Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
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
Exactly Charles. Newman's book "JFK and Vietnam" is Scott's main reference for his Vietnam info.
I'm eager to read it.
-
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.
-
John is having trouble with his service provider. Hopefully Spartacus will be back online soon
Thank you Andy.
It's a difficult resource to be without.
-
...
John, I disagree. I believe H.L. Hunt paid for the Assassination. On another thread today, he is mentioned as having been with certain people who wanted to take back Cuba. Included with these people was Robert F. Kennedy right before his brother's death. In another thread today, H.L. Hunt was mentioned as being at the meeting at the Murchinson's house in Dallas the night before.
Kathy
I can't find a source right now but I believe I've read that HL Hunt was flown out of Dallas immediately after the assassination (by the FBI?) and hidden (in NY?) for a couple of weeks until things cooled down. If that's true, then it's pretty friggin' suspicious.
Though I don't think it's an either/or scenario, multiple goose-stepping jillionaires could have funded the murder.
-
How on earth could Garrison have anticipated something unprecedented in his experience? He makes it clear that he had never failed to get a witness extradited from another state. It simply shouldn't happen in this country. It's obstruction of justice. Of course he was naive. Most people were. It's only with 20-20 hindsight that we're unsurprised by obstruction of justice in the murder of President Kennedy. As Garrison has said, he thought he lived in the country he was born in.
Non-extradition is here described in 1961, Clarion Ledger, as "Old Northern Custom":
http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...23|1|1|1|43374|
Ohmygod.
I can't believe that was written in this century.
...
On this planet.
-
It's most distressing.
-
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.
-
Small piece in this morning’s Guardian, G2 section, Arts Diary page (27), compiled, apparently, by one Francesca Martin, on George Clooney’s next two films. Both feature the CIA. The second, Escape from Tehran, “will be based on the true story of the CIA creating a fake movie in order to…” Follow the link for enlightenment. Sounds to me like a puff piece for the Agency, but we’ll have to wait for confirmation (or otherwise).
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2075509,00.html
Any one know anything about the Agency fake in question?
Paul
I don't think George Clooney does puff pieces Paul.
-
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.
-
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.
Pat!
It just seems like your logic and prose is self contradictory.
...(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.)
Notwithstanding the title "American Grotesque"--which sounds like a hatchet job--I hardly feel compelled to read the book you're recommending if it really claimed that "Clay Shaw was innocent."
C'mon.
"[Richard] Helms testified, under oath, in 1979, that Clay Shaw, the only man ever put on trial for John F. Kennedy's assassination, had, from 1948 to 1956, been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Division of the CIA; a claim that has remained unproven from Shaw's trial."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Helms
...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.
...
I'm guessing you know by now that people in this forum appreciate sources so we're not just wasting time discussing vapor. Where did you learn that Hale Boggs told LBJ that?
...If Garrison believed his own allegations, Ferrie should have had round the clock protection.
...
Agreed. And I doubt Big Jim would disagree. His book made it clear that not taking Ferrie into protective custody was one of the biggest mistakes. It was a huge mistake and ruined his case.
...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.
...
Ok, so that answers my unasked question. You don't think that his failure to protect Ferrie was sabatoge, right?
...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.
...
No way. I could not disagree more. How on earth could Garrison have anticipated something unprecedented in his experience? He makes it clear that he had never failed to get a witness extradited from another state. It simply shouldn't happen in this country. It's obstruction of justice. Of course he was naive. Most people were. It's only with 20-20 hindsight that we're unsurprised by obstruction of justice in the murder of President Kennedy. As Garrison has said, he thought he lived in the country he was born in.
...There are others, however, who believe Garrison knew he had no case...I suspect this goes too far. I think that Garrison was just in over his head.
...
Pat, can you see how being "in over his head" is far different from being a "fraud"?
-
...
I am sure that Donahue thinks his ratings would have improved, but I think that he is unduly charitable in his assessment.
I don't think that he transitioned from the theatrics which accompany daytime television (that he helped pioneer) to a more serious news oriented show.
I used to try to watch his show before it was pulled, and I found his antics (e.g. pacing around with his mike up and down the aisles) pretty annoying and Springer-esque.
In any event, I hope that he and Marlo Thomas are doing well.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from Chris.
Nothing the least bit suspicious about the cancelation of the only talk show on TV that welcomed peacenick guest in the midst of the big propaganda wind up to the Iraq invasion.
...
(Mods, we can't swear but we can be very sarcastic, right?)
-
Just moving discussion on Jim Garrison here, since it distracted from the subject of Talbot's book "Brothers."
-
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:
-
As I said, interesting. Have no idea if it's true.
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/angelic/96/pclive.htm
"The Incredible Story of Mike Robinson by Walt Brown, Ph.D
Reprinted from "Treachery in Dallas."
Anyone who does not believe strongly in either irony or coincidence will have to rethink their attitudes when they hear the revelations given to me by Mike Robinson.
As it is the central thesis of my work that elements within the Dallas Police Department had a far greater involvement in the JFK assassination than heretofore considered, it seems odd that the same police department "gave" me Mike Robinson.
...
I subsequently contacted Mike, as I had copied his name and phone number from the reporter's notes (Woodward or Bernstein I'm not). I explained that I had been standing next to him for the interview and that I had heard most of his comments, but that I just wanted to make sure I had heard them correctly. Mr. Robinson, not knowing my voice over the phone from Adam's, checked me out through people in Texas and only then shared his story.
Mike Robinson was fourteen years old the day the president was killed. Since I had been sixteen at the time, I felt I could relate to the emotions he told of.
He had watched the motorcade at Main and Harwood, the corner where Dallas police headquarters was located, with a friend whose father was a higher-up in the police. I have since been able to confirm the existence of both the friend, his father's rank, and his father's perhaps too-deep curiosity as to the events of November 22.
After the motorcade passed, the boys went to a theater, bought their tickets and popcorn, and then heard the rapidly spreading news that the president had been shot. Figuring that headquarters would be the center of subsequent action, he and his friend hastened back there in time to get to the third floor, check in with the friend's father, and then see Lee Oswald being led out of the elevator. Since this was a once-in-a-lifetime adventure for a young boy, and since the media were mobbing the area anyway, they stayed and observed the goings-on.
Mike indicated that he overheard in conversation that it was clear to anyone who was talking that the police were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt, even as early as 2:30 P.M., that Oswald was the culprit on both counts. He also learned that J. D. Tippit had been killed. That event, while tragic, was not overly troubling to Mike, as many neighborhood kids knew Tippit from his comings and goings at Austin's Barbeque, and Tippit had arrested Mike's brother for drinking beer in public. The local teenagers, it was noted, had no use for Tippit, whom they viewed as your garden-variety asshole.
Putting that aside, Mike and his friend saw Oswald moved from the various places he was shunted to, and also saw him inside one of the glass homicide cubicles, until such time as newspaper was taped up to keep out the curious. Mike also saw Bobby Hargis, the motorcycle officer splattered by particulate matter from the president, return to headquarters with blood and brain matter on him and his helmet, and when the realization of events hit Hargis, he violently slammed the helmet into a wall and literally went berserk, requiring a number of other officers to restrain him (an event unknown to--or unreported by -- the Warren Commission).
As afternoon approached evening, a trip to the rest room became an absolute necessity, but with extra police and media on the third floor, that was impossible. So Mike was taken, by the ranking officer whose son he was with, down to the lowest level of the building, where the officers had their lockers, and told that the rest room was just past the locker room.
While in a toilet/stall, the enormity of events hit Mike hard and he became emotional about them now that he found himself literally alone with the knowledge that the president he had waved to just a few hours earlier was now in a coffin. As this emotional turmoilcame upon him, the rest room serenity was broken by the arrival of three individuals. Not to appear a sissy or be embarrassed, Mike lifted his feet and "hid" in the stall so that anyone observing would think that only the three men who had just entered were present.
Their brief conversation forever changed Mike Robinson's life. Initially there were whispers, but eventually one individual--and these people were police or police-related in the officers' rest room--vented some anger through gritted teeth, with appropriate profanity, to make statements that add great credence to the thesis enunciated herein.
As Mike Robinson reconstructs the statements, their order was:
(angrily) "You knew you were supposed to kill Lee," followed by icy silence, then the same voice in the same nasty tone, "then, you stupid son of a bitch, you go kill a cop .... " At this point, another individual entered the room, and the first three fell silent. The newcomer, whom Mike could identify as wearing blue, "did his business, flushed the urinal, and left." The original three then concluded, "Lee will have to be killed before they take him to Washington."
Naturally uncomfortable with what he had heard, Mike remained in his hideout for a decent span of time after the three men left the room, then left. As he passed through the police locker room, one officer, in the process of changing his clothes, stared at Mike, as if to say, "Were you in there when we were?" Having been shown every available photo of officers on the Dallas police force at that time, Mike Robinson believes that the man who stared at him in a menacing way was Roscoe White.
Caveat emptor: Some of the narrative cited above came to light as a result of hypnosis. This is not uncommon police procedure, as witnesses to crimes can often be hypnotized and reveal details--from clothing to license plates--that they seemed totally unaware of in a conscious state. I was hypnotized in 1984 to begin the cure of a phobic concern, and I can personally report the success of the hypnosis. So if one chooses to see Mike as an opportunist, the obvious criticism is that he did not recall the entire story, although to this day, when he sees the ominous photo of Roscoe White in the Dallas Assassination Information Center, he admits that it scares the living hell out of him.
The hypnosis, which I asked a number of skeptical questions about and which will be well covered in Coke Buchanan's writings about Mike, was done by an expert with a Ph.D. in hypnotherapy. It revealed that it was Mike's deep-seated belief that one of the three bathroom individuals had something to do with an "agency." He also believes "100 percent" that Roscoe White killed J. D. Tippit.
I have checked with sources to see if it was in any way possible that Oswald could have been in that bathroom, or if media people had made statements that could have been confused. I was assured that Oswald did "his business" in his cell, or in the third-floor rest room, and that the one place that would have been off-limits to press, and thus private to officers, was the area in question."
--
Of course this doesn't explain why Tippit was about the only cop in Dallas not called to Dealey Plaza.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I'd recommend that interested parties from this board register with Amazon (if they haven't already) and post specific errors and factual mistakes in the review section under Bugliosi's book, along with appropriate 1-star negative ratings (the system won't let us go to zero), with an emphasis on clearly describing the book's errors. Brian's rebuttals above with page numbers listed are excellent examples of the sort of thing that would be useful. The usual no-conspiracy-here-folks idiots appproving Bugliosi's work won't have as much traction if their fawning posts are balanced out by clear-cut pieces describing the work's factual errors and omissions. Once a review is there, it's there forever and can work wonders in informing newcomers and decreasing interest in the book.
As an aside, I checked the recent pre-order sales of this and Talbot's BROTHERS and Talbot's book was outselling Bugliosi's by a massive margin.
Great suggestions and info Anthony. I have a zillion books I could review there. Thanks.
-
Ok, here's one where Nelson Rockefeller is much more critical of President Kennedy's economic policies.
It's written just a couple of months after the Life magazine letter exchange with David Rockefeller.
Of course Nelson may still be harboring the delusion that he'll be the Republican running against Kennedy in '64, so it could just
be political sparring, whereas I doubt that's the case with David.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,896929,00.html
The Continued Gold Drain
Friday, Sep. 13, 1963
THE ECONOMY
...
Last week New York's Governor Nelson Rockefeller hit the Administration smack on the sore spot. In a Labor Day statement, Rockefeller warned that the gold drain could lead to "worldwide financial collapse." It is getting worse because Kennedy's handling of the problem "has been characterized throughout by insufficient recommendations, tardy proposals, watering down of plans already advanced, and lack of firm follow-through." Rockefeller accused Kennedy of "timid tinkering," "temporizing" and "continued drift."
Failure of a Pledge. Dollars are flowing out of the U.S. said Rockefeller, "due to a failure to develop methods to support the economic development and defense of the free world without placing too great a burden on the balance of payments." Investment money is going abroad because of the "failure of the President to redeem his often-repeated 1960 campaign pledge to 'get this country moving again economically," and because U.S. interest rates are lower than some other countries.
Rockefeller offered several recommendations of his own to check the gold drain. He urged "an immediate federal tax cut to raise production efficiency, improving our ability to compete in world markets," coupled with "a clear goal of a balanced cash budget as soon as possible." He would soften the drain caused by foreign aid by making sure that aid "does not simply pour more dollars into nations which already have balance-of-payments surpluses" and by urging "our European allies to assume a larger share of the foreign-aid program."
...
-
As if any other outcome were even possible...
"Judge dismisses charges against Posada Carilles
May 9, 2007, 0:03 GMT
Washington A US judge on Tuesday dismissed all charges against Luis Posada Carilles, who is accused in Venezuela and Cuba of acts of terrorism.
US District Judge Kathleen Cardone dismissed all seven counts of immigration fraud, only three days before Posada Carilles' trial was due to begin in a Texas court, a spokeswoman for his defence lawyers confirmed to Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
Posada Carriles, 78, is accused by Havana and Caracas of the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner. His release on bail last month pending the trial had already been strongly criticized by both countries.
His trial in the US was on charges that he entered the country illegally and lied to immigration officials. US courts have also refused extradition requests for the one-time CIA operative, saying that Posada Carriles could face torture in Venezuela or Cuba."
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/new...Posada_Carilles
-
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 andPentagon(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?
-
...
We agree that F8 is of the back of Kennedy's head. I don't think one can say for sure one way or the other if the tear in the scalp at the front of the head represents an entrance or not. I don't think it is an entrance. As far as Crenshaw, he saw Kennedy for but a second and failed to write about his experiences for many years. He is only slightly more credible than Grossman.
...
Pat! Is it possible that a compassionate guy like you really can't see that speaking out would have been the end of Dr Crenshaw's young career and possibly life? He was very clear about this fear in his book, which I think you read. And in fact when he did speak out he was viciously attacked by his peers in JAMA and he successfully sued them over it.
This guy, who has some kind of website on the assassination, describes it well:
"Dr. Charles Crenshaw saw President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital. In 1992 he wrote a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, which related his memories of November 22, 1963, and his theories on the assassination. After its publication, he was nearly crucified. Articles were printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting he was a xxxx—that he’d never even seen Kennedy—and so on. After winning a lawsuit against JAMA, he corrected some minor errors in his book, and updated his story to include a section on the lawsuit."
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20:conclusionsandconfusions:
And I find it very unlikely that the civilian Parkland doctors could have been disoriented so they all described the head wound in the wrong place. Whereas nothing at Bethesda was credible, largely 'cause the Drs were military and followed orders. I guess it's obvious what the orders were.
-
[
But the autopsy photos of A brain were taken afterward at Bethesda Gil.
I guess that's part of chain of events that makes the "autopsy" and "evidence"--like the photos--so clearly bogus.
And it's hard to build a hypothesis around bogus evidence...
Myra: I'm glad you said A brain. I sense you have a good grasp of what happened. Both Paul O'Connor and Jerrol Custer told David Lifton that the skull was empty when the body arrived at Bethesda. Custer asked why he was taking X-Rays of an empty skull and he was told that it wasn't his concern.
I know this'll sound out and out wacky Gil...'cause it is, but I've often wondered if Officer Tipton was killed for spare body parts. They probably didn't take possession of his body though, like they did the President's.
George Clooney and a film about a faked CIA film
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Interesting. Well comedy doesn't automatically equate to puff piece. Humor and satire are very effective tools, e.g., The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Dr. Strangelove.