It’s that time of year again. Time for the spook-house media to double-tap the American psyche by 1) evoking public memory of the traumatic slaughter in broad daylight of a beloved US President, and 2) assaulting the character, intelligence and sanity of anyone willing to claim that copious available evidence indicates a “conspiracy” involving–among other actors–intelligence assets of the US government in that atrocity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705829

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html

“What Bugliosi has done is a public service; these people should be ridiculed, even shunned. It’s time we marginalized Kennedy conspiracy theorists the way we’ve marginalized smokers; next time one of your co-workers starts in about Oswald and the C.I.A., make him stand in the rain with the other outcasts.”

Since Brian Burrough published those words in the New York Times in 2007, Bugliosi’s door-stopper Reclaiming History has been shredded by many of the “outcasts” it targets http://www.marklane.com/writings/articles/VinnieitisRound.pdf , but why would the New York Times and the other ”mainstream” media have so shamelessly promoted such a commercially stillborn project in the first place?

A better question might be: Why did the CIA issue “Instructions to Media Assets” regarding “Criticism of the Warren Report” in 1967?

http://192.220.64.45/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:…

Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

Students of other “traumatic national events” may recognize such recommended “useful arguments” as “conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal”.

Surely there was no “large scale conspiracy” among the corporate media to ignore the deathbed confession of notorious CIA black operator E. Howard Hunt regarding that “big event”, was there?

http://www.saintjohnhunt.com/testament.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt

Even if Hunt’s account is one last “limited hangout” from the master psy-operator (fingering Johnson and minimizing Agency involvement), was it not worthy of mention beyond Rolling Stone?

So why is the Establishment still lying about JFK after all these years? What have they got to lose by telling the truth that has been self-evident from the moment the other lone gunman–Jack Ruby–stepped in to “spare Mrs. Kennedy the pain of a trial”? Yes, this Jack Ruby:

Why are the fevered mutterings of a few “outcasts” of such concern that former CIA Director George H.W. Bush could not help but to invoke them in his eulogy for former President and last living Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford?

Perhaps Mort Sahl answered best:

“…certain people had to take President Kennedy’s life in order to control ours. In other words, as Richard Starnes of the New York World-Telegram said, the shots in Dallas were the opening shots of World War III. There’s been a great change in this country since Kennedy. I’m afraid a great deal of our hope was interred with his remains.”

“They don’t want to lose their power. And they don’t want to fall. It has become government by hoodlum. And I don’t blame them. If I were them, I wouldn’t want to fall either. I would pull out all the stops as well, as they have. On the other hand, while I know that neo-Nazis would want to kill a man like John Kennedy, I don’t understand why liberals would want to protect them from prosecution.”

“Once the neo-fascists became bold enough to slay the President on the street, they showed their hand. They showed how arrogant they had become. Now it’s a question of symptom. That crime was a national symptom. If we can turn our back on that, we will pay a terrible price. That will be the end of this democracy.”

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mort%20Sahl/Mort%20Sahl%20-%20Argo.html