Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is Roiling the Assassination Waters

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | June 1, 2018

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is roiling the assassination waters with the publication of his new book American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, where he sets forth his skepticism regarding the official explanations of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy.

As much as it might like to, the mainstream media is finding it hard to ignore conspiracy allegations by the son and nephew of the assassination victims. Consider, for example, these recent articles in the mainstream press:

People magazine: RFK Jr. Reveals the Omens Before His Father’s and President Kennedy’s Assassinations
CBS: RFK Jr. Seeks Investigation into Father’s Assassination
Los Angeles Times: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  Joins Chorus of Second-Gunman Theorists Over His Father’s Assassination
Newsweek: Robert F. Kennedy Thinks Sirhan Did Not Fire Shots That Killed Father
Washington Post: Who Killed Bobby Kennedy? His Son RFK Jr. Doesn’t Believe It Was Sirhan Sirhan

Some people continue to hold that it is simply inconceivable that the U.S. national-security establishment would commit these political assassinations.

It certainly wasn’t inconceivable to John Kennedy or to his brother Bobby.

In fact, immediately after FBI head J. Edgar Hoover telephoned Bobby to advise him that his brother had been shot in Dallas, Bobby suspected the CIA and even said as much to CIA Director John McCone.

Now, why would Bobby have immediately suspected the CIA in the murder of his brother, the president? Isn’t the CIA supposed to be the nation’s protector of “national security”? Wouldn’t Bobby, as U.S. attorney general, have known that? What in the world would cause him to immediately suspect that the CIA had assassinated the president of the United States?

The reason is because Bobby, unlike most Americans at the time and unlike many Americans today, knew that there had been a vicious war taking place between President Kennedy and the national-security establishment throughout his administration and especially in the months leading up to the president’s assassination. It was a war for the future direction of the United States, one in which there could be only one winner — either the president or the national-security establishment.

In January 2017, Congressman Chuck Schumer weighed in on the fight between President Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment with the following observation: “He’s really dumb to do this. Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Fifty years earlier, John Kennedy was well aware of what Schumer would be talking about.

For one thing, Kennedy had listened to the warning of his predecessor President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address just as Kennedy was coming into office. Ike pointed out that the U.S. military-industrial complex, which was new to the American way of life, posed a grave threat to the freedoms and democratic processes of the American people.

Eisenhower was echoing the sentiments of America’s Founding Fathers, who were ardently opposed to big military establishments for the same reason — the grave threat they posed to freedom.

Kennedy himself was well aware of the dangers involved in taking on the military establishment and the CIA. Early in his administration, he read a novel called Seven Days in May, which posited a military coup against a president whose policies conflicted with those of the national-security establishment. He persuaded friends in Hollywood to turn the novel into a movie, to serve as warning to the American people of the danger about which Eisenhower and America’s Founding Fathers had warned.

A family friend once asked Kennedy about the possibility of a domestic regime-change operation. He responded that a young president might be given one, possibly two, chances to make serious mistakes, but that if he made a third one, there was a good possibility that a regime-change operation would be initiated against him, as a way to “save” the country from a naïve, incompetent president.

That is what’s important to keep in mind in all this. Once the federal government was converted to a national-security state after World War II to fight the Cold War against America’s WWII partner and ally, the Soviet Union, protecting national-security from all threats, foreign and domestic, became the overarching mission of the national-security establishment.

Kennedy took on the national-security establishment. After the CIA’s disastrous defeat at the hands of the communists at the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy initiated a war against the CIA, which prided itself on its independence, by firing the much-revered CIA Director Allen Dulles, reining in the CIA’s powers, putting his brother in charge of supervising the CIA, and privately vowing to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. For its part, the CIA considered Kennedy to have shown weakness, cowardice, and betrayal by refusing to come to the CIA’s assistance by ordering U.S. air support for the invaders.

After that, Kennedy rejected the Pentagon’s plan for initiating a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, which would have been much like Japan’s surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. Kennedy left that meeting, indignantly muttering, “And we call ourselves the human race.” He also rejected the Pentagon’s Operation Northwoods, which called for a false and fraudulent false-flag operation to serve as a justification for invading Cuba, a nation that had never attacked the United States.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, he refused Pentagon demands to bomb Cuba and invade the island. It was during that crisis that Bobby Kennedy told a Russian official with whom he was negotiating that his brother, the president, was facing the possibility of a coup from U.S. military officials who vehemently disagreed with how he was handling the crisis.

When Kennedy settled the Cuban Missile Crisis by vowing that the United States would not invade Cuba, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were livid. They considered him weak, an appeaser, just like Chamberlain at Munich. They believed that the settlement was among the worst defeats in U.S. history, especially since it left a communist regime permanently in power in Cuba — a communist dagger pointed at America’s neck from only 90 miles away .

That’s when Kennedy really threw down the gauntlet. Without consulting or advising his national-security establishment with what he was about to do, Kennedy delivered his famous Peace Speech at American University, where he announced an end to the Cold War and his intention to establish friendly and normal relations with the Soviet Union and the rest of the communist world. It was a slap in the face of the U.S. national-security establishment and a grave threat to its existence, given that Kennedy was removing the original justification for turning the federal government into a national-security in the first place.

That was, needless to say, the last straw for the U.S. national-security establishment. In their eyes — indeed, in the eyes of many conservatives today, peaceful coexistence with the communist world, including the Soviet Union (and Russia), Red China, North Vietnam, and North Korea was the pipedream of a naïve, incompetent president, one who was leading the United States to disaster.

Kennedy was not naïve. Like Schumer 50 years later, he was fully aware of the danger into which he was placing himself. He was threatening the existence of a gigantic racket that was set to put the national-security establishment in high cotton with ever-increasing money, power, and influence into perpetuity.

Soon after the assassination, Jacqueline Kennedy used a family friend to send a message to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, with whom her husband had been secretly negotiating just prior to his assassination. The message commended and thanked Khrushchev, the leader of the communist world, for the moves toward peace that he and her husband had jointly made prior to the assassination.

Despite public announcements purporting to support the Warren Report’s lone-nut theory of the assassination, many people were convinced that Bobby Kennedy never bought it. But everyone also knew that given the power of the U.S. national-security establishment, the only way that Bobby could get to the truth was by becoming president. That’s why he needed to be eliminated as a threat as soon as he won the California primary.

In 1953, the CIA published an in-house assassination manual, which remained secret for almost 50 years. The manual reveals that ten years before JFK’s assassination, the CIA was specializing in the art of political assassination and, equally important, in the art of covering up any evidence of the CIA’s complicity in such assassinations. It is also worth noting that during the Kennedy administration, the CIA, in a top-secret operation that lacked the approval or consent of the president, entered into an assassination partnership with the Mafia, which, like the CIA, had long specialized in assassination, cover-up, and silence.

One of the most revealing parts of all this occurred in 1970, when the people of Chile elected a socialist named Salvador Allende to be their president. Allende, like Kennedy seven years before, began reaching out to the Soviet Union and Cuba in a spirit of peace and friendship. Perceiving Allende to be a grave threat to U.S. national security, the U.S. national-security establishment went on the offensive to initiate a regime-change operation.

The Chilean national-security establishment, however, balked. The position of the commander of the Chilean armed forces, Gen. Rene Schneider, was that the Chilean constitution didn’t provide for a coup as a way to remove a democratically elected president.

The U.S. national-security establishment was livid, believing that a nation’s constitution is not a suicide pact. Its position was that the Chilean national-security establishment had a moral duty to save its country by violently removing Allende from power. The CIA facilitated the process with a kidnapping-murder scheme that left Schneider dead on the streets of Santiago. Three years later, Allende himself would be dead in another successful U.S. national-security state regime-change operation.

For more information, see:

The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger
JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne
Regime Change: The JFK Assassination by Jacob Hornberger
The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State by Jacob Hornberger
CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files by Jefferson Morley
The National Security State and JFK,” a FFF conference featuring Oliver Stone and ten other speakers
Altered History: Exposing Deceit and Deception in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence,” a five-part video by Douglas P. Horne

June 2, 2018 - Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.