Oswald did not act alone

Mark Lause lause at SPAMworldnet.att.net
Thu Mar 29 14:20:04 MST 2001


Not a snowball's chance in hell that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.  The physical
evidence doesn't click on any level.  Then there are the conscious and deliberate lies
about Jack Ruby just being a patriotic businessman, etc.

The people I knew in and around the Fair Play for Cuba Committee at the time LHO was
hanging around said that he simply stank of "informant".  If you saw that interview
with
LHO about "Marxism", you might remember his reactions (like a deer in the headlights)
before gushing a lot of the CIA factbook stuff.

The JFK/LBJ break was real and marked the transition in regional power bases.
Southern
Democratic interest gave way with the Civil War to what became the Midwestern
Republican
Social Dawinists.  At the turn of the century with the ascendancy of Teddy Roosevelt of
NY, with a further shift in mass preferences to the Democrats when his cousin FDR came
in.  The real shift of power from the old northeast came when LBJ came in.  Not
counting
the unelected accident of Gerald Ford, the presidents since 1963 have been from,
respectively: Texas, California, Georgia, California, Texas, Arkansas, and Texas.
That's a regional shift of power to "the Sun Belt" with petrochemicals, defense, etc.

That an assassination marked this transition wouldn't surprise anybody if we were
looking
at another country in another century.  What makes anybody think the US would behave
any
differently?

Solidarity,
Mark Lause

Macdonald Stainsby wrote:

> > Hello,
> >
> > Kennedy was a bastard who got what a helluva lot more of American
> > Presidents should have.
>
> Agreed, but....
>
> > Whether it was one man or twenty is irrelevant.
>
> Not if it was what amounts to an internal coup. Kennedy wasn't "left", but he was
> sufficiently interested in things not "right" enough for the CIA and other members of
> the establishment. When power shifts from the executive to the security  apparatus,
> that is significant and it is something we ought to concern ourselves with
> investigating and detailing. One can hate Kennedy for the bastard he was *and* point
> out why he was whacked, by who, and what the consequences were (the heightening of
> the cold war, the change in American foreign policy in SEAsia, the near total
> abolition of popular input into the process by which the *real* decisions are made in
> the US.
>
> Eisenhower was the president before Kennedy. None of us entertain notions that he was
> some kind of hero. But his last speech shows he was an *honest* imperialist, one who
> actually believe in the system he helped promote globally. As such, his warning was
> simple: People behind the scenes are amssing way too much power. For whatever reason,
> against the wishes of the Cold War hawks, Kennedy took these people on and ended up
> with showing his brains to the people of Dallas. That is very important for us to
> talk about! If the KGB had shot Kruschev in the ascension to power of the
> conservative Brezhnev reign, we would still hear about this constantly (and rightly
> so, from a historical point of view). Why should we not hold the purveyors of the
> American nightmare up to at least the same standard?
>
> Macdonald
>
> > Far too many on the Left have wasted too far much time buying into the
> > Kennedy Myths and lost visions of "Camelot". Maybe Kennedy got nailed in
> > a power dispute maybe not, so what? Whether it was the CIA, the Mob,
> > Cuban exiles, or the ice cream man down the street don't worry about
> > it...
> >
> > Mark Munsterhjelm
> > Sanchung, Taiwan
> > e-mail: gustav88 at ms13.hinet.net






More information about the Marxism mailing list