy books.
It's nonsense, it's lunacy.
-
So sad when you find it hard to believe your nation is above such skullduggery. I almost have some sympathy for you, because you've, no doubt, been brainwashed to believe you come from an 'exceptional' nation. A place where removing leaders is only for the third world & not on your doorstep.
Even though the CIA/Industrial complex forcefully removed/assassinated many leaders of sovereign nations that didn't suit their plans. You are unable to accept the sad reality that the chaos your nation has inflicted upon other nations for many years was brought home to roost. Just keep saying it never happened.
-
In the 1960's, the CIA were engaging in dirty tricks of setting up soviet officers with prostitutes, then filming them in bed, and then threatening to show the footage to their wives if they did not pass on secret information to them.
It seems to me that if the CIA wanted to get rid of JFK, they would have just gone down this route. Film him in bed on one of his many escapades, and then release this footage to the press. This would have derailed his 1964 campaign, making it more likely the pro-war Richard Nixon would have been made president, and in this way the CIA/military industrial complex would get to continue and ramp up the Vietnam war.
So why would the CIA/military industrial complex go to all the complex trouble of assassinating JFK and setting up a patsy (i.e Oswald) and altering this autopsy footage/x-rays rather than simply film JFK in bed with someone and then release that to the press?
I don't think there is a good answer to that other than the CIA/military industrial complex had nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza.
Johnson needed to get the reins of power....( to avoid going to prison) JFK Had to be completely eliminated....
-
So sad when you find it hard to believe your nation is above such skullduggery.
I don't think the country is above skullduggery. I'm saying that one form of skullduggery (filming JFK in bed with someone other than his wife and releasing the footage to the press) is significantly easier to pull off than another form of skullduggery (assassinating JFK, setting up a patsy, altering autopsy photos/x-rays etc). So why not pull off the easier form of skullduggery?
-
If one has a preconceived notion one way or the other then they can try to explain the motivation of either the CIA/Mob/Military Industrial Complex, or LHO. However, Gerry makes a good point. Why would the CIA choose to get rid of JFK by assassination versus another much easier and less risky way.
And my additional point is that we are talking about the same (highly efficient - NOT) CIA/Mob/Military that tried many times and ways to get rid of little ole Fidel Castro....
-
I don't think the country is above skullduggery. I'm saying that one form of skullduggery (filming JFK in bed with someone other than his wife and releasing the footage to the press) is significantly easier to pull off than another form of skullduggery (assassinating JFK, setting up a patsy, altering autopsy photos/x-rays etc). So why not pull off the easier form of skullduggery?
This is the conspiracy worldview you are trying to respond to. That is because "the government" - and it's always presented as some sort of monolithic, single entity when in reality it's a bureaucracy made up of thousands of real human beings - is capable of "skullduggery" then it's capable of any skullduggery.
There are no limits in JFK conspiracy world in what "the government" can do. So "they" didn't worry about pulling out this multilayered intricate plots that involved all sorts of people and agencies and institutions. Which then all remained silent about what they did.
And we're not even addressing the question as to why they would need to kill JFK. He was not going to "end the Cold War" or "pull out of Vietnam." Not at the time of his death. Maybe he would have withdrawn from Vietnam but on November 22, 1963 he had no plans to. That's what McNamara said, that's what Rusk said, that's what Bundy said, that's what RFK said, that's what the Pentagon Papers show. They had no plans to withdraw because they still thought American power would win out. Why plan to withdraw if you're confident you can win?
-
If one has a preconceived notion one way or the other then they can try to explain the motivation of either the CIA/Mob/Military Industrial Complex, or LHO. However, Gerry makes a good point. Why would the CIA choose to get rid of JFK by assassination versus another much easier and less risky way.
And my additional point is that we are talking about the same (highly efficient - NOT) CIA/Mob/Military that tried many times and ways to get rid of little ole Fidel Castro....
And the Castro attempts were simply to eliminate him. Not frame another person and then cover all of that up. And then have a fake investigation (two in fact) that also covered all of that up.
And then all of this kept silent - the people involved for the next half century remained silent.
Forget about whether they would do it or try to: just think about the logistics in planning it (nobody said no?), carrying it out, and keeping it all under wraps. It is impossible. But conspiracists see no limits in what "the government" can do. Literally none.
-
So why would the CIA/military industrial complex go to all the complex trouble of assassinating JFK and setting up a patsy (i.e Oswald) and altering this autopsy footage/x-rays rather than simply film JFK in bed with someone and then release that to the press?
The public execution of people like JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King etc. is for everybody.
It teaches people to think what they're told to think.
Setting them up with prostitutes doesn't.
-
The public execution of people like JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King etc. is for everybody.
It teaches people to think what they're told to think.
Setting them up with prostitutes doesn't.
What did JFK "think" that needed to be silenced?
-
What did JFK "think" that needed to be silenced?
??
-
If the CIA was behind this, JFK probably would have lived. They were never too great in the old assassination game.
-
??
You wrote: "It teaches people to think what they're told to think". Your argument is that JFK's public execution was a message to teach people what they should think. "It" being his public assassination.
What did JFK think or say or do so that he needed to be publicly silenced or kept from the "people" so that they wouldn't think differently? In other words, publicly killing JFK sent what message to the people about their thinking? They couldn't think what? What was JFK helping make them think?
And King was assassinated in 1968. It wasn't public; there's no film, very few people were around him when he was shot. And by 1968 his goals were met; it was too late to "undo" the civil rights revolution that he started. Killing him in 1968 was too late if he needed to be silenced for his "thinking" differently.
-
If one has a preconceived notion one way or the other then they can try to explain the motivation of either the CIA/Mob/Military Industrial Complex, or LHO. However, Gerry makes a good point. Why would the CIA choose to get rid of JFK by assassination versus another much easier and less risky way.
And my additional point is that we are talking about the same (highly efficient - NOT) CIA/Mob/Military that tried many times and ways to get rid of little ole Fidel Castro....
Why would the CIA choose to get rid of JFK by assassination versus another much easier and less risky way.
"The CIA" as an organization did NOT murder JFK .....but bitter former operatives and agents whose careers were shattered and their bloated egos burst did plot the murder. The BOP fiasco ruined the careers of powerful men like Dulles and Bisell, et al, and they hated JFK . Their hatred and their refusal to accept the fact that they had cut their own throats and ruined their careers by plotting the violent overthrow of Fidel Castro's regime. The Invasion of Cuba was a hair brained idea straight out of Nazi Germany. It was doomed to failure as soon as JFK was sworn in as the new President. The CIA plotters and their MOB buddies had planned for Richard Nixon to be in the White House and if he had won the election The BOP would probably have been successful , and it probably would have triggered a nuclear war.
-
I don't think the country is above skullduggery. I'm saying that one form of skullduggery (filming JFK in bed with someone other than his wife and releasing the footage to the press) is significantly easier to pull off than another form of skullduggery (assassinating JFK, setting up a patsy, altering autopsy photos/x-rays etc). So why not pull off the easier form of skullduggery?
We've had a fairly good recent examples of politicians that have a near teflon resistance to scandal, the Clintons, Trump, Obama, Bushes. And if you have the media on your side you can get away with almost any crime imaginable, anyone remember Iraq's WMDs? If no one reports the truth how do you know what happened?
So what if the scandal you imagined doesn't take JFK down? what if he's so charming and beloved by his base of supporters that he cannot be shifted? You've just had a recent example of a POTUS that continuously managed to maintain a 48/50% base of supporters no matter what he does. Even with the majority of media against him. It's an almost similar example: Trump/JFK disliked and battling against 'deep state' operatives and institutions ... notably the CIA
Robert Kennedy Jnr says it himself. The CIA was out to get THEM. He's quoted as pointing the finger directly at 'rogue' CIA agents.
Kennedy Jnr says it was a 75 year vendetta. Started against his grandfather, removed JFK, and RFK. If you cannot accept someone in his position. I don't know what else you need to be convinced. A member of the Kennedy family is openly going on record saying what RFK and the family believed happened to JFK.
What you are suggesting is that JFK wasn't already being blackmailed during his presidency. I think there's pretty good evidence JFK's alleged romances were being leaked to the press. This was probably part of a scheme to bring him down. How many unsubstantiated women can you think of who've been linked to JFK? It's a lot. I don't doubt there are pictures of JFK in compromising situations.
The CIA had Operation Mockingbird for a reason, under the cover of the Cold War is was able to manipulate news in USA, and abroad, for its own needs. It was admitted by the CIA in the mid 70's that they had approximately 400 'journalists' working closely with them.
CIA Focal Point System https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1995/eirv22n50-19951215/eirv22n50-19951215_040-the_focal_point_system_for_cover.pdf (https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1995/eirv22n50-19951215/eirv22n50-19951215_040-the_focal_point_system_for_cover.pdf)
There's you growing up in a world where you don't hardly ever get to hear the truth - How comes many of the assassination doubters have relied upon foreign publishers to get their work out to the American people? Stone, Lane, Mae Brussell, etc. You couldn't easily get the financial backing to voice anti lone-gunman theories in USA because the truth is suppressed, why else was the Zapruder film hidden away for so long. So much for the free press.
-
We've had a fairly good recent examples of politicians that have a near teflon resistance to scandal, the Clintons, Trump, Obama, Bushes. And if you have the media on your side you can get away with almost any crime imaginable, anyone remember Iraq's WMDs? If no one reports the truth how do you know what happened?
So what if the scandal you imagined doesn't take JFK down? what if he's so charming and beloved by his base of supporters that he cannot be shifted? You've just had a recent example of a POTUS that continuously managed to maintain a 48/50% base of supporters no matter what he does. Even with the majority of media against him. It's an almost similar example: Trump/JFK disliked and battling against 'deep state' operatives and institutions ... notably the CIA
Robert Kennedy Jnr says it himself. The CIA was out to get THEM. He's quoted as pointing the finger directly at 'rogue' CIA agents.
Kennedy Jnr says it was a 75 year vendetta. Started against his grandfather, removed JFK, and RFK. If you cannot accept someone in his position. I don't know what else you need to be convinced. A member of the Kennedy family is openly going on record saying what RFK and the family believed happened to JFK.
What you are suggesting is that JFK wasn't already being blackmailed during his presidency. I think there's pretty good evidence JFK's alleged romances were being leaked to the press. This was probably part of a scheme to bring him down. How many unsubstantiated women can you think of who've been linked to JFK? It's a lot. I don't doubt there are pictures of JFK in compromising situations.
The CIA had Operation Mockingbird for a reason, under the cover of the Cold War is was able to manipulate news in USA, and abroad, for its own needs. It was admitted by the CIA in the mid 70's that they had approximately 400 'journalists' working closely with them.
CIA Focal Point System https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1995/eirv22n50-19951215/eirv22n50-19951215_040-the_focal_point_system_for_cover.pdf (https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1995/eirv22n50-19951215/eirv22n50-19951215_040-the_focal_point_system_for_cover.pdf)
There's you growing up in a world where you don't hardly ever get to hear the truth - How comes many of the assassination doubters have relied upon foreign publishers to get their work out to the American people? Stone, Lane, Mae Brussell, etc. You couldn't easily get the financial backing to voice anti lone-gunman theories in USA because the truth is suppressed, why else was the Zapruder film hidden away for so long. So much for the free press.
Excellent post, Robert!..... Those who wanted JFK out of the way were reported to have said...."Those G--- D--- Kennedy's they are beginning a Kennedy dynasty, After Jack, there's Bobby, and then Ted....The only way to stop them is to shoot him out of office."
-
We've had a fairly good recent examples of politicians that have a near teflon resistance to scandal, the Clintons, Trump, Obama, Bushes. And if you have the media on your side you can get away with almost any crime imaginable, anyone remember Iraq's WMDs? If no one reports the truth how do you know what happened?
So what if the scandal you imagined doesn't take JFK down? what if he's so charming and beloved by his base of supporters that he cannot be shifted? You've just had a recent example of a POTUS that continuously managed to maintain a 48/50% base of supporters no matter what he does. Even with the majority of media against him.
Bill Clintons affair cost Hillary the White House. Even with the media on your side, photos don't lie.
-
The public execution of people like JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King etc. is for everybody.
It teaches people to think what they're told to think.
Setting them up with prostitutes doesn't.
The public execution of people like JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King etc. is for everybody.
It teaches people to think what they're told to think.
Precisely , Mr O. Well said..... Just as horse thieves and other criminals were hanged in public executions in the old west....and "witches" were burned at stake ..... It scares the hell out of the viewers and keeps the faint of heart from speaking out against the "authorities" who snuffed the lives .
-
We've had a fairly good recent examples of politicians that have a near teflon resistance to scandal, the Clintons, Trump, Obama, Bushes. And if you have the media on your side you can get away with almost any crime imaginable, anyone remember Iraq's WMDs? If no one reports the truth how do you know what happened?
So what if the scandal you imagined doesn't take JFK down? what if he's so charming and beloved by his base of supporters that he cannot be shifted? You've just had a recent example of a POTUS that continuously managed to maintain a 48/50% base of supporters no matter what he does. Even with the majority of media against him. It's an almost similar example: Trump/JFK disliked and battling against 'deep state' operatives and institutions ... notably the CIA
Robert Kennedy Jnr says it himself. The CIA was out to get THEM. He's quoted as pointing the finger directly at 'rogue' CIA agents.
Kennedy Jnr says it was a 75 year vendetta. Started against his grandfather, removed JFK, and RFK. If you cannot accept someone in his position. I don't know what else you need to be convinced. A member of the Kennedy family is openly going on record saying what RFK and the family believed happened to JFK.
What you are suggesting is that JFK wasn't already being blackmailed during his presidency. I think there's pretty good evidence JFK's alleged romances were being leaked to the press. This was probably part of a scheme to bring him down. How many unsubstantiated women can you think of who've been linked to JFK? It's a lot. I don't doubt there are pictures of JFK in compromising situations.
The CIA had Operation Mockingbird for a reason, under the cover of the Cold War is was able to manipulate news in USA, and abroad, for its own needs. It was admitted by the CIA in the mid 70's that they had approximately 400 'journalists' working closely with them.
CIA Focal Point System https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1995/eirv22n50-19951215/eirv22n50-19951215_040-the_focal_point_system_for_cover.pdf (https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1995/eirv22n50-19951215/eirv22n50-19951215_040-the_focal_point_system_for_cover.pdf)
There's you growing up in a world where you don't hardly ever get to hear the truth - How comes many of the assassination doubters have relied upon foreign publishers to get their work out to the American people? Stone, Lane, Mae Brussell, etc. You couldn't easily get the financial backing to voice anti lone-gunman theories in USA because the truth is suppressed, why else was the Zapruder film hidden away for so long. So much for the free press.
We've had a fairly good recent examples of politicians that have a near teflon resistance to scandal, the Clintons, Trump, Obama, Bushes. And if you have the media on your side you can get away with almost any crime imaginable,
WOW!! there's a lot of points that need to be addressed in this short paragraph....
You're right Mr Reeves.....We American's have been brain washed into believing that our leaders are Lily white and as pure as the new fallen snow. We , like a bunch of little kids embrace that fairy tale, because it makes us feel good, and it's much easier to accept than harsh reality. All my adult life I have said that p-o-l-i-t-i-c-i-a-n is simply another way to spell Criminal.
Washington DC is a swamp filled with politicians and damned few statesmen. The Snakes and skunks are their to fill their bank accounts with the working peoples tax dollars.
-
If the CIA was behind this, JFK probably would have lived. They were never too great in the old assassination game.
If the CIA was behind this,
Hoorah!! "Richard Smith" has admitted that he believes there was a conspiracy....
-
,with no disrespect......my god.....are you stupid? Really?
-
It seems to me that if the CIA wanted to get rid of JFK, they would have just gone down this route. Film him in bed on one of his many escapades, and then release this footage to the press. This would have derailed his 1964 campaign .......
I don't think there is a good answer to that other than the CIA/military industrial complex had nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza.
In his zeal to absolve the MIC, Mr Down underestimates the outrage that this underhanded ploy would have generated within the American perception. The media in general liked JFK....they would not have been party to it.
Bill Clintons affair cost Hillary the White House.
No it didn't.
-
In the 1960's, the CIA were engaging in dirty tricks of setting up soviet officers with prostitutes, then filming them in bed, and then threatening to show the footage to their wives if they did not pass on secret information to them.
It seems to me that if the CIA wanted to get rid of JFK, they would have just gone down this route. Film him in bed on one of his many escapades, and then release this footage to the press. This would have derailed his 1964 campaign, making it more likely the pro-war Richard Nixon would have been made president, and in this way the CIA/military industrial complex would get to continue and ramp up the Vietnam war.
So why would the CIA/military industrial complex go to all the complex trouble of assassinating JFK and setting up a patsy (i.e Oswald) and altering this autopsy footage/x-rays rather than simply film JFK in bed with someone and then release that to the press?
I don't think there is a good answer to that other than the CIA/military industrial complex had nothing to do with what happened in Dealey Plaza.
The problem with your theory is the Press and other insiders knew of Kennedy’s (and lots of other politicians’) sexual escapades yet kept quiet about it.
Even though lots of politicians had affairs and other gossip worthy stuff in their personal lives, there were no big political sex scandals until the 1980s. It’s sort of a modern media thing.
So what makes you so sure that the Press in the 1960s would’ve reported on that stuff?
The CIA definitely used blackmail but most of the time it was the more embarrassing stuff. Like homosexuality or pedophilia. As we all know, it wasn’t socially acceptable to be Gay in the 1950s and 60s.
-
So sad when you find it hard to believe your nation is above such skullduggery. I almost have some sympathy for you, because you've, no doubt, been brainwashed to believe you come from an 'exceptional' nation. A place where removing leaders is only for the third world & not on your doorstep.
Even though the CIA/Industrial complex forcefully removed/assassinated many leaders of sovereign nations that didn't suit their plans. You are unable to accept the sad reality that the chaos your nation has inflicted upon other nations for many years was brought home to roost. Just keep saying it never happened.
You’ve nailed it. A lot of Americans are just in denial about the dark side of our national security state.
-
You’ve nailed it. A lot of Americans are just in denial about the dark side of our national security state.
You're so right, Mr Banks..... And what's even more alarming is many American's are such suckers for the lying puppet masters who are pulling their strings. I believe our nation is like the titanic....Many Americans think that we are perfect and unsinkable, But there's an iceberg looming ......
-
So sad when you find it hard to believe your nation is above such skullduggery. I almost have some sympathy for you, because you've, no doubt, been brainwashed to believe you come from an 'exceptional' nation. A place where removing leaders is only for the third world & not on your doorstep.
Even though the CIA/Industrial complex forcefully removed/assassinated many leaders of sovereign nations that didn't suit their plans. You are unable to accept the sad reality that the chaos your nation has inflicted upon other nations for many years was brought home to roost. Just keep saying it never happened.
Other nations control the United States. Like, as when other nations got control of Dominion Systems to control the 2020 election, as Steve Galbraith alluded to?
True skeptics are always going to be skeptical of Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories. Even when these theories are clothed in the argument that their claims are merely accepting the obvious truth. So, no I don’t accept that an outside power got control of the Secret Service, of the FBI, of the Dallas Police, and others, so that they can murder and get away with the murder of the President of the United States. So, they can force the Vietnam war to occur. And control the U. S. to this day. The same rational philosophy can steer one clear of such false beliefs, whether it is the government killing President Kennedy or the U. S. Election of 2020 being controlled by some sort of Deep State.
Gerry Down is correct. The claim that Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA is not only unbelievable on the surface. It would be strange that they would choose such a route when an obvious alternative is available. Destroy Kennedy’s political career by simply revealing the truth of his many affairs. They don’t even have to manufacture a fake case for these affairs.
-
Other nations control the United States. Like, as when other nations got control of Dominion Systems to control the 2020 election, as Steve Galbraith alluded to?
True skeptics are always going to be skeptical of Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories. Even when these theories are clothed in the argument that their claims are merely accepting the obvious truth. So, no I don’t accept that an outside power got control of the Secret Service, of the FBI, of the Dallas Police, and others, so that they can murder and get away with the murder of the President of the United States. So, they can force the Vietnam war to occur. And control the U. S. to this day. The same rational philosophy can steer one clear of such false beliefs, whether it is the government killing President Kennedy or the U. S. Election of 2020 being controlled by some sort of Deep State.
"THE" CIA did not assassinate JFK.... But MEN who were affiliated with the CIA DID assassinate JFK.
Gerry Down is correct. The claim that Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA is not only unbelievable on the surface. It would be strange that they would choose such a route when an obvious alternative is available. Destroy Kennedy’s political career by simply revealing the truth of his many affairs. They don’t even have to manufacture a fake case for these affairs.
-
Gerry Down is correct. The claim that Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA is not only unbelievable on the surface. It would be strange that they would choose such a route when an obvious alternative is available. Destroy Kennedy’s political career by simply revealing the truth of his many affairs. They don’t even have to manufacture a fake case for these affairs.
How common were political sex scandals in the early 1960s? It's well known that several US Presidents cheated on their spouses while in office. Lots of people knew but the Press rarely made a big deal about digging into the personal lives of politicians until the 1980s. The Gary Hart thing in the 1980s was arguably the first major political sex scandal.
Given how differently the Press behaved in the 1960s, why is it assumed that the Press would've played along with the CIA's attempts to politically assassinate Kennedy by using his infidelity against him?
Plausible Deniability is a key part of Covert Ops. No Intelligence conspiracy would do something targeting a Head of State that could easily be traced back to them.
-
How common were political sex scandals in the early 1960s? It's well known that several US Presidents cheated on their spouses while in office. Lots of people knew but the Press rarely made a big deal about digging into the personal lives of politicians until the 1980s. The Gary Hart thing in the 1980s was arguably the first major political sex scandal.
Given how differently the Press behaved in the 1960s, why is it assumed that the Press would've played along with the CIA's attempts to politically assassinate Kennedy by using his infidelity against him?
why is it assumed that the Press would've played along with the CIA's attempts to politically assassinate Kennedy by using his infidelity against him?
Many main stream reporters and journalists were (and are) on the CIA payroll...... But trying to remove JFK by using his sex capades against him, most certainly was no guarantee that the very popular president would be defeated by Goldwater.
And J Edgar Hoover most certainly did not want Goldwater in the Whitehouse...... The only way to achieve their goal was the ballot of the bullet....
-
why is it assumed that the Press would've played along with the CIA's attempts to politically assassinate Kennedy by using his infidelity against him?
Many main stream reporters and journalists were (and are) on the CIA payroll...... But trying to remove JFK by using his sex capades against him, most certainly was no guarantee that the very popular president would be defeated by Goldwater.
And J Edgar Hoover most certainly did not want Goldwater in the Whitehouse...... The only way to achieve their goal was the ballot of the bullet....
Most of the political blackmail in those days targeted homosexuals (even J Edgar Hoover).
I understand that Sen. Joe McCarthy had some issues in his personal life (alcoholism, womanizing) but those stories only came up when he turned everyone in DC against him. In contrast, the DC Press loved JFK and didn't report on his infidelity.
"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy" - Edwin Edwards
-
How common were political sex scandals in the early 1960s? It's well known that several US Presidents cheated on their spouses while in office. Lots of people knew but the Press rarely made a big deal about digging into the personal lives of politicians until the 1980s. The Gary Hart thing in the 1980s was arguably the first major political sex scandal.
Hardly. I don’t know a lot about U. S. History but there was a scandal in the 1880’s about Grover Cleveland fathering an illegitimate child. Even though this happened many years before and long before he became married, it was still a scandal. Republicans used to chant "Ha, ha. Where's your pa?”. After Cleveland won election despite this, Democrats answered with: "Ha, ha. Where's your pa? In the White House. Ha, ha, ha.”
Also, Thomas Jefferson being the father of illegitimate children, with a slave woman as the mother, was a scandal, although one that was never accepted by the population at large at the time.
These sorts of scandals have always been an issue and could have been used in the 1960’s.
Given how differently the Press behaved in the 1960s, why is it assumed that the Press would've played along with the CIA's attempts to politically assassinate Kennedy by using his infidelity against him?
Don’t some CTers claim that some of the press is controlled by the CIA? Wasn’t James Phelan supposedly working for the CIA, even though he appeared to be a legitimate reporter?
And you don’t answer my main point. If I accept a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theory like the JFK assassination theory, why shouldn’t I accept others? If I go that far, why not believe that many programmers, volunteer election workers and Republican politicians like governors and secretary of state were all involved in stealing the 2020 election from Trump?
-
These sorts of scandals have always been an issue and could have been used in the 1960’s.
What about the scandals of today? Hunter Biden's escapades.....swept under the rug.
Eric Swalwell and Miss Fang Fang? Etc.
Don’t some CTers claim that some of the press is controlled by the CIA?
I don't know about the CIA but the lame slime main stream media is controlled by something.
-
These sorts of scandals have always been an issue and could have been used in the 1960’s.
History repeats itself but the early 1960s was a very conservative time for American culture and we can't project modern day culture onto 1960s America.
Also, it seems naive to believe that political insiders and members of the DC Press were unaware of the infidelity of many US Presidents (including JFK and LBJ) given how many books have been written about that sort of thing after the Presidents leave office. It's more likely that they knew but chose not to report on it at the time. And publishing intimate pictures of a President with his wife or a mistress would've never happened in the 1960s.
The Press for the most part, adored JFK and the media rarely dug into the personal lives of politicians in general back then.
Don’t some CTers claim that some of the press is controlled by the CIA? Wasn’t James Phelan supposedly working for the CIA, even though he appeared to be a legitimate reporter?
"Manipulated by the CIA" is more accurate in my humble opinion.
A former CIA agent once explained how they manipulate journalists. He said first they give several accurate newsworthy scoops to the journalist. Once they build a good relationship with the journalist they can insert propaganda or misleading info into the info that they pass to reporters.
I'm sure that other intelligence services like the KGB for example, operate the same way.
But whether it's control or manipulation, I can't imagine JFK being taken down by a sex scandal in the 1960s. That sort of thing just wouldn't happen back then.
And you don’t answer my main point. If I accept a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theory like the JFK assassination theory, why shouldn’t I accept others? If I go that far, why not believe that many programmers, volunteer election workers and Republican politicians like governors and secretary of state were all involved in stealing the 2020 election from Trump?
I'm of the opinion that only a small number of people (less than 20) were needed to execute a conspiracy to kill JFK.
As for the coverup, sure, lots more people would need to be involved and the reasons for government agencies covering it up varies from wanting to avoid "World War 3" as LBJ seemed to suggest to Earl Warren to wanting to protect certain agencies or operations from scrutiny that could land people in prison or lead to the agency being disbanded.
-
Why the CIA got rid of JFK ...
From--- Creating the Oswald Legend
Written by Vasilios Vazakas
[Allen] Dulles was held responsible by JFK for the bungled Bay of Pigs invasion and was fired afterwards. Dulles never forgot or forgave JFK for the humiliation suffered. Kennedy decided to return West Irian to Indonesia from Dutch colonial rule. What Kennedy did not know, but Allen Dulles did, was that West Irian was a region extremely rich in minerals, even richer than Katanga. In the 1920s and 1930s, Allen Dulles was a lawyer at the giant corporate law firm Sullivan and Cromwell. He represented the Rockefellers there and he knew that Indonesia had huge mineral and oil potential. One of the oilfields in Sumatra exploited by Caltex was the size of similar oilfields in Saudi Arabia. In 1936, a joint Dutch and American expedition—including explorer/geologist Jean Jacques Dozy—was organized by Allen Dulles through Sullivan and Cromwell. That expedition discovered two enormous mineral deposits in West Irian. The American firms that financed the expedition were two divisions of Standard Oil. One of the two colossal deposits was called the Ertsberg and the other the Grasberg. Both were extravagantly rich in gold, silver, and copper. Just the gold content was much larger than the wealthiest gold mine in the world, then located in South Africa. Allen Dulles was close to the DeMohrenschildt family and transferred George DeMohrenschildt to West Irian to work on Standard Oil’s drilling, since the region had one of the largest oil deposits in Indonesia. Dulles lied to Kennedy on several occasions regarding the Sino-Soviet split. He told him it was not real, but a Cold war ploy to fool America. It was real and Dulles was using Indonesia as a wedge to further the split between China and the Soviet Union. From 1958, his first attempt to overthrow Sukarno, Dulles was planning on regime change. That would have allowed his clients to control the oil, gold, copper, and silver reserves of Indonesia rather than go to the citizenry of Indonesia, as Kennedy and Sukarno had planned. The policy of wedge against China and the Soviet Union would have been disrupted. Dulles had used religious organizations like the Unitarians to create humanitarian front organizations in order to conceal OSS and later CIA covert operations to destabilize Eastern Europe, South America, and Southeast Asia.