The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified?

[Charles Drago]

[quote=Jim DiEugenio]

But I submit that at the Sponsor level there could be found perception of long-term value in the maintenance of a communist "threat" just 90 miles away. Castro was more valuable alive than dead. For wasn't the whole point of Cold War dramaturgy -- on both sides of the Iron Curtain -- to maximize power and profit by maintaining and controlling hostilities?

Thank you for an thought provoking discussion. In trying to put myself back in time I see two main things (probably more) going on... who did / was behind the hit on JFK... and how does this manifest in the official response? And who was providing the advice on the entire process for these two main things?

Would it even occur to LBJ the big cheese... that the hit could have been a coup by the pentagon/CIA nexus? If so what could be possibly do? My guess is that the POTUS under those circumstances would tread very lightly... and if he bit his toungue and observed the advisers he might get an inkling of who was behind it. Of course know who was behind it would determine the response and everyone quickly realized that the lone nut would be the least worst outcome. If it was Cuba, USSR an attack Iraq response was in the offing but it would attack USSR. Was there evidence of that to go that radical? The CIA and friends probably saw this as too radical an outcome and conceivably the end game... They would argue to cool it so their franchise would go on and the generals would be able to get what they wanted if they had to keep their nukes in their holsters they could have their little proxy war in SE Asia.

As creepy as LBJ was it seemed that all he could do is get to sit in the oval office if he behaved and get his corrupt ways swept under the rug... The nation would not stand for one assassination and an impeachment of the VP now pres as a crook and murderer. Johnson was trapped even if he did suspect a coup. He'd also have a hard time of convincing the world that he was not part of it.

To make sure that the coup was feared they offed RFK, MLK and anyone who had visions of anything other than the USA as empire with a unleashed military MIC to roam the world.

What would have happened if the coup possibility has surfaced? If it had any legs at all it might have led to the coup taking over a la South America... marshal music and no need to the fig leaf democracy that they used for cover for the last 50 years. But would America go fascist without some push-back? Boiling frogs and all manner of distraction and PR and slowly legally evolving into a lawless neo-fascist nation would produce a much cleaner and better outcome.

The Warren report was suppose to fool everyone. It didn't. But many were and many seemed to realize that it didn't make sense but the real conspiracy was even more frightening that the lone nut and people settled into domestic tranquility and loss of innocence... and off they went to SE Asia with dreams of a strong nation being a safe one... an easy sell.

But it's hard to keep a lid on lies... they have short legs and don't get far. And they haven't. People know they were lied to... are being lied to all the time and are helpless to do a thing about it. We waited 50 yrs to get a look at the evidence... I'm willing to bet... we don't see it or it's gone... There is nothing that has the force... or whatever it would take to reveal the truth and effect justice. The MIC, CIA are not going away. And they have all the guns. They run the show.

Not only am I not blocking Orling; I am reposting his gibberish as an example of what Guido Preparata describes below:

The social sciences . . . suffer when fashionable nonsense and word games displace
the critical and rigorous analysis of social realities. Postmodernism has three
principal negative effects: a waste of time in the human sciences, a cultural confusion
that favors obscurantism, and a weakening of the political left . . . No research
[ . . . ] can progress on a basis that is both conceptually confused and radically
detached from empirical evidence [ . . . ]. What is worse [ . . . ] is the adverse effect
that abandoning clear thinking and clear writing has on teaching and culture.
Students learn to repeat and to embellish discourses that they only barely understand.
They can even, if they are lucky, make an academic career out of it by
becoming expert in the manipulation of an erudite jargon.