Cui bono?
You know, when you’ve studied the details of it, it comes down to the details.
The water gets muddied with conspiracy theories from cloud-cuckoo-land, conspiracy theories rooted in various prejudices, conspiracy theories designed to make any serious study of it difficult.
But if you ignore all that, and just sift through the details, discount the various theories trying to understand the motivations behind them, keep your eye on who is obstructing what, and you start to see patterns. When you’re young, its hard to believe what you see.
But after watching a whole series of scandals over the years where “the investigation is the coverup”, and seeing how its done, see what it takes to make it stick, you start to see similar patterns.
What is clear is that LBJ was, like OJ, not particularly interested in digging too deep. He said he wanted to avoid war, just as he led us into Viet Nam. If it was Cuba, Cuba is a lot closer than Viet Nam. Are we seriously to believe we wouldn’t have gone through Cuba with a steam roller if we thought they were behind it? We went through Viet Nam on a lot less provocation.
As much as I like Rush, his argument is still rooted in present-day politics and for probably good reason he is staying out of the weeds of this story. Its good that he is deflecting attempts to blame it on the south. Its good political judo to lay it at the feet of the communists. But the details are more complicated than that.