LBJ Was a "Reluctant Warrior"? It Doesn't Even Pass the Laugh Test!

From front page of Dallas Morning News: Mar. 23, 1984.

According to a Sunday New York Times front page story ('Rescuing a Vietnam Casualty': Johnson's Legacy') LBJ's  family and hagiographers are desperate to reconstruct his image and legacy. For those of us who were alive back then and have followed Johnson's career, it makes us want to puke. The danger is that too many people alive today - who weren't back then (and that is the majority of the U.S. population) will swallow this revisionist bunkum hook, line and sinker.

According to daughter Luci Baines Johnson, quoted in the piece:

“Nobody wanted that war less than Lyndon Johnson”. 

REALLY?  Then pray tell us why, right after your pop succeeded Kennedy - after his life was snuffed out in Big D in a triangulated crossfire- he issued National Security Action Memorandum 273 which effectively repealed JFK’s NSAM 263. For those who need memory jogged, the latter was the NSAM which would have had the bulk of personnel out of ‘Nam by 1965.

What is often actually cited as JFK's NSAM, i.e.http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/w6LJoSnW4UehkaH9Ip5IAA.aspx


Is in fact only the cover letter by McGeorge Bundy. It has only passing relevance to the actual content of the NSAM, but it does clearly state “the President approved sections IB(1-3) of the report". Which report? To find these, the researcher must turn to Document 142 in The Pentagon Papers: ‘Report of McNamara Taylor Mission to South Vietnam'. Then the serious researcher will read:

IB(2) A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by the Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. military personnel by that time.

IB(3): In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

Note the wording and that a partial drawdown of 1,000 was due for the end of 1963 and the bulk by 1965. Most lazy wannabes never get this far while some others that do mistake the "1,000" total for the entire intended lot.

Not only did Johnson not preserve Kennedy's plans for drawdown as revealed in the NSAM,  he willingly  signed off on the decisions that dispatched the troops and ordered the bombing campaigns. Hell, the bastard even finagled to get the damned war on a full scale footing!   He instigated the Tonkin Gulf ruse which directly expanded the U.S. presence and incepted the eventual 58,000 deaths and the nefarious designs of Nixon himself!

Again, for the memory -lapsed, the Gulf of Tonkin incident involved two gunboats, the Turner Joy and Maddox,  allegedly being attacked without provocation in the summer of 1964. The claim of baby killer LBJ was that the attack(s) were initiated by the North Vietnamese.  The fucker wanted it as a pretext to start a full scale war!

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified and  it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding August 2:

“At 1505G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first”

and regarding August 4:

“It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2”


In other words, Johnson and the U.S. aggressors used it as a pretext to demand the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and launch a war that killed nearly 58,000. Like other pretext wars (e.g. Iraq, see the excellent MSNBC special ‘Hubris’) Vietnam never should have occurred. It was once again a case of congress abdicating responsibility as opposed to actually declaring a war. It was also a case of a criminal's ascension to power predicated on his promising to give the militarists and oilmen what they wanted even before JFK was hit!  Don't believe me? You need to check out:

http://jfklancer.com/NSAM273.html


Most of us in deep politics firmly believe that Vietnam was the “Devil’s deal” LBJ struck with his JFK assassination collaborators, in order that he be catapulted into office – while facing  felony charges(barely days before) .  This isn’t “blowing smoke” either. As Steve Kornacki reported in his ‘UP’ journal on MSNBC, the morning of Nov. 23, 2013. Using tapes and media documents, Kornacki showed that Johnson was about to be exposed as an influence peddler in conjunction with the Bobby Baker scandal by LIFE magazine in its upcoming issue (to be published the week of Nov. 25[1], 1963).

A paper trail of bank statements and payments was to have been included, and as Kornacki pointed out a Senate investigation would likely have ensued with LBJ being dumped from Kennedy’s 1964 ticket.  In other words, LBJ had by far the most to gain from JFK’s assassination, since he’d then be next in line as President, and not have to face justice in the Baker scandal. Just consider the contrasts: dishonor and imprisonment versus ascension to the top office in the land and the power to set in motion an “investigation” that would not only hide the real culprits but quash the Baker episode in its tracks.

Apart from motive, he had the will, means and opportunity to carry it out, especially given all his Texas connections. 

Former LBJ Personal Attorney, Barr McClellan, deals head on with the core question[1]: “Did Johnson have the motive, the means and the opportunity?”

He answers[2]:

"Johnson’s motivations included a determination to do anything to become the most powerful man in the world, a fear of total loss of power followed by indictment, and a willingness to go to the edge and beyond…

Johnson also had the means at his control: a legal system in Texas controlled by his attorney, Edward A. Clark. Johnson and Clark, in turn, had a hired gun on hand for the dirty work. Finally, when Kennedy, in June of 1963, included Texas on his travel agenda, the opportunity was there. Where better to commit a crime than on the home courts, or more appropriately, in the home courts?”

Philip Nelson, whose powerful book ‘LBJ – The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination’ – is noteworthy for its exacting documented detail, observes (Chapter 6: The Conspirators, p. 317):

“The crime could only have been accomplished with at least the acquiescence and foreknowledge of the only man capable of choreographing the massive cover-up which was immediately launched. It is axiomatic that since the cover-up started before the shots were fired, the order for JFK’s assassination could only have come from his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson.”

He goes on to note that no other conceivable person, whether Santos Trafficante, Sam Giancana, Clint Murchison, H.L. Hunt….or Lee Harvey Oswald…" had the motive, means, the opportunity, the demonstrated pattern of previous criminal – even murderous conduct, and the resolve to see it through.”

Could Johnson have actually stooped to have anyone killed? The Dallas Morning News story from March 23, 1984  (see image inset) is quite blunt about it. Billie Sol Estes reported that Johnson had Henry Harvey Marshall, a USDA official in charge of the federal cotton allotment detail,  killed because he had attempted to link Estes’ nefarious dealings to the then Vice-President.  While Estes ended up doing prison time, he did have his say before a grand jury (which subpoenaed him) after his release in 1984. As reported in news story, Estes linked Johnson and two others to the slaying of Marshall.   In the follow-up grand jury investigation, Johnson, his one-time aide Cliff Carter, and ‘Mac’ Wallace were all deemed “co-conspirators in the murder” of Marshall[1].

Let’s also -  one time - put the kibosh on the NY Times take that the two men- JFK and LBJ were “highly competitive” – one reason we are led to believe that the ardent Johnsonites have held back pushing their thug’s……errrr…..man’s achievements forward.  This is total hogwash! The two men “competitive”?    No way – there existed major, visceral hatred – especially on the part of LBJ for Kennedy, as both Nelson’s and Barr McClellan’s books make clear.

LBJ felt he was screwed out of the Presidency at the 1960  LA convention, when JFK did a neat end run about him  and already had the nomination sewed up at the first roll call – unbeknownst to the hot-headed Texan. LBJ accepted JFK’s offer for VP – but only grudgingly. Meanwhile, he stewed over time, entering the Oval office almost at will in the mornings – according to Kennedy’s secretary Evelyn Lincoln (in her book: Kennedy and Johnson,  Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968, pp. 149-151 ).  He felt he was entitled to be top dog or at least be co-president and even proposed on one occasion a “shared presidency” – at which point Jack kicked him out of his office and gave him some more scut work to do.

Make no mistake there was NO love lost between these two and the hatred likely festered until LBJ’s primo opportunity transpired – just before he was about to be investigated for his role in the Bobby Baker scandal.  The Johnson image purveyors who want to remake his image ought to be ashamed of themselves. If they had any scintilla of shame they'd keep themselves in the shadows lest we spill more beans about what LBJ did, and which they don't want circulated.

All this may appall some delusional Americans, and I can picture some of them holding fingers to their ears screaming ‘La la la la la la”.. But they had better damned well wake up to the facts. This guy not only saw to it Kennedy was offed, and he could take his sordid place in history without being prosecuted, he also paved the way for the Vietnam war as payback to his nefarious  allies (especially in the national security state) who helped him do it!

I understand Luci Baines’ effort to rehabilitate the old man’s “legacy” – but if she really had a clue, and an interest in national history, she’d be trying to expose the truth of how he came even remotely being able to have a legacy (as President) in the first place.

Enough political bullshit! We deserve the TRUTH and most of us, I believe, can handle it!

---

[1] See also: Phillip F. Nelson: 2013, LBJ – The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination, Skyhorse Publications, p. 309.

2 Barr McLellan: 2003, Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K., Hanover House, p. 8.

3 Ibid.

4 McLellan, op. cit., page 159

Frequently Asked Questions on the JFK Assassination (4a): The Warren Commission

BACKGROUND: Arguably, the Warren Commission lies at the heart of the near 50-year old coverup of the facts pertaining to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The players, the investigation itself, and above all the person who orchestrated it: Lyndon Baines Johnson.("The best way to commit the perfect crime is to be in charge of the investigation that follows.”) Among the chief clues for Johnson's involvement, is the fact that the members were all hand-selected -appointed by LBJ who, in the words of researcher Russ Baker:

"was the chief beneficiary of the assassination, having immediately replaced the dead President to become the 36th President of the United States."

Obviously, this alone doesn't amount to much unless we also dig deeper and understand what the deep politics were leading up to the hit. There was first Johnson's profound sense of entitlement to the highest office. Johnson personally felt Jack stole the 1960 nomination from him using a political end around worked out by the Kennedy campaign planners, including his father Joe in cahoots with Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago. Johnson felt a supreme entitlement to the Presidency (some would say he believed he had a destiny), based on his Senate leadership, but he was wrong. Jack Kennedy outmaneuvered him in the primaries and had the mainstays of the Party sign on to ensure his success at the LA Convention. (In fact, as the authors of Dallas 1963 document, there was actually a brawl on the convention floor (unattended to by the national media) between the Texas delegation and Massachusetts when Kennedy was nominated on the first go round and LBJ wasn't.

But instead of acting like a grownup, LBJ forever pouted and held in his grievance that the office had been "stolen", by his overt and covert behavior. This is very well confirmed in Evelyn Lincoln’s book: Kennedy and Johnson, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968, pp. 149-151. Therein JFK’s former Secretary makes known how LBJ would enter the West Wing each morning – through one of the doors into her office, and "hang around". On one occasion, Kennedy surprised him by already being present in his office. He later went to Lincoln and asked her: “What is he doing in these offices?” Clearly, LBJ felt he belonged in those (West Wing) offices, perhaps one reason he once suggested “sharing” the presidency as “co-president”. (Jack wouldn't take him remotely seriously, dismissing the suggestiion as a poor joke before shagging LBJ back to his own humble digs- and providing him with extra make-work!)

While the Bill Sol Estes circus slowly seeped into the background by mid-1963, the same couldn’t be said for Johnson’s close personal friend, Robert G. (“Bobby”) Baker- the Secretary to the Senate Democratic Caucus, and key player as the Baker scandal erupted. The scandal revolved around Baker’s influence peddling and by mid –September it had become embarrasingly public. Kennedy, always leery of his political self-interest, gave the go-ahead for full and open investigation, leading to Baker’s public resignation on Oct. 7, 1963.)

Kennedy ultimately realized that any 1964 ticket with LBJ would be irreparably tarred, and this probably resulted in his expressed intent to have him removed, as signified by his last dictation to Secretary Evelyn Lincoln, before his Texas trip (documented in her aforementioned book). This assuredly signed Kennedy’s death warrant. It meant that Johnson had to organize some way of eliminating Kennedy, since there was no other way to ascend to the highest office. LBJ knew from his pal Hoover that even JFK’s dalliances wouldn’t cost him politically, he was too popular, charismatic.

Beyond all this, Johnson's own words comprise perhaps the biggest 'smoking gun'. They were caught on tape in a phone call to Sen. Richard Russell, after LBJ had been initially rejected by Earl Warren to lead the Commission. Johnson needed the credibility of Warren so the media would accept the commission as a bona fide government entity as opposed to a creature of Johnson's whim and machinations. (Johnson’s first kneejerk reaction was to form a “Texas Commission” to look into the assassination, with staff entirely composed of Texans.). Anyway, Johnson's taped words were - after speaking to Warren (cf. Michael R. Beschloss, Taking Charge:The Johnson White House Tapes 1963-64, 1997, p. 72, as cited by Russ Baker, in 'Family of Secrets', p. 46):

"Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances...He came down here and told me 'No'...twice. And I just pulled out what[FBI Director} Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City....And he started crying and said: 'I won't turn you down...I'll just do whatever you say.'

Texas hogswill? Hardly. Not when seen in the context of other LBJ actions. What we have here is insight into the man's character and that he wasn't anything near the upstanding "liberal" Prez so many of his followers (like Bill Moyers) have made him out to be. It shows he'd resort to blackmail to coerce the Chief Justice to confer gravitas on his commission - and in so doing it shows he'd stoop to anything to have that commission be a political whitewash. Now on to the questions:

Who were the Warren Commissioners?

In alphabetical order, the Warren Commissioners were:

Rep. Hale Boggs
Sen. John Sherman Cooper
Mr. Allen Dulles
Rep. Gerald R. Ford
Mr. John J. McCloy
Sen. Richard B. Russell
Chief Justice Earl Warren

What were the backgrounds of the Commissioners?

Hale Boggs

Hale Boggs was a representative from Louisiana. By 1971 he began to have reservations about the Warren Commission. About a year later Boggs was killed in a mysterious plane crash in Alaska.

John Sherman Cooper

John Sherman Cooper was a Republican Senator from Kentucky, with diplomatic corps background. Also, he joined forces with Richard Russell and threatened to write a minority report if the Commission did not stress the 'information gap' regarding Oswald's alleged activities in Mexico City.

Allen Dulles:

Allen Dulles, was the CIA Director until fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs. Up to that time, Dulles "was the CIA", he shaped it into an invisible government during his eight years as head of the agency. Without a doubt Dulles controlled much of the information, files available to the Commission. If it didn't meet his covert agenda, the Commission didn't see it. This includes Oswald's 201 files.

Gerald R. Ford:

Gerald R. Ford was a Republican Michigan House Representative. Ford was also the author of a subsequent book 'Portrait of the Assassin' about Lee Harvey Oswald's role as the alleged lone assassin. Ford - since further files have been released- is perhaps most infamous for altereing key words, sentences in an autopsy report to mislead on the location of the bullet to Kennedy's back. He altered the report to try to portray the bullet as striking in the base of the neck. To see more on this, including the actual changed notes, as well as a NY Times piece on it, check out my Oct. 20 blog ('Joe Klein Loses It').

He also denied that he used "secret materials (not previously published by the Commission) for his book on Oswald and when questioned about this in his 1973 vice presidential confirmation hearings, would deny it.

John J. McCloy:

McCloy, as many sources note, could almost be an honorary member of the Rockefeller family. The law firm he was associated with had represented Standard Oil, a Rockefeller property, in the 1920's and 1930's." (Coup d'etat in the United States, p. 184) McCloy's career, it should be noted, began long before and lasted long after Kennedy's presidency. In addition to being on the WC, McCloy was chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, a member of the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) and of the Ford Foundation' as well as President of the World Bank; High Commissioner in Germany after World War II; and a representative of the major oil companies. McCloy was also the one who engineered the merger of the Chase and Manhattan banks into the Chase Manhattan.(ibid. ).

An insight into the McCloy's character is provided by the fact that he was the one who supervised the infamous wartime internment program, in which more than 100,000 Japanese- American citizens were rounded up and placed in prison camps. His fascist nature also emerged when asked about this policy and he responded: "Why the Constitution is just a scrap of paper to me"

Richard B. Russell:

Richard B. Russell was a Democratic Senator from Georgia. Like Cooper and Boggs, he parted company with many of the Commission's findings. In January 1970, for example, he publicly expressed doubts about the validity of the Commission's findings on a WAB-TV interview taped in Atlanta. A short time later he died of 'natural causes'.

Earl Warren:

Chief Justice at the time, and originally appointed to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower in 1953. On examining the composition of the Commission - particularly its Rockefeller finance-intelligence links, it's clear that Warren was merely a "titular head of the Warren Commission" with the real power and direction emanating from 'elsewhere'- like Dulles. As we saw Warren was forcibly "drafted" by LBJ using blackmail - compliments of some of Hoover's choice files.

Who were the 'key players' on the Commission?

According to the sheer proportion of questions asked, the two 'key players' were: Allan Dulles (the CIA's man on the commission - never mind he was fired, he was still the primary liasion with the 'company') and Gerald Ford (the FBI's man on the Commission) ('Treachery in Dallas', 1995: Brown, W., Carroll & Graf Publishers, p. 278)

Of all 7 commissioners, Dulles asked the highest frequency of questions: 2,514 (ibid.) and Ford was next with 1, 722 (ibid.)

Other commissioners and frequencies (op.cit., p278):

John Sherman Cooper - 926

John McCloy - 795

Earl Warren - 608

Hale Boggs - 460

Richard Russell - 249

This is a grand total of 6,964 total questions asked by the seven formal Commissioners per se, of which 4,236 or nearly 61% were asked by Dulles and Ford.

Were the Commissioners the only ones that asked questions?

No. A total of 30,133 other questions were asked by Commission Staff Counsels (e.g. David Belin, William Coleman etc.) with the Commissioners present.

This means there were only a total of (6,964/ 37,097) or about 18.8% of questions that were by the Commissioners themselves, of witnesses in their presence. However, the ancillary support staff asked another 72,833 questions with the seven Commissioners *not* present.(op.cit., pp278-81).

This means that a total of only (6,964/ 109,930) or 6.33% of questions were asked directly by the seven Commissioners themselves - of the total questions asked by them and their support staff or counsels etc.

This minuscule proportion comports with a comment made by McCloy himself, to wit: (op. cit., p276):

"The commissioners themselves regarded their committment to the investigation as a part time responsibility....There was neither the time *nor the political will* to conduct a thorough investigation."

Point: If most of the key players (e.g. Ford, McCloy, Dulles) knew the whole thing was a sham and a whitewash, compliments of LBJ, why would they bother to invest anything more than part time attention?

McCloy's remark, clearly, is a direct admission that the WC scope was delimited from the outset - not only by dint of volume of work to do, but because political issues were at work (i.e. Saving LBJ's ass.) This is something the Warren Commission adherents must acknowledge, at the very least, if they are to be taken honestly. Such remarks (as have circulated among some true lone nut believers from time to time)like: "the Commissioners all had full jobs, they did this part time" - is certainly not commendable. Indeed, it shows the Warren Commission for the snow job it was, i.e. that it invoked the name cachet of these seven gentlemen (dubious for 3 of them), to bestow the aura of 'official sanction', then used lower level lawyers and lackeys for the real work. The crucial work of questioning witnesses and asking real questions - not 'mock' questions.

Finally, it is worthwhile to note (ibid.):

"The Warren Commission asked 109,930 questions to 488 witnesses from February 3, 1964, to September 15, 1964. It is a clear indication of the uselessness of the commission's work that they were 'created' on November 29, 1963, but heard no witnesses for sixty six (66) days."

To be continued...

Vince Bugliosi's Magnificent Obsession - and Delusion!

"How do we know that our own rational rejections of conspiracy theories are not themselves infected with beliefs so strong that they are, in effect, conspiracy theories too?"

- Matt Ridley in 'Maybe We're All Conspiracy Theorists',  The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10-11, 2011


Two days after my dad's funeral in Port Charlotte, FL, on Sunday, July, 19, 2009, I found myself with some time on my hands and decided to trek down to the 'Books-a-Million' bookstore in Murdock about a half mile from The Days Inn where I was staying. My objective was to attempt to at least get a hold of Vince Bugliosi's book, 'Reclaiming History' - his Magnum Opus on the Kennedy assassination and the claim that the case was essentially a wrap and "Oswald done it".  But rather than offer his brief (no pun intended) in a more or less digestible form, Bugliosi went off the deep end with over 1,518 pages of main text supplemented with a CD containing 958 pages of End Notes and 170 pages of footnotes. In other words, a total of 2,646 fulsome pages, to say what? That Oswald acted alone and oh by the way, the main evidence was his rifle and refusal to 'fess up!

Anyway, I was informed by a clerk at the Murdock 'Books-a-Million' that they didn't carry the "cinder block"  (her appellation) and further, she was not aware of any stores in the area that did. It took up way too much space, was too heavy and bulky ...and besides...did I not know it was "remaindered" after a year? ("Remaindered" means a book's life expectancy for any kind of continued reader interest has basically expired and most of the left over copies, of which there were likely hundreds of thousands, are either scrapped or made available to discount book sellers, like Edward R. Hamilton Bookseller, of Falls Village, CT. )

Unable to get Bugliosi's monstrosity I passed the time reading an excellent book entitled 'The Riemann Hypothesis', by Karl Sabbagh (which I ultimately purchased).

Still, I had to deal with Bugliosi's claims in some way in one of the chapters (Three) of my own book: The JFK Assassination: The Final Analysis. Fortunately, on returning home, I found a distillation of Bugliosi's complaints in an AARP Magazine article entitled, 'Six Myths About JFK's Assassination'.
What I plan to do in this and the next several blogs is challenge each of Buglisoi's Myths, and show why his case falls apart, and indeed, why he's compiled 2,646 pages of content for nothing. This is why I refer to the work as a "magnificent obsession" predicated on delusion. (For those who'd like a comprehensive review of Bugliosi' book, you can check out James Di Eugenio's online, entitled, 'Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman and Bugliosi's Bungle'. )

How did comedian and HBO mini-series (e.g. 'The Pacific') producer Hanks get into the picture? Well, evidently Tom plans to do a 13-part series next year - based on Bugliosi's material - for a 50th anniversary "last chance" effort to disabuse thinking Americans of conspiracy in the JFK assassination.  Nice try, Tom, but you're wasting your time and HBO's money, as I will show. The balance of evidence is that Bugliosi doesn't have a clue, and the size of his book cannot be interpreted as any barometer of facts, history or truth!

Anyway, let's go to some of Bugliosi's "myths":

Myth 1 : LBJ was involved:

Here, Bugliosi is hostage to his own emotional impediments, as I believe too many Americans have been, for over 49 years.  Simply put, their brains melt down into cognitive dissonant mode when remotely confronted with the probability (which too many deem "unthinkable").  In fact, Johnson is the leading suspect as facilitator, who had more than ample means, motive and opportunity to organize the motorcade route, personnel, motorcade seating etc., and we know he controlled the investigation that followed (via the bogus Warren Commission).  Some have opined this basis is such a “gimme”, based on past human history (the ‘Et tu, Brute’ paradigm) that it’s a no—brainer. Well, perhaps  for Italians (familiar with the Borgias) not for Mom, Apple pie, Flag –waving Americans!

Now the term "involved" is tricky so we need to make clear the level of involvement. No one would say LBJ was the prime "mastermind" or "architect" here, only that he was aware of the clique that was (likely an alliance of Big Oil, military higher ups - such as Gen. Curtis Le May, sick of what they saw as Kennedy "appeasement" -especially in the Bay of Pigs, and then the Oct. 1962 Cuban Missile crisis- and renegade CIA assets) and that he'd "cooperate" with them. The payoff? Finally having his dream come true and sitting in the Oval office. (In return, most serious researchers believe he signed National Security Action Memorandum 273, to overturn Kennedy's NSAM-263 - which otherwise would have seen all U.S. military pull out of Viet Nam by the end of 1965. In other words, the price for getting his wish was giving the militarists and Oil men their war.)

History is an important basis by which to logically justify this claim, so it's critical we know some details. There was first Johnson's profound sense of entitlement to the highest office. Johnson personally felt Jack stole the 1960 nomination from him using a political end around worked out by the Kennedy campaign planners, including his father Joe in cahoots with Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago. Johnson felt a supreme entitlement to the Presidency (some would say he believed he had a destiny), based on his Senate leadership, but he was wrong. Jack Kennedy outmaneuvered him in the primaries and had the mainstays of the Party sign on to ensure his success at the LA Convention.

But instead of acting like a grownup, LBJ forever pouted and held in his grievance that the office had been "stolen", by his overt and covert behavior.  This is very well confirmed in Evelyn Lincoln’s book: Kennedy and Johnson,  Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968, pp. 149-151. Therein JFK’s former Secretary makes known how LBJ would enter the West Wing each morning – through one of the doors into her office, and "hang around". On one occasion, Kennedy surprised him by already being present in his office. He later went to Lincoln and asked her: “What is he doing in these offices?” Clearly, LBJ felt he belonged in those (West Wing) offices, perhaps one reason he once suggested “sharing” the presidency as “co-president”. (Jack wouldn't take him remotely seriously, dismissing the suggestiion as a poor joke before shagging LBJ back to his own humble digs- and providing him with extra make-work!)

While the Bill Sol Estes circus slowly seeped into the background by mid-1963, the same couldn’t be said for Johnson’s close personal friend, Robert G. (“Bobby”) Baker- the Secretary to the Senate Democratic Caucus, and key player as the Baker scandal erupted. The scandal revolved around Baker’s influence peddling and by mid –September it had become embarrasingly public.  Kennedy, always leery of his political self-interest,  gave the go-ahead for full and open investigation, leading to Baker’s public resignation on Oct. 7, 1963.
 
Kennedy ultimately realized that any 1964 ticket with LBJ  would be irreparably tarred, and this probably resulted in his expressed intent to have him removed, as signified by his last dictation to Secretary Evelyn Lincoln, before his Texas trip (documented in her aforementioned book). This assuredly signed Kennedy’s death warrant. It meant that Johnson had to organize some way of eliminating Kennedy, since there was no other way to ascend to the highest office. LBJ knew from his pal Hoover that even JFK’s dalliances wouldn’t cost him politically, he was too popular, charismatic.
 
It appears certain that by October, 1963, Johnson made known his wishes to be part of expediting any assassination effort up to and including laying down the motorcade route and possibly choosing the personnel to ride in the key cars. The most likely and plausible link or contact was probably Texas Oilman H.L Hunt who himself detested JFK as a "communist", and was responsible for having produced the ‘Wanted for Treason’ posters put up all over Dallas on the day of the assassination. Readers can view one of the posters at this link from an earlier blog (the content concerning Gen. Curtis LeMay will also be of interest):
 
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/01/50-year-old-jfk-tapes-released-what-is.html
 
Hunt also had lambasted JFK’s Catholicism in his ‘Facts Forum’ talk radio show. The connection to Johnson was exposed when the Senate commenced an investigation into Hunt for violating federal election laws (in the 1960 campaign)  after he dispatched 200,000 pamphlets excoriating JFK’s Catholicism and instilling the fear that the pope would rule and religious freedoms be destroyed. The Senate investigation was called off after Hunt apologized, saying he was “only trying to help Lyndon".
 
Ex post facto, the most revealing evidence for Johnson’s complicity in the assassination was his deplorable and criminal behavior starting with the strategic destruction of evidence. Worse, it was done with unseemly haste. Within just 12-72 hours of the assassination, all of the following evidence was either confiscated, totally compromised, lost, or destroyed:

-The alleged Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (remains at National Archives – inaccessible)

- Kennedy’s brain (missing from the time the body arrived at Bethesda)
- All of Kennedy’s clothing (ordered destroyed)

- The blood spattered and bullet- impacted limousine (ordered dispatched to Ohio, where it was disassembled, then completely rebuilt)

- Zapruder film (seized and altered with attempted juxtaposition of frames at TIME-Life, Inc.)

- The original autopsy notes of Dr. J.J. Humes (Humes burned them).

- Kennedy’s skull (re-imaged using mattes in re-done autopsy photos to make the massive wounds appear in the front and the entry wound in the rear- to comport with the Warren Commission Single Bullet theory)

Note that none of these could be done by the Mafia, angry Cubans or even rogue CIA agents. The orders had to come from the top, since the evidence was all material, and in addition under control (at various times) of federal agencies, including: FBI, and Secret Service. In fact, the relevant records disclose that none other than long time LBJ right hand man Cliff Carter (one of the co-conspirators found guilty by a 1984 grand jury in the Henry Harvey Marshall slaying) gave orders for the actions which, if refused, were followed up by Johnson himself making telephone demands.(cf. Noel Twyman, in Bloody Treason, p. 792)

Johnson also violated federal and state law with this type of usurpation, destruction of material evidence, not to mention hijacking Kennedy’s body instead of allowing the autopsy to be performed at the same Parkland Hospital in Dallas. But, of course, in that event the body would be out of Johnson’s control and he’d be unable to order removal of the brain (with the bullet cavitation path), or have the staff he needed rebuild Kennedy’s cranium to conform to the rear shot, lone –nut myth. The deliberate delay of Johnson in remaining in Dallas (until the oath of office was taken)  also plays into this. As Noel Twyman observes (op. cit. p. 797):

“Johnson’s insistence on taking the oath in Dallas and delaying the flight back to Washington raises the suspicion that he wanted to take control of Kennedy’s body, which was also placed on Air Force One.”

More ominously, after settling in with the power of the presidency at his disposal, Johnson’s first kneejerk reaction was to form a “Texas Commission” to look into the assassination, with staff entirely composed of Texans. When eyebrows were raised and not a few tongues, he changed tactics and instead (ibid.):

“..ordered that the entire investigation be conducted by the FBI under the supervision of J. Edgar Hoover. Furthermore, he ordered all other investigations under federal government or local government to be stopped. This placed Johnson in virtual control of the investigation through J. Edgar Hoover, who detested the Kennedys and had everything to gain by John Kennedy’s death, and everything to lose if Kennedy lived.”

Why, if Johnson had been seriously committed to learning the truth in the assassination, would he go this route? Why terminate all other investigations when they might turn up significant leads and critical information that his Warren Commission couldn’t? Why appoint Hoover at the helm, when it was already revealed he failed to act on known information that Carlos Marcello planned to eliminate Kennedy, from as far back as September, 1962, thus making Hoover a traitor? (See, e.g.: Mark North: 1991, Act of Treason: The Role of J. Edgar Hoover in the Assassination of President Kennedy,Carroll & Graf Publishers).


Again, the purpose was to control all key material evidence: allow what could be easily ambiguated or compromised, and reject the rest. Also, hand-pick a “commission"  that would knuckle under both to Hoover, and to Allan Dulles, the former CIA Director fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs, and (incredibly) named as one of the key Commission members by LBJ.

Thus, by way of his creation of The Warren Commission on November 29, 1963, LBJ acquired the total power to block any House, Senate or Texas state investigations, while awarding himself the power to control all evidence that might possibly surface, and either ignore it, suppress it or allow it to be distorted- thereby further distancing himself, all in the name of “seeking justice”.  To quote a notable wit: “To commit the perfect crime it is only necessary to be in charge of the investigation that follows.” 

Hence, it’s logically plausible that by examining the warp and woof of Johnson’s Commission, we can at least gain an approximate perception of his degree of involvement, ex post facto. If the inquiry itself was a sham, and a put-on, then more than likely the whole Warren Commission was merely the contrived, complex pseudo-legal artifice to conceal LBJ’s cooperation or compliance in the actual Kennedy killing.

Readers can see my in -depth skewering of the Warren Commission (as a Whitewash) in the context of Stephen King's recent novel, 'November 22, 1963':

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/stephen-kings-new-scifi-tale-fun-but.html