Friday, August 19, 2016

What did Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan have in common, besides the fact that they were both framed for murders they didn't commit?

It is the fact that both were entirely lacking any plausible motive.

Oswald supposedly did it because he wanted to make a mark on the world, to be remembered for something, to be important. That's what most people think and say. But, if true, why didn't he take credit for it? Why did he keep denying it, over and over again? We have him on tape denying it numerous times, where we can hear him denying it with our own ears, at least 13 times by my count. And, all of his interrogators said that he vehemently denied it. One interrogator, James Hosty, used the word "frantically"; saying that Oswald "frantically" denied killing Kennedy or Tippit. Frantically. So, that motive, though commonly given, is supported by nothing. Absolutely nothing. And nobody that I know of has ever suggested that Oswald had anything whatsoever against John F. Kennedy. He always spoke well of Kennedy. He never badmouthed him in any way to anybody. He never blamed him for anything. His wife said that he always defended Kennedy- including to her relatives at family gatherings in Russia. He checked Kennedy's book, Profiles in Courage, out of the library and read it. And then he started reading James Bond novels because he heard Kennedy liked them. When all is said and done, Oswald had no motive whatsoever for killing Kennedy, and the more honest people among his accusers just say that he was insane, that it was just a senseless, insane act of a psychotic person with no motive at all. That isn't true except for the part about him having no motive. Oswald was not psychotic.  

But, the same can't be said for Sirhan Sirhan. Oswald was lucid. Sirhan, not so much. The usual motive attributed to Sirhan is that he was an impassioned Palestinian, and that he killed Robert Kennedy because he disliked US foreign policy towards Palestine and treatment of the Palestinians, and he took it out on Robert Kennedy. But, that makes no sense either. Robert Kennedy was not in power. Lyndon Johnson was in power since November 22, 1963, so nearly 5 years. Robert Kennedy was the junior Senator from New York, but that meant absolutely nothing. He had no power to do anything. He wasn't in charge of anything. He could make no decisions. He could take no actions. He could voice his opinions, but that was about it. So, why would Sirhan Sirhan kill him?  

I have heard it said that Robert Kennedy said that he would increase fighter plane sales to Israel if elected, and that's why Sirhan killed him, but I find it completely disingenuous. The fact is that, overall Robert Kennedy, like his brother John, was NOT considered a strong supporter of Israel. JFK refused to give Israel nuclear weapons, and he demanded that Israeli Prime Minster David Ben-Gurion stop trying to get them. Ben-Gurion refused. And RFK was on the side of his brother. 

Here is an article from PULSE magazine entitled The Kennedys vs. the Israeli Lobby

And here's how it begins: 

The lobby’s accolades for the late Ted Kennedy and his support of Israel mask the generally unknown conflicts fought by the senator’s older brothers.  It is likely that lessons from the fiercest of all battles, fought behind the scenes by President John F. Kennedy alongside his brother and Attorney General Robert—guided the younger sibling’s political choices.  Details of the JFK-RFK duo’s effort to register the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) parent organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC) as an Israeli foreign agent were shrouded in mystery until declassified in mid-2008.
So, there was some tension there. I don't say the Kennedys didn't support Israel's right to exist, but they were still a disappointment, a huge disappointment to the Israeli lobby. The idea that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy over his pro-Israel positions makes no sense. And again: RFK wasn't even in power. As Senator, he hadn't done anything to bolster Israel, and as Attorney General, he sided with his brother. So, how does that constitute grounds for killing him? 

Everything is relative in politics, and on the spectrum of being an Israeli supporter, RFK didn't rate very high. The point is that once again, the honest observer will stop trying to rationalize it and will just say that Sirhan Sirhan was insane. 

So, both Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan lacked a motive, and it comes down to saying that they were insane. 

And by the way, Vincent Bugiosi admitted that Oswald had nothing whatsoever against Kennedy. His theory was that Oswald did it because "he hated America." Not Kennedy; but America. But based on what? His socialist leanings? I've criticized America far more than Oswald ever did and in harsher terms. I've said that for what we did in Iraq alone, we are a criminal, gangster nation. And even after we found out that our leaders (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) lied us into war, we did nothing to punish them. Our invasion of Iraq was a terrorist action. How else would you describe our "Shock and Awe" campaign, our use of depleted uranium, etc.? Johns Hopkins researchers have said that a million people died as a consequence of our illegal invasion of Iraq, and I believe it. But, that conviction doesn't give me any urges to shoot anybody- of course not. So, what Bugliosi said was just more desperate rationalizing. The fact is: Oswald had no motive. No motive, no motive, no motive, no motive. 

And the only grounds I know of to claim that Oswald was crazy is the testimony of his wife, Marina. He certainly came across as crazy from the things she said. Let's be clear: her whole testimony was like a descent into madness, and it goes to show that the plotters- the ones who put her up to it, and I'm sure she received a lot of guidance- realized, and perhaps from the start, that depicting Oswald as crazy, as truly psychotic, would be necessary.  

But, Marina was never subjected to cross examination. She was never treated as a hostile witness by an opposing attorney. If she had been, I believe she would have cracked. She would have fallen apart. And during all those supposedly nightmarish months living with the insane Oswald, she never said a word to anyone about Oswald being insane. She complained about him, but about other things, such as: his low sex drive; his not wanting her to smoke; his not wanting her to drink, etc. 

And no one can deny that Oswald was totally unlike the other lone nuts, including Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, John Hinckley, and Mark David Chapman in that, once arrested, he was lucid, intelligent, and articulate. I think it's a major reason why they had to kill him fast. But, the #1 reason why they had to kill him when they did is because they couldn't put off giving him a lawyer for much longer, and they simply couldn't give him a lawyer. 

All of the Russians from Minsk who knew Oswald when he was there were appalled by what Marina said about him. They said that that was not the Oswald they knew. Every single one said that. 

It's all a lie. Oswald had no motive to kill Kennedy, and he wasn't insane. He didn't kill him. If anyone is insane it is American society which chooses the insanity of accepting the official story of the JFK assassination when it is so obviously and patently false.    


No comments:

Post a Comment

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