The National Catholic Review

JFK and the Unspeakable

Nov 13 2013 - 12:11pm | America Podcasts
November 18, 2013 Podcast

On the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, James W. Douglass talks about why more people are reconsidering the traditional explanation for the president's murder. Douglass is the author of "A President for Peace" in the Nov. 18 issue of America and JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.

Comments

Robert Brossman | 11/19/2013 - 9:52am
The one thing that proved to me that Lyndon Johnson was involved up to his neck in the assassination of JFK was the imposition of the 50 year moratorium on anyone getting to look at the evidence. That could only have been applied by someone at the very top, and it served Johnson well - allowing him to bow out and croak gracefully and without the hassle of defending himself at pesky trials. This appears to be a well known political trick and has been used probably down throughout history when the big cheese just doesn't want to be bothered with constant accusation and the accompanying urges of close relatives to get even. Either they proclaim it themselves, or have a trusty co-conspirator propose it for them. Always convenient, though. Obama ain't the only slimy character we've had to put up with, although when it comes to convenient departings of the dearests, the Clintons certainly could have a lock on the record.
WILLIAM ATKINSON's picture
WILLIAM ATKINSON | 11/19/2013 - 12:30pm
"Why it matters", is the key here, even the death 2000 years ago (purported or not) of Jesus, Lincoln, Kennedy, history has shown that those in charge will tell the story the way they want it told with very little proof to contribute to accuracy, what people will believe is what makes them comfortable and what they wont believe is what makes them uncomfortable. History can uncover the truth, but the fact that it will change history is very doubtful, even looking back on 50 years won't correct what took place that fateful day in 63.
Mike Evans | 11/19/2013 - 3:25pm
It always seemed at the time to be an incredible act attributable to one man with an amazingly series of carefully aimed shots from a $19.95 bargain bin used military rifle. Did they ever test the rifle for accuracy? Was he shooting 20 year old surplus military ammunition? Who and what was Jack Ruby's role? Where were the CIA and other security organizations in their investigations? The "rush to judgment" never satisfied us at the time and does so even less now. A 50 year moratorium on releasing investigative facts or unearthing any further new evidence seems to have doomed us forever to only the Warren Report's conclusions.
Des Farrell | 11/19/2013 - 7:32pm
Absolutely fascinating piece. Before he was suspended, Alec Baldwin mentioned that he had this interview lined up. I hope he plays it if he gets his job back. The Rose interview with Kennedy Jnr sounds interesting too. Keep up the good work, America.
Robert Little | 1/10/2014 - 12:43pm
Every conspiracy theorist finds his enemy responsible. The four big political assassinations of the 1960s were John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. They were killed by, respectively, a Communist, a black Muslim, a white supremacist, and a Palestinian terrorist. Yet Mr. Douglass finds that rather than three-fourth being committed from the left, that all were committed by the right. And now he's moved on to 9/11 "trutherism." I can't figure why America gives space to Mr. Douglass.
Marie Rehbein | 1/10/2014 - 3:27pm
Robert Little: The idea is that "the communist" did not kill Kennedy, etc. There are ways of taking advantage of known threats to cover another operation -- for example, the FBI might have known what Lee Harvey Oswald was up to and allowed him to carry on while some else actually fired the deadly shots. I'm not saying this happened, but if you assume the perpetrators are the ones that have been designated as such, you miss the point of the conspiracy theory.
Bruce Snowden | 1/11/2014 - 12:47pm
President Lyndon Johnson may have been involved in JFK's death, yet to be convincingly proven. Whatever the case, is it true that on his deathbed Lyndon Johnson called for a Catholic priest who received him secretly into the Church? True or false? Somebody with connections and skills ought to scrape the barrel of history to see what further can come to light. I heard that rumor of LBJ's deathbed conversion at his death, but no one seemed to make much of it. Interesting? VERY!
ed gleason | 1/11/2014 - 3:17pm
I guess to believe in this conspiracy you have to believe the CIA would recruit a 18 year old uneducated ,unlikeable marine who had been court marshalled for accidently shooting himself [ Oswald].. also you must believe RFK would not demand a better investigation of LBJ who he disliked even with the power of Attorney General ... and don't give us that Hoover, a sneaky political hack was able to to cover up this 'conspiracy' ....he was unable to cover up his own sexual proclivities and sneaky deeds. .
Marie Rehbein | 1/12/2014 - 5:30pm
Do not forget that ideologues like to claim their deeds, while Oswald claimed to have been made a patsy -- before he was killed by Ruby. If you look into it, everyone in Dallas at that time was somewhat connected, most of them disliked JFK and were threatened by RFK's investigations and prosecutions, and some of them had contact with Oswald. Particularly curious is the "coincidence" that Oswald happened to have been hired to work at the building from which the shots supposedly originated just shortly before the assassination and knowledge of the motorcade route was not made public more than a week before the event. It is also possible that Oswald was sent to Russia by the CIA when he first went there, set up to marry the person he did, and then brought back and put into contact with Russian exiles in Texas precisely because he was uneducated and unliked and interested in being important.
Stanley Kopacz | 1/13/2014 - 10:37am
There is no doubt there was plenty of motive for many groups to want Kennedy dead. I think it would have been more likely for government enemies to politically assassinate him by revelation of his sexual dalliances. Kennedy was very stimulating to the general populace. You either loved him as I did or hated him as many right-wingers. The assassination by a disturbed individual was not out of the question. Question. Does the obsession with Kennedy's killing obscure other shenanigans, such as Nixon's operatives making separate illicit negotiations with North Vietnam prior to the 1968 election, as alluded to in the tape of Johnson's phone conversation with Sen. Dirksen? And the separate contacts made by Reagan's man Casey with the Iranian Revolution prior to the 1980 election. Remember how the embassy hostages were miraculously released when Reagan was inaugurated? These usurpations are of great significance to the state of democracy and democratic rule, yet have been studiously ignored in the media.
Marie Rehbein | 1/13/2014 - 12:24pm
Stanley, those other shenanigans are very possible. I've also questioned whether 9/11 would have been carried out had someone other than a Bush been elected given the Bush family history with the CIA and oil.
Stanley Kopacz | 1/13/2014 - 1:23pm
Yes, Marie, specifically the intimacy of the Bush and Saudi royal families. "Royal" refers to both. There were all kinds of signals prior to 9/11. 9/11 was a very convenient "Pearl Harbor" for the neocon agenda. When it happened, all I could think was "here we go."
Marie Rehbein | 1/13/2014 - 5:35pm
In the interview, the interviewer points out that people seem to think that since no conspiracy has become common knowledge by now, this must be the proof that there was no conspiracy. However, not only is there documentation suggesting conspiracy, as Douglass replies, but the likely conspirators are still very much around to suppress facts and misdirect speculation. The interests that became embedded in government during the Eisenhower administration -- oil interests -- are still very active in today's government.