RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Pierce writes: "It should be no surprise that, after President Kennedy was murdered in Dallas, the national security establishment's first objective was not to tell the truth to the American people about how their president was snuffed in broad daylight. It was to concoct fictions and diversions, most devoted to bureaucratic ass-covering."

President John F. Kennedy. (photo: Getty/AFP)
President John F. Kennedy. (photo: Getty/AFP)

The CIA Keeps (Accidentally) Legitimizing JFK Conspiracy Theories

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

07 October 15


Now we learn that the CIA chief at the time did all he could to bury "incendiary" information.

t is somewhat lost to history what a writhing ball of snakes the national security establishment was during the three years of John F. Kennedy's presidency, especially after the collapse of the Bay of Pigs invasion and, subsequently, Kennedy's rejection of that establishment's more bellicose proposals during the Cuban Missile Crisis. These were the days of Operation Northwoods, a proposal from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to manufacture a casus belli that would have so inflamed American public opinion as to make an invasion of Cuba inevitable. One of the possibilities suggested in the memo was blowing up John Glenn on the launching pad at Cape Canaveral. The memo is stored in the archives of the Kennedy Library in Boston. I've held it in my hand. It is an altogether remarkable government document, and it made it all the way up the policy chain to the Secretary of Defense before Robert McNamara turned it off. That's what it was like back in those days.

(Which is not to say the Kennedy brothers didn't contribute to the atmosphere in their own way, with their off-the-books attempts to rid the world of Fidel Castro.)

So it should be no surprise that, after the president was murdered in Dallas, the national security establishment's first objective was not to tell the truth to the American people about how their president was snuffed in broad daylight. It was to concoct fictions and diversions, most devoted to bureaucratic ass-covering. This brings us to Philip Shenon's report today in the magazine version of Tiger Beat On The Potomac, in which Shenon tells us of how John McCone, who was put in charge of the CIA after Kennedy fired Allen Dulles, did all he could to bury "incendiary" information where the bumbling Warren Commission couldn't find it.​

But did McCone come close to perjury all those decades ago? Did the onetime Washington outsider in fact hide agency secrets that might still rewrite the history of the assassination? Even the CIA is now willing to raise these questions. Half a century after JFK's death, in a once-secret report written in 2013 by the CIA's top in-house historian and quietly declassified last fall, the spy agency acknowledges what others were convinced of long ago: that McCone and other senior CIA officials were "complicit" in keeping "incendiary" information from the Warren Commission. According to the report by CIA historian David Robarge, McCone, who died in 1991, was at the heart of a "benign cover-up" at the spy agency, intended to keep the commission focused on "what the Agency believed at the time was the 'best truth'—that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy." The most important information that McCone withheld from the commission in its 1964 investigation, the report found, was the existence, for years, of CIA plots to assassinate Castro, some of which put the CIA in cahoots with the Mafia. Without this information, the commission never even knew to ask the question of whether Oswald had accomplices in Cuba or elsewhere who wanted Kennedy dead in retaliation for the Castro plots.

​While I have neither the time nor the patience to go down America's deepest, darkest, and most mystical rabbit hole, I should note that I always thought this would be the fallback story if the Warren Commission's fabulism ever truly fell apart – that Castro had ordered a retaliatory strike on the president and that the unsung heroes of our intelligence agencies kept the lid on it so as to prevent an overwhelming public outcry in favor of invading the island. In other words, the same complex network of operators  and interests who wanted to blow up Glenn on the launching pad, when presented with an actual casus belli, chose instead to deceive the American people in the interest of hemispheric peace. OK.

(Again, it should be noted that Robert Kennedy believed, and was haunted by, the notion that his brother's murder was blowback from the administration's attempts to kill Castro.)

What is made plain (again) by this latest revelation is that the Warren Commission's investigation was next to worthless except as an exercise in pacification through propaganda. First of all, in one of the great conflicts of interest in American history, Dulles was on the commission. Almost every important witness from inside the government either lied to investigators, or shaded the truth so deeply that it began to grow mushrooms. It's been 40 years now since the plots against Castro were revealed and, when they were, the surviving commission staffers went up the wall at having been denied this information at the time they were working the case. Comes now the CIA itself, to explain that McCone was substantially less than forthcoming with relevant information.

It's increasingly difficult to accept the notion that so flawed an investigation, honeycombed by people with agendas contrary to its stated purpose, hobbled by lying witnesses, and denied access to relevant documents and information that might have related to the motive behind the crime, somehow stumbled into the correct conclusion anyway. It's also hard to believe that, in case it all came apart suddenly, those same people with those same agendas didn't have a backup plan that covered their asses and made them look wise and noble. As I've often said, I'm an agnostic on who shot from where and why. (If you want to convince me it was Oswald, alone, then you've got to give me a believable motive, which nobody ever has.) We may never know the truth about the mechanics of the murder. But we do know there was a cover-up, and that we never were told the whole truth about the events surrounding the murder of a president. That is a crime against history that remains unsolved. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+112 # Dust 2015-10-07 12:39
I've never been much for conspiracy theories, but at the same time I remain fairly convinced that people in power will do whatever it takes to remain in power.

If these asshats were ready to murder John Glenn to justify an invasion... and the Bush administration clearly was taking a page from those early efforts at misinformation as a tool of government... then p'raps the idea that 9/11 was an inside job becomes slightly less absurd.

I know, I know - I wince at even writing that.
+84 # futhark 2015-10-07 19:41
The absurdity is the official 19-Islamic-Radi cals-Working-Un der-The-Directi on-Of-Osama-bin -Laden-Did-9/11 conspiracy hypothesis (not theory!) that is contradicted by numerous items of evidence and is in violation of certain natural laws is accepted as dogma. Of all the competing explanations for 9/11, the "Inside Job" hypothesis seems to be the most comprehensively self-consistent . I don't wince at all in embracing it. I just wince when I think how long it was before I began to doubt the official version and how the perpetrators have gone on to kill so many people and consume so many resources while bamboozling the human population of the planet with their absurd flim-flam.
0 # MsAnnaNOLA 2015-10-15 15:49
Download Beyond Misinformation by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Lays out the science of how the spontaneous demolition of the towers and Building 7 did not happen like the govt says it did.
+18 # beeyl 2015-10-09 08:50
Doubting the Warren Commission's report on JFK's assassination is not a conspiracy theory. It is the only rational reaction to an official explanation that includes – and in fact relies on – a "magic bullet" capable of pausing and turning in mid-air.
+1 # treerapper 2015-10-17 04:59
Don't wince - think of Building #7.
+111 # Buddha 2015-10-07 15:36
"As I've often said, I'm an agnostic on who shot from where and why. (If you want to convince me it was Oswald, alone, then you've got to give me a believable motive, which nobody ever has.)"

And then additionally give me a believable motive for why a mob hit-man then snuffed out Oswald before he could sing like a canary. Anybody who thinks it was just Oswald alone, with no CIA or Mob involvement, should call me...I have a bridge to sell them, cheap.
+27 # tedcloak 2015-10-07 17:36
Has anyone ever suggested that Oswald killed Officer Tippett because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that Tippett had been sent to kill him?
+16 # reiverpacific 2015-10-07 19:16
Quoting tedcloak:
Has anyone ever suggested that Oswald killed Officer Tippett because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that Tippett had been sent to kill him?

I've often wondered about the Tippet incident -and I've read deeply on this subject.
I was in Barcelona when Kennedy was murdered and even in Franco's Spain, the people looked dumfounded.
+19 # RnR 2015-10-07 23:27
there were witnesses to the Tippett shooting that testified there were 2 shooters, neither of whom was Oswald.
+4 # CL38 2015-10-08 10:45
do you have documentation .... a link?
+1 # RnR 2015-10-08 23:38
I can't remember if I read that in "Crossfire the shots that killed Kennedy" or in Jim Garrisons' book (I can't remember the name). I've read so many books on the assassination and the documentary "kenrogers" below mentions, the confession of James Files is fascinating and seems the truth to a lot of people.
+10 # RnR 2015-10-08 23:47
I also remember that "Crossfire" lists all the people surrounding the assassination that mysteriously died - now that list will sit you right up.
+111 # reiverpacific 2015-10-07 17:22
Makes you wonder why ANYBODY would want to be in power, especially if left-leaning.
I still think that the same inheritors of this paranoia got to Obama just before or after he took the so-called "Most Powerful Job on Earth".
I also worry about Bernie Sander's life if he gets even close.
These intertwined thugs and megalomaniacs have no conscience, nor sense of humanity. This illustrates fully that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
+42 # ritawalpoleague 2015-10-07 19:15
Never can I forget what my dear Irish grandma, a very 'second sighted' (full of intuition) woman, declared at time of JFK's dreadful slaughter - "He was truly killed by the evil greedy and in need of power ones."

This followed what my younger brother overheard, when working as a shoeshine boy at a race track in Homewood, Illinois. A man quietly told another man that plans were being made to kill the "Big Mc". My brother told my father what he'd heard, and asked Dad who the "Big Mc" was. Dad explained it was Pres. Kennedy, and told his son, my brother, that presidents have guards, and hopefully Kennedy would survive.

Then came the 'nightmare of the century' shooting of JFK.

+11 # vt143 2015-10-09 04:49
I love Bernie and I would be surprised that, if elected, he lasts 6 months as President if he begins to rock the boat too much.
+84 # Farafalla 2015-10-07 17:25
The funny thing about our propensity to dismiss conspiracy theories is that history is full of conspiracies. Political assassinations are almost always conspiracies.

John Wilkes Booth was conspiring with fellow Confederates to assassinate Lincoln. He made his move when he got the chance.

Shooting the Archduke Ferdinand was a conspiracy in Sarajevo

The Tea Party and the Oath Keepers are a conspiracy to overthrow the government, maybe even by force.

When seen in proper light, there is almost no corporate board room meeting that isn't also a conspiracy.

Hillary Clinton has conspired with Wasserman-Shult z to make sure she does not have to debate her way to the nomination.

So, do I think JFK was killed in a conspiracy? Of course he was. What else could it be? Oh, I forgot "lone deranged gunman"
+16 # Dust 2015-10-07 17:35
He was only a 'lone deranged gunman' because he was white. Had he been any other ethnicity, the global plots that would have been deduced would be staggering.

On the other hand, I always liked The Lone Gunmen.
+28 # ericlipps 2015-10-07 17:52
John Wilkes Booth was actually KNOWN in 1865 to have been part of a conspiracy to murder nit only President Lincoln but Vice-President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward, decapitating the Union by removing not only the President but the two most crucial men in the government after him; Johnson in particular was next in line to succeed Lincoln when he died--and did so, after the attempt to murder him as well narrowly failed.
+73 # Blackjack 2015-10-07 17:29
I was a young college student when the Warren Report came out. In so many ways I was naïve and ignorant, but I NEVER believed the Warren Commission report. It was rife with inconsistencies and was thrown together in approximately six weeks, ostensibly to soothe the broken hearts of so many who loved Camelot. The conspiracy theories still exist, but none can be proven or disproven. That might change, however, if we had actual believable information, concealed for decades.

But then we still have the 9/11 Report, similarly handled, with still no relevant, believable information. Apparently, the CIA believes the electorate has such short memories and is so stupid that they can feed us any kind of worthless trash and we'll fall for it!
+18 # Anonymot 2015-10-07 17:38
I was involved in the aftermath of the assassination and as a result have pretty much heard and seen everything on the subject, but there's a new film. I have never seen anything like it. It puts the whole question in historical context, then narrows down to new details and very precise theories based on them. It's far beyond the "crazy conspiracy theories" and clarifies and names who is involved; It has lots of surprises:

Watch it through to the end, because this is no off the top of the head idea. It's a complex dealing with a complex subject.
+1 # SBader 2015-10-09 17:17
Fascinating watch. One disappointment was that he mentioned the "titled" bankers once (discussing JP Morgan,s real share in his fortune; 17%). He says "more about the Rottweilers later" but never elaborates. Certainly the glue that stuck all those diverse groups together was not simply fellowship but hard cash from a bank. Thanks for the link.
0 # Cassandra2012 2015-10-13 17:08
?Rottweilers (dogs?)
+6 # SBader 2015-10-07 18:11
Jack ruby might have been a mobster but he was also some other things too. For example he was "Jacob Leon Rubenstein". Now you want to use an assassin to get rid of Oswald and you want a red herring, so get a mobster. This plus other facts such as nukes and astronomically rising influence leaves no doubt in my mind about the other party in the conspiracy. Fortunately most of the first party are dying out and that's why there's so much histrionics.
+46 # jbell94521 2015-10-07 18:19
It might be worth noting that on his death bed Warren confided that his agenda in chairing the commission was NOT to get to and expose the truth, but rather to bring closure as quickly as possible to the American populace. He went on to say that in retrospect he felt this had been a mistake and that it would have been far better to have genuinely sought the truth. I agree with him on that.
+37 # jbell94521 2015-10-07 18:23
It is also absolutely not credible that the Dallas Police Dept., one of the most technically competent in the world at the time, would have allowed and armed civilian, (Jack Ruby), to get within shooting range of a man they were holding for the alleged murder of a sitting U.S. President. Whatever else you may say about the various reasons why intelligent people do not accept the official govt. story, that cannot be argued with. There is simply no way that could have occurred without the participation of at least elements of the Dallas Police Department.

This brings the entire official story into serious question at the very least.
+27 # cavewoman 2015-10-07 18:27
My mother, who never believed the Warren Report or the Lone Gunman Theory and went to her grave convinced that Richard Nixon was responsible for not only JFK's death but also MLK's and RFK's, would have read this article with great satisfaction. While she may have been wrong about Nixon, she was not wrong about the Report.
0 # Radscal 2015-10-15 19:43
Nixon was likely involved in JFK's murder, but not as a mastermind.

Nixon was a protege of Prescott Bush, who got him into Congress and then the Vice Presidency. Bush had been in the banking business with Averel Harriman, and was connected to the Dulles Brothers who were Wall Street banking lawyers.

These connections have been carefully documented in a few excellent books, including Family of Secrets.
+20 # Shades of gray matter 2015-10-07 18:45
Real conspirators work very hard to propagate shabby "conspiracy theories" to "inoculate" US against actual truths, to give CTs a bad name. Clearly done after Dallas & 9-11. I suppose we should start with "who benefits," although that is not easy to know. CIA-Mob HATED JFK, wanted a public revenge killing. The Cuba-did-it crap fails the DPD-Jack Ruby test. Elements of mob and/or "national security nutcases" must have been involved. CIA is NOT your protector/frien d. The rest of the world knows that. They have been terrifyingly rogue from Day 1. Still are. They may have triggered hit on MSF/DWB hospital to get a target or create more chaos, death. DOD admits "Spec Ops" team was involved in giving the order. You know they knew it was a hospital.
+31 # Jayceecool 2015-10-07 18:55
The over-arching reality of JFK's assassination is this: we now know that he was working seriously to end the cold war as he and Khruschev had peered into the nuclear pit during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The vast machinery of the government and the military and its contractors were all pointing in the opposite direction...
+13 # psephoLibran 2015-10-07 19:08
An Australian girlfriend was at a theatre (play) in London and told me that when the announcement was made that JFK had been shot/assassinat ed, Americans in the audience cheered and clapped.
Some years later, when in Moscow, several Russians asked me about the assassination saying they did not believe it was just done by Lee Harvey Oswald.
I of course had not idea -- I was just a happy hippy travelling the world (had studied languages so enjoyed the communication), but had heard a Jewish man (Jack Ruby), probably Mafia, had then killed Oswald.
Wonder when it will unravel (didn't have time to watch the 3-hr video).
As for casus belli -- lots of examples in history: Gulf of Tonkin? 9/11?
Americans have to concentrate right now on choosing the govt they want (and try to get rid of anyone they think are pulling strings).
Good luck.
The mouse in the shadow of the elephant can do little more than tremble.
On Oct 19, will we stand still, step forward, sideways, or backwards?
+36 # CL38 2015-10-07 19:58
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters. James W. Douglas

Something to consider. IMHO, Kennedy's assassination and cover-up that protected those who did it, showed the far right that they could get away with anything....

thus began our 50 year slide into a right wing takeover.
+16 # psephoLibran 2015-10-07 21:09
shd hv added that my girlfriend and I (+ others) in London as well as in Canada were shocked at the reaction of those Americans.
As you all know, most ppl were utterly devastated.
+28 # Kathleen Ferris 2015-10-07 19:14
If Mr. Pierce were willing to devote the time to "go down America's deepest, darkest, and most mystical rabbit hole" and read what dedicated citizens have written, he might learn that many have pursued the truth about JFK's assassination and have each, from a variety of starting points, contributed pieces of an overall coherent picture of what happened on Nov. 22, 1963. The books on the subject aren't all written by crazy people. I think those earnestly seeking the truth ought to be given credit for their dedication, not belittled and ridiculed.
+19 # bsimpich 2015-10-07 19:50
As someone who wrote a book on the subject, State Secret, I was prepared to blame Oswald. After doing the research, I don't think Oswald fired a shot. None of the firearms evidence is trustworthy if you study the case.

20 years ago, it was reported for the first time that Oswald's wallet was at the Tippit murder scene. To me, that remains a big clue. The wallet wasn't reported because the official story was that the wallet was in Oswald's possession at the time of his arrest at the theater.

But there is TV footage showing a wallet looking a lot like the arrest wallet at the murder scene. It looks like someone planted that wallet.

Joe McBride interviewed Tippits father in the 90s. Tippit's dad told him that officers told him that Tippit was looking for Oswald, Tippit parked his car alongside a bridge that crossed the broad Trinity River, and apparently Oswald's taxi drove right by him.

Tippit was now frantic. He ran into the Top Ten record store, where Oswald or someone looking like him was shopping earlier that day, and borrowed their phone before he ran back to his car. A few minutes later, Tippit was dead, with the last bullet shot execution style with a coup de grace to the head. The cold blooded killer than reloaded his revolver right there. And sprinkled shells on the ground. The shells don't jibe with the evidence. Read my book or McBrides Into the Nightmare for more: This investigation has really just begun, with newly revealed documents.
+6 # Old Uncle Dave 2015-10-07 19:51
Yes, Cuban blowback is most definitely a fallback position.
+17 # Patriot 2015-10-07 20:05
My question about many historical events that changed the direction of the course of history always has been, "Why?"

Here's the most credible explanation I've come across for lots of puzzling events of the past...and the present: All Wars are Bankers' Wars. Highly recommended.
0 # Cassandra2012 2015-10-13 17:09
And all of our wars are armaments-manuf acturers and fossil fuel wars as well....
+6 # kenrogers 2015-10-07 21:30
"On March 22, 1994, television producer Robert G. Vernon videotaped the confession of James E. Files during which Mr. Files confessed that he fired the fatal last shot into the right front temple of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza, Dallas Texas. A transcript of Mr. Files's confession follows. Included in the transcript is documentation and research (in italic font) based on existing evidence uncovered by leading JFK assassination researchers and authors. The purpose of this writing is to compare the confession of James E. Files to a majority of the evidence that has been uncovered in the last 34 years relative to the assassination. Readers are invited to review the following and to judge the veracity of Mr. Files' confession for themselves."

Another CIA/Mafia contract killer (Files' boss) also shot Kennedy with a rifle from a sniper's nest in the building across the street from the Dallas Book Depository.

If you actually want to know who killed Kennedy, read and/or watch Files' videotaped confession.
0 # treerapper 2015-10-17 05:05
Another quite remarkable documentary onJFK's assassination and much more can be found at

Worth the time it takes to see the entire video.
-29 # Taco43 2015-10-07 22:58
JFK was killed by accident by a Secret Service agent with an AR-15 or possibly an M-16 with a three-round-bur st. The conspiracy was to cover up a mistake.
+10 # reiverpacific 2015-10-07 23:05
Quoting Taco43:
JFK was killed by accident by a Secret Service agent with an AR-15 or possibly an M-16 with a three-round-burst. The conspiracy was to cover up a mistake.

OK; so share with us where you got that one -----of so many others.
+4 # MEBrowning 2015-10-08 17:35
I read the same book in the '90s. Can't remember the author's name or the title, but it was supposedly written by a ballistics expert who named the Secret Service agent in question. An interesting theory, but I finished the book thinking there were more holes in the story that the book had not addressed.
-6 # RnR 2015-10-07 23:31
I've also read (somewhere) that the mob (Sam G) was on the way to stop the assassination but couldn't get there in time???
0 # RnR 2015-10-11 21:47
It wasn't Sam G, it was Johnny Roselli
+5 # Passing Through 2015-10-09 16:30
Quoting Taco43:
JFK was killed by accident by a Secret Service agent with an AR-15 or possibly an M-16 with a three-round-burst. The conspiracy was to cover up a mistake.

That is one of the stupidest things I've read in ages. If JFK was killed "by accident" by a Secret Service agent, who was that agent actually trying to kill?
0 # treerapper 2015-10-17 05:03
Presidents are not assassinated by accident. It took much planning by Government insiders and the military industrial complex to pull off the assassination of Kennedy - planned, not accidental.
-15 # lewagner 2015-10-08 00:56
"While I have neither the time nor the patience to go down America's deepest, darkest, and most mystical rabbit hole, ...."

So why write should I spend any time reading what you have to say about it, then?
Wow, what passes for "commentary" in the mainstream media nowadays.
Yes, independent RSN readers, Esquire IS the MSM. It's owned by Hearst.
+2 # reiverpacific 2015-10-08 10:54
Quoting lewagner:
"While I have neither the time nor the patience to go down America's deepest, darkest, and most mystical rabbit hole, ...."

So why write should I spend any time reading what you have to say about it, then?
Wow, what passes for "commentary" in the mainstream media nowadays.
Yes, independent RSN readers, Esquire IS the MSM. It's owned by Hearst.

-16 # RobertMStahl 2015-10-08 08:09
Methinks SHE did it, then "got" married to a ship building billionaire.
+4 # Passing Through 2015-10-09 16:32
Quoting RobertMStahl:
Methinks SHE did it, then "got" married to a ship building billionaire.

Okay, and now the second stupidest (and much crueler lie) that I've read in ages...
+7 # Dongi 2015-10-08 18:35
The military was pissed at JFK because of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, because he wouldn't let them bomb Cuba back to the stone age, and because the rumor was strong that he was going to pull the armed forces out of Vietnam. So Kennedy had to go. LBJ was from Texas and had made sure that in 1960, Texas stayed in the Democratic column. He could be counted on.

The CIA was enraged at JFK for discharging Allan Dulles, former head of the CIA. Together, these two groups brought about Kennedy's demise. The killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby was a complete coverup. New Orleans District Attorney Garrison had the pressure on the culprits but he couldn't fight through all the layers of bureaucracy and city hall.

The evidence is still out there and, who knows, the dirty, rotten, no good empire may yet succumb. Don't bet the farm on it, though. The guys and gals in power play mighty rough!
0 # Radscal 2015-10-15 20:07
Certainly Dulles and gang at the CIA considered JFK a "security risk," and they had no problem "taking out" far less "dangerous" risks than JFK.

Certainly, the Military/Indust rial Complex saw JFK's evolution in office towards ending the Vietnam War, and the Cold War generally as "bad for business."

Certainly, the supra-national financial interests were greatly threatened by JFK's issuing of Silver Certificates which could have put the Federal Reserve's "Notes" out of business.

Clearly, RFK's crackdown on some elements of the Mafia created dangerous enemies.

And of course, JFK had confronted Israel about their nuclear weapons program, and forced them into agreeing to inspections to ensure they could not create these WMD. Earlier, Eisenhower had intervened to stop Israel from controlling the Suez Canal.

Then, just a few years after JFK's murder, LBJ stopped the nuclear inspections and covered up for Israel when they mercilessly attacked the USS Liberty, and the US government has confoundedly hailed Israel as our "greatest ally" ever since.

It's almost easier to list what powers did NOT stand to benefit from JFK's murder, and the top of that list is the USSR and Cuba. precisely whom the conspirators lined up to take the fall if their "lone crazed gunman" hoax failed.
+8 # m s 57 2015-10-09 05:24
James W. "Jim" Douglass (born 1937) is an American author, activist, and Christian theologian.[1] He is a graduate of Santa Clara University. He and his wife, Shelley Douglass, founded the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in Poulsbo, Washington, and Mary’s House, a Catholic Worker house in Birmingham, Alabama. In 1997 the Douglasses received the Pacem in Terris Award.

If anyone really wants to understand what happened to JFK, I strongly recommend they read his "JFK and the Unspeakable." It is exhaustively researched with over 100 pages of footnotes. It clarifies everything.
0 # Radscal 2015-10-15 20:16
And in that excellent book, Douglass repeatedly refers to Thomas Merton, the Trappist Monk whom Pope Frances cited in his recent speech before Congress.
+3 # elkingo 2015-10-10 02:05
The point is we don't know and will never know, as both the government and the media are main stanchions of the Great American Bullshitocracy. Bullshit is the very lifeblood of our capitalist society, such that even when and if we are told the truth, we still can't know.
+7 # motamanx 2015-10-10 13:57
RFK, as the obvious president to be, would, as president, have had a more thorough investigation as soon as he was in office. That is why he had to go, also.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.