Myra Bronstein

Still, you said "In a lot of places they move too soon without preparing their constinuency for the moves." If they (Jack & Bobby) moved too soon in a lot of places there should be a lot of examples. Or at least one. I'm trying to understand your point, and right now I don't.

Their involvement in the assassination of JFK? I am sure daddy has told him plenty of stories about Ted Shackley and Carl E. Jenkins. I doubt that Bush the Elder would tell such secrets to an alcoholic idiot, even if part of the family. Oh I dunno. There are those who believe W. Bush was involved in JFK Jr's murder.

More info on Dallas uniforms would be great. Like those worn by the "officers" arresting the three tramps. I'm getting increasingly interested in the Dallas Police Dept & Tippit & Roscoe White, as well as Sherrif Bill Decker who sent Eddy Raymond (Buddy) Walthers into a fatal ambush in 1969. Walthers found a bullet in Dealey Plaza on Nov 22, & interviewed James Tague after he was injured.

If you are interested in the type of man Ben Bradlee is I suggest you read Deborah Davis' "Katharine the Great". When the book was originally published in 1979 Katharine Graham (probably under instructions from the CIA) persuaded the publishers William Jovanovich, to pulp 20,000 copies of the book. Davis filed a breach-of- contract and damage-to-reputation suit against Jovanovich, who settled out of court with her in 1983. However, it had the desired effect, very few people got a copy of the book (a reprinted version many years later by a small publisher was totally ignored). I have tried to get Deborah Davis to come on the forum to discuss her book. At first she said yes but when I submitted my questions she changed her mind. I got the impression she is still scared of what Ben Bradlee and the CIA can do to her. I will read it. Thanks for the suggestion. I'm especially interested in this aspect: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10279

I agree. This was the first question that I asked at our meeting in London. David argued that LBJ's response to the assassination suggested that he was unaware that it was going to take place. I will start a new thread on this topic and try to get David to answer questions on LBJ and the assassination. I have been impressed by what I would describe as the balance of the book. All pertinent views are represented and David goes to great pains to avoid expressions of personal judgement. This, IMO, has lead to what I would consider a less explosive book overall (I thoroughly enjoyed it though, very well written and enlightening) in that every reader can have their point of view reinforced. If you are a right wing nut, you can read that Kennedy was a weak, Commie loving, black (though thats not what the right winger I had in mind would say) loving president. You could side with Le May and the JCS very easily. You could understand why Kennedy 'had to go' and if you were so inclined actually rejoice. I was struck by the absolute naiveté of JFK and his brother. In a lot of places they move too soon without preparing their constinuency for the moves. I loved their vision and embraced their direction. The point I'm trying to make is, for the most part, this book allows reader's own biases prior to reading the book to be reinforced whilst at the same time permits re-evaluation, if one was inclined. Two stools which are notoriously hard to straddle for any writer. And I'm extremely impressed with many aspects of the book too Gary. Though I can't help but be concerned about something: If Talbot's depiction of LBJ is so different from the man I know LBJ to have been that he's basically describing a different person, I have to wonder if I can have confidence in his depiction of other people. It's undermined my confidence in his research and judgement. This concept of the brothers as naive is an interesting subject to me. Can you give examples of some of the places they moved too soon without preparing their constituency?

No doubt in my mind. How could such a setup as Watergate work without an "intrepid" newspaper to expose it? Thus you've got Jekyll and Hyde Bradlee, oddly fearless in one case, and fearful like all of his mainstream media brethren in the other. There's only one explanation. What I wonder is why the CIA hasn't done the same to George W. Bush. He could already have been impeached. What does he have on them? I was appalled when I read that about Bradlee in "Brothers." It sounds like he was "friends" with a job title--"President of the United States" rather than a person--Jack Kennedy. Friendship with the job title is transferable whereas friendship with the person is disposable. I would have had a very hard time maintaining a facade of detachment while talking to Bradlee. I wonder if Talbot did. The Kennedy/Bradlee relationship was a revelation to me and I appreciate its inclusion in the book.

I finished Talbot's book a while back and thought, overall, it was excellent. In particular I feel I gained a lot of insight into Bobby and his state of mind, and into the fact that this pacifist president was, in fact, at war--but it was with his own government. I didn't realize how hostile his chiefs of staff were until I read this book, and I certainly didn't realize what a thundering loony Curtis LeMay was. I am really mystified though at its depiction of LBJ as just another victim of the assassination, some poor soul caught in the cross hairs of history. Frankly I don't understand how Talbot could characterize Johnson, one of the most ruthless and corrupt politicians in history, so benignly. If nothing else it seems inescapable that the timing of the assassination was dictated by the Bobby Baker scandal which was being investigated by congress on the day of the assassination. After a couple more days of testimony it would probably have been too late to save LBJ's career, and possibly too late to save him from prison. There's also the fact that President Kennedy told his secretary on November 19 that LBJ would not be his running mate in '64. So he was toast, unless... If this book just ignored LBJ that would be more understandable; Johnson's true nature could then be considered outside the scope of the book. But it didn't ignore him; it portrayed him as a frightened shocked & befuddled man overtaken by the forces of history and thrown into the white house. Er, humbug. Johnson's background is littered with bodies, including his own sister's, murdered by LBJ's own hit man Mac Wallace. Mac Wallace's fingerprint was found inside the Texas School Book Depository. Bobby Baker friend Don B. Reynolds told the FBI that Baker said the "SOB" Kennedy would never live out his term & would "die a violent death." LBJ told Clare Booth Luce that one in four presidents die in office--"I’m a gamblin’ man, darlin’, & this is the only chance I got.” Look at who his backers were: Brown & Root (war profiteers) & HL Hunt (racist commie-hating John Birch Society loon who wanted that oil depletion allowance). Then there's The Wink... The real LBJ is not the man described in the book "Brothers."

Would you mind expanding on that Larry? (I'm sorry if it's something from your book that didn't sink into my brain. I'll reread it soon.) Thanks. Myra

I've read a few places that Tippit was a "marksman." http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKtippet.htm

Well for one thing the truth would reveal that the US government has been illegitimate since 1963 since they took control in a murderous coup. So everything that was said to the US public ever since, about our freedoms and our country's principles is a lie. For another thing a lot of the same people who benefited from coup are in power now, for example the Bush klan. Does that sorta answer your question?

Snap out of it Charles. If they had won they wouldn't be pouring money into Bug's latest propaganda offensive (and I do mean offensive). Bingo.

Here are the timeline points I have for Lee on November 22: 11:45am Oswald is left on 6th floor of TSBD as workmates go to lunch. He yells, “Guys, How about an elevator? Send one of the elevators back up.” 11:50am TSBD foreman Bill Shelley sees Oswald near telephone on first floor. 12:00pm TSBD employee Eddie Piper speaks to Oswald “Just at twelve o’clock, down on the first floor.” 12:15pm Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald in 2nd floor lunchroom. ”Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual & appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly.” 12:15pm Witness Arnold Rowland observes man with rifle at Western end of TSBD. 12:15-12:20pm TSBD employee Bonnie Ray Williams leaves 6th floor after eating lunch; he sees nobody. 12:20pm Bonnie Ray Williams leaves 6th floor & uses elevator; joins co-workers on 5th floor to watch motorcade. 12:30pm President Kennedy is shot multiple times while riding in motorcade through downtown Dallas. 12:33pm Oswald leaves Depository... I'm missing some points. Didn't a cop see him standing by a phone afterwards? But from this is looks like Lee had time to go stand outside for a few minutes.

His shoulder does look odd. Or his lack of shoulder I should say.

Well, door guy sure looks like Lovelady to me: shirt, face, everything. I do see a pattern in door guy's shirt, plaid not stripes (which doesn't jibe with what he told the FBI he was wearing). The face has a long chin, unlike Oswald, and a higher forehead with a different hairline than Oswald.

Yes Charles, and he flogged Ultimate Sacrifice within approximately 1 quadrillion other book reviews on Amazon so it's almost impossible to miss. (Vince, if you don't post soon we'll just talk behind your back.)

He writes the definitive analysis of the Secret Service, but do they call him "Vince the Investigator"? Nooooo ... He establishes new benchmarks for doggedness and excellence in research, but do they call him "Vince the Master Researcher"? Nooooo ... Make ONE wrong-headed endorsement ... Sorry, but I couldn't resist reworking the old "Sammy the Bridge Builder" joke. And if you don't know this wonderful meditation on the nature of fame, hunt it down. Charles One very wrong-headed endorsement.

Ms. Beckett; Had you been around this forum for any length of time you may have learned a few things about a few members. For one thing some members use lack of seniority on the forum as ammunition when they're otherwise unarmed. They employ the logical fallacy of equating seniority with expertise, and count on everyone to be similiarly deluded. For another thing those members with the least to teach are often the most didactic and condescending. Since "Ole Tom" says that you are a teacher, I thought you might find that teaching-related tidbit interesting. There are also members who seem to think they're able to intimidate people out of questioning their bad behavior. That demographic is among the most amusing on the forum because they take themselves so excruciatingly excessively seriously that it's almost impossible for anyone else to take their bluster seriously. Then there is the rare member who exhibits all of the traits I've described. So now you've, as "Ole Tom" says, "learned a few things about "Ole Tom." Not that you needed to learn anything in particular in spite of what some may say. But, hey, sometimes I like to play teacher. Myra

Indeed you did. Thank you for taking the time to put your foot down in the JFK Lancer thread John. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10218&st=15

Vince, I want to thank you for the fantastic work you've done in calling attention to the secret service and in documenting their behavior. I think it's the aspect of the assassination that people have the most trouble with. And that's saying a lot in this case. For those, like me, who believe the SS was complicit it helps immensely to have your e-book as a resource. I've read it and consider it one of the most important books on the assassination. Myra

Peter Dale Scott did put it well Peter. So did Donald Gibson when he said (in Battling Wall Street) that JFK interrupted an ongoing process. I think that point is really important in understanding what happened in Dallas. As we know, the corporate fascists tried to overthrow FDR in 1933. And they were not punished so they got the clear message that there is no downside to trying to overthrow a president they dislike... Can't agree with that. I think almost every villain under every rock had their reason: -War profiteers (Brown & Root, bankers who lend money to both sides, etc) long ago figured out that with war comes obscene profits. And President Kennedy was denying them wars in Vietnam, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. Not to mention snuffing out the Cold War with the partial test ban treaty. -For those who actually bought into the Commie boogyman scenario (whereas I think of it as an excuse to force unregulated capitalism on the people), JFK was refusing to play along. While they're trying to scare the snot out of the public by depicting commies as devils, JFK is saying they're just mortals like us who love their kids. -Texas oil barons were about to lose their oil depletion allowance. Wasn't that like 30% of profits or something huge? -Racist knuckle-draggers like John Birch Society and KKK et al hated him for giving the nation away to, you know, "those people." Both Kennedy brothers were enforcing the civil rights laws, both the letter of the law (supreme court decisions) and the spirit (JFK stated in a televised speech that it was the right thing to do). -LBJ was about to be destroyed by the Bobby Baker scandal, with hearings in session on November 22. And if that scandal didn't get him the Estes one likely would have. And he was getting dumped from the ticket anyway. He was toast, unless... -J. Edgar Hoover may have been dumped by JFK after his reelection. But he was able to survive that potential crisis and be appointed FBI Director for life by his dear pal LBJ. -He and Bobby famously went after the "mob." Hey, the "mob" was part of government, certainly part of the CIA. -I believe Cuban exiles were miffed at him... -He wanted to bypass the World Bank and give government loans to third world nations instead of mugging them like the IMF does. -David Rockefeller was openly arguing with him about his economic policies. -He slapped US Steel down by demanding they reverse their price increase and having his justice department sue them. -He supported unions!!! His disgust with US Steel had a lot to do with the fact that the company executives mislead the union into accepting crummy wages, then they raised prices anyway. -He planned to break the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. -The Dr Strangeloves in the Pentagon wanted to use their nuclear toys, or at least conventional weapons; they needed a reason to exist to justify their jobs after all. But, again, JFK was "almost a peace at any price president" (as he called himself). -He possessed and valued and promoted a lively intellect and critical thought as Rockefeller's minions were doing everything they could to (successfully) dumb down the nation to produce a nation of contented ditch diggers. -His family represented a dynasty, potentially 24 years of Kennedy presidents between Jack, Bobby, and Ted. And they were breeding like bunnies. He was a revolutionary progressive who could not be bought off, framed, or scared away from fulfilling his vision. My god, almost everyone except the people wanted him dead. You might be totally right about Israel having a motive; why should they be the exception? But there were plenty of motives without Israel in the mix.

I asked Talbot about that, if he had any more info. And he replied in post 121: "Myra -- the source on Bobby's last words was Goodwin's memoir "Remembering America." But he makes clear that this was told to him by a third party -- he was upstairs in a hotel room at the time." I'd like to know who the third party was. Perhaps it says in "Remembering America."

Interesting Charles. The scenario does have a pungent Operation Northwoods smell. I'd be most interested in reading such comments as well.

Thanks very much Greg. And I appreciate your nice comment about my site. I hope it'll be a useful resource when it's more fleshed out. Your site is a great addition. I'll keep an eye on it.

'Kay, I'm reading the book. It has the following on page 198: "Historians remain puzzled by many aspect of the Bay of Pigs operation. ... But later, even Bundy would sometimes wonder if Bissell and his boys in the CIA had told him and the president the whole plan. Some evidence has emerged from unverifiable Cuban sources that there was another piece to this puzzling episode. One of Castro's veteran counterintelligence officer, General Fabian Escalante, claimed that years after the failed invasion Cuban intelligence learned that one of the decoy ships had a far more important mission: to approach the US base at Guantanamo, three hundred miles to the southeast, and land a force of troops dressed in uniforms of Castro's army, who would then stage an "attack" on the US base. This stated attack would then provide the provocation for a full-scale US military intervention in support of the landing force at the Bay of Pigs. In the event the decoy ship Santa Ana, with a force of some 164 men, did arrive at the mouth of the Macambo River near Guantanamo. According to one member of the force his men were dressed in the kind of khaki uniforms that could easily have been mistaken for those of the Cuban army. As it turned out, the landing was aborted when a small surveillance unit from La Playa happened to encounter a Cuban patrol. The stated attack on the US base was thus aborted, leaving Bissell without the pretext he needed to push Kennedy into authorizing further air strikes over the Bay of Pigs, and perhaps even a full-scale invasion." The footnote says Escalante's claim was from an interview, but states there is "more evidence on the plan to stage an attack on Guantanamo" in "The Fish is Red: The Story of the Secret War against Castro." Anyone know more about the possibility that the real mission was a provocative attack on Guantanamo?

Ok, this is a really simple one but it helps me. I think we all know the limitations of the forum search engine... So, instead I use google to find something in the ed forum. For example, could not find this using the forum engine so typed into google: "The Color of Truth" education forum jfk assassination" Boom, top hit was what I was looking for.