President Kennedy and His Brother Robert Kennedy Were Murdered By The Military-Security Complex
(RINF) – Presstitute Media, such as the UK Telegraph, spend a lot of energy debunking exposes of government conspiracies. For example, the thousands of highrise architects, structural engineers, physicists, nano-chemists, demolition experts, first responders, military and civilian pilots, and former government officials who have provided vast evidence that the official story of 9/11 is a made-up fairy tale at odds with all evidence and the laws of physics are dismissed by presstitutes as “conspiracy theorists.”
Similarly, those, such as James W. Douglass, who have proven beyond all doubt that President John F. Kennedy was not assassinated by Oswald but by his own paranoid anti-communist military-security complex, are dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
The 9/11 Commission Report and the Warren Commission Report were cover-ups. VP Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives he sponsored needed a “new Pearl Harbor” in order to begin their military assaults on the Middle Eastern countries that had independent foreign policies instead of being US/Israeli vassals. 9/11 was their orchestrated “new Pearl Harbor,” and this fact had to be covered up when 9/11 families persisted in their demands for an investigation and could not be bought off for large sums of money.
Similarly, the Warren Commission had no choice but to cover up that a popular American president, John F. Kennedy, had been murdered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the Secret Service, because he was believed by paranoid anti-communists to be “soft on communism” and thereby a threat to the security of the United States. The cold war was on, and the Warren Commission could not hold those responsible accountable without destroying the public’s confidence in the American military and security services.
Nevertheless everyone aware of the forged case against Oswald knew what had happened. One of these people was Attorney General Robert Kennedy, JFK’s brother.
Bobby Kennedy understood the situation. He knew that as a member of a cover-up administration he could do nothing about it. However, he knew that if he won the presidency, he could hold accountable those security elements responsible. His brother had told him that after his reelection he was going to “break the CIA into a thousand pieces.” When the Vietnam war destroyed President Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Kennedy emerged as the next president of the US.
Bobby Kennedy was assassinated the evening that he won the California Democratic primary. Sirhan Sirhan was blamed. He was standing in front of Kennedy. He had an eight shot low caliber pistol, which he fired. He did hit Paul Shrade, who was standing next to Kennedy. But he did not hit Kennedy. Kennedy, according to the medical evidence and eye witnesses was killed from shots to his back and to the back of his head.
This was confirmed to me years ago by a distinguished journalist and documentary film maker who was standing just behind Robert Kennedy when he was shot. He told me that he felt the bullet that hit Kennedy go by his ear and saw its impact. He wrote a full report for the FBI and despite his credentials was never contacted by the investigation.
Now, last Wednesday, 48 years later, Paul Shrade has presented ironclad evidence at the parole hearing of the now 71 year old Sirhan Sirhan that Robert Kennedy was shot by someone else from the rear, not from the front where Sirhan Sirhan was standing.
You can read Paul Shrade’s statement here:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44184.htm
Of course, the presstitute media will say that Paul Shrade, who was himself shot when Kennedy was assassinated, is a “conspiracy theorist.” Remember: a conspiracy theorist is anyone who on the basis of hard evidence challenges a government that blames its crime on an innocent third party.
At the time of Robert Kennedy’s assassination, the CIA was conducing mind control experiments. Experts think that Sirhan Sirhan was one of those under the CIA’s control. This would explain why Sirhan Sirhan has no memory of the event.
President John F. Kennedy had experienced in the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer a high level of insubordination. Lemnitzer showed in White House meetings contempt for the president. When Lemnitzer brought Kennedy the Northwoods Project to shoot down American citizens in the streets of America and to blow American airliners out of the sky in order to place the blame on Castro so that the US could invade and achieve “regime change,” a popular term of the George W. Bush regime, in Cuba, President Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as chairman and sent him to Europe as head of NATO.
Kennedy did not know about Operation Gladio, an assassination program in Europe run by NATO and the CIA. Communists were blamed for Operation Gladio’s bombings of civilians in train stations in order to erode communist political influence, especially in Italy. Thus, Kennedy’s way of getting rid of Lemnitzer put Lemnitzer in charge of this program and gave Lemnitzer a way to get rid of John Kennedy.
Anyone who thinks that democratic governments would not kill their own citizens is uninformed beyond belief. If, dear reader, you are one of these gullible people, please go to the Internet and become familiar, for example, with Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.
JFK – Murder Planned In Israel?
By Patrick S. McNally
LBJ did not have the resources or the character for organizing the JFK assassination. He even tried to drop out of the presidency after the assassination. Nahum Goldmann meets all the requirements, as someone willing to order an assassination, stick to it and bury it with the use of huge government and media connections. The best book on the JFK assassination is by Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment. A secondary source that is still highly significant is by Salvador Astucia, Opium Lords.
Both of these books suffer to some degree from the idealization of JFK that was consciously promoted by Oliver Stone and Permindex, but they get to the real point with extensive evidence: The assassination was made in Tel Aviv. This is entirely consistent with the fact that JFK’s one truly fundamental conflict was with Israel and its nuclear weapons program, and the conflict was further exacerbated by the fact that Joseph Kennedy, the father, was remembered from the ’30s as a “right-wing isolationist,” i.e., a major Wall Street businessman with some crooked dealings who did not want to get into WWII. I say that these books suffer from an “idealization” of JFK because a major thrust of propaganda in the ’90s was to promote the image of JFK as a man who was so much of an “outsider” that any “establishment” figure would want to kill him, i.e., the list of plausible motives and suspects is extended to infinity and made meaningless. To some extent these two books (the second more than the first) partly echo this idealization, an idealization which would bury all the evidence which the authors do themselves present, if such an idealization were treated seriously.
For this reason, it still is necessary to investigate the auxiliary question of not simply “Who killed JFK?” but rather “In what way did going from JFK to LBJ make a significant difference?” Only in this way can you honestly answer the first question. The rumor-mongering mill has consciously churned out stories of the imminent “Vietnam withdrawal” planned by JFK, something wildly divergent and more “radical” than Nixon’s policies of escalation (into Cambodia), withdrawl, detente. No evidence supports this claim.
Some useful items to check up on in regards to these issues are: Brad O’Leary and L.E. Seymour, Triangle of Death (published by the extremely pro-JINSA WorldNetDaily), Noam Chomsky, Rethinking Camelot, Richard H. Schultz, The Secret War Against Hanoi, Gus Russo, Live by the Sword. Of course, for actual documents, one can always check out Foreign Relations of the U.S., Volume IV, Vietnam August-December 1963 and The Pentagon Papers.
I emphasize again that none of the latter set are recommended as specific investigations of the JFK assassination. Some of these authors, i.e., Chomsky, make it an explicit point to emphasize that they are not investigating the assassination itself but rather the auxiliary query of “Was the assassination committed over Vietnam, Cuba, or the Cold War?” Others, such as O’Leary, Seymour and Russo, do throw in a bit of “assassination investigation” that falls short of key questions, better answered by Piper and Astucia.
However, with sharp documentation and references, all of these sources do make clear that, if one is to believe (for example) that the assassination was motivated by NSAM 263 (a document written by Robert MacNamara and Maxwell Taylor, whose “withdrawal recommendation” was sharply and deliberately toned down by JFK) then the emphasis on killing Kennedy makes little sense. Why not kill MacNamara and Taylor instead, since it was their idea in the first place? When we move our attention to the MOSSAD, ADL, WJC and related Israeli Lobby organizations, this strange ambiguity vanishes. A clear conflict is found which was “JFK specific” in the sense that an Israeli lobbyist and Sephardic Jew, LBJ, was made President in time for the 1967 war, a war which then got a very different reception in Washington than the 1956 war (where Eisenhower and Dulles specifically told England, France and Israel to turn around and go back).
However, before one can honestly reach the judgment that this was indeed the true cause of the assassination, it is necessary to go through the other “prospective motives” of the Stone-Permindex brand and honestly judge “Does this really fit as a serious motive and explanation?” Some of the background sources, e.g. Russo, may not do much as “actual investigations” of the assassination itself, yet still provide useful leads over the issue of “To what extent would JFK have been assassinated over Cuba specifically?”. Rather, I see all of the above as highly significant in any real investigation, not simply for the purpose of “finding a motive” but of crossing out certain motives from a plethora of “hypothetical motives” that are circulated. These books are just some good basic introductions to the twin questions of “Who did it?” and “What was the prime motive for doing it?” and even the further related issue of “What was definitely not the prime motive?”
One of the more specialized mysteries which surrounds the JFK assassination is the document frequently attributed to General Lyman Lemnitzer, known as the “Northwoods Document.” This purported document raises several questions when looked at carefully. The document has been purported to show that Lemnitzer was a such a raving mad Cold Warrior that he proposed a major attack against Castro which JFK rejected and that this explains the assassination of JFK and his replacement by LBJ.
Yet critical inquiry of the JFK assassination that has been followed with up some investigation about the Johnson Administration and Cuba, has generally yielded a conclusion that the JFK assassination helped Castro. Warren Hinckle and William Turner, Deadly Secrets: The CIA-MAFIA War Against Castro and the Assassination of J.F.K., and Gus Russo, Live By the Sword: The Castro Against Castro and the Death of JFK, are both pertinent here. The first source, Hinckle and Turner, leans towards the ‘mistake by right-wing extremists’ approach, with the comment that “The authors believe both Kennedy brothers were men of murderous determination and would not have left Vietnam, or Cuba, alone — but if one takes the revisionists at the best of their argument, Kennedy was running two tracks on Vietnam, and his assassins killed him because they thought he would pull out.” Russo leans towards the ‘lone assassin’ theory, with strong hints that “Far better at the game of deniability than the Kennedys, Castro had little to lose, and everything to gain by pushing Oswald’s buttons, by telling him of the American attempts on his life and his government, by merely suggesting through underlings that Cuba’s leader would appreciate his efforts.”
One has to ask rationally, if the JFK assassination did serve (even inadvertantly, without subscribing yet to any special assassination theory) the purpose of helping Castro, then what exactly was the purpose of the Northwoods Document and the promotion of LBJ. One point of connection that clearly exists between Lemnitzer and LBJ is that “In later years, Nitze — along with his ally Lemnitzer — would emerge as one of the Isareli lobby’s key contacts inside the defense establishment in official Washington.” (Michael Collins Piper, “U.S. Officials Proposed Staging Terror Attacks,” American Free Press, October 8, 2001) This was certainly a significant point of connection that seems mainly to have been noted by reviewers when “In his new book Body of Secrets well-known journalist James Bamford released details of formerly classified documents proving that two high-ranking U.S. officials, Lyman Lemnitzer and Paul Nitze (hard-line supporters of Israel) once proposed staging terrorist attacks against Americans, blaming the attacks on Fidel Castro and sparking a U.S. war of retaliation.” (Michael Collins Piper, “Will Mainstream Censor These ‘Delicate’ Revelations?,” American Free Press, April 2, 2002)
If it is true that Lemnitzer and Nitze were going off the deep-end in an anti-Castro furor before LBJ, a renowned friend of Israel, made it the Oval Office, then one should at least wish to inquire what endowed their mental state with such a healthy cooling down in the face of a President whose ascendency benefited Castro. At the very least, one is obligated to take a closer look at the Northwoods Document itself, in the face of such a rush to enlightenment. What exactly is it?
The sharpest questions raised as to its nature have been from Carol Valentine (“Operation Northwoods: The Counterfeit,” Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum, October 2001). Valentine notes the British idiom of the passage “The pasengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.” The main point which needs to be additionally stressed is that differences of idiom counted for much more on March 13, 1962, (the asserted date of the Northwoods Document) than they do today. The process of global-merging of the world economy has made it difficult for one to measure the significance of such idiomatic differences in 1962 based on speech today. This has some positive sides, but the investigator is required to better recall the idiom of yesteryear when looking at purported historical documents.
Since “James Bamford first penetrated the wall of silence surrounding the NSA in 1982,” it does stretch credibility to assume that an unrequested ‘penetration’ happened again in a simple interviewing style years later. Here one is obligated to ask, ‘what exactly was the motive for putting out another NSA-sponsored book, shortly before 911, which trumpets Pentagon hostility towards JFK and Cuba, and hints at something like 911?” Before we jump into the ‘idle coincidence’ theory, one must note that this was hardly the only ‘idle coincidence’ that occurred just around the time of 911. The Lone Gunmen episode was only one of many other ‘idle coincidences’ of that time.
Perhaps more immediately pertinent in relation to the Northwoods Document itself is the question ‘assuming that this really does come from a genuine document of 1962 vintage, what exactly was the real motive behind it?’ The question of idiomatic differences would only further underscore the fact that if this really is a document from that era, then it must have been made much more ‘on the sly’ than has even been noted (something like in the manner of Laurie Mylroie’s scripting of ‘intelligence documents’ for JINSA, which then supercede a standard CIA report when passing to the Oval Office). Clearly people like Mylroie and JINSA did not then have special connections that were anything like what is available today. Yet, again, we are confronted with this sharp resurgence in mental health that Lemnitzer and Nitze experienced after LBJ had put into effect a temporary break against further attempts to assassinate Castro, a break which stayed in effect until Nixon.
On the matter of LBJ putting a halt against further hit attempts on Castro, one should consider the explanation offered by Russo that Johnson was put in a position where “If he had required the FBI, the CIA, and the Warren Commission to meticulously investigate the possible anti-U.S. reasons that motivated Oswald to act, the Warren Commission might well have turned up convincing evidence that Oswald acted to stop a coming invasion of Cuba, and continued assassination attempts on Castro, which Oswald had stumbled upon in New Orleans. Had he publicly recited just some of the evidence of Oswald as a Castroite, Lyndon Johnson might have been forced to wage a war of retaliation against Cuba. The cycle of violence might have continued, and grown exponentially.” This explanation of LBJ’s personal actions deserves more credibility than is usually given to it by many JFK assassination researchers. Although it certainly is warranted to recall the strong reputation which LBJ had as a supporter of Israel, the question of ‘did he know?’ is much more obscure. The very first flag (generally viewed today by researchers as false) planted after the ‘lone nut’ thesis was the ‘Havana-Moscow conspiracy’ thesis. It would have been difficult to seriously begin investigating the assassination without wading through the ‘Havana-Moscow conspiracy’ thesis.
It would seem clear enough though, as Bamford and ABC note, that “the documents came to light … in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film, ‘JFK,’ which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.” Oliver Stone’s Permindex film did much to steer conversation about the JFK assassination towards the false flag of ‘JFK was on the verge of ending the Cold War and bringing peace on earth.’ Now the Northwoods Document supplements it quite nicely, and steers suspicion from the NSA towards the Pentagon shortly before the Pentagon is bombed. The amazing coincidences of life? Perhaps, but, at least, one might almost feel comforted that the mental health of Lemnitzer and Nitze rose with the budget of the Israeli lobby. Yet another of those ‘amazing coincidences’ which seem to surround anything linked with 911.