Was Lee Harvey Oswald Really A Left-Winger?

[Rakhmetov]

Was Lee Harvey Oswald really a leftist as the Warren Commission claimed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_BZk5tkyno

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M9ff6FK-CM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IejGovxdy8

http://www.jfk-online.com/jgphotosdf.html

http://www.geocities.com/garrisoninvestigation/ferrie_oswald.jpg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ITzTJEg1ME&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INdAhPxf_70&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quIz6wrseQc&feature=related

[h9socialist]

Frankly, I don't think a definitive explanation of Oswald's politics has ever been made. In my opinion, the notion of Oswald as a communist was bullshit in 1963 and is bullshit today. For a radical he sure did run around in a lot of reactionary right-wing circles. He was assigned to Atsugi in 1960 -- he had to have super clearance to work in the section he was in. Moreover, I have a lot of doubts about Oswald's guilt. Call me Oliver Stone, but I tend to think Oswald was just what he said he was: "A patsy."

[chimx]

Yes. Oswald kept a personal diary when he was a teenager and started to identify himself as a Marxist at that time. He joined the US military, quit, and emigrated to Russia because of his love of communism.

After 3 years he came back to the US. He attempted to assassinate a famous military general who was an outspoken anti-communist because Oswald believed him to be a fascist. After that he then assassinated JFK.

Yes he was a socialist, or at the very least a communist as a byproduct of his own Slavophilia. Yes he assassinated JFK. Yes he acted alone.

[Psy]

Oswald was a double agent for the CIA and FBI back when Hoover wanted to puppet the CIA to stop the CIA from blackmailing him with pictures showing him having gay sex (the CIA was on top of Hoover's enemy list) . Basically he was part of COINTELPRO on a mission to spy on the CIA so the FBI would have intelligence needed to later infiltrate the leadership of the CIA (that failed) and his cover was a CIA agent running the illegal paramilitary to overthrow Castro (thus gave the FBI the exuse for spying on the CIA for breaking the law within the bounds of the USA).

Oswald was no revolutionary he was just a pig who's masters decided to make a patsy.

[Random Precision]

Oswald was a double agent for the CIA and FBI back when Hoover wanted to puppet the CIA to stop the CIA from blackmailing him with pictures showing him having gay sex (the CIA was on top of Hoover's enemy list) . Basically he was part of COINTELPRO on a mission to spy on the CIA so the FBI would have intelligence needed to later infiltrate the leadership of the CIA (that failed) and his cover was a CIA agent running the illegal paramilitary to overthrow Castro (thus gave the FBI the exuse for spying on the CIA for breaking the law without the bounds of the USA).

Oswald was no revolutionary he was just a pig who's masters decided to make a patsy.

[citation needed]

I think chimx's post pretty much nails it btw. All the evidence points to Oswald being alone, and even if he wasn't, why do we actually care as leftists?

[chimx]

Oswald was a double agent for the CIA and FBI back when Hoover wanted to puppet the CIA to stop the CIA from blackmailing him with pictures showing him having gay sex (the CIA was on top of Hoover's enemy list) . Basically he was part of COINTELPRO on a mission to spy on the CIA so the FBI would have intelligence needed to later infiltrate the leadership of the CIA (that failed) and his cover was a CIA agent running the illegal paramilitary to overthrow Castro (thus gave the FBI the exuse for spying on the CIA for breaking the law without the bounds of the USA).

Oswald was no revolutionary he was just a pig who's masters decided to make a patsy.

I am more dumber having read that.

[Psy]

[citation needed]

I think chimx's post pretty much nails it btw. All the evidence points to Oswald being alone, and even if he wasn't, why do we actually care as leftists?
Check the first video link of "Mengistu Haile Mariam", there are other documentaries of Oswald that point out he worked for both the CIA and FBI, and Michael Parenti pointed out the KGB knew Oswald learned Russian from the US Goverment that raises the question why the US goverment would teach Oswald Russian if he was open communist unless the US Goverment knew it was act because they told Oswald to pretend to be a communist. Then you have the fact the Oswald reguarly was in contact with FBI COINTELPRO officers, are we to belive a raging communist would be constantly talking to COINTELPRO without at least being a mole for the FBI?

If you saw Oswald in your communist group and knew he was constantly talking with COINTELPRO would consider Oswald a communist or would you consider him a pig?

[khad]

If you saw Oswald in your communist group and knew he was constantly talking with COINTELPRO would consider Oswald a communist or would you consider him a pig?
They thought Leon Czolgosz was a pig too. But he wasn't.



Czolgosz was never known to be accepted into any anarchist group. Indeed, his fanaticism and comments about violence aroused anarchists' suspicions; some even thought he might have been a covert government agent. Furthermore, Czolgosz was known to have been a Republican (the same party as President McKinley), and had voted in the Republican primaries in Cleveland;[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Czolgosz#cite_note-5) this participation in representative democracy being directly at odds with an ideology which rejects all forms of government.

The radical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_%28historical%29) Free Society newspaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper) issued a warning pertaining to Czolgosz, reading:

"The attention of the comrades is called to another spy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy). He is well dressed, of medium height, rather narrow shouldered, blond, and about 25 years of age. Up to the present he has made his appearance in Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago,_Illinois) and Cleveland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland). In the former place he remained a short time, while in Cleveland he disappeared when the comrades had confirmed themselves of his identity and were on the point interested in the cause, asking for names, or soliciting aid for acts of contemplated violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence). If this individual makes his appearance elsewhere, the comrades are warned in advance and can act accordingly."

[h9socialist]

I agree with Comrade Psy -- Oswald ran with way too many right-wing nut-jobs, particularly Guy Bannister. Moreover, if he had been a "Marxist" he would never have gotten in the Marine Corps let alone assigned to the station at Atsugi, Japan that monitoref the U-2 flights. His "left-wing background" was part of the cover story that was meant to mislead the public. If he was as Marxist as believed by some, he would never have gotten his US citizenship back after defecting or brought home a Russian wife. And if you've ever been to Dealey Plaza, ands surveyed the lay of the land, you'd know that the area behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll was a chip-shot for a good marksman, and much more! JFK was killed by a conspiracy of rogue elements in the CIA, the Defense Department and the Mob. I will always believe that!

[Revy]

what about this theory?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v693/Stancel/lbjjfk2.jpg

Very interesting.

[Bankotsu]

Or how about this one:



Israel killed JFK,says Vanunu

In a startling accusation, nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu has alleged that Jerusalem was behind the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, who was exerting pressure on the then Israeli head of state to shed light on the Dimona nuclear plant.

In defiance of a ban on talking to the media and meeting with foreigners, Vanunu is said to have made the accusation in an interview to London-based Al-Hayat newspaper.

As per the interview published in newspaper's Arabic supplement Al-Wassat yesterday, Vanunu said according to "near-certain indications", Kennedy was assassinated due to "pressure he exerted on then head of government, David Ben-Gurion, to shed light on Dimona's nuclear reactor".

"We do not know which irresponsible Israeli Prime Minister will take office and decide to use nuclear weapons in the struggle against neighboring Arab countries," he is quoted to have said, adding, "What has already been exposed about the weapons Israel is holding can destroy the region and kill millions."

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/26vanunu.htm



Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy
http://www.amazon.com/Final-Judgment-Missing-Assassination-Conspiracy/dp/0935036539

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Assassinations_page/Israel%27s_Central_Role_FJ.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8298527/Final-Judgment-Mossad-and-the-JFK-Assasination

[oujiQualm]

[citation needed]

I think chimx's post pretty much nails it btw. All the evidence points to Oswald being alone, and even if he wasn't, why do we actually care as leftists?
---------
I would strongly disagree with the idea that "all of the evidence points to Oswald Being alone" That is simply ridiculous. How much reading have you done on the subject. Let me guess, very little, because you think there is little for leftists to learn.

Now on that idea : That there is little for leftists to learn. I disagree with that just as strongly. In fact I think that there is an incredible amount to learn from the JFK assassination PROVIDED IT IS INTEGRATED WITH A BROADER STUDY OF COLD WAR HISTORY, ESPECIALLY US FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY, AND AN INSTITUTIONAL STUDY OF THE NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STATE AFTER 1947.

Now there is a more general point I want to make about this thread. I am 45 and have noticed a definite trend among so-called left coverage attitudes towards JFK. For twenty years there has been nobody more one-sidedly attacked than JFK compared to all the other presidents. The Camelot Myth is still deliberately dredged up to suggest that the press has gone too easy on JFK, but this has absolutely not been the case for 20 years.

In fact what is remarkable is the extent to which CIA views have been integrated into "liberal" attacks on JFK , the best example being Notorious Helms Aid Samuel Halpern being used as an objective source for so many of the JFK bashing stories especially those of Sir Symour of Langley, Si Hersh.

I would love to give you examples of these myriad distortions, should anyone desire to see proof.

However, I have limited time right now, so let me end with what I think is the most important point. So often what I find ESPECIALLY AMONG THE MORE RECENT LEFT-- much less so in 1960s and 1970s analysis of liberalism, and left-liberalism-- is an unwritten assumption that permeates entire websites, and it is IMO a very very dangerous one.

That assumption is that if some figure is a liberal , a left liberal , or any other political position than "good leftist schweig' they can be dismissed, and their policies don't need to be more closely investigated. They are just dubbed "liberals" AS IF US LIBERALISM HAD NOT UNDERGONE A RADICAL AND EXTREME RIGHTWARD SHIFT OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS, to the point where elected democrats with some of the biggest majorities in US history dont say anything at all, and are basically doing mouth to mouth recessitation on nearly every Bush policy imaginable. Such conflation of polical figures and political eras is absolutely deadly to historical analysis.

Imagine if Marx had said in his Eighteenth Burmaire, Oh well they are all just liberals anyway" etc. Such dismissive attitudes are worse than no study at all; they cater to identity politics and tatoo wearing rather than true thought. Above all they detatch left anlysis, and leave it in the moat that it is today. No surprise that there are so many writers on the so-called left who specialize in just such ahistorical and specious conflation.

Once more, I think that the years 1960-64 are absolutely crucial and can be seen as the vortex of the cold war, in the sense of the last time it was possible for an individual TO CONCEIVE OF standing up to permanent intelligence and military bureacracies that today have grown to such a stregnth as to make elections almost completely irrelevent, in terms of the continuity that ensues regardless of results.

The standard objection that is trotted out by many on the left-- who in my opinion as well as that of pre 1983 (roughly) generations of leftists publications was killed by a conspiracy because of his policies that were considerably to the left of those presidents since, but these policies and initiatives have been deeply distorted since-- is that JFK assassination is Conspiracy Theory that places too much emphasis on the role of individuals at the expense of the real underlying economic changes that are the true driving force of history.

I could not agree with any assertion more strongly. In fact I would argue that nothing proves the supremacy of economic structural realities over the decisions of beugois political leaders more clearly than a rigorous study of JFK's policies, how these policies were challenged and distorted at every single step of their implementation and his eventual assassination by more permanent elements of the National Security State, a very significant part of which was the CIA.

I also think that in characterizing JFK as a bourgeois politician, we be very very careful lest we allow this category to obscure some very very significant differences between his policies and those followed by all following US governments.

How many have heard of A Cold War magazine called Encounter? Please research this!! It was a CIA magazine designed to fragment the left and provide disinformation. The best source is Francis Stonor Suanders book The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the world of Arts and Letters. I have no reason to believe that this practice is not going on today as well, and plenty of reasons to think it is happening on a much more massive scale. Does this mean that all JFK bashing is the result of disinformation. No, of course not. Yet it is a variable, rarely discussed (what would be the medium) and one that should be considered as at least one variable in the analysis.

In fact media studies is just one angle of the JFK presidency and assassination that we now possess an incredible amount of new date on, data that directly links to the CIA to the US Corporate Media. These days-- now that the left has become a virtually irrelevant political force and seems content to stand around in isolated web sites reaffirming identity politics while never asking why they have become so irrelevant-- many young people will automatically emit the bovine sound "conspiracy theory" These words were not always on the tip of the tongue. Who put them there? Why? See baby with bathwater. See comparative
lesser emphasis on US political history at the expense of social history since c1980. This social history has made tremendous advances, but if it is not reconnected to a return to polical history the tremendous drawbacks will only grow. Back in the 1960s and 1970s the left was not afraid to study CIA history. In fact half the demonstrations were about CIA off Campus.

Finally I would urge all folk to read this very important book about JFK and his policies and their wider impact on US and world history. It is not by a naive liberal (it is remarkable how often anyone who objects to any CIA portrayal of JFK at all is dismissed with this convenient label) and is in fact an anarchist. This book was endorsed by Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon papers. He knows a thing or two about Vietnam, the Kennedy administration and the CIA. It is also endorsed by Marcus Raskin, former JFK advisor who left to form IPS, the left of center policy think tank in DC. There are many other impressive endorsements. What is so interesting however is that IN SPITE OF FAR AND AWAY OUTSELLING EVERY OTHER JFK OR EVEN COLD WAR HISTORY BOOK FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF it is completely unavailable in any bookstore in NYC. Meanwhile at the Psudo-left- culture is so kool bookstore that will remain nameless mafia done it books are put in the front window. and the authors are invited to the other cultural-left bookstore for talks with NYU professor of media studies. Media studies. Interesting field. Anyone familiar with the history of media studies in the US?

Oh by the way the book i am recommending is called JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters by James W. Douglass.

[Random Precision]

Please tell me why JFK was crucial for the Cold War, and why his assassination matters to us. That seems to be the biggest issue here, but you sort of talked around it in your post.

[chegitz guevara]

When I told someone that the 9/11 Truth bs was just that, bs, he said I probably think Oswald killed Kennedy. "Yes, that's what the evidence shows."

I'm an atheist, so I have this little saying that applies to situations like this, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I don't know much about the guy, and I don't really care.
Point is I don't think the assassination of JFK was a bad thing anyway.
The guy who organised the Bay of the Pigs invasion got what he deserved.

[Revy]

Which makes it ironic that he is often portrayed as peaceful. He ordered an invasion of Cuba....doesn't sound peaceful to me.

[Psy]

When I told someone that the 9/11 Truth bs was just that, bs, he said I probably think Oswald killed Kennedy. "Yes, that's what the evidence shows."

I'm an atheist, so I have this little saying that applies to situations like this, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

It is a extraordinary claim to say a COINTELPRO and CIA agent murdered the president without the prior knowledge of either the FBI or CIA. Oswald was not just some random crazy nut but on the payroll of both the FBI and CIA, and in constant contact with both the CIA and FBI. Meaning the claim that Oswald killed Kennedy would mean both the CIA and FBI was fully unware of his actions while Oswald was their pawn (meaning the pawn Oswald was able to act without the knowledge of his masters).

[Dean]

Comrade Oswald :wub:

[Revy]

Kennedy was considering withdrawing from Vietnam after his 1964 re-election. This could be the main reason for the alleged coup d'etat. Four days after Kennedy's assassination, the Johnson administration wrote the National Security Action Memorandum #273, which committed the US to the war in Vietnam, effectively reversing Kennedy's earlier NSAM #263 (a month before the assassination) which ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 U.S. military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1963 (Kennedy ordered that this action be done covertly).

Just something to consider....

[Raúl Duke]

eh, I don't really bother much thinking about the Kennedy Assassination although I do agree that some details are a bit dodgy.

All this could have probably be avoided if the convertible car he was riding om had its top on.

[Luís Henrique]

Why are Americans so fascinated with this cold warrior, son of a Nazi appeaser?

He was a man of the right. If he was killed by the right, it was due to some internal strife of the right (but why? in a country where you can easily block the president's actions via Congress, or through a press campaign?)

And if Oswald was acting on behalf of the Soviet Union, how did this not trigger a wholesale witchhunt?

Some times idiots do idiot things that have historical importance. See the Reichstag fire. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were being manipulated by someone else.

Luís Henrique

[GregoryAButler]

Those are some extraordinary claims.

Do you have any evidence or sources to back them up?


Oswald was a double agent for the CIA and FBI back when Hoover wanted to puppet the CIA to stop the CIA from blackmailing him with pictures showing him having gay sex (the CIA was on top of Hoover's enemy list) . Basically he was part of COINTELPRO on a mission to spy on the CIA so the FBI would have intelligence needed to later infiltrate the leadership of the CIA (that failed) and his cover was a CIA agent running the illegal paramilitary to overthrow Castro (thus gave the FBI the exuse for spying on the CIA for breaking the law within the bounds of the USA).

Oswald was no revolutionary he was just a pig who's masters decided to make a patsy.

[GregoryAButler]

Luis,

I've always been puzzled by the fascination with the Kennedy assassination in my country.

JFK was a liberal Democrat, his presidency occured during the middle of the Civil Rights movement and, among racist White Southerners, he was widely seen as pro Black.

Big surprise that, while driving through a racist Southern city in an open car during those years, he got shot and killed - by a White Southerner, a United States Marine Corps veteran [and, like all Marines, a recipient of extensive rifle marksmanship training].

None of the crackpot conspiracy theories ever mention the race factor - perhaps because of the all too common unwillingness of White American liberals and leftists to seriously deal with the African American question and anything related to that question.

Bottom line, Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy - by himself, with that Manlicher Carcano rifle the Dallas Police found in the Texas School Book Depository.


Why are Americans so fascinated with this cold warrior, son of a Nazi appeaser?

He was a man of the right. If he was killed by the right, it was due to some internal strife of the right (but why? in a country where you can easily block the president's actions via Congress, or through a press campaign?)

And if Oswald was acting on behalf of the Soviet Union, how did this not trigger a wholesale witchhunt?

Some times idiots do idiot things that have historical importance. See the Reichstag fire. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were being manipulated by someone else.

Luís Henrique

[Revy]

Um, I'm not fascinated about him. It seems plausible it was a coup d'etat. Nobody is saying Kennedy wasn't an imperialist, but he probably wasn't imperialist enough.

And no, Lee Harvey Oswald could not have shot Kennedy for racist reasons. Oswald previously attempted to assassinate Edwin Walker, a right-wing segregationist, specifically because Oswald was repulsed by the man's fascism. That does not sound like the act of a racist. So don't just make up stuff on a whim....

[GregoryAButler]

That "Coup d'Etat" thing is really not credible comrade!

This country's military has never carried out or attempted a coup d'etat in their entire history - what evidence do you have for a 1963 coup attempt.

Bottom line, Oswald shot Kennedy - during a period of widespread racially motivated violence in the American South, some of which was targeted on Northern Whites who were considered to be pro Black.

It's a whole lot simpler than the conspiracy theory crackpots want to make it.



Um, I'm not fascinated about him. It seems plausible it was a coup d'etat. Nobody is saying Kennedy wasn't an imperialist, but he probably wasn't imperialist enough.

And no, Lee Harvey Oswald could not have shot Kennedy for racist reasons. Oswald previously attempted to assassinate Edwin Walker, a right-wing segregationist, specifically because Oswald was repulsed by the man's fascism. That does not sound like the act of a racist. So don't just make up stuff on a whim....

[Rakhmetov]

Luis,

I've always been puzzled by the fascination with the Kennedy assassination in my country.

JFK was a liberal Democrat, his presidency occured during the middle of the Civil Rights movement and, among racist White Southerners, he was widely seen as pro Black.

Big surprise that, while driving through a racist Southern city in an open car during those years, he got shot and killed - by a White Southerner, a United States Marine Corps veteran [and, like all Marines, a recipient of extensive rifle marksmanship training].

None of the crackpot conspiracy theories ever mention the race factor - perhaps because of the all too common unwillingness of White American liberals and leftists to seriously deal with the African American question and anything related to that question.

Bottom line, Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy - by himself, with that Manlicher Carcano rifle the Dallas Police found in the Texas School Book Depository.

You need to go to google video and look up Dr. Michael Parenti's video "The gangster nature of the state" part 1 & 2. What, you're still reading this message. Go and find that video NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, NOW!!!!!

[oujiQualm]

Greg the evidence that Oswald was working for one or more different intelligence agencies is so vast and extensive that it is impossible to post on a thread. If youd like i could try to post some snippets from the ocean later. But as far as texts I would strongly recommend University of Maryland History Professor John Newman's book Oswald and the CIA (new edition published 2008 or 9) Nobody will have any doubt whatsoever after reading this book. Invaluable not just because of Oswald but because of what it reveals about other CIA operations and clear connections between the CIA and US journalists. There is nothing that shows these connections between the CIA and US journalists better than a study of the Kennedy administration and the Kennedy assassination. Perhaps that is one reason why so much effort has gone into moating the left from interest in this period of history, which once was their stomping ground.

[oujiQualm]

This writer says "none of the crackpot theories ever mentions race" Huh?????? What does crackpot theories mean? Nearly every book on the kennedy assassination mentions race. This person has obviously read nothing at all. Interesting that he uses race in a deliberately undefined and accusatory way and AS DETATCHED FROM CLASS AND FOREIGN POLICY in order to change the subject. Reminds me of two US political parties!;)

[oujiQualm]

JFK's differences with the Military and Intelligence unelected bureaucracy are myriad and documented according to scholarly standards lightyears beyond the sordid crap that is front paged by the NYT book review (Case CLosed the 1993 book that was pushed relentlessly by the Corporate Media, is now never even mentioned by the last of the surviving lone nutters. That is how completely discredited it is. It is simply and embarssment to the dwindling crowd of lone nutters, but HOW MANY PEOPLE READ THIS AND DECIDED CASE CLOSED ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS PUSHED SO HARD BY THE CORPORATE MEDIA.

Among books documenting intense struggle between the JFK and the Permanent Military Industrial Complex i recommend these. Note: THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM ARE BASED ON NEW DOCUMENTS (MORE THAN 3 MILLION PAGES ) RELEASED UNDER THE CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
* Garreth Porter, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, University of California Press, 2005 mORE LATER I AM BEING LIMITED BY A SCREAMING BABY WHO MUST BE TAKEN OUTSIDE

[Andy Bowden]

If Oswald was a communist then it's highly irregular he would spend so much time in the company of white Russians and anti-Castro Cubans. Or that he would be accepted back into the USA from the USSR as a defector without any kind of legal penalty.

JFK was not a Socialist President, or a threat to Capitalism. But people forget that the US ruling class, and it's more unstable elements do not always see the world in a capitalist/anti capitalist split. People who are capitalists but have radically different tactics in defending capitalism/fighting communism are often portrayed as traitors, mortal threats, weak etc.

Just look at Obama - his healthcare plan, bail out of the banks etc has all been done or proposed within the framework of capitalism. But there are elements of the US ruling class who genuinely believe he is a threat to them, and are waging a campaign of demonisation against him.

Sometimes tactical differences about how to uphold ruling class interests can provoke that response. It certainly did with JFK. This handbill was circulated on the day of his assassination - http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/wantedfortreason.htm

So while JFK may have been a capitalist politician through and through his tactics for upholding capitalism and fighting communism were clearly despised almost as much by certain forces as much as communism was.

As for conspiracy theories about Kennedys assassination being the preserve of loonies etc, does that also include the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations which believed Kennedy was killed as part of a conspiracy?

[Revy]

have you considered that Oswald was framed? What evidence is there that connects Oswald to the crime? That's what I want to know. But then again people are not interested in giving a detailed case. And the post-humous trial, not an "investigation", the frame-up trial, the Warren Commission, produced no credible evidence. In fact, there was lots of evidence that Oswald had nothing to do with it. but the Commission's purpose was to stamp "Guilty" on Oswald's gravestone, that's all...

[Rakhmetov]

That "Coup d'Etat" thing is really not credible comrade!

This country's military has never carried out or attempted a coup d'etat in their entire history - what evidence do you have for a 1963 coup attempt.

Bottom line, Oswald shot Kennedy - during a period of widespread racially motivated violence in the American South, some of which was targeted on Northern Whites who were considered to be pro Black.

It's a whole lot simpler than the conspiracy theory crackpots want to make it.


Ever heard of the "Business Plot"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot

[oujiQualm]

Why are Americans so fascinated with this cold warrior, son of a Nazi appeaser?

He was a man of the right. If he was killed by the right, it was due to some internal strife of the right (but why? in a country where you can easily block the president's actions via Congress, or through a press campaign?)

And if Oswald was acting on behalf of the Soviet Union, how did this not trigger a wholesale witchhunt?

Some times idiots do idiot things that have historical importance. See the Reichstag fire. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were being manipulated by someone else.

Luís Henrique
-------------

To call JFK a rightist is completely wrong. It makes all political language useless, to use terms like this so imprecisely. Kind of like the Republicans Oreweling the word Socialist lately-- with absolutely no objection whatsoever from the Corporate Wall Street Democrats.

The simple fact of the matter, is that there was a significant group of left liberal democrats in the 1960s, whose influence and threat they represented to the shifting power elite, has been badly distorted by recent attacks that APPEAR FROM THE LEFT but in reality serve rightist purposses. In my mind the comments of Cockburn and Chomsky would fall under this category and without any question whatesover, the comments of Sy Hersh.

JFK was just such a left-liberal, and I know this goes against everything that Chomsky and NYT agree on-- namely the only thing they agree on bashing JFK way more than any other president, and completely distorting not only his record, but much much more importantly the complete picture of how JFK was flailing about within the new national security state that was a 13 year old , in 1960, who had had a father (Eisenhower) who had given it complete free reign, and now had a president who ACTED LIKE HE WAS REALLY IN CONTROL.

The major reason we have been made to see JFK as "just another cold warrior, SO YOU ''''''''GOOD LEFTISTS''''''' SHOULD NOT BOTHER STUDYING HIS ASSASSINATION OR EVEN LOOK TOO CLOSELY AT THE CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN HIS ACTUAL POLICES AND THEIR ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION BY BUREACRACIES THAT UNDERMINED HIM AT EVERY SINGLE STEP, it that the entrenched nature of these new permanent unelected buracracies was much much stronger than we have been led to believe and the president only controlled them so long as he went along with their demands. (see Michael Hogan, Cross of Iron.Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1947-1954)http://www.amazon.com/Cross-Iron-National-Security-1945-1954/dp/0521795370/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252172930&sr=8-1

JFK disagreed with Nat Sec State on Laos-- they wante an invasion in 61 he blocked it, Vietnam, he prevented a full scale shift to combat troops in 62 and had to compensate on advisors, then he was definitely going to end the War in Vietnam, all the most recent scholarship shows me. Go ahead, please debate me on that one! Chomsky makes it seem like it was ONLY NSAM 263. THE NEW DOCS SHOW THAT IT WAS MUCH MUCH MORE THAN NSAM 263, and I am talking a lot more than just a couple of sources, rather the best academic publishers on earth. I know you will automatically call them GOOD LIBERALS, but then how come their new info never makes it into NYT which goes allong with 100 JFK bashing all the time? (Answer the number one goal of preserving the lone nutism that now so indefensibe that EVEN THE MAD LEFT LONE NUTTER ALEX COCKBURN RECENTLY changed position is to con\vince the left and liberals that JFK was just another Cold Warrior.

He Was not.

MOre on how he was not on Cuba and the USSR and the domestic economy later. But please note: I AM NOT SAYING AT ALL THAT JFK WAS NOT A COLD WARRIOR. Of course he was. Nobody would have been allowed to become president who was not in 1960. However, he was a) to some extent different from the beginning, different from the perm. nat sec. state, and b) he became much much more so after the bay of Pigs.

Now let me ask citizens a question. In the incredible new book that Daniel Ellsberg, he of the Pentagon Papers, said changed his mind about the Kennedy assassination > CIA, JFK and the Unspeakable: WHy He Died and why It Matters author James W. Douglass quotes the very important 1970s journalist Daniel Schorr (way more important than Bob Woodward for example ) who was covering a conference of scholars involving US , Cuban and Soviet scholars and gov officials in Cuba in 2001. This was like the fourth of these conferences since the fall of the USSR.

Schorr came out with a remarkable quote. he said something to the effect that THE BAY OF PIGS WAS NOTHING LESS THAN A CIA OPERATION AGAINST JFK.

Look up Daniel Schorr, youngsters. This is no jo blow journalist.

What do you think that he meant by that statement?

[oujiQualm]

The Washington Daily News, Tuesday, 9 May 1961, p.21

Escape to High Ground?

By Richard Starnes

New York, May 9 – Writing of the late Ernest Bevin, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson said:“...He understood power. He knew that choices had to be made, often choices between unpleasant alternatives, and never was misled, as so many well-meaning people are, into believing that the necessity for choice can be transcended by a flight of eloquence.”

The words, in Mr. Acheson’s soon-to-be published “Sketches From Life,” were written before President Kennedy’s dilemma regarding Laos became so embarrassingly public. But their applicability is clear, just as it is clear that Mr. Kennedy’s seconds have suddenly lost their stomach for risking their tiger’s record in a showdown over Laos.

Doris Fleeson, a fine reporter who has been called the Den Mother of the New Frontier, wrote recently: “Influential senators and editorial opinions are paving the way for him (President Kennedy) to withdraw from his exposed Laos position to the safer and higher ground of the United Nations.”

This we may regard as the present position of men in the enlightened spectrum of the New Frontier. It seems to dispose of any real possibility of war over Laos, which is assumed to be a good thing. But it also disposes of Laos, which those of us who remember the President’s press conference of March 23 must regard as a bad thing.

If an escape to “high ground” is now regarded as essential American policy, where were the policy makers when Mr. Kennedy was saying, “If these attacks (on Laos) do not stop, those who support a truly neutral Laos will have to consider their response...No one should doubt our resolution on this point...The security of all Southeast Asia will be endangered if Laos loses its neutral independence...I know that every American will want his country to honor its obligation to the point that freedom and security of the free world and ourselves may be achieved.”

That was a forthright statement of policy that cheered many Americans who had grown sick of taking the back of some international hoodlum’s hand. But now it is apparent that it was more “flight of eloquence” than rock-ribbed policy, and that anyone who doubted “our resolution on this point” was well advised to do so.

Laos, according to such military specialists as Sen. J.W. Fulbright, of Fayetteville, Ark., is the wrong place to fight a war. And from this one must assume that one honors one’s obligation to the principal of freedom only when the geography is convenient, the climate comfortable, and the enemy not really playing for keeps.

Okinawa was a poor place for a war, and so was Guadalcanal, and no sane person would have launched an offensive against the Siegfried Line. But we fought in all three places, and countless others equally hairy, and in those days nobody suggested that wars had to be fought on a smooth field as if they were a polo match

Ornery kids brawling in school yards very early learn that you don’t draw a line in the dirt with your big toe and challenge a guy to cross it unless you’re prepared to hang one on his chin if he does cross it. If your dare is accepted and you retreat and draw a more convenient line in the dirt, you quickly become the laughing stock of the school yard. And, of course, sooner or later you run out of dirt to draw the line.
-------------------
Curious how Chomsky, Cockburn et al never manage to find any of this stuff!