Charles Brown wrote:
> I think the short answer is that from our perspective Kennedy was a bourgeois politician and certainly a representative of the bourgeoisie, but within the bourgeoisie a sharp enough conflict developed that the most reactionary sector decided he had to go.
As much common ground as I share with Charles, on this I have to admit he is (in addition to being just plain dippy) wrong politically. There has never been since WW 2 the kind of deep split in the ruling class which would make this kind of conspiracy likely. In fact the actual political effect (for most people -- e.g., Oliver Stone) of believing in a Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy is to build up the notion that there exists a liberalism which can be distinguished from the liberalism that lay waste to Vietnam. Kennedy was every bit as much a war criminal as Johnson, Nixon, etc. -- and his fellow war criminals appreciated that fact. After all, his inaugural address remains the controlling position paper or manifesto of U.S. imperialism, including the use of humanitarian bombing.
Carrol