Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is it possible Kennedy was killed because he was about to tell

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
screembloodymurder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 06:24 AM
Original message
Is it possible Kennedy was killed because he was about to tell
the American public the truth? Was he going to tell us about peak oil and it's consequences? Americas oil production was about to peak. We peaked in 1970. He had to know. A forward thinking, people- empowering President would have foreseen the future. He would have realized the US would become dependent on foreign governments and military intervention. Was Kennedy about to tell the American people what we "could do for America"?

Was he going to ask us to conserve?

Imagine the reaction of the oil men in Texas if the President were to come out and ask the American public to conserve oil. Perish the thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pf99 Donating Member (251 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. I do not think we will ever know why Kennedy was killed
but it was not a lone gunman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. That's for sure
Purely impossible. Kennedy has been popping up a lot lately with me personally. :shrug: The "JFK" movie was on last night on Turner South. I know they show that a lot but :shrug: maybe it's just me. Heh heh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Really?
Gee, I believe Seantor Spector's SBT!!!! Are you saying that is a LIE????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. No one really foresaw the global oil peak in 1963, or the consequences.
Although if you're inclined to see conspiracy, there's this: Supposedly part of the strategic reasoning for the Vietnam War involved US access to possible oil and natural gas in the South China Sea. If Kennedy were, in fact, on the verge of initiating a withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam, well, I can imagine that some oil-industry people mightn't have been too thrilled. And quite a few individuals with connections to oil have been mentioned as potentially connected to the Kennedy assassination (George de Mohrenschildt, George HW Bush, the Hunt family of Texas)...make of that what you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
screembloodymurder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Oh really, how about Hubbert?
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/

His prediction in 1956 that U.S.oil production would peak in about 1970 and decline thereafter was scoffed at then but his analysis has since proved to be remarkably accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I already know about Hubbert, thanks.
But he was ignored. No one paid any attention to the man or his work until it turned out that he was right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
screembloodymurder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Kennedy may have seen his work and understood the implications.
Hubbert was talking about US peak oil in 1956 just 14 years before it happened. In 1963 the US was less than a decade away from the fact. Do you really think our military was unaware of our future reliance on foreign oil sources in 1963? Anyone who wasn't tied to the oil industry, would have seen the need to conserve and yet in 2005, we still don't have a President who can come out and say the obvious. A good leader would demand conservation ahead of time for national security reasons. I think Kennedy was smart enough to see that the US had but two choices: conserve or empire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ironpost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. I don't know about 63 but I know about 65
I worked in a gas station and the man I worked for was always telling me about the fact that gas prices were to skyrocket in the near future. So I'm inclined to think the informed were well aware of this fact several years prior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. He was killed because he was about to tell truth about UFOs
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1860.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. I think he was killed because he wanted to de-escalate Vietnam
Vietnam was a potential cash cow for the military-industrial complex which Eisenhower had warned about. Kennedy was in the process of de-escalating American involvement. It's no secret that once Johnson got in, the war machine got into high gear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I think that's probably it too
But oil could also play a part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adwon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. That's a myth
Kennedy clearly ruled out abandoning South Vietnam in his September 1963 interview with David Brinkley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. There is a difference between "abandoning" and "de-escalation"
You might want to take a look at this. In October 1963, Kennedy signed an order authorizing the withdrawal of 1000 US military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1963

http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. In The Fog of War, McNamara says they were going to reduce forces.
I don't know if I trust McNamara to tell the truth, but I am inclined to believe McNamara over a an interview with David Brinkley. Ie, I can understand why Kennedy would tell the public one thing, but then have his cabinet working on another plan, especially when the public would have punished a Democrat at the polls who didn't talk like he was going to stand firm against communism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. I Think He Was Going To Pull The Plug
on the military industrial complex. Eisenhower warned him about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
12. No. He was going to pull all the counselors/advisors/troops out of Vietnam
because he had decided it wasn't in the nation's best interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Ever Read a Book
called "A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan? Might want to check it out to get a view of this other than the Oliver Stone version.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. "JFK and Vietnam" by John M. Newman
"In the final analysis it is the people and the Government of South Vietnam itself who have to win or lose this struggle. All we can do is help."
~ President Kennedy

Newman discovered the papers every right-wing bedwetter in Washington tried to bury: National Security Action Memoranda 263, which was the formal orders to withdraw after the '64 election.

At the time an Army major and a professor at West Point, Newman also found NSAM 273, the new-president Johnson's orders to do whatever it took to support South Vietnam. Those were signed a week after JFK's assassination.

BTW: Have you seen John Frankenheimer's "Seven Days in May"? It's like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I never saw Stone's movie or read his version of events.
There are documents in the National Security Archives that back up the assertion that Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam, including an order he had sent to the Pentagon to begin bringing the first 1000 troopa home.

It was part of a History Channel documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egalitariat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
14. I love all of the different opinions on this. So interesting****
nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC