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

[Bolo Boffin]

270. But, wait! You didn't tell us the name of the university you mentor doctoral candidates for!

I think, rather than my moving the goalposts, you saw a way to steep around the point I was making, and you took it. I brought you back to the original goalposts, Mr. (Dr.?) DiEugenio. But a nice try.

"Faux Democrats"? You clearly know nothing about me or my political opinions, and the fact you would pass judgment on me based on my opposition to your silly conspiracy theories is not a testament to your historical prowess. Your master and doctoral candidates deserve better.

At any rate, you are retiring from the field, having done nothing to blunt the point I am making. No one can know exactly what Kennedy would have done in Vietnam, especially not in 1963 - not well enough to justify the military or the CIA or whoever killing him on a Dallas street. Why should they? All they would have to do is sandbag him in the imminent 1964 election! Even you admit Kennedy was going to do nothing substantial about withdrawal until after the election, during which the public rhetoric about Vietnam was all about victory. Why would anyone so worked up about war kill Kennedy when all they had to do is see him lose the election?

Fortunately the guilt of the assassination comes down to the facts on the ground, not these attempts to hype a motive. Motive is almost irrelevant when it comes to determining guilt of a crime. But that's all alternative history buffs have when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. The facts so clearly point to Oswald as the sole actor in that deed, you can only exaggerate the motives of your preferred defendants. Once the discussion properly centers on who was shooting in Dealey Plaza, the conspiracy game is up. Why Oswald did it, we may never know. But knowing why is not necessary or sufficient in order to determine who.

Good day to you.