Right now, I'm looking at a newspaper that my Grandmother saved. It's from November 25, 1963. Right below the banner headline: "JFK Assasin Suspect Slain" it says, "First Order by LBJ: Win in Vetnam."
I guess after 40 years - with most of the players gone or too old to remember - one will never know. It will be interesting what the history books will portray 50-75 years from now - will conspiracy still play a major role or will there be closure? One quick and accurate shootin' CIA/KGB operative did it or maybe there were several CIA/KGB "persons" involved ...
The best book I've read on the subject (and I've read many) is Deep Politics and the Assassination of JFK by Peter Dale Scott. Scott is a former Canadian diplomat and a long-time English professor at Berkeley. His first "Deep Politics" book was the first revelation of the now-well-accepted major role of the CIA in supporting drug cartels in Asia, and his second is a major scholarly effort based on years of research into the assassination.
I think if I were in Castro’s shoes I would say I was behind it even if I played no part. After the Kennedy administration’s failed assassination attempts on Castro, he certainly had the motive. I believe all but the CIA are reasonable alternatives but I think the mob is the most likely. Jack Ruby’s ties to the Chicago mob is just too much of a coincidence. The power of the Kennedy PR machine still amazes me. I personally believe JFK would have resigned in his second term. No president, regardless of the PR spin, could survive the disclosure of his sharing a mistress with a mob boss. There reportedly were a number of publications that were working on the story at the time of his death.
The CIA and Pentagon was behind it. Get rid of Kennedy so Johnson could expand the Viet Nam campaign.
I believe the actual trigger man was Oswald. This guy was a skilled sharp shooter with an impressive accuracy at 200 yards. The president's motorcade was within a 100 yard distance from the building. With a high-powered rifle, 100 yard is no challenge especially when he was fully rested on couple of boxes with clear view of the motorcade. I visited the infamous site in Dallas and being a sharp shooter myself, I have no problem believing that Oswald or someone else on the 6th floor made the kill. However, I believe the CIA or other influential agencies had recruited Oswald to shoot the president.
Down in New Orleans, I always heard it was Carlos Marcella (Mafia) operating for friends in the Northeast representing big labor and the prospect of big military spending in Vietnam.
The CIA? That’s Oliver Stone paranoia. The ABC special the other night pointed out how many facts Stone had wrong or just made up. From a historical standpoint, the whole film is a joke. If JFK planned to pull out of Viet Nam, then why did he approve the coup that resulted in the death of President Diem just a few weeks before his death? Kennedy had the same problem as Johnson and Nixon. Politically, they couldn’t be seen as the first commander-in-chief to lose a war. If the government was involved in Kennedy’s death in any way, something would have leaked by now. What would the media pay for a creditable death bed confession that the CIA was involved? Millions.
My guess is the mob. JFK had connections with several mafia families on the East Coast. One of the reasons why Kennedy was elected to office was because of the mafia influence on labor unions back in the 1960s. When he failed to pay back the mob with federal construction contracts, he was executed. As a matter of fact, I honestly believe that Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the same mobsters for not living up to his promises as President of Teamsters.
did Johnson support the war in 1963? Johnson ran on the peace platform in 1964. It was Goldwater who wanted war. It is possible that Johnson was just fibbing when he ran against a possible war in southeast asia. Maybe Goldwater was fibbing when he supported it. Historically, the public position of Johnson was not to expand the war. He had a reversal of position after the '64 election. In comparison, Geo. W. Bush ran on an states rights platform in the '00 campaign and a position against the USA being a world policeman (like Clinton in the Balkans). He completely changed on both counts once in office. Why would they change positions?
