LBJ and the Kennedy Assassination

[Evilmav2]

I normally don't engage in discoursing about conspiracy theories or alien encounters, but because this Kennedy stuff has been on every channel, and because I think there have been some interesting new revelations about the whole business coming to light recently, I will do so just this once. Please forgive me for the length of this post...

I don't know if many of y'all have been paying attention to the recent deluge of Kennedy Assasination programing marking the 40th anniversery of that event, but I really have to say that the history channel is doing a spectacular job in showcasing some of the debate between detractors and defenders of the Warren commision's findings on the crime.

Of course, they are showing the classic old conspiracy documentary, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", but British producer Nigel Turner has evidently produced a few more episodes to compliment the original six chapters from 1988, and these newer episodes actually makes quite a lot of very interesting new revelations.

I already knew that the release of the Lyndon Baines Johnson audio tapes has shed a lot of light on just how vicious his hatred of Bobby Kennedy and the Kennedy clique in the white house had become by early 1961. But I think the history channel is really going beyond that, and are breaking new ground in airing some of the allegations of former LBJ lawyer Barr McClellan that LBJ was the lynchpin of a Texas based group including Clint Murchinson, and who could count on the complicity of Herbert Hoover's FBI, and who effected the murder of Kennedy. I haven't read McClellan's original book, "Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K", but I am certainly going to read it in the near future.

The crux of Barr's arguments that LBJ was culpable is based on somewhat thin evidence related to a latent fingerprint found in the sniper's nest that was later identified as belonging to a former Johnson crony and convicted murderer, to things that he had heard while working for the law firm that represented LBJ's personal and private interests, and to the claims of Johnson's former mistress that a group including Johnson, Hoover, Murchinson, and even Dick Nixon met at Murchinson's mansion the night before the assassination, and that Lyndon at one point said, "No fuckin' Kennedy is ever going to cross me again".

This is all pretty interesting, but what I found really compelling about the history channel program, and what makes me want to read McClellan's book, was the exhaustive coverage it devoted to the seamy and corrupt world of Texas oil money and politics during that time in history.

Examples of Texas corruption like the Box 13 scandal (where "Landslide Lyndon" fabricated votes to win his way to the US senate with a plurality of 63 voters), have of course been well documented, but I just had no idea how prevalent the paybacks, graft, bribery, ballot stuffing, and indeed politically motivated murders, were at that time, and that Johnson and his cronies were up to their necks in it.

Evidently, Lyndon left a lot of ruined and sometimes dead men behind him in his ruthless drive to power, and Kennedy might have just been another one. Lyndon was being investigated for his role in a huge cotton kickback scandal in the months before the assasination, and with his sworn enemy Bobby Kennedy in charge of the justice department, it would not have been inconcievable to see LBJ lose the Vice Presidency, and indeed risk actual jail time.

At the same time, the Johnson tapes have shown that his leaving his node of power as Senate majority leader, for the pomp and ineffectuality of the Vice Presidency obviously unhinged him to the point that he would rage and curse, constantly deriding and denigrating the Kennedy's who stood in his way and who never looked at his place in the administration as being anything other than a crude, but essential tip of the hat to Southern democrats.

Again, much of this is based on hearsay conversations and much conjecture, but if you ask yourself who would gain the most from Kennedy's death, who could do a good job at covering it up, and who would stoop to such a low act as coup d'etat by assasination, a combination of the criminally corrupt graft machine that Johnson had been involved with for decades, and Kennedy enemy J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, just seems to fit the bill. Maybe throw in some involvement with some of the CIA sponsored crazies who had been hatching crackpot schemes to overthrow Castro (exploding cigars, injecting him with cancer, shaving his beard, etc...)-and this is the world where triggerman Oswald came from- and I think you have all of the basic ingredients of this thing.

I don't see any reason why Oswald wasn't the only gunman, but I sure as heck believe that there were folks behind him, and those corrupt Texas Johnson cronies sure fit the bill operating on their home ground. Of course you have to silence the triggerman before he implicates anyone else, but once Ruby accomplishes that, you can rely upon the FBI to push the crazy loner theory and neglect investigating pieces that don't fit into that puzzle.

Barr evidently also does a good job of documenting the strange deaths of a number of Johnson's intimates in the few years following the assassination, and this makes sense to me too. Oswald is dead, the few men who knew about the on-the-ground preparation and execution of the plot die pretty quickly afterward, and who is left to know the whole story except for the couple of men who benefitted most, and who are all dead today?

We will probably never know what really happened, but these Johnson allegations make more sense to me than any crazy mafia or military industrial complex theories. It seems almost nonsensical to me, trying to imagine that Kennedy died because he wanted to pull back involvement in Vietnam (sorry, Oliver Stone), but it sure as heck does make a lot of sense as the final act in the Kennedy's feud with a brutally corrupt, domineering, and incredibly ambitious bastard like Johnson.


"Landslide" Lyndon: The most personally feared American executive of this century

[mercury_rev]

Interesting post, Evilmav. One thing: you mean J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, right? Herbert Hoover died in 1964 at age 90, and if he was involved, it's even deeper than we think, man!.....[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Evilmav2]

LBJ Aides Respond to History Channel Allegations


By LYNN ELBER
The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 18, 2003; 11:40 PM


LOS ANGELES - A television documentary claiming Lyndon B. Johnson helped plot the Kennedy assassination was condemned as an absurd smear by Johnson's family and former staff members.

A History Channel film that aired Monday alleges that then-Vice President Johnson and members of his staff were responsible for President Kennedy's 1963 killing, said LBJ Foundation Chairman Tom Johnson, no relation to the former president.

"I do not know of a greater injustice to the reputation of a former president - especially to be on The History Channel," Tom Johnson, who worked in the Johnson White House, said in an interview Tuesday.

He and Jack Valenti, another former Johnson staff member and current president of the Motion Picture Association of America, issued a joint statement on behalf of the Johnson family and others.

"Sadly, President Johnson and the staff members who are wrongly smeared by the conspiracy theorists are no longer alive to defend themselves," the statement said. "In televising this production, The History Channel has distorted history beyond recognition."

It was the second recent TV project about a former president to draw criticism. CBS yanked its November miniseries "The Reagans" after supporters of former President Reagan said it distorted his legacy while he suffers Alzheimer's disease.

The latest program aired as part of an umbrella series titled "The Men Who Killed Kennedy," a package of documentaries about various conspiracy theories regarding Kennedy's death, said channel spokeswoman Lynn Gardner.

The films in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" series are from producer Nigel Turner and have aired before on cable TV, channel spokeswoman Gardner said. Monday's film, titled "The Guilty Men," was based in part on the book "Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K." by Barr McClellan, she said.

"The History Channel does not say that any of these theories are correct nor does not in any way say that the theory in this program is correct," the channel said in a statement. "We are, however, presenting a point of view that has been meticulously researched.

"By presenting different viewpoints we enable our viewers to decide to agree or disagree with them and to arrive at their own conclusions," the channel said.

Kennedy was shot in Dallas on Nov. 23, 1963. The Warren Commission concluded Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin, but claims of more extensive plots continue to fascinate the public.

"I'm puzzled, bewildered, that a distinguished enterprise like the History Channel would put on the air such garbage, such ugliness," Valenti said in an interview. "It makes one sick."

Another former LBJ aide, journalist Bill Moyers, hadn't seen the program but called its premise "absurd." Liz Carpenter, who was press secretary to Lady Bird Johnson, called the program "outrageous."

Attorneys were being consulted but it was unknown if any legal action could be taken, Tom Johnson said.

The documentary was "exceptionally upsetting" to Johnson's widow, who recently suffered a stroke, and daughters Luci and Lynda, Tom Johnson said. President Johnson died in 1973.

The family did not try to block the program's broadcast as in the case of organized Republican efforts against CBS' "The Reagans," Tom Johnson said. The Reagan drama was shifted to cable channel Showtime and is showing Nov. 30.

"We left the decision on editorial content and accuracy up to the History Channel," Tom Johnson said.

---

[Evilmav2]

Hahaha... You caught me, Rev. I pounded that thing out quickly enough that I made a mental lapse...

[Chiwas]

How is the only way that in a country with the best Intelligence, investigation resources, crime-resolving techniques, and so on, the truth hasn't been <u>satisfactorily</u> found-revealed?

To be in control of them.

[mercury_rev]

Good question, Chiwas.

Machiavelli argued that conspiracies were difficult to pull off. One reason is that the risk of being found out likely outweighs the short-term successful commission of the crime. All it takes is one person who, by whatever motivation, manages to feign compliance or avoid liquidation, and then finds it advantageous to come forward with the plot.

But Machiavelli might be wrong here.

Don't know a lot about the theories surrounding JFK's assassination. If it only took a small handful of highly motivated conspirators and a good marksman, perhaps intelligence is powerless to crack the plot. Or maybe there was no conspiracy at all......

But intelligence gathering is no panacea either. After all, it's not like the FBI and CIA know everything (where are Saddam and Bin Laden?)

[madape]

The truth has been found. Some people just don't want to admit it.

EvilMav - you can't beleive everything you read. The right answer is often times the most obvious one.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: madape
The truth has been found. Some people just don't want to admit it.

so LBJ was hiding on the grassy knoll!!
I knew it!

[Evilmav2]

I know all the conspiracy stuff is usually pretty silly and it is often fueled by the paranoia of fanatics (not too disimilar to the alien crazies), but at the same time, there were some aspects of the whole Kennedy business that stunk to high heaven at the time, and that's ultimately why the conspiracy talk won't die. Just like the crazy alien talk has been shown to have roots in contemprorary USAF disinformation efforts used to mask secret advanced aircraft research, I would not be surprised to find that there is some real corruption that lay at the heart of the Kennedy murder.

That's not to say that LBJ or the Mafia or the Military Industrial comlex are responsible for killing camelot, or that "badge man" or "the three hobos" or Elvis shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll, while Lee Harvey was sitting in the 4th floor emplyee lounge in the school book depository building, but I think it is unmistakably clear that the FBI aggressively chose to not investigate any possibilities of the crime being anything but the act of a lone madman, and in fact doctored and suppressed reams of evidence at the time (go back and read what the 1973 congressional hearings about the matter said, if you think I am just some conspiracy Kook). Of course you can believe that disapearing evidence, and the sworn testimonies of every doctor in the Parkland hospital emergency room that the back of Kennedy's head was blown open, and that Jack Ruby really was an enraged patriot, but to me, all of this stuff just adds up to a big stink. A big stink coming from something very rotten...

Anway, forgive me for rambling about this stuff. I have read about this stuff for fun in the past, and with the deluge of Kennedy programming marking the anniversary of the crime, it isn't too hard to get sucked into the stuff temporarily...

I don't know what happened, and nobody probably ever will, but that said, I think there was a cover-up, and where there is a cover-up there will have been a reason for one...

[Chiwas]

I think there was a cover-up, and where there is a cover-up there will have been a reason for one...

When there is cover-up, there has to be conspiracy. It can come from either small or powerful groups, but in the case of a President of the US, I suspect without any effort on the big ones.

[XERXES]

Originally posted by: madape
The truth has been found. Some people just don't want to admit it.

EvilMav - you can't beleive everything you read. The right answer is often times the most obvious one.

I concur with Madape. I've gotten interested in this whole debate in the last year or two and have the good fortune to have a friend who was a Police Officer and in the thick of all the action that day. He had been re-directing traffic away from the parade route and wound up (after everything went down) escorting Jacke in and around Parkland. He knew Jack Ruby (apparently alot of people did - as he had quite a reputation) and many of the other people involved in that series of events.

We spoke at length about this earlier this year and he gave me a clear cut, concise, detailed lay-out of why Oswald acted alone...and if you look at all the facts (with being subjective, biased, or conspiracy-hungry) it's really an open and shut case.