Lyndon Johnson, Sinister “Colossus”

Lyndon Johnson, Sinister “Colossus”

by DC Dave

A review

I am more and more impressed by the fact that it is largely futile to get up and make statements about current problems.  At the same time, I know that silent acquiescence in evil is also out of the question.

Thomas Merton, Faith and Violence, 1968


The more we learn about the 36th president of the United States, the more we see the fairly modern words “sociopath” or “psychopath” associated with his name. (Do a Net search pairing “Lyndon Johnson” with each.) As one reads Phillip F. Nelson’s sequel to LBJ, the

Mastermind of the JFK Assassination entitled LBJ: From Mastermind to “The Colossus,” the very old fashioned word of “evil” is the one that comes repeatedly to my mind. Johnson’s own grandmother, Ruth Baines, according to Nelson, sized up his character when he was only five years old and predicted that he would end up in the penitentiary.

Instead of becoming a problem for a prison warden, though, he became a problem for his country and for the world. In his first volume, Nelson argued persuasively that what many had suspected all along but were afraid to face up to it or share their suspicions with others, that is, that LBJ was behind his predecessor’s assassination.

And why wouldn’t he have been? He was the primary beneficiary, after all. He appointed the Warren Commission, and they performed what most people realize now was a monumental cover-up by pinning the entire blame upon a low level secret government operative with no motive and without the means to have fired all the shots that were fired. Once it is acknowledged that the assassination was the result of a plot involving a number of people it follows inexorably that the man who would become president had to have been, at the very least, on board with it. Otherwise, it would have been entirely too risky for the plotters. The killing also occurred right on Johnson’s Texas turf, and he had been instrumental in getting Kennedy to make the trip to Dallas.

Henry Marshall

Henry Marshall

We also learned from that first volume that that turf was already littered with bodies thanks to Lyndon’s machinations. While most of his new book is devoted to analysis of LBJ’s actions once he became president, Nelson begins with a further fleshing out of the story of the 1961 murder (originally improbably ruled a suicide) of United States Department of Agriculture agent Henry Marshall. Marshall had been hot on the trail of the widespread fraudulent operations of Billie Sol Estes and Lyndon Johnson’s intimate connections to them. Johnson, by that time, was already Vice President, but had Marshall remained alive and on the case, his future did not look bright.

The Real Lone Ranger

The hero of Chapter 1 is Texas Ranger Clint Peoples, who was thwarted by the political muscle wielded by Johnson in his attempt to get Marshall’s cause of death changed from suicide to murder. Thanks mainly to his dogged continued efforts, a federal grand jury in 1984 did change the ruling from suicide to murder, but by then the likely culprits, LBJ and his henchmen Cliff Carter and Malcolm “Mac” Wallace, were all dead and there was no one to charge with the crime.

Texas Ranger Clint Peoples

Texas Ranger Clint Peoples

Had Captain Peoples been able to have the cause of death changed to “homicide” in 1962 he could have aggressively pursued his investigation of Johnson and probably brought an indictment and if that had happened…the name Lyndon B. Johnson would have been lost in the dustbin of history as just another dirty politician who spent his last years in the penitentiary, just as his own grandmother had predicted would occur.

Had Captain Peoples been successful in 1962, it follows that John F. Kennedy might have remained president for another five years and the 50,000 plus American men and women killed in Vietnam during the Johnson-Nixon years would have also lived on. The millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians killed during those years would also have been able to continue living there lives, for the most part, as peaceful peasants. For those killed in the civil war, at least it would not have been by the crusading Americans, but by their own tribe, and in much smaller numbers. There would have been many other changes if Johnson’s war had never occurred, so many that it is impossible not to comprehend the “what-ifs” of a culture undamaged by the Johnson presidency. One thing is clear though: The magnitude of that difference would have been “colossal” in the most literal sense. (pp. 18-19)

With his unblinking second look at the purely evil deeds of which Lyndon Johnson was capable with his reign of terror in Texas, Nelson stands out from the more mainstream biographers such as Robert Caro and Robert Dallek, no matter how comprehensive, unvarnished, and even negative their portraits of the man might seem. This groundwork is essential for understanding the further evils that LBJ perpetrated with respect to the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, and the Six Day War.

For the first of those subjects, one must read Nelson’s first volume on Johnson; there’s little rehash in this one. He addresses the other two, and much more, in “The Colossus” but before he does, he does some more spadework in Texas. Some of that handiwork was recently put on display at in the form of excerpts from the book. These are “LBJ’s Double—Cousin Jay Bert Peck—And His Untimely Death” and “John M. Liggett: From Embalmer Extraordinaire to Serial Killer—then Dead Man Walking.”

Readers not wishing to digress by clicking on those links might consider two shorter vignettes from the book that suggest that the psychologists might, indeed, have some useful insights concerning LBJ that transcend questions of morality. The case can certainly be made that he was not just homicidal, but he was a homicidal madman.

Life Imitates Art

The two passages I have chosen fall into what one might call the “life imitating art” category. When George Carlin made his observation at the 4-minute mark of the video above that war is just a lot of prick waving, it is highly unlikely that he knew of the incident that had occurred some two decades before:

Another entry [in the daily notes of historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.] made just a week before Johnson left the White House for good indicated that Schlesinger had talked to Bill Moyers and Richard “Dick” Goodwin about the problems with anyone ever trying to write a book about Johnson, because “no one would believe it.” He also wrote that Moyers had said that Johnson was a “sick man” and that both Moyers and Goodwin read up on mental illness. Goodwin tackled the paranoia issue and Moyers studied up on manic-depressive cycles. Moyers also appeared in a later note, dated November 11, 1971, when he made a comment about how Johnson thought that his “manhood” had been tested during the period of the escalation of the Vietnam War. This was a particularly insightful point because it runs parallel with an incident that occurred during the very period of the escalation, in a 1965 press conference held at his ranch. A reporter had asked him to explain why we were at war with Vietnam and President Lyndon B. Johnson, in response to that question, unzipped his pants, withdrew his penis and, holding it so that all the reporters, male and female could view it clearly, exclaimed “This is why!” And with that the press conference ended and everyone walked away, so stunned that the original question was soon nearly forgotten. Naturally, this incident was not widely reported in the press by those same reporters, who were more concerned with protecting the president from such knowledge becoming public. Fortunately, there a few brave souls who made sure the record was duly noted. (p. lii)

Sadly, from the picture that Nelson paints of the man, had Johnson ventured a more serious answer to the reporter’s question he could hardly have done any better than he did. He knew nothing of world affairs. He was never a student of anything except how to amass more power for himself and dominate other people. His complete ignorance of military matters did not prevent him from pushing ahead in Vietnam and micro-managing every aspect of America’s war, though.

Interestingly, one of Adolf Hitler’s greatest failings as a national leader is that he fancied himself a great military strategist and meddled far too much in matters that he should have left to his experts. In the following long paragraph we see a Lyndon Johnson who is eerily reminiscent of Der Führer in the much-parodied dressing down of his generals that is ubiquitous on YouTube (shown in the video above):

[Marine Corps] Lieutenant General [Charles G.] Cooper’s book, A Marine’s Story of Combat in Peace and War, written with Richard E. Goodspeed, provides a vivid description of the inner workings of the White House/Pentagon decision-making process in 1967. It also reveals something even more important than the chaotic manner in which the White House made decisions; it documented yet another of Lyndon Johnson’s manic—clearly psychotic—episodes as he screamed obscenities at the very officers who had struggled to come up with an effective plan to achieve the results that Johnson had demanded of them despite severely limiting their options. Cooper had accompanied the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the White House meeting, which they had requested, to resolve a problem they felt was caused by the existing policy of “piling on forces in Vietnam without understanding the consequences.” The Joint Chiefs were led by the chairman, General Earle Wheeler of the US Army. The other chiefs of their respective military organizations were: General Harold Johnson, the Army chief of staff; General John P. McConnell, the Air Force chief of staff; General Wallace Greene Jr., the commandant of the Marines Corps; Admiral David McDonald, the chief of naval operations. Secretary [Robert] McNamara had reluctantly acceded to their request after discussing and preparing the president for their meeting. While seeking the opinions of these generals and admirals, and pretending to understand the strategic planning they had put together, Johnson seemed to appear in deep thought as he processed the information, briefly turning his back on them. The following passages provide a vivid account of what happened next, as Cooper held a map of Vietnam for the presentation by General Wheeler. As soon as he finished, Johnson began his vicious assault, suddenly whirling around, screaming and cursing each of them in turn. Lieutenant General Cooper summarized his recollections of that frightening day:

Lt. Gen. Charles Cooper, USMC

Lt. Gen. Charles Cooper, USMC

Noting that it was he who was carrying the weight of the free world on his shoulders, he called them filthy names—shitheads, dumb shits, pompous assholes—and used “the F-word” as an adjective more freely than a Marine in boot camp would use it. It was unnerving, degrading.

Author Cooper’s stunning description of presidential behavior to his visitors that day, as he quoted Johnson’s statements—for example, those “idiots gave him stupid advice, [adding that] he had the whole damn world to worry about” –bespeaks more than the words in the excerpt say. This was another Johnson meltdown, an incident that suggests the “Colossus” was in another psychotic rage, just like those that Richard Goodwin wrote about in his book, or the account of lobbyist Robert Winter-Berger as he told of Johnson’s meltdown in Speaker McCormack’s office in March 1964 covered elsewhere, that other historians go to great lengths to avoid because it does not fit in well with the paradigm that they have attempted to construct. (pp. 347-348)

The Vietnam War that that Johnson mishandled in almost every way imaginable was not something he inherited from his predecessor and struggled to cope with as best he could, as many historians would have us believe, either. Although he was a stout anti-Communist, Kennedy had all the subtle understanding of world politics that Johnson lacked and was on his way to ending American direct participation in the war. One of Johnson’s very first decisions, notes Nelson, was to reverse that policy and to set the course toward making that war America’s war.

Johnson had three main reasons for escalating the conflict in Vietnam, none of which had anything to do with sound geopolitics. The first was connected to that graphic display before the news reporters. We were the tough guys, and Lyndon was just going to show those impudent little Vietnamese who was the boss. America’s military was to be used simply as an extension of the Johnson personality, the psychotic bully. Second, the JFK assassination could be regarded as a coup d’état by the national security state—sometimes called the secret LBJ-and-GWBgovernment—the leadership of which Johnson through his machinations had acquired. One of the main purposes of the Kennedy assassination was to reverse Kennedy’s course in Vietnam, so that’s what Johnson promptly did. Third—an explanation that I have first encountered in this book—Johnson learned all his most important political lessons as a pro-New Deal politician supporting Franklin Roosevelt in Texas. He always thought of himself in the most grandiose terms, of his historical legacy. Success in war, he saw from Roosevelt, was the surest way for history to regard him as a “great” president. He thought that victory would be relatively easy and he would be hailed as a hero (shades of a later president from Texas).

Just as Johnson was a hands-on president, to a fault, when it came to running the war, and up to his eyeballs in the JFK assassination, so, too, must he have been at the pinnacle of the plots that ended the lives of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. Nelson devotes seven pages to the first subject and an entire chapter to the second.


Not Giving the Devil His Due

Even the domestic legislation that he pushed through, Medicare, Medicaid, and the various other “Great Society” welfare programs that he is credited for having pushed through may be regarded as Lyndon’s attempt to buy popularity by the FDR method.

Nelson also takes a decidedly revisionist view of Johnson’s accomplishments on the civil rights front. He reminds us that as the powerful Senate majority leader he was the primary obstacle to the passage of any meaningful civil rights legislation for many years, or any significant legislation at all, for that matter. Maybe he could be given the benefit of the doubt on that because he had to get reelected in Texas, but, according to Nelson, he continued to be an obstacle as vice president, repeatedly telling Kennedy that the time was not right and offering none of the political clout with the Congress that he was still able to wield. Knowing, in fact, that the time was overdue for civil rights improvements, he wanted to make sure that he could get credit for them when he became president through the plot that was brewing.

What LBJ was particularly good at was in seeking power, in detecting where it truly lay, and figuring out how to best ingratiate himself with the power wielders so that he could participate in it. His abuse of his subordinates was also legendary, which we get some flavor of in the military episode cited and throughout Nelson’s book. In my days in the bureaucracy I encountered more than one of what we called the “kiss up and kick down” personality types. Lyndon is almost a caricature of the ones I knew.


That Johnson should have bought a house in Washington that made him a close neighbor of another such type, FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, could hardly have been an accident, according to Nelson. He also sucked up to House Speaker and fellow Texan Sam Rayburn and to the powerful Georgia Senator Richard Russell.

Even from Caro one quickly sees that LBJ from his youth was a person with an uncommon nose for power.   What we don’t get from Caro or from Dallek or from the outrageously mistitled Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream: The Most Revealing Portrait of a President and Presidential Power by Doris Kearns Goodwin is any great sense of the real corrupt power that Johnson sucked up to and on whose behalf he exercised his modicum of power once he had achieved it. That’s what sets Nelson’s book apart and makes it “must” reading for anyone who would understand what Johnson did to the country and where we are today. The title of his Chapter 4, and the names of the section headings within it tell the story.

Power for What and for Whom?

First, the title: “LBJ’s Use of America’s Wealthiest and Most Influential—and How It Led to Presidential Treason.” And here are the section headings:

  • President Johnson’s Zionist Connections (1937-67)
  • Lyndon Johnson: The First Jewish President?
  • 1941: Lyndon Johnson Goes to War—in Hollywood
  • The Zionist/Terrorist Associates of LBJ
  • Completing the Circle: Johnson’s Long History of Indenture to Zionists
  • A Quick Look at Twentieth Century International Developments and Lyndon Johnson’s Role in Them
  • Senator Lyndon Johnson’s Favor to his Zionist Friends
  • The Israeli Lobby, circa 1960-63 vs. 1964-68

jfk-lbj-mossadThat last section shows how the power of that lobby over the American presidency grew exponentially with JFK’s assassination. To demonstrate that Kennedy was standing up to Israel in opposition to its development of nuclear weapons Nelson even reprints the entire text of the strong letter that Kennedy wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol on July 5, 1963, that one can read on this site. Following the logic, he even comes very close to endorsing Michael Collins Piper’s thesis, explained on that site, that Israel was principally behind the Kennedy assassination:

Michael Collins Piper, in his controversial 1995 book, Final Judgment, made the case that the Mossad, through its direct connections to James Angleton and its indirect other connections to the CIA front international corporation known as Permindex—with its direct ties to Clay Shaw, who had been indicted for his role in “handling” Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans—was “involved” in the JFK assassination…


James J. Angleton


There is no question that Kennedy took a hard line against Israel’s procurement of nuclear weapons while Lyndon Johnson reversed that to the point of giving in to their every demand, as we will examine shortly. For the record, I find that Piper’s charge is not of equal credence with the assertions of complicity by the other named parties in this and my previous book. Even if the Mossad played a significant role in the assassination, it was inexorably tied to its undeniably close connection to James J. Angleton, “Israel’s best friend” as noted elsewhere, and his involvement would have been inherently dependent upon the existence of the “driving force,” for which the chief driver and the only man who had the power to bring all the other disparate forces together, as demonstrated in LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination, was Lyndon B. Johnson. (pp. 205-206)

At this point, we must note that Nelson can make such a confident assertion about LBJ’s primacy in the JFK assassination by omitting all mention of a lawyer by the name of Louis Bloomfield. The following quote is from the aforementioned site: “The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada, long-time [Meyer] Lansky associates and among Israel’s primary international patrons.”

Oswald’s handler, Shaw, then, would have been in world Zionism’s chain of command and not in LBJ’s chain of command. Furthermore, from reading Nelson’s Chapter 4 only, one might seriously wonder if Lyndon, himself, was just another link in that command chain.

For more on this subject see my article “The Kennedy Assassination and the Press,” particularly the section entitled “Who’s Mister Big?” Who calls the shots for the news media, whose crucial complicity is evident in every major scandal in living memory, from the James Forrestal murder to 9/11? My conclusion is that it is not the American president, even when the president had the power that LBJ had.

Courageous New Ground


Nelson truly sets himself apart from all who have gone before him on LBJ with his willingness to take a clear-eyed look at two of the very biggest political hot potatoes of the twentieth century. These are the 1949 violent death of America’s first secretary of defense, James Forrestal, and the 1967 Israeli assault of the USS Liberty.

liberty_israel-1Taking the second of these first, devoting his entire Chapter 7 to the topic, after careful detailed analysis Nelson comes to what appears to be the inescapable conclusion that not only was the assault on the Navy spy vessel not accidental, but that it was a carefully planned set-up in which our president was treasonously complicit. It is abundantly evident that the Israelis knew what ship that they were attacking and that they made every effort to sink it, killing everyone on board. The Egyptians were to have been blamed, “Remember the Liberty!” was to have been the resonating war cry, and the false flag attack would have had the United States militarily involved in the Middle East on behalf of its attacker 44 years before the events of September 11, 2001. The crewmen of the Liberty were amazingly able to keep the ship afloat with 34 killed and scores wounded and a gaping torpedo hole in the side, and to defeat radio-jamming efforts and get out a call for rescue. Initially, Johnson called back rescue planes with the clear intent of letting the ship sink with all on board killed, and thereby silenced. Only when it became obvious that the cover story was completely blown was the murderous attack called off.

But this single order to abandon all protection for a US Navy spy ship is, lamentably, only incidental to an overall story about greater deceits and treachery on the high seas, and in high places, one that remains “unresolved.” The timeline referenced in the previous citation goes on, to include much of the continuing developments covered within this chapter.

There is one entry in particular on that extended timeline that is of more than the usual interest, under the date of June 14, 1967, six days after the attack: “Liberty arrives in Malta. Total news blackout imposed. Rear Admiral [Isaac] Kidd, acting on orders from [Admiral] John McCain II, warns crew: ‘You are never, repeat never, to discuss this with anyone, not even your wives. If you do, you will be court-martialed and will end your lives in prison, or worse.’ Secretary of Defense McNamara informs media that, ‘Department of Defense will have no further comment.’” (p. 390) [Emphasis added by Nelson]

Nelson makes the further comment, “It is sobering to ponder what could possibly be ‘worse’ than ‘ending your lifeuss-liberty-mcnamara-1 in prison’ and why would McNamara announce that the Department of Defense would have no further comment; this was a rather unusual statement, considering the circumstances.”

What is abundantly evident is that extraordinary efforts were made, after the sinking of the ship failed, to cover the whole thing up. We saw the same thing 18 years before when Forrestal went out a 16th floor window of the Bethesda Naval Hospital and the official investigation of the incident was kept secret. The conclusion of my poem written some months before I obtained the investigation with by third Freedom of Information Act request applies equally to the Liberty incident:

Secret Forrestal Investigation

Did James V. Forrestal murder himself,
Or was he assassinated?
To examine the Navy’s official report,
For 54 years we have waited.

Is there official skulduggery here?
I’ll let you readers decide.
But usually when someone keeps something hidden,
It’s because he has something to hide.

What is little known to the public is that the young Zionist partisan Johnson, freshly elevated from the House to the Senate in a thoroughly tainted election, played a role in the Forrestal death saga, albeit, probably no more than a bit part. As we report in Part 1 of “Who Killed James Forrestal,” and Nelson does in his Chapter 5, Johnson paid a visit to Forrestal at his room in Bethesda Naval Hospital, to which the latter had been confined after he had experienced some sort of mysterious breakdown. We can rule out that it was an innocent social visit by a well-wisher. We learned of the visit from Driven Patriot: The Life and Times of James Forrestal by Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley and they learned of it from an interview by the late Hoopes of Forrestal assistant Marx Leva, who also told them that it was “against Forrestal’s wishes.”

james forrestal-lbjJohnson and Forrestal were on far opposite sides of the fence over the question of recognition of the new state of Israel. Forrestal, primarily out of concern for U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East, had been the administration’s strongest opponent of the Zionist venture and had suffered merciless, indeed slanderous, attacks in the press on account of it.

Nelson speculates that the purpose of the visit might have been to subject Forrestal, in his weakened emotional state, to the notorious “Johnson Treatment,” a combination of “supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint, and hint of threat.”

He is suggesting, I suppose, that the intent was to drive Forrestal even further over the edge and perhaps to induce him to kill himself so others wouldn’t have to do it. Since their political differences should have been well known and since Forrestal would have surely communicated to his doctors that Johnson’s visit was unwanted, it amounts to virtual medical malpractice for the visit to have been permitted. Not surprisingly, the subject never came up when the Navy conducted its review.

My own guess is that Johnson was brought in on that action in the manner in which a member of the Mafia becomes a “made man.” Maybe he was asked to report on the means of access to Forrestal’s room for the phony patients on the same floor who would eventually throttle him and throw him out the window. The role might have been wholly superfluous, but he had been made a party to a monumentally treacherous political act of the sort that would mark his entire political career, and it would have been done on behalf of the people whom he would serve throughout his life.

Nelson is quite convincing in his argument that the Israelis would never have had the audacity to engage in their attack upon the Liberty without Lyndon Johnson’s total knowing acquiescence. Nelson, citing British journalist Peter Hounam’s book, Operation Cyanide: How the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War Three, notes that B-52s carrying nuclear weapons, with their refueling plane escorts, were scrambled from the west coast of the United States some two hours before the Israeli assault even began, between 2 and 4 am Pacific time and presidential adviser Clark Clifford was urgently called to White House at around 6 am Eastern time. Reminiscent of the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it occurred, Johnson was apparently prematurely reacting to the false flag attack on the Liberty. So deeply must he have been involved that it’s not a complete reach to say that he was as much the “mastermind” in the killing of 34 American sailors as he was in the killing of his presidential predecessor, and had the attack succeeded completely he would have been the “mastermind” of an almost unspeakable atrocity.


No one could suggest, though, that with his involvement in the Zionist plot against Forrestal he was doing any more than getting his feet wet in a conspiracy that originated somewhere much higher than he was at the time. One of the lessons he surely learned from the success of the assassination was that he could count on the cooperation of the press in covering up high political crime as long as it was beneficial to those to whom he owed a higher loyalty. Looking over the man’s entire political career, rather than to call him a “Mastermind” or a “Colossus” or a “Flawed Giant,” as Dallek does in the title of his biography, I think that “Malignant Minion” is more fitting.


David Martin

November 25, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

James Forrestal and John Kennedy

James Forrestal and John Kennedy

by DC Dave

james forrestal

James Forrestal, who was assistant secretary of the Navy and then secretary of the Navy for most of World War II was a severe critic of the foreign policy and the war policy of the government for which he worked. We will perhaps never know just how severe a critic he was because when he was sent off to Bethesda Naval Hospital the Truman White House confiscated his diaries and only a severely edited version was published. What is purported to be the entire work is available for examination at the Seeley Mudd Manuscript Library of Princeton University, but it is frankly unbelievable that the most revealing negative passages would not have been removed, considering the chain of custody of the document.

We can get some idea of the nature of Forrestal’s differences with the FDR and Truman administrations from a couple of published quotes. The first I have repeated in one form or another in several previous articles. It comes from page 7 of Senator Joe McCarthy’s book, The Fight for America, and it is the tail end of an account of a conversation the freshly elected Senator McCarthy had at a 1946 lunch meeting that Navy Secretary Forrestal had requested:

Before meeting Jim Forrestal I thought we were losing to international Communism because of incompetence and stupidity on the part of our planners.  I mentioned that to Forrestal.  I shall forever remember his answer.  He said, “McCarthy, consistency has never been a mark of stupidity.  If they were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.”  This phrase stuck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.

The second quote comes from an October 15, 1951, article in Life magazine entitled “The Forrestal Diaries.” It is not from the diaries themselves but from a letter that Forrestal wrote to a friend during the war:

I find that whenever any American suggests that we act in accordance with the needs of our own security he is apt to be called a [profane adjective deleted] fascist or imperialist, while if Uncle Joe suggests that he needs the Baltic Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the Mediterranean, all hands agree that his is a fine, frank, candid and generally delightful fellow who is very easy to deal with because he is so explicit in what he wants. (Cited in The Iron Curtain over America by John Beaty, 1958, p. 67)

Moreover, in my article, “Forrestal Ignored: China Lost to Reds, Korean War Fought,” I show that Forrestal worked on his own to effect an earlier end to the war with Japan than what actually occurred in order to head off Soviet ambitions in the Far East and was frustrated in his efforts by his superiors.

It should come as no surprise, then, that with views so different from the other advisers that President Harry Truman had inherited from Franklin Roosevelt, Forrestal was not a part of the official delegation to the Potsdam Conference shortly after the German surrender. What is more surprising—though perhaps not so much with a man like Forrestal—is that he went to the conference, held near devastated Berlin, on his own. * Most intriguingly, he took with him the 28-year-old Navy veteran son of a friend by the name of John F. Kennedy, “picking JFK up in Paris and taking him in his personal aircraft to Berlin, Bremen, Frankfurt, Salzburg, and Hitler’s aerie in Berchtesgarden.” The friend, of course, was Wall Street power and controversial former ambassador to the United Kingdom, Joseph Kennedy, and father Joe had used his influence with publisher William Randolph Hearst to arrange for young John to work as a journalist covering the conference.

If the knowledgeable and strong-willed anti-Communist Forrestal could have influenced his new acquaintance McCarthy as strongly as he did with that one lunch meeting, one can only imagine the education he might have imparted to the young family friend, Kennedy, in the time they spent together on that Europe trip. Actually, one doesn’t have to imagine it completely. The speech that JFK delivered as a Congressman in January of 1949 blistering the administration, which was run by his own Democratic party, for its actions contributing to the Communist takeover of China could have been written by Forrestal himself.

In all likelihood, young Kennedy hardly required a lot of information and influence from Forrestal to be aware of the alien and subversive forces at work within the United States. He was the son of Joseph P. Kennedy, after all. Consider this now famous passage from Forrestal’s diary that made it past the editing process:

27 December 1945

Played golf today with Joe Kennedy. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s [William C. Bullitt, then Ambassador to France] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversation with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not. (Walter Millis, The Forrestal Diaries, pp. 121-122, emphasis added.)

When Forrestal fell to his death from a 16th floor window of the Bethesda Naval Hospital on May 22, 1949, JFK, knowing what he knew, is highly unlikely to have been naïve enough to accept the suicide story. He knew the kind of man Forrestal was and he was well aware of the Zionist and Communist forces that opposed him. He very likely had heard of the Jewish Stern Gang’s letter bomb attempts on the life President Truman in 1947 and before that on British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin. He no doubt knew that both groups regarded Forrestal as American enemy number one and he knew what they were capable of.

JFKWHP-ST-C194-9-63editedIt is in this context that we must consider JFK’s decision on Memorial Day, 1963, to visit the Arlington Cemetery tomb of his friend and mentor, Forrestal. Memorial Day is often confused with Veterans Day. It is not for honoring everyone who has served in the United States armed forces. Its purpose is to honor those who have died while serving in the armed forces. Forrestal would appear not to qualify. He was a veteran, having trained as a Navy flyer but never making it overseas in World War I, and he had made a great contribution to the World War II effort in his various capacities. He was also the nation’s first secretary of defense. But when he died he was a civilian and the country was at peace.

Was it inappropriate, then, for JFK to honor Forrestal on Memorial Day as he did? I suggest that if one broadens—or perhaps narrows—the definition of the honorees of Memorial Day to those who died fighting for their country against its enemies the presidential visit to Forrestal’s grave could hardly have been more appropriate, and Kennedy more than likely knew it. Unfortunately, their common enemies would likely have known it, too, and they would have regarded it as just another strike against him.

Another Interpretation of the Tribute

Kennedy’s visit to Forrestal’s grave has also been noted by Catherine Austin Fitts on her web site, The Solari Report. Like Forrestal she is a former official at the Wall Street firm of Dillon, Read & Co. who later had a high position in Washington. In her case it was as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the George H.W. Bush administration. She mentions Forrestal’s opposition to the creation of the state of Israel and “controversy around the official explanation of his death,” but her conclusion can only be described as Delphic: “Presidents are busy people. They do not just take time off to visit graves over in Arlington after official ceremonies are over. It looks to me as though something was weighing on his mind. I can guess what it was. You can too.”

She seems to have missed the fact that it was Memorial Day, and I don’t think she gives readers enough information for them to guess what it was that was weighing on the president’s mind. She does link to my “Who Killed James Forrestal?”, though. Perhaps she expects that you will read that before you do your guessing.

Fitts also informs us that she learned of the Forrestal-JFK link from Michael Salla’s recent book, Kennedy’s Last Stand: Eisenhower, UFOs, MJ-12 & JFK’s Assassination. As the title of the book suggests, Salla is a complete UFO guy. A search of the Kindle version of his book for the words “Israel,” “Jew,” and “Jewish” all draw blanks. “Communist” turns up only this sentence with a comically misplaced modifier and a redundancy: “As a former communist defector, Angleton and the CIA could persuasively argue that Oswald’s involvement directly implicated the USSR.”

Salla’s argument, as I understand it, is that both Forrestal and Kennedy were assassinated because of what they knew and were in danger of revealing about our encounters with extraterrestrial beings. He recognizes that in order to make his case he must first show that Forrestal was, in fact, murdered and did not commit suicide as we have been told. In doing that, though, he seems to be employing the spook-writing technique of careful avoidance of writing anything that might actually change anyone’s mind.

No one can argue in the second decade of the 21st century that Forrestal was murdered without taking note of my work, which Salla duly does. He has four endnotes to my web site but the case he makes with it could hardly be weaker. The first is to the URL, which he calls “Letter to former Virginia governor.” The article at the site is actually entitled “Lies about the Kennedy and Forrestal Deaths from the University of Virginia’s Miller Center,” which is a good deal stronger than the title Salla has chosen. Former Governor Gerald Baliles happens to be the center’s director. Salla references the letter, which is part of the article, for this short quote in his book:

Forrestal resigned because he was asked to resign by President Truman. He had not suffered a nervous breakdown. None of the doctors who treated him at Bethesda Naval Hospital described his condition as a nervous breakdown. What is more important, though, recently uncovered evidence greatly undermines the theory that Forrestal voluntarily jumped out of the window at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Just as the quote is beginning to get really informative, Salla cuts it off. He never tells the reader what that new evidence is. Instead he jumps to UFOlogist Richard Dolan for observations from his 2001, thoroughly outdated “The Death of James Forrestal.” He then references Part 1 of my “Who Killed James Forrestal?” three times before getting back to Dolan, but he does that only for what I have passed on from Cornell Simpson’s 1966 book, also titled The Death of James Forrestal.

I have attempted to get Dolan to update his material on Forrestal’s death by incorporating information from the official investigation, known as the Willcutts Report, which I obtained through the Freedom of Information Act in 2004, but he has ignored me. Similarly, if one searches Salla’s book for “Willcutts Report” he draws a blank. A search for “broken glass,” which we discover from the Willcutts Report was tellingly found on Forrestal’s vacated bed, also turns up nothing.

We have also shown that the poem transcription that the press and historians have treated as a sort of suicide note was not in Forrestal’s handwriting. We do get some hits searching “handwriting” in Salla’s book, but none of them have anything to do with the Forrestal death case.

Note from James Forrestal to John O’Hara

Note from James Forrestal to John O’Hara

Note from James Forrestal to Harry Truman

Note from James Forrestal to Harry Truman

Note from James Forrestal to Harry Truman

Note from James Forrestal to Harry Truman

Willcutts Report poem

Willcutts Report poem

Since Salla’s purpose is to show that protectors of UFO secrets were behind both the Forrestal and Kennedy assassinations (A search of “UFO” turns up 72 pages of hits.) it is perhaps understandable that he would not mention those whom others regard as the top suspects. After all, searching “UFO” in my work on Forrestal’s death won’t turn up much of anything, either. His careful avoidance of the best evidence demonstrating that Forrestal was, in fact, murdered simply marks him as a disinformationist, however.

America’s Sad “Historians”

Taking stock, almost a decade after I made public the long secret report on Forrestal’s death, three books, to my knowledge, have now made explicit reference to my work. In addition to Salla’s book, we have two anti-Zionist books, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel by Alison Weir and Part One of Alan Hart’s Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews entitled The False Messiah. Of these three, only Hart mentions the Willcutts Report, and he, like Weir, is a journalist, so the standard has not yet been met for the University of Virginia’s Miller Center to begin to modify its flat statement that Forrestal committed suicide:

The web site is an educational site for general users. As such, we see our responsibility as providing our users with a mainstream interpretation of history. We do not publish groundbreaking new scholarship or challenge the historical consensus that is derived from secondary sources written by established academics. If you can point us to secondary sources written by established historians that discuss the Willcutts report and cast doubt on whether Forrestal committed suicide, we would be very interested in reading them.

Nicholas Thompson in The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the History of the Cold War makes quite extensive but still very selective reference to the Willcutts Report. We show in Part 6 of “Who Killed James Forrestal” how thoroughly dishonest Thompson is in his treatment of the Willcutts material, though.

Thompson, too, is a journalist, so even if he had been honest with the Willcutts evidence it would not have been enough to get the Miller Center** to budge. They’re still waiting for “established academics” and “established historians” to weigh in. Considering the current sad state of the academic history community the wait is likely to be a long one. Reflecting the consensus of those academic historians, the Miller Center still says that all the shots that killed Kennedy and wounded Governor John Connally came from the Texas Schoolbook Depository and Lee Harvey Oswald remains the lone gunman. As for the Forrestal case, to date, the only person calling himself a historian who has taken note of the Willcutts Report is a young man by the name of Matthew McNiece, who teaches history at the obscure Howard Payne University in Texas. He did it in a puerile, semi-literate effort that passed muster as his doctoral dissertation at Texas Christian University.

In my poem, “A Literary Toast,” I compare America’s journalists to the late, unlamented Union of Soviet Writers. The Soviet similarity is at least as great if not greater, it would appear, with America’s academic historians.

* Here is how Elizabeth Churchill Brown in The Enemy at His Back explains Forrestal’s purpose:

Forrestal…had been fairly popular with the elite Washington conference group until his patriotism combined with his intelligence forced [Assistant Secretary of State] Joseph Grew to share his dog house with him. Forrestal had been reading reports, making personal inspections, and had started asking questions. Unlike Mr. Grew, the Secretary of the Navy was not only well acquainted with those “certain elements” but he also understood their aims. Naval intelligence was perhaps the best of our wartime intelligence agencies (excluding the FBI), and Forrestal was reading daily the many intercepted messages between Japan and Russia in which the former was attempting to negotiate a surrender. Moreover, Forrestal had recently made a complete tour of the Pacific war theater where he saw the war being fought and talked with the officers and men doing the fighting. He was “dangerous.”

Knowing the territorial loot that Truman was intent on giving the Russians at Potsdam, and realizing the tragic needlessness of such concessions, Forrestal came to the conclusion he must act, and quickly. He flew to the Conference in a desperate hope of being able to place a deterring hand on the President’s shoulder. But the day he arrived the conference came to an end and the damage was done. (pp. 139-140)

** It is of some interest that before Governor Baliles was given the job in 2005, the director of the Miller Center was Philip D. Zelikow, who was also the executive director of the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow, who also worked on George W. Bush’s transition team in 2001, is now Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at UVA and in 2011 President Obama appointed him to his Intelligence Advisory Board.

David Martin

August 6, 2014

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

Painting Horns and Moustaches

Painting Horns and Moustaches


America’s Press Addresses JFK Dissent

In the weeks leading up to the actual date of the 50th anniversary of the murder of President John F. Kennedy, the news media, we had noted, had, for the most part, adopted a rather low-key approach on the question of who actually perpetrated the crime.  The press, it would appear, was following the dictum of CIA Document 1035-960, “Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report,” “We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place.”

One notable exception was James Reston, Jr., writing on November 20 in USA Today, the daily lowbrow counterpart to the Sunday Parade magazine.  He touted his new book whose purpose is to throw cold water on any talk of conspiracy by floating his theory that Lee Harvey Oswald’s real intended target was Texas Governor John Connally.  He begins this way:

What possesses the American public still to believe there was a conspiracy behind the murder of John F. Kennedy 50 years ago?

hornsandmoustache-1In a History Channel poll last year, the astonishing figure of 85% of those polled subscribed to the belief. Lee Harvey Oswald must have been a “patsy” of a Mafia organization, people think, or the agent of a foreign government such as Cuba or Russia, or even the tool of a sinister CIA. Surely there had to be a vast and evil empire behind so well-planned and orchestrated a plot.

It’s a comfortable notion for Americans. There’s only one problem: Conspiracy theories are nonsense. There is no credible or convincing evidence of a conspiracy, not by Mafia gangsters or foreign governments or even by U.S. intelligence agents. And yet the rubbish keeps spilling out in print and celluloid. It appears very likely that these fantasies will dominate the American commemoration of Kennedy’s death on Friday.

When what the man says is precisely the opposite of the truth prima facie one really can’t have a lot of confidence in what he says in his book.  It’s not at all a “comfortable notion” to believe that we are ruled by murdering gangsters who pay hacks like Reston to tell us otherwise.  It’s in spite of how it makes us feel rather than because of how it makes us feel that we believe that there was a conspiracy, Reston’s wave-of-the-hand dismissal notwithstanding.  It’s the evidence and it’s common sense.  And speaking of fantasies, his suggestion that the controllers of our airwaves and our print media would allow conspiracy talk to dominate the commemoration is just about the biggest fantasy anyone can imagine.

As anyone who is only dimly aware of his surroundings could have predicted, on Friday, November 22, 2013, America’s news media went all out once again for the one-lone-nut explanation of the crime. (Make that two lone nuts counting the Mafia-connected Jack Ruby, but his name was hardly mentioned.)

But should we really expect anything else from Reston?  As we reveal in “Watergate Lies Multiplied,” Reston’s father, the famous New York Times reporter and columnist, was at the very heart of the secret cabal that the son would have us believe does not exist.  In that earlier article I speculated that there was something peculiar about Reston’s three-year Army tour.  It has since come to light and is now on his Wikipedia page that he was an intelligence officer.   That is to say that he was, and very likely still is, what a lot of people suspected his father was, a spook.

November 22, 2013

On the actual date of the 50th anniversary the media’s velvet gloves came off as the coverage reached a crescendo, sort of like the finale of a fireworks display.  For that one day, all hint of subtlety in defense of the official story was gone.  CNN did show some of Jim Garrison’s rebuttal of NBC, but for all of about 5 seconds, and then they lit into him as a fraud in the customary fashion (see all of Garrison’s rebuttal below).


“Conspiracy Theorist”

Dissenter Robert Groden was interviewed briefly in Dallas, but as he spoke CNN put the caption “Conspiracy Theorist” on the screen below him.  They might as well have painted horns and a moustache on him, which is pretty well what this “Conspiracy Theorist” charge amounts to from an analytical standpoint.  CNN’s Anderson Cooper had the critic Dr. Cyril Wecht on to debate Gerald Posner on the “magic bullet,” and he got all the better of it to my mind, but Cooper, the supposed neutral moderator, repeatedly referred to “the assassin Oswald,” the fact of which is what is at issue in any discussion of the magic bullet.  He also set the stage for the exchange by presenting uncritically the new “findings” of Luke and Michael Haag about that incredible bullet.

The Washington Post, though, might well have been the worst.  At the conclusion of my previous article I described their front-page article by Joel Achenbach this way:  “In its malevolent mendacity, it is quite similar to their 1999 article written upon the death of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal.”

In doing so I might have violated the Thomas Sowell admonition that I am fond of quoting, “Specify, don’t characterize.”  So let’s get down to some specifics.  Here’s Achenbach:

The official story, first promulgated by the Warren Commission, describes the assassination as the act of one man. The Oswald-acting-alone narrative is a small one, and kind of meaningless. The assassination, in this telling of events, was an unlucky alignment of the stars. Which suggests that history can pivot more or less randomly. There is a special terror in that — the notion that huge things can happen for no good reason.

Against that story comes a wide variety of alternative narratives. Many invoke that second gunman on the grassy knoll. Or perhaps multiple gunmen. Or as many as 10 shots in Dealey Plaza. Oliver Stone’s “JFK” has three separate sniper teams.

Here’s Patti Martin, 52, of Oklahoma City, standing in Dealey Plaza hornsandmoustache-1a few feet from where Kennedy was hit in the head: “There’s too many gaps. There’s no way there was one gunman.”

The gaps, the unknowns, the inconsistencies . . . the shadows . . . the “coincidences” . . . the anomalies . . . the things that just don’t seem right.

Patti Martin: “Why would he have waited until here?” Meaning this spot on Elm. “He had a perfect shot at that corner.” (In fact, he’d already taken two shots, closer to the corner, but whatever!)

BUT WHATEVER?!  Did you see the horns and moustache he painted on poor, well-meaning citizen Patti?  “Whatever” is the surly putdown of a middle-schooler; it is not the proper writing of a reporter of news in a supposedly respectable newspaper.  Is this man a journalist, or is he a naked propagandist, watchdog or lapdog?

If you learn nothing else from Oliver Stone’s JFK you learn that Patti Martin’s point is right on the money and that Achenbach is playing the disinformationist here.  Patti said “on the corner,” not “nearer to the corner.”  JFK takes you to the actual window and lets you look at the view below.  You are perched right at the corner of Houston and Elm Streets.  The motorcade comes toward you on Houston and turns left onto Elm.  The target is square and slowing for the turn as it comes toward you.  It is moving across your field of vision from left to right and a tree intervenes once the car is on Elm.  So, as a lone gunman with a rifle with a scope and a bolt action—which means that finding the target in the scope will be difficult after shooting and chambering the next round—when do you take that precious first shot, knowing that that might well be the only one you get?  You take it on the corner, as Patti Martin can see, or you take it even before that.

Gerald Posner says that Oswald took it when the tree was between him and Kennedy.  That’s his explanation for the bullet that ricocheted off the curb far ahead of Kennedy’s limousine.  He says it glanced off a tree limb first, causing a severe change in its path—another magic bullet, if you will.  The Warren Commission, for its part, has no explanation for such a wild miss.  What is most likely is that the bullet that missed came from directly behind the vehicle around the second floor of the DalTex Building on Houston Street.  That would be, then, where one of the sniper teams was located.  The second would have been behind the fence on the grassy knoll, where the shot would have come from that knocked Kennedy’s head backward and to the left and sent brain matter flying far enough to the rear that some of it landed on a trailing motorcycle cop.  The third team would have been at the “Oswald” sniper spot, explaining the path of the bullet that went through Governor Connally.  That would explain why the shots were fired after the car was proceeding along Elm Street, to catch the target in a withering Crossfire.

That’s the common-sense explanation for what transpired and that was Jim Garrison’s explanation as depicted in JFK.  But in the online version of Achenbach’s “news” article, there is a link to Achenbach’s 1992 lone-gunman-defending article, “JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. the Facts” at the mention of “three sniper teams.”  In that earlier article Achenbach states flatly that JFK is

“a film with roughly as much historical veracity as your average episode of ‘Lost in Space.’ ”

One has to wonder if Patti Martin actually thought she was talking to a decent, honest man when she consented to be interviewed by Joel Achenbach.

Page AA7 of The Post’s special section entitled “THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION 50 YEARS LATER” is dominated by a big drawing of Dealey Plaza, with buildings, the grassy area, and the motorcade route.  The opening caption is as follows:


Overcast morning skies cleared by the time President John F. Kennedy and first lady Jacqueline Kennedy arrived in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, but darkness would soon fall on an entire nation as a lone assassin—perched six stories above the presidential motorcade and parade onlookers—aimed his rifle at the president and fired.

Further down on the lower right of the page there is a box with a schematic showing the supposed trajectory of the “magic bullet.” It is accompanied with this explanation:

Some claim that a single “magic bullet,” which was found nearly whole, could not have done so much damage.  Later scientific analysis supports the Warren Commission single-bullet theory.

So there.

Also in the special section was an article by guest writers Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis.  It is a distillation of their book, Dallas, 1963, recommended to readers in the Nov. 17 issue of Parade magazine and previously characterized by this writer as blaming the assassination on the city’s “climate of hate.”

Pundits Generally Lie Low

Conspicuously missing from the big propaganda fireworks display this time were the sage observations of The Post’s collection of pundits.  They want to keep some measure of credibility, after all, and they wouldn’t have done it by obviously overdoing the insulting of readers’ intelligence.   That would not have been a danger, though, for Reston writing for USA Today or for anyone writing for Parade.  Curiously, The National Catholic Register apparently didn’t think it would be a problem for its credibility with its readership, either.  On November 17 it featured a commentary by the PNAC warmonger, George Weigel, entitled “JFK After 50 Years.”  As with Reston, we have previously discussed this putative Gentile and luminary in the national mendocracy.   See “The Brazen Duplicity of George Weigel.”  The nub of his article is to be found in one paragraph:

hornsandmoustache-1The myth of Camelot, for example, misses the truth about the assassination: that John F. Kennedy was a casualty of the Cold War, murdered by a dedicated communist. “Camelot” also demeaned the liberal anti-communist internationalism that Kennedy embodied; that deprecation eventually led Kennedy’s party into the wilderness of neo-isolationist irresponsibility from which it has yet to emerge.

To make the Red paint stick to Oswald, Weigel overlooks, among many other things, the fact that Oswald’s closest friend in Dallas was the anti-Communist White Russian George de Mohrenschildt and the fact that those Fair Play for Cuba leaflets that Oswald handed out in New Orleans had printed on them the same 544 Camp Street address as that of the militant anti-Castro activist, Guy Banister.  And as Weigel sees it, America’s Democratic Party is apparently lacking in bloodlust for his taste, in spite of the overwhelming support of the Congressional members of that party for George Bush’s gory and aggressive ventures in the Middle East.

Judging by the comments, the publication seems to have underestimated its readers (as did The Post, as indicated by the comments on the Achenbach piece).  This one is from a man named Paul Bennett:

Why are you printing such a mean spirited and foolish attack piece written by the Neocon’s own pet Catholic? Do you not detect the venom and acid he is spreading? Maybe the author is paid to throw dirt upon the names of our honored dead, but I expect more from the Register. Did you even read it? The author tries to erase from history the vision of an American Camelot, still so clear in the memories of many of us. The Kennedy Clan once battled great politicians, and this tends to get dirt on the cleanest of hands, but this kind of character assassination has its own dirty political aims. In what way did having a Catholic president fighting for what is right prevent the “flowering” of American Catholicism? Is the author aware of what has happened to the American Catholic culture since the beginning of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”? Of course he is. He is simply using rhetoric to satisfy the foundations that pay him. The Chomsky clones attack from the Left, and the professional Neo-conservatives attack from the Right. Do not confuse the remnants of the Kennedy legacy (who today promote eugenics and are given honors by Bishops) with the works of great men. For if we remember rightly, there was true hope in those days, not the manufactured Sebelius variety of today. Finally, this nonsense about “quickly” deciding to support the Warren conspiracy in the face of all evidence betrays either the author’s foolishness or the influence of his paymasters. Disgusting.

With that concluding adjective, Mr. Bennett quite well summed up the coverage of America’s press of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

David Martin

November 29, 2013



With all the attacks on the Achenbach article by people commenting online, one might have expected an example or two to turn up among the letters to the editor in the print edition.  For any letter of skepticism about the official lone gunman narrative to appear in the pages of The Post, however, would have broken a 50-year precedent.  What did appear on the “Free for All” page on November 30 were the following three letters, under the heading, From the Kennedy assassination to the tea party:

Bill Minutaglio’s essay in the Nov. 22 special section The Kennedy Assassination, “In 1963, the roots of a paranoid right,” was an exercise in silliness. Minutaglio’s cataloguing of Dallas’s right-wing extremism and hatred of President John F. Kennedy, in an attempt to tie his assassination to the tea party of today (which, for the record, is a movement of which I am not a fan), was a subtle attempt to delegitimize this group.

This is a remarkable act of dishonesty, given that Kennedy’s assassin was an avowed Marxist who wanted to live in the U.S.S.R. or Cuba and who had previously attempted to kill a retired right-wing general. Perhaps Minutaglio’s next essay could be a discussion of hatred and extremism among the radical abolitionists in Lincoln’s time, finishing by subtly implying that John Wilkes Booth was an abolitionist.

—  Jon Lynch, Aldie


Thank you for publishing Bill Minutaglio’s Nov. 22 essay as part of the coverage marking the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. It connected today’s political quagmire with the politics of 1963 in a way that I had never understood before. Like many Americans, I am daily confounded and depressed by the ongoing vitriolic rhetoric propagated by the conservative right, which profoundly harms our country, by fomenting hatred and condemning the government to a state of forced inaction on many important pieces of legislation. I was 8 years old in 1963 and well remember the agony of those four days. What I have not understood until now is how similar the time was to present-day politics. I understand that connection now and am more terrified and saddened than ever.

— Rosemary Donaldson, Falls Church


Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the Soviet Union and admired communist Cuba. Did The Post mention this in its special section on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? No, but we were treated to an essay on the parallels between the “paranoid right” of 1963 and today. Rely on The Post to skirt history in order to “round up the usual suspects.”

— Tony Kostelecky, Manassas


Now you see why The Post included that Minutaglio article, don’t you?  It distracts the readers with the mainstream press’s usual fanning of the Right vs. Left flame, and then The Post gets to do it some more by printing a sampling of the predictably contentious letters they get about it.  As a bonus, they are able to reinforce the notion that Oswald was the lone perpetrator because two of the letter writers take it as a given to make their point.  Never mind that that view is representative of a minority of Americans, and the further notion that Oswald pulled off his incredible act for ideological reasons is swallowed by an even smaller minority.  Going by the comments online on the Achenbach article, these letters are also quite unrepresentative of the views of the readers of The Washington Post, as well.


A Newspaper Toast

Here’s to the letters editor,

The person who rations the word.

His job is to see that vox populi,

Will never, ever be heard.


David Martin

December 1, 2013


Follow @BuelahMan

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

The Last President To Shun Their Deal


Jewish Democrats, particularly in New York, did not yet fully trust the son of a man who had been accused of being both anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi.  Nor did John Kennedy, comfortably surrounded by Jewish staff members, trust all Jews, particularly New Yorkers.  "I had the damnedest meeting in New York last night," he had said to his friend Charlie Bartlett one day in the early fall of 1960.  "I went to this party.  It was given by a group of people who were big money contributors and also Zionists and they said to me, 'We know that your campaign is in terrible financial shape!'...The deal they offered me was that they would finance the rest of this campaign if I would agree to let them run the Middle Eastern policy of the United States for the next four years. -  Richard Reeves, President Kennedy, Profile of Power, p. 143

JFK Autopsy Photo

Jewish Democrats, particularly in New York, did not yet fully trust the son of a man who had been accused of being both anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi.  Nor did John Kennedy, comfortably surrounded by Jewish staff members, trust all Jews, particularly New Yorkers.  “I had the damnedest meeting in New York last night,” he had said to his friend Charlie Bartlett one day in the early fall of 1960.  “I went to this party.  It was given by a group of people who were big money contributors and also Zionists and they said to me, ‘We know that your campaign is in terrible financial shape!’…The deal they offered me was that they would finance the rest of this campaign if I would agree to let them run the Middle Eastern policy of the United States for the next four years.

–  Richard Reeves, President Kennedy, Profile of Power, p. 143


h/t DC Dave

Follow @BuelahMan

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

JFK and RFK, a Tale of Two Assassinations by DC Dave

JFK and RFK, a Tale of Two Assassinations

by DC Dave

Some people see all the controversy and all the books that have been written about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and wonder why. I notice that there has hardly been any public controversy, and relatively little has been written about the murder of his brother, Robert, although the official story is, if anything, even more questionable, and I wonder why not. Might it be the very fact that it bears scrutiny even Sirhan_Sirhanless than the JFK assassination, so, as our opinion molders see it, the less said the better? Could it be that it reveals the forces at work behind the scenes even more vividly than does the earlier killing? In the JFK murder the patsy was a young “former” military man apparently sheep-dipped to play the role of the demon du jour, a Communist, not unlike how super soldier Timothy McVeigh has been rather ineffectively painted as one of the establishment’s current bugbears, a militia man. The RFK patsy, Sirhan Sirhan, resembled McVeigh in that he had a vacant, mind-controlled quality about him, but even better from the point of view of the puppeteers, he didn’t even have to be sheep-dipped. He is a Palestinian.

The disparity in attention paid to the two murders allows fake-left academic types like Maurice Isserman and Michael Kazin (son of neo-conservative literary critic, Alfred) in their recent history/propaganda book, America Divided, The Civil War of the 1960s, to get away with appearing to be agnostic on the JFK assassination while parroting the official fairy tale with respect to RFK:

On the night of June 5, Bobby was celebrating a narrow victory in the California race when a psychotic Palestinian nationalist named Sirhan Sirhan took his life.

That’s the sum total of what they have to say about Bobby’s murder. Questioned about their different treatment of the two killings at a presentation at the bookstore, Politics and Prose, in Washington, DC, last year, Kazin said that it was because a number of “respectable” critics had raised questions about JFK’s murder, while, to his knowledge, that had not been the case with RFK’s murder. He then went on to say what he was clearly afraid to say in his book for fear of loss of credibility (with his readers, not his publishers), he said that he, personally, believed that John F. Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone.

DALTEXSHOTThe contrast with how popular writer, Ralph G. Martin, treats the two murders is revealing. His book, Seeds of Destruction, Joe Kennedy and His Sons, deals with the details of the lives and deaths of his title characters, so he can hardly brush over the subject at issue as lightly as Isserman and Kazin do. Not wanting to be panned by the propaganda press as a “conspiracy nut,” but, at the same time, wanting to impress his readers by his mastery of the facts, facts, which, unfortunately, favor the “nuts,” he solves his problem simply by lying. He tells us that, in a time frame that would permit with a bit of a stretch at most three shots from one bolt-action rifle (with minimal time to find the target and aim through a telescopic sight), precisely three shots were fired. The first, he says, hit Kennedy in the neck, the second hit Governor John Connally, and the third hit Kennedy in the head, the coup de grace. Not having Isserman and Kazin’s bookish left-wing readership to cater to, he explains away the controversy conventionally as something caused by a psychological problem, the inability of many people to accept that “a misguided loser with a $12 rifle could end Camelot.”


The authorities and the critics agree, however, that there was a shot that missed the car and passengers entirely and struck a curb a considerable distance in front of Kennedy’s limousine. The existence of that shot explains why Warren Commission attorney, Arlen Specter, had to come up with the famous “magic bullet” theory explaining how the shot that hit Kennedy in the neck also inflicted a variety of injuries on Connally. Without Specter’s magic bullet or Martin’s misrepresentation, the single assassin theory falls down because there simply was not enough time for one person to fire four shots.


On RFK, for the same reason that Isserman and Kazin can blandly pass on the government’s conclusions, Martin can play it straight and commit truth. There have not been a sufficient number of agitators about the case to make us care enough one way or another. This is from pp. 566-567:

As with JFK’s assassination, there were many dubious details, including the matter of “the girl in the polka-dot dress.” Several people remembered seeing her with Sirhan and another man at the hotel before the shooting. She disappeared. There was also the fact that the Los Angeles police had destroyed three rolls of film confiscated from an eyewitness who took pictures at the very moment shots were being fired. Of 3,470 police interviews on tape, only 301 were kept. Also, the tapes of fifty-one significant witnesses seem to be missing, along with five pantry ceiling tiles, two of which contained bullet holes. The door frame containing two bullet holes was also missing.

A witness insisted that he stopped Sirhan from firing his gun after the second shot. Besides, the number of people wounded and the number of bullet holes indicate that a dozen shots were fired. Sirhan’s pistol contained only eight bullets. The autopsy determined that the shot that killed Kennedy came from behind his right ear, indicating that it came from another gun.

When California released its voluminous files on the assassination it included a certificate showing that 2,410 police photographs in the assassination case were burned on August 21, 1968.

Martin goes on to speculate that maybe Bobby’s enemy, Jimmy Hoffa, was somehow behind the killing, softening the impact of what he has just told us. Surely he must know that Hoffa didn’t have the power to orchestrate the cover-up that he has just described.

A book, Shadow Play: The Untold Story of the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination, by William Klaber and Philip H. Melanson was published in 1997 by St. Martin’s Press. It fleshes out the details given by Martin and provides many more reasons to doubt the official story, but it was greeted by a deafening silence by the propaganda press.

Like the relative silence about President Lyndon Johnson’s personal and political corruption compared to what we hear about Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton, the relative silence about Robert Kennedy’s murder, I believe, is telling. Explaining either would carry us a long way toward understanding how, by whom, and toward what end we are currently ruled.

David Martin

January 28, 2001




We overlooked in our initial article above the 1978 book The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy by William W. Turner and John G. Christian (as well as Melanson’s predecessor book to Shadow Play, the 1994 The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations on the Conspiracy and Cover-up, 1968-1991).   The fact of its existence does nothing to undermine our essential point.  In fact, the first customer review I read on echoes it:  “When one considers the bizarre nature of the known objective facts of the RFK assassination and the stakes involved, it is truly amazing so few books are available. Sirhan Sirhan is a true cipher, and nothing in the ‘official’ story about him allegedly murdering RFK makes any kind of sense.”

Neither is it undermined by the fact that Shane O’Sullivan produced a critical film documentary, RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy, in 2007 and published the book, Who Killed Bobby?  The Unsolved Murder of Robert Kennedy in 2008.  What is generally known about the RFK assassination continues to be pitifully little and the number of books and articles about it compared to those about his brother remains tiny.


Concerning our concluding paragraph and Lyndon Johnson, the relative vacuum about his corruption—and his biggest crime of all, involvement in the JFK assassination—has begun to be filled with a vengeance in recent years.  Books of note on that subject are Noel Twyman’s obscure volume Bloody Treason: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1997, Philip Nelson’s sonmewhat better publicized LBJ, The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination in 2011, and James T. Tague’s LBJ and the Kennedy Killing due out this month.

David Martin

October 1, 2013


Follow @BuelahMan

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or


Lyndon Johnson and the JFK Assassination by Robert Morrow

Lyndon Johnson and the JFK Assassination


On the night of New Year’s Eve Dec. 31st, 1963, at the Driskell Hotel, Lyndon Johnson and Madeleine Brown, one of his longtime mistresses, had an interesting conversation. Madeleine asked LBJ if he had anything to do with the JFK assassination. Johnson got angry; he began pacing around and waving his arms. Then LBJ told her: it was Dallas, TX, oil executives and “renegade” intelligence agents who were behind the JFK assassination. LBJ later also told his chief of staff Marvin Watson that the CIA was involved in the murder of John Kennedy.

Lyndon Johnson would often stay at the Driskill (room #254 today) and LBJ is confirmed by his presidential schedule as being present at the Driskill Hotel the night of 12/31/63

History is proving that Lyndon Johnson played a key role in the JFK assassination. An important book is LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (2011) by Phillip Nelson.  Roger Stone, an aide to Richard Nixon, is writing a book pinning the JFK assassination on LBJ. Stone quotes Nixon as saying:

“Both Johnson and I wanted to be president, but the only difference was I wouldn’t kill for it.”

220px-JohnFKBy 1973 Barry Goldwater privately telling people that he was convinced that LBJ was behind the JFK assassination.

Lyndon Johnson and the Kennedys hated each other. So why was LBJ even put on the 1960 Demo ticket in first place? The old wive’s tale is that it was to balance the ticket and win the electoral votes of Texas. The reality is that JFK was set to pick Sen. Stuart Symington of Missouri and had already had a deal with Symington to be VP that was “signed, sealed & delivered” according to Symington’s campaign manager Clark Clifford. Then something strange happened on the night of July 13, 1960, in Los Angeles. According to Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s longtime secretary, LBJ and Sam Rayburn were using some of Hoover’s blackmail information on John Kennedy to force JFK to put Johnson on the ticket in a hostile takeover of the vice presidency.

JFK told his friend Hy Raskin:

“They threatened me with problems and I don’t need more problems. I’m going to have enough problems with Nixon.”

LBJ & Hoover were very close and literally neighbors for 19 years in Washington, DC, from 1943-1961. Both men were also plugged in socially and professionally to Texas oil executives such as Clint Murchison, Sr, H.L. Hunt and D.H. Byrd.

From that point on, for the next 3 and 1/3 years the Kennedy brothers and LBJ were engaged in a sub rosa war, even though they were ostensibly a political team. On the day of the ’61 inauguration, LBJ protege Bobby Baker told Don Reynolds that JFK would never live out his term and that he would die a violent death.

For his part, Robert Kennedy spent the remainder of JFK’s term trying to figure out a way to get rid of the power-grasping LBJ. The first opportunity to do this was the Billie Sol Estes scandal of 1961. Estes was a cut out for LBJ doing business and had received $500,000 from LBJ (which tells us how important Estes was). LBJ and his aide Cliff Carter manipulated the federal bureaucracy for Estes to ensure that he got exclusive grain storage contracts and numerous other special and highly lucrative favors. Estes says that he funneled Johnson over $10 million in kickbacks.

Henry Marshall was a US agricultural official who was investigating the corruption of Estes, particularly his abuse of a cotton allotment program. In January, 1961, LBJ, Cliff Carter, Estes and LBJ’s personal hit man Malcolm Wallace had a meeting about what to do about Henry Marshall. LBJ said:

“It looks like we will just have to get rid of him.”

Side note: the first person I know who accused Lyndon Johnson of committing a murder was Gov. Allan Shivers who in 1956 personally accused LBJ of having Sam Smithwick murdered in prison in 1952. Smithwick was threatening to go public with information about the Box 13 ballot stuffing scandal of 1948 which gave LBJ the margin of victory over Coke Stevenson in the Democratic primary.

Henry Marshall was murdered on June 3, 1961. He was shot to death 5 times with a bolt action gun and his death was astoundingly ruled a suicide at the time. The Marshall murder & cover up shows the depth, breadth and absolute ruthlessness of the LBJ organization. Billie Sol Estes died recently on May 14, 2013.

Historian Douglas Brinkley has said that by 1963 JFK and his vice president LBJ had no relationship at all. That is not correct; in fact a sub rosa war was being waged between the Kennedys and LBJ. It was an adversarial, death struggle relationship.

In the fall of 1963, the Bobby Baker scandal exploded into the national media. Bobby Baker, who as the secretary of the Senate was a virtual son to Lyndon Johnson, was being investigated for a vending machine kick back scam and numerous shady deals. Baker was known for providing booze & women to the senators. LBJ denied any relationship with Baker (who had named two of his kids after LBJ) while at the same time sending his personal lawyer Abe Fortas to run (control) Baker’s defense. Evelyn Lincoln told author Anthony Summers that the Kennedys were going to use the Bobby Baker scandal as the ammunition to get rid of LBJ.


Robert Kennedy had a two-track program to get rid of LBJ. Phil Brennan was in DC at the time: “Bobby Kennedy called five of Washington’s top reporters into his office and told them it was now open season on Lyndon Johnson. It’s OK, he told them, to go after the story they were ignoring out of deference to the administration.” James Wagenvoord, who in 1963 was a 27-year old assistant to LIFE Magazine’s managing editor, says that based on information fed from Robert Kennedy and the Justice Dept., LIFE Magazine had been developing a major newsbreak piece concerning Johnson and Bobby Baker. This expose was set to run within a week of the JFK assassination. LBJ aide George Reedy said that LBJ knew about the RFK-inspired media campaign against him and was obsessed with it.

RFK’s other “get rid of LBJ” program was an investigation by the Senate Rules Committee into LBJ’s kickbacks and other corruptions. Burkett Van Kirk was a counsel for that committee and he told Seymour Hersh that RFK had sent a lawyer to the committee to feed them damaging information about LBJ and his corrupt business dealings. The lawyer, Van Kirk said, “used to come up to the Senate and hang around me like a dark cloud. It took him about a week or ten days to, one, find out what I didn’t know, and two, give it to me.” The goal of the Kennedys was “To get rid of Johnson. To dump him. I am as sure of that the sun comes up in the east,” said Van Kirk to Hersh.

Literally at the very moment JFK was being assassinated in Dallas on 11-22-63, Don Reynolds was testifying in a closed session of the Senate Rules Committee about a suitcase of $100,000 given to LBJ for his role in securing a TFX fighter jet contract for Fort Worth’s General Dynamics.


Three days before the JFK assassination, JFK told Evelyn Lincoln that he was going to get a new running mate for 1964.

“I was fascinated by this conversation and wrote it down verbatim in my diary. Now I asked, “Who is your choice as a running-mate.’ He looked straight ahead, and without hesitating he replied, ‘at this time I am thinking about Gov. Terry Sanford of North Carolina. But it will not be Lyndon.'”

At this point I should add that I think the CIA/military intelligence murdered John Kennedy for Cold War reasons, particularly over Cuba policy. The fact that the Kennedys were within days of politically executing & personally destroying Lyndon Johnson could very well have been the tripwire for the JFK assassination.

The Russians immediately suspected that Texas oilmen were involved in the JFK assassination. They and Fidel Castro both feared they were going to be framed for it by US intelligence. By 1965 the KGB had internally determined that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination.

Hoover wrote to LBJ about this in a memo that was not declassified by the US government until 1996:

“On September 16, 1965, this same source [an FBI spy in the KGB] reported that the KGB Residency in New York City received instructions approximately September 16, 1965, from KGB headquarters in Moscow to develop all possible information concerning President Lyndon B. Johnson’s character, background, personal friends, family, and from which quarters he derives his support in his position as President of the United States. Our source added that in the instructions from Moscow, it was indicated that “now” the KGB was in possession of data purporting to indicate President Johnson was responsible for the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy. KGB headquarters indicated that in view of this information, it was necessary for the Soviet Government to know the existing personal relationship between President Johnson and the Kennedy family, particularly between President Johnson and Robert and “Ted” Kennedy.”

Robert Morrow, a political researcher and political activist, has an expertise in the JFK assassination. He can be reached at or 512-306-1510.


1) Brown, Madeleine Duncan. Texas in the Morning: The Love Story of Madeleine Brown and President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Conservatory Press, 1997. Page 189.

2) Schlesinger, Arthur. Robert Kennedy and His Times. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978. Page 616.

3) Nelson, Phillip. LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination. Skyhorse Publishing, 2011.

4) Dickerson, Nancy. Among Those Present: A Reporter’s View of 25 Years in Washington. Random House, 1976. Page 43.

5) Hersh, Seymour. The Dark Side of Camelot. Back Bay Books, 1998. Page 126 and 407.

6) Epstein, Edward Jay. Esquire Magazine. December, 1966.

7) Estes, Billie Sol. Billie Sol Estes: A Texas Legend. BS Productions, 2004. Page 43.

8) Dallek, Robert. Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times 1908-1960. Oxford Univesity Press USA, 1992. Page 347.

9) Brinkley, Douglas. Speaking on Hardball with Chris Matthews, 2012.

10) Brennan, Phil. “Some Relevant Facts about the JFK Assassination,” NewsMax, 11-19-2003.

11) Reedy, George. Lyndon B. Johnson: A Memoir. Andrews McMeel Publications, 1985.

12) Wagenvoord, James. Email to John Simkin dated 11-3-09. Web link:

14) Lincoln, Evelyn. Kennedy and Johnson. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Page 205.

15) Hoover, J. Edgar. Memo to Lyndon Johnson with FBI leadership carbon copied. 12-1-66. Web link:

From Robert Kennedy and His Times by Arthur Schlesinger (1978):

“In 1967 Marvin Watson of Lyndon Johnson’s White House staff told Cartha DeLoach of the FBI that Johnson “was now convinced there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson stated the President felt that CIA had had something to do with this plot.” (Washington Post, December 13, 1977)

James Wagenvoord email to John Simkin, dated 11-3-2009:

Posted 04 November 2009 – 07:52 AM

I thought researchers would be interested in reading this email I received last night:

I’ve been reading through you web site and believe that I can add one of the final jigsaw puzzle pieces that affect the timing of JFK’s Dallas trip and the nervousness of LBJ during the weeks preceding the killing At the time I was the 27 year old Editorial business manager and assistant to Life Magazines Executive Editor. Beginning in later summer 1963 the magazine, based upon information fed from Bobby Kennedy and the Justice Department, had been developoing a major newsbreak piece concerning Johnson and Bobby Baker. On publication Johnson would have been finished and off the ’64 ticket (reason the material was fed to us) and would probably have been facing prison time. At the time LIFE magazine was arguably the most important general news source in the US. The top management of Time Inc. was closely allied with the USA’s various intelligance agencies and we were used ofter by the Kennedy Justice Department as a conduit to the public. Life’s coverage of the Hoffa prosecution, and involvement in paying off Justice Department Memphis witesses was a case in point.

The LBJ/Baker piece was in the final editing stages and was scheduled to break in the issue of the magazine due out the week of November 24 (the magazine would have made it to the newsstands on Nov.26th or 27th). It had been prepared in relative secrecy by a small special editorial team. On Kennedy’s death research files and all numbered copies of the nearly print-ready draft were gathered up by my boss (he had been thetop editor on the team) and shredded. The issue that was to expose LBJ instead featured the Zapruder film. Based upon our success in syndicating the Zapruder film I became Chief of Time/LIFE editorial services and remained in that job until 1968.

Follow @BuelahMan

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

JFK Assassination Enablers?


JFK Assassination Enablers?


Guest Column by Hugh Turley


This year marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and stories about that fateful day in November 1963 have already started appearing in the American media.  It is a popular belief that if there were a conspiracy, someone would come forward and the press would tell us.

Then why is there still no news about Pfc. Eugene Dinkin, a cryptographic code operator for the Army?   Declassified CIA and FBI documents released in the 1990s reveal a strange tale that raises the question: Could Dinkin have learned the details of an assassination plot from the classified documents he handled, or was he a paranoiac who somehow made a number of amazingly accurate prophecies?

On October 16, 1963, when Dinkin was stationed in Metz, France, he wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy warning that the president would be assassinated on or about November 28 and requesting an interview by the Justice Department.  Dinkin sent the letter registered mail, and to prevent it from being intercepted, used the return address of an Army friend, Pfc. Dennis De Witt. He did not receive an answer.

Dinkin later changed the predicted assassination date to November 22 and said it would happen in Texas.  He believed the military was involved in the plot and that a Communist would be blamed.  The day after the murder, the Washington Evening Star reported that the alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was a “pro-Castro Marxist.”

On October 25, 1963, Dinkin traveled to the United States Embassy in Luxembourg to apprise a Mr. Cunningham, the Charge d’Affaires, of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy.  He was turned away.

Dinkin was scheduled for a psychiatric examination on November 4, and fearing confinement as a psychotic, he went absent without leave from his unit.  He traveled to Geneva, Switzerland, using a false Army identification and forged travel orders. There, he appeared in the press room of the United Nations office on November 6 and 7 and “told reporters he was being persecuted.” Among those who heard his story were the editor of the Geneva Diplomat and representatives of Newsweek and the Time-Life media group.

The AWOL Dinkin was the subject of CIA cables on November 18 and again on November 29, 1963.  The latter cable advised the White House, State Department, FBI, and Secret Service of Dinkin’s assassination predictions and of his trip to Switzerland.

Upon returning to his unit in Metz, he was arrested by Army intelligence officers and soon transferred to Walter Reed Army hospital in Washington, D.C., where he was treated for “paranoia,” according to an FBI report.  Afterwards, he was discharged from the Army.

The FBI interviewed him on April 1, 1964.  By then, perhaps fearing prosecution for revealing classified material, Dinkin said his theory came from newspaper articles and acknowledged that it “was extremely ‘wild’ and could be construed [as] ‘crazy’.”

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms informed the Warren Commission about Dinkin’s predictions about the assassination, but his name was never mentioned in the encyclopedic official record.

The journalists who heard Dinkin’s story in Switzerland may have had it within their power to prevent the assassination of President Kennedy. By writing nothing about his documented allegations, they failed to exercise that power. In addition, they knew that he had been detained after coming forward—but in the wake of the assassination with the investigation proceeding, they remained silent.  How many other cases like Dinkins remain unreported?

Pfc. Dinkin miscalculated when he went AWOL to contact journalists whom he mistakenly believed were liberty’s guardians.  The Roman poet Juvenal asked, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (“Who will guard the guards themselves?”) It’s still a good question.




This article appeared originally in the May 2013 Hyattsville Life and Times with the more sweeping title of simply “Assassination Enablers?”  The article is reprinted here with the permission of the Maryland newspaper, though it should be noted that, for the first time in Mr. Turley’s many years as a columnist, an editorial disclaimer has been appended.


For more on the Dinkin case, see “Abuse of Psychiatry in the Kennedy Assassination.”  For more on the media’s role in the JFK assassination cover-up see “Fake Media Critic?” and “Pruden, Aynesworth, Rather: Propagandists All.


I also found this reference material that is enlightening.

Follow @BuelahMan

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or