Quote:

---

(yes, a real theory involves gay men being behind the assassination)

---

Fabulous

BQ_90 said:

---

we talking about the same CIA that completely botched trying to kill Castro.

also people keep saying Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam. What proof is there of that.

That's just more white washing of Kennedy and Camelot.

---

Dont sell them short. The CIA didnt just botch the bay of pigs, they flat out got owned by the Cubans for decades. Ana Montes is arguably more embarrassing than failing to whack Castro.

Quote:

---

I have always found your posts on this topic, over the years, interesting and informative. Without a doubt you have much more information and knowledge about the assassination than I do. Your confidence in your positions and opinions bears merit due to your knowledge. To clarify, I have never come close to manifesting anything other than basically my self formed amateur opinion, but one to which I am entitled nonetheless.

---

Thanks. I hope nothing I say comes across as rude or condescending, because all arguments I make are lighthearted, and in good fun. I do believe LHO acted alone.

Quote:

---

From my standpoint, and my basic premise is that there are too many questions, too many coincidences, too many oddities, and too many odd characters involved in this situation to give me absolute certainty that there was not some kind of plot or manipulation, maybe not an outright far reaching consipiracy, but an orchestrated effort to have JFK killed. I could very well be wrong.

---

I think all the moving parts necessary for there to be a conspiracy helps disprove there was a conspiracy.

Think about the assassination of Frank Ferdinand. Just absolutely ridiculous coincidences had to happen for it to be pulled off and that set in motion the events of war for the next 30 years in Europe and then the Cold War for the 40 after. Ferdinand's assassination had significantly more far reaching implications.

For instance, if there as the conspiracy and you needed the patsy silenced, you need a solid plan to kill him.

Well, Ruby showed up at the police station long after LHO was scheduled to be moved. Why was Oswald late in being moved to County? Had to be orchestrated so Ruby would be on time right? No, Oswald didn't want to be paraded in the perp walk in the same dirty undershirt he had been in for two days and demanded a shirt or sweater to wear over it. LHO held up his own transportation, so Ruby was able to be down there and kill him. LHO sure didn't seem like he wanted to be killed, did he?

A strange coincidence, but one you can chalk up to luck of the draw. Just like the route being planned by the TBD and Oswald having a ****ty temp job there.

Quote:

---

One thing that has always stood out to me, and I would value your opinion on this episode of the mystery, is Oswald's trip to Mexico City. I have read quite a bit obout this situation and have some personal knowledge, not of anything related ot Oswald, of CIA and MexGov policies and actions during those times. Due to that, I am perplexed at how Oswald flew so under the radar given his background.

---

Mexico is what we know the least about and with your background maybe you know more than me. I read an interview with the a Russian there (on my iPad, and I know I read it on my laptop, not sure if I saved it) and they said that Oswald was trying to get VISAs and possibly citizenship again to move back to Russia. That lines up with the wiretapped calls the CIA had. The Russians didn't approve his VISA application. They didn't want him, the US didn't want him. He was a dumb loser that was mentally unhinged (remember his problems in the USMC and his suicide attempts.)

Quote:

---

Thus, what did Oswald go and do in Mexico City? And how does the CIA and Mexican Security Services, who were prone to denying entry to those who had visited the USSR or Cuba, basically miss him there? How did he skate in Mexico so easily? The issues with the Winston Scott "manuscript" being taken and his and other government people, both US and Mexican, saying that Oswald was known to them and was under surveillance in CDMX has always been an oddity. But the CIA basically denies it. As you say, if there was nothing to hide why was the CIA so adamant about sealing off Winston Scott's version of events and not to mention the irony or convenience of his death shortly after retirement when he was in his mid 60's. And it was none other than Angleton that got to his home and widow before the body was even cold.

---

Again, you probably know more about Mexico City than I do. It is a peculiar oddity and one with a lot more questions than answers. But it does seem like he was trying to move back to Russia with his wife. He was a complete loser but at least there, he could possibly teach English or something and she could be home. He initially thought he would be welcomed as a hero when he defected to Russia. But I think it really just reinforced that he was a loser no one wanted.

Quote:

---

I do not think that the Russians nor the Cubans had anything to do with JFK being killed, don't get me wrong. But I do think it is an incredible coincidence that a bumbler like Oswald was able to get down to CDMX, visit the USSR and Cuban embassy, meet a few other known subversives, and basically fly under both Mexican and CIA security that was harsh as hell and then get back to the US and kill the president. Could it have happened? Absolutely, do I find it questionable? Absolutely as well.

---

Because we monitored Mexico City so tightly, if Oswald was working with someone, he certainly wouldn't have met them there. The attempted Russian defector getting on the map by going to the Russian and Cuban embassies to plot the assassination of the POTUS doesn't make a lot of sense.

Quote:

---

Oh, and in regard to Walker, he was not well thought of by the administration, for reference a quote:

---

No doubt Kennedy didn't like him. Ike didn't either. He was a PITA for a lot of people.

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

we talking about the same CIA that completely botched trying to kill Castro.

also people keep saying Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam. What proof is there of that.

That's just more white washing of Kennedy and Camelot.

---

Dont sell them short. The CIA didnt just botch the bay of pigs, they flat out got owned by the Cubans for decades. Ana Montes is arguably more embarrassing than failing to whack Castro.

---

CIA hired the mob, the mob took their money and blew them off. Yet they pulled off killing Kennedy in complete secrecy and nothing has leaked out since then.

Quote:

---

Did you know the Bustamantes or the Groves in Mexico City?

---

We actually knew several Bustamantes in CDMX, any first names? I know my mother had freinds named Groves for sure, I remember that well although they were a little older, I wanna say, than my parents, but I do remember Groves in Mexico City city. I want to say Gary Groves, rings a bell.

I will tell you who I was close friends with in Mexico City, was the Luhnow family. Ironically enough, Jeff Luhnow was the worst athlete I was ever around as a kid. I was friends with him and his brothers, mainly his younger brother David. To think that Jeff is the GM of a world series team makes me shake my head, but his whole family was really good people. I need to get in touch with him at some point.

Quote:

---

Thanks. I hope nothing I say comes across as rude or condescending, because all arguments I make are lighthearted, and in good fun. I do believe LHO acted alone.

---

Your information is very good. I appreciate you being nice to us that wear the tinfoil hats

Quote:

---

I think all the moving parts necessary for there to be a conspiracy helps disprove there was a conspiracy.

Think about the assassination of Frank Ferdinand. Just absolutely ridiculous coincidences had to happen for it to be pulled off and that set in motion the events of war for the next 30 years in Europe and then the Cold War for the 40 after. Ferdinand's assassination had significantly more far reaching implications.

For instance, if there as the conspiracy and you needed the patsy silenced, you need a solid plan to kill him.

Well, Ruby showed up at the police station long after LHO was scheduled to be moved. Why was Oswald late in being moved to County? Had to be orchestrated so Ruby would be on time right? No, Oswald didn't want to be paraded in the perp walk in the same dirty undershirt he had been in for two days and demanded a shirt or sweater to wear over it. LHO held up his own transportation, so Ruby was able to be down there and kill him. LHO sure didn't seem like he wanted to be killed, did he?

A strange coincidence, but one you can chalk up to luck of the draw. Just like the route being planned by the TBD and Oswald having a ****ty temp job there.

---

The one big difference when comparing Franz Ferdinand to JFK is that there was basically a whole regional ethnicity out to get him and or what he represented. I wanna say that there were several hit men all around town that day and maybe others that we never knew about, and there had already been one attempt on his life. And again while only 50 years prior, mas o menos, it was still in a much more backwards time. Basically no security and very little, if any intelligence.

With my hat on, mind you, who is to say that Ruby wasn't fed inside info and or if there were others ready to act, like in Sarajevo? One could not scrip a better patsy than Oswald really, by all appearances he was dumb as dirt (which further makes me wonder how he pulled off what he supposedly did) and easily manipulated.

Quote:

---

Mexico is what we know the least about and with your background maybe you know more than me. I read an interview with the a Russian there (on my iPad, and I know I read it on my laptop, not sure if I saved it) and they said that Oswald was trying to get VISAs and possibly citizenship again to move back to Russia. That lines up with the wiretapped calls the CIA had. The Russians didn't approve his VISA application. They didn't want him, the US didn't want him. He was a dumb loser that was mentally unhinged (remember his problems in the USMC and his suicide attempts.)

---

Absolutely, he was a dumb loser. But I think he had figured out, and that is my personal take on things, that the Russians didn't want him and he was not welcome there? So why travel to Mexico City from Dallas, by land, which in 63' was no pleasant jaunt, just to be rebuffed. And once there why didn't the Soviets tell him to GTFO and out turn him over to the Mexican security services, with whom they also had connections and proven sources/moles? Why not pump that for some pub? Why not embarrass the Americans? From what is recorded there was some skulking around by Oswald and he did meet both countries functionaries off site. Something here just doesn't make sense? I can see that they might now have "wanted him", but if that truly were the case why not conclusively make an example of it?
.

Quote:

---

Again, you probably know more about Mexico City than I do. It is a peculiar oddity and one with a lot more questions than answers. But it does seem like he was trying to move back to Russia with his wife. He was a complete loser but at least there, he could possibly teach English or something and she could be home. He initially thought he would be welcomed as a hero when he defected to Russia. But I think it really just reinforced that he was a loser no one wanted.

---

Another poster wrote that we should never underestimate the bungling of the CIA, I agree to an extent. But factor in this when you think about Oswald in Mexico City, how and or why did the Mexican security agencies miss him or pay him no never mind? Think about this, when has any branch of any governmental Mexican authority ever turned down the opportunity to roust and basically milk dry a dumbass gringo?

I will answer, they never have. Why did that happen with Oswald? Sheer luck? I can probably agree to all the other coincidences, but this one really, really stands out to me. A foreigner driving 10 KPH under the speed limit in Mexico City is gonna get rousted for a bribe, and back then if they picked up that said individual had money and no connections it was going to be a lot of money for him/her to skate.

Oswald would never had skated through the Mexican security services watching those embassies, as a gringo ne'er do well, unless there was some reason for him to and or unless they were told to not mess with him. That is my opinion.

Quote:

---

Because we monitored Mexico City so tightly, if Oswald was working with someone, he certainly wouldn't have met them there. The attempted Russian defector getting on the map by going to the Russian and Cuban embassies to plot the assassination of the POTUS doesn't make a lot of sense.

---

That I agree with. Unless someone wanted to create a trail to either confuse matters and or cast suspicion in that direction should something like the assassination actually work.

I honestly do think my parents knew them. I will ask my father next time I see him, although my mother was the social one in the family. That sounds really, really familiar.

Quote:

---

also people keep saying Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam. What proof is there of that.

---

There may not be clear black and white proof that Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam, but he had authorized the exit of 1000 troops right before he was killed. In the same order he specified that the goal was to have US troops out of Vietnam by 65'.

Think about this, if Kennedy did not act militarily against Cuba, what are the odds that he would have gone all out in Vietnam like what transpired?

Damm, so what you are saying is that Kotter was in on it too? This thing may never end, the truth will never come out.

Quote:

---

The one big difference when comparing Franz Ferdinand to JFK is that there was basically a whole regional ethnicity out to get him and or what he represented. I wanna say that there were several hit men all around town that day and maybe others that we never knew about, and there had already been one attempt on his life. And again while only 50 years prior, mas o menos, it was still in a much more backwards time. Basically no security and very little, if any intelligence.

---

No question. The point is just that a lot of things just happen to fall in place to allow something like this. LHO was working at the TBD before the route was planned. If that parade doesn't turn on Elm, he never gets a shot.

OBL almost assassinated Clinton when he was president in the mid-90s. Secret Service got some unsubstantiated tip and decided to deviate from the planned route at the last second to not cross a specific bridge.

Sure enough, there was a bomb on that bridge that would have killed Clinton.

Quote:

---

With my hat on, mind you, who is to say that Ruby wasn't fed inside info and or if there were others ready to act, like in Sarajevo? One could not scrip a better patsy than Oswald really, by all appearances he was dumb as dirt (which further makes me wonder how he pulled off what he supposedly did) and easily manipulated.

---

Everything Ruby did that was detailed below that led up to the killing of Oswald. Ruby just happened to be there at the right time and pulled the gun. No way that was planned.

Quote:

---

But I think he had figured out, and that is my personal take on things, that the Russians didn't want him and he was not welcome there?

---

I don't know that he had that figured out. They basically gave him the "Oh, we're waiting on the call" routine.

Quote:

---

So why travel to Mexico City from Dallas, by land, which in 63' was no pleasant jaunt, just to be rebuffed.

---

I don't think he knew yet that they wanted nothing to do with him. I think he thought they would willingly take any defector, especially one with military knowledge and a. Russian wife.

Quote:

---

And once there why didn't the Soviets tell him to GTFO and out turn him over to the Mexican security services, with whom they also had connections and proven sources/moles? Why not pump that for some pub? Why not embarrass the Americans?

---

With someone mentally unstable, it is much easier for everyone to blame governmental inefficiency than to actually let down the person that they are worthless and unwanted.

Quote:

---

From what is recorded there was some skulking around by Oswald and he did meet both countries functionaries off site. Something here just doesn't make sense? I can see that they might now have "wanted him", but if that truly were the case why not conclusively make an example of it?

---

I don't think anyone thought he was capable of being much more than a ditch digger or box mover.

Quote:

---

But factor in this when you think about Oswald in Mexico City, how and or why did the Mexican security agencies miss him or pay him no never mind? Think about this, when has any branch of any governmental Mexican authority ever turned down the opportunity to roust and basically milk dry a dumbass gringo?

---

I don't know anything about Mexicurity but I imagine that the Russians, Americans and Mexicans all believed he was just a worthless incel. He had no knowledge or abilities that would make him an worthwhile asset and he wasn't smart or stable. I don't think anyone thought he was capable of something like he pulled off.

Quote:

---

The point is just that a lot of things just happen to fall in place to allow something like this.

---

Funny you say this, when somehow, the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo also made the discussion. I think folks would enjoy reading up on exactly how that happened. The Archduke was not supposed to be where he was, at that time. His earlier route was widely published, and something like 4 different guys were supposed to kill him.

Only one even tried, he threw a grenade that missed. Princip chickened out. Later in the day, the Archduke was on the way to/from the hospital to visit his man who was hurt in the grenade attack. They turned down the wrong street, then stalled trying to back out of it.

Princip had given up on the whole thing and stepped into a deli to get a sandwich. When he stepped back out, guess who's car was stalled, directly in front of the deli...

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The point is just that a lot of things just happen to fall in place to allow something like this.

---

Funny you say this, when somehow, the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo also made the discussion. I think folks would enjoy reading up on exactly how that happened. The Archduke was not supposed to be where he was, at that time. His earlier route was widely published, and something like 4 different guys were supposed to kill him.

Only one even tried, he threw a grenade that missed. Princip chickened out. Later in the day, the Archduke was on the way to/from the hospital to visit his man who was hurt in the grenade attack. They turned down the wrong street, then stalled trying to back out of it.

Princip had given up on the whole thing and stepped into a deli to get a sandwich. When he stepped back out, guess who's car was stalled, directly in front of the deli...

---

He just happened to shoot for the neck? Cause the target was wearing silk body armor that would have stopped bullet penetration from that shot. Or I read that wrong, recently.

I wasn't aware of the silk vest, but the references I see claim that he wasn't wearing it, anyway. I believe the Archduke was shot from very close by, and I don't think Princip was a trained shooter. "Lucky" shot.

RGV AG said:

---

Read the Posner one, the on by Manchester, the one that wants to prove Johnson did it and couple of other ones. Nothing too deep.

---

My dad always said LBJ's favorite song was "I Love a Parade."

RGV AG said:

---

Quote:

---

also people keep saying Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam. What proof is there of that.

---

There may not be clear black and white proof that Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam, but he had authorized the exit of 1000 troops right before he was killed. In the same order he specified that the goal was to have US troops out of Vietnam by 65'.

Think about this, if Kennedy did not act militarily against Cuba, what are the odds that he would have gone all out in Vietnam like what transpired?

---

Great post, I think this is significant.

Obviously it's not proof of a conspiracy to kill JFK, but I can imagine the Joint Chiefs and the CIA seeing this as surrender to the enemy. If you thought your entire country, family, friends were at risk due to an impotent leader.....

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The point is just that a lot of things just happen to fall in place to allow something like this.

---

Funny you say this, when somehow, the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo also made the discussion. I think folks would enjoy reading up on exactly how that happened. The Archduke was not supposed to be where he was, at that time. His earlier route was widely published, and something like 4 different guys were supposed to kill him.

Only one even tried, he threw a grenade that missed. Princip chickened out. Later in the day, the Archduke was on the way to/from the hospital to visit his man who was hurt in the grenade attack. They turned down the wrong street, then stalled trying to back out of it.

Princip had given up on the whole thing and stepped into a deli to get a sandwich. When he stepped back out, guess who's car was stalled, directly in front of the deli...

---

A deli sandwich and a broken down car.

This is what made the modern world as it exists today.



I don't totally believe that, I think the Euros would have found a different reason to go at each other, but still, it's an odd way to touch off millions of deaths.

Yeah, weird coincidences, but as you said, it was a powder keg. If it hadn't been that spark, it would have been another.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The point is just that a lot of things just happen to fall in place to allow something like this.

---

Funny you say this, when somehow, the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo also made the discussion. I think folks would enjoy reading up on exactly how that happened. The Archduke was not supposed to be where he was, at that time. His earlier route was widely published, and something like 4 different guys were supposed to kill him.

Only one even tried, he threw a grenade that missed. Princip chickened out. Later in the day, the Archduke was on the way to/from the hospital to visit his man who was hurt in the grenade attack. They turned down the wrong street, then stalled trying to back out of it.

Princip had given up on the whole thing and stepped into a deli to get a sandwich. When he stepped back out, guess who's car was stalled, directly in front of the deli...

---

All because Princip stopped to eat a sandwich in a cafe on that street.

All in all, absolutely crazy story that completely changed the face of the earth for the last century plus.



The things that had to fall into place for LHO to killed JFK wasn't remotely as random as that Ferdinand's death.

With a grain of salt....

It could have easily gone another way entirely had germany not been forced to pay reperations to france.

sw@n said:

---

With a grain of salt....

It could have easily gone another way entirely had germany not been forced to pay reperations to france.

---

There's little doubt that WWI echos today, everything from WWII to the division of the Middle East by European desires, not Arab tribes.

Oswald's aim wasn't bad when he shot at Walker, the bullet hit a metal window frame, deflected and splintered. He did bug out after that one shot but it was not a bad shot.

The idea that a small faction of operatives can't keep a secret is nonsense. What we know of even just modern history is probably <25% of the truth.

BQ78 said:

---

Oswald's aim wasn't bad when he shot at Walker, the bullet hit a metal window frame, deflected and splintered. He did bug out after that one shot but it was not a bad shot.

---

Yet his aim was so bad, that on the first shot he not only missed Kennedy, but missed the entire limousine,when they were the closest to him.....but maybe that extended traffic light caused it to deflect.....you'd think after he missed Walker with a deflection he'd have been more careful!!

RGV AG said:

---

Quote:

---

also people keep saying Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam. What proof is there of that.

---

There may not be clear black and white proof that Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam, but he had authorized the exit of 1000 troops right before he was killed. In the same order he specified that the goal was to have US troops out of Vietnam by 65'.

Think about this, if Kennedy did not act militarily against Cuba, what are the odds that he would have gone all out in Vietnam like what transpired?

---

This is one of the most fascinating what-if questions in American history, particularly because you can make a real case for either side.

On the one hand, so much of JFK's foreign policy theory was based on life experience, and that's a hard bell to un-ring. He was a part of the GI generation, men born within the first twenty five years of the century. The cataclysmic event of their youth was the Second World War, and the belief at that time was that the war was born out of an inability to play hardball with an enemy and a desire to pacify. Those men looked at Munich as the greatest foreign policy blunder of their era, the perfect example of what not to do and what directly led to a war they all served in. That led to a common belief that you stand up to a "bully". What you don't do is give an inch.

Kennedy also had a personal tie to what happens when you don't take a hard line stance against enemies. His father's political career was destroyed because he was a "defeatist" someone who wanted to work out a deal with Hitler, rather than go to war with him. Even during JFK's campaign in 1960, his father remained in the shadows and out of the spotlight because he was still THAT unpopular, even two decades later. The stain of being a defeatist doesn't wash away easily. All this makes a case for why he might have escalated the war in Vietnam. To not do so would be to go against consensus political theory that he and his generation had formed through life experience.

On the other hand, JFK was much more likely to make the hard call and pull out than LBJ was. Kennedy was far more knowledgeable about foreign policy than Johnson, was more confident in his own intellectual abilities, and was much more likely to stand up to the "wise men" advising him. Johnson assumed all those men were his intellectual superiors, Kennedy did not. JFK also appears to have been a much more confident man that LBJ, someone who didn't care as much about what people thought. If he thought this was right, he had the stones to do it.

Furthermore, Kennedy by 63 had begun to seriously distrust the high level military and CIA advisers around him. They had completely screwed him on the Bay of Pigs and they'd all argued for aggression in the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was pretty clear during the last months of his presidency that Kennedy had deep doubts about the wisdom of military and intelligence heavy hitters, all of whom were advocating for escalating the war. The distrust he had was so deep that their support of the war could have been reason enough for Kennedy to think it was the wrong decision.

Not sure which way I fall, but it is a fascinating discussion

Quote:

---

This is one of the most fascinating what-if questions in American history, particularly because you can make a real case for either side.

---

Great post overall, and you are absolutely right, it is a huge what-if? question.

Quote:

---

On the one hand, so much of JFK's foreign policy theory was based on life experience, and that's a hard bell to un-ring. He was a part of the GI generation, men born within the first twenty five years of the century. The cataclysmic event of their youth was the Second World War, and the belief at that time was that the war was born out of an inability to play hardball with an enemy and a desire to pacify. Those men looked at Munich as the greatest foreign policy blunder of their era, the perfect example of what not to do and what directly led to a war they all served in. That led to a common belief that you stand up to a "bully". What you don't do is give an inch.

---

Well said, but of note here, JFK was a true soldier, he had served in battle and heeded his countries call. He had been in harms way and by not trying to be sensationalist, he was a warrior. Same for Ike, same for Truman. But we get to Johnson, and he was a coward, a shirker, and just an overall bad person. He had no idea of what war was really like and he was always insecure about the intellect of those that he thought smarter than him, and JFK was smarter.

The American policy towards Indochina had been ambivalent and ambiguous, cautiously supportive while verbally maintaining a tenuous commitment. Ike didn't commit troops with France hit the skids, he was more concerned about Laos. DeGaulle clearly warned JFK about the pitfalls of the situation and some of the advisers of both were leery of engaging there. Ike talked a good game, but his actions were others. From a personal standpoint if JFK didn't engage Cuba and Ike didn't rescue France, my belief is that they would not have ever committed to what Johnson did.

Quote:

---

Kennedy also had a personal tie to what happens when you don't take a hard line stance against enemies. His father's political career was destroyed because he was a "defeatist" someone who wanted to work out a deal with Hitler, rather than go to war with him. Even during JFK's campaign in 1960, his father remained in the shadows and out of the spotlight because he was still THAT unpopular, even two decades later. The stain of being a defeatist doesn't wash away easily. All this makes a case for why he might have escalated the war in Vietnam. To not do so would be to go against consensus political theory that he and his generation had formed through life experience

---

. Of note here is to clearly understand that JFK, thank goodness, was not his father. And neither was RFK. The "defeatist" mantra might have been given at a dark point in the war, but that war was over and the known consequences of it were understood by the politicians, and in particular Ike and JFK.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, JFK was much more likely to make the hard call and pull out than LBJ was. Kennedy was far more knowledgeable about foreign policy than Johnson, was more confident in his own intellectual abilities, and was much more likely to stand up to the "wise men" advising him. Johnson assumed all those men were his intellectual superiors, Kennedy did not. JFK also appears to have been a much more confident man that LBJ, someone who didn't care as much about what people thought. If he thought this was right, he had the stones to do it

---

. Agree, and Johnson was easily manipulated and was a greed and crooked individual, at a level probably not seen in the WH ever, and or since. Even by the latest presidents that the NeoCon's dispise. Johnson invented Clintoncide and actually used it. Bill Mason, Sam Smithwicke, Henry Marshall, and Buddy Floyd all say hello (as well as others). Johnson was in hawk deep to many unsavory folks and group of folks. A terrible for profit war would not, or should we say did not, bother Johnson at all.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, Kennedy by 63 had begun to seriously distrust the high level military and CIA advisers around him. They had completely screwed him on the Bay of Pigs and they'd all argued for aggression in the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was pretty clear during the last months of his presidency that Kennedy had deep doubts about the wisdom of military and intelligence heavy hitters, all of whom were advocating for escalating the war. The distrust he had was so deep that their support of the war could have been reason enough for Kennedy to think it was the wrong decision.

---

As did Ike. The CIA and the "deep state" of the time brought the US a lot events that have had the lasting effects of a virulent drug resistant strain of syphilis; Iran, Guatemala, and a couple of others.

The after effects and the preceeding times of American foreign policy are a large driver in the JFK conspiracy theories, and maybe while the physical questions of the murder can be reconciled, the governmental ones are incredibly shadowy in my opinion.

Quote:

---

JFK was a true soldier, he had served in battle and heeded his countries call. He had been in harms way and by not trying to be sensationalist, he was a warrior. Same for Ike, same for Truman. But we get to Johnson,

---

There is little doubt that Ike was the best guy for the job of overall commander of the war in Europe. But I never found a reference to him having been in combat, or even close to it. If you know different, let me know. Truman was an artillery officer in WWI, I believe. Nixon a supply guy in the Navy in the South Pacific in WWII.

Johnson bummed a ride on a bomber in the South Pacific, that turned back due to engine trouble. He parlayed that into a Silver Star. I suspect MacArthur figured a fake medal would buy a lot of Congressional support.

Ike never saw combat. He was sent to combat in WWI, but the peace treaty was signed a week before.

He had blown out his knee playing football for Army, which almost ended his military career.

He was a general when Pearl Harbor was attacked.