JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963

[Bolo Boffin]

202. Well, that's a start.

"the findings that individual right wing intel members, organized crime members, Batista Cubans, etc., were possibly involved in the conspiracy."

That's not quite what the HSCA said. A small distinction, but an important one:

3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
a. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
b. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
c. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
d. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
e. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.

By "right wing intel members," I assume you mean members of the Secret Service, the FBI, and the CIA. They didn't get the same caveat as anti-Castro Cuban groups or the mob. In fact, the HCSA expression of their non-involvement is stronger than the Soviet Government's or the Cuban Government's. They get a "basis of the evidence available to us." It's a flat denial for the US Government groups.

And the "possibly involved" doesn't mean much. They didn't have the time, cash, or inclination to track down and preclude every individual member of the anti-Castro groups or the mob. Nor would anyone expect them to.

The dictabelt evidence was the only reason they stated this, anyway. Without clear and credible evidence of a fourth shot necessitating a conclusion of conspiracy, there would be no reason to go looking for where one might possibly have been. All manner of people might have helped Oswald. But without the slightest bit of evidence that someone did, there is no reason to go looking.

Something we do agree on: there are certainly a lot of unsavory types in the government before and since the assassination. And they certainly did capitalize on JFK's death. But they have always sought a way to capitalize on every event they could. They are not causing every disaster so that they can. They are just working the plan and taking advantage of every opportunity to advance their goals. This isn't evidence they killed Kennedy. You might as well say Zapruder had a hand in the conspiracy so he could sell his film. I don't anyone would go that far.

Re: the results of the Bay of Pigs - the first thing was the conference where Khrushchev tried his best to bully Kennedy into withdrawing from Berlin. I think that was a direct result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Khrushchev and the Soviets saw weakness and tried to exploit it. JFK stood his ground there. Then they doubled down and put missiles into Cuba to put a thorn into America's side the way they viewed Berlin as a thorn in theirs. That blew up in their face again.

And another thing we agree on: your analogy of the calm guy in the bar ending the fight. That's a very apt way of putting Kennedy's role and stance. But he was counseled on it by Eisenhower. And he took that advice to heart. That is, until Lee Oswald shot him.