Jim DiEugenio on The Devil's Chessboard

[Paul Brancato]

Thomas - what marriage of convenience would that be? How about you try to be serious for a change? Your sarcasm is becoming a bore.

[James DiEugenio]

Can we get this back on topic?

That is Talbot's book?

There is so much to discuss in that regard.

Lumumba, DeGaulle, Kennedy's RIF after the Bay of Pigs, what Dulles was doing after he got canned etc.

How about using Maheu to kidnap Galindez? Talk about sick. And then killing the pilot who started talking about the rendition.

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas - what marriage of convenience would that be? How about you try to be serious for a change? Your sarcasm is becoming a bore.

Dear Mr. Brancato,

It would appear that Trejo and I both think Morales was working on the assassination in August or 1963, that's all.

Paul doesn't help me, I help him. It's a one way street.

It's not really a marriage, more like a guy sending support payments to his mistress.

--Tommy, the Droll

[James DiEugenio]

I don't want to speculate that I am the cause of this, but I have been following the Amazon sales rating of the Talbot book.

Since my review came out it has gone up by about 400 places.

Think I should ask him for a percentage?

Edited December 25, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David G. Healy]

I don't want to speculate that I am the cause of this, but I have been following the Amazon sales rating of the Talbot book.

Since my review came out it has gone up by about 400 places.

Think I should ask him for a percentage?

well, perhaps Mr. Talbot would consider a treatment for a documentary regarding the JFK assassination 2015 update? Know anyone that could write one?

[Gene Kelly]

Back on track:

Got the book for Christmas, and cannot put it down. Some highlights for me are the back channel machinations associated with the de Gaulle assassination attempts, the comments/observations (and suspicions) of CIA's Mark Wyatt about Bill Harvey, Dulles' relationship with Howard Hunt, his Q Street home which was "anti-Kennedy headquarters", and the political changing of the guard that was ongoing but not happy. Eight years of Eisenhower and Republican rule was not going away easily.

[James DiEugenio]

I just looked at the stats at CTKA today.

Incredibly, the traffic for the Talbot review has actually increased!

Its up to 1732 hits per day, and 1497 visits per day.

Again, that is a startling ratio. I am pretty sure this is the highest rated article we have had this year. Maybe in the last five.

Edited December 25, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Ed LeDoux]

This years Mary Ferrell Featured books, includes The Devil's Chessboard.



Of note, two of them are from the ROKC forum members.

[Sandy Larsen]

Let's look at a breakdown of the Amazon Best Sellers Rank for Talbot's book:

# 828 for All books.

# 5 for Intelligence & Espionage books.

#11 for Political Biographies.

#28 for U.S. Historical Biographies

The #5 rank for intelligence & espionage is impressive, but not particularly surprising to me. However, the #11 and #28 for biographies is very impressive and surprising to me given the number of such biographies there must be to choose from.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

In one day, the stats for my review of Talbot at CTKA WENT UP AGAIN!

Note, this was Xmas Day!

It was now at 1836 hits, and 1576 visits. Again, a phenomenal ratio.

In all honesty, I don't recall any article or review ever having those kinds of stats at CTKA.

The only thing that ever approximated it was my review of the Douglass book.

Edited December 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

This review of Talbot has now become the first article I can remember to go over 2000 hits per day at CTKA.

Yesterday it got 2034 hits and 1738 visits. Really something for a so called niche site.

Its also remarkable that the ratio of hits to visits is holding strong.

[Gene Kelly]

Jim:

To gain another perspective on the book, see the review "Who Needs Soviet Propaganda?" by David M. Barrett, a professor of political science at Villanova University in Washington Decoded. I don't necessarily agree with the critique but know of Dr. Barrett and respect his work and views.

Gene

[Paul Brancato]

Great book, great review. Considering it is real documented history, and is selling well, it is very telling that the NYT and WP are not reviewing it.

I was struck by a small section in which Harriman is weighing in on JFK's choice of McCone to replace Dulles. He is very definitely taking a stance to the left of JFK here, saying straight out (I think to Schlesinger) that JFK has not done nearly enough to change the old boy CIA network despite firing Dulles, and complaining about CIA funny business in SE Asia.

According to Talbot Mac Bundy is clearly in the Dulles camp. On the surface it looks like Mac Bundy and Harriman were miles apart.

[James DiEugenio]

Jim:

To gain another perspective on the book, see the review "Who Needs Soviet Propaganda?" by David M. Barrett, a professor of political science at Villanova University in Washington Decoded. I don't necessarily agree with the critique but know of Dr. Barrett and respect his work and views.

Gene

Gene:

I hope you noticed that one of his footnotes is to an article at McAdams' site? What kind of scholar, outside of Wikipedia, would do such a thing? And he does this in order to back up LBJ and his lie about RFK suggesting Dulles to the WC?

Anyone who would do such a thing over such a contentious issue, I mean please: Read this

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2015/10/dan-hardway-rebuts-shenons-assertion.html

The professor did not attend to his scholarly due diligence. Which is why I have often said that the only people worse on the JFK case than the media is academia.

Now, also read this thread, especially the comments by Pat Speer and Peter Scott.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/fact-check/rfk-and-dulles-a-closer-look/#more-20656

The professor did not notice any of this, eh?

And, of all things, he uses this false information to discredit Talbot's work on Dulles being in on the plot? Without commenting on any of his other evidence in that regard? That is not scholarship. Its propaganda, which shows in the very title of the essay.

In reality, what this does is underline the degree of hatred that LBJ had for RFK. And why Johnson cannot ever be trusted on the issue.

Edited December 29, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Gene Kelly]

Jim:

Good insights about the Barrett article. I have no horse in his race, other than I came across it this morning after almost being done my reading of Talbot's book (which I have not been able to put down).

I must also profess that I teach as an adjunct at Villanova (at nights), so it struck me that he had reviewed the book and had a certain view. I read his reservations as mainly with the generalizations of Eisenhower's lack of hands-on or knowledge about what was going on. I frankly didn't get that same impression from Talbot's work, although what did come across is how Ike got bamboozled by Dulles in much the same fashion as JFK.

What has really struck me (about Devil's Chessboard) is how complicit and connected Nixon and Dulles were; almost as partners in crime, with the same world views and dirty laundry. That Dulles would have a dinner with Nixon (to commiserate) the night after the Bay of Pigs fiasco is telling. Nixon seems to have owed/leveraged his career to Dulles and company. That sets off all kinds of alarm bells for me.

Gene