David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[Myra Bronstein]

I created a separate thread for Vietnam since we're getting so deeply into Vietnam details, and detracting from discussion of Talbot's book:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10126

[Miles Scull]

David Talbot and Vincent Bugliosi were featured on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. I missed the program, but here is a link to the online version. I cannot get sound on my computer at the moment, so if anyone could post a transcript or even a description of the highlights it would be much appreciated

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Of course, Ray, there was much silly ranting, with questionable sanity on display. The show should be called "Wiffleball" for all the buffoonery. Talbot was trying to be reasonable, but was pilloried by the clowns, Bug & Chris.

Matthews, just to mention one oddity, maintained that, because LHO was employed at the TSBDB long before the motorcade route was known, LHO must, therefore, have been a LN. Thus, no conspiracy. A stupid joke? Well, yes, it is that, but is it more?

This contention has the earmark of a deliberate disinformation plant, because to the unwitting, guileless public it has a ring of simple, credible rationality or plausibility, when of course it's really mendacious propaganda.

Oh. Matthews also said that the movie JFK was irrelevant & irresponsible.

Punch & Judy show.

Chris Mathews is ''Beltway Establishment", he never rocked a boat in his life, and never will.

I just saw the replay of the Chris Mathews Hardball segment with David and Vinnie and thought that it was terrific. Of course Mathews hadn't read either book, but he cut to the chase - if LHO was the assassin and he had the job on the parade route weeks before the route was announced, it was either a lone-nut taking advantadge of opportunity, or a conspiracy that included whoever laid out the route.

Who determined the motorcade route? Mathews asked? Jack Peuterbach is the answer.

Talbot made most of his usual good points, and Bugliosi got in all his jabs, but in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination, and that's the point we need to drive home in order to move to the next level.

The media frenzy over Talbot vs. Bugliosi must also bring in the new evidence and research rather than rehash the same arguments over and over again.

The mainstream media must reach the spectrum achieved in the wake of the JFK movie and the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act.

When they start playing hardball over the sealed records, then we will be getting somewhere.

A transcript of the Talbot v. Bugliosi/Mathews echange will be available soon.

BK

in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination... -- BK

Chris Matthews great cry in this Wiffleball show was:"There are no unanswered questions about the assassination! Oswald, a lone nut, did it!''

the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act. -- BK

Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act.

[William Kelly]

David Talbot and Vincent Bugliosi were featured on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. I missed the program, but here is a link to the online version. I cannot get sound on my computer at the moment, so if anyone could post a transcript or even a description of the highlights it would be much appreciated

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Of course, Ray, there was much silly ranting, with questionable sanity on display. The show should be called "Wiffleball" for all the buffoonery. Talbot was trying to be reasonable, but was pilloried by the clowns, Bug & Chris.

Matthews, just to mention one oddity, maintained that, because LHO was employed at the TSBDB long before the motorcade route was known, LHO must, therefore, have been a LN. Thus, no conspiracy. A stupid joke? Well, yes, it is that, but is it more?

This contention has the earmark of a deliberate disinformation plant, because to the unwitting, guileless public it has a ring of simple, credible rationality or plausibility, when of course it's really mendacious propaganda.

Oh. Matthews also said that the movie JFK was irrelevant & irresponsible.

Punch & Judy show.

Chris Mathews is ''Beltway Establishment", he never rocked a boat in his life, and never will.

I just saw the replay of the Chris Mathews Hardball segment with David and Vinnie and thought that it was terrific. Of course Mathews hadn't read either book, but he cut to the chase - if LHO was the assassin and he had the job on the parade route weeks before the route was announced, it was either a lone-nut taking advantadge of opportunity, or a conspiracy that included whoever laid out the route.

Who determined the motorcade route? Mathews asked? Jack Peuterbach is the answer.

Talbot made most of his usual good points, and Bugliosi got in all his jabs, but in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination, and that's the point we need to drive home in order to move to the next level.

The media frenzy over Talbot vs. Bugliosi must also bring in the new evidence and research rather than rehash the same arguments over and over again.

The mainstream media must reach the spectrum achieved in the wake of the JFK movie and the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act.

When they start playing hardball over the sealed records, then we will be getting somewhere.

A transcript of the Talbot v. Bugliosi/Mathews echange will be available soon.

BK

in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination... -- BK

Chris Matthews great cry in this Wiffleball show was:"There are no unanswered questions about the assassination! Oswald, a lone nut, did it!''

the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act. -- BK

Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act.

Yo! Miles,

You say, "Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act" ?

I don't think Matthews knows anything about the JFK Act let alone actively & effectively preventing any pressure on the government."

He's not that smart. Nor does he follow orders well.

I know how to effectively deal with Mathews. One night when he's done his shift, for which he gets paid very well, I will meet him in the lobby and walk around the corner, past the Dubliner to the Irish Times bar, where we will get a beer at the bar and sit in the corner and discuss this very issue.

He will buy the drinks and I will answer his very hard fastball up the middle, strike one - question - "Who in the administration arranged for the motorcade to ride past the assassin's window, his own Irish mafia?"

And I'll say: Jack Peuterbaugh. (I'll know how to spell it correctly by then).

And take a sip of my drink.

I hope Matthews went out with Talbot and Bugliosi for a few drinks after the show, which would be his style.

The Battle Lines are drawn in the sand and there's no two ways about it, it's going to come down to the assassin's motive - either JFK was the victim of a political crime or a psychological one.

If a psychological one, where are all the psychs analysis? Instead even Bugliosi devotes most of his book to discussing the conspiracy, thus implanting the political and historical context of the assassination in people's minds, regardless of his own conclusions.

It's all an historical analysis if Bugliosi is right, but if he is wrong? And the assassination was a conspiracy and coup instigated from within the highest levels of government - then the consequences are tremendous.

BK

[Miles Scull]

David Talbot and Vincent Bugliosi were featured on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. I missed the program, but here is a link to the online version. I cannot get sound on my computer at the moment, so if anyone could post a transcript or even a description of the highlights it would be much appreciated

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Of course, Ray, there was much silly ranting, with questionable sanity on display. The show should be called "Wiffleball" for all the buffoonery. Talbot was trying to be reasonable, but was pilloried by the clowns, Bug & Chris.

Matthews, just to mention one oddity, maintained that, because LHO was employed at the TSBDB long before the motorcade route was known, LHO must, therefore, have been a LN. Thus, no conspiracy. A stupid joke? Well, yes, it is that, but is it more?

This contention has the earmark of a deliberate disinformation plant, because to the unwitting, guileless public it has a ring of simple, credible rationality or plausibility, when of course it's really mendacious propaganda.

Oh. Matthews also said that the movie JFK was irrelevant & irresponsible.

Punch & Judy show.

Chris Mathews is ''Beltway Establishment", he never rocked a boat in his life, and never will.

I just saw the replay of the Chris Mathews Hardball segment with David and Vinnie and thought that it was terrific. Of course Mathews hadn't read either book, but he cut to the chase - if LHO was the assassin and he had the job on the parade route weeks before the route was announced, it was either a lone-nut taking advantadge of opportunity, or a conspiracy that included whoever laid out the route.

Who determined the motorcade route? Mathews asked? Jack Peuterbach is the answer.

Talbot made most of his usual good points, and Bugliosi got in all his jabs, but in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination, and that's the point we need to drive home in order to move to the next level.

The media frenzy over Talbot vs. Bugliosi must also bring in the new evidence and research rather than rehash the same arguments over and over again.

The mainstream media must reach the spectrum achieved in the wake of the JFK movie and the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act.

When they start playing hardball over the sealed records, then we will be getting somewhere.

A transcript of the Talbot v. Bugliosi/Mathews echange will be available soon.

BK

in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination... -- BK

Chris Matthews great cry in this Wiffleball show was:"There are no unanswered questions about the assassination! Oswald, a lone nut, did it!''

the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act. -- BK

Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act.

Yo! Miles,

You say, "Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act" ?

I don't think Matthews knows anything about the JFK Act let alone actively & effectively preventing any pressure on the government."

He's not that smart. Nor does he follow orders well.

I know how to effectively deal with Mathews. One night when he's done his shift, for which he gets paid very well, I will meet him in the lobby and walk around the corner, past the Dubliner to the Irish Times bar, where we will get a beer at the bar and sit in the corner and discuss this very issue.

He will buy the drinks and I will answer his very hard fastball up the middle, strike one - question - "Who in the administration arranged for the motorcade to ride past the assassin's window, his own Irish mafia?"

And I'll say: Jack Peuterbaugh. (I'll know how to spell it correctly by then).

And take a sip of my drink.

I hope Matthews went out with Talbot and Bugliosi for a few drinks after the show, which would be his style.

The Battle Lines are drawn in the sand and there's no two ways about it, it's going to come down to the assassin's motive - either JFK was the victim of a political crime or a psychological one.

If a psychological one, where are all the psychs analysis? Instead even Bugliosi devotes most of his book to discussing the conspiracy, thus implanting the political and historical context of the assassination in people's minds, regardless of his own conclusions.

It's all an historical analysis if Bugliosi is right, but if he is wrong? And the assassination was a conspiracy and coup instigated from within the highest levels of government - then the consequences are tremendous.

BK

He's not that smart. Nor does he follow orders well.

OK, Bill. On that basis I'll agree with you. Matthews really believes he's onto a hot potato with his brilliant "either/or" conundrum. From the way it looked, however, Matthews seemed to have a private idea that maybe Talbot arranged the motorcade route, Matthews momentarily forgetting that the assassination didn't occur last week but was actually way back in 1963. Yes, it's time to feed Chirs-o a Mickey Finn & insert you, Bill, as a substitute host.

[Chris Courtwright]

Bill -

With all due respect to your persuasive abilities, and I know for a fact they are impressive, I have to wonder aloud after having watched those video clips if you'd have any shot convincing Mathews to change his stripes. You obviously know him personally and I do not. That being said, I have to observe that he may be a heckuva good guy to go have a few beers with; and he may been in the past open-minded on a lot of issues and may remain so on most issues. But after the way he handled those interviews on national TV, it just seems to me that he's painted himself in a corner. That was one of more disgraceful and biased lone-nut talking head performances I have seen in some time (and I can assure you that I've seen a number of them.) I wouldn't even know where to start criticizing him for last night's charade, but several of the major points would include:

(1) His badly flawed logic mentioned by others w.r.t. how Oswald's employment at TSBD and the motorcade route selection methodology somehow "prove" there was no conspiracy;

(2) His obvious failure to have read or at least read up on either Talbot's or Bugliosi's book before putting them on the air;

(3) His inability to stand down long enough from badgering Talbot to actually listen to him and comprehend what David was repeatedly telling him -- that his book is only indirectly about the assassination, so debating the motorcade route was irrelevant. Rather it makes the compelling case that RFK from Nov 22 on strongly suspected a conspiracy and had to shrewdly navigate around the political realities of the day while trying to figure out what had really happened. But Mathews refused to listen.

(4) His selection of "reactor" guests to the previous segment, Pat Buchanan and some other yahoo whose name escapes me at the moment, both of whom felt the need to pay fealty in their first several sentences to the lone nut myth.

(5) Mathews' own rather definitive embracing of the same myth.

Let's set aside for a moment Charles Drago's provocative but relevant assertion:

"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."

Let's assume that Mathews really is/was woefully ignorant of the facts about the assassination, of the work of John Newman, Jeff Morley, Peter Dale Scott and countless others. Let's further assume that he would have the capacity to be educated somewhat on all this over a few drinks. The fact of the matter is that he's a human being, and human beings don't like to admit mistakes. After taking such a vociferous stand on national TV, I really can't see anyone having the stones to raise the issue anew and give it any different treatment in the future.

But here's hoping I'm wrong. If you are able to convince Mathews to give the issue a more rational hearing in the future, I'm more than willing to buy you some beers ...

[Larry Hancock]

Hey Bill, once you have his attention don't forget to tell him that the fellow, Cliff Carter, who Jack P. had been updating

on the trip and who had also been in Dallas before hand, was the fellow that started the calls to all the law enforcement folks

Friday night ordering them not to file conspiracy charges...if they had a problem he offered to get LBJ on the phone to

help them get in line. That might help peak a little discussion for the next round...

-- Larry

David Talbot and Vincent Bugliosi were featured on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. I missed the program, but here is a link to the online version. I cannot get sound on my computer at the moment, so if anyone could post a transcript or even a description of the highlights it would be much appreciated

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Of course, Ray, there was much silly ranting, with questionable sanity on display. The show should be called "Wiffleball" for all the buffoonery. Talbot was trying to be reasonable, but was pilloried by the clowns, Bug & Chris.

Matthews, just to mention one oddity, maintained that, because LHO was employed at the TSBDB long before the motorcade route was known, LHO must, therefore, have been a LN. Thus, no conspiracy. A stupid joke? Well, yes, it is that, but is it more?

This contention has the earmark of a deliberate disinformation plant, because to the unwitting, guileless public it has a ring of simple, credible rationality or plausibility, when of course it's really mendacious propaganda.

Oh. Matthews also said that the movie JFK was irrelevant & irresponsible.

Punch & Judy show.

Chris Mathews is ''Beltway Establishment", he never rocked a boat in his life, and never will.

I just saw the replay of the Chris Mathews Hardball segment with David and Vinnie and thought that it was terrific. Of course Mathews hadn't read either book, but he cut to the chase - if LHO was the assassin and he had the job on the parade route weeks before the route was announced, it was either a lone-nut taking advantadge of opportunity, or a conspiracy that included whoever laid out the route.

Who determined the motorcade route? Mathews asked? Jack Peuterbach is the answer.

Talbot made most of his usual good points, and Bugliosi got in all his jabs, but in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination, and that's the point we need to drive home in order to move to the next level.

The media frenzy over Talbot vs. Bugliosi must also bring in the new evidence and research rather than rehash the same arguments over and over again.

The mainstream media must reach the spectrum achieved in the wake of the JFK movie and the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act.

When they start playing hardball over the sealed records, then we will be getting somewhere.

A transcript of the Talbot v. Bugliosi/Mathews echange will be available soon.

BK

in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination... -- BK

Chris Matthews great cry in this Wiffleball show was:"There are no unanswered questions about the assassination! Oswald, a lone nut, did it!''

the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act. -- BK

Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act.

Yo! Miles,

You say, "Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act" ?

I don't think Matthews knows anything about the JFK Act let alone actively & effectively preventing any pressure on the government."

He's not that smart. Nor does he follow orders well.

I know how to effectively deal with Mathews. One night when he's done his shift, for which he gets paid very well, I will meet him in the lobby and walk around the corner, past the Dubliner to the Irish Times bar, where we will get a beer at the bar and sit in the corner and discuss this very issue.

He will buy the drinks and I will answer his very hard fastball up the middle, strike one - question - "Who in the administration arranged for the motorcade to ride past the assassin's window, his own Irish mafia?"

And I'll say: Jack Peuterbaugh. (I'll know how to spell it correctly by then).

And take a sip of my drink.

I hope Matthews went out with Talbot and Bugliosi for a few drinks after the show, which would be his style.

The Battle Lines are drawn in the sand and there's no two ways about it, it's going to come down to the assassin's motive - either JFK was the victim of a political crime or a psychological one.

If a psychological one, where are all the psychs analysis? Instead even Bugliosi devotes most of his book to discussing the conspiracy, thus implanting the political and historical context of the assassination in people's minds, regardless of his own conclusions.

It's all an historical analysis if Bugliosi is right, but if he is wrong? And the assassination was a conspiracy and coup instigated from within the highest levels of government - then the consequences are tremendous.

BK

[Myra Bronstein]

David Talbot and Vincent Bugliosi were featured on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. I missed the program, but here is a link to the online version. I cannot get sound on my computer at the moment, so if anyone could post a transcript or even a description of the highlights it would be much appreciated

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Of course, Ray, there was much silly ranting, with questionable sanity on display. The show should be called "Wiffleball" for all the buffoonery. Talbot was trying to be reasonable, but was pilloried by the clowns, Bug & Chris.

Matthews, just to mention one oddity, maintained that, because LHO was employed at the TSBDB long before the motorcade route was known, LHO must, therefore, have been a LN. Thus, no conspiracy. A stupid joke? Well, yes, it is that, but is it more?

This contention has the earmark of a deliberate disinformation plant, because to the unwitting, guileless public it has a ring of simple, credible rationality or plausibility, when of course it's really mendacious propaganda.

Oh. Matthews also said that the movie JFK was irrelevant & irresponsible.

Punch & Judy show.

Chris Mathews is ''Beltway Establishment", he never rocked a boat in his life, and never will.

I just saw the replay of the Chris Mathews Hardball segment with David and Vinnie and thought that it was terrific. Of course Mathews hadn't read either book, but he cut to the chase - if LHO was the assassin and he had the job on the parade route weeks before the route was announced, it was either a lone-nut taking advantadge of opportunity, or a conspiracy that included whoever laid out the route.

Who determined the motorcade route? Mathews asked? Jack Peuterbach is the answer.

Talbot made most of his usual good points, and Bugliosi got in all his jabs, but in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination, and that's the point we need to drive home in order to move to the next level.

The media frenzy over Talbot vs. Bugliosi must also bring in the new evidence and research rather than rehash the same arguments over and over again.

The mainstream media must reach the spectrum achieved in the wake of the JFK movie and the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act.

When they start playing hardball over the sealed records, then we will be getting somewhere.

A transcript of the Talbot v. Bugliosi/Mathews echange will be available soon.

BK

in the end the public will understand that there are still many unanswered questions about the assassination... -- BK

Chris Matthews great cry in this Wiffleball show was:"There are no unanswered questions about the assassination! Oswald, a lone nut, did it!''

the focus of the primary issue must be the still secret records and the failure of the government to comply with the JFK Act. -- BK

Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act.

Yo! Miles,

You say, "Matthews is actively & effectively preventing any pressure developing on the government to cease failing to comply with the JFK Act" ?

I don't think Matthews knows anything about the JFK Act let alone actively & effectively preventing any pressure on the government."

He's not that smart. Nor does he follow orders well.

I know how to effectively deal with Mathews. One night when he's done his shift, for which he gets paid very well, I will meet him in the lobby and walk around the corner, past the Dubliner to the Irish Times bar, where we will get a beer at the bar and sit in the corner and discuss this very issue.

He will buy the drinks and I will answer his very hard fastball up the middle, strike one - question - "Who in the administration arranged for the motorcade to ride past the assassin's window, his own Irish mafia?"

And I'll say: Jack Peuterbaugh. (I'll know how to spell it correctly by then).

And take a sip of my drink.

I hope Matthews went out with Talbot and Bugliosi for a few drinks after the show, which would be his style.

The Battle Lines are drawn in the sand and there's no two ways about it, it's going to come down to the assassin's motive - either JFK was the victim of a political crime or a psychological one.

If a psychological one, where are all the psychs analysis? Instead even Bugliosi devotes most of his book to discussing the conspiracy, thus implanting the political and historical context of the assassination in people's minds, regardless of his own conclusions.

It's all an historical analysis if Bugliosi is right, but if he is wrong? And the assassination was a conspiracy and coup instigated from within the highest levels of government - then the consequences are tremendous.

BK

He's not that smart. Nor does he follow orders well.

OK, Bill. On that basis I'll agree with you. Matthews really believes he's onto a hot potato with his brilliant "either/or" conundrum. From the way it looked, however, Matthews seemed to have a private idea that maybe Talbot arranged the motorcade route, Matthews momentarily forgetting that the assassination didn't occur last week but was actually way back in 1963. Yes, it's time to feed Chirs-o a Mickey Finn & insert you, Bill, as a substitute host.

Y'all are overthinking the hell outta this.

Chris Mathews is a party line mouthpiece who follows a script.

[Miles Scull]

Y'all are overthinking the hell outta this.

Chris Mathews is a party line mouthpiece who follows a script.

Righto, Myra. Did you not see my post here?

Matthews, just to mention one oddity, maintained that, because LHO was employed at the TSBDB long before the motorcade route was known, LHO must, therefore, have been a LN. Thus, no conspiracy. A stupid joke? Well, yes, it is that, but is it more?

This contention has the earmark of a deliberate disinformation plant, because to the unwitting, guileless public it has a ring of simple, credible rationality or plausibility, when of course it's really mendacious propaganda.

Hey Bill, once you have his attention don't forget to tell him that the fellow, Cliff Carter, who Jack P. had been updating

on the trip and who had also been in Dallas before hand, was the fellow that started the calls to all the law enforcement folks

Friday night ordering them not to file conspiracy charges...if they had a problem he offered to get LBJ on the phone to

help them get in line. That might help peak a little discussion for the next round...

-- Larry

Right on!

[William Kelly]

Hey, I didn't promise to persuade him to change his stripes from LN to CT, I just promised to answer his question of who arranged the motorcade and Mathews suggested that JFK's own "Irish Mafia" did it.

That would have been Bruno, but making that decision was taken from him by Connally, Jack P. and as Larry mentions, Cliff Carter, certainly not JFK's pals.

Chris is too hard headed for me to convince him of too much.

I'm just glad that he's on national TV asking pertinent quesitons about the assassination. It's a venue we've never had before.

As to those from England who are used to so called moderating journalists to at least try to be objective in such a "debate," the American TV news has evolved into a new form that media hacks, industrialists and corps hire "conservative" (O'Brian) or "liberal" (Matthews) "commentators" to carry their idelogical torch, but like I said, the Kennedy assassination doesn't fit into their black & white world.

If the purpose is to make the JFK assassination an issue as big as the war, the economy, illegal immigrants, abortion, etc., it must remain in the spotlight, regardless of whose saying what about it.

BK

[Don Jeffries]

I used to regularly watch CSPAN's old morning program "Washington Journal" back in the 1990s. They would feature three establishment reporters each day, who would discuss the issues and field phone calls from viewers. Whenever the subject of the JFK assassination (which was mentioned quite a bit during the Oliver Stone-Posner era) came up, or any other "conspiracy theory," each and every reporter, "conservative" or "liberal," would have the same reaction; smile knowingly and instantly poo-poo the whole conspiratorial mindset. I mention that CSPAN program, because these were often less-known print reporters from the midwest, and they still had the same biases and willingness to be moutnpieces for the government that all the high-priced talking heads on television do.

I used to watch each and every "debate" on the JFK assassination on the rare instances that television stations aired them. Without a single exception, the supposedly impartial reporter was clearly, unequivocally on the side of the lone-nut apologist. That has not changed with a newer generation of reporters. Thus, I have no desire to see odious, establishment parasites like Matthews continue to lie about this subject. We will never win over these "journalists." I agree completely with Charles Drago; if they have studied the assassination at all, they have to know that Oswald couldn't have done it. Whether they are too lazy to have independently studied the issue, or they are consciously covering up to protect their lucrative, cushy careers, doesn't really matter. They are all unworthy of our respect, and while David Talbot seems to be an honest journalist, there are very few other real investigative reporters in the establishment press.

[William Kelly]

Here's the transcript:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

This would have been John F. Kennedy‘s 90^th birthday. His assassination in Dallas in 1963 is seared into our national consciousness. And, despite the passing of time, conspiracy theories continue to swirl about his murder.

Journalist David Talbot writes about Bobby Kennedy‘s suspicions of a plot behind his brother‘s murder and his own quest for the truth is a new book called “Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years.” And Vincent Bugliosi uses his prosecutor‘s eye to debunk every conspiracy theory connected to the assassination in a book that has been 20 years in the making called “The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.” Actually, it‘s called “Reclaiming History: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.”

Let me start with David Talbot.

Do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy?

DAVID TALBOT, AUTHOR, “BROTHERS: THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE KENNEDY

YEARS”: You know, Chris, my book is not a conspiracy book.

What I wanted to look into is what Bobby Kennedy, the attorney general of the United States and his brother‘s devoted protector, what Bobby Kennedy was saying and—and doing to solve this crime.

And he started to, that very afternoon, look into various angles into the crime. And I believe what he was looking at from that day on was at the CIA Mafia‘s secret war on Castro as the source of this plot.

MATTHEWS: Did he believe that that was the case?

TALBOT: I believe he did. And he was looking into it until the day he died.

Not only that, but he probably was on the right track. We now know, based on evidence that the Church Committee and House Assassinations Committee came up with in the 1970s, that a number of these figures who Bobby was looking at might very well have been figures of suspicion.

MATTHEWS: So, you believe what?

TALBOT: I believe that Bobby...

MATTHEWS: Based upon all your time on it, what do you believe?

TALBOT: I believe that Bobby Kennedy and much of the Washington political elite, Lyndon Johnson, even members of the Warren Commission themselves, like Richard Russell, the senator from Georgia, Richard Nixon, a number of high-level officials, including Bobby Kennedy, believed that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the complete story.

And Bobby Kennedy was determined, once he got back to the White House, if he had won in 1968, he was determined to reopen the case.

MATTHEWS: And what happened to Bobby?

TALBOT: We know what happened to Bobby. Bobby didn‘t make it.

MATTHEWS: Well, he was killed by Sirhan Sirhan. Do you believe there was something...

TALBOT: Bobby...

MATTHEWS: ... more to that?

TALBOT: I don‘t go into that in the book, although Vincent Bugliosi, I know, himself was among those, back in the 1970s, if I recall—And, Vince, correct me if I am wrong—who did have his suspicions about Bobby Kennedy‘s assassination. I think there‘s a number of unanswered questions about Bobby‘s death as well.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me go to Vincent Bugliosi.

You have got a huge book here, sir. And I wanted to ask you. I—I am one of those who believes that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy. I believe he—the best argument against all the conspiracy theories, which debunks all of them, I believe, is that Lee Harvey Oswald had a job at the Texas Book Depository long before there was a motorcade route that day.

It was a crime of opportunity. It was not a conspiracy.

What is your view, sir?

VINCENT BUGLIOSI, AUTHOR, “RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF

JOHN F. KENNEDY”: Well, I believe that Oswald acted alone, and that I present 53 separate pieces of evidence showing that Oswald killed Kennedy.

And, under those circumstances, it would be humanly impossible, Chris, for him to be innocent, at least in the world in which we live. I am talking to you. You can hear me. There will be a dawn tomorrow. Only in a fantasy world can you have 53 pieces of evidence pointing towards your guilt, and still be innocent.

With respect to conspiracy, Mr. Talbot suspects the CIA, mob, et cetera. Let me just make this observation. First place, there is no credible evidence that the CIA or mob or any other group was involved in the assassination.

I told the jury in London, when I prosecuted Oswald—Gerry Spence defended him—I said, three people can keep a secret, but only if two are dead. And, after close to 44 years, not one credible word, not one syllable has leaked out.

Number two, there is no evidence that Oswald had any association or connection with any of these groups. The FBI conducted 25,000 interviews, found nothing.

Taking it one more step, if you will give me the time—actually, two more steps—assuming, for the sake of argument, that one of these groups wanted to kill President Kennedy, Oswald would have been one of the last people on the faces of this earth whom they would have gone to.

Why? Well, number one, he was not an expert shot—he was a good shot, not an expert shot -- $12 mail-order rifle, notoriously unreliable, extremely unstable. Here‘s a guy that defected to the Soviet Union, pre-Gorbachev. I mean, even today, who in the heck defects to the Soviet Union?

MATTHEWS: Yes.

BUGLIOSI: He gets over there—let me finish—he gets over there, wants to become a Soviet citizen. He is turned down.

What does he do? He slashes his wrist, tries to commit suicide, just the type of person that the CIA or mob would want to rely on to commit the biggest murder in American history.

Final thought: Assuming that the CIA or mob or whatever group there was wanted to kill Kennedy, and, for whatever crazy, bizarre reason, they said, we want to use Oswald, let‘s see if where that takes us makes any sense.

Once Oswald shot at Kennedy and left the book depository building, one of two things would have happened. Let me tell you the least likely thing first. The least likely thing is that there would have been a car waiting for him to help him escape down to Mexico, or wherever.

Certainly, the...

MATTHEWS: Sure.

BUGLIOSI: ... conspirators would not want—wait a while—would not want their hit man to be interrogated by the authorities. But that is the least likely scenario.

Let me tell you, Chris—and you are a bright guy—let me tell you the most likely thing, by far, that would have happened. If the CIA or mob or any of these other groups were involved, once Oswald left the book depository building, there would have been a car waiting for him, driving him to his death. You know that would have happened.

Instead, Oswald is out on the street with $13 in his pocket, trying to flag down...

MATTHEWS: Yes. OK.

BUGLIOSI: ... buses and cabs.

Chris, if I could just...

MATTHEWS: Vincent, we have to come back.

We are going to start with—we are going to start with David when we get back.

You will have more time, David, when we come right back after this.

Please stay with us. We have got a dispute here.

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MIKE HUCKMAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I‘m Mike Huckman with your CNBC “Market Wrap.”

And stocks closed slightly higher today. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 14 points. The S&P 500 was up two points. And the Nasdaq gained almost 15 points.

Gasoline future fell by their largest amount in months today, after a series of refinery restarts. June gasoline futures dropped 9.5 cents.

Oil prices also plunged today, falling $2.05 in New York trading, closing at $63.15 a barrel.

Lehman Brothers and Tishman Speyer are teaming up top buy real estate investment trust Archstone-Smith for more than $22 billion, including debt. Archstone is one of the biggest apartment owners in the country.

And President Bush will nominate former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick as the new president of the World Bank. He would replace Paul Wolfowitz—Wolfowitz, who resigned amid an uproar, after he arranged a promotion and pay raise for his girlfriend. Zoellick is currently a vice chairman of Goldman Sachs.

That‘s it from CNBC, America‘s business channel—now back to

HARDBALL.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

We are continuing to talk about the Kennedy assassination with David Talbot, author of the book “Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years,” and Vincent Bugliosi. His book is called “Reclaiming History: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.”

Let me go right now to David.

You wanted to respond to what we just heard from Vincent.

TALBOT: Yes.

I mean, Vince says that it‘s I that is blaming this on the CIA and the mafia. That‘s not the point of my book. I‘m looking at what the Washington elite and Robert Kennedy himself were doing and saying about this crime.

You know, the forensics game is a game that anyone can play. Lawyers can cherry-pick and—and omit and distort information as they see fit. But the fact is, we now have more and more evidence that points in the direction of a conspiracy.

Just last week, an FBI metallurgist released the results of his analysis, which said, we can no longer definitively say that the bullets came from one gun in Dealey Plaza.

We have acoustics evidence. And Mr. Bugliosi chooses to analyze this in the fashion he wants to. He has used a rock musician named Steve Barber (ph) as his main source on the acoustics evidence from Dealey Plaza. But he, as far as I know, has not interviewed the scientists who have actually carried out these tests.

But the point is, I wanted to look at what Robert Kennedy was—was saying and doing on this, and—and—and the people in the motorcade, who were reporting back to Bobby Kennedy.

You know, Kenny O‘Donnell, the White House aide, and Dave Powers, both very loyal to the Kennedy team, reported back to Bobby that they heard shots from the front, from the grassy knoll area, as well as from behind.

These are two World War II veterans. They know the sounds of gunfire. That was the impression of many of the people in the motorcade. Jackie Kennedy says, I don‘t want to take my suit off, which is soaked with the gore of her husband, her pink Chanel suit, because I want them they to see what they have done to my husband.

It was “they” that was very much in the minds of these people that day in Dallas.

MATTHEWS: Let me go back to Vincent Bugliosi.

Sir, what is your response to these—these assumptions? I mean, the fact that all these people thought there was something beyond Lee Harvey Oswald, what does that add up to you?

Mr. Bugliosi, we don‘t have him here.

Let me ask you how you deal, David, with this argument I make, which

is, if you had Lee Harvey Oswald working at the book depository well before

weeks, several weeks, before there was any motorcade route that day, how did any conspiracy plot develop around using Harvey Oswald as one of the shooters?

TALBOT: Well, there are still interesting questions about how Oswald...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, answer that question. Answer my question. How did he get that job before there was a parade route?

TALBOT: He was—as far as I know, he was given—he was—he was told about the job by the people he was living with at the time in the boarding house.

MATTHEWS: Right.

TALBOT: And the—the Paines. And we don‘t know how he—he exactly got to be there, ahead of the motorcade route. But I think Oswald‘s connection to this is...

MATTHEWS: But, if you believe that he was there before the motor—no, you have got to go to this question.

TALBOT: Pardon me?

MATTHEWS: If you accept the sequence that this guy had this job, and, then, all of a sudden, there‘s—several weeks later, there is a parade route rolling by him, then somebody had to coordinate the whole thing from the White House.

Somebody in the White House had to put the president within shooting range of Lee Harvey Oswald. That‘s the problem with all these conspiracy theories.

(CROSSTALK)

TALBOT: Well, it‘s—it‘s not the White House, no.

What we now know, Chris...

MATTHEWS: Well, who put him there? Who put the president...

TALBOT: Well, let me just finish.

MATTHEWS: ... right there?

TALBOT: Let me finish.

Lee Harvey Oswald had the fingerprints of U.S. intelligence all over him. I didn‘t say that. Senator Richard Schweiker from Pennsylvania said that, one of the first senators to look into Dallas as a member of the Church Committee back in the 1970s. How did Lee Harvey Oswald get to the Soviet Union and back with such ease?

MATTHEWS: No, I will not let you do this. David, you have to answer the question. How did Lee Harvey Oswald get his job right above that parade route before the parade route was set, unless there was a massive conspiracy involving everybody, the Irish Mafia and everybody else you mentioned there?

TALBOT: No, you are throwing the net out way too wide on this.

MATTHEWS: Tell me who would have put the president within shooting range of Lee Harvey Oswald.

TALBOT: I suppose that elements of U.S. intelligence, people working for the government—

MATTHEWS: Told the president to drive under the book depository so that Oswald could shoot him?

TALBOT: People weren‘t telling J.F.K. to drive. First of all, he wasn‘t driving the car.

MATTHEWS: Who put his car there within range of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Who did that?

TALBOT: The point is, we don‘t know for certain. You don‘t know for certain. And you don‘t know for certain.

MATTHEWS: No, I‘m asking you the question. I don‘t know the answer, because it involves the belief—I want you to answer the question.

BUGLIOSI: Chris, can I leave now? Are you through with me?

MATTHEWS: No, Vincent. We had a technical problem. You‘re back Vincent. Don‘t get mad at me. I would ask you now, isn‘t that a central problem with all the conspiracy theories, that Lee Harvey Oswald was there first and Kennedy was taken there.

BUGLIOSI: Well, I want to address myself to a couple things that Mr.

Talbot said.

MATTHEWS: OK, go ahead.

BUGLIOSI: He said it‘s not the CIA or mob. David, who ever was behind him, whether it‘s the military industrial complex or the FBI or whatever it is, once they had him kill Kennedy and left the building, they would have driven him to his death. So don‘t narrow it down to the CIA or mob.

The other thing you said, just last week, somebody came out with some new evidence on the metallic composition of these bullets. I will tell you how new it was David. You want to know how new it was? It‘s already in my book. OK? It‘s an old argument. Everything you‘re saying is old. It‘s not new.

The other things he says, I relied on a rock scientist. Do you really mean that? The national academy of sciences, 12 distinguished scientists confirmed—

(CROSS TALK)

BUGLIOSI: -- that impulse sounds took place one minute after the assassination, when the limousine was long gone down the Stemmin (ph) Freeway, on its way to Parkland Hospital. I want to read a couple things, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Thanks.

BUGLIOSI: This is a letter that RFK wrote to the Warren Commission on August 4^th, 1964, that David knows about. He says I want to state definitely that I know of no credible evidence to support the allegation that the assassination of President Kennedy was caused by a domestic or foreign conspiracy. Adding I have no suggestion to make at this time regarding an additional investigation which should be undertaken by the commission prior to the publication of its report.

The report comes out and he says on September 27^th, 1964, this is R.F.K., I am convinced Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for what happened, and that he did not have any outside help or assistance. I am completely satisfied that the commission investigated every lead and examined every piece of evidence. The Warren Commission inquiry was thorough and—

TALBOT: Chris, can I respond to that?

MATTHEWS: Yes, you can.

BUGLIOSI: Now David believes that he was lying here, is that correct?

TALBOT: What—

(CROSS TALK)

TALBOT: Vince, you are a great courtroom lawyer. You can I know shut people up. But let me respond. Here is my point. Robert Kennedy‘s power to investigate this crime was evaporating the minute his brother died. F. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI, who was in charge of the investigation, hates Bobby Scotts and vice versa. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, also has a poisonous relationship with Bobby.

Bobby is determined to control the investigation himself as best he can. That‘s why he holds on to the president‘s brain literally and tissue samples after the autopsy in Bethesda . He wants as much evidence as he can to control the investigation when he gets back to the White House. He has to, in the meantime, say things publicly about the Warren Commission.

But privately, and you know this, if you read Arthur Schlesinger‘s biography or Evan Thomas‘, biography of Bobby Kennedy—those are the two standard biographies. Certainly you read those.

BUGLIOSI: There is a division on that point.

(CROSS TALK)

TALBOT: Both of them say that Bobby Kennedy felt it was a public relations exercise. The Warren Report was a public relations exercise. That‘s what he was telling the people closest to him.

BUGLIOSI: Wait a minute. I want to make my point. You are saying that he may have been lying when he said what he did?

TALBOT: He was being strategic. Bobby Kennedy was a shrewd political player.

MATTHEWS: Vince and David, we want to come back and have this on the air. Please hold up. We‘ll be right back with David Talbot and Vincent Bugliosi. This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. We are back with the authors of two new books about the Kennedy assassinations, David Talbot, the author of “Brothers, the Hidden History of the Kennedy Years,” and Vincent Bugliosi, who has written “Reclaiming History, the Assassination of John F. Kennedy.” Let me ask you, Vincent, we are going to get David back on the satellite in a second here. But is your conclusion, after all this amazing work for 20 years, that it‘s as clear as we thought it was at the time, that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy?

BUGLIOSI: Absolutely. It‘s all pure moonshine. Within hours of the shooting, local law enforcement down there knew that Oswald had killed Kennedy and acted alone. That‘s one reality.

But the second reality is because of the unceasing and fanatical obsession of literally—and I am not exaggerating, thousands upon thousands of Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists, who have examined every single aspect of this case for close to 44 years, and made hundreds upon hundreds of allegations, this simple case, which remains very simple at its core, has been transformed into the most complex murder case by far in world history.

Just to give an example, one of my end notes, not the main text, one of my end notes on acoustics in the manuscript ran to 120 pages with 60 footnotes. I want to make one point about what David is saying. If he is saying that what I just read to you, that RFK said basically is a lie, that he did not believe it, then he is saying something, by definition, much, much, much worse, because he is, by definition, saying that here is RFK believing that the CIA or mob or whatever other group David wants to believe in, was behind he assassination, and you are the chief law enforcement officer in this country, with the vast resources of the Department of Justice, including the FBI, and you do not—

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this.—

BUGLIOSI: Wait a while. Wait a while.

BUGLIOSI: You do not use them to find out who murdered your brother, and then—

MATTHEWS: David, finish up.

BUGLIOSI: Then by definition you are participating in the cover-up of your brother‘s murder.

MATTHEWS: David, respond to that. Please, David you are back on satellite.

TALBOT: Bobby Kennedy thought that elements of his own government were involved in the assassination of his own brother. He knew he had no power to move against these forces as attorney general. His power was evaporating by the day. Hoover wouldn‘t even send agents to pick Bobby Kennedy up at the airport after the assassination in Dallas. He was contemptuous of Bobby Kennedy. And that‘s a well known fact.

Lyndon Johnson, we know what the mutual contempt between Lyndon

Johnson and Robert Kennedy. So it‘s absurd and naive of Mr. Bugliosi to

think that Bobby Kennedy has the power to go after these people at that

point. That‘s why Bobby Kennedy was determined to run for the presidency,

so he could not open up the investigation with the power of the White House

MATTHEWS: I would love to do an hour. Gentleman, I am out of time.

BUGLIOSI: Are you saying that for nine months RFK had the power—

TALBOT: Can I add one thing? I am sorry.

(CROSS TALK)

TALBOT: The first critics of the Warren Commission were the members of the Warren Commission. Richard Russell, the senator from Georgia said this, he said, I think somebody else worked with Oswald on the planning of the assassination. He said that shortly before he died. And also said the majority of the commission felt the same way I did.

BUGLIOSI: No, he did not say that. He did not say that.

TALBOT: Yes, he did.

BUGLIOSI: This guy attended six of the meetings out of about the 80.

TALBOT: He said it on Cox Broadcasting in Atlanta, shortly before his

death of lung cancer. You don‘t have your history correct. You don‘t have

your history correct, Mr. Bugliosi. You‘re not a historian and you‘re not

BUGLIOSI: Well, I am relying on Barber. Are you saying that the FBI and LBJ were also involved in the assassination?

TALBOT: No, that‘s what you are saying. Because you are trying to tar everyone with that brush. No.

BUGLIOSI: He would have used the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorneys to go after somebody who he believed had murdered his brother and you‘re saying he did not do that.

(CROSS TALK)

TALBOT: Bobby Kennedy was looking into every lead, but privately.

MATTHEWS: OK, gentlemen, thank you very much.

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: “Brothers,” David Talbot, and “Reclaiming History, the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy” by Vincent Bugliosi. Thank you gentlemen. Up next, MSNBC‘s Pat Buchanan and Bob Herbert of the “New York Times.” This is HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Let‘s bring in the HARDBALLers, although I think we have already seen them tonight, Bob Herbert of the “New York Times,” and MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan. Pat, this is never going to go away, this fight, is it? With all the evidence this guy—incredible work, Bugliosi‘s put together.

PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I agree and I agree with you. I think there is probably a significant—a fourth or a third of the country is never going to believe that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a conspiracy.

MATTHEWS: It had to be a right-winger?

BUCHANAN: They say the CIA and Mafia, Mafia, CIA. It goes to the government. That movie did a lot to do that, the Garrison movie.

MATTHEWS: Well that was totally irresponsible. What do you think, Bob Herbert, are we ever going to get a consensus that this guy, this loser did it?

BOB HERBERT, “The NEW YORK TIMES”: No. I agree with you as well, Chris. I think it was a loan gunman. I think people think that this was such an immense tragedy, which it was, that they just don‘t want to believe that one nut like this guy Oswald could have caused this. So they conjure up conspiracies, and it‘s always going to be that way.

MATTHEWS: Unfortunately, most of our history, Malcolm X, what‘s his name, the guy who was head of the Nazi party—

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: All these guys get gunned down by one --

BUCHANAN: Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy.

MATTHEWS: That was a conspiracy, but Garfield and McKinley and—these Puerto Rican nationalists tried to shoot Truman. Somebody almost killed Teddy Roosevelt. Somebody almost killed Franklin Roosevelt.

[Bernice Moore]

Hardball above:

""TALBOT: The first critics of the Warren Commission were the members of the Warren Commission. Richard Russell, the senator from Georgia said this, he said, I think somebody else worked with Oswald on the planning of the assassination. He said that shortly before he died. And also said the majority of the commission felt the same way I did.

BUGLIOSI: No, he did not say that. He did not say that.

TALBOT: Yes, he did.

BUGLIOSI: This guy attended six of the meetings out of about the 80.

TALBOT: He said it on Cox Broadcasting in Atlanta, shortly before his

death of lung cancer. You don‘t have your history correct. You don‘t have

your history correct, Mr. Bugliosi. You‘re not a historian and you‘re not .""

Vincent Bugliosi does not know the data of the Warren Commission.....and which members disagreed..

with it's findings. As well as President Johnson, yet has written a Tome on the subject, preaching that it is correct...

..Oh My..Duh.....!!.

The members :

Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States;

U.S. Senators Richard B. Russell Democrat from Georgia

John Sherman Cooper Republican from Kentucky

U.S. Representatives Hale Boggs Democrat from Louisiana

Gerald R. Ford Republican from Michigan

Allen W. Dulles, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and

John J. McCloy, former president of the World Bank.

Former U.S. Solicitor General James Lee Rankin general counsel .

and 14 assistant counsels, also an additional staff of 12.

The proceedings began Dec. 3, 1963 , the final report was delivered to the President Johnson on Sept. 24, 1964.

Despite this public assertion, JFK assassination expert Anthony Summers emphasizes most of the commission's seven members had private doubts about the theory: "John McCloy had difficulty accepting it. Congressman Hale Boggs had ‘strong doubts.' Senator John Sherman Cooper was, he told me (Summers) in 1978, ‘unconvinced.' . . . On a recently released tape, held at the Lyndon B. Johnson Library, (Sen. Richard) Russell is heard telling President Johnson, ‘I don't believe it.' And Johnson responds, ‘I don't either.'"

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=19071

17 Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part03.htm

Documents recently uncovered in the University of Georgia Library show that Richard Russell, the only Georgian on the Warren Commission, had grave doubts about key aspects of the Warren Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy but kept silent about his reservations for two years. These documents, located by a university student doing research on the JFK assassination, also reveal that Russell, apparently disgusted with Warren Commission procedures, prepared but never sent a letter resigning from the Commission three months after JFK's death.

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...k_9russell.html

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...senrussell.html

B.......

Edited May 31, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Myra Bronstein]

Hardball above:

""TALBOT: The first critics of the Warren Commission were the members of the Warren Commission. Richard Russell, the senator from Georgia said this, he said, I think somebody else worked with Oswald on the planning of the assassination. He said that shortly before he died. And also said the majority of the commission felt the same way I did.

BUGLIOSI: No, he did not say that. He did not say that.

TALBOT: Yes, he did.

BUGLIOSI: This guy attended six of the meetings out of about the 80.

TALBOT: He said it on Cox Broadcasting in Atlanta, shortly before his

death of lung cancer. You don‘t have your history correct. You don‘t have

your history correct, Mr. Bugliosi. You‘re not a historian and you‘re not .""

Vincent Bugliosi does not know the data of the Warren Commission.....and which members disagreed..

with it's findings. As well as President Johnson, yet has written a Tome on the subject, preaching that it is correct...

..Oh My..Duh.....!!.

The members :

Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States;

U.S. Senators Richard B. Russell Democrat from Georgia

John Sherman Cooper Republican from Kentucky

U.S. Representatives Hale Boggs Democrat from Louisiana

Gerald R. Ford Republican from Michigan

Allen W. Dulles, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and

John J. McCloy, former president of the World Bank.

Former U.S. Solicitor General James Lee Rankin general counsel .

and 14 assistant counsels, also an additional staff of 12.

The proceedings began Dec. 3, 1963 , the final report was delivered to the President Johnson on Sept. 24, 1964.

Despite this public assertion, JFK assassination expert Anthony Summers emphasizes most of the commission's seven members had private doubts about the theory: "John McCloy had difficulty accepting it. Congressman Hale Boggs had ‘strong doubts.' Senator John Sherman Cooper was, he told me (Summers) in 1978, ‘unconvinced.' . . . On a recently released tape, held at the Lyndon B. Johnson Library, (Sen. Richard) Russell is heard telling President Johnson, ‘I don't believe it.' And Johnson responds, ‘I don't either.'"

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=19071

17 Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part03.htm

Documents recently uncovered in the University of Georgia Library show that Richard Russell, the only Georgian on the Warren Commission, had grave doubts about key aspects of the Warren Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy but kept silent about his reservations for two years. These documents, located by a university student doing research on the JFK assassination, also reveal that Russell, apparently disgusted with Warren Commission procedures, prepared but never sent a letter resigning from the Commission three months after JFK's death.

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...k_9russell.html

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...senrussell.html

B.......

Great summary Bernice.

[John Simkin]

Thought that members would be interested in an update of newspapers who have written about David's book.

LA Times

http://www.calendarlive.com/books/cl-et-ta...l=cl-books-util

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/re...amp;oref=slogin

International Herald Tribune

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/18/arts/idbriefs19D.php

San Francisco Chronicle

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...;type=printable

Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/20...days_in_dallas/

Granma

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/mayo/lun2...ng-the-cia.html

Capital Times

http://www.madison.com/tct/books/135016

The Oregonian

http://www.oregonlive.com/entertainment/or....xml&coll=7

The Dallas News

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.43a9ee5.html

Bookbag

http://www.thebookbag.co.uk/talbotbrothers.htm

Assassinatinology

http://www.assassinology.org/id6.html

[Tom Kutzer]

"loan gunman"

oh, the irony...even if it's just a mis-spelling.