Lincoln
Was Wrong:
The Case Of Fooling
Most Of The People
Most Of The Time
By
John Chuckman
22 November,
2007
Countercurrents.org
This
year marks the forty-fourth anniversary of John Kennedy’s assassination.
What is most remarkable about this is the stunningly simple fact that,
despite innumerable books and several official investigations, we still
do not know what happened in 1963.
Not understanding
what happened is no mere curiosity of history. It tells us something
profound about the nature of government in America today, all of it
running against the received notion of a free and open society.
I might not
say that were the assassination a simple, straightforward matter that
had occurred with few witnesses, but it was an event with many witnesses,
many of whom were ignored by the Warren Commission with some of the
most credible discounted. And it was anything but simple, although the
conclusions of the Warren Commission are just that, simple.
At least
some of the key parties involved – Lee Oswald, Jack Ruby, and
David Ferrie, for example – are subjects of voluminous government
records about their bizarre or criminal activities, and forty-four years
later, parts of these essential records remain secret.
I might not
say that about the free and open society also, were there not a long
history of government secrecy around the event, and at times deliberate
misrepresentation. Yes, there was finally in the 1990s a big opening
of files held secret for decades, but these files – at least the
parts not blacked-out – tell us little of importance that is new.
Indeed, to the thoughtful inquirer they only raise the issue of why
most of them were ever considered worthy of being labeled secret in
the first place.
Most importantly,
though, a good many files still have not been released, a critical point
not treated carefully by many writers on the subject. Certain CIA and
FBI files on Oswald are key examples.
You must
ask yourself, why, if the assassination is just a simple murder by one
misfit, has there been so much secrecy? Indeed, why, if it was a simple
murder, was the President’s murder not investigated in Dallas,
the scene of the crime, instead of from Washington? All the evidence
and most witnesses were located in Dallas. Federal agents at the hospital
actually drew their guns against local police and officials to seize
the President’s body for shipment to Washington, instead of allowing
the perfectly normal procedure of the local jurisdiction autopsying
the body. Why? Why was the autopsy conducted by the military with military
doctors who were rank amateurs at shooting investigations?
There is
no such thing as a free and open society where great matters of empire
are concerned, and this is something no less true of the United States
than any past imperial power. The people are never consulted on imperial
matters, whether war, assassination, or overthrowing other governments,
and they are, sadly, frequently deliberately misinformed about them,
their own resources being used against them, just the latest examples
being around the invasion of Iraq.
Although
elements of the CIA truly hated Kennedy, and J. Edgar Hoover would have
spat upon his grave given an unobserved opportunity, I do not subscribe,
for many reasons, to the idea that an arm of the American government
killed Kennedy. It is highly probable that individuals in some government
agencies did understand what had happened and worked to blur and confuse
the investigation afterwards. I also consider it possible that, owing
to these intense hatreds, glimmers of intelligence in advance of the
assassination were deliberately ignored or buried. This seems most likely
in Hoover’s case.
Motives for
hiding any knowledge of events are unknown, but almost certainly they
have to do with hiding genuinely embarrassing or compromising information
concerning secret operations and relationships. Embarrassment is more
often than not, certainly more often than genuine national security,
the reason for imposing secrecy in the American government.
Assassinations
at this level in a large advanced society are always the result of conspiracies
and complex plans, the plans providing for the certainty of success
and the safe distancing of conspirators.
There are,
I believe, three plausible candidates for organizing the assassination,
all quite powerful groups, all selected for their extreme motives, resources,
and opportunity.
The first
candidate is a branch of the American mafia, a number of whose members
had been deeply hurt by the Attorney General’s aggressive organized
crime-fighting activities. After all, Kennedy had received handsome
secret contributions in cash from the organization when he ran for office.
He had also had at least the seeming cooperation of some senior mafia
leaders in his efforts to assassinate Castro, and here he was letting
his brother conduct a ruthless campaign against the interests of some
families. A mafia family leader and the leader of the Teamsters Union
at the time, a known mafia associate, are on record as having made threats
against Kennedy. Some members of the Congressional investigations came
to favor this candidate although they failed to prove it.
The second
candidate is one of the many Cuban refugee groups armed, trained, and
paid by the CIA in hopes of invading Cuba again, hurting its economy
through terrorist activities, and assassinating any of its leaders.
Few Americans today appreciate the extent of these government-subsidized
terrorist camps then, operations that make Osama’s camp in the
mountains look insignificant.
Kennedy was
loathed by the most violent of these groups in his last days because
he agreed not to invade Cuba as part of his settlement with the Soviet
Union over missiles in Cuba. After that pledge, Kennedy had the FBI
raiding the operations of some of these previously catered-to groups
as a show of good will towards the Soviets. It is in connection with
these very raids that Oswald had some not-well-understood but certain
connection with the FBI. These refugee groups were ruthless, angry men
who didn’t hesitate to kill or cripple those in their way. They
had even conducted a number of terrorist attacks in Miami.
The third
candidate is Israel, whose secret efforts at developing nuclear weapons
were underway at the time and had become known to Kennedy. He made it
unpleasantly clear in private communications that he would not allow
Israel to go nuclear, something not widely known in America. But the
people running Israel considered it essential that the country become
a nuclear power, and we have all seen over many decades how Israel has
not hesitated to assassinate or attack where it regards its interests
are involved.
Just a few
years after Kennedy’s assassination, during the Six Day War, Israeli
planes made a two-hour attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, a spy ship operating
in the Eastern Mediterranean, killing many of its crew. Israel’s
motives have never been explained adequately or investigated openly,
but likely had to do either with suppressing information of atrocities
in the Sinai – the Liberty being an intelligence-gathering ship
– or with trying to trick the United States into entering its
war against Egypt. In either case, we see ruthlessness compatible with
eliminating a hostile, powerful leader.
I don’t
claim to know the truth because the truth would require new evidence.
And the candidates are not all mutually exclusive. One might well expect
the mafia or Mossad to manipulate and use people like the violent Cuban
refugees.
Each of these
groups had great motives, more than adequate means, and ample opportunity.
By comparison, Oswald stands out as a ridiculous figure with no motive,
virtually no means, but a seeming opportunity arranged for him by others
at the Texas Book Depository. He was, almost certainly, the patsy he
said he was in police custody shortly before his death, having been
duped by forces he didn’t understand into certain activities that
would mark him before the assassination. We have ample evidence of Oswald’s
lack of serious interest in things military, his having been pretty
much a flop at being a Marine, and of his temperamental inclination
in other directions. While he had a temper (who doesn’t?), he
was not a violent man, indeed Russian observers who recalled his years
in Russia said he was temperamentally incapable of murder.
If you want
to understand why the Warren Commission Report is so wrong, just spend
some time yourself reading it with a critical eye. You can find an old
copy at a used bookstore for a dollar or two. Parts of it are laughable,
much of it is fragmentary, and all of it is a prosecutor’s brief.
There is no voice for the defense. Our Western traditions of law require
the clash of defense and prosecution before a jury can arrive at guilt.
There is no other way, although so much of the public is today conditioned
by mystery books and television shows where a detective wraps everything
up neatly by the end of the book or show.
Perhaps even
more importantly, as few younger readers will know, the Warren Commission
did no investigation. Its investigative arm was J. Edgar Hoover’s
FBI. He personally kept tight control of these investigations day by
day. Hoover’s FBI committed many blunders and genuine crimes over
the years of his being director, from trying to send Einstein, a Jewish
refugee from Nazism, back to Germany (he hated Einstein’s free
thinking) to carrying out an elaborate plan to discredit Martin Luther
King with secretly recorded tapes in the hope he would commit suicide.
These great men, and many other notable figures, Hoover privately regarded
as dangerous communists.
Hoover more
or less blackmailed many members of Congress and several presidents
with his secret files obtained by spying on their private lives. After
his death these files were whisked away never to be seen again. As I
said, Hoover hated the Kennedy brothers, surely giving him a total lack
of impartiality as an investigator. Hoover, too, spent many days at
resorts and racetracks over his career paid for by mafia figures he
should have been investigating. Communism, even though it never had
any large presence in the United States, was always Hoover’s obsession,
and Oswald had the (false) reputation of being a communist. It was not
a promising arrangement for the Warren Commission from the beginning,
and the poor results show.
With a few
special exceptions of genuine investigative journalism and analysis,
there are two general categories of books about the Kennedy assassination,
both biased in their information. There are the various “theory”
books which do not accept the Warren Commission and attempt to promote
some particular theory of the crime based on (necessarily) incomplete
evidence. Examples of these include a book on Hoover himself as suspect,
one on the Secret Service having an accident with automatic weapons,
and a number on various CIA figures such as Howard Hunt.
Some of these
“theory” books suggest almost paranoid fantasies and have
given Kennedy assassination books a bad name in general, making easy
targets for those wishing to support the Warren Commission. But we must
not conflate honest skepticism and lack of belief in the Warren Commission
with the theories of people who promote specific concepts of how things
were done. This is a trick, conflating honest doubt with unsubstantiated
or far-out theories, used over and over again by those promoting our
second category of Kennedy assassination books.
The second
category includes books that work towards showing the Warren Commission
was right, at least in its major conclusions, attempting to restate
old material in new words, neglecting to tell readers clearly that they
have no new evidence of any great significance with which to work their
glib magic. There is an equally long series of these with some of the
notable ones along the way being Edward Epstein, Gerald Posner, and,
very recently, Vincent Buglosi.
In general,
if you go back to examine press reviews at the time of the release of
each of these books, you will find a large consensus buzz in the mainstream
press about how we finally have the case resolved. That very statement
has been made time and time again. This was almost embarrassingly true
of Gerald Posner’s book some years ago, a book that added nothing
of consequence to our understanding of the crime but used aggressive
new language to restate old stuff. It is now being said of Vincent Bugliosi.
People impressed
by big fat books will be impressed by Vincent Bugliosi’s recent
book on the Kennedy assassination, Reclaiming History, but in a sense
its very size is a judgment against it. It is no great feat for an experienced
court prosecutor to churn out a voluminous document. They do it all
the time in their court briefs, taking pages of legalese to say what
should take paragraphs of good, clear English.
It is fitting
in more than one way that Bugliosi is a prosecutor, for his book is
a prosecutor's brief, just a fatter one than the ones produced by Bugliosi's
predecessors.
But size here serves another purpose, what I would call intimidation.
How could you possibly argue with this massive pile (1,600 pages) of
evidence and argument? The truth is that it is not hard at all to argue
with it.
Bugliosi
follows his predecessors who used pretty much the same evidence to reach
the same conclusions which any independent-minded student of the assassination
understands is impossible, that is, that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted
alone. Bugliosi had no new evidence of any significance with which to
work. He simply looks at the same old stuff ad nauseam, coming up here
and there with prosecution tricks to make old stuff seem fresh or different.
But a key
fact of the assassination is that the existing evidence is not adequate
to convict anyone, and certainly not Oswald. There is, of course, other
evidence in existence which has never been released. The CIA and the
FBI have files they have never opened.
We know this
from many bits of evidence, including references in documents we do
have and from situations about which we can positively conclude evidence
must exist by the nature of things. A good example of the last is the
CIA surveillance photos and recordings of Oswald, or someone pretending
to be Oswald, in Mexico City. An obviously incorrect photo was released
and the claim was made recordings were erased.
Oswald's
connections with the FBI have never been satisfactorily examined. There
are many circumstances suggesting his being a paid informant for the
FBI, especially during his time in New Orleans. A letter Oswald wrote
to a Dallas agent just before the assassination was deliberately and
recklessly destroyed by order of the office's senior agent immediately
after the assassination with no reasonable explanation.
Oswald had
no motive for killing Kennedy, having expressed admiration for the President.
Bugliosi cannot get around this fact, only pursuing the typical path
of all his forerunners in attacking Oswald's character. There has been
another series of books over the years, pretending to be biographies
of Oswald but only serving to attack his character, giving assassination
writers material to cite. These include works by writers who clearly
had CIA connections: notably Priscilla Johnson, someone all students
of the assassination knows was conveniently in Moscow when Oswald was
there, and the late Norman Mailer, a man who could not have written
his own big, fat book on the CIA without agency cooperation.
Oswald's
being promptly assassinated himself by Jack Ruby, a man associated with
the murky world of anti-Castro violence, someone whose past included
gun-running to Cuba and enforcer-violence in the Chicago mafia, is a
gigantic fact that sticks in the throat of any author. It has never
been explained satisfactorily and is not by Bugliosi.
One trouble
with all such books is that we have every two decades a new generation
of people, most of whom do not know enough about the case to begin to
argue with such an exposition. One cannot help but believe that those
who prompt the periodic publication of these books have just this fact
in mind. Posner is old, stale, and forgotten. This generation gets Bugliosi.
We must always
remember Bertrand Russell's profound, unanswered question after he had
reviewed an advanced copy of the Warren Report: "If, as we are
told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?"
Russell's question goes to the heart of the matter, as you would expect
from one of the greatest mathematical minds of the 20th century. It
has never been answered, and certainly not by Bugliosi.
It must be
at least somewhat embarrassing for Bugliosi that Italian authorities
recently, near the release of his book, conducted a series of tests
with Oswald's ridiculous choice of weapons, a 1940 Mannlicher-Carcano,
one of the last rifles in the world a determined assassin would choose.
Italian Army sharpshooters could not come close to Oswald's supposed
feat of loading the crude bolt-action rifle and firing it three times,
let alone hitting anything while doing so.
Moreover,
in other tests conducted by the Italian Army using animal parts, it
was shown impossible for a bullet to emerge from Kennedy virtually intact
as the Warren Commission claimed "the magic bullet" did. One
thinks of the lost opportunity in 1993 to discover something new when
permission was refused by the widow of the dead John Connally to extract
known bullet fragments from his wrist, fragments supposedly from “the
magic bullet.” The evidence was buried, literally.
Of course,
when we limit ourselves to three times loading and shooting for the
rifle, we are already playing the Warren Commission's own game. There
were in fact at least four shots as a closely-analyzed recording clearly
showed. Recent analysis at Texas A&M University showed that the
ballistics evidence used to rule out a second gunman later had been
misinterpreted.
The Kennedy
assassination and its inadequate investigation and secrecy mark an important
turning point in modern American history. Elections are still held,
and more groups of people can vote today than over most of the country’s
not particularly democratic history, but government in the dark world
of international affairs behaves often as though there were no electorate
to which it is responsible. This seems a paradox, but if you think about
it, you will see its truth.
You don’t
have to be an obsessive, conspiracy-minded person to be concerned about
the state of affairs in America. Have Americans been told the truth
about the CIA’s great failures leading up to 9/11? Have they been
told about the abuse of the CIA leading up to the Iraqi invasion, including
what really happened in the Plame affair? Have Americans been told the
truth about 9/11 itself, including the virtual certainty that the fourth
flight over Pennsylvania was shot down by the military? Have Americans
been told the simple truth about the invasion of Iraq? Have all the
lies that were told, including rubbish about terror and weapons of mass
destruction, been corrected? Have they learned how many Iraqis their
government has killed and crippled?
No, not at
all, not any more than they have been told who killed Kennedy and why.
So how is
this great democracy different in the dark business of international
affairs compared to the autocrats with whom it so often allies itself?
Not at all.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.