Obama: The One Term President?

In a post World War 2 America, there have been only two pure one-term Presidents, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Alongside Carter and Bush, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson succeeded a fallen President, and were elected a full term of their own following the remainder of the predecessor, Truman being voted out in 1952 and Johnson refusing to run in 1968. John F Kennedy served only a partial first term before being assassinated in 1963 and Gerald Ford finished Richard Nixon’s second term before losing his own re-bid against Carter. Therefore since World War 2 there have been six one term Presidents (depending on how you define “one term”).

Polls as of late have as many as 49 percent of the polled public indicating that President Obama does not deserve a second term. Suggestions have even arisen for Obama to step out of the ring for a second term due to the fact he will be weaker in the general election, where as a fresh Democratic face may have more luck. Obama himself even claimed at the beginning of the year, far before the battering the Democrats took in the midterm elections that he would be fine as a one-term President, “I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

Though Obama holds an 8 point lead over Sarah Palin for the 2012 election, against other Republicans he may not fair as well. The question is, assuming Obama wants to run for re-election, does he deserve a second term. I feel this could be looked at in two different lights, actual performance and promised performance.

President Obama lately has been primary gauged by the lack of progress towards fixing the broken economy. Perhaps Obama underestimated the severity of the situation, or perhaps his supporters assumed the “fix” would come quicker (this will lead into Obama campaign versus governing later). However though the economy is in shambles and Americans are out of work, Obama has passed significant legislation. Even against extreme odds coming from the opposition in the form of a NObama approach, trying to kill any possible legislation and keep Obama as a one-term President, Obama has been able to rally his party to pass legislation. Important legislation includes;

· Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – An equal rights bill amending fair pay laws.

· American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – the stimulus package, which depending on who is questioned has/hasn’t worked. Yet this was a substantial effort in mending the economy.

· Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act Expanding AmeriCorps

· Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act – increases enforcement of federal fraud laws to protect Americans against fraud.

· Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act – A broad reform upon credit card companies which in a basic breakdown, requires transparency and new requirements for consumer protection from credit cards.

· Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act – Gives FDA new powers of tobacco companies.

· Matthew Shepard Act – Adds additional rights into the Civil Rights Bill of 1968 to cover additional sections of American population against Hate Crimes.

· Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act – Gives tax incentives to companies whom hire unemployed Americans.

· Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act – Perhaps Obama’s most ambitious legislative agenda, reforms the health care system as well. It also provides benefits to college students in the form of student loans.

· Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – Financial regulatory reform in efforts to prevent another Wall Street Crash which led to the economic downturn.

Substantial legislation has been signed into law under President Obama, and this is only the halfway point into his first term. The time in which he has remaining in his first term could cement him into history as a good president, but also afford him the opportunity to win a second term.

Unlike the clear legislation Obama has signed into law, Obama’s success in comparison to his campaign promises could be deemed as lacking. Obama ran on a campaign of change and hope, powerful motivators in a time when American society looked bleak. Obama’s natural charisma and his skill to rally supports through rhetoric drove his campaign into something that was beyond Obama himself. A mainstream, media created presidential juggernaut marched to the White House in 2008.

Obama ran with the intentions to, “revive the economy; provide affordable, accessible health care to all; strengthen our public education and social security systems; define a clear path to energy independence and tackle climate change; end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan; work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” To compare what he has done, to what he promised, Obama is on target. Obama has passed the most substantial health care reform in history, passed student loans and community college reform, and has begun the process to end the war in Iraq and created a timetable for Afghanistan.

It is clear based on what Obama has accomplished in only his first two years he deserves a second term. Reflecting upon the two most recent Presidents whom lost the office after only one term, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, lies opportunity for repeat for Obama.

President Carter faced turmoil through the economy, though the final nail in the coffin was the Iran Hostage Crisis, which Carter handled extremely poor. The economy was a winnable battle, arguing much like Democrats currently argue, Carter walked into economic unrest. President Bush faced similar economic downturn following his first term, which was widely attacked by both opponents (Clinton and Perot) as well as his base for going against original promises not to raise taxes. Alongside the “No New Taxes” claim, Bush was also hampered by campaign blunders (see grocery scanners) and third party candidate Ross Perot, whom garnered many of the votes Bush would have gained, essentially taking the election from Bush.

Both elections were feasibly winnable (Bush more so than Carter) and unless Obama blunders in his final two years or during the campaign trail (not likely, if Obama can do anything its campaign), a second-term is his. Obama doesn’t just deserve the chance for a second term to build his legacy and impart significant legislation, he has earned it.

Why No One Will Care if Oregon Plays for the National Championship

Today on the John Lund Show, 95.5 FM – A caller gave his opinion on his hope that Oregon will play Boise State for the BCS National Championship January 10^th 2011 in Glendale Arizona. This particular caller explained that a game against Boise State benefits Oregon’s psyche to revenge the loss it had last season against Boise, and since no one else will care anyway at least he will enjoy watching the game. I thought about this callers opinion and what he truly meant by saying that no one would care about the game, Oregon versus Boise State. After further thought about possible opponents for Oregon, no matter who they play for the National Championship it is a Lose-Lose Situation for everyone but Oregon.

For this experiment, we will assume Oregon will play for the National Championship, and win. However the projected opponent could change the dynamic of not only the game, but national spotlight attention. Auburn, Boise State and TCU are the three main contenders for the final position (yes again assuming Oregon wins out) in the National Championship Game. If Boise beats Nevada this weekend, they are posed to overtake TCU in the BCS standings. However, Boise would still sit at number 3 in the standings unless Auburn falls to either Alabama (they are a 4 point underdog) or South Carolina in the SEC Championship game. If Auburn falls to either but not both, they could still overtake Boise in the rankings, depending on how far they drop in the Human Polls. Auburn has been a mediocre undefeated team all season, escaping with several narrow victories, therefore a loss to either team I assume would drop them far enough for Boise to take control of the number 2 spot in the country.

To argue which team deserves to play Oregon for the National Championship is constantly on display in the national media. During those debates the question always arises of national publicity and attention for such a game. To have a National Championship without the SEC outcasts many national pundits and fans who feel SEC football is gods work. So the question I pose, which team would be better for Oregon to play, excluding whom they rather play for the chance to win. The answer; it doesn’t matter, Oregon will be outshined by the media in either regard.

If Oregon plays currently ranked number 2 Auburn, you have an SEC powerhouse in the National Championship Game. This provides the SEC hawks exactly what they seek, the SEC appearing yet again in the National Championship Game. However with Auburn possibly making an appearance in Glendale poses potential backlash as well. Though the NCAA, the SEC, and Auburn has not found sufficient information to suspend start quarterback Cam Newton, yet with over a month until the Championship game information could arise which changes his eligibility. If indeed information presents itself Newton could be suspended and the National Championship game would become Oregon versus an Auburn team who relies completely on the skill of Newton sans Newton himself. This would tarnish Oregon’s win and the SEC chants would continue with the claim that Oregon didn’t play a full SEC team but simply a shell.

Another possible distraction from the media attention that Oregon deserves as the number 1 team could be the possibility of yet another year with undefeated teams ending the season and not playing for the National Championship Game. Though I personally do not feel that Boise State deserves to play for the National Championship due to the powder puff schedule they are cursed with, I do feel they deserve a chance to prove their worth in a playoff system. This of course would be the argument of mainstream media who fascinates themselves with Boise State every year. Boise continues to run the table on the Western Athletic Conference, with a few decent possible ranked opponents thrown in the mix, yet continually get shunned behind more powerful teams with a much (MUCH) tougher strength of schedule. This argument detracts from the attention that Oregon deserves, though based on a valid point of a playoff system, it still detracts.

If Auburn loses and Boise pulls ahead of them in the BCS rankings the national media would create a hail-storm of protest against this championship game with the same argument many Boise supporters present, “well if there was a playoff!” If Oregon plays Boise State for the National Championship game the relevance in the Northwest region of the country will be strong, but outside of that area diminished. People will feel Boise rode into the National Championship on weakness to play an Oregon team with more flash than substance in a weak Pac-10 conference.

If Oregon convincingly handles Boise State, the attention that Oregon will receive will not be that of a National Champion, but of a team who beat a nobody to win. The SEC will argue that the BCS hurts people like them because to make it undefeated in the SEC is impossible due to the quality of opposition week to week. Boise argues the BCS hurts people like them because they deserve the chance to play but because they are stuck with mediocre opponents they are left out in the cold. Oregon will argue they are the National Champions, and nobody will listen.

*******************************************************************

On a side note: If Boise does play for the National Championship, I personally feel playoffs are that much closer to a possibility. SEC hawks, the media and the sponsors (due to probable low ratings from an Oregon vs. Boise matchup) will pressure the NCAA to create a playoff system due to the fact the SEC is not going to have a chance at the national title. If Boise makes an appearance yet gets handled by Oregon, the national attention will u-turn the Boise State ship to claim they never should have been there in the first place and a playoff would fix future mistakes like this.

The Friday Five: A Quick Take. November 19th 2010

1) On Wednesday, I made a quick take on the Oden injury indicating that I foresee Paul Allen wanted to resign Oden, despite his string on injuries. Turns out I may have been correct. Larry Miller announced yesterday that the likelihood is that the Blazers will sign Oden to the $8.8 million dollar qualified offer that Oden is eligible to make. Many fans, reports, blazer insiders and facebook naysayers wrote Oden’s career in Portland as finished. I present 2 reasons why resigning Oden is a smart move;

· It’s only 1 year. After that year the Blazers could let Oden move on, but giving Oden another chance to prove what he showed flickers of last season may lead to be an extremely smart move for the Blazers in the long term. If Oden can remain healthy in his one year contract, the Blazers likely resign him to a long term deal and allow him to become the dominant man they hoped he would be.

· Oden is still a PR giant in the city of Portland. Many fans still support Oden as a Blazer and wish him a full recovery. Many commentators have suggested that letting Oden go will relive the burden of Oden on the minds of the fans. However to release a player, when the cost of keeping him (for someone like Paul Allen) is so low and the upside is so high. It would be foolish to not resign him, allowing him to go to other team and become successful. Which is a worse PR nightmare, holding on to a contract that really isn’t that large (they may get half of this years salary back through insurance anyway), or having him torch us in the playoffs for another team.

2) The New START Treaty may not get started after all. President Obama signed an updated treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev this past March, which updates the original START Treaty enacted under President Ronald Regan. This treaty supports a monitoring system for both countries to keep a watchful eye on the others nuclear arsenal. Recently Senator Jon Kyl, the Republican leader of these new START negotiations signaled he would oppose a vote for ratification of this treaty during the lame-duck session of congress. Many Republicans have indicated they will follow the lead of Kyl when voting for this ratification. If the ratification is not passed during this lame-duck session of Congress, the large Democratic majority will slip away, making it that much harder to pass proposed legislation.

The NObama approach the Republicans are taking in regards to President Obama’s domestic agenda is hampering progress within our nation’s borders. However, this ratification not only affects our own national interests but also the appearance of American powers abroad. Refusal to pass legislation for world affairs, not only makes Obama look weak in America, but it makes America look inept and unable to successfully run a country. Never in history has a congress applied such brash hatred toward international affairs. This refusal to pass the most basic international treaty increases America’s world stance, raising it from a point of utter hated during the Bush presidency. But these congressional Republicans, led by John Kyl are preventing foreign ties from being formed and a world partnership being established.

3) All hail King Felix! Felix Hernandez is the first player in Major League Baseball history to win the coveted Cy Young Award with less than 15 wins (13; Tim Lincecum had 15 last season). The fact that Hernandez won only 13 games backed by one of the worst offenses if American League history is astonishing. Hernandez, though fell far behind in the wins category was still able to notch 13 wins, which tied for 18^th place in the MLB. He also pitched 249.2 innings, struck out 232 batters and recorded a 2.27 ERA which were all first place efforts.

Hernandez gained 21 of 28 first place votes, though not all agree that Hernandez deserved the award. The National League Cy Young winner Roy Halladay praised Hernandez’s numbers but also felt he lacked a crucial aspect of being the best, “I think ultimately you look at how guys are able to win games. And sometimes the runs scoring isn’t there, but I think sometimes you just find ways to win games.” This sentiment was also expressed by Joe Girardi Yankees manager, who felt that to win in the AL East is far more difficult than the AL West and CC Sabathia (came in 3^rd place) still managed to notch 21 wins. Overall this win by King Felix marks the dawning of a new age in Major League Baseball, where wins aren’t the only thing that matters when you look at dominance. All hail the King.

4) Harry Who? If you are one of the 5 people on the planet earth (this is just an estimate, there could be up to 7) who has not heard of Harry Potter, you will soon. The Harry Potter film franchise reaches its final chapter…wait they broke it into 2 films, hmmmm. Harry Potter reaches the first part of the final chapter…there is talk of an epilogue short film, seriously. Harry Potter reaches the first part - of the final film - of the original book series today and fans have already flocked to movie theaters across the country to get a glimpse of what could be a record breaking film.

The Harry Potter franchise already holds the top spot for highest grossing film franchises (not counting inflation) and two more films will add to that already dominating total. The next highest franchise is the Bond series and it took them 22 films to come in second place to only 6 Potter films thus far. The average of all the Potter films is $902,850,679. If we were to assume that these final films will hit the average, they would add an additional $1,805,701,358 to the already first place franchise of $5,417,104,072. Not bad considering Warner Brothers only paid an estimated $2,000,000 for the rights to the first four books. I’m putting my estimate of $145,000,000 for a Potter 7.1 opening weekend.

5) Sandberg on Sports returned yesterday with the first article in over 4 months! Check it out as Sandberg describes the emotional roller coaster that is Greg Oden and enlightens us on his current injury (yet again, I know how depressing it is to point out it is another injury). Sandberg’s unique take as not only an exceptional sports journalist, but also an avid Blazers fan brings a special experience for those who share his pain, and the pain of the Portland Trail Blazers…Sandberg on Sports.

Introducing the Friday Five!

The Friday Five is a new ongoing segment in which I present a quick take on of the five most important things (in my opinion) which I did not get the chance to write about this week. Ranging from politics to pop culture to sports, news events to my personal opinion; the Friday five gets out stories that I either chose not to write a full article on, or did not have the time to write about…in 300 words or less!

The DREAM Act, Not Just a Dream Anymore

America was once, if not still is, known as the land of opportunity. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This quote lines the Statue of Liberty, a beacon of not only light, but hope for many millions who set upon America over the years. However the Statue of Liberty has recently changed position from a shining light, to a finger towards the door. Get Out! This is the rally cry for many Americans who feel that Illegal Immigration is taking the rights and riches that belong to them as a national citizen.

The number of illegal immigrants in America ranges from 7 million, to 25 million (depending on which data you wish to trust). Most commonly the estimate from the Center of Immigration Studies of almost 12 million is cited as accurate. Many people do not question the immigration status from individuals of countries outside of North America, but only seem to focus on those from Mexico. Based on similar research from the Center of Immigration Studies, 56% of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants are from Mexico, with an additional 22% from Latin American countries.

Every election cycle there is a strong stance against illegal immigration. Despite this strong battle cry, rarely does a substantial legislative act get brought up in congress to fix a broken system. Suggestions range from tracking all illegal immigrants and deporting them, to tracking all illegal immigrants and giving them citizenship. Between these far ends of the spectrum lie several other, more realistic suggestions.

Some of the suggestions put forth entail methods which ignore the people who are already illegal immigrants in the country, but look to prevent those who are illegal from taking advantage of the American system. The 14th Amendment gives those who are born in the United States natural citizenship, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Several lawmakers have come forth with suggestions to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Other suggestions focus on those already in the country, most notably the current legislative proposal the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act has gone through many changes since its original introduction in 2001 and most recently failed to bring cloture to a filibuster in the Senate with a vote of only 56 yea (60 is required to end a filibuster by enacting cloture). The most current form of the DREAM Act lays out a pathway for permanent residency for qualified individuals.

The requirements of the individual are as follows:
• Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time the Law is enacted
• Must have arrived in the United States before the age of 16
• Must have resided continuously in the United States for at least five consecutive years since the date of their arrival
• Must have graduated from a U.S. High School, or obtained a General Education Diploma GED
• Must have "Good moral character" (though “moral character” has not been defined)
To gain the pathway to citizenship, an individual must,
• Complete two years in the military, if discharged it must be an honorable discharge.
(OR)
• Complete two years at a four year institution of higher learning. After the two years of higher learning, the individual would be granted temporary status for up to six years. Within the six year period, the student must have obtained a higher education degree or must be at least two years into a bachelor's degree program.

This most current form of the DREAM Act is a bi-partisan bill which was re-introduced in congress in March 2009 by Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Richard Durbin. Despite Bi-Partisan backing of the bill, the DREAM Act was attached to the National Defense Authorization Act along with the Repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy; it failed to get through the filibuster. During the filibuster, all Republicans refused to vote to bring cloture to the filibuster citing that the DREAM Act and the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy were unrelated to the National Defense Authorization Act. Following the removal from the Senate schedule, Durbin and Lugar once again introduced this bill to the Senate floor on September 22nd, only one day after it was removed from the official schedule.

On the 16th of November, President Obama urged Congressional members to work together and pass this bill during the lame-duck session of Congress. The lame-duck session of Congress runs until the newly elected members of Congress replace the existing, voted out members of Congress at the mark of the New Year. This short period of time is the final point in which legislation can be passed before the turnover.

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, championed the DREAM Act, while on the campaign trail to minority groups across the State of Nevada. Reid, like many other re-elected, or newly elected Congressmen touted immigration reform while campaigning and now must act on their promises as to not face backlash in future election.

The DREAM Act has gained strong support from the United States military, which would heavily benefit from this enactment. Defense Secretary Robert Gates supports the passage of the DREAM Act stating, "There is a rich precedent supporting the service of non-citizens in the U.S. military. Since the Revolutionary War, non-citizens have enlisted in the armed forces for service during periods of national emergency. Today, about 35,000 non-citizens serve, and about 8,000 permanent resident aliens enlist every year. The DREAM Act represents an opportunity to expand this pool, to the advantage of military recruitment and readiness." In a time in which enlistment is down and the military is looking for willing soldiers the DREAM Act is just that for the military, a dream come true.

The likelihood of substantial legislation passing in a lame-duck Congress is unlikely usually, however with increased support from the military, President Obama and public opinion (66% of people questioned), the chance of this dream becoming a reality is strong. Congress however must go at this bill in the correct way. If they try and pair it with a much larger Defense Act, or even try and pair it with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, opposition will increase. Many representatives favor the DREAM Act but not if it is linked to other legislation. Pairing bill together for quick and easy passage is common, but with as polarizing as the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal is, the likelihood of repeal in the lame-duck congress is unlikely. Therefore attaching the DREAM Act to the repeal would be tying an anchor to a sinking ship.

Hey Hey Godbye, Or Hello Hello? The Greg Oden Saga

Six fouls and you’re done for the night. The Rip City crowd erupts; NA NA Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye originally performed by Steam reverberates through the packed house. Usually this song is played for the fans to celebrate the opposing player being booted from the game. However this time the song is played with heavy hearts and sorrow, Greg Oden is done for the season. This injury, unlike his previous injuries (yes, I know how sad it is to say previous injuries) leads this lovable player into a point where he is sans-contract going forward.

A little over two weeks ago, the Portland Trail Blazers announced they would not be renewing Greg Oden’s rookie contract, officially making him a restricted free agent at seasons end. Portland publicly hoped they would get to see Oden in action prior to resigning him (though privately it seems they knew more than we did). At this point, with Oden getting yet another surgery and ending his season he will have no court time to prove his worth to perspective NBA employers, including his current. Does this mean Greg Oden’s days as an NBA player are over? Likely not.

Though Greg Oden’s career to this point has been marred by injury, his upside is just as large as his 7 foot frame. The Blazers will have the opportunity to match any offer that is made to Oden for the 2011-2012 season. That is where the story begins. Oden eligible for a qualifying offer of around $9 million for the season. Would this be considered a steal for someone with the possibility to be the most dominating center in the league, possibly. However, without the guarantee of Oden's success leads me to believe that $9 million would be high for any team to risk, other than the high risk/high reward Blazers. Overall it is the lining of the owners pockets determine the risk/reward factor, how much would one team be willing to place on someone as risky as Greg Oden?

To offer Oden $9 million he is due is just the minimum he could make, the bidding could increase his price tag higher. Outside of Portland, i doubt anyone would be willing to pay Oden this money but does Portland feel this amount of money is worth the risk on someone that hasn’t proved himself yet? With the amount that Paul Allen has, I would say yes. That however is the optimistic side of me. I would doubt, based on Oden’s history anyone would be willing to offer more for his services than Portland would. If anything, this injury has dampened the amount of money that Portland would be required to pay to retain Oden’s services. If Oden performed this season, he could have very well creating a bidding war for his services, even if the goal is just to raise the cap on Portland. Now however, with no chance of playing this season the question will be placed on Portland, continuing the speculation that has surrounded his career; will he ever be a star?

If Oden is able to beat the physical aspect of his job and return to the court, he must then conquer the mental aspect. The constant attention Oden draws as the number 1 draft pick is daunting. However, to compare Greg Oden to Kevin Durant in the same light as Sam Bowie versus Michael Jordan is unfair to both Oden and Jordan. Durant is no Jordan and Oden is no Sam Bowie, at least not yet. Bowie played from 1984-1989 with the Blazers and later serviced his minimal talent through the 1995 season, never gaining the prominence that was expect of him. Oden is compared to Bowie in the regards of his injury-prone nature but more so in comparison to the draft pick which followed; the what could have been player Michael Jordan.

Until Oden is no longer in the NBA, I reserve my right to judge his career. He could very well turn out to be an amazing player, who may bring a championship to Portland, or another suitor. If it is indeed another suitor, I will hold no ill will towards that team or towards Portland for giving him up. Portland has every right to pass on the future of Greg Oden, at this point I am done demanding they give him yet another chance. More so now, I simply hope they offer him one. The fan base of Portland has put an incredible about of energy into Oden, something no other city has done or may be willing to do. Oden’s desire to return what the fans have given him should be as high as ever and hopefully he will get the chance to prove his worth.

Jack Versus Bobby: The Kennedy Rhetoric

In the 1960’s two moments forever changed the course of history in America. November 22nd 1963, John Fitzgerald Kennedy also known as “JFK” or “Jack,” the 35th President of the United States was assassinated. 5 year later on June 6th 1968, a still mourning brother, senator of New York, and presidential candidate, Robert Francis Kennedy, also known as “RFK” or “Bobby,” was also assassinated.

These two slain brothers lead very prominent lives before their death. Many consider both of them as two of the greatest speakers of all time. Both men hold sports on AmericanRhetoric.com for greatest speeches on all time. These two men, from the same family, led lives that at points intertwined, eventually leading them to become the brothers that the country knew.

JFK was the Ambassadors son who went into the national spotlight when his boat was sank in World War II. He then went on to become a Congressman and a Senator. His fame and popularity was not quite as high as RFK’s was when RFK decided to run for the same office.

RFK was known as the man who served closely as Attorney General and confidant to his brother, the then President of the United States, when JFK was in some of his most difficult situations, a leader in mourning for the nation when his brother was assassinated, as well as a prominent figure for the Civil Rights Movement.

However to compare these two people on the same playing field that is the life, would be unfair. If one were to compare them as speakers, one would need to compare each man in similar situations. Looking at their lives next, one point, one speech could be determined as the most similar. Looking at each Presidential Announcement, you learn that each follows similar patterns.

Both men use their previously earned credibility, related their political career to other prominent men in time, and warned the nation of things to come in upcoming years. From looking at each of these points, as well as others, you learn that while JFK used many techniques to convey how he wanted the crowd to view him and his political method, RFK used those same techniques, but pushed it a step further. Leaving out JFK as a President, and the notoriety that comes with that and comparing these two men as just speakers and not the life they led, Robert Kennedy was indeed an overall better speaker.

To understand each mans rhetoric, you must first understand the lives the led, and the points in the lives that were reflected in their rhetoric. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the then Senator from Massachusetts ran against Richard Nixon in the 1960 Presidential election. JFK, who was born to Joseph and Rose Kennedy in 1917, was the second eldest in the Kennedy family. JFK attended the Choate Preparatory school as a teenager, a private school for elite boys designed to help prepare students for college. Following a brief battle with colitis, JFK Graduated from Choate in 1935 voted by his peers most likely to become President.

In October 1935, JFK then attended Princeton for a brief time before being sidelined an observed with possible leukemia. The following year in October he began attending Harvard University. His father’s political career allowed him to travel the world and see many things, including the impending war. Kennedy began to express his world views in his first thesis “Appeasement in Munich.” Shortly after completing the thesis, JFK graduated cum laude with a degree in International Affairs. Joseph Kennedy urged JFK to publish his thesis, JFK obliged and the thesis went on to become a best seller entitled “Why England Slept.”

Kennedy took business classes at Stanford before traveling with his father and helping him finish his memoirs of his time as ambassador. In the Spring of the same year, 1941, JFK joined the military and served for the Navy during World War Two. JFK was rejected by the army due to his poor health and aching back. JFK gained national attention when his boat was attacked while on patrol. Despite the fact he was thrown onto his hurt back, JFK helped another injured man reach shore. JFK was given several medals including the Purple Heart. Though later he said that he never deserved the medals because, “They sank my ship, and I get a medal.” Following his older brother Joe’s death during the war, the family’s political ambitions were thrust onto him.

JFK ran for the vacant seat in the Congress and won by a large number in a primarily democratic district. Following a period serving in Congress he went on to run for the Senate. JFK while officially being a member of the Senate, married Jacqueline, and had several spinal surgeries. While recovering he wrote “Profiles in Courage.” This book was about senators who stood by their principals. Many claim that this was driven by Kennedy’s own actions while in congressional office. Kennedy often times voted against the large democratic numbers in favor of Harry Truman.

JFK announced on January 2nd 1960 that he would run for the Democratic nomination for the 1960 election. JFK went on to deliver another speech on the 14th of January on what he felt the presidency entailed. At this time in the country, Eisenhower was being forced from office due to the 22nd amendment; JFK claimed that he must jumpstart America’s economy. He made claims that Eisenhower was a “do nothing president,” this idea stuck with Eisenhower after the loss of Richard Nixon, who was Eisenhower’s successor.

JFK’s felt his goal was to connect with the people of the country and unite. This feeling was a strong factor in his decision to run for President. His ideas about the Civil Rights movement perhaps differed from others, with JFK wanting to unite the races. Despite his intention to help in the movement, this hurt his presidential race, losing several southern states in the race. JFK went on to win in the 1960 election by the closest margin in history.

His short presidential career featured both success and failure. JFK suffered through Vietnam and the failed Bay of Pigs event, mentioned as emerging nations in his announcement for the presidency. The Cuban Missile Crisis which he predicted and mention in his Presidential announcement as the burdensome arms race. Also mentioned in his announcement was the stature of American science and education, in other words, the Space Race. JFK Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated on November 22nd 1963 in Dallas, Texas. These moments, along with the relationship that JFK and RFK had, gave rise to RFK’s political aspirations.

Robert Francis Kennedy had many similarities to his brother, but was also very different. He attended some of the finest schools in the country. Graduating from Harvard with a Bachelor of Arts in Government, he went on to gain his Law Degree at the University of Virginia school of Law. In 1951 RFK went on a trip throughout Asia with his older brother JFK and they spent 7 weeks together.

This trip created the relationship between the brothers that the country came to know. Before this trip, JFK and RFK never had an extremely close relationship. RFK was much younger than JFK and often ran in different crowds. JFK was the man who had the looks, the athletic ability, and got the girls. RFK was seen as the runt of the family. With the eight year gap in their age, JFK was off to college before RFK was even ten. After the trip and the extended amount of time they spent together they forged the relationship that was seen when JFK ran for office in 1960.

RFK worked as a lawyer investigating alleged Soviet agents in the United States for the Department of Justice. In 1952 RFK began working on his Brothers Senate campaign. RFK than began working on the Senate Rackets Committee in which he squared off with Jimmy Hoffa. He once again resigned his office to work on his brother election, this time for President.

Following JFK’s election, RFK went on to become the Attorney General of the United States and one of JFK’s closest aides and confidants. JFK through his entire presidency used RFK as a moral compass and advisor. RFK took a hard stance against organized crime during this time.

However more important than the attorney general position as well as his fight against crime was RFK’s crusade for equal rights. RFK worked to convince his brother of the benefits of the Civil Rights Movement. He worked closely with Martin Luther King and convinced JFK to allow the masses to congregate in Washington for the “Civil Rights March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.”

Following JFK’s assassination, a grief stricken RFK helped Lyndon Johnson push through the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and resigned as Attorney General. This moment allowed RFK to amass his greatest following in his presidential election, African American voters. He further gained admiration and respect from African American voters for his heart felt spur of the moment eulogy for King after his assassination. 60 cities rioted after the assassination of King, one of them not being Indianapolis, the city in which the eulogy was delivered.

The extreme feud between RFK and Lyndon Johnson forced RFK to leave the position of attorney general. RFK went on to become Senator of New York. Johnson gave support to RFK in his race for senate. However many see this as a ploy to keep Johnsons polls up, knowing that the African American voters supported RFK, and thus Lyndon.

During JFK’s presidency, RFK was torn on what to do with Southeast Asia. Should America keep troops in Vietnam, like his brother had placed years before, or should America remove those troops? RFK always supported his brother’s decisions in Vietnam even following his death. Lyndon Johnson escalated troops in Vietnam on the stance that it was what JFK would have wanted. RFK denied that the large amount of ground troops in Vietnam was not exactly what JFK wanted. RFK as well as Martin Luther King spoke out against Vietnam as part of human rights in 1967.

In January of 1968 RFK had decided not to run for the presidency in 1968 however despite his original claim that he would not run, the events of the Tet-Offensive, he changed his mind and announced his candidacy on March 16th 1968. Much like his brother, RFK quickly followed this announcement up with a platform on his idea of the presidency. In his announcement, RFK claims that he seeks new policies. He speaks of the “crisis in gold, our cities, our farms and ghettos.” Announcing his intentions in all of these fields and groups. RFK spoke to the American people across the country; He spoke to the rich, the all Americans, the average families and the poor families.

RFK won a close primary battle against Eugene McCarthy in California. This victory set up RFK as the favorite for the White House in the 1968 election. However, after his victory in California, RFK delivered his last speech before being shot, in which he reiterates the joining of sides on all issues in which he states his famous words:

“We can work together in the last analysis. What has been going on in the United States in the past three years, the divisions the violence, the disenchantment with out society, between blacks and whites, the poor and more affluent, between age groups or the war in Vietnam, we can start to work together. We are a great country, a selfless country and a compassionate country.” These famous words were his last in the early hours of June 5th 1968. In his final words he reiterated what he had been preaching since his announcement; the union between all groups for a better nation. He died only a day later.

The Kennedys, despite the fact that they were covered in controversy, were admired by the average American. JFK was able to keep us clear of nuclear disaster during the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK and RFK’s fight against organized crime, and RFK’s continual push towards civil rights, continues to keep JFK ranked as one of the best presidents of all time. RFK is seen to have as much if not more potential as president than his brother. RFK portrayed himself as a man of the people; he showed this during his presidential campaign.

The next step in analyzing these two rhetors would be to look at each speech individually. JFK begins his announcement for his presidential by listing off everything that needs to be done in the new decade. He arranges this list in a way that represented his presidency following the election. In his announcement JFK explains many things that will be faced in the 1960 election. JFK states: “For it is in the Executive Branch that the most crucial decisions of this century must be made in the next four years--how to end or alter the burdensome arms race, where Soviet gains already threaten our very existence--how to maintain freedom and order in the newly emerging nations--how to rebuild the stature of American science and education.”

These things were the first three issues he drew attention upon as well as huge points during his presidency. He claimed that they must look to control the arms race (the arms buildup in America,) maintain freedom in newly emerging nations (Cuba,) and rebuild the stature of American science (Space Race.)

Kennedy uses his credibility, showing the nation that he prepared for this presidential election. JFK states that he, “toured every state in the Union and that he feels that he can win the democratic nomination as well as the general election” The purpose of this was to two sided. First it was to show that he has reached out to every state north and south in efforts to gain understanding of the country. Kennedy was very popular in the north among Democrats but not in the south. Despite Kennedy’s lack of popularity in the south, Lyndon Johnsons an extreme favorite in those same states. Second was to instill confidence in the nation that he indeed was prepared and ready for the presidency.

In the final part of his announcement he further backs up his credibility as a strong candidate who has always served his nation. “For 18 years, I have been in the service of the United States, first as a naval officer in the Pacific during World War II and for the past 14 years as a member of Congress.” He does several things in this small quote. He relates not only himself as a hero for serving, but also serving during Americas Great War. Americans still looking so fondly upon the time needed to make the world free of evil. He also shows his experience by stating that he has been in Washington for 14 years, he knows what it takes to be President.

JFK creates the persona of a savior of the country in a time of need. He begins this by using language that creates not only fear of what could happen, but the possibilities of what he could bring to the country. He states initially that, “the Presidency of the United States is the most powerful position in the free world.” This allows the audience to realize what this man could do with the power. He continues by claiming that “all Americans must make their fateful choice for their future.” This allows the audience to realize that if they make the wrong decision it could be disastrous, and that it is their choice to make. He follows that up by saying that he has, “developed an image of America as fulfilling a noble and historic role as the defender of freedom in a time of maximum peril.” JFK states that he knows what could happen to America if the plan that he has created is not realized, America could fall into horrible situations.

JFK pads his persona by relating himself to someone else that brought the country great times, “I believe that the Democratic Party has a historic function to perform in the winning of the 1960 election, comparable to its role in 1932.” With his relation to Franklin Roosevelt, one of the most prominent Democrats, he puts his own name next to his, not to compare, but to allow the audience to remember that Roosevelt brought us into a prosperous time and he wants to do the same. Inherently people will then begin to think of Roosevelt when thinking of Kennedy, with high hopes, creating credibility by association.

Eight years after his brother announced his intentions to run for President, RFK decided to run for the same position. RFK who had a background in the public spotlight more so than his brother (who only had brief moments national spotlight for his military highlights and local spotlight for his role in congress and the senate), used his earned credibility in his announcement for president. He states that, “No one knows what I know about the extraordinary demands of the presidency.” RFK running so close to the time his brother was in office, allows people to remember what he and his brother had done.

RFK continued to use he credibility and his time in the White House by listing off important events that he had been a part of: “The National Security Council during the Cuban Test Ban Treaty, the Berlin crisis of 1961 and 1962, and later the negotiations of Laos.” Lyndon Johnson, the President since JFK assassination in 1963, was controlling an extremely unpopular war to the public.

RFK explained what he felt had to be done, without even ever being in office. He also mentions Laos because many were upset about the state of Vietnam and the Tet-Offensive. Many related the name Laos to the death toll in Vietnam due to the overflows of conflict from Vietnam into Laos.

Later RFK states that he has tried to get us out of Vietnam “before it further saps our spirit and our manpower, further raises the risks of wider war, and furthers destroys the country and the people it was meant to save.” Looking at this quote he is talking to three groups of people. First the worriers about the economic and social aspect of war. RFK claimed that continuing the war in the course that America was on, would tap our military capabilities, which America was known for. Secondly the people with fear of wider war at a time of global conflict between American interests and Soviet interests. A conflict in Vietnam could boil over in escalations in China and eventually the Soviet Union, which would lead to nuclear war. Finally the people still thinking the war in Vietnam is a good thing, RFK explains that at the point they were at in 1968, America was hurting the Vietnamese people more than if they were not there.

RFK in the beginning of his announcement states that, “I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I’m obliged to do all that I can.” He comes immediately out and says he is here to help the country onto the right track; this was his persona, a man of the people, here to help.

RFK targets his main audience by stating those who really need the help that would stem from the election. He states that he has already seen the horrors of the world and he lists off people that need help. “The children starving, the black citizen riots, the young Indians, the young people of the country as well as the proud families.” These people are placed in their just to show who he was trying to help, but more so to grasp their attention. These people were RFK’s main demographic, the unprivileged.

RFK used the opposing view of light versus dark to show the audience what was happening now, and what will change. “I run for the presidency because I want the Democratic Party and the United States of America to stand for hope instead of despair, for reconciliation of men instead of the growing risk of world war.”

Each Candidate used three main tactics in the announcement. First they used their credibility to create a certain person for the voters of America. JFK presented himself as a national hero who has been serving this nation for years. First he served in the military, then he served for Congress and the Senate, he created the image of a competent politician who has prepared for the election and can win. JFK did not however lash out against the current political state. He stuck by his idea of what the country liked about him, and not what they disliked about the current president or presidential candidates.

RFK took an opposing way of presenting himself to the nation. Bobby presented himself as a man who already served in the White House. His brother was the one that was president, but he was there for all of the important events of the early sixties. Because of this he knows what his brother wanted and he is there to bring that idea to reality. Unlike JFK, RFK attacked the then President Lyndon Johnson. This is actually important in creating the persona that RFK wanted people to see. RFK by attacking Johnson showed the voters that this is something that he feels he must do, despite what people think and how difficult it will be to defeat a incumbent president of his own party. From that he is shown as a person who really cares about the issues and is not in the race because it is an opportune time.

The difference between these two, despite using the same technique of creating a credible persona is the amount of credibility each had to offer. JFK was a young politician who had only been senator and who had lost the Vice Presidential nomination 4 years earlier. RFK was the veteran who served the country in times when they needed him. Also RFK’s attack on Johnson helped him because he put himself on the side of Johnson for things such as the Civil Rights Bill that was initially announced in a speech JFK gave on June 11th 1963. Also he wanted to be faithful to JFK’s idea of what was needed in Vietnam, but he denounced the path Johnson had taken the war. The point of this was to show that he feels that Johnson was smart on the things that RFK was a part of but not so much on other issues.

Beyond what was said, is also how it was said, and the perception that could be conceived of each candidate. JFK was the typical politician, he was distinguished and idealistic. He knew what he could offer the world and he expressed his ideas and stood by them. RFK on the other hand connected with the crowd more. He used raw emotion in everything he said. He was always striving to get his point across to the people using his emotion. In their voices alone they were far different. JFK was calm and strong in his tone of voice, he commanded an audience. RFK joined the audience, rather than just speaking to them. He got onto a topic and stood by what he believed in. He cared not so much about what he said, but how he said it.

JFK was clean and stayed away from really taking a stance on issues or against his opponent in his announcement. This differs from RFK who seems rougher on the edges, a crowd favorite always speaking with more passion then his brother who spoke from his thoughts over his heart, and took his stance on the issues as well as against the incumbent opponent of his own party. It was this passion that really allows RFK’s words to truly move an audience.

The second tactic used by each speaker was what they will do for the country. JFK dived in saying that he will address certain issues like the arms race, emerging nations, science and technology, preventing the collapse of our farm economy as well as helping rebuild the economy. RFK decided rather then just listing off things that he could do to help the country, he will bring everyone together. His announcement was less an announcement for president rather than an airing of grievances with the country. RFK lists everyone he is looking to help, young or old, black or white, rich or poor, he spoke to everyone. He then lists of things that could have been done with the previous president but has not. For example getting out of Vietnam or lending assistance to farmers and to ghettos. RFK took what could be laid out into several speeches and placed them all into one, his announcement for what must be done.

The final thing that was clearly expressed in each of their announcements was what could happen to the country if they were not elected. JFK used words like peril and fateful. He spoke of the things that must be done to prevent these things from occurring, however he did not state what he was going to do to prevent them, other than listing off his plans for the new year. JFK also placed the weight on the voters shoulder. Specifically he states that the people must make their fateful choice in the upcoming election.

RFK again took things a little further, stating like his brother did, that the country is on a perilous course. However RFK’s views of light versus dark to express where he felt the country was going that was previously mention helped put fear into the audience. RFK basically gave the voters an option, here what life will be with or without me. JFK just used the idea life with me and said bad things would happen without.

Looking at these two powerful speakers, you learn a couple of different things. First you learn that they both were extremely similar in using rhetorical tools. Secondly you learn that with very little words they can move an audience through so many different emotions. Both announcements were very brief, yet they covered so much, which can be said for any great speaker.

Most importantly you learn that while JFK is a historically important figure, in terms of his rhetoric, his younger brother was a far superior speaker. RFK created a better persona, laid out the issues for the voters and his stance on each of them, and finally put the fear in the voter for what would happen with him or what would happen without him. RFK took what he believed in and buckled down on those issues. RFK was not the typical politician who made concessions just to gain public approval. RFK did not care what people thought of him, as long as he said what he felt, people would follow. Robert Kennedy deserves more credit for his rhetorical abilities than he is given.

Bibliography
Brown, Stewart. The Presidency on Trial. 1st. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1972.
Dallek, Robert. Let Every Nation Know. 1st. Naperville: Media Fusion, 2006.
Dallek, Robert. An Unfinished Life :John F. Kennedy, 1917 – 1963. Boston, MA: Back Bay Books. 2003.
Dooley, Brian. Robert Kennedy: The Final Years. 1st. Staffordshire: Ryburn Publishing. 1995.
Kennedy, John. “Announcement For Presidency.” New Hampshire. 2 January 1960.
Kennedy, Robert. “Announcement for Presidency.” Washington D.C. 16 March 1968.
Kennedy, Robert. “California Primary Victory.” Los Angles. 4 June 1968.
Kennedy Library. Robert Kennedy Biography. http://jfklibrary.org.
National Archives. John F Kennedy Biography. http://www.jfklibrary.org.
Stuckey, Mary. "Campaign and Character." National Communication Association (1991): 140-146.
Talbot, D (2007). Brothers. New York, NY: Free Press.
Witcover, Jules. 85 Days. 1st. New York: Putnam's Sons, 1969.

Oliver Stone's JFK: Real Political Change, Caused by "Real" Events

In 1991, a movie was released that not only raked in millions thorough the box office, but also created massive political change. Oliver Stone’s JFK delves into the investigation and subsequent trial of Clay Shaw for conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. Stone uses historical fact and twists it into a fictional drama that would be fitting only if it were in a Greek play. However, Stone’s use of characterization convinced the millions of people who watched this movie of something beyond a lone gunman in the Texas Book Depository. So I asked with my rhetorical question, how does Jim Garrison, through his investigation bias the viewers against the government, portraying them as the guilty party?

Jim Garrison, the District Attorney for New Orleans (portrayed by Kevin Costner) opening an investigation into the Kennedy murder case after the Warren Report was released in 1966. Stone uses his connection with the audience, as not only a movie going entity, but also as rationale thinkers, to persuade them that the story that he chooses to present is true. Though billed as a fictional drama, the film draws aspects out of historical events and create what many may believe is the exact truth.

Eventually, Stone hits the audience with a direct link between the overall plot (of figuring out who killed President Kennedy, and subsequently bringing them to justice) and the character that is portrayed as the antagonist (the government). This link comes when the protagonist Jim Garrison meets former CIA agent, Mr. X. Finally there are many reasons why one should look at Stone’s fictitious rendition of the assassination. Foremost, due to the success of the film, and later the extreme anger over what many felt was concrete evidence being used by Stone to prove a conspiracy, the United States government passed the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 and created the Assassination Records Review Board. Their purpose was to investigate and locate all relevant information surrounding the Kennedy Assassination and make it available to the public. This included confidential documents from the FBI and CIA (both organizations were forced to cooperate) that had been gathered since the assassination took place. A film creating direct change in governmental order deserves to be studied. Stones creation of a governmental conspiracy, and using characters to prove such conspiracy created fear and doubt among American citizens over what their government was truly doing. This film was successfully able craft a narrative that revealed the secrecy of the American government which forced the government to release sealed secrets after 30 years.

For this analysis I will be using Narrative Criticism looking at aspects of character development and the gradual release of information leading to pinned guilt against the government. Sonja Foss in her book Rhetorical Criticism quotes Alasdair MacIntyre who described humans as “essentially a story-telling animal.” This film uses historical characters to craft historical fiction. Though Stone often times bent the truth in his telling of these events, the characters he used and created allowed for further explanation and intrigue into the lesser known facts entwined into a well known case. Foss explains that,

Narratives organize the stimuli of our experiences so that we can make sense of the people, places, events and actions of our lives. They allow us to interpret reality because they help us decide what a particular experience “is about” and how the various elements of our experiences are connected.

Garrison follows each event, step by step, slowly revealing additional characters and additional plot points, all culminating in his trail against Shaw. Stone uses these connections as not only evidence that Garrison uses against Shaw, but also as connectors between plot points that previously had been unknown to the average American citizen.

Oliver Stone begins by slowly revealing his interpretation of the assassination as we see flashbacks of the incident and aftermath. This interpretation is presented as testimony and the creation of Garrison’s vision of the events. Around the twenty five minute mark in the film, the government becomes the target of Garrison’s interest. Stone tries to connect the visions that Garrison is constructing and the testimony of witnesses and contradicts what the official report had presented through the Warren Report.

“The Damn Warren Report is a sham!” Garrison voices his opinion about the official government report of the assassination once he realizes that what everyone had been told is false. He then develops his own opinion (as well as the audiences opinion) when he looks at the actual investigation. He talks about the violation of Oswald’s constitutional rights when Oswald was interviewed with no lawyer for over 12 hours, and how none of it was recorded. Garrison begins to place a lot of the blame on law enforcement call the events that surrounded the assassination, “the sloppiest most disorganized investigation ever seen.”

Garrison is then seen reading the Warren Report, and questions the investigation that they held. The audience sees flashbacks to the investigation by the Warren Commission as Garrison is reading. Garrison questions the commission wondering why they aren’t asking the questions that any decent lawyer or investigator would ask.

The investigation digs deeper and continues to pin guilt onto the government (despite the fact that no one has directly came out and testified against the government). Garrison realized that Oswald held meetings and stayed at an apartment in the center of the military district of New Orleans. Despite Oswald officially leaving the marines and defecting to Russia, he is immediately let right back into America without issue, along with his wife who was also let in, despite the fact that Oswald defected.

Suspicions between Oswald and the CIA begin to form in Garrisons mind. The family that got Oswald the job at the book depository in Dallas had links to CIA. The Mayor of Dallas was the brother of fired CIA deputy director could have got the parade route changed. They then decided that, “Shaw, Oswald, and the Cubans…All Agency! They’re untouchable.”

Fears begin to arise among the investigators when once of Garrison’s investigators explains that the Woman In Red that was in Dealy Plaza was scooped up by secret service, and was told what she heard and was told to keep quiet less than 20 minutes after shots. They realize that several people who had given testimony to the Report, or was summoned to give testimony died in mysterious ways. Garrison then discovered that the Warren report had fabricated testimony and forged signatures in their report.

Despite all of these things, the question was how something this big could have been covered up without anyone talking. It is at this point that Garrison meets Mr. X a former CIA agent that worked explicitly in assassinations and black ops. Point by point, Mr. X pins an accusation on the government, with proof that would convict in a normal situation. This character of Mr. X is the key character in the movie because he ties everything together neatly against the government. Rather than speculations, Mr. X uses his first hand knowledge of the events and why the government was involved.

Stone plays up Mr. X as the turning point in Garrison’s investigation, finally able to connect high ranking people and the assassination. This is the point in the film when the audience is shown how the government would conduct the assassination, rather than speculation on the connections between Oswald and random people. Mr. X is based on the real CIA agent Fletcher Prouty, which gives credibility to the film in the form a real connection to not investigation, but also to the assassination.
Mr. X first explains that,

“I was on my way back in New Zealand that I read of the resident's murder. That was 2 in the afternoon the next day New Zealand time, but already the papers had the entire history of an unknown 24-year-old man, Oswald - a studio picture, detailed biographical data, Russian information - and were pretty sure of the fact he'd killed the President alone, although it took them four more hours to charge him with the murder in Texas. It felt as if, well, a cover story was being put out like we would in a black op.”

Mr. X uses his knowledge of how this would have been done if he was in charge of the black ops. He then goes on to explain his duties for a situation like this, if her were in the secret service in a situation like in Dallas.

“One of my routine duties if I had been in Washington would've been to arrange for additional security in Texas. The Secret Service is relatively small, and by custom the military will augment them. I checked it out when I got back and sure enough, I found out someone had told the 112th Military Intelligence Group at 4th Army Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston to "stand down" that day, over the protests of the unit Commander, a Colonel Reich ... Now this is significant, because it is standard operating procedure, especially in a known hostile city like Dallas, to supplement the Secret Service. Even if we had not allowed the bubbletop to be removed from the limousine, we'd've put at least 100 to 200 agents on the sidewalks, without question! There'd already been several attempts on de Gaulle's life in France. Only a month before in Dallas UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson had been spit on and hit. We'd have arrived days ahead of time, studied the route, checked all the buildings ... We never would've allowed all those wide-open empty windows overlooking Dealey ... never ...We would have had our own snipers covering the area. The moment a window went up they'd have been on the radio. We would've been watching the crowds - packages, rolled up newspapers, a coat over an arm, never would have let a man open an umbrella along the way - Never would've allowed that limousine to slow down to 10 miles per hour, much less take that unusual curve at Houston and Elm. You would have felt an Army presence in the streets that day, but none of this happened. It was a violation of the most basic protection codes we have. And it is the best indication of a massive plot in Dallas. Who could have best done that? People in my business, Mr. Garrison, black ops. People like my superior officer could've told Col. Reich, "Look – we have another unit coming from so and so providing security. You'll stand down." That day, in fact, there were some individual Army Intelligence people in Dallas and I'm still trying to figure out who and why. But they weren't protecting the client. One of them, by the way, was caught in the Book depository after police sealed it off.”

The important part of Mr. X is the information he delivers to the audience. He explains specific points and policies that the government did not follow (despite being standard operation procedure). He explains the changes made to the route (which was touched on earlier by a connection with the Mayor of Dallas and the CIA).

Mr. X then continues explaining that Oswald was just a pawn in the plot, that it was someone larger pulling the strings.
“Army Intell had a "Harvey Lee Oswald" on file, but all those files have been destroyed. Many strange things were happening that day, and Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with them. We had the entire Cabinet on a trip to the Far East. We had a third of a combat division returning from Germany in the air above the United States at the time of the shooting, and at 12:34 P.M., the entire telephone system went dead in Washington for a solid hour, and on the plane back to Washington, word was radioed from the White House Situation Room to Lyndon Johnson that one individual performed the assassination.

Does that sound like a bunch of coincidences to you, Mr. Garrison? Not for one moment. The phones didn't work to keep the wrong stories from spreading if anything went wrong with the plan. Nothing was left to chance. I bet you there were even backup teams and cars on the other side of the underpass in the event that Kennedy got through wounded. They would have moved in with vehicles like they did with de Gaulle. He could not be allowed to escape alive. I never though things were the same after that. Vietnam started for real. There was an air of, I don't know, make-believe in the Pentagon and the CIA. Those of us who'd been in secret ops since the beginning knew the Warren Commission was fiction, but there was something ... deeper, uglier. And I knew Allen Dulles very well. I briefed him many a time in his house. He was also General Y's benefactor. But for the life of me I still can't figure out why Dulles was appointed to investigate Kennedy's death. The man who had fired him.

Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, Mafia, they keep people guessing like a parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question - Why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefitted? Who has the power to cover it up? ... You know in '61 right after the Bay of Pigs - very few people know about this - I participated in drawing up National Security Action Memos 55, 56, and 57. These are crucial documents, classified top secret, but basically in them Kennedy instructs General Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that from here on forward ... the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be wholly responsible for all covert paramilitary action in peacetime. This basically ended the reign of the CIA - "splintered it", as J.F.K. promised he would, into a "thousand pieces", - and now was ordering the military to help. This was unprecedented. I can't tell you the shock waves this sent along the corridors of power in Washington. This and, of course, firing Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, and General Charles Cabell, all of them sacred cows of Intell since World War II. You got some very upset people here. that's how the "black ops" people, people like General Y, ended up taking the rules of covert warfare they'd used abroad and brought'em into this country. Now they had the people, the equipment, bases and the motivation ... check out an old CIA man, Bill Harvey - ran something called "Executive Action", which carried out foreign assassinations. Harvey was also involved with the fake defection program that got Oswald into Russia...

Kennedy signed a treaty with the Soviets to ban nuclear testing, he refused to invade Cuba in '62, and he set out to withdraw from Vietnam. But that all ended on November 22, 1963. Only four days after J.F.K. was shot, Lyndon Johnson signed National Security Memo 273, which essentially reversed Kennedy's new withdrawal policy and gave the green light to the covert operations against North Vietnam that provoked the Gulf of Tonkin incident. In that document lay the Vietnam War.”

Mr. X went from explaining how the event would take place, to then explain how things would get covered up. He explained who could have been involved, and who had the power to make everything go away in the end. Piece by piece Mr. X is building a case in the minds of the audience against the government.

The film then creates a flashback that Mr. X and Garrison are creating in their minds regarding the creation of the plan. Mr. X explains that, “It started like that in the wind, defense contractors, big oil men, nothing official, just talk. Then a call is made, to a guy like myself, or someone like my boss Mr. Y.” The phone call begins with Mr. Y answering the phone, “Yeah?” A man that has no face to the audience says, “We need your help.” Mr. Y responds, “When?” The man tells Mr. Y, “In the fall, probably in the south, we want you to come up with a plan.” With the acceptance of the job, the plan is set in motion. The United States government officially began planning a coup against the president,“No one said he must die; no vote; nothing on paper. It’s as old as the crucifixion or the military firing squad 5 bullets, 1 blank, no ones guilty. Everyone who knows anything has deniability. But what’s paramount is it must succeed. No matter how many die, no matter how much it costs. Kennedy announces the Texas trip in September. At that moment, second Oswald’s start popping up all over Dallas, where they have the mayor and the cops in their pocket. General Y flies in the assassins. Pros. Maybe mafia hires, Cubans, locals. Separate teams. Does it mater who shot from what rooftop? It keeps the secrecy. You’ve become a serious threat to the national security of this country, they would have killed you already if there wasn’t such a spot light on you.”

Stone then begins to call the people to arms in future investigations of the Kennedy Assassination. Mr. X tells Garrison that, “You’re the only person to bring trial against the people involved in the Kennedy assassination.” Is this Stone’s call to arms? He claims that, “Fundamentally, people are suckers for the truth! And the truth is on your side right now.” This quote essentially told the public that they are right and that the public can see that now.
In a recap of Garrison’s case, Garrison argues with his own staff about the plausibility of the government actually killing their leader in the United States.

JIM
I have a hunch that from the get go, Oswald had infiltrated this group, probably Cubans or right-wing extremists. He was at the Book Depository that day, told to be there by their handlers, either to prevent the assassination or to take part in it. They coulda told him anything, either one they were going to close down the plotters that day, or two they were going to fake an attack on Kennedy to whip up public opinion against Russia or Cuba and reverse his policies - it doesn't really matter what they told him, 'cause he was under orders, he was a foot soldier.

BILL
I don't buy it, chief - why would the FBI cover it up? You're talking the whole FBI here. A telex that disappears from every single FBI office in the country? We should be investigating all our Mafia leads here in New Orleans - Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante - I can buy that a hell of a lot easier than the Government. Ruby's all Mob, knows Oswald, sets him up. Hoffa - Trafficante - Marcello, they hire some guns and they do Kennedy and maybe the Government doesn't want to open up a whole can o'worms there because it used the Mob to get to Castro. Y'know, Castro being assassinated sounds pretty wild to John Q. Citizen. So they close the book on J.F.K. It makes sense to me.

JIM
I don't doubt their involvement, Bill, but at a low level. Could the Mob change the parade route, Bill, or eliminate the protection for the President? Could the Mob send Oswald to Russia and get him back? Could the Mob get the FBI, the CIA, and the Dallas Police to make a mess of the investigation? Could the Mob appoint the Warren Commission to cover it up? Could the Mob wreck the autopsy? Could the Mob influence the national media to go to sleep? And since when has the Mob used anything but .38's for hits, up close? The Mob wouldn't have the guts or the power for something of this magnitude. Assassins need payrolls, orders, times,schedules. This was a military-style ambush from start to finish ... a coup d'etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings.

BILL
Oh, now you're saying Lyndon Johnson was involved? The President of the United States?

JIM
If I'm so far from the truth, why is the FBI bugging our offices? Why are our witnesses being bought off and murdered? Why are Federal agencies blocking our extraditions and subpoenas when we were never blocked before?

BILL
Maybe 'cause there's some rogue element in the Government!


JIM
With a full-blown conspiracy to cover it up? Y'ever read your Shakespeare, Bill?

BILL
Yeah.

JIM
Julius Caesar: "Brutus and Cassius, they too are honorable men." Who killed Caesar? Twenty, twenty-five Senators. All it takes is one Judas, Bill - a few people, on the inside, Pentagon, CIA ...

In this argument, Jim compares the Kennedy assassination to the greatest Coup in literature, the killing of Caesar. Mr. X tells Garrison that “Kings are killed, politics is power.” When reporting to the media, Garrison said, “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” JFK is a docudrama of an American event that the whole Country was lied to about, by our own Government. That's the point of the entire movie. Kennedy is a background to the point of the movie. Facts that are gathered to support the films overall claim; that the government lies to its own people. Garrison quotes Hitler saying, “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.”
The film ends with the fact that in 1979, Richard Helms, Director of Covert Operations in 1963, admitted under oath that Clay Shaw had worked for the CIA. It goes on to say “A congressional investigation from 1976-1979 found a “probable conspiracy” in the assassination of John F Kennedy and recommended the Justice Department investigate further.”

It is a mixture between the essence of believability and fact that creates an intrigue among viewers. Stone wants the audience to believe that this is possible, so he uses common knowledge that people know is true, and mixes it with fictional events that are presented as truth. Stone uses minimal fact and convinces the audience that it is true. Based upon the smallest connection between person A and person B, Stone uses visual creations of events that no person has seen and plays it off as if it was testimony of fact. He successful creates a fictional world that many believe is fact, simply due to the creation of smoke and mirrors.

Much like Garrison’s investigation and subsequent trial, no one has done more for the progress of the investigation into the Kennedy Assassination than Oliver Stone’s JFK. This film has convinced millions to create their own investigative campaign and not take everything that is being said at face value.

Oswald: The Motive for the Murder of the Century; A Pentad Anaylsis

On November 22nd 1963, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States was assassinated in Dallas, Texas by accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (Oswald was never officially convicted of the crime due to his own assassination). On November 29th the newly sworn in President, Lyndon Johnson created the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by means of Executive Order 11130. The group of men, lead by Earl Warren, were assigned with the sole purpose to investigate and report the findings regarding the assassination of Kennedy.

Sonja Foss in her book Rhetorical Criticism explains how Kenneth Burke created the Pentad method for critical analysis. She explains how Burke felt that this model would better help understand actions taken by certain individuals. These actions represent rhetoric as symbolic actions (383-385). Oswald’s slaying of President Kennedy could be considered a symbolic act for something else. He explains that actions are choices and those actions we choose to make either consciously or unconsciously. Assuming that all actions are rhetoric, the assassination of John F. Kennedy and its ensuing aftermath is a perfect case to study to understand actions as symbolic rhetoric.

Kenneth Burke said that “Humans choose symbols to reflect world views.” This symbolic act turned the direction of the United States towards new leadership in a Cold War world. The rhetoric of the Warren Report itself, as well as the words reflected through Oswald’s actions reflects the world view that Burke was speaking of.

Despite the United States government originally stood firmly behind the commission’s findings (later the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations disagreed with the findings of the Warren Report and stated that a conspiracy to kill the President was likely), no motive was explained. This study of a man who killed one of the most important figures of the 1960s is clearly important. This action shaped the way the world is today. To look at the Warren Report as words chosen to represent one mans plot and actions to kill a president, and not find a clear motive is simply unacceptable. In third world country’s a leaders murder is brought to justice. This is the United States of America and the report investigating this crime found no evidence as to motive.

The Warren Report encompassed sworn testimony from 489 witnesses, 61 sworn affidavits from witnesses, and over 3,100 pieces of evidence. In the end they concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing the President of the United States. This document as well as the act of murder itself can be used as the artifact for study.

Based off the Warren Report descriptions as well as several analyses of the report a motive could be and should be determined. Oswald’s life, his words, and his actions that day, is packed with symbols relating to that day. Looking at Oswald’s actions described by the Warren report, it could be determined that Oswald killed Kennedy to prove his worth by showing his power to the people who have ignored him in the past as well as the groups that accepted him.

The Warren Commission explains in great details the events that took place that day. At 11:40 a.m. on November 22nd, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline Kennedy landed at Dallas Love Field in Dallas Texas. The Presidential Motorcade traveled through Dallas heading toward the Dallas Trade Mart. The Presidential Motorcade headed down Main Street and then at 12:29 p.m. the Motorcade turned onto Houston Street. At 12:30 the Presidents car faced the Texas Book Depository at the corner of Houston and Elm. The car slowed down to a crawls pace of 10 miles per hour as it turned onto Elm and passed the Depository.

Three shots were fired between the time that the Presidents car turned onto Elm and the time he reached the later infamous Grassy Knoll. President Kennedy was struck with the first bullet through his throat. The bullet tore open Kennedy’s throat and also stuck Governor John Connaly. The bullet traveled through Kennedy’s throat into Connally’s shoulder and out the other side, into his wrist, which shatter it into several pieces, following exiting the wrist the bullet entered Connally’s thigh. Later the bullet was found on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital. The second bullet missed and hit a nearby curb. The final and fatal bullet hit Kennedy in the back of his head. Jackie Kennedy jumped out of her seat and tried to grab either secret service agent Clint Hill or a piece of her husband’s skull. Neither has been determined. Jackie claimed she blacked out and does not remember anything she had done.

The Motorcade sped to Parkland Hospital and the President was taken into surgery to try and save his life. Kennedy received his last rights by the Catholic Church and he was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m. Later that day Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as the 36th President of the United States, aboard Air Force One. Kennedy’s body had been taken from Dallas along side Jackie who stood beside Johnson in her blood soaked dress while he was being sworn in (57-112).

Separate from the act of the assassination itself, Lee Harvey Oswald was investigated in great detail. Oswald awoke on the morning on November 22nd and traveled in a carpool to his job at the Texas Book Depository. Oswald was carrying a large brown package in which he claimed carried curtains for his new home. Following the assassination Oswald was seen on the second floor lunchroom. This occurred no more than 90 seconds after the final shot. Marion Baker, a police officer verified Oswald’s identity and let him leave the building at 12:33. Oswald then got onto a bus at 12:40 where he was noticed by his former landlord. Several blocks later Oswald got off the bus and into a taxi which took him to his house.

Despite a mix up of times in which Oswald’s next actions took place, at approximately 1:15 Oswald shot and killed police officer J.D. Tippit less than a mile from his house. Several witnesses saw Oswald running away from the scene towards the Texas Theater. Oswald snuck into the Theater without paying. Two dozen officers arrived moments later and arrested Oswald after raiding a library on a similar tip that Tippit’s killer was inside. Before Oswald was arrested a fight took place between Oswald and the officers in which Oswald reportedly claimed “it was all over.”

At an impromptu media session, Oswald claimed that he had not been informed that he was arrested with the murder of the President. Oswald was booked for both the murder of Tippit as well as Kennedy by the end of the night. Oswald claimed two different stories for his whereabouts during the shooting. First he claimed he was downstairs eating and then went up to the second floor. Later he changed his story saying he was upstairs and went down. Oswald claimed to the media that he “was a patsy” On November 24th Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby while being transfer to the Dallas County Jail, he died shortly after at Parkland Hospital (113-183).

Many points have been brought up about the Warren Report’s final version of the crime. To this day most Americans still believe that Oswald either did not kill or did not act alone in killing the President. Despite the overwhelming evidence against the ruling on the assassination itself, very few differences can be found about Oswald’s true character and what the Commission reported.
Following Kenneth Burke’s Pentad Analysis, the act itself was the assassination of John F. Kennedy. At the time President Kennedy was touring the country preparing and campaigning for the 1964 election. Texas, the home state of Lyndon Johnson was never extreme supporters of the Kennedy administration. Kennedy rode through Dallas, heading towards the Dallas Trade Mart to give a speech. His wife Jackie traveled with the president for the first time since the death of their infant son in August. Dallas was extremely harsh towards Adali Stevenson, an ambassador to the United Nations. Despite warnings of a possible assassination attempt, Kennedy continued with plans for the trip and even forced the secret service to allow him to keep the top off of the convertible.

The Agent as designated by the Warren Report was Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald himself was the most interesting character in the entire situation. Born in New Orleans, without a father, he was the youngest in his family. He spent time in orphanages when money became too tight for his mother. He moved around a lot, and never truly made full connections with other children. Oswald dropped out of school in the 9th grade, and never graduated. Oswald was placed under psychological evaluations in which he was described as being moody and having fantasies about power and domination. Oswald served in the military for the Marines; however there are varying perceptions of how well he did. Some say he was a poor solider only doing minimal work. Other claim he was a top spy for the United States leading him to be sent to the Soviet Union.

In 1959 Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union, and renounced his citizenship to the United States. Following what appeared to be an attempt at suicide, Oswald once again found himself under Psychiatric evaluations. The KGB recommended that Oswald be forced out of the country, but he was not. Oswald met his future wife Marina and returned to the United States in 1962. Oswald jumped from jobs in the United States many co-workers felt his was lazy and undedicated. Jumping around city to city, Oswald found himself in Dallas working for the Texas Book Depository.

Though there was limited amount of time after the assassination before Oswald himself was killed he adamantly denied the assassination claiming he was “a patsy”. The circumstances surrounding his arrest were also suspect. Oswald was arrested for the murder of another police officer in a Texas theater; however he was swarmed by massive amounts of FBI agents in a very short amount of time. Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby in the Dallas police station and the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald never took place.

The Agency portion of the Pentad Analysis is Oswald firing three shots at President Kennedy from a sixth story window from the Texas Book Depository, with an Italian Carcano riffle. One of the three shots missed and hit a curb under the triple underpass a few hundred feet away. The other two shots claimed by the Warren Report hit Kennedy, one was the Magic Bullet, and the other the fatal head shot. Oswald had worked at the Depository since October 20th and was scene carrying a large object covered in paper into the building earlier that day. The shots rang out and Oswald was seen 75 seconds later in the lunchroom four floors down.

The Scene was Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Texas was known for being hostile towards Kennedy, but Kennedy felt it was important for a 1964 re-election. Kennedy toured Dallas in the open top convertible, The motorcade turned off of Main street onto Houston, the headed directly towards the Book Depository then turned onto Elm, slowing down to only ten miles per hour. Many feel this fact alone disproves Oswald as the killer because the shot on Houston would have given him many more chances than the shots on Elm did. Shortly after the convertible passed the Depository and approached the Triple Underpass.

The Rhetor of the Pentad Analysis is the Warren Commission concluding that Oswald had no definitive motive and acted alone. The Warren Report to this day is still falls under extreme criticism. This being due to the lack of investigative work, other findings as well as general public disapproval of the commission itself and its findings. If the Warren Report indeed was correct and Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, why was no obvious motive explained?

Several relations can be drawn between the points of Kenneth Burke’s Pentad to prove Oswald’s motive. If you compare the agent and the agency you see some of these points. Oswald used a twelve dollar riffle bought from a magazine to kill the country’s most powerful man. Vincent Bugliosi, in a Time magazine interview explains points from his investigative book on the assassination, “The Assassination: Was it a Conspiracy? No”. Bugliosi explains that while in the Marines Oswald’s vision and hope of power was clear. He claimed at one point that he would do something that the “world would remember for 10,000 years” (66-67). If a man is able to use a poor quality riffle to kill a man that is not only moving, but high protected, the world would remember.

After getting away from the Book Depository without getting caught Oswald had no way to prove what he had done. Killing Tippit in broad daylight gave him attention that he did not get from killing Kennedy until later. Oswald after killing Kennedy escaped under panic of what he had done. He then realized that he got away and killed Tippit to bring the attention back towards him. Tippit had power being a police officer, and Oswald killed him at point blank range.

Further beyond using a poor weapon to kill the president to make Oswald famous, there is more to the agent agency relation. The Warren Commission claimed that Oswald was a near sharpshooter in the Marines with a fairly high security clearance. Many people disagree with the amount of success Oswald had with a riffle, one of which was the Soviet Union. As the commission describes, when defecting to the Soviet Union, many there did not want to let him in. Many Soviets felt he was mentally unstable and not worth the risk of letting a former Marine into their country.

Gerald Posner in his novel “Case Closed,” asked questions disproving a conspiracy and explaining possible motives for Oswald. One of which was why a country at war with another, would welcome a traitor with military experience and expertise into their country? Especially when he had fairly high military clearance? Oswald, now back in the states looked for redemption for the failures that he had previously experienced. Hitting Kennedy from that distance with the riffle he used proved he deserved more recognition that he had received from the Soviets. Despite the fact that they let him into the country, they did not treat him well, causing him to flee with his wife (20-55).

Looking in depth at the agent with the acts before the assassination as well as the act itself, you can see Oswald’s instability. Oswald as a man who has already been evaluated as described as having fantasies of power could describe many of his actions. Oswald never had power; he never excelled in anything he did. Despite joining the Marines, possible to gain closeness with others, he still felt isolated; leaving America perhaps gave Oswald the chance to gain a new life. However returning to America, he searched for more chances to be more than Lee Harvey Oswald.

Sylvia Meagher explains in her novel “Accessories After the Fact” that in Dallas, Oswald was able to create another identity for himself. Alek James Hidell. Much like Jeanne Fisher described in her analysis of the White-Blank Case, changing his name gave him a new identity (163). Oswald purchased the two weapons he had, the riffle that was used to kill Kennedy and the Revolver used to kill Tippi. It was not Oswald that was seeking the new power, it was Hidell.

One could assume that when Oswald denied the killing of Kennedy, perhaps Oswald was telling the truth, it was Alek Hidell that killed Kennedy. Scapegoating is used to pass blame from one person to another. Meagher explained that while Oswald was being brought into custody, he refused to cover his face from the reporting cameras. She explains that when most people are public arrested and brought in for a crime, the adamantly deny the crime as well as cover their face. Oswald did no such thing. Oswald asked the arresting officer who told him to cover his face, “Why would I cover my face, I have done nothing wrong, I am innocent” (246-248). Oswald, when confronted later, passes the blame to someone else and away from the unimportant Lee Harvey Oswald.

The act and the scene relation are important as well. Oswald (A. Hidell) created a pro-Castro/communism group in New Orleans in which he was the only member. Passing out flyers in opposition of Kennedy, Oswald tried to create a following. Kennedy was the main focus of the group that gave him meaning. Perhaps Oswald killed Kennedy to prove to everyone the means and resolve of the group that he belonged to and pushed him to the forefront of everyone’s conversations. Oswald’s convictions on the issue forced his hand to bring attention to his cause.

James Hosty explains in “Assignment Oswald” the hostile area that is Dallas. Dallas was an extremely hostile area for President Kennedy and Oswald knew this. The President Wanted for Treason flyers were scattered across Dallas the days before the president’s arrival (6-8). Oswald lived in Dallas for a brief time previously, and now had been in the town since early October. If Oswald was going to create a large following, Dallas would be the place to do so. The Motorcade happened to pass his place of business and he felt that this was the best time to thrust his idea onto the front page.

This moment in time is one of the most significant points in history, every aspect deserves to be investigated. It is clear that the report itself should have determined a clear motive for Oswald’s actions. In his efforts to gain acceptance and control over those who previously doubted him, he killed a man with more power than anyone else in the country. These actions symbolically put Oswald on the top of the mountain of power. He took down the man who had the power asserting him as the new leader in control. Thousands of years from now when looking back at Ancient America, you will see a footnote, Lee Harvey Oswald the murderer of the President of that time.

Bibliography
Bugliosi, Vincent. "The Assassination: Was it a Conspiracy? No". Time 2007: 66-67.
Fisher, Jeanne Y. "A Burkean Analysis of the Rhetorical Dimensions of a Multiple Murder and Suicide." Quarterly Journal of Speech 60 (1974): 175-89.
Foss, Sonja. Rhetorical Criticism. Long Grove: Waveland Press, 2004.
Hosty, James. Assignment Oswald. New York: Arcade Publishing, 1996.
Lane, Mark. Rush to Judgement. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1992.
Meagher, Sylvia. Accessories After the Fact. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.
Newseum, The President has Been Shot. Naperville: SourceBooks, 2003.
Posner, Gerald. Case Closed. New York: Anchor Books, 1993.
Warren, Earl. Report of the Warren Commission on the Assassination of President
Kennedy. New York: New York Times, 1964.