14-01-2011, 10:16 PM
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:I've read this thread, Philip F. Nelson's book and Barr McClellan's, trying to discover if LBJ is the key to the JFK assassination conspiracy. How good is the case against LBJ? Nelson makes a remarkably compelling case, though he errs badly on Lee Harvey Oswald I believe. But put that aside for now, Nelson makes a far more powerful and systematic case than McClellan made in 2003. McClellan adds to our knowledge about Ed Clark, LBJ's "fixer" power broker, thereby filling in a lot of the Texas picture with his insider knowledge, but it is weak on the national connections that were necessary and proven to have pulled off the assassination and cover it up. In the best tradition of science, Nelson followed the stimulating lead of McClellan and other accusers of LBJ and assembled a strong case with evidence like Connally (almost certainly duped) and LBJ staffers manipulating the motorcade and promoting a Secret Service stand down.
The vice president should always be the highest ranked suspect in a presidential assassination based on motive alone. Remember Shakespeare's favorite material? And LBJ had motive in spades: his lifetime ambition was to become president, last chance, he was about to go down in the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals, and likely more of his crimes would be "outed," knew he was off the ticket in 1964, hated the Kennedys, etc., etc. None of these facts directly undermine propositions about the shadow government, powers-that-be, etc., but individuals in direct positions of government power matter big-time, not just those with indirect power; inside vs. outside.
How about ruthlessness? No question there, we have overwhelming evidence of insatiable greed for power and money (sex too of course) pursued by any and all means.
Skill in personal manipulation? Unexcelled.
Intensity? Oh yes.
Connections? Unexcelled: Congress, Executive, national security state, Big Oil, even eastern finance and the judiciary. Hard to top LBJ.
What about LBJ's intelligence? That is a key in this whole acrimonious debate. I say, yes, LBJ was intelligent enough to be the mastermind, if we stick with Nelson's strong subtitle. It's a mistake to dismiss someone as "dumb" because he never read a book, cannot debate abstract ideas or solve complex problems. Look at LBJ's body of work: born in humble circumstance, this psychopath rose to the top by cunning, lies and murder. Has anyone ever advanced more rapidly in the U.S. Senate or dominated it like LBJ did? Or accumulated a bigger personal fortune via corruption as an elected federal official? I can't name one. In any event, his "accomplishments" are gargantuan.
The exact meaning of intelligence is still debated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
but LBJ was incredibly "street smart," a kind of perverse genius. He was the kind of guy who could be dropped at the door of the college in San Marcos, as Nelson describes, or Congress or any other organization and quickly figure out right away who to "zoom" or who to steamroll and get to the top in pretty rapid order. No, LBJ wouldn't be the mastermind in the sense of drawing up a complex plan and executing all or most of its details, but he would be smart enough to enlist and persuade the right "experts" in "taking out the trash," as hired killers express it. If it needed proving, LBJ knew people and could go for the jugular, as Nelson proves. And given all we know about the background, e.g., JFK and the Unspeakable, the VP had a nearly perfect recruiting environment to work in (plot). Oh, could someone like Allen Dulles first mention the whole idea in coded language to LBJ, and thereby be the initiator? Possible, but far more likely LBJ, I'd say.
LBJ was intelligent in the sense of this definition of intelligence:
Sternberg & Salter Goal-directed adaptive behavior.[9] Reuven Feuerstein The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability describes intelligence as "the unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation."[10]
LBJ was "goal directed" and "adaptive." But given all the heat over the term "mastermind," I'd say "catalyst" might be easier to defend with the same powerful evidence Nelson assembled and stimulate less heat and obfuscation. Nelson relies on the work by hundreds of research predecessors and with gracious acknowledgement. That is admirable, yet he takes incredible "incoming." How about LBJ as the "sine qua non," or did Jack Ruby use those exact words!? A rose by any other name...won't help at this stage, I guess. Oh my.
LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK:
1) http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/morrow-r1.1.1.html
2) http://www.infowars.com/the-lbj-cia-assa...on-of-jfk/
Also, send me an email to Morrow321@aol.com and I will send you my "LBJ and CIA killed JFK" file. LOTS of good info in it.