David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[Myra Bronstein]

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.

I find LBJ's performance unconvincing. His 1964 Gulf of Tonkin lie had already achieved his objective of escalation. Now that he had everything he wanted perhaps he was trying to feign humanity for the sake of his image and legacy.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Myra,

i find your suggesting that LBJ was handwringing for history in June of 1965 quite likely. On the other hand he was getting an earfull from George Ball who was clearly saying the whole think would not work. George was countered most heavily by McGeorge (Just who's mother...?) Bundy, and that great leader of muticultural parking lots Walt Rostow. By the summer of 1965 it was even more clear that they were builiding a military apparatus on political quicksand so LBJ had to at leas appear to equivocate over the inevitable (?)

[Anthony Thorne]

Just to note, I received my copy of the book today down here in Melbourne and it is outstanding so far. I think BROTHERS will be a great gift to the assassination research community as it will bring the events home for many new readers and make them emotionally relevant to those whose eyes have been previously averted. I'll also note that Talbot's lengthy bibliography will be a useful one for readers who wish to dig in further, as it features nearly all the books that I'd recommend to newcomers, right up to some very recent releases. I'll be mentioning these points and others in my eventual Amazon review.

[John Simkin]

...

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?

Lyndon Johnson showed little interest in either negotiating with, or removing, Fidel Castro. As he told Dean Rusk, Maxwell Taylor and John McCone on 2nd December, 1963, South Vietnam is “our most critical military area right now.” David Kaiser points out that Johnson “never seriously considered the alternatives of neutralization and withdrawal.” Kaiser adds: “Johnson, in short, accepted the premises of the policies that had been developed under Eisenhower – premises whose consequences Kennedy had consistently refused to accept for three years.” (1)

Johnson also opposed Prince Sihanouk’s new proposal for a conference on Cambodian neutrality. Johnson feared this would encourage Thailand and South Vietnam to follow the neutral policy that had been with Kennedy’s encouragement, achieved by the government in Laos. He also rejected suggestions by Mike Mansfield for a truce in Vietnam as he did not want “another China”. Mansfield replied, that the “United States did not want another Korea either”. (2)

Johnson told General Paul Harkins, commander of the U.S. military assistance in South Vietnam, that it was necessary to “make clear that the US will not accept a Communist victory in South Vietnam and that we will escalate the conflict to whatever level is required to insure their defeat.” (3) According to Stanley Karnow, Johnson told the joint chiefs at a White House reception on Christmas Eve 1963, "Just let me get elected, and then you can have your war." (4)

In February, 1964, Johnson removed Roger Hilsman as Assistant Secretary for the Far East. Hilsman, who had been in charge of Kennedy’s Vietnam policy, had been a loyal supporter of neutralization. Hilsman was replaced by William Bundy, who shared Johnson’s views on military involvement in Vietnam.

In an interview for the 1999 CNN Cold War documentary on the Vietnam War, Hilsman explained Kennedy’s policy during 1963: “First of all, from the beginning, he was determined that it not be an American war, that he would not bomb the North, he would not send troops. But then after …you remember the Buddhist crisis in the spring of '63, this convinced Kennedy that Ngu Dinh Diem had no chance of winning and that we best we get out. So, he used that as an excuse, beat on McNamara to beat on the JCS to develop a withdrawal plan. The plan was made, he approved the plan and the first one thousand of the sixteen thousand five hundred were withdrawn before Kennedy was killed. If he had lived, the other sixteen thousand would have been out of there within three or four months.”

Hilsman went onto explain how Johnson changed policy towards Vietnam: “Well, what Johnson did was, he did one thing before he expanded the war and that is he got rid of one way or another all the people who had opposed making it an American war. Averill Harriman, he was Under Secretary of State, he made him roving ambassador for Africa so he'd have nothing to do with Vietnam. Bobby Kennedy, he you know, he told Bobby Kennedy that he ought to run for governor of Massachusetts, you see. Bobby confounded him by running for the Senate… He wanted to get rid of me, Lyndon Johnson did. Well, Johnson's a very clever man. When he wanted to get rid of Grenowski, who was the Postmaster General, he offered him the chance of being the first American ambassador to Poland. he offered me... he found out that I'd spent part of my childhood in the Philippines, and he tried to persuade me to become ambassador to the Philippines, but that was just to keep me quiet, you see and so instead I went to Columbia University, where I could criticize the war from outside. Johnson was a very clever man, so the first thing he did was he nullified or got rid of all the people - and he knew as well, he knew who were the hawks and who were the doves… Johnson literally transferred, fired, drove out of government all the people that were really knew something about Vietnam and were opposed to the war. (5)

Robert Komer sent a memo to McGeorge Bundy showing concern about Johnson’s decision to reverse Kennedy’s foreign policy. He complained that this new “hard line” would “increase the chances that in addition to the Vietnam, Cuba, Cyprus, Panama and other current trials – will be added come summer Indonesia/Malaysia, Arab/Israeli, India/Pakistan crises which may be even more unmanageable.” (6)

On 2nd March, 1964, Johnson telephoned Robert McNamara, to prepare a statement on Vietnam. Two days later, McNamara issued a statement rejecting withdrawal, neutralization, or American ground troops. This was discussed with the five Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Maxwell Taylor argued for “the progressive and selective attack against targets in North Vietnam”. General Curtis LeMay advocated an immediate “hard blow”. Johnson replied he did “not want to start a war before November”. (7)

In June, 1964, Henry Cabot Lodge, resigned as ambassador of Saigon. McGeorge Bundy gave Johnson six recommendations for his successor: Robert Kennedy, Sargent Shriver, Robert McNamara, Roswell Gilpatric, William Gaud and himself. Johnson rejected all the names on the list and instead selected General Maxwell Taylor. Bundy complained bitterly that Johnson had appointed a military man. However, Johnson, who was determined to have a war in Vietnam, replied that the ambassador of Saigon would soon be a “military job” and that Taylor was “our top military man”. (8)

Johnson always intended to wait until after the election in November, 1964, before beginning the war against North Vietnam. Public opinion polls showed that the American people were overwhelmingly against sending combat troops to South Vietnam. Most leading figures in the Democratic Party shared this view and had told Johnson this was a war he could not win as China was likely to send troops into Vietnam if the country was bombed or invaded.

Johnson’s strategy changed when Barry Goldwater won the Republican Party nomination in July. Goldwater had been arguing that Johnson had not been aggressive enough over Vietnam. When interviewed by Howard K. Smith on television, Goldwater argued that the United States should start bombing North Vietnam. Smith suggested that this “risked a fight with China”. “You might have to do that” Goldwater responded.” On other occasions, Goldwater had insisted that atomic weapons should be used in Vietnam. (9)

Johnson was now free to trigger a war with North Vietnam. He therefore gave permission for OPLAN 34A to be executed. This was a new operations plan for sabotage operations against North Vietnam. This included hit-and-run attacks along the North Vietnamese coast. On 30th July, the American destroyer, the Maddox, left Taiwan for the North Vietnamese coast. On 2nd August, the Maddox opened fire on three North Vietnamese boats, seriously damaging one boat but not sinking it. (10)

Later that day the incident was discussed by Lyndon Johnson, Dean Rusk, George Ball, General Earle Wheeler and Robert McNamara’s new deputy, Cyrus Vance. As a result of the meeting, Vance approved new attacks on North Vietnam beginning on the night of 3rd August.

Soon after entering North Vietnamese waters on 4th August, Captain Herrick of the Maddox reported that he was under attack. However, later he sent a message that raised doubts about this: "Review of action makes reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather reports and over-eager sonar men may have accounted for many reports. No actual sightings by "Maddox". Suggest complete evaluation before further action." David Kaiser argues that “exhaustive analysis of the evidence makes it impossible to believe that any attack occurred that night.” (11)

Despite this, President Johnson immediately ordered “a firm, swift retaliatory strike” against North Vietnamese naval bases. (12) He ordered the bombing of four North Vietnamese torpedo-boat bases and an oil-storage depot that had been planned three months previously.

President Johnson then went on television and told the American people that a total of nine torpedoes had been fired at American ships and as a result he had ordered a retaliatory strike. Warned by Johnson’s announcement, the North Vietnamese managed to bring down two American planes, killing one pilot and capturing the other. (13)

Congress approved Johnson's decision to bomb North Vietnam and passed what has become known as the Gulf of Tonkin resolution by the Senate by 88 votes to 2 and in the House of Representatives by 416 to 0. This resolution authorized the President to take all necessary measures against Vietnam and the National Liberation Front (NLF).

As James Reston pointed out in the New York Times: “The Congress was free in theory only. In practice, despite the private reservations of many members, it had to go along… it had the choice of helping him or helping the enemy, which is no choice at all.” He then added, as a result of this resolution, who could be trusted with this enormous new power – Johnson or Goldwater?” (14)

As David Kaiser has argued convincingly in his book, ‘American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War’: “By initiating 34A attacks and simultaneously authorizing DeSoto patrols, the administration had brought about one brief military confrontation between North Vietnamese and American forces. The second spurious attack had then become the pretext for retaliation, a congressional resolution authorizing war, and the movement of additional U.S. air assets into South Vietnam.” (15)

Notes

1. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (pages 288-290)

2. Mike Mansfield, memorandum sent to Lyndon Johnson (6th January, 1964)

3. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (page 292)

4. Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History, 1991 (page 342)

5. Roger Hilsman, The Vietnam War, CNN (broadcast on 6th December, 1998)

6. Robert Komer, memo to McGeorge Bundy (25th February, 1964)

7. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (page 304)

8. Kai Bird, The Chairman, Simon & Schuster, 1992 (550-553)

9. Michael R. Beschloss, Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1997 (pages 407-411)

10. Edwin E. Moise, Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War, 1996 (pages 73-74)

11. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (page 334)

12. Michael R. Beschloss, Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1997 (pages 503-504)

13. Edwin E. Moise, Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War, 1996 (pages 214-231)

14. James Reston, New York Times (9th August, 1964)

15. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (page 338)

[John Dolva]

1962:

July '62 - The Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos signed in Geneva by the U.S. and 13 other nations, prohibits U.S. invasion of portions of the Ho Chi Minh trail inside eastern Laos.

August '62 - President Kennedy signs the Foreign Assistance Act of 1962 which provides "...military assistance to countries which are on the rim of the Communist world and under direct attack."

- A U.S. Special Forces camp is set up at Khe Sanh to monitor North Vietnamese Army (NVA) infiltration down the Ho Chi Minh trail.

The stage is being set for the carpet bombing to destroy the trail which is going in the coming years become the primary route for the VietMinh.

1963:

August - The new U.S. ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge arrives in South Vietnam.

- A U.S. State Department message sent to Ambassador Lodge is interpreted by Lodge to indicate he should encourage the military coup against President Diem.

- Ambassador Lodge meets President Diem for the first time. Under instructions from President Kennedy, Lodge tells Diem to fire his brother, the much-hated Nhu, and to reform his government. But Diem arrogantly refuses even to discuss such matters with Lodge.

- President Kennedy and top aides begin three days of heated discussions over whether the U.S. should in fact support the military coup against Diem.

- Lodge sends a message to Washington stating "...there is no possibility, in my view, that the war can be won under a Diem administration." President Kennedy then gives Lodge a free hand to manage the unfolding events in Saigon. However, the coup against Diem fizzles due to mistrust and suspicion within the ranks of the military conspirators.

September- During a TV news interview with Walter Cronkite, President Kennedy describes Diem as "out of touch with the people" and adds that South Vietnam's government might regain popular support "with changes in policy and perhaps in personnel." Also during the interview, Kennedy comments on America's commitment to Vietnam "If we withdrew from Vietnam, the Communists would control Vietnam. Pretty soon, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya, would go..."

October - President Kennedy sends Ambassador Lodge a mixed messaged that "no initiative should now be taken to give any encouragement to a coup" but that Lodge should "identify and build contacts with possible leadership as and when it appears."

- Lodge informs President Kennedy that the coup against Diem appears to be on again. The rebel generals, led by Duong Van "Big" Minh, first ask for assurances that U.S. aid to South Vietnam will continue after Diem's removal and that the U.S. will not interfere with the actual coup. This scenario suits the White House well, in that the generals will appear to acting on their own without any direct U.S. involvement. President Kennedy gives his approval. The CIA in Saigon then signals the conspirators that the United States will not interfere with the overthrow of President Diem.

- Prompted by concerns over public relations fallout if the coup fails, a worried White House seeks reassurances from Ambassador Lodge that the coup will succeed.

- Ambassador Lodge reports a coup is "imminent."

- An increasingly nervous White House now instructs Lodge to postpone the coup. Lodge responds it can only be stopped by betraying the conspirators to Diem.

November - 2 - Lodge has a routine meeting with Diem from 10 a.m. until noon at the presidential palace, then departs. At 1:30 p.m., during the traditional siesta time, the coup begins as mutinous troops roar into Saigon, surround the presidential palace, and also seize police headquarters. Diem and his brother Nhu are trapped inside the palace and reject all appeals to surrender. Diem telephones the rebel generals and attempts, but fails, to talk them out of the coup. Diem then calls Lodge and asks "...what is the attitude of the United States?" Lodge responds "...it is four thirty a.m. in Washington, and the U.S. government cannot possibly have a view." Lodge then expresses concern for Diem's safety, to which Diem responds "I am trying to restore order."

-At 8 p.m., Diem and Nhu slip out of the presidential palace unnoticed and go to a safe house in the suburbs that belongs to a wealthy Chinese merchant.

- At 3 a.m., one of Diem's aides betrays his location to the generals. The hunt for Diem and Nhu now begins. At 6 a.m., Diem telephones the generals. Realizing the situation is hopeless, Diem and Nhu offer to surrender from inside a Catholic church. Diem and Nhu are then taken into custody by rebel officers and placed in the back of an armored personnel carrier. While traveling to Saigon, the vehicle stops and Diem and Nhu are assassinated.

-At the White House, a meeting is interrupted with the news of Diem's death. According to witnesses, President Kennedy's face turns a ghostly shade of white and he immediately leaves the room. Later, the President records in his private diary, "I feel that we must bear a good deal of responsibility for it."

-Saigon celebrates the downfall of Diem's regime. But the coup results in a power vacuum in which a series of military and civilian governments seize control of South Vietnam, a country that becomes totally dependent on the United States for its existence. Viet Cong use the unstable political situation to increase their hold over the rural population of South Vietnam to nearly 40 percent."

At this point the situation is extremely volatile. Kennedy is still alive

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Wiki says: "he (Johnson) escalated the American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 in early 1968."

Wrong! - He escalated in 1965.

November 22, 1963 - President John F. Kennedy is assassinated in Dallas.

In the weeks prior to the assassination the Vietnam climate becomes extremely volatile

1963. By year's end, there are 16,300 American "military advisors" in South Vietnam.

1964 - By year's end, the number of American "military advisors" in South Vietnam is 23,000.

The Viet Cong, however escalate manpower dramatically in 1964, and Johnson is cautious, yet continues to lay the grounwork for a US escalation. (The US$ costs do escalate but not dramatically)

If Kennedy had survived he would have been faced with a dramatically different Vietnam in 1964. It's a mistake to take pre and post documents as a certain determination of how he would have responded.

While reasonable to expect it, there was no guarantee Johnson would win the election. Obviously, as his 'dotage' showed, he was conflicted.

Chima has a centuries long interest in the area. After the end of the Second Indo China War (known by many as 'The Vietnam War') China invaded Vietnam in a series of border skirmishes which were repulsed. Kampuchea, sunk into the quagmire of the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge, (likely a byproduct of the carpet bombing of the Ho Chih Minh Trail and Chinese interests incursions), and Vietnam were then embroiled in border disputes that led to the Vietnames liberating Kampuchea.

Meanwhile, the US reneged on the Paris Peace Accord reparations, and a united Vietnam was left with a country steeped in Agent Orange, massive deforestation, and a multitude of unexploded bombs of various kinds that continued to kill and maim over the coming years.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

On the whole, I think under Kennedy a greater use of diplomacy and the UN would have been made, with an aim of turning the war over to the Vietnamese.

Whatever, events unfolded in an unpredictable way through 1964.

However, Ho had definitely cast his dice and the unification one way or the other was arguably only a matter of time. (just like the War of Independence was arguably won once the US guerilla staked its claim. The rest was just 'window dressing' independent on who was King of England)

What this means, given the extreme volatility of the situation at the time of the Kennedy assassination, IMO one cannot take the two pre-post documents and in comparing them arrive at a conclusion as to what Kennedy would have ended up doing. Quite likely he would have delved deeper into the Vietnam question and found things he was previously unaware of (perhaps program pale horse being one of them) For example, a standoff with the Zino-Soviet bloc could result with concessions, and the necessity of shaking up the CIA possibly with Robert as head. This could have created a great deal of goodwill and a diminuition of the 'Strategy of Tension'.

Frances position on the world stage could also have been different as Johnson sought out the Germans first. It's all speculative. Kampuchea and the Killing Fields were in the future. The preparations for the destruction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail were put in place in '62.

Ho Chi Minh had early on sought a positive relationship with the US only to be rebuffed. A bit like Castro. The US approach drove the leaders to the Left even though they already were in that direction. However Kennedy and his belief in a revitalised UN could have created a large bloc of socialist oriented countries, like Sweden for example, that stayed clearly in the 'West'. Another consequence could be a nuclear armed France playing a much greater role in the area.

Edited May 29, 2007 by John Dolva

[Sterling Seagrave]

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. I am posting the link here as I did not see it mentioned on this thread so far. I was struck by this letter from an aristocrat named Baron Dave Romm which claims to distill the essence of what BROTHERS is about:

QUOTE ON

The article is about RFK, not the JFK assassination

After reading all the letters posted so far, everyone seems to be grinding their own axe -- again -- and missing the point of "Brothers". For this story, it doesn't matter what actually happened on Nov. 22nd, 1963, only that Robert Kennedy was consumed with finding out more.

This is a case study in a brother's love at the highest political level. The assassination itself is peripheral to the story.

The only thing we really know about the assassination, 40 years later, is that the Warren Commission Report did not answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction, and that Warren Commission member Gerald Ford became our first unelected president, further complicating matters to wring the truth out of government archives.

The only thing we know about Robert Kennedy is that he went to his grave unsatisfied with the answers to his brother's assassination. That's the story here. Why isn't anyone talking about that?

-- Baron Dave Romm

http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

From what I've read so far,

I think David Talbot's book "Brothers - The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years" is the most important book to address the assassination of JFK in years, mainly because it provides the propert approach, perspective, synopsis, deep background and overall big picture to the assassination that is necessary before resolving the crime.

Discarding the Conspiracy Theorists vs. Lone Nut debate that has dominated the media, Talbot cuts a path that allows a third, independent force to enter the discussion, and the game, and make the political and legal moves necessary to determine the total truth, in our lifetime.

Whether justice will follow is yet to be seen.

But the Great Game isn't up until everyone is dead.

And that hasn't happened yet.

Kiddoos to David Talbot for setting the stage for the next Act in the greatest political drama of our times.

The best is yet to come.

BK

Bill makes an excellent point.

I’m puzzled that so many people flatly want to know what individual was behind JFK’s murder, such as LBJ, when it has been obvious for a long time that a large number of people were either directly involved, or on the periphery, or in the cover-up. The notion that it was a Mafia hit, or a CIA-Mafia hit, may be comforting to those with a short attention span, but merely distracts us from the fact that it was much larger than that. Anyway, who can neatly separate the CIA from the Mafia, or Alpha 66, or Operation 40, or Opus Dei, or The Knights of Malta, or the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex, or The Fed, the Trilats, the Bilderbergs, etc., when they are all intertwined -- hence the old nickname “The Octopus”. In the multiple threads of this excellent Forum the intimacy of those linkages are there to be seen, and traced from one to another to another.

The sheer number of people involved (or witting) tends to obscure one of the crucial questions: Why was JFK murdered? I’ve thought about this a great deal since being on The Washington Post staff and in the newsroom when JFK was shot, being part of the team covering the assassination, and writing the first Post profile on Jack Ruby.

I’m waiting for the book to arrive and shed more light on this, but my personal conclusion is that JFK told too many people what he was planning to do, who he was planning to fire, and what he was going to change. This gave a lot of power freaks time to find common ground, and to develop a number of scenarios, of which Dallas was only one. How many people are aware that JFK was invited to go bird-hunting on a ranch outside Dallas the next day? (I read it on one of the Post’s news tickers, minutes before the shooting began.)

There are larger issues here than “who struck John”. My impression of the book, so far, is that it will address a lot of these more profound (and scary) subjects.

Sterling Seagrave

[Chris Courtwright]

I’m puzzled that so many people flatly want to know what individual was behind JFK’s murder, such as LBJ, when it has been obvious for a long time that a large number of people were either directly involved, or on the periphery, or in the cover-up. The notion that it was a Mafia hit, or a CIA-Mafia hit, may be comforting to those with a short attention span, but merely distracts us from the fact that it was much larger than that. Anyway, who can neatly separate the CIA from the Mafia, or Alpha 66, or Operation 40, or Opus Dei, or The Knights of Malta, or the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex, or The Fed, the Trilats, the Bilderbergs, etc., when they are all intertwined -- hence the old nickname “The Octopus”. In the multiple threads of this excellent Forum the intimacy of those linkages are there to be seen, and traced from one to another to another.

Sterling echoes many of my thoughts on this. Another observation I would make is that even those entities who may not have been directly involved with foreknowledge were panicked into assisting with the cover-up because of the false sponsor trails they knew could be laid at their doorsteps w.r.t. Oswald, etc. George Michael Evica, Peter Dale Scott, John Newman and other are good at making this case.

I also wanted to throw out one other excerpt from the book for those who don't have it yet that I thought was an excellent summary paragraph w.r.t. the preceding section. From p. 100:

"In the ideological war to define the Kennedy administration, which broke out soon after the president was laid to rest in Arlington and continues to this day, national security officials insisted that the Kennedy brothers were "out of control" on Cuba, pushing them to take absurd measures against Castro like the Mongoose folly. This would become the standard version of the Kennedy's Cuba policy in countless books, TV news shows, and documentaries -- it was rash, obsessive, treacherous, even murderous. But this is not an accurate picture of the Kennedy policy. What in truth bothered national security hard-liners was not how "out of control" the brothers were on Cuba -- it was how in control they were. They were enraged by the way that Bobby Kennedy, and eccentric lieutenants like Lansdale, were installed over them. And they were infuriated by the restrictions imposed on their military ambitions. Frustrated in their desire to declare war on Cuba, intelligence officials declared war instead on the Kennedys, particularly the insufferable kid brother who was put in charge of supervising them. And without telling either the president or the attorney general, they took another ominous step. They renewed their sinister contract with the Mafia to eliminate Fidel Castro."

[John Simkin]

I have been helping David Talbot to publicize his book in the UK. I have arranged for David to speak at a small meeting of JFK researchers on Sunday 10th June in the downstairs room of The Green Man (383 Euston Road) near Great Portland Street tube station. The room has been booked for our exclusive use from 12.00pm to 4.00pm and we will have our own private bar in the area. Several journalists have agreed to attend the meeting.

Hopefully members of the forum who live in the UK will attend the meeting. You will find details of the pub and a map of the area here.

http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/clubs_bars/venue-958.php

Here is a brief description of David’s proposed talk.

David Talbot will speak about his provocative new book, "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years." In the book - which has been called "fearless, passionate and angry" by the New York Times and "brilliant journalism" by People magazine - Talbot argues that President Kennedy's own brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, was America's first assassination conspiracy theorist. Bobby Kennedy immediately suspected that his brother was the victim of a plot - and spent the rest of his life secretly investigating the crime. Though the younger Kennedy publicly accepted the Warren Report - the official government version of the JFK assassination - Bobby was determined to reopen the case if he became president. Bobby Kennedy's campaign for the White House ended in June 1968, when he too became the victim of an assassination about which many questions remain unanswered.

Talbot will also discuss another controversial theme of his book. In recent years, President Kennedy has been characterized as a Cold War hawk - by scholars of the left and right, as well as by U.S. politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties who are eager to claim Kennedy's tough legacy. But Talbot argues that, despite his sometimes militant rhetoric, JFK was a man of peace who was bent on leading the U.S. away from the nuclear precipice and towards detente with the Soviet Union. President Kennedy made it clear that he rejected the idea of pre-emptive war, favoured patient diplomacy over military force, and believed that the United States had to learn to live peacefully with even its staunchest ideological enemies in a multi-polar world.

Kennedy's refusal to launch an all-out military assault on Cuba - or to militarily engage with Communist foes in Berlin and Southeast Asia - provoked a sharp reaction from hard-line national security elements within his own government. "The Kennedy presidency became a government at war with itself," Talbot contends. He believes that these violent tensions within the Kennedy administration exploded in Dallas on November 22, 1963. And Talbot writes that Robert Kennedy - the country's top lawman and his brother's devoted protector - immediately looked at the CIA and its secret war on Fidel Castro as the source of the plot against JFK.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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/

[John Simkin]

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/

It seems you have to search around to get the full debate. As someone living in the UK I find it amazing how biased Chris Mathews was on Hardball. In the UK the interviewer is supposed to be neutral. They aren't of course, but they definitely are more objective than Chris Mathews. The idea of then interviewing two other political figures to add support to his own biased view is amazing.

[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.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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.

Punch & Judy show.

Thank you Miles. In that case fixing the sound on my computer is not as urgent as I thought.

[Dixie Dea]

An additional and recent Chris Matthews thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10089

_________

Dixie

[William O'Neil]

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.

[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