------ Forwarded Message > From: "M. Johnson" <micha...@america.net> > Reply-To: <c...@yahoogroups.com> > Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:10:52 -0400 > To: <c...@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [ctrl] Did The CIA Have More Motive Than Oswald? >
> > > > Did The CIA Have More Motive Than Oswald? > by Jacob G. Hornberger > > > For the life of me, I still don¹t understand what Lee Harvey Oswald¹s motive > was for killing President John F. Kennedy. The lone-assassin theorists say > that he was a lonely and disgruntled communist sympathizer who sought glory > and fame for killing someone as powerful as the president of the United > States. > > But if that¹s the case, why would Oswald deny that he killed the president? > Why would he claim that he was ³a patsy,² i.e., someone who had been set up to > take the fall? Why wouldn¹t he proudly admit that he had killed the president > of the United States? If he were seeking glory and fame, how would that be > achieved through a successful denial of having committed the act? > > Moreover, if Oswald intended to deny commission of the offense, I¹ve never > understood why he would leave such an easy trail behind him, such as the > purchase receipt for the Carcano rifle found in the Texas School Book > Depository. If he was going to deny killing the president, wouldn¹t he have > been better off simply going to a gun shop and purchasing a rifle with cash? > There were no background checks back then. > > I¹m no expert on the Kennedy assassination but it seems to me that many of the > things that people point to in support of Oswald¹s guilt are also consistent > with his having served in a deep undercover role for the CIA or other U.S. > intelligence, as many people have alleged. > > In fact, early on there were assertions that Oswald was a federal undercover > agent. According to a biographical sketch > <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcarrW.htm> of Waggoner Carr, the > Texas Attorney General who led the investigation in Texas into the > assassination and worked with the Warren Commission, ³Carr testified that Lee > Harvey Oswald was working as an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of > Investigation and was receiving $200 a month from September 1962 until his > death in November, 1963. However, the Warren Commission preferred to believe > J. Edgar Hoover, who denied Carr¹s affirmations.² > > Yet, the problem is that Hoover could be expected to lie about such an > association and thus, his denial is meaningless. > > Much has been made about Oswald¹s communist sympathies, including his > defection to the Soviet Union and his affiliation with a group called the Fair > Play for Cuba Committee. > > Yet, those actions are entirely consistent with being a CIA undercover agent. > For one thing, Oswald was a Marine. Most people who join the Marines are > patriotic individuals who have the utmost loyalty to their government. How > likely is it that a person who hates America is going to join the U.S. Marine > Corps? Not very likely at all. In fact, wouldn¹t the Marines be a likely place > that the CIA would do recruiting? > > Many people point to Oswald¹s dysfunctional behavior, including his propensity > for violence, citing the fact that he beat his wife. But the problem is that > the CIA has a history of attracting dysfunctional people to work there, > including alcoholics and people who have a propensity for violence. Indeed, > what better types of people to assassinate and torture than dysfunctional > people with a propensity for violence? > > The thing that I have long found mystifying is the U.S. government¹s reaction > to Oswald when he returned from the Soviet Union. Did they arrest and indict > the guy? Did they even subpoena him to appear before a federal grand jury? Did > they harass him? > > No, none of the above. > > Don¹t forget that Oswald was a former Marine who had security clearance and > had worked at a military base in Japan where the super-secret U-2 spy plane > was based. He was also a man who purportedly defected to the Soviet Union, > supposedly tried to give up his U.S. citizenship, and presumably was willing > to divulge all the secret information that he had acquired as a Marine to the > Soviet communists, who were a much bigger threat to the United States during > the Cold War than the terrorists are today. > > Yet, U.S. officials didn¹t lay a hand on him when he returned to the United > States. Compare that treatment to how they treated, for example, John Walker > Lindh, the American Taliban. How come they didn¹t subject Oswald, whose case > was much more egregious than Lindh¹s, to the same treatment? > > Moreover, I¹ve never understood how Oswald was able to learn the Russian > language so well. It¹s not easy to teach one¹s self a foreign language, > especially one as difficult as Russian. It¹s even more difficult when one has > a full-time job, which Oswald had in the Marines. He certainly couldn¹t have > afforded a private tutor. Since he obviously learned Russian while he was in > the military, how was that accomplished? Did the government provide the > language training and, if so, why? > > What would have been the CIA¹s motive in developing Oswald as a deep > undercover operative posing as a communist sympathizer? Well, don¹t forget it > was during the Kennedy administration that the CIA was in partnership with the > Mafia to kill Fidel Castro. Since the CIA was developing such weird > assassination schemes as poison pens and infected scuba suits to kill Castro, > it doesn¹t seem beyond the pale that they would also consider sneaking a > trained assassin with communist credentials into the country to get rid of the > communist leader. > > Of course, the fact that Oswald might have been operating deep undercover > doesn¹t negate the possibility that he did in fact assassinate Kennedy or > participate in a conspiracy to kill the president. If such were the case, the > motive for denying commission of the offense would be stronger, along with the > CIA¹s denial of Oswald¹s employment with the agency. > > Of course, there are those who claim that it is inconceivable that the CIA, > being the patriotic agency it is, would ever have participated in such a > dastardly scheme. > > Last Sunday, October 11, the New York Times published a book review > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/books/review/Shafer-t.html> detailing the > history of Ramparts magazine, a leftist publication that was revealing in the > 1960s some of the bad things that the CIA was engaged in. What I found > fascinating was the CIA¹s response: > > ³Outraged, the C.I.A. retaliated with a secret investigation of Ramparts¹ > staff and investors in hopes of uncovering foreign influence, but it found > nothing. The agency fought back with even more snooping clearly illegal > as it investigated¹ 127 writers and researchers and 200 other Americans > connected to the magazine.² > > So, the CIA was clearly not above retaliating against Americans who went after > the CIA and was clearly not above breaking the law to do it. > > Now, consider the threat issued by President John F. Kennedy to ³tear the CIA > into a million pieces.² That threat was issued after Kennedy had fired CIA > Director Allen Dulles, which occurred after Kennedy had supposedly betrayed > the CIA by refusing to provide air support for the CIA-directed Bay of Pigs > invasion of Cuba, whose aim was to kill Castro or oust him from power. > > Let¹s not forget, also, that the CIA was not above using ruthless means > against foreign presidents, including assassination. Guatemala (coup), Iran > (coup), Cuba (invasion and assassination attempts), and Vietnam (coup and > assassination) come to mind, to mention a few. > > ³But they would never have done bad things to an American?² Oh? What about > Project MK-ULTRA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA> , the nasty > and infamous mind-control project in which CIA officials conspired to employ > LSD experiments against unsuspecting Americans? > > ³But they never would have employed their assassination talents or their > partnership with Mafia assassins against an American president.² > > Maybe, maybe not. > > But let¹s not forget that the CIA sees itself as the ultimate, permanent > guardian of U.S. national security. What if it concluded that a young, > inexperienced president himself was jeopardizing the national security of our > country by establishing secret contacts with communist leaders, such as Nikita > Khrushchev and Fidel Castro, by plans to surrender Vietnam to the communists > by withdrawing U.S. troops, just as he had surrendered Cuba to the communists, > by philandering with a Mafia girlfriend, a Hollywood starlet, and even a wife > of a CIA agent, and by threatening to destroy the CIA, America¹s loyal and > permanent guardian of security and liberty? > > Would the CIA simply stand by and refuse to protect America from such a > threat, even while it was doing everything it could to protect U.S. national > security abroad with assassinations and coups? For an excellent discussion of > that question, see JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters > <http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1570757550> by > James W. Douglass. > > Most likely though, we¹ll never have a definitive answer to that question > because if the CIA did participate in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, there is > virtually no possibility that such a crime would have ever been uncovered > without a hard-driving, honest, independent federal prosecutor with grand-jury > subpoena powers charged with the specific task of targeting CIA officials for > investigation and possible prosecution for murder. And we all know that the > CIA and its supporters would never have permitted that to happen. > > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger166.html > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message
