U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told NBC’s Tom Brockaw earlier this month that he didn’t believe Oswald acted alone on November 22nd 1963.
Has the Obama administration decided to break the U.S. government’s 50-year-silence on ‘the greatest murder mystery of the 20th century’? Not likely, Kerry quickly backtracked on his comments. But they bring to the fore something that has exercised the minds of ‘conspiracy buffs’ for decades.
Let’s listen to CNN’s Anderson Cooper discuss Kerry’s remarks with author Philip Shenon and historian Douglas Brinkley:
Notice Kerry’s key comments:
To this day I have serious doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I certainly have doubts that he was motivated by himself. I have serious doubts about whether they [the Warren Commission] got to the bottom of Lee Harvey Oswald’s time and influence from Cuba and Russia. I think he was inspired somewhere by something…
Indeed, it’s apparent to anyone who has looked into this that the Warren Commission was tasked from the get-go with pinning Oswald as the lone assassin, and the lone conspirator, so to speak. Case closed.
But, as Anderson Cooper asks, why would the Warren Commission not have used all this information about Oswald’s time in Russia and Mexico City, information that was readily available to it at the time?
Today, they would not hesitate to jump on the chance to use pre-fabricated evidence to brand their selected patsy as a ‘Muslim extremist’!
Oswald was clearly set up in advance to frame the Soviets and/or Castro for Kennedy’s murder.
And yet, in the aftermath of JFK’s assassination, LBJ and others moved quickly to bury any talk of JFK having been killed by someone who was in contact with, and may even have been a double-agent for, the Russian KGB.
Why go to such lengths to prepare Oswald’s backstory, get him a job at the school book depository, and pre-place just three spent shell casings on the window ledge of the last window on the 6th floor when at least 5 or 6 bullets were fired, if, in the end, after all that careful planning, all you fell back on was a ‘lone assassin’ with a troubled childhood?
As myself and fellow SOTT.net editors have been discussing on recent episodes of SOTT Talk Radio, one possible explanation for this sudden backtracking is that the Oswald-in-bed-with-the-Russians backstory was ditched because the original plan was subverted at the last minute. As has been suggested elsewhere, the original plan may have been to stage a ‘nearly’ assassination in which JFK would only be shot at, and maybe injured. Following this line of thinking, the conspirators sought to ‘create facts on the ground’ that would have left JFK with no choice but to ‘turn the ship around’ regarding his peace moves with the Soviet Union.
In effect, this would have been a false-flag attack in which a foreign nation – the enemy du jour – would be blamed for the ‘attempted assassination’ of a popular U.S. president. The public outcry would have seen the popular will JFK had carefully courted during the course of his presidency – where he preached compassion for, and greater cooperation and lasting peace with, the Soviets – instead subverted towards reinstituting and entrenching the hardline anti-Communist stance preferred by the CIA, the Generals and the Defense Contractors.
But what if a second faction of conspirators got wind of the initial plan and decided to place their own shooter(s) on the grassy knoll, with the intention of actually killing JFK. As soon as that happened, the whole backstory the original conspirators had meticulously prepared for its patsy, Oswald, became lethally dangerous.
Now they could no longer present their scapegoat to the public as previously intended because JFK’s death transformed Oswald’s role from someone who defected to Russia, sympathised with Castro and came close to killing the president, into a patsy who actually did kill JFK! Once you bring Oswald’s pre-prepared backstory front and center in the midst of the national trauma, in the process directly accusing Soviet Russia of killing JFK, you find yourself facing, in all probability, an actual war, not the maneuver you originally sought to maintain a ‘strategy of tension‘.
So, what do you do now? You frantically negotiate with the second faction to make sure everyone’s singing from the same hymnsheet and agree that the patsy’s backstory will be limited to him being just a ‘lone assassin’. Then you induce one of your own to kill the patsy before he can say too much. Everyone goes along with it ‘in the interest of national security’. Everyone in both factions knows that they can’t rat out the other conspirators because evidence can be produced to expose each other’s culpability.
Does this sound far-fetched? I’ll admit that it did to me when I first thought about it. But it’s starting to make more and more sense. Rather than further complicate research into JFK’s assassination, I think some kind of double-cross scenario like this simplifies it greatly. So many big names in the U.S. intelligence community were in Dallas that day. Nixon, Hoover and George Bush Sr. were also present. So, apparently, was Yitzhak Rabin, then IDF Chief of Staff. If the original plan was to stage an event that would serve as a ‘course-correction’ for the Cold War, then I suppose most of them thought they were coming for a ‘big show’, a psy-ops that would ‘set America back on the right track’, because I doubt that all of them would have wittingly participated in, and risked being seen at the scene of, the broad daylight murder of the U.S. Commander-in-Chief.
So when John Kerry suggests that the Russians and Cubans were behind Oswald, he’s sort of right. The original set of conspirators, presumably led the CIA because the agency handled Oswald during this time, was planning to make it look like Russia and Cuba were pulling Oswald’s strings and “whispering in his ear.”
But then along came a wild-card.
Was it ‘rogue CIA’, as RFK Jr suggested earlier this year, or was this second faction operating through a different agency?
What other agency has the capability, and the track record, to do something so brazen and ruthless under the nose of U.S. intelligence?