Lifton on DiEugenio on JFK offering the Vice Presidential nomination to LBJ . . .

[James H. Fetzer]

And have you ever listened to the conversation between J. Edgar and Lyndon where Edgar had a hard time staying on the script? There were several absurdities in that one. He would later allow that he never believed that Oswald did it on his own. If you take all of this at face value, Jim, you will never begin to understand LBJ. By now, I would have thought you had a better handle on him. They had to cut off independent investigations that were popping up all over the place. Waggoner Carr had already found that Lee Oswald was working as an informant for the FBI, that he had informant number 179, and that he was being paid $200 a month right up to the time of the assassination. Has the thought ever occurred even to you that there must be some reason why the government has never produced his W-2 forms? Do you think the Warren Commission could not have obtained income tax returns for the alleged assassin of the president?

Lyndon strong armed Earl Warren into serving in a position where he had no business at all. Even you leave it unclear whether the idea is alleged to have originated with Rostow or with Alsop. But your claim that anyone "browbeat" LBJ into creating the commission is more than faintly absurd. Lyndon could browbeat anyone he wanted, but no one could have browbeaten him. By having someone else "suggest" the idea, it looked less as though it was under White House control. And look at the role players he chose. Not one was a JFK partisan. A more interesting question you might want to pursue is the obscure legal status of a presidential commission. It is ADVISORY TO THE PRESIDENT, right? So it LOOKS LIKE A BIG DEAL but its actual legal standing appears to be completely opaque. That might be a useful investment of your time and effort.

[quote=James H. Fetzer]This is a pretty strange post, even for Jim DiEugenio. I make the indisputable point that, in the study of historical events, we are attempting to determine the how and why--as well as the who and the what, of course--they actually occurred in their particularity as unique incidents in history. So I am agreeing with Charles that Lyndon was the pivotal player without whom it would not have occurred [B]as it actually did occur!I just don't understand what there is to get excited about.

There are infinitely many ways an historical event MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT had various conditions been different in the past. You might not have gone to see "True Grit" yesterday had a call come from a close friend just as you were about to depart for the theater. Reasoning about coulda/woulda/shouldas if x were the case can be valuable in contemplating alternatives and the importance of events. But our aim remains to discover what actually did happen, not what might have.

[/B]

Its only strange if you miss the point, which you do--quite often.

The WC cover up was not reliant on LBJ. It was executed by McCLoy, Ford, and Dulles. Anyone can see that who studies the inner workings, which you have not to any fine degree.

Now one can argue, well LBJ did appoint them right?

Here is the problem with that: It was not his idea to do the WC at all. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it.

Does that bite size version make it easier to understand?