Mine is a haunted generation. We keep replaying the assassinations of John Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. We keep asking ourselves, "What would our lives be like if these men hadn’t been gunned down?" It’s as if it is the only way to keep the memory alive. We can mark where we were and what we were doing the moment the news broke of each of their violent and untimely deaths. Looking at a transaction register at the office when a worker nearby told me what went down in Dallas; listening to a Flyers game on the radio when the announcer broke in with the God-awful news about Dr. King; getting ready for work when I found out Bobby had been murdered in that Los Angeles hotel the night before. For those who were young and idealistic, these men are their only saints. We venerate them by puzzling over their deaths.
A recent BBC report by Shane O’Sullivan raised new questions about Bobby’s murder. He questioned whether Sirhan Sirhan could have acted alone. He uses ballistics evidence to support his thesis, much as the JFK conspiracy theorists did. Sirhan is seen approaching RFK from the front, yet, according to the autopsy results, the trajectory of the bullet seems to show Bobby was shot from behind.
O’Sullivan goes further. He has unearthed photos of the audience in the LA hotel during Bobby’s ill-fated post-election appearance. He has identified three members of the CIA in enlarged photographs. Their identities are corroborated by credible witnesses, people who worked with and knew them. All three, O’Sullivan says, were known Kennedy-haters. There is no plausible evidence to indicate why the CIA was in attendance. If they were there to protect Bobby because they had sniffed out a plot, why has no one at the CIA ever stepped forward and said so? Why would the three men chosen by the CIA be agents with a public dislike for Robert Kennedy?
O’Sullivan raises questions, but doesn’t provide any answers. He doesn’t try to tie the CIA to Sirhan, who shot RFK in full view of friends and television cameras because, he has said, he was upset with Bobby’s support of Israel. O’Sullivan says the three CIA operatives hated Bobby because he helped pull the plug on plans to invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro. The motives were dissimilar, but could the common desire have brought the men together to prevent RFK from becoming president?
To put Bobby’s assassination in historical perspective, he was not likely to win the nomination of his party, let alone the presidency. He had entered the primaries only after Lyndon Johnson had declared he would not seek another term. Sen. Eugene McCarthy had made the very brave decision to challenge Johnson in the New Hampshire Primary. Bobby’s late entrance had infuriated McCarthy and his followers, and he was branded an opportunist and a backstabber. The front-runner for the nomination was Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who would go on to become the Democrat’s nominee and then lose to Richard Nixon in the general election. McCarthy and Robert Kennedy split the antiwar forces, which ultimately helped Humphrey win the nomination at the stormy convention in Chicago. Rumors were abound that Bobby decided to run because he didn’t think McCarthy could win and didn’t think the senator had the temperament for the White House. It was pretty clear, when the California Primary rolled around, RFK had to win it to remain a viable candidate or withdraw from the race.
Despite being McCarthy supporters, many of us became entranced by the Kennedy magic again and convinced ourselves if only Bobby would survive in California, he could win the nomination, become president and stop the war in Vietnam. His death ended all that. Vietnam dragged on under Nixon, as he looked for "peace with honor." Then came Watergate. The hopes and dreams of our generation died.
It is no coincidence, in the midst of another losing war, some are thinking about Bobby again, trying to find new meaning in his death by tying it to all the things we hate, blaming them for his murder. With "Bobby" in theaters, is O’Sullivan only dredging up conspiracy theories to hype the movie? Or is he, like my generation, tortured by the thought of what might have been?
