Why I rant about JFK...

(I put it right there in the subject line, so you can skip this if you want. I may be obsessed, but at least I'm self-aware.)



Watched another program on JFK last night, ABC's "Beyond Conspiracy." This was without question the most serious whitewash of the week; conspiracy theorists were dismissed as Oliver Stone fans, Kennedy sentimentalists to be indulged and pitied. I found this personally offensive, and I'm gonna tell you why. Settle in.



One can debate the single bullet theory and the Zapruder film and the acoustic evidence all one wants. My scientists are smarter than your scientists, my CAD model of Dealey Plaza is more accurate than yours is. It's a useless fight. But here are a few indisputable facts:

1) The protection of the President that day was lax.

2) After the President had been killed, none of the protocol standard to murder cases was followed. The President's body--the most significant piece of evidence in the case--was moved to Washington within hours. The rest of the evidence was sent to the FBI.

3) The autopsy was performed by people without the proper skills, and is inconclusive as a result.

4) The accused assassin was killed, in police custody, before he had time to shed any light on what happened.

5) The group created to investigate the crime--the Warren Commission--was working under political pressure to come to a certain conclusion, and did not receive the full cooperation of the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service. They only received some documents, not all, and those that they did were heavily censored.



Adding all this up, any reasonable person comes to one of two conclusions: either there was a conspiracy, or our government was/is full of incompentent morons. If, like Peter Jennings, you reject the former, then you must accept the latter. And yet NO ONE got fired as a result of November 22, 1963. Maybe there wasn't a conspiracy. But if there wasn't, there should be an accounting, no matter how partial or after-the-fact. This wasn't a victimless crime. And it was preventable--hell, the FBI/Secret Service prevent it EVERY DAY. Why is J. Edgar Hoover's name on the FBI building? The freakin' President was killed, in the middle of an American city, on his watch! In the real world, you can get fired for stealing office supplies.



If it were up to ABC News, the whole matter would've been closed as of 1964. Citizens won't let it rest; that's the only reason we're talking about the JFK assassination today. Why has it fallen to housewives and hobbyists to investigate the President's murder? Because our much-touted Fourth Estate didn't wish to. The American media's record on the JFK Assassination has been incredibly bad. Time/Life actually helped suppress the Zapruder film, buying it immediately and locking it away until 1975.



The professional newsgatherers have been unabashed, uncritical supporters of the "lone nut" theory since the day Oswald was shot. Why? At first it was patriotism, perhaps, or "respect for the family" (though I can think of nothing more disrespectful to the memory of the President than refusing to properly investigate who killed him).



Eventually, though, the question changes. If there was a conspiracy to murder the President, it was surely the most important story of the 20th Century. If the mainstream media had undisputedably missed it, the question would've been asked, "Then what the hell good are you?" The mainstream media, just like the dopes in Washington, had, have, and will always have, a strong vested interest in the "Oswald did it alone" theory. And sorry, ABC, that's all it is: a theory, just like "the Masons did it, aided by elements of the Third Venusian International." If that makes you mad--if you think I'm being unreasonable--don't blame me; blame the people who were in position to find out for sure, and chose not to. Now too much time has passed and we never will know.



Here's why I'm taking the time to type all this: we're in the middle of another Warren Commission, this time about 9/11. And the evidence is mounting that the government is doing the same thing again--screening the Commissioners, playing politics, protecting their asses. (Check out Salon's interview with 9/11 Commissioner Max Clelland and see if you don't agree. Here's a quote from former Senator Clelland:



"This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious. "



Yep, it's serious. And that's why shows like the one last night are so awful. Not because Oswald didn't do it--maybe he did--but because they excuse the myriad decisions that people in power made in 1963 and after, to protect their asses instead of getting at the truth. THAT's why we'll never truly know what happened when Kennedy was shot--not because it was unknowable, but because government officials didn't want to know, and the media didn't push them. It didn't matter to them.



Well, it matters to me, and it should matter to you. It's one thing to botch the investigation of a President's murder--I'll never be President, so who cares? But I will fly on airplanes, and will be in office buildings, and not getting to the bottom of 9/11 means that we will never truly know how to prevent it from happening again. And that is unacceptable. If 9/11 is what the Bush Administration says it is, we're all in the crosshairs. If that's worth bombing Iraq for, it should be worth investigating properly--and fearlessly.