JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James Douglass

[hedgehog]

This is not just another JFK conspiracy book. Although the author does lay out compelling evidence of who murdered JFK and how they did it, he also discusses why they did it. He charts the evolution of JFK from the Cold Warrior to the Man of Peace who was preparing to pull the plug on VietNam and the Cold War and the military Industrial complex.

The book was published by the Orbis Press, publishing arm of the Maryknollers.

It received a laudatory review in America, the magazine published by the Jesuits. The review was written by the editor of America.

[villager]

1. Would love a link!

n/t

[hedgehog]

4. Here you go:

http://ncrcafe.org/node/1769

Wow- I didn't know this was the first of three books!

"JFK and the Unspeakable is the first of three volumes (the other two, on the assassinations of Malcolm X and Dr. King, and then Robert F. Kennedy.) It reads like a Robert Ludlum political thriller, only the stakes are much higher, all too real, and all too current. It is the ultimate American story, for it sheds light not only on our history, but on the predicament we face today."

[mrgorth]

2. Kicking

.

[suston96]

3. I said years ago that the Kennedys - and Martin Luther King, were eliminated because they....

....wanted to end the war in Southeast Asia.

[dflprincess]

10. I've always thought that another factor in MLK's assassination

was that, at the time of his death, he was planning the Poor People's March on Washington. A march that was to be inclusive of all races. You get a bunch of people together who start to figure out that their economic circumstances give them a lot more in common than their race makes them different and you've got trouble. (Also remember that the bulk of the Vietnam cannon fodder in 1968 was still coming from poor families.)

That's why we have continued to see Republicans pushing racism and other wedge issues for the last 30 years. It kept people from paying attention to the fact their pockets were being picked.

[hedgehog]

12. Don't forget, he was also moving to be as much a leader in opposition

to the Viet Nam War as a civil rights leader.

[dflprincess]

49. Definitely

and, as I said, too many of the draftees were coming from poor families (especially poor Black families). MLK knew the war was not just a peace issue but also one of racial and economic justice.

[JuniperLea]

38. If MLK had brought all people together as he had planned...

The government couldn't use hating people of color as bait for so much bullshit. Divide and conquer cannot work when there is no division.

[stopbush]

5. Snore.

The compelling evidence says Oswald did it.

JFK a man of peace who was going to pull the plug on Vietnam? Fact: US advisers stationed in Vietnam grew from 1500 when JFK took office to 16,000 at the time of his death. Sounds like escalation to me.

JFK could have been a great president had he lived and served a second term, but history says otherwise. His accomplishments were few. In fact, it was LBJ who carried out the agenda JFK put in motion.

JFK's death was a tragedy that the country has never really recovered from. Spouting loony CT theories does nothing but insult history and besmirch the man's memory.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. How much did Bill Clinton accomplish in his first two years of his first term?

Jesus Christ. Some people are impatient.

[hedgehog]

9. Ever try to turn a ship around? Events were already in motion when

JFK took office. It took him a while to realize what was happening and to change his mind about what the proper course should be.

[avaistheone1]

14. The compelling evidence is that it was a conspiracy according to the

the latest House Committee on Assassinations.

You don't have the fundamental facts.

[stopbush]

17. Yes, the HCOA was convinced by the dictabelt evidence that

a fourth shot was fired. That conclusion was disputed at the time by - among others - the National Academy of Sciences. The cop on the motorcycle in question (HB McClain) asserted that he was a block away from the 13' circle he would have had to have been in at the corner of Houston and Elm to record the sound of the shot. The HCOA elected to ignore his testimony (and people say the Warren Commission only heard what they wanted to hear).

Also, the HCOA was prepared to confirm the conclusions of the Warren Commission before this 11th-hour "evidence" was presented, evidence that has not stood up to a simple and logical look.

Since then, meticulous synching of existing video footage from multiple sources has proven that officer HB McClain was correct - he was at least 80 YARDS from the spot he would have had to have been in to record the 4th shot.

Curiously, the 3 scientists who advanced this theory to the HCOA have refused comment on this definitive evidence. HCOA lead investigator G. Robert Blakey has also stated that were evidence presented to prove McClain wasn't where he would have had to have been that the the dictabelt evidence would be rendered false. It has been rendered false, but Blakey has yet to publicly offer his promised correction. I wonder why?

Looks like it's YOU who doesn't have the fundamental facts.

[Peace Patriot]

15. Fact: JFK signed executive orders starting the WITHDRAWAL of U.S. military 'advisers'

from Vietnam just before he died. LBJ rescinded those orders immediately after JFK's death in late 1963, and, within 11 months, we were in a full scale war in Vietnam, based on the lies and trickery of the "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution, a war in which 2 million people were about to be slaughtered and over 55,000 U.S. troops--a mind-boggling war profiteer escalation that JFK would never have supported.

JFK thwarted the invasion of Cuba, a war that the CIA tried to inflict on him early in his shortened term as president. He also managed to prevent a nuclear war with Soviet Russia (by the compromise of withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey--a compromise that the 'hawks' in the U.S. government and military opposed). By the end of his term, he had signed the first nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and gave an extraordinary speech promoting world peace at the United Nations.

JFK and his brother also drafted or laid the ground work for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the anti-poverty legislation that was passed in the same period, just after he was killed.

Your argument that JFK accomplished little in his shortened term is a non sequitur. Think about this: "JFK could have been a great president had he lived and served a second term, but history (ahem...the 'lone assassin's magic bullet') says otherwise (sure did). His accomplishments were few (because he was dead). In fact, it was LBJ who carried out the agenda JFK put in motion." (--LBJ and, not incidentally, JFK's brother, first as A.G., then as a U.S. Senator and the likely successor of both JFK and LBJ).

If you know anything about the Congress that JFK had to work with, and the climate of the times--barely out of the 'red-baiting' McCarthy era--you would understand better why the civil rights, voting rights and anti-poverty policies of the JFK administration were hard to implement in the little time he had. In fact, on November 22, 1963, I was sitting in a student union building in Los Angeles, reading about JFK's trip to Texas (on the front page of the Los Angeles Times), to prepare the way for his own reelection and the election of a progressive Congress in 1964, in order to pass this legislation. He was hated by southern bigots because he supported black civil rights. His trip to Texas was an effort to bolster progressive forces in the south. It took courage to make that trip. That is what I was thinking about at the very moment that I heard the news on the student union radio that he had been shot in Dallas: JFK's courage--a quality that you dismiss much too easily as "few accomplishments."

The courage to defy the CIA, in the many wars they were trying to drag the U.S. into.
The courage to defy the 'hawks' on withdrawing missiles from Turkey.
The courage to defy the war profiteers that Ike had warned him about (the "military-industrial complex").
The courage to propose worldwide nuclear disarmament.
The courage to try to start bending the U.S. military budget toward peaceful programs, like putting men on the moon.
The courage to go to Dallas.

In his shortened term of office, he was aiming the U.S. out of the "Cold War" towards a more peaceful world. You dismiss this learning curve too easily. He didn't live long enough to finish it.

Nor did his brother.

[hedgehog]

16. I don't think Kennedy had any idea at all what life was like for black

Americans when he was elected in 1960. He was aware of the obstacles he himself faced as a Roman Catholic, and i think he was shocked to discover that the obstacles that black Americans faced were of an entirely greater magnitude. He transformed from someone invested in protecting America from foreign enemies to someone invested in reforming America.

[stopbush]

18. I'd like to read more about JFK signing executive orders to begin

withdrawal from Vietnam. Do you have a source that you can cite/link to to support your statement?

Thanks in advance.

[wyldwolf]

20. I'd like to see that, too.. and in addition...

preventing a nuclear war doesn't mean he suddenly became the prince of peace.

[H2O Man]

34. His goals

which are expressed in his June, 1963 address at American University are worth reading.

[wyldwolf]

47. as they were in his undelivered speech at the Trade Mart in Dallas...

... and two TV interviews in September of 1963 with Walter Cronkite and David Brinkly. In the Cronkite interview, Sept. 2, 1963, Kennedy said:

. . . in the final analysis it is the people and the Government (of South Vietnam) itself who have to win or lose this struggle. All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear. But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away.

[H2O Man]

55. A couple of things:

First, no one from the Kennedy administration believed that he would withdraw the majority of troops until after the '64 election. A person can agree or disagree with that thinking, of course, but that many people close to him believed that was his plan seems beyond dispute.

Second, President Kennedy had an interesting approach to many issues, that can be best decribed as a "double track." Because he was unique in modern Presidents, in that he "served" as his own Chief of Staff, he often had advisers who were fully convinced that he was prepared to take "route A," while others were equally convinced that he was preparing to take "route B." This method allowed him to avoid taking rigid positions, and to always have options for adjusting as events unfolded. The classic example of this was, of course, the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Thus, without question, a person can point to statements made in public and private that suggest President Kennedy would not have withdrawn troops in Vietnam had he lived beyond November, 1963. Likewise, his approach to relations with Cuba can be "documented" as being "route A" or "route B."

Obviously, I did not know exactly what President Kennedy was thinking. I'm basing my opinion on what those who I believe were most aware of what his plans were. But others certainly can be as convinced as I am that he would have done something differently.

[wyldwolf]

56. You and I cannot possibly know what his thoughts were, but his words and actions...

.. do not indicate he was planning a withdrawal unless the South Vietnamese were sufficiently able to take care of themselves - and then that condition only involved 1000 special troops.

It doesn't matter what my opinion is or your opinion is. The facts don't support a motivation to withdraw at any time.

[H2O Man]

59. You are partly right. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

51. "JFK's Plans to Withdraw"

Volume 54, Number 19 · December 6, 2007
JFK's Plans to Withdraw
By James K. Galbraith

In response to The Adventures of Arthur (November 8, 2007)

To the Editors:

In his review of Arthur Schlesinger's Journals, 1952–2000 , Joseph Lelyveld writes that while "Kennedy had now and then spoken in private about withdrawing after the 1964 election; when he died it was a faint hope, not yet a plan." This is incorrect.

Schlesinger himself says otherwise; in Robert Kennedy and His Times he writes of the "first application" in October 1963 "of Kennedy's phased withdrawal plan." Robert McNamara goes further, in his 1995 memoir In Retrospect, to speak of "President Kennedy's decision on October 2 <1963> to begin the withdrawal of US forces."

A presidential decision requires a plan. The elements of a decision must include: (a) previous planning, reflected in military documents in this case; (b) discussion of the plan; (c) a decision to accept or reject the plan, reflected in a decision document; and (d) steps to implement the plan. In the case of JFK and withdrawal from Vietnam, all these elements are present.

We have records of the 8th Secretary of Defense conference in Honolulu on May 6, 1963, which tell of a "Comprehensive Plan" for Vietnam, including: "plan to withdraw 1000 US personnel from RVN by December 1963." McNamara also ordered that "training plans" be developed for the Vietnamese to permit "a more rapid phase-out" of the remaining US forces.

On October 2, 1963, these plans were discussed at the White House. We have the tape. McNamara states to Kennedy: "And the advantage of taking them out is that we can say to the Congress and the people that we do have a plan for reducing the exposure of US combat personnel to the guerilla actions in South Vietnam."

On October 5, 1963, at a meeting at 9:30 AM, Kennedy made the formal decision to implement the withdrawal plan. Again, we have the tape. On October 11, the White House issued National Security Action Memorandum 263, which speaks of "the implementation of plans to withdraw" troops from Vietnam.

A memorandum conveying the decision, from JCS Chair Maxwell Taylor to his military colleagues, had already been sent. It states: "All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all US special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. The US Comprehensive Plan, Vietnam, will be revised to bring it into consonance with these objectives...."

For Mr. Lelyveld to state that there was no plan, but only a "faint hope" of withdrawal, is clearly at odds with the plain wording of the source documents. There was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965. Moreover, President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.

These facts are documented in my article "Exit Strategy," in The Boston Review of October/November 2003, available at www.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html. Copies of the original documents are available on request.

James K. Galbraith
Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relationsand Professor of Government
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs
University of Texas at Austin

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20881

[Peace Patriot]

52. Notice McNamara's wording...

Notice Robert McNamara's wording, quoted in this paragraph of Galbraith's letter:

On October 2, 1963, these plans were discussed at the White House. We have the tape. McNamara states to Kennedy: "And the advantage of taking them out is that we can say to the Congress and the people that we do have a plan for reducing the exposure of US combat personnel to the guerilla actions in South Vietnam."

---------

It is common practice in the White House, I'm sure, to discuss policy this way--"...we can say to the Congress and the people..."--that is, to posit 'sellable' talking points. It does not necessarily point to hypocrisy. But, knowing the role that McNamara played after Kennedy's death, in escalating the Vietnam War, which did exactly the opposite stated in Kennedy's policy (Kennedy's intention to reduce the exposure of US troops, and withdraw them all from Vietnam, where only a relative few had been killed, at that point), this wording ("we can say...") rather jumped out at me, just now. McNamara was determined to escalate. So was Johnson. So were all the 'hawks.' They did so, dramatically, over the months after Kennedy was killed, culminating in the phony "Gulf of Tonkin" incident and full scale war, only 11 months later. And I will never forget LBJ's presidential campaign that year (1964), because it was my first vote for president. I voted for the candidate who advertised himself as the "peace candidate." LBJ. And what I got for that 'peace' vote was two million people slaughtered in Southeast Asia, before it was over.

Johnson LIED during that campaign. They were escalating the war, in secret, during those 11 months, and gearing up for a major slaughter, not to mention boffo war profiteering. McNamara wanted to try out his policy of fighting "the communists" with conventional warfare--as opposed to nuclear war, which had to be avoided because of its Armageddon-ness. He had articulated this policy while Kennedy was still alive. It may have came out of the Cuban Missile Crisis (facing Armageddon). I remember it well, and remember (at age 18) thinking that it made sense to have a defense that was not dependent on destroying all life in the U.S. and Russia. (I didn't know then what I know now about nuclear war--thanks to Carl Sagan--that even a limited nuclear exchange will likely destroy all life on earth, not just in the warring countries). But I had not yet questioned why we were "fighting communists" at all. I knew nothing of Vietnam, nor of their long, long struggle for independence from everybody (the Chinese, the French, the U.S.), nor of the UN plebiscite that Ho Chi Minh and the communist party would have won, in Vietnam, in 1954, if the U.S. had not nixed the election.

The question that this McNamara wording raises is this: To what extent (if any) was this withdrawal plan a hypocritical plan, on paper only, 'sellable' to Congress and the American people? Was McNamara just playing along, pretending to be a 'dove'? Was Kennedy? Other evidence suggests that Kennedy was sincere in his determination not to get involved in a ground war in Asia. I favor this view. But I think "what we can say to Congress and the people"--that wording--raises some questions, certainly about McNamara and the 'hawks' (considering what they subsequently did), and just a faint shadow of doubt about Kennedy, since this was stated in his presence.

I try not to harbor illusions about JFK. I had many as a youngster. And it is difficult to look back with adult eyes into that history. But I think the case for his learning curve (and Bobby's) toward an anti-CIA, anti-war, pro-world peace and justice position is very strong. And viewing it through the lens of the Iraq War makes that case even stronger. Look at the machinations the Bushwhacks undertook to shove another unjust war down the throats of the American people! The same forces were at work, then, to turn Vietnam into a major war profiteer boondoggle at the cost of 2 million lives. And JFK--and RFK, and MLK--men of high intelligence and good heart--stood in the way of that highly lucrative war, and were eliminated because of it. Everything else is misdirection, in my opinion. That's what it looks like to me now.

It's interesting, isn't it, how everybody in power understands that the American people don't want war? The same kind of discussion must have taken place in the White House in, oh, October-ish 2001: How to "sell" them on another, completely unjustifiable war? (Rumsfeld: "Get everything you can on Saddam..."*) But there were no 'doves' in the Bushwhack White House, least of all the president of the U.S. Indeed, there was no thinking president, capable of a 'learning curve'--just an idiot puppet of the war profiteers, with no conscience.

---------

*"Go back over everything. Everything," Mr Bush said, according to Mr Clarke's newly published memoir. "See if Saddam did this." Reminded that the CIA, FBI and White House had found no such link before, Mr Bush spoke "testily". As he left the room, Mr Clarke said, the President said: "Look into Iraq, Saddam."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/22/1079939586531.html

[wyldwolf]

57. his words were based on NSAM 263

The "withdrawal plan" had a condition that the South Vietnamese were sufficiently capable of taking care of themselves. NSAM263 is quite clear on this and there is really no wiggle room or room for interpretation:

1. The security of South Viet Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet Nam to deny this country to Communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Vietnam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.

Was JFK under the impression things were stablizing to the point the US involvement would end in year? If he had that impression, he was misled. All interpretations aside, McNamara's plan was to the point: We'd leave when the South Vietnamese could take care of themselves.

[H2O Man]

33. Two things that you

might find of interest regarding this topic would be:

{1} Foreign Relations of the United States: 1961-63, vol. 4; Government Printing Office (1991); which includes {2} the McNamara/Taylor "Trip Report" of October 2, 1963. This became the body of NSAM #263 on October 11, 1963, which indeed outlines the plan for American troop withdrawal from Vietnam.

[stopbush]

41. Are those "signed executive orders?"

Just asking.

[wyldwolf]

46. yes, it is interesting, but doesn't actually outline American troop withdrawal

It called for the withdrawal of 1,000 American troops provided the South Vietnamese were sufficiently capable of doing without them:

1. The security of South Viet Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet Nam to deny this country to Communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Vietnam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.

[villager]

26. you just keep sleeping, hear?

you and all that "compelling" evidence...

[JuniperLea]

39. Do you realize how many so-called CT's have been proved true?

And, btw, CT theories is redundant. The T stands for Theories. It's like idiots who say ATM machine... the M is for Machine.

Remember this bullshit you just spewed when Obama has been in office for two years and not much "seems" to have been accomplished.

[stopbush]

42. No. How many CTs have been proven true?

Why not tell me? 9/11? JFK? RFK? What?

Don't get me wrong. There are conspiracies. The Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy, even if some of the people executed for it got a raw deal. The assassination of Tsar Nicholas II and his family was a conspiracy. That's what the EVIDENCE shows. The evidence shows no such thing in the JFK assassination.

And don't sell Obama short. I have every confidence that he'll have major accomplishments to show in his first two years. I'd ask that YOU remember that you heard that from me.

Yes, I know that "theories" is redundant when typing CT. Big fucking deal. We all make a few typos when we're blogging a mile a minute. For others, it's planned - like MLB Baseball (the B in MLB stands for baseball)...or the ADAA - the American Dodgeball Association of America.

[JuniperLea]

43. Don't be obtuse..

Some of the most prominent political scandals in US history began as a
conspiracy theory and turned out to be true; Wikipedia
(www.wikipedia.com) lists some of these:

"The United States Department of Defense Information Awareness Office
(IAO) has many similarities to conspiracy theories. First, its avowed
purpose is to gather and correlate information on ordinary citizens
for the purpose of predicting terrorism and other crime. Second, its
logo depicted the eye in the pyramid, a symbol associated with
Illuminati and Masonic representations of power or divinity, casting a
beam over the globe of the Earth. This has since been changed. The
original logo is still widely available on the internet, however.
Lastly, the name "Iao" is a Gnostic word for God, used in the Golden
Dawn and Thelema among others. <10>

The Mafia was essentially completely unknown to outsiders until Joe
Valachi revealed them in 1963.

Declassified papers as well as legal inquiries have shown that the CIA
was involved in many coup d'??tat, including the overthrow of Jacobo
Arbenz Guzman and Salvador Allende as well as into terrorist action,
for instance in Italy

From the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA and the U.S. Army operated a
research program into mind control, codenamed MKULTRA. In this
program, CIA agents gave LSD and other drugs to unwitting and
unconsenting victims, in an effort to devise a working "truth serum"
and/or mind-control drug. MKULTRA was uncovered by Presidential and
Congressional research committees in 1975, and discontinued at that
time. Many prominent writers and drug figures were first exposed to
LSD under this program, including Ken Kesey of the Merry Pranksters,
Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg, Baba Ram Dass (Richard Alpert) and
future 'Unabomber' Theodore Kaczynski. A source on this is the book
"Acid Dreams" by Bruce Shalin and Martin A. Lee.

ECHELON is a communications interception network operated by the
United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
It is designed to capture telephone calls, fax and e-mail messages.
New Zealand has openly admitted the existence of Echelon, and the
European Union commissioned a report on the system.

In the 2003 Iraq War, Iraqi resistance was strong at first and then
collapsed suddenly. A conspiracy theory emerged in Iraq and elsewhere
that there had been a safqah" ?? Arabic for: a secret deal ? ? between
the US and the Iraqi military elite, wherein the elite were bribed to
stand down. This conspiracy theory was ignored or ridiculed in the US
media.
In late May, 2003, General Tommy Franks, who had been the head of the
US forces in the conflict, confirmed in an interview with Defense News
that the US government had paid off high-level Iraqi military
officials and that they had stated that "I am working for you now".
How important this was to the course of the conflict was not entirely
clear at the time of this writing (May 24, 2003).

Operation Northwoods, a CIA plot to commit acts of apparent terrorism
and blame them on Cuba to encourage support for a war, was long
considered to be nothing but a conspiracy theory ? until the project's
documents were declassified and published.

The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male. For a
period of 50 years, the US Government used some members of the black
population of a town in Alabama to observe the effects of untreated
syphilis. The participants were not asked to participate and were not
told they were being untreated for their syphilis.

The US Federal Reserve lends money to the government at interest. When
this happens, money floods the market, and creates the "hidden tax" of
inflation. This scheme has had similar effects with the previous
national banks, and been predicted by conspiracy theories prior to its
implementation in 1913. Also, although the word "federal" is used, the
US Government does not own the Federal Reserve and has limited control
of its operations.

The Bilderberg Group, an annual convention of Western political and
economic elites, actually does exist. It is thought of as a modern-day
Illuminati-style conspiracy by some, where persons with power discuss
and arrange control of the world."

Martyn Jones also considers other as a true conspiracies, most
distinctively Watergate (Washington Post on Watergate:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/front.htm>
; "Watergate.net" <http://www.watergate.info/>), but also

"British Premiere Margaret Thatcher ordered the Royal Navy warship
that had patrolled the coast of The Falklands since the 60s to
stand-down immediately prior to the islands invasion by an Argentinean
expeditionary force".

"Although many juvenile republicans and arm-chair supporters still
scoff at the idea that the Clintons were the target of a vast
conspiracy, overwhelming material evidence and the testimonials of
many participants on all aides indicates otherwise." (SOURCE: Martyn
Jones, <http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/martycolumns2.shtml> ;
However, I would say that "Monicagate" in itself *is* a conspiracy
turned out to be true: who would think the president would do such a
thing?)

One of the most fun people to have conspiracies about, that in turn
would turn out to be absolutly true is Imelda Marcos. You have to
worship that woman:

- Yes, she did try to have a porn film festival in Manila and called
the Cardinal "gay" because he opposed it;

- Yes, she did send the Filippino secret security forces to beat up
the Beatles at the Manila Airport, because the fab-four did not want
to meet her after their show in the Philippines;

- Yes, she did have so many shoes;

I get all of that (and many other unbelievable stories about the
Marcoses: he made up his record in the underground against the
Japanese occupation, for example) from a book, not from the Internet:
James Hamilton-Paterson, "America's Boy" (Granta).

Still in Asia, this article claims to have another, made-in-Seoul
real-life conspiracy:
Aidan Foster-Carter, "North Korea's missiles: just so convenient",
Asia Times January 09, 2001
<http://www.atimes.com/koreas/CA09Dg01.html>

I can't verify the validity of the claims made in Asia Times, because
I am not that acquinted with the story.

Another claims of "no smoke without fire" is made by another reputable
body, the Canadian CBC:
Fifth Estate, Conspiracy Theories (regarding 9/11)
<http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/>
This site deals mostly with the claims on Bush-Saudi connections, and
claims that although the theories continue to be just that - theories
and not facts - there are some supporting evidences.

However, I could add one more things that was also found to be true
(thought I am not sure how much of a conspiracy it has been):

The FBI established and operated COINTELPRO, designed to monitor and
sabotage the operations of social movements deemed "subversive"
(See Prof. David Cunningham's book "There's Something Happening Here"
U. California Press about it; and see his homepage:
<http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/sociology/cunningham.html>);

I hope this answered your question. There are probably some other
events that people consider as a "conspiracy theory" and were found to
be true; others would claim that by definition, a conspiracy theory
cannot be found to be true (but cannot be debunked either), because
then the whole conspirative tone would disappear. My search strategy
was to search for the term "conspiracy theory" with other terms likely
to appear in the text such as "to be true". I also searched
Snopes.com, but all of the conspiracy theories mentioned there are
labled as "false".

Here's an interesting case where rumors that had been "debunked"
turned out to be probably true:

For centuries, English historians and the general public discussed the
matter of the disappearance of young King Edward V and his brother,
the Duke of York. The two boys had been held in protective custody in
the Tower of London by King Richard III, and they soon vanished from
view. The boys were last seen in public in October 1483.

Some (including William Shakespeare) said that Richard III had the
princes (who were his own nephews) put to death because they were a
threat to his claim to the throne. As time passed, Richard was
exonerated by many, and the onus for the princes' murder began to fall
elsewhere. Richard's successor, Henry VII, was mentioned as a likely
candidate. Many books have been written in an effort to clean up
Richard's reputation, and groups such as The Richard III society have
clung to the belief that Richard was not capapable of such a dastardly
deed as the cold-blooded murder of two innocent boys. In the absence
of hard evidence, speculation was plentiful.

In 1674, 191 years after the boys disappeared, the bones of two small
humans were discovered under a staircase in the Tower of London. The
consensus of opinion was that the bones belonged to the two young
princes. An inquest in 1933 re-examined the matter, and it was
concluded that the bones were those of boys approximately 13 and 10
years old, which would mean that, assuming the bones to be those of
the princes, they would have died in 1483, shortly after they
disappeared, and well within the reign of Richard III. Allegations
that the prices had survived into the Tudor period were thus laid to
rest, and the finger of blame was again pointed at Richard III, the
initial suspect. Although he was not the deformed monster portrayed by
Shakespeare, it does appear that he, or someone close to him, had the
princes murdered.

You'll find a fascinating account of "the princes in the tower" here:

Crime Library: All About the Princes in the Tower
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/the_princes/1.html

[Waiting For Everyman]

50. Your pronouncements show that you know nothing about it.

Your "facts" are selective. And Oswald? There's not one detail of that story that EVER held water. But why let that interfere with your certainty? If that's what makes you feel secure, it doesn't make any difference if you believe it.

[Sex Pistol]

54. Thanks for adding some fact based sanity to this thread.

[WI_DEM]

58. JFK was more style than substance.

While it was a tragedy he was killed and we don't know what his full potential was the record that is there is mixed. He deserves credit for being an inspirational leader but he had few concrete achievements. You rightly point out that he escalated the US involvement in Vietnam. His government was involved in political assassination including Diem and attempts to get Castro. He was lukewarm on Civil Rights. He could end discrimination on federal housing he said "by a stroke of a pen" during the 1960 campaign. It took him two years to do so when he became president by executive action (after many Civil Rights groups sent pens to the WH in protest of his taking so long). He had nowhere near the committment to civil rights that LBJ showed. He was a pragmatic politician, and a good one, but as a president I think he was relatively weak.

[pnwmom]

6. K & R. n/t

[H2O Man]

7. Nominated.

Thank you.

[kickysnana]

11. The truth I discovered at age 16 in 1967, that changed my life.

I decided to write a paper "What would have happened if Kennedy had lived?". Being an overachiever with a fantastic school and oommunity library I set off and came to the same conclusions by following the stories as far as I could.

Some day I still hope to see justice done and the idea of America reserected in my lifetime.

[hedgehog]

13. At the risk of getting this thread tossed into the dungeon, once you

even consider the possibility that JFK was murdered to keep the Cold War going, the notion that the same people were involved with 9/11 (LIHOP or MIHOP, your pick) starts to look like a probability. The people who murdered JFK are still running events from behind the scenes. If that sounds too paranoid for you, consider the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004!

[wyldwolf]

19. Until I see more of this, I'll consider this revisionism.

[hedgehog]

21. You say that like revisionism is a bad thing!

If it weren't for revisionism, we'd all still believe that America was wrested from the hands of blood thirsty savages by upstanding Anglo-Saxons (none of those swarthy Southern Europeans or those lazy Irish!) and that the North American Continent was simultaneously an unsettled, virginal territory. If it weren't for revisionism, we would be unaware of all the blacks who fought for the Union.

[wyldwolf]

22. The way I'm using it, it is.

Much of this contradicts the bios of JFK written by some very notable writers who did not have agenda like Douglass does.

[hedgehog]

23. So , writers I agree with are balanced and fair, writers I disagree with

have an agenda and/or are revisionists.



Gotcha.

[wyldwolf]

25. that's not what I'm saying

I'm saying Douglass is unique in what he is writing in regards to JFK. He's either gotten information writers and respected historians like Robert Dallek weren't privy to or he's taking some big liberties.

I believe it's the latter.

If you can show us any other documented evidence of some of these claims, I'd be more prone to believe it.

[hedgehog]

29. Would 98 pages of actual footnotes constitute documented evidence?

Douglass does come out of the Catholic Peace and Justice movement, so he does have an agenda. However, I think any and every biographer has an agenda of some sort.

[wyldwolf]

30. yes, they would... as long as they documented the claims from the OP

Sure, every writer has an agenda, but Douglass's is certainly more apparent than most.

Here's an example: The OP suggests the book asserts JFK was preparing to "pull the plug" on the military industrial complex.

Yet, right before his death, his speeches were bragging about how much money he was spending on the military, including how much he'd increased US special counterinsurgency forces in Viet Nam. The morning of his assasination:

In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counterinsurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent.

[Peace Patriot]

24. I didn't really understand the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations until the invasion of

Iraq in March 2003. Looking back, it all becomes clearer. It is very difficult to drag the great peace-minded, justice-minded, progressive American majority into an egregiously unjust war. Watching the crude manipulations of the Bush Junta, and the methods they used to thwart the majority which had "learned the lessons of Vietnam" (nearly 60% of the American people opposed the war on Iraq--Feb '03, all polls), and the methods they used to stay in power after bribing the Supreme Court (the installation nationwide of 100% nontransparent voting machines, run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushwhack corporations, instigated in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution--Oct '02), I realized that what JFK, RFK and MLK had in common is most likely why they were killed: They all opposed escalation of the Vietnam War, one of the biggest, most senseless war boondoggles, ever.

The U.S. was dragged into the Vietnam War because all of the leaders who could have, and would have, prevented it, had been killed--JFK at the beginning; RFK and MLK five years later, in the middle of it.

There is some evidence that JFK ended up opposing the CIA activities in Vietnam. It is difficult to establish conclusively, but it is certainly true that he was on a learning curve about the necessity for world peace, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he personally stared Armageddon in the face. He was a man of sensitivity, wit and a great intelligence, with an Irishman's sympathy for the downtrodden. Whether he would have--or could have--stopped the CIA/military plot re the Gulf of Tonkin, he most certainly would never have permitted the U.S. to become steeped up to its eyeballs in the blood of millions of innocents, as happened within a year after his death.

And, at the middle turning point of that horror--with the U.S. well on its way to the first million dead, in 1968--his brother, RFK, took up the banner of the anti-war movement, only five years after JFK was killed. The two brothers were very close. They were following the same learning curve out of the "Cold War" toward a more peaceful and just world.

And just prior to that, MLK--against all advice--gave his stunning speech at the Riverside Church in New York (RFK was the Senator for New York, at that point), opposing the Vietnam War, in ringing and brilliant terms, and linking the civil rights and anti-war struggles.

Bang, bang. Shoot, shoot.

And, after that--despite enormous anti-war protests through the end of the decade and on into the next decade (the 1970s), and the radicalization of an entire generation of Americans--nothing and no one could stop this unbelievable, on-going slaughter, because the remaining progressive leaders (people like Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's VP, a once great labor Democrat) knew what the price would be for daring to oppose the war profiteers.

It is perhaps too easy to compress events of the past, with hindsight, and draw erroneous conclusions based on intuitions and leaders' "learning curves" and "trends," and in our human need for a coherent story. I am aware of that hazard of history writing. But the evidence in this case--the loss of one potential, and two actual, very strong anti-war leaders, in the space of five years, amidst the escalating carnage and war profiteering in Vietnam--I think you'd have to be rather blind not to see it, once the blinkers are removed, by an event like the Iraq War. The Bushwhacks had to lie through their teeth, shred the Constitution, out CIA agents (ironically), bludgeon the military, fire generals, blackmail the Congress with massive spying and anthrax letters, rig elections and drag the American people, kicking and screaming, into another Vietnam.

Back then, they just killed off the leaders, one, two, three, pop, pop, pop. And the antiwar movement never recovered (and the general progressive movement, after gaining some momentum, never recovered either). This time (although there is evidence they may have assassinated Paul Wellstone, who had pledged to lead the fight against the invasion of Iraq in the U.S. Senate), they used these other methods, including--to keep the war going--the fast-tracking of highly riggable voting machines all over the country during the 2002 to 2004 period.

I will be very interested in the Jesuits' take on this, in this new book. It was a Jesuit, you may recall--Father Dan Berrigan--who poured blood on military Draft records, and went on the lam from the FBI, trying to stop the Vietnam War. After RFK and MLK were assassinated, no one could really stop it (except the Vietnamese themselves, by winning it). But the Berrigan brothers certainly tried to, as did many other Catholics. And that, perhaps, is another point to be made in assaying what JFK might have done, had he lived. He was a Catholic (not to mention an Irish Catholic) and president of the U.S. in the midst of the great liberal awakening in the Church, which was strongly focused on social justice and peace issues. RFK was surely influenced by the ecumenical movement. JFK would have been, and possibly already was. Could he have, in conscience, permitted that awful slaughter to continue? I don't think so.

[Peace Patriot]

27. Edit: It is the Maryknolls who are publishing the book, not the Jesuits.

The Jesuits just reviewed it (in their magazine, America). But the Maryknolls were also very active in the anti-war movement, although not quite as famously as Fr. Berrigan, and they were also active in the social justice movement in Latin America.

[hedgehog]

28. I mentioned the reveiw in America because the Jesuits have an

established reputation for being clear headed.

[Peace Patriot]

31. Thanks for this OP, hedgehog! Didn't know about this book. Just bought it

at Amazon.com because of you.

[Zodiak]

40. "They gave the power to the have-nots

....and then came the shot."

Zach de la Rocha ca. 1993

[WinkyDink]

60. This makes it easier to understand the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, also, IYGMD.

Billions---trillions---of dollars and world power are powerful motives to murder a mere 3,000 people.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

32. Has anyone read the Vincent Bugliosi book about the JFK assassination?

I hear the book goes with the Lee Harvey Oswald lone gunman theory, but I saw Bugliosi on CSPAN and it sounds really interesting.

[H2O Man]

35. I have.

I'd recommend the book, along with several others, to people interested in this topic.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

36. Thanks

I am going to read it then, thanks for the rec.

[stopbush]

37. Yes. It's a must read for anybody who's truly interested in the evidence.

But it's tough...long and small print on paper that tends to be a bit translucent. Worth the effort.

[WinkyDink]

53. I love and have great respect for VB; his books on Manson and O.J. are brilliant.

I'm now reading his "charging Bush with murder" book; compelling.

HOWEVER~~~I have ALSO read a HUGE number of JFK books, and, IMHO, Vince is WAY off-base here. He takes MANY "official" statements and "findings" at face value.

[Clio the Leo]

44. We need a WHOLE nother book to tell us what we knew an hour after it happened?

Wow.

[AllentownJake]

45. The reason why this is relevant

Is we need to make sure it doesn't happen ever again.

We are entering extremely dangerous times right now and a world more treacherous than 1960. This is more 1932. The last time the economic situation was this bad Prescott Bush and others were attempting to organize a coup and making business deals with Adolph Hitler. If Pershing hadn't told those people to fuck themselves. It might have happened.

[wyldwolf]

48. man! I am enjoying this thread. Nice to discuss history rationally.