LBJ Was The Man Who Killed Kennedy

LBJ and JFK

[disinfo ed.’s note: The following is from the Preface to The Man Who Killed Kennedy by Roger Stone, excerpted with permission from Skyhorse Publishing.]

I recognize that those who question the government’s official contentions regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy are labeled by many in the mainstream media as “nuts,” “kooks,” and worse. Yet the events of November 22, 1963, have haunted and interested me since the time—as an eleven-year-old boy—I saw the indelible image of John-John saluting his father’s flag-draped coffin and wept. My family is Catholic and, although I’m sure my Republican parents voted for Richard Nixon in 1960, they were still proud of our first Roman Catholic president.

I realize that delving into the world of assassination research and a belief in a conspiracy will lead some to brand me as an extremist or a nut, but the facts I have uncovered are so compelling that I must make the case that Lyndon Baines Johnson had John Fitzgerald Kennedy murdered in Dallas to become president himself and to avert the precipitous political and legal fall that was about to beset him.

I feel that I am uniquely qualified to make the case that LBJ had John F. Kennedy killed so that he could become president. I have been involved in every presidential election since 1968 with the exception of 1992, when I sat out Republican efforts and George H. W. Bush—who, as a Reaganite myself—I never had much regard for anyway, went down to ignominious defeat. I first met the then former Vice President Richard Nixon in 1967. In 1968, I was appointed chairman of Youth for Nixon in Connecticut by Governor John Davis Lodge. I later attended George Washington University in Washington DC by night and worked in the Nixon White House press operation by day. In 1972, I was the youngest member of the senior staff of the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP).

Ambassador John Davis Lodge was the brother of JFK’s ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge. John Davis Lodge was a congressman and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He was also governor of Connecticut, Eisenhower’s ambassador to Spain, Nixon’s ambassador to Argentina, President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to Switzerland, and my mentor.

It was John Lodge who introduced me to former Vice President Richard Nixon when I was sixteen years old in 1968. Lodge was an old school Brahmin who nonetheless spoke Spanish, Italian, French, and German. He enjoyed a brief career as a B-movie actor in Europe, appearing onscreen with Marlene Dietrich and Shirley Temple.

When Lodge was in his eighties, he served vigorously as the chairman of Ronald Reagan’s campaign for President in Connecticut, a post I had recruited him for as the Northeast regional director.

In 1979, we sat in his Westport, Connecticut, home enjoying a cocktail. I knew that JFK had planned to fire ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge upon his return from Dallas on November 24, 1963. I also know that Lodge knew why he had been summoned to see the President.

Lodge had done Kennedy’s dirty work coordinating a campaign with the CIA to assassinate Catholic Vietnamese President Diem. I couldn’t resist asking John Lodge about his brother.

“Did you ever ask your brother who really killed Kennedy?” I said.

His lips spread in a tight grin. “Cabot said it was the Agency boys, some Mafiosi,” he looked me in the eye . . . “and Lyndon.”

“Did your brother know in advance?” I asked.

Lodge took a sip of his Manhattan.“He knew Kennedy wouldn’t be around to fire him. LBJ kept him at his post so he could serve his country.”

Man Who Killed Kennedy 9781626363137Seven weeks before the JFK assassination, Richard Starnes for the Washington Daily News wrote an article titled “’Spooks’ Make Life Miserable for Ambassador Lodge” and subtitled “Arrogant’ CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam.” The article slammed the CIA’s role in Vietnam as “a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power.” The article went on to chronicle the turf war between US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and the CIA. “Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here.” The article continued: “’If the United States ever experiences a ‘Seven Days in May’ it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon,’ one U.S. official commented caustically.” Seven Days in May was a prescient book, read and endorsed by JFK, that gave a fictional chronicle of an attempted military coup in America. John Kennedy was so impressed by that book and its message that he even let them film the movie adaption at the White House while he was away one weekend.

The Starnes’ source ominously referencing Seven Days in May was probably from someone in the military, and not Lodge, but it is nonetheless significant. Another source told Starnes “They [CIA] represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.” Starnes continued: “Coupled with the ubiquitous secret police of Ngo Dinh Nhu, a surfeit of spooks has given Saigon an oppressive police state atmosphere.”

The Starnes article was a caustic and detailed denunciation of the CIA’s authoritarian behavior in Vietnam and its uncontrollability by the Kennedy Administration. “One very high American official here,” the article continued, “a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA’s growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it even longer.”

That last quote probably came out of the mouth of Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.

The next day on October 3, 1963, Arthur Krock, a columnist for the New York Times and a close friend of the Kennedy’s wrote a column “The Intra-Administration War in Vietnam” that was based on the Starnes article. The Krock column featured those incendiary quotes that Richard Starnes had collected about the CIA from their opponents in the State Department and Pentagon. The CIA wanted to keep the Diem-Ngu regime and the bitter enemy of both the CIA and Diem was Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge who was the point man in the Kennedy Administration for getting rid of Diem and Ngu.

On November 1, 1963, the Diem-Nhu regime was removed in an American backed coup. Kennedy had been on the fence regarding their removal and he was shocked when Diem and Nhu were both assassinated and not allowed exile. Just as many in the CIA bitterly opposed Kennedy over Cuba policy, there is no doubt that the removal of Diem was a bitter nut to swallow for many in the Agency.

Three weeks later there was Dallas.

Nixon introduced me to his former campaign aide, John P. Sears, who would hire me for the staff of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980. President Reagan then asked me to coordinate his re-election campaign in the Northeastern states in 1984, a slightly broader reprise of my role in his 1980 election.

In my capacity as Reagan’s Regional Political Director for the Northeast, I helped coordinate thirteen presidential trips, giving me a unique perspective on how the Secret Service interacts with presidential aides during a presidential visit. This perspective, I believe, has given me keen insight into the many anomalies in the way the Secret Service and Vice President Johnson’s aides acted in the run-up to President Kennedy’s visit to Dallas.

It was in Nixon’s post-presidential years that I spent the most time with the former president. The Washington Post said I was “Nixon’s man in Washington.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd called me “the keeper of the Nixon flame.” Nixon had a voracious appetite for political intelligence and gossip; I fed him a steady diet of both. It was also in this period that Nixon asked me to evaluate various speaking requests he received.

I spent hours talking one-on-one with former President Nixon in his office at 26 Federal Plaza in downtown Manhattan, his apartment on the East Side, and later in his modestly appointed townhouse in Saddle River, New Jersey. Nixon was neither introspective nor retrospective in the conversations. “The old man,” as staff called him behind his back, was passionately interested in what was happening today and what would happen in the future, but it was difficult to get him to dwell on the past. Generally speaking, when we talked about his peers and the circumstances surrounding the Kennedy assassination, he would grow taciturn, blunt, and sometimes cryptic. When I asked him point blank about the conclusions of the Warren Commission into the assassination of President Kennedy, he said “Bullshit” with a growl, but refused to elaborate.

The Man Who Killed Kennedy by Roger Stone, is published by Skyhorse Publishing and is available wherever good books are sold. Roger Stone is not only a political consultant, strategist, and lobbyist, but is also the man who single-handedly brought down New York Governor, Eliot Spitzer. He has been involved in politics since his teenage years, worked for both the Nixon and Reagan administrations, and has recently joined the Libertarian Party. Aside from politics, he’s also known for his personal style, and writes the annual “Ten Best and Worst Dressed Men and Women in the World” column for the Huffington Post. He splits his time between New York City and Miami Beach, Florida.

  • Juan

    I suppose this still matters to some people “of a certain age” perhaps. But really, haven’t we got far more important current issues to deal with than who killed Kennedy? Isn’t this getting just a bit old? Who cares if it was LBJ, the CIA, the mafia, some branch of the military or Cubans? The official version is the purest shite. Can’t we just agree on that and move on?
    I am so over this.

    • Lee Swain

      The pillars of power that were able to kill the president are still the ones pulling the strings. The killing of JFK speaks volumes to the limits our elected officials have in actually implementing change. It continues to be a very important lesson and one we should still take very seriously.

      There is a political agenda in Washington that is mandated by the Military-Industrial complex, of which the CIA is a major player. The more at odds with that agenda the president is, the harder it will be for him to do his (or her) job. I think JFK’s assassination is a VERY important lesson.

      To suggest a coup d’état of the US political system by the military-industrial complex only 50 years ago is no longer relevant to modern politics is very naive in my opinion.

      • Juan

        I realize that this narrative still holds a lot of power in its ability to engage large segments of the public. But for me, it is clear that, as you suggest, the MIC is what is in charge of running things, not the president or most any other “elected” official. It’s very clear to me, that so called “elections” are nothing but theater to placate the masses, something to give them the illusion of choice, when in fact, there is no choice. I don’t think this started with Kennedy.
        I think this Kennedy business is flogging a long-dead horse.

        • Lee Swain

          I think you are wrong, the assassination of JFK is one of the most clear cut examples of this corruption of political process. And if nothing else serves as an incredibly effective way to open peoples eyes to these facts. Understanding what happened remains incredibly important to understanding the nature of political power in today’s world. It also served to be the catalyst for the very movements that Disinfo was born from.

          I also don’t agree elections are nothing more than an illusion of choice. An engaged public is the biggest enemy of tyranny. The more engaged the public the harder to manipulate and the more pressure they can put on the politicians, who serve multiple masters. The public are one of them. If politicians can rely on support from an engaged public, they have more power to stand against the other interests that manipulate them.

          • sgtdoom

            Full agreement with Lee. We saw pushback against the plutocracy with FDR, then JFK, both of who died while serving in office.

            Doubtful if even that was a coincidence, since one of FDR’s very last actions was to give the go ahead to the DOJ to prosecute the case against the Wall Street 17 (17 investment banks alleged to be involved in a conspiracy, dating back to 1914, concerning the concentrated corporate ownership by the banks, the lawsuite was titled, United States of America v. Morgan et al.).

          • emperorreagan

            I don’t think understanding Kennedy’s assassination in particular is important to understanding the nature American political power.

            I think Woodrow Wilson is really the best place to point to understanding where the US has landed today – J.P. Morgan bought his soul for a pittance. Then maybe Truman (a piece of shit wholly owned by the democrat party bosses and pushed when they realized FDR was likely to die in his final term), who signed on wholeheartedly for the advancement of American empire.

          • Lee Swain

            You do not make a very compelling argument.

          • emperorreagan

            Kennedy was a superstar and his presidency is full of what-might-have been fantasy, so that makes him compelling, sure. Attempts at reconstructing exactly what players may have been involved in his assassination are interesting for much the same reason. He’s moved from historical to mythological figure – from Camelot to ascribing him as some Messiah, some lynch pin that might stave off the military-industrial complex that was already firmly in control before he took office.

            The machinations of who was bought, when they were bought, and what they did is far more mundane. They are, however, fairly open and show the actual machinations of American political power. The players who were involved in approaching Butler in regards to a coup against FDR are openly known. Truman replacing Henry Wallace on the Democratic ticket. The war profiteering of Morgan, Rockefeller, and the duPonts among many others is on the public record. The push for a permanent war economy had begun before WW2 was even over…

          • kowalityjesus

            That is some quality synopsis right there.

          • gustave courbet

            While I’m not a fan of Truman, who dropped the bomb twice, he did write a little known op-ed a month after the Kennedy assassination, advocating the reigning in of the CIA. It got little attention, even at the time, but is an interesting historical artifact.

            http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html

          • emperorreagan

            Truman really gets my goat because he was regarded as one of the worst presidents in history when he left office. And to me, in hindsight, he seems even worse – from loyalty oaths to his short-sighted, hard line foreign policy being at least in part responsible for the entire cold war, to croynist appointments to the supreme court, to signing on whole heartedly to empire and permanent war. Dropping the bombs was perhaps the most unconscionable action he authorized, but his entire presidency was a disaster for humanity.

            That he is now regarded frequently as one of the best presidents in history on those lists people make is insane and really supports the adage about victors writing the history.

            That Truman, at least in part, would criticize that for which he bears responsibility is interesting.

          • gustave courbet

            I think some men, upon having reached the apogee of power, have moments of clarity or at least flickers of regret. I think this is definitely true of LBJ, maybe Truman was haunted by irradiated Japanese ghosts.

      • TokyoTengu

        Sorry. I have to call bullshit there. If the US military industrial complex had anything near that level of power, Obama would be toast.

        • Lee Swain

          Because Obama has been a savage critic of the MIC and has strove to shut them down and decapitate their power? Or more accurately he has barely rocked the boat at all and has continued almost the exact same foreign policy of his predecessor. Drones and all.

        • Voice Of Saruman

          Why?

    • rhetorics_killer

      In a word you claim to kill a fifty year spectacular device, a topic giving the world press a 100% match with people. Dont you realize the Kennedy case, its star-system politics, glamorous sweet-hearting and mysterious assassination has lasted more than any other simply because it has a unique combination of these features? This romantic adventure for long will keep moving hearts.

      • http://pneumerology.com/ pneumerology

        I dunno… Oprah’s struggle with her weight and self-image have certainly given it some competition.

        • Tuna Ghost

          quite frankly, I find her a more compelling protagonist than Kennedy, especially when she killed that jaguar with her bare hands and drank its blood to gain its power

          • http://pneumerology.com/ pneumerology

            I learned everything I know about the modern world while standing in the checkout line at the grocery store.

    • sgtdoom

      Simple answer, sonny, because back then, in the 1960s, quite a few Americans knew who owned the banks and corporations, whereas today, nobody in this country knows who owns anything: the company they work at, the building they rent at, the bank(s) their mortgage is owned by, etc., etc., etc. With the coup d’état of 1963 we have sadly witnessed, Mission Accomplished by the hegemons!

      Can you answer me this, sonny?

      What were the first private equity firms founded in the 1960s, and who financed them?

      Who created the hedge funds among us today, and who owns the very largest?

      Who are the owners of JPMorgan Chase, ExxonMobil, GE, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup?

      Don’t know? Then there’s your answer…….

      • Juan

        I get that there are people for whom the Kennedy thing is very important and they are quite passionate about it all. For me, not so much. That’s all I got on this topic.
        Enjoy the show;)

      • moremisinformation

        I didn’t do it but I bet you got down voted because you called someone sonny…twice.

    • BuzzCoastin

      People tell me, ‘Bill, let it go. The Kennedy assassination was years
      ago. It was just the assassination of a President and the hijacking of
      our government by a totalitarian regime — who cares? Just let it go.’ I
      say, ‘All right then. That whole Jesus thing? Let it go! It was 2,000 years ago! Who cares?’

      • Mark

        Amen

  • sgtdoom

    Expect to see a lot more misinformation and disinformation leading up to the 50th year after the coup d’état of 1963.

    No, Lee Oswald had nothing to do with the murder of President Kennedy, and to understand that murder better, the best five books to read are:

    Battling Wall Street: the Kennedy presidency, by Donald Gibson

    Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, by David Talbot

    Thy Will Be Done, by Gerard Colby with Charlotte Dennett (although not covering the JFK assassination, this book will enlighten people to much peripheral data of great importance)

    Rockefellerocracy: Kennedy Assassinations, Watergate, and Monopoly of the Philanthropic Foundations, by Richard James Desocio

    JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass

    (And all the books by L. Fletcher Prouty regarding this subject.)

    Remember, JFK was hitting the plutocrats at their most sensitive and vulnerable point: where they hid their ownership and wealth!

    • specialtasks

      JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE is a good read. “Executive Action” (banned from Best Buy!) starring Burt Lancaster is good from the Hollywood angle – as for the post above, I try to keep an open mind, but Roger Stone is a very dubious source.

      • jwcreek9474@sbcglobal.net

        Executive Action is a good movie. Don’t recall when it was released but do recall the already long list of names given at the end of the movie of people who died because of their connection to the assassination. I was shocked at the time.

  • HCE

    There’s another level to this. If you can show the unquestioning public that JFK/RFK/MLK/Malcolm X aren’t “tin foil” delusions, then you pull the cornerstone out on the structure erected that keeps the credulous from questioning. You open the door for those who hadn’t had any doubts to begin to question the official narrative.

  • BuzzCoastin

    I shouted out,
    “Who killed the Kennedy’s?”
    When after all
    It was you and me

    Please to meat you
    don’t you know my name

  • Matt

    You get to a certain point and it’s all blah blah blah blah blah…

  • Adam S.

    No, Texas oil barons with CIA connection killed Kennedy in Dallas. They could most easy control killing ground in Dallas. Killed Kennedy knowing they could easily control LBJ.

    Nixon was the man who killed Robert Kennedy. RFK was killed in Nixon’s hometown. LA. Nixon could easily control the killing ground in LA. Nixon was the man who had the most to gain by RFK’s assassination.

  • gustave courbet

    So we can add Nixon to the list of whacky conspiracy theorists, along with Jackie O, Bobby Kennedy, LBJ’s mistress, Bertrand Russell…

  • Tuna Ghost

    Saying “it was (insert person x) and the CIA” isn’t really saying much, since I’m pretty sure the CIA, in fact most of the intelligence community, was a goddam nut show at that time and likely would’ve had someone on their team that would have been willing to kill the President just because it looked like it might rain on Wednesday

  • Michael Franklin

    Of all the theories that explain the JFK assassination, the one that holds LBJ most accountable is probably the most likely, IMESHO, that is.

  • grassroot

    And who was head of the CIA at the time? And shown in
    a pic in front of the Texas School Book Depository a day before
    the assassination?

  • fuzzmello
21