Final_Judgment

643 Questions & Answers [547]
LBJ was the most immediate beneficiary of JFK's murder. Whether he knew
it was going to take place or actually played a part in setting up the
assassination is another matter altogether. The fact he was the beneficiary of
the assassination, however, is not enough evidence to convict him. Craig
Zirbel's book The Texas Connection that pinned the JFK assassination
solely on LBJ was off base. LBJ was not the mastermind of the JFK
assassination. Barr McClellan's 2003 book, Blood, Money & Power, has
received far more attention that Zirbel's. McClellan's book is no more than
an extended (and poorly written and occasionally indecipherable)
hodgepodge of LBJ's Texas antics with a highly speculative—that's putting
it lightly—scenario involving a plot to kill JFK entirely Texas-based.
The author never once suggests that the CIA had any hand in the affair
and even claims Oswald was one of the assassins—essentially an affirmation
of the Warren Report!
While it's possible one of LBJ's old Texas cronies, Mac Wallace was
indeed drafted into the conspiracy and was in the Texas School Book
Depository—as McClellan claims to have evidence to prove—that doesn't
prove the entirety of McClellan's "theory": that LBJ's attorney Ed Clark,
crafted the JFK conspiracy. In truth, the Mossad and the CIA would have
been smart to implicate one of Johnson's Texas hands in the assassination
including either Wallace or Clark in order to ensure a cover-up by LBJ after
the fact. But I seem to be the only McClellan critic who has bothered to
mention that possibility.
McClellan even creates alleged conversations—in extensive detail—
between LBJ and the conspirators, said conversations designed to "prove" his
theory. Littered with amazing qualifiers, noting that conversations and
events "undoubtedly" or "almost certainly" took place, the book is pretty bad,
despite all the friendly publicity it has received in the "mainstream" media.
Evidently the controllers of the media have concluded that "the lowest common
denominator"—the idea a vice-president would be behind the killing of a
president—is the one theory that satisfies everybody.
One more point, the author (McClellan) just happens to be the father of
the press secretary for President George W. Bush, son of the former
president (and CIA director) George H. W. Bush. Could that perhaps
explain why McClellan's book doesn't have anything to say about all of the
known and thoroughly documented CIA intrigue involving Oswald? Or am I
just being one of those "conspiracy theorists" by raising the question?
Final Judgment seems to hinge largely on the fact that Clay Shaw,
prosecuted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for
involvement in the JFK assassination, had ties to the Mossad through
the Permindex company. What if Shaw actually had nothing to do with
the conspiracy? Doesn't that mean your whole thesis is off base?
Not at all. In fact, Final Judgment could stand entirely on its own with
the thesis intact even if Clay Shaw had never lived. There are so many
multiple connections to the Mossad through so many others who were