RFK speechwriter on JFK in 2013: Time to ‘marshal ALL of the current evidence”

Adam Walinksy

Adam Walinksy, RFK speechwriter

In the wake of comments by Bobby Kennedy Jr. about what his father thought of his uncle’s assassination, we received this email from Adam Walinsky, who served as Robert Kennedy’s speechwriter from 1964 to 1968:

“I believe the Agency will obfuscate until the end of time (and this means also resistance and obfuscation from its innumerable allies and associates, as well as general defenders of the status quo throughout Washington, New York, etc. etc.).

The only way I can see forward would be to marshal ALL of the current evidence, in effect a second Warren Report rather than a single book; and in this Report to take every aspect to the fullest extent possible, especially the late revelations and semi-confessions of the last few years. Nothing less would be adequate for the huge shift in prospect for our basic understanding of American history and government.”

Walinsky’s plainspoken comments are another sign of how public discussion of the JFK story is changing in 2013.

10 comments

  1. If by a “second Warren Report,” Walinsky means a governmental investigation to reveal and accept JFK truth … that is fantasy because the government murdered JFK and covered it up. Too many folks would have to drink too much castor oil. Walinsky’s comments remind me of Robert Blakely when the truth about George Joannide (his background with the CIA funded DRE) was discovered:

    “I now no longer believe anything the Agency [CIA] told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity…..We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.”

    It is sad to say that someone (or group) will lie and deny until the end of time. Kind of reminds me of Lance Armstrong. I don’t see how the machine gun riddled Warren Report is any more credible than Armstrong. Maybe Oprah can take this one on!

    Having said that … I think that there are people alive TODAY who were involved in the JFK assassination. People such as GHW Bush & David Rockefeller, due to their deep intelligence connections, could very well have been involved.

    Luis Posada Carriles – it is certainly a possibility that he or some other CIA connected anti-Castro Cubans were involved and he is still alive.

    People such as Henry Kissinger or even Mary Margaret Valenti (nee Wiley) (LBJ’s most key mistress) both might have inner circle details of the JFK assassination. I am sure there are others.

    • jeffmorley says:

      To say George H.W. Bush and David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger “could have” been were involved in JFK’s assassination are not founded on any facts and therefor irresponsible and counterproductive. I strongly discourage such careless statements because they reflect poorly on us all. Needless to say, we encourage a wide range of debate in the comment boards and stupid comments do not reflect the views of the site.

      If you have any evidence that Luis Posad has knowledge of the events of Dallas, please present it. To say there is “a possiblity” he was involved is unsupported by any evidence I know of.

      I know some anti-Castro Cubans who have relevant information. To speculate irresponsibly is one factor that discourages important witnesses from comgin forward.

      To say that Henry Kissinger might have “inner circle details of the JFK assassination is meaningless. It would be appropriate to ask Kissinger in a respectful way if he has any thoughts on the subject and particularly if he has any memories of what Richard Nixon said about the subject,

      If you have information about why Mary Margaret Valenti has infomration, please share it here or at info@jfkfacts.org.

      • Shane McBryde says:

        Mr Morley,

        I hate to come across as some sort of sycophant here, but I want to add my note of agreement to your sentiment regarding these speculative leaps of logic and the damage they do to the image of those researchers who try to adhere to a, “just the facts” approach. Especially in light of the fact that legitimate reasearchers now include professional journalists such as yourself.

        I recall what you said in your article, “What Jane Roman Said,” that “…pursuing an interest in the Kennedy assassination was among the less sensible career moves one could make in Washington journalism.”

        So, I believe that to pursue the Kennedy assassination for persons such as yourself comes with at least some degree of personal sacrifice. And, I imagine taking a non-sensationalist approach to the subject isn’t going to make you rich anytime soon.

        I am admittedly a faithful follower of your work, and was delighted when I discovered your work on the Kennedy assassination and the way you approached it. An actual, credible journalist who has decided to investigate the case, I thought, will definitely advance the cause. Following your work as I do, I’m also aware of the criticisms to which you’ve been subjected by some of your peers in the journalism business.

        I was radio talk show host for many years in my home town, and while I never considered or attempted to portray myself as a journalist, I am intimately familiar with what can happen when you say the wrong thing about the wrong person over the public airwaves. Freedom of speech definitely has its limits depending on whose on the receiving end of that speech. I was once suspended from the air for referring, in a very general sense, to some politicians as hillbillies. These folks play for keeps, and they ain’t kidding around.

        So, again it matters a great deal to me personally that when dealing with a subject such as the assassination of JFK that in the interest of maintaining a credible approach only well researched, verifiable and substantiated facts become part of the discussion among those who are serious about getting at the truth. This is where I believe, Mr.Morley you make an outstanding contribution.

        Besides there are plenty enough, “facts” about this case that can leave little doubt that at the very least there is far more to JFK’s assassination than just Lee Harvey Oswald, a Manlicher Carcano and the 6th floor of the Texas School Book depository. But, just because three guys named, let’s say for example, “Jim”, “John” and “Frank” were involved in robbing a liquor store, and all three of them at one time worked for XYZ supermarket, it doesn’t then therefore follow that XYZ supermarket was involved in a conspiracy to rob liquor stores.

    • Scott Fulmer says:

      The point that suggesting to create a second Warren report would be another case of the government investigating itself is well taken. Who is going to be above reproach to lead such a body? No one. Too much is at stake. The facts have to come out and people need to use their own judgment. Or is it preferable to dictate the truth?

  2. John Kirsch says:

    How would Kissinger know anything about Dallas?

    • The weight of evidence in the JFK assassination points towards Lyndon Johnson having a critical if not primary role in it. (I will not summarize that evidence here.) Lyndon Johnson was very close to Nelson Rockefeller. Both men had deep and long standing intelligence ties. The weight of the evidence points towards high level US intelligence involvement in the JFK assassination. Henry Kissinger has long standing and high level intelligence ties dating from the 1950′s when he was moderating Bilderberg meetings. Kissinger was a very close advisor to Nelson Rockefeller, who in turn was very close to Lyndon Johnson. Rockefeller, a foreign policy hawk, was in opposition to JFK as was LBJ was was waging a sub rosa war with the Kennedys throughout his vice presidency.

      Lyndon Johnson was so close to Rockefeller and so trusting of him that he considered making Nelson his VP candidate for 1968 (source Nancy Dickerson, the mother of John Dickerson). After LBJ withdrew from the ’68 presidential race, his #1 pick for president was Republican Nelson Rockefeller who he secretly supported and egged him to get into the race. (source: Dallek)

      • And there is this nugget. One can take it for what it is worth – an interesting data point. Rodney Stich is a very credible author and many former intelligence operatives have opened up to him once they become targets of operations gone bad.

        From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

        “The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA’s counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, “What group were these tapes identifying?” Parker replied: “Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, Johnson of Texas, George Bush, and J. Edgar Hoover.” I asked, “What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?”

        I don’t have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, “Are we going to have any problems?” And he said, “No, we aren’t going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we’ll do our job.” There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn’t realize that his phone has been tapped. Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition p. 638-639]

        My note: LBJ was very close to Nelson Rockefeller. Many researchers (and journalists) do not know this. LBJ was very close to and a neighbor of Hoover for 19 years from 1943 to 1961 (3 houses down and across the street). CIA Allen Dulles, who hated JFK, was one of the first people LBJ put on the Warren Commission. Dulles quickly became the most active and influential player on it & a key engineer of the cover up.

        As for GHW Bush, he is on the record saying he can’t remember where he was on 11/22/63. An absurd statement and quite interesting because GHW Bush was a US Senate candidate staying in the Dallas Sheraton on 11/21/63. Bush has close ties to anti-Castro Cuban radicals and he even commuted the sentence of terrorist Orlando Bosch, a key assoicate of Luis Posada Carriles. When Bush ran for US Senate in 1970, he paid a visit to the LBJ ranch to see Johnson. Johnson ultimately shunned endorsing the Democrat in that race Lloyd Bentsen. Bush also was the only GOP congressman to wave goodbye to LBJ as he left office on a helicopter in Jan., 1969. Bush, like LBJ, was close to the Rockefellers and in his early Senate and congressional races got a lot of east coast Rockefeller money.

        Blue chip JFK researcher Bruce Campbell Adamson (google his numerous books) has told me that the 2 names that kept coming up in his JFK research were Lyndon Johnson and GHW Bush.

  3. John Kirsch says:

    Your mention of GHW Bush reminds me (in an uncomfortable way) of how Russ Baker tried (and totally failed) to link Bush to the assassination. This is the kind of irresponsible thinking that plays into the hands of those who dismiss all critics of the Warren Report as crackpots.

    • Actually, it is not. GHW Bush helped to organize the Bay of Pigs invasion. Richard Nixon’s code for the JFK Assassination, according to his chief of staff H.R. Haldemann, was “the whole Bay of Pigs thing.” On the day of the JFK assassination, Evelyn Lincoln wrote in her list of 11 top suspects “CIA in Cuban fiasco.” There was tremendous amounts of rage directed at JFK over the failure at the Bay of Pigs from the CIA operatives involved in it – Bush, being one of those operatives. Fletcher Prouty, the military’s liason with CIA, says he delivered 3 ships to a “George Bush” of Houston for use in the Bay of Pigs. Scott Kaiser, son of CIA operative Edwin Kaiser, has interviewed several anti-Castro Cubans who confirmed the GHW Bush was a recruiter for Bay of Pigs; in fact he would give out “phantom” rings as tokens of appreciation. Google “phantom rings” – has a skull on it.

      Add to that GHW Bush’s involvement later as CIA director, his October Surprise dealings 1980, his 1980′s CIA drug smuggling participation, his threatening Ross Perot’s life in 1992 (google Chip Tatum Pegasus) and a *very nasty* picture of GHW Bush over the decades emerges.

      Read the book “Compromised: Bush, Clinton and the CIA” (1994) by Terry Reed and you will never think the same way about politics in the USA again. Then read “Barry & the Boys” by Daniel Hopsicker. GHW Bush & Oliver North are legitimate suspects in the 1986 Barry Seal murder in Baton Rouge.

      As for the Bush angle on the JFK assassination, read this web link: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm

    • Here is the “smoking gun tape” of Watergate. Web link:
      http://watergate.info/1972/06/23/the-smoking-gun-tape.html

      It was taped on 6/23/72. Richard Nixon’s code phrase for the JFK assassination was the “whole Bay of Pigs” thing is on this tape.

      Nixon: How do you call him in, I mean you just, well, we protected Helms from one hell of a lot of things.
      Haldeman: That’s what Ehrlichman says.
      Nixon: Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you will-that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there’s a hell of a lot of things [such as the JFK assassination] and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves. Well what the hell, did Mitchell know about this thing to any much of a degree?

      Nixon: When you get in these people when you…get these people in, say: “Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that” ah, without going into the details… don’t, don’t lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, “the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don’t go any further into this case”, period!

      Nixon is using the JFK assassination and his knowledge of it as a shield against investigations of him in Watergate. This is extremely important to understand. Nixon is making a not so subtle threat at exposure of this epic crime.

      HERE IS GHW BUSH’S REACTION TO READING THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE “SMOKING GUN TAPE:” as reported by Bob Woodward in the “Final Days” p. 369.

      Burch replied, “Yes.” “Well, what did he do?”, Timmons asked. “He [GHW Bush] broke out in a**holes and sh*t himself to death,” was Burch’s answer, confirming that anytime Nixon referred to “the Texans,” he meant George Bush Sr.

      GHW Bush’s hysterical reaction (described graphically above) to the smoking gun tape (& it’s reference to the “whole Bay of Pigs thing” – something Bush would be acutely aware of) of Nixon combined with Bush later saying he does not remember where he was on the day of JFK assassination are 2 big reasons why I think GHW Bush was one of the plotters/participants in the JFK assassination.

      GHW Bush certainly hits the key democraphics: CIA, Texas, oil man, close to Rockefellers, close enough to LBJ, helped organize the Bay of Pigs. At the very least Bush is a prime suspect for participation. Need I mention GHW Bush’s very dirty career post 1963. Read the book “Immaculate Deception” by Russell Bowen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more