When assassinations occur, though, they seem to follow the pattern of a nobody, a loser, operating alone in the darkness of their own soul. I don't think that argument makes sense.ĭo we care about the phrase 'grassy knoll' anymore? If the CIA failed to pick up on leads, they would look bad, but it wouldn't be the people today who would look bad. If they're protecting public confidence in the CIA, I don't see what good that does. I can’t think of any motive other than protecting sources and methods. I’ve also read that they don’t want to give up sources in Mexico related to Oswald’s trips to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. You can make your own judgments.Īpparently, they don’t want to give up intelligence-gathering methods. Bush was a CIA guy, and perhaps he was helping the agency keep some of its secrets. You can engage in speculation-George H.W. I have no idea, except that the government of the United States has a penchant for secrecy. Why did Congress impose the waiting period, and after 25 years of buildup, why did President Trump still decide to withhold some documents pending further review, at least temporarily? I'm always open to new evidence, but the Kennedy brothers died believing the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald acted alone-that he was an antisocial person who wanted to kill the president to make a statement.

People have free will, and they do things they shouldn't do. Everything is preventable, and everything bad that occurs shouldn't have happened. Probably. Today, everything that goes wrong is somebody’s mistake. With all that in mind, if the Kennedy assassination had happened today, would we describe it as an intelligence failure?

JACK KENNEDY by Chris Matthews