Time for another liberal “right-wingers killed JFK” story

posted at 4:01 pm on July 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Leon Wolf, one of my favorite genres of lefty revisionism. Liberals have, I assume, been farting out pieces like this since the day Oswald’s political sympathies became publicly known, but semi-respectable left-wing pubs have been picking them up more frequently since 2009 in the name of bludgeoning Obama’s conservative critics. The “logic” runs like this: (1) Dallas 1963 was a very conservative, staunchly anti-Kennedy city; (2) JFK was murdered in Dallas; (3) ergo, very conservative, staunchly anti-Obama tea partiers are basically terrorists.

You could kinda sorta forgive this if the assassin himself had been right-wing. It’s unfair to smear peaceful political opponents with the worst acts of their fellow travelers, but both sides have had fun with that at times. (See, e.g., Bush assassination fantasies from the last decade.) Problem is, Oswald wasn’t conservative. He was an out-and-out communist, so far to the left that he defected to the Soviet Union before later returning to the U.S. That’s another reason why this cottage industry of “Dallas killed Kennedy” items has grown up lately on the left — not only is it a cudgel against Obama’s opponents, it’s a way for progressives to disclaim responsibility for an infamous murder committed by someone on their side of the spectrum, which makes the fingerpointing at righties a bit easier. And of course it’s a way to whitewash American history for the benefit of younger people who didn’t live through the Kennedy assassination and haven’t studied it. They’re taking the “hard sell” approach here: Repeat “Dallas killed Kennedy” often enough and some ignoramuses out there will take you at your word, without bothering to check. And so the truth gradually vanishes, like the commissar in that famous photo with Stalin.

The right-wing hatred for John F. Kennedy was in some ways as extreme as the hatred for Barack Obama and nowhere was it more energized than Dallas in 1963. Three years earlier, right-wingers in the city had signaled their anti-Kennedy zeal by turning on its native son, Lyndon Johnson, after he accepted the nomination for vice president. He and his wife, Lady Bird, were accosted by a shrieking mob of conservative women in front of their hotel armed with signs saying he’d sold out to “Yankee Socialists.” It was downhill from there. Over the next three years the simmer burst into a full boil as various luminaries of the John Birch Society such as millionaire oil man H.L. Hunt and the anti-communist fanatic Gen. Edwin Walker, a zealot so far to the right that he even believed Eisenhower was a communist, fanned the flames of anti-Kennedy hatred.

Walker was at the center of the plot against Adlai Stephenson to which Mrs. Doyle referred in her letter. He had exhorted his followers (some of whom belonged to group that unironically called itself the “National Indignation Convention”) to confront the U.N. ambassador when he came to town and they did, hitting him with signs and spitting in his face before he could be rescued by the police. At the scene he famously asked, “Are these human beings or are these animals?”…

Travelers from other nations who come to Dealey Plaza to pay their respects are undoubtedly startled to see yahoos carrying guns and passing out extremist literature very much like the literature that was distributed in Dallas in the fall of 1963. In most places in this world such contempt for national hallowed ground would be frowned upon by decent people. But in America, armed men and women marching around spouting hatred for the president at the very spot where a former president was assassinated is business as usual. We are “free” here to carry guns in public and dare others to argue with us. But that doesn’t make it any less vulgar and profane to do it in a place of national grief — and what should be a monument to right-wing ignominy.

Once you know which way Oswald went politically, the thesis not only falls apart but the evidence tends to prove the opposite of what it’s supposed to illustrate: The nasty criticism of Kennedy from some quarters of the right in Dallas actually didn’t lead to a right-wing attempt on the president there. And yet this genre is evergreen. The best known piece from the last few years is Frank Rich’s essay for New York magazine a few years ago, but that piece was an outlier insofar as Rich actually mentioned Oswald. Believe it or not, it’s common for a “Dallas killed Kennedy” argument to omit his name entirely. Which makes a certain type of sense — when you’re assigning collective responsibility for the actions of a single man, especially a man who, er, wasn’t a member of that collective, it’s easiest to write him out of the story entirely. It’s pure Orwell, but then this is an Orwellian exercise. A Media Matters “Dallas killed Kennedy” post from 2009 didn’t name Oswald. Neither did an item by Robert F. Kennedy Jr for the Huffington Post two years later. Yesterday’s Salon post not only doesn’t name Oswald but, as Michael Moynihan pointed out, it does mention Gen. Edwin Walker — albeit without also mentioning that Oswald tried to assassinate Walker too because Walker was staunchly anti-communist. At the rate we’re going, by the centennial of the assassination, lefty websites will be claiming that it was Walker who fired at JFK from the Texas Schoolbook Depository before being apprehended by the heroic Officer Oswald.

Exit question: If lefties are eager to disclaim responsibility for Oswald, why not just emphasize that communism isn’t liberalism, i.e. that he doesn’t belong to their collective either? That’s a much stronger argument, yet writers in this genre seem reluctant to make it. I wonder why.


Related Posts:

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 3

I just want to know who shot Liberty Valance.

davidk on July 26, 2014 at 8:35 PM

The lawyer, because a law book was no good. Well, that’s how the story goes.

“When the truth doesn’t measure up to the legend, print the legend”.

cheers

eon

eon on July 26, 2014 at 9:37 PM

whatcat on July 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM

The same left that finds disrespectful a commercial on a (commercial) TV station after a break-in initial report of the Kennedy shooting seems perfectly willing to defend President Obama himself wise-cracking jokes in a Telepromter’d speech he gave after his announcement of the destruction of MF17.

I’d say the latter, done by a politician, is far worse, but not a peep from the left in apology.

unclesmrgol on July 26, 2014 at 9:40 PM

The lawyer, because a law book was no good. Well, that’s how the story goes.
eon on July 26, 2014 at 9:37 PM

Whoever it was, he was the bravest of them all.

whatcat on July 26, 2014 at 9:41 PM

One thing is certain – Kennedy was indeed a right-wing politician, a true and loyal servant of the capitalist ruling elite. None of his policies could ever have posed a serious threat to the hegemony of the profit system. That the far right still felt the need to strike him down, as a warning to other moderate conservatives, only shows just how weak the capitalist class had become, that they would feel so threatened by even the moderates within their own ranks.

Trotsky on July 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Wow…you mean there are still people who spout this stuff in real life apart from a college campus? It’s like a living museum piece…

ddrintn on July 26, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)

From Trotsky’s linked website. How nineteenth century. lol

ddrintn on July 26, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Trotskyites are my favorite type of left-wing living relics, although to be fair I haven’t met many anarcho-syndicalists. What number international are we on now? How’s that working out for your guys?

Serious question how much does it chap your ass that Eduard Bernstein disproved Marx long before your namesake had an all-too brief but oh-so-beautiful run-in with a red ice pick?

TarasBulbous on July 26, 2014 at 10:10 PM

Wikipedia administrators have imposed a ban on page edits from computers at the US House of Representatives, following “persistent disruptive editing”.

The 10-day block comes after anonymous changes were made to entries on politicians and businesses, as well as events like the Kennedy assassination.

The biography of former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld was revised, describing him as an “alien lizard who eats Mexican babies”.

J_Crater on July 26, 2014 at 10:21 PM

The right-wing hatred for John F. Kennedy was in some ways as extreme as the hatred for Barack Obama and nowhere was it more energized than Dallas in 1963.

What’s interesting is that in this case, the “right-wing”-ers were Democrats.

J_Crater on July 26, 2014 at 10:33 PM

eon on July 26, 2014 at 8:23 PM

I believe Oswald’s plan was to pop Kennedy with one shot, hide the gun, and go back to work as if nothing had happened. He could smuggle the gun out at a later date. Being the miserable failure that he was it took him three shots to score a head shot from close range. When a police officer immediately rushed into the depository and ran up the stairs Oswald knew he had been seen firing from the building. He knew he had to leave the building right away. He panicked. He took a bus and then a cab and then set out to hide in the theater knowing the cops would know he had gone missing from work. He was confronted by Tippitt and killed him. When the cops caught up to him he tried to shoot it out with them. He never thought it thru at all.

While in jail he decided to deny everything and make it as difficult as possible for the police. I have no doubt he was going to claim innocence like his heroes the Rosenbergs did. He was going to declare himself a political prisoner and a Marxist martyr until he met his most certain date with old sparky.

DeweyWins on July 26, 2014 at 10:45 PM

This is what I believe, as pertains to bullet numbers, and the effects on President Kennedy, and Governor Connally.

listens2glenn on July 26, 2014 at 9:08 PM

.
Along that line, there’s also this headscratcher :

Parkland Doctors on Connally’s Leg Wound

whatcat on July 26, 2014 at 9:30 PM

.
Also, this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZwDJnp2wyA

listens2glenn on July 27, 2014 at 12:30 AM

Not all coups d’état are bad things.

WhatSlushfund on July 27, 2014 at 12:41 AM

The denialism and the eagerness to pin the crime on conservatives was present in the very hour the shooting took place.

Watch this clip …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqQMwXwZRG8

… and try to reconcile this with the progressive narrative about an American public in the grips of anti-communist hysteria.

eh on July 27, 2014 at 1:30 AM

Also here at 46:31

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNTvduZud4U

eh on July 27, 2014 at 1:40 AM

Old eagle on July 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Do you deny that Oswald left the Book Depository shortly after the shooting, went home and obtained a pistol, and then shot and killed Officer Tippit when he stopped Oswald to question him? At least nine eyewitnesses saw the Tippit shooting.

Even the most rabid conspiracy theorists would agree that Oswald wasn’t exactly acting like an innocent man on the day of the shooting and would concede that he was at least involved.

TarheelBen on July 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM
Old eagle, are you going to address this?

non-nonpartisan on July 26, 2014 at 1:32 AM

I’ll take a stab at it. Yes, Oswald left the TSBD shortly after the shooting, so did other employees, so what? Yes, he went home and grabbed his pistol. No, most likely, as to whether he shot and killed Tippit. Yes, involved in the JFK killing, but not as a shooter.

Why would Tippit have stopped Oswald to question him? From whom did Tippit get orders to stop male pedestrians in Oak Cliff? Some of the particulars of the APB issued at 12:45 differed from Oswald. The DPD claimed they didn’t even know who Oswald was until he arrived there after 2 pm after his arrest at the Texas Theater.

Eyewitnesses are not sacrosanct. Two of them in this case said they saw two shooters, consistent with two different make of slugs taken from Tippit’s body. Some witnesses were paraded into viewing four person lineups consisting of Oswald and an assortment of DPD suits, a DPD clerk, a couple of teenagers (one of whom was blonde), and a Mexican. Wow, it must have been tough to pick the guy out of those lineups with the T-shirt and the bruised face. In fact, one witness picked someone different out of an FBI picture lineup two days later, even after seeing Oswald’s picture in the newspaper.

Considering how compromised the evidence and chain of custody of same were, a competent lawyer would have had a good chance of having a chunk of it deemed inadmissible. The eyewitnesses and phony lineups would have been fair game as well. Getting to reasonable doubt would certainly have been possible.

MrKleenexMuscles on July 27, 2014 at 3:49 AM

People who believe in JFK conspiracy theories are idiots. They can’t be bothered with facts. Many of these same morons also believe the first moon landing was staged and that 9/11 was an inside job. It’s scary to think these people’s votes count the same as yours.

bluegill on July 26, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Irrespective of the generalization strawmen you raised, it only takes two for a conspiracy tango. JFK had entry wounds in his throat, his back, and his right temple (at a time when he was leaning toward Jackie and his temple does not appear to be exposed to a rifle from the sniper’s nest). The occipital exit blowout, did that bullet enter from the rear also? Oswald or not, how did one person from a 6th floor window accomplish all that?

It’s scary to think your vote counts the same as mine. Oh, Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon, and 9-11 was an outside job.

MrKleenexMuscles on July 27, 2014 at 4:23 AM

Interesting that the normalcy-biased types that buy into the Warren Commission nonsense want to believe that Oswald was some dumbass.

From what I’ve read about the man and from hearing him actually talk, I appraise him as being highly intelligent. I don’t think he was a Marxist, either. The folks from Fairplay for Cuba seem to genuinely have been unaware of who he was, and his self-portrayal as a rabid Marxist out there on the streets handing out Commie handbills was way over the top for America in the early ’60s. His radio interview on his Marxist views were academically correct-too correct I think.

For a poor man, he really got around. Whether he went to Russia on his own or at the behest of the government defies any logical explanation. If he were a Marxist, why would he go to Leninist Russia? And since he (supposedly) was all into the Cuba thing, why didn’t he defect there? Why would the Russians even want to accept him other than to play the game and see what U.S. intel was up to? Was some group in Moscow actually a part of all this and agreed to help with this defector story?

Be that as it may, he didn’t stay very long…but got married to a local girl in that short amount of time. Makes no sense. Sounds like someone wanted to document his defection to our number one Cold War enemy for use later on.

I’m not 100% he killed officer Tippett. I do think there’s a strong possibility, but the witness corroboration and “evidence” are far from solid. There was no possible motive I’ve ever seen that would put Oswald in a position to need to kill that officer. Also, Tippett was quite off the beaten path so to speak with all the action going on downtown at the time. How was Oswald ID’d so quickly as the shooter anyway? That’s never been explained satisfactorily.

The main thing that bothers me is that Oswald just happened to get a job where he did. In a building right on the President’s route where the limo would have to slow down. Oswald got that job long before the trip was announced and certainly long before the official route was ironed out.

In my view, Oswald was a Federal intelligence asset of some type. I think there were a lot of them there that day. I don’t believe he was a shooter of any kind.

At any rate, no clear motive was ever established for Oswald carrying out the assassination. NONE. The best folks can come up with is that he was a dismal failure and wanted to be famous…odd that he didn’t brag about shooing the President on the news when he had several chances to do so.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 27, 2014 at 4:38 AM

It’s scary to think your vote counts the same as mine. Oh, Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon, and 9-11 was an outside job.

MrKleenexMuscles on July 27, 2014 at 4:23 AM

Yeah, but the official 9-11 story has some problems. I still buy it mostly at face value, but given the nature of our government I don’t really know why I do.

I think sometimes you have to have many years to look back on and look at results.

We landed on the moon-now NASA has been pretty much gutted and sidelined. Plus, it’s only 240,000 miles away…it’s not that damn far away we couldn’t get to it with 1960s technology.

JFK was murdered and we got the Vietnam War (which the hawks were obviously happy about), the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act…the latter two definitely made the Federal government stronger.

9-11 happened and we got the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, put the squeeze on Iran, the Patriot Act, the TSA, expansion of NSA surveillance and so on.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 27, 2014 at 4:45 AM

He was literally a bomb waiting to go off. He just happened to blow up in Dealey Plaza on 22 November, 1963.

clear ether

eon

eon on July 26, 2014 at 6:28 PM

You are correct in that. His family knew he had a problem but couldn’t do anything about it. His wife that he married in the USSR got a separation from him and Oswald had to go back to get the Carcano rifle, and he left his wedding ring behind for her to find.

I’ve seen enough of the investigations done using stand-ins for elevation, motorcade speed, dummies situated in the car and all the rest of it from the beginning of Oswald’s life to the investigation of Jack Ruby, and it leaves it clear that one man could operate the rifle that well for the short distance involved and that all the evidence stacks up with the known ballistics and trajectories from a single point in the book depository.

Not only did Oswald act alone, his temperament and psychological profile, as well as all of his actions in life pointed to him being untrustworthy to nearly everyone he met. He wanted to make a name for himself and himself alone, that would stand out in history so that people would remember him long after he died. He wanted fame, but infamy serves that same purpose just as well. We cannot look into his mind as he actually performed the act or what it was he was thinking, but the actions line up with his entire life to that point.

After it he was just winging-it, and that fits Oswald as well, as he killed yet again after the assassination and then calmly goes to watch a movie in a theater. Only an alert member of the theater staff knew there was something odd about him because nearly everyone else was glued to the tv and radio, and he looked like he was running from something.

The mob… the CIA… any conspiracy you care to name would have handled the aftermath much, much more efficiently: they are professionals in their line of work. And if they had tried to use Oswald he would have blabbed about it long before because he would have been important to someone to do something. No professional organization would want to touch him, and even the KGB recognized he wasn’t reliable for much of anything, and was untrustworthy: he wasn’t a CIA spy because they would do a much better job of defecting than Oswald did.

And then there is Jack Ruby, the not right in the head, brawler head of a mobster nighclub who caters to cops. He left his dog in the car when he killed Oswald. Yeah, some professional you got there. He wasn’t playing with a full deck but considered himself a loyal American. So the loser is taken out by an off-kilter loyal American who hated how much the country was suffering due to the assassination.

THAT is America in a nutshell, save the nuts are rolling around loose. The only conspiracy is amongst those who believe that such forces shouldn’t be able to take out a President, any President, of the US, especially a charismatic one like JFK who got the media to not report on his affairs and addiction. If the scales don’t seem to balance it is not the scales that are wrong, but one’s own tilted head that needs to get on the level.

Life is not fair.

Death spares none.

If you are seeking for fairness in the affairs of men, then you will only find rivers of blood for the task as its result. The mighty can and do fall, and losers can and do take them down. That may not seem ‘fair’ but life isn’t fair, now, is it?

ajacksonian on July 27, 2014 at 7:42 AM

Trotskyites are my favorite type of left-wing living relics, although to be fair I haven’t met many anarcho-syndicalists.

TarasBulbous on July 26, 2014 at 10:10 PM

From all indications, we have a clench of them in the White House right now.

Of course, their Fearless Leader is a nihilistic primitivist more-or-less masquerading as a “mainstream” syndicalist socialist.
Which must make White House strategy bull session all-nighters interesting, to say the least.

I suspect they end up like the “Battles of the Compounds” in modern art as described in From Bauhaus To Our House by Tom Wolfe. Everybody trying to “out-non-bourgeois” everybody else, and each one claiming, “I have the ultimate solution!”

Most of which consists of the maximum possible destruction of the West in general, and the United States in particular, short of launching nukes at random.

The problem isn’t just that we’re governed by a college debating society. It’s that the debating society in question is the Leon Trotsky Appreciation And Death To All Jack Russell Terriers Club.

clear ether

eon

eon on July 27, 2014 at 7:47 AM

One thing is certain – Kennedy was indeed a right-wing politician, a true and loyal servant of the capitalist ruling elite. None of his policies could ever have posed a serious threat to the hegemony of the profit system. That the far right still felt the need to strike him down, as a warning to other moderate conservatives, only shows just how weak the capitalist class had become, that they would feel so threatened by even the moderates within their own ranks.

Trotsky on July 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM

You’re delusional.

zoyclem on July 27, 2014 at 8:01 AM

MrKleenexMuscles on July 27, 2014 at 3:49 AM

Oswald was the only employee that left the depository after the shooting.

Howard Brennan had seen a white male in the window prior to the shooting and looked up again during the shooting to see him fire the fatal shot. Seconds later he told Officer Baker what he had seen and Baker rushed into the building and confronted Oswald ninety seconds after the shooting.

Where are the curtain rods Oswald claimed to carry into the building? All that was found was a rifle belonging to Oswald.

Oswald’s motive was politics and opportunity. He already had tried to assassinate Gen Walker as a political act. Now the ultimate opportunity came rolling under his window. At lunchtime no less.

Jackie was right. Circumstance had allowed JFK to be taken out by a silly communist.

DeweyWins on July 27, 2014 at 8:16 AM

JFK once declared this nation would pay any price, make any sacrifice to stand for freedom and with those fighting for it. This led many Conservatives to believe he was really a Republican…especially when you compare him to modern day liberals like Obama. Obama ordered our military to help Al Qaeda take over Libya, heloed the Muslim Broyherhood take over Egypt, tried to help Islamic Extremists taje over Syria, released 5 top Taliban leaders so thet could return and try to help take back over Afghanistan, and did nothing while ISIS began its Caliphate by taking over the nation we just liberated at great cost. Obama believes we should pay any price, make any sacrifice anything to help TERRORISTS and those who OPPOSE freedom. If you’re looking for possible Kennedy Assasin, try looking at such Liberals as Obama and his home-grown terrorist buddies who bombed their own country and killed cops.

easyt65 on July 27, 2014 at 9:00 AM

In my view, Oswald was a Federal intelligence asset of some type. I think there were a lot of them there that day. I don’t believe he was a shooter of any kind.

At any rate, no clear motive was ever established for Oswald carrying out the assassination. NONE. The best folks can come up with is that he was a dismal failure and wanted to be famous…odd that he didn’t brag about shooting the President on the news when he had several chances to do so.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 27, 2014 at 4:38 AM

.
Why couldn’t he be a shooter, among others ?

Motive could be that he was carrying out a Russian ‘black-op’, or a personal grudge, either one relating to the “Cuban Missile Crisis.”
.

I’ve seen enough of the investigations done using stand-ins for elevation, motorcade speed, dummies situated in the car and all the rest of it from the beginning of Oswald’s life to the investigation of Jack Ruby, and it leaves it clear that one man could operate the rifle that well for the short distance involved and that all the evidence stacks up with the known ballistics and trajectories from a single point in the book depository.

ajacksonian on July 27, 2014 at 7:42 AM

.
Obviously anyone can say anything on the internet . . . . . especially that damn ‘listens2glenn‘ … (I think he’s the worst ).

Would you (or anyone else here) say that James Files testimony is someone just trying to gain his five-minutes-of-fame? Or possibly an attempt at ‘truth-sabotage’, to “muddy-the-water”, and make it harder for anyone to get to the real truth?

listens2glenn on July 27, 2014 at 9:32 AM

JFK was shot by a communist Lee Harvey Oswald

Bobby Kennedy was shot by a radical Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan

Martin Luther King JR. was shot by a democrat KKK sympathizer, James Earl RAY

It has been the progressives, and the left who are the murders and assassins. Not Conservatives.

And those are the FACTS.

sniffles1999 on July 27, 2014 at 10:25 AM

In late September of 1963, Oswald and his wife moved to Ft. Worth/Dallas for economic reasons. He was hoping that there would be better job opportunities there.

He had almost no money, no car, no TV, no possessions of any value. He and his wife had to live apart due to his lack of money.

And people still think he was working for the CIA? Or FBI? Were they paying him or was he doing this for free?

Anyway, when he moved to Dallas a Quaker pacifist friend – Ruth Paine – helped them move and took in Marina. Oswald moved his belongings into the Paine garage for storage while he lived in a rooming house under an assumed name (this was one of the reasons the FBI didn’t know where he lived).

Among those belongings was the rifle that was determined to be the weapon used to kill JFK. ONLY Lee and Marina Oswald knew where that rifle was. ONLY Lee and Marina Oswald knew where he placed it. ONLY Lee and Marina Oswald knew where to retrieve it.

That rifle turned up in the sniper’s nest of the 6th floor. Marina Oswald stayed home the day of the assassination. Oswald went to work carrying a long package.

The only person who could have brought it there was the only person who knew where it was and went there: Lee Oswald.

After shooting JFK, Oswald – and ONLY Oswald – left the building within three minutes. Other workers who worked there left – one was a man named Charles Givens – but they later returned and Oswald was the ONLY person who was alone and in the building at the time of the shooting who left.

No other worker who was in the building and alone left.

Oswald left within three minutes. He showed no interest in the shooting at all. None. He then took a bus – that was caught up in traffic as the police were blocking streets – then he took a cab to his rooming house. There, he rushed in, changed shirts and grabbed his revolver. He then left.

Later, he shot a police officer who stopped him for questioning. Numerous witnesses saw him shoot the officer or rush from the scene with his revolver. Oswald then went into a theater – again, showing no interest in the shooting of the president – where he was arrested. During the arrest he tried again to shoot a policeman.

If you think all of this is evidence of an innocent man then you’re not thinking straight.

SteveMG on July 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM

JFK was shot by a communist Lee Harvey Oswald

sniffles1999 on July 27, 2014 at 10:25 AM

.
Yes he was … and Nicolae Ceaușescu was shot by one of the men in a three-man firing squad.
.

Bobby Kennedy was shot by a radical Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan

sniffles1999 on July 27, 2014 at 10:25 AM

.
Dittos what I said above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UosHkm5ByLI
.

Martin Luther King JR. was shot by a democrat KKK sympathizer, James Earl RAY

sniffles1999 on July 27, 2014 at 10:25 AM

.
Don’t agree with that … but I have no hard evidence to back it up … only my “gut”.
I totally believe LBJ “had a hand” in bringing about the assassination of MLK, and I believe the motive for MLK’s assassination was the hi-jack of the Civil Rights movement, by leftists.
.

It has been the progressives, and the left who are the murders and assassins. Not Conservatives.

sniffles1999 on July 27, 2014 at 10:25 AM

.
Well, there ya’ got me … I cannot, and do not argue that.

listens2glenn on July 27, 2014 at 1:42 PM

The Government’s story has to be true. Surely Democrats wouldn’t lie or try to cover up malfeasance.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

S. D. on July 27, 2014 at 1:53 PM

The fact remains no one has ever reproduced the shots Oswald supposedly made. No one. Not ever.

Old eagle on July 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Welp, that’s BS. I’ve seen the exact shot replicated on every Discovery Channel documentary on the assassination that I’ve ever seen.

The shot was 88 yards, the limo was moving at 10mph away from Oswald in a direct line with the barrel of the rifle, and the street itself has a slight decline which facilitates the shot insofar as it eliminates the need to raise the barrel as the target moves farther away. We assume Oswald was aiming at the head, which means out of three attempts he only hit the target once. It was a cake shot that has been replicated hundreds of times by shooters of all skill levels.

Lamont Cranston on July 27, 2014 at 2:01 PM

.

Why couldn’t he be a shooter, among others ?

And he certainly could have been the only shooter…no one should discount that possibility. But from what I gather, this was not a man who was chosen for this kind of work due to his remarkable marksmanship. I think his job was to plant evidence to lead investigators away from others.

Motive could be that he was carrying out a Russian ‘black-op’, or a personal grudge, either one relating to the “Cuban Missile Crisis.”

One way or another, it does seem to come back to the Cuban goings on and the JFK administration.

But no one has ever adequately addressed how he got the job he did where he did over a year before Kennedy showed up that day. Anywhere along the route would have been fortuitous, but the TSBD was just way too fortuitous. Also, given how LHO has been painted, it’s also fortuitous that he hung on to that job as long as he did.

Too many people simply saw too many weird things going on that day to be dismissed, and several of those people didn’t live much longer after ’63.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 27, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Lamont Cranston on July 27, 2014 at 2:01 PM

And if the folks at Discovery wanted to show that Mary Todd Lincoln shot her husband and not Booth, they could make a very compelling argument I’m sure.

Documentaries are always trying to push a certain viewpoint…they’re like 60 Minutes or other such LSM-made shows-they look so logical and have the aura of TRVTH. But they will dismiss or simply omit whatever is not convenient to their argument. Obviously the conspiracy theory documentaries are no different and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 27, 2014 at 2:29 PM

But no one has ever adequately addressed how he got the job he did where he did over a year before Kennedy showed up that da

He got the job in October of 1963. That was before the President’s visit was announced and well before the motorcade route was even determined.

In any case, he also was accepted for another job at the same time. He could have taken that one instead. And when he took the job at the schoolbook depository, the supervisor (Roy Truly) had to decide whether to assign him at that building or another one further away. He decided to assign Oswald to the TSBD. And Oswald accept the job.

So many things had to go right in order for the conspiracy to be pulled off. Things that no one could have controlled.

For example, how did the conspirators – the “real” killers – know how to frame Oswald? How did they know he was even in the building at the time? That he would be alone? That he wouldn’t be with other people and have an airtight alibi? No one thinks the schoolbook building was filled with CIA agents or people watching Oswald. That’s silly.

It is literally impossible – in my opinion – to have a conspiracy of the type that many conspirators claim. It involves too many people and relies too much on luck to be able to work.

SteveMG on July 27, 2014 at 3:17 PM

All of the arguing over the specific details of the conspiracy only serves to obscure the deeper implications of the assassination. As the SEP’s David North put it:

The United States is a country with many dark secrets. It may be the case that the American people will never know who killed Kennedy. But the deeper causes of his death can be explained. The assassination of Kennedy suddenly, in one terrible moment, confronted Americans with the unforeseen and explosive consequences of the interaction between the United States’ malignant internal social contradictions and its reactionary and sinister post-World War II role as the world’s leading imperialist power.

Read the whole thing at:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/11/22/pers-n22.html

Trotsky on July 27, 2014 at 4:11 PM

unforeseen and explosive consequences of the interaction between the United States’ malignant internal social contradictions and its reactionary and sinister post-World War II role as the world’s leading imperialist power.

Sheesh, the old leftwing blame America first. And second, and third.

How about this: a lone crank, a man who regularly beat his wife and felt he didn’t get the recognition he deserved, a person who was disenchanted with the world and his place in it, took a rifle and shot the person who represented that world he hated?

As Lee Oswald’s brother explained it: “If Lee had stayed in the Soviet Union he would have ended up shooting Khrushchev.”

Oswald was a misfit; wherever he went he wouldn’t have been happy.

SteveMG on July 27, 2014 at 4:17 PM

So whoever killed JFK and for whatever reason, America’s “internal social contradictions” (Marxists do like to use the “contradiction” term; it sounds so sophisticated, Hegel and all that) are to blame?

What a surprise.

SteveMG on July 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Russian President Boris Yeltsin gave President Clinton the KGB files on Oswald. Here they are: Oswald Files.

Among other things they show that Oswald did no spy work for the Soviets: at any time. Not while he was in the Marines at Atsugi Air Base or when he was in the Soviet Union. In fact they show that the KGB never formally debriefed Oswald either. They asked him some questions but determined that he had nothing of use.

The KGB thought he was just an oddball, a nothing. They monitored him quite closely at first as they thought he might be a CIA agent. But they determined that he was “a nothing.”

SteveMG on July 27, 2014 at 7:54 PM

SteveMG on July 27, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Johnson :
Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?

Russell :
Well, it don’t make much difference. But they said that … the commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.

Johnson :
I don’t either.

Russell :
And so I couldn’t sign it. And I said that Governor Connally testified directly to the contrary, and I’m not going to approve of that. So I finally made them say there was a difference in the commission, in that part of them believed that that wasn’t so. And of course if a fellow was accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock his head off in the next one … and he’s leaning up against his wife’s head … and not even wound her … why, he didn’t miss completely with that third shot. But according to their theory, he not only missed the whole automobile, but he missed the street! Well, a man that’s a good enough shot to put two bullets right into Kennedy, he didn’t miss that whole automobile. … But anyhow, that’s just a little thing, but we …

Johnson :
What’s the net of the whole thing? What’s it say? That Oswald did it, and he did it for any reason?

Russell :
Well, just that he was a general misanthropic fellow, that he had never been satisfied anywhere he was on earth … in Russia or here. And that he had a desire to get his name in history and all. I don’t think you’ll be displeased with the report. It’s too long, but it’s a … whole volume.

Johnson :
Unanimous?

Russell :
Yes, sir. I tried my best to get in a dissent, but they’d come round and trade me out of it by giving me a little old thread of it.

LBJ-Richard Russell (a Warren Commissioner) on the phone, 9-18-64

A “general misanthropic fellow…desire to get his name in history and all”. Quite an astonishing motive. But again, why would he deny what he accomplished?

It would seem that the Warren Commission did their job very well in the end. Fifty years later, millions still believe this garbage. Guess it makes them feel comfy and snuggly in their beds at night.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 28, 2014 at 4:06 AM

I didn’t read all of these posts so maybe this was already mentioned – watch ‘JFK: The Smoking Gun’ (2013).

It was so compelling, I had to watch it twice to make sure I didn’t miss anything. I spent 25 years in law enforcement and the evidence presented in this documentary as to what actually occurred was an “aha” moment for me.

Cherokee on July 28, 2014 at 7:51 AM

It would seem that the Warren Commission did their job very well in the end. Fifty years later, millions still believe this garbage. Guess it makes them feel comfy and snuggly in their beds at night.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 28, 2014 at 4:06 AM

.
Just like the Warren Court … worst SCOTUS we’ve ever had.
.
Is there anything else Chief Justice TRAITOR Earl Warren was a part of, that we should know about ?

listens2glenn on July 28, 2014 at 9:27 AM

Russell attended almost none of the WC hearings – he was busy with his Senate duties which included fighting the 1964 Civil Rights Bill – and his understanding of what the WC believed happened, as noted above, was completely mistaken.

In fact, Russell believed that the Soviets or Cubans were involved – not the CIA or elements of the US government as many conspiracy advocates believe. We’ve learned over the past half century that the Soviets were not involved (the KGB files on Oswald were released by Yeltsin) and there has been no evidence that Castro was involved, although this is much less clear.

For some reason the conspiracy crowd focuses on the Warren Commission and ONLY the Warren Commission and ignore all of the subsequent investigations since then. The Clark Committee, the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA and numerous investigations by the media. They all show that Oswald fired the three shots that day. And no one else fired any shots that struck JFK (the HSCA conclusion that a fourth shot was fired has been, in my view, been shown to be completely wrong).

SteveMG on July 28, 2014 at 10:38 AM

I’m still waiting for ANYONE to tell me that this guy is a “lyin’ devil”, or whatever it is that you believe about him
.

Would you (or anyone else here) say that the James Files testimony is someone just trying to gain his five-minutes-of-fame? Or possibly an attempt at ‘truth-sabotage’, to “muddy-the-water”, and make it harder for anyone to get to the real truth?

listens2glenn on July 27, 2014 at 9:32 AM

listens2glenn on July 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Files stated that he and Oswald were in New Orleans in 1961 and involved in a gun running operation.

Oswald was still in the Soviet Union in 1961.

Other reasons to doubt Files: Not believable.

SteveMG on July 28, 2014 at 11:25 AM

SteveMG on July 28, 2014 at 11:25 AM

.
He didn’t state that within the video, I linked to.

Can you provide me with some documentation to these quotes of James Files, that you just referenced ?

listens2glenn on July 28, 2014 at 1:38 PM

an you provide me with some documentation to these quotes of James Files, that you just referenced ?

Here: File’s Claims.

Here’s one falsehood from Files, a major one, that was discovered by the assassination author Edward Jay Epstein:

“NBC retained me as a consultant for their planned story on Files. I hired the detective firm of Jules Kroll. JK established from telephone records Files was in Chicago, not Dallas, on November 22,1963. We then placed a call to Files from Dick Clark’s office (DC was producer), and I interviewed Files about Kroll findings. He said he had a twin brother, who no one knew about, and whom he met shortly before November 22, and who he murdered after November 22. He said it was his twin brother in hospital with his wife, not him. His wife, however, said there was no twin, and Kroll confirmed there was no twin. My view then and now is that Files invented the story for the money it would earn him.”

Files is a con man.

SteveMG on July 28, 2014 at 5:06 PM

SteveMG on July 28, 2014 at 5:06 PM

.
That’s what I was looking for … thank you.
.
I’d never heard of James Files, before this thread.

listens2glenn on July 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Who is “Adlai Stephenson”? Never heard of him.

I’ve heard of Adlai Stevenson, the two time loser presidential nominee of the democrat party in 1952 and 1956, and former governor of Illinois. He was also the UN ambassador who devastated the Soviets at the UN during the Cuban missile crisis (that was a good one [hehehe], not repeated until Amb Jeane Kirkpatrick reached the UN).

TXGRunner on November 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3