In the old
Soviet Union regime
skeptics often observed that while true believers knew what the future held, the
past was constantly changing. An example of this strange state of affairs is provided
by a photo
of Stalin standing next to several other Bolsheviks. The picture indicates,
however, that one VIP has been airbrushed
from the stage. To the chagrin of the artistic revisionist, comrade Trotsky’s
uninhabited shoes testify to the renegade’s former prominence.
One wouldn’t expect this kind of deception in the
States, but much the same thing has occurred
with the assassination of President Kennedy. The actual portrait of the
real assassin—a pathetic loser whose delusions of grandeur are clearly revealed
in his “Historic Diary”—has been airbrushed away to make room for
grand conspiracies involving persons or institutions that folks like Oliver
Stone wish to revile.
Of particular significance is the obsessive desire by leftists—including political wannabes like sportscaster Bob Costas—to connect Kennedy’s assassination to
itself, a city that was then a hotbed of conservative opposition to the
The New York Times provided yet another example of this revisionism when it published an odious opinion piece by one James McAuley, a “
studying history at the .” It’s worth noting that the
Times employed a callow
history student to do the work that most self-respecting historians would not
do—designating the city of University of
as an “actor” and not merely the geographical “stage” for JFK’s assassination.
Not mentioned in this fatuous retrospective is the fact that a communist who adored Fidel Castro and had lived in the
Union longer than in Dallas
was the person who actually shot the President from the sixth floor of the
building where he had recently secured a menial job. Nor do McAuley and most
other “observers” care to note that seven months earlier this unstable fellow
who didn’t drive a car attempted to assassinate a right-wing Texas
politician, General Edwin Walker, with the same mail-order rifle he clearly
fired on November 22nd.
On that fateful day, after failing to reconcile with his estranged wife, the high-school dropout and twice court-martialed Marine who attempted suicide in the
Soviet Union carried an
elongated object wrapped in brown paper to work—an odd package that he told his
co-worker and driver contained curtain rods. One could continue for hours
discussing definitive incriminating evidence like Oswald’s makeshift shooting
blind, eyewitness descriptions, bullet cartridges, and the killing of Officer
J. D. Tippit.
According to a commemorative editorial in
today a while back, evidence related to JFK’s assassination is “sparse” and presumably inconclusive.
Those editors, like most Americans, have never seriously reviewed the evidence.
Anyone who has read even part of the massive Warren Report could never assert that evidence
in this case is “sparse”—a claim that would probably seem foolish even to folks
who’ve perused Gerald Posner’s quite manageable “Case Closed.”
Vincent Bugliosi, author of the monumental assassination work, “Reclaiming History,” demonstrated to a group of lawyers that they weren’t thinking logically about JFK’s murder by asking for a show of hands of those who had reviewed the Warren Report. The sparse number didn’t compare with the scores of hands raised earlier when he inquired about conspiracy proponents.
Most Americans know little more about the assassination than what they’ve seen in Oliver Stone’s massively dishonest film, “JFK.” I regularly showed this dramatically gripping movie to seniors at the prep school in
La Jolla where I taught for twenty years. That
screening was followed by a condensed dose of real evidence as organized by
Brandeis history scholar Jacob
Cohen (“Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy,” Commentary Magazine, June,
1992). The typical result, at least for students who bothered to read Cohen’s
article, was shock at Stone’s cinematic rape of history—at the director’s ignoring
or twisting of obvious facts to make the event fit his own desires.
Stone and others, however, get away with these monumental deceptions because journalists, intellectuals, and politicians have for decades been unwilling to provide to the general public, on a regular basis, even basic facts concerning Oswald that are clearly known—only a handful of which have been offered above. Like Stalin, they wish to airbrush out of the picture the “silly little communist” (Jackie Kennedy’s words) who clearly murdered the President and to manipulate a tragic historical event to further their own agendas.