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.
9 thoughts on “RFK speechwriter on JFK in 2013: Time to ‘marshal ALL of the current evidence””
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.
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 email@example.com.
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.
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?