Re: JFK... Whether You Believe It Was A Lone Gunman, Or More... There Were MANY Who Wanted Him Dead

[WillyT]

Remember THIS ??? - Posted all over Dallas that day...

(Pay particular attention to the last three.)



Sound familiar ??? - They are among us still.

[WillyT]

1. I May Kick This One Or Twice Over The Next Couple Of Days...

[billhicks76]

10. Lies

The only people who say it was a lone gunman benefit personally from that view. The house committee in the 70s said it was definitely a conspiracy but they coudnt prove in court exactly who. E Howard Hunt has a 2005 videotaped confession laying out the chain of command from intelligence agents, right wing operatives and LBJ. Hunt is a famous, die hard Republican watergate burgler so I am bemused as to why this is not covered in the media (not really when you have neocons and guys like Rumsfeld on the boards of these deceitful conglomerates). Anyone writing a book trying to debunk is on the payroll I'm sure since we essentially had a coup d'état in 1963. What about the surgeons who recently went on TV saying they were told to cover up the entry wounds to the back of JFKs head? Who wants to bet Bush Sr was the manager of the assassination team? He is the only one on earth that said he didn't remember where he was the day the news was announced of JFK being shot. Oh...and as it turned out he was guess where...Dallas. I suppose fear has kept many people from saying the truth...just like today.

[JaneyVee]

2. "We're heading into nut country"-JFK to aide, one hour before being assassinated.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

3. Yes! Yes! YES!

It is sad that so many liked that JFK was killed and so many gain so much from his death.

The same forces are sill at work.

[duffyduff]

4. So what? Motive isn't evidence.

There is no evidence at all anybody other than Oswald did it.

[sabrina 1]

18. And yet, it was a Communist who supposedly killed him. Now why would a Communist

want to kill a President who was supposedly a Communist supporter (according to the 'teabaggers of their time) himself?

I would have expected the killer to have been rabid, rightwing anti-communist.

Just one more thing that doesn't add up in this 'cold case' that hopefully will be solved one day.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

28. the same reason a socialist might want to kill a "socialist" president. hint: he's not really

a socialist and even those calling him that know that. So I doubt those people labeling JFK a communist really believed he was in that he was executing a capitalist agenda as he had called for a dramatic cut in top marginal tax rates--not something your typical communist does.

Whereas a real Soviet-sympathizing communist would have a REAL PROBLEM with a capitalist president. See how that works?

[HangOnKids]

29. Gee you have it all figured out

With a huge dollop of condescension, how fantastic! It is so wonderful you're here, and here all the time too! So great, I wish you would post even more.

oops forget the g in huge!

Please post more PW, we don't see you enough.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

30. I will strive to

Since it pleases you so

[HangOnKids]

32. Love all of your posts

Too numerous to comment on. But there are so many of them, where to begin! Fabulous.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

33. Great! I'm shooting for ProSense numbers.

[HangOnKids]

34. Fabulous

Your transparency page is quite lovely too!

[laundry_queen]

41. You're not kidding. Wow. nt

[DFW]

31. Look who killed Israel's Rabin

Not an Arab, but a fellow Israeli who thought Rabin was too tolerant of the other side.

[Mc Mike]

5. Repug nazi Birchers, still the same 50 years later.

Recced. Thanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Whether Many Wanted Him Dead Or Not

There was only one person shooting in Dealey Plaza that day.

[sabrina 1]

19. And that person was not a Right Wing, rabid anti-Communist. That person WAS a communist.

Got any idea why a communist, rather than one of those anti-communists was the killer?

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Knowing why Oswald did it or not doesn't change the fact that he did.

His rifle. The recovered bullets and fragments tied to his rifle exclusively. The cartridges tied to his gun exclusively. His uncharacteristic trip back to where he stored his rifle and his transporting the rifle back to work. His flight afterwards from the scene. His shooting Officer Tippit. His flight from that crime. His capture and his lying to police again and again.

Why did he do it? I couldn't say. But that he did it? Yes, that I can say.

[sabrina 1]

22. I wish I could be so certain about events that took place, anywhere actually, that I did not

dee for myself. We know he was in the building, we know his rifle was there, we know shots came from the sixth floor of the Book Depository. We know they found a palm print on his rifle, not surprising since it was his rifle. But who saw him actually fire the shots that most likely DID kill Kennedy?

But even he did fire the shots that killed Kennedy, are you equally certain that he was not used by someone who needed a hit man? From all accounts, he would have made a perfect tool especially if he never got a chance to defend himself.

Motive is extremely important in any murder case. I can't see what his motive was. That's the puzzling thing.

Unless someone told him 'Kennedy is no Commie no matter what the Right Wing Loonies say. Kennedy hates Communists and intends to crack down on them'. I don't doubt he was killing someone. A Right Winger eg, which he apparently did try and failed to do. But one of his own kind politically? Did he think LBJ would make a better Communist?

Motive, there just doesn't seem to have been a motive.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. "Motive is extremely important in any murder case." I disagree.

In murder mystery novels, yes. In actual prosecutions? Not so much. They help at times. But, no, if the facts on the ground show someone committed the crime and mens rae can be demonstrated without explaining a motive, then motive can be set aside.

Since Oswald can reasonably be expected to know what would happen as he fired his rifle at the President, and since he then fled the scene (demonstrating a consciousness of guilt), mens rae at his trial would have been easily demonstrated. So as far as his guilt, his motive wouldn't need to be shown at trial.

I think the possibility of Oswald being hired or put up to the assassination by a conspiracy is rather low.

Sure, we can speculate on motive. He did it to get people to pay attention to him at last. He did it so people could only ever think of him passionately again (hat tip, "Assassins&quot . He did it because Kennedy was the human face of the bloodthirsty capitalistic United States, the enemy of Castro and the Marxist revolution. He did it to punish Marina for not coming back to him in the end. He did it because he thought Castro would let him into Cuba. He did it hoping that Kennedy's right wing enemies would get the blame. He did it to finally succeed at something in his sad, pathetic life. He did it to gain a national platform in his trial. He did it because everything in his life had prepared him for that moment.

He did it because he could.

That Oswald did it, easily shown. Why he did it, we'll never know for sure. And evil and good and good/evil people swept in and took advantage of JFK's death - of course they did. They always will when a powerful and influential man dies. But benefit is not evidence of guilt, not even when they are spectacular benefits. Guilt does not rest on knowing a motive.

[sabrina 1]

37. Well, you prove my point. We don't know what his motive was. We know he was politically involved

and he killed a politician. Logically that excludes all the possible personal reasons, such as 'his wife made him angry'.

You didn't include another possible motive, he was manipulated into doing it. And that is what a majority of people believe.

Had he lived he could have spoken for himself under oath, called witnesses etc. His whole life, telephone calls etc could have been presented as evidence etc etc.

But someone blew him away, very conveniently.

Too bad so now we have to look at the most logical motive. And apparently a majority believes the most logicial motive WAS political, considering what we know about him.

[zappaman]

38. Bullshit.

"Logically that excludes all the possible personal reasons, such as 'his wife made him angry'.

Zero logic in that statement.
Plenty of examples to show how astoundingly wrong you are, but how about just one....why did John Hinckley try to assassinate Reagan?

People kill people for all kinds of reasons...they even kill politicians.

"Logically"

[sabrina 1]

39. Millions of people are angry at their wives. They don't go out and kill Presidents over it. THAT is

Bullshit.

Interesting question about Hinckley btw. Another assassination attempt that involved the Bush gang. I'll have to do some research on that. Thanks for reminding me.

[zappaman]

40. Obviously, you missed the point.

But best of luck on the research.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. We don't have to know his motive to know he did it.

And, no, killing a politician and being politically active does not logically exclude all possible personal reasons. As a simple example, a politically involved person comes home, finds a politician in his bed with his wife, and kills him. You may have a gut feeling that this is a purely political crime, but don't confuse that with logic.

And does Oswald strike you as the kind of person who dealt with his politics dispassionately? He doesn't strike me that way. I very much doubt that any one reason will be the sole one. It's more likely Oswald shot Kennedy for a number of reasons, both personal and political. So any solely political motive would not require another actor besides Oswald.

Manipulated into doing it: when? Oswald was as intense a loner as someone living in a house with eighteen people could be. The only phone in the house was a scarce resource and he never used it anyway. He went to his room and shut the door. He never had visitors. The phone at work he could only use by permission. His use of the Paines's phone would have been seen. So the only time he could have had a lengthy conversation with anyone was in between his boarding room and the TSBD. And that's something he would have had to volunteer for. He went off for an ACLU meeting once, I believe. So as little and precious as it was, there would have been time for him to talk here and there with his manipulators. But the vast majority of time he spent in the sole company of his one and true manipulator: himself.

Furthermore, he was at the TSBD by chance. It was a temp job and he was already looking for the next one. This one had lasted longer than normal because the regular employees were replacing the flooring in the building and a rush was still ongoing. His first day at work, his boss arbitrarily assigned him to the Elm warehouse instead of to the other open job at another location which would wind up being off JFK's route. The sheer happenstance way he was on the route argues against any manipulation into shooting Kennedy. The hand of an external manipulator is quite invisible in how he wound up in a place to shoot the president, invisible to the point of being non-existent.

I would argue with the idea that a majority thinks he was manipulated into it. A sizable chunk of that majority thinks he was just a patsy. That's not being manipulated into shooting the President.

Besides all this, I've been thinking about writing a slate-pitchy post extraordinare about how killing Kennedy was the last thing the usual suspects in a conspiracy would have wanted, and killing Oswald was the last thing they'd want following that. I think there's an argument to be made there.

A taste of it: Accepting the proposition that Kennedy would have withdrawn from Vietnam (the reason for his assassination according to the CIA/MIC theory), everyone agrees that he would have done nothing substantial until after the 1964 election. He was going to wait until then to take the political hit. There were far more options in place than just killing him for the CIA and the MIC. He was a great president, but he would fuck any woman in a ten-mile radius. Anyone who wanted him out of the picture could have just exposed his many, many affairs. The American public would have kicked him to the curb. He already had the political liability of being a Catholic, something he'd barely negotiated in 1960. Combine that with serial cheating on his wife becoming public and I don't see how he could have won. Kennedy winning on the ropes: could he have taken the further hit of getting out of Vietnam? Goldwater winning: in May 1964 he openly contemplated using nukes in Vietnam. He tried to walk it back some, but did Kennedy ever do that? The military would have loved having Goldwater around. Killing Kennedy was idiotic of them in this case. All they had to do was sink him in the election and get Goldwater in there.

Killing Kennedy was the act of someone with no other strong options in his life. Here's another motive I didn't include: Oswald killed Kennedy so he would never have to be Lee Oswald, dirt-poor shipping clerk and failed revolutionary, ever again. He had the skill set. He had the rifle. He took his shot.

[Scuba]

7. Put your faith in one who seeks the truth. Avoid any who claim to have found it.

If nothing else, the continued investigation of this killing - and any coverup - may help deter future assassination attempts.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. I think that's probably been true for every American president.

Attempted assassinations: Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, FDR, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, Obama. There's been plenty of enmity and outright hatred directed at presidents of both parties.

The fact that Kennedy may have been hated by a diverse cross-section of extremist nutcases doesn't mean much, because there's no evidence whatever that any of those people had anything to do with his death.

[WillyT]

9. And That Was My Point... Forget The Conspiracy Argument For A Moment Every Now And Then...

And realize that it's the fomented, and ENCOURAGED, hatred that screws this country at every turn.

[ancianita]

16. Yes, it is.

[Mr.Bill]

17. And today those that wish to kill the president

are celebrities, at least in their world. Example: Ted Nugent.

[Sognefjord]

24. When was there an attempt to kill Nixon? I missed that bit of news for sure.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots#Richard_Nixon

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. The story is someone on the Political Left did it....

Sure took the heat off the Right, didn't it...

[sabrina 1]

21. Yes, isn't it odd that it was communist who by all accounts should have been happy with

a 'commie' president who supposedly killed him. Logic says it should have been one of those right wing ANTI-communists who should have done it.

It doesn't make sense. And that might be why so many people just don't believe the official story no matter how desperate the Deniers are to silence people who refuse to accept the 'official story'.

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. A pro-Cuban Communist should've been happy with an anti-Castro McCarthyite?

On what planet?

[sabrina 1]

35. It doesn't matter. The left got the blame. Rightwingers want us to stop talking about it so the

Right, looking at what was going on at the time, will not be implicated.

Ever argue with Right Wingers over this? I have. They delight in pointing out that it was 'commie' who killed a 'commie' president.

The other reason it doesn't matter is that most people who do not believe the 'official story' are willing to believe he was there, his gun was there and the odds are he did fire the shots. What most people don't believe is that he was acting on his own. He was, by all accounts, a perfect tool.

[RagAss]

12. A lone gunman does not preclude a conspiracy.

[sabrina 1]

36. Exactly!

[Booster]

13. I remember George H. W. Bush saying he didn't remember where he was on that day.

So I Googled "where was George H. W. Bush on the day JFK was murdered" and it turns out he was in Dallas on that day. In Dallas on that day and you don't remember it? hmmmmm The articles that came up were very interesting indeed. He may be the only American that doesn't remember exactly where he was that day.

[Matilda]

14. He may be the only person in the world who doesn't remember

where he was that day.

I was at home in Sydney, Australia, and I remember exactly.

[JackRiddler]

23. I didn't exist, so I don't remember.

Pretty good alibi, no?

[laundry_queen]

42. He may be the only North American

My parents are Canadians and my mom was 8, my dad was 10. The remember every.single.detail about where they were, what they were doing when they heard the news. My mom remembers exactly how her parents reacted. My dad remembers how his dad was convinced it was LBJ and kept repeating over and over again to no one in particular, "I told you he would do it! Did I not tell you he would do this? I knew Kennedy couldn't trust that SOB! That bastard actually did it! OMG he did it!" and how his mother cried. How everyone felt like the world was ending.

And yet, Poppy couldn't remember where he was? When he was in DALLAS? Yeah, super plausible, George. Go with that.

[ancianita]

15. They are, truly. What was sickening was the glee I saw in Southern faces after it happened.

[underpants]

44. I don't think it was Oswald alone

I don't know who else it was but that is a lot of shots - and one really accurate one - in a very short amount of time from a ridiculous angle.