That’s not really accurate, but I can see that the American on the street might have *thought *that.
My bad - very bad, since most CT writers omit the struggle. The direct quote is “Well, it’s all over now,” then he knocked the cop down and drew the pistol.
What’s not really accurate? That the USSR had massive armament pointed at the US and on more or less instant launch capability? Or that they were prepared to launch it?
He probably thinks you underestimate the power of an unverified audio threat message by Bin Laden on daily lives of Americans.
Agreed.
Which means it could go either way. And that’s why debate, I suppose.
A couple things. To all interested, Bugliosi’s boof on the assassination is incredibly comprehensive with many exhibits and lo9oks at both sides (lone/conspiracy)
To crucible: You think it’s unusual that someone planning a murder did not reveal his plans beforerhand? You do know this often results in the murder being foiled? Didn’t brage about his accomplishments afterwards? You mean between being on the run, interrogated, held incommunicado and then killed himself less than 48 hours after assassination? Not a lot of opportunity for bragging while in police custody denying invovlement.
Simple though process:
Oswald defected to the Soviet Union. Idealistic? Deluded? Whacko? All of the above?
Oswald was such a misfit even the Soviets did not want to keep him - they let him and his (Russian) wife leave. Obviously they saw him as trouble.
If the Soviets wanted to plant an assassin to kill Kennedy, their last choice would be a loose cannon who could not keep a low profile - let alone a guy with such obvious ties back to them. Look at the guy’s track record leading upt the assassination - it screams “crazy” not Jason Bourne. He was arrested in a movie theatre. Was not even trying to leave the country or even leave town. Did he really think they could not figure out whodunnit? Obviously no master spy material.
I seriously doubt the Russians would try the triple-fake - “go there and act crazy, and it won’t look like we did it.” For that, I’m sure they could find local crazies with no connection back to living in the Soviet Union. Too risky.
The only logical conclusion is that the guy was a crazie, a case so disturbed even the Soviets did not want the trouble.
Same with Sirhan - there’s nothing spectacularly “directed” about his actions, other than a festering desire to create havoc in retaliation for what bothered him. Obviously no clever plan, other than “walk up to the guy and shoot him.”
Ray is the only one who was likely “directed”. It seems to me he had friends in the KKK-type organizations who knew him and told him “you’d be doing a big favour to us if you got rid of that guy.” He seemed to have somewhat of a plan - he took a shot from a distance, and actually had a airly involved getaway going before the police finally found him. I don’t know the details, but I suppose organizing that sort of getaway (captured on a fake Canadian passport at Heathrow, going to Rhodesia) required some sort of outside help. Not so much crazy as motivated by evil desires…
The USSR was not dedicated to destroying the USA. Believe it or not, people in other countries don’t really spend all their time obsessing about you.
Krushchev’s generation were afraid of an attack by Western imperialists, sure. So they had deterrent weapons in place.
They also thought they would win in the long term–that Marxism of some kind was the next step in historical development; hence, “We will bury you”–although that’s a made-up quote.
But they were interested in protecting themselves, not starting a war that would ruin them. That’s not, “dedicated to conquering or destroying the US.”
As I said, your characterization is inaccurate.
The only one of these I entertain any CT leanings toward is Oswald, and that is only because Jack Ruby Shot him in front of police officers. Pulling a gun with that many LEO’s is likely as not to get you shot before you can shoot your target, and there was not even a question that he would somehow get away with it. (other than hoping for a sympathetic jury or judge)
That makes totally no sense to me. Oswald was in police custody, and there was no freaking way he was going to get off. He was going to swing, or fry, or whatever…why not let justice take it’s course? Killing him quickly was much more humane than letting him think about it for months. Ruby had a pretty together life, not a serial loser like Oswald. Shooting Oswald was just reckless, and Ruby didn’t strike me as the type.
Ruby’s claim that he was doing it to spare Jackie the trauma of a trial or whatever doesn’t pass the smell test to me. By killing Oswald he kept the story in the news as much or more as if Oswald had been tried. I suppose he might not have realized that would be the case, but regardless, Ruby’s explanation doesn’t seem any more plausible to me than the notion that he was put up to it in order to silence Oswald.
Since you didn’t really address what I said or consider the context, I maintain otherwise. I said (in shorthand) that the USSR had the goal of conquering or destroying the US. Whether it was through the rise of global Marxism or a flotilla of ICBMs, that’s true; while there are endless ways to interpret the maneuvering of the years 1945-1990, and who was guilty of what when and why, there is absolutely no question that both the US and USSR thought there would be conflict and were determined to be the winner.
At the individual population level, the meta- and mega-politics did not matter. What mattered is that both populations were staring down the barrel of the other nation’s gun, and that advocating for the ‘enemy’ in that time and place was a far bigger deal than most post-Cold War adults can understand. Communism has become a quaint, bearded sock puppet; I assure them that (rightly or wrongly) it was not to anyone then living.
Oswald is not comparable to most street-corner shouters of today, because we’ve become used to such things; his public preaching for the USSR and Cuba in that time can only be loosely compared to someone in Lower Manhattan shouting that Islam should blow up all the other buildings in the US.
I again recommend you to Bugliosi’s exhaustive coverage on the point.
In short, Ruby was as nuts as Oswald - possibly temporarily, in exaggerated grief - and convinced that he was a hero taking action on behalf of everyone. He was almost a perfect anti-Oswald.
I’m getting slightly annoyed by the recent phenomena where it is suggested that people who – allegedly – can do extraordinary things end up being designated as incompetent.
Like, CEO (competent) of big banks didn’t know the risks of sub-prime mortgage market (incompetent).
Or, to put it in the context of this thread, - you cannot be so competent to plan and shoot POTUS with high-power rifle, marksman -style and then get arrested in a movie theatre because you were so incompetent you didn’t have an escape plan.
Logical? More like, self-serving explanation.
Your logic is based on not so self-evident truths.
(Missed the edit window.)
The quote is most manifestly not made up; Khrushchev said variations of it on at least two occasions.
It may be misunderstood - he did mean economically, socially and politically and not in a literal “we will kill you and bury you” sense. But it’s not false.
Even allowing for differences of viewpoint, I question almost everything you said. It smacks of post-Wall revisionism from a Marxist viewpoint. (And yes, I know the Cold War is over.)
Without banging this brass pot excessively, you really need all the facts to make an assessment, and it’s a hallmark of the JFK assassination discussions that knowing a few facts is good enough for most.
If you know exactly what LHO did, and when, the questions you raise are easily answered. If you take a few facts out of context and then assume he was or meant to be some sort of Jason Bourne super-assassin, you get nonsense.
Assassinating JFK did not require extraordinary skill or competence of Oswald.
Of course he was trying to leave. He didn’t shoot Kennedy and then go to the movies for fun. He ducked into the movie theater because the police were after him and he didn’t know what to do. You are completely right that he was far from a super spy, but the evidence there is that he did a bad job trying to get away: he left the book depository and was noticed to be missing almost immediately, which made him a suspect (although he would have been a suspect anyway because a witness saw him take the last shot at Kennedy). He went home from the book depository (taking a bus where a bunch of people saw him, then giving up and getting a cab), left again, shot a cop, went skulking down the street and sneaked into the movie theater (fooling no one). I admit I don’t know what spies are supposed to do in this situation, but I’m thinking this isn’t it. He was arrested a little more than an hour after he killed Kennedy.
Faith in institutions should not rest upon two or three men anyway. That’s the whole point of an institution.
That was armchair psychology on my part. I don’t know what kind of delusions he had, your description is more apt.
Over my time as an adult, 50 plus years, I have seen many situations that led me to believe that our institutions were facades, behind which lurked the scum of society. I honestly think we are finally seeing a generation who will not stand for the values of our churches, financial networks, press and government being less than we need.
Just because institutions have flaws is no reason to discard them, nor are there any good alternatives for most of them. 300+ million people all going their own way is not an option.
Sure you can.
Oswald didn’t do any great planning. The parade route was changed to go by the building he worked in. As for the skill required for the shots, we’ve had threads on this. It wasn’t that hard a shot and didn’t require some kind of super sniper.