Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

We have had a very active day in the OIC with some interesting exchanges. I am going to post a very thought-provoking missive from John Hankey, which concerns Presidential submissions, that, in the end, they always do what they're told- at least since Kennedy they have, and it's because of Kennedy that they do. That's John's take. 

But, if you don't know of John Hankey, he has done the definitive work on exposing the role of George HW Bush murdering JFK. You can visit his website at bushkilledjfk dot com. Catchy title, eh?

http://www.bushkilledjfk.com 

And John Hankey has also done the definitive work on the assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr. too. You should watch his film about it on youtube: Dark Legacy II. Dark Legacy I can also be found there, which is about Bush Sr.'s role in killing JFK. Both are riveting.  

But, before I post John's analysis of Presidential submissions, I want to point out that the office of President, which was always powerful, has become increasingly more powerful. 

For instance, do you realize that every war since WW2 has been a Presidential war? The last time that the United States declared war on a country constitutionally, that is, by an act of Congress was for World War 2. Since then, the Presidents have started all the wars themselves and done so without a Congressional act of war. 

Fact: The US Constitution says that only Congress can declare war, and fund war, and take this country to war. And the Founders made it that way on purpose because they figured some hothead might become President, and since war involves tremendous loss of life, horrific carnage and vast devastation, better to make sure that cooler heads are involved in the decision. 

But, when Truman entered the Korean War without getting an Act of War through Congress, that did it. Every President after that said, "Hey, I'm just doing what Truman did. If he could do it, I can do it." 

But, why didn't Congress stop them? Why didn't anyone use the Constitution and the laws of this country to stop them? I think the short answer is that they have all been fascist wars, and in a fascist system, it's efficient to have a fascist leader. It's been building in that direction for a long time.  

But, I think John's point is that this power of the President, which has been growing, is largely an illusion, that these Presidents do the bidding of the real powerbrokers who run the country and put them in office. And if they don't, they just might have a rendezvous with a lone nut the way JFK did. And they know it.  Here is John:

Dear Jim (and everybody!)

I agree so wholeheartedly with the major points that you made in this last post that it seems like quibbling to object to the relatively minor point of whether or not Johnson was involved. I have, furthermore, since 1965, harbored very hard feelings towards Johnson for his responsibility in the death  and dismemberment of so many Americans and Vietnamese. I first met you 10 years ago at a 9/11 truth conference, and you explained your reasoning for thinking that Johnson was involved to me at that time. And it is hard to imagine anything more obvious and reasonable, than to think that the killers of JFK would feel that they needed to have Johnson on their side.

I also agree very enthusiastically that it is necessary to take in the big picture when trying to answer this question.

I have had 10 years to think it over- and to observe how every President since Kennedy has been used and abused by the killers. For example:

There are two irrefutable sources showing that Johnson knew that the Gulf of Tonkin incidents were frauds, and said so, and said that he had no intention of sponsoring the Gulf of Tonkin resolution; which, not coincidentally, was written by McGeorge Bundy, before the incidents were falsely alleged to have occurred. As you have pointed out, this same Bundy wrote NSAM 273, reversing Kennedy's Vietnam policy, and he wrote it BEFORE Kennedy was murdered. Bundy then handed the memo to Johnson, and shoved him into his first meeting with the Joint Chiefs, on the afternoon of Kennedy's funeral. I used to blame Johnson for this memo. But now, having studied the big picture, I know that Kennedy did not keep Johnson in the loop; and it is unlikely that Johnson appreciated that 273 was a reversal of 263. In fact, 273 says that it was written to reaffirm the continuation of Kennedy's policies. I have no doubt that Johnson really thought that that's what he was doing in endorsing 273. I can find you 10,000 so-called historians who will tell you the same thing, that Johnson continued Kennedy's Vietnam policies.

Nixon knew he had a tape machine in the White House. He told us, on that machine, that investigating E. Howard Hunt would uncover the whole Kennedy assassination, "that Bay of Pigs thing" as he called it. So, Nixon knew that Hunt was involved in murdering a President of United States. Do you suppose he wanted such a man to have an office in the White House? I do not. Nixon was, supposedly, "paranoid". He would've been terrified. He was terrified. I think that he had Hunt and the entire Watergate burglary shoved down his throat. Ehrlichman and Haldeman agree with me. He did what he was told, in fear for his life.
  

When Jimmy Carter refused to allow the Shah of Iran to come to the United States, he received a visit from Nelson Rockefeller, who insisted that Carter allow the Shah in. Carter says he asked Rockefeller, "you advise me to do this? And what will you advise me to do when the Revolutionary guards seize  the Embassy and take everyone hostage?"  You know what happened next. Carter let in the Shah, and the Embassy was seized. Why? Why did Carter give in? I would suggest that they showed him the Zapruder film.
  

(P.S. from Cinque: Similarly, when the HSCA issued its Final Report in January 1979, it was laughable. They said there was "probably" a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but it didn't involve the CIA, the FBI, the Russians, the Cubans or anyone else, except that Oswald, who did everything the Warren Commission said he did, may have had an accomplice shooting from the Grassy Knoll who got clean away like a fart in a high wind. But, the HSCA did, in fact, recommend that the Justice Department reopen the case and look for that Grassy Knoll shooter. So, why didn't Carter, who was a Democrat like JFK, and the first President to assume office since JFK who didn't have JFK's blood on his hands, why didn't Carter act? Why didn't he order his Attorney General to act? I would suggest it's because he'd seen the Zapruder film.) Back to John Hankey:

Reagan went to Helsinki and, to his surprise, found the Soviets to be reasonable, and enthusiastic about making peace.  He came home, likewise enthused, and was shot. And he kept his nose out of politics thereafter, leaving all such matters, especially Iran Contra Cocaine to Bush.

Bushes, obviously are not included in this list of abused presidents, though W appeared scared shitless during most of 9-11; but I think he was just scared of getting caught.
  

Obama sent Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, and Joe Biden out to give speeches saying that the government in Afghanistan was too corrupt to possibly justify the loss of another American life. He leaked a top-secret letter from his ambassador which was promptly printed on the front pages of every major newspaper, saying the exact same thing. Then two  uninvited guests, the Salahis, made their way into the most high security function ever held at the White House, and walked up and shook hands with Obama, Biden, and Pelosi. A few days later, Obama sent 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
  

That is a short version of the big picture. I don't think the killers feel like they need to have the President on their side. But, I'm sure they want the President understand where his self-interest and self-preservation lie. Certainly they don't want the President to think that he is an equal.  They want him terrified. They want him to know that disappointing the Power Elite has major consequences: deadly serious ones. In Dealey Plaza, both Hunt and Bush were arrested as shooters and brought to the police station, walked in the front door, and were quietly walked out the back door. The killers didn't need Johnson or Hoover on their side.  All the killers had to do was get away clean, and they did. They had Lansdale on the scene to make sure that they did. And the next day, was Hoover's top undercover informant in the field. They called in Bush the same day, they called in Lorenz, Hemmings, Sturgis, and who knows who else.  They knew they were all in Dallas, but they couldn't prove anything. And I don't think they even knew Hunt's name.  I think the killers wanted Johnson to be terrified of them. Helen Thomas says that he was. And she didn't know the story about Johnson being found in the bathroom on Air Force One, sobbing, and crying "they're going to kill us all." I believe that is the relationship that the killers want with the president, unless they can have one of their own, a Bush or a Rockefeller, or a Romney, in the White House.
  

Now. Vernon Walters says that Hoover wrote a memo to all the FBI offices saying that there was going to be an assassination attempt in Dallas. I find it inconceivable that Hoover would not have shared that with Johnson. I believe he shared it with Kennedy. And I believe that the Secret Service used the two supposed foiled "attempts" in Chicago and Miami to persuade Kennedy that they were very competent, and on top of the situation, and that everything was well in hand; so that Kennedy was persuaded to disregard this warning from Hoover. Sheee-it. They told him that what the FBI was hearing was merely the Secret service's own "Able Danger" project, a "B team", of Secret Service employees, going through the motions of plotting to kill Kennedy in order to see whether the Secret Service could pick up the reverberations of their plotting.  I believe these "plots" in Chicago and Miami were frauds, designed for that particular purpose - to give Kennedy false confidence in the Secret Service. I have heard Malcolm Kilduff say that these foiled attempts showed that the Secret Service was doing a great job. I think we all know better. I'm sure that Johnson trusted Hoover more than he trusted the Secret Service. I don't know who the other people were with whom Johnson was communicating on a walkie-talkie, but I don't have any good reason to think it was the killers. There are several channels on those things.  It is reasonable, to me, in any case, that someone in the political leadership would want to be in communication with the police officials, or others in charge of the technical details.  So I don't find Johnson's possession of a walkie talkie especially incriminating.

I suspect that Johnson knew what Kennedy knew, of Hoover's warning. Only Kennedy was taken in by the Secret Service's lies, and Johnson was not.
  

More big picture: the morning after the assassination, at 9 o'clock, McCone called Johnson to tell him that the CIA had audiotapes showing that Oswald was working for the Russians. 40 minutes later, Hoover called Johnson to tell him that the tapes were fraudulent, that the CIA was lying, trying to provoke war with Russia, or at least an invasion of Cuba; neither said that this fraud implicated the CIA in the assassination, but it was clearly understood. No? How not?

More big picture: Hoover wrote the memo, entitled "Assassination of JFK", naming Bush as a CIA supervisor of the "misguided anti-Castro Cubans." He busted Prescott in 1942 for being a Nazi, and seized his bank. He hired Oswald and used him to bust up the CIA terrorist camps at Lake Pontchartrain. He told Johnson that the CIA was lying to him about Oswald in Mexico, and implicated them in the assassination, the morning after. He clearly was not in with the killers. I don't care what any of the whores who worked for Murchison say to the contrary.

As I say, I have been thinking about it for 10 years.