• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why They Hated Kennedy And Why They Killed Him

H. E. Panqui

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
3,873
Reaction score
470
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"..After JFK’s Peace Speech, the war between him and the U.S. national-security establishment over the future direction of the United States was on. There could be no compromise. There was going to be a winner and a loser. Kennedy’s enemies in the national-security establishment hated him for what he was doing. In their eyes, this neophyte, incompetent, naive, womanizing president was leading America to a communist takeover of the United States. In their eyes, what Kennedy was doing as president, after all, constituted a much graver threat to national security than President Arbenz in Guatemala, who the CIA had violently ousted in a coup in 1954 because Arbenz, like Kennedy, was befriending the Soviet Union and the communist world. (See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.)

Take a look at this advertisement in the Dallas Morning News on the morning of JFK’s assassination. And then take a look at this flier that was being circulated in Dallas on the day of his assassination. The sentiments expressed in those two documents reflected the views of the U.S. national-security establishment. In their eyes, Kennedy was a cowardly traitor whose policies of appeasement were leading America to doom.

They knew that it was a virtual certainly that Kennedy would win the 1964 election. They also knew that he would never permit them to go into the Middle East and begin killing people, thereby producing terrorist blowback that would justify a perpetual “war on terrorism” to replace the “war on communism.”

They knew that if Kennedy’s vision were to prevail, the national-security establishment would have nothing to do. With no big official enemy, they would be left twiddling their thumbs. People would begin wondering about all that taxpayer-funded largess flowing into the “defense” industry. Even worse, the American people might begin demanding the restoration of their founding governmental system of a limited-government republic...."

 
Is there any original content in this OP? All bolded is confusing, what is the topic for discussion?
 
"..After JFK’s Peace Speech, the war between him and the U.S. national-security establishment over the future direction of the United States was on. There could be no compromise. There was going to be a winner and a loser. Kennedy’s enemies in the national-security establishment hated him for what he was doing. In their eyes, this neophyte, incompetent, naive, womanizing president was leading America to a communist takeover of the United States. In their eyes, what Kennedy was doing as president, after all, constituted a much graver threat to national security than President Arbenz in Guatemala, who the CIA had violently ousted in a coup in 1954 because Arbenz, like Kennedy, was befriending the Soviet Union and the communist world. (See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.)

Take a look at this advertisement in the Dallas Morning News on the morning of JFK’s assassination. And then take a look at this flier that was being circulated in Dallas on the day of his assassination. The sentiments expressed in those two documents reflected the views of the U.S. national-security establishment. In their eyes, Kennedy was a cowardly traitor whose policies of appeasement were leading America to doom.

They knew that it was a virtual certainly that Kennedy would win the 1964 election. They also knew that he would never permit them to go into the Middle East and begin killing people, thereby producing terrorist blowback that would justify a perpetual “war on terrorism” to replace the “war on communism.”


They knew that if Kennedy’s vision were to prevail, the national-security establishment would have nothing to do. With no big official enemy, they would be left twiddling their thumbs. People would begin wondering about all that taxpayer-funded largess flowing into the “defense” industry. Even worse, the American people might begin demanding the restoration of their founding governmental system of a limited-government republic...."


CT forum is that a way ->
 
"..After JFK’s Peace Speech, the war between him and the U.S. national-security establishment over the future direction of the United States was on. There could be no compromise. There was going to be a winner and a loser. Kennedy’s enemies in the national-security establishment hated him for what he was doing. In their eyes, this neophyte, incompetent, naive, womanizing president was leading America to a communist takeover of the United States. In their eyes, what Kennedy was doing as president, after all, constituted a much graver threat to national security than President Arbenz in Guatemala, who the CIA had violently ousted in a coup in 1954 because Arbenz, like Kennedy, was befriending the Soviet Union and the communist world. (See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.)

Take a look at this advertisement in the Dallas Morning News on the morning of JFK’s assassination. And then take a look at this flier that was being circulated in Dallas on the day of his assassination. The sentiments expressed in those two documents reflected the views of the U.S. national-security establishment. In their eyes, Kennedy was a cowardly traitor whose policies of appeasement were leading America to doom.

They knew that it was a virtual certainly that Kennedy would win the 1964 election. They also knew that he would never permit them to go into the Middle East and begin killing people, thereby producing terrorist blowback that would justify a perpetual “war on terrorism” to replace the “war on communism.”


They knew that if Kennedy’s vision were to prevail, the national-security establishment would have nothing to do. With no big official enemy, they would be left twiddling their thumbs. People would begin wondering about all that taxpayer-funded largess flowing into the “defense” industry. Even worse, the American people might begin demanding the restoration of their founding governmental system of a limited-government republic...."


CT forum is ↓
 
CT theories has its own section. Just saying

True, JFK was murdered. The rest of the OP is theory.
 
Is there any original content in this OP? All bolded is confusing, what is the topic for discussion?

Check out fff.org. Hornberger is extremely knowledgeable on the subject of the murder of the president in broad daylight and how the Republicrat $hit puppets have been obfuscating for 60 years.

Although I certainly understand that Taylor and Travis make it hard for many many people to focus on such trivial things as the murder of a President and Republicrat government apparatchiks preventing them from seeing all the facts/evidence. Gee, I wonder why the apparatchik$ would do that?
 
Last edited:
Check out fff.org. Hornberger is extremely knowledgeable on the subject of the murder of the president in broad daylight and how the Republicrat $hit puppets have been obfuscating for 60 years.

Although I certainly understand that Taylor and Travis make it hard for many many people to focus on such trivial things as this.
I’m not interested in discussing anything with the author you have C&Ped. What do you think?



Post a vapid OP and then bring the snark………..good move……
 
The history of JFK's huge conflicts with the national security establishment is very important US history,. The topic of whether it was involved in his assassination is the 'conspiracy' topic. I would argue the first topic is probably even more important than the second. Unfortunately, an uninformed version of the history dominates, where everyone tries to make him who they would like.
 
"..After JFK’s Peace Speech, the war between him and the U.S. national-security establishment over the future direction of the United States was on. There could be no compromise. There was going to be a winner and a loser. Kennedy’s enemies in the national-security establishment hated him for what he was doing. In their eyes, this neophyte, incompetent, naive, womanizing president was leading America to a communist takeover of the United States. In their eyes, what Kennedy was doing as president, after all, constituted a much graver threat to national security than President Arbenz in Guatemala, who the CIA had violently ousted in a coup in 1954 because Arbenz, like Kennedy, was befriending the Soviet Union and the communist world. (See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.)

Take a look at this advertisement in the Dallas Morning News on the morning of JFK’s assassination. And then take a look at this flier that was being circulated in Dallas on the day of his assassination. The sentiments expressed in those two documents reflected the views of the U.S. national-security establishment. In their eyes, Kennedy was a cowardly traitor whose policies of appeasement were leading America to doom.

They knew that it was a virtual certainly that Kennedy would win the 1964 election. They also knew that he would never permit them to go into the Middle East and begin killing people, thereby producing terrorist blowback that would justify a perpetual “war on terrorism” to replace the “war on communism.”


They knew that if Kennedy’s vision were to prevail, the national-security establishment would have nothing to do. With no big official enemy, they would be left twiddling their thumbs. People would begin wondering about all that taxpayer-funded largess flowing into the “defense” industry. Even worse, the American people might begin demanding the restoration of their founding governmental system of a limited-government republic...."

R.b2ea83fe1bb221cfeea434d04a7102f0


R.f551e20ec06dba30a9dd4efd6ef57b8f
 
For an idea how little the public has info on the history, not many know that JFK had agreed with McNamara, with only the two of them knowing, that they had decided they would not launch a retaliatory nuclear strike in the event of the report of a Soviet nuclear attack. Of course they had to keep that to themselves both for deterrence and domestic politics. He'd have been removed from office.

(How do I know about an agreement only the two of them knew? Hearing it directly from McNamara. I might be able to link to a recording of the talk if there's interest to hear it).
 
I’m not interested in discussing anything with the author you have C&Ped. What do you think?

That's one difference between you and me. Hornberger is an expert on the subject and I, like others pursuing truth, want to learn from someone who's devoted CONSIDERABLY more time, effort, thought, etc., to the subject than I. [and I strongly suspect waaay more than you too]
 
That's one difference between you and me. Hornberger is an expert on the subject and I, like others pursuing truth, want to learn from someone who's devoted CONSIDERABLY more time, effort, thought, etc., to the subject than I. [and I strongly suspect waaay more than you too]
Snark always rules the day.
 
The thread has been moved to the conspiracy sub-forum. You might make a version of it without the topic of the assassination, only the history of the presidency, for general politics.
 
CT theories has its own section. Just saying

True, JFK was murdered. The rest of the OP is theory.

:rolleyes:

We could end a lot of the 'theory' if the $hit puppets would be honest and release all the info.
 
The thread has been moved to the conspiracy sub-forum. You might make a version of it without the topic of the assassination, only the history of the presidency, for general politics.

Thanks for the advice! Or maybe I could sneak it into an important political thread about Taylor and Travis. ;)
 
To paraphrase Truman: I never give people snark. I just tell the truth and they think it's snark.
Well, bye…….enjoy the squirrel forum….✌️
 
:rolleyes:

We could end a lot of the 'theory' if the $hit puppets would be honest and release all the info.

Have not a clue who you are referring to with "$hit puppets".

imo, when names like are used it just takes away from any point you may be trying to make.
 
Have not a clue who you are referring to with "$hit puppets".

imo, when names like are used it just takes away from any point you may be trying to make.

I'm always trying to make the point that the R/D politicians who hold high public office in the U$ are there as the result of a fraudulent, controlled, etc., $election process. They are not nearly the best among us. They do many horrible, stoooooooooooopid, etc., things that are kept secret from 'Murcans. They obfuscate, lie outright, etc... ?Hopefully you are aware of this

Do you believe the $hit puppets Trump and Biden are the result of some honest, intelligent, 'competition of ideas about government?!?! Most/All the intelligent people I know who pay any attention at all to politics understand it's a stinking fraud where people are motivated to vote/affirm/consent (LARGELY) through manufactured hatred for/fear of/etc. 'the other $hit puppet.' Ugh.
 
I'm always trying to make the point that the R/D politicians who hold high public office in the U$ are there as the result of a fraudulent, controlled, etc., $election process. They are not nearly the best among us. They do many horrible, stoooooooooooopid, etc., things that are kept secret from 'Murcans. They obfuscate, lie outright, etc... ?Hopefully you are aware of this

Do you believe the $hit puppets Trump and Biden are the result of some honest, intelligent, 'competition of ideas about government?!?! Most/All the intelligent people I know who pay any attention at all to politics understand it's a stinking fraud where people are motivated to vote/affirm/consent (LARGELY) through manufactured hatred for/fear of/etc. 'the other $hit puppet.' Ugh.
I take it you are a southerner and conservative with you using the term Murcans.

The article in the OP is basically a libertarian take of the killing of JFK.

Have a good one.
 
I take it you are a southerner and conservative with you using the term Murcans.

The article in the OP is basically a libertarian take of the killing of JFK.

Have a good one.

The article was written by a very intelligent person who has dug waaay more deeply into the subject than you or I.

And what is 'THE' libertarian take on the killing of JFK, pray tell? lol!
 
The article was written by a very intelligent person who has dug waaay more deeply into the subject than you or I.
Looked into the JFK murder enough to know that not all theories are the same in using the known information.
NPR had a good series on the murder. The analysis the researchers and scientist conducted was interesting.
And what is 'THE' libertarian take on the killing of JFK, pray tell? lol!
Just took what the web site for fff.org had to say about the site and who they are. You would need to ask them about their take.

PS. FFF.ORG in the about section states they are highly libertarian. How else would the article be presented but from their viewpoint. :unsure:
 
Looked into the JFK murder enough to know that not all theories are the same in using the known information.

Why don't the/?your Republicrat apparatchik$ release the most important documents so we can eliminate 'the theories'?
 
Why don't the/?your Republicrat apparatchik$ release the most important documents so we can eliminate 'the theories'?
/sarcasm
because they do not want your/KGB to know.
/sarcasm off.

what are those most important documents? You must have seen them since you claim they have not been released.
 
what are those most important documents? You must have seen them since you claim they have not been released.


If you want to get knowledgeable, Hornberger is a great source.


"..about 500 documents and other items in the collection will remain secret, since the 1992 law exempts them from public release. Among them are documents produced by federal grand juries and by the Internal Revenue Service, including the tax and employment records of Oswald, Ruby and many of their associates.

It also includes tape recordings of six interviews conducted in 1964 with Jacqueline Kennedy and former Attorney General Robert Kennedy by the journalist William Manchester, who was authorized by the Kennedy family to write a history of the assassination. Those tapes were turned over to the Archives by the Kennedy family in exchange for an agreement they would not be made public until 2067 — the 100th anniversary of the publication of Manchester’s bestselling book The Death of a President. The law also exempted the public release of what the Archives index describes as five “very personal letters” that Mrs. Kennedy wrote to President Johnson, including at least three she sent to him in the week after the assassination..."

 
Back
Top Bottom