Donaldson on This Week on JFK Assassination: I'd Like to Ask Castro 'Did You Do It?'

NewsBusters.org ^ | 04/19/2009 | Seton Motley

[Reagan Man]

I followed the Kennedy assassination storyline for about 10 years after November 22 1963. Did a lot of reading and some research on the conspiracy theory. Watched all the analysis and evaluations handed down through the media and government entities. There has never been any validity to the argument that Oswald acted in concert with other gunman. Also, if there was a conspiracy with multiple conspirators, eventually someone was bound to step forward and speak out. The silence has been deafening. Its almost 46 years since JFK was shot and killed and conspiracy theorists are no closer today to proving a conspiracy actually existed.

Your hypothesis contains nothing more than conjecture in its presentation of JFK`s affliction with Addison's disease. So far, you've offered no proof and no evidence whatsoever to back up any of the bogus accusations you've made and for good reason.

All I can say is, whatever.

[katiekins1]

I notice Zero spends more time on Air Force One than he does SQUATTING in the White House. Sam may have the early warning signs of dementia. : )

[Star Traveler]

You said — They are so fantastic that only people like you believe them. There are many people like you who are prone to the most fantastic, bizarre, irrational, conspiratorial view of any issue.

—

The “fantastic theory” is the government’s actually. If that wasn’t *so fantastic* to believe, there would be no cause for people to be looking elsewhere. So, if you’re wondering why people *are* looking elsewhere — it’s precisely because of the fantastic theories presented to the American public that no one could swallow... :-)

So, it’s not that the American public is actually looking for fantastic theories in the face of something rational and reasonable with good proof to boot — no..., that’s not it — they don’t have anything reasonable.

And that’s why you have people looking into all the possibilities that are out there. The American public can tell when the government is pushing fairy tales on them... LOL...

[katiekins1]

Remember Oliver Stone’s theatrical version? Look how many kids and young adults in 1991 took Stones movie as fact.

[Star Traveler]

OrangeHoof, you said to word_warrior_bob — You couldn’t be more wrong.

—

Well, I’m not entirely sure what all you are saying with the assassination theory you’re presenting — but the part that I do know is true — is this character — word_warrior_bob — who thinks he’s the final authority on the matter, when the American public saw that they got a “snow job” with the Warren Commission — is definitely wrong.

I don’t see anything convincing, at all, with word_warrior_bob and his statements. That’s all they are, simply “statements” and not even persuasive ones, at that — only ones where he “insists* they are true, no matter what anyone else says... LOL...

Well, all I can say is that this character must have worked for the government at one time, because that sounds just like how the government works with the American people... :-)

[Star Traveler]

I read what you were saying about how “they” decided to take out Kennedy because of their assessment that Kennedy was either insane or going insane, and that the Cuban Missile Crisis contributed to that.

Starting with the Cuban Missile Crisis part, it appears to me that Kennedy was the much more sane one of the group. I think you’re misreading the “times” that Kennedy was in, at the time. You see, it was the Republicans who wanted the kind of “action” on Cuba that could have gotten us into a nuclear-missile war and the bombing of each others countries.

Kennedy, at the time, was saying that stronger action was not needed. In fact, he was worried, that because of his “softer stance” than the Republicans at the time (on Cuba) that when those missiles were discovered on Cuba, that this would *negatively impact* him politically, because it would make it out to be that Kennedy had been wrong (i.e., “not aggressive enough” with Cuba) and that the Republicans had been right.

What you’re making it sound like is that Kennedy was and/or perceived to be the one who wanted to aggressively take out Castro and Cuba, and therefore was viewed as the “insane one” for getting the U.S. into that mess.

In regards to the Bay of Pigs, which sort of lead up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, this was an operation which had been planned and approved before Kennedy got there and he went along with it, but, not aggressively enough, apparently, as it turned out to be a fiasco. I believe the Bay of Pigs was something that Truman and Eisenhower had approved, before, even if it wasn’t done in their Administrations.

BUT, the really “telling” part to the whole Cuban Missile Crisis, was that Kennedy had to fight off the “generals” in the military who were insisting that the *only way* that the U.S. could deal with this was to “strike” Cuba. They were pretty much insisting on this from the beginning and even after the “blockade idea” was presented.

I understand that Kennedy had to “ride herd hard” on the generals to make sure that some accident didn’t happen which would “set things off” and take everyone down the line to missile launches by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. at each other.

If *anything* — whoever “they” are — “they” would not be thinking that Kennedy was insane because he was going to start a nuclear war over this Cuban thing — but rather — “they” would be thinking, more or less, that Kennedy had not been “aggressive enough” with Castro and Cuba in the first place.

You seem to indicate that Kennedy would have been perceived as possibly “insane” for taking us down the road of this thing with Cuba, Russia and nuclear missiles and coming within seconds of nuking each other.

ACTUALLY, the argument was made that Kennedy was not “aggressive enough” in the face of our enemies... that was the complaint — not the other way around...

—

So, that sort of answers the “insane” thing for me and shows that if anything, it was not that, which was the problem for whomever “they” was.... LOL...

And to think that “they” would be concerned about Kennedy’s health, is sort of stupid, actually. I mean, how concerned were “they” over Franklin Roosevelt’s health? And we were fighting World War 2 at the time, actually fighting a full-fledged war on two fronts...

I don’t think the health matter would have made a difference.

—

If you saw the LBJ/Billie Sol Estes scandal, that makes a lot more sense, since there was “real motive” there (with LBJ) and he was getting deep in it. If LBJ had not become President, the authorities would have soon been after him and would have probably put LBJ away for life. But, upon becoming President, he was able to “put away” that whole Billie Sol Estes scandal and remove himself completely out of it.

[Star Traveler]

You said — It’s as plausible that Oswald was shooting at Connoly rather than JFK, but the best evidence points to a crackpot named Oswald, shooting JFK to impress a woman.

—

I don’t think it’s plausible that Oswald was shooting at either. It appears to be someone else, along with two other shooters from the front of the motorcade...

[word_warrior_bob]

You’re calling me a character, that’s rich, especially from a conspiracy theorist like yourself.

I have never worked for the government, as a matter of fact I haven’t worked for an hourly wage since I was about 20 years old. I’ve been self-employed or an entrepreneur my whole life.

The last gasp of conspiracy quacks like yourself is to call someone who you can’t debate with a government shill, pretty pathetic, but par for the course.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying, in the middle of your long statement that — It would be funny if so many people didn’t believe this nonsense.

—

Well, at least you do see one thing, then.

There are a lot of other people who do not see it your way. It could very well be that they are not buying what the government has *told them* they must believe — and you seem to think that *you* now have the “lock” on making the American public “believe what you think they should believe”... LOL...

[Star Traveler]

Sorry, but you sound just like them... :-)

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

“...bogus accusations you’ve made and for good reason.”

I did not make any accusations. I just offered an “at the time” reasonable possible motive. This is considerably different from a conspiracy theory in several regards.

The intensity of the nuclear issue was great all the way from the Eisenhower administration through the Johnson administration. Just over a month before he died, Kennedy signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty, and had suggested before that elements within the US Air Force were strong advocates for a first strike against the Soviet Union.

Any hint that the president was mentally unsound would have been an extremely high priority issue around the world.

[word_warrior_bob]

Sorry, but you sound just like them... :-)

_________

To paranoid conspiracy theorists, anyone who disagrees with them “sounds like” a government shill. Again, par for the course.

[Star Traveler]

You said — To paranoid conspiracy theorists, anyone who disagrees with them “sounds like” a government shill. Again, par for the course.

—

It could be Jesus Christ himself saying it and your statement would work the same way for you... the way you think about it... :-)

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

You are over-complicating my arguments. Kennedy would not be seen as dangerous based on any actions, but by a drug he was taking, whose actions were shown to take a stable, calm person to raving maniac in 95 minutes, in a movie.

The reality was, that like Eisenhower before him and Johnson after him, Kennedy and McNamara were intensively involved at all levels of the complex nuclear issue, and very rationally:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/jfk/index.html

But even then, some drugs were known to have such dramatic effects, and so quickly. So why not cortisone?

Since his disease was obvious, as was its therapy, the impact at the time could have been resounding in some circles as if tangible evidence existed that Obama regularly smoked methamphetamine in the White House today.

But only if the US had been skating on the precipice of nuclear war for several years. Fear can make conjecture deadly.

[Star Traveler]

Well..., I don’t see anything compelling to “take out Kennedy” because of “health/medicine issues”...

But, I do see something very compelling about taking out Kennedy, when he’s getting ready to drop someone from the campaign (i.e., LBJ) and also LBJ is about to be locked up for life in prison because of the scandal...

There’s some real motive there.

In fact, that’s about the *only story* that has *any real motive* to killing Kennedy. All the other stuff and angles and so on (even with Oswald trying to “impress” his wife or whatever... LOL), none of that makes any sense at all, as far as “motive” is concerned.

But, I can see “motive” for “life in jail” and not being Vice-President any longer...

[word_warrior_bob]

It could be Jesus Christ himself saying it and your statement would work the same way for you... the way you think about it... :-)

________

Doesn’t the same apply to you?? I don’t see you changing your position either, logic isn’t your strong suit.

The evidence against Oswald is stronger than the O.J. Murder case, you just haven’t bothered to read about it or watch the modern, scientific recreations done the same way they would be in a modern murder case. I have no doubt in my mind that Oswald did it, alone.

You have no doubt that it’s a conspiracy, why am I a rigid fundamentalist which is your current tack since government shill didn’t work out? I came to my conclusion based on the best evidence, Oswald’s history, modern forensics and the wholesale debunking of every last part of every conspiracy tale connected with the assasination.

Just like liberals generally know nothing about politics when you debate them, conspiracy people like yourself know little of the assasination except to repeat lies that have been debunked years ago.

The difference is if I cared to I know how to debate as a liberal or as a conservative, as with the assasination I know all of the conspiracy talking points AS WELL AS the arguments, facts, logic and evidence that smash the conspiracy theories to smithereens.

You don’t even know both sides of the assasination argument, only the conspiracy talking points, that’s why it’s an exercise in futility to debate liberals or conspiracy theorists. They’re too lazy to look at both sides, it is you who is rigid and wild-eyed with your illogical point of view, not I.

[Star Traveler]

I’ve been around long enough to look at about every side they have on this one... :-)

And what you’re saying doesn’t appear to be very persuasive, especially in light of the “song and dance” the Warren Commission did.

There are a lot of others who have looked into this over the years who have brought out facts and information that throws a lot of cold water on the standard line that Oswald did it.

So, it has nothing to do with people wanting a “conspiracy” but rather the facts show something different than the standard story...

[Armedanddangerous]

Im offering 20 bucks and a liter of absolut citron for anyone..who on national tv snatches that wig off his head..

[word_warrior_bob]

State your facts that point to a conspiracy and I will debate them with you, fair enough?

[Star Traveler]

Start with my post to cynwoody, on my post of #106, where I was showing that even ordinary information sources, like Wikipedia questions the story about Officer Tippit and whether Oswald did it.

That’s in answer to the point that Oswald had more troubles than just JFK and he was going to “go up the river” in any case.

I was saying that it appeared that Oswald knew he was going to get out of it, and was a “cool cucumber” during the process. But, I don’t think he expected to be shot by Ruby, though.

But, anyway, the main point that I’m bringing up here, is that there are serious questions as to whether the Officer Tippit killing was done by Oswald...

At least, it’s enough for me to throw a big question over that one part... (to start with...)...