On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas. His Vice-President Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn in the same day. The next morning, at 10:01 he received a phone call from the legendary J. Edgar Hoover. The telephone conversation was recorded. You can read a transcript of the conversation if you buy Michael Beschloss’s book Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964. I own the book and have been wanting to share some of its contents without having to transcribe it myself. I went looking for transcriptions and instead found only actual audio files. I wanted to upload the initial conversation between Hoover and LBJ so you could listen to it, but I discovered that the audio file for this particular conversation (perhaps one of the most interesting in our nation’s history) has nothing audible on it. It is 15 minutes and 16 seconds of nothing but a recurring ticking noise. If you want to check for yourself, here’s the URL. Nothing there. All the other conversations I have checked are clearly audible and match the transcripts in Beschloss’s book. Then I discovered something truly fascinating. If I want a transcript of this conversation I can buy it here.
Notice this little nugget:
The Miller Center’s Presidential Recordings Program is committed to producing authoritative transcripts of the presidential recordings. Below is a list of published volumes (through W.W. Norton) as well as those in progress. All of these are published under the general editorship of Philip Zelikow and Ernest May or Philip Zelikow, Ernest May, and Timothy Naftali.
Of course, Philip Zelikow was a key member of the Bush 2000 transition team, the chief investigator for the 9/11 Commission, as well as a co-author with Condi Rice. He currently serves as legal counsel for Rice in the State Department. Wow. I never saw that coming.
I’ll just transcribe one little piece of the missing LBJ/Hoover conversation here. This is a briefing that LBJ received after one day’s investigation. Obviously, he had been receiving snippets of information along with everyone else, and probably talked to Hoover the night before.
LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September?
HOOVER: No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason- we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there [snip]
…The case right now is not strong enough to get a conviction…Now if we can identify this man who was at the…Soviet Embassy in Mexico City…This man Oswald has still denied everything. He doesn’t know anything about anything, but the gun thing, of course, is a definite trend.
Now, that was the earliest, rawest information that the FBI Director had. In under 24 hours they had already received the photos and tapes of ‘Oswald’ from Mexico City AND THEY DID NOT MATCH the Oswald they had in custody.
Fast forward to the 1978 Congressional Investigation. Start reading here. You;ll quickly discover that no photos currently exist and no audio tapes are available. Hoover got rid of them. Now I want to fast forward to November 29, 1963. A week has passed since the assassination and LBJ is calling up Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, the Chairman of the Armed Serives Committee. He is telling Russell that he has already named him to a Blue Ribbon panel (the Warren Commission). Russell hates Earl Warren and doesn’t want to serve with him. Here is a part of their conversation.
LBJ: Dick, it has already been announced. And you can serve with anybody for the good of America. And this is a question that has a good many more ramifications than on the surface. And we’ve got to take this out of the arena where they’re testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill forty million Americans in an hour.
And there you have it. The Warren Commission was set up with the express purpose to make sure that the American people did not get it in their head that the Soviets or Castro killed Kennedy. It was done to protect the country. The result of the investigation was a foregone conclusion.
For the latest attempts to crack the case, check out Jefferson Morley v. the CIA (.pdf).
wow.
I am a HUGE geek when it comes to the JFK assassination – ever since I read a few books that my dad had when I was growing up.
I had my theories and over time, the CIA, the mafia, LBJ, Bush 41, Nixon, Castro and more than a few others were on my suspect list at one time or another. But even with the new(ish?) revelations about LBJ from a few years ago, I didn’t know that he and Hoover discussed Oswald NOT being “the guy”.
I still revert back to the CIA (for JFK screwing them on Cuba) and the Mafia (for Bobby going so hard after them) were the 2 biggest players, with more than a few side players.
And of course, we can’t forget the Warren Commission’s own Arlen Spector who came up with the magic bullet theory.
If you are ever in Dallas, check out Dealey Plaza. I was there on my only trip to Dallas and was in awe. Went to the museum which is now in the book depository, walked all around the knoll taking pics from every angle (even on the “Zapruder wall”).
Maybe this will be the October surprise: the Iranians shot Kennedy.
calvin was just wondering whether or not the “Soviet/Castro” angle was a Trojan Horse to deflect the investigation away from the REAL perps!
There is no way, in calvin’s opinion, that this was anything other than an inside job. Too many coincidences. Single bullet? Yeah, right.
Well, it looks like someone wanted to make the intelligence community think that Oswald was in contact with the KGB prior to the assassination. I kind of doubt the KGB would want to leave that impression.
What’s clear is that LBJ was not concerned with establishing the truth, but with making sure Russia didn’t get blamed, even if they should have been.
It’s hard to question his judgment on that one.
Everybody has an opinion. I will continue to maintain that JFK was killed at the order of New Orleans mafia boss Carlos Marcello. Marcello was furious that JFK and RFK had illegally deported him to Guatemala. He had had to walk all the way back to the United States, dodging alligators and poisonous snakes. Jack Ruby worked for Marcello. Ruby was tied to Oswald. Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity. I heard all of this from an extremely high-ranking Justice Department official who had been RFK’s right hand man on the Marcello matter. RFK himself thought it was Marcello.
In contrast, whatever fears LBJ may have had, I don’t think it’s plausible that Castro or Khrushchoff would have taken the mega risk.
Capability is not doubted.
But what the Mafia could not have handled is the post-assassination investigation. That is where they need EXTENSIVE inside help. In which case where they got it is the other half (really three quarters) of the story.
While the details are obscured, the big picture remains.
We start with the violation of the laws of physics, specifically, the violation of conservation of momentum: All bullets come from behind, yet instead of being thrust forward by the impact, Kennedy is thrust back.
Remember the cover-story: Kennedy flinched. Even as a schoolchild I was too old to fall for this, and it is embarrasing to remember now that this lame story actually beclouded me with uncertainty. But then, many adults fell for it outright.
From this we know the coverup was co-extensive with the relevant branches government. But how did it work?
The most likely perpetrator is the CIA–they certainly had motive (Bay of Pigs stands out) and opportunity. The Mafia also had motive but could not have done it themselves without extensive, inside help. Extensive is the key word here–we are really talking a collaboration. Many agencies of government would have to be managed, and the Mafia could not do that themselves. Other players include Army and Air Force (motive: the atmospheric test ban treaty, as well as the Bay of Pigs). Plenty of other parties may have been upset by the news that Kennedy was smoking dope (marijuana) and getting strangely un-Cold-Warlike ideas. He may even have been getting second thoughts about the Vietnam War, which he had inherited from Eisenhower but promoted himself.
So there was a broad base of sentiment to assassinate, but who to actually do it? Someone with capability, to manage not just the killing (quite easy) but also the cover up (much harder). For all that, the cover-up, though professional, was not tremendously clever, considering how many people finally ended up involved.
Yet the perpetrators were not incompetent: They knew what they had to do. One thing they had to do was sound out then-Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. They knew he hated Kennedy and wanted to be President in the worst way. Would he go for it?
Notice, it is not possible for Johnson to intiate the assassination, but completely possible for him to permit it. The perpetrators never say anything outright, but drop the right hints. Including a crucial one: How would Johnson handle a post-assassination investigation? Johnson drops his own hints: If a culprit (scapegoat) were quickly found, an investigation need not dig too deeply. The perpetrators hint that a culprit will readily turn up. It’s a deal.
There are many loose ends. Some are dealt with after the fact. One of them is the Kennedy family. They don’t take the killing lightly. Johnson is at his best/worst. In effect, he tells them that if they go along with the cover-up, he will personally see to it that John Kennedy–who has been near second-worst-president-ever status with a 30% approval rating in the polls–is commemorated as a hero, AND his Civil Rights legislative program–which had been permanently stalled in Congress with no chance of passage–will be passed in his honor and as his legacy. (If they don’t? Well, they can imagine the ensuing catfight as well as anyone. Do they have a real base of power? Johnson won’t be on their side. And they have nothing on him, nothing at all–which is true.)
Can the Kennedys get a better deal anywhere? Johnson has always been sleeze, but he knows how to keep his side of a deal–It is one of the secrets of his power. Johnson is willing to trade credit and honor for power. Not many people would forego clinging to both. And so it is done.
Chief Justice is another loose end. He is going to have to perjure himself. Why? Is he prepared for what will happen if he tells the truth? Civil war is not the only bad possibility. The Air Force is ready to put out that the Soviets did it. They want war, and this could rally the public to permit it or support it. Is Warren ready for that? Warren’s problem is that as a Justice, the idea of civic peace is paramount. The idea of unleashing unpredictible civil disorder, within the government and throughout the country, is too much for him. He won’t risk it, not for truth alone. And so it is done.
Congress is another loose end. They don’t care about the assassination, of course, except for the matter of managing appearances, but they DO stand in the way of Johnson’s promise to the Kennedys. But Johnson knows where the bodies are buried, and the investigation into the assassination itself opens many opportunities for pressure. Pressure is applied; legislation passes.
The Air Force has to take the good with the bad. They get their revenge, but they don’t get their war with the Soviets. They have to settle for Vietnam–a war which Johnson enthusiastically supports. How bad is that? They come out clean, with a war to boot. It’s really bettter than they had any right to expect.
Johnson is the key that makes it all possible, but he is not the perpetrator. Shortly after the assassination, a parody of Shakespeare called Macbird comes out. That and a later wave of “conspiracy” books are the extent of the protest. But Macbird has it wrong; Johnson did not do it, rather, the perpetrators knew how he could be used.
The weakest part of the cover-up was the single-gunman story. The perpetrators were not willing to risk a single, clean shot by a professional sniper. Why not? The risk is not really the sniper missing the shot. Maybe they just could not trust anyone to do it. Maybe no sniper could be convinced that he would live long afterward. So instead: a team. Now the danger extends in all directions, up and down the chain of conspiracy. Much safer for everybody.
And does it matter? With a single sniper it would have been seamless–the evidence could have been made to match the story. Going with a team, they exposed the fact of the conspiracy. But what of it? Politically, the cover-up worked. Let historians write what they like!
And the public essentially got the same deal the Kennedy’s got. A hero and Civil Rights. And we do love heros. Civil Rights were great while they lasted. But also we also got Permanent Government.
And the acceptance of Permanent Government. Was it really the best deal we could get?
The altenative to that was and is: truth and civil war.
But Permanent Government no longer looks like such a bargain.
I am not convinced we have yet figured out who or why, nor even come close.
Consider, if you really were the KGB, and you really were planning to assassinate the President of your foremost adversary (and yes, already you see a problem here, called, “In what way did Kennedy represent a threat so grave as to be worth the hazzards in this?”) how would you carry it out?
You could hire an outside team, but in that case your outside team could not know it was you doing the hiring.
The KGB knows (knew) how these things are done. If they are going this route, they will have an undercover agent deal with the assassins. He won’t go near the embassy: His cover is precisely to appear to be engaged in some other business entirely. The assassins will never know he is Russian, either. Whether he passes as German (easiest but also most obvious), French, or even American, his paperwork is solid, and so is his accent. Nobody is going to be dropping by a Soviet embassy to pick up money or operation instructions. Ever.
If they do it themselves, this means their own trained operative–or team–with papers and a plausible cover to get them where they need to be. The plan will have three parts: The assassination itself, the leaving of no footprints or fingerprints, and the creation of a false trail leading to a plausible someone else.
Notice that having a firing team at the Grassy Knoll–or wherever they were–MAXIMIZES your footprints: A single shot by a single sniper is much cleaner and safer. You don’t have the US Government behind you to create a cover-up, so you cannot leave your people behind alive OR dead. You have to get them out alive, and without a trail. That means ONE SHOT, not a series of shots which uses up priceless time and draws attention. It means that even before the Secret Service realizes the President is hit your man is slipping away down a path laid out in advance. The evidence the police find is what you have left to start them down their false trail. Your own guy is invisible, and soon he is gone.
So what is the meaning of the Soviet Embassy material? There are too many possibilities, except that it is obviously the false trail of somebody wanting to bring the Soviets under suspicion. Maybe somebody in the conspiracy thought they could get a twofer–Kennedy out of the way AND war with the Soviets. The doubling of Oswalds certainly suggests someone piggy-backing on the operational plan–Oswald himself being set up as the readily-found culprit. Someone thought this was not enough, that he should be tied to Russia as well. The story of Oswald, as it was officially told, also suggests an attempt to blame the Soviets (his time in Russia, marrying a Russian wife, returning to the US without anyone noticing–Please Note!: in the 1950s and 60s an American citizen simply could not do that without first being arrested and then answering a lot of questions to the State Department’s satisfaction) an attempt that was scuttled as Oswald’s Russian sojurn was downplayed into inconsequentiality. So who decided to scuttle the “Soviet connection?” Your quotes, Booman, suggest Johnson himself. But, too, they suggest maybe Hoover was making it easy for him. They both must have known it was bogus, and Hoover may not have favored war either.
to be jealous of this generation. We may not know all the details but we have a clear idea of motivation whether it was for insurance or for martyrdom. When they did the Warren commission all semblance of reason was pulled away because the motivation of all parties was so lacking. Oswald might have been a puffed up little man that did a horrible deed to assure his place in history, but that doesn’t fit with the fact that he never shared his motivation. Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald, might have, indeed just been avenging Kennedy’s killer, but he never was an avenging type before. When I hear people who are younger say “Yes, there is no problem with the Warren Commission, nothing to see here folks, move along.” I wonder about THEIR motivation. Why so eager to accept and move on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
The whole thing worth reading:
Prof. Zelikow’s area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “`searing’ or `molding’ events [that] take on `transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all” (“Thinking about Political History,” Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7).
In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”