alternative implications of jfk's death in office

Posters should feel free to go off-line if they choose. That's what the PM function is for. 

But if the sole purpose of that is to keep this thread from going off-track, there is an alternative.

If you hit "post reply" or "quote reply", you do have the option of giving your post a new title. In this way, tributary trails may be followed while keeping the mama thread pristine. 

------------

what I'd like to put on the table is this:

If the sole purpose was to remove Kennedy from office. why wouldn't the CIA or FBI use their media assets to release dirt or medical information which would kill any chance of re-election. It is a nonsense that there was an unspoken rule that the media would not post dirt on politicians. Agency and bureau assets in the media would have done it in a heartbeat if asked to, and the story could be defended with evidence or credible witnesses.  

So... what are we to think? They couldn't wait a few months for the election? I don't think so. 

He had to die, and it had to be in office. I can only think of 2 reasons... either something was planned for Nov/Dec that needed his death as the impetus... or it was the ONLY way LBJ was ever going to get into office any time soon. He wasn't getting any younger and had heart problems.

I propose that certain Cubans were told it was for the former reason, when it was really for the latter. This got them on board, and made them alternative fall guys. 

I propose further that certain elements within the administration and agency under NO circumstances wanted to kill off the resident bogey-man 90 miles off-shore. His value in that role was incalculable. 

A war in Vietnam was what they wanted and what they got.
-------------------
On another matter, I also read somewhere earlier in this thread about not being able to post a link. Apologies for this inconvenience, but it does serve a purpose. New posters are unable to post links for one week after joining. This helps keep spammers at bay.

In fact, I suspect a number of people who have joined, but never posted, fall into that category. They have simply moved on once they found out they could not spam here. For all others, I thank you for your patience.

----
EDIT: on reflection, this not really a tributary at all, but a whole new river, and will hive it off to it's own thread.

I can think of a reason why Hoover wouldn't publish dirt about Kennedy. He didn't want pictures of himself in his party dress on the front page of the NY Times. They didn't want Kennedy in the first place, so why didn't they expose him during the election campaign v Nixon?

Did the Kennedy brothers have a picture(s) of Hoover in a dress? Because I'm not aware of any if they did.

The Hoover at a party in a dress has always sounded like a myth to me. Would he be so stupid?

I believe he actually preferred being called Myth Hoover at those parties...


(sorry...)

I'm a bit sceptical about them too, but even if true -- I think it was truly something that few if any in the media would touch. I don't think the same holds for more traditional tabloid fodder... extra-marital affairs... hidden medical problems etc...

Hoover's sex life was not a myth and many knew about it. What would be the difference between exposing Kennedy's affairs and Hoover's?

gordon gray wrote:Hoover's sex life was not a myth and many knew about it. What would be the difference between exposing Kennedy's affairs and Hoover's?

If I understand correctly, Kennedy could be accused in affairs with other women, i.e. adultery the ordinary. While Mr. Hoover - in transsexuality?

If so, then Kennedy looks a little bit better. Adultery is bad, but he was a man and it is not secret that men sometimes slip on this. But transsexuality? In the light of values of early 60-ies, it was much worse. Not only perversion, but a humiliation for FBI and USA government as such.

Not sure about the wearing the dress part, but Hoover and Clyde Tolson clearly were long-term partners (Hoover left nearly everything to Clyde in the will). Ironically, the relationship would be a firing offense for Hoover today not because of sexual orientation but because public officials aren't allowed to give a paid job to their spouse or partner (Clyde was Hoover's deputy).

The other "skeleton" in Hoover's closet (which of course would be no scandal today) was the rumor  he was an African-American passing as a white man. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/was-j-edgar-hoover-black/2011/11/20/gIQAZcu3kN_blog.html

Hard to say which would be better blackmail material, proof of Hoover's homosexuality or proof of Hoover's black ethnicity. I guess either would do the trick.