The establishment elite may have learned from the Bay Of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis that they couldn't control JFK, but could they have reasonably concluded that he had almost started WW3? I know there are some who believe that the Cuban Missile Crisis developed as a result of continued attempts on Castro's life, but it seems more likely that the Soviet Union was more interested in countering the threat of US missiles in Turkey and Italy pointed at them. These missiles were deployed during the Kennedy administration, however the decision to deploy them was taken in 1959, during the Eisenhower presidency, and can anybody really believe that the establishment elite opposed these deployments? It seems to me that Kennedy was instrumental in avoiding nuclear war by agreeing to remove those missiles, contrary to the wishes of much of the establishment elite. The failure to support the Bay of Pigs invasion might have been viewed as a blunder by this crowd which allowed the Missile Crisis to develop, I suppose, but it seems very contorted reasoning to me to argue that JFK brought us to the brink of WW3 by failing to invade the sovereign nation of Cuba. His mistake was letting the establishment elite execute the plan at all. If anybody brought us to the brink of nuclear war, it was JFK's murderers, and JFK brought us back. The proof is in the deal. What did the Soviets want? Our missiles out of Turkey and Italy and a promise not to invade Cuba, the reversal of the establishment elite's own policies. Maybe they decided to kill him because they couldn't control him and he *avoided* WW3.
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:31:25 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/28/2012 11:20 AM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> > I didn't really mean to post this topic here. I thought I was in the
> > sillier group. Not that I'm not being serious, but this crowd here is so
> > reactionary, that I didn't plan it that way. Anyway, the establishment
> > elite probably don't go around killing prominent people lightly. Maybe JFK
> > would turn out to be a tolerable president. Maybe they could manipulate
> > him. Maybe the people would come to hate him. Why kill somebody before it
> > is necessary? Also, it takes time to get your ducks all in a row. There
> > may have been other considerations. Perhaps a healthy Joe Kennedy was to
> > be feared. Perhaps LBJ needed to be brought along. Perhaps LBJ needed
> > somebody else to be brought along. Perhaps Jackie needed to be brought
> > along. Even if she had been a mole, she might not have wanted to kill him.
> Maybe they learned from the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis that
> they couldn't control him and that he was a security risk who almost
> started WWIII.
> > On Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:32:01 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> >> I don't expect any positive reviews for this idea, but I think it should be considered. If the establishment elite saw Joe Kennedy grooming his son for the job he himself had wanted, but could never have, might they not have become concerned that a man of such wealth, ambition and arrogance might eventually get his way? What if this John Kennedy does become president? How will we deal with that? These people consider the CIA to be their own militia and intelligence organization, and they plant moles wherever they might be needed. William Greer was probably such a mole, the kid from Ireland who goes right to work for the establishment elite and somehow ends up assigned to the presidential yacht in WW2, and spends most of his time in FDR's White House. Did Greer handle any of FDR's food, I wonder? And, George De Mohrenschildt was certainly in with this crowd, doing favors for the CIA and being paid with juicy business deals. Jackie's family was also in with this crowd, and s
> he even
> knew De Mohrenschildt from when she was a child. Is it so unthinkable that she might have taken a job in this private government and have been assigned to keep an eye on John Firepants Kennedy? I recently heard some taped interview from the Camelot days where the interviewer said something like, "You really do love him so!" And Jackie respond, extravagantly, "No, not really...Oh, I said 'No,' didn't I?" Does someone in love ever joke like that? This, on some ABC softball piece, was said to be her favorite picture of Jack, the B&W photo. It bears an eerie resemblance to the photo there I inserted, don't you think? https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zkkJrUUBZNs/UIpgqzOGiWI/AAAAAAAAAY... I am sensing an evil presence in this upper class privileged gal whom JFK took as a wife because he didn't want voters to think he was a fag. How much love could there have been there?
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.