David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[David Talbot]

I agree that the Left's history on the Kennedy case is pretty abysmal. Ray Marcus noted this a long time ago, after he tried to engage the interest of such left-wing icons -- back in the '60s -- as Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Cockburn is a disaster of muddled thinking on this. And of course the Nation has been a repository for some of the most wrong-headed journalism on the subject for years.

I ascribe this to the Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk (a strange misperception they share with the Right, who yearn to embrace Kennedy as one of their own). If Kennedy was a hawk, these leftists reason, how could he have been the victim of a right-wing plot? I suspect it also has something to do with the limitations of Marxist theory -- which doesn't allow for complex analyses of the "ruling class" and how violent splits can occur within it.

Considering this, I guess I should not have been surprised that the most snide and dismissive review of my book so far appeared in the liberal Boston Globe and was penned by an editor of the American Prospect, the lefty political journal. He sang Bugliosi's praises, while brushing my book off as the gossipy rantings of a lunatic.

Of course, there have been some notable exceptions in the Left's coverage of Dallas -- Ramparts magazine in the 60s (as well as the more obscure but important Minority of One journal) and hey, Salon today (I take the blame for that). But by and large it has not been a pretty picture.

[John Dolva]

I agree that the Left's history on the Kennedy case is pretty abysmal. Ray Marcus noted this a long time ago, after he tried to engage the interest of such left-wing icons -- back in the '60s -- as Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Cockburn is a disaster of muddled thinking on this. And of course the Nation has been a repository for some of the most wrong-headed journalism on the subject for years.

I ascribe this to the Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk (a strange misperception they share with the Right, who yearn to embrace Kennedy as one of their own). If Kennedy was a hawk, these leftists reason, how could he have been the victim of a right-wing plot? I suspect it also has something to do with the limitations of Marxist theory -- which doesn't allow for complex analyses of the "ruling class" and how violent splits can occur within it.

Considering this, I guess I should not have been surprised that the most snide and dismissive review of my book so far appeared in the liberal Boston Globe and was penned by an editor of the American Prospect, the lefty political journal. He sang Bugliosi's praises, while brushing my book off as the gossipy rantings of a lunatic.

Of course, there have been some notable exceptions in the Left's coverage of Dallas -- Ramparts magazine in the 60s (as well as the more obscure but important Minority of One journal) and hey, Salon today (I take the blame for that). But by and large it has not been a pretty picture.

"I ascribe this to the Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk (a strange misperception they share with the Right, who yearn to embrace Kennedy as one of their own). If Kennedy was a hawk, these leftists reason, how could he have been the victim of a right-wing plot? I suspect it also has something to do with the limitations of Marxist theory -- which doesn't allow for complex analyses of the "ruling class" and how violent splits can occur within it."

"Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk"??? Perhaps there is a US left and another left?

I'm a lefty and see Kennedy as a dove. Admittedly, other lefty friends think he didn't go far enough. I can understand them, as the inherent problem of a competitive capitalist private property accumulation system, while at times adjustable, carries the seeds of it's ultimate self destruction.

Marxist theory and "doesn't allow for complex analyses of the "ruling class" and how violent splits can occur within it."

In the 20'th century, Trotsky, after Stalins betrayal of Marxism, was the repository of progressive Marxist thinking.

Because Stalin acquiesced to a 'communism in one country' coexisting with Capitalism, or what became a state capitalism as survives in China today, contrary to Trotsky's Permanent Revolution, as Cubas Internationalism may be an example of, a debate of what Marx said or did not say or understand is generally limited to the outlook derived from the Cold War.

Marx's earliest writings are about the competition of Capitalists and the temporary necessity of its form of Democracy.

In the final analysis, this democracy is 'waived' and replaced with Fascism. When there is a basically monopolistic Capitalism with limits of growth the system consumes itself. If it can't create new markets peacefully it does so militarily. Alliances are formed and position is jostled for.

IOW The progression towards a concentration of wealth and it's ultimate self destruction through splits and dominance of a splintered uneducated working class that fights and dies in the resolution of the contradictions or 'splits' within the ruling classes, and the wide spread destruction of infrastructure to artificially recreate an apparent scope for expansion is basic in a Marxist analysis of Capitalism.

Edited May 26, 2007 by John Dolva

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I agree that the Left's history on the Kennedy case is pretty abysmal. Ray Marcus noted this a long time ago, after he tried to engage the interest of such left-wing icons -- back in the '60s -- as Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Cockburn is a disaster of muddled thinking on this. And of course the Nation has been a repository for some of the most wrong-headed journalism on the subject for years.

I ascribe this to the Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk (a strange misperception they share with the Right, who yearn to embrace Kennedy as one of their own). If Kennedy was a hawk, these leftists reason, how could he have been the victim of a right-wing plot? I suspect it also has something to do with the limitations of Marxist theory -- which doesn't allow for complex analyses of the "ruling class" and how violent splits can occur within it.

Considering this, I guess I should not have been surprised that the most snide and dismissive review of my book so far appeared in the liberal Boston Globe and was penned by an editor of the American Prospect, the lefty political journal. He sang Bugliosi's praises, while brushing my book off as the gossipy rantings of a lunatic.

Of course, there have been some notable exceptions in the Left's coverage of Dallas -- Ramparts magazine in the 60s (as well as the more obscure but important Minority of One journal) and hey, Salon today (I take the blame for that). But by and large it has not been a pretty picture.

"I ascribe this to the Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk (a strange misperception they share with the Right, who yearn to embrace Kennedy as one of their own). If Kennedy was a hawk, these leftists reason, how could he have been the victim of a right-wing plot? I suspect it also has something to do with the limitations of Marxist theory -- which doesn't allow for complex analyses of the "ruling class" and how violent splits can occur within it."

"Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk"??? Perhaps there is a US left and another left?

I'm a lefty and see Kennedy as a dove. Admittedly, other lefty friends think he didn't go far enough. I can understand them, as the inherent problem of a competitive capitalist private property accumulation system, while at times adjustable, carries the seeds of it's ultimate self destruction.

Marxist theory and "doesn't allow for complex analyses of the "ruling class" and how violent splits can occur within it."

In the 20'th century, Trotsky, after Stalins betrayal of Marxism, was the repository of progressive Marxist thinking.

Because Stalin acquiesced to a 'communism in one country' coexisting with Capitalism, or what became a state capitalism as survives in China today, contrary to Trotsky's Permanent Revolution, as Cubas Internationalism may be an example of, a debate of what Marx said or did not say or understand is generally limited to the outlook derived from the Cold War.

Marx's earliest writings are about the competition of Capitalists and the temporary necessity of its form of Democracy.

In the final analysis, this democracy is 'waived' and replaced with Fascism. When there is a basically monopolistic Capitalism with limits of growth the system consumes itself. If it can't create new markets peacefully it does so militarily. Alliances are formed and position is jostled for.

IOW The progression towards a concentration of wealth and it's ultimate self destruction through splits and dominance of a splintered uneducated working class that fights and dies in the resolution of the contradictions or 'splits' within the ruling classes, and the wide spread destruction of infrastructure to artificially recreate an apparent scope for expansion is basic in a Marxist analysis of Capitalism.

____________

Perhaps there is a US left and another left?

Touche! The US left is has been contorted beyond recognition by thousands of gatekeeping strategies since the beginning of the cold war. The Olbermanns are simply not allowed on, unless they can be pressed like a button to send a targetted and signifficant audience down the wrong avenue when the apropriate moment arrives. Certainly this sounds paranoind as hell. But the example of Encounter magazine -- as I never tire of repeating is MUST READING IN FRANCES SAUNDERS THE CULTURAL COLD WAR--makes it quite believable for me.

If one goes onto so called "left" sites like Huffington Post or even Counterpunch, one ALMOST NEVER READS ANY REFERENECES TO THE SORDID MASS-MURDER RELATED history of the CIA. In fact, on many of these "in house left" sites, one hears the same stupid propagandistic dichotomy of Bush Vs. the CIA with the CIA being portrayed as angelic blond hottie-maddona wife of Wilson, who tried to warn us about Iraq.

Unless you lived here you simply would not believe the degree to which the left is not allwed anywhere near an audience larger than 13. The last time a "left" voice reached more than a million at a time, it was shot to death. Twice.

[John Dolva]

I suspected something like that, Nathaniel. I've often wondered what access US web users have to, for example, genuine Cuban websites like http://www.granma.cu/ingles/index.html ? Are there problems in accessing them?

EDIT:: there's an article on Talbot's book there.

Edited May 26, 2007 by John Dolva

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I suspected something like that, Nathaniel. I've often wondered what access US web users have to, for example, genuine Cuban websites like http://www.granma.cu/ingles/index.html ? Are there problems in accessing them?

_______

I dont' think the problem is accessing them. Im sure tens of thousands do. But they access different ones at different times so that no one is ever sure what is the most important real problem-- as opposed to scandal-- of the moment.

The big left gatekeeping sites, however go with the Alberto Gonzalez psuedo scandal of the moment. They are the sites that maybe reach a couple hundred thousand a day. The role of these sites is, to paraphrase Mark E. Smith, to pay perfect Journalistic attention,... to the wrong detail. Bush and the corporate dems win for losing.

I noticed that David Talbot had read Saunders book-- which deals extensively with the CIA Encounter Magazine as a left-gatekeeping stategy to make sure that democratic-socialist types did not drift into the dangerous archipelago of neutralism.

I am wondering if David thinks this historical example of a CIA created and funded "left" magazine for control purposes, speaks at all to today's media environment. I don't want to get vulgar and voice suspicions, but after all we are dealing-- in the Encounter example-- with a solid historical example not the swamp of speculation about intelligence operations.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I suspected something like that, Nathaniel. I've often wondered what access US web users have to, for example, genuine Cuban websites like http://www.granma.cu/ingles/index.html ? Are there problems in accessing them?

_______

I dont' think the problem is accessing them. Im sure tens of thousands do. But they access different ones at different times so that no one is ever sure what is the most important real problem-- as opposed to scandal-- of the moment.

The big left gatekeeping sites, however go with the Alberto Gonzalez psuedo scandal of the moment. They are the sites that maybe reach a couple hundred thousand a day. The role of these sites is, to paraphrase Mark E. Smith, to pay perfect Journalistic attention,... to the wrong detail. Bush and the corporate dems win for losing.

I noticed that David Talbot had read Saunders book-- which deals extensively with the CIA Encounter Magazine as a left-gatekeeping stategy to make sure that democratic-socialist types did not drift into the dangerous archipelago of neutralism.

I am wondering if David thinks this historical example of a CIA created and funded "left" magazine for control purposes, speaks at all to today's media environment. I don't want to get vulgar and voice suspicions, but after all we are dealing-- in the Encounter example-- with a solid historical example not the swamp of speculation about intelligence operations.

On second thought, I'm not ideologically opposed to a bit of vulgarity now and again.

[Myra Bronstein]

...

On second thought, I'm not ideologically opposed to a bit of vulgarity now and again.

I knew you'd come to your senses Nathaniel.

[Barbara Briemer]

Just so I'm clear, is this the same David Talbot , whose war-supporting views were discussed in antiwar.com in early 2002: David Talbot and the rise of Warrior Liberalism?

I'd just like to get a sense of the author's credibility and track record for good judgment.

The David Talbot I've heard about wrote:

"From the Gulf War on, the hawks have been on the right side in all the major debates about U.S. intervention in the world's troubles. The application of American military power – to drive back Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, stop Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal campaigns in the Balkans, and destroy the terrorist occupation of Afghanistan – has not just protected US interests, it has demonstrably made the world safer and more civilized."

Is that the same guy?

Probably. But what has that got to do with this book? Do people have to pass some litmus test in order to be credible? Should we apply that litmus test to yourself as well?

I, for one, suspect the world did benefit from forcing Saddam from Kuwait, stopping Milosevic's reign of terror, and overthrowing the Taliban. Are you really defending these regimes, or are you merely questioning the U.S.' right to use force for any reason, good or bad?

Yes, people do have to pass a personal litmus test, unless we want to really confuse ourselves.

How does an over the top "hawk" come to be writing a revelation of JFK vs hawks?

We drove Saddam back from Kuwait? We winked at Saddam's plans to invade Kuwait and we had supplied the chemical weapons he used. See: April Glaspie and the cables

Also, Talbot's original comments are either intended to deceive or they're naive.

"....destroy the terrorist occupation of Afghanistan...."?

Basically America/CIA set up the TALIBAN and invented Al Qaeda post 2001.

As Zbigniew Brzezinski began telling the story a few years ago, America went into Afghanistan 6 months BEFORE the Russians in order to bait them into Afghanistan . . . "in hopes of giving them a Vietnam type experience."

In other words, our CIA recognized that religous fanatics make excellent warriors and we organized them and armed them.

Our presence in Afghanistan has more to do with our control of drug production -- and seemingly the profits.

Our invasions and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq -- "to protect US interests" -- and that would be OIL which we are now privatizing -- has only increased terrorism in the area and worldwide.

We've killed 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians to protect private oil interests . . .

See: Brig. General Smedley Darlington Butler's "War is a Racket"

and to enrich warprofiteers. But, nothing new in any of that!

Talbot's comments ...

"From the Gulf War on, the hawks have been on the right side in all the major debates about U.S. intervention in the world's troubles."

are startlingly arrogant and brutal when we recognize that our CIA has been creating coups all over the world and controlling elections of other nations to keep right-wing governments in place post-WWII.

And those tactics have been brought to bear against American citizens, as well.

There is much to be told of the Kennedy's and their battles against warmongers, especially as we are reliving this history today -- but with the warmongers totally in charge!

[William Kelly]

I don't know about David Talbot being able to change his mind, but RFK certainly did.

He recognized the folly of the anti-communist crusade of Joe McCarthy, then utilalized the same Congressional hearing interrogation tactics against the Teamsteers and organized crime, he changed his support of the war and boke with the LBJ administration over it, and in challenging LBJ took him out of the race.

The Kennedy wanted covert action capability against Castro, but it had to be covert, and in their tight control, and losing that control cost them both their lives.

The successful covert war in Afghanstan helped bring down the Soviet Union, and was the incubator of Al Qaeda, but it wasn't the failure of American diplomacy that led to the war in Iraq, it was the determined and intended policy of the Bush administration, the heirs to the illigimate government handed down from LBJ.

You will never see an honest and accountable American foreign policy until the American people reveal and confront Kennedy's killers and reclaim their government.

And I think David Talbot places JFK as the only person in a room of joint chiefs who would have gone to war against USSR if he wasn't standing there.

And so it was with JFK, who also changed his mind and policies about war and peace and assassination and diplomacy, and we should remember that on June 10, the anniversary of his Peace Speech at American University.

BK

[John Dolva]

If David Talbot has not changed his mind then his book is clouded by a possible agenda. It's all very well to applaud a seemingly positive contribution, but not without context. Early in this debate, before some sections were posted, I raised objection (unanswered) to a seemingly simplistic statement. After reading some other posts, I revised my position, with reservations. Always the skeptic. After the above section which to me places David in a particular camp, plus the contribution of his hawkish foreign policy position I'm beginning to wonder again. (again probably will be unanswered)

Contrary to earlier posts which seemed to promise much it seems that this is once more yet another Cuba Centric Tome. It again places Cuba on the agenda and consequently the obverse of its theme.

Further, it shifts attention from the domestic scene. Fonzi states clearly in the beginning of his book that all sections investigating various themes came up with good leads. He then proceeds with an anti-mob-scenario and focuses on the Cuba question to the exclusion of the other themes. IOW he states right from the start the constraints of an investigation is dependent on choice. IOW he writes himself out of the certain into the speculative right from the start.

We here have Joan and David in opposition with various pros and cons and all the variants.

To blindly support David, or anyone else for that matter, for the sake of some expediency is to doom the outcome. Sure, go ahead and laud David, but don't loose perspective in the process. Some of his output is simplistic and in isolation reeks of an agenda.

The same can be said of Garrison. I've recently rewatched JFK a number of times and see it now as a superb film, not least in how the dramatic script and action glides over and beyond ponderables and takes the viewer unwittingly down a particular path.

There are a number of unanswered fallacies that continue to be written. The Civil Rights acts that were enacted after the assassination were not Kennedy's, they were seriously compromised and watered down, followed with the teeth of the act in action being pulled. Concurrent with this was a series of court rulings that allowed for non-compliance of Kennedy's intended agenda.

Johnson was a caretaker president until properly elected.

There was NO significant US Vietnam escalation until AFTER he was elected in 1965.

There was no reason to assume with certainty he would be elected. Goldwater would have suited the Hawks better.

The VietCong on the other hand escalated sharply. IOW had Kennedy survived he would have had to deal with a different situation than the one that existed up until his death. Ho Chi Minh had, a decade or more previously, declared an allout war until victory. He had not rescinded on this. One can draw parallels with the War of Independence. Was that dependent on who was King of England, or on the American Guerilla? I contend the war was won the moment the Guerillas formed a united front. The rest was just history.

The CIA, irrespective of any comments or presidential directives to the contrary continues to meddle, and often in manners disregarding human life, before, during and after Kennedy's presidency up to the present.

I think the only thing one can say with some certainty is that the changes that Kennedy's Civil Rights act and the teeth he would have given to it would have been a revolutionary break with a clear before and an after that was dependent on him personally, and if he had survived, on the new frontier, supported by his brothers and people like MLK. Yet this is the area where one is continually steered away from.

OK, let's say this power exists to succeed with a conspiracy for half a century? Is there just another new darling of the status quo on center stage now?

What would that power do in steering the investigations? Towards themselves??? Hardly.

These guys are serious. They are pro's compared to most. Angletons room of smoke and mirrors and his house of deceptive orchids rule supreme.

Edited May 28, 2007 by John Dolva

[John Simkin]

I agree that the Left's history on the Kennedy case is pretty abysmal. Ray Marcus noted this a long time ago, after he tried to engage the interest of such left-wing icons -- back in the '60s -- as Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Cockburn is a disaster of muddled thinking on this. And of course the Nation has been a repository for some of the most wrong-headed journalism on the subject for years.

I ascribe this to the Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk (a strange misperception they share with the Right, who yearn to embrace Kennedy as one of their own). If Kennedy was a hawk, these leftists reason, how could he have been the victim of a right-wing plot? I suspect it also has something to do with the limitations of Marxist theory -- which doesn't allow for complex analyses of the "ruling class" and how violent splits can occur within it.

Considering this, I guess I should not have been surprised that the most snide and dismissive review of my book so far appeared in the liberal Boston Globe and was penned by an editor of the American Prospect, the lefty political journal. He sang Bugliosi's praises, while brushing my book off as the gossipy rantings of a lunatic.

Of course, there have been some notable exceptions in the Left's coverage of Dallas -- Ramparts magazine in the 60s (as well as the more obscure but important Minority of One journal) and hey, Salon today (I take the blame for that). But by and large it has not been a pretty picture.

I agree “that the Left's history on the Kennedy case is pretty abysmal”. However, I do not believe this has anything to do with the “Left's insistence that JFK was a Cold War hawk” or that it has anything to do with “the limitations of Marxist theory.”

It is interesting that the left initially favoured the idea that JFK was killed as part of a right-wing conspiracy. This is reflected in the early books in the case by Thomas Buchanan (Who Killed Kennedy – 1964) and Joachim Joesten (Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy? - 1964).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuchananT.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjoesten.htm

The same was true of the left in the UK. For example, see the Bertrand Russell led campaign against the Warren Commission:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/r...ns_Russell.html

Mark Lane was also very much a left-wing figure when he published a Rush to Judgment in 1966. In fact, it was the left-wing views of people like Buchanan, Joesten, Russell and Lane, which were used against them at the time. Their critics often pointed out that they were part of a “communist” inspired campaign to undermine United States democracy.

Since becoming interested in the assassination of JFK I have tried to persuade left-wing friends to take an interest in the case. This has been largely unsuccessful. What is more, they have tried to persuade me to leave the case alone. Their claim that this involvement in the case will undermine my credibility as an historian - is very revealing. I believe this goes to the heart of the problem.

I have argued via my investigation of Operation Mockingbird that the CIA has successfully used the media to cover-up the truth about the assassination of JFK.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5142

However, the cover-up is only part of the story. More importantly, this campaign has been about shaping our understanding of language. For example, the meaning of the word “conspiracy”.

Here is how one dictionary defines the word:

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design.

I have no problem with this definition. In fact, the term “conspiracy” could rightfully be applied to many political events. However, anyone who questions the official story of the JFK assassination are always described as a “conspiracy theorist”. This gives it a whole new meaning.

This is how Wikipedia defines “conspiracy theorists”:

A conspiracy theory attempts to attribute the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.

The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary as late as 1997.

The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.

Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy. Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics, politicians, psychologists, and the media cuts across traditional left-right political lines.

Understandably, journalists, historians and politicians are reluctant to be accused of being a “conspiracy theorist”. Historians are particularly concerned about being described as “conspiracy theorists”. It would be highly damaging to their career to be seen in this way.

It is not so much that historians have gone along with the idea that JFK was killed by a lone gunman. These books are usually written by journalists or lawyers willing to sell their services to the highest bidder. The historians have kept out of this debate by refusing to look into JFK’s death.

There is also another factor in the reason why historians have left this subject alone. For example, I interviewed David Kaiser about this issue on the forum. David is professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the Naval War College and the author of Politics and War: European Conflict from Philip II to Hitler (1990) and American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War (2000). He is currently working on a book on Lee Harvey Oswald:

JS: Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

DK: Yes - a lot. The investigative journalist relies mainly on interviews. The historian relies mainly on documents. There is overlap, but that's the main difference.

JS: The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

DK: Political history in general is very unfashionable, and before me, only one professional historian, John Newman, has written about the JFK case. It frightens people because so many crazy folk are involved with it, I think. It also requies a huge time commitment.

JS: What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

DK: The basic rule is that before-the-fact (in this case, pre-November 1963) documents are more important than after-the-fact ones. There's a hierarchy of evidence. People who come forward years later with stories are suspect, and if they said something different at the time, one has to discount them heavily. Meanwhile, one has to read as many documents as possible to understand the context of a particular event. Almost everything Oswald did looks, actually, like part of something bigger that was happening at the time.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6853

This exchange explains the problem for historians. It also explains why some historians who have reviewed David Talbot’s book have described it as “gossipy”. Historians are uneasy about the use of interviews as evidence. They are also aware that writing about “secret history” is very time consuming. They are also aware that the government can keep documents from public view by claiming that they pose a threat to national security.

Although not a professional historian, Larry Hancock (Someone Would Have Talked – 2007), has produced an account of the JFK assassination that has been based on released government documents. It is no coincidence that his book was completely ignored when it was published earlier this year.

I have also posted these comments on these two threads:

Historians and the JFK Assassination

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4061

Journalists and the JFK Assassination

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6592

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Johnson was a caretaker president until properly elected.

There was NO significant US Vietnam escalation until AFTER he was elected in 1965.

...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here John.

The Gulf of Tonkin non-incident (i.e., lie) occurred August 2, 1964--before the 1964 November election.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed on August 7, 1964 and is the official congressional authorization for escalation:

"It is of historical significance because it gave U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of military force in Southeast Asia. The Johnson administration subsequently cited the resolution as legal authority for its rapid escalation of U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam conflict."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

I don't know, however, when the additional troops were actually sent to Vietnam. Did LBJ wait 'til after the election to do that?

[Michael Hogan]

I don't know, however, when the additional troops were actually sent to Vietnam. Did LBJ wait 'til after the election to do that?

Interesting game simulation of the decisions facing President Johnson. The demo is free, and informative.

Welcome to Escalation! Escalation is a simulation of the Vietnam War where you can make decisions as President Johnson. The decisions you make at the beginning determine what decisions you will be confronted with later and what outcome you get. No two simulations are the same!

http://www.escalationsim.com/index.html

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

As I recall the two big steps in intervention occured in March 1965 and early July 65. The second is the one usually despicted (with hindsight) as the Rubicon decision.

I think this second deployment took the number up around 250,000 troops.

A great book on this is Intervention by George Mct. Kahin. Kahin is rightly rebuked by Peter Dale Scott for shying away from Kennedys NSAM 263. But its still a good read, as I recall, although I might have different reactions to it now that I know much more about the Kennedy disinformation industries.

Kahin does his best to reconstrcuct, work for word, cabinet meeting of Johnson in June of 1965. He does this by piecing together clippings form a lot of different journal entries. He emphasises a wavering Johnson who really anguished over the decision.

I do not think that this depiction of a somewhat undecided Johnson, in any way diminishes from the significance of the Kennedy assassination in terms of the impact on Vietnam war. Even if you agree that Johnson was wavering in June of 65-- which probably many will not-- he was wavering from a much more entrenched committed postion than Kennedy would have been. With the commitments and instituional ties he had to the military -industrial bureacracies, I think it was much more of a given than Kahin depicts.

[Myra Bronstein]

I don't know, however, when the additional troops were actually sent to Vietnam. Did LBJ wait 'til after the election to do that?

Interesting game simulation of the decisions facing President Johnson. The demo is free, and informative.

Welcome to Escalation! Escalation is a simulation of the Vietnam War where you can make decisions as President Johnson. The decisions you make at the beginning determine what decisions you will be confronted with later and what outcome you get. No two simulations are the same!

http://www.escalationsim.com/index.html

Ok, I'm sorry to be killjoy here. I realize it's a kewl website and a good find. But it's inherently dishonest because it starts at 1964 when everything was a done deal and facts were irrelevant 'cause LBJ had given the military industrial thugs their bloddy

reward for his promotion into the white house. So if it's trying to show the complex nature of decision making then it's missing the point because it wasn't complex and decisions were already made.

The bottom line is that President Kennedy and LBJ did exactly what they wanted to do under the exact same set of circumstances at almost the same time.

Kennedy collected the info and status he wanted from Vietnam in October of 1963, wrote it up with General Krulak's help (and Bobby's?), sent McNamara and Taylor to Vietnam to put on a fact-finding show. Then Kennedy sent his report to McNamara/Taylor for their perusal and signature so they'd be familiar with "their" report when they presented it to Kennedy in its nice leather binder. It concluded that things were going well enough in Vietnam for the South Vietnamese to take over, with the help of US advisers, so that US personnel could withdraw in the specified time frame. Oct 11 he issues NSAM#263 that points to the McNamarra-Taylor Report and says "make it so."

Shortly after, November 20, there's this weird meeting in Hawaii with additional discussion of Vietnam policy and strategy that may have conflicted with Kennedy's policy. Then the infamous November 21 draft of NSAM#273, then on November 26 LBJ issues NSAM#273 that tries to sound like it's a continuation of 263 but it isn't. It paves the way for Johnson to quickly change course. He sends McNamarra right back to Vietnam to come to a conclusion that backs up what he's going to do so he can, and does, claim that the Vietnam war is going horribly so we couldn't possibly pull out--the opposite of what Kennedy said.

That change of course happened well before 1964, so that by the time 1964 rolls around Johnson has committed to a hot war & issued supportive documentation based on the bogus fact-finding mission by the versatile McNamara. The facts are irrelevant. By 1964 Vietnam was a runaway train with the pentagon and war profiteers on board whooping it up.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Myra Bronstein