Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Charles Drago]

I do not want to get in the way of what should be a most interesting exchange between Morgan Reynolds and Charles Drago, especially since I have already done what I can to explain that Charles' position suffers from the straw man by adopting an exaggerated conception of what it would take to qualify as the "mastermind" of JFK's assassination.

Wrong. It is Nelson who "exaggerates" LBJ's role, and I will not let him off that hook -- as desperately as he squirms.

As I've previously posted:

Phillip F. Nelson, author of LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, unmistakably confirms his acceptance of [the Merriam Webster definition of "mastermind"] as it applies to LBJ when he writes:

"But it was all according to the grand play -- a masterpiece of design and execution -- which had been developed over a period of nearly four years by the most brilliant, and evil, political force the country had ever seen: Lyndon Baines ('Bull') Johnson[.]" [emphasis in original] [p. 576]

Then there's this:

"More than any other person, [LBJ] had the means, motive, and opportunity to have been the singular key conspirator-instigator and the mastermind of the operation." [emphasis added] [p. 668]

These clear, unambiguous, wholly-at-variance-with-the-facts statements by Nelson render inoperative the frantic efforts by his champion, Jim Fetzer, and others to replace "mastermind" with what they beg us to believe is the synonymous "pivotal player."

MW defines "pivotal" as "vitally important."

I submit that anyone who accepts "mastermind" and "pivotal" as being synonymous within the larger context of JFK assassination roles attributed to LBJ is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

No one had a larger role.

Purely your opinion -- unless, of course, you are willing to offer in detail the roles played by Messrs. A. Dulles, Angleton, and Phillips -- for starters. Anything less than a detailed comparison of roles will reduce yours to an argument from (false) authority.

No one was in a stronger position of power--for a multiplicity of reasons--at that historical moment in time than was Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Read Madeleine and Billy Sol but don't forget the historians. LBJ was a master of power.

Pure, unadulterated opinion unsupported by deep political analysis. LBJ cannot be both a cornered, soon-to-be felon and a "master of power." Prove to me that LBJ could speak, and the deep political state would obey his every order. Show me that the so-called power of the presidency is something more than an illusion. If need be, ask JFK and RMN to support your argument.

And again, I reject the authority of Brown and Estes for numerous, powerful reasons. Trot them out all you'd like; the facts remain.

Lyndon was the one who stood to gain the most and who had the least to lose.

Pure, unadulterated opinion. Define your terms. Quantify "more to lose." Show us how LBJ had "more to lose" than Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante -- among other False Sponsors with motive.

He had his own hitman!

So was Mac Wallace a triggerman in DP? Or was his presence -- real or fabricated -- meant to help implicate and thus control LBJ as a False Sponsor.

So claiming that the key to [disinformation] is "the selective use of verifiable fact" is incorrect.

Wrong again, Jim. Take E. Howard Hunt's phony "confession" -- which you do. Almost every component of it, it may be strongly argued, is grounded in fact. The disinformation comes with the implication that Hunt's story is complete.

Demonizing Saddam Hussein was in itself an act of disinformation, where, in that case, the history of his conduct of the affairs of the nation were subject to exaggeration. We thought we could pin the existence of WMDs on him because we had sold them to him, but Saddam had skillfully disposed of them in anticipation of that being used against him, as UN inspectors would subsequently confirm.

Basic truth underpinning lies and distortions. You make my point for me.

While it is the case that the best sources of disinformation offer a proportion of truth and fiction on the order of 80/20, the parallel with lying is quite appropriate. I would even go so far as to suggest that these continued attacks on Seymour Hersh are an example, since he has done so much to expose malfeasance at home and abroad. Attacking him is wrong.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that a disinformation formula existed. But thanks again for making my point. As for the Hersh attacks: Are they morally wrong? Factually wrong? Or is Hersh the perfect laboratory example of the disinformationalist -- writing brilliant, courageous, truthful investigative pieces that set up his grand Dark Side disinformation?

I am still astounded that, when well-placed sources from Jack Ruby to Evelyn Lincoln finger LBJ as the pivotal player--where Ruby said the assassination would not have taken place had someone else been the Vice President--and Phil Nelson has given us such a superb study of his warped character and political genius, this is still supposed to be a debatable issue! I think Morgan has it just about right.

Here we go again with "pivotal" v. "mastermind." I do not accept the "credentials" of Ruby or Lincoln as experts in deep political structures in general and the JFK plot in particular. I submit to you my interpretation of Ruby's quote: The assassination would not have taken place AS IT DID had a LESS CONTROLLABLE, CORRUPT, VULNERABLE VICE PRESIDENT been in office.

Morgan has it quite wrong, as does your "brilliant student" Robert "JFK Was a Sex Freak" Morrow.

As do you.