But, this is ultimately about Bobby, not Jack.
First, Bobby's 1968 political future.
Per this Politico piece, Bobby had about zero chance at the nomination. It reminds us only 14 states had primaries back then. The other states, through caucuses and conventions, were still largely controlled by "machines." LBJ made sure they stayed Humphrey.
Almost three-fifths of conventional delegates were selected by county committeemen, state party officers and elected officials, and those officials were squarely behind Humphrey.In fact, that's why some were wondering if LBJ wasn't going to parachute into Chicago and elbow aside Hubert. And, had Bobby not been shot, he might just have done it.
And, on the ballot, Humphrey took two-thirds, not three-fifths, of the vote. Sure, some of Bobby's delegates went to him, instead of Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, or somebody else. But, Bobby wasn't going to win, period.
(Also, there's the myth that Eugene McCarthy couldn't win Democratic primaries in minority-heavy states, which itself isn't so true, as the results show him beating Bobby in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Yes, it's true Bobby contested none of those, but that may be because he knew he couldn't win. And, Bobby was FROM Massachusetts, too. At the same time, Wiki repeats the Camelot 2.0 myth, claiming the antiwar movement was kaput with Bobby's death, which would be news indeed to McCarthy and many of his backers. [Note: He never would have released pledged delegates to Bobby, anyway. Never.])
At the same time, showing Wiki's problems with lack of editing uniformity, but further undercutting conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio, in his first major campaign speech in 1968, per Wiki's piece on his campaign, he admitted:
"I was involved in many of the early decisions on Vietnam, decisions which helped set us on our present path."Original quote from this piece, among others. Not quite either Camelot 1.0 OR 2.0. (In my original, DiEugenio accused me of trolling in another comment to one of his pieces. If telling the truth is trolling, so be it. And, I'll get to that in a bit.)
The Politico piece also notes that if Bobby had somehow pulled off a miracle in Chicago, he might have had almost as much a George Wallace problem as Humphrey did. (Part of Camelot 2.0 is claiming "Clean Gene" was a racist; his eventual Republicanism made that smear easier. The truth? McCarthy lost the California primary by honesty; he said in a debate he wanted subsidized housing moved from Los Angeles [Watts, etc] out to the suburbs, and Kennedy VIRULENTLY opposed that.)
Now, the Ambassador Hotel.
Sirhan Sirhan has gun in hand. He was in the right position to fire the fatal shot. He admitted the shooting. He described why he shot Bobby — over his support for Israel. (His journals are quite explicit as to all of this, too.)
Sirhan Sirhan?
Or, some lame conspiracy, or set of them, as, although less wild than with JFK, multiple RFK assassination conspiracy theories exist.
Occam's razor.
Oh, and I don't give a fuck that RFK Jr. claims that Sirhan Sirhan didn't do it. Bobby Jr. is an antivaxxer in particular and a believer in conspiracy theories in general himself. RFK Jr's new book, which is a total teh suck of high-octane mendaciousness, basically claims the CIA did it.
And, some of the specific claims, like Sirhan Sirhan was given post-hypnotic suggestions and other stuff? Crazier yet. And lies. He was not hypnotized. Nor was he mentally ill and he was never adjudged to be mentally ill.
That said? Per an essay by Dan Moldea, Sirhan Sirhan had fired about 400 rounds with the revolver before he shot Bobby. Per Jeff Greenfield, what set him off was seeing Bobby wearing a yarmulke at an Israeli Independence Day celebration. And, that's not alt-history. The Jewish Press confirms it, complete with photo.
Anybody who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories about Bobby's death but has read much of Sirhan Sirhan's numerous parole hearings and other things will realize he'll say whatever he thinks will get him parole. (At other parole hearings, he's admitted shooting Bobby, while blaming booze or something.)
Wouldn't you?
And, the conspiracy theories, including but not limited to Manchurian candidate ones with hypnotic suggestion, have even less credibility than the JFK ones.
Even more interesting, but perhaps because it would be self-undercutting, no conspiracy theorist that I know of has proposed the most reasonable one.
And that is that some Palestinian organization — whether PLO, PFLP, or someone else — put Sirhan up to it. The undercutting would be that that would still mean he did it, unless combined with one of the actual conspiracy theories like a two-gunman idea.
Beyond that? In one of the very few true things he's uttered from prison, Sirhan Sirhan (Wiki) himself said he shot Bobby because he was a Zionist. Also, Sirhan Sirhan was NOT mentally ill. He was never legally adjudicated as such, and that's otherwise a Democrat lie.
And, there's at least one #BlueAnon Democratic snowflake on Twitter, a political candidate, promoting THAT bullshit, and it's just as much bullshit as the conspiracy theories.
One question I still really have unanswered is, per the writings of James Bamford, and per James Ennes and others, how much did Bobby know about the truth of Israel's attack on the Liberty? And, a related unanswered question is, per my favorite JFK assassination conspiracy theory (because I invented it), of Mossad whacking Jack, based on historical background — how much did Bobby know about Jack's fights with Ben-Gurion, then Eshkol, over Dimona? (Per the reality, Israel agreed to inspections, which LBJ continued, though with no vigor. I'm guessing Israel hid enough stuff on the inspections, especially with advance notice. Document 46 at the end of this National Security Archive piece that was the basis for my conspiracy theory says some sort of handwaving did indeed appear to be done.)
I have tweeted both St. Clair. and Bamford asking their thoughts on the material in the last paragraph. No reply yet.
ReplyDelete