Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 23 Nov 1992 06:11:24 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: REEVALUATION OF CASTRO/CONSIDERATION OF RAGGONO
 <1992Nov23.115525.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>

In article <1992Nov23.115525.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>, ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
says:
>The scenario that never seems to get aried here is the one I favour. It goes
>like this:
>
>This was a political hit. JFK was a politician, who may have made promises to
>the mob which he couldn't or didn't feel obliged to keep ( did they really get
>him elected?). JFK was a Democrat (how come with his establishment
>background?)

From middle-sized Al: Hi, big AL,
  I assume from all you have posted that you are a native aussy.
You mistakenly assume that being a Democrat is to be anti-establishment
and being Republican is to be establishment.  Of course, for the
younger American readers of these posts, the term "establishment" is
archaic sounding; no longer used in our verbal sparring over politics.
But it well serves in talking about the political times of JFK and post
assassination times.  Some Republicans will no doubt point out to you
that it was mainly the Democrats that gave us the Vietnam War but this
is too simple.  Trying to avoid my verbose tendancies, I'll just say
that in those times (and much has stayed the same), the Republicans
were seen as allied to big money, big business while the Democrats
were allied to big unions, Eastern banking.  Both were seen as
fierce cold warriors, at times, the Democrats taking the edge.  Both
had their level of corruption.  As time passed in the 60's, the new
Left infiltrated the Democrats much more than the Republicans but this
was after JFKs death.  Keep in mind that this is gross simplification.
Democrats, Republicans, leftists and rightists had numerous splinter
groups and factions who could stray far from the mainstream catechism.
The establishment was not seen as strictly only the Republicans.

>Bush and Nixon were Republican politicians. The CIA was a
>political/ideological
>body which became an "army". The Pentagon was a defence organisation that
>realised it needed to influence politics. JFK was changing politics, foreign
>policy, the economic viability of what used to be called "The Establishment"
>in
>the 1960's and the influence of the mafia.
>
   [some material ommitted]

>Did "they" win? Well the CIA did. The mob did. Nixon, Bush, Reagan did. The
>Pentagon did. The FBI, I don't think so. Cuba -no. Russia - no. The oilmen did
>until the arabs took over in the mid-70's. The bankers did. The Democrats did
>not.
>

  That the CIA, Pentagon, Mafia, cold warriors won on their different
fronts, I will not argue against and this puts them on the list of
suspects but just having something to gain is not enough.  You have to
show that they had the means and opportunity to do the deed and to
withstand the fallout afterwards.
  I have stated that in my studys I have found evidence of a multi-facete
coverup and an on-scene conspiracy to assassinate but I also have found
much evidence that these two aspects are not necessarily connected.
The individual aspects of the coverup are much more easily understood
as being motivated by other than skullduggery.
  That any of the suspect bodies may have had prior knowledge and just
sat on the side watching as their politcal fortunes were being increased
is more viable than posing their complicity and afterwards a massive
effort to keep this quiet.
  This argument against complicity due to gargantuan efforts needed to
keep the lid on it, does not exclude the possibility that small slivers
plotters in these groups were guilty of being the initiators of the
plot.  They would have to have kept their number very small and
knowledge of their activities tightly covered from the rest of their
official body.
  Consider what happened in the USSR, when the hardliners tried to take
control.   From all accounts, the KBG splintered into two groups, one
group aligning with the coup and the other group taking Yeltsin's side.

Kennedy had friends and supporters in both the CIA and the FBI.  What would
have kept them silent before or after?
ALAN ROGERS
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3826 alt.conspiracy:12298 alt.activism:18942 alt.society.civil-liberty:6608 alt.censorship:8876 talk.politics.misc:60687 misc.headlines:7087 soc.culture.usa:8580