Bernice Moore Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 (edited) Go to site to open links that are attached to this article.........B J.F.K. Published: June 17, 2007 To the Editor: Bryan Burrough’s laudatory review of Vincent Bugliosi’s book on the Kennedy assassination (May 20) is superficial and gratuitously insulting. “Conspiracy theorists” — blithe generalization — should according to Burroughs be “ridiculed, even shunned ... marginalized the way we’ve marginalized smokers.” Let’s see now. The following people to one degree or another suspected that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, and said so either publicly or privately: Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon; Attorney General Robert Kennedy; John Kennedy’s widow, Jackie; his special adviser dealing with Cuba at the United Nations, William Attwood; F.B.I. director J. Edgar Hoover (!); Senators Richard Russell (a Warren Commission member), and Richard Schweiker and Gary Hart (both of the Senate Intelligence Committee); seven of the eight congressmen on the House Assassinations Committee and its chief counsel, G. Robert Blakey; the Kennedy associates Joe Dolan, Fred Dutton, Richard Goodwin, Pete Hamill, Frank Mankiewicz, Larry O’Brien, Kenneth O’Donnell and Walter Sheridan; the Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who rode with the president in the limousine; the presidential physician, Dr. George Burkley; Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago; Frank Sinatra; and the “60 Minutes” producer Don Hewitt. All of the above, à la Burrough, were idiots. Not so, of course. Most of them were close to the events and people concerned, and some had privileged access to evidence and intelligence that threw doubt on the “lone assassin” version. That doubt remains today. Bugliosi himself this year joined us, Don DeLillo, Gerald Posner, Robert Blakey and two dozen other writers on the assassination in signing an open letter that appeared in the March 15 issue of The New York Review of Books. The letter focused on a specific unresolved lead, the discovery that a highly regarded C.I.A. officer named George Joannides was in 1963 running an anti-Castro exile group that had a series of encounters with Oswald shortly before the assassination. This is obviously pertinent, yet the C.I.A. hid the fact from four J.F.K. investigations. Since 1998, when the agency did reluctantly disclose the merest outline of what Joannides was up to, it has energetically stonewalled a Freedom of Information suit to obtain the details of its officer’s activities. Here we are in 2007, 15 years after Congress unanimously approved the J.F.K. Assassination Records Act mandating the “immediate” release of all assassination-related records, and the C.I.A. is claiming in federal court that it has the right not to do so. And now your reviewer, Burrough, seems to lump together all those who question the official story as marginal fools. Burrough’s close-minded stance should be unacceptable to every historian and journalist worthy of the name — especially at a time when a federal agency is striving vigorously to suppress very relevant information. Jefferson Morley Washington Norman Mailer Provincetown, Mass. Anthony Summers Waterford, Ireland David Talbot San Francisco http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/books/re...ters-t-1-1.html Edited June 21, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Thank you for posting this letter. I hope they send a copy to the Washington Post. Not that they would publish it as they are still smarting about the quote of Ben Bradlee in David Talbot's book. On page 391 David quotes an article by Robert B. Kaiser in the Rolling Stone when he remarked that it was "extremely puzzling" that Bradlee had failed to invest in an Washington Post investigation into the death of JFK. David interviewed Ben Bradlee in 2004. He admits that there were good grounds for Robert Kennedy to believe that JFK "had been assassinated by his own government". When he was asked why as managing editor of the Washington Post he did not commission his journalists to investigate the assassination, he replied that he was concerned about his career and "that I would be descredited for taking the efforts (of the Washington Post newsroom) down that path." (page 393) In fact, chapter 9 of David's book is an excellent account of how Operation Mockingbird worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I am really surprised that this very important thread has only had 74 viewings why the Jack White log-in problems has had 370. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I am really surprised that this very important thread has only had 74 viewings why the Jack White log-in problems has had 370. I was thinking the same thing - about this thread and a few others.... A great article. The mere fact that Bugliosi would endeavor to perpetuate the myth begs the question as to his motive - in my opinion, seriously opening his reputation and credibility to review - starting with a 'relook' into the Manson family murders. It is unfortunate that there are not more outspoken individuals on the CT side, using similar tactics, which would accuse anyone of officially supporting the Warren Report as guilty of complicity in the crime - and move to litigation. Continued support of the crime of the cover-up should carry punitive measures, as this essentially equates to willingly being an accomplice to murder - which has no statute of limitation here in the US. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...3f6293b048acb5b RICLAND View profile (1 user) More options Jun 17, 11:24 am Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk From: RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> Date: 17 Jun 2007 11:24:24 -0400 Local: Sun, Jun 17 2007 11:24 am Subject: Why does Bugliosi keep Saying This? In a recent "debate" with Cyril Wecht -- which lasted all but 10 minutes (Bugliosi gave a speech than ran leaving Wecht to debate himself)-- Bugliosi ended his speech with that business about Oswald being the "last person the mob or CIA would have chosen as an assassin." This puzzles me. No one has argued Oswald was a mob or CIA assassin, so why does Bugliosi end all his speeches with it? Is he delusional or is he trying to undermine the real conspiracy theories by presenting this patently absurd one? ricland http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:0PWxZg...cd=28&gl=us Maybe Bugliosi is 'connected' and was asked by his connection or boss to write a buffer book to explain away the evidence, Why doesn't Bugliosi write a book on the history of the collaboration of Politics, the FBI, CIA and the Mafia. Now that would make for a great book - or set of books. Start at WWII at a minimum. Maybe he could get a TV deal, and a mini-series starring a bunch of drug addicted losers from Hollywood to act in it. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I am really surprised that this very important thread has only had 74 viewings why the Jack White log-in problems has had 370. I was thinking the same thing - about this thread and a few others.... A great article. The mere fact that Bugliosi would endeavor to perpetuate the myth begs the question as to his motive - in my opinion, seriously opening his reputation and credibility to review - starting with a 'relook' into the Manson family murders. It is unfortunate that there are not more outspoken individuals on the CT side, using similar tactics, which would accuse anyone of officially supporting the Warren Report as guilty of complicity in the crime - and move to litigation. Continued support of the crime of the cover-up should carry punitive measures, as this essentially equates to willingly being an accomplice to murder - which has no statute of limitation here in the US. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...3f6293b048acb5b RICLAND View profile (1 user) More options Jun 17, 11:24 am Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk From: RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> Date: 17 Jun 2007 11:24:24 -0400 Local: Sun, Jun 17 2007 11:24 am Subject: Why does Bugliosi keep Saying This? In a recent "debate" with Cyril Wecht -- which lasted all but 10 minutes (Bugliosi gave a speech than ran leaving Wecht to debate himself)-- Bugliosi ended his speech with that business about Oswald being the "last person the mob or CIA would have chosen as an assassin." This puzzles me. No one has argued Oswald was a mob or CIA assassin, so why does Bugliosi end all his speeches with it? Is he delusional or is he trying to undermine the real conspiracy theories by presenting this patently absurd one? ricland http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:0PWxZg...cd=28&gl=us Maybe Bugliosi is 'connected' and was asked by his connection or boss to write a buffer book to explain away the evidence, Why doesn't Bugliosi write a book on the history of the collaboration of Politics, the FBI, CIA and the Mafia. Now that would make for a great book - or set of books. Start at WWII at a minimum. Maybe he could get a TV deal, and a mini-series starring a bunch of drug addicted losers from Hollywood to act in it.- lee Lee, In order to understand Vince B. you need to look at who and what the Los Angeles DA's office was about in the 60' and 70's. This is where the "Bug' cut his teeth and formed some of his alliegences. He is a (career) establishment guy, to put it mildly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now