David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[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?

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 Also said they did some serious though unpublished&unpublicized looks at the Mafia but I have to agree with him that the Mafia could not cover it up.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.

This is fantastic info Evan; thank you.

It's good, albeit unsurprising, to hear an endorsement of the great man Jim Garrison.

(Hey, Oliver Stone is no fool and would not base his epic movie on a questionable character.)

It's extremely interesting to hear about a mil intel tie in...

I don't think the military/pentagon gets enough attention in this crime.

The CIA overshadows them, and for good reason but the pentagon was not President Kennedy's ally.

Very very interesting that Garrison jerked the press around.

I guess he learned how to survive in that strange new world order nightmare he awoke in.

And he did survive--literally--when so many others in that orbit didn't.

That's a feat for which he should get his props.

There's a brief video segment, I think in TMWKK, on Lee Oswald where Garrison says that

Oswald may have been working (can't recall his exact words) to infiltrate the murder plot so there's a good

likelihood that he's a hero. When attempting to say the word "hero" Garrison gets choked up and is almost unable

to speak. That's the essence of the man.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Charles Drago]

In further praise of Garrison:

I don't think George Michael Evica will mind that I share a story he first told me as we sat around his kitchen table one fine morning too many years ago.

We had spoken the previous evening of one of the earliest JFK research conferences that Evica had co-sponsored in Hartford and at which the New Orleans D.A. had spoken at length.

"Garrison sat exactly where I am now, and at just about this time of day," Evica told me. "And I'll never forget how he looked up and said, 'Where am I? Seriously, George Michael. There are times when I just don't know where I am any more.'"

That's my paraphrase, but it's close.

Why do I suggest that an admission of confusion is worthy of "praise"? Simply because many of Garrison's mightiest contributions to justice were made during the height of the attacks on his credibility, ethics, and sanity. So even Garrison's brief confrontation that day with the toll being taken on him reveals, for me at least, the human dimensions to a heroic figure who knew what he was up against and whose personal courage must never be underestimated.

Charles

[Larry Hancock]

I'll chime in with a few of points for anyone who tends to dismiss Garriosn:

1. He undoubtedly demonstrated that the Lee Oswald was not the disconnected, lone nut that

he was prestented to be by the WC.... Garrison surfaced a variety of leads showing that Oswald was

immeshed in a variety of "games" with both the right and the left. That this scared both the FBI and

CIA significantly can be seen in the Justice Departments illegal, covert contact and support of Shaw's

defense team and the CIA's Garrison team, set up strictly to block Garrison form access to information

about Agency contacts and assets.

2. We can only speculate why at the first CIA Garrison Group team meeting, Angleton's representative

opened the meeting by telling the group that Garrison would successfully demonstrate Shaw was

involved in conspiracy (not the murder of the President necessarily but some sort of conspiracy).

3. Garrison was successfully diverted and his exile investigations were undermined by the actions

of Bernardo de Torres....who effectively sabotaged Garrisons first press meeting (among other

things) by going to the press independently and focusing media attention on a photo misdirection

relating to the leafleting incident .

4. Garrison was aslo diverted onto some very real plans by ultra right radicals who were definitely

discussing the assassination of JFK other major figures. This diversion cost him a large portion of

his available time and resources.

All in all, given Garrison's minimal resources, its amazing he managed to pull together as much

as he did...especially being stonewalled and undermined by numerous parties with their own

agendas....including two goverment agencies (Justice and CIA) with far more resources than

a poor DA could muster.

-- Larry

[Pat Speer]

I'll chime in with a few of points for anyone who tends to dismiss Garriosn:

1. He undoubtedly demonstrated that the Lee Oswald was not the disconnected, lone nut that

he was prestented to be by the WC.... Garrison surfaced a variety of leads showing that Oswald was

immeshed in a variety of "games" with both the right and the left. That this scared both the FBI and

CIA significantly can be seen in the Justice Departments illegal, covert contact and support of Shaw's

defense team and the CIA's Garrison team, set up strictly to block Garrison form access to information

about Agency contacts and assets.

2. We can only speculate why at the first CIA Garrison Group team meeting, Angleton's representative

opened the meeting by telling the group that Garrison would successfully demonstrate Shaw was

involved in conspiracy (not the murder of the President necessarily but some sort of conspiracy).

3. Garrison was successfully diverted and his exile investigations were undermined by the actions

of Bernardo de Torres....who effectively sabotaged Garrisons first press meeting (among other

things) by going to the press independently and focusing media attention on a photo misdirection

relating to the leafleting incident .

4. Garrison was aslo diverted onto some very real plans by ultra right radicals who were definitely

discussing the assassination of JFK other major figures. This diversion cost him a large portion of

his available time and resources.

All in all, given Garrison's minimal resources, its amazing he managed to pull together as much

as he did...especially being stonewalled and undermined by numerous parties with their own

agendas....including two goverment agencies (Justice and CIA) with far more resources than

a poor DA could muster.

-- Larry

Thanks, Larry. It's intriguing to me that less than two years ago, when Joan Mellen's book came out, I was one of Garrison's defenders. Now, by pointing out some of his excesses, and reasons why RFK could have doubted his sincerity, people think I'm attacking him. Clearly, the demographics of the Forum have changed. (Those failing to understand the backlash against Garrison and assuming the backlash was all part of some plot should read James Kirkwood's American Grotesque, an anti-Garrison book that focuses on his behavior without passing judgment on the merits of his case, beyond that Clay Shaw was innocent.)

For the record, I consider Jim Garrison a hero. He stood up to the powers that be and shook things up. And his shaking brought results. But he was a flawed hero. In early 67 LBJ found out, via Hale Boggs, that Garrison was telling people that LBJ was involved in the assassination. A few days later Garrison's star witness, David Ferrie, was found dead. Now I, for one, have a hard time believing this was a coincidence. I also have a hard time excusing Garrison for blabbing to others that a SITTING president of the United States was a murderer, and not preparing for a backlash. If Garrison believed his own allegations, Ferrie should have had round the clock protection. If Garrison believed his own allegations, he should have known that other states would refuse to extradite witnesses, and help him in his case. I believe he was just naive. There are others, however, who believe Garrison knew he had no case, and deliberately sabotaged it, allowing outsiders to look at his files, putting wackos on the stand, etc. That way he could claim he lost the case due to unforeseen circumstances and government interference. I suspect this goes too far. I think that Garrison was just in over his head.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Thomas Graves]

[...] it seems clear that at one point Johnson says "or get him over here with a bolt rifle." I interpret this to mean "I'm sick and tired of his bad-mouthing me behind my back and in the press, and if he thinks I killed his brother then tell him to get his ass over here and kill me in the same fashion he thinks I killed his brother, and be done with it."

___________________________

Either that or, "Point a bolt rifle at him to encourage him to get over here so I can persuade him to 'give it up.' "

--Thomas

___________________________

[William Kelly]

DO YOU THINK WE CAN DIVERT THE GARRISON DISCUSSION TO A GARRISION THREAD AND KEEP THIS ONE FOCUSED ON DAVID TALBOT'S BOOK BROTHERS, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK ABOUT THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION TO BE PUBLISHED IN YEARS. OR SHALL I START A NEW THREAD FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO DISCUSS TALBOT'S BOOK?

THANKS, BK

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.

[Myra Bronstein]

DO YOU THINK WE CAN DIVERT THE GARRISON DISCUSSION TO A GARRISION THREAD AND KEEP THIS ONE FOCUSED ON DAVID TALBOT'S BOOK BROTHERS, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK ABOUT THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION TO BE PUBLISHED IN YEARS. OR SHALL I START A NEW THREAD FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO DISCUSS TALBOT'S BOOK?

THANKS, BK

...

You're right of course BK, but... must you shout?

Hey, I'm reading this in a library. (Shhhhh.)

I'll start a Garrison thread if someone hasn't already, then I'll come back here and give the link.

On edit:

The Garrison thread is now here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9946

Edited May 9, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[William Kelly]

I think David Talbot's book is very important, and sets the stage for the next series of events that are necessary to solve the JFK assassination to a legal and moral certainty.

I spent a few days reading the book and quite a while retyping this section, which I think is a very powerful statement that deserves more attention than it is getting and should not be overlooked.

The lingering "malaise" is our own.

Those who want to argue and debate details and opinions can do so, those who want to take this case to the next level must begin where David Talbot leaves off.

Doesn't anyone else think this is significant?

BK

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.

[Myra Bronstein]

I think David Talbot's book is very important, and sets the stage for the next series of events that are necessary to solve the JFK assassination to a legal and moral certainty.

I spent a few days reading the book and quite a while retyping this section, which I think is a very powerful statement that deserves more attention than it is getting and should not be overlooked.

The lingering "malaise" is our own.

Those who want to argue and debate details and opinions can do so, those who want to take this case to the next level must begin where David Talbot leaves off.

Doesn't anyone else think this is significant?

BK

...

I do but... I haven't read it yet.

...

Does this weaken my case?

(I have read a ton of Talbot's interviews and excerpts.)

On edit:

I will add that the Salon tie-in alone makes this book special.

A major media internet outlet is willing to focus on the most forbidden subject in American culture.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

To me it is noteworthy where on the political spectrum Salon is located. It is left-liberal in the general area of the Nation Magazine.

We know that the CIA has in the past funded publications, including the influencial Encounter magazine (peak years of influence (1951-

1963). This part of the political spectrum-- between liberal and and more economic centered left-- was where the crucial firewall was

constructed. Here it would be clearly connoted to Junior faculty and urbane liberals that political assassinations were to be shunned as

'most unprofessional' . Any raising of the subject and a room full of middle class eyebrows should Commence The Wave.

Yet Salon is located in this left-liberal enclave of media spectrum. Readers of Chomsky, Cockburn and Hersh are likely to at least learn of the book here.

It will be harder for this book to be dismissed for this reason. They have read stuff on Salon that was from thier "neck of the woods".

Now the creator of that site has supported what had been NOMINALLY walled off as "conspiracy theory" as if it might somehow be detached

from American History as a matter of good taste.

This could lead some to question the tastemakers.

[Pat Speer]

I agree, William, that the book is important. David Talbot has done a good job of clarifying one key piece of the puzzle--why didn't RFK do something? Brothers makes it clear that RFK felt helpless to do something, but was planning to do something once he reached higher office. Talbot's work in this area should cause "Warren solved it and RFK agreed" historians to take a closer look, and see the Warren Commission for the whitewash it was. His book might even counter-balance Bugliosi's doorstop, and win more converts in the mainstream media.

That said, readers should know that the book is not a conspiracy book. It merely reports RFK's suspicions, and passes no judgment on whether or not they were accurate. This allows the media to look at the case without a finger being pointed in their face. I suspect a number of those currently on the fence will be won over.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Myra Bronstein]

To me it is noteworthy where on the political spectrum Salon is located. It is left-liberal in the general area of the Nation Magazine.

We know that the CIA has in the past funded publications, including the influencial Encounter magazine (peak years of influence (1951-

1963). This part of the political spectrum-- between liberal and and more economic centered left-- was where the crucial firewall was

constructed. Here it would be clearly connoted to Junior faculty and urbane liberals that political assassinations were to be shunned as

'most unprofessional' . Any raising of the subject and a room full of middle class eyebrows should Commence The Wave.

Yet Salon is located in this left-liberal enclave of media spectrum. Readers of Chomsky, Cockburn and Hersh are likely to at least learn of the book here.

It will be harder for this book to be dismissed for this reason. They have read stuff on Salon that was from thier "neck of the woods".

Now the creator of that site has supported what had been NOMINALLY walled off as "conspiracy theory" as if it might somehow be detached

from American History as a matter of good taste.

This could lead some to question the tastemakers.

I think so too.

Though I wouldn't put Salon in the same category as the Nation.

I consider the Nation to be pseudo establishment left, in the same club as Chomsky/Cockburn/Hersh, i.e., not to be trusted.

I think Salon's far better than the Nation.

[Greg Wagner]

I think David Talbot's book is very important, and sets the stage for the next series of events that are necessary to solve the JFK assassination to a legal and moral certainty.

I spent a few days reading the book and quite a while retyping this section, which I think is a very powerful statement that deserves more attention than it is getting and should not be overlooked.

The lingering "malaise" is our own.

Those who want to argue and debate details and opinions can do so, those who want to take this case to the next level must begin where David Talbot leaves off.

Doesn't anyone else think this is significant?

BK

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.

Hi Bill,

Just into chapter 2 of Brothers and one thing I'm very impressed by is the job Talbot has done in illustrating just how much disdain, animosity, and outright contempt the the leaders of the military (Burke, Lemnitzer, LeMay, etc.) and intelligence (Dulles, Bissell, etc.) apparatus' had for president Kennedy and his entire administration. Like most of us here, I've accepted this fundamental reality for years and I've argued as much several times, especially where LeMay and Lemnitzer are concerned. But Talbot cites many compelling examples of just how much they hated, distrusted, and openly disobeyed Kennedy. The author does a brilliant job making the reader understand the degree to which these "leaders" viewed Kennedy as weak, naive and dangerous. While some will view this more as a backdrop, I think the nature of this relationship goes right to the heart of why Dallas occurred.

Shanet Clark, you still out there? This dovetails nicely with your views on the case.

On to chapter 3.

[Myra Bronstein]

I think David Talbot's book is very important, and sets the stage for the next series of events that are necessary to solve the JFK assassination to a legal and moral certainty.

I spent a few days reading the book and quite a while retyping this section, which I think is a very powerful statement that deserves more attention than it is getting and should not be overlooked.

The lingering "malaise" is our own.

Those who want to argue and debate details and opinions can do so, those who want to take this case to the next level must begin where David Talbot leaves off.

Doesn't anyone else think this is significant?

BK

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.

Hi Bill,

Just into chapter 2 of Brothers and one thing I'm very impressed by is the job Talbot has done in illustrating just how much disdain, animosity, and outright contempt the the leaders of the military (Burke, Lemnitzer, LeMay, etc.) and intelligence (Dulles, Bissell, etc.) apparatus' had for president Kennedy and his entire administration. Like most of us here, I've accepted this fundamental reality for years and I've argued as much several times, especially where LeMay and Lemnitzer are concerned. But Talbot cites many compelling examples of just how much they hated, distrusted, and openly disobeyed Kennedy. The author does a brilliant job making the reader understand the degree to which these "leaders" viewed Kennedy as weak, naive and dangerous. While some will view this more as a backdrop, I think the nature of this relationship goes right to the heart of why Dallas occurred.

Shanet Clark, you still out there? This dovetails nicely with your views on the case.

On to chapter 3.

Peter Dale Scott mentions, in Deep Politics...JFK, that genuine (pessimistic) status reports on Vietnam were given to Johnson by the military, whereas bogus (optimistic) status reports were given to President Kennedy on a regular basis. I find that just astounding.

It didn't fool the president, who went on to sign NSAM 263.

[Charles Drago]

John Newman goes into some detail about this two-track phenomenon.

LBJ's military advisor: Col. Howard Burris, to this correspondent a prime suspect and one of the "boys in the woodwork" (see Newman).

Charles