Sunday, February 7, 2016

Beggin' Backes didn't like my article on Robert Kennedy, but others did. It generated a lot of Likes on Facebook, and I thank the people for that. 

And, it is generating a lot of discussion within the OIC. 

In this case, every single aspect of the post was completely hypothetical. So, I, arbitrarily made it that Robert Kennedy had his epiphany the same time and the same way that Vincent Salandria did. 

Vince realized that the government and the media were wrapping up the lone gunman narrative too quickly. It was all falling into place too fast. It looked to him like an operation of the "national security state" which I believe is a term that Vince originated. But, if that were true, Vince figured that they would have to kill Oswald forthwith. That's why he looked for it, and when it happened, he knew he was right. 

Now, in Robert Kennedy's case, let's consider that he knew that there were death threats against his brother. He knew that his brother's trip to Chicago to attend the Army/Navy football game was cancelled because of a plot to kill him there. That was just a few weeks before Dallas. So, then JFK goes to Dallas and gets shot by a "lone nut"? And, there's no connection between the two?

As much as Robert Kennedy knew, which was more than Vince Salandria knew, I should think he would have assumed right away that his brother's enemies within the government killed him. 

And remember that Robert Kennedy and Vince Salandria were both lawyers. And they must have seen right away that Oswald was not being provided with an attorney. Do you realize how many times Oswald brought that up? "These policemen are not allowing me to have legal representation."  And then, they found out that Oswald's statements to police were not recorded nor were they transcribed by a stenographer.?Then after announcing how much danger there was to Oswald, the Dallas Police make an unnecessary spectacle out of moving him from one jail to another which gets him killed? How would that have looked to them as lawyers? 

But, the question is: when would Robert Kennedy go public with his rejection of the official story in this other scenario? - if he was going to. 

I say soon. The sooner the better. That's because saying nothing is equivalent to tacit endorsement. If you don't speak up, it means you accept it. 

So, if Robert Kennedy believed that elements within the government killed his brother, then he should have said so publicly right away. I would have if I were him.

So, I said a few days, but if it took him a week, that would have been alright.  Basically, by December 1, he should have gone public with his rejection of the official story.  

And, he didn't necessarily have to name names at that point. He could have just said that he does not accept the story being told and that he is going to conduct his own investigation. He could have said that he suspects that Oswald was just a patsy. And he could have asked the American people to withhold judgment until his investigation is done. And, without naming names, he could have added that if his worst suspicions are realized, it will amount to the greatest Constitutional crisis since the founding of the republic.

And, as I think about it this evening, I think he should have resigned as Attorney General, saying that he refuses to work under the new President. It made sense to do that because he had to know that Johnson was going to fire him anyway, as soon as he got wind of the speech. And doesn't it look better to quit a job than to be fired? 

But then, after doing that, he could have called for others to resign, if they are true loyalists of John F. Kennedy. 

As it was, nobody resigned. All of Kennedy's people stayed on and became Johnson's people- including Robert Kennedy! That's how grotesque it was. But, if RFK had resigned and asked others to do so, what would Pierre Salinger, Ken O'Donnell, Arthur Schlesinger, and the various Cabinet members have done? I don't know, but he would have put them on the spot. I would like to think that some would have followed his lead and resigned.

Robert Kennedy was the linchpin. A lot of people must have looked to him to see what he was going to do. "You buying this, Bobby?" If he was going to accept the story being told, then they were going to accept it. They took their cue from him. 

And that is why it is so tragic that Robert Kennedy did what he did and failed to do what he should have done. The question is why? Why didn't he fight? Why didn't he stand up to them?

I am going to speculate again, but, let's remember that there is a lot we don't know. For instance, what if they threatened him? What if J. Edgar Hoover told him that a thorough investigation was underway and that it was very important that he (RFK) support the process. To do otherwise would gravely jeopardize his brother's legacy- a veiled threat that if RFK squawks, the sordid dirt on his brother was going to flow like water.

Another possibility is that others pressured RFK to stay out of it. Perhaps Jackie pleaded with him not to do anything, not to stand up to them. "Don't do it, Bobby! They'll kill us all!" And RFK would have been swayed by that; he was very close with her, and he would have wanted to ease her suffering. 

But, here's another possibility, and I give it high probability: What if he just put off deciding what to do? Maybe he thought that in a month or two or three that he would find clarity and certainty be ready to act forcibly. But, the problem was that everything moved along so quickly. The country accepted Johnson. He was President in every sense, in every way. JFK's Cabinet was working for him, doing his bidding. RFK himself had stayed on. So, how could he marshal an attack now? The mountain had gotten a lot higher.

Many people presume that, had he become President, Robert Kennedy would have reopened the investigation of his brother's murder. But, I'm not at all sure. In fact, I doubt that he would have. He certainly didn't run on that platform. And when I say he didn't run on it, I mean he didn't bring it up at all during the campaign. And when forced to address it, he would defer to the Warren Commission and move on. He did not publicly endorse any conspiracy theory. And the people working with him during the campaign, his staff, weren't supporting him on that basis. In other words, it wasn't a campaign for JFK truth even within the campaign. 

Listen, nobody is ever going to know what he would have done, but I honestly think that, in the end, when he took office in late January 1969, he would have decided NOT to go through with it, but rather, to pursue the agenda and the platform on which he ran for President. I really think that, concerning his brother, he would have just let sleeping dogs lie. That's my honest opinion. 



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.