Charles Drago

"With the Bug and Talbot on book promotion tours, if they ever cross paths it should be like the OK Corral." So opined Bill Kelly in another thread. Well, the first shout-out has taken place on Chris Matthew's "Hardball." Bugliosi was pathetic; how he managed to control the foaming is beyond me. He shouted over, demeaned, and intentionally misinterpreted David Talbot, and in so doing revealed himself to be the host's role model -- intellectual as well as behaviorial. Talbot was cool. "You don't know your history, Mr. Bugliosi," he accurately pointed out. The Bug screamed like he'd just taken two in the hat. In the following segment, Matthews couldn't wait to trot out the tired psychobabble about people's unwillingness to believe that a small man can destroy a great man. Pat Buchanan and a Washington journalist agreed wholeheartedly. So ... the decision? Talbot by a point or, at most, a pair. Charles

I would be remiss if I did not take advantage of this most important thread to recommend unreservedly George Michael Evica's first book, lovingly titled And We Are All Mortal, pubished by the University of Hartford. Many of us think of that seminal research volume as a sort of progenitor for subsequent deep political analyses -- including those of the estimable Peter Dale Scott. (Of course Professor Scott was well on his way toward defining "deep politics" by the time George Michael's work appeared. I mean to suggest that AWAAM was the first such book-length analysis devoted to the Kennedy assassination.) Charles

Bugliosi and his ilk deserve not the slightest benefit of the doubt. But let's not waste ammunition on semantical targets. (Remember how, in Fail Safe, the Soviet air defense commander chooses to attack a decoy bomber, thus allowing the hydrogen bomb attack on Moscow to succeed?) Bugliosi is trying -- and failing -- to be cute. He might have added, in the same spirit: ... and bought the cloth that cleaned the oil that didn't stain the bag that hid the weapon ... We're talking rhetorical blather here, folks. Charles

The purposes of Bugliosi's book are many. I'll focus on one that I've indicated on other threads: His targets of opportunity are future generations who will be encouraged to believe that the conspiracy and LN positions are equally worthy of consideration. Thus the conspirators' most effective and long-lived shield -- the false mystery -- will endure. Even more succinctly: His target is history. The only moral response is to treat him with contempt. We must not be content with exposing the massive fraud that is his "masterwork." The job will not be complete until we expose the greater agenda. We must not allow the rape of history. There never has been a legitimate case for the LN. It was a lie from day one. We "debate" its pimps at our own peril. Charles

I cannot begin to express how pleased I am to be reading new material from Ed Tatro. His JFK work is informed -- no, make that empowered -- by a passionate commitment to truth the likes of which I rarely have encountered in the so-called research community. We last spoke in 1995, when he, George Michael Evica, Dick Russell, Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, and others testified before the ARRB in Boston. Ed is the living definition of "citizen-historian." His accomplishments beg the question: What does Robert Dallek bring to the party that Ed doesn't? Within the answer may be discovered volumes of hard truth about the value we choose to place on conventional academia. Charles

Apply THE litmus test to Matthews: Does he bring to bear the same degrees of intellectual curiosity and professionalism on all other issues on which he opines? Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that the act was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. Any guesses as to Crazy Chris's access to the evidence? Charles

Damn! I was afraid of that. I've never heard him cover conspiracy and love him on the war and Bush. So maybe it's time he is educated. Though I fear that anyone on tv has an unspoken agreement to stick with the party line on all things conspiracy. So much for our "free press". Beyond disgusted. Dawn As much as I adore Olberman, this info does make me wonder if he's an establishment lefty like Chomsky, The Nation, and Sir Seymour of Langley. Someone's view on President Kennedy's assassination is the most important litmus test. Myra, In re the litmus test issue: I could not more wholeheartedly agree. If I may write this again, for emphasis: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. In my Constitutionally-protected opinion: Dallek -- impaired. Posner -- complicit. Bugliosi -- both. Olbermann -- earns the benefit of the doubt; no reasonable access -- YET. How can a scholar who publicly pontificates on the JFK murder without first having researched the issue with full intellectual vigor be trusted on ANY subject? Charles

John, Your efforts to heal the body politic are such that I have no problem thinking of you as Doctor Simkin. (For some reason, the character of Dr. Loftus from the late, unlamented BBC series "Doctor in the House" rushes to mind. Nothing personal, I assure you. For were we to carry forward the analogy, we contributors would by vying for the role of intern Michael Upton.) Charles

Dawn, I'm afraid that, for all the nobility and courage Olbermann brings to his nighly broadcasts' commentaries on Bush and his war criminal masters, he fails miserably when it comes to the subject of the Kennedy assassination. Gerald Posner remains one of Olbermann's favorite "experts," one whom he treats with nauseating deference each and every time he appears on "Countdown." I know. It hurts. Charles

If there is no evidence to support a theory, then the theory should be discarded in favor of lines of inquiry that look more promising. Yawn.

Thank you, David, for your informative response. By choosing the term "chestnut" -- which is synonymous with "warhorse," and is most commonly used to describe a well-traveled standard tune (of the Tin Pan Alley variety) -- I meant to indicate the quote's age and frequent citations. Its legitimacy, I agree, is beyond dispute. The Patrick Kennedy quotation appeared in an article published in the Providence Journal (my hometown daily newspaper) -- I'm guessing about six years ago, but I can be specific if you need the info. As for RFK misleading his aides: I have no evidence to support such a hypothesis. Rather, it occurs to me that one way to signal to the watchers that he was not dangerously on the right track would be to send his minions on wild goose chases. In any event, I deeply appreciate your willingness to engage on these issues. Best of luck, Charles

Guano-tanamo Bay -- how fitting is the sh***ing. C

I can tell you that Chris is an insightful, articulate, accomplished researcher, one whose insights are welcome indeed. And in the spirit of full disclosure: He's an old friend, too. Charles

Before we grow hoarse from the shouting of HUZZAHS, let's remember that the attacks of Bugliosi and Posner are targeted on history -- future generations of victims who will be encouraged to believe that the conspiracy/LN debate is honorable, that the playing field is level, that legitimate arguments for the latter position have been posited. Nothing less than the exposure of the Poseur and the Bug as enemy agents -- willful deceivers in service to the vilest political agendas; accessories after the fact to mass murder -- will suffice if we are to define, let alone attain, justice in the case of the conspiratorial murder of John Fitzgerald kennedy. Charles

David, Would you care to comment on U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy's published statement of a few years back that he believes Castro killed his Uncle Jack, and/or on Kennedy cousin Kerry McCarthy's participation in JFK Lancer conferences? The former, I'm told by an authoritative source, was a characteristically knee-jerk reaction to an unanticipated question. But I'm not sure that I buy this explanation. The latter situation is rather more intriguing. Ms. McCarthy is an extraordinarily well-spoken and thoughtful person. She is another recipient of the Kennedy family's traits of wit and verbal cunning, and I thoroughly enjoyed the few hours we spent together in Dallas. Yet I could not shake the sense that she was on a mission with passive and active agendas: get a sense of who's who and what's what, and signal that the family, at some level, is appreciative of researchers' intelligence and passion. Charles

I know, Mark. No offense intended. For what it's worth, I first heard this hypothesis in the early '90s. The danger inherent in discussing it here is that intellectual frauds like Bugliosi would not hesitate to dismiss this extraordinary and noble experiment as "the blog where they believe that JFK consented to his own murder." Charles

So JFK allows the mother of his children into the line of fire? No hypothesis is too preposterous to be excluded from minimal consideration. Which is all that this one deserves. Charles

The "new" Haslam book is, of course, a significantly updated version of his self-published "Mary, Ferrie, and the Monkey Virus" (1995). That book actually appeared in at least three variations: a conventionally bound paperback and two spiral-bound revised editions. I too suspect that the eagerly anticipated witness will be the aforementioned Ms. Baker. Nonetheless, I wholeheartedly recommend the currently available version of research that we ignore at our peril. Charles

David, Perhaps I was less than artful in the articulation of my point and the posing of a relevant question. Permit me to try again. To which "old family friend" did RFK posit, "If the American people knew the truth about Dallas, there would be blood in the streets"? Of critical significance: When was this statement made? Why did you not source the quotation? Further: Given RFK's predilection for multi-tracking, if you will, have you reason to suspect that over the years he purposefully sent well-meaning friends and colleagues down what he knew in advance to be blind investigative alleys in order to deflect attention from those whom he understood to be the real culprits? Why do such a thing? For the same reasons that drew him to the conclusion that "only the power of the presidency" could solve his brother's murder. I'll end with a rhetorical question: The presentation by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg of a Profiles in Courage Award to Gerald Ford remains one of the most troubling and, to this day, haunting images in the history of this case. The irony rolled in over Boston harbor like a fog bank that day ... thick, obfuscatory, redolant with threat. Was there a message to be detected within the gray swirls and eddies? Again, I thank you for your time and wish you great success with Brothers. Best, Charles

Mr. Talbot, Permit me to argue that the words of Robert Kennedy you quote on page 268 supercede, in terms of what they reveal of RFK's grasp of the truth, the exquisitely evasive, "One of your guys did it" chestnut: "'If the American people knew the truth about Dallas,' RFK told [an old family friend], 'there would be blood in the streets.'" You bring these words to our attention within the following context: "As soon as RFK concluded his brother was the victim of a high-level plot -- which he communicated to family members and even the Soviet government within days of the assassination -- the very next thought that must have occurred to a passionate patriot like Bobby ... was surely enough to freeze his heart. If I move against the conspirators at this point, with a slipping grasp on the machinery of government, it could spark an American inferno." (emphasis, for clarity, in your original text) The intriguing direct quote is, for me at least, newly encountered. You have chosen not to identify the "old family friend" in question, and you do not provide an endnote that might shed further light on this matter. But the implication seems clear. RFK knew the truth. Will you be more forthcoming on this matter? And while I have your attention, would you respond to my earlier post? Respectfully, Charles

Mr. Talbot, Please add my voice to those raised in loud appreciation of Brothers. In regard to the "Bugliosi vs. Brothers duel," I would appreciate your comment on the following original statement that I first offered publicly at a JFK Lancer conference some years ago, and that I am led to believe motivated -- at least in part -- Bugliosi's newly published conclusion that, in the wake of "Reclaiming History," the argument that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't "do it" alone is unworthy of serious response: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the assassination of JFK who does not conclude that that murder was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. Do you concur? If so, then would you describe Bugliosi, within the context of his grasp of JFK's assassination, as an ignoramus, an accessory after the fact, or both? I congratulate you, sir, on a most impressive and welcome contribution to the movements toward truth and justice. Charles Drago

My concern regarding exhumation relates to chain of custody. Would the best evidence be allowed to rest just six feet away from revelation? Recall the condition of LHO's crypt when it was brought to light. When the official Dallas-to-Washington casket was dropped into the abyss, was it lead weights alone that it carried? There is even a macabre story -- which I repeat but hardly embrace -- that the Dallas cenotaph is hardly that. Charles

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

Arguably the most accomplished film based on the JFK assassination back story (if I may use the Hollywood-friendly term) is "The Package." Tommie Lee Jones is the assassin, Gene Hackman is the NCO who finds himself drawn into the plot to kill GHW Bush and Gorbachev figures when they meet in Chicago. There's even an LHO-based (loosely so) patsy set up by neo-Nazis, who in turn are being run by the top-level conspirators. And here's where it's most interesting: Working in tandem to destroy detente are high ranking military and intelligence officers from BOTH sides. NOW we're getting somewhere. Charles

Without question.