JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on January 04, 2021, 03:48:10 AM
-
LBJ sounds so nice and rational in this video. He sounds like he'd even make a good candidate for President today. Very hard to see how he could have had any part in the assassination in Dallas. He says at one point he was considering not even running in 1964. And didn't in 1968. Not exactly the profile of a power crazed lunatic that Roger Stone makes him out to be.
-
LBJ sounds so nice and rational in this video. He sounds like he'd even make a good candidate for President today. Very hard to see how he could have had any part in the assassination in Dallas. He says at one point he was considering not even running in 1964. And didn't in 1968. Not exactly the profile of a power crazed lunatic that Roger Stone makes him out to be.
President Lyndon Johnson did more for civil rights than any other president since Abraham Lincoln. By far.
Agreed to assassinate President Kennedy in November 1963 so we can have a big war in Vietnam? In November 1963, the war was simmering along at a low level. There was no need for a large war. On November 1, 1963, the dictator of South Vietnam was assassinated. This provoked North Vietnam to start raising and training the large army they would need to invade and take over South Vietnam. But in November 1963, the United States knew nothing about this future.
It is similar to the claim Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor but allowed it to happen, so we could be at war with Germany. And this did happen. But it only happened because Hitler did the unpredictable, declared war on the United States three days after Pearl Harbor. Had this not happen, the United States would have been at war alright, but the wrong war. Not with Germany but with Japan.
For Roosevelt and Johnson to be guilty of these conspiracies, they would both have to be psychic. Roosevelt would have to know what that most unpredictable of world leaders, Hitler would do in advance and Johnson would have to know that a large invasion of South Vietnam was looming and if it was to be held a large army would be needed.
-
Most sociopaths seem “nice and rational”.
While I agree that LBJ’s work on Civil Rights and Healthcare legislation were great accomplishments, he was as corrupt a politician as Richard Nixon if not moreso.
I don’t think LBJ was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK but even he basically admitted that he was part of the coverup when he said years after leaving office that he didn’t believe Oswald acted alone.
-
Robert Caro is the foremost expert on LBJ and he indicates that he has found no evidence to link LBJ to the assassination. Somewhat surprisingly, though, he does apparently believe there was a realistic possibility that JFK would have dropped LBJ from the ticket in 1964. Not sure that I agree, but Caro has to be given some credence on that point. LBJ did more in his first 100 days as President than JFK did in his entire political career. JFK's primary attribute as a politician was taking a good picture and having lots of his father's money.
-
President Lyndon Johnson did more for civil rights than any other president since Abraham Lincoln. By far.
Agreed to assassinate President Kennedy in November 1963 so we can have a big war in Vietnam? In November 1963, the war was simmering along at a low level. There was no need for a large war. On November 1, 1963, the dictator of South Vietnam was assassinated. This provoked North Vietnam to start raising and training the large army they would need to invade and take over South Vietnam. But in November 1963, the United States knew nothing about this future.
It is similar to the claim Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor but allowed it to happen, so we could be at war with Germany. And this did happen. But it only happened because Hitler did the unpredictable, declared war on the United States three days after Pearl Harbor. Had this not happen, the United States would have been at war alright, but the wrong war. Not with Germany but with Japan.
For Roosevelt and Johnson to be guilty of these conspiracies, they would both have to be psychic. Roosevelt would have to know what that most unpredictable of world leaders, Hitler would do in advance and Johnson would have to know that a large invasion of South Vietnam was looming and if it was to be held a large army would be needed.
Part of our problem trying to reason with conspiracy believers is dealing with their "conspiracy history." They read all of these conspiracy books and uncritically accept the histories that the conspiracy authors provide. Such as LBJ's unilateral escalation of the war or that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam or end the Cold War (I would suggest that Moscow had a vote on that one). Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" is the perfect example of this "conspiracy history" view.
LBJ was responding, as you point out, to the increased aggression by the North, mostly through support for the Vietcong, following Diem's overthrow. Ho Chi Mingh said the biggest mistake the US made was allowing Diem to be removed. He pointed out that Diem was a popular nationalist who had opposed the French occupation and was by far the most competent and able leader the South had. After Diem was removed, the South Vietnamese government was deeply splintered and divided among various factions, mostly generals, that couldn't govern. Hanoi wisely saw this disarray and stepped up its aggression. But in November of 1963, things looked much better; certainly Diem's repression of the Buddhist was causing problems (and was one of the reasons JFK supported his removal). But the situation still seemed easily winnable since American power was so overwhelming (or seemed to be at that time).
So what was LBJ to do after this increased aggression and inability of the South to fight it off? Withdraw and let the South collapse? Or try to prevent that disaster? That was the question that JFK would have had to face. But the day of his death it was still one that was far off in the distant future. RFK said that there was no talk about leaving at that time. McNamara said the same thing. So did Dean Rusk. It wasn't even considered at that time since things seemed quite winnable.
-
Most sociopaths seem “nice and rational”.
While I agree that LBJ’s work on Civil Rights and Healthcare legislation were great accomplishments, he was as corrupt a politician as Richard Nixon if not moreso.
I don’t think LBJ was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK but even he basically admitted that he was part of the coverup when he said years after leaving office that he didn’t believe Oswald acted alone.
How did he "admit" he was part of the coverup? He opined after learning about the plots against Castro in 1967 and AFTER the WC had conducted its investigation that he thought Castro was behind the assassination in retaliation for the plots against him ordered, in LBJ's opinion, by "the Kennedys."
How is that being part of a "coverup"? Of what? What did he do to "cover up" what happened? How is giving a view in 1967 that he thought Castro was behind it covering anything up?
Second: why would a amoral sociopath who has no conscience or concerns about anyone other than himself care about helping poor blacks who had no power? What was in it for him? A sociopath, certainly a white one, wouldn't give a damned about the "Negro" (to use the phrasing at that time). Hell, the white sociopaths in the South were killing and oppressing them not helping them.
-
How did he "admit" he was part of the coverup? He opined after learning about the plots against Castro in 1967 and AFTER the WC had conducted its investigation that he thought Castro was behind the assassination in retaliation for the plots against him ordered, in LBJ's opinion, by "the Kennedys."
Not true. :D
...the talk turned to President Kennedy, and [Lyndon B.] Johnson expressed his belief that the assassination in Dallas had been part of a conspiracy. “I never believed that Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger.” Johnson said that when he had taken office he found that “we had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean.” A year or so before Kennedy’s death a CIA-backed assassination team had been picked up in Havana. Johnson speculated that Dallas had been a retaliation for this thwarted attempt, although he couldn’t prove it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/lbj-oswald-wasnt-alone/309486/
Johnson said he never believed Oswald acted alone. Therefore, he was aware of facts that made him suspect there was a conspiracy yet he promoted the Warren Report for political reasons, to avoid a potential World War, and to give Americans closure.
I don't see how anyone today can still doubt that the US government chose to bury rather than fully investigate the conspiratorial leads in JFK's assassination. Johnson was part of that coverup.
You folks praising LBJ sound so naïve. He was a great politician but not a saint or an exceptional humanitarian...
Second: why would a amoral sociopath who has no conscience or concerns about anyone other than himself care about helping poor blacks who had no power? What was in it for him? A sociopath, certainly a white one, wouldn't give a damned about the "Negro" (to use the phrasing at that time). Hell, the white sociopaths in the South were killing and oppressing them not helping them.
Johnson was an overt racist and he had a huge ego like President Trump.
Even as president, Johnson's interpersonal relationships with blacks were marred by his prejudice. As longtime Jet correspondent Simeon Booker wrote in his memoir "Shocks the Conscience", early in his presidency, Johnson once lectured Booker after he authored a critical article for Jet Magazine, telling Booker he should "thank" Johnson for all he'd done for black people. In "Flawed Giant", Johnson biographer Robert Dallek writes that Johnson explained his decision to nominate Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court rather than a less famous black judge by saying, "when I appoint a nigger to the bench, I want everybody to know he's a nigger."
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism-msna305591
The fact that he accomplished things that JFK wanted to do but wasn't able to accomplish fed his ego and helped establish his Presidential legacy. He at least knew he was on the right side of history.
And LBJ's legacy would be on the level of FDR's if it wasn't marred by the Vietnam war.
He's among the most successful Presidents of the 20th Century but Vietnam is what gets remembered by Americans more than the Great Society...
-
How did he "admit" he was part of the coverup? He opined after learning about the plots against Castro in 1967 and AFTER the WC had conducted its investigation that he thought Castro was behind the assassination in retaliation for the plots against him ordered, in LBJ's opinion, by "the Kennedys."
How is that being part of a "coverup"? Of what? What did he do to "cover up" what happened? How is giving a view in 1967 that he thought Castro was behind it covering anything up?
Second: why would a amoral sociopath who has no conscience or concerns about anyone other than himself care about helping poor blacks who had no power? What was in it for him? A sociopath, certainly a white one, wouldn't give a damned about the "Negro" (to use the phrasing at that time). Hell, the white sociopaths in the South were killing and oppressing them not helping them.
I don't believe LBJ was any sort of sociopath either. He was just an effective politician. For many years he was among a handful of Southern democrats who precluded any federal civil rights legislation from advancing because that was in his interest when running for office in the South. When he decided to run for president, however, he realized that no southerner could win a national election tainted with a segregationist background. So he suddenly became an advocate of Civil Rights. That was mostly a political calculation to advance his own interest. He may have had some empathy for those living in the type of poverty that he grew up in - which included many poor blacks - but that was secondary to his own political agenda. And that strategy has proven wildly successful for democrats to this day since they still get 80% percent or more of the black vote. Hard to remember now but after the Civil War most blacks considered themselves to be republicans for many decades.
-
I don't believe LBJ was any sort of sociopath either. He was just an effective politician. For many years he was among a handful of Southern democrats who precluded any federal civil rights legislation from advancing because that was in his interest when running for office in the South. When he decided to run for president, however, he realized that no southerner could win a national election tainted with a segregationist background. So he suddenly became an advocate of Civil Rights. That was mostly a political calculation to advance his own interest. He may have had some empathy for those living in the type of poverty that he grew up in - which included many poor blacks - but that was secondary to his own political agenda. And that strategy has proven wildly successful for democrats to this day since they still get 80% percent or more of the black vote. Hard to remember now but after the Civil War most blacks considered themselves to be republicans for many decades.
He certainly lied repeatedly to the public about the war, about our progress there. H.R. McMaster's book on Vietnam, "Dereliction of Duty", is pretty devastating in its indictment of LBJ and McNamara and the Joint Chiefs for their dishonesty and arrogance. He argued that LBJ was worried more about the political ramifications of the war then about the war itself; that a withdrawal would hurt him politically and set back his "Great Society" programs. And, of course, Caro documents how he got the nickname "Lying Lyndon" while in college; he didn't begin telling untruths (I always liked that word <g>) after getting into politics.
Whether that constitutes being a "sociopath" can be debated I guess.
As to civil rights: I think he was sincere about the issue, that it was a moral question for him as well as a political one. Certainly it was a mix. But the '64 act alone was sufficient to earn him accolades. But he followed that up with another act in 1968, a Voting Rights act and a Fair Housing act. All of that was painting the legacy lily. Caro documented his experiences helping poor Mexicans and how that did affect him. He was a complex person; one that, as Caro showed, could be enormously cruel and mean and nasty but also who had, I think, a real empathy to poor and black Americans.
-
Many politicians have some degree of sociopathy. It's very likely that Johnson was a sociopath.
People who crave power and are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get it are often sociopaths.
"Dirty Tricks, Traffic Studies, And Why Sociopaths Flourish In Politics"
Sociopathy, a term that’s generally interchangeable with psychopathy, is not a form of insanity. It’s a spectrum of personality types classically centering on narcissistic self-importance, a willingness to manipulate others and the charm to do it effectively, and a perpetual habit of deflecting blame when their self-interested actions cause harm to others. This all stems from a basic lack of conscience, the defining trait of the sociopath...
The typical profile of a sociopath certainly suggests they’d flourish in politics. “Robert Hare, perhaps the leading expert on the disorder and the person who developed the most commonly used test for diagnosing psychopathy, has noted that psychopaths generally have a heightened need for power and prestige,” James Silver reported in the Atlantic, “exactly the type of urges that make politics an attractive calling.” Silver also notes that other typical sociopath traits, including fearlessness and strong competitive drives, make sociopaths likely to not only enter politics, but succeed in it...
“Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths,” Dr. Martha Stout, an eminent sociopathy researcher formerly of Harvard Medical School, told the Huffington Post. “I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this...”
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/dirty-tricks-traffic-studies-and-why-sociopaths-flourish-in-politics-b69c3253ec67/
-
He certainly lied repeatedly to the public about the war, about our progress there. H.R. McMaster's book on Vietnam, "Dereliction of Duty", is pretty devastating in its indictment of LBJ and McNamara for their dishonesty. He argued that LBJ was worried more about the political ramifications of the war then about the war itself; that a withdrawal would hurt him politically and set back his "Great Society" programs.
Whether that constitutes being a "sociopath" can be debated I guess.
As to civil rights: I think he was sincere about the issue, that it was a moral question for him as well as a political one. The '64 act alone was sufficient. But he followed that up with another act in 1968, a voting rights act and a fair housing act. Caro documented his experiences helping poor Mexicans and how that did affect him. He was a complex person; one that, as Caro showed, could be enormously cruel and mean and nasty but also who had real empathy to poor and black Americans.
I don't know if it was genuine empathy. Like most politicians (and unlike Trump apparently), Johnson could probably fake empathy well enough to hid his true feelings about Blacks and other minorities.
LBJ is a complex figure for those reasons. My point is that we shouldn't overlook the bad things about LBJ's character just because he did some good things. He was no saint. He was as corrupt as Richard Nixon if not more.
I understand that Caro has tried (and succeeded to some extent) to rescue Johnson's Presidential legacy. I agree that Johnsn should get more credit for Civil Rights and his anti-Poverty agenda.
I haven't seen any convincing evidence that Johnson was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK. But I wouldn't want him to be President today.
-
Many politicians have some degree of sociopathy. It's very likely that Johnson was a sociopath.
People who crave power and are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get it are often sociopaths.
One of the qualities of a sociopath, if not the main one, is an absence of a conscience. I don't think a person who did so much for black Americans would have no conscience at all. There was something in the plight of black people that I think affected him.
Did he do it only for his legacy? To gain praise? Nothing more?
To be sure, those who argue otherwise have a powerful argument. He could be, as Caro documents, just an appallingly nasty person. To Bird, to his friends, to the WH staff. Ugh, what a mean person.
-
One of the qualities of a sociopath, if not the main one, is an absence of a conscience. I don't think a person who did so much for black Americans would have no conscience at all. There was something in the plight of black people that I think affected him.
Johnson wasn't always a supporter of Civil Rights. He took a long time to come around on that issue.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/apr/14/barack-obama/lyndon-johnson-opposed-every-civil-rights-proposal/
I'm not sure what changed his mind but even while serving in the White House and dealing with Civil Rights issues, he was cruel and overtly racist towards Black people.
He may not have been a psychopath (the most extreme form of sociopathy) but he did in fact have several of the main characteristics of sociopathy as many successful politicians do.
Also, you seem to be missing the point that sociopaths can be charming and show empathy when they need to in order to get what they want.
Did he do it only for his legacy? To gain praise? Nothing more?
To be sure, those who argue otherwise have a powerful argument. He could be, as Caro documents, just an appallingly nasty person. To Bird, to his friends, to the WH staff. Ugh, what a mean person.
Again, I think he was a brilliant politician and likely viewed the Great Society and Civil Rights as legacy projects that would put him among the greatest Presidents in history. FDR and the New Deal were still extremely popular in LBJ's time. Even many Republicans still supported the New Deal in the early-60s.
LBJ was an exceptionally skilled politician who also displayed bad character towards people who worked with him and had questionable ethics...
-
Not true. :D
...the talk turned to President Kennedy, and [Lyndon B.] Johnson expressed his belief that the assassination in Dallas had been part of a conspiracy. “I never believed that Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger.” Johnson said that when he had taken office he found that “we had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean.” A year or so before Kennedy’s death a CIA-backed assassination team had been picked up in Havana. Johnson speculated that Dallas had been a retaliation for this thwarted attempt, although he couldn’t prove it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/lbj-oswald-wasnt-alone/309486/
Johnson said he never believed Oswald acted alone. Therefore, he was aware of facts that made him suspect there was a conspiracy yet he promoted the Warren Report for political reasons, to avoid a potential World War, and to give Americans closure.
I don't see how anyone today can still doubt that the US government chose to bury rather than fully investigate the conspiratorial leads in JFK's assassination. Johnson was part of that coverup.
You folks praising LBJ sound so naïve. He was a great politician but not a saint or an exceptional humanitarian...
Johnson was an overt racist and he had a huge ego like President Trump.
Even as president, Johnson's interpersonal relationships with blacks were marred by his prejudice. As longtime Jet correspondent Simeon Booker wrote in his memoir "Shocks the Conscience", early in his presidency, Johnson once lectured Booker after he authored a critical article for Jet Magazine, telling Booker he should "thank" Johnson for all he'd done for black people. In "Flawed Giant", Johnson biographer Robert Dallek writes that Johnson explained his decision to nominate Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court rather than a less famous black judge by saying, "when I appoint a nigger to the bench, I want everybody to know he's a nigger."
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism-msna305591
The fact that he accomplished things that JFK wanted to do but wasn't able to accomplish fed his ego and helped establish his Presidential legacy. He at least knew he was on the right side of history.
And LBJ's legacy would be on the level of FDR's if it wasn't marred by the Vietnam war.
He's among the most successful Presidents of the 20th Century but Vietnam is what gets remembered by Americans more than the Great Society...
I don't see how anyone today can still doubt that the US government chose to bury rather than fully investigate the conspiratorial leads in JFK's assassination. Johnson was part of that coverup.
You folks praising LBJ sound so naïve. He was a great politician but not a saint or an exceptional humanitarian...
-
According to those closest to LBJ, including Bobby Baker, LBJ was responsible for at least 8 murders, including JFK and his own sister. Multiple authors have reported the same things. Don't forget that the Russians investigated the assassination for nearly two years and concluded that LBJ was the prime suspect. Johnson's behavior on 11/22/63 is worth a book by itself. Why did LBJ harass JFK to insist his arch enemy Yarborough ride in the president's car for the Dallas motorcade instead of his best friend Connnally? Is this a possible indication of foreknowledge?
The cover up seems to have begun very quickly. LBJ commandeered Air Force 1 immediately and insisted on being sworn in on the plane, even though he was already president. I don't know how much he influenced the autopsy, but there are so many outrageous reports about what happened at Bethesda, the mind boggles. Also, it seems rather suspicious that Johnson called Parkland Hospital trying to get a death bed confession from the attending surgeons trying to save LHO.
Johnson was facing prosecution and was likely to be dumped from the '64 ticket. His political career depended upon JFK's removal. Johnson certainly did everything he could to cover up the conspiracy that killed JFK. His pal Hoover is also one of the most evil characters in American history and his cover up for the real killers should be clearly illustrated for the history books. He was the perfect accomplice to cover up the assassination. Fortunately, we are getting more answers due to the diligence of independent researchers. Who had more to gain from JFK's death than LBJ?
-
For Roosevelt and Johnson to be guilty of these conspiracies, they would both have to be psychic.
Professing wisdom but lacking same.
Roosevelt was warned about their aggressive ambition but doubted that the Japanese had the power or courage to take on the United States.
Johnson yielded entirely to the military industrial big shots who planned and backed his installment.
-
According to those closest to LBJ, including Bobby Baker, LBJ was responsible for at least 8 murders, including JFK and his own sister. Multiple authors have reported the same things. Don't forget that the Russians investigated the assassination for nearly two years and concluded that LBJ was the prime suspect. Johnson's behavior on 11/22/63 is worth a book by itself. Why did LBJ harass JFK to insist his arch enemy Yarborough ride in the president's car for the Dallas motorcade instead of his best friend Connnally? Is this a possible indication of foreknowledge?
The cover up seems to have begun very quickly. LBJ commandeered Air Force 1 immediately and insisted on being sworn in on the plane, even though he was already president. I don't know how much he influenced the autopsy, but there are so many outrageous reports about what happened at Bethesda, the mind boggles. Also, it seems rather suspicious that Johnson called Parkland Hospital trying to get a death bed confession from the attending surgeons trying to save LHO.
Johnson was facing prosecution and was likely to be dumped from the '64 ticket. His political career depended upon JFK's removal. Johnson certainly did everything he could to cover up the conspiracy that killed JFK. His pal Hoover is also one of the most evil characters in American history and his cover up for the real killers should be clearly illustrated for the history books. He was the perfect accomplice to cover up the assassination. Fortunately, we are getting more answers due to the diligence of independent researchers. Who had more to gain from JFK's death than LBJ?
Who had more to gain from JFK's death than LBJ?
Fidel Castro (LHO’s hero)!
-
Who had more to gain from JFK's death than LBJ?
Fidel Castro (LHO’s hero)!
How could Fidel have predicted that the US wouldn't invade Cuba in response to Kennedy's assassination? Makes no sense given the conventional wisdom of the time.
Johnson admitted that he suspected Russian or Cuban involvement but he clearly wanted to avoid a costly war with the Soviets and wisely didn't escalate tensions despite his suspicions.
-
How could Fidel have predicted that the US wouldn't invade Cuba in response to Kennedy's assassination? Makes no sense given the conventional wisdom of the time.
Johnson admitted that he suspected Russian or Cuban involvement but he clearly wanted to avoid a costly war with the Soviets and wisely didn't escalate tensions despite his suspicions.
How could Fidel have predicted that the US wouldn't invade Cuba in response to Kennedy's assassination? Makes no sense given the conventional wisdom of the time.
There hasn’t been credible evidence that Castro was behind the assassination. However there is some evidence that he knew ahead of time that there was going to be an attempt. All he needed to do was stay silent instead of notifying the U.S. ahead of time. Additionally, Castro was known for taking risky chances and for other assassinations and attempted assassinations. This type of thing was right up his alley, so to speak.
I believe that Fidel Castro was smart enough to do two things. Number one, he made it appear that he was unaware of the assassination attempt by having the reporters with him at that time. Number two, he supported the disinformation efforts by the Soviets to suggest that other Americans were responsible for a conspiracy. Castro was smart enough to know that, without ample evidence of Cuban involvement, the United States was unlikely to invade his country. And I believe that he made sure that very soon after the assassination the few people who knew very much about the circumstances were recalled back to Cuba from Mexico City.
Johnson admitted that he suspected Russian or Cuban involvement but he clearly wanted to avoid a costly war with the Soviets and wisely didn't escalate tensions despite his suspicions.
Exactly! Suspicions are not enough to justify starting a war. He needed convincing evidence for that. If such evidence had been developed and the public made aware of it, I believe that we would probably have invaded Cuba due to public pressure, if nothing else.
-
If you want to listen to a real sociopath in action just listen to Trump's phone call/conversation with the Georgia Secretary of State. Unbelievable. Trump made, reportedly, 18 calls before to try and talk to him. This was #19.
Trump has no conscience at all, he hasn't the slightest idea of the concept of the rule of law, of anything other than what is in his own interest. Everything is a transaction to benefit him. That's just an amazing call. He is totally oblivious to any idea of the law, of the Constitution, of what public officials are sworn to uphold.
"Just change those votes, Mr. Secretary. Do it as a good Republican. Forget about anything else." (yes, this is paraphrasing; he didn't actually say these words)
Added: Although in his defense, Trump actually does believe - he does - that the election was stolen, that the vote in Georgia was rigged against him. So his complaint may be honest and sincere; but how he wants the Secretary of State to handle this is simply reckless and dangerous. Illegal? Probably not and characterizing it, as Carl Bernstein did, as "worse than Watergate" is silly; asking the Secretary to look into the matter is not a crime. But certainly it's not what a President should be doing. We have a legal process for candidates to use. That's how we decide such matters.
-
Exactly! Suspicions are not enough to justify starting a war. He needed convincing evidence for that.
Since when? :D
Almost every war has been based on lies and propaganda.
Johnson, a true believer in the Domino Theory and responsible for the Gulf of Tonkin hoax, didn't need concrete evidence for other conflicts.
If such evidence had been developed and the public made aware of it, I believe that we would probably have invaded Cuba due to public pressure, if nothing else.
Hence the US government's justification for obstructing or burying investigations into the conspiratorial leads in the JFK case.
It's generally a good practice to avoid asking the questions that you don't want to know the answer to...
-
Since when? :D
Almost every war has been based on lies and propaganda.
Johnson, a true believer in the Domino Theory and responsible for the Gulf of Tonkin hoax, didn't need concrete evidence for other conflicts.
Hence the US government's justification for obstructing or burying investigations into the conspiratorial leads in the JFK case.
It's generally a good practice to avoid asking the questions that you don't want to know the answer to...
Then those wars were not justified.
There is no justification for obstruction of the investigation.
There are no questions regarding the JFK assassination that I don’t want to know the answer to.
-
There are no questions regarding the JFK assassination that I don’t want to know the answer to.
That comment wasn't directed at you.
My point was, Johnson didn't want to know if there was a conspiracy because he didn't want to deal with the consequences. He had suspicions but didn't want to investigate the conspiratorial leads. He didn't ask the questions that he didn't want to know the answers to...
-
That comment wasn't directed at you.
My point was, Johnson didn't want to know if there was a conspiracy because he didn't want to deal with the consequences. He had suspicions but didn't want to investigate the conspiratorial leads. He didn't ask the questions that he didn't want to know the answers to...
Do you believe that same mind set applied to the Warren Commission investigators? Or do you believe that each one of them would have wanted to be the one who uncovered a conspiracy?
-
Do you believe that same mind set applied to the Warren Commission investigators? Or do you believe that each one of them would have wanted to be the one who uncovered a conspiracy?
That would have required an actual investigation.
-
According to those closest to LBJ, including Bobby Baker, LBJ was responsible for at least 8 murders, including JFK and his own sister. Multiple authors have reported the same things. Don't forget that the Russians investigated the assassination for nearly two years and concluded that LBJ was the prime suspect. Johnson's behavior on 11/22/63 is worth a book by itself. Why did LBJ harass JFK to insist his arch enemy Yarborough ride in the president's car for the Dallas motorcade instead of his best friend Connnally? Is this a possible indication of foreknowledge?
The cover up seems to have begun very quickly. LBJ commandeered Air Force 1 immediately and insisted on being sworn in on the plane, even though he was already president. I don't know how much he influenced the autopsy, but there are so many outrageous reports about what happened at Bethesda, the mind boggles. Also, it seems rather suspicious that Johnson called Parkland Hospital trying to get a death bed confession from the attending surgeons trying to save LHO.
Johnson was facing prosecution and was likely to be dumped from the '64 ticket. His political career depended upon JFK's removal. Johnson certainly did everything he could to cover up the conspiracy that killed JFK. His pal Hoover is also one of the most evil characters in American history and his cover up for the real killers should be clearly illustrated for the history books. He was the perfect accomplice to cover up the assassination. Fortunately, we are getting more answers due to the diligence of independent researchers. Who had more to gain from JFK's death than LBJ?
Johnson was facing prosecution and was likely to be dumped from the '64 ticket. His political career depended upon JFK's removal. Johnson certainly did everything he could to cover up the conspiracy that killed JFK. His pal Hoover is also one of the most evil characters in American history and his cover up for the real killers should be clearly illustrated for the history books.
Well Said, Jim...... It should be obvious to even the simplest of minds that the lynchpin of the coup d e'tat was LBJ. I doubt that he was the mastermind behind the coup....But when Hoover informed him of the plot ( hatched by ex-CIA agents and Cuban BOP survivors) that his FBI agents had uncovered, both LBJ and Hoover, recognized that their deliverance was at hand., and they endorsed and supported the scheme.
-
Who had more to gain from JFK's death than LBJ?
Fidel Castro (LHO’s hero)!
When are you ever going to get it right?
-
When are you ever going to get it right?
Get what right? You think someone had more to gain than Castro?
-
Get what right? You think someone had more to gain than Castro?
Easily the American Mafia
JFK's death ensured an end to RFK's war on organized crime.
The Mob's decline began when Hoover's reign at the FBI ended...
-
Easily the American Mafia
JFK's death ensured an end to RFK's war on organized crime.
The Mob's decline began when Hoover's reign at the FBI ended...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fidel_Castro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fidel_Castro)
-
That comment wasn't directed at you.
My point was, Johnson didn't want to know if there was a conspiracy because he didn't want to deal with the consequences. He had suspicions but didn't want to investigate the conspiratorial leads. He didn't ask the questions that he didn't want to know the answers to...
What evidence is there that he restricted the ability of the WC to look for a conspiracy? The WC staffers, a few still alive, say there were no orders not to look for a conspiracy. You've said he covered up for one. How? The fact that HE didn't want to look is not the same as saying the WC or HSCA or CBS or The Washington Post or ABC News or the NY Times didn't. We haven't just had one investigation over these decades. We've had multiple ones.
I've cited Norman Redlich, the main author of the report. He died in 2003 or nearly 40 years after the assassination. I don't think he ever said he was told not to look for one or that, in retrospect, he was misled/controlled/manipulated. The only staffer that I know of who has complained about being misled was/is David Slawson. He has stated that he thinks Cuban agents encouraged Oswald to shoot JFK and that the CIA withheld information about this. But that's not really a conspiracy.
You say LBJ didn't want to know if there was a conspiracy and then you say he thought there was one (by Castro). But the latter statement by him - that he believed Castro was behind it in retaliation for the assassination attempts against him - came AFTER the WC had completed its investigation.
I've read no evidence/accounts that during the WC investigation that at that time he believed there was a conspiracy. Correction: LBJ did say in his last interview before leaving the Presidency that "I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger." Are there any? And why would he not want to deal with a conspiracy done by, for example, the Mob?
-
Max Holland has an account of LBJ apparently learning for the first time - in 1967 - about the assassination plots directed at Castro. His account suggests that this shaped LBJ's views about who assassinated JFK. In effect, LBJ believed that JFK was killed by Castro in retaliation for those attempts.
Obviously, this doesn't prove that LBJ didn't think Castro was involved before this. Are there any accounts of LBJ thinking so in 1964? LBJ did say in that last interview while president that:
"I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger." So that's evidence that at the time of the WC investigation he believed in a conspiracy.
Holland's piece, including transcripts of calls LBJ made about the issue, is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/holland_atlantic.htm
-
Since when? :D
Almost every war has been based on lies and propaganda.
Johnson, a true believer in the Domino Theory and responsible for the Gulf of Tonkin hoax, didn't need concrete evidence for other conflicts.
Hence the US government's justification for obstructing or burying investigations into the conspiratorial leads in the JFK case.
It's generally a good practice to avoid asking the questions that you don't want to know the answer to...
Sorry, there was no Gulf of Tonkin hoax. Hoax as in deliberate deception. Are you talking about the second attack? No, there was no second attack by the North Vietnamese; that was based on faulty information. But it wasn't a hoax. It was the fog of war. And there was a first attack. And LBJ had to rely on information given to him by his people. He didn't make this up.
In my view, even if there was no attack at all at that time the US and Hanoi were headed for a direct confrontation. At some point, at some time. The North wanted to take over the South and after Diem's removal they stepped up their attacks. The US decided that that was a threat to our security (it wasn't but that's how they - JFK and then LBJ - saw it). It was inevitable that the two sides were going to clash given the nature of the situation. Unless we were to simply leave.
As to the assassination: We had the WC, the HSCA and numerous investigations by the news media. CBS news, ABC news, the Washington Post, the NY Times.
You believe all of these investigations were obstructed by the government?
Look, I know I'm defending in LBJ a horrible guy. Clearly, he was corrupt, he lied and he personally was in some ways worse than Trump. I said some <g>. But I think he was sincere in going after racism, in dismantling segregation, and in trying to help poor people. And I think he truly hated the war. He didn't want it but felt trapped. That doesn't excuse the duplicity, the incompetency; but it does go to his motives which I don't think were pure evil.
-
What evidence is there that he restricted the ability of the WC to look for a conspiracy?
He didn’t need to. The FBI (Hoover) and CIA (Dulles) kept the WC staff in the dark about the issues that concerned Johnson.
It has been well documented that there were multiple coverups. The CIA even admits to it.
https://www.politico.eu/article/yes-the-cia-director-was-part-of-the-jfk-assassination-cover-up/
Of course it’s a Limited Hangout. They admit that some things were kept from the WC. I suspect that Angleton and maybe Helms knew much more than McCone about Oswald.
Aside from that, Ambassador Thomas Mann claimed that he was discouraged from looking into the Oswald’s Mexico City ties.
Also, some WC staffers admit that they were kept in the dark about Oswald’s Mexico City trip.
Whether they were told “not” to investigate conspiracies or kept in the dark about potential conspiratorial leads doesn’t really matter does it?
Politico:
David Slawson, a retired University of Southern California law professor who, 51 years ago, was the commission’s chief investigator searching for evidence that might have pointed to a foreign conspiracy in JFK’s murder. In interviews for a new edition of my 2013 history of the assassination, Slawson said he is now convinced the commission was the victim of a “massive cover-up” by the CIA and other agencies to hide evidence that might have identified people in Mexico City who knew and encouraged Oswald to carry out his threat when he returned to the United States...
Ambassador Mann appears to have had similar suspicions. After retiring from the State Department, he told House investigators in 1977 that he had never stopped believing that Oswald had been part of a conspiracy somehow linked to Cuba, and that the CIA and other agencies had refused to investigate Oswald’s activities in Mexico “because it would have resulted in the discovery of covert U.S. government action” that somehow involved Cuba.
In memoirs published in 1987, former FBI Director Clarence Kelley, Hoover’s immediate successor, revealed that, after having a chance to read through the bureau’s raw files on the Kennedy assassination, he, too, came to believe that Mexico held the key to unanswered questions about the president’s murder. “Oswald’s stay in Mexico City apparently shaped the man’s thinking irrevocably,” Kelley wrote...”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/jfk-assassination-lee-harvey-oswald-mexico-116195
The consistent trend in the US government’s JFK assassination investigations is that people who in good faith wanted to investigate the case and rule out a conspiracy were kept in the dark about relevant facts or conspiratorial leads...
Correction: LBJ did say in his last interview before leaving the Presidency that "I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger."
Are there any?
I don’t know how Johnson felt about the Mob. He didn’t say much about them as far as I know.
Again, outside of RFK’s crusade against organized crime, the Federal government didn’t do much about the Mob until after Hoover left the FBI.
Hence, why I suggested that the Mob benefited from JFK’s assassination more than any other potential conspirator...
-
Max Holland has an account of LBJ apparently learning for the first time - in 1967 - about the assassination plots directed at Castro. His account suggests that this shaped LBJ's views about who assassinated JFK. In effect, LBJ believed that JFK was killed by Castro in retaliation for those attempts.
Obviously, this doesn't prove that LBJ didn't think Castro was involved before this. Are there any accounts of LBJ thinking so in 1964? LBJ did say in that last interview while president that:
"I never believed that [Lee Harvey] Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger." So that's evidence that at the time of the WC investigation he believed in a conspiracy.
Holland's piece, including transcripts of calls LBJ made about the issue, is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/holland_atlantic.htm
I've cited Johnson's own words. He said he "never" believed Oswald acted alone. He didn't qualify it the way you are trying to do.
Others like RFK for example also publicly supported the Warren Report while saying and doing contradictory things in private.
It makes perfect sense IMO that Johnson learned about the CIA's anti-Castro stuff as soon as he was sworn in if not earlier. The idea that he wasn't told about it until 1967 seems highly unlikely.
-
Sorry, there was no Gulf of Tonkin hoax. Hoax as in deliberate deception. Are you talking about the second attack? No, there was no second attack by the North Vietnamese; that was based on faulty information. But it wasn't a hoax. It was the fog of war. And there was a first attack. And LBJ had to rely on information given to him by his people. He didn't make this up.
In my view, even if there was no attack at all at that time the US and Hanoi were headed for a direct confrontation. At some point, at some time. The North wanted to take over the South and after Diem's removal they stepped up their attacks. The US decided that that was a threat to our security (it wasn't but that's how they - JFK and then LBJ - saw it). It was inevitable that the two sides were going to clash given the nature of the situation. Unless we were to simply leave.
As to the assassination: We had the WC, the HSCA and numerous investigations by the news media. CBS news, ABC news, the Washington Post, the NY Times.
You believe all of these investigations were obstructed by the government?
Look, I know I'm defending in LBJ a horrible guy. Clearly, he was corrupt, he lied and he personally was in some ways worse than Trump. I said some <g>. But I think he was sincere in going after racism, in dismantling segregation, and in trying to help poor people. And I think he truly hated the war. He didn't want it but felt trapped. That doesn't excuse the duplicity, the incompetency; but it does go to his motives which I don't think were pure evil.
Gulf of Tonkin aside, my view that most, if not all wars, are based on lies or misleading information still stands. And yes, sometimes it's just the Fog of War, not an intentional attempt to mislead people about the causes of the conflict.