David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[John Simkin]

David's book has reached the top twenty on the New York Times bestselling list:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/books/be...amp;oref=slogin

[Dawn Meredith]

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

I thought Talbot started a bit shakey but then held his own. The Bug was trying to intimidate him, and Matthews was a jerk, but David gathered himself together and made his points. I think he will get better and better at this. BK you need to tell David about Peterbaugh, as well as who he is,and how he was in the position to determine the motorcade route. (Older books have Dallas mayor Cabell as the responsible party on the route) . He needs to be ready and prepared for this question.

Last night Scarboro (sp) just had Bugliosi and it was afwul. He twists, distorts, lies....He had a good 10 minutes to brain wash the unknowing. Bug said basically all the same things he said on Matthews, so I think any future debates will be won by David.

Dawn

[Myra Bronstein]

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.

David Talbot was the boss at Salon so he didn't have to answer to anyone. Most reporters have to answer to their corporate bosses who are part of the matrix. In my limited experience talking with reporters/producers/journalists/cameramen, (the ones on the street doing the real work) they're among the most naive creatures on the planet because they usually mean well and are honest, but can not or will not see the bias of their bosses. I think it's just human nature; they don't want to see that they're working for an evil entity so they block it all out.

[Dawn Meredith]

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.

David Talbot was the boss at Salon so he didn't have to answer to anyone. Most reporters have to answer to their corporate bosses who are part of the matrix. In my limited experience talking with reporters/producers/journalists/cameramen, (the ones on the street doing the real work) they're among the most naive creatures on the planet because they usually mean well and are honest, but can not or will not see the bias of their bosses. I think it's just human nature; they don't want to see that they're working for an evil entity so they block it all out.

I agree that Salon.com gave David the idependence he needed to just researsch and write this marvelous boolk. Now he needs lots of exposure. We need a very lot of people reading this book.

If wouldf be even better if Stone would make it as a film, but I think Stone got burnt out by the media's marginalization of him with JFK. Too bad, "Brothers" would be a brilliant flick.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

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.

David Talbot was the boss at Salon so he didn't have to answer to anyone. Most reporters have to answer to their corporate bosses who are part of the matrix. In my limited experience talking with reporters/producers/journalists/cameramen, (the ones on the street doing the real work) they're among the most naive creatures on the planet because they usually mean well and are honest, but can not or will not see the bias of their bosses. I think it's just human nature; they don't want to see that they're working for an evil entity so they block it all out.

I agree that Salon.com gave David the idependence he needed to just researsch and write this marvelous boolk. Now he needs lots of exposure. We need a very lot of people reading this book.

If wouldf be even better if Stone would make it as a film, but I think Stone got burnt out by the media's marginalization of him with JFK. Too bad, "Brothers" would be a brilliant flick.

Dawn

[John Simkin]

Very long article about David Talbot's book by Ron Rosenbaum in Slate Magazine.

http://www.slate.com/id/2167466/

It includes the following:

Why now? Why a new controversy over something that happened 45 years ago? What got Chris Matthews so het up (not that it takes much) that he's done two recent segments on the assassination? You've got to be kidding, right? After all this time?

But suddenly certain developments have converged to thrust the magic bullet and its attendant controversy back into our consciousness, where, in fact, it never lay far beneath the surface. Indeed, you could make the case that JFK conspiracy-theory culture has, in its own way, been responsible for changing the landscape of the American mind: Look at the "9/11 truth" movement, which in various versions holds that the government was behind the tragedy and helped demolish the buildings. Would such elaborate fantasies have thrived if not for the thicket of conspiracy-theory-receptive consciousness ready to feed the fire? Indeed, almost every poll shows that solid majorities of Americans believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy. And Holocaust denial: Does it not prey upon a credulous culture of paranoid suspicion in which conspiracy theories thrive? This culture, which has grown out of JFK conspiracy theories, often slips from a recognition that the truth is sometimes elusive to a belief that everything said to be true is false or the product of a secret cabal, designed to conceal sinister ends.

But must we condemn all conspiracy-theory thinking—the very notion of conspiracy—out of hand because of its abuses? One can rightly condemn a predetermined approach to investigating the truth—one that begins with the assumption of a conclusion rather than reaching a conclusion inductively through the accumulation of solid evidence. But the flaws in conspiracy-theory consciousness—the belief that every history-changing event has a sinister conspiracy, rather than a deranged individual, behind it—does not mean that some history-changing events aren't the result of conspiracies. That conspiracies don't exist at all.

Watergate was one. Iran-Contra was another. "Fixing" prewar intel on Iraqi WMD may have been a third. Further back in history: The assassination of Julius Caesar and the murder of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas à Becket ("Will someone not rid me of this [troublesome] prelate") resulted from conspiracies. And people can also conspire toward good ends: The deception operation behind the D-Day landings was a successful, perhaps war-winning conspiracy.

So, conspiracies exist, but Woodward and Bernstein didn't solve the Watergate break-in by assuming there was a conspiracy without discovering evidentiary connections. If they had, they may never have proven there was a conspiracy. They painstakingly worked their way up the ladder of evidence and testimony from the lower rungs to the higher until the shape of the conspiracy became apparent.

Can the concept of conspiracy be rescued from the often shoddy work of conspiracy theorists?

I think it can if we're talking about maintaining a skepticism about official truth—government pronouncements, corporate releases. If that skepticism then leads to scrupulous investigation rather than unfounded theorizing. Doubt is good and stops being good only when it becomes unearned certainty about unproven alternate conclusions that are not subjected to the same skeptical inquiry as the official story.

The three developments that have revived debate over the key contemporary crux of conspiracy theory, JFK's murder, are the publication of Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi's massive, 1,500-page attempt to prove all JFK conspiracies are wrong (Bugliosi is the L.A. prosecutor who convicted Charles Manson), and (almost simultaneously) the appearance of Salon founder David Talbot's Brothers, which reflects Talbot's attempt—less massive but no less impassioned—to persuade us that at least one conspiracy did kill JFK (although he can't say for sure which one).

These two books arrived at almost the same time as the third development: the release of a study by Texas A&M scientists who claimed to prove that previous studies of bullet fragments found in JFK's limo were flawed. Not that they were wrong necessarily, not that there was a conspiracy necessarily, but that the methodology of studies previously conducted that supposedly proved all the bullet fragments found in the limo came from Lee Harvey Oswald's gun were not adequate—needed to be done again, with no guarantee even then that they will offer definitive proof of anything....

........

The investigative climate of suspicion that was engendered by the JFK conspiracy theories played its part in leading to the revelation of some shocking facts about the subterranean world of U.S. intelligence operations in the '60s. Lee Harvey Oswald may not have conspired with the mafia or anti-Castro Cubans to assassinate JFK, but, as David Talbot's book reminds us, the Kennedys, the mafia, and anti-Castro Cubans collaborated in real assassination plots against Castro. At the time of the revelations, it seemed incredible: the Kennedys in bed with the Mob to foment assassination. But Bobby Kennedy was haunted by the possibility that Kennedy involvement in Castro-assassination plots backfired and led to his brother's murder.

And my own trajectory of belief has changed direction a bit, magic-bullet style. When I think back on it, I attribute an overreaction on my part against conspiracy theory for one of my own great missed opportunities as a journalist. During the 1986 midterm elections, I was covering a campaign swing by then-veep George H.W. Bush, and I was in a room with some Bush aides when news of a plane downed over Nicaragua reached the traveling party. Something about a CIA pilot.

There was a lot of bustling back and forth between the inner sanctum, where Bush was closeted with his advisers, and the outer rooms, where the lower-level aides were responding to press inquiries.

I heard words to the effect of "we're not saying anything about it," or possibly something even more weasel-worded: low-level guy, no connection to us. I can't remember exactly now. But it sounded suspicious to me. I had a sense that something was not being fully disclosed, that they knew more than they could say about a conspiratorial connection.

But by that time, my instincts had been blunted by overexposure to bad conspiracy theorizing. I had come to be perhaps too critical of the impulse.

So, I left it alone. And that's how I missed my chance to get in on the beginning of Iran-Contra. I blame the magic bullet.

[John Dolva]

"But suddenly certain developments have converged to thrust the magic bullet and its attendant controversy back into our consciousness, where, in fact, it never lay far beneath the surface.

Indeed, you could make the case that JFK conspiracy-theory culture has, in its own way, been responsible for changing the landscape of the American mind: Look at the "9/11 truth" movement, which in various versions holds that the government was behind the tragedy and helped demolish the buildings."

Ok, fair enough, food for thought: 'could make a case'. Sure, though the ""9/11" nonsense is counter productive in legitimising conspiracy theoristology. (don't ask)

"Would such elaborate fantasies have thrived if not for the thicket of conspiracy-theory-receptive consciousness ready to feed the fire? Indeed, almost every poll shows that solid majorities of Americans believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy."

and a non sequiteur jump to:

"And Holocaust denial: Does it not prey upon a credulous culture of paranoid suspicion in which conspiracy theories thrive?" nah, it's just typical white supremacist, fascist propaganda. It preys on bigoted inclinations.

and thus suddenly "make a case" is made:

"This culture, which has grown out of JFK conspiracy theories, often slips from a recognition that the truth is sometimes elusive to a belief that everything said to be true is false or the product of a secret cabal, designed to conceal sinister ends."

aha, reason prevails:

"But must we condemn all conspiracy-theory thinking—the very notion of conspiracy—out of hand because of its abuses? One can rightly condemn a predetermined approach to investigating the truth—one that begins with the assumption of a conclusion rather than reaching a conclusion inductively through the accumulation of solid evidence."

but not for long...

"But the flaws in conspiracy-theory consciousness—the belief that every history-changing event has a sinister conspiracy, rather than a deranged individual, behind it—"

oops, another jump to the left:

"does not mean that some history-changing events aren't the result of conspiracies. That conspiracies don't exist at all."

"Watergate was one. Iran-Contra was another. "Fixing" prewar intel on Iraqi WMD may (?) have been a third. Further back in history: The assassination of Julius Caesar and the murder of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas à Becket ("Will someone not rid me of this [troublesome] prelate") resulted from conspiracies. "

and put the right foot in:

"And people can also conspire toward good ends: The deception operation behind the D-Day landings was a successful, perhaps war-winning conspiracy."

and shake it all about...

Now that IS a deception. Maybe even a conspiracy of sorts.

The Soviets had just turned the tide and bled the Nazis white and were driving the remnant Nazi forces towards Berlin.

"So, conspiracies exist, but Woodward and Bernstein didn't solve the Watergate break-in by assuming there was a conspiracy without discovering evidentiary connections. If they had, they may never have proven there was a conspiracy. They painstakingly worked their way up the ladder of evidence and testimony from the lower rungs to the higher until the shape of the conspiracy became apparent."

well...ok...with a little bit of help from a fiend

"Can the concept of conspiracy be rescued from the often shoddy work of conspiracy theorists?"

"I think it can if we're talking about maintaining a skepticism about official truth—government pronouncements, corporate releases. If that skepticism then leads to scrupulous investigation rather than unfounded theorizing. Doubt is good and stops being good only when it becomes unearned certainty about unproven alternate conclusions that are not subjected to the same skeptical inquiry as the official story."

believe it or not, that's precicely what the serious researcher aims to do, except there seems to be a conspiracy of spin around that issue...

and on and on and on... blah de blah de blah...

"And that's how I missed my chance" yeah? pull the other one.

Edited June 2, 2007 by John Dolva

[John Simkin]

Talbot was unfairly outnumbered in that intvu but he wasn't prepared either. He should have left out the parts of his book he wasn't willing to drop at least a few coins in NARAII's copiers for. You haven't really earned your stripes until you visit the stacks and flip through the films. Talbot told LA Times this week he doesn't "paw" over documents. So, what, you go to all the guy's buddies and expect truth and corrections to flow from their lips almost half a century later? Did Talbot talk to RFK? RFK shoulda coulda woulda but he didn't and here we all are with those boxes of "Cuba secret war" files in JFK Act to decipher on our own.

This is a problem I have with David's book. It relies too much on interviews and not enough on documents. This is a book written by a journalist rather than a historian. Yet these documents do exist. That is why Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked, is so good.

Alan Brinkley (Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University) in the International Herald Tribune has given probably the fairest review of the book.

Talbot's interpretation of the Kennedy years is at odds even with many of the most sympathetic accounts. Kennedy did show signs in the last months of his life of reconsidering some of the premises of the cold war and of doubting the wisdom of Vietnam. But few historians would describe his presidency as a radical challenge to the status quo. Kennedy declined to escalate the Bay of Pigs invasion and the missile crisis, to be sure, but his differences with the hard-liners who opposed him were mostly tactical, not strategic. He wavered between bold, liberal visions of the future and conventional cold war thinking. His inspiring American University speech in the spring of 1963, calling for peaceful cooperation with the Soviet Union, was followed weeks later by a bellicose denunciation of Soviet power in Berlin. His private suggestions that he wanted to end the Vietnam War were accompanied by public actions that made terminating the conflict far more difficult for his successors. He and his brother were skeptical, at times even contemptuous, of the C.I.A. But as Talbot himself makes clear, that did not stop Robert Kennedy (presumably with the support of his brother) from continuing to encourage the C.I.A. to undertake covert actions to undermine Castro. John Kennedy was a smart, ambitious and capable president, with moments of greatness. If he had lived, he might well have become the heroic figure Talbot claims he was. But the reality of his foreshortened presidency was much more complex and inconsistent than Talbot acknowledges.

One would expect such an important historical argument to be accompanied by substantial evidence. Talbot has relied heavily on his own extensive conversations with Kennedy friends and colleagues and their widows, sons and acquaintances.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Brinkley: His [JFK's] private suggestions that he wanted to end the Vietnam War were accompanied by public actions that made terminating the conflict far more difficult for his successors.

This has been the party line of the New York Times ever since the BIG LIE of the Tonkin Gulf, and Brinkley is just the latest authority mouthpiece trotted out to peddle the BIG LIE to readers of the Times and its international edition, the Herald Tribune. Brinkley, masquerading as a great historian like Alan Nevins, is professor at Columbia University, so his views are balanced and restrained, like the views of the powers that be at Columbia who (in conjunction with Harvard University) awarded the J.Anthony Lucas journalism prize to Max Holland for his book on the Warren Commission. Their judgment is so fair and balanced that they made the award years BEFORE Holland's book was even written.

JFK left a terrible mess for poor LBJ, who was forced to shoulder the burdens of the "broad commitment to war" that JFK left behind, according to the very first Pentagon Papers report in the Times. Of course Peter Dale Scott, John Newman and others exposed the BIG LIE long ago, but over at Columbia, and at the New York Times, there is still plenty of life left in the BIG LIE, and there probably will be until the truth of JFK's assassination is finally exposed.

It beats me how John Simkin can see fair-mindedness at work in Brinkley's transparent piece of propaganda masquerading as a review of David Talbot's book.

Edited June 2, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[John Simkin]

It beats me how John Simkin can see fair-mindedness at work in Brinkley's transparent piece of propaganda masquerading as a review of David Talbot's book.

What I said was that Alan Brinkley "has given probably the fairest review of the book" so far. That is not to say that he is "fair-minded".

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What I said was that Alan Brinkley "has given probably the fairest review of the book" so far. That is not to say that he is "fair-minded".

Quite true.

I had not realized that Brinkley is actually Provost of Columbia, which certainly makes him one of the Powers That Be. I would therefore guess that Brinkley himself was a prime mover in the decision in 2001 to award the J.Anthony Lucas prize to Max Holland (with a sizeable wad of cash attached) for his book proposal on the Warren Commission.

Fans of Mad Max will be delighted to learn that he has a new website called WASHINGTON DECODED where he out-CIA's the CIA in a favorite pastime of America's Cloak & Gown set: Pooh-poohing the JFK King and RFK assassinations and trying to pin the assassins badge on JFK and RFK instead.

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/jfk_...tion/index.html

I expect a review of David Talbot's book will be appearing there shortly

Edited June 2, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[William Kelly]

What I said was that Alan Brinkley "has given probably the fairest review of the book" so far. That is not to say that he is "fair-minded".

Quite true.

I had not realized that Brinkley is actually Provost of Columbia, which certainly makes him one of the Powers That Be. I would therefore guess that Brinkley himself was a prime mover in the decision in 2001 to award the J.Anthony Lucas prize to Max Holland (with a sizeable wad of cash attached) for his book proposal on the Warren Commission.

Fans of Mad Max will be delighted to learn that he has a new website called WASHINGTON DECODED where he out-CIA's the CIA in a favorite pastime of America's Cloak & Gown set: Pooh-poohing the JFK King and RFK assassinations and trying to pin the assassins badge on JFK and RFK instead.

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/jfk_...tion/index.html

I expect a review of David Talbot's book will be appearing there shortly

While Max Holland's The JFK Assassination Tapes is important for what it leaves out, rather than what it says, his work at the Miller Center, home to Zelikow and the New Nazis has apparently been terminated and he is now giving a more accurate, if biased version of the insiders guide to getting non-fiction published.

Holland's take on the 9/11 Commissions deal with W.W. Norton, suddenly rings true with their current Big Baby - Bugliosi's Reclaiming History.

On the same token, Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why "conspiracy supporters" - I guess he just can't say conspiracy theorisits like the Boo does, - GM can't understand why conspiracy supporters are falling all over themselves in praise of David Talbot's book Brothers when it is published by CBS.

Hey, the CIA can publish my stuff if they'll pay me what they're paying Holland.

BK

<H2 class=content-header>Presidential Commissions</H2><H2 class=date-header>20 April 2007</H2><H3 class=entry-header>The Politics (and Profits) of Information: The 9/11 Commission</H3>

The commission that investigated the events of 9/11 has been highly praised and sharply criticized, but one aspect of its task has virtually escaped notice: its responsibility to leave behind a complete, lasting, and easily accessible public record of its investigation. For all the good work that the panel did, some of its decisions have eroded the public's right and ability to understand what happened on September 11, 2001.

Raising this issue may seem a quibble, given that the 9/11 Report is one of the best-selling government documents of all time. But history shows that reports of comparable magnitude, and the first reaction to these reports, have been inexorably colored by exigencies of the day. Time has a way of changing initial public opinion. Indeed, one media flap (like the still-unresolved questions about the Pentagon's ABLE DANGER data-mining program), can destroy a commission's carefully cultivated reputation in a matter of days. Consequently, the true measure of such investigations is not just their final reports or recommendations. These panels are ultimately judged on the totality of information they bring into the public realm; what they make knowable, in other words.

Traditionally, this deeper purpose has meant that final reports of important commissions have been supplemented by publication of the public and private hearings, staff reports and the actual documents used to compile the findings. Take a look at the shelf space occupied by some major probes since 1945: these include the 1946 congressional inquiry into the Pearl Harbor attack (40 volumes); the 1964 Warren Commission investigation of President Kennedy's assassination (27); and the 1975-76 Church Committee investigation of the intelligence agencies (15).

By contrast, the 9/11 Commission climaxed in the publication of a single, 567-page volume—without an index. The relative poverty of this effort at the culmination of a twenty-month, $14 million investigation reflects a downward trend in the government's obligation to disseminate information to the public. This policy began in the 1980s, when, for ideological reasons, the Reagan administration reduced the number and availability of government publications. The worrisome tendency has accelerated with the advent of the Internet.

Much of this story concerns the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), whose lineage as the principal agent for delivering public information goes back to 1860. "Keeping America Informed" is the GPO's motto, and over the years its imprimatur has acquired symbolic and legal significance. The sober look of a GPO volume conveys weight and authenticity. The symbolism is embedded in the law as well. The U.S. Code still states that "all [federal] printing . . . shall be done at the Government Printing Office."

The 9/11 Commission's first departure from customary practice was its decision not to use the GPO. On May 19, 2004, the commission announced that W.W. Norton, a private New York publisher, would publish the "authorized edition" of its final report. According to the commission's press release, Norton was selected based on the criteria "affordability, accuracy, availability, and longevity." There was no mention of a role for the GPO, which had long done a sterling job by these standards.

Nothing in the law stops private publishers from also printing government documents, as such documents are not covered by a copyright. Sometimes several different publishers will put out an edition of the same report. About 35,000 commercial copies of the Warren Report were in bookstores one day after the GPO published it in 1964, and there was every reason to believe the same phenomenon would occur with the 9/11 Report. Certainly, never before had a publisher other than the GPO been the first to publish the report of a comparable government investigation.

Five days after the commission's announcement, The New York Times pointed out that Norton had a long-standing relationship with Philip Zelikow, the commission's executive director. This relationship was not known to the commissioners when they selected Norton; nor had Zelikow, who was responsible for pushing the idea of a commercial publisher, recused himself during the process.

While Zelikow was not in a position to receive a tangible benefit from the 9/11 contract, the fact remained that anointing Norton was akin to giving his publisher a license to print money (Norton's gross proceeds would amount to approximately $6 million). After the Times article ran, the commission altered its stated plans. It was announced that the GPO would post the final report on-line the day of release and would also print an "official government edition."

Two factors in the commission's decision to privilege a private publisher were the supposed cost and availability of a GPO edition. But the GPO edition ended up costing only $8.50, while the retail price of the Norton paperback, an inferior book in terms of its manufacture (binding, paper quality, and size), was $10. Nor was it true, as Zelikow reportedly presumed, that the GPO would produce something that would be hard to get. There is no provision in the law that prohibits GPO-published works from being sold in chain stores or local bookshops.

According to historian Ernest May, a consultant to the commission, the unprecedented arrangement with Norton precipitated a "dreadful moment" the day before publication. Writing in The New Republic, May recalled that "an aide to a powerful member of the House telephoned the commission asking angrily about a rumor that the report would be issued by a private publisher. "It's a report to Congress," the aide thundered. The person on our end of the line remarked that stories about the commission's publication plans had been featured in The New York Times weeks earlier. "We don't read The xxxxing New York Times," was the reply. "Fortunately," observed May, "the individual decided not to pursue the complaint."

The 9/11 Commission's second departure from long-standing tradition is possibly even more troubling. It concerned how the panel chose to disseminate other aspects of its inquiry, ranging from its staff reports to its public hearings. Historically, only the GPO could be expected to publish the entire opus of an investigative body at anything approaching an affordable price to the public. Of greater significance, GPO publication also assured inclusion in the permanent holdings of the 1,250 institutions that participate in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), an arrangement between research libraries and the federal government that dates back to 1813. Every depository library, in return for free copies of GPO publications, becomes legally bound to make these authentic documents freely available to all citizens without discrimination. Depository libraries, which are scattered across the nation, are thus the bedrock upon which public access to government information has always rested.

The 9/11 Commission, however, never submitted a printing requisition to the GPO for publishing the many supplemental volumes that are in fact part of the report. The panel regarded this obligation as having been discharged when it made its staff monographs, interim reports, and public hearings available on the Internet. To be sure, such access is highly desirable and ought to be part of standard procedure now. But should web publication alone be the new norm? The American Library Association (ALA) thinks not, with respect to significant government documents.

The ALA's "Key Principles on Government Information" make clear that Internet access is no substitute for publication of a work in that most venerable of forms: a book. Information should be presented in a format that promotes usefulness, and that means complex information must be disseminated in a printed and bound volume. The reasons are not hard to understand. For one, publication via the Internet discriminates against citizens without on-line access, as well as those without a broadband connection. Reading a document amounting to hundreds of pages is unwieldy on a computer, even one with a fast connection. Printing it out is one solution, but that unfairly shifts the burden and cost of production onto readers, and still results in something less accessible than a bound book. Internet publication, argues the ALA, should complement the printed dissemination of government information, not replace it, particularly when the subject is something as critical as the September 11 attacks.

A May 2005 article, "Government Information in the Digital Age," written by three University of California–San Diego librarians, also makes some important points about the problems inherent in Internet-only publication. In contrast to the robust FDLP system, which establishes multiple collections of printed documents, Internet publication concentrates power in the government's hands, allowing it to retract information whenever it sees fit.

Some small publishers have bridged the gap left by the 9/11 Commission. For a hefty price of $395, Oceana Publications is putting out a complete, four-volume set of the 9/11 Commission's hearings. Hillsboro Press has published the commission's staff monograph on terrorist travel, and PublicAffairs Reports has printed twelve of the seventeen initial staff studies and excerpts from some of the commission's hearings. Such entrepreneurship is desirable, but runs against the grain of long-standing practice regarding the dissemination of vital government documents.

Because there is no GPO version of them, two of the staff monographs, one on terrorist financing and the other on civil aviation, will probably never be published in book form. The commission's hearings—which represent the inquiry's only unscripted venue—are not likely to be purchased by many libraries given the cost, a sum well in excess of what the GPO would likely have charged. Put another way, for the foreseeable future, the one-volume final report is the only guaranteed bibliographic entry to be found for the 9/11 Commission at depository libraries.

If making a private publisher the printer of first resort and relying exclusively on the Internet for dissemination of supplements to the report were the first two departures from accepted practice, what the 9/11 Commission chose not to publish at all is at least equally remarkable.

Comparable investigations have made available at least some portion of the raw information upon which the respective reports were erected, even at the risk of challenging the very conclusions a particular report might have drawn. The Warren Commission, for example, decided it was far better to present the entirety of the evidence in all its rich complexity than be charged with hiding information. Other, comparable panels have weighed the evidentiary part of their responsibility differently, but in no instance was a final report released without publication of some portion of the primary documents accumulated during the investigation. This is the only method by which the public can assess the accumulated evidence and judge the soundness of the investigation itself.

The overwhelming majority of records cited in the 9/11 Report are not only unpublished—worse yet, by the commissioners' collective hand they are closed to the public until at least January 2009. Undoubtedly, there is highly classified information about intelligence sources and methods that must remain secret. But it is equally certain that the great bulk of this information could be released sooner. There is no better authority for this assertion than Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "You'd just be amazed at the kind of information that's classified," Kean told The New York Times. "We're better off with openness."

It's easy to talk about openness, of course, but harder to do something about it. In this case, there is a real chance to do it. The National Security Archive in Washington has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for all the documents cited in the 9/11 Report's footnotes; the results to date prove that the release of redacted documents was, after all, feasible. That the commission made no effort in this direction speaks volumes about the nature of its bipartisanship, because the timing of the availability of sources always has meaning.

What is the meaning of opening the files, now in the possession of the National Archives, only after January 2009? Well, that is the month that a new president will be inaugurated, which means vital information will have been denied at least through the November 2008 election. Neither George W. Bush nor a likely candidate related to Bill Clinton will have run for president having faced a public steeped in the primary information from the government's own files.

Postscript: While Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean were conspicuously lacking in discipline when it came to making their panel's documentary trail available, they nonetheless found the time and energy to reap the benefit of their service. In August 2006, the co-chairmen published Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission. Not to be outdone, Ernest May, in February 2007, published his own edited and abridged version of the 9/11 Report, complete with a "first-hand account" of how the panel went about its work.

Exploiting one's service for personal gain is hardly a new phenomenon, and not even objectionable most of the time. But in this case, the behavior of these public servants leaves a bad odor given the 9/11 Commission's lack of respect for a fundamental obligation.

The Making of a Washington Expert

Designating Norton as the publisher of the 9/11 Report was not the only plum handed out during Philip Zelikow's tenure as director. Zelikow engaged in some blatant cronyism when he arranged for a colleague from the University of Virginia, Tim Naftali, to write a history of U.S. counterterrorism policy from the Johnson to the Clinton administrations.

The commission's prime directive was to investigate the 9/11 attacks, of course, but a historical account of counterterrorism policy is the kind of ancillary study that comparable commissions have published. As part of its final report, the Church Committee, which investigated activities of U.S. intelligence agencies, included an invaluable 106-page study of the CIA that was based upon access to classified internal histories.

But like other aspects of the commission's work, the Naftali study was not published as part of the commission's output; it was not even deemed fit for posting on the Internet. Why was it commissioned in the first place? Naftali, a Canadian citizen at the time, could not review classified materials. His study would have to depend entirely on open sources, meaning that at best it would represent a marginal addition to public knowledge. Naftali was not even a noted expert on the subject.

Naftali's unfamiliarity with the topic probably contributed to what happened next: he belatedly turned in a work that was way too long. Indeed, because of its tone and perspective it was quickly deemed unusable, according to sources on the commission. Since there was no time left to edit it, the commissioners would not even agree to have it posted on-line as a monograph.

There's an interesting coda to this story, too. Months before the commission closed its doors, in August 2004, some staff members found it odd that Naftali was engaged in research that clearly seemed tangential to his assignment. Sure enough, once the commissioners decided to "pass" on Naftali's history and gave him permission to use the study any way he liked, he took his manuscript—which had cost U.S. taxpayers at least $15,000—and nine months later published Blind Spot: The Secret History of American Counterterrorism.

Naftali advertises the book as having been written partly "at the request of the 9/11 Commission," and markets himself as "the official historian" of the commission. The commissioners reportedly have gagged over this self-aggrandizement, brazen even by Washington standards. They are nonplussed that someone should have secured work from the commission through a personal favor, produced work of no usefulness to the commission, yet managed to exploit the opportunity for his own professional and financial gain.

Postscript: In the fall of 2006, Naftali became the director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library.

This article first appeared in The Washington Spectator, 1 November 2005

© 2005 by Max Holland

Technorati Tags: 9/11, 9/11 Commission, classification, Ernest May, GPO, Lee Hamilton, Philip Zelikow, Thomas Kean, Tim Naftali, W.W. Norton

Email this • Add to del.icio.us • Digg This!

Posted at 04:20 PM in 9/11, Presidential Commissions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Edited June 3, 2007 by William Kelly

[Gene Kelly]

Larry:

Just finished your excellent book... I feel I'm now on another level of factual truth. The work by Talbot then pulls it alltogether for me. Its clear the plotters wove a plan that made ot appear Bobby's actions got his brother killed. Its the classic revenge - by Harvey, Morales, Marcello via Roselli - using Cuba/communism and Castro (the bogeyman) as a convenient storyline. Would you agree? Kudos on your fine work --gene kelly

Best wishes on the tour David, hope you get a little rest in between stops!

I just wanted to exapnd a bit on your point about the assassination efforts against Castro. It's now

clear that that there was a long term effort to assassinate Castro...starting in 1959 in an offer from

Sturgis to CIA personnel in Havana (including Morales of course) to set up a an assassination inside

Cuba while Castro was traveling to military posts. In the same period of time, crime assets in the U.S.

planned to kill him when he traveled to New York to the U.N. In the late 1960-61 time frame, in addition

to the Roselli plots, there were multiple CIA paramilitary operations being organized to attack and

kill Castro inside Cuba. In SWHT I describe one which was orchestrated by Carl Jenkins and utilized, among

others, Felix Rodriquez in a planned sniper attack....another was conducted during a naval mission

by Rip Robertson. None of these would have been known to RFK. Bottom line is that all of talk about

the Kennedy's plans to kill Castro pales beside these actual documented actions by crime and CIA personnel.

Later Johnson tried to blame all the murder plots on JFK and RFK ("murder inc.) but it just doesn't wash...

As your book points out, RFK was right on the money almost immediately:

"Bobby's suspicions immediately focus on the nest of CIA spies, gangsters, and Cuban exiles that

had long been plotting a violent regime change in Cuba."

-- go get 'em, Larry

Forgive me for jumping around in my replies -- I'm exhausted and about to collapse into bed before resuming my book tour. Myra -- the source on Bobby's last words was Goodwin's memoir "Remembering America." But he makes clear that this was told to him by a third party -- he was upstairs in a hotel room at the time.

Re: Bugliosi, even though I'm fuming now about a dismissive and nasty joint review of our books in the Boston Globe, I actually think the coincidental publication dates helps reopen the JFK debate. So it's good for everybody. (And, Brian, Wrone's review of my book was wonderful consolation, since I have great respect for his work.)

Charles -- if you're saying that B's rhetoric tends to be inflated and tendentious and bombastic, I completely agree.

And yes, I was entering speculative territory when I suggested that Bobby might have worried about provoking a civil war by aggressively confronting his brother's killers immediately after Dallas. This theory was, as I say in the book, floated by MS Arnoni in Minority of One in Jan. 1964, and I found it intriguing enough to entertain as a possible motive for Bobby's silence (but not the main one).

Dawn, thanks for your comments on the book. And no I don't believe Bobby intended to sabotage Garrison in the beginning -- he was genuinely curious about what G was digging up. And no I don't believe RFK was pushing the assassination efforts against Castro (and neither did Castro believe this, as I explain in the book).

More later!

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I thought I read something about a New Yorker Article by either Talbot and Morley or Morely and John Newman to be published in May. So far nothing. Any word?

[William Kelly]

I thought I read something about a New Yorker Article by either Talbot and Morley or Morely and John Newman to be published in May. So far nothing. Any word?

According to David Talbot from his book, New Yorker magazine financially backed him and Jeff Morley for a trip to the Southeast USA, looking for anyone who knew David Morales, Gordon Campbell and those associated with JM/WAVE.

They apprently discovered new photos of Morales and that Gordon Campbell died in 1962, so Bradley E. Ayers knew someone using that identity, though I've yet to see an obituary.

They did discover former friends and associates of David Morales however, and came up with some new material that I would hope will be published by the New Yorker.

The New Yorker's support for Talbot and Morley is enough to warrent a year's subscription to the magazine, known for taking the high literary road.

I too would like to know when they publish this story.

BK

Edited June 5, 2007 by William Kelly