A comment on Angleton and Oswald

David Lifton, author of Best Evidence, writes:

“Jeff: I think you’ve framed the question too narrowly…..

“As I understand it, you are asking (in effect): Did Angleton have information about Oswald which would have (or should have) alerted him to the possible threat that Oswald posed to the President’s safety–i.e., his life, etc. But that question is asked in the context of Oswald being “the assssin.”

“But there’s another way of looking at it, and another question that, if Angleton was as sharp as some maintain, perhaps ought to have been asked, and it was this: is this man Oswald someone who might be set up (i.e., utilized) as the fall guy in a future assassination attempt? In other words, the way your post words the question is “seeing Oswald” through the lens of his being a potential assassin.

“But if Angleton is as sharp as so many maintain he was, then wouldn’t he also be obliged to consider “other models” of conspiracy? And in that case, then why should he not be expected to ask: Is this man being set up for as a future fall guy in some plot? Angleton was not Capt. J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police. He was not a simple minded dope.

“So. . . if he was (in fact) so smart, then why wasn’t he looking at Oswald (and his machinations) through this “alternative lens”–and ask: “Gee, I wonder if this fellow is being set-up for a future fall? And how might I look into this further, and see whether I can detect data to see whether his location is being “managed” so as to “cross paths” with Kennedy?

“Is that asking too much to ask from a man who was a poet, a Yale graduate, highly analytical, and a supposed genius? A man who was in charge of the Counter-Intelligence function at CIA? Are we supposed to believe that all he was capable of doing is asking: “Could Oswald be a homicidal maniac?” Why not: “Could Oswald be in the process of being set-up by certain third parties, in a plot against the President of the U.S.?”

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Your email address will not be published.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