Parallels Between the JFK Assassination and the 2004 Presidential Election

[Time for change]

Maybe you thought I was going to discuss here the fact that both events resulted in cutting short (or preventing) the Presidency of a former (or current) liberal, war hero, Massachusetts Senator with the initials JFK, and resulted in the ascension to the Presidency of a Texan who led the country, under false pretenses, into a long, misguided and eventually very unpopular war. Well if you thought that, you’re wrong (though I thought it would be cool to mention those facts). Those are just superficial, coincidental, and trivial similarities.

The deeper and more important similarities are that both were right wing coups, with earth shattering implications, masterminded by an extremely powerful group of people, and our government wants us to know as little as possible about these events. The powerful guardians of the status quo in 1963 (and now) did not want us to know that the assassination of our popular President was NOT the result of a simple act by a lone crazy person, because that would raise all sorts of possibilities in our minds regarding the potential role of our own government. Nor do our current guardians want us to know how poorly equipped our current election system is to express the will of the American people. That is why right wing media whores such as Tucker Carlson refer to those who question the results of the 2004 election as “grassy knoll conspiracy theorists” – which I proudly admit that I am. Furthermore, the failure of our government to ever acknowledge the truth about the JFK assassination helps to discourage doubts about our current election system, because this failure contributes to a general atmosphere that facilitates the belief that our democracy is in better shape than it really is.


The basic medical evidence pertaining to the JFK assassination and the cover-up of that evidence

I will only briefly summarize that evidence here, because otherwise this thread would be too long. If you want to read about this in more detail you can take a look at this thread, which I posted on GD.

The most basic issue is that two of the bullets which hit Kennedy, a non-fatal bullet that went through his throat, and the one that caused the fatal head wound, were commented upon, either in Warren Commission testimony, newspaper reports, or official medical records, by nine doctors and a nurse who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas following after he lapsed into a coma. All ten of these medical people characterized the wounds as entrance wounds. This meant that these bullets came from the FRONT, in the direction of the grassy knoll, NOT from the BACK, which was the direction of the Texas School Book Depository, where Lee Harvey Oswald was claimed to have shot the President.

But the autopsy results were radically different from what was noticed by the doctors and nurse at Parkland Hospital. So, either you must believe that all of the medical personnel who treated Kennedy at the hospital were radically wrong about what they said they saw, or else the body was altered prior to the autopsy. In my other thread I summarize evidence that points towards a conclusion that the Secret Service kidnapped Kennedy’s body and maintained possession of it long enough to alter in a way to suit their purposes, that the conspirators intimidated the doctors performing the autopsy and controlled the autopsy findings, and that they then silenced witnesses to these events.


More parallels with the 2004 Presidential election

Who to believe
The mystery of JFK’s assassination is very complex, and many books have been written about it. But I believe that the main question comes down to something very simple: Who do you believe – the doctors who treated Kennedy at the hospital, or the Secret Service Agents who claim that they know for a fact that the body was not altered prior to the autopsy? The former means believing in a complex conspiracy, participated in by at least some parts of our government, to kill an elected President. The latter means believing that all of the doctors who treated the President’s wounds were completely mistaken about what they saw, or lied about it – for no apparent reason whatsoever.

A similar issue arises with regard to voter registration fraud in Ohio. Who do you believe – the New York Times reporters who reported massive increases in voter registration in Democratic precincts prior to the 2004 election, or Kenneth Blackwell’s official registration figures?

Secrecy
The main problem that we election reform advocates have with the 2004 election and our election system in general is the privatization/secrecy of our elections. When private companies take over responsibility for running our elections, and when those companies install computer programs to count our votes, and we’re told that we can’t inspect those programs because they’re “proprietary”, it sound to us like we no longer have a democracy here. One incident that exemplified this problem in 2004 was the Warren County “lockdown”, where election officials in Warren County used the bogus excuse of a national security alert to justify locking the press out of the building while they tallied up the votes. It certainly doesn’t help any that, as far as we know, a criminal investigation has never been launched to pursue this matter.

The parallel with the Kennedy assassination is the fact that the Secret Service agents grabbed control of the evidence (Kennedy’s body), against Texas state law, and made sure that they had control of the evidence long enough so that they could alter it to fit their purposes. Many people see nothing wrong with this. They just assume that the Secret Service agents naturally had a right to control the situation as they did.

The role of power and authority
Just as Katherine Harris had control of the Florida election in 2000 and Kenneth Blackwell had control of the Ohio election in 2004, our government had control over many aspects of the JFK assassination investigation. The obvious overtly partisan manner in which Harris and Blackwell performed their duties doesn’t seem to have sufficiently bothered our elected representatives, because if it had, some serious official investigations would have been launched. Nor does there seem to have been sufficient realization of how our government, following the JFK assassination, abused its power and authority to ensure that it maintained control of the evidence, the conducting of the autopsy, and the silencing of witnesses.

The effort to prevent the public from knowing
It seems that many of our representatives in government, even those who had nothing to do with these two awful events, and even those who otherwise have numerous admirable qualities, feel that some things are just too horrible for the public to know about.

For example, Howard Dean, the most vociferous Bush critic of all the Democratic candidates for President in 2004, has been by comparison quite silent on the need for more investigation into what happened during the 2004 Presidential election.

Earl Warren led our Supreme Court to such a liberal sea change (including Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education) that it caused President Eisenhower, a moderate Republican, to exclaim that his nomination of Warren to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was the worst decision he ever made as President. Yet, Warren led the Warren Commission to an investigation of the JFK assassination that was so sloppy that many still believe that the whole purpose of that Commission was to cover up what really happened. So I’ll conclude with this example, which I believe exemplifies the Warren Commission’s seemingly pre-determined goal to reach a conclusion to its investigation that would not be too shocking to the American people:

Arlen Specter was having trouble with his questioning of Dr. Perry because no matter how he tried to frame the question, Perry kept on repeating that the President’s throat wound was an entrance wound, not an exit wound. So Specter tried this:

Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you to assume as being true, for the purposes of having you express an opinion. First of all, assume that the President was struck ... from the rear at a downward angle ... Assume further that the missile passed through the body of the President ... then exiting precisely at the point where you observed ... Now based on those facts was the appearance of the wound (the throat wound) in your opinion consistent with being an exit wound?

[i miss america]

1. It is amazing to me how the JFK assassination coverup is still

going on in full force. The Discovery channel continues to air shows full of fabrications, still trying to "prove" the magic bullet theory and all those other official lies.

Arlen Spector is still running around shilling for the M/I/C, as well as GHWB and all his crooked cronies.

Thanks for keeping these topics alive. What I wonder, though, is who are the bigwigs at the top pulling the strings?

[Time for change]

4. You're welcome -- Did you happen to see the History Channel expose

several months ago? There was a lot of good stuff in there, and they even implicated LBJ. Lifton didn't say much about the possibility of LBJ's involvement, and I don't know what to think about that.

But anyhow, the History channel was pressured to put out an apology for airing that, and they did. I know someone involved with the history channel on this issue (in fact, she gave me the video), but she didn't have much to say about the retraction/apology.

[i miss america]

5. I missed it on TV, but bought the DVD. It doesn't have the missing

episode, "The Guilty Men" which I would love to see. If anyone has a copy or knows where it is available, please let me know.

"The Men Who Killed Kennedy"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005UW74

[Time for change]

8. I will look into it and get back with you

It was my daughter's room mate who gave me the copy. My daughter is visiting us now, so I'll ask her about it when she gets back from shopping.

[mzmolly]

10. I saw it when it originally aired ...

When your own government executes a President and gets away with murder it's pretty unsettling ...

[Time for change]

12. Yes, it certainly is

I believe that that's why even large numbers of otherwise well intentioned people who know about it feel that it's best not to make it public. I don't agree of course, in fact I strongly disagree, but I can at least have some respect for that point of view.

So I take it that you believe LBJ was involved with it? That's something that I have very mixed feelings about.

[mzmolly]

14. I don't think LBJ was involved.

I think people who were making money via drugs etc. off of the vietnam war were involved ~ the CIA actually hired the Italian MOB and company to do the job and later boasted about it while training some upper echelons of American Military.

Tis a bit reminiscent of the cocaine money making venture during the Reagan years and Iran Contra ey?

[Time for change]

18. I have very mixed feelings about LBJ

As I'm sure many Democrats do.

On the one hand, he led us to more progress in voting rights, civil rights, and expansion of the social safety net for our less fortunate citizens than any President in our history, with the possible exceptions of Lincoln and FDR. But on the other hand he led us into a war on false pretenses, in much the same way that our current Administration did, though probably for better motives.

I believe that there are some good reasons to suspect that he may have been involved in the JFK assassination: He was probably the most personally ambitious of any Presidnet we've ever had (i.e. he wanted to be President more than any of our other Presidents); he hated the Kennedys; he put out an order to the effect that nobody present at Bethesda Naval Hospital on Nov. 22, 1963 was allowed to say anything about what transpired that day, upon penalty of court martial; one of the doctors from Parkland Hospital who treated Kennedy says that he received a personal phone call from LBJ telling him to be silent about his opinions on the case; and most important in my view is the fact that the cover-up probably would have been very difficult to pull off without the assistance of the President. And, since you have seen "The Guilty Men", you must be aware of several other lines of evidence put forward in that documentary.

I've read three biographies on him, including "Master of the Senate" by Robert Cairo, which is one of the best books I've ever read. It's about a thousand pages long, and it covers LBJ's career through his Senate days. Cairo is generally considered one of the world's best biographers, even though he's only written four in his life -- including three on various stages of LBJ's life. So he is without question the foremost expert in the world on LBJ.

He is currently working on his final (probably) volume of the LBJ series, which will include the Vice Presidency, the Presidency, and perhaps the remainder of LBJ's life. I feel certain that this will provide the definitive word on what if any role LBJ had in the JFK assassination -- and it may provide the definitive word on the assassination itself. I fear for his life.

[mzmolly]

20. I disagree. The man knew he fudged Vietnam, unlike the current resident

and he "resigned" because of it. Doesn't sound quite as power hungry as shrubby.

JMHO.

[Time for change]

22. I don't disagree that Bush is the worst President we've ever had

by far.

[CanOfWhoopAss]

16. LBJ had to be involved. That's why Bobby Kennedy was killed too.

LBJ could have formed an investigation to find out what happened but he chose not to due to complicity. Bobby Kennedy probably would have, as well as continued along a near identical political path as his brother that is why he was killed. The seeds were sown even years prior with Joseph Kennedy's assistance to FDR and FDR's "New Deal".

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Yes, I saw it. One thing that particularly stuck in my mind

was the old coroner, who said that he was the leading expert in such autopsies in the area, so naturally when he heard the news, he sat waiting for a long time by the phone, expecting it to ring at any moment, summoning him to preside over the autopsy of John Kennedy's cadaver. Instead, they chose young newly-qualified coroners with little or no experience. Virtually straight out of med school. I think there were two of them. I mean how crazy is that? Apart from anything else it's insulting to the memory of a dead President.

(To digress a little here...) But then wouldn't they have given JFK a pauper's grave, if they could have? In the light of eternity, of course, that would more likely be close to the highest ceremonial honor, but worldly affairs at that level require just that show of pomp we renounce when we renew our baptismal vows. And when a leader proves to be great precisely in terms of his leadership, why people want to honour him/her with pomp. There was an exception, though. Apparently, when Nelsons body was being conveyed in state to St Paul's for burial, the queue of people following the procession to pay their respects was so long it beggared belief; yet ordinary folk were heard to say, they'd have been even happier to see the bier/gun carriage, whatever, flanked by the men who'd fought with him.

Anyway, to revert to the theme of the thread, imo, the absolute clincher was the statistical improbablity of all those "grassy knoll" witnesses dying mysterious deaths within three years of the JFK's murder. Completely astronomical odds against such an eventuality occurring, and because partaking of mathematic truth, they were irrefutable. While, powerful forces, as is very obvious, were able to subvert or conceal hard evidence and introduce red herrings, to muddy the water.

However, the theme of your thread is fascinating, Time for Change, because the 2004 election - on top of the 2000 election, which was surreal enough - demonstrates to us the enormity of their crimes, and the surreal scale of criminal conspiracy they are prepared to engage in.

[Time for change]

13. I'm glad that you like the theme of my thread

To me, both events are symptomatic of the fact that there is a great deal of denial in this country -- not much among most DUers, but a great deal in the country at large. And I believe that the country needs to get over that, or else they will face a catastrophe, even worse than what we've experienced under almost 5 years of Bush.

Yet there was one person on my other thread (on GD, where I talk more in detail about the medical evidence), which this one links to, who was so violently opposed to what I had to say that he virtually called me a liar (he actually said that either I'm a liar or blind, and he proposed some other possibilities). And then when several other posters came to my defense he called all of them liars too, and before too long the mods had to lock the thread.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. Well, that must, even in a technical sense, be an instance

of imbecilic denial. You sound as if you took him/her half- seriously. I certainly wouldn't have. To anyone with an IQ above 60, it must take an enormously wilful and obstinate determination on their part, to refuse to acknowledge evidence that is so massive as to be incontrovertible.

As another poster (I think, maybe, land shark) pointed out, with conspiracies, it is the scale, the seemingly endless items of circumstantial evidence, all contributing to substantiate each other with ever-increasing cogency. I mean, when the neocons cross boundaries, they do it in ten-league boots, don't they?

[Time for change]

24. I try to take everyone seriously until they give me good reason to

think otherwise.

This guy claimed to be some sort of ballistics expert. But he spouted off things to defend the lone gunman hypothesis that I'd never heard before, even from ardent supporters of the lone gunman theory. And he totally ignored the medical evidence that I discussed. And he claimed to see JFK's brains coming out the front of his head (which I certainly couldn't see) on the Zapruder film that he posted. But before too long everyone was pointing out his errors, and he was calling everyone a liar who thought that Kennedy was shot from the front, and then the mods locked the thread.

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. But you get my point, don't you? He could have invented

ballistics, and not only claimed supreme authority precisely in order to introduce false evidence, as a neocon, he assuredly would have.

I didn't doubt that he had eminent academic accreditations, but I'm all too aware that that level of academic qualifications is no guarantee at all that the person in question is not both a fool and a knave. To a surprising degree, we know what we want to know. Just as he clearly did. Anyway, I know how easy it is get sucked into arguments with crooked dolts, so I wouldn't want to give the impression I felt I was above getting sucked in by them - even if I more or less claimed it in that post! I'm sorry for getting a bit above myself there.

[Time for change]

27. I'm pretty sure that he believed what he was saying

At first I thought that maybe he was a troll, but then I noticed that he had over 1000 posts. I don't think that too many trolls have that.

Also, remember that I was making a parallel between the JFK assassination and the 2004 election. He was upset because he felt that I was tainting the belief that the 2004 election was a fraud with the belief that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. So he believes that Kerry won the 04 election, which is additional evidence that he's not a troll.

You can go look at the conversation yourself. I put a link to the thread in my OP.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. It's OK. I believe you. Thanks for your patience!

[Last Lemming]

2. I just skimmed your piece so didn't

get more than a drift--but JAMA ran a series on the Kennedy resuscitation--it's been several years now but you should be able to dig up a copy of it. The whole medical journal issue was devoted to medical aspects of the asassination

[FogerRox]

3. gotta get Thom Hartmans new book - it may end up being

the final word

[Time for change]

7. Can you tell us the conclusions? n/t

[FogerRox]

21. JFK & RFK had a plan to kill Castro-- post Bay of pigs

This plan involved primarily Cirus Vance & the US Army-- NOT THE CIA
the
The Brothers planned to cover up any US deaths- say maybe --US Ambassador to Guatemala gets shot-- as they were worried about starting WW3.

The CIA had a secondary role in the plan to kill Castro--- and they brought in some mob connections-- some of the same names who were being sought by RFK AS Attorney Gen.

When the Mob found out-- they tried to shoot JFK 1st in Chicago-- which was exposed and prevented-- and then an attempt in Miami that was thwarted-- and then the DAllas shooting.

Within hours RFK realized what had happened- that the Brothers contingency plans -- See- US Ambassador to Guatemala gets shot--

Had been employed against JFK--

SOOOO RFK was running the Autopsy from a phone one floor above the autopsy room

[Time for change]

6. I'll try to do that -- I do vaguely remember reading it when it came out

My recollection though is that Lifton did a much more thorough job than the JAMA series. Couldn't swear to it though.

[Time for change]

11. I accidentally left out the last part of this thread when I posted it

After Specter asked his somewhat leading question, Dr. Perry finally replied:

"... with the facts which you have made available and with these assumptions, I believe that it was an exit wound."

[CanOfWhoopAss]

15. A third incident with parallels would be 9/11 and its cover up commission.

No doubt it fits neatly in with these other events.

[Time for change]

17. I agree -- definitely

Too much to cover in one thread, however. That could be the subject of a ten page thread in itself.

[Time for change]

19. The mods locked my post in GD

The GD post contained the medical evidence that JFK was shot from the front and just a few words about the parallels to the 2004 election, with a link to this post, whereas this post emphasizes the parallels with the 2004 election, with just a few words about the medical evidence and a link to the GD post.

One poster in GD was vehemently opposed to the statement that Kennedy was shot from the front (i.e., not be Oswald). He began by telling me that I was either lying, blind, or knew nothing about ballistics. His statement was correct, since I know very little about ballistics. But I also know that nine doctors who treated Kennedy in the hospital say that he was shot from the front, and that the poster's interpretation of the ballistic evidence and the Zapruder film is one that I have never heard anywhere, despiting reading several books on the subject, including the supposed last word on proving the lone gunman theory ("Case Closed", by Gerald Posner).

Anyhow, that poster started a flame war, calling anyone who disagreed with him a liar. In my opinion all the posters who opposed that poster's opinion acted in a civil way and stuck to the DU rules. But the thread was locked anyhow because there was a flame war.

I have to say that I very much disagree with this way of handling a situation like that. I love DU, and I very much appreciate the work that the administrators and mods do to keep it going. But that doesn't prevent me from saying that I oppose this particular policy. It would have been a different matter if I, or even if others supporting my point of view, had acted in an uncivil manner. But I believe that the message that an action such as this sends is: If you vehemently oppose a particular thread, get into it and hurl demeaning insults at anyone who opposes your point of view, and you can cause the thread to be shut down. I believe that that is the wrong message.

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. Yes, yet another triumph for their old strong-arm tactics.

[mgr]

30. Suspect you found a Godwin's corollary for the left.

JFK assassination may have ushered in some level of conservatism and corruption, but that ignores the ballot box irregularities in the election contest of 1960 (Tex, Ill, and Cal)as well as the conservatism of the Eisenhower administration; and the reported fact that JFK probably did not have the political courage that LBJ had when it came to the Civil Rights Bill of the 1964.

Mike

[Time for change]

31. I don't know what you mean by "Godwin's Corrolary for the left"

When I said that I believe this was a right wing coup, I don't think I'm ignoring the fact that there was probably election fraud (in Illinois at least, I'm not sure about TX and CA), or that LBJ turned out to be a very liberal President on domestic policy. I think that the extent of LBJ's liberalism surprised a lot of people.

[mgr]

33. Tongue in cheek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

I stated that because the topic is polarizing among liberals.

In the 1960 election there was an initial move afoot to recount TX and IL, but stopped with ballot boxes from Texas being lost or destroyed--this is why you had Nixon's 'noble' concession (this was a story I received from my step father who was politically connected in Los Angeles)

Let's say it was a right wing coup, who was supposed to assume power--the chain of succession is new deal liberals, of which LBJ clearly was one. Certainly not the military (since they had the means, and did not use it) Or was its purport to sink the country into chaos?

Was it LBJ, and they screwed up like Eisenhower did with Earl Warren? I don't think the LBJ's liberalism was all that much of a surprise--and I think running through Eisenhower, Kennedy, and LBJ is that all were hawks when it came to Viet Nam and the Cold War. There were very few doves against the Tonkin Gulf resolution weren't there (excepting Eugene McCarthy and few others).

If you take the argument to its logical ends, there does not seem much on the domestic end to support a coup. Foreign interest associated with the cold war makes more sense (thus Oswald's little visit to Russia, and his Russian wife can make some sense).

A coup only makes sense from a whiggish perspective looking back from the social and political upheavals of the late sixties and seventies, but there is no sense to it looking forward from the fifties.

You can still argue for massive corruption running through the political landscape, that began to end with the democrats after Chicago in 1968, but continued with the republicans with Nixon well into the present (after all, what was the Checker's speech, and how much of a red baiter was Nixon compared to Joe McCarthy, when you look at his congressional campaigns). Its a much more nuanced argument to make, but since Nixon minions are still present in the current administration, the lineage is there. The thing is the start to this sorry chapter follows WWII not JFK's assassination, and includes both parties. And, just because you are corrupt, does not mean you can not accomplish good.

I can appreciate historical parallels as much as the next guy, but its got to be a little starker like de Gaulle's ascension to power, not this murk.

Mike

[Time for change]

34. Ok, I agree it's murky

I feel more confident about the other parallels than about the parallel of a right wing coup. And above all, I feel extremely confident that Kennedy was shot from the front.

But here is my post from the other thread, the one on GD, where I answered that question:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5449636&mesg_id=5449845

Interesting that you brought up the idea of shutting down threads. There was one person on the GD thread who objected strenuously to what I was saying, and all by himself, IMO, he caused the thread to be shut down.

[LongTomH]

29. The majority of people agree with you

I haven't seen recent poll; but, I think the majority of people in the U.S., at least have their doubts about the official verdict on the assassination. Unfortunately, majority opinion has not yet come around to the opinion that elections in the U.S. are being stolen.

[Time for change]

32. I believe you are right about that

I think our news media does a better job of hiding things today than they did then.