Frank Rich: JFK’s assassination is kinda sorta the right’s fault, isn’t it?

posted at 8:13 pm on November 21, 2011 by Allahpundit

Egregious, but not so egregious that other leftists haven’t thought of it before and pushed the same meme. Remember when Media Matters did it a few years ago at the height of tea-party fever on the right?

What’s revealing about this spin, in which a guy who defected to the Soviet Union and later tried to assassinate a hard-right U.S. general was somehow driven mad by right-wing antipathy to Kennedy, is that it’s unnecessary to protect the left. Oswald wasn’t a mainstream liberal or, lord knows, a mainstream Democrat. He was a fringe leftist, an honest-to-goodness commie. The Oswald apologists could, if they liked, simply emphasize his ideological extremism — his fringiness — as the key to his anti-Kennedy mania. But for whatever reason, they seem to feel obliged to defend his leftism by blaming the right for the “climate of hate” that supposedly drove him to it. Why a communist would need to be egged on by anyone in the middle of the Cold War to hate an American president, especially ones as hawkish as Truman, Kennedy, or Johnson, I have no idea. And yet, whether because they’re desperate to delegitimize the right as an insurrectionist movement or desperate to sanitize the far left so that mainstream Democrats can feel safer in edging out there, the beat goes on.

While Manchester adds that “obviously, it is impossible to define the exact relationship between an individual and his environment,” he strongly rejected the universal description of Oswald as “a loner.” No man, he writes, is quarantined from his time and place. Dallas was toxic. The atmosphere was “something unrelated to conventional politics—a stridency, a disease of the spirit, a shrill, hysterical note suggestive of a deeply troubled society.” Duly observing that even the greatest presidents have been vilified in their time—Lincoln as a baboon and Jefferson as “Mad Tom”—Manchester saw something “more than partisan zeal” at work in this case. He detected “a chiaroscuro that existed outside the two parties, a virulence which had infected members of both.” Dallas had become the gaudy big top for a growing national movement—“the mecca for medicine-show evangelists of the National Indignation Convention, the Christian Crusaders, the Minutemen, the John Birch and Patrick Henry societies.”

Immediately after the assassination and ever since, the right has tried to deflect any connection between its fevered Kennedy hatred and Oswald’s addled psyche with the fact that the assassin had briefly defected to the Soviet Union. But at the time even some Texans weren’t buying that defense. An editorial in the Dallas Times Herald chastised its own city for supplying “the seeds of hate” and “the atmosphere for tragedy.” The editor of the Austin American wrote that “hatred and fanaticism, the flabby spirit of complacency that has permitted the preachers of fanatical hatred to appear respectable, and the self-righteousness that labels all who disagree with us as traitors or dolts, provided the way for the vile deed that snuffed out John Kennedy’s life.”…

America’s violent culture wars had started before JFK was shot. They were all on display in Oswald’s Dallas. At least in 1963, polling showed that only 5 percent of the country—a fringe—subscribed to the radical anti-government views championed by the John Birch Society and other militants of the right. These days, that fringe, whether in the form of birthers or the tea party or the hosts of Fox & Friends, gives marching orders to a major political party.

It’s oddly comforting to know that the same sort of smear merchants who tried to pin the Gabby Giffords shooting on the right, including Rich’s former colleague Paul Krugman, were doing their thing with JFK’s assassination too almost 50 years ago. At least, it seems, things haven’t gotten worse over time: If they couldn’t pin Giffords on us, then by God, they’ll pin something on us. Looking forward to Rich’s inevitable essay on whether John Wilkes Booth was, kinda sorta, the first tea partier.

Here’s what I really want from the left: A systematic treatment of when and how “climate of hate” reasoning about collective responsibility can fairly be applied to an act of violence. It used to be that a nutjob had to at least agree ideologically with the group that’s being blamed, but Rich gets us a step away from that. Under the Oswald theory, ideology no longer matters; all that matters is shared “hate” for a particular target. By that logic, I guess, the Al Qaeda sympathizer busted by the NYPD yesterday for targeting police could be blamed on OWS since both are angry at the cops. Now that we’ve reached this point, all that’s left is to take one more step and waive the requirement that the nutjob and the larger group hate the same target, as Oswald and the Birchers did. Once we make it there, where any group’s hatred for anyone is capable of inspiring a nutjob’s hatred for someone else, we can finally bring this full circle and blame Jared Loughner on the left’s contempt for Bush. Guilt by association sure is fun.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

How many hundreds of pounds of defecation does it take to create a ‘climate of filth’, I wonder.

anuts on November 22, 2011 at 2:19 AM

Apparently 200, at Occupy Santa Cruz.

rayra on November 22, 2011 at 3:19 AM

Or however many pounds Frank Rich weighs, because he’s obviously full of it.

rayra on November 22, 2011 at 3:19 AM

Frank Rich is a pathetic human being and an even worse journalist. How he could author such an article amazes me. Its obvious Lee Harvey was a leftist and its even more obvious the left wing OWS movement is much more violent than the Tea Party. In fact domestic terrorist Bill Ayers spoke to the Occupy Chicago movement last week

Dennis D on November 22, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Y’know who’s getting off awfully light in these comments?

Stephen King.

Seems to me that basically what King did is do enough research to figure out that Lee Harvey did it alone. So, saddled with that inconvenient fact, he decided to write a book actually blaming the Tea Party –by name–for killing Kennedy.

And it’s not Rich that wrote that, he’s just got the book open and doing some serious stroking.

Typhoon on November 22, 2011 at 8:30 AM

200 lbs of doo doo at Santa Cruz? They could have just picked up a copy of the New York Times. There is tons of BS in there daily.

dthorny on November 22, 2011 at 8:58 AM

The American way of life, as we know it, is being destroyed by a progressive mental disorder known as liberalism. Rich is a perfect example.

volsense on November 22, 2011 at 9:09 AM

This attempt to smear the right with JFKs assassination will work. It doesn’t take any leap of faith to know this for a fact either. Consider that 95% of black people in this country believe, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the right has been responsible for every single racist thing that has ever been done in this country, even though the actual history shows that it was the left that committed the vast majority of them (including the worst of them….jim crow, slavery, etc.) Now how could this lie have been perpetrated so completely, not to mention successfully?

Media. Leftists all. Simple really.

runawayyyy on November 22, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Ironic, I guess, that Rich’s unsubtle attempt to propagandize the younger generation that doesn’t remember Kennedy’s murder may work, because liberal education theories have made them stupid.

rockmom on November 22, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Rich’s piece is so stupid, and so factually unsupportable, that it’s hard to believe somebody actually published this garbage.

Lee Harvey Oswald had a history of being violent, and it had nothing to do with the atmosphere in Dallas in the early 1960′s. When he and his mother were living in NYC in the 50′s with Oswald’s half brother, they were forced to leave after Oswald threatened his sister-in-law with a knife and hit his mother. When Oswald was in the U.S. Marines, he was court-martialed and demoted for fighting with his superior officer. And of course, there was the time Oswald attempted to kill General Walker, an outspoken anti-Communist.

Oswald’s activities in furtherance of the Communist cause are well known. Oswald’s devotion to Marxism was even cited by the Warren Commission as one of the key factors that motivated him to shoot JFK. Oswald was a Commie with a history of violence and delusions of grandeur, and it was those influences that led him to take up his position in the book depository and aim his gun at Kennedy’s head. Rich’s attempt to re-write history and place the blame on the right is contemptible.

AZCoyote on November 22, 2011 at 10:12 AM

I can picture LHO at #OWS, but not at a Tea Party rally.

Labamigo on November 22, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Hilarious……

So in Frank’s world….
……….Pelosi could try to ki!! Obama in NY and it would be the fault of Brian Kilmeade and Newt Gingrich.

This is what passes for intellectualism in the democratic party….
……..pathetic.

Baxter Greene on November 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM

This just in from Occupy San Diego:

“Hey, man. Can we like, have a moment of silence for that dude that shot Kennedy, and like the motorcade….”

TugboatPhil on November 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM

New theory of the Left. Oswald went so far Left he ended up on the Right!
Kennedy never ever under went the vitriol that GWB did in the 21st century.

Herb on November 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Y’know who’s getting off awfully light in these comments?

Stephen King.

Seems to me that basically what King did is do enough research to figure out that Lee Harvey did it alone. So, saddled with that inconvenient fact, he decided to write a book actually blaming the Tea Party –by name–for killing Kennedy.

And it’s not Rich that wrote that, he’s just got the book open and doing some serious stroking.

Typhoon on November 22, 2011 at 8:30 AM

King is so far Left he met himself on the way back. I think most people haven’t criticized him because of that(it would be pointless) and he’s a writer of fiction and nobody reads him any more.

Deanna on November 22, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Rich’s piece is so stupid, and so factually unsupportable, that it’s hard to believe somebody actually published this garbage.

Rich’s attempt to re-write history and place the blame on the right is contemptible.

AZCoyote on November 22, 2011 at 10:12 AM

As AP pointed out, plenty of people at the time did the same thing, Earl Warren, LBJ, etc. They saw the rising of the Conservative movement(Goldwater, etc.) and were worried and also they realized that LHO was part of the fringe Left and worried they would be smeared by association. Politics as usual.

Deanna on November 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Was Oswald driven by the right to shoot at ( and miss ) General Edwin Walker a couple of weeks earlier?

Walker initiated a mandatory, anti-communist indoctrination program for troops called “Pro Blue” (where the Free World troops were colored blue on maps)[2] and was accused of distributing right-wing literature to the soldiers of his division, supplied to him by evangelist Billy James Hargis.[3]

He was also quoted by a newspaper, the Overseas Weekly, as saying that Harry S. Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Dean Acheson were “definitely pink.” Additionally, a number of soldiers had complained that Walker was instructing them as to whom to cast their votes for in the next election, with all of the candidates the General named being arch-conservative Republicans.

Buddahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 11:36 AM

As AP pointed out, plenty of people at the time did the same thing, Earl Warren, LBJ, etc.

Well, I think Warren did. But that was nearly 50 years ago before we got more information about Oswald the person. Rich has no similar excuse (and he’s citing Manchester’s book which was done at the time of the assassination when he didn’t know the full details either).

LBJ, however, thought Castro killed JFK. That was because he was aware of the plots ordered by JFK and RFK to kill Castro.

SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 11:38 AM

All part of Campaign 2012.

The Right, i.e. Republicans, killed Kennedy.

The Dems did not.

Obama is a Dem.

Thus, a vote for the GOP means you wanted to kill Kennedy.

A vote for Obama means you love Kennedy.

[And the "people" are apparently stupid enough to vote accordingly. After all, they voted for Obama to begin with.]

coldwarrior on November 22, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Yeah, because the Mob, the commies and LBJ are all working for the GOP.
Gimme a FN break.

esnap on November 22, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Ummm, yeah. Like our President.

TugboatPhil on November 21, 2011 at 8:24 PM

I don’t know if you can consider a Muslim a Commie, but “The One” certainly seems to take on both personas…

stacman on November 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM

I read somewhere that ther are over 100 published conspriacy theories on who killed JFK. My personal favorite is Coca Cola. Apparently LHO drank it alot and it was the sugar and caffeine that drove him insane. LOL

Deanna on November 22, 2011 at 11:59 AM

I read somewhere that ther are over 100 published conspriacy theories on who killed JFK. My personal favorite is Coca Cola. Apparently LHO drank it alot and it was the sugar and caffeine that drove him insane. LOL
Deanna on November 22, 2011 at 11:59 AM

What makes it even more unbelievable is that LHO was actually a Dr.Pepper aficionado. True fact.

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 12:26 PM

The week before Kennedy died, the papers in the South ran front page lnes indicating that he should not come down here because someone would kill him. This put a damper on conservatives wanting to do something.

Then when the annoucement of his death was released, people cheered. It was only later that we were told we had to be sad about the event.

Kennedy was not popular with anyone but the political elite. He did alot to hurt the country. We are still feeling the pain.

davidcaskey on November 22, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I’m pretty sure that I saw a pic of someone who looks just like Oswald at Zuccotti Park.

platypus on November 22, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Then when the annoucement of his death was released, people cheered. It was only later that we were told we had to be sad about the event.

Kennedy was not popular with anyone but the political elite. He did alot to hurt the country. We are still feeling the pain.

Sorry, in my view that is completely false and inaccurate.

For example, when he was killed he had over 65% approval ratings.

The country was shocked and saddened and desolate over his death. No one was told to be saddened. The country was grief stricken.

SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 1:04 PM

I don’t know if you can consider a Muslim a Commie, but “The One” certainly seems to take on both personas… stacman on November 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM

The Baath Party is supposedly a Muslim Socialist party. Ironic that we went to war with the Baathist Saddam Hussein twice, then end up with a practical Baathist named Hussein in the WH.

Akzed on November 22, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Whoa!!!! did we all lose sight of the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was only the patsy in the JFK assassination? He had absolutely nothing to do with the planning or execution of the actual event.
He also was not a commie, we all know (at least those that have studied history) that he was a CIA agent when he made that little excursion into the soviet union, unlike Bill Clinton who went because he was a draft dodger and actually supported the Soviet Union. Has everyone lost sight of the fact that the big coverup and blame LHO was the handiwork of fellow Texan LBJ?

Redteam on November 22, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Didn’t some leftwing movie director already blame Kennedy’s assasination on the CIA? Does this mean that the CIA, embittered by Tea Partiers that did not exist yet, manipulated a vulnerable young communist to kill the great liberal icon that had enraged conservatives by staring down the Soviets in Cuba and passing one of the greatest tax cuts ever seen in the country up to that time thus spurring great economic growth?– I am confused!

KW64 on November 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Didn’t Jackie say on audio tape that she thought LBJ and his Texas buddies did it?
——————————————————————

Y’know who’s getting off awfully light in these comments?

Stephen King.

Typhoon on November 22, 2011 at 8:30 AM

this guy says Stephen King killed John Lennon…

equanimous on November 22, 2011 at 3:06 PM

stevemg,

Sorry, but kennedy’s approval at the time of this death was about 50% and falling. The guy was a total train wreck. Everything about him is made up and no one pays a bit of attention to how he almost destroyed the world. At least obama is only destroying the US. The reason that there are so many conspiracy theories is that just about everyone wanted to kill him. Try Lbj, the Cia, the cubans, the mofia, in short every groups with political and militry might.

davidcaskey on November 22, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Looking forward to Rich’s inevitable essay on whether John Wilkes Booth was, kinda sorta, the first tea partier.

Well, the south was into state’s rights and smaller government, yes?
And they did drink tea and held parties, so…

Extrafishy on November 22, 2011 at 3:56 PM

1. Oswald was as far left you could be in 1963 and not be named Khruschev or Mao.

2. Oswald was obviously the lone gunman. But Jack Ruby (and his history with Oswald and New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcelo) is a dead giveaway to the Mob’s behind the scene involvement.

3. The sordid links between the Kennedy Admin/family and the Mafia are shocking in their clarity and depth.

4. If Kennedy hadn’t been killed, he almost certainly would have been impeached or forced to resign from office (prolly in a second term) on a corruption charge.

Robert_Paulson on November 22, 2011 at 4:01 PM

All part of Campaign 2012.

The Right, i.e. Republicans, killed Kennedy.

Democrats killed Lincoln then.

jdkchem on November 22, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Sorry, but kennedy’s approval at the time of this death was about 50% and falling. The guy was a total train wreck

Well, here’s a source that has him just about 60% approval in August of 1963: JFK’s Gallup Poll Numbers.

It does show a slight tick downards in ’63 though.

SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM

If anyone would take the time to read the few pieces of literature that document Oswald’s life – Posner’s “Case Closed” does a pretty good job – they might come to the same conclusions I did about Oswald:

1) His mother convinced him throughout his youth that he was better than others. Every time he got into trouble at school, it was always the school’s fault, not his. He was moved around to what, 6 or 7 different grammar schools by his mother? There was never any accountability for his actions. So as an adult, he had a high opinion of himself, but he rubbed others the wrong way when he tried to preach his message about communism and did not have any close friends throughout his entire life.
2) He was a pathetic nobody that always wanted to be a somebody.
3) Unable to take any more rejections in life, he probably seized the opportunity to become a “somebody” when only TWO DAYS PRIOR to the assassination, the motorcade route was published in the Dallas Morning News.

So the explanation is much simpler. When he was rejected by those around him, when he thought he was better than everyone else, and when he always wanted to be heard, he found a way to become noticed in the end.

RMCS_USN on November 22, 2011 at 5:48 PM

When he was rejected by those around him, when he thought he was better than everyone else, and when he always wanted to be heard, he found a way to become noticed in the end.

Yes well put. As the Posner book pointed out Oswald clearly had the mindset and the capability emotionally of killing the president. It began when he was quite young (he beat his mother, he beat his wife, he beat up his co-workers and on and on).

A “bad seed” if you will.

Frank Rich and William Manchester only traced the environment that Oswald was immersed in to Dallas and not all the way back to his childhood. They left out the most important aspects of Oswald’s life. All occurring pre-Dallas.

Rich does this for obvious political reasons. I.e., he wants to use the assassination to smear conservatives. Manchester, I think, simply was trying to make sense (in 1964) of a senseless and history-changing event.

It didn’t matter whether it was Dallas or Topeka or Bismarck or Atlanta or St. Louis. Given the same opportunity Oswald would have committed the same act.

SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 6:09 PM

So the explanation is much simpler. When he was rejected by those around him, when he thought he was better than everyone else, and when he always wanted to be heard, he found a way to become noticed in the end.
RMCS_USN on November 22, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Which brings up the oddity I mentioned above; for someone looking for his 15 minutes of infamy in offing the POTUS, he took no credit for the act, but rather denied it and strongly intimated he was set up instead.

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Rich does this for obvious political reasons. I.e., he wants to use the assassination to smear conservatives. Manchester, I think, simply was trying to make sense (in 1964) of a senseless and history-changing event.
SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Actually the media was pushing the “atmosphere of hate” meme almost immediately:
November 22, 1963 Reaction to President Kennedy’s death
(YouTube clip)

You can view almost all of broadcast news coverage in full (hours & hours of it) at this YouTube channel, along with misc related videos. Interesting revisiting of history:
DAVID VON PEIN’S JFK CHANNEL

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Actually the media was pushing the “atmosphere of hate” meme almost immediately

Yeah, I’m aware of that aspect. In fairness, there was a radical right element in Dallas at the time that was quite ugly. General Walker was a disgusting racist and anti-semite.

It was legitimate to discuss or report on that in context (emphasis on in context).

William Manchester was a noted historian. He was no leftwing crank, no Oliver Stone type. His works on Churchill are famous and brilliant. I think his motives to understand what happened that day were pure and of fair mind.

Not so with others.

SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM

William Manchester was a noted historian. He was no leftwing crank, no Oliver Stone type. His works on Churchill are famous and brilliant. I think his motives to understand what happened that day were pure and of fair mind.
Not so with others.
SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM

It’s wise to realize what axes any writer, filmmaker, documentarian, etc. brings with him into the fray because he’s likely to use that axe to chop away until he’s got his foreordained result.

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 6:37 PM

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Of course he’s going to deny it! If he says “Yep I did it. I killed the President”, there’s no more mystery, and attention on him subsides much quicker than if he denies it. No more press conferences, and fewer news articles about him, etc. He no longer has a voice to the outside world because he’s just admitted to killing POTUS and at minimum, is in protective custody, awaiting a speedy trial. How many death row inmates do you know of that get opportunities to talk to the press on a routine basis?

RMCS_USN on November 22, 2011 at 6:48 PM

In fairness, there was a radical right element in Dallas at the time that was quite ugly.
SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM

On this, I’ve cued the video to show that distinction wasn’t offered, it was “in this country”. Although “packets of hatred” are mentioned.

In watching all the coverage you’ll catch that theme coming up relatively often, especially in the first hours.

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 6:48 PM

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Of course he’s going to deny it! If he says “Yep I did it. I killed the President”, there’s no more mystery, and attention on him subsides much quicker than if he denies it. No more press conferences, and fewer news articles about him, etc. He no longer has a voice to the outside world because he’s just admitted to killing POTUS and at minimum, is in protective custody, awaiting a speedy trial. How many death row inmates do you know of that get opportunities to talk to the press on a routine basis?
RMCS_USN on November 22, 2011 at 6:48 PM

That’s all well and good, but it’s totally based on speculation and assumptions on what someone might have been thinking.

As for murderers, assassins, and the media, just a few seconds of searching will yield a quite a few videos featuring John Hinckley, Sirhan Sirhan and even Charles Manson. Arthur Bremer, who shot and disabled George Wallace for life is a free man. One of Charlie Manson’s girls, “Squeaky” Fromme is still serving time, as is Sara Jane Moore – both for attempts on Gerald Ford’s life. Hardly never heard from again, just (some of them) behind bars.

And that’s even based on your other assumption – that Oswald would be convicted, which is something we will never know due to a Dallas mobster named Ruby.

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Of course he’s going to deny it! If he says “Yep I did it. I killed the President”, there’s no more mystery, and attention on him subsides much quicker than if he denies i

I think he clearly wanted a trial – the trial of the century – in which to use as a vehicle for his own promotion. If he admits he killed JFK, he gets no trial. But otherwise, he had no plans.

Everything he did the previous 24-48 hours shows, to me, that it was an impulsive act and not thought through. He saw a chance to change history and grabbed it. The “environment” in Dallas had little influence on him. He saw his destiny years before and acted.

On that day 48 years ago, he leaves his wedding ring and nearly all his money with his wife that morning. He brings the rifle to work (in a paper bag). He shoots the president, sneaks out the building during the chaos, grabs a bus, jumps off the bus, grabs a cab, goes back to his rooming house to get his gun, runs off, shoots Tippitt, runs to a theater, is grabbed by police as he tries to shoot them.

Where was he going? What was he going to do? It was all desperation. He had no plan, no money, no means of escape, no one to help him.

SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Where was he going? What was he going to do? It was all desperation. He had no plan, no money, no means of escape, no one to help him.
SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Again, that’s assumption and speculation. Which is fine, since there’s just no hard evidence to what LHO was thinking – for that we’d need a medium to summon him up from the great beyond, lol. The best anyone can do is surmise and guess.

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Again, that’s assumption and speculation

Sure, but how would you describe his actions before and after shooting JFK? Was there a purpose behind them? Other than making history, fulfilling his twisted destiny.

He had no money with him. He had left it with his wife. No car, no means of escape.

He shoots JFK and runs out and catches a bus (to where?), then a cab (to where?), goes back to his rooming house to get his gun. To do what? Shoot it out with the police. Runs off on foot. Hides in a theatre.

I’m convinced he saw the Dallas newspaper two days in advance that showed the motorcade route, that it would pass by the place he worked, and then decided to act. Forty-eight hours in advance for a guy with no money, no assets, no connections, isn’t enough time to plan anything except the shooting.

SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Again, that’s assumption and speculation

Sure, but how would you describe his actions before and after shooting JFK? Was there a purpose behind them? Other than making history, fulfilling his twisted destiny.
SteveMG on November 22, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Well, if you’re starting with the assumption there was nothing more to it than a “lone nut”, then your scenario is as good as any. Approach it within the “I’m just a patsy” statement context or from the neutral context and it opens other lines of thought, questions and possibilities. All depends on a person’s starting assumption(s).

whatcat on November 22, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Frank Rich is a disgusting off the wall jerk.

This is from someone (me) who does not accept the Warren Commission conclusion. The Zapruder film, the Dallas Parkland Hospital resident’s and nurse’s statements and eyewitness testimony lead to the conclusion that the “kill shot” came from in front of the presidential limo (the grassy knoll). But we do not know and will never know who was behind it, and there is no basis for blaming conservatives for JFK’s assassination.

Phil Byler on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

This is from someone (me) who does not accept the Warren Commission conclusion.
Phil Byler on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

The last official government investigation, the House Select Committee, final conclusion was: “The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassnated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.” (HSCA, 1979)

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 12:41 AM

The Left has spent the last 50 years projecting their ideals on a deceased Centrist Democrat, who’d be considered a right wing Republican by today’s standards. Obama was supposed to be the fulfillment of all this Kennedy mythology.

Where does the Left go after Obama is thrown out of office?

ardenenoch on November 23, 2011 at 6:33 PM

“At least in 1963, polling showed that only 5 percent of the country—a fringe—subscribed to the radical anti-government views championed by the John Birch Society and other militants of the right. These days, that fringe, whether in the form of birthers or the tea party or the hosts of Fox & Friends, gives marching orders to a major political party.”

This is shameless!! Left wingers like Rich are always talking about how Conservatives want to drag us back to the days of Jim Crow. Well, in 1963 Jim Crow laws were still in effect. So what is Rich implying here? That today’s so-called racist, anti-government Right wingers are so much more plentiful and powerful than they were during the days of Bull Connor and Cold War anti-Communist sentiment? Maybe that’s the only way he explain away Reagan’s two landslide victories, and Bush getting re-elected.

ardenenoch on November 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

ok ok, Frank Rich found me out, I admit, I’m the tea partier who invented a time machine, went back to dallas in 1963 and convinced LHO to assassinate JFK. Talk about living in an alternate universe, Frank Rich does for sure.

Mini-14 on November 24, 2011 at 12:52 AM

If you think about it, and I have for years, President Kennedy was the last Democrat President we have had. He was not going along with the agenda to move further toward Socialism; therefore he had to go as did Robert when he became a serous candidate against Johnson. Ted got the message and played the game while never aspiring to move ahead. Would Ted Kennedy have been so serous a Socialist if the assassinations had not taken place? That is one for the historians to decide. The Kennedy assassinations were carried out by disposable people. They could not trust Oswald to be quite so he had to die before they had a chance to really interrogate him so… and it goes on. Someone knows the truth but we never will, myself I think Johnson was behind both killings. As Americans we don’t like to think our elected leaders are capable of things like that, but what really makes an American Socialist any better or different from Chavez or any other.

old war horse on November 27, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2