Some Thoughts on Lee Harvey Oswald
Yes, he’s been on my mind. Recently, I’ve read up a little on the JFK conspiracy theories. How and why did that happen? Actually because I’ve been reading and researching Roger Stone-not to say investigating Roger Stone.
I hope to be investigating Roger Stone. But first the votes of my NY 2 district have to take a chance on new blood. Maybe 13 terms is enough for Peter King? Lately King has done nothing but support a terrible healthcare bill and stand in the way-along with Devin Nunes-of a real investigation into Trump-Russia.
If you’re interested in supporting my campaign please donate.
There is nothing more important in getting answers to Trump-Russia collusion than a Democratic House in 2019. Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House. But also the Comey letter.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.
Anyway, read a several of Roger Stone’s books-his Nixon book, the book in 2016, and a JFK conspiracy theory book. Stone claims LBJ killed JFK.
For some reason there have been a lot of JFK books lately to accuse poor LBJ. Stone’s partner in Nixonian dirty tricks, Jerome Corsi, also has a JFK conspiracy book.
Anyway, that might seem a diversion or a lesser point regarding Stone. Ok, so he also wrote a book accusing LBJ of killing JFK. But so what? Isn’t that just a digression? My feeling was no. Stone-and others on the Right, including Alex Jones-have become obsessive about the JFK assassination which is surprising, Historically this has been a focus of the Left.
So why is the Right suddenly so interested in who killed some Great Liberal Democrat Hope? Keep in mind Roger Stone’s dirty tricks speciality:
“According to journalist Marc Ames, a longtime Stone-watcher, the mainstays of the Trump-Stone alliance are three:
- Roger Stone’s dirty tricks specialty is manipulating vote fractures, and weaponizing anti-establishment politics to serve the electoral needs of mainstream Republican candidates.
- Roger Stone and Donald Trump have been working together since the mid-1980s, mostly on sleazy campaigns to help Trump’s casino business, but also in politics.
- Roger Stone and Donald Trump worked together in at least two major “black bag” operations manipulating anti-establishment politics to help the mainstream Republican presidential candidate.
So my theory is, Stone’s interest in writing a book about LBJ killing JFK is basically 1. After all, how better to divide liberals than claiming LBJ killed JFK?
Anyway, after reading Stone’s hit job on LBJ, I figured I should read at least a little from more reputable scholars on the JFK assassination. So I read Anthony Summers book.
I also read a primer on JFK assassination theory by Jacob M. Carter Before History Dies.
It’s a helpful little book in that it interviews many different JFK assassination authors with different theories.
And what I started to see is JFK assassination research is very interesting in its own right.
Here’s my thinking on the assassination at this point.
1. As Summers says, the physical and forensic evidence is not going to change anyone’s mind either way. If you believe it was Lone Nut, then you probably think the physical evidence tying Oswald to the murder weapon, etc, is pretty compelling.
On the other hand if you believe there was a larger conspiracy, you’ll point out Oswald’s co-worker who said she saw him on the first floor cafeteria at 12:15-which wouldn’t give him enough time to be upstairs on the fifth floor behind the rifle.
2. The Lone Assassin theory stands up pretty well focusing just on the physical evidence. Though it’s not overwhelmingly conclusive.
3. However, the problem is that for us to really feel closure we need to understand the motive. As even the Warren Commission understood, the motive is not all that compelling: Oswald killed JFK because he was a social misfit who wanted revenge on the society that rejected him and to be important in history.
4. Oswald is actually a very interesting character in his own right in terms of what really motivated him. It comes down to this: Was he really the True Believer Marxist who at 16 was lecturing classmates that Marxism was the true friend of the working man? Or was this all a little whipped up? Was it somehow a ruse?
A lot of Oswald’s antics seem whipped up, so over the top that you can’t help but wonder if he wasn’t some sort of agent provocateur. We’re to believe that a 16 year old boy in 1957 just a couple years after Joe McCarthy wants the whole world to know that he’s a Marxist in love with Castro and all things Russian?
There is when you read about it, this ambiguity. Did he really mean all this or was he an agent provocateur? How many 16 year old boys in 1957 America were on the one hand committed dogmatic Marxists, and on the other hand they lied to get into the US Marines? Something doesn’t add up.
Off the bat, it seems to me that either Oswald was a Marxist going undercover at the Army-a sort of Marxist spy-or he was a US Marine pretending to be a convinced Marxist.
Then you have the seeming lackadaisical attitude of the Army to him twice doing things that could have gotten him thrown out of the army and then in 1958 becoming a blatant Russophile, always loudly, studying how to speak Russia in public. Yet he seemed to have generated no suspicion.
Then he walked into a US embassy in the Soviet Union and announced he was renouncing his US citizenship and was going to use what he had learned in the army to help the Soviets. Again, the US didn’t react.
Then he spends a few years in the USSR, gets a Russian wife. The KGB too after Oswald was dead claimed that they had little contacts with him while he was there.
They didn’t try to learn what he knew, allegedly. Then he suddenly wants to go back to the US as mysteriously as he wanted to go to the USSR. Again, this seems to have generated little concern in the US from the intel agencies.
Then he comes back, has his final trip to Mexico City-again attracting no real notice-then allegedly kills JFK all by himself.
It’s all certainly very curious.
5. What seems clear to me is that whether or not there was any conspiracy theory that anyone from the US intel agencies or any other powers that be knew about before the murder, after it happened, there was the decision to make this neat and clean.
Those who defend the Warren Commission point out how much work they did. Sure, but all towards a predetermined outcome: it was Oswald and he acted alone. It was also convenient that Oswald was dead, to be sure. Which further increases suspicion.
But LBJ and the rest of the leaders at the time-including RFK-were legitimately worried that the country couldn’t stand it if there was ambiguity. So the Warren Commission felt it had to have a very neat and clean explanation with no loose ends.
RFK gave his full support to it. The worry was that if there was any door left open for a larger conspiracy it could lead to civil war, etc. LBJ apparently believed Castro was behind it and that if this came out there would be WWIII with nuclear weapons.
But in some sense that was a ‘cover up’ at least to the extent that it was not a real investigation that has to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
And while I think the reasons that LBJ, RFK, Gerald Ford, etc, may have had for giving the public a neat and tidy explanation was well motivated, it may also have backfired. As Jacob Carter points out, the public never felt they were given the whole truth about JFK and this was the start of our modern cynicism about government.
That’s why, in our own time, we must get to the bottom not just of Trump-Russia, but Comeygate.
The last thing we need is further erosion in public trust towards out government. But that is clearly where we’re headed unless we get real answers on both.
P.S. As we saw in my poll out last week, the long awaited poll results are in, and right now I’m just 11 points down vs. Peter King (GOP-NY-District 2). And the voters don’t even know who I am yet.
There is nothing more important in getting answers to Trump-Russia collusion than a Democratic House in 2019. Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will