18-06-2012, 01:23 AM
Albert Doyle Wrote:I read those reviews too. Why is it that the first qualification of leaders like Bill Clinton is their willingness to tolerate government evils? Johnson's promotion of civil rights was the permanent government's reward to America for tolerating their fascist coup and nothing more. The political instability it would cause, like VietNam, would be enough to throw the American public off their feet as far as doing justice in the matter of JFK.
I completely agree with the notion that "civil rights" was the bone thrown to the liberal left which they swallowed whole, and which served to anesthetize that entire segment of the body politic to the notion that Kennedy's assassination was anything more than the "Oswald did it" scenario.
Certain insiders were given what I call the "insider's cover story" (which actually became public in early March, 1967): "Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got him first".
And then, of course, there was the "World War 3" story which was used, as needed (e.g., to scare the wits out of Warren et al).
So these are three of the primary tools (of persuasion) that were in LBJ "political toolbox."
To repeat:
(1) LBJ was a major promoter of civil rights (in the tradition of FDR, who was, in fact, one of his heroes)
I personally happen to think LBJ was sincere in this, but that is largely irrelevant.
He was still involved in the murder of his predecessor, regardless of what figleaf was used to hide his involvement.
It does not change the fact that 58,000 Americans died in Asia,not to mention over 1 million Asians dead or seriously injured which occurred when, finally, in the Spring of 1965 (and beyond) the conflict in SE Asia was deliberately escalated to the fourth largest war in American history, which was clearly not Kennedy's intent.
(2) LBJ was able to hint darkly of two ominous underlying truths; either that:
(a) Oswald's presence in Mexico City --seven weeks before--was evidence he was a Castro agent etc.
(a line which was completely believed, and subsequently promoted, by Al Haig and Califano, for example)
(b) Castro had pre-empted (i.e., he acted in self-defense).
"Kennedy was trying to kill Castro, and so. . . " (complete in 25 words or less. . e.g., "this was a backfire. ." or "this was blowback" etc)
This line was reserved strictly for insiders (and possibly even top media moguls in the NY times or the Luce organization)
It became public in the Spring of 1975, when Howard K Smith and Marianne Means each revealed how LBJ had taken them into his confidence with this one.
The basic pitch: "We can't let the world know that the President and his brother were trying to kill Castro! That would make it look like Castro acted in self-defense!" Johnson's exact words (per H K Smith: "I'll tell you something that will rock you. . Kennedy was trying to get to Castro, but Castro got to him first." -- "Johnson is Quoted on Kennedy Death", NY TImes, 6/25/76)
(c ) The "truth" had to be subordinated to something more important: i.e., preventing World War 3:
The details: "If the public knew the truth, there would be an outcry" and that would lead to unstoppable political pressure to attack Cuba; and so there's be a replay of the Cuban Missile Crisis. . etc
Documentary source; Memo, Melvin Eisenberg to file, 2/17/64, memorializing what C J Earl Warren told the staff, at the first staff meeting: "The President stated that rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went so far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson. Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives. No one could refuse to do something which might help to prevent such a possibility. The President convinced him that this was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles."
These three rationales were like different cans of paint, on a shelf, when one is redecorating a house. Working behind this assortment of smokescreens, LBJ--with Jack Valenti at his side, every step of the way, and with Dean Rusk (who then showed his "hawk" colos for all to see)--was able to implement the true agenda of the plotters: the Vietnam escalation. Specifically, dispensing with the entire Cuban agenda (which was Kennedy's focus) LBJ was able to quietly engineer the escalation of the Vietnam War which did not commence until after he won reelection in his own right (Nov 1964). Then, in the Spring of 1965 (and starting in February, 1965, a ful fourteen months after Dallas, and with an incident at Bien Hoa air base) overtly began the implementation of a reversal of what had been JFK's ("out by '65") policy. The LBJ escalation began when the tit for tat bombing of North Vietnam was escalated to the continual "bombing of the north" (called "Rolling Thunder" by the Air Force); then came sending in choppers, and then Marines to protect the choppers, and by July of 1965, the U.S. presence had grown to hundreds of thousands.
In navigating these post-assassination "political waters," LBJ (pardon the mixed metaphors) "played" various "insider constituencies" and the public like an expert violinist, in much the same way he manipulated various coalitions throughout his political career.
Its really obvious, in retrospect, how he did this. Of course the liberals loved the "Great Society," so that served to anesthetize them. Meanwhile, the true hidden agenda of Dallas was the escalation in Vietnam, and there were enough "Cold War liberals" to go along with that bull shit. As I used to say to John Newman (this was back around 1988-89, before he wrote his thesis, which became his book): "Kennedy's problem (politically) was how to disguise a withdrawal; Johnson's, how to disguise an escalation." Its really that simple.
Johnson's entire leitmotif --in the opening days and weeks--was: "Let us continue. . ." That, basically, was what he told individual JFK aides, in seeking to get them to "stay on board" for awhile; and that, basically, was the speech he delivered to the joint session of Congress about 6 days after Dallas. It was his theme song.
But he did anything but "continue" as the Washington, D.C. monument to the Vietnam War dead attests.
DSL
6/17/12; 5:30 PM PDT
Los Angeles, CA