James DiEugenio

Griffith has repeatedly disputed Kennedy's intent of getting out of Vietnam, and he has backed that really bad book by Selverstone over the works of Kaiser, Newman, Blight and Goldstein. I reviewed Selverstone and showed just how much he leaves out and how much he distorts, like leaving out the fact that Kennedy was reviewing the whole situation at the time of his death. Selverstone tries to say its not true, but its double, independently sourced. Per RFK, William and I have shown how he cherry picks one quote and ignores others made before and after it.

I belatedly saw the Pitt/Dominik Netflix film Blonde. Did not know it had been made before for CBS. So I had to watch that one also. Then read the Oates novel. Thought all three were pretty poor and decided to try and find out why. Mike Griffith is wrong again. The whole field is one of character assassination, and fiction passing as non fiction. Of late there has been some attempt to get things straight in that case by some admirable people. Since for too long the Slatzerians were allowed to run wild. Poor Marilyn Monroe, I decided to give her the last word. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/brad-pitt-joyce-carol-oates-and-the-road-to-blonde-part-1

👋 Talk about cherry picking.

Oh and there is also 1968 with Ellsberg. There, Bobby said that he and his brother were not going in because they had been there in 1951 and saw what happened to the French when they made it their war. If I recall, that is in Ellsberg's book. Ellsberg said that when he got the news of Bobby's death, he broke down and cried for a half hour.

But William, more to the point, see back in 1961 when the first debates began on whether there should be direct intervention, RFK served as an appendage to JFK and secretly Galbraith. Galbraith vigorously objected to direct American intervention in November of 1961 and he told JFK about this. So at the showdown meeting on November 15th I think, whenever anyone would say something about inserting American combat troops, Bobby would step forward and say, "There will be no combat troops in Vietnam." Clearly this had been worked out with JFK beforehand. And this is in David Kaiser's book. But then I found a newspaper story where, after the JFK assassination, while Bobby was still in office, he made a speech at some college in Virginia in 1964 and he admitted the war was not going well, but he still said, there should be no American direct intervention especially with combat troops. So you have 1961, 1963, 1964, and 1967.

The first quotes were in 1967.

He did say what Mike says he never did. Its in the Matthews book if you can comprehend that. There the author quotes Bob as saying that JFK would have never committed combat troops because if Saigon could not win the war on their own it should not become an American war. He then said on TV that LBJ had deviated from his brother's policy there and the war was now immoral. (pp. 304-05) BTW, Matthews actually writes that in November of 1963, Bobby said "that we're just going down the road to disaster". (p. 249)

In an interview wit Aaron Good, Peter Scott exposed the whole Zinn/Chomsky charade as being politically motivated. Which is not the way to write history. This dated back to Scott's very first essay on the subject included in the Beacon Press Gravel version of the Pentagon Papers.

About a month or so after they met, Ruth wrote a letter to Marina, inviting her to live with the Paines. She says it was not sent, but still? Kind of weird if you ask me.

Why not?

Ron: Thanks so much for this. Johnny is a much undervalued researcher on the JFK case. He does not get the credit he deserves in my view. His six part series on the 60th is simply excellent all the way through. He was a contributor to a book called JFK: Case not Closed with Dave Obrien. And now this fine work on Ruthie. BTW, not to toot my own horn, but did anyone else cover this event? He was there live.

Thanks for that Peter. Whew, pretty strong stuff.

Joe: This is my point about the paradox of what the WC says: Walker, and JFK? The evidence says that Oswald liked Kennedy. So in addition to the gigantic evidentiary problems in both cases, the Commission was never able to find a motive in the JFK case. Liebeler even joked about this. But its weird that no one asked Ruthie about that political paradox.

Oh and let me add another issue Johnny brings up: What is the ACLU about? And were not the Paines members? Did not Mike take Oswald to an ACLU meeting? Did not Oswald end up joining? So what is so outlandish about an ACLU member asking another ACLU member to contact an attorney? Why did no one ask that question? I think we know why since we know who Mallon is.

Man, that is a good one Robert. You one upped me.

Really funny Cory. Maybe Roe wants a list of all donations to K and K for the last year? That will still not make Kirk Coleman go away, or the original 30.06, wrong color bullet in the Walker case. Or Ben Cole's and Gerald McKnight's work on that case. And can anyone explain why Oswald would shoot at a rightwing fascist like Walker and then kill the most liberal president since FDR? Let us not forget: Kennedy relieved Walker of his command, Walker then started a riot over Kennedy's integration policies at Ole Miss, a riot that left two people dead. If Ruthie does not know any of this, she should not be shooting her mouth off about it.

What about my other point, was Connally leaned forward enough for the entry to miss the jump seat? Or was he just that tall?

The limo slowed significantly, but there was a lead car in front of fit. DId it keep up speed or slow down also, thus making the limo slow down? I am not a film expert. Also, how far from the jump seat was JBC, was he leaned forward? Or was he just so tall the shot missed the jump seat? ( I am not talking about the SBT of course.) Thanks.

Ruth Paine is one of the most extreme zealots I have ever seen for the Warren Commission. At times she reminds me of the late David Belin in her incredible vituperativeness. The most bizarre thing about her is that she never questions any of the evidence.

He then says the Paines really did not have anything to do with convicting Oswald for the Commission. LOL. They were clearly the most questioned people of anyone. Over 6,000 questions combined. Now compare that to how many question were asked of Thornton Boswell. Go ahead, count them up. That, in and of itself, proves the Commission was a set up. He then says we should ignore this, it was really the evidence. Geez Tracy, ever hear of Mrs. Paine's garage? Or the limitless stream of stuff that Ruth kept turning up: like vacation guides for Mexico City?

I love what he says about Ed Curtin and his review of Max Good's film. Tracy leaves out the article that Holland wrote for the CIA's online zine. And what Max exposed about Priscilla Johnson. Let alone as Leslie has shown, the Paines did have a cozy relationship with FBI agent Bardwell Odum.

You know, I have both DVP and Parnell on ignore. I will never take DVP off. But I stupidly took at look at Parnell's. What a mistake. "Attorney General Robert Kennedy oversaw an organized assassination operation against the bearded leader." With the declassification of the CIA's IG report, writing something like that is just pure ignorance or its a deliberate, desperate smear. On pages 132, 133 of that report the authors ask the question: can we claim we had presidential approval for the plots? They answer that they cannot. Since Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ were ignorant of them. The only way Bobby Kennedy knew about them was through the bungled wiretap in Las Vegas that Maheu approved for Giancana to spy on his girlfriend Phyllis McGuire. When Bobby found out about it through the FBI he wanted to know why Maheu was so kind to a thug like Giancana, who Bobby was pursuing with all he had. It was then that CIA briefed him on the plots, since they had to. They then assured him they were stopped. This was false and the briefers knew it was false when they told RFK that. Anyone who has not read that 145 page report which was declassified by the ARRB, should not be writing on the topic since it is the definitive document on the subject matter. But with many of these Krazy Kid Oswald zealots--like the late John McAdams--there is a dual agenda at work. Cover up the facts of JFK's murder, and also cover up who he really was.

Thanks Cory. It has always puzzled me how Ruth extends out the Walker case as some kind of ace to bolster the case on the JFK side. When, as many have pointed out, like Ben Cole and Scott Reid and the late Gerald Knight, that case is fraught with problems all the way. I mean Oswald was not even a suspect in it for like 7 1/2 months. And OMG, an ACLU member objecting to a man asking for a lawyer?

Johnny Cairns crossed the pond over the anniversary to go the scene of the crime. On the way he witnesses an interview by author and good buddy Thomas Mallon for good ole Ruthie to go through her paces. As you will see it was all a set up from go one. Which Johnny does a nice job exposing. No one asks, for instance, what sense does it make for Oswald to shoot at a fascist type rightwing nut, but then shoot and kill the most liberal president since FDR? I mean was anyone awake? Plus he missed from close range at Walker, but performs a fantastic piece of marksmanship in the Kennedy case. Hmm. Mallon marches on. With Ruthie. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/our-lady-of-the-warren-commission-part-1-2

Let me add one other point about McNamara. I have also thought, but cannot prove, that this was the reason he commissioned the Pentagon Papers and kept them secret from Johnson. In that notable book, The War Within, McNamara is depicted as being wracked with guilt about Vietnam, and in late 1966 Galbraith said the same thing after meeting him for dinner. And this is about when the creation of the PP started. My personal opinion is that McNamara understood how huge the split was between Kennedy and Johnson on the war and part of his aim in the PP was to show how it happened. In the Gravel Edition there is a whole section called Phased Withdrawal 1962-64 which demonstrates this. For whatever reason, neither the Post nor the TImes printed that section.