Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- Apocalypse Fairly Soon: The Moment of Truth in Europe
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- NDAA's 'Indefinite Detention' Provisions Unconstitutional, says Judge
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
Popular content
Today's Top News
My Bobby Kennedy and Yours
Even after all these years, Canton, New York is still a long way from anywhere. The closest major city is Ottawa. But in February 1966, Senator Robert Kennedy made the trek to the north country to take our pulse on the issues of the day, in particular, Vietnam.
My friend, Timothy Evans, and I seized an opportunity and taped the senator's speech, on my reel to reel machine. That tape stayed in my hands for forty-one years until I had it copied for the St. Lawrence University archives.
Bobby Kennedy's talk that day may have been routine for him, but it was electric for us. The closer you got to him, the more you felt the positive charge. Everywhere he went -- and not just because he carried the banner of his assassinated brother, the President -- Bobby infused his circumstances with crackling energy. His political jokes about the loyal opposition were trenchant but never ad hominem. His perorations on poverty in the third world, Appalachia or Harlem were founded on data he memorized with compassionate attention and driven by a compelling moral logic that said "this is not right." His sheer earnestness was palpable. At the end of the speech, Bobby passed straight up the auditorium aisle, the better to press the flesh. I ran downstairs to shake his hand. We shared a nanosecond of eye contact, and I felt the searing heat of his incandescent smile. I have never forgotten the frisson of that encounter.
Reviewing his St. Lawrence speech nowadays, however, I see that the Bobby we heard then is not the Bobby most of us choose to remember. He was still months away from concluding that his brother's policy of military engagement in Viet Nam, intended to staunch a spreading communism in Southeast Asia, was a geopolitical strategic mistake. He had yet to admit to himself what so many college students had already surmised, that the American-sponsored South Vietnamese government was incorrigibly corrupt; that North Viet Nam's leader, Ho Chi Minh, was a revolutionary fighter against whom no assemblage of military hardware and no number of troops would ever win a decisive victory. And, he could not yet see that the war would become so unpopular among younger, Americans that it was soon to be lost on the home front. Nor could Bobby foresee how this fruitless war would bring down President Johnson, opening a door for Eugene McCarthy, or even for Robert Kennedy, to run for president on an anti-war platform.
At SLU, Bobby spun a web of rhetorical questions about staying the course in Viet Nam, intensifying the bombing, leveraging the parties to the negotiating table, engaging with or disregarding the Chinese and Soviets. Clearly, he was churning options in his own mind, while maintaining apparent loyalty to LBJ's war which was, after all, an extension of JFK's.
Yet, in time, with the increasing polarization of the country and the stunning surprise of a successful presidential primary campaign in New Hampshire that catapulted Senator McCarthy to prominence as the anti-war candidate..., in time Bobby changed his entire posture. He plunged into the race, pushed upstart McCarthy aside, and reveled in the open space created by LBJ's withdrawal from consideration for another term. We all know the rest. After a string of inspiring primary victories, culminating in California, Bobby, like his brother, and like Martin Luther King just months earlier, was brought down by a dissident's bullet.
From grad school in Charlottesville, I watched Bobby give his victory speech in that California hotel, late at night on June 6, 1968. He flashed the victory sign, saying "And now let's move on to Chicago and the convention...." I turned off the TV, went to bed, and only heard about the shooting the next morning, from my roommate. I was speechless. Later that day, driving homeward toward Buffalo to see my parents, I pulled off to the roadside and wept uncontrollably.
What explains the intensity of all this emotion -- emanating from Bobby Kennedy and swirling around him? It was not just his abundant charm with its high political value. He had rare power because he carried within him the amalgam of his own hopes and his dead brother's, for the country and the world. Most of all, the magic lay in a simple fact. It was his resolute belief in himself, plus our willing belief in him, that he would become -- that he could indeed make us all become -- agents of transformative change. Bobby compelled us to think that profound social change was never merely about tinkering with legislation or jiggering government budgets. Rather, fundamental change requires subjecting to honest scrutiny deeply held values that might have outlived their usefulness or might never have had any genuine legitimacy.
Last year, visiting Powell's Books, in Portland, I found something priceless in the rare book room. A smallish book, rebound in blue calf, with new end papers, spine stamped in gold leaf, inscribed to a friend by its author in about 1967. Robert Kennedy's To Seek a Newer World reflects his growing discomfort with the way things were trending in America and abroad. It's the roadmap Bobby would have taken, had he lived to win the presidency. He did not live, and there's the pity, and yet he does.
Bobby was no saint. Occasionally ruthless, he even served for a time, at his nefarious father's behest, as assistant counsel to Senator Joe McCarthy's infamous anti-communist committee. Yet, Bobby had a capacity for growth, right in the public eye, as few politicians ever do. He investigated, pondered, analyzed, and changed course, drawing us onwards with him. Today, when the world seems, again, to be going to hell in a hand basket, with all of us complicit in the planet's undoing, Bobby's model is tonic.
It was the courage to confront the errors of our ways and the losses in our lives that humanized Bobby Kennedy. Victim though he was, he was also triumphant, for he embodied the tragic vision of Aeschylus: "In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
Moving, now, toward the November election, and slouching toward our collective future, we all have regret and shame on our hands, and yet, as Bobby would have had us remember, we can change, and we must, and it can be for the better.
David Emblidge edited Beneath the Metropolis: Secret Lives of Cities (Running Press), "My Day" Eleanor Roosevelt's Acclaimed Columns (Da Capo), The Appalachian Trail Reader (Oxford Univ. Press). Emblidge's essays and reviews have appeared in The New Republic, Saturday Review, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and numerous scholarly journals. His essay "The Palmer Method: Penmanship and the Tenor of Our Time" won the McGinnis Prize for best nonfiction, 2007, in Southwest Review. Formerly Editor-in-Chief at The Mountaineers Books, he is now Associate Professor, Emerson College (Writing, Literature and Publishing Dept.) and is writing a narrative history of American bookstores.
David Emblidge, © 2008

23 Comments so far
Show AllLet me recommend the new book Who Killed Bobby. This was written by the filmaker, Shane O'Sullivan, whose work appeared on the BBC last year. There is a lot of new material in here. You will be surprised at how strong the evidence for conspiracy is. This is no fringe conspiracy theory, but the direction in which most of the direct witnesses and direct investigators point to.
Who Killed Bobby by Shane O'Sullivan.
I also recommend the book on the trial of Sirhan by the late University of Mass. Prof Phillip Melanson and another author by the name of Kraber. Excellent and jaw-dropping description of the trial, that was a bigger scandal than the assassination itself.
It amazes me that so many of us who witnessed the murder of JFK, MLK and RFK still sorrow over their loss. Their dreams live on in those of us that they inspired with their words and deeds. Now younger generations will begin to understand the impact they had on us through Barack Obama. I just hope that this generation will stay vigilant and continue to work towards improving America at home and abroad, Obama can't do it alone it has to be all of us rolling up our sleeves and doing the daily difficult work to restore honor to this nation. When I heard that Obama was the official candidate I reacted with thoughts of promising futures that JFK and RFK represented to our generation over forty years ago and how we watched as each promise was extinquised by others with dark purposes. How we accepted each murder as 'lone crazed assassins' because the alternative was too hard to contemplate. We retreated into losing battles and self indulgences or we sold out and joined the other side, making money and achieving status subplanted making love and achieving peace. Now a new generation has another opportunity to make substantive changes for the greater good of all, how will they react to whatever obstacles will be thrown in their path?
I hope its with more tenacity and courage than our generation was able to muster.
Some time ago, I read a book about Bobby Kennedy. Part of one of his speeches was so impressive that I copied it. Note the monetary amounts and specific issues pertain to 1968. The ideas are still relevant today.
In March of 1968, Robert Kennedy challenged the dearly held concept that pure economic activity (usually measured by the GNP) is an honest way to measure the impact of corporations on the human community. In 1968, he said:
"Our gross national product is now over 800 billion dollars. But that GNP, if we judge the country by that, counts air pollution, cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonders. It counts napalm, nuclear weapons, and armored cars for police to fight riots in cities. It counts rifles and knives and television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to children."
"Yet, the GNP does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not count the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither wit nor courage, neither wisdom or learning, neither compassion or devotion to country. It measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile."
Amazing. So many words, but nobody wants to consider WHY Sirhan shot Bobby. Not even on Democracy Now. Sirhan was Jordanian. In 1967, Israel attacked Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, and grabbed chunks of territory. Rather than condemn the aggression, Bobby was loud in advocating more military aid and advanced weapons for Israel. His assassination was the same sort of blow-back we saw 33 years later on 9/11/01. Our politicians never change.
It's pretty clear that RFK would have ended the Vietnam War or at least reduced it's scope significantly within weeks of entering the White House. He would almost certainly have altered domestic spending priorities also. Furthermore, he might have defeated or blunted Nixon's "Southern strategy" by keeping the Democrat's focus on ending the war and sharing the prosperity. Nobody knows for certain what would have happened, of course. But we know what did happen. We got Nixon's "secret plan for peace": Five more years of war, 30,000 more American dead, 100,000 more wounded, as many as a million SE Asians dead and their economy in ruins for 20 years, Henry Kissinger playing games in Paris for years, then settling for the deal the Vietnamese offered him in 1969, five more years of napalm, white phosphorus, carpet bombing "Christmas bombings", tiger cages, fragging and a vast increase in heroin production in the Golden Triangle. There are many people to blame for all this including millions of dim, intransigent reactionary American voters who voted twice for an obvious megalomaniac and sociopath, Richard Nixon. But if there is one person we can single out for special, focused and irredeemable condemnation, it is that human zero, Sirhan Sirhan. Without his pointless and murderous temper tantrum, who knows how it all might have turned out? Think I'm speculating too much? Maybe but what if Boothe had shot Lincoln in 1862 and Andrew Johnson, a Southern sympathizer, had become president during the war.
Nobody in the Dems has the guts now to say the things Bobby was saying then, about economic justice, about racial equality, about the environment and about US war policy. Even George McGovern wasn't as truthful as Bobby and not nearly as eloquent. Go back and read more of RFK's speches and see what we lost to Sirhan Sirhan's delusions and pathological self-importance.
Bubbasouth, thank you for your post.
Is anyone else bugged by the deification of politicians ? Why exactly are JFK and RFK considered great ? Please do not tell me about their speeches, I can speak too. What did they actually DO ?
JFK is said to have been assasinated by a Communist who supported Cuba (Fidel and Cold War Commies = Bad). But he took a hardline with Israel over it's nuclear development. He also supported Algerian Independence and had close ties with Egyptian President Nasser and supported him in the Yemen civil war. Israel shed no tears over his demise.
RFK is said to have been assasinated by a Palestinian from Jordan over his public support for Israel. (Palestinians and Terrorists = Bad). This support may have been to appease those he believed were involved in taking out JFK . Remember, RFK went after the Jewish Lansky Mafia big time as AG and had made many enemies. Joseph Kennedy Sr. in particular, and the Kennedys in general were believed to be anti-semitic, and RFK had little support in the Jewish community when he started his campaign, and needed to reach out to them (much like Obama did by kneeling at the AIPAC alter). RFK as President likely would have been able to deal justice to those behind JFK's assasination, and as an American, he would have put Americas interests above that of any country. Knowing the truth about the USS Liberty if he took office would have influenced whatever views he had of Israel, since he did not tolerate criminal acts well.
Both of them were Catholics. Both were likely killed by the same group. When a crime is commited, look at who benefits and follow the trail. Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan were patsies. Sirhan Sirhan had all the earmarks of a MK ULTRA program. I am not saying it was an Israeli conspiracy, but a conspiracy by the same group that lead us today and who gave us 9-11. They have a common interest with their Israeli and London elites, and a shared vision of a world order that has brought us Globalization and Free Trade, and Global Fascism. These elements include both Christians and Jews, even Muslim, but their ideology is not defined solely by religion or nationality.
This world would be a very different place today if JFK and RFK were not killed, and it would be a better world than it is. JFK Jr's death in 1999 was also suspicous.
One of the most disappointing things I've observed has been the discarding of RFK's message about US poverty and the poor. So many otherwise-progressive folks seem to have bought all the myths thrown out by the media and (primarily) Republican politicians since the Reagan administration. I am not surprised by either the media's or the general public's indifference toward the suffering of our poor. I am surprised, though, by how little we have examined the long-term consequences of our welfare "reform" policies on all working class (whether currently employed or not) people. It was never difficult to anticipate the impact of the sudden creation of a massive, no-choice workforce that can be paid well below the average wage, regardless of the job. I've yet to see an item that addresses the violations of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights that have been included with these "reform" policies (although, ironically, these policies were enacted the very year we celebrated the 50th anniversary of this international
agreement). There has been little discussion of how these policies have been used to block or break unions, keep wages low, and erode the benefits, rights and protections of all workers.
Today, some talk about creating family-supporting jobs; at best, this will take many years, and we offer little or no help in the meantime.
Maybe this is how history gets re-written -- we simply omit all the stuff that is inconsistent with contemporary ideas.
You CD bloggers are blowing my mind. Turns out you ain't no spring chickens given you memories of events back then and your efforts to interpret them, obviously over many years.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis I was a copy boy to the Editors of the NYTimes, slitting open their mail and depositing it on their desks before they showed up for work. (I was also on occasion attempting to write editorials about Civil Rights and dropping them on the desk of then-editor John B. Oakes...) One of my tasks was to do word counts of editorials. One day, Herbert Matthews, recently returned from Cuba (an anti-Castro picket line was chanting below his window overlooking West 43rd Street!), called me in to count his words. He was smoking what MUST have been a Cuban cigar, stuck up in the air like that infamous picture of FDR in the car. I counted his words in threes (I now count in fives) and when I was done, I asked, Mr. Matthews, do you believe everything you write?
That cigar dropped like a hard-on hit by an ice bath and he answered, "Of course I do."
Back then, the NYTimes was truly an institution of higher learning. I opened AND READ those urgent letters to the editor before any of the editors saw them. Months later, President JFK was dead and I was weeping in my rent-control apartment on Suffolk Street in Manhattan.
Pan to 1968. More assassinations. Martin Luther King. That Muslim Black Guy Malcolm X whose name is forgotten by all whites but not all blacks. Bobby Kennedy is dead. I am in the apartment of one of the Chicago 7 in Washington D.c., watching the Dem convention in Chicago on TV. "The Revolution will be televised" is the slogan of the day. There is a police riot on television.
Peterson of Wisconsin, having witnessed the televised Revolution, from the Convention Floor, moved the Convention to close down and re-open in another city (because Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's cops were clubbing peaceful protestors like Canadians club baby seals) It is memorable that then-Mayor Richard Daley stood up in response from the Convention Floor and stuck his right fist in the air and the TV cameras watched as his lips uttered epithets against Wisconsin that to my knowledge have to this day yet to be lip-read.
The Dems lost in 1968, not because they were wrong, but because they had no idea what dirty tricks had been played on them, and continue to be played. Obama knows that he is targeted for assassination. Look around you. Who seeks the death of a once-proud Nation? Who seeks Transformational Politics?
-30-
RUTH K: Thank you for the posting. And here I thought the authors of "Natural Capitalism" a concept I was introduced to in Mother Jones magazine were the "inventors" of the doctrine. (And by that I mean examining what it is we count, when a GNP quotient is established.)
Heidenheimer and RichM are on to the key issue regarding RFK. Who killed him and why?
To add to what RichM said about Pilger's story---that I had not heard---a new book of research has come out that conclusively proves that more than 8 shots were fired at RFK. Probably 13. Sirhan's gun only held 8.
go to anopenandshutcase.com to read about the forensic evidence by two widely respected NON-conspiracy experts. They don't know who killed RFK, they just know that while Sirhan fired shots at RFK, the Senator was killed by someone behind him in a place Sirhan could not have been, and in fact was not.
Why can't our media deal honestly with issues such as this? Coming out on the 40th anniversary of Kennedy's death would be the perfect time for these experts to be on every talk show, magazine cover and have their book reviewed in the NYT and elsewhere. But, no, what coverage we get focuses on falsely portraying Senator Kennedy as the liberal he was not and somehow tying that image to the potential impact of an Obama political era.
And an historical note: Sirhan wrote RFK must die in his diary before it became widely known---before Sirhan could have known---about RFK's support for bombers to Israel. Now, who programmed this man to be write that and also who manipulated him in that hotel? And, who, for crissakes really was the woman in the polka dot dress that several credible witnesses heard exclaim, We shot Kennedy! And also the man that was with her. Who were these people, with Sirhan that night and the several previous times they had tried to get near Kennedy?
Whatever support RFK may have garnered after he decided it was "safe" to oppose Vietnam, on that night in Los Angeles, while he won the primary, he Had Not won by enough to secure the nomination. He and JFK were close personal friends of Joe McCarthy, defended him, and RFK served on HUAC. He was NOT opposed to American Imperialism. Like so many now, he just didn't like losing. At that time, for many of us, ANY opposition was "good" opposition. In this, Pilger's comments here and on Democracy Now are worth considering.
The details of his political assassination like all the assassinations in this country are murky by design. When the boys at the top are directly involved we ARE NOT SUPPOSED to get a straight story and we never have. Check out, "Ultimate Sacrifice" by Thom Hartmann & RFK Jr.
And what was that bit about how NONE of the bullet holes in RFK matched the calibre of the pistol taken from SS? Could be urban myth, don't know. But I have always remembered this story from their childhood:
The Kennedy boys and their friends are playing water polo. Through a skillful maneuver one of the friends scored a goal past Bobby. After the goal, Bobby swam over to him and with no warning punched the boy in the mouth with his elbow (ever been elbowed in the mouth?), "Even if you beat a Kennedy, you still lose." Now that strikes me as an apt description of the Kennedy Family in particular and Oligarchy in general. Much better if they were all part of our primitive past. You want heroes, buy a comic book, just people here, warts, hangnails, and all. There never was a St. Bobby K.
Peace.
Go to 'The Socialist Worker' and read the post on the Bobby Kennedy myth
That we worship this clan is confounding to me
He also stated unequivocally that despite the way he's been remembered, RFK was in reality no antiwar candidate, & that Obama reminds him (Pilger) of Kennedy in this regard — a politician who recognizes that he must play to antiwar sentiment, without really having antiwar convictions himself.
-----------
This is a clear overstatement of Amy's anti- Bobby Bias. What was noteworthy to me was how Amy tried to run away from Pilgers witness statement as soon as possible. Then she tried to minimize it, and then quotes Bobby in 1966 when he WAS much less anti-war.
But to compare Obama and his Obvious Equivocation strategy today to Bobby is VERY VERY MISLEADING. BOBBY WAS MUCH MORE CLEAR CUT AGAINST THE WAR THAN OBAMA IS TODAY THERE IS NO COMPARISION WHATSOEVER. I canot help but see Amy G.s reaction as more Ford Foundation funded left-gatekeeping. I do not throw this term around loosely and have read a lot about the history of left-gatekeeping.
Dont believe me. Look at the RFK quote above:
"Our gross national product is now over 800 billion dollars. But that GNP, if we judge the country by that, counts air pollution, cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonders. It counts napalm, nuclear weapons, and armored cars for police to fight riots in cities. It counts rifles and knives and television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to children."
"Yet, the GNP does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not count the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither wit nor courage, neither wisdom or learning, neither compassion or devotion to country. It measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile."
TELL ME WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD OBAMA SAY ANTHING LIKE THAT. ITS NOT ABOUT JUST BOBBY AS A PERSON. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS ALLOWED ON THE NATJONAL MEDIA SINCE THEN. PERIOD.
I'm amazed that people here still seem willing to swallow the official government line on the RFK and JFK assassinations.
Sirhan didn't kill Bobby. Bobby was shot point blank from behind. Sirhan was in front of him. 13 shots were fired. Sirhan's gun held eight. Wake the hell up, people.
Bobby wasn't perfect and he definitely bought into too much of the anti-commie propaganda. But he was willing to learn from his mistakes. He opposed the war because the war was wrong. Not because it was politically expedient. Is anyone really questioning whether the country would have been better off with President Bobby rather than President Milhouse?
Go to 'The Socialist Worker' and read the post on the Bobby Kennedy myth
That we worship this clan is confounding to me
------------
That article in the Socialist Worker is extremely one sided. Yes much of it is true about Kennedy and the COld war earlier. But it completely leaves out the changes in 67 and 68, It leaves out the reciprocal relationship that occured between a grass roots movement with some degree of AIR COVER FROM A REAL CAMPAIGN AT THE TOP. There has never been this relationship since. I urge you to compare what RFK was saying then with what the Corporate dems say now.
One sided articles like this only serve the right. I have seen these one sided depictions ad infinitum by foundation gatekeepers like Chomsky AMy Goodman and Cockburn. The net effect is what the heck if they were assassinated.
The time has come to reintegrate the assassinations of the 1960's into the narrative of rightward movement since then. Such lefter than thou descriptions as in the Socialist Worker only serve to divide our analysis of electoral politics from structural analysis. Assassinations are undertaken by state bureacracies with a real material basis and media represenations.
There is quite a lot of things about strucutural politics that can be learned from them. I have learned this after years of Chomsky reading the man can be very strategically deceptive.
Here's a theory for you: Sirhan Sirhan was insane. All of the conspiracy theorizing on CD is irritating. He got shot by a nut bar, what's so complicated about that? Why do we need some crazy conspiracy theory to explain a simple assassination? Of course the powers that be want to keep any sort of contrary voice down but they rarely need murder to do it. People's stupidity combined with a credulous media will do all of the needed work. I also agree that making gods of people like RFK and JFK is not a wise idea. MLK may not have been perfect either but at least he put his ass on the line for what he was striving for. He was willing to be jailed for his beliefs. I doubt RFK or JFK would have done the same.
Who, what, where, why. All I know is while watching RFK make that speech live on TV he was shot in the head in front of my eyes, lying prone on the floor, I presume a SS guy had a cloth pressed against the back of his head to keep his brains from pouring out,the life drained from young eyes, live. So whatever the circumstance, whomever the newest Conspiracy of the week is, it grieved me deeply to watch a fellow human being have his life taken before my eyes. That is all that mattered to me....
Bobby Kennedy, John Kennedy, Dr. King= PEACE. No money in peace so they've got to go! Of course the official explanations don't have to make sense. If those in power tell us minions something happened a certain way, then we are suppossed to take it, and not ask questions. It works the same in all aspects of society, whether it be religion, politics, or so-called conspiracies(if you swallow the official explanation of 9/11, that's still a conspiracy). And Sirhan Sirhan wasn't a nutbar, although he was diagnosed a schizophrenic, he was a mind-control subject, just like the guy who killed John Lennon, another advocate for peace.
The select few (Federal Reserve, IMF, Trilateral's, etc.) are always going to screw-over the masses at least until people wake the hell up and realize this American Dream wasn't meant for all of us.
"No Viet Cong ever called me a Nigger" - Muhammad Ali. One of the greatest anti-war statements ever...
Who programmed Sirhan Sirhan as a "mind control subject" IF he was programmed? Is there any evidence at all that he was programmed? I still see no purpose in groping for complex answers to this assassination. I'm not suggesting that people haven't been whacked by the state for being too much against the status quo but "mind control" of an assassin is just a little too "Manchurian Candidate" for me personally.
Re Bobby and the Cold War: I am no admirer of Roy Cohn and/or McCarthyism, but vis-a-vis Bobby's "anti-Communism" of the 1960s and the JFK years, anti-Communism (providing it doesn't degenerate into the the above-mentioned McCarthyism) isn't necessarily a bad thing. We must remember that in the early and mid-1960s, despite segregation in the U.S. South, despite economic inequalities here, despite U.S. support for many dictators, the Soviets and Chinese were still the no. 1 enemies of freedom in the world. And if you don't believe it, ask anyone who ever lived behind the Iron Curtain.
Raanan G., NYC