Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The assassination gave us candidate Humphrey and a traumatized party after a notoriously divided convention.  That gave us Nixon's second term.

Well, first it gave us Nixon's first term.  RFK was a master of soaring rhetoric but he also could be ruthless.  A lot of Eugene MaCarthy supporters never forgave him for putting Gene in the shade.  He did not always have a scrupulous regard for the Bill of Rights when going after people as Attorney General.  He made enemies. A fellow leftie friend of mine heard him saying something he considered  an outrageous infringement and told me of shouting at the radio "Somebody ought to kill that son of a bitch!"  Within 24 hours someone had.  Freaked him out.

But I think he was a far stronger politician than Gene McCarthy, did have a liberal agenda, (radical by today's debased standard), and would have been ruthless enough to push his agenda as far as it could go. I also think it is much more likely that he was assassinated at the behest of those who feared that agenda than by a "lone gunman acting alone."

It seems to me that deriding people as "Conspiracy Theorists" has the secondary benefit of giving cover to academics and establishment figures who could be discomforted were they seriously expected to investigate such theories objectively.  Are we seriously required to expect that all history changing events are produced by lone individuals with difficult to explain motives?  Is it not as reasonable to assume that well organized conspiracies do not come unraveled?
Does that assumption make me a "Conspiracy Theorist?"

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 09:05:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series