Charles Drago Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Friends, On another thread ("Legacy of Ashes") which he started, Ron Ecker wrote: "Saw an impressive-looking book in the bookstore entitled Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner. "I looked up the JFK assassination in the index. There's a short section, the upshot of which seems to be that Castro did it. From my quick perusal, the notion that the CIA might have been involved is not even considered. "Morales, who I think probably qualifies as a usual suspect in the case, is not even in the index. "Just wanted to point this out before any JFK researchers spend their money on this book." I've performed the same litmus test countless times. To be brief: Since anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination case who does not conclude that the act was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime, how can we respect a historian, biographer, journalist, or other self-described "serious" author or academic who embraces the LN lie? For example, how can we trust Robert Dallek on anything given his idiotic defense of the WC's conclusions? Are we not justified in suspecting the very rationality of the man? The terms extend to the rejection of so-called "experts" who accept or propose a simple-minded "mob-did-it" or "CIA-did-it"-like conspiratorial interpretation. I'm reminded of the old joke, "My brother is insane, he thinks he's a chicken. We keep him around, though, because we need the eggs." Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now