Can We Agree?

[Jim Hargrove]

[Albert Doyle]

The evidence is more than clear.


I've always posted that we have enough evidence to act on a Constitutional basis and right.

[Jim Hargrove]

The evidence is more than clear.


I've always posted that we have enough evidence to act on a Constitutional basis and right.

I agree, Albert.... Thank you!!!

[R.K. Locke]

I disagree on a number of levels.

[Magda Hassan]

I disagree on a number of levels.

Would you like to elaborate RK?

[Drew Phipps]

I disagree with the word "clearly," and also with the idea that the perpetrators were the whole intelligence community or the whole MIC (or some representative sample thereof). I don't disagree with the idea that persons from those entities were involved.

[Jim Hargrove]

It always seemed clear to me.


How can a government say a guy is a "Lone Nut," with no particular ties to anyone, and then feel compelled to classify as "secret" or "top secret" more than a hundred thousand pages of documents potentially referring to him?


How can someone who allegedly served in a U-2 radar installation "defect" to the U.S.S.R., tell our guy in Moscow he's going to tell the Russkies everything he knows, return home without punishment, and then, just a few years later, be given permission to defect again?


The cover story is preposterous, and smacks of intel operations.


When I talk with normal people about this, I'm surprised how many say something like, "Oh, that obviously was a government hit."

[Lauren Johnson]

It always seemed clear to me.


How can a government say a guy is a "Lone Nut," with no particular ties to anyone, and then feel compelled to classify as "secret" or "top secret" more than a hundred thousand pages of documents potentially referring to him?


How can someone who allegedly served in a U-2 radar installation "defect" to the U.S.S.R., tell our guy in Moscow he's going to tell the Russkies everything he knows, return home without punishment, and then, just a few years later, be given permission to defect again?


The cover story is preposterous, and smacks of intel operations.


When I talk with normal people about this, I'm surprised how many say something like, "Oh, that obviously was a government hit."

Jim, your exact question has been addressed extensively here at DPF. In fact, it has to do with why Deep Politics Forum is named as such. When I get a chance I will dig up some of this discussion and maybe it will shed some light. But briefly, the terms "the government," "the CIA," "the military/industrial complex," and so forth are in themselves very problematic.

I think the best analytical tool for working with this issue, although it was used endlessly to beat people over the head, was the Evica/Drago Model. Some liked it and some did not, but it helped me to appreciate the complexity of the JFK murder.

At any rate, your question certainly deserves another airing.

[Albert Doyle]

In my mind there are some people like Drago that, knowingly or not, perpetuate a want to chase finer definitions as an unconscious process in order to avoid the ugly necessity of actually having to do something. This isn't to say the pursuit of those finer distinctions isn't valid and doesn't produce some very good information that further clarifies the assassination. Drago in my mind is a good example of going too far on this particular sophistry and trying to limit it to this avenue and this avenue alone.


When it comes to the greater meaning of the assassination there's no doubt there's serious actionable evidence that elements of the US government were directly involved in the motives for the assassination, planning, setting-up of Oswald as a lone nut patsy at the covert level, and the cover-up that was consciously directed by either the actors or those who acted in accordance to their agenda, politics, and interests.


At this point if I were asked to weigh which was worse, potentially risking making a mistake about which exact government members were involved and precisely how, or forfeiting necessary action that does right and sets justice to this horrible violation of the sanctity of our nation and democracy by spending more time in detail, I think the moral call is clear and shouldn't be clouded by those who divert to the less important aspects of the greater moral need. I see some say we are being induced to argue forever yet then call for further elucidation when it comes to the exact definition instead of doing what obviously needs to be done. It is foolish to wait for the murderer's permission to do justice...

[Lauren Johnson]

In my mind there are some people like Drago that, knowingly or not, perpetuate a want to chase finer definitions as an unconscious process in order to avoid the ugly necessity of actually having to do something.

Actually Albert I disagree. I think distinguishing Sponsors from Facilitators from Mechanics was very useful. If the the perps are labeled such as "the CIA did it" then one misses other dimensions that are vital. As much as Charlie beat people over the head with his theory, it did point to supra-national powers and persons who had larger motives for the killing of JFK.

I would argue that the same supra-national powers are still running the show as in 9/11 etc.