Let's Blame Bobby

First topic message reminder :

It's the return of the once-lost series that Paul Trejo didn't want himself to read.


Now it's time to shift gears for a little while, due to my recovery of some posts that were deleted from The Education Forum in late June of 2013. The previous Summer I had begun a series of postings that dealt with an agenda to lay the blame for President Kennedy's death on his brother Robert; these were originally posted in Gary Loughran's thread "Blame it on the Bobby." In this re-posting I'm starting with a revised version of my second posting in that thread in order to give better context on the larger issue of the Central Intelligence Agency's plotting and attempts to carry out political assassinations, and the extent to which those were known or approved by President Kennedy (and Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General). The information below originally appeared as "Let's Blame Bobby, Part II" at The Education Forum on 13 July 2012............ More.

Goban Saor wrote:

M.Ellis wrote:Sorry to ask a dumb question. Blame Bobby for what? 

(1) The assassination? 
(2) Not strenuously objecting to the cover-up? 
(3) Sabotaging Garrison's investigation by proxy? 
---
#1 no. 

#2 To a limited extent - yes. Allen Dulles was a prime mover on the WC and Bobby to my knowledge, didn't raise any objections to his appointment or his clout on the committee. LBJ claimed he had RFK's approval for his appointments. 

#3 Yes. Garrison couldn't understand it either. But he knew one thing - Bobby was doomed. He also knew Walter Sheridan was Bobby's guy in New Orleans. 

But I'll read the EF thread to see if it leads me to different conclusions.

Regarding #3, as James DiEugenio  pointed out in Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pp 255-259, it’s far from clear that Sheridan was working for Bobby Kennedy in sabotaging the Garrison investigation. DiEugenio presents a lot of evidence suggesting that Sheridan’s attack on Garrison had more to do with his many intelligence connections than with his (former?) relationship with Bobby Kennedy.

I read 'Destiny Betrayed' second edition. Excellent book. But I disagree with his conclusion on that one point. I agree with most of the rest of it. In fact, it was DiEugenio's book that persuaded me (1) Sheridan was sabotaging Garrison's investgation and (2) He had a long and close working relationship with RFK. 

The only question left unanswered was whether Sheridan was doing his dirty work in New Orleans against Bobby's wishes. Garrison didn't think so. Neither do i.

M. Ellis wrote:LBJ claimed he had RFK's approval for his appointments. 

IMO, LBJ's claim was a crock of undiluted shit. This is the same man who told Dean Rusk to get rid of Dulles' sister from the state department, because he didn't want "anymore of that Dulles family around" (or words to that effect). Yet we are supposed to believe that Bobby, who was very close to his brother, had no objection to Dulles being on the Warren Commission? Sorry, but I really don't think so.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:

M. Ellis wrote:LBJ claimed he had RFK's approval for his appointments. 

IMO, LBJ's claim was a crock of undiluted shit. This is the same man who told Dean Rusk to get rid of Dulles' sister from the state department, because he didn't want "anymore of that Dulles family around" (or words to that effect). Yet we are supposed to believe that Bobby, who was very close to his brother, had no objection to Dulles being on the Warren Commission? Sorry, but I really don't think so.

Maybe so. I merely stated that LBJ claimed it - not that his claim was true. 

And I made your argument to McAdams on that point at JFK Facts*. But that is a different question from whether RFK wanted Garrison's investigation sabotaged or was Walter Sheridan free-lancing without any regard for his old boss' interests? I don't believe he was. 

LBJ's claim about RFK was made to his biographer. His source was third-hand. Katzenbach had supposedly spoken to RFK. Katzenbach, then spoke to Fortas about it. Walter Jenkins wrote a memo to LBJ saying Bobby wanted Dulles and McCloy on the WC. 

So it allegedly went RFK-->Katzenbach-->Fortas-->Jenkins-->LBJ

Note that Abe Fortas was in the loop. Next, during a phone conversation with the same 
Abe Fortas, LBJ supposedly told him that Bobby wanted Dulles and McCloy. If Fortas was in the loop previously, why would LBJ need to tell him about it? 


So I don't believe the story either. But where is the evidence RFK objected to Dulles or McCloy?  I can't find where he did. Maybe someone can cite a source on that. There IS evidence in the person of Walter Sheridan, that Bobby wanted Garrison's investigation to go away.

There are non-incriminating reasons why RFK may have wanted Garrison's investigation scuttled. He may have felt responsible. Facts about anti-Castro plots, Bob Harvey, the vendettas against the Mob, inter alia might have been damaging not just to RFK, but to others. 

----

*JFK Facts sent me an email asking me to reduce the wording of my response to McAdams. to <500 words. I emailed them back and said it wasn't important. I got very busy on my day job about then. But I've just made the same argument here that I made there against McAdams' conclusions. The sources are suspect. 

1. RFK--->Katzenbach--->Fortas--->Jenkins--->LBJ. 

2. LBJ--->Fortas (again)

But where is the evidence Bobby objected to their appointment at the time?

M. Ellis wrote:Maybe so. I merely stated that LBJ claimed it - not that his claim was true. 

Yeah, I know. I was just expressing my own opinion on the matter.

M. Ellis,

In relation to RFK’s view on Dulles being on the Warren Commission, Hasan’s point about RFK and Dulles’ sister is good enough for me.

You say, ‘There is evidence in the person of Walter Sheridan that Bobby wanted Garrison’s investigation to go away’.

The first problem with this is Sheridan’s credibility on this issue. Most people working in intelligence and particularly counter-intelligence are professional liars and Sheridan was just that in relation to the Garrison investigation.

If it is true that RFK wanted the Garrison’s investigation to go away, the most likely reason for this is that RFK’s view of Garrison’s investigation was informed mainly by what Sheridan told him about it and Sheridan’s agenda in that regard was to poison the well.

greg parker wrote:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:Ahhh, where would we be if we hadn't had agendas to deal with?

Greg, I want to thank you once again for your support, particularly as the place seems to have gotten real quiet since you expressed that support publicly. Probably only a coincidence. The concluding post is up now; I doubt it will make some people any happier, but that's life.

"Let's Blame Bobby: Conclusion"

http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/2014/10/lets-blame-bobby-conclusion.html

So... I have to call it a pile of horse droppings to give it positive support?

Sorry, but I'm gonna make it ghost-town by proclaiming it to be bloody good shit.

Thank you, Greg; good shit was all I was aiming for, so I've exceeded expectations.

Terry W. Martin wrote:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:In reviewing all this now, I would tend even more strongly towards the cynical interpretation instead of the generous, as that's "how it's done" in public relations, media manipulation, and guiding the historical record. The goal appears to be to get the supposedly professional journalists and academics to say what you want or need them to say; their word will then be taken for granted as "honest reporting" and "scholarly research," with only "alternative viewpoints" and "debate" to worry about. In other words, it all gets dropped into a bucket of relativistic bullshit along the lines of "what is truth?" and so serves the more general goal of obscuring our understanding.

Another great series, Dan.

I especially liked the ending (quoted above).

Thank you very much, Terry. For what it's worth, my orignal plan at The EF was to present only excerpts (so people could decide and discuss on their own), but explanatory comments were necessary for background & I became more and more critical the more I considered the content of what I was transcribing, recognizing the narratives' idiosyncracies ("the Kennedys wanted/demanded") and implausibles (CIA men scared shitless at the wrath of Robert Kennedy). After I had to look up what the Neutrality Acts were I was in full "this is such bullshit" mode and things proceeded from there. And it's always bothered me how one singular fact is constantly obscured -- that John F. Kennedy's presidency lasted only a little longer than the term of a member of the House of Representatives. How much real damage could one man and his little brother do in that short amount of time?

M.Ellis wrote:Sorry to ask a dumb question. Blame Bobby for what? 

(1) The assassination? 
(2) Not strenuously objecting to the cover-up? 
(3) Sabotaging Garrison's investigation by proxy? 
---
#1 no. 

#2 To a limited extent - yes. Allen Dulles was a prime mover on the WC and Bobby to my knowledge, didn't raise any objections to his appointment or his clout on the committee. LBJ claimed he had RFK's approval for his appointments. 

#3 Yes. Garrison couldn't understand it either. But he knew one thing - Bobby was doomed. He also knew Walter Sheridan was Bobby's guy in New Orleans. 

But I'll read the EF thread to see if it leads me to different conclusions.

Marc, there's very little I would think to add to what Goban's already said very well. "RFK's view of Garrison's investigation was informed mainly by what Sheridan told him about it..." Perception is everything, whether the perception is guided by Walter Sheridan, Lyndon Johnson, Sam Halpern, etc etc etc. That's the only real point of my little exercise: do the perceptions that've been promoted (for 4 decades now) add up? And my answer to your question would be that the larger general issue is whether or not John and Robert Kennedy can be blamed for the CIA's planning and carrying out of assassinations, while the main issue would be whether or not Robert Kennedy in particular was responsible for such things, and thus effectively responsible for "the result" -- President Kennedy's assassination. I assume anyone reading the series will see that it doesn't really address things like Robert Kennedy's attitude about the Warren Commission's investigation or his alleged sabotaging of Garrison's investigation, so you've provided your own answer to the only real question I pursued (that is, not #2 and not #3).

I should make it clear here, however, that I recognize the real objection of some in the research community is to my critique of Joan Mellen, and by implication the work she's done. But if she'd only repeated the scenarios of CIA apologists, I might've spent as little time criticizing her arguments as I did on Jeff Shesol's book. And if her arguments had only been laid out in her book(s), I wouldn't have noticed, as it's been quite a long time since I've bought a book. But her arguments were presented at The Education Forum, in sustained form over a few threads, while commiserating with the headmaster (John Simkin) about the danger that was Robert Kennedy. That's a public invitation to analysis and criticism of one's claims and arguments, however that may reflect on one's "professional work" (research and writing in books) and even if that work wasn't directly addressed, as it wasn't by me in this case.

If I may return the compliment, Dan, that was a great job you did of untangling that ‘ravelled hank of yarn’, spun by some prominent mis/disinformationists.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/was-bobby-kennedy-a-jfk-conspiracy-theorist-111729_Page2.html#.VDvJHGdxltN

gerrrycam wrote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/was-bobby-kennedy-a-jfk-conspiracy-theorist-111729_Page2.html#.VDvJHGdxltN

He was trapped in the worst sort of nightmare imaginable. His brother dead,
LBJ President, everything in ruins. The 'best and the brightest' were back running the show.

Did RFK even know how much danger he was in? It was Kafkaesque. If he challenged the WC - there were people who might be harmed - including himself and his family dragged through the mud. If he didn't - his silence would arguably be assisting in the cover-up.

And then there was this odd guy in New Orleans named Garrison. God knows what he was going to dig up. It was a lose-lose situation all around for him. Every choice was a bad one.

I never attributed selfish motives here. There were no good choices for him.

Goban Saor wrote:If I may return the compliment, Dan, that was a great job you did of untangling that ‘ravelled hank of yarn’, spun by some prominent mis/disinformationists.

Thank you, Goban.