From a more historical, rather than psychological perspective, the pre- and post-assassination political scape has the appearance of nothing so much as a clandestine conflict, and then an armistice between warring factions. The Old Establishment was evidently forced to recognize the deadly power and seriousness of the insurgency of the New, and was compelled to make peace with concessions. The Old buried their President quietly, relinquished exclusive hegemony over the instruments of national dominance, the CIA, FBI, and military. The New, some of the more public members of whom we've come to recognize as "Neocons", ceded their Mafia and Cuban allies (who would be mostly pardoned, but reduced and marginalized to their local fiefdoms), and gave up their aspirations for a return of Cuba, in exchange for legitimacy and a significant share of imperial power - and they got their most lucrative war in Vietnam.
Thus Richard Helms, the rogue Deputy in the CIA, would be promoted to Director. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs would be the heavy hand on the Warren Commission. The Old Establishment had to reconcile themselves to LBJ's right of succession, and to a Presidency now answerable to both factions. For his part LBJ had to accept much of the Old Administration bequeathed to him, with the notable exception of RFK. Some members of the Mafia and the Exile Community would have to be eliminated as untrustworthy or beyond redemption, but for the rest it would be business like usual. Other minor and regional allies of the Old and New, including the media and the politicians who come and go, remained as before, loose factions of Democrats and Republicans. Meanwhile, representatives of the New would be restored (Nixon) or groomed (Goldwater, Reagan, and Bush the Senior) for the new opportunities.
Ultimate Sacrifice is a good and worthwhile historical reference, as far as it goes. But beyond the authors' (Waldron's?) rather romantic vision of our government, there are troubling indications of an illiberal bias. They (Waldron?) conclude with a sympathetic recognition of the Cuban "exiles who risked their lives for a cause they believed in" (p786). Many if not most of the Exiles were intent on restoring the oppressive Mafia/US corporate haven that was pre-Castro Cuba. That's certainly a cause, and no doubt they believed in it, but it's perplexing that Thom Hartmann would lend his name to such a laudatory acknowledgment. Much of the secrecy surrounding JFK's assassination is said to have "a legitimate basis in national security" (p17), but if the basis is not just protection of the guilty and/or the moot plan for international subversion, we're left to our own imaginations of what it might be.
The conspirators in the assassination of JFK, the insurgents, the New Establishment then and now, have little regard for the Constitution, and the rule of law in general - much less than their abiding adversaries, the Old Establishment. To lay exclusive blame for the JFK assassination on relatively minor operatives is to obfuscate what may be the most crucial problem of our time, the rise of a lawless ruling elite. The Kennedy assassination is still relevant as the foothold in power for those elements, and no thanks to Ultimate Sacrifice, the full disclosure of who conspired, and who has benefited, remains to be done.
There are no "legitimate national security" issues for secrecy from the JFK assassination in 1963. The acknowledgment of the culpability of members of our government, and the release of all related classified information is in our national interest, and the real legitimate basis for our national security.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
