POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY STEPHEN KINZER IN THE GUARDIAN
Attempting to disguise his efforts as analysis, Stephen Kinzer here offers readers a shabby piece of propaganda, one generously dosed with anti-Muslim prejudice.
The Kennedy assassinations, both of them, were definitely political acts.
But calling Sirhn Sirhan the first of a long line of terrorists is so wildly inaccurate it is ridiculous.
First, anyone who has studied the assassination of Robert, as Kinzer clearly has not, knows from ballistic and other evidence that has gradually emerged that Sirhan, while taking shots at Kennedy, was not successful. Kennedy was hit by bullets from two other directions in that crowded mob scene.
Again, anyone who has studied the assassinations, is almost certain that the same people responsible for killing John killed Robert. Robert's coming to the power of the presidency was a deadly threat.
Not only was Robert exceedingly loyal to the memory of his brother, he was the most ruthlessly capable of all the Kennedy brothers. It goes without saying, he would have hunted down those responsible for his brother's murder.
Sirhan served exactly the same role as Oswald did, a convenient patsy .
Both these assassinations were professionally planned and executed. Both had more than one shooter, and both had a patsy ready to be dropped into the laps of law enforcement.
Both of these assassinations reflect powerful motives, motives not present at all in Oswald, who actually liked Kennedy, and in Sirhan’s case we have a genuinely mentally unstable individual who couldn’t even shoot straight.
Assassinations at this level in a large advanced society are always the result of conspiracies and complex plans, the plans providing for the certainty of success and the safe distancing of conspirators.
There are, I believe, three plausible candidates for organizing the assassination, all quite powerful groups, all selected for their extreme motives, resources, and opportunity.
The first candidate is a branch of the American mafia, a number of whose members had been deeply hurt by the Attorney General’s aggressive organized crime-fighting activities. After all, Kennedy had received handsome secret contributions in cash from the organization when he ran for office. He had also had at least the seeming cooperation of some senior mafia leaders in his efforts to assassinate Castro, and here he was letting his brother conduct a ruthless campaign against the interests of some families. A mafia family leader and the leader of the Teamsters Union at the time, a known mafia associate, are on record as having made threats against Kennedy. Some members of the Congressional investigations came to favor this candidate although they failed to prove it.
The second candidate is one of the many Cuban refugee groups armed, trained, and paid by the CIA in hopes of invading Cuba again, hurting its economy through terrorist activities, and assassinating any of its leaders. Few Americans today appreciate the extent of these government-subsidized terrorist camps then, operations that make Osama’s camp in the mountains look insignificant.
Kennedy was loathed by the most violent of these groups in his last days because he agreed not to invade Cuba as part of his settlement with the Soviet Union over missiles in Cuba. After that pledge, Kennedy had the FBI raiding the operations of some of these previously catered-to groups as a show of good will towards the Soviets. It is in connection with these very raids that Oswald had some not-well-understood but certain connection with the FBI. These refugee groups were ruthless, angry men who didn’t hesitate to kill or cripple those in their way. They had even conducted a number of terrorist attacks in Miami.
The third candidate is Israel, whose secret efforts at developing nuclear weapons were underway at the time and had become known to Kennedy. He made it unpleasantly clear in private communications that he would not allow Israel to go nuclear, something not widely known in America. But the people running Israel considered it essential that the country become a nuclear power, and we have all seen over many decades how Israel has not hesitated to assassinate or attack where it regards its interests are involved.
Just a few years after Kennedy’s assassination, during the Six Day War, Israeli planes made a two-hour attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, a spy ship operating in the Eastern Mediterranean, killing many of its crew. Israel’s motives have never been explained adequately or investigated openly, but likely had to do either with suppressing information of atrocities in the Sinai – the Liberty being an intelligence-gathering ship – or with trying to trick the United States into entering its war against Egypt. In either case, we see ruthlessness compatible with eliminating a hostile, powerful leader.
Each of these groups had great motives, more than adequate means, and ample opportunity. By comparison, Oswald stands out as a ridiculous figure with no motive, virtually no means, but a seeming opportunity arranged for him by others at the Texas Book Depository. He was, almost certainly, the patsy he said he was in police custody shortly before his death, having been duped by forces he didn’t understand into certain activities that would mark him before the assassination. We have ample evidence of Oswald’s lack of serious interest in things military, his having been pretty much a flop at being a Marine, and of his temperamental inclination in other directions. While he had a temper (who doesn’t?), he was not a violent man, indeed Russian observers who recalled his years in Russia said he was temperamentally incapable of murder.
As for Sirhan, he was simply a raving man who couldn’t shoot straight.