David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[Pat Speer]

Garrison may well be a fraud. But if he is I still need a lot of convincing. In the tumultuous context of his 1967 investigation, the surprising thing would be if his list of culprits did not change.

To clarify my earlier post, I don't believe Garrison to be a fraud. I do, however, understand why Sheridan and others would think so. Here, Garrison was spouting to the press that he'd "solved" the case. At first he was leaning toward Cubans, then a gay thrill-kill cult, then the CIA, then the CIA with LBJ, blah blah blah. It kept getting bigger and bigger. And YET, the one group Garrison avoided implicating, LIKE THE PLAGUE, was the mafia. Garrison's case was strongest against Ferrie and Banister, BOTH working for Marcello in November 1963. Oswald's uncle had also worked for Marcello. That Garrison avoided Marcello, while visiting Vegas and pointing in most every direction, is indeed suspicious. Someone predisposed to suspect the mob, such as RFK and Sheridan, would have a hard time watching Garrison's high-wire act without wanting to puke. Indeed, many CTs were later to conclude that Jimbo's road show did a lot more to hurt the chances of a new investigation, than help.

Garrison did regain some measure of respectability when the HSCA looked into some of his leads, and found them credible, but that was almost a decade later.

[Myra Bronstein]

Oh yeah, definitely check out Salon.

Media/Author events here:

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/events.html

Monday May 7

CBS Early Show

...

Charlie Rose Show, PBS/TV -- check listings for local airtimes.

Writeup from CBS Early Show.

If anyone finds a video or audio file please let us know.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/07/...6164.shtml#ccmm

NEW YORK, May 7, 2007

"(CBS) Four decades after the Kennedy presidency, Salon.com founder David Talbot has written a haunting book called "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years." It brings to life one of the most tumultuous periods in American history and examines questions that remain unanswered to this day.

...

The book begins with then FBI director J. Edgar Hoover calling RFK to tell him his brother had been shot. Talbot said Hoover expressed little sympathy.

"Very cold — 'The president's been shot,' click. Almost like that," Talbot said. "He calls back later 20 minutes later — 'The president's dead' — almost with a sense of pleasure in his voice, according to Nicholas (Katzenbach), the associate attorney general under Bobby. This is what Bobby told him later. So his world caved in for Bobby at this point. He was — he was the moon that orbited around his brother. And so suddenly this — the center of his universe is gone."

Even after RFK claimed to accept the findings of the Warren Commission, the book portrays him as the first assassination conspiracy theorist. Neither Kennedy brother had a shortage of enemies. RFK relentlessly pursued the mafia and he was suspicious of the CIA for their role in the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in which President Kennedy tried to overthrow Cuba's communist government. The mafia, CIA and Cuban exiles created a triumvirate that deeply concerned Robert Kennedy. Havana, after all, was a hot spot for gambling before Fidel Castro took over and the mafia was angry, Talbot said.

"They were furious with the Kennedys because Bobby was leading the most aggressive crackdown on organized crime never before seen in this country," Talbot said. "So the CIA was working with some of these cut-throat characters already. And Bobby looked at that area as the source of the plot against his brother. Because Cuba could become the Iraq of its day. That was the center of the cold war tensions — very volatile area. The Kennedys refused after the bay of pigs to invade and alienated many people within their own government as a result of this."

Talbot spent three years on the book and said it was an emotional experience because he spoke to people who devoted their lives to the Kennedy brothers and saw those two men as the way to change the world — and at least for a little while, they did, Talbot said.

"Tears would come to their eyes as we talked about those days," he said. "And, you know, I think the country misses that kind of idealism today. When you listen to a speech like JFK delivered near the end of his life, the peace speech at American University where he said, you know, we all inhabit the same small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's future and we're all mortal. Imagine American leaders saying that today about our enemy? That we can all live in peace together.""

[Myra Bronstein]

So frustrating...

Can anyone get the link at the bottom of this page to play the streaming video interview between Charlie Rose and David Talbot?

http://www.salon.com/plus/index.html

I just get a "page not found" error with either speed selection. Argh.

On edit:

Then when I go to the Charlie Rose site I can't find Talbot listed as a guest tonight.

http://www.charlierose.com/home

I dunno what the heck's going on...

And I can't swear.

It's all very frustrating.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Don Jeffries]

I hate to hear Jim Garrison criticized by any knowledgable assassination researcher. Garrison is one of my all-time heroes. Consider the array of powerful forces alligned against him. Consider the unprecedented lack of cooperation he received from governmental agencies at every level. Consider the unnatural, untimely and obviously suspicious deaths of some of his most important witnesses. When else have governors from several different states refused to extradite witnesses who were crucial to a district attorney's case? As for Sheridan, Garrison supposedly wired Perry Russo and recorded this "reporter" threatening and attempting to bribe his witness. I'm assuming these recordings are real and exist; if so, that seals the case against Sheridan. He was not "loyal' to RFK or the Kennedy family; he was an active agent in stopping Garrison from exposing the truth about the assassination of a sitting U.S. president. He was also not a legitimate "reporter" in any sense of the word, and NBC permitting him to masquerade as such brands them guilty of being an active participant in the coverup as well.

[Myra Bronstein]

I hate to hear Jim Garrison criticized by any knowledgable assassination researcher. Garrison is one of my all-time heroes. Consider the array of powerful forces alligned against him. Consider the unprecedented lack of cooperation he received from governmental agencies at every level. Consider the unnatural, untimely and obviously suspicious deaths of some of his most important witnesses. When else have governors from several different states refused to extradite witnesses who were crucial to a district attorney's case? As for Sheridan, Garrison supposedly wired Perry Russo and recorded this "reporter" threatening and attempting to bribe his witness. I'm assuming these recordings are real and exist; if so, that seals the case against Sheridan. He was not "loyal' to RFK or the Kennedy family; he was an active agent in stopping Garrison from exposing the truth about the assassination of a sitting U.S. president. He was also not a legitimate "reporter" in any sense of the word, and NBC permitting him to masquerade as such brands them guilty of being an active participant in the coverup as well.

I feel exactly the same way. I hate to see one of the few true heroes disparaged.

[Michael Hogan]

Garrison may well be a fraud. But if he is I still need a lot of convincing. In the tumultuous context of his 1967 investigation, the surprising thing would be if his list of culprits did not change.

To clarify my earlier post, I don't believe Garrison to be a fraud. I do, however, understand why Sheridan and others would think so. Here, Garrison was spouting to the press that he'd "solved" the case. At first he was leaning toward Cubans, then a gay thrill-kill cult, then the CIA, then the CIA with LBJ, blah blah blah. It kept getting bigger and bigger. And YET, the one group Garrison avoided implicating, LIKE THE PLAGUE, was the mafia. Garrison's case was strongest against Ferrie and Banister, BOTH working for Marcello in November 1963. Oswald's uncle had also worked for Marcello. That Garrison avoided Marcello, while visiting Vegas and pointing in most every direction, is indeed suspicious. Someone predisposed to suspect the mob, such as RFK and Sheridan, would have a hard time watching Garrison's high-wire act without wanting to puke. Indeed, many CTs were later to conclude that Jimbo's road show did a lot more to hurt the chances of a new investigation, than help.

Garrison did regain some measure of respectability when the HSCA looked into some of his leads, and found them credible, but that was almost a decade later.

Pat, you may not believe that he was a fraud but your post above, at least to me, makes it clear that you are attempting to marginalize the contributions of Jim Garrison. In attempting to do so, you've over-simplified and mis-characterized some of the facts. First of all, in giving your timeline of Garrison's suspects, you omit entirely the military-industrial establishment. I refer you to Garrison's Playboy interview or his book A Heritage of Stone.

Could you document where Garrison was leaning toward a gay thrill kill cult before he suspected elements of the Central Intelligence Agency?

You claim that his case was strongest against Ferrie and Banister and mention their relationship with Marcello. You did not mention that both also had extensive ties to factions within the intelligence community. And no matter how strong Garrison's case against them, it's hard to prosecute dead men.

I'm not debating Garrison's real and alleged shortcomings. Authors and researchers far more knowledgable than I have done that. Without listing all of the advances the New Orleans D.A.'s investigation spawned in the face of enormous resistance by powers at the very highest level of our government, I will mention distribution of so-called bootleg copies of the Zapruder film to the American public, the testimony of Pierre Finck under oath, and the Clinton sightings to name a few.

Anyone that values the truth should be able to acknowledge Garrison's efforts in advancing same.

Garrison knew, understood and said the Mafia did not have the means to effect the murder alone and then effect the massive, unprecedented ensuing government coverup. He was right, of course. Garrison realized early on that Oswald had an intelligence background. As did some of the Cubans that Oswald was seen with in New Orleans.

Pat, to me your characterization of the Garrison investigation as a whole, and your desultory references to it as a high-wire act and a road show are not consistent with many of your other posts in terms of accuracy and reasoning and informed speculation. And yes, I did read your last sentence.

From Brothers, page 320:

As Garrison began investigating Oswald's ties to local Kennedy haters, he zeroed in on the peculiar office building at 544 Camp Street where a former FBI agent and far-right zealot named Guy Banister and his eccentric associate David Ferrie oversaw a buzzing beehive of anti-Castro activity that included the young man later arrested for Kennedy's murder. The prosecutor came to the conclusion that Oswald was a pawn in a complex plot, framed as a Castro-loving Marxist to take the blame for the assassination. The real masterminds behind the conspiracy, he decided, could be found in the CIA and

Pentagon

(emphasis added). "President Kennedy was killed for one reason," Garrison began to tell the press. "Because he was working for reconciliation with the [soviet Union] and Castro's Cuba.....President Kennedy died because he wanted peace."

And from page 327:

Throughout his years as a district attorney, Garrison gave Carlos Marcello a pass, going so far as to insist that the mobster, who called himself a tomato salesman, was a "respectable businessman." In his 1988 memoir, Garrison wrote that he never came "upon evidence that [Marcello] was the Mafia kingpin the Justice Department says he is." He conceded that the Mafia sometimes acted as a shadowy partner of the CIA, but the only significant role he believed the mob played in Dallas was a convenient scapegoat for the agency. [Robert] Kennedy had a more astute understanding of the way power in America worked; he recognized that insitutions like the CIA sometimes became so entwined with the criminal underworld, it was difficult to tell them apart at the operational level.

[Myra Bronstein]

Garrison may well be a fraud. But if he is I still need a lot of convincing. In the tumultuous context of his 1967 investigation, the surprising thing would be if his list of culprits did not change.

To clarify my earlier post, I don't believe Garrison to be a fraud. I do, however, understand why Sheridan and others would think so. Here, Garrison was spouting to the press that he'd "solved" the case. At first he was leaning toward Cubans, then a gay thrill-kill cult, then the CIA, then the CIA with LBJ, blah blah blah. It kept getting bigger and bigger. And YET, the one group Garrison avoided implicating, LIKE THE PLAGUE, was the mafia. Garrison's case was strongest against Ferrie and Banister, BOTH working for Marcello in November 1963. Oswald's uncle had also worked for Marcello. That Garrison avoided Marcello, while visiting Vegas and pointing in most every direction, is indeed suspicious. Someone predisposed to suspect the mob, such as RFK and Sheridan, would have a hard time watching Garrison's high-wire act without wanting to puke. Indeed, many CTs were later to conclude that Jimbo's road show did a lot more to hurt the chances of a new investigation, than help.

Garrison did regain some measure of respectability when the HSCA looked into some of his leads, and found them credible, but that was almost a decade later.

Pat, you may not believe that he was a fraud but your post above, at least to me, makes it clear that you are attempting to marginalize the contributions of Jim Garrison. In attempting to do so, you've over-simplified and mis-characterized some of the facts. First of all, in giving your timeline of Garrison's suspects, you omit entirely the military-industrial establishment. I refer you to Garrison's Playboy interview or his book A Heritage of Stone.

Could you document where Garrison was leaning toward a gay thrill kill cult before he suspected elements of the Central Intelligence Agency?

You claim that his case was strongest against Ferrie and Banister and mention their relationship with Marcello. You did not mention that both also had extensive ties to factions within the intelligence community. And no matter how strong Garrison's case against them, it's hard to prosecute dead men.

I'm not debating Garrison's real and alleged shortcomings. Authors and researchers far more knowledgable than I have done that. Without listing all of the advances the New Orleans D.A.'s investigation spawned in the face of enormous resistance by powers at the very highest level of our government, I will mention distribution of so-called bootleg copies of the Zapruder film to the American public, the testimony of Pierre Finck under oath, and the Clinton sightings to name a few.

Anyone that values the truth should be able to acknowledge Garrison's efforts in advancing same.

Garrison knew, understood and said the Mafia did not have the means to effect the murder alone and then effect the massive, unprecedented ensuing government coverup. He was right, of course. Garrison realized early on that Oswald had an intelligence background. As did some of the Cubans that Oswald was seen with in New Orleans.

Pat, to me your characterization of the Garrison investigation as a whole, and your desultory references to it as a high-wire act and a road show are not consistent with many of your other posts in terms of accuracy and reasoning and informed speculation. And yes, I did read your last sentence.

From Brothers, page 320:

As Garrison began investigating Oswald's ties to local Kennedy haters, he zeroed in on the peculiar office building at 544 Camp Street where a former FBI agent and far-right zealot named Guy Banister and his eccentric associate David Ferrie oversaw a buzzing beehive of anti-Castro activity that included the young man later arrested for Kennedy's murder. The prosecutor came to the conclusion that Oswald was a pawn in a complex plot, framed as a Castro-loving Marxist to take the blame for the assassination. The real masterminds behind the conspiracy, he decided, could be found in the CIA and

Pentagon

(emphasis added). "President Kennedy was killed for one reason," Garrison began to tell the press. "Because he was working for reconciliation with the [soviet Union] and Castro's Cuba.....President Kennedy died because he wanted peace."

And from page 327:

Throughout his years as a district attorney, Garrison gave Carlos Marcello a pass, going so far as to insist that the mobster, who called himself a tomato salesman, was a "respectable businessman." In his 1988 memoir, Garrison wrote that he never came "upon evidence that [Marcello] was the Mafia kingpin the Justice Department says he is." He conceded that the Mafia sometimes acted as a shadowy partner of the CIA, but the only significant role he believed the mob played in Dallas was a convenient scapegoat for the agency. [Robert] Kennedy had a more astute understanding of the way power in America worked; he recognized that insitutions like the CIA sometimes became so entwined with the criminal underworld, it was difficult to tell them apart at the operational level.

Agree with your comments on Garrison Michael.

And since we now know that you're reading "Brothers," care to tell us what you think?

[Evan Marshall]

Garrison may well be a fraud. But if he is I still need a lot of convincing. In the tumultuous context of his 1967 investigation, the surprising thing would be if his list of culprits did not change.

To clarify my earlier post, I don't believe Garrison to be a fraud. I do, however, understand why Sheridan and others would think so. Here, Garrison was spouting to the press that he'd "solved" the case. At first he was leaning toward Cubans, then a gay thrill-kill cult, then the CIA, then the CIA with LBJ, blah blah blah. It kept getting bigger and bigger. And YET, the one group Garrison avoided implicating, LIKE THE PLAGUE, was the mafia. Garrison's case was strongest against Ferrie and Banister, BOTH working for Marcello in November 1963. Oswald's uncle had also worked for Marcello. That Garrison avoided Marcello, while visiting Vegas and pointing in most every direction, is indeed suspicious. Someone predisposed to suspect the mob, such as RFK and Sheridan, would have a hard time watching Garrison's high-wire act without wanting to puke. Indeed, many CTs were later to conclude that Jimbo's road show did a lot more to hurt the chances of a new investigation, than help.

Garrison did regain some measure of respectability when the HSCA looked into some of his leads, and found them credible, but that was almost a decade later.

Pat, you may not believe that he was a fraud but your post above, at least to me, makes it clear that you are attempting to marginalize the contributions of Jim Garrison. In attempting to do so, you've over-simplified and mis-characterized some of the facts. First of all, in giving your timeline of Garrison's suspects, you omit entirely the military-industrial establishment. I refer you to Garrison's Playboy interview or his book A Heritage of Stone.

Could you document where Garrison was leaning toward a gay thrill kill cult before he suspected elements of the Central Intelligence Agency?

You claim that his case was strongest against Ferrie and Banister and mention their relationship with Marcello. You did not mention that both also had extensive ties to factions within the intelligence community. And no matter how strong Garrison's case against them, it's hard to prosecute dead men.

I'm not debating Garrison's real and alleged shortcomings. Authors and researchers far more knowledgable than I have done that. Without listing all of the advances the New Orleans D.A.'s investigation spawned in the face of enormous resistance by powers at the very highest level of our government, I will mention distribution of so-called bootleg copies of the Zapruder film to the American public, the testimony of Pierre Finck under oath, and the Clinton sightings to name a few.

Anyone that values the truth should be able to acknowledge Garrison's efforts in advancing same.

Garrison knew, understood and said the Mafia did not have the means to effect the murder alone and then effect the massive, unprecedented ensuing government coverup. He was right, of course. Garrison realized early on that Oswald had an intelligence background. As did some of the Cubans that Oswald was seen with in New Orleans.

Pat, to me your characterization of the Garrison investigation as a whole, and your desultory references to it as a high-wire act and a road show are not consistent with many of your other posts in terms of accuracy and reasoning and informed speculation. And yes, I did read your last sentence.

From Brothers, page 320:

As Garrison began investigating Oswald's ties to local Kennedy haters, he zeroed in on the peculiar office building at 544 Camp Street where a former FBI agent and far-right zealot named Guy Banister and his eccentric associate David Ferrie oversaw a buzzing beehive of anti-Castro activity that included the young man later arrested for Kennedy's murder. The prosecutor came to the conclusion that Oswald was a pawn in a complex plot, framed as a Castro-loving Marxist to take the blame for the assassination. The real masterminds behind the conspiracy, he decided, could be found in the CIA and

Pentagon

(emphasis added). "President Kennedy was killed for one reason," Garrison began to tell the press. "Because he was working for reconciliation with the [soviet Union] and Castro's Cuba.....President Kennedy died because he wanted peace."

And from page 327:

Throughout his years as a district attorney, Garrison gave Carlos Marcello a pass, going so far as to insist that the mobster, who called himself a tomato salesman, was a "respectable businessman." In his 1988 memoir, Garrison wrote that he never came "upon evidence that [Marcello] was the Mafia kingpin the Justice Department says he is." He conceded that the Mafia sometimes acted as a shadowy partner of the CIA, but the only significant role he believed the mob played in Dallas was a convenient scapegoat for the agency. [Robert] Kennedy had a more astute understanding of the way power in America worked; he recognized that insitutions like the CIA sometimes became so entwined with the criminal underworld, it was difficult to tell them apart at the operational level.

Agree with your comments on Garrison Michael.

And since we now know that you're reading "Brothers," care to tell us what you think?

I was always conflicted over Garrison until I met one of his former investigators at a police training conference and we had some marathon discussions-I think Mellon's book was a mess with a few pearls uncovered.

It certainly makes one wonder why if he was so far from the turth why such massive attacks were launched against him. I'm still not convinced of his real motiviation but he certainly exposed such important folks&facts.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Evan Marshall

[John Dolva]

Evan: "It certainly makes one wonder why if he was so far from the turth why such massive attacks were launched against him. I'm still not convinced of his real motiviation but he certainly exposed such important folks&facts."

What better way to give him and his theories credibility to and engage the research community? Tell part of the truth and set it spinning.

Guy Bannister was mch more than a Marcello man (if at all) he was an ex FBI agent, a Minuteman and a champion of Segregation. Louisiana was in a sense the headquarters of the Segregation movement.

As said elsewhere 'It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma'.

Edited May 9, 2007 by John Dolva

[William Kelly]

David Talbot (p.406) :

"In recent years, the Kennedy legacy has been clouded by a spate of books, documentaries, and articles that have attempted to demythologize Camelot by presenting JFK as a drug-addled, sex-deranged, mobbed-up risk taker. While Kennedy's private life would certainly not pass today's public scrutiny, this pathological interpretation missess the essential story of his presidency. There was a heroic grandeur to John F. Kennedy's administration that had nothing to do with the mists of Camelot. It was a presidency that clased with its own times, and in the end found some measure of greatness. Coming to office at the height of the Cold War and held hostage by their party's powerful Southern racist wing, the Kennedy brothers steadily grew in vision and courage - prodded by the social movements of the sixties - until they were in such sharp conflict with the national security bureaucracy and Southern Democrats that they risked splitting their own administration and party. This is the fundamental historical truth about the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

"And yet, caught up in the fashionable anti-Kennedy backlash of the times, prominent journalsits like Christopher Hitchens dismiss JFK as "a vulgar hoodlum." One result of this relentless Kennedy bashing has been to diminish the public outrage over JFK's unsolved murder. After all, if President Kennedy really was such a sleazy character, where is the tragedy in his violent demise?"

"It has also become fashionable in all the media babble about Dallas that fills the air each year around November 22 for commentators to opine that 'we will probably never know the truth about John F. Kennedy's assassination" - a self-fulfilling prophecy that relieves them of any responsiblity to search for the truth. Ironically, some of the more politically backward countries were Bobby Kennedy took hi srapturous mission in the 1960s - including South Africa, Argentina, and Chile- have made strenuous, if painful, efforts to confront the deepest traumas of their past, including assassinations, kidnappings and torture. In South Africa, the post-apartheid process of political and moral self-examination became known as 'truth and reconciliation.'"

"But in the United States, the darkest political mysteries of recent decades - including the assassination of President Kennedy - have yet to be fully explored. From Dallas to Vietnam to Iraq, the truth has consistently been avoided, the perpetrators have never fully answered for their actions. When the nation has mustered the courage to impanel commissions, these investigations soon come up against locked doors that remain firmly shut to this day. The stage for this reign of secrecy was set on November 22, 1963. The lesson of Dallas was clear. If a president can be shot down with impunity at high noon in the sunny streets of an American city, then any kind of deceit is possible."

"Assassination researchers insist that it is not too late, even at this remote date, to revive the JFK investigation. Most people who could have shed light on the crime are now dead, reserachers acknowledge, but the trail has not receded entirely into history's far horizons."

"Researchers list a variety of actions that can still be taken. The government should be compelled to release the JFK files it is still withholding - including the 1,100 documents related to George Joannides that the CIA has admitted it still has locked away. The CIA should also be required to disclose the phone and travel records of other agents suspected of involvement in the JFK - and RFK - assassinations, such as David Morales. Washington should follow this by making a formal request to the Cuban and Mexican governments to release all their secret files on the case. The Justice Department should offer amnesty and waive government secrecy pledges for all those who step forward with relevant testimony. Lingering technical disputes about the events in Dealey Plaza - such as the hotly debated 'acoustic fingerprints' on the Dallas police motorcycle Dictabelt that apparently indicated that as many as five shots were fired that day - should be resolved by utilizing the most sophisticated forensic resources, including those of the federal Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, which oddly refused to take on the case. Finally, the Kennedy family should be persuaded to completely open the papers under their control - including those of John and Robert Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - which are still subject to frustrating restrictions."

"The assassination researchers are, of course, indefatigable by nature. That's what has allowed them to carry on, through years of government obstruction, media ridicule, and the bewilderment of family and friends. But outside this shrinking community of hardy souls, a malaise hangs over the JFK crusade."

"...Do Americans still want the truth - starting with Dallas and going all the way to Guantanamo? Do they want to take back their country? I don't know for certain. But I have to be optimistic. Just because there really is no other way, is there?"

David Talbott, from Brothers - The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years.

Edited May 9, 2007 by William Kelly

[John Dolva]

David Talbot (p.406) :

"In recent years, the Kennedy legacy has been clouded by a spate of books, documentaries, and articles that have attempted to demythologize Camelot by presenting JFK as a drug-addled, sex-deranged, mobbed-up risk taker. While Kennedy's private life would certainly not pass today's public scrutiny, this pathological interpretation missess the essential story of his presidency. There was a heroic grandeur to John F. Kennedy's administration that had nothing to do with the mists of Camelot. It was a presidency that clased with its own times, and in the end found some measure of greatness. Coming to office at the height of the Cold War and held hostage by their party's powerful Southern racist wing, the Kennedy brothers steadily grew in vision and courage - prodded by the social movements of the sixties - until they were in such sharp conflict with the national security bureaucracy and Southern Democrats that they risked splitting their own administration and party. This is the fundamental historical truth about the presideency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

____________________________________

Hmmm...it appears my earlier criticism of Talbot is unfair, presumptious and unfounded.

At last someone who prominently (or at least appears to so far) addresses what (IMO) are CORE issues. (pun intended)

Edited May 9, 2007 by John Dolva

[Myra Bronstein]

I was always conflicted over Garrison until I met one of his former investigators at a police training conference and we had some marathon discussions...

Can you share details of that conversation Evan. What did the former investigator say?

[Evan Marshall]

I was always conflicted over Garrison until I met one of his former investigators at a police training conference and we had some marathon discussions...

Can you share details of that conversation Evan. What did the former investigator say?

we talked for about 20 hrs-he was an experienced Homicide Investigator and obvousily they (the investigators) were on to something-he focused on Bannister and some folks out near Lake Ponchatrain. Also said they did some serious though unpublished&unpublicized looks at the Mafia but I have to agree with him that the Mafia could not cover it up. He said Ferrie's trip to Texas to visit the roller rink was a meet with Mil Intell.

also, they bumped into Mil Intell folks in NO repeatedly-some who had Agency Creds and that Werbell's name came up in some very interesting conversations that could not be resolved. They also had what looked like a good tip on shooters brought in from SE Asia.

it was a good 19 yrs ago and I was in the middle of some complex dope murder investigations of my own at Homicide and had no time to follow up.

I don't know if Garrison was consciously on to something, but the guy I talked to thought highly of him and I found the investigator credible and chkd his rep out with old friends of mine and it was solid.

lastly, he told me that Garrison often consciously and purposely led the press down the primrose path to what he knew was a dead end to keep them out of his hair.

[Myra Bronstein]

David Talbot (p.406) :

"In recent years, the Kennedy legacy has been clouded by a spate of books, documentaries, and articles that have attempted to demythologize Camelot by presenting JFK as a drug-addled, sex-deranged, mobbed-up risk taker. While Kennedy's private life would certainly not pass today's public scrutiny, this pathological interpretation missess the essential story of his presidency. There was a heroic grandeur to John F. Kennedy's administration that had nothing to do with the mists of Camelot. It was a presidency that clased with its own times, and in the end found some measure of greatness. Coming to office at the height of the Cold War and held hostage by their party's powerful Southern racist wing, the Kennedy brothers steadily grew in vision and courage - prodded by the social movements of the sixties - until they were in such sharp conflict with the national security bureaucracy and Southern Democrats that they risked splitting their own administration and party. This is the fundamental historical truth about the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

"And yet, caught up in the fashionable anti-Kennedy backlash of the times, prominent journalsits like Christopher Hitchens dismiss JFK as "a vulgar hoodlum." One result of this relentless Kennedy bashing has been to diminish the public outrage over JFK's unsolved murder. After all, if President Kennedy really was such a sleazy character, where is the tragedy in his violent demise?"

"It has also become fashionable in all the media babble about Dallas that fills the air each year around November 22 for commentators to opine that 'we will probably never know the truth about John F. Kennedy's assassination" - a self-fulfilling prophecy that relieves them of any responsiblity to search for the truth. Ironically, some of the more politically backward countries were Bobby Kennedy took hi srapturous mission in the 1960s - including South Africa, Argentina, and Chile- have made strenuous, if painful, efforts to confront the deepest traumas of their past, including assassinations, kidnappings and torture. In South Africa, the post-apartheid process of political and moral self-examination became known as 'truth and reconciliation.'"

"But in the United States, the darkest political mysteries of recent decades - including the assassination of President Kennedy - have yet to be fully explored. From Dallas to Vietnam to Iraq, the truth has consistently been avoided, the perpetrators have never fully answered for their actions. When the nation has mustered the courage to impanel commissions, these investigations soon come up against locked doors that remain firmly shut to this day. The stage for this reign of secrecy was set on November 22, 1963. The lesson of Dallas was clear. If a president can be shot down with impunity at high noon in the sunny streets of an American city, then any kind of deceit is possible."

"Assassination researchers insist that it is not too late, even at this remote date, to revive the JFK investigation. Most people who could have shed light on the crime are now dead, reserachers acknowledge, but the trail has not receded entirely into history's far horizons."

"Researchers list a variety of actions that can still be taken. The government should be compelled to release the JFK files it is still withholding - including the 1,100 documents related to George Joannides that the CIA has admitted it still has locked away. The CIA should also be required to disclose the phone and travel records of other agents suspected of involvement in the JFK - and RFK - assassinations, such as David Morales. Washington should follow this by making a formal request to the Cuban and Mexican governments to release all their secret files on the case. The Justice Department should offer amnesty and waive government secrecy pledges for all those who step forward with relevant testimony. Lingering technical disputes about the events in Dealey Plaza - such as the hotly debated 'acoustic fingerprints' on the Dallas police motorcycle Dictabelt that apparently indicated that as many as five shots were fired that day - should be resolved by utilizing the most sophisticated forensic resources, including those of the federal Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, which oddly refused to take on the case. Finally, the Kennedy family should be persuaded to completely open the papers under their control - including those of John and Robert Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - which are still subject to frustrating restrictions."

"The assassination researchers are, of course, indefatigable by nature. That's what has allowed them to carry on, through years of government obstruction, media ridicule, and the bewilderment of family and friends. But outside this shrinking community of hardy souls, a malaise hangs over the JFK crusade."

"...Do Americans still want the truth - starting with Dallas and going all the way to Guantanamo? Do they want to take back their country? I don't know for certain. But I have to be optimistic. Just because there really is no other way, is there?"

David Talbott, from Brothers - The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years.

Amen.

This is clearly a very special book.

[Myra Bronstein]

David Talbot (p.406) :

"In recent years, the Kennedy legacy has been clouded by a spate of books, documentaries, and articles that have attempted to demythologize Camelot by presenting JFK as a drug-addled, sex-deranged, mobbed-up risk taker. While Kennedy's private life would certainly not pass today's public scrutiny, this pathological interpretation missess the essential story of his presidency. There was a heroic grandeur to John F. Kennedy's administration that had nothing to do with the mists of Camelot. It was a presidency that clased with its own times, and in the end found some measure of greatness. Coming to office at the height of the Cold War and held hostage by their party's powerful Southern racist wing, the Kennedy brothers steadily grew in vision and courage - prodded by the social movements of the sixties - until they were in such sharp conflict with the national security bureaucracy and Southern Democrats that they risked splitting their own administration and party. This is the fundamental historical truth about the presideency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

____________________________________

Hmmm...it appears my earlier criticism of Talbot is unfair, presumptious and unfounded.

At last someone who prominently (or at least appears to so far) addresses what (IMO) are CORE issues. (pun intended)

After all these decades it's only natural to expect betrayal.