The Communication Breakdown

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

You've done it again (why am I not surprised). I said Sorenson came from a Republican family, not that he was a Republican. He was working for a Democrat Presidential candidate so I think that might have crossed his mind as he stood in the ballot box in 1960. You see the way you misrepresent the posts of others? Subtle. Clever. Members take note.

Mark, let me quote from your previous post your exact words and the me,bers can decide for themselves. These are your exact words on Post # 162:

However, his [Ted Sorsenson's] apparent affirmation of (fellow Republican) Dillon's undying friendship with JFK must be considered in the context of all other information to be gathered about Douglas Dillon.

If that does not say that Ted Sorenson and Douglas Dillon were fellow Republicans, I do not know what does.

I am glad you are going to read his book, however. I think you will enjoy it and probably find some interesting information besides just the Dillon/Kennedy relationship.

Also, please take this little correction of your sarcasm in the first sentence in the friendly manner which it is intended. Nothing grammatically wrong with your parenthetical remark but if I am correct there should be a question mark before the end parenthesis so it should look as follows:

You've done it again (why am I not surprised?).

An aside: reminds me of Reagan's remark in the 1980 debate: "There he goes again!" (words to that effect). His humour helped him win the debate and probably played a role in the electoral victory. Some have compared Reagan's wit and charisma to JFK's and I think there is some truth to the comparison.

Edited June 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Al Carrier]

I've got Max Taylor and Curt LeMay. Can anyone ID the others? (Greg Wagner)

Hi Greg,

Yep, Taylor front left, LeMay front right. I believe that is Gen. Earle Wheeler behind Taylor and Adm. David McDonald behind LeMay. At the back on the left could be Gen. John McConnell but I'm not 100% on that one.

FWIW.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi James,

The guy behind General Earle Wheeler (partially obscured by LeMay) might be General David Shoup (Marines). Hard to tell, but looks similar from the photos I've seen and he wore glasses. Nice photo, Greg--I'd love to see the one of a distressed Ike that you mentioned. A man of integrity, IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

James and Mark,

That is General David Shoup.

Al

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark wrote:

You've done it again (why am I not surprised). I said Sorenson came from a Republican family, not that he was a Republican. He was working for a Democrat Presidential candidate so I think that might have crossed his mind as he stood in the ballot box in 1960. You see the way you misrepresent the posts of others? Subtle. Clever. Members take note.

Mark, let me quote from your previous post your exact words and the me,bers can decide for themselves.  These are your exact words on Post # 162:

However, his [Ted Sorsenson's] apparent affirmation of (fellow Republican) Dillon's undying friendship with JFK must be considered in the context of all other information to be gathered about Douglas Dillon.

If that does not say that Ted Sorenson and Douglas Dillon were fellow Republicans, I do not know what does.

Tim,

Fair call. My remark in parenthesis made it look like I believed they were both Republicans. Sorenson was obviously not.

I am glad you are going to read his book, however.  I think you will enjoy it and probably find some interesting information besides just the Dillon/Kennedy relationship.

Also, please take this little correction of your sarcasm in the first sentence in the friendly manner which it is intended.  Nothing grammatically wrong with your parenthetical remark but if I am correct there should be a question mark before the end parenthesis so it should look as follows:

You've done it again (why am I not surprised?).

An aside:  reminds me of Reagan's remark in the 1980 debate: "There he goes again!" (words to that effect).  His humour helped him win the debate and probably played a role in the electoral victory.  Some have compared Reagan's wit and charisma to JFK's and I think there is some truth to the comparison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark wrote:

You've done it again (why am I not surprised). I said Sorenson came from a Republican family, not that he was a Republican. He was working for a Democrat Presidential candidate so I think that might have crossed his mind as he stood in the ballot box in 1960. You see the way you misrepresent the posts of others? Subtle. Clever. Members take note.

Mark, let me quote from your previous post your exact words and the me,bers can decide for themselves.  These are your exact words on Post # 162:

However, his [Ted Sorsenson's] apparent affirmation of (fellow Republican) Dillon's undying friendship with JFK must be considered in the context of all other information to be gathered about Douglas Dillon.

If that does not say that Ted Sorenson and Douglas Dillon were fellow Republicans, I do not know what does.

I am glad you are going to read his book, however.  I think you will enjoy it and probably find some interesting information besides just the Dillon/Kennedy relationship.

Also, please take this little correction of your sarcasm in the first sentence in the friendly manner which it is intended.  Nothing grammatically wrong with your parenthetical remark but if I am correct there should be a question mark before the end parenthesis so it should look as follows:

You've done it again (why am I not surprised?).

An aside:  reminds me of Reagan's remark in the 1980 debate: "There he goes again!" (words to that effect).  His humour helped him win the debate and probably played a role in the electoral victory.  Some have compared Reagan's wit and charisma to JFK's and I think there is some truth to the comparison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just try that again for clarity.

Tim,

Fair call. My remark in parenthesis made it look as though I believed they were both Republicans. Sorenson was obviously not. You've scored a technical debating point (in duplicate). You're lucky day, Tim.

[Mark Stapleton]

Taylor looks like he's imitating Lansdale with that stooped right shoulder. Or does conspiracy just do that to you?

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

Just a mild case of "post assassination prognostication". Dinkin had it bad.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

Fair call. My remark in parenthesis made it look as though I believed they were both Republicans. Sorenson was obviously not. You've scored a technical debating point (in duplicate). You're lucky day, Tim.

Not just luck, Mark.

Permit me, then, a friendly grammatical point.

"You're" is a contraction short for "you are". Your sentence should read"

"Your lucky day, Tim."

If you refuse to learn about the assassination from me*, perhaps you will accept my grammatical points.

By the way, I think you will be glad that I pressed you to read Sorenson's book! (And in response to one of your other remarks, I recommend the Sorension bio of JFK for all Forum members, not just you. I assume any member of this Forum is interested in the politics of the early sixties.)

* By that I mean (for instance) that I may not know for sure who did it but I do know for sure some who did not, among them C. Douglas Dillon.

Edited June 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark wrote:

Fair call. My remark in parenthesis made it look as though I believed they were both Republicans. Sorenson was obviously not. You've scored a technical debating point (in duplicate). You're lucky day, Tim.

Not just luck, Mark.

Permit me, then, a friendly grammatical point.

"You're" is a contraction short for "you are".  Your sentence should read"

"Your lucky day, Tim."

If you refuse to learn about the assassination from me*, perhaps you will accept my grammatical points.

By the way, I think you will be glad that I pressed you to read Sorenson's book!

Tim,

*  By that I mean (for instance) that I may not know for sure who did it but I do know for sure some who did not, among them C. Douglas Dillon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Sorry to disappoint you but I did say "maybe". At the moment I'm going through some of the material Bernice linked to her post (#124). There's a mile of stuff there including some from Weberman. Some of it I've read before but I recommend forum readers give it more than a passing glance. The Rockerfeller Commission is interesting and probably doesn't receive sufficient coverage on the Forum, IMO.

I don't know if Dillon had foreknowledge of JFK's assassination but as I've stated ad nauseum, he can't be ruled out as a suspect, IMO. Thus I disagree with your iron clad conviction of his innocence.

Among the many problems I have with your perspective on the assassination is your tendency to claim certain sources as justification of your position. One example is the LBJ tapes, which you claim as proof of LBJ's non involvement.

John Simkin and Ron Ecker say they prove no such thing. You don't have the credibility to carry your arguments.

[Pat Speer]

Since Sorenson's credibility is so much a part of this thread, I believe I should throw in a pound of trivia. As I remember it, Jimmy Carter was quite taken with Sorenson, and pushed him forward as a nominee to run the CIA after removing Bush, only to discover on routine background check that Sorenson had been a socialist in college. Bing. End of career.

OOPS! I double-checked this and found he'd been a conscientious objector, and not a socialist.

Edited June 15, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Boy, that's even worse than a Democrat!

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

Among the many problems I have with your perspective on the assassination is your tendency to claim certain sources as justification of your position. One example is the LBJ tapes, which you claim as proof of LBJ's non involvement.

John Simkin and Ron Ecker say they prove no such thing. You don't have the credibility to carry your arguments.

Mark, again, let me suggest two things to you:

1. Read. And not just material that supports your pre-established conclusion,

2. Think for yourself.

So why don't you read "The Assassination Tapes" for yourself and reach your own conclusion whether LBJ was a guilty murdered playing innocent or really had no clue what was going on.

I suspect if you approach the book with a foregone conclusion LBJ was guilty you can, with some effort, reach the conclusion that LBJ was just a great actor. But it is my contention if you read the tapes with a truly open mind (equally open to his guilt or innocence) you will come away convinced of his innocence. But that is just my opinion, too.

So read the book and reach your OWN conclusion. You are capable of it.

Never once did I imply anyone should believe "The Assassination Tapes" prove LBJ innocent merely on my say-so, by the way. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my credibility.

You have called me names here so let me say this with a sincere preface that is not in any way my intention to insult you. (I tend to care about people's feelings which is one reason why false accusations about people tend to upset me so much.) Your comment about my credibility and the assassination tapes, as well as some of your other posts, convince me you do not have great ability to reason clearly. I say that because I see no relationship between my credibility and whether LBJ's taped comments prove his innocence. Perhaps, however, I misunderstood your comment.

But the bottom line is read "The Assassin Tapes". Then decide for yourself.

Edited June 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Greg Wagner]

Re Ron's post re Maxwell Taylor, this emotion certainly tells me he had no involvement in the asssassination.  He, a hard-bitten career military officet was presumably close to tears at the thought of the brutal murder if his friend.

He too is another man, most likely innocent, who has been indicted by certain members of this Forum on the scantest (if any) evidence.

Just caught Pat's post.  Amen, Pat!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Tim-

Who knows what Taylor's reaction to Rostow's Kennedy comment was all about? Maybe it really was true sadness. Maybe regret. Maybe part of facing up to something terrible he did or knew of and failed to halt. Maybe it was cover. You don't know the answer to that question any more than I do. My point is that we are here to ask questions and engage in discussion on the issues surrounding John Kennedy’s murder.

Would Taylor be convicted in a court of law based on the speculation and circumstantial evidence (that of which we are currently aware) present today? Of course not. But this isn't a court of law. It's still a murder investigation. And in such an endeavor, one poses questions, considers possible scenarios, and collaborates and consults with peers to obtain their input. And your input is certainly clear, and at times, valuable. But I think you may be jumping the gun in this instance.

Ridiculous assumptions are one thing. But quite frankly, if you listen the White House tapes from the days of the missile crisis (or read any number of books on the subject and on the men in question), it's very clear that the JCS were diametrically opposed to Kennedy's position- that includes Taylor. At one point in one of the conversations, LeMay sounds very much like he is dictating to the president, practically scolding him. Again, as I have stated on other threads, this lone issue of Kennedy's handing of the missile crisis does not prove anything in and of itself. It is but a single element of a larger context: The nation's military leadership thought Kennedy was making critical errors in judgment with regard to foreign policy and communism.

Combine this with Kennedy's back channel discussions with Khrushchev and Castro (which could in and of itself be considered potential treason- don't you think Max and the boys were concerned about what those discussions entailed?) his habit of sleeping with women connected to communism and the mafia, and throw in the drug usage. I think there is every reason to consider the node of power surrounding Taylor, LeMay, & Co.

Finally, even if Taylor (or anyone under consideration as a suspect) “liked” Kennedy, I think it would be a mistake to exclude them from examination. The last time I checked, having a general fondness of someone is not considered exculpatory evidence.

Consider that these were very serious military men, men whose views about U.S. foreign policy, communism, and negotiating only from positions of strength, had been forged in war. Furthermore, these men were charged with the security of the United States and its citizens- a responsibility that men like Taylor and LeMay would have taken very seriously. If they truly thought Kennedy was seriously mishandling Cuba, Vietnam, and the global struggle against communism, and if they further were suspicious about his back channel talks with Khrushchev and Castro, with whom he was sleeping, and what was in Max Jacobson’s syringe, I believe that it’s quite possible that they could have acted on those concerns. In fact, it’s hard to imagine that they would not have acted (in some fashion, anyway). These were not passive, subordinate men, by any stretch.

Admittedly, none of this is proof that they were the prime movers. But men like Max Taylor are certainly worthy of our exploration and discussion.

Edited June 14, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Ron Ecker]

Greg,

Good post. I agree that Taylor breaking down in an interview, not the next day or weeks later but a year after the assassination, could well have come from a burden of guilt and regret that he carried. It doesn't sound like normal grief after that much time. Furthermore, his carrying on with a scheduled meeting in the Pentagon with West German officers after the shooting on November 22 indeed has the smell of a cover story. As Manchester describes it, “General Taylor in particular felt that it was important to present a picture of stability and continuity.” (p. 253) Hogwash. Would the Germans expect him to sit there with them for the rest of the afternoon, with the nation on alert, talking NATO minutia? This is the same crap that Bush gave the 9/11 Commission about his sitting on his butt for those famous seven minutes listening to a pet goat story while, he was explicitly told, “America is under attack.” Bush told the commission that he thought it was important to sit there and look calm and collected. Was that his Constitutional duty? In moments of national crisis, such as a foreign attack on the nation or a presidential assassination, we don’t expect our leaders to sit on their butts and do something irrelevant in order to look calm. We expect them to get off their butts and take charge. To hell with calmness.

Ron

[Stan Wilbourne]

That's a great post, Greg. Very well said. There are some great folks posting here. If you can tolerate the vein of incessant nonsense...

[Pat Speer]

While I don't believe Taylor was involved, I also don't believe you can automatically exclude men as suspects just because they were friends with the victim. Meyer Lansky was life-long pals with Busy Siegel, and probably even loved him, but when Siegel stole from the boys, Lansky sided with his business partner Lucky and agreed that Siegel needed killing. And then there's that whole Michael Corleone kissing Fredo thing.

It should also be pointed out that Taylor was a military man, and military men are trained to accept death as a consequence of necessary action. They are not supposed to prioritize their own life if that interferes with them accomplishing their mission, nor are they supposed to let sentimental attachments interfere with their mission. They'll bomb a school if there's a missile silo underneath. They'll blow up a residential neighborhood if Saddam Hussein's children might be living there. People are expendable to them. While Kennedy was technically Commander-in-Chief, the missile crisis tapes, along with RFK's and O'Donnell's accounts, reveal that there was a lack of respect for Kennedy from the military. If the JCS had decided that Kennedy was a threat to the future of the free world, they may very well have decided to kill him, accepting that they may have had to die as well. I don't believe this is what happened. I don't believe they'd come to that conclusion about Kennedy. But if they had, Taylor might well have went along with it, and lived out his days in remorse.

[Ron Ecker]

On killing friends, this is from a NYT book review of I Heard You Paint Houses, based on interviews of the late hit man Frank Sheeran (perhaps not to be compared to Maxwell Taylor, but the moral is the same):

Sheeran's tales of each killing are shiny pebbles of minimalism. Take the 1978 murder of Salvatore (Sally Bugs) Briguglio, the minor Mafioso who drove the car that took Hoffa to his death. Sheeran and his own driver, John (the Redhead) Francis, simply approached Briguglio on a street in Little Italy: "I walked up to him and said, 'Hi, Sal.' He said, 'Hi, Irish.' Sally Bugs looked at John because he didn't know the Redhead. While he was looking at John for an introduction, Sally Bugs got shot twice in the head. He went down dead."

Ron

Edited June 14, 2005 by Ron Ecker