Sirhan Sirhan or the Tin Foil Hat?
November 20, 2006 4:30 PM Subscribe
"I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard."
Film-maker Shane O'Sullivan has spent the last three years investigating the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968. He has uncovered new evidence that at least three CIA agents were in the hotel the night he died. Tonight we [BBC's Newsnight programme] show the findings and ask could CIA agents have had something to do with the murder of RFK?
The Beeb wrote some especially weaselly and sensationalistic copy with "could CIA agents have had something to do with the murder of RFK?"
posted by boo_radley at 4:42 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 4:42 PM on November 20, 2006
Simillarly, I thought about posting this a few months ago, but chickened out:
More than four decades after his death, John F. Kennedy's assassination remains the hottest cold case in U.S. history, and the clues continue to trickle in. Now Lawrence Livermore Laboratory scientists say a key piece of evidence supporting the lone gunman theory should be thrown out...posted by gsteff at 4:42 PM on November 20, 2006
Grant and Livermore Lab metallurgist Erik Randich found that the chemical "fingerprints" used to identify which bullets the fragments came from are actually more like run-of-the-mill tire tracks than one-of-a-kind fingerprints...
"We don't know if there were two bullets," said Randich. "There could have been two bullets, but the lead composition data shows there could be anywhere from one to five bullets."
mmmm hmmm. Sorry, so Sirhan Sirhand didn't do it? I don't get it. Was he also trying to assasinate Bobby and they both chose the same place and time?
The thing about these conspiracies is that the motive is always difficult to fathom. What would be the purpose of killing RFK? The man was a staunch anti-communist who was a hero to these types. Although he had begun to question the war, he was neck deep in the attempts to assasinate Castro and was a hardliner amongst responsible politicians. I suppose during the early 60's he was a dove next to Gen. Curtis LeMay, but the fact is that he loved the CIA and the James Bond stuff and had supported them.
Finally, why? Why was Morales anxious to kill the Kennedys? Motive is critical here. I don't see the reason for it. Who benefits from the killing of the President of the United States?
I vote Tin Foil hat.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:42 PM on November 20, 2006
The thing about these conspiracies is that the motive is always difficult to fathom. What would be the purpose of killing RFK? The man was a staunch anti-communist who was a hero to these types. Although he had begun to question the war, he was neck deep in the attempts to assasinate Castro and was a hardliner amongst responsible politicians. I suppose during the early 60's he was a dove next to Gen. Curtis LeMay, but the fact is that he loved the CIA and the James Bond stuff and had supported them.
Finally, why? Why was Morales anxious to kill the Kennedys? Motive is critical here. I don't see the reason for it. Who benefits from the killing of the President of the United States?
I vote Tin Foil hat.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:42 PM on November 20, 2006
"What would be the purpose of killing RFK?
To keep him off the next presidential ticket.
posted by rougy at 4:49 PM on November 20, 2006
To keep him off the next presidential ticket.
posted by rougy at 4:49 PM on November 20, 2006
To keep him off the next presidential ticket.
But why?
posted by Snyder at 4:53 PM on November 20, 2006
But why?
posted by Snyder at 4:53 PM on November 20, 2006
He wasn't going to win. He didn't have enough delegates--the process was much different then for the Democratic Party. Humphrey had the nomination nearly locked. It was simple math.
There was no purpose.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:56 PM on November 20, 2006
There was no purpose.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:56 PM on November 20, 2006
(as an Irish Catholic, I'd just like to say that I am sick to death of the whole fucking Kennedy family. They're basically the Dems version of the Bush clan, but with more sex and better haircuts)
posted by jonmc at 4:59 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by jonmc at 4:59 PM on November 20, 2006
Snyder - I just don't think the Kennedy brothers were playing ball with the Washington insiders, and the Republicans at the time weren't much different than the crooks we have in office today - if you stood in their way, they took you out.
The cons love their war and their war machines, and I do think Bobby would have won the presidency had he been given the chance.
I also think that John-John's death was no accident.
And I don't care how much you laugh.
posted by rougy at 5:16 PM on November 20, 2006
The cons love their war and their war machines, and I do think Bobby would have won the presidency had he been given the chance.
I also think that John-John's death was no accident.
And I don't care how much you laugh.
posted by rougy at 5:16 PM on November 20, 2006
There is just not enough tin foil to go around! That's the whole problem!
I agree, Bobby could have won. There was still a magic about the Kennedys back then......
posted by HuronBob at 5:23 PM on November 20, 2006
I agree, Bobby could have won. There was still a magic about the Kennedys back then......
posted by HuronBob at 5:23 PM on November 20, 2006
There was still a magic about the Kennedys back then......
What do you mean, 'back then?' Ted Kennedy's liver laughs at your 'science.'
abracadabra
posted by spiderwire at 5:26 PM on November 20, 2006 [2 favorites]
What do you mean, 'back then?' Ted Kennedy's liver laughs at your 'science.'
abracadabra
posted by spiderwire at 5:26 PM on November 20, 2006 [2 favorites]
I also think that John-John's death was no accident.
Finally, something we can all agree on.
posted by Pacheco at 5:28 PM on November 20, 2006
Finally, something we can all agree on.
posted by Pacheco at 5:28 PM on November 20, 2006
“It was aliens you fools.”
Yeah, all conspiracy theories are stupid.
Why don't we just pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
No offense, orthogonality. You are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:32 PM on November 20, 2006
Yeah, all conspiracy theories are stupid.
Why don't we just pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
No offense, orthogonality. You are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:32 PM on November 20, 2006
I think its all BS. But if you want a killer with a motive look no further than LBJ. Bested for the nomination in 60. Then looking at his hand picked successor going down in flames to his hated rival RFK. By many accounts LBJ was a creature of power, vindictive, and a consumate backroom dealer. He spent the first 2 years of Kennedy's term blocking the agenda, and then as soon as JFK is out of the way he uses all his power to move the entire JFK program through as part of LBJ's great society. If you want movtive, means and opportunity in both assasinations; LBJ is your man. Of course the other possibility is Joe Dimagio. I mean think about it the jealous husband of Marylin Monroe avenges her death. The Simon and Garfunkle line where have you gone Joe Dimagio makes perfect sense now doesn't it. Mr. Coffee more like Mr. Death if you ask me.
posted by humanfont at 5:33 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by humanfont at 5:33 PM on November 20, 2006
I also think that John-John's death was no accident.
Agreed. He was an incompetent pilot in conditions beyond the rating of his plane. Cratering inverted into the Atlantic was no accident.
posted by docgonzo at 5:35 PM on November 20, 2006
Agreed. He was an incompetent pilot in conditions beyond the rating of his plane. Cratering inverted into the Atlantic was no accident.
posted by docgonzo at 5:35 PM on November 20, 2006
Yeah, all conspiracy theories are stupid.
Generally, yes. And especially when it involves the government. They're not competent at anything let alone some Top Secret shit.
posted by jonmc at 5:41 PM on November 20, 2006
Generally, yes. And especially when it involves the government. They're not competent at anything let alone some Top Secret shit.
posted by jonmc at 5:41 PM on November 20, 2006
When I was in high school, I had to read the play "MacBird".
It was interesting. Well, not really so much. Actually, it was really stupid. But it seems apropos to this discussion.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:44 PM on November 20, 2006
It was interesting. Well, not really so much. Actually, it was really stupid. But it seems apropos to this discussion.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:44 PM on November 20, 2006
I don't know, the problem with all these conspiracy theories is this: The government really sucks at keeping secrets in the long term. They may be able to keep a lid on things for awhile, but not for this long. The secret of the Atomic Bomb. The Gulf of Tonkin. Nixon/Watergate. Bill Clinton's inability to keep his pants on. No WMD's in Iraq. Abu Graib. Iran/Contra. The list of stuff the government has totally failed to keep secret is pretty long. No way would they be able to hide the Kennedy assassins for all these years.
posted by unreason at 5:47 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by unreason at 5:47 PM on November 20, 2006
Is this going to be in the upcoming liberal Hollywood wankathon biopic about RFK? I saw the preview for it recently and felt like vomiting on my shoes it was so smug and self-congratulatory.
posted by Falconetti at 6:01 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by Falconetti at 6:01 PM on November 20, 2006
Is this going to be in the upcoming liberal Hollywood wankathon biopic about RFK? I saw the preview for it recently and felt like vomiting on my shoes it was so smug and self-congratulatory.</blockquoteposted by verb at 6:31 PM on November 20, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry, I misread that as "Ronald Reagan's funeral."
It was dolphins behind the whole thing. You know they're very intelligent. They should all be herded up and hacked to death.
Sorry, I couldn't resist...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:52 PM on November 20, 2006
Sorry, I couldn't resist...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:52 PM on November 20, 2006
“Who benefits from the killing of the President of the United States?”
Er...what? I mean I get what you’re saying, and on the individual level or small scale, yeah, no one. But there are excellent and very practical reasons to assassinate ANY given U.S. President.
Indeed, many public officials are wide open for assassination depending on how their positions/votes might affect certain types of policy that some folks have a heavy investment in.
The only factors are retaliation and whether the benefit is worth the risk.
I’m sorry, we can sucker hundreds/thousands of powerful people into supporting a war for material gain, but we can’t kill one powerful well guarded man when billions of dollars are at stake?
No one acts in a vaccum. The only time the very powerful die is when there are large relatively equal movements/forces in opposition lead by forceful/charismatic individuals - the ‘key logs’ in the log jam. The “lone nut” theory is madness. Certainly there can be fanatic individual assassins who ascribe to whatever faction or philosophy, but the only time they act is when that faction under stress. Now that can describe Oswald f’rinstance (depending on which flavor of story suits your taste) but for the most part assassins have support in their thinking (John Wilkes Booth comes to mind) and perhaps inside help.
Certainly powerful folks have tools other than the risky (and quite narrowly focused) assassination at their disposal. But there is always some group with vested interests threatened by policy. If they’re stronger, policy changes in their favor. If they’re weaker, policy changes against them. If they’re relatively equal, they seek advantage with other tools.
One of those tools is assassination. And when you’re talking great wealth and power, lives are a small concern in the margin.
And might I point out, it’s not “the government” involved in any of this. “The government” is your mailman, your IRS agent, your treasury joe tracking down phony money. The CIA is “the government” but only partly. There are fake corporations, defense contractors, collusions with questionable organizations at the highest levels - ostensibly for the good of the country, and in some ways perhaps it is, but I ask - is what’s going on now for the good of the country?
And that’s only part of it. The man from the seven sisters can’t get something done in D.C. because “the government” is involved? That’s not even going into ideology or any of the thrillingly complex things you can manipulate, manufacture, create, etc. when working with those levels of resources.
“The government” is often incompetant at things that really matter. Indeed, nearly all of the positve changes wrought have been on the backs of passionate individuals and groups - often in spite of the government.
Who was prosecuted for the Gulf of Tonkin, the lies about the Iraq war, Abu Graib, Iran/Contra? Even the middle eschelon asshats are doing just fine - Ollie North has his own radio show and say, whatever happened to Robert Gates? Meanwhile Lynndie England is in the brig at Miramar (not that she doesn’t have it coming, but...)
Now, that’s not taking a position that RFK or JFK (or MLK) was killed for anything in particular but that the reality is, if you have power over something and you are not as powerful or influential as the forces that oppose you, you will lose power over that thing. If you are more powerful than your opposition (as is usually the case) no problem.
If there is an impasse, it can get nasty. And those men were far more dangerous to the forces in opposition to them than any of us will likely be. (Some marvelous minds here, but I dunno if any of us are world history level ‘great’)
Fortunately for me, the Secret Service knows I have absolutely nothing to gain from any president’s death and I’m not a fanatic about anything. (Well, body crevasse hygene, but that’s hardly a political matter) And this is all realpolitick discussion, not ‘shoulds.’
But maybe RFK’s death actually doesn’t serve a purpose. I dunno. But there has to be some path other than the Scylla and Charybdis of fetishizing the minutiae in this kind of crime in opposing vague forces and intrigue or writing the whole thing off as ‘tinfoil hat.’
I mean this ‘lone nut’ dog and pony show is thousands of years old, some schmuck - a patsy or at best some low level hack - gets goated while the massive fraud rolls on.
Bah! I rant. Sorry. The larger issue isn’t subject to a simple formulation. Yeah, I'm goin' with aliens.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:25 PM on November 20, 2006 [1 favorite]
Er...what? I mean I get what you’re saying, and on the individual level or small scale, yeah, no one. But there are excellent and very practical reasons to assassinate ANY given U.S. President.
Indeed, many public officials are wide open for assassination depending on how their positions/votes might affect certain types of policy that some folks have a heavy investment in.
The only factors are retaliation and whether the benefit is worth the risk.
I’m sorry, we can sucker hundreds/thousands of powerful people into supporting a war for material gain, but we can’t kill one powerful well guarded man when billions of dollars are at stake?
No one acts in a vaccum. The only time the very powerful die is when there are large relatively equal movements/forces in opposition lead by forceful/charismatic individuals - the ‘key logs’ in the log jam. The “lone nut” theory is madness. Certainly there can be fanatic individual assassins who ascribe to whatever faction or philosophy, but the only time they act is when that faction under stress. Now that can describe Oswald f’rinstance (depending on which flavor of story suits your taste) but for the most part assassins have support in their thinking (John Wilkes Booth comes to mind) and perhaps inside help.
Certainly powerful folks have tools other than the risky (and quite narrowly focused) assassination at their disposal. But there is always some group with vested interests threatened by policy. If they’re stronger, policy changes in their favor. If they’re weaker, policy changes against them. If they’re relatively equal, they seek advantage with other tools.
One of those tools is assassination. And when you’re talking great wealth and power, lives are a small concern in the margin.
And might I point out, it’s not “the government” involved in any of this. “The government” is your mailman, your IRS agent, your treasury joe tracking down phony money. The CIA is “the government” but only partly. There are fake corporations, defense contractors, collusions with questionable organizations at the highest levels - ostensibly for the good of the country, and in some ways perhaps it is, but I ask - is what’s going on now for the good of the country?
And that’s only part of it. The man from the seven sisters can’t get something done in D.C. because “the government” is involved? That’s not even going into ideology or any of the thrillingly complex things you can manipulate, manufacture, create, etc. when working with those levels of resources.
“The government” is often incompetant at things that really matter. Indeed, nearly all of the positve changes wrought have been on the backs of passionate individuals and groups - often in spite of the government.
Who was prosecuted for the Gulf of Tonkin, the lies about the Iraq war, Abu Graib, Iran/Contra? Even the middle eschelon asshats are doing just fine - Ollie North has his own radio show and say, whatever happened to Robert Gates? Meanwhile Lynndie England is in the brig at Miramar (not that she doesn’t have it coming, but...)
Now, that’s not taking a position that RFK or JFK (or MLK) was killed for anything in particular but that the reality is, if you have power over something and you are not as powerful or influential as the forces that oppose you, you will lose power over that thing. If you are more powerful than your opposition (as is usually the case) no problem.
If there is an impasse, it can get nasty. And those men were far more dangerous to the forces in opposition to them than any of us will likely be. (Some marvelous minds here, but I dunno if any of us are world history level ‘great’)
Fortunately for me, the Secret Service knows I have absolutely nothing to gain from any president’s death and I’m not a fanatic about anything. (Well, body crevasse hygene, but that’s hardly a political matter) And this is all realpolitick discussion, not ‘shoulds.’
But maybe RFK’s death actually doesn’t serve a purpose. I dunno. But there has to be some path other than the Scylla and Charybdis of fetishizing the minutiae in this kind of crime in opposing vague forces and intrigue or writing the whole thing off as ‘tinfoil hat.’
I mean this ‘lone nut’ dog and pony show is thousands of years old, some schmuck - a patsy or at best some low level hack - gets goated while the massive fraud rolls on.
Bah! I rant. Sorry. The larger issue isn’t subject to a simple formulation. Yeah, I'm goin' with aliens.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:25 PM on November 20, 2006 [1 favorite]
I think conspiracy theories are opera. American Camelot
cultural myths acted out, Act One Act Two Act Three is an aria, Maria Calas lamenting the sad and tragic truth... it was all for nothing.
posted by hortense at 7:25 PM on November 20, 2006
cultural myths acted out, Act One Act Two Act Three is an aria, Maria Calas lamenting the sad and tragic truth... it was all for nothing.
posted by hortense at 7:25 PM on November 20, 2006
Sorry, but you people, by and large, make me want to puke. I don’t know. Maybe you’re just too young... stupid legacy of the Reagan era, or maybe you want to strike a cynical pose, but no one who was alive and well during the late sixties would be dumb enough to spit on RFK like previous posters have.
He was a real human alternative to Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.
His son carries on his legacy, but without his charisma. So they probably wont bother to kill him.
posted by Huplescat at 8:15 PM on November 20, 2006
He was a real human alternative to Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.
His son carries on his legacy, but without his charisma. So they probably wont bother to kill him.
posted by Huplescat at 8:15 PM on November 20, 2006
I had always thought Sirhan Sirhan was under the telepathic control of the Rosicrucians? I'm not quite clear on how the CIA and their Manchurian Candidate programs relate to Rosicrucians??
posted by archae at 8:45 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by archae at 8:45 PM on November 20, 2006
God, I can't wait until Police Gazette comes out.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:47 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:47 PM on November 20, 2006
Curse you, Blazecock Pileon!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:48 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:48 PM on November 20, 2006
Who's "spitting on" RFK? People just don't believe some conspiracy theory about his death.
posted by Falconetti at 9:08 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by Falconetti at 9:08 PM on November 20, 2006
Julius Caesar didn't believe in conspiracy theories either. Look where it got him.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:44 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by kid ichorous at 9:44 PM on November 20, 2006
I usually don't buy into conspiracy theories, but if Emilio Estevez can be nominated for a Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, then anything's possible.
posted by turducken at 9:45 PM on November 20, 2006
posted by turducken at 9:45 PM on November 20, 2006
"He wasn't going to win. He didn't have enough delegates--the process was much different then for the Democratic Party. Humphrey had the nomination nearly locked. It was simple math."
This is such a great point. It's amazing that somehow history has been revised to the point that people now believe RFK had the nomination (and the Presidency) basically sewn up.
posted by TetrisKid at 10:01 PM on November 20, 2006
This is such a great point. It's amazing that somehow history has been revised to the point that people now believe RFK had the nomination (and the Presidency) basically sewn up.
posted by TetrisKid at 10:01 PM on November 20, 2006
A person like Bobby Kennedy doesn't have to even be on the ticket to sway the election.
Same goes for John-John.
He would have certainly stood up against the Bush cabal in the run up to the election, and his charisma and name would have, by itself, been a major thorn in the side of the Bushistas.
Both Bobby and John-John were murdered because the war machine needed a new tank of gas.
Remember: rich people never have enough money.
posted by rougy at 12:24 AM on November 21, 2006
Same goes for John-John.
He would have certainly stood up against the Bush cabal in the run up to the election, and his charisma and name would have, by itself, been a major thorn in the side of the Bushistas.
Both Bobby and John-John were murdered because the war machine needed a new tank of gas.
Remember: rich people never have enough money.
posted by rougy at 12:24 AM on November 21, 2006
OK, so no-one amongst the self-described grownups wants to discuss whether or not a known CIA hitman or two was present at the moment of the murder? Let alone whether, if that's true, they might have had a hand in it? We should at least accept it as being within the bounds of plausibility that Sirhan Sirhan actually was the patsy he appeared to be.
And as for all you smarty-pants "Humphrey had the campaign in a lock" types, nonsense: sure, things worked differently then, but winning SD and CA that day gave RFK massive momentum going into the convention. Assuming the McCarthy electors would have swung behind Bobby, the tallies on the night of his death were HH: 561, RFK: 651.
Bobby was the most liberal person ever to come that close to the Presidency, and a formidably honest campaigner. There's a million reasons why they'd have offed him. And now we can see who might have been the agents on the ground for such an operation.
posted by imperium at 12:43 AM on November 21, 2006 [2 favorites]
And as for all you smarty-pants "Humphrey had the campaign in a lock" types, nonsense: sure, things worked differently then, but winning SD and CA that day gave RFK massive momentum going into the convention. Assuming the McCarthy electors would have swung behind Bobby, the tallies on the night of his death were HH: 561, RFK: 651.
Bobby was the most liberal person ever to come that close to the Presidency, and a formidably honest campaigner. There's a million reasons why they'd have offed him. And now we can see who might have been the agents on the ground for such an operation.
posted by imperium at 12:43 AM on November 21, 2006 [2 favorites]
My God! I think he's actually serious about that!
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:56 AM on November 21, 2006
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:56 AM on November 21, 2006
imperium: Sure, I'll bite. It's an interesting data point but rather far from proof. Where's the paper trail connecting these guys to Sirhan? At least we know that Ruby and Oswald had some connection prior to his killing. And yes, why didn't they get rid of Sirhan? Because he was crazy enough?
Noguchi said that he couldn't be certain that Sirhan's weapon killed Kennedy, not that it was certainly another weapon.
And no, I don't buy this clan-warfare gloss on politics. Kennedy was a Cold Warrior with the best of them. Yeah, he butted heads with a few people in the national security establishment as AG. And arguably he was the "most liberal" guy to come close to the nomination -- but sheesh, throw away his socially required defense of the LBJ admin, and Humphrey was pretty damn liberal himself.
There's plenty of reason to believe that the convention would have nominated HHH anyway, but only after a bruising delegate fight and multiple ballots. (Neither party does conventions that way anymore. Too risky.) He would have been damaged going into the general election. As it happened, the protests and the "police riot" Daley mounted to put 'em down had the same effect. I don't think the McCarthey delegates could be trusted to vote en masse for Bobby -- a lot of them wouldn't trust him.
So as plausible suspects using the same "group motive" analysis you have the Minnesota Mafia and ... the Minnesota Mafia. Maybe it was an internecine DFL thing.
posted by dhartung at 3:13 AM on November 21, 2006
Noguchi said that he couldn't be certain that Sirhan's weapon killed Kennedy, not that it was certainly another weapon.
And no, I don't buy this clan-warfare gloss on politics. Kennedy was a Cold Warrior with the best of them. Yeah, he butted heads with a few people in the national security establishment as AG. And arguably he was the "most liberal" guy to come close to the nomination -- but sheesh, throw away his socially required defense of the LBJ admin, and Humphrey was pretty damn liberal himself.
There's plenty of reason to believe that the convention would have nominated HHH anyway, but only after a bruising delegate fight and multiple ballots. (Neither party does conventions that way anymore. Too risky.) He would have been damaged going into the general election. As it happened, the protests and the "police riot" Daley mounted to put 'em down had the same effect. I don't think the McCarthey delegates could be trusted to vote en masse for Bobby -- a lot of them wouldn't trust him.
So as plausible suspects using the same "group motive" analysis you have the Minnesota Mafia and ... the Minnesota Mafia. Maybe it was an internecine DFL thing.
posted by dhartung at 3:13 AM on November 21, 2006
Have y'all watched the film? We have Morales' comment to his lawyer that "I was there when we killed the motherfucker in Dallas and again in LA when we got the little bastard". Any other explanation for that? Especially when the photos show him there. Motive. Opportunity. Confession. No fricking alibi. Case to answer, surely? Shame he's dead, I know.
Watch it. It's on the BBC here for another 10 hours or so.
posted by imperium at 4:00 AM on November 21, 2006
Watch it. It's on the BBC here for another 10 hours or so.
posted by imperium at 4:00 AM on November 21, 2006
imperium, this link goes directly to the Kennedy segment, rather than the whole programme. It looks like they're going to keep it up for a while.
posted by matthewr at 4:25 AM on November 21, 2006
posted by matthewr at 4:25 AM on November 21, 2006
o one who was alive and well during the late sixties would be dumb enough to spit on RFK like previous posters have.
Bullshit. I was alive and well and working for Clean Gene and I despised Bobby Kennedy, as did everyone I knew.
Assuming the McCarthy electors would have swung behind Bobby
Much like assuming pigs fly out of your ass. The McCarthy people hated Bobby. See above.
posted by languagehat at 6:35 AM on November 21, 2006
Bullshit. I was alive and well and working for Clean Gene and I despised Bobby Kennedy, as did everyone I knew.
Assuming the McCarthy electors would have swung behind Bobby
Much like assuming pigs fly out of your ass. The McCarthy people hated Bobby. See above.
posted by languagehat at 6:35 AM on November 21, 2006
Oh, and this post is pure tinfoil hat.
posted by languagehat at 6:35 AM on November 21, 2006
posted by languagehat at 6:35 AM on November 21, 2006
I live near RFK Stadium in DC. Since it's easy to find on any aerial picture, it's a convenient landmark when I'm looking for my house on Google maps.
That is all.
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:58 AM on November 21, 2006
That is all.
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:58 AM on November 21, 2006
I live near RFK Stadium in DC.
Then I'm sure you're aware that Jimmy Hoffa is buried there.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:05 AM on November 21, 2006
Then I'm sure you're aware that Jimmy Hoffa is buried there.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:05 AM on November 21, 2006
He was a real human alternative to Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.
His son carries on his legacy, but without his charisma. So they probably wont bother to kill him.
posted by Huplescat at 11:15 PM EST on November 20
Oh, please...
The Kennedys rose to wealth and power on Joesph's connections with the mafia nad organized crime. Those connection, through labor unions, got JFK elected. Then RFK went after them. If any group killed RFK, it was the mob in retaliation, though I doubt it.
But this comment highlights how the Kennedys exploited the rise of television. They were charimsatic based on how they looked on television. With everything you know about how public images are managed, are you still naive enough to believe that the Kennedys in any way resembled their artifical television image? They were acting, like Bush is acting and like Clinton acted.
I find it amazing that people continue to have this innocent vision of the Kennedys. JFK was president for less than 3 years and in that time managed to make a mess of Cuba, was responsible for the Bay of Pigs, let Eastern Europe drift more firmly under Soviet control, and sent us into Vietnam with no clear vision or objective. Had he not been assasinated, he'd likely have been remembered as one of the wosrt presidents ever.
As an attorney general, RFK was barely rose to the level of hack. Sure, he lookd tough on television, but that's the only place he was tough. It's not that the Washington establishment was against the Kennedys, its that they so lacked wits and intelligence, that everyone in Washington could outmaneuver them.
His attempts to break the mafia, though earnest, were ultimately impotent. Guiliani did more to break the mafia than RFK did, but we forgot about that.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:07 AM on November 21, 2006
His son carries on his legacy, but without his charisma. So they probably wont bother to kill him.
posted by Huplescat at 11:15 PM EST on November 20
Oh, please...
The Kennedys rose to wealth and power on Joesph's connections with the mafia nad organized crime. Those connection, through labor unions, got JFK elected. Then RFK went after them. If any group killed RFK, it was the mob in retaliation, though I doubt it.
But this comment highlights how the Kennedys exploited the rise of television. They were charimsatic based on how they looked on television. With everything you know about how public images are managed, are you still naive enough to believe that the Kennedys in any way resembled their artifical television image? They were acting, like Bush is acting and like Clinton acted.
I find it amazing that people continue to have this innocent vision of the Kennedys. JFK was president for less than 3 years and in that time managed to make a mess of Cuba, was responsible for the Bay of Pigs, let Eastern Europe drift more firmly under Soviet control, and sent us into Vietnam with no clear vision or objective. Had he not been assasinated, he'd likely have been remembered as one of the wosrt presidents ever.
As an attorney general, RFK was barely rose to the level of hack. Sure, he lookd tough on television, but that's the only place he was tough. It's not that the Washington establishment was against the Kennedys, its that they so lacked wits and intelligence, that everyone in Washington could outmaneuver them.
His attempts to break the mafia, though earnest, were ultimately impotent. Guiliani did more to break the mafia than RFK did, but we forgot about that.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:07 AM on November 21, 2006
The big plus of conspiracy theories is, they're comforting. They help us magnify the greatness of the "fallen." They help us convince ourselves that people aren't fundamentally unsafe after all or vulnerable to any random idiot having a bad day and looking for someone to take it out on. Like religion, they can make the senseless seem purposeful.
. . . none of which negates the incontrovertible fact of the Illuminati's role in the Steve Bartman Cubs game incident of 2003.
posted by FelliniBlank at 8:03 AM on November 21, 2006
. . . none of which negates the incontrovertible fact of the Illuminati's role in the Steve Bartman Cubs game incident of 2003.
posted by FelliniBlank at 8:03 AM on November 21, 2006
...I despised Bobby Kennedy, as did everyone I knew.
Not me. I liked him.
No one I knew thought McCarthy, the charismatic equivalent of a frozen fish stick, had a chance--either at the convention or in the election. Robert Kennedy had the hopes of far more people behind him than did McCarthy from the minute he announced his candidacy. For them, after that announcement, being for McCarthy in 1968 became the functional equivalent of what being for Ralph Nader would be in 2000.
I can still choke up talking about what if felt like in the weeks after King's and Robert Kennedy's assassinations that spring and summer. For me and my friends, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was our last best hope. With the killings of King and Kennedy came the death of that hope. 1968 was the worst of years.
posted by y2karl at 8:12 AM on November 21, 2006
Not me. I liked him.
No one I knew thought McCarthy, the charismatic equivalent of a frozen fish stick, had a chance--either at the convention or in the election. Robert Kennedy had the hopes of far more people behind him than did McCarthy from the minute he announced his candidacy. For them, after that announcement, being for McCarthy in 1968 became the functional equivalent of what being for Ralph Nader would be in 2000.
I can still choke up talking about what if felt like in the weeks after King's and Robert Kennedy's assassinations that spring and summer. For me and my friends, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was our last best hope. With the killings of King and Kennedy came the death of that hope. 1968 was the worst of years.
posted by y2karl at 8:12 AM on November 21, 2006
languagehat writes "Oh, and this post is pure tinfoil hat."
I'm not advocating any particular view, just given you guys something to talk about.
posted by orthogonality at 8:38 AM on November 21, 2006
I'm not advocating any particular view, just given you guys something to talk about.
posted by orthogonality at 8:38 AM on November 21, 2006
Yes, 100% of these high-profile political killings were all done by lone assassins with ties to no one.
Now, excuse me while I go put my head back in the sand.
posted by wfc123 at 9:05 AM on November 21, 2006
Now, excuse me while I go put my head back in the sand.
posted by wfc123 at 9:05 AM on November 21, 2006
JFK... sent us into Vietnam with no clear vision or objective.
JFK basically continued the foreign policy of Truman and Eisenhower.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:09 AM on November 21, 2006
When it came to Cuba the CIA and the Mafia were pretty chummy. But...
“His attempts to break the mafia, though earnest, were ultimately impotent. Guiliani did more to break the mafia than RFK did, but we forgot about that.” - posted by Pastabagel
Gotta go with Pastabagel on alla that.
“Yes, 100% of these high-profile political killings were all done by lone assassins with ties to no one.”
But that’s the thing. They could well have been. Oh, I doubt it. But in each case there’s enough of a possibility of it - given the friction and pressure at the time and how the SS operated at that time. At this point they’ve adapted well enough to prevent it - and by that I don’t mean just tactically, but internal oversight, etc - all the intangibles.
But what are “ties”? See, the public is just learning this now even though it was just as true then (kinda like the “ninja” fad). A group - let’s call them Al Keister - might have an agenda and a set of rhetoric and communication outside the mainstream whether that’s the internets, telephone, mail drop, meeting in chains in a bar some place - whatever.
It gets circulated thru the community that Mr. X needs to die. Maybe someone steps up, maybe not. But there is no paper trail or actual order given, just the expression of the will. This comes in handy if you’re a member of that group and also happen to be a member of something else. Say, the government.
Each case in a vaccum, yeah, I could believe it’s a lone nut. But those assassinations seemed to serve the same agenda. So, what, just a bizzarre streak of luck that benefited the same group?
Granted one can increase a set of interests to the point of meaningless (part of the fun of the Illuminati games - the boy scouts control the NSA which controls video games which controls communism, etc.). Now one can’t hide the collusion of those interests, but that’s not what’s illegal is it? And if some guy takes it upon himself to assassinate someone in the way of those interests....well, we can’t help who supports us, can we? Especially if it can’t be shown that he did. Or better still, that he was just a nut. And that’s the beauty of it, because maybe he was.
Remember that senator who thought the Israeli government was spying on him? And he started acting weird, driving erratically to lose pursuit, testing his food, stuff like that. And he was institutionalized? As it turned out, yeah, they were spying on him. But they didn’t say anything about it until it was years after he killed himself. But that wasn’t their fault, they didn’t force him to kill himself, they just watched him.
So what can ya do?
A good conspiracy is not necessarially unprovable. But it is set up such that there is nothing you can really do about it.
Like any good treason (treason never prospers, ‘cause if it does none dare call it treason). Hickley’s dad had dinner with Bush the Elder the night before Reagan got shot. Wacky coincidence huh? I wonder why Reagan never said anything about that. He really hated Bush.
Ok, so the CIA killed RFK - the guys who actually ran the op are gone. The guys who ordered it are so far up there in the rareified air or they’ve retired into oblivion now that you’re not going to catch them. The people there now had nothing to do with it and can quite reasonably protest.
That’s the problem with conpiracy theories, they’re about vengance, not justice. Vengance ain’t gonna happen. Justice might. Justice would be making sure something like this doesn’t happen ever again. But that’s more work than even just catching the low level guys who actually pull the trigger.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:12 AM on November 21, 2006
“His attempts to break the mafia, though earnest, were ultimately impotent. Guiliani did more to break the mafia than RFK did, but we forgot about that.” - posted by Pastabagel
Gotta go with Pastabagel on alla that.
“Yes, 100% of these high-profile political killings were all done by lone assassins with ties to no one.”
But that’s the thing. They could well have been. Oh, I doubt it. But in each case there’s enough of a possibility of it - given the friction and pressure at the time and how the SS operated at that time. At this point they’ve adapted well enough to prevent it - and by that I don’t mean just tactically, but internal oversight, etc - all the intangibles.
But what are “ties”? See, the public is just learning this now even though it was just as true then (kinda like the “ninja” fad). A group - let’s call them Al Keister - might have an agenda and a set of rhetoric and communication outside the mainstream whether that’s the internets, telephone, mail drop, meeting in chains in a bar some place - whatever.
It gets circulated thru the community that Mr. X needs to die. Maybe someone steps up, maybe not. But there is no paper trail or actual order given, just the expression of the will. This comes in handy if you’re a member of that group and also happen to be a member of something else. Say, the government.
Each case in a vaccum, yeah, I could believe it’s a lone nut. But those assassinations seemed to serve the same agenda. So, what, just a bizzarre streak of luck that benefited the same group?
Granted one can increase a set of interests to the point of meaningless (part of the fun of the Illuminati games - the boy scouts control the NSA which controls video games which controls communism, etc.). Now one can’t hide the collusion of those interests, but that’s not what’s illegal is it? And if some guy takes it upon himself to assassinate someone in the way of those interests....well, we can’t help who supports us, can we? Especially if it can’t be shown that he did. Or better still, that he was just a nut. And that’s the beauty of it, because maybe he was.
Remember that senator who thought the Israeli government was spying on him? And he started acting weird, driving erratically to lose pursuit, testing his food, stuff like that. And he was institutionalized? As it turned out, yeah, they were spying on him. But they didn’t say anything about it until it was years after he killed himself. But that wasn’t their fault, they didn’t force him to kill himself, they just watched him.
So what can ya do?
A good conspiracy is not necessarially unprovable. But it is set up such that there is nothing you can really do about it.
Like any good treason (treason never prospers, ‘cause if it does none dare call it treason). Hickley’s dad had dinner with Bush the Elder the night before Reagan got shot. Wacky coincidence huh? I wonder why Reagan never said anything about that. He really hated Bush.
Ok, so the CIA killed RFK - the guys who actually ran the op are gone. The guys who ordered it are so far up there in the rareified air or they’ve retired into oblivion now that you’re not going to catch them. The people there now had nothing to do with it and can quite reasonably protest.
That’s the problem with conpiracy theories, they’re about vengance, not justice. Vengance ain’t gonna happen. Justice might. Justice would be making sure something like this doesn’t happen ever again. But that’s more work than even just catching the low level guys who actually pull the trigger.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:12 AM on November 21, 2006
Y’know who totally was killed by lone nut(s)? Pierre Gemayel. I mean the Syrian government denies their involvement. Just because Gemayel was against Syrian occupation, doesn’t mean they killed him. Pure coincidence.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:54 AM on November 21, 2006
posted by Smedleyman at 11:54 AM on November 21, 2006
One analysis has the period dominated by the Cowboys vs. the Yankees . . . roughly new money versus old. No doubt the cowboys had JFK killed. Maybe RFK too. Damn shame.
Some additional conspiracy stuff and references here.
posted by ahimsakid at 12:15 PM on November 21, 2006
Some additional conspiracy stuff and references here.
posted by ahimsakid at 12:15 PM on November 21, 2006
Remember that senator who thought the Israeli government was spying on him? And he started acting weird, driving erratically to lose pursuit, testing his food, stuff like that.
No.
posted by norm at 12:35 PM on November 21, 2006
No.
posted by norm at 12:35 PM on November 21, 2006
and I despised Bobby Kennedy, as did everyone I knew.
they didn't really vote in the primaries, though (what did he end up getting, 20 percent at the convention?). maybe they were all home taking a bath for Gene -- super omnia cleanliness, I suppose.
over the years, I've read quite a bit about McCarthy minor, a man whose appeal to voters -- not to mention his qualities, besides some B minus poetry -- remain to my eyes unfathomable. for a dispassionate observer -- literally sine ira ac studio -- his claim to fame remains, incredibly enough, losing the New Hampshire primary against a horribly unpopular President running for a third term. especially in light of McCarthy's prompt "retirement" from politics (only, what, three years after Chicago?), and his bizarre series of failed Presidential runs on various tickets, well, I must say that compared to "Gene" even a forgettable figure like, say, Muskie, appears a genuine giant.
speaking of losers, I can understand Stevenson's massive appeal. McCarthy's, not really. with all due respect to my progressive friends who loved him back then, of course. had I not been born two years after that fateful summer, I might have been a Gene fan, too -- even if I seriously doubt that. but seriously, I'm not sure history will remember his as more than an unsuccessful spoiler candidate -- literally an also-ran. but it's probably easier to blame McCarthy's many defeats on those pesky Kennedy kids, so stubbornly -- no, ruthlessly -- unhelpful, even post mortem.
posted by matteo at 1:02 PM on November 21, 2006
they didn't really vote in the primaries, though (what did he end up getting, 20 percent at the convention?). maybe they were all home taking a bath for Gene -- super omnia cleanliness, I suppose.
over the years, I've read quite a bit about McCarthy minor, a man whose appeal to voters -- not to mention his qualities, besides some B minus poetry -- remain to my eyes unfathomable. for a dispassionate observer -- literally sine ira ac studio -- his claim to fame remains, incredibly enough, losing the New Hampshire primary against a horribly unpopular President running for a third term. especially in light of McCarthy's prompt "retirement" from politics (only, what, three years after Chicago?), and his bizarre series of failed Presidential runs on various tickets, well, I must say that compared to "Gene" even a forgettable figure like, say, Muskie, appears a genuine giant.
speaking of losers, I can understand Stevenson's massive appeal. McCarthy's, not really. with all due respect to my progressive friends who loved him back then, of course. had I not been born two years after that fateful summer, I might have been a Gene fan, too -- even if I seriously doubt that. but seriously, I'm not sure history will remember his as more than an unsuccessful spoiler candidate -- literally an also-ran. but it's probably easier to blame McCarthy's many defeats on those pesky Kennedy kids, so stubbornly -- no, ruthlessly -- unhelpful, even post mortem.
posted by matteo at 1:02 PM on November 21, 2006
Not me. I liked him.
I'm sure you realize this, but just to clarify: I'm not making any claims about the public at large (which obviously went for the latest Kennedy in droves once he decided to make himself available), just talking about my little circle of McCarthy fans. But I will point out that lots of people still hated Bobby for his services to McCarthy major.
a man whose appeal to voters ... remain to my eyes unfathomable
Guess you had to be there.
posted by languagehat at 1:50 PM on November 21, 2006
I'm sure you realize this, but just to clarify: I'm not making any claims about the public at large (which obviously went for the latest Kennedy in droves once he decided to make himself available), just talking about my little circle of McCarthy fans. But I will point out that lots of people still hated Bobby for his services to McCarthy major.
a man whose appeal to voters ... remain to my eyes unfathomable
Guess you had to be there.
posted by languagehat at 1:50 PM on November 21, 2006
Probably, but isn't that a fatal flaw for a politician?
posted by matteo at 2:32 PM on November 21, 2006
posted by matteo at 2:32 PM on November 21, 2006
Well Norm, maybe I’m conflating - whoever it is I can’t remember -with James Forrestal, since I believe it happened around the same time.
But his case was far less sinister that the implications surrounding Forrestal. They simply wanted to know how he would vote.
And no one believed him that, at that time they were called ‘Zionist’, agents were following him around.
But that’s hard to keep straight in memory - I mean everyone and their brother was under surveillance at that time...and committed suicide.
Hell, Bartley Crum was on that committee (Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry - set up to develop a policy to resolve Jewish/Arab conflict in the middle east - before Israel was set up) and he was hounded into swallowing pills and booze by FBI surveillance and harassment.
Meh. The point being - the same with Bartley Crum - how does one get payback from such events?
It was dispicable what the Feds did to Crum, moreso than the (future) Israelis following a guy around. But even if such circumstances are, in retrospect, revealed, there isn’t much one can do to get justice for that event. The focus must be on reordering the state of affairs so that such things never happen again.
That isn’t going to happen by obsessing over the conspiracy, whether one existed or not. (the nearly successful assassination attempt on pope John Paul II comes to mind - he forgave the guy, but policies went on - was it the grey wolves? Was it the Soviet Union? Why is it we don’t simply say Mehmet Ali Ag˘ca was a lone nut?)
Now that isn’t to say ortho shouldn’t have posted it. ‘Cause they are fun to talk about.
I mean anyone seen Sirhan’s spiral notebooks? “May 18, 9:45 a.m. -- 68. My determination to eliminate RFK is becoming more the more of an unshakable obsession... RFK must die -- RFK must be killed Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated... Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated before 5 June 68 Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated I have never heard please pay to the order of of of of of of of of of this or that pleas pay to the order of...” Scattered throughout the writing among the pseudomystical doodles and spirals are "drugs" and "mind control"
Weird man.
But mind control is a pretty old method of creating an assassin (the very word is derived from a group which used those techniques). Indeed, we still have suicide assassins, bombers who believe they will get virgins in paradise if they blow up infidels who are (evilly) shopping or drinking coffee. It’s a matter of context tho. Many people don’t think, for some reason, it can be done on the individual level or with a firearm. Or in the past. Those cross connections are important. It’s not necessarially tinfoil hat thinking.
None of this, that is being discussed here, is new stuff.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:38 PM on November 21, 2006
But his case was far less sinister that the implications surrounding Forrestal. They simply wanted to know how he would vote.
And no one believed him that, at that time they were called ‘Zionist’, agents were following him around.
But that’s hard to keep straight in memory - I mean everyone and their brother was under surveillance at that time...and committed suicide.
Hell, Bartley Crum was on that committee (Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry - set up to develop a policy to resolve Jewish/Arab conflict in the middle east - before Israel was set up) and he was hounded into swallowing pills and booze by FBI surveillance and harassment.
Meh. The point being - the same with Bartley Crum - how does one get payback from such events?
It was dispicable what the Feds did to Crum, moreso than the (future) Israelis following a guy around. But even if such circumstances are, in retrospect, revealed, there isn’t much one can do to get justice for that event. The focus must be on reordering the state of affairs so that such things never happen again.
That isn’t going to happen by obsessing over the conspiracy, whether one existed or not. (the nearly successful assassination attempt on pope John Paul II comes to mind - he forgave the guy, but policies went on - was it the grey wolves? Was it the Soviet Union? Why is it we don’t simply say Mehmet Ali Ag˘ca was a lone nut?)
Now that isn’t to say ortho shouldn’t have posted it. ‘Cause they are fun to talk about.
I mean anyone seen Sirhan’s spiral notebooks? “May 18, 9:45 a.m. -- 68. My determination to eliminate RFK is becoming more the more of an unshakable obsession... RFK must die -- RFK must be killed Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated... Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated before 5 June 68 Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated I have never heard please pay to the order of of of of of of of of of this or that pleas pay to the order of...” Scattered throughout the writing among the pseudomystical doodles and spirals are "drugs" and "mind control"
Weird man.
But mind control is a pretty old method of creating an assassin (the very word is derived from a group which used those techniques). Indeed, we still have suicide assassins, bombers who believe they will get virgins in paradise if they blow up infidels who are (evilly) shopping or drinking coffee. It’s a matter of context tho. Many people don’t think, for some reason, it can be done on the individual level or with a firearm. Or in the past. Those cross connections are important. It’s not necessarially tinfoil hat thinking.
None of this, that is being discussed here, is new stuff.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:38 PM on November 21, 2006
Another interesting case - Ninoy Aquino. He was surrounded by MPs, cops, security guards, reporters, like two thousand people on an airport runway - and he’s shot dead at close range in the back of the head. The guy who (apparently) killed him, is shot dead by the airport cops.
I’ve trained bodyguards. They say the hardest obstacle is establishing trust with a client. And with good reason. It’s usually an inside job. The Marcos government found that a lot of the MPs (again, the low level guys) were in on it.
People apparently saw through that one. ‘Cause that government fell (and was doomed to about the time the Reagan administration started distancing U.S. from them and the American media started showing Imelda’s shoe collection).
Just musing on assassinations in general, but you see the ploy there. The senator in heavy opposition to the Marcos government is killed that way. Then the assassin is killed. Then everyone from the commies to the CIA is blamed. Then it’s some ultimately some crazy but low level military guys who did it. And theories abound about who ordered the hit, but nothing ultimately comes of it in terms of jail time for murder.
Seen that song and dance many times.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:56 PM on November 21, 2006
I’ve trained bodyguards. They say the hardest obstacle is establishing trust with a client. And with good reason. It’s usually an inside job. The Marcos government found that a lot of the MPs (again, the low level guys) were in on it.
People apparently saw through that one. ‘Cause that government fell (and was doomed to about the time the Reagan administration started distancing U.S. from them and the American media started showing Imelda’s shoe collection).
Just musing on assassinations in general, but you see the ploy there. The senator in heavy opposition to the Marcos government is killed that way. Then the assassin is killed. Then everyone from the commies to the CIA is blamed. Then it’s some ultimately some crazy but low level military guys who did it. And theories abound about who ordered the hit, but nothing ultimately comes of it in terms of jail time for murder.
Seen that song and dance many times.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:56 PM on November 21, 2006
Great points, Smedleyman.
You don't have to be a major player to fall under the cross hairs of the "good guys".
Remember Jean Seberg?
And we know that the FBI was sending Dr. King letters urging him to commit suicide.
Nothing's really changed, I'm afraid.
posted by rougy at 4:20 PM on November 21, 2006
You don't have to be a major player to fall under the cross hairs of the "good guys".
Remember Jean Seberg?
And we know that the FBI was sending Dr. King letters urging him to commit suicide.
Nothing's really changed, I'm afraid.
posted by rougy at 4:20 PM on November 21, 2006
Remember that senator who thought the Israeli government was spying on him? And he started acting weird, driving erratically to lose pursuit, testing his food, stuff like that.
I'm going to infer that Smedleyman was referencing the case of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, who came to believe he was being watched by agents of Israel.
posted by SPrintF at 8:50 PM on November 21, 2006
I'm going to infer that Smedleyman was referencing the case of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, who came to believe he was being watched by agents of Israel.
posted by SPrintF at 8:50 PM on November 21, 2006
When a history-altering act of insane but calculated violence automatically makes more sense to most people than evidence of foul play by a paranoid spy agency whose survival was threatened by the decedent, then we can know for sure that their cathode ray program has succeeded.
posted by Brian B. at 10:11 PM on November 21, 2006
posted by Brian B. at 10:11 PM on November 21, 2006
I was alive and well and working for Clean Gene and I despised Bobby Kennedy, as did everyone I knew.
I have no dog in this fight, truly, but would be interested to hear you elaborate on this. (Info gathering only.)
posted by IndigoJones at 5:48 AM on November 22, 2006
I have no dog in this fight, truly, but would be interested to hear you elaborate on this. (Info gathering only.)
posted by IndigoJones at 5:48 AM on November 22, 2006
Everybody had begged Bobby Kennedy to run against the war, figuring he was the only one who could hope to take on the party machinery and win, but the little bastard was too concerned with protecting his ass. Then Gene McCarthy, with more courage and/or less sense, started a run and did astonishingly well; it looked like he might mount a real challenge at the convention. So Bobby says "Ooh, now that somebody with some guts has proved it's possible, let me ride in with my Kennedy charm, money, and shady supporters and grab the cookies!" And away he went. Or that's how it looked to some of us in 1968; I'm sure matteo, with his mature perspective, sees it differently.
posted by languagehat at 5:58 AM on November 22, 2006
posted by languagehat at 5:58 AM on November 22, 2006
It's not about maturity, it's about perspective -- that we all have now and you, obviously, couldn't have then. The harsh reality is that even without the "little bastard" to ruin his plans, McCarthy got creamed anyway. Then promptly retired (more or less).
And you seem to confirm my impression that most of McCarthy's appeal was, "at least he's there". As opposed to "he's the one closest to my ideas among those most likely to win". The Gene thing strikes me, with the advantage of reading about it forty years later of course, as a bad case of politics as fandom -- never a sound choice.
We'll never know if RFK could get nominated -- much less if he could actually win -- but we know for sure that McCarthy lost. Bad. And if one does not think that electoral politics -- unlike actual governing -- are about one thing only -- winning -- two (unfinished, OK) Nixon terms and two GWB terms should be a harsh enough lesson for my American progressive friends. It's about winning, and McCarthy lost.
(It's offtopic but I think RFK would have a made a bad President -- unprovable theory of course, but still he clearly lacked his brother's coolness. And I don't think the modern presidency is the right place for another crusading, hot-medium, Theodore Roosevelt type -- the Kennedy charm notwithstanding)
posted by matteo at 8:38 AM on November 22, 2006
And you seem to confirm my impression that most of McCarthy's appeal was, "at least he's there". As opposed to "he's the one closest to my ideas among those most likely to win". The Gene thing strikes me, with the advantage of reading about it forty years later of course, as a bad case of politics as fandom -- never a sound choice.
We'll never know if RFK could get nominated -- much less if he could actually win -- but we know for sure that McCarthy lost. Bad. And if one does not think that electoral politics -- unlike actual governing -- are about one thing only -- winning -- two (unfinished, OK) Nixon terms and two GWB terms should be a harsh enough lesson for my American progressive friends. It's about winning, and McCarthy lost.
(It's offtopic but I think RFK would have a made a bad President -- unprovable theory of course, but still he clearly lacked his brother's coolness. And I don't think the modern presidency is the right place for another crusading, hot-medium, Theodore Roosevelt type -- the Kennedy charm notwithstanding)
posted by matteo at 8:38 AM on November 22, 2006
The Gene thing strikes me, with the advantage of reading about it forty years later of course, as a bad case of politics as fandom -- never a sound choice.
Exactly. When McCarthy came to the UW campus, he couldn't fill a room. When Robert Kennedy came, it was SRO with crowds spilling into the halls. Of course, according to some, we were all clueless fools sucked in by the Kennedy hype.
He rose to an ominous and awesome occasion and his words are well remembered. Eugene McCarthy's words on the same occasion are not.
If he had played a real part in Humphrey's campaign, the outcome could have been different. He did not and for that earned the eternal contempt of many.
posted by y2karl at 9:28 AM on November 22, 2006
Exactly. When McCarthy came to the UW campus, he couldn't fill a room. When Robert Kennedy came, it was SRO with crowds spilling into the halls. Of course, according to some, we were all clueless fools sucked in by the Kennedy hype.
Amid the tragedy of the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, April 4, 1968, an extraordinary moment in U.S. political history occurred as Robert F. Kennedy, younger brother of slain President John F. Kennedy, broke the news of King's death to a large gathering of African Americans in Indianapolis, Indiana.Robert F. Kennedy on the Death of Martin Luther King.
The gathering was actually a planned campaign rally for Robert Kennedy in his bid to get the 1968 Democratic nomination for President. Just after he arrived by plane at Indianapolis, Kennedy was told of King's death. He was advised by police against making the campaign stop which was in a part of the city considered to be a dangerous ghetto. But Kennedy insisted on going.
He arrived to find the people in an upbeat mood, anticipating the excitement of a Kennedy appearance. He climbed onto the platform, and realizing they did not know, broke the news.
...For those of you who are black - considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible - you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.
We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization - black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion and love.
...My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He once wrote: "Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black...
He rose to an ominous and awesome occasion and his words are well remembered. Eugene McCarthy's words on the same occasion are not.
...McCarthy eventually backed Humphrey, but the endorsement came late in the campaign. Humphrey lost a close election in Nov. 1968 to Republican Richard Nixon. Democrat George Wallace was also on the ballot as an independent.Eugene McCarthy, who galvanized a generation of war opponents, dies
Some blamed McCarthy for Humphrey's defeat. Former federal judge Miles Lord of Minnesota was friends with McCarthy and Humphrey, but he supported Humphrey for president. Lord said too many McCarthy supporters stayed home on Election Day.
"McCarthy did what he wanted to do. I was really sorry he was so stubborn, because we could have had Humphrey instead of Nixon," Lord said.
If he had played a real part in Humphrey's campaign, the outcome could have been different. He did not and for that earned the eternal contempt of many.
posted by y2karl at 9:28 AM on November 22, 2006
> He did not and for that earned the eternal contempt of many.
Many? You can't be talking about the left anti-war crowd of the day, because they all treated Hubert the way the equivalent crowd of today treats Joe Lieberman. Scum. Pawn Of The War Party. They would have seen a Humphrey endorsement by McCarthy as nothing but a sellout to the war machine. If that most intensely holier-than-thou bunch had worked for Humphrey instead of sitting it out, that might have spared them umpty years of Nixon. But noooo.
You'll soon have a chance to re-live the moment--just listen to what kos says about the antiwar Dem candidates as they one by one throw in the towel and endorse Hillary. But maybe they'll all choose purity and refuse...
posted by jfuller at 10:12 AM on November 22, 2006
Many? You can't be talking about the left anti-war crowd of the day, because they all treated Hubert the way the equivalent crowd of today treats Joe Lieberman. Scum. Pawn Of The War Party. They would have seen a Humphrey endorsement by McCarthy as nothing but a sellout to the war machine. If that most intensely holier-than-thou bunch had worked for Humphrey instead of sitting it out, that might have spared them umpty years of Nixon. But noooo.
You'll soon have a chance to re-live the moment--just listen to what kos says about the antiwar Dem candidates as they one by one throw in the towel and endorse Hillary. But maybe they'll all choose purity and refuse...
posted by jfuller at 10:12 AM on November 22, 2006
Bush fanboys talking about other people's purity = thigh-slappingly funny
posted by matteo at 12:50 PM on November 22, 2006
posted by matteo at 12:50 PM on November 22, 2006
Well, it's amazing how hot one can get in front of strangers sometimes. So much of memory is emotional. It's amazing to see how strong one's feelings still can be when the memory arouses them. Upon reflection and all the background history can reveal, I hardly feel as enthusiastic about the person of Robert Kennedy as once I did or have much regard for the whole concept of a person who could have changed history. But I still can remember how I felt then, when I was young and more full of hope than fear.
posted by y2karl at 1:26 PM on November 22, 2006
posted by y2karl at 1:26 PM on November 22, 2006
So much of memory is emotional. It's amazing to see how strong one's feelings still can be when the memory arouses them.
Exactly! I presume it's clear that my earlier comments deliberately reflected my hot-headed feelings of several decades ago; upon reflection and all the background history can reveal, I hardly feel as enthusiastic about Clean Gene as once I did, but my emotional memory is still as clear as that of the bars and bookstores I used to frequent and that are no more in this fallen world.
posted by languagehat at 2:12 PM on November 22, 2006
Exactly! I presume it's clear that my earlier comments deliberately reflected my hot-headed feelings of several decades ago; upon reflection and all the background history can reveal, I hardly feel as enthusiastic about Clean Gene as once I did, but my emotional memory is still as clear as that of the bars and bookstores I used to frequent and that are no more in this fallen world.
posted by languagehat at 2:12 PM on November 22, 2006
Plus McCarthy was funnier. Or at least seemed so from the odd interviews I've saw.
(Thank you for the elaboration. Me, I was a child at the time and not yet hot-headed.)
posted by IndigoJones at 5:41 PM on November 22, 2006
(Thank you for the elaboration. Me, I was a child at the time and not yet hot-headed.)
posted by IndigoJones at 5:41 PM on November 22, 2006
Bobby Kennedy was so insignificant...he had to be gunned down and his death "9/11"nd.
Only tin-foil hat types would think an influencial opponent was assassinated by his less-imaginative foes.
posted by rougy at 1:25 AM on November 23, 2006
Only tin-foil hat types would think an influencial opponent was assassinated by his less-imaginative foes.
posted by rougy at 1:25 AM on November 23, 2006
« Older The true Modfather? | Airline travel on the cheap made easy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The Russian thallium poisoning thing is much more interesting.
posted by matthewr at 4:41 PM on November 20, 2006