> Did you ever read leftie-lawyer Mark Lane on the Warren Commission? That
> bloke really knew how to research! And manages to scream 'conspiracy'
> without looking one bit a black chopper type (although I remember erstwhile
> friend Stanley Aronowitz criticising him for it in *The Sixties Without
> Apology*).
Ahh, Mark Lane. He was the first point man for the argument that the Warren Commission report was nothing but a cover-up--that that was its purpose. There were a lot of books on the topic, but his got particular attention. It was early, thorough, and he was articulate and reveled in controversy. He would show up on talk shows--often appearing between a juggler and actor plugging a movie--and give his spiel. He had a distinct sense of calm about him, which stood him in good stead as he explained how the most respected public figures in the country were lying.
Still, over time he was marginalized by the same media that had run all the original stories treating the single bullet theory as palpable fact. Over time, polls showed that increasing numbers did not believe the WC report, but the media filed that under general discontent with government, a folder that began fill up fast as first the Vietnam lies and then Watergate followed a scant 7-8 years after the WC report. They, the major media, never asked any important questions about what if the WC report was wrong. The discontent and disbelief has been growing ever since. But other things, other lies, always seeming more immediate, have crowded out from most people's minds the topic of who killed Kennedy (how and why the gov't changed hands), so that the assassination seems awful remote now. But many Americans first started considering that the WC report was false because of Lane.
> The Warren Commission was an absolute outrage ('sleight of
> hand' implies they exhibited the dexterity of a magician, and it was not
> nearly that impressive), and I am stunned its members got off so lightly.
> Both its processes and findings have carried the last thirty-six years
> through sheer hegemonic power (perhaps one manifestation has been the
> enduring identification of suspicion of conspiracy with laughable lunacy),
> for the thing itself was eye-rollingly pathetic.
Agreed. No sleight of hand was involved.
Well, how hard is it for the executive committee of the political branch of the ruling class to get away with things? Particularly when their message is don't worry, everything is all right, JFK was killed by a lunatic (which most people want to believe). And they have a pliant media to deliver the message at will and ridicule dissenters. None of the figurehead signers of the report were ever in the least damaged as far as I can tell. Gerald Ford, e.g., was picked by Nixon to become his VP in part to restore *credibility* to his administration after Watergate (besides the fact that he could depend on Ford to pardon him for his crimes when he left office).
On this list, it took only a few gentle ripostes on the topic to produce claims it is either boring, irrelevant, or a sign of a lack of analytical rigor, since, everyone knows, resorting to discussion of a conspiracy is a substitute for clear thought about material conditions (a variant of such opinions even having apparently engulfed the esteamed moderator).
A conspiracy is an agreement between 2 or more people to commit a crime or illegal act. You can only deny the Kennedy killing was a conspiracy by embracing the single bullet theory. Good luck with that one.
RO