22-04-2014, 12:51 AM
All of the above may be true, but there is also the fact that the '60s was the period of "liberal" dominance in the Washington power structure, and none of them wanted to mess than up.
Eric Norden in 1966 wrote a pretty devastating editorial in The Realist that describes such liberals:
http://www.ep.tc/realist/a-b-set/09.html
"Liberals, however, do not even possess the one virtue of most fanatics: loyalty. Libs pursue their vendettas with vicious vigor, but they are equally prepared to jettison the ostensible object of their devotion when the transcendent interests of the power structure are threatened, as in the case of the Kennedy assassination. The grief of the libs at the loss of their young champion did not extend to a dedication to uncover the truth about his death; as soon as the indicators pointed, not to a lone assassin, but a well-organized conspiracy within agencies of the federal government, including the FBI and the CIA, the liberals looked the other way. JFK could be mourned, but not avenged; too many apple-carts would be upset in the process. At the upper-level of the Liberal Establishment there was a desperate effort, conscious and cynical, to cover up all traces of conspiracy and reassure the American people that all was still for the best in the best of all possible worlds…To even entertain the suspicion that elements of this most wondrous of all governments, whether in the intelligence networks or the political police, could band together to liquidate the presiding High Brahmin, and then coolly cover up their deeds, would shake the average liberal's neat and soothing assumptions about his world to their very roots. Such things could and do happen with depressing regularity in many other countries but never, never, of course, in America. Thus, those who challenged the Establishment's version of events were extremists' with one or another different axes to grind, perhaps paranoid and at the very least victims of a conspiratorial view of history.' History is not, of course, a succession of conspiracies; what liberals conveniently forgot was that there are conspiracies in history. The world, much less America, is not the tidy design of the League of Women Voters; it can happen here. But the blood of John Kennedy was a small price to pay for the preservation of liberal delusions."
Eric Norden in 1966 wrote a pretty devastating editorial in The Realist that describes such liberals:
http://www.ep.tc/realist/a-b-set/09.html
"Liberals, however, do not even possess the one virtue of most fanatics: loyalty. Libs pursue their vendettas with vicious vigor, but they are equally prepared to jettison the ostensible object of their devotion when the transcendent interests of the power structure are threatened, as in the case of the Kennedy assassination. The grief of the libs at the loss of their young champion did not extend to a dedication to uncover the truth about his death; as soon as the indicators pointed, not to a lone assassin, but a well-organized conspiracy within agencies of the federal government, including the FBI and the CIA, the liberals looked the other way. JFK could be mourned, but not avenged; too many apple-carts would be upset in the process. At the upper-level of the Liberal Establishment there was a desperate effort, conscious and cynical, to cover up all traces of conspiracy and reassure the American people that all was still for the best in the best of all possible worlds…To even entertain the suspicion that elements of this most wondrous of all governments, whether in the intelligence networks or the political police, could band together to liquidate the presiding High Brahmin, and then coolly cover up their deeds, would shake the average liberal's neat and soothing assumptions about his world to their very roots. Such things could and do happen with depressing regularity in many other countries but never, never, of course, in America. Thus, those who challenged the Establishment's version of events were extremists' with one or another different axes to grind, perhaps paranoid and at the very least victims of a conspiratorial view of history.' History is not, of course, a succession of conspiracies; what liberals conveniently forgot was that there are conspiracies in history. The world, much less America, is not the tidy design of the League of Women Voters; it can happen here. But the blood of John Kennedy was a small price to pay for the preservation of liberal delusions."