What if JFK had lived?

[alkemyst]

If JFK had lived, anarchist420 would have not created this topic and none of us would have been posting in here.

orly?

 

[her209]

If JFK had lived, anarchist420 would have not created this topic and none of us would have been posting in here.

[Keanu Reeves] Whoa.

 

[Greenman]

How is this a P&N post?
Move it to L&R.

Edit: To answer the OP, if JFK had lived he'd have a giant fucking hole in his head.

 

[sportage]

If he had lived he"d be dead now. He wasn't that healthy.
And the civil rights act probably would have NOT been signed.
Kennedy was on civil rights like Obama is on gay rights.
Talk... no action. LBJ should be given his due reward in getting
civil rights passed. LBJ had the desire and the arm twisting power.
And LBJ wasn't afraid to use both. Unlike JFK and our current president...

It's a tragedy the vietnam war destroyed LBJ's legacy. He was really a great president,
except totally clueless when it came to war. Its doubtful JFK would had kept us out of vietnam. Presidents always go for the war when boxed in. It makes them and US look week to do anything else. Vietnam was going to happen regardless of the president.
Obama is a perfect example. He promised to end the war(s), and look where we are today...

 

[irishScott]

You'd be making a "what if JFK had died?" thread. Therefore the result would have been the same.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I agree.

 

[Craig234]

Some posters like to project their own views on to JFK. Others just like to predict what he would have done based on little understanding of him.

It's a big question - and unanswerable in many areas.

On Vietnam, ProfJohn willing ignorance aside as he continues to spout falsehoods after being pointed to better information he ignores repeatedly, scholars and his closest aides lean towards his not engaging in war there. But it wasn't a clear 'he just knew better' answer. His brother, Robert, later said 'we were wrong on Vietnam' for a reason.

It's too complicated an issue to write another 100 line post summarizing some of the issues, but a couple key things to remember are his very careful approach to the use of force, overriding aides and his distrust of he military brass; and how LBJ went to war it seems as a political bargaining chip with Congressmen on the right who wanted that, to protect the legislative support for his Great Society, a trade JFK was unlikely to make.

McNamara had every reason to say JFK would have gone to war, wrapping himself in that cloak of approval for his position, but he came to say the opposite.

NSAM 263 isn't the 'smoking gun' that JFK was against war some thing it was. Its 1,000 troop withdrawal was a step away from war - but with other explanations than a strategy for withdrawal, which it did not have. JFK's first choice was to 'win' the war, which he had not given up on as he was sorting through the mess of Diem's assassination weeks before JFK was assassinate, which he'd inadvertently put into motion.

His choice would have been harder, as he faced a perceived loss but with the cost of withdrawal including 'weak' charges and the loss after years of supporting the US cause there, when it seemed we were 'creating a democracy against the communist tyranny', in a time when 'who lost China' was followed by 'who lost Cuba' cold war paranoia and it was widely belied countries like Thailand were in danger if Vietnam was lost.

But there's a reason the US had basically no military action launched under JFK. He was not especially interest in lost causes, which had been reinforced by the Bay of Pigs.

His lines were laid out with his statement that 'the US can supply advisers and military equipment, but at the end of the day, the war is for the Vietnamese to win or lose'.

He had rejected for years the Pentagon's requests to introduce US ground forces, playing his 'have it both ways' approach of 16,000 advisers that saw plenty of combat.

Controversially, his friend Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, who JFK had sent on a mission to reported back to him because he did not feel (for good reason) he was getting accurate information from others (he asked a general and state representative who went and reported very different stories to him if they'd been in the same country), was reported by biographer William Manchester to have told JFK had had to get out, and Kennedy told him after the 1964 election, in 1965, he would, he agreed.

If that isn't true, there are other indications events would have led him to that policy. He hadn't set a clear course either way.

And having done so, just as if he had not done the Bay of Pigs, he'd have been accused of losing our ally in the Cold War when he could have easily protected them.

One other note - it seems that Nixon was guilty of treason effectively in how he sabotaged the 1968 peace talks LBJ had - which won over the North Vietnamese, but to the administration's shock, had the South Vietnamese refuse to accept - after Nixon's reported offers to give them a much better deal if elected, to try to prevent any agreement, which would help him get elected.

There are many other issues of course for JFK - one was his plans to re-design the US intelligence agencies in a way that could have had great historical improvement, in his second term. His quote that he'd 'like to cut the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the wind', and his creation of the DIA specifically to shift power away from the existing military intelligence agencies, gives some indication.

Kruschev felt, with good reason, that a historic opportunity for peace between the USSR and US had been lost as they'd reached a point to build it.

This was a great change from the early administration when Kruschev was a bully and more reckless. JFK had won him over for peace a lot more since then.

Would JFK had not made it through a second term because of his Addison's and controversial drug cocktails? Would he have had sexual conduct exposed?

Who knows. But he does seem the last president with the political capital and the approach to really represent the American people against powerful private interests and to stand up for what was right in a number of areas - though his disdain for the Pentagon on military action was balanced by his support for a strong military. He always preferred to negotiate peace from the position of power.

There are a lot of little known improvements to the US policies he made, an abandonment of support for 'any tyrannical right-wing regime who would be pro-US' with a new willingness to accept more left-wing regimes that better represented the people, an increase in respect by the US for 'neutral' governments that wasn't just moral, but helped the US in the cold war by being attractive to nations who were wary of the loyalty-demanding USSR.

On civil rights, to answer one poster, he had changed and was committed - he was the first president who made civil rights a moral issue for the nation - but he faced weak congressional support for his civil rights initiative. He had earlier abandoned it on the basis that his whole legislative agenda was in jeopardy over it - the south a strong opponent - but later came to support it more. Its passage was in part a tribute to JFK - and LBJ was good at twisting arms. I don't recall good info on his odds for it passing.

One thing to remember is that this was an era when Republicans had more support for things like this - when it did pass, it was with Republican support strong enough that while it was behind the percent of non-southern Democrats, it was a higher percent than the Democrats overall with the Southerners (about 100% opposed) included.

 

[kylebisme]

One other note - it seems that Nixon was guilty of treason effectively in how he sabotaged the 1968 peace talks LBJ had...

It seems Nixon might have been guilty of treason long before that, considering his association with Jack Ruby. But at least so far, it seems Ruby was correct when he said:

The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.

 

[Craig234]

It seems Nixon might have been guilty of treason long before that, considering his association with Jack Ruby. But at least so far, it seems Ruby was correct when he said:

Ruby's role as a conspiracist seems pretty unclear. While his stated motive for the shooting seems pretty ridiculous (wanting to prevent Jackie from enduring the trial of Oswald) - I recall his lawyer saying something about making it up - it also hardly seems likely someone doing a 'hit for the mob' would have had such an unreliable approach that seemed like an impulse, he was doing a western union for a dancer IIRC at the scheduled time of the transfer, and it's only because it was running late that Oswald was there when he went after that - and could easily have been prevented from getting in position by police security (yay, Texas for blowing it - including not recording hours of interviews).

His jailhouse statement is sensational - but has been interpreted as a ploy to get better treatment in prison, travel, including by the Warren committee members who heard it. Good fine on the Nixon committee link, though.

Like many things in the assassination, it's just inconclusive - he did have some mob ties.

But it is plausible, that like so many affected by the assassination, that it was the 'hothead' act of fury and misguided patriotism it appears to be - that he thought he'd 'be a hero' for it.

There is one puzzling bit of evidence on Nixon, though. It's from the diary of his Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, so reliable for what it is.

Haldemann explained that when Nixon really needed to twist the arm of the CIA, with is presidency at stake, to lie and say Watergate was national security to get the FBI to not investigate, he sent a message to them to get them to cooperate: to tell them 'remember the bay of pigs'.

But Nixon didn't mean the bay of pigs - Haldemann says Nixon had code words for some things, and bay of pigs was his code word for the JFK assassination. So this strongly indicates Nixon had something very serious to blackmail them with on the JFK assassination.

Was it just Oswald having an embarrassing Link? Maybe evidence of the CIA sending him as a defector to the USSR? Would such things be enough for this sort of blackmail? We don't have answers to what this was about.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I came across an interesting article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/cold-war-origins-cia-holocaust.html

I'm sure the CIA killed him, and the article makes some convincing arguments about why they would do so.

It seems like he would've ended the Vietnam War, although he would've eventually signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The biggest mystery of all to me is E-O 11110. Did he want to nationalize the banking system or have free-banking?

Unlike Lincoln, McKinley, and Garfield, JFK possibly would have turned things around for the better had he not been assassinated and had LBJ never become President. He was planning on replacing LBJ with someone else. He started out lousy, but I think if he could've finished, we possibly would've made some progress.

Missed that Red Dwarf episode did you?

 

[William Gaatjes]

I always wondered about the relationship between the disapproval and the double crossing of JFK when it comes to certain nuclear research to develop nuclear bombs at Dimona at the time in the middle east(You guess which country ). He had serious plans to halt the research of a nuclear weapon reactor bought from France at the tome i have read once. I do not know if this is true though. It could mean that if several parties did not approve of JFK's plans, it could have been one of the reasons why he was murdered.

Nixon allowed for example all nuclear research at Dimona without any problems and never was difficult and got a lot of support because of looking the other way...

Afcourse he went to far...

Some information can be found here :
You can even see JFK together with Ben Gurion in this documentary around 14 minutes of play time.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-234685330662058240#

 

[BudAshes]

What are you talking about? The evidence that Kennedy was a commie sympathiser is all over the place, as noted in the handbill I posted above, and there's plenty of evidence he was intending to let the commies win in Vietnam too. For instance, NSAM 263 attests to the fact that Kennedy approved "plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963." Furthermore, after Johnson became president, he criticized McNamara for indulging Kennedy's communist sympathies, on tape:


Though as can be seen latter in the documentary transcript linked above, McNamara never came to appreciate Johnson's resolve against the commies:


So like I said, if JFK had lived there is no telling what unimaginable horrors we would've suffered. We'd almost surely all be speaking Russian now.

Almost certainly? Jebus dude, you live in a fantasy world and you have no idea.

 

[kylebisme]

... it also hardly seems likely someone doing a 'hit for the mob' would have had such an unreliable approach that seemed like an impulse...

Considering facts such as the testimony of Nancy Perrin Rich in which she states "I don't think there is a cop in Dallas that doesn't know Jack Ruby. He practically lived at that station." and Ruby being caught on film there previously at Oswald's press conference; the simplest explanation seems to be that Ruby was the mob guy in charge of handling the Dallas police department, and killing Oswald himself was a last ditch effort to save his skin by doing what he had failed to get others to do for him.

His jailhouse statement is sensational - but has been interpreted as a ploy to get better treatment in prison, travel, including by the Warren committee members who heard it.

Of course Ruby's statement has been interpreted that way by those who insist Oswald acted alone, as is any other evidence to the contrary dismissed by some strange interpretation or another. In realty, Ruby was transparent about his "ploy"; he simply wanted to be transferred to D.C. in exchange for spilling his beans, because he feared people in Dallas would kill him.

Almost certainly? Jebus dude, you live in a fantasy world and you have no idea.

My bad, I suppose I should have at least put a wink at the end of that post. It was sarcasm, mocking the fantasy world of those who most wanted JFK dead at the time.

 

[preCRT]

If he had lived, he'd be divorced and would have married a young bimbo starlet, then had about a dozen children, including some by his wife.

 

[Craig234]

I always wondered about the relationship between the disapproval and the double crossing of JFK when it comes to certain nuclear research to develop nuclear bombs at Dimona at the time in the middle east(You guess which country ). He had serious plans to halt the research of a nuclear weapon reactor bought from France at the tome i have read once. I do not know if this is true though. It could mean that if several parties did not approve of JFK's plans, it could have been one of the reasons why he was murdered.

Nixon allowed for example all nuclear research at Dimona without any problems and never was difficult and got a lot of support because of looking the other way...

Afcourse he went to far...

Some information can be found here :
You can even see JFK together with Ben Gurion in this documentary around 14 minutes of play time.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-234685330662058240#

It's a bit much to take every issue some power was against a US president on, and in hindsight after assassination call it a motive making them a suspect.

The relationship between Israel and the US was pretty different before the 1967 war, and it's not that reasonable to think Israel would think it a good idea to assassinate him.

Then there's the means. It just doesn't work, IMO.

If JFK were assassinated, there are just a few candidates who rise to the level of a short list (besides Jackie, Hell hath no fury).

The mafia was the target of a massive Kennedy-led war against them, after decades of 'they don't exist' cover provided by J. Edgar Hoover - by a President who had won with apparently some help from them, and the mob had been known to take betrayal a bit hard. The leading mob boss suspect is Carlos Marcello, the boss of places like New Orleans where a lot of the assassination planning would have taken place - and the Kennedys had a personal war against him, deporting him where he ended up in the jungle almost killed.

(Ironic note, when JFK was assassinated, the same afternoon Bobby was a party at his home to celebrate an expected win in a case Marcello had brought against the Justice Department for the deportation being illegal - and the trial was decided that afternoon with a win for Marcello that it was illegal).

The CIA had all kinds of reasons, rogue agency it was, for wanting JFK gone for 'national security' reasons, seeming to view him as a drug and sex abusing figure who was reckless on national security, and constantly at odds with the needs of the nation in their view, pursuing peace with communists, accepting leftists instead of the usual eight-wing dictators, and more - which is nicely summarized by JFK's 'cut the CIA into a thousand pieces' comment and plans to re-organize the US intelligence agencies.

His refusing to use US power to invade Cuba for the CIA designed Bay of Pigs they manipulated him into approving, and firing the legendary CIA founder Allen Dulles (questionably put on the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination of the man who fired him), and #2 CIA man Dick Bissell, didn't help.

The last is Fidel Castro, because of his very heavy infiltration of the US Cubans, where he was well aware of the many plans to assassinate him, the massive amount of US terrorism the US was sponsoring in Cuba (in part by the rogue CIA elements), with his famous quote two month before the assassination that those who would try to assassinate others had best watch their own safety.

Lee Harvey Oswald has been reported to have met with the Cuban intelligence officer who would handle operations like assassination in Mexico City, then the world's leading location for intelligence agencies at embassies, trying to get accepted to emigrate to Cuba. Obviously, no confirmed record exists of the meeting, of this controversial visit where the CIA supplied a photo of 'Oswald' that wasn't him.

There's overlap between the CIA, the Mafia (who they were supposedly employing for assassination and had worked with going back to WWII in Italy), and Cubans, also.

It's a funny note too how Nixon had that Cuban connection, using them for his secret criminal operatives 'the Plumbers' and his assassination codeword being 'Bay of Pigs'.

No other suspects really rise to the short list IMO, with Oswald acting alone still a very plausible suspect.

 

[Craig234]

If he had lived, he'd be divorced and would have married a young bimbo starlet, then had about a dozen children, including some by his wife.

That's pretty baseless. Point out JFK's reckless affairs, but his marriage with Jackie was getting stronger, especially after they lost their third child. She knew the deal.

Her reaction was less divorce than at most revenge - recall her trip alone on Aristotle Onassis' yacht while JFK was president - who she later married.

 

[Craig234]

Considering facts such as the testimony of Nancy Perrin Rich in which she states "I don't think there is a cop in Dallas that doesn't know Jack Ruby. He practically lived at that station." and Ruby being caught on film there previously at Oswald's press conference; the simplest explanation seems to be that Ruby was the mob guy in charge of handling the Dallas police department, and killing Oswald himself was a last ditch effort to save his skin by doing what he had failed to get others to do for him.

Yes, Ruby was well known by the police - which doesn't mean it has anything to do with a role for him in the murder of Oswald.

I know of no evidence of his trying to get anyone to kill Oswald, and his last-minute shooting that only worked with the transfer delay doesn't fit the scenario, either.

Of course Ruby's statement has been interpreted that way by those who insist Oswald acted alone, as is any other evidence to the contrary dismissed by some strange interpretation or another. In realty, Ruby was transparent about his "ploy"; he simply wanted to be transferred to D.C. in exchange for spilling his beans, because he feared people in Dallas would kill him.

Don't argue from the 'of course anyone who says something who has one view would say what fits their view' argument, that discredits any opinion just for disagreeing with you.

There are reasons for people to reach that interpretation. If you are not interested in a fair examination of the issue and will just accept one answer, there's not much to discuss.

I wish they had done it, to remove any doubt, but that doesn't change what's likely the case about him.

What a crime for justice and history not to get to try Oswald and get to far more of the truth.

But one thing to remember is that Oswald may have had little no idea who was behind the assassination, even if it was a conspiracy, possibly one contact with vague backers.

There are really a couple choices - that, or Oswald pursuing his own agenda of being a 'double agent' who was doing such things, such as for his imagined or real service to his country, like a favorite tv show he'd watched as a child where an American agent was a double agent to thwart American's enemies - fitting Oswald's 'defection' to the USSR, and his attempts to ingratiate himself with pro-Castro people such as his one-man 'Fair Play for Cuba' 'committee' where he generated press he could clip and use for credentials.

Things like his 'committee' sharing an address with a far-right former FBI agent who was into these sorts of schemes? Coincidence or partnership? Lots of mysteries.

 

[kylebisme]

Yes, Ruby was well known by the police - which doesn't mean it has anything to do with a role for him in the murder of Oswald.

Ruby's cozy relationship with the DPD means he didn't have any reason to worry about them stopping him from getting close to Oswald, and conceivably could have had them insure Oswald wasn't moved until Ruby got there. Such privileges are exactly why mob guys pal around with cops.

There are reasons for people to reach that interpretation. If you are not interested in a fair examination of the issue and will just accept one answer, there's not much to discuss.

If you can state some reasons for taking Ruby's suggestions that he feared for his life in Dallas as less than genuine other than not being interested in a fair examination the issue of who killed JFK and only being willing to accept the answers which leave the possibility that Oswald acted alone, please share. However, as long as you can only imply such reasons exist without actually presenting any, there really isn't much to discuss.